HIllary Clinton and the Neo-Socialist movement.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
yeah, $3 million is "a living"

It doesn't matter how much a person makes. It is THEIR money.

No one else has a right to take it away from them simply because they don't have the same amount. They earned it or they inherited it. It's THEIRS. If they get three million a year .. that's their RIGHT to make that much. No one has a right to take it away simply because they think that person made too much money.

Penalizing the rich .. because those who don't have as much are JEALOUS or lazy .. or both. That's bad economics. That's bad psychology. That's just bad.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
NO ONE has more right to my money than me and my family.

Let us hope your wife, children, yourself never need a transplant or blood while in hospital. After all - why should I donate blood? Why should I do something that'll help other people who might need my help? It's a shame people like you exist who are so selfish - because all it does is remind me of children, in fact really young children learn to share and to help others about the age of 4.

This is what is.

There are people who through no fault of their own end up in a bad situation, the woman who is raped and needs counselling but can't afford it - should we cast her out? Shun her because someone else attacked her?

The child who's abused and needs to be removed from his family, but no system to re-house them or to place them into care exists. After all - screw them - I only care for myself.

The woman - could be your daughter, sister - who is trapped in an abusive relationship. She can't leave because there are no shelters for women, no where safe to go and she's scared that if she goes to the Police while living with him it'll make things worse. (Since most cases of domestic violence don't end in prison sentances.)

The Army Veteran who looses a limb fighting for his Nation - we should cast him out and expect him to beg for food.

The victim of a joy rider, who never gets caught. Paralyzed below the waist - we should laugh at him. Let him starve or let him beg so we can live in our mansion.

Once you have your own house. The ability to travel - car - and enough money to live a healthy, comfortable life you do not need more money. I earn enough money, I used to earn a lot more last year and happily changed my job because when you're making that much it's not needed. NEarly half of my money still goes on helping other people and I still donate more - everytime I go in a shop and get change, I place it in a charity box if it's below a few pounds. I work for free to help organize events to raise money for homeless children in this country, because they need a chance.

I was lucky, most of us on this site are lucky. You can either shut your eyes, pretend the World will sort itself out if you hide away from it or you can make a difference. But shunning people who can't help themselves either through their own fault or many times not of their own is sickening and I hope your children, your family and people you care about never have somethnig happen to them.

When you've met people who have spent years of their lives being abused, raped, forced to take drugs, living in fear because of a psychopath who tricked them - come back and say: Go help yourself. Especally after you've seen the marks that have been left, the mental scares they live with for life and need help to cope with it all.

Also for those who say - they've earend it - wake up. Welcome to the real World, many of them haven't earned it. Why should people who have never had to work because 200 years ago their family got lucky? They got a patch of land with oil, or anything else - given such a happy life? What have they actually done? They sit back while someone else runs their business and reap the rewards. That's not something to be proud of - anyone can have a child (unless they are infertile) it's not hard nor have they done well because they were born.

You speak of having an equal chance.

Person A: Born into a family who earn $10,000 a week. They can afford for - the best health care, food, education (through University) and even if they fail they have money.

Person B: Born into a family with no money, where both parents work over 40hrs a week to make a living. Live in a rough area, where the education facilities are filled with gang problems. No ability to go through college or University, unless they themselves work but the ability to work and afford such a thing requires the minimum of a full time job.

Oh yeah - that's equality.

Welcome to the Real World.
Stop living in a fantasy land.

Originally posted by Odium
Let us hope your wife, children, yourself never need a transplant or blood while in hospital. After all - why should I donate blood? Why should I do something that'll help other people who might need my help? It's a shame people like you exist who are so selfish.

it would be your choice as an individual to donate your own blood. flip this scenario how would you feel if the government forced you to give that blood and gave you no choice in the matter and not giving that blood would be considered a felony in which you would be imprisoned?

[edit on 6-6-2007 by ape]

Originally posted by ape
it would be your choice as an individual to donate your own blood. flip this scenario how would you feel if the government forced you to give that blood and gave you no choice in the matter and not giving that blood would be considered a felony in which you would be imprisoned?

If that is what it takes.

Go to a Hospital and do some volunteer work with children, those who are not even 10 years of age and will not see their next birthday because someone who died wouldn't donate an organ or there's not enough blood for them to have an operation. You look their parents in the eyes and tell them what you think - that you don't need to donate blood, you don't need to help society - because you are as bad as someone who kills someone.

