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.

 

NewsWeek: We Are All Socialists Now!

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


The truth of the matter is that you hate capitalism. It is as simple as that.

The fact is if somebody is living off a government handout for most of their lives they will get paid what ever the minimum wage is no matter what country you live in.

That person has no skills and has to be trained for the job therefor that persons worth is a state mandated minimum wage.

A person collecting a government handout is poor, you can try to argue against that and spin it anyway you want too, but your only lying to yourself.

There are simple facts of life, one of those facts is that there will always be wealth.

Your idea of capitalism is all wacked out.




posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
The truth of the matter is that you hate capitalism. It is as simple as that.


Wrong, I love liberty and peace. I am not motivated by hate, but by love.


The fact is if somebody is living off a government handout for most of their lives they will get paid what ever the minimum wage is no matter what country you live in.


And your point is?


That person has no skills and has to be trained for the job therefor that persons worth is a state mandated minimum wage.


Huh? You think the only people getting minimum wage are not educated?
But this is not about ' the minimum wage', it's about the fact that private ownership takes away from working people. Companies pay EVERYONE a minimum wage, the least they can get away with and keep their employees.
It's about demand not skills.


A person collecting a government handout is poor, you can try to argue against that and spin it anyway you want too, but your only lying to yourself.


What? Not sure what you mean? Of course people getting government handouts are poor, what's your point?


There are simple facts of life, one of those facts is that there will always be wealth. Your idea of capitalism is all wacked out.


Actually no it's not a fact of life, it's the life that has been shaped and conditioned into us for hundreds of years. Your criticism of my idea of capitalism just shows how much you really don't understand. The disparity in wealth is created by the exploitation of those who are forced through economic poverty to sell their labour.

To say there will always be wealth is really missing the point. That wealth was created by the exploitation of the many by the few, and to say it's a simple fact of life is to give up. You might as well go live in a dictatorship and just give up all your rights. Your ancestors are rolling in their graves.

Please explain how the economy will keep working if there wasn't a poverty class and unemployment to keep inflation from going out of control. You can criticise me all day, but unless you show me where I'm 'whacked out' then your insult is just an empty waste of bandwidth.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


To point out why your idea of capitalism is flawed, These are quoted from you posts:



This is not true, capitalism creates poverty, nothing else.


If that is the case then why is America the wealthiest country in the world? Why is the American dollar the world reserve currency? Why is it in America you can literally go from living in the streets one day and the next be rich?



Capitalism can only work when there is a division in personal wealth, you can't exploit someone who is not worse off than you.


That isn't true, you can bootstrap a business which requires no loans or any money to payback and build a business that makes millions of dollars a year.



It's not how much you have, it's how large the difference in wealth is between people.


What does it matter what your next door neighbor makes or the guy on the upper side of town makes? What does that have to do with anyone? He hires people to work for him it is those peoples choice to stay working for him or gain the skill and experience to be worth more and move on.



If person A has a million $ and person B has $1, then person A has the power to force person B to work for them at a low wage. Now if person C has a million and he needs person B's labour then he has the power to pay him more, leaving person A with no employee. So person A offers person B more pay to stay in his employ. What does person C do? You see the cycle here? Now if person A was the only wealthy one and person B and C only had $1, then person A could pay BOTH workers the same low wage. This is wage slavery, the modern legal version of slavery. This is why the majority will always be kept poor under capitalism, because without that disparity in wealth capitalism can't work.


This is where you contradict yourself. First you say this here then you say this in your next post.



Companies pay EVERYONE a minimum wage, the least they can get away with and keep their employees.


So person B finds his way into a scenario where he can negotiate his wage he is not getting paid the least amount his employer can get away with. Person C is fine he just has to higher a less qualified person for the job and train him or go back to school to further his knowledge of the area he is working in. It happens everyday.



So being lazy has NOTHING to do with this system of wage slavery, even if ALL people could, and were willing, to work there would still be unemployment and poverty under capitalism. It's not the fault of the poor, it's the inevitability of capitalism. There is no way around it. The artificial scarcity of resources drives capitalism, and is what creates poverty, and it's the artificial scarcity of work that keeps people unemployed.


Where to start on this one.

Okay first there is still poor people in socialism and unemployed people in socialism, look up Europe. Second the scarcity of resources has nothing to do with capitalism. Third it doesn't create poverty.

