Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>Of course you can. There are socialist (or mixed) democracies all over the world. This myth that you can't have both is just a way of trying to convince us that we shouldn't try to change what has become a rigged game and an intolerable status quo. But we should.<<< Not and have a true democracy. A convoluted one, yes...but pure...No! The fact of the matter is that we have a heavily socialistic society as it is. We, as taxpayers, supplement everything. I worked for a municipal bus company that collected fares from it's patrons. Guess what, they totaled $1 out of every $10 or $11 needed to operate. I don't need to tell you who paid for the rest of it. Then the government passes legislation that actually encouraged public transit to not charge anything and they would give us more money (tax payers money) to continue to operate. That's just one of hundreds of situations that prove that we have been socialistic for a long, long time. It's been a well known fact that money begets money. The more you have the more you make, the more you make the more you have. There are a lot of things that create the situation that gives individuals more. Some were born into it, but many found new things, (micro-soft) for example that made them filthy rich. The ones with money influence politically because they are the ones funding it. A bad system? Perhaps, but we are the ones that demand more and more and more. We are the ones that demand that millions be spent on political campaigns. Guess who is financing those campaigns that we demand. Those with money. We as middle class people do not support financially because we are unable. But we still need the system that promotes it. Not all of us have the ability or the drive to become one of the extremely wealthy. We lack, many times, the courage to take the chances that might result in that happening. No, what we want is to stifle others ability to do so. I am not even close to being wealthy. I, hopefully, have enough money to get me by until my death, but I won't be building any giant monuments to myself with my excess parking meter money. I do not begrudge the wealthy unless they got it in dishonest ways. Just because some of us do not make as much money as others do is not a reason to be disgusted. The chances are we are either not qualified to earn more or we are not in a career field that can or will pay that. Believe me there are a lot of high paid professionals out there that do not control the wealth. They did something magic to established their worth. If I knew what that was..I would have been standing in that line.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Not and have a true democracy*** Has there every been a "true" democracy? America has never functioned as such, as far as I know...
Originally Posted By wahooskipper You have to admit that we the "average schmucks" are as much the problem as the filthy rich. I'll give the easiest example: Sports. We, the average people, love to complain about rich owners getting public financing to build their stadiums. Then, we fill their new stadiums and buy all of the sports merchandising crap which piles the money on even higher. Before you complain that only the rich get into the stadiums keep in mind that the television ratings for most of the major sports have never been higher. We happily fund that which "sickens" us. There is plenty of blame to go around. The rich make an easy target.
Originally Posted By hopemax > I don't find it disgusting. I am a tad jealous though. I think every one of us that are not in the "rich" category have a tendency to wish we were all of equal financial standing...but that never will be. < But the chart isn't for net wealth, it's a percentage growth chart. So if you make $40,000 and you improved you doubled your income in the last 30 years, that would be equivalent, on this chart, as someone with $100 million that doubled it in 30 years. The huge disparity between $40,000 and $100 million is irrelevant. You still have your rich and your poor. But for the last 30 years, we have been told that "trickle down" economics works. And even with the stimulus, and the continuation of the Bush tax cuts, policy is being made with the assumption that it works. With more of the breaks going to the rich. But then we have a chart like this. If trickle down works, there should NOT be this big disparity in the percentage improvement of the class' income. The money should be "trickling down." Since it isn't, policy should not be made with the assumption that it does.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Not and have a true democracy.<< So you can only have a true democracy in an Ayn Rand like society, where the top 1% own everything? If anything, you won't have democracy, instead you'll have a plutocratic oligarchy, which is the way we are headed now. There's even talk of restricting voting to property owners. So all you renters out there, you don't get to vote!
Originally Posted By pecos bill Not everyone has the drive, ambition, luck, and plain greed that are the building blocks for wealth. Most of us just want to make a decent living through our honest work. Sadly, the rich have been tweaking the system toward putting more of the fruits of our labor into their pockets. We watch as our wages stagnate, or even decrease, while the cost of living continues it's constant rise. We watch while the super rich, and their political lackeys continue to enjoy a rise in wealth that is astonishing in it's inequality. Let the rich have their precious wealth, but not when they are taking more than their fair share. Not while the rest of the nation has to suffer even more because of it.
Originally Posted By velo >>There's even talk of restricting voting to property owners. So all you renters out there, you don't get to vote!<< really? Can you give me a link to this - I'd like to read more..wondering if this is a state by state thing or a federal discussion?
Originally Posted By Longhorn12 >Ayn Rand like society< Going OT, but it allows me to use my favorite quote of all time. "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves Orcs."
