asdfsdiofjioasdf

[Ginger_Warrior]

its just not right.

 

Oh [bleep], how can I ever come back from this argument?

 

 

 

Why are people attempting to argue socialism doesn't work because it makes people poorer than capitalism does? Has any respected socialist ever even tried to argue it makes more money than capitalism?

 

 

 

Socialism isn't even about equality or egalitarianism. It is quite literally the opposition to the middle

 

classes exploiting the working classes in the knowledge they have to work somewhere in order to sustain a living.

 

 

 

Taking money from those who are never going to use it, and spending on welfare for those who can't afford security because of the way capitalism works (permanent unemployment, low wages) is not unfair. It is a way of making sure every person in a nation received the basic support they need. If they weren't unemployed in the first place, and there was a shortage of labour, their workers would hold them to ransom for that money instead.

[Quoi_Tu]

Saving doesn't hurt the economy, and I never said it did... Stocks don't help the economy either. After they've been sold by the company, there is no addition to GDP through stock trading.

 

 

 

I guess I haven't been very clear, or coherent. I'm refering to what is called the marginal propensity to consume, which is the increase in consumer spending when disposable income rises by $1. The higher it is the higher consumer spending increases per $1 of disposable income. Its been found that fiscal policies benefiting lower income individuals gives a greater increase in real GDP. Such as reducing the tax rate from 15% to 10% (for those that apply). However, policies such as reducing dividends and capital gains shows little to no increase in real GDP. If I was confusing, I apologize, but I hope this sheds some light on where I was coming from.

 

 

 

I'll sign up for that econ class now :D

 

What I'm confused about is, according to that study (source?), communist states should have optimal GDP, as the rich and poor are given more equality, as in your example. But somewhere that trend must break down, because the former statement is not true.

 

 

 

It's from a text book called Macroeconomics by Paul Krugman and Robin Wells, published 2006. The table displaying the information can be found on page 303 in the chapter on Fiscal Policy. The original source is from economy.com (although it could be quite hard to find it on there).

 

 

 

What you're saying is if everyone had the same marginal propensity to consume because they had equal incomes (and were communist). However, those findings only apply to economies that have different levels of income.

 

 

 

Small note: I wrote marginal propensity to save when I meant consume, fixed up now.

 

 

 

Just picking on this one statement since I already responded to a similar one.

 

 

Taking money from those who are never going to use it, and spending on welfare for those who can't afford security because of the way capitalism works (permanent unemployment, low wages) is not unfair.

 

No unemployment is not necessarily a good thing because that would lead one to believe there is little job mobility. If I quit my job at the university, then it could be a few weeks or maybe a month before I get hired at another job. During that time I'm unemployed, but that's not a bad thing (in this case).

 

In different words, there is a natural rate of unemployment as long as there is job mobility.

[l0l0lpur32]

Taking money from those who are never going to use it, and spending on welfare for those who can't afford security because of the way capitalism works (permanent unemployment, low wages) is not unfair.

 

Yeah, it's not like the "people who are never going to use it" earned it is it?

[DreamReaper]

Taking money from those who are never going to use it, and spending on welfare for those who can't afford security because of the way capitalism works (permanent unemployment, low wages) is not unfair.

 

 

 

Because I actually work, I should have to pay a portion of the money I make myself to someone who can't be assed to work on their own?

 

Yup, that's real fair.

[warri0r45]

In a socialism/communist society the upperclass must pay the lower class so that the two classes are balanced. Eventually it will evolve into being that everyone has the same pay, the same house, the same value. This will then be known as a utopia but people are not perfect so this will never work. Why must the hard working who make alot of money give their money to the poor. I dont care if it would help the economy become stable rather than up and down. its just not right.

 

 

 

that is where communism fails.

 

But socialism works; it doesn't go that far.

