Am I a "stinking commie pinko dirtbag because I want" .............

.... wealth redistributed to eliminate the top one half of one percent, the media regulated, the oil and health care industries nationalized, and all businesses more highly regulated?

Hello All. I'm new to this site, and this is my first post.

Am I to understand that some (many) of you feel that if you work hard,
and pull yourself up by your bootstraps and make a buck, that you would
be okay with someone telling you that you are required to hand some
of your earnings to people who didn't or wouldn't work?

which is a wrong assumption.


no, i wouldnt have a problem with giving a higher percent of taxes if i made more than enough to buy material thing i needed.

infact, most left leaning ideaologies(socialism and and the extreme communism) actually emphasize low unemployment. if you can work, you should work, and there should be a job available to you at all times to do so.

What is my motivation to work hard to get ahead in life,
if someone is going to prevent me from getting ahead simply
so others can keep up?

My wife (English Teacher) says it sounds way to much like
Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut.

. . .it is a desire for self-actualization, once basic needs are met. If self-actualization is engaged through the acquisition of wealth and power, then it is, in fact, not really self-actualization, but merely a misguided attempt to achive the need for luxury/comfort that has already been achieved.

And, if you are so insecure that you actually believe you can be demotivated by helping others a little less fortunate, than there is really not much others can say.

The Professor

Marginally raising taxes doesn't prevent anybody from getting wealthy. Reagan's "supply side" economics and the Laffer curve are bullshit. An increase in taxes does not automatically result in a decrease in productivity.

They are not just harmless royals but what I call "economic royals" with billions in off shore banks. They don't want to pay taxes in the society they prosper from or had opportunity. They send others to war to die, suffer the rest of their lives, etc. while they sit and watch the chaos on TV.

isnt as important as having more than everyone else....

then yes, i guess there is no motivation to be had for ya.

you act as if they are trying to take everything away from you though, which just isnt the case. even in countries where they already tax people like doctors and lawyers way more than the average person, they still pull in over very large incomes (alot are over 100gs a year) that goes into their pockets.

if its done right, everything is done in a fair way...but people with high incomes shouldnt expect tax breaks, and they shouldnt expect to pay low(and definitely not lower) taxes.

think of this way, youre just giving back to the society that gave you the opportunity to succeed.

i guess ultimately it depends on what type of person you are. even jesus said to always work but only gain what you need to live and give the rest away to those who need it.

just dont mistake higher taxes as taking everything away from someone. it leaves plenty in their pockets. way more than the average person , thats for sure.

i personally think the income tax is illegal and unconstitutional... but i understand the functions of taxes , and how if used correctly, can fund a competent(the being the key part) government capable of using the funds to better society and everyone in it. in all honesty , taxes are a good thing... its the way the income tax was created in this country was done so to pay back the big banks for the money we borrowed for them. im pretty sure almost all of your income tax goes to pay the interest on the loan. the system needs to be dramatically changed and THEN you can see proper tax laws succeed.

also,
id hardly go basing anything on a science fiction short story.

1. having a career as opposed to a job
2. having a career you like as opposed to a job you hate
3. No one will stop you from getting ahead, a socialized system will allow the rich to exist, you will just get ahead more slowly once you get to the level of upper middle class.
4. you will still have the possibility of having a luxury car, house, lots of vacation, and as much golf as you want if you are successful

MUST ... WIN!!!

and the meme that people who get public assistance wouldn't work it tired and old.

You must live in a very rich neighborhood where you don't see
all of the people who cheat the system to get their undeserved
government handouts.

Don't I have the right to be angry about tax dollars funding the lazy?

I don't mind tax dollars paying to support those who really need it.
But I see the bad side every day.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm looking for clarification and understanding.

Those who opt to sling insults without even offering
constructive criticism... speak highly of yourself.

Is that part of your work ethic?

If I made a sweeping generalization, I apologize.
But I don't believe I did.

I live in an area that is at least 1/4 section eight housing. My sister is a social worker, my mother a county alcohol detox nurse, of course some people, in pockets, game the system. But this goes for rich and poor alike.

I also know many people who try damn hard to survive on their own but turn to public assistance to help them through dry spells..

where many of the hardest working individuals live... and they need foodstanps to feed the family

At times that is not enough either (yes have found myself paying for milk or cheese that the WIC didn't cover)

I am sure a social worker or two interviewed these families,as well as many others that are just as hard working

There was a time when my father was working two jobs and my mother one (shortly after the steel belt turned into the rust belt) and we needed food stamps..

are not poor individuals but very wealthy corporations...

And forcing big farm corporations to actually compete on the international market like we force every other industry to.

Around here we don't think people on welfare are lazy.
Most Democrats believe in some kind of social safety.

I just want rich people (many of whom are rich from inheritance and not anything they did) to pay their fair share. After all, they get rich off the sweat of the poor that work for them, they should give something back.

about taxes funding the lazy. Nobody can tell you how to feel about things.

But, that's really chump change. If you see it, then it affects you. But it doesn't amount to much in the total budget.

I think many are also angry about tax dollars funding the incredibly wealthy. The tax breaks offered to Haliburton, Exxon, the bailouts offered to huge national banks, the tax dollars squandered on non-competitive drug company pricing, the billions spent on war to support oil companies, these things piss me off. Way more than some small-time scam to get a little bling with "free money".

If some exec is motivated to work hard for that $50 million a year, would they be half as motivated if the taxes cut them to $25 million a year? Or is $25 million a year too low, not worth getting out of bed in the morning?

I'm not sure nationalizing the oil industry is a good idea, but it's worth discussing. I do think nationalizing health care is a good idea.

poor. Corporations get billions of our tax dollars and no one thinks of that as welfare (some not even American). Little is spent on welfare as part of our budget. It is propagandized to divide us so we won't go after the real lazy people (CEOs, politicians, bankers, industrial military complex, etc.).

Lazy economic rich! Get out of our pocket, hard work, and country. Go live in a 3rd world country where you do your business. See how safe you and your family will be?

I'm tired of funding lazy corporations...

I'm tires of funding lazy children who only go to school instead of work...