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 "Not and have a true democracy" We are actually not a true democracy, we are a representative republic. We do not vote for the policies that are enacted, we elect representatives to act on our behalf. Also, democracy has little to do with socialism or capitalism. You can have a socialist democracy. If you look at different governments throughout history neither fully capitalist societies or fully socialist societies have survived long without changes being needed. The governments that are the most stable are ones that mix both.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<The fact of the matter is that we have a heavily socialistic society as it is. We, as taxpayers, supplement everything.>> That's crap. Other nations are far more socialistic than we are, with many services being provided by the government, like college and health care. The US is the last major nation on the planet which does not have single payer health care. Our health care is provided by for-profit insurance companies, which are outlawed for primary health care in many countries. (Secondary policies for upgrading services are still available, like Medigap policies here for Medicare.) Anyone who wants to claim that America is a "heavily socialistic society" is either attempting to defend for-profit corporate control of everything, and/or has misguided ideologies that paint other socialistic societies as the root of all evil.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>The US is the last major nation on the planet which does not have single payer health care.<<< And I'm sure that there are very many dying, sick people that can't afford medical care that will be glad to back you up on that...if they had the strength. Not exactly something to be proud of in my humble opinion.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Not exactly something to be proud of in my humble opinion.>> We shouldn't be. You're correct. But look at how many Republicans practically brag about it, stupidly believing that we have the best health care in the world, and this is the reason why. We are Imperialist Rome. And we, too, are doomed to fall.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Not and have a true democracy. A convoluted one, yes...but pure...No!> A true democracy would be all the people voting on every little thing. As Princessjenn points out, we have a representative republic. We vote in people to represent us, and guess what - sometimes they vote in things like Medicare (socialist medicine for the elderly, which is a highly efficient program facing a demographic problem - it provides far more bang for the buck than the private insurance ripoff that Paul Ryan wants to force the elderly back into). <We are the ones that demand that millions be spent on political campaigns.> What do you mean "we," kemo sabe? All the polls show that most Americans think campaigns go on too long and most want to pull their hair out after enduring political ad after political ad (which is what costs the money) for 6 months or more. Campaign finance reform WITH TEETH is what is needed here. <Just because some of us do not make as much money as others do is not a reason to be disgusted. > The reason to be disgusted was shown in the OP. The rising inequality. There were always be inequality in a capitalist (or mixed) economy. But when inequality rises and the gap between rich and poor grows, and the middle class declines, you don't have what we've always thought of as the good ol' USA any more - you have something closer to a banana republic, with a rapacious capitalism that benefits relatively few and a weak middle class. The strength of the US was always the strength of its middle class, but that's declining. Look at the chart again. There has been a massive TRANSFER of wealth over the last 30 years (accelerated in the last 10) FROM the middle class TO those already hugely wealthy. THAT's what's disgusting.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<But when inequality rises and the gap between rich and poor grows, and the middle class declines, you don't have what we've always thought of as the good ol' USA any more - you have something closer to a banana republic, with a rapacious capitalism that benefits relatively few and a weak middle class. The strength of the US was always the strength of its middle class, but that's declining.>> ^^ This. Big time.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I abhor the growing disparity in wealth between the have and have-nots in America. But let's not throw health care into the mix. As a nation we already spend FAR TOO MUCH on health care... the thought of spending even more is absolutely crazy. Among other things, IT DOES NO GOOD! Everyone in my family has been 'lucky enough' to have comprehensive health insurance provided by their employers. What did it get them? Father: Dead at 55 from congestive heart failure. Brother: Dead at 53 from pancreatic cancer. Wife: Dead at 57 from colon cancer. Sister: Dead at 51 due to massive infection resulting from long-term treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. Collectively my family members had MILLIONS spent on their health care in the final year of their lives. What did it buy them? NOTHING. If it extended their lives at all it was by months at best. Were those months worth it? No way. I watched as all of them died. All their health care did was extend their misery. I do support 'Obamacare'. I think all should have access to the same medical care. But as a society we've got to stop spending as much as we do on it. We just cannot afford it and it does very little good anyway. Bring on the 'death panels'. We've got to stop spending millions of dollars prolonging the misery of people who are going to die anyway.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>really? Can you give me a link to this - I'd like to read more..wondering if this is a state by state thing or a federal discussion?<< It's straight out of the Tea Party: <a href="http://gawker.com/" target="_blank">http://gawker.com/</a>#!5702830/tea-party-leader-restricting-voting-to-property-owners-makes-a-lot-of-sense
Originally Posted By EdisYoda I have a great idea for campaign finance reform. Any politician who receives money from an individual or corporation, cannot campaign for, or vote on any bills that relate to that individual or corporation.
