Why is it that everyone that wants socialism

The consumers will make that determination via purchases on the free market. If the consumer has a problem with rich people, then the consumer needs to stop buying the rich person's product.

 

In a fair society, that is the way it would work.

 

Consumers didn't suddenly decide to make purchases redistributing income from the bottom 90% to the top 1% in 1981.



Something else happened that year.

 

Only to a conservative could "fair" mean that a family struggling to get on $20,000 by pays the same dollar amount of tax as guy making a hundred million.

 

...

 

Why are you so concerned with the difference of income?

You are arguing from the "have not"mentality.

 

That is false. I said nothing about people making more than me in any post.

It is sad you have to fabricate what others' say to try to make an argument.

Follow your own advice.

I said nothing about stealing money from anyone.

Again, you have to resort to falsehoods to make an argument.

Wish I could say it was unusual for conservatives.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I do try to help them.

Please cite and quote my post where I was complaining because people were making more than me.

It's funny the ones who talk most about "honesty" are the ones making the most falsehoods.

I agree that overall our tax system is not very progressive, or is regressive. "Trickle down" at work.

It's only "loaded" to you because you don't want to face up to the fact since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, the richest have been getting a larger and larger share of the nation's income while the working middle class are getting less and less.

For some, more is never enough.

I never claimed you were a collectivist. A 1% apologist is more like it.

LOL, you obviously don't know s***.

 

Couple reasons.

First, I do think it is unfair that the bottom 90% of working Americans (as a group) have gotten virtually none of the income and growth they have helped produce since 1980, while virtually all of the growth and prosperity has gone to the top 10%, and mostly to the top 1% or 1/10%.

Second, IMO it hurts our economy to have an ever increases concentration of income and wealth in the hands of a few. The economy is 70% spending, and the middle classes are the great engine of spending. The rich proportionally spend less of their income and can afford to put a larger portion of it in their portfolio and offshore accounts, where it doesn't help our spending starved economy.

You are arguing from the "greed" mentality.

 

Have you been to the UK? Spend a few days in London and you'll get a glimpse of what the US would be like if Hillary had prevailed. On the matter of healthcare, I'm a long ways past 55 which in the UK is the magic number between who gets to live or die. If I were a brit, at the age I am now and needed a transplant of say a liver or kidney they'd tell me to go home and get my affairs in order because I was going to die. Even with the crap Obama left you with this would not be an issue. If Obamacare had continued in the Dem's model there would have to have been death panels to keep it sustainable. As it is America will never recover from what that delusional SOB did to our healthcare. If you think you can do better in some socialist paradise please go, I'm sure the grass is much greener in dreamland.

 

Is it any worse than having a system that allows a handful of wealthiest families own and control 98% of the nation's wealth while the other 98% of our population competes for the 2% of scraps that remain? Can we honestly define this as a successful system?

 

No it isn't.

You are overly concerned about other people's wealth.

So without using government force how do you redistribute wealth?

Keep in mind I view taxation as theft.

How so?

I think it has to do with people thinking an individual's wealth is just what the government allows them to have. When in reality the government's money is confiscated wealth that others generate.

Incorrect. It is loaded because I have to accept that individuals do not make wealth. I already explained this.

I am not entirely farmiliar with Regan era economics and the buzzwords associated there with, on the account that I was about 9 months old at the end of his term.

So?

 

Well .. no. Not so much. I had to pay for my university education.

What it DOES do though, is level the playing field in terms of opportunity. When everyone has identical access to education (and healthcare), it becomes very clear just who is prepared to take advantage of it, and who isn't. Those who opt not to use such resources to establish their own financial security, can then be disregarded (ie, no welfare). It's a clear choice, made in favour of doing nothing. Nothing pays nothing.

 

But mainly because you argue from the "have not" mentality.

life is not fair and it's not the government's duty to make it fair.