Lack of action, to save an individual is no different than taking the life yourself. You can sit there and go: Oh I didn't kill them directly, but it's the same as giving someone alcohol who'll drive home. We're all responsible for the betterment of society as a whole, not just the bits that we are involved with.

Just hope one day, you don't have children and they do not need an operation or if you do now, one that you yourself can't provide. The amount of dead children because people won't go into a hospital and check their bone-marrow, blood type and so on and so fourth is disgusting in a Western, Civilized Nation.

No different than a savage. No different than a killer.

You have a civic duty, to everyone around you and if you can help you should help. But then you can sit there and let the World get worse and worse.

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by ape
it would be your choice as an individual to donate your own blood. flip this scenario how would you feel if the government forced you to give that blood and gave you no choice in the matter and not giving that blood would be considered a felony in which you would be imprisoned?

If that is what it takes.

Go to a Hospital and do some volunteer work with children, those who are not even 10 years of age and will not see their next birthday because someone who died wouldn't donate an organ or there's not enough blood for them to have an operation. You look their parents in the eyes and tell them what you think - that you don't need to donate blood, you don't need to help society - because you are as bad as someone who kills someone.

Lack of action, to save an individual is no different than taking the life yourself. You can sit there and go: Oh I didn't kill them directly, but it's the same as giving someone alcohol who'll drive home. We're all responsible for the betterment of society as a whole, not just the bits that we are involved with.

Just hope one day, you don't have children and they do not need an operation or if you do now, one that you yourself can't provide. The amount of dead children because people won't go into a hospital and check their bone-marrow, blood type and so on and so fourth is disgusting in a Western, Civilized Nation.

No different than a savage. No different than a killer.

You have a civic duty, to everyone around you and if you can help you should help. But then you can sit there and let the World get worse and worse.

I help whenever I can, hell I even committed to have my organs donated If something happens to me, they can take whatever they want from me when I go. i'm happy to donate blood however I will not go as far as to advocate the government dictate to me or anyone else a choice that is personal.

IMO it's better for a society to choose rather than being forced to help.

Originally posted by ape
IMO it's better for a society to choose rather than being forced to help.

Choice doesn't work.

No where near enough people donate organs or blood. When people still die because of our selfish acts, there's a problem. The fact is people need to be socialised from the ground up and if in the mean time we need the Government to step in to save a lot of lives than so be it.

I'd rather they did something than we let more and more people die. If it is tax breaks or some form of insentive - like allowing more money to be passed down (skipping inheritence tax) to gain organs, a small tax break for donating blood a few times a year or the Government needs to directly say - it has to happen. I'd support it.

I've been unlucky enough to meet someone whose child died because of a lack of organs. It ruined their life for a very long time.

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by ape
IMO it's better for a society to choose rather than being forced to help.

Choice doesn't work.

No where near enough people donate organs or blood. When people still die because of our selfish acts, there's a problem. The fact is people need to be socialised from the ground up and if in the mean time we need the Government to step in to save a lot of lives than so be it.

I'd rather they did something than we let more and more people die. If it is tax breaks or some form of insentive - like allowing more money to be passed down (skipping inheritence tax) to gain organs, a small tax break for donating blood a few times a year or the Government needs to directly say - it has to happen. I'd support it.

I've been unlucky enough to meet someone whose child died because of a lack of organs. It ruined their life for a very long time.

you say your location is in england, are you an american citizen? or are you just located in england? all people need to do is go out and get the message out. do you think all americans are selfish pieces of crap who want people to die? get the message out strong to donate blood etc and alot of americans will come out and do it.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Here's a Classic Clinton-ism, or what we can look forward to if, God forbid, this woman gets elected to president:

“Many of you are well off enough that [President Bush’s] tax cuts may have helped you. We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. ” -Hillary Clinton, San Francisco 6/28/2004

www.signonsandiego.com...

Newsflash: she probly ain't talking to you, or me, or anyone else here at ATS. She's talking about the most wealthy people in the United States. 2% of our population.

They don't need the little people to defend them.

Something Odium said reminded me of a situation I faced where the government was shutting off funds to me.