The artificial scarcity that you speak of is only created by government by enacting laws that make people trying to break into a business more expensive, thus creating more overhead and making it less likely to be able to secure investors and loans. This has nothing to do with capitalism, but it has everything to do with big government putting up barriers to entry.



Actually no it's not a fact of life, it's the life that has been shaped and conditioned into us for hundreds of years. Your criticism of my idea of capitalism just shows how much you really don't understand. The disparity in wealth is created by the exploitation of those who are forced through economic poverty to sell their labour.


Yes it is. Life has only become better for us since civilized societies came into existence.

See that is the thing you have your own idea of capitalism and it is not capitalism. Your getting twisted you don't understand. You have the current form of corporatism mixed up with capitalism.

No, the disparity in wealth is not created by the exploitation of people forced into economic poverty. The only people that forced them into economic poverty is the government.



To say there will always be wealth is really missing the point. That wealth was created by the exploitation of the many by the few, and to say it's a simple fact of life is to give up. You might as well go live in a dictatorship and just give up all your rights. Your ancestors are rolling in their graves.


First you say that. Then in the very next paragraph you say this:



Please explain how the economy will keep working if there wasn't a poverty class and unemployment to keep inflation from going out of control. You can criticise me all day, but unless you show me where I'm 'whacked out' then your insult is just an empty waste of bandwidth.


What you just said was that wealth was created, but then in the very next paragraph you said how would the economy keep working if there isn't a poverty class and unemployment. Your trying to argue a point that makes absolutely no sense.

What your trying to say is that wealth is only a figment of the imagination, wealth is what gives up to motivation to work from that minimum wage to be the owner or CEO of a company, it is the carrot hanging from the stick.

What your getting mixed up is capitalism and corporatism. Corporatism is the merging of business and state. All your problems are with government. The unemployment rate before the depression was 1% and not only was unemployment the lowest in the world we were also up and coming to be the richest in the world.

All from capitalism. What ruined it was government intervention. Your problem is with socialism you just can't see it. Your definition for socialism is also flawed what your thinking of is Communism. You say you love liberty and freedom, but yet you are talking down the freest economic system there is.

The whole point is that any other economic system that has been thought up of to date is a failure when put into practice on a large scale. We are human and there are human traits that will always be with us and will never go away and trying to social engineer human nature is futile. Capitalism promotes freedom, everything else requires you to give up freedom in order to be 'equal.'



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


Just as state socialism in the guise of Marxist-Leninism failed explosively, so has ideological capitalism in the guise of the "Chicago school" failed disastrously.

Markets are not self regulating, and never will be.

The outcome of Leninist and Maoist Marxism is a tiny, all-powerful ruling class (the Party leadership) and a whole buttload of poor people.

The power of a market unchecked by government (IE public accountability) is precisely the same thing.

Look at the countries with successful economies and strong middle classes.

Not one of them has "free" market capitalism in the Milton Friedman sense - not even the US.

That ends up with something looking like Dickens' England.

On the other hand, all of them have well regulated "tamed" markets - because without them wealth simply flows back to the wealthiest. But none embraces state socialism in the Marxist sense.

Neither idea survives exposure to real world conditions.

Your ideology has failed, just like Marxism did before it.

Dig your head out of the sand already. It's over.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOKActually no it's not a fact of life, it's the life that has been shaped and conditioned into us for hundreds of years. Your criticism of my idea of capitalism just shows how much you really don't understand. The disparity in wealth is created by the exploitation of those who are forced through economic poverty to sell their labour.


it has always been the way in ever society, for milennium- wealthier and poorer, capitalism is not perfect but it is better than any socialist/marxist agenda




To say there will always be wealth is really missing the point. That wealth was created by the exploitation of the many by the few, and to say it's a simple fact of life is to give up. You might as well go live in a dictatorship and just give up all your rights. Your ancestors are rolling in their graves.


That is a simplification, as long as everyone gets wealthier over time, then that is the least worst option- as for dictatorships, we have many pressing issues in the west, but real dictatorships were Stalin, Hitler, Mao, the Black Stalin etc



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 05:25 AM
link   
As an European I have one Answer:
France is NOT Europe.

France has consistantly ignored rules set by Europe as far as f.i. state deficit may go.They keep sabotaging any EU grip on jobs, businesses etc.

