US views of Capitalism v Socialism

#101
#101
Yes we gotta have some government, but what people need to start seeing them as is a "necessary evil" not a "necessity of life" like they are widely being seen as now. And I also think that poll is showing those numbers now, because People equate capitalism strictly with those big bankers in three piece suits schmoozing politicians. I argue alot of the business being conducted today by major corporations, is far more socialism (I'm sorry but if the gov't is involved with investment in your company in any form that is socialism not capitalism). And this has been happening for years. Success needs to be decided by hard work and innovation, not by who you have paid off or buddied up with in Capital Hill (states or DC).
 
#102
#102
joevol24 said:
We do need more constitutionalists in government today. The founding fathers framed the constitution the way they did for a reason. It is not something to be loosely interpreted when someone decides they don't like the rules outlined to them.
Click to expand...

Washington wanted to preserve his money!

He had the largest distillery in the United States at one point.

If you want to make money and a lot of it, the opportunity is there.

What we don't need is the gov't rewarding failure!
 
#103
#103
droski said:
if there are people who are making more money then they deserve than clearly others must see this and clearly others would flock to that profession. for instance take a look at the growth of stock brokers during the late 90s. i don't believe these irregularities last for a lifetime.

right you don't deserve more because you are not willing to work longer. thanks for proving my point. call it lazy or call it values, but there is a good reason. it's not because the rich are screwing you (like obama would like you to believe).
Click to expand...

Yet the fact remains there will always be people who have things they shouldn't.

At this point I'm not Upper-class, but I do think that burdening the Upper-class with excessive taxes is the worst thing that the government could do. I don't feel that an overwhelming majority of those earning Upper-Class salaries don't deserve them.

Overburdening one class while giving the others a free ride is terrible. Goes all ways.
 
#104
#104
OrangeYankee said:
Yes we gotta have some government, but what people need to start seeing them as is a "necessary evil" not a "necessity of life" like they are widely being seen as now. And I also think that poll is showing those numbers now, because People equate capitalism strictly with those big bankers in three piece suits schmoozing politicians. I argue alot of the business being conducted today by major corporations, is far more socialism (I'm sorry but if the gov't is involved with investment in your company in any form that is socialism not capitalism). And this has been happening for years. Success needs to be decided by hard work and innovation, not by who you have paid off or buddied up with in Capital Hill (states or DC).
Click to expand...

Amen!

The failure that is gov't run medical researching will never ever hold a candle to the Hughes Institute!
 
#105
#105
Cartervol said:
People need to take control of their own finances. Quit blaming society or looking for a way to get a free ride. If you want more in life do something about it. Quit using society for a crutch.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better.
 
#106
#106
What we don't need is the government meddling in everyone's everyday life. Most things the federal government are trying to take care of now are not federal issues. State and local government mean nothing anymore.
 
#107
#107
TENNFOLD1974 said:
So what your saying is you have no problem with somebody endrinching themselves with Sloth as long as it doesn't effect your wallet.
Click to expand...

I do not mean this as a personal jab but from many of your posts I get the feeling that you are pretty upset with the set of circumstances in your personal life. I don't know whether it is money or what but i get the distinct impression that you are unhappy with your current circumstances. Believe me I understand (I have been there), but the sooner you realize all those who are "better off" than you have no bearing what so ever on your current problems. Only you have the power to change your circumstances. The minute you give up hope and count on some force other than yourself to make it better you have already lost and there will be no hope or change that will make it better.
 
#108
#108
OrangeYankee said:
Yes we gotta have some government, but what people need to start seeing them as is a "necessary evil" not a "necessity of life" like they are widely being seen as now. And I also think that poll is showing those numbers now, because People equate capitalism strictly with those big bankers in three piece suits schmoozing politicians. I argue alot of the business being conducted today by major corporations, is far more socialism (I'm sorry but if the gov't is involved with investment in your company in any form that is socialism not capitalism). And this has been happening for years. Success needs to be decided by hard work and innovation, not by who you have paid off or buddied up with in Capital Hill (states or DC).
Click to expand...

