Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How magnanimous of you. So, everyone who disagrees with your political philosophy is "driven by greed," I suppose?
I would suggest, then, that you refuse your tax break, and voluntarily return it to the government. In fact, you don't have to wait to be taxed ...pay as much as you want.
The problem with you people is that you think that those who are successful got rich "on the backs of the poor," not by any effort of their own. You think there is one "big pie" of wealth, and some have more than their share. You buy into this garbage, which isn't supported by any theory of economics.
Success is achieved through hard work and perseverance. Those who persevere are driven, not by greed (though some may be), but by a desire to accomplish something, to bring some idea to fruition. I have known some of these people, because I have worked for them. They began with an idea, and built a business on that idea, beginning in their garage to produce a product for some specific purpose. The particular people I'm thinking of here were interested in vibration analysis, and developed and built equipment to monitor vibration in machinery. That was many years ago, and such equipment is in common use today.
Others are interested in financial security, and achieve a certain amount of wealth through smart money management and investment. This was my fathers case. He worked as a purchasing agent for a large Cleveland manufacturer (Lincoln Electric) but saved and invested, achieving a high level of financial security, which put all of his children through college, and secured his retirement (he even retired early). He was anything but greedy. We weren't "rich" (though some thought we were) but had a large home in the country, a sailboat (in later years) and a vacation home at a lake.
But to you, my father was "driven by greed," I suppose.
As inequality has skyrocketed, economic growth (the growth of the pie) has slowed down, decade after decade. Economic growth has been lackluster for decades now and it will continue to slow down if inequality increases further. Wake up, the elites who hoard wealth dont care about economic pie growth. They care about rigging the system to their advantage to protect their power and status. This oligarchy you support is not supportive of competition, they are interested in monopolistic power.
When is the wall coming up so you can be protected against the hordes of hispanics that keep you down? Is it coming up soon? Remember, the GOP, which love the poor (but are funded by the super rich and do their bidding) have full control of Congress.
The Dems' gig is up, Mike. Poor people overwhelmingly vote Dem, so Dems want to keep as many people as poor as possible and therefore voting Dem to shore up their voter base. Quickest way to do that while simultaneously depressing wages? Import poverty. Therefore, we have Dem "sanctuary cities/states," Dem opposition to deporting DACAs, and Dem opposition to the border wall.
As inequality has skyrocketed, economic growth (the growth of the pie) has slowed down, decade after decade.
Economic growth is increasing now, and believe me... you WON'T like the results. Why? Because Dems keep importing poverty to keep as many people on the low education/skills range as poor as possible and therefore highly disproportionately Dem voters. It's what Dems have to do to shore up their voter base.
The U.S. is a nation of rubes and suckers. That has consequences. Mainly, longer hours of work for lower pay, and greater profits for the ruling class.
As inequality has skyrocketed, economic growth (the growth of the pie) has slowed down, decade after decade. Economic growth has been lackluster for decades now and it will continue to slow down if inequality increases further. Wake up, the elites who hoard wealth don't care about economic pie growth. They care about rigging the system to their advantage to protect their power and status. This oligarchy you support is not supportive of competition, they are interested in monopolistic power.
Neither the "size of the pie" nor the rate of its growth, has been that much of a factor; the problem is that Madison Avenue and Hollywood continue to lead all of us to pursue the more personal-service/attention-intensive luxuries at the top; things that everyone likes to have, but nobody wants to spend a demeaning day (or worse, evening or weekend) providing -- and for low pay, because unlike physical goods, these "goods" can't be easily measured, stored, or withheld.
And while I'm sure a lot of people aren't going to like what I'm about to say, the emancipation of women, while both certain and necessary, was a driving factor -- more so in an earlier time when marriage was more stable. The extra income generated by a spouse working outside the home provided for more of the finer things in life, but it also pushed the family into a higher tax bracket, so that the "new" money was over-spent, while the necessities formerly provided by the sole breadwinner continued to be taken for granted.
Take a closer look at the garbage peddled as "news", and aimed at sheltered adolescents by the likes of msn.com and Yahoo, and you'll get more of the picture.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 01-04-2018 at 06:58 AM..
The American right wing media calls much of Europe Socialist. They are parliamentary democracies. The dominant political parties are the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats.
Others are interested in financial security, and achieve a certain amount of wealth through smart money management and investment. This was my fathers case. He worked as a purchasing agent for a large Cleveland manufacturer (Lincoln Electric) but saved and invested, achieving a high level of financial security, which put all of his children through college, and secured his retirement (he even retired early). He was anything but greedy. We weren't "rich" (though some thought we were) but had a large home in the country, a sailboat (in later years) and a vacation home at a lake.
Those were the days. Someone working a normal job these days would not be able to do that, even being frugal.
It's a different world. I get why millennials are upset, but younger boomers and gen-x missed out too. We should be more ticked off because we were not woke, no internet, tried to follow the rules and got the door slammed in our faces. We didn't understand why our corporate job did not offer a pension because not only did our dad have one but our older siblings did too. They also got cheap houses and cars. And that was the end of that.
Those were the days. Someone working a normal job these days would not be able to do that, even being frugal.
Actually, they would be able to. It only requires living below ones means and saving/investing the rest.
What liberals/Dems have failed to realize is that by endorsing importing illegal aliens and their poverty, they've depressed wages and reduced the former American standard of living. It was the choice they made, however, so they can't whine and complain about it now.
I read Mussolini's biography. Yes, he was initially a Socialist. There was a break between Mussolini and international Socialists at some point and Mussolini renounced Socialism. I think that he considered it unproductive.
I accept your quotes from Hitler as true. Important differences between National Socialism and Communism is that industry was still owned by Germany's elite as long as they played ball with the Wolf.
Thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Are you sure about that? Or were individuals still subjugated to the good of the whole, a basic socialist tenet, under Mussolini's dictatorship?
I stand by what I said regarding the break with Socialism. You can find it in the first hundred pages of Mussolini by Jasper Ridley. I'm not saying that some of the beliefs that he had as a Socialist did not carry over into his Fascist period. The break with organized Socialism that I spoke of was a break with the Socialist intellectuals of Europe.
It was also published in Il Popolo d'Italia around 1920 that Mussolini was opposed to bolshevism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