It was when Reagan was president. He cut social security benefits to college students (whose parents had died). That affected me. The way it was going into it was, as long as I was in school (college), I'd get my social security check. I had gotten that since I was 5, when my dad died.

Under Reagan, that benefit was cut off when I, and my brother turned 18.

I've never complained about that. I was young and able to make something of myself. I didn't need that government freebee by then.

I never held that against Reagan.

So, why can't today's wealthy give up a little to help the greater good?

The rich already do give up "a little" of their money to help the greater good. They pay the highest taxes in the nation. The united States also puts more public money into EACH person in the United States than do foreign countries with completely socialized healthcare systems; we put about twice as much money into each person actually.

So enough money is spent on healthcare.

But NO ONE, not the government, not the community, not ANYONE should have a "right" to your money. THAT is what is selfish, people having this entitlement philosophy.

Originally posted by Odium
This is what is.

There are people who through no fault of their own end up in a bad situation, the woman who is raped and needs counselling but can't afford it - should we cast her out? Shun her because someone else attacked her?

The child who's abused and needs to be removed from his family, but no system to re-house them or to place them into care exists. After all - screw them - I only care for myself.

The woman - could be your daughter, sister - who is trapped in an abusive relationship. She can't leave because there are no shelters for women, no where safe to go and she's scared that if she goes to the Police while living with him it'll make things worse. (Since most cases of domestic violence don't end in prison sentances.)

The Army Veteran who looses a limb fighting for his Nation - we should cast him out and expect him to beg for food.

Yes, and when you do not tax businesses and people for this stuff, something else springs up to take care of it: they're called private charities.

Once you have your own house. The ability to travel - car - and enough money to live a healthy, comfortable life you do not need more money.

Glad you feel that way. However, we live in a CAPITALIST, INDIVIDUALIST society and with good reason. It isn't about how much you "need." If you make millions each year and want to give half of it to chairity because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, that is your business and good for you. But you DO NOT FORCE OTHERS TO DO THE SAME. If you want to keep most of it to yourself, again that is your business. You can own as much land as you can acquire and as much money as you can acquire, and absolutely NO ONE should have the right to take it from you.

Usually wealthy people and organizations create private charities. If you look at history, you will notice that before all these government social programs existed, there were a lot more private charities. As government spending increased, private charity spending decreased.

You speak of having an equal chance.

Person A: Born into a family who earn $10,000 a week. They can afford for - the best health care, food, education (through University) and even if they fail they have money.

Person B: Born into a family with no money, where both parents work over 40hrs a week to make a living. Live in a rough area, where the education facilities are filled with gang problems. No ability to go through college or University, unless they themselves work but the ability to work and afford such a thing requires the minimum of a full time job.

Oh yeah - that's equality.

Welcome to the Real World.
Stop living in a fantasy land.

And we you present that all-time classic socialist argument, the argument for "equality of outcome." Let me explain to you the real "real world" with regards to this.

WHAT YOU ARE AIMING FOR DOES NOT WORK, HISTORICALLY NEVER HAS WORKED, AND ALWAYS HAS LED TO HORRENDOUS DICTATORSHIPS. Or, at best, it leads to countries with very poor economies, ala most of Europe.

Let me tell you what this concept of "equality" really means. It refers to equality of OPPORTUNITY. In other words, every human being, whatever race or sex, is supposed to have the right to go out and do whatever they want to make something of themselves. If they want to start a business, fine, if they want to become a doctor, fine, if they want to do this or that, FINE.

If they start their business and then decide to discriminate against other colors, races, sex, whatever, TOUGH. It is THEIR business. You do not infringe on their freedoms.

However, if said discriminated person decides to start a business and discrimiinate similarly, they should have full freedom to.

Unfortunately, Western nations have done exactly this (infringe on freedoms) in their effort to "enforce equality," and as usual, it has failed, so that racism is still very much alive and well.

The late, great Milton Friedman, arguably the greatest economist of the 20th century, said: "The society that puts equality before freedom, will enjoy neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will enjoy a great degree of both."

Let me also explain to you another fundamental thing about this socialism you seem to be all for: IF YOU TAX THE DAYLIGHTS OUT OF WEALTHY PEOPLE, THEY TAKE THEIR WEALTH AND LEAVE YOUR COUNTRY. Simple Economics. France is learning this the hard way.

Italy wonders why they have such a poor economy. Well gee, yeah, they only tax businesses about 80% of their money, so why would anyone set up shop over there?