 

 

 

true but Obama imo will go further and truly make this socialism higher into a communistic level. that is why i dont support him. democrats tend to do socialism but Obama is all over it. i think this nation will turn into a communism. i hope not :pray:

 

 

 

its also unright to take money from 200k+ and give to poor. i say just tax big money oil companies and put tariffs and perhaps we can turn the economy around. a socialism wont solve anything longterm.

 

 

 

So you don't support Obama on pure speculation? Why would you do that? :lol:

 

 

 

As for my opinion on socialism, I don't mind a bit of it, primarily for the reason that if I were rich, I'd gladly pay more tax to ensure an easier burden on those who have it tougher than me. I also quite like the idea of universal healthcare.

[Rebdragon]

It's from a text book called Macroeconomics by Paul Krugman and Robin Wells, published 2006. The table displaying the information can be found on page 303 in the chapter on Fiscal Policy. The original source is from economy.com (although it could be quite hard to find it on there).

 

 

 

What you're saying is if everyone had the same marginal propensity to consume because they had equal incomes (and were communist). However, those findings only apply to economies that have different levels of income.

 

 

 

Small note: I wrote marginal propensity to save when I meant consume, fixed up now.

 

Fair enough, and I do see your point that poorer people having more money would result in more spending and thus a higher GDP. I really just have two main problems with socialism I suppose:

 

one) the more left the government gets, the higher the spending, and generally the more it suffers. Obama is trying to expand medicare and preserve social security, but can our government handle that with the money it gets? No.

 

 

 

two) I'm not for making the rich pay more than they already do. Call it heartless if you want, but considering the statistics I posted earlier, I feel it is unfair for the gov. to be even more unfair than it's already being. It is their money, they earned it. And honestly, as the probably over-posted ]story of the waiter tells us about redistribution of wealth, it seems better in theory than in reality.

[deloriagod]

 

Yeah, it's not like the "people who are never going to use it" earned it is it?

 

 

 

You would rather have a single person let billions of dollars rot in their bank account doing nothing than to spread the wealth? You understand that the less money is spent, the worse off our economy is, correct? And If they're losing huge sums of money to taxes and want to complain about it, how about they go live a normal lifestyle? They don't have to outrageously wealthy. They are lucky enough to live such lavish lives, spend more money on a car than I will probably ever be able to spend on a house, and pay cash for a house I can only dream of ever even seeing? Yeah, that's really unfair to take away their hard earned money with those multi million dollar bonuses their work gives them at the end of each year.

 

 

 

Or let's take this another direction. Who's to say they didn't come about their money through family. They're merely heirs. Tell me all about their struggle to earn enough to feed their families and afford enough gas to get to work. [/sarcasm]

 

 

 

 

Because I actually work, I should have to pay a portion of the money I make myself to someone who can't be assed to work on their own?

 

Yup, that's real fair.

 

 

 

I assume you've never been in the position where finding work is next to impossible or you physically can't work at all. Suppose some day you have a bad accident and any money you had put away goes to paying your medical bills. You're so severely injured that you are never able to work again. Would you like some of those tax dollars coming your way or are you happy being physically handicapped and begging for money on the streets?

[Quoi_Tu]

two) I'm not for making the rich pay more than they already do. Call it heartless if you want, but considering the statistics I posted earlier, I feel it is unfair for the gov. to be even more unfair than it's already being. It is their money, they earned it. And honestly, as the probably over-posted ]story of the waiter tells us about redistribution of wealth, it seems better in theory than in reality.

 

 

 

This is the point I'm always torn on because there are people who need the help, but at the same time the wealthy deserve to keep their money. It's a point I haven't really made a finalized opinion on, although I do think that the current tax rates are for the above $100k income is just about right.

[jackattack]

People accuse Obama of being a socialist. (Note- He has never been left of the center)

 

 

 

I had a pretty good laugh at that. Never been left of center? :lol:

[Satenza]

It's from a text book called Macroeconomics by Paul Krugman and Robin Wells, published 2006. The table displaying the information can be found on page 303 in the chapter on Fiscal Policy. The original source is from economy.com (although it could be quite hard to find it on there).