I'm tired of funding lazy mexicans who won't fix their country...

I'm tired of funding lazy Gulf Coasters...

Cheating the system is the american way, buddy, deal with it. Profit first; society second. Those who steal welfare are pure Randians.

I'm not directing this at you personally, dwebb210, as I'm new here too, but to the idea of "people cheating welfare."
Whenever I hear that, my blood boils and I just want to scream at the first person I see. Who are all these people who cheat the system? And where are they? Is the man that lives in a 2-room house, who cannot keep a job because he has to deal with the guilt, shame, terror, whatever he feels, of knowing that he was held prisoner for 4 years getting raped every day by his father, is he lazy because he has to rely on welfare? Is he scum? Is he what the Ayn Rand fascist types hate with every fiber of their being?

Shouldn't he just stop whining? Maybe he could if he could afford therapy, but he can't, because he can't keep a job. He fights just to make it through the day. If this certain man didn't have my grandfather as his best friend, he'd have killed himself long ago. Yeah, this guy really exists, and he's on welfare. I know him personally and he's far from scum, or lazy.

But according to republicans, and those who live by the virtues of selfishness and greed as taught by Ayn Rand types, he IS scum. He IS the lazy person who leeches off welfare. Who else could be? You SERIOUSLY believe there's people out there "cheating" welfare? Who on Earth would accept welfare because they're just lazy? Welfare is NOTHING. I've never seen anyone who abuses welfare; those on welfare are not on it because they just don't feel like working, maybe they're on it because they can't get a job because they were forced to drop out of high school to add more income to the family, (as I did. Had I not dropped out of high school to get a job, my family would be on the streets today, if we were even still alive. I'm 24 but still live with my grandparents, because they would literally be homeless today if not for the extra income I provide from my job.)

There is more over sight of welfare money to the poor than to corporations and religious groups. Billions gone down the black hole of cronyism.

Hugs to you. My grandparents raised me too. They did have money but needed care non-the-less.

There are discouraged middle age people who can't find good jobs in this bad economy (since the 70s for some areas of the country). You need more than minimum wage to pay the rent and drive a car to get to work. Not everyone can live where there is public transportation. They can't afford to move.

The way we treat the mentally ill in this country is just plain cruel.

I already said I was new here.
Is the term "bootstraps" something often used here?
If so, maybe it has a meaning other than what I'm used to.

My gut is telling me that the people who are criticizing me
were born into money.

My parents were dirt farmers, as where everyone before them in my family.

We were very poor. I doubt you have a clue what it is like.

It took a long time, but my family is getting out of that hole.

We didn't take handouts. We worked hard for what we have.

Essentially the definition of pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps.

Can you?

my family too started out poor before WWII and then they moved to the city and became middle class. Many people see this as evidence of not needing government help because their family did not need it. The problem is that the economy is not like it was in the 50's. Today people do not advance economically from generation to generation like before. The social escalator is out of order. Perhaps with the proper regulation we could fix it again. I would love it if people could really all just work their way out of poverty but you would need zero percent jobless and no working poor for that to happen.

. . .is almost never a sign of deep thinking. Just sayin'.
The Professor

And get criticized because of a term I used?

Do you represent what I can expect from the people here?

I criticized the thought process that it reveals. So, you didn't understand the critique

In a large modern society, NOBODY pulls themselves up by their own bootstraps. NOBODY! That's a complete myth.

Everyone succeeds to one degree or another as a result of the social constructs and governmental efforts to level the playing field.

So, a question like yours implies that you should get to decide who to help, who not to help, how much you should yield to society and whether that is proporionally consistent to the wealth and success you attain as a result of the societal structures you did not create.

Hence, the thought process that goes into a statement like that is absent depth. That's what i said the first time.

If the truth hurts, that's on you. Not me.

The Professor

I've read several good posts from you - well said.

the thinking and the legend is very much right wing

It states that you and you alone can pull yourself and become a successful person, with no help from abybody

Since you are typing on your computer into the WWW I will ask... did you develop the system? IN a way you did, or rather your tax dollars did... it was once called the Arpanet... and from that net, connecting two universities back in the 1960s over a low quality phone line on a very low BAUD rate Modern came the net... and there is still research done with YOUR TAX dollars to further develop the net.

This morning, when you went to work... did you ride on a private road? No... that is your taxes at work

The water you used to boil your coffee... if it came from a tap, it was people like us who fought to get safe water standards that allow you to have that water.

What about the bacon you ate this morning? Safe meat processing and handling came from those useless libs

Oh and that eight hour day... and forty hour week... go blame some shiftless workers for it. Some of them literally died for that right.

And while they were dying for those rights Horatio Alger was penning that myth... that you didn't need anybody else to succeed.

Oh and since your family came from the bottom, that public school, came from my taxes...

And care to compare family stories? And unlike you I actually SERVED the country that gave my dad those chances.

DU is like any bar in the USA if you want. There are folks who are quick to insult, others who will discuss with anyone, and many who fall somewhere in between. I for one am always up for good debate with folks I disagree with about whatever issue and am nearly always willing to hear out someones argument.

To let you know why they get angry about the term I think it has something to do with Reagan using the term while he was cutting social spending and government aid. To many of us here Reagan is sort of like the antichrist, much like FDR is to folks on the right.

1st we have to have bootstraps to get our pants to stay up.

the infrastructure you used to pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

And if like republicans, you think everyone should pay the same percentage of their income in taxes, consider that for someone at the poverty level, even a 22% tax would cut into living expenses. For someone wealthy, that same tax would have no visible effect on the survival of the wealthy unless you count a Paris Hilton a couple of generations out.

Consider:

:hi:

He's loving that granite cookie.

Gone, gone and never called me....

Oops, wrong play.

Looks like the little repug got what he had coming.

thus a perfect metaphor for nonsense.

Anyhow, to answer your question, there are many people I would like to help who work and work and work and work, but cannot keep up with food, housing and fuel costs. The only people I know who do not work seem to be useless multimillionaire heirs.

Welcome.

But are you recently sunburned from working in your garden and do you need a shower really bad? :)

I understand your point and frustration, and am now venting to the choir.