So how do you prevent the wealthy from leaving your country? YOU FORCE THEM TO STAY.

What you are talking about is a noble idea, BUT IT HISTORICALLY HAS NEVER WORKED. The whole "sacrifice your own life for the greater good" is a pure Communist method of thought and DOESN'T WORK. Here is what attempts at such "equal" societies have given us: Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Mihn, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, that Mabul Ahmendinijad of Iran (however you spell his name), etc...then we have socialistic Europe, and they wonder why their economy sucks the big one.

You leave people's money to them, and yes, society does "work itself out." Women stop having babies without thinking about how to support them because the government won't support her, parents make sure they have the financial means to raise a child first, and private charities spring up. More and more jobs are created as well.

You do not ever "take from the rich to give to the poor." THAT is the height of selfishness, and it creates a lazy and entitlement-minded society.

Remember, "Civilizations are built on what is REQUIRED of men - Not by what is given to them."

As you said,

Welcome to the Real World.
Stop living in a fantasy land (and it is a fantasy land, considering the society you want has been tried many times, failed in all of them, and also created a dictatorship).

The Nazis were the German National Socialist Workers Party.
Mao Zedong's Red China was socialism.
The Soviet Union, or USSR, was the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.

That is the REAL world!

If Person B wants to start a business or become a professional, private charities would help them with funding issues. Otherwise, they are no more restricted than anyone else.

[edit on 6-6-2007 by WheelsRCool]

WheelsRCool – thanks for the response.

I’ll take your points on, one by one and hopefully you’ll learn something. Socialism in itself has never been tried out with a few exceptions (Robert Owen’s Experiments to name but one). However the U.S.S.R, China, etcetera were never a Socialist Country. Stalinism as it is called isn’t Socialism they are two very different things and there’s nothing in a name – Stalin used to say they were a democratic country because he allowed elections of course every party was his party


Take for example: Zimbabwe – would you call them a democracy? Mugabe does as he allows elections but just rigs the outcome. None of the Nations you listed follow any level of Socialist thinking and if they do please reference the book, I am sure I already have it.

Yes, and when you do not tax businesses and people for this stuff, something else springs up to take care of it: they're called private charities.

And

You leave people's money to them, and yes, society does "work itself out." Women stop having babies without thinking about how to support them because the government won't support her, parents make sure they have the financial means to raise a child first, and private charities spring up. More and more jobs are created as well.

Really? According to E. C. Midwinter in Victorian Social Reform, there was a larger rate of children being dumped, abandoned, etcetera, during the Victorian Period in the United Kingdom than the is now – there were also less Charities and less percentage of wealth being placed into charities.

The fact is – we used to leave people to cope on their own and it resulted in nothing more than low-paid slave labour. People used to work 12+ hrs a day, their children, wives, etcetera, would all work for the same person. Of course the was the odd exception of companies (Cadbury, Owen, etcetera) who would give their workers decent living conditions, education for the children and so on and so fourth but from the period of the Industrial Revolution (Pre-1830’s) to the 1950’s when we began to fully introduce laws (Education, NHS, etcetera) these didn’t exist as more than a handful of people.

The Labour Movement and the Socialist Movement in Europe existed because so many people – who were nothing but old money – didn’t care. They lived in the World you desire and allowed people to die on the streets so they could have 20 bedrooms and never use 18 of them.

While we sit back and do nothing to help each other human beings won’t evolve passed anything. We are living in a society, were the E.U. throws away more food (gone bad) than they eat in Africa per-year (News night February 2005). Where there are enough spare rooms to get every homeless person off of the streets – if people helped each other – if people cared – the world would be a much nicer place. The amount of crimes that could be stopped, people that could stop being hurt, etcetera, but instead people are just too selfish.

Or, at best, it leads to countries with very poor economies, ala most of Europe.

Fact 1: The European Union turns over $ 12,820,000,000,000 and the United States of America $ 12,980,000,000,000. The difference isn’t actually that large and most the poor European Nations have had a few problems to deal with – now, remember when you studied History? There was this event, it lasted from 1939 to 1945 – it was called World War Two. Now in Europe we had to spend a good 20 years re-building after it, where as the USA didn’t get blitzed every night for over three years. Of course, you don’t factor that into your little explanation of why most of these nations are poor – or the fact many of them just finally got out of war or were stuck fighting them up till a few years ago. No it is because they tried out a form of socialism (which in fact they didn’t.)

