Anything that costs money isn't helping. You're going after something that isn't even the worst offender though. United States foreign policy has done more damage than welfare could ever hope to but I guess you'd rather blame poor people.

I completely agree we need a change with the system. I'm not happy with the way things are being run right now either. Any system is subject to human flaw. That's my arguement, how is this system going to change the fact that your corporations are 'facist' and greedy? How are you going to convince people that this system is any better than the one we have? How long will it work before it fails?

You seem pretty dead set on your approach, and as usual are being very pretentious and non-receptive of other peoples views, I've come to expect nothing more from you. You know where I stand, I think we should be more concerned with fixing the systems already in place rather than jumping ship for something we don't know that will work. Slavery also has nothing to do with capitalism or democracy, so why even mention it?

You're the one arguing for an extreme sort of capitalism and against progressive tax. It's laissez-faire policies like those that fueled the South's reliance on slavery. It was about productivity and profit not humanity. It's the same idealism that you're espousing. That's why I mentioned it.

If you don't understand how Communism is going to change greedy corporations then again, your showing your own ignorance of political history and theory. By promoting worker ownership and placing corporations in the hands of the people you eliminate that greed because the institutions of society are now under democratic control as opposed to autocratic control. They would exist then to serve the masses as opposed to the corporate elite.

It's not blaming the poor people. It's not about being poor at all. It's about people who care, and are economically concious, and people who aren't and don't care. Basically, to look at the country as a team, some people pull their weight and some don't. Some people hog the damn ball and don't let anyone else have it. That's the problem in a nutshell from where I see it. I also agree that he foreign policy has caused a ton of problems.

You're looking at the wrong class when it comes to hogging the ball. The top five percent control over ninety percent of the wealth in the United States.

Thats who I was reffering to, or at least trying to in my analogy, and your stats are a little off, it's unbalanced, but not that unbalanced.

As of 2004.
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/fac...thIncome07.gif

Source: Survey of Consumer Finances

No. What did you do there?

@ Tore, quickly:

Something notable about American government representatives. Local government has a far greater effect on the day to day life of people and almost always the people who make up local government are local people who represent their constitutes well. It's much easier for a small coutry with a pretty common ancestry like Norway to find people to "represent the citizens on a national level then a global melting pot of manifest destiny like the United States.

@ All

I am going to try and bring everything full circle here.


What Sleepy Jack and Wayfarer (are Tore ideologically) are arguing for is a complete changing of philosophy in American government and economics, I believe an overhaul of the current system would produce quicker and more mass appealing results.

What are the tangible negative effects?:
I don't have a problem with the class system, it's an inevitability when you give people complete freedom. It's unfortunate I suppose, but I don't see many negative consequences of it other then a ideological inequity. However the beauty of America in my opinion is that you can exist outside the class system if you choose to. A single man\woman making $30,000 a year before taxes can live a very good life in Michigan (and much of the United States); own a house (mortgage obviously), drive a new or relatively new car, and still have money left over after the essentials to save or spend on entertainment and hobbies. You don't even need a college degree to make that kind of money. A full-time cook at my neighbors restaurant makes $15\Hr. That's right about $2500 a month or $30,000 a year. Teachers are often considered underpaid but a first year teacher at the public high school I last taught at makes a starting salary of $27,000 and that's for 9 1/2 Months of work.


Bottom Line to me:
I can still get what I want and help others get what they want without telling anyone else what they can or can't do. Socialism is a bully. It says I (the government) know better then you and can do everything (slight hyperbole) better then you. I am not okay with that and neither are a lot of Americans, particularly those like me who have come from very humble beginnings. I've never felt like there was anything realistic I could not accomplish if I was patient and disciplined enough and though I have certainly fallen short of some of my goals I never felt like it was because the system held me back, it was because someone else out performed or outworked me.

Again it's about motivation & options to me:
I have less money, I have fewer options and if the more money I make, the higher I am taxed on each dollar, the less likely I am to work to my full potential.
Now I do respect the altruistic nature of the opposing view. Putting the basic needs of everyone above the freedom of choice of the few or at least lesser population. But I don't feel like that's necessary, I don't believe everyone deserves to be treated equal though. I think the rules should be the same for everyone, but those who abuse the system should not be a burden to those who enhance it.

I hate to sound heartless and I hope I don't:
Of course not all people on welfare or government assistance abuse the system. But many do. Sure not all wealthy people are generous and hard working, but many are, a much greater percentage then I've heard anyone here acknowledge.

I think the fundamental difference in opinions here is this:
I trust the people to do a better job then the government.
Those in favor of bigger government do not.
We can all agree the current system is broken.
We can all agree that equality whenever possible is an admirable goal.
We can all agree that personal choice freedom is a good and valuable thing.

I'm not sure there is much more to it all then this, let me know what you guys think.

The top 20% controlled 85% of the wealth is only a little unbalanced? And that's only from 2004, before Bush/Obama started giving billion dollar bail outs and the tax cut shifted those figures even more than they already had. The divide between classes has been getting bigger and bigger since the mid-seventies. It's not really arguable nor is the inequality, seeing as the United States has one of the biggest wealth gaps of all the industrialized nations.

Why can't we all just share the wealth without the intervention of the government?