Seriously, too many people don't know the difference between socialism and communism.
Most of the ones who would use that term would undertand their bible nor do they understand the actual practice of a "free market" and economics much past the family budget. A free,unregulated market has always ended with corporate socialism - the profit is privatized for the business and it's investers and the risk is socialized to both the consumer and taxpayer. And historically, no free market without regulation has ever succeeded more than about 50 years without taking the society that allowed it into a self-destructive third world atatus, though a very few people will be able to hold onto the wealth they have collected, especially if they collected large amounts of useful land.

Without some sort of regulation, a market is always ripe for abuse not just by hording of resources, but outright fraud - and it's very easy to abuse a commodity market for one's profit by lying and snake oil. People don't remember why the FDA was created, nor what it really was like when you had people slowly dying in alleys (in the cities) and hedges (in rural areas) because they were too marginalized or were no longer useful to society. The cost of protecting the average "working class" family from the vagarities of fate or the whims of the more fortunate or wealthy is to socialize some of the profit as well as all for the risk. Even in the 60's, living comfortably did not mean you needed to be a skilled worker, a professional, or an investor - a neighbor when I was growing up - "Joe Average" - could, starting right out of high school, work a full-time job at a service station, his wife could work a 20 hour job as a claim transcriber (both pretty much minimal wage jobs), and they could still buy and take care of a small house in the city, raise a family with three kids, and send one or two of those children to college if there were no critical medical problems to cut into their budget.
Joe Average as he was then on his average working schmoe's salary(even with the spouse working full time)could not house, feed, and dress his family in the basics, not to mention savings or college on what he could do. And heaven help them if there was a medical problem.
Today's economy is just like the 1900's -the cities are dying as jobs and the supporting wealth is leaving, trapping those in the bottom and lower middle who can't afford to leave. Infrastructure is almost non-existant. People can't afford education to help them become more "marketable" to those who are hiring, or they're overqualified and underpaid for the jobs they can get.

We're in for another revolution, and the only way to protect our increasingly stupid status quo is to shift some commodities to "socialized profit, socialized risk" - you want the majority of your population to be comfortable while being productive, not to be struggling to keep their head over water and getting frustrated with every effort they make to get further in life. Pretty soon, those struggling will turn to violence to get some measure of comfort and self-assurance - and once that cycle starts, it doesn't stop until there's nothing left to fight about.

From one stinky pinko dirtbag retired sailor(just come in from working on the family 10 x 20 "victory garden" set up beacause that's the only way we'll get fresh veggies over this summer the way gas is going...) to another.

Haele

Mine's a bit smaller, but serves a smaller population!

I live in a older city where there are lots of isolated communities within the city, due to our topography, and a lot of people living on either apartments, small plots of land, or over canyons.
I want to rent (or buy if I could come up with a couple mil) an old local gas/service yard triple lot that has been used unsuccessfully as various small craft businesses and turn it into an organic patio "container" or backyard veggie nursery and green home store. Sell mulches, soil treatments, seeds and plantings, garden utensils, pest control, solar panels, water collection/water treatment, and hold regular classes. Have a "buy back" program; if you start a lot of veggie plants and have more than you need, sell them back for store credit. Have a small tiller/wood chipper, and various other garden tools to rent on a weekend basis, maybe have a few local college kids standing by on weekends to do the work for people who want to till their front yard but don't know what to do. Get together with local landscapers, home installation specialists. and nurseries to sell their services. There's a pottery class place across the street, they can sell their designer pots there!

I want to call it "Victory Garden". With today's economy, I think that can be a win-win for the local neighborhood. Especially since the nearest garden store is close to 7 miles and two canyons away.

Haele

A few suggestions that may be helpful -

- There are grants and loans for ag related projects available, especially for innovative projects

- Don't overlook deciduous fruit trees and brambles (berries)

- The extension services from the ag colleges can be very helpful

- Local chapters of organizations - North American Fruit Explorers and Seed Savers and gardening clubs and other groups will work with you - putting on workshops, etc.

- Local farmers can help, as well

...... yeah ...... socialism is what I'm talking about ...... not communism.

But "Socialy Pinko Dirtbag" lacks the je ne sais qua of "Commie Pinko Dirtbag"

And to put an even finer point on it .... I'm advocating no physical harm tot he top half percent. Just that they be brought down from their lofty economic perch, which is supported by your back and mine.

of socialism I say. . .what. . . so you much prefer fascism. . .?

When he says the standard line about "tax and spend Dems" I say . . . so you much prefer loot and waste?

Tax and spend is simply pretty much what most governments do.

I think you are just sensible.

And love your "If I had a 200K windfall" downthread. If I had it, I'd give it to you, and start one myself, too!

to acknowledging my socialism. how could i be a socialist? i'm an american. but i'm disgusted by the corporate welfare state and have watched since reagan the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and deplored it. so, maybe a socialist i am. i think it stems from my humanism. i believe that this planet has the resources to support all the life upon it. i believe in peace. i know i'm not going to see this in my lifetime, but in the last seven years it seems that my country, which once upon a time i believed to be the greatest country in the world, has moved evolutionarily backward, as a very small percentage of its people have led it into terrible places and into committing terrible deeds, which benefit only that very small percentage. the suffering that has ensued is incalculable and most of it was not necessary.

eh. let 'em call me a stinking commie pinko dirtbag. they're either warmongering greedmeisters or willfully ignorant idiots. and look at all the dead bodies; that blood is not on my hands.

so join the club. Heck, I can always use a friend!

Or, if you prefer to be civil and polite about it, you might remind them that currently, you stand on the side of Liberty and the Bushies stand with the Commies and Tyrants of the world.

You can prove it, and quiter easily, too.

Did the USA, up until 2000, (when we were free), ever embrace torture as a national policy all the way to the top? (no.)

Does Imperial Amerika do so now? (yes.)

Did Soviet Russia approve torture all the way to the top? (yes)

Point proven.

Did the USA, up until 2000, (when we were free), ever embrace surveilling every single person in a society and maintaining criminal files on each individual citizen regardless of wrongdoing? (no.)

Does Imperial Amerika do so now? (yes.)