 

 

 

What you're saying is if everyone had the same marginal propensity to consume because they had equal incomes (and were communist). However, those findings only apply to economies that have different levels of income.

 

 

 

Small note: I wrote marginal propensity to save when I meant consume, fixed up now.

 

Fair enough, and I do see your point that poorer people having more money would result in more spending and thus a higher GDP. I really just have two main problems with socialism I suppose:

 

one) the more left the government gets, the higher the spending, and generally the more it suffers.

 

 

 

There are different values on which to judge left-wing policies. Policy on the left is no longer primarily, and principally judged by it's cost (although that is important), but rather its value to society.

 

 

 

Obama is trying to expand medicare and preserve social security, but can our government handle that with the money it gets? No.

 

 

 

Why wouldn't universal healthcare be accompanied by decentralization?

[warri0r45]

two) I'm not for making the rich pay more than they already do. Call it heartless if you want, but considering the statistics I posted earlier, I feel it is unfair for the gov. to be even more unfair than it's already being. It is their money, they earned it. And honestly, as the probably over-posted ]story of the waiter tells us about redistribution of wealth, it seems better in theory than in reality.

 

 

 

This is the point I'm always torn on because there are people who need the help, but at the same time the wealthy deserve to keep their money. It's a point I haven't really made a finalized opinion on, although I do think that the current tax rates are for the above $100k income is just about right.

 

 

 

Everyone earns their money, be they a big-time CEO or a store worker earning minimum wage. I suppose if you question whether rich people should fork over money they earn then you should question the idea of taxation all together, shouldn't you?

 

 

 

 

Because I actually work, I should have to pay a portion of the money I make myself to someone who can't be assed to work on their own?

 

Yup, that's real fair.

 

 

 

I assume you've never been in the position where finding work is next to impossible or you physically can't work at all. Suppose some day you have a bad accident and any money you had put away goes to paying your medical bills. You're so severely injured that you are never able to work again. Would you like some of those tax dollars coming your way or are you happy being physically handicapped and begging for money on the streets?

 

 

 

You bring up a good point, and this is another aspect of society where I support a socialistic approach. How a society cares for it's physically/mentally handicapped says a lot about its priorities. I wouldn't want to see those people on the street with no money, so I support welfare for them. On a side note, anyone who cares for someone with cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, etc, is an absolute hero in my eyes.

[DreamReaper]

 

Because I actually work, I should have to pay a portion of the money I make myself to someone who can't be assed to work on their own?

 

Yup, that's real fair.

 

 

 

I assume you've never been in the position where finding work is next to impossible or you physically can't work at all. Suppose some day you have a bad accident and any money you had put away goes to paying your medical bills. You're so severely injured that you are never able to work again. Would you like some of those tax dollars coming your way or are you happy being physically handicapped and begging for money on the streets?

 

 

 

You bring up a good point, and this is another aspect of society where I support a socialistic approach. How a society cares for it's physically/mentally handicapped says a lot about its priorities. I wouldn't want to see those people on the street with no money, so I support welfare for them. On a side note, anyone who cares for someone with cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, etc, is an absolute hero in my eyes.

 

 

 

Yes, you do have a good point. Those with long-term, crippling ailments that have no cure should receive some special support, but not specifically from other people. They have little or no capacity to work and should be brought up by the one institution that's supposed to ensure all those living withing its boundaries a safe, secure lifestyle. The government. I support some type of welfare for the terminally ill, but it's not the people's, or the government's responsibility to bring up the bottom-feeders of society, especially if they're there by their own designs.

 

 

 

I also think that certain medical bills should be paid by the institution, if any, who cause you the injury. If you get injured whilst working because of negligence of some sort, it's the workplace's responsibility to make sure you recover. For other sorts of health care, it's the government's responsibility to take care of the people living in its boundaries. The government can't expect you to just let it rule your life without it providing anything for you.

