Bizarre, Politics, Society

With Friends Like This — Part II

First, President Barach Obama has Al Sharpton proclaiming that the health care bill was simply the fulfillment of his promise of socialism, here. Now, Fidel Castro himself endorsed the plan as a socialistic victory. In the meantime, conservatives are on fire about a clip of Ed Schultz calling for a socialist take over of talk radio, here.


Castro celebrated the passage of national health care on Thursday, calling it a “miracle.” Castro wrote
“We consider health reform to have been an important battle and a success of his (Obama’s) government.”

Why do I think there are Sharpton/Castro clips being developed as I speak for the mid-term elections? I can see it now: “Better Meds Than Dead”

For the full story, click here.

55 thoughts on “With Friends Like This — Part II”

  1. And government isnt greedy? They just tax the life out of every living thing and leave us with a few crumbs so we can exist. At least capitalism produces something that the rest of us can use.

  2. Woosty:

    and if you distributed all of the wealth held by the top 20% to everyone equally everyone would have an additional 20 or 30k in their pocket and no job prospects. A billion is a 1000 million. Bill Gates net worth of 60 billion would give 300 million people an extra 200 dollars if it was confiscated and distributed. But guess what the government would keep most of it. So the amount of money would not be very much and there would be fewer jobs because you need the wealthy to produce jobs. Not everyone can create a large company and employ people. Thank god there are men and women that can so the rest of us can earn a living.

    If you like to eat and have clothes and shelter thank a rich capitalist today.

  5. It’s an easy mistake to make, AY. They often look exactly alike.

  6. The Hell Detroit is not screwed up by Capitalism, look at the former mayor, city counsel, the attorney’s representing the same and the 5 or 7 attorney’s before the Attorney Discipline Board.

    Oh I am sorry, I confused Greed with Capitalism….

  7. ‘Apparently, the waiters and their families were moving in.’

    it’s so much more convenient when we can import them secretly, pay them crappily, and then send them home when we are done with them 😉

    Slarti, thank you for this statement:
    “Capitalism produces wealth, but unrestrained capitalism concentrates it. To illustrate: 40 years or so ago, CEOs made about 20 times what the average worker did – today that number is about 400 times.”

    Some more stats:
    The Wealth Distribution

    In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one’s home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2009).’

    http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

  11. But Detroit wasn’t screwed up by capitalism.

    Hmmm.

    I guess those clowns running GM into the ditch were either commies or from the government then.

    Or they were, what’s that thing, yeah, capitalists.

  12. “I just want to prevent the capitalists from controlling the government.”

    I think you mean fascism. Which I am also against as is every capitalist I know. Now Geoffrey Emholt at GE I am not so sure of but he is an Obama supporter.

    Why is the extreme always put up for a moral argument? Of course a crack baby and the Bush family don’t have equal opportunity at birth. But Detroit wasn’t screwed up by capitalism and that babies mother didn’t have to ingest poison. Sometimes people are just worthless pieces of shit (the mother not the baby) and there is no helping them. You cant make a horse drink and you cant turn a crack whore into a college graduate most of the time.

    And as far as moderation or the Greek idea of the mean, which would you rather have-a milkshake or a milkshake with a dose of poison? Sometimes there is no golden mean and a thing is either right or wrong.

  13. Coercing citizens to purchase for profit insurance is as far away from socialism as you can get. If Mussolini hadn’t gotten his just reward he’d be praising this legislation.

  14. Byron said:

    Why did salaries rise so high? I think someone tampered with CEO compensation back in the early 90’s.

    I don’t know how it happened, but I think that a) shareholders should have to approve CEO compensation (at least bonuses) and b) all stock options should have a 5 year delay before they may be exercised (and any stock given as compensation should be required to be held for 5 years).

    I think what is killing the middle class is a tax system that doesn’t allow wealth to be concentrated in our bank accounts.

    So reduce taxes on incomes less than $200,000 and pay for it with a 45% marginal rate on incomes above $1 million.

    Another’s success doesn’t bring me down.

    It doesn’t lift you up, either.

    The pie is not static it is ever increasing. If a CEO makes 40 million/year it doesn’t come out of my pocket but when government taxes me it does.

    Generally, the CEO got that $40 million by reducing the payroll of his company – you’re quick to point out that companies pass along tax increases, well, the cost of executive compensation gets passed along to the employees and customers, too.

    The CEO is not the problem it is government taxation. Both of us lose when we are taxed.

    Taxes pay for things we want (roads, bridges, police, fire departments, schools, social security, medicare, wars kept off of the books by Republican presidents, massive tax cuts for the rich… wait a sec… what were those last two?)

    Wealth creation has been restrained by government policies for almost a hundred years. Had government actually taken steps to help people create wealth we would have so much money that anyone with who couldn’t work would be taken care of.

    By what? The social safety net conservatives have fought against every step of the way?

    If Social Security had actually been a separate account we would all be millionaires at retirement.

    As long as it was held in trust rather than invested in the market…

    Our mixed economy has destroyed or prevented untold wealth. Oh well, maybe someday people will wake up.