Did Soviet Russia approve surveillance of every single person regardless of whether they had done something wrong, and approved of it the top down? (yes)

Point proven.

Now, you can do this endlessly, as our Empire is now (as a legal entity) the spit and image of the old Soviet Union, though we peasants are treated more nicely...as in the fist hasn't closed YET.

I also know that talking to a Bushie is as fruitless as talking to a Nazi, for they are menatlly similar beings (click the second link of my sigline to understand that this is NOT hyperbole in the least, but psychologically valid fact well grounded in decades of research on authoritarianism.

Here is the link in case siglines are still down:

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

In either case, the point I wastrying to make is that you would probably be happier and saner if you don't bother wasting time trying to reason with Bushies or Nazis and just go straight to telling them to go fuck themselves.

What makes the Commie calumny coming from a Bushie more disgusting is that they have literally become the spit and image of the Commies, leaders and followers alike. From telling lies 98%+ of the time to the incesssant used of the instruments of the state to destroy opposition and dozens of other aspects, the Bushies ARE the Commies reborn.

So just go tell them to fuck themselves and that THEY are the inheritors of the Soviet Way, which is now the Bushie Way.

they decided to use that freedom to fuck over the whole damn world. If we were to shoot them all but keep the laws the same another crop of blankety blanks would just take their place. Time to regulate them out of existence.

Tax them till they bleed for all I care.

What she said.

:loveya:

We in America don't believe in monarchs or royals. They aren't chosen by god or man to be so filthy rich on our backs.

Hello from another "stinking commie pinko dirtbag."

:hi:

Our numbers are growing as shit gets worse here in the U.S.

Welcome Comrad

not a COMMIE, but a socialist and you believe in fairness and civilization.

You fucking liberal! :loveya:

A few female umbrella "liberals" put their lives and jobs on the line for you to live a better life.

quote from?:shrug:

I guess that makes me one of those bad, bad people too.:eyes:

Not that there is anything wrong with socialism, but dammit, I hate the enemy framing the debate with poison hate buzzwords.

Historically, the societies that had the most unfair wealth distribution were also some of the most oppressive & non-civilized.

You are certainly not a liberal. Liberalism stands for certain values within the capitalist system. Those you listed are not included. Thank goodness none of our candidates agree with you.

"Hey, a crumb is better than no crumb at all"

Just imagine what a disaster it would be if we had candidates like FDR or RFK, and had to promote New Deal programs to the people. We might actually win some elections and rebuild the country.

Which "Marxist" do you suppose said this:

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

FDR initiated progressive reforms to save and improve the modern capitalist system. RFK never got to lead but nothing about him suggests he wanted to tear down the system.

You gave one quote from Lincoln but you strangely edited out this sentence: "Property is the fruit of labor; property is desirable; it is a positive good in the world. . . . Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own will be safe when built."

You agree with me and acknowledge my point, then.

There is a vast distance between modern liberalism and the current stance of the Democratic party and "Marxism." In fact, almost the entire spectrum of political possibilities lies between what we have today and the socialism. They are all closed off to us because the moment anyone proposes anything even remotely left wing when compared to what we have, the charges of "Marxism!" arise, with the implied specter of Stalinism.

I did not leave out the part of the quote you cite to mislead anyone - it too, reinforces my point that is not an all or nothing either/or choice. I use that quote a lot, and you are the first person to use the other part of it as a refutation who was not a Republican (assuming here that you are a Democrat.)

However, Lincoln very much did want to pull down the system of entrenched privilege and capital, which is not too different than the system we are forced to live in today. He spoke strongly in support of the striking workers in New England, and of course he opposed the entrenched interests of privilege and wealth that slavery represented, on both moral grounds and also on the grounds of political considerations about economics addressing exactly what I am talking about here.

Of all Republican politicians in the 1850's there was no one who could connect slavery with the universal principles of the value of labor and the dangers of entrenched capital, and to portray slavery as yet another phase in the eternal battle between labor and capital - entrenched wealth, power and privilege, and the common people the way that Lincoln did. So I welcome looking more deeply at the context for Lincoln's remarks, because the deeper we look the more obvious it will become that he supports my position here.

Lincoln is making the point here that giving labor the higher consideration than capital does not have to mean abolishing private property - does not necessarily mean "Marxism!"

I now live in a country that actually has a viable Socialist party as well as an extreme left of 3 communist parties that make up a tenth of the voters. An american liberal would be the rough equivalent of our UMP party and president Sarkozy.

You made two people happy when you left. You and me. Win-win.

In the USA, therefore I can still try to make the USA how I would like to see it. I can also vote in France. I doubt you can. I am also certain that I live in a less violent society than you do. Hmmm I wonder if it is linked to our welfare state.....

neighborhoods like they do around Paris. So I will match the crime rate where I live against that fine country any day. I am glad you can vote. It proves our Constitution is superior to France's. Oh, thats right, they don't have one. Oh well. Who do you vote for? Not too many socialists and communists on the ballot in this country. Maybe you should come back and run for office. I'm sure the people will rally to your side. Good luck.

Of course we have a written constitution. I live in France, not the UK. We have our French constitution of the 5th republic, complete with our "droits du homme et du citoyen" which is like the bill of rights in the US constitution. I also have another layer of rights in the form of my European Union rights because I am at once a French citizen and a European Union citizen. With French citizenship I also gain the right to move to 26 other countries just as an American is free to move from Alabama to New York. How does my right to vote prove that the US constitution is better than the French constitution? French citizens can vote from abroad too and are allowed to have multiple nationalities. As for the riots in poor areas they involved burning cars, busses and the occasional school. Not positive things, but not violent crimes either. In the past 3 years only one person died in any riots that broke out. If you compare property damage crimes counting the riots the crime rate may be higher in France than in the USA as a whole. Our riots are just an illustration that our people vocally oppose the government from time to time. More often than not it is in the form of peaceful protest, sometimes people get violent. It is all part of the tradition of a country that stormed the Bastille. Carjacking is unheard of here. In the early 00's Paris was averaging 50 murders a year while Chicago was around 500. Both cities have around 3 million residents. If you look at crimes like armed robbery and murder there is no comparison between the USA and France. We arrest less people per captia for drug violations, and most drug dealers on the street do not have arms because there are far less gun battles between criminals. Last weekend there was an armed robbery in Marseille and it made national news because those kinds of things are so rare here. The USA is a far more violent society. As for who I vote for in the USA. Last election I voted for the Green Party for governor in Illinois, they received 10%. I also vote for DNC candidates over DLC candidates any chance I get. If I lived in the correct area of Ohio I could vote Kucinich as he is basically a socialist.

years back here in American cities. It was common during the 60s. It was because of their lack of jobs, rights, murder of Martin Luther King, etc. I'm sure many of the fires were government incited to discredit them. They burned out the Black Panthers, etc. in CA. People came from outside the neighborhoods to start trouble.