P.S: Italy has the 10th largest economy in the World and the 25th largest Population, so they are in fact doing fairly well.

Italy's economy is 63.4 percent free, according to our 2007 assessment, which makes it the world's 60th freest economy. Its overall score is 0.7 percentage point higher than last year, partially reflecting new methodological detail. Italy is ranked 28th out of 41 countries in the European region, and its overall score is equal to the regional average.

-snip-

top corporate tax rate is 33 percent.

80%?

Stop making things up.

Fact is, you can’t even be bothered to check your own statistics when you make a claim. You don’t dare to factor in historical evidence as to why some things might be happening and worse yet, you have absolutely no understanding of socialism as can be reference by the fact you think Stalin was a Socialist.

What you are talking about is a noble idea, BUT IT HISTORICALLY HAS NEVER WORKED.

What I talk about? I have a degree in politics (and Law), I focused on Socialism as my Major and I am now working on my MA since I’ve gone back (will be in September). What I myself talk about has never been tried out together, but the aspects of it work (Switzerland, Sweden, etcetera depending on which aspect) and no I was never educated by a “Left Wing” teacher before anyone uses that argument, my lecturer in fact used to make Policy for the Conservative Party in the U.K. and is very much on the Right Wing.

Sources: E.C. Midwinter – Victorian Social Reform – Published by Longman
ISBN: 582 31385 6

Source on Italy:
www.heritage.org...

World Statistics:
CIA Factbook

I think you misunderstand what socialism is. Yes, it has been tried, very much so. Socialism is when the government outright owns the resources of production and industry. Everything is State-owned. That is essentially how the Soviet Union and Maoist China were. What you are thinking more of, I believe, is Communism, where the means of production are owned by the workers. Real Communism has never existed and never can exist.

None of the Nations you listed follow any level of Socialist thinking and if they do please reference the book, I am sure I already have it.

Yes, they do, very much so. Maoist China and the Soviet Union were essentially out-and-out Socialist dictatorships. Fascist Germany and fascist Italy were a little bit different, but it was ultimately the same thing. In them, there was private property and private ownership of businesses, but those businesses were highly taxed and subject to strict regulation by the government, so ultimately it was the same out come as Socialism.

Really? According to E. C. Midwinter in Victorian Social Reform, there was a larger rate of children being dumped, abandoned, etcetera, during the Victorian Period in the United Kingdom than the is now – there were also less Charities and less percentage of wealth being placed into charities.

The fact is – we used to leave people to cope on their own and it resulted in nothing more than low-paid slave labour. People used to work 12+ hrs a day, their children, wives, etcetera, would all work for the same person. Of course the was the odd exception of companies (Cadbury, Owen, etcetera) who would give their workers decent living conditions, education for the children and so on and so fourth but from the period of the Industrial Revolution (Pre-1830’s) to the 1950’s when we began to fully introduce laws (Education, NHS, etcetera) these didn’t exist as more than a handful of people.

The Labour Movement and the Socialist Movement in Europe existed because so many people – who were nothing but old money – didn’t care. They lived in the World you desire and allowed people to die on the streets so they could have 20 bedrooms and never use 18 of them.

Actually, this is a myth, according to Milton Friedman. The notion that laws and regulations improved the working conditions of the workers is not true. It was the advance of capitalism, as businesses competed, that repaired these. Child-labor laws only caused children to be forced into other means of employment, such as prostitution.

Where there are enough spare rooms to get every homeless person off of the streets – if people helped each other – if people cared – the world would be a much nicer place.

This is where I say you live in a fantasy land though. Yes, it would be nice, but ONLY ANT COLONIES AND BEE HIVES ACT LIKE THAT. People don't. Even if you try to force them to, they don't. People aren't like insects. We are people. The system that lets people be jerks to each other, but still creates very high standards of living, is what you want. That system is capitalism.

Fact 1: The European Union turns over $ 12,820,000,000,000 and the United States of America $ 12,980,000,000,000.

Yeah, that doesn't mean their individual economies are better though. Countries such as France and Italy have unemployment rates almost double what America has.