Greed is a fundamental of life the one with the most material survives the longest you can't exercise this from Human Nature. Perhaps one day we can evolve beyond the need for material substance but until that day socialism is a failing proposition.

 

They should be able to live on it. Obviously not in a house alone .. but then no one who is in poverty should be doing that.

 

It's a 'fantasy' to retain solid relationships with other human beings?

The poor in the villages of the Third World work very hard on just that .. because they understand it takes a village.

PS: I'm not 'RW'.

 

Now you're just being infantile. It's typical of many conservatives to make ad homs because they cannot argue their position.

I never said life is not fair. I disagree that it is not the government's duty to make it more fair.

I figured you'd be proud to be greedy. It fits your posts.

 

No.

Good for them.

Prove it.

 

They didn't WANT it.

You're missing the fundamental factor .. the human factor. In a country like America, wealth is available to anyone prepared to work for it. Most of us don't want to work that hard. As in, 90% of us. I sure don't, but I know quite a few people who do .. and have done so. It's a choice, but a choice made by only a small number.

 

So why call it a fantasy then? Only the profoundly awful or profoundly stupid (probably both) person destroys all the relationships in their lives. And clearly such people are determined to make their own lives terrible. We can't nor should help them. It's their choice.

"Good for them"? Making poverty bearable via social cohesion and mutual assistance .. and you disregard it as some sort of irrelevance? All it takes is conformity, responsibility, and obligation. If that's too hard for Special and Unique Flowers, who must go their own way on their own schedule, they deserve everything they get. If that's homelessness, so be it.

Prove I'm not RW? Jeez Louise ...

 

LOL, you're claiming the bottom 90% didn't want to share in the country's growth and prosperity.

The things you guys come up with.

I'm sorry. The bottom 90% of working Americans didn't suddenly decided they didn't want to make more money or be wealthier starting in 1981.



Nor did the top 1% suddenly start working twice as hard in 1981.

Something else happened that year.

 

What is the fantasy that is that "solid relationships with other human beings" is going to keep tens of millions of old Americans off the streets.

I have no problem with mutual assistance.

But thinking that "social cohesion and mutual assistance" is going to provide for scores of millions of elderly Americans is just RW fantasy.

I read some of your posts. I take it back.

 

Of course they WANT it, who the hell doesn't want inordinate amounts of money. But they don't want it enough to do the work to obtain it.

We all want it if it's 'free', but only 10% of us want it really truly.

This is like, Stuff 101. So basic and obvious that I suspect you're dodging.

 

Sorry. The bottom 90% of hard working Americans didn't suddenly start wanting "free stuff" and stopped wanting to work in 1981.



Something else happened that year.

 

In the truest sense of the word "fair," the rules would be the same for everyone and apply equally regardless of race, creed, or income.

Fair - marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism

Laws that take more from one citizen than another are certainly not impartial, and not free from favoritism. The Income Tax laws certainly favor the poor. So sure, we can say it is "correct" or "proper" or "in the best interest of society" to tax the rich more and actually give "earned income credit" back to the poor, but it certainly isn't fair in the truest sense of the word.

In a "fair" society, the laws would affect everyone in the same way. But in reality, the world isn't fair, so a progressive income tax is generally accepted as the proper way to go. I'm okay with that. Not fair, but acceptable.

 

But solid relationships of mutual assistance is exactly what keeps the poor Third Worlder off the street, and the Amish, and any other socially cohesive and mutually responsible group - even a family. In such groups, each individual understands that they have this obligation to others, and must behave accordingly. You can't opt out (via behaviour), without leaving the group. To stay in it (whether a family, a friend group, a cultural group, a village), you must remain responsible to it.

It only doesn't work for millions of elderly Americans because they've attempted to opt out. Had they made and retained a solid social grouping, they would not be struggling alone. And the reason they try to opt out of social responsibility? Because they've been led to believe people are optional, and are spoiled by ready money. It's a disease of the rich and the safe, IOW.