The anger in Paris is because the jobs are gone to China, etc. just like here. The minorities and immigrants don't prosper off the wealth just like here. They no longer have a Constitution since the EU started. France was a democracy with a Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Constitution_of_1791 French Constitution. They had a revolution after ours. They went broke helping us to fight the British.

We have our own French constitution and we voted against the EU constitution because it set up an economically right wing agenda. Our constitution is still our constitution. We also have more rights which come from our EU treaties. These treaties have recently upheld the right to advocate using illegal drugs and homosexual adoption.

I highlight the fact that we still have our French constitution.

I'm proud of the French for protesting and demanding their rights in any Constitution submitted by the European Union.

You united in trade and to have the same money but not give up your rights as citizens or form a huge undemocratic Fascist union. Trade is one thing, government and borders is another.

even with the treaties we have our freedom of expression was expanded to include advocating using illegal drugs in France thanks to the European Union and the fact that I am an EU citizen with EU rights. Gay adoption was also just legalized in all EU countries where it had not been legal based on a European Union court decision a few weeks ago. It is based on the EU charter of human rights I believe.

I am an immigrant, I never burned anything but bbqs, campfires, and joints. The folks doing the riots are mostly native born French citizens.

Ours is cruel to the poor. Poverty brings many problems when people feel useless and without hope. We have lost that "American Dream" because of the greed and wars.

It's a Wonderful Life and the original Mr. Deeds Goes to Town represented the best in America in my opinion. That kind of USA would have been great.

That is why millions of them try to get in every year.

go there.

I am not talking about Mexico. The alloted numbers of legal immigrants to the U.S. fills up instantly every year from every country in the world that allows its people to move. Fact. Do you even know where the EU is? People from Asia and Africa can easily "walk" there if they so desire. Are any "poor" people in the U.S. trying to get to the EU? What is stopping them?

I agree many who come here are from Poland, India, China, etc. They come by jet and just stay. They have family and friends who they can go to in a new country. We are large and we are wealthy. We ignore the immigration laws. The EU doesn't. They know that.

Hope you know that nothing is safe to smoke into your body.

But a study released in 2000 and described here http://www.webmd.com/news/20000508/marijuana-unlikely-to-cause-cancer pointed out that cannabis smoke does not give cancer. Also the study by Tashkin in 2005 states that cannabis smoking does not cause cancer. Now of course other info is needed about other respiratory ailments, but vaporizing and eating cannabis cuts those risks to zero.

At the same time what does this have to do with socialism versus liberalism?

laced with radioactive material (on mice and rats)almost immediately goes to the fat tissues in the lungs and brain. It stays around a long time in the body (and accumulates) since it is in the fat tissues. After long time use, brain, hormone, and lungs do suffer. We saw that after heavy use in Vietnam.

Vaporization is still inhalation is it not?

I don't know how Tashkin did his study but there can be worse things than Cancer such as addiction. It is not safer than alcohol when it comes to driving and actions to function in a sober manner.

If someone is suffering a disease and the drug will be the best thing to stop suffering then I say they can use it. It should be purified and standards set (like other drugs). The impurities can be bad for people.

I just saw your symbol and wondered. It has little to do with socialism, etc.

our government here in France conducted a study which showed that it doubles the risk of death on the roads, the threshold for the illegal alcohol level kicks in when the risk of death is increased by 4 times. The combination of alcohol and cannabis was something like a 12 to 16 time increase in deadly accidents.

THC goes directly to fat, that is true, but after 4 to 8 hours the active THC is processed out of the body, metabolites remain in the body for weeks but they give no high and in no way affect motor skills (that is why the tests for THC here in France are blood tests for active THC while at the wheel). Since having children I decided to no longer drive high but according to my goverment I am less dangerous stoned than someone with the legal alcohol level.

For addiction there is less PHYSICAL addiction than with caffine, but the PSYCOLOGICAL addiction is up there with the internet, TV, etc. You can get used to it pretty easily.

Vaporization does not involve burning anything, you heat the plant until the thc is released WITHOUT burning it, but many non users have no idea about this system because it is rarely discussed in the media.

Impurities are my worst enemy here in Europe because we have mostly hash instead of grass. So I try to get my own grass by planting in the woods, but that is more risky than buying......

I did a lot of research on cannabis as it is arguably my only remaining vice (I have not used tobacco in over a decade and have not used alchol in over 8 years). My conclusion is that it is the least harmful drug out there even when used to excess (but I only use on weekends so I do not consider my use excessive). I have the leaf because I advocate legalization, While I argue that its use is less bad than alcohol use of an alcoholic I do not advocate using any drugs, I just want it legal.

I just favor regulation, is all.

And nothing about capitalism says the overwhelming majority of wealth belongs in the hands of a select few.

I am also a classist. And I would be THRILLED to see a class war break out on OUR side. THEY have been waging one for eons.

Which would mean we would end up with neither. That is not "regulation". That is Marxism pure and simple. It is not something to be ashamed of. Just admit it and go on to promote your views.

Two separate entities.

Socialist Democratic Parliamentary Government is the way the future will be if we do not wish to continue toward despotism and tyranny.

By the way, REGULATED energy providers and Single Payer Not-For-Profit Health Care are not "nationalized" systems. Nothing to do with "Marxism."