Nations have had a few problems to deal with – now, remember when you studied History? There was this event, it lasted from 1939 to 1945 – it was called World War Two. Now in Europe we had to spend a good 20 years re-building after it, where as the USA didn’t get blitzed every night for over three years. Of course, you don’t factor that into your little explanation of why most of these nations are poor – or the fact many of them just finally got out of war or were stuck fighting them up till a few years ago. No it is because they tried out a form of socialism (which in fact they didn’t.)

Yes, we also kinda nuked Japan in WWII as well, but they recovered just fine, as heck of a lot better than most any European nation has. South Korea too. And yes they did try to form socialism.

P.S: Italy has the 10th largest economy in the World and the 25th largest Population, so they are in fact doing fairly well.

Yes, that doesn't mean their economy still couldn't be a heck of a lot better. By North American standards, it still stinks.

top corporate tax rate is 33 percent.

80%?

Stop making things up.

Fact is, you can’t even be bothered to check your own statistics when you make a claim. You don’t dare to factor in historical evidence as to why some things might be happening and worse yet, you have absolutely no understanding of socialism as can be reference by the fact you think Stalin was a Socialist.

I never said their corporate tax rate was 80%, I said their wealthy and businesses overall get taxed about 80%.

Also, I think rather than me not knowing what Socialism is, you simply do not understand basic economics is the problem.

What I talk about? I have a degree in politics (and Law), I focused on Socialism as my Major and I am now working on my MA since I’ve gone back (will be in September). What I myself talk about has never been tried out together, but the aspects of it work (Switzerland, Sweden, etcetera depending on which aspect) and no I was never educated by a “Left Wing” teacher before anyone uses that argument, my lecturer in fact used to make Policy for the Conservative Party in the U.K. and is very much on the Right Wing.

Sources: E.C. Midwinter – Victorian Social Reform – Published by Longman
ISBN: 582 31385 6

Source on Italy:
www.heritage.org...

World Statistics:
CIA Factbook

Coolbeans, but I think you should study some economics too. And Switzerland is not socialist. They have a very weak central government. Nor is Sweden really successful because of socialism. Their primary income is from oil.

As for Stalin, Mao, etc...yes they were socialist, but they had their own types of socialism. There is no exact specific definition of socialism or fascism.

What you talk of never could work because you believe in Communism I think, where everyone should sacrifice for the community. Never happens. Not unless you force people. Which = dictatorship.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by WheelsRCool]

BTW, although we very much disagree, I think it is very cool you are a real true socialist and not one of those elitist Hollywood types of socialists, the types who get super rich and fly in private jets and drive SUVs, but then want the ordinary commoner to take public transportation or wipe their butts with one piece of toilet paper, or...you understand

[edit on 7-6-2007 by WheelsRCool]

Whoops, double-post.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by WheelsRCool]

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
The rich already do give up "a little" of their money to help the greater good. They pay the highest taxes in the nation.

Do you have any concept of the scale of income disparity in this country?

The middle class is now limping along.

Bush's taxcuts are crazy in light of the war we're waging.

Those poor rich people paying all those taxes aren't giving any in the form of flesh serving in this glorious occupation of Iraq. So, excuse me for not finding much sympathy for them.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
The rich already do give up "a little" of their money to help the greater good. They pay the highest taxes in the nation.

Do you have any concept of the scale of income disparity in this country?

The middle class is now limping along.

Well for one thing, if Person A works hard and starts a business and provides a service, creates jobs, and also gets wealthy in the process, that person does not deserve to have to pay more money just because they're wealthy.

Middle class people say, "That's not fair, they're rich, make them pay for it." THAT is what is not fair, because you are punishing people who had the incentive to become very successful in life. Very, very few of the wealthy in America inheritied their wealth.

So in terms of said income disparity, yes.

Nevertheless, even though the wealthy are very taxed, the middle class still gets taxed a good deal as well, to pay for a bevy of social programs that support a huge class of "poor" people who do not work. We already are subsidizing around twenty-million illegals alone.

What needs to be done is to eliminate a good deal of those social programs.

Also people need to learn to manage their finances better.

Bush's taxcuts are crazy in light of the war we're waging.

Those poor rich people paying all those taxes aren't giving any in the form of flesh serving in this glorious occupation of Iraq. So, excuse me for not finding much sympathy for them.

Who said all the wealthy are for the war? You don't punish people for being successful.