[Rebdragon]

Everyone earns their money, be they a big-time CEO or a store worker earning minimum wage. I suppose if you question whether rich people should fork over money they earn then you should question the idea of taxation all together, shouldn't you?

 

It's not a matter of "should taxation exist?", but one of "how much more should the rich pay than the poor?". There are essentially an infinite number of positions on this matter, basically inbetween everyone paying the same amount and everyone handing over everything. That's the problem with arguing this matter- a supporter of pure socialism and one of pure capitalism are on different ends of the spectrum, so they can have a decent debate. But when one person supports the current system, where, again, the top 1% pay more than the bottom 90% in income taxes, and another person says "it'd be nice if, you know, we payed a bit more to help people a little more than we already do"... it gets ambiguous.

 

 

 

I have no idea how far any of you would go towards pure socialism. I don't know your opinion. That makes it hard to debate.

 

 

 

Why wouldn't universal healthcare be accompanied by decentralization?

 

Is that even physically possible...?

[warri0r45]

I realise that, Reb, I was just countering the argument that "it's their money because they earned it" by questioning why the same point isn't brought up for taxing the poor, i.e. taxation in general. I recognise it's a side-point to the question of whether/how much different classes should be taxed differently.

 

 

 

Edit: Just to add something else to the discussion, I think it's worth noting that the difference between socialism and more of a capitalistic approach lies along a continuum. In other words, if you favour taxing the rich an extra 3% (just to pluck something out of the air), it's not exactly reasonable to automatically label you a socialist when before you weren't. That kind of labelling is more in the vein of a mindless political response; some right-wing free market capitalsist will label you "socialist" when the political ideology moves the wrong way along the continuum.

[dsavi]

sdsa

[Saru Inc]

The image of socialism and communism set by USSR makes the americans stay the hell away from it. If people knew the idea of socialism and how to run it, there'd be no unemployment, unfair tax distribution, poverty.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes to one, no to two.

 

 

 

There was plenty of poverty in USSR. Although not really, because everyone was that poor, no one could be poorer. :P But overall, yes, there would be unemployment, but it would be chosen. And also, Socialism is based on idealism, not realism. Idealisticly, everyone would love Socialism, no rich stealing everything, but in reality, name one country where it's worked.

 

 

 

Dsavi, I'm pretty sure Obama AND McCain have been closer than that. Besides, where's that graph from?

[stevepole]

I've never understood why people do bash socialism so much. Its not a bad system and its not communism.

 

 

 

Personally, I am more in favor or a Social democracy.

[CubeMage128]

Like many people, I like the fundamental ideals of socialism and communism. Who wouldn't want an economy in which nobody suffers from poverty or illness? However, neither Socialism nor Communism in their purest forms stand a chance of actually working in a real-world society unless the entire public is selflessly dedicated to the good of the whole. Obviously, this isn't the case, and it never will be the case.

 

 

 

I've noticed that this thread has been focusing on the outrageously rich and the hopelessly poor, rather than the middle class. I find it pretty absurd, seeing as the middle class is the largest social class in the United States. Though the lower class benefits from Socialism, and the upper class makes an acceptable sacrifice for Socialism, the middle class takes quite a hit from Socialism.

 

 

 

First of all, the true bane of middle class is tax brackets. http://taxes.about.com/od/2008taxes/qt/2008_tax_rates.htm

 

 

 

If you'll notice, the bottom three tax brackets have the steepest increases on the entire chart. Advancing from the bottom tax bracket to the second lowest will increase a working single's taxes by 5%, and advancing from the second lowest bracket to the next bracket will increase their taxes by a whopping 10%! The lower middle class is more adversely affected than any other bracket. Here's how:

 

 

 

Say a person has a salary of $32,000, placing them in the 15% tax bracket. After paying their taxes, the person walks away with a total income of $27,200. Let's say the same person is offered an increased salary of $33,000. This would place them in the 25% tax bracket, meaning they'd now walk away with $24,750, rather than $27,200. The person would require a new salary of over $36,000 in order to pocket the same amount of money he was making with a salary of $32,000. My example may have been a bit situational, but tax brackets are the greatest opposition to the advancement of the lower class. Why would anybody want to work harder if it means they make less money in the long run?