The rich will do anything for the poor but get off their backs.
Karl Marx

Actually it would not even apply in Germany towards the end of that century after Bismarck. It certainly does not apply to the modern U.S. I know that regulated systems are not the same as nationalized systems. That was the point I was making to the OP. He favors nationalism of various industries. That is Marxism and I oppose it.

Health Care should be Single Payer, but that's just taxes funneled through the system.

I will tell you this: ENERGY should be regulated like HELL. Other than that, you can have the rest.

COMMUNISM nationalizes industry. SOCIALISM does not. Who said anything about Marx anyway, other than you?

socialism nationalizes key industries such as health care, trains, electricity, phones, roads etc. and regulates business heavily while allowing capitalism to exist. Communism tries to nationalize everything and to quash capitalism.

A little simplified...but a fair working explanation.

other countries...the State Department, etc. Nothing functions well when there is corruption and greed. It all needs over sight and checks and balances.

When large numbers of citizens agree to pool their money to do something that is good for their lives then it is called government not Communism. It is cheaper in the long run. If every town built their own thruway or expressway would that be a good thing? Or railroad, or airport, etc.?

Communism did not work because it was tyrannical and corrupt. It was a reaction against capitalistic eastern empire builders who wanted to remove their culture, force another religion on them, rob them, and oppress them. Freedom and rights were missing from the system.

the quote "world workers unite" is more valid today than when he wrote it.

the cookshops of the future.

oh lets try............THE ENTIRE CONTINENT OF EUROPE. Nz, now and more so in a few years Australia, and even Canada in very many respects.

We should not subscribe as democrats (in my case social democrat :) ) to the right wing socialism/marx = the boogeyman.

Maybe Socialistic Parliamentary Democracy will rise from the ashes.

We've certainly been shown a lesson about Unitary Executive...but have we LEARNED it?

They want to ruin it and have more profit. It is a world movement for world government (slavery for the many and profit/power for the few elite). They use 911 for removing rights, etc.

Secret behind closed doors elite groups (CFR, Bilderberg Group) should be declared illegal publicly (violate the Logan Act) and removed. Citizens should demand our politicians past and present not belong. It is power by the few not democratic.

I think there are enough pro Soc. Dem. voices in the EU to keep it strong. It's entrentched and vibrant. Even Non Eu like Norway, Iceland, Switz. have strong traditions of this. Britain is increacingly looking to be the odd man out. I worry if they elect a conservative.

My worry would be Canada doing a 180 after a couple more Republican panderng Conservative governments.

Our prob would be implementing small changes here would be an uphill battle.

Marxist since they have social health programs? No they have Social Democracies. They have Capitalism and social programs very successfully.

Exactly, but can we say that the ideas of Marx were for these social democracies or did Marx want a strong central authority like in Stalin's Russia?

I would make the argument that Marx just wanted a world in which workers had acces to things like health care, school, water, food, and housing, all while keeping free choice, free politics, and freedom of expression, much as we have in France, the UK, Norway, Sweeden, Finland etc.

He was a dictator and tyrant nothing else. He was corrupt and evil.

Marx's idea was abused by Stalin.

"strong central authority in the hands of one person and one party".


yes Stalin was an evil bastard.

Took Marx's ideas to their logical conclusion.

our health insurance is nationalized but doctors have their own private offices.

You can nationalize/publicize certain industries and remain capitalist. Drinking water is nearly all public controlled in the USA (sadly nearly all private in France) You also had public entities like Illinois or Alabama bell, and commenwealth edison years ago which have since been privitized. These were just key industries which were nationalized. One cannot really argue that the USA was not capitalist in the 1970's.

I also think that Marxism was really given a bad name by the likes of Stalin, Lenin, and Mao, people who really did not do what was best for the workers of their countries.

Depending on your interpretation you can see Marx as simply advocating a highly unionized capitalist society in which workers have more say about things. Germany and Finland could be seen as examples of Marxist countries in this context.

no, the bells were not public neither was the electricity. I should have spoken about EDF (electricty de France) and France telecom, which along with GDF, gaz de France, were 100% public owned until recently, now they are mixed. I blew that one. One could hardly argue that France was not capitalist during the 1970's. I confused privitization with deregulation when I poseted that nonsense in my post above.

The drinking water is accurate though, most of your tap water is public owned in the USA. You cannot argue that the USA is a communist country.

We had cheap phone service and the employees did well. The judge who broke up the bells in to "baby bells" put back phone service for many years. They had little cash to do research, etc. The judge probably got a reward of sorts (Swiss bank account). They should have taken a vote as to what we the citizens wanted. It was an important step.

Some things work better under one system when it is country wide. Roosevelt made sure all rural areas were given phone service and they had to same fees as the cities if a company was to do business. Right now there are black out areas in the country. There are different expensive fees and service may be lacking.

was the provider of phone service at my parents house while I was growing up in the 70's and 80's. Somewhere along the line it became Ameritech....

Pluralism lies in the direction....symbiotic answers perhaps

Acceptance Speech for the Renomination for the Presidency
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Philadelphia, Pa.
June 27th, 1936

Philadelphia is a good city in which to write American history. This is fitting ground on which to reaffirm the faith of our fathers; to pledge ourselves to restore to the people a wider freedom; to give to 1936 as the founders gave to 1776—an American way of life.

That very word freedom, in itself and of necessity, suggests freedom from some restraining power. In 1776 we sought freedom from the tyranny of a political autocracy—from the eighteenth century royalists who held special privileges from the crown. It was to perpetuate their privilege that they governed without the consent of the governed; that they denied the right of free assembly and free speech; that they restricted the worship of God; that they put the average man's property and the average man's life in pawn to the mercenaries of dynastic power; that they regimented the people.

And so it was to win freedom from the tyranny of political autocracy that the American Revolution was fought. That victory gave the business of governing into the hands of the average man, who won the right with his neighbors to make and order his own destiny through his own Government. Political tyranny was wiped out at Philadelphia on July 4, 1776.

Since that struggle, however, man's inventive genius released new forces in our land which reordered the lives of our people.. The age of machinery, of railroads; of steam and electricity; the telegraph and the radio; mass production, mass distribution—all of these combined to bring forward a new civilization and with it a new problem for those who sought to remain free.