Great post
 
#109
#109
OrangeYankee said:
Yes we gotta have some government, but what people need to start seeing them as is a "necessary evil" not a "necessity of life" like they are widely being seen as now. And I also think that poll is showing those numbers now, because People equate capitalism strictly with those big bankers in three piece suits schmoozing politicians. I argue alot of the business being conducted today by major corporations, is far more socialism (I'm sorry but if the gov't is involved with investment in your company in any form that is socialism not capitalism). And this has been happening for years. Success needs to be decided by hard work and innovation, not by who you have paid off or buddied up with in Capital Hill (states or DC).
Click to expand...

Nice post. :good!:
 
#110
#110
KB5252 said:
I do not mean this as a personal jab but from many of your posts I get the feeling that you are pretty upset with the set of circumstances in your personal life. I don't know whether it is money or what but i get the distinct impression that you are unhappy with your current circumstances. Believe me I understand (I have been there), but the sooner you realize all those who are "better off" than you have no bearing what so ever on your current problems. Only you have the power to change your circumstances. The minute you give up hope and count on some force other than yourself to make it better you have already lost and there will be no hope or change that will make it better.
Click to expand...
Hey man it's all good i didn't take it personal.There is some on here however that have a motive for making things personal.But it takes a lot to get me going.
If you only knew my situation.
 
#111
#111
The whole notion of "what someone deserves" is troubling to me. What is the definition of what someone deserves?

As for me, I make good money. Is it more than I deserve? Who's to say. I went to college for 11 years. I lived on very little for a long time. I made choices all along the way.
 
#112
#112
rjd970 said:
My point is the same, you're just too busy focusing on what you want and feel the need to be defensive.

How about this? The middle class is far better off today than they were before. The upper class is far, far, far, far, far, far better off than they were before.
Click to expand...

This may be an overly simplistic way to view the economy, but this is the way I look at it. I have 2 assumptions:

1. The majority of the poor and the middle class spend most of their income - in a lot of cases they spend more than they make by racking up debt. They buy depreciating assets that eat away at their income.

2. The rich invest a lot of money. They buy assets that appreciate over time.

Based on those two assumptions, doesn't it make sense that when the economy booms the income of the rich grows exponentially while the poor remain static? Is there anything wrong with that reasoning?

If that reasoning is sound, It seems to me the only solution to decrease the gap between wealthy and poor is to kill the economy. Of course, then everyone suffers.
 
#113
#113
red butler said:
This may be an overly simplistic way to view the economy, but this is the way I look at it. I have 2 assumptions:

1. The majority of the poor and the middle class spend most of their income - in a lot of cases they spend more than they make by racking up debt. They buy depreciating assets that eat away at their income.

2. The rich invest a lot of money. They buy assets that appreciate over time.

Based on those two assumptions, doesn't it make sense that when the economy booms the income of the rich grows exponentially while the poor remain static? Is there anything wrong with that reasoning?

If that reasoning is sound, It seems to me the only solution to decrease the gap between wealthy and poor is to kill the economy. Of course, then everyone suffers.
Click to expand...

Great first post. I believe you've hit on a fundamental difference in perspectives. Some believe the solution is income equality via bringing the high earners down. Others believe that it matters not what the high earners make so long as the low end is rising.
 
#114
#114
Cartervol said:
People need to take control of their own finances. Quit blaming society or looking for a way to get a free ride. If you want more in life do something about it. Quit using society for a crutch.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with anything said in this thread?
 
#115
#115
volinbham said:
Great first post. I believe you've hit on a fundamental difference in perspectives. Some believe the solution is income equality via bringing the high earners down. Others believe that it matters not what the high earners make so long as the low end is rising.
Click to expand...