 

 

 

Socialism would only exacerbate this barrier. Universal Healthcare, contrary to popular belief, is not free. It is funded by public funds, meaning higher taxes for everybody. Sure, we could increase the tax rates for other brackets, but that would only discourage advancement for other social levels. Discouraging advancement encourages laziness, and a lazy lower class leads to the collapse of the economy.

 

 

 

The main enemy here is the system of tax brackets. I really wish we could do away with them entirely. However, graduated income tax and proportional tax systems aren't much better. America needs a system which encourages personal economic advancement in order to recover from its economic crisis, and Socialism delivers anything but.

[l0l0lpur32]

 

Yeah, it's not like the "people who are never going to use it" earned it is it?

 

 

 

You would rather have a single person let billions of dollars rot in their bank account doing nothing than to spread the wealth? You understand that the less money is spent, the worse off our economy is, correct? And If they're losing huge sums of money to taxes and want to complain about it, how about they go live a normal lifestyle? They don't have to outrageously wealthy. They are lucky enough to live such lavish lives, spend more money on a car than I will probably ever be able to spend on a house, and pay cash for a house I can only dream of ever even seeing? Yeah, that's really unfair to take away their hard earned money with those multi million dollar bonuses their work gives them at the end of each year.

 

 

 

Or let's take this another direction. Who's to say they didn't come about their money through family. They're merely heirs. Tell me all about their struggle to earn enough to feed their families and afford enough gas to get to work. [/sarcasm]

 

 

 

 

Because I actually work, I should have to pay a portion of the money I make myself to someone who can't be assed to work on their own?

 

Yup, that's real fair.

 

 

 

I assume you've never been in the position where finding work is next to impossible or you physically can't work at all. Suppose some day you have a bad accident and any money you had put away goes to paying your medical bills. You're so severely injured that you are never able to work again. Would you like some of those tax dollars coming your way or are you happy being physically handicapped and begging for money on the streets?

 

You would rather steal money off people who earned it, and give it to people who didn't earn it? And about inheritance - the person who they inherited it off chose to give it (their money) to them, would you rather they were forced to give it to the state instead?

[dsavi]

dfafsda

[Ginger_Warrior]

Taking money from those who are never going to use it, and spending on welfare for those who can't afford security because of the way capitalism works (permanent unemployment, low wages) is not unfair.

 

 

 

Because I actually work, I should have to pay a portion of the money I make myself to someone who can't be assed to work on their own?

 

Yup, that's real fair.

 

That's not what I'm saying. Stop twisting my words because you look like an idiot.

 

 

 

It is not about people who cannot be bothered to find work. As far as I'm concerned, people who have no intentions of finding work and would rather sit around all day and do nothing don't deserve the higher level of benefits and should only receive basics to live off. Maybe having such a low quality of life as a result may tempt them somewhat into changing their minds. That's not practical though. How on Earth do you differentiate between someone who doesn't want to work, and someone who does but simply cannot find work? You either give benefits, unfortunetely, to people who contribute little to society, or you take those benefits away from someone who does actually deserve them for trying to contribute but is unable to.

 

 

 

The American answer to this seems to be to find imaginary labour from nowhere. Not good enough in a country which prides itself so much on how it looks after its own people.

 

 

 

You would rather steal money off people who earned it, and give it to people who didn't earn it? And about inheritance - the person who they inherited it off chose to give it (their money) to them, would you rather they were forced to give it to the state instead?

 

Sorry, you're accusing me of giving 'stolen' money to people who haven't earned it, and you have a problem with the state taking such a huge slice of inheritance? Talk about hypocrisy!