For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital—all undreamed of by the fathers—the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service.

There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things.

It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.

The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor—these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small business man, the investments set aside for old age—other people's money—these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.

Those who tilled the soil no longer reaped the rewards which were their right. The small measure of their gains was decreed by men in distant cities.

Throughout the Nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.

An old English judge once said: "Necessitous men are not free men." Liberty requires opportunity to make a living—a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor—other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of Government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.

The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the Government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business. They granted that the Government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the Government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.

Today we stand committed to the proposition that freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place.

These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the Flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the Flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike.

The brave and clear platform adopted by this Convention, to which I heartily subscribe, sets forth that Government in a modern civilization has certain inescapable obligations to its citizens, among which are protection of the family and the home, the establishment of a democracy of opportunity, and aid to those overtaken by disaster.

But the resolute enemy within our gates is ever ready to beat down our words unless in greater courage we will fight for them.

full text:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=15314

Me too.:hi:

that has bought us to the quasi-fascist corporatism we have today.

:headbang:
rocknation

That is definitely part of the picture. But we should keep in mind that private property and private ownership of businesses are not the same thing as making money off of money, which is what capitalism really is. The small farmer is not a "capitalist" - he or she works, produces things of real value, and earns money from selling what being produced. He or she owns their private property and their owen business, bit are not strictly speaking "capitalists." The capitalist is the one who gets between the farmer and his land, or the consumer and the food they need, and wheels and deals and speculates and can then sit on a yacht if he is clever and ruthless enough - or by circumstance of birth fortunate enough - and enjoy passive income off of the work and needs of others.

That manipulation of capital - as opposed to working or producing something - MUST always be watched, regulated and harnessed strictly to the general welfare and the public good. Otherwise, it will always and inevitably work against the public good. We are so far down the path to an extreme example of this here today, that it is a never ending source of wonder to me that there is any controversy about this at all. People are today starving as a direct result of the "free market" paradigm getting its foot in the door with the food supply and manipulating prices, controlling the market, and creating artificial scarcities. Will it take widespread and severe hunger here before people see the obvious connection?

I told them, after they started to say that the poor, sick, and/or elderly didn't need to be taken care of. The majority of them said that they were just lazy and fed off the richer population. I told them to picture this:

There is a huge home, it has 3 sports cars out front, and the lawn is nicely landscaped. Would you like to live there, I asked? All of them said yes. Then I said,"Now pull out a little ways and look at the neighborhood it is in if you did what you want to do. Even though you could have been in a gated community outside of the gates are slums, people out of work are on almost all the street corners begging for food and the elderly are dying at a younger and younger age taking their knowledge with them."

What I just described was what happens in a lot of dictatorships, but is moving into our Capitalistic society as more and more Corporations are pulling up and outsourcing to feed their share holders! Where the rich are only interested in themselves but cannot see the forest for the trees!

When the little 6 year-old girl in India was thrown into a fire for being on the wrong road where only upper caste people are allowed, this is the type of country we are going to become if we don't all work from the bottom up instead of the top down!

:headbang:

I feel that we have lost a lot of the very promise that this country has meant to so many. We have to come together or be lost in the crowd of despair.

Blessings:)

There was wealth in the past but not billionares. The top is smaller and richer than in the past. Many of them live here in this safe country on our backs.

unless everyone has equal wages, which is highly unlikely. The top will always exist but instead of having the top one percent controlling say 25% of the wealth perahps they will only control say 5% of the wealth in a socialized economy.

Some people handle their money well and some people do not. I can think of several people that did not make a lot of money but managed it well and got what they wanted.

I can think of several people that made very good money that did not manage it well and were always strapped for cash.

The funny thing is that the people that did not make a lot of money thought the people that did were foolish. I guess that they could be considered right because the people that made more money certainly had a better starting point yet never seemed to have what they wanted.

The people that did make good money thought that the people that didn't make good money were doing something illegal to make extra money. They couldn't conceive of anyone making less money then themselves doing better then they were.

I guess that my point here is that even if everyone made the exact same amount of money; some would do better then others. Then those that did better would rise to the top. I think we would end up with the same thing in the end.

Raebrek!!!

That is why I support taxing people based on income and taxing large incomes more than small ones without taxing them so much that those who earn a lot find themselves at the same level of those who do not. So long as the have nots can have health care, access to universities, food, water, shelter, and a month of paid vacation a year I have nothing wrong with the haves having their BMW's.

family. Even if you have insurance it can't make up for the huge cost to the family.

:hi: :pals:

You can't eliminate the top ½ of 1%, because somebody will always be there. But what you can do is trim down the percentage of the country's wealth and income that fraction holds.

The media does not necessarily need more regulation, but it does need to be broken up and de-monopolized.

Likewise, the oil companies should be broken up into statewide or regional co-ops, as should the electric and natural gas companies.

Universal single-payer by and large solves the health-care problem.

And a progressive personal and business income tax would keep individuals and companies from getting to large and rich. If a corporation wanted to expand in a new direction, they would have to start a spin-off company that the solid middle-class could invest in for funding.

eliminate the top on half of one percent as we know it by taxing them more heavily, up to 75% of their earnings, then their after tax wealth will be lower than it is now and they will control a smaller percentage of the overall wealth of the USA. It would not involve taking the wealthiest of today and taking all their wealth. It would involve a change in the tax structure. Less burden could be placed on the working and middle classes and more on the wealthy classes in the form of state and federal income taxes.

:kick:

Then I am one too.

...and reverse the thirty years spent reducing us to the kind of economy that spawned it.

a socialist.

I disagree with almost all those stands, except for some more regulations regarding businesses and nationalized health care, supplemented by private health care if people feel the need. (Much like the UK. I know people who choose to go private there.)

The wealthy get better care because of it. Everyone has to belong to the pool or it won't work as well. If the rich and the influencial don't get good care then they will try to keep it healthy and workable for all.

as my EX-father in law was. He needed heart surgery. Quadruple bypass. They were telling him the wait list was going to be 8 months for this very necessary surgery. So, he went private and paid for the surgery. (Still a lot cheaper than the USA... I think it was about 25,000 GBP.) He had the surgery in three weeks, and he is still healthy 8 years later. (Though I am no longer with his son.)