And actually, the tax cuts have helped the economy, and no they're not crazy. Defense spending is the lowest it's ever been since the Carter Administration, and currently consists of about 3.3% of U.S. GDP. Trust me, the war in Iraq isn't any strain on the U.S. economy!

Since the tax cuts have helped the economy, people are making more money. More people making more money = more revenue for the government come tax time because 1) they have more people to tax, and 2) they can tax all the people more since they have more money.

Thus the government gets more money from the tax cuts.

Regarding GDP, what takes up most of our GDP is spending on things like Social Security (Social Security is the largest expense), Medicare, and Medicaid.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by WheelsRCool]

It's funny how folks who will never get near that american dream (in reality) keep defending it. Defending the few who do not need their defending.

Ya gotta love America for providing great opportunities for people to flourish economically. But the fact remains, poverty is a terrible problem. To suggest we eliminate social programs, etc. is to live in some kind of non-reality. There are people who are in serious need. As a wealthy nation we have a responsibility to help our own.

To whom much is given....

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
It's funny how folks who will never get near that american dream (in reality) keep defending it. Defending the few who do not need their defending.

Oh, they need their defending, or else we can turn into France, where all the wealthy there are leaving because they tax them 80% of their income.

And how do you know if I will become wealthy or not? Don't criticize. I actually do intend to become wealthy and have plans for it, so And BTW, those high taxes kick in once you hit an income around $200K to $300K. It's not like only those worth over $100 million are taxed super high or something.

Ya gotta love America for providing great opportunities for people to flourish economically. But the fact remains, poverty is a terrible problem. To suggest we eliminate social programs, etc. is to live in some kind of non-reality. There are people who are in serious need. As a wealthy nation we have a responsibility to help our own.

To whom much is given....

Very true, but a good deal of them should be eliminated. That in itself will eliminate poverty a good deal because it will force people to get off their butts and start working. Of course there are always going to be certain people who can't work or for some unfortunate circumstances need welfare for a while, or who just have some bad luck (like the guy whose house burns down with his wife in it and she gets badly burned and he has to sell everything he owns to take care of her(true story), well in that instance, some government help or private charity help would be great).

But right now, we have way too many social programs, and usually working-class Americans do not qualify for most of them.

You know a lot of teenage girls get pregnant specifically because the State will provide them with free healthcare and free education even, and other free stuff. Meanwhile Jane Doe who works hard at her job, paying her bills, who decided NOT to have kids 'till she has the financial means to support them, can't qualify for any of these programs.

Like my cousin, who dropped out of high school, got pregnant, and had a baby. Does she work? Nope. Does she have healthcare for free? Yep, fully covered. does she contribute anything to society? Nope, she doesn't even take care of the minion she had, raising him to be a productive member of society. Biggest spoiled brat around. Almost killed himself with a fork at the restaurant the other night even, because she doesn't watch the little tyke.

Now take my sister. Did she graduate high school? Yep. Does she work her butt off at her job? Yep. She accidentally poked her eye with a pen, but didn't make enough to afford the prescription she needed.

So what does the government say? "You work and by our standards make enough money, so you get nothing." YEAH, she works, HARD, but she barely makes ends meet right now because she hasn't finished college.

But my non-working, lazy-bum cousin would be fully-covered.

Then there's all those illegals we support with free services as I mentioned too.

Also, that guy with the burned wife, I don't think he got any help either from the government. But lazy teens who get pregnant do

Remember, getting rid of a lot of these social programs, which are poorly managed anyhow, would cause a lot of efficiently-managed private charities to spring up in their place that would give the people who really needed help the help and not people who just want to be parasites and live off the State.

And by the way, usually lots of those private charities are set up by wealthy folk. If you tax your wealthy folk too much, they 1) won't spend any money, or 2) will out-and-out leave the country. You don't tax them too much and they then invest in stuff like that (charities), which helps people.

Meanwhile Joe Schmoe commoner isn't having to pay 1/3 of his salary in taxes to support social programs.

So everyone has more money to spend, there's less poverty overall, and of the poverty there is, charities and the few government programs around help it

WheelsRCool - You never said anything about the combined taxation of Italy and to be honest, your understanding of how business taxation and personnal taxation works is lacking.

