It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
It a very sound and unassailable theory. The dollar spent by one is no better than the dollar spent by another.
It would be nice to have the choice of whether you spend it on whatever, or not spend it at all...
originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: BuzzyWigs
That won't exist in 20 years. They will have run out of others peoples money. It always happens.
Example : Greece!
Think about it, why all this Austerity talk.
Austerity all over Europe... why? You know why right?
It is unsustainable. Fact.
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
It a very sound and unassailable theory. The dollar spent by one is no better than the dollar spent by another.
It would be nice to have the choice of whether you spend it on whatever, or not spend it at all...
originally posted by: MystikMushroom
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: MystikMushroom
We've allowed a corporate take over of our government -- something that should never have happened in the first place.
We have allowed ALL special interests to take over our government via lobbying. The corporations are just one of many greasing the skids.
Agreed! Although I would counter with corporations have more resources and can exert more control. However, on a fundamental level -- yes, I totally agree. We're never going to be able to rid ourselves of people trying to influence the political process, but we should *at least* not make it as easy as we have it now.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Yes, your personal experiences are the measure of all things.
If you don't think the middle-class is disappearing or has mostly, what are you complaining about?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Social welfare systems are not socialism.
Should we develop a working definition of what we're talking about?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Social welfare systems are not socialism.
Should we develop a working definition of what we're talking about?
originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Funnily enough that's called Socialism, where the community decides and regulates their own pennies...
But keep that on the down low this thread is hilarious.
originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Gryphon66
To me, a more socialist example would be working in a factory where all the employees are also owners of the company/factory. The better the factory did, the more profit it makes...The more profit made, the more everyone gets paid. The means of production and the company itself is owned completely by those working for it -- not outside investors, a CEO or a handful of board members.
To me, a more socialist example would be working in a factory where all the employees are also owners of the company/factory. The better the factory did, the more profit it makes...The more profit made, the more everyone gets paid. The means of production and the company itself is owned completely by those working for it -- not outside investors, a CEO or a handful of board members.
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Funnily enough that's called Socialism, where the community decides and regulates their own pennies...
But keep that on the down low this thread is hilarious.
I guess I forgot to put the word "I" in my statement.
originally posted by: ketsuko
Socialism and charity are two different things. Christians believe in charity. Socialism robs us of the chance to be charitable.