It's not just the wealthy who take advantage of that. He is from a ship-buiding town in Cumbria. (Barrow-in-Furness.) He's definitely on the lower scale of the middle class, and used much of his savings for the surgery. But, he was happy to have the surgery over with quicker. Even though he had the same doctors and care that he would have had if he didn't go private, he had a much quicker surgery. If he had waited, he may not have been as lucky.

to pay for it. They are trying to ruin it I'm sure.

We can do anything we want and not call it names. If it is for the good of everyone we should and can do it.

I don't like communism I think its a rather repressive way to go, socialism Im not at all sour on.. but

When you start taking over industries to be run by the state thats defiantly a communist bent. We call things names so we can communicate, so we can communicate ideas, history, cause and effect. For instance * can do whatever he wants but there is a name for it, criminal, and trying to play the "why do we have to label state sponsored 'torture' (again whats in a name)" does not help communication.

Even if one likes a system thats all well and good but call actions what they are..

Some industries should be government run that are critical to our survival or at least have over sight. Corporations do have regulations and controls for the good of the community but have not been enforced. To steal technology, patents, markets, jobs, and markets for the profit of the elite is just that...fraud.

Pure any government system is not good unless it is free of corruption and dictatorship. If the society suffers in the end then it can not survive.

Nope I can't think of a country which has Communism which works. It is just a solution to religious dictatorship and Empire Builders. I'm a bit discouraged over Capitalism too because of it's taking over profit at any cost.

There is, perhaps, a case for government providing a service but not on a sole provider basis. e.g.If the govt wants to provide basic health care thats all well and good but private hospitals and insurance should still be allowed to exist.

...in a modern civilized society

It was corrupt and tyrannical oligarchy. Party members had more power. The people did not rule.

and for those who need "non-political" reinforcement, try these quotes/paraphrases:

1. Whoever would tend to me, should tend to the sick.*

2. Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.**

*The Buddha, in the Vinaya
** Jesus, Matt. 25:40

Gee, socialists?

:thumbsup:

what do you suggest as far as media regulation?

No more than one outlet per owner per market

No more than x number of outlets per owner, no matter the market.

No newspapers owning radio stations and teevee stations or vice versa or any other combination thereof in any given market.

The fairness doctrine brought back.

A CLEAR identification of opinion vs news.

Etc.

If the media owners start to scream, that will be our first clue that we're on the right path.

When doctors see a tumor they remove it. I expect something in return for patriotism. We get nothing. That post is music to my ears.

...and his strong regulations.

Yeah, I know it's a gross oversimplification, but I can't help it.

Nope, I don't think you are a commie pinko dirtbag at all, Stinky.

Hekate

imagine that, someone who wants to better the world(and country) and ALL the people in it.

sad to say the greedy may always rule the world friend.

its the story of human exsistance.
theres always going to be a grand idea
and theres always going to be someone who uses that grand idea to exploit anyone and everyone for personal gain.

thats just the sad story of the human condition.

just look at all the positive ideaologies over the centuries that got mutilated and perversed by half brained mad men with their own agendas.

i honestly think thats why communism decided to go with a dictatorship...i guess they thought hey, if you can get the right person in there who wont be corrupted itll be perfect... unfortunately i dont think thats possible. the whole power corrupts deal.

At least you have found some common ground

To me, that's a slippery slope.

The nationalized industries and the income distribution are socialist, IMO. Not necessarily bad, but socilaist.

Businesses are already pretty highly regulated. That can take place within capitalism.

And all but you seem to not have gotten the larger point.

But that's okay ..... you go ahead and parse some tangential point if it makes you feel better.

"Small minds, small issues."

I figure the best idea would be to either eliminate the corporation completely or make them the way they were when the founding fathers kicked out the british corporations and set things up to keep the local corporations from getting too uppity. corporations should be limited in lifespan too that of a human. they should only have one task that they do. they should be never allowed to own another corporation or expand beyond the initial limited charter. probably plenty of other reforms that I cant think of right now.

To eliminate the top one half of one percent, have the media regulated, have the oil and health care industries nationalized, and to have all businesses more highly regulated. AND to expand welfare several times over and increase the benefits.

IF I could. But I can't spare anything else right now. I make a $10 monthly donation to Defenders of Wildlife, even though I shouldn't, but its a cause that I find more important than money. Besides that $10 a month, my entire income goes to helping my family stay off the damn streets as it is.

I don't understand this attitude, that seems to be unique to America, that GREED IS GOOD. NO ITS NOT. You DO NOT have to have a PS3, or a 70-inch HDTV, or a fifth vehicle, if your neighbor can't pay the bills.

Who wants to live in a poverty, unhealthy, over populated, unsafe country? I don't want to be the old theocracy/monarchy Europe or theocracy/dictatorship poverty ridden S. America. Both full of wars. The people were unhappy and the few ruled.

Won't there always be a top one half of one percent?

And what do you plan to do with them?

they would have left Red Lubiyanka (sic) at ambient temperature.

We used to have a larger middle class with less poor and extremely rich. The last twenty years of "smaller government" has meant less money for the workers. Income tax and enforcement of the law could solve that situation.

When a CEO or CEOs, who are not the owner of a company but an employee, takes the profit and benefits for themselves (leaving out the workers) then in my mind it is fraud. Some even take big money when the company losses profit and markets.

With todays large 401K and ROTH accounts many people over our society own stock in the American corporation. It is a bit here and there but they have little power over the fund leadership. Government over sight has failed from lack of funds and will. There needs to be a new system to protect the employees and our wealth. Where is that Corporate Responsibility Act one wonders?

The situation today is similar to the turn of the last century Robber Barons. Huge monopolies (now international) destroy competition and innovation. They grow so huge no one can challenge their wealth and power. A progressive movement is much needed. We have laws but they have to be enforced and respected.

We are on the verge of a Fascist world because of it.

it wouldn't do any good.

America never had just a top 1% before as rich as they are now. They have billions not just millions or hundreds of millions.

:)