Is there a limit though? In 1980, the top 1% controlled 8% of the wealth in the country. In 2007, they controlled 23%. I personally don't care, but is it really beneficial for such a small percentage to control so much? I mean, would we really be having a bustling economy, creating innovation and ecouraging hard work, if say....the top 1% controlled 90% of the wealth? There has to be a cutoff at some point, otherwise nobody would care because the door would be closed from the start.

And I disagree about the inheritance thing. If the right winigery on this board really believed what they were selling about capitalism, hard work, and self-responsibility...then you would be for everybody starting out at on equal footing and letting capitalism, hard work, and self-responsibility take over once the race starts. Of course people should be rewarded for their talents and hard work, I absolutely agree....but we all know we get cases where laziness pays off for some because they simply have the correct last name....and evidently that luck is just as good as hard work and talent to you guys.
 
#117
#117
rjd970 said:
Is there a limit though? In 1980, the top 1% controlled 8% of the wealth in the country. In 2007, they controlled 23%. I personally don't care, but is it really beneficial for such a small percentage to control so much? I mean, would we really be having a bustling economy, creating innovation and ecouraging hard work, if say....the top 1% controlled 90% of the wealth? There has to be a cutoff at some point, otherwise nobody would care because the door would be closed from the start.

And I disagree about the inheritance thing. If the right winigery on this board really believed what they were selling about capitalism, hard work, and self-responsibility...then you would be for everybody starting out at on equal footing and letting capitalism, hard work, and self-responsibility take over once the race starts. Of course people should be rewarded for their talents and hard work, I absolutely agree....but we all know we get cases where laziness pays off for some because they simply have the correct last name....and evidently that luck is just as good as hard work and talent to you guys.
Click to expand...

It is their parents money, who flippin cares what life style the kid(s) have. It is his families money, the goverment has no right to take any of that away!
 
#119
#119
rjd970 said:
Is there a limit though? In 1980, the top 1% controlled 8% of the wealth in the country. In 2007, they controlled 23%. I personally don't care, but is it really beneficial for such a small percentage to control so much? I mean, would we really be having a bustling economy, creating innovation and ecouraging hard work, if say....the top 1% controlled 90% of the wealth? There has to be a cutoff at some point, otherwise nobody would care because the door would be closed from the start.

And I disagree about the inheritance thing. If the right winigery on this board really believed what they were selling about capitalism, hard work, and self-responsibility...then you would be for everybody starting out at on equal footing and letting capitalism, hard work, and self-responsibility take over once the race starts. Of course people should be rewarded for their talents and hard work, I absolutely agree....but we all know we get cases where laziness pays off for some because they simply have the correct last name....and evidently that luck is just as good as hard work and talent to you guys.
Click to expand...


so, the government should take it and do what with the money that someone in their family has earned?
 
#120
#120
rjd970 said:
Really? Who said anything about needing to depend on the governement? We are having a discusion on income distribution statistics.
Click to expand...

18% of your parties voting block.

I get up for work for the first 81 work days to pay for their lifestyle.
 
#122
#122
T-TownVol said:
[/B]

so, the government should take it and do what with the money that someone in their family has earned?
Click to expand...

Who said anything about the government getting it? Let Jr.'s inheritence get capped at a certain amount, I don't know...a couple million....have the rest dispersed to tax-exempt charities, and let little Jr. get by on his hard work talents from thenceforth.
 
#123
#123
rjd970 said:
Who said anything about the government getting it? Let Jr.'s inheritence get capped at a certain amount, I don't know...a couple million....have the rest dispersed to tax-exempt charities, and let little Jr. get by on his hard work talents from thenceforth.
Click to expand...

You just did. Who is going to take it and "disperse" it?
This is just studip.
 
#124
#124
T-TownVol said:
do you truly not see the connection
Click to expand...

Yes...I see the connection...and I see the same line being used over and over again no matter how little relevence it has to the discussion at hand...rah rah rah hand clapping from everybody....and then immediate hypocrisy that is counterintuitive to what you said.

The top 5% make equal what the bottom 80% make.

...oh yeah? You shouldn't depend on the government for anything and be responsible for your own decisions! You got owned!!
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top