Even if you own a business and it gets taxed 40%, that tax doesn't get taken directly from the owner. Say the company makes: $100.
Out of that 100, 40 is taken as tax. Thus you are left with 60 to pay all of the workers. If you were not taxed that 40% your work force would expect higher pay, so on and so fourth. Thus you don't loose 40% there are so many other things to take into account and you refuse to do that to try and make your point.

Furthermore here's what you said:

Well gee, yeah, they only tax businesses about 80% of their money, so why would anyone set up shop over there?

You did nothing but to change your arguement as soon as you were proven wrong you change it.

In fact: accoridng to - U.S. Department of Labor, unemployment as of May 2007- the USA has a 4.5% unemployment rate. This is in fact not much lower than Sweden which as an unemployment rate of 5.4% - Eurostat February 2007 - Euro area unemployment down to 7.3%, March 30, 2007 - and just under 2% of that are in Government based work programs, which are paid for by private industy but placed in the "unemployment" section.

Italy is at roughly 7%, according to the National Institute of Statistic. This is hardly the double which you claim here:

Countries such as France and Italy have unemployment rates almost double what America has.

You do nothing more than bend the truth, time and time again. If you can not be bothered to post accurate data, along with the sources do not bother to post lies. I also do believe it is against the Terms and Conditions of the website.

It was the advance of capitalism, as businesses competed, that repaired these.

Explain why it was fine for over 600 years than? Why did it suddenyl change when people started to get laws to make it change...odd that. What a lucky break for you. That the same moment people made laws reguarding working conditions they got better, of course when there were no laws and we lived under extreme capitalism nothing changed - the rich got richer, we slaved in farms for them but they never changed things.

Child-labor laws only caused children to be forced into other means of employment, such as prostitution.

Indeed - which is why social programs to remove child poverty changed things. It wasn't the laws to stop children from working, nor was it the rich, it was placing a burden on parents (and thus forcing them in many reguards to have less children), along with a free education, etcetera that changed things.

It was the education (which was given to all) that allowed children to escape having to work. Not the child labour laws.

This is where I say you live in a fantasy land though. Yes, it would be nice, but ONLY ANT COLONIES AND BEE HIVES ACT LIKE THAT. People don't. Even if you try to force them to, they don't. People aren't like insects. We are people. The system that lets people be jerks to each other, but still creates very high standards of living, is what you want. That system is capitalism.

Really?

Why do so many groups not live like this?

Reference:
Bushmen of the kalahari.
Sanema tribe.

I can go on and on.

Fact is, capitalism isn't human nature. They do not go hand-in-hand with one another, there are thousands of instances of large scale groups (in the hundreds) happily sharing everything. Capitalism is a product of socialization.

Yes, we also kinda nuked Japan in WWII as well, but they recovered just fine, as heck of a lot better than most any European nation has. South Korea too.

Why is South Korea below:
Italy.
The United Kingdom
France.
I can go on and on.

I think you'll find Sweden also has a higher Per-Capita Income than Japan does. Japan is in fact 20th in the World in this reguard, below a lot of Nations with National Health Care and Poverty schemes. (International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, April 2007)

Yes, that doesn't mean their economy still couldn't be a heck of a lot better. By North American standards, it still stinks.

Tell that to those in Norway who on average earn: $28,000 more in Norway than you do in the USA. In fact the USA only has a $2000 more Per-Capita Income than Sweden does. $2000 US: D for free health care, child care, etcetera, etcetera. In fact, if you do a bit of research with the cost of heallth care (dental, medical), gym membership, etcetera, the Swedish family end up with more money.

Oh yeah:

Nor is Sweden really successful because of socialism. Their primary income is from oil.

Lie.

Sweden emerged as a welfare state, consistently achieving a high position among the top-ranking countries in the UN Human Development Index (HDI). Sweden has a rich supply of water power, but lacks significant oil and coal deposits.

Source:
Wikipedia: Sweden
Sweden plans to be world's first oil-free economy. The Guardian, 2/8/06.

Sweden doesn't have any oil. It imports oil.

Where do you get your facts from then?

What you talk of never could work because you believe in Communism I think, where everyone should sacrifice for the community.

And

And Switzerland is not socialist.

Which is why you have no understanding of what I suggest. So don't assume you do.

I have no problem showing time and time again where you lie. It's pretty easy, but it is boring. If you are going to make such outlandish claims about Europe and European Nations - get your facts right.