Great Britain is NOT Europe parsé. They held on to their Pound Sterling stubbornly, yet shops&hotels mostly accept euro`s happily, while the Pound kept faltering..So they are in a serious rut. Britain has basically the same system of lending an mortgages as The USA had , with very little ore no control from the government. Sub-Prime was entirely possible in grat Britain, in contrast to the rest of Northern Europe ,where money lenders carried part of the risk if they wanted to give out sub-prime loans..a risk they obviously did not want. As a result there are very little sub-prime loans distributed.
The sc. Socialist "nanny states" ,Americans seem to see everywhere in Europe are more capitalist than one can imagine. Healthcare:mostly privatized with stringent state control. Housing:privatized. Infrastructure, rail, telephony, communication technology in general:privatized.

Do NOT confuse socialism ans welfare-state "Europe style" with "CommunismUSSR-style" even Newsweek fell for that trap..
They are completely different beasts.

Ther is way too much blurting: "SOCIALISM" going on here. Europe DOES have its problems with the credit crunch ,but thanks to quite healthy tax-incomes for the respective states in northern Europe, we are not in as much trouble as citizens, as a lot of Americans are now. There are plenty of regulations that help citizens that are in a tight spot.

I feel deeply for the poor souls who bought a house, thinking they had their own sound financial back-up, and consequently got screwed over by money-hungry vultures in the world of banking that even got bailed out by the Government for their reckless stupidity ...

Fat Cat bankers do not feel the brunt of the crunch to be sure. Their feeble excuses on British Television made it even more obcene

Rightly so, all newspapers in Britain had Mad As Hell Editorials and front pages.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by diakrite
As an European I have one Answer:
France is NOT Europe.

France has consistantly ignored rules set by Europe as far as f.i. state deficit may go.They keep sabotaging any EU grip on jobs, businesses etc.

Great Britain is NOT Europe parsé. They held on to their Pound Sterling stubbornly, yet shops&hotels mostly accept euro`s happily, while the Pound kept faltering..So they are in a serious rut. Britain has basically the same system of lending an mortgages as The USA had , with very little ore no control from the government. Sub-Prime was entirely possible in grat Britain, in contrast to the rest of Northern Europe ,where money lenders carried part of the risk if they wanted to give out sub-prime loans..a risk they obviously did not want. As a result there are very little sub-prime loans distributed.
The sc. Socialist "nanny states" ,Americans seem to see everywhere in Europe are more capitalist than one can imagine. Healthcare:mostly privatized with stringent state control. Housing:privatized. Infrastructure, rail, telephony, communication technology in general:privatized.

Do NOT confuse socialism ans welfare-state "Europe style" with "CommunismUSSR-style" even Newsweek fell for that trap..
They are completely different beasts.

Ther is way too much blurting: "SOCIALISM" going on here. Europe DOES have its problems with the credit crunch ,but thanks to quite healthy tax-incomes for the respective states in northern Europe, we are not in as much trouble as citizens, as a lot of Americans are now. There are plenty of regulations that help citizens that are in a tight spot.

I feel deeply for the poor souls who bought a house, thinking they had their own sound financial back-up, and consequently got screwed over by money-hungry vultures in the world of banking that even got bailed out by the Government for their reckless stupidity ...

Fat Cat bankers do not feel the brunt of the crunch to be sure. Their feeble excuses on British Television made it even more obcene

Rightly so, all newspapers in Britain had Mad As Hell Editorials and front pages.



You say that, but the US will bounce back quicker than Europe, and further, the UK independence enabling it to slash it's base rate faster and quicker than the laborious supra EU state could, will pay dividends.

The UK has a problem with heavy dependence on financial services and people obtaining too much credit, but that is not some sort of argument for joining the corrupt monolithic EU in full!



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Do you wish to live in a nanny state like the UK and much like most of western europe?


When I am sick I go to the doctor, no matter what my income.

When I am tried I take one of my 25 days annual vacation.

When I am poor I put my tail betyween my legs and ask for government help.

When I walk down the street I am not afraid.

When I am young my parents are encouraged to stay at home as long as possible.

I have lived a considerable part of my life in three different countries. The USA, Switzerland and now the UK.

The USA and the UK are VERY VERY simliar in most aspects. It's why I moved here from Switzerland, I missed the US but couldn't get back in.

Most countries want to follow the capitalism as espoused by the USA, they want to give their citizens the proverbial "American dream", the rags to riches story, but that's an urban myth for a majority of people.