 

 

 

And about inheritance, who says you have a right to just give large sums of money away to one person? If you look at the law, you'd find that you're not actually allowed to without giving something to the taxman. There's damn good reasons for that which don't involve socialism or anything of the sort too

[dsavi]

aodsfpkasdopf

[l0l0lpur32]

Say a person has a salary of $32,000, placing them in the 15% tax bracket. After paying their taxes, the person walks away with a total income of $27,200. Let's say the same person is offered an increased salary of $33,000. This would place them in the 25% tax bracket, meaning they'd now walk away with $24,750, rather than $27,200. The person would require a new salary of over $36,000 in order to pocket the same amount of money he was making with a salary of $32,000. My example may have been a bit situational, but tax brackets are the greatest opposition to the advancement of the lower class. Why would anybody want to work harder if it means they make less money in the long run?

 

It doesn't work like that, you only pay the 25% on any earnings AFTER the amount where the 25% bracket starts.

[oegly41]

I am surprised no-one has mention the financial crisis yet. (If it has been mentioned, I'm really sorry, I'm just a bit tired at the moment :? ) When CEOs and people like that can take all sorts of risks without thinking about the social responsibility they have in the capitalist system, these sorts of things are bound to happen. We need to control the market to prevent this from happen. Socialism is the solution.

 

 

 

And I don't understand how people can divide people into two groups; hard-working and lazy. Most people want to work for a living, while there are many who can't. I'm getting tired of the slogan "Everyone is born equal"! It is complete and utterly wrong, everyone is not created equal. I am not created equal, I am created over average bright, which means that I don't have to work to get an education, I just understand everything without really trying. In capitalism, I can use these abilities that got handed out to me at random to earn a fortune by sitting on my [wagon] (so I heard it's not censored anymore)and moving money from investment to investment, while my classmates would be cleaners (a job that is actually contributing to society) and struggle to make their ends meet.

[magekillr]

I'll contribute more to this later, but first:

 

 

 

 

 

 

edit: grrr...type in youtube: CNN - Obama on socialism attacks, click the first one.

 

 

 

Don't tell me the CEO's and oil companies deserve a tax break before the men and women who are working overtime, day after day, and still can't pay their bills! He can call me any name he wants, but I know what's right! And what he's talking about is not right, it's not change, and that's why we're going to beat him in this election on November 4th!

 

 

 

What capitalists advocate is that, despite how much you want this man to succeed and be appreciated, there's really nothing you can do but hope that others feel that they can succeed, and will have the will power to make it on their own. That's all they advocate: "you're on your own, I wish I could help you, but I have my own desires to succeed and it's not my fault that you don't have the same amount of ability to make it like I do, and weren't given the same opportunities."

 

 

 

College students in general tend to be "idealistic", but most people in America, just flat out don't understand socialistic policy due to McCarthy and the Red Scare. You say "Is there any economic plan for people in general to be cared for, while still having the ability to make it above someone else if one works hard?", and it's sitting right there in socialist democracy, and the capitalists dismiss it.

 

 

 

People don't seem to like taxes in America, people like my Dad included. They're afraid of a government becoming too powerful, and I can understand this fear. However, the way America is set up, I do not think we should fear an "end all be all" government; it's simply not possible in a realistic view point for it to happen. They also don't think it's fair for the government to be the one dispersing the wealth, "Is that fair for the government to do that?" Well, who says it's fair for the corporations to do that? At least with government, we elect and choose our officials; they represent us. The corporations represent their stock holders, and will almost always do what is in the best interest of the company. If that just so happens to benefit the people, then great. If not, well too bad. This is why I feel a government levying the taxes, and directing where the wealth goes is a much better idea: they have accountability on the voters. If we don't like them, we don't elect them again. One thing that needs to happen inside Washington outside of elected officials, however, is a mass form of "accountability". As of right now, we have useless departments because people simply cannot get fired unless they punched their boss in the face. If there was new management in how things were done, and people worked like they would in a company (where if they [bleep]ed around, they'd be fired), then we would be all set.