There is a reason that Scandanavian countries rate consistantley high on quality of life lists.

Capitalism means that you have to work your tail off to "make it". In the meantime your kids are spending 30 hours a week online, Your parents are conventiently put away when they get "hard to handle" and your life is wasted trying to get to that pie in the sky "American dream".

Capitalism is about the lie that wealth creates happiness, It doesn't.

Any form of government that promotes quality over quantity is good enough for me. Alas of the three countries I've lived in for significant amounts of time none have come close enough ( Though Switzerland came closest).

I'm looking for a job in Finland!



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Hear hear.
The Netherlands would be a nice second to Finland though..


Dutch whine and nag, but a recent global survey found them the happiest people next to Norway...



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merigold

Do you wish to live in a nanny state like the UK and much like most of western europe?


When I am sick I go to the doctor, no matter what my income.

When I am tried I take one of my 25 days annual vacation.

When I am poor I put my tail betyween my legs and ask for government help.

When I walk down the street I am not afraid.

When I am young my parents are encouraged to stay at home as long as possible.



which country are you referring to for the above?



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
If that is the case then why is America the wealthiest country in the world? Why is the American dollar the world reserve currency? Why is it in America you can literally go from living in the streets one day and the next be rich?


I already explained that the wealth that the west now enjoys was STOLEN by exploiting places like Africa, India, The Middle East etc...Or from slavery like in the South, who's wealth came from the plantations and wouldn't have happened without slavery.

Capitalism creates wealth for the few at the expense of the many. Americas wealthy, the countries and people that helped create that wealth are in poverty.

And America is NOT the whole world, there's a LOT of non-Americans out there, and to think America is more wealthy because you work harder is an absolute insult.


That isn't true, you can bootstrap a business which requires no loans or any money to payback and build a business that makes millions of dollars a year.


Yes it is and I already explained why. Do you not understand the employment/unemployment inevitability of capitalism?

If everyone has a million $ a year business, WHO WOULD WORK FOR YOU!
You can't run a business without employees can you?



What does it matter what your next door neighbor makes or the guy on the upper side of town makes? What does that have to do with anyone? He hires people to work for him it is those peoples choice to stay working for him or gain the skill and experience to be worth more and move on.


It doesn't, what matters is the 1% of the population that owns 50% of the wealth. I'm not talking about a few dollars difference in workers wages but the HUGE disparity in profits made from your labour, profits that YOU could be benefiting from directly instead of hoping your boss gives you a pay raise.

It's about taking the power back and having more control over your life. It's hard to give up your overlord isn't it?


This is where you contradict yourself. First you say this here then you say this in your next post.


How am I contradicting myself, please explain?



So person B finds his way into a scenario where he can negotiate his wage he is not getting paid the least amount his employer can get away with. Person C is fine he just has to higher a less qualified person for the job and train him or go back to school to further his knowledge of the area he is working in. It happens everyday.


Huh, my example has nothing to do with skills. It was a just a simple example of how wage slavery works. For this example both persons A and B are unskilled OK. If one of them gets trained then yes they have more bargaining power, but nothing is stopping person C getting trained also (unless they can't afford it), which puts us back to square one right? Just like jobs, if ALL workers were highly trained, who would do the dirty work in your system? That's why higher education is NOT free. Capitalism has to level the playing field and it uses wealth to do that, which to me is unfair, as once again not everyone can be wealthy.



Okay first there is still poor people in socialism and unemployed people in socialism, look up Europe. Second the scarcity of resources has nothing to do with capitalism. Third it doesn't create poverty.

The artificial scarcity that you speak of is only created by government by enacting laws that make people trying to break into a business more expensive, thus creating more overhead and making it less likely to be able to secure investors and loans. This has nothing to do with capitalism, but it has everything to do with big government putting up barriers to entry.


Sorry but there are NO socialist countries. Socialism is...

The WORKERS ownership of the means of production

So your argument is mute.

Resources are kept scarce by companies not governments, if they didn't they couldn't make a profit.



Yes it is. Life has only become better for us since civilized societies came into existence.

See that is the thing you have your own idea of capitalism and it is not capitalism. Your getting twisted you don't understand. You have the current form of corporatism mixed up with capitalism.

No, the disparity in wealth is not created by the exploitation of people forced into economic poverty. The only people that forced them into economic poverty is the government.



No it isn't...

We were civilised long before the land owners decided to enslave the serfs in financial bondage.

Governments are only part of the picture. Do you think without government corporations would be all good and not exploit people? That is really naive.



What you just said was that wealth was created, but then in the very next paragraph you said how would the economy keep working if there isn't a poverty class and unemployment. Your trying to argue a point that makes absolutely no sense.


Wealth is created by the working class through their labour. We don't need an economy. All the economy does is control the population, so that the few wealthy families who run the financial system can maintain their power.

So under socialism the economy as we now know it would not be necessary.
There are enough recourses to feed everyone, they do not need to be kept artificially scarce so private entities can make money of you for the very things you need to live.


What your trying to say is that wealth is only a figment of the imagination, wealth is what gives up to motivation to work from that minimum wage to be the owner or CEO of a company, it is the carrot hanging from the stick.


Yes in a way it is. The carrot is wealth, people spend their live chasing money, most don't make much. The majority of it stays in the same family groups it has for centuries.


What your getting mixed up is capitalism and corporatism. Corporatism is the merging of business and state. All your problems are with government. The unemployment rate before the depression was 1% and not only was unemployment the lowest in the world we were also up and coming to be the richest in the world.


Not really. What is corporatism if not just an inevitable result of capitalism?

Your problem is you want to blame everything BUT capitalism when capitalism is the root problem, everything else is a result of it.

Nationalism is the merging of government and corporations.
Corporatism is just a new word for fascism.


All from capitalism. What ruined it was government intervention. Your problem is with socialism you just can't see it. Your definition for socialism is also flawed what your thinking of is Communism. You say you love liberty and freedom, but yet you are talking down the freest economic system there is.


Without government intervention capitalism would have destroyed the planted centuries ago. Capitalism cannot work without over site, which means a governing body, which means you give up your liberty to enjoy your capitalism, and freedom is purchased not a right.


The whole point is that any other economic system that has been thought up of to date is a failure when put into practice on a large scale. We are human and there are human traits that will always be with us and will never go away and trying to social engineer human nature is futile. Capitalism promotes freedom, everything else requires you to give up freedom in order to be 'equal.'


Who's social engineering anything? This capitalist system does exactly what you're accusing socialism of.

Socialism simply puts the power in the hands of us all, it gives us control over our own lives. You are so conditioned to believe in government and capitalism and never taught there is an alternative that isn't evil, can't you see why they would do that?

The reason no other system has allowed to be successful is because those that hold the power, through wealth, want to maintain the system at all costs, including war, economic sabotage, etc...And yes education, the school system is designed to condition any thoughts of true liberty out of you.

[edit on 2/11/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


My head isn't in the sand. Of course there has to be some regulations, but for the most part it is what has made the US the wealthiest country in the world. You can't argue with that point.

And I can also tell you capitalism isn't what has failed socialism has failed once again. By making regulations that try to make everything affordable to everyone., or rather trying to make everyone 'equal.'

The main thing that has failed is central planning. As I stated earlier the US in before 1920 had an unemployment rate of 1%.

1% of people were not employed, I would call that a success.

And no you need to dig your head out of the sand, Government intervention is what has caused just about all problems. The government is what creates conglomerates and allows them to survive and thrive by stacking the deck in their favor.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


You need to come back to reality, I don't know what you've been reading or who has been filling your head with what, but your replies are irrational.

One sentence you say you don't hate capitalism, but yet your calling is slave labor and pretty much trying to say that America is evil and greedy. And we exploit the world. Every country has the stain that is slavery in their history it wasn't just an American problem.

You advocating communism but trying to say that it is socialism. You say you love freedom and liberty but yet your promoting a system of slavery.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
lol

the problem is routed precisely there:

if you dont control the capitalistic system by the government at least a little, someone acts to find a backdoor in it to skim all the cool cash and the market crashes. then it rebuilds, till next time. this is why america is not only the main source of our cash system but also the greatest leak in it.

or do you think the cash has dissapeared in thin air?

get that "bad communists / socialists" crap out, that is outdated since the end of the cold war. its just plugging a hole that makes cash dissapear.

greetz

[edit on 11-2-2009 by MindForce]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Not surprising.
What is it we pay into each pay period that we'll never see? What the first word?

I know it's just an editorial but it's still a concern because the Power of Suggestion can be pretty strong these days.