 

 

 

So herein lies the conundrum: how do we bring the poor closer to the rich, without totally creating a Nanny state, and without encouraging greed?

 

 

 

I mean, granted, there will ALWAYS be poor and rich in every society unless it's a Communist Utopia...which as we all know 1.) can't happen, and 2.) I personally would not like for it to happen. I would not like for that to happen because as much as I want everyone to be equal, I'm aware that not everyone is willing to put in the same effort, and I don't believe hard work is rewarded through Communism; there's no way of getting ahead. This leads to eventual "work just hard enough to not get fired" mindsets, and it's not healthy for progress or society.

 

 

 

However, even though there will always be disparity between the rich and the poor, it is and will always continue to be, a large distance in America. If you took a city like Baltimore, and looked at their poor, and then took a city like Paris, and looked at their poor, you would see a much greater difference. The poor in Paris are still poor, sure, but their quality of life is much greater. They have access to medicine, and education, and shelter, and even food...and vacation times. They're still poor, but they still have access and their quality of life is much greater. People in Baltimore are not so lucky, and they're completely on their own.

 

 

 

This is a common misconception about socialism: that you somehow still can't be rich, and that your hard work is not rewarded. My dad has this misconception...when he thinks socialism, he thinks Russia and China, which are not socialist states whatsoever. If I told him Germany was a socialist state, he probably would not believe me. It's very possible to be rich in socialism, just as it is possible to be poor. The difference is, the poor and middle class have better qualities of life, at the expense of some of the riches' wealth. It's like owning 10 houses and 5 cars with capitalism, and owning 7 houses and 3 cars with socialism; the only difference is that with capitalism there is a sheer vanity and greed for more that is never ending. Why the need for so much? Just because you can? Just because you want?

 

 

 

I mean if you take most rich people, they're not rich because of the businesses they own, but because of their assets and investments. Yet, Canada has a 50% capital gains tax...and yet, there's rich no? Germany has 0% capital gains tax under many circumstances, but gets as high as 28%. Iceland, probably the most socialist country on earth, has 0% capital gains tax...0%.

 

 

 

I mean, some people might not think it's fair for the rich to be taxed in greater numbers than the poor, and maybe they're right. However, I do not think just because something is fair, means that it is right. I think it's disgusting to see a gold plated Porsche, and I see my Aunt without access to health care; a woman who hasn't seen a doctor in over 7 years because she can't afford to. I think it's disgusting to see our troops serving this country with all their heart and soul, to return home to people metaphorically spitting on them by not giving them treatment for their PTSD or wounds, or a house to sleep in, or food to eat. I think it's disgusting to see myself be taxed 23%, a person who can't afford school or food or laundry who works 12 hours a day of hard work every day, and see someone like Warren Buffet be taxed 17% of his assets because of loopholes that are easily exploited.

 

 

 

Socialism in a socialist democracy can be mixed with capitalism...and I see the two converging to the middle to be a far better way for the citizens. What is the point of a booming economy, if 90-95% of its citizens who lay toil to the work everyday reap none of the rewards? You can look at GDP and your economy all day long. Let's say your country has the greatest economy. Now, how are the lives of its citizens? If their lives are not being lived happily, what the hell is the point of such a great economy? So a few rich [wagon] can sit at home doing nothing while Wall Street increases their assets, venturing out on rich-filled vacations full of [cabbage] that really does not matter, or should not matter at least, while hard working Americans work 8-16 hours every day for minimum wage, receive no benefits, and go home hungry with no access to education or health care? No, I'm sorry, I cannot bear or be a part of a system that is so corrupt that it would rather see its economy booming to the point that it can control the world, leaving a few people very rich, while the rest of the country suffers.

 

 

 

That is why I am a socialist, and that is why I am a liberal.