Something about the writer of this article here.
* Evan Thomas is the Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek magazine.
* His grandfather was Norman Thomas (1884-1968), disciple and successor to Eugene V. Debs, founder of America's Socialist Party. Norman Thomas was the Socialist Party candidate in six presidential elections from 1928 through 1948.


The guy is pushing for a European style government but how ironic is it that even Europe seems to be getting away from this and now appears to be embracing Conservative principles.

I kinda got my hands slapped last time I did this but now that it's official I can post this pic again.




posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by MindForce
 





get that "bad communists / socialists" crap out, that is outdated since the end of the cold war. its just plugging a hole that makes cash dissapear.


Because it is working so well in France, and it worked wonders in Soviet Russia.

The reason why it is bad is because IT DOESN"T WORK!!! I don't know how many times people have to say that for you people to get it.




if you dont control the capitalistic system by the government at least a little, someone acts to find a backdoor in it to skim all the cool cash and the market crashes.


Government creates those back doors. Not only does government create them they dictate the policy in order to to open up the doors even wider.

The problem is central planning. America is a mixed socialist, capitalist, corporatist system. That is working miracles for us right now isn't it.

The problem is government and central planning.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   
To the guy who responded with the capitalism bash,

and the poverty class,

the difference is, in USA, our poor people are rich compared to the middle classes of everywhere else

that's socialistic or dictatorship or communist

in capitalism, at least our poor people can survive

and usually poor people like being poor they do not want to do anything they would rather just live and observe

rarely, do you find a poor person who wants work but can't find it.

....but hey, nice liberal essay you had there...what? only 10 stars?



[edit on 11-2-2009 by ConservativeJack]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Cio88
 


We've been marginally "socialist" for years in respect to our roads, our schools, our courts, our postal system, our police, our firemen, and our armed services. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with "socialism" as long as it's done correctly. Europe has benefitted greatly from democratic socialism, and since we are in dire need of universal health care, we would benefit handsomely too.

Trouble is, Right wing radio has demonized the word "socialism," so that well intentioned but gullible people react hysterically to the word.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


I have yet to read an intelligent or true statement by Thomas Sowell. Right wing ideologues are forced to lie and deceive because their function is to shill for Old Money Oligarchs, whose singular goal is to perpetuate their position, wealth, and power, the rest of us be damned. To them, an educated, aware, thriving middle class is a huge threat. This is why they hire Republicans to quell adequate funding of education and health care. They know that a secure middle class signals a threat to their hold on power. This is most unfortunate, because most people just want enough for everybody.

If you don't believe me in respect to the actual goals of Right wing shills like Sowell, read Russel Kirk, the patriarch of the Right wing movement. He admits that a thriving and educated middle class is seen as a threat by Old Money.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Armchair Philosopher
 


I'm going to have to disagree with you. Sounds more like neo-conservative ideology to me in which you describe that they see the middle class as a threat.

As for my signature it is very true. Public Education is a liberal wet dream in which the liberals cement their power by indoctrination not education. If you don't believe me then why is the average intelligence of people in high school these days less than that than it was before government funded education came about. It is very evident in today's society that education is nothing more than indoctrination.

I'd also beg to differ that neo-conservatives and liberals are on the left and the right. They are both to the left of the political spectrum. They are both looking to the same goal of a complete fascist state.

The difference is that the liberals want useful idiots, hence public indoctrination, and the neo-cons want a nation of workers.

True conservatives, much like myself, see government intervention the worse thing possible and understand to have a middle class you must have a rich and a poor sub section.

Our schools have given our children an entitlement mentality, as this thread is evidence of that. Most not all but most kids coming out of school and college these days are terribly uneducated they are merely indoctrinated.

You can disagree with Thomas Sowell if you want, but the man makes very valid points. I don't agree with everything he says, but he does make valid points.

Now, I don't disagree with publicly funded schools but I do disagree with a government mandated curriculum. Like we have now.

As far as Health Care is concerned government meddling is what has ruined the insurance system. It is not our Health Care System. But the insurance system that is flawed in fact you can trace the start of the problems back to Nixon when he made health care insurance companies for profit.

Even more evidence of public indoctrination is that most kids fresh out of high school or college blame capitalism for the worlds woes. And the subsequent election of Obama who has stated openly that government is the only thing that can fix our problems.

Say what you will about him, but if you know your history you will see he makes very valid points.




top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join