    I firmly believe that alloys are stronger. Generally anything taken to the extreme is a bad idea – as the ancient Greeks said, “all things in moderation”.

    I was thinking about Marxism and how he wanted workers to own the means of production. I think workers should own the means of production as well. From past experience with various economic systems in the last 160 years, it seems to me that the only economic system that has afforded workers that opportunity is Capitalism.

    I don’t object to capitalism (or advocate the workers owning the means of production in a more direct way than occurs in capitalism) nor do I think that Marxism is in any way a superior system – I just want to prevent the capitalists from controlling the government. As long as politicians depend on corporate money to retain their jobs we’re screwed. I think that we should start a meta-party which has campaign finance reform as its only platform – people of any ideology can join so long as they eschew lobbying money and support ending the corrupting influence of cash on our government.

    Marxism is appealing because people don’t want other people to suffer. But under Marxist governments that is all they do. Why the fascination for an economic system that doesn’t work?

    I’m not fascinated by Marxism nor do I have any desire to implement Marxist policies, but it seems reasonable to study Marxist regimes to determine WHY they don’t work (and to look carefully at the few things that do work – like why does Cuba have better health care outcomes than we do?).

    And socialism as a derivative of Marxism isn’t much better and the rich are still rich. Only the lower classes suffer. At least in a Capitalist system people have an opportunity to create wealth for themselves.

    All I want is to stop equating money with free speech, provide a safety net and offer some minimum level of opportunity (education, etc.) for everyone.

    Social responsibility and free markets are not incompatible. By using the wealth creating power of capitalism you could afford to be very socially responsible.

    But capitalism will never be socially responsible on its own (it’s bad for the bottom line).

    The poor are actually being denied services that could be paid for by virtue of having a free market.

    And how are they actually going to get these services in a free market?

    I don’t want people to suffer and think with a free market you help more people than you do with the
    mixed economy we have now.

    I believe that you don’t want people to suffer, I just disagree that a free market would lessen suffering (I think that this is a fundamental point of disagreement between us). I think all we end up getting from the unrestrained free market is the next financial disaster.

    If you have full employment what happens to workers wages? If you have extra money to put into savings what happens? If you have extra money to buy a new car or a new appliance what happens?

    What’s your point?

    Capitalism is far more compassionate than socialism or Marxism and more egalitarian as well.

    I would argue that the governments of the western European social democracies are much more compassionate than our own (or at least much more EFFECTIVE in their compassion…). What’s wrong with looking at places that do things better than we do for ideas?

    Everyone has the same opportunity to fail or succeed.

    So a Bush scion and a baby born addicted to crack in inner city Detroit have the same opportunity?

  15. Slarti:

    Why did salaries rise so high? I think someone tampered with CEO compensation back in the early 90’s.

    I think what is killing the middle class is a tax system that doesn’t allow wealth to be concentrated in our bank accounts. Another’s success doesn’t bring me down. The pie is not static it is ever increasing. If a CEO makes 40 million/year it doesn’t come out of my pocket but when government taxes me it does. The CEO is not the problem it is government taxation. Both of us loose when we are taxed.

    Wealth creation has been restrained by government policies for almost a hundred years. Had government actually taken steps to help people create wealth we would have so much money that anyone with who couldn’t work would be taken care of. If Social Security had actually been a separate account we would all be millionaires at retirement. Our mixed economy has destroyed or prevented untold wealth. Oh well, maybe someday people will wake up.

    I was thinking about Marxism and how he wanted workers to own the means of production. I think workers should own the means of production as well. From past experience with various economic systems in the last 160 years, it seems to me that the only economic system that has afforded workers that opportunity is Capitalism.

    Marxism is appealing because people don’t want other people to suffer. But under Marxist governments that is all they do. Why the fascination for an economic system that doesn’t work? And socialism as a derivative of Marxism isn’t much better and the rich are still rich. Only the lower classes suffer. At least in a Capitalist system people have an opportunity to create wealth for themselves.

    Social responsibility and free markets are not incompatible. By using the wealth creating power of capitalism you could afford to be very socially responsible. The poor are actually being denied services that could be paid for by virtue of having a free market. I don’t want people to suffer and think with a free market you help more people than you do with the mixed economy we have now.

    If you have full employment what happens to workers wages? If you have extra money to put into savings what happens? If you have extra money to buy a new car or a new appliance what happens?

    Capitalism is far more compassionate than socialism or Marxism and more egalitarian as well. Everyone has the same opportunity to fail or succeed.

  16. Byron,

    Capitalism produces wealth, but unrestrained capitalism concentrates it. To illustrate: 40 years or so ago, CEOs made about 20 times what the average worker did – today that number is about 400 times. Is that kind of disparity good for our country or is it a part of what’s killing the middle class? In Europe that number is still much closer to 20 than it is to 400. I don’t want to institute a socialist system in the US, I just want to temper unrestrained capitalism with social responsibility and get the money out of politics. This is supposed to be a republic, not a plutocracy.

  17. I think the Presidents spells his name “Barack Obama”.

    Not Barach Obama.

  18. Bdaman: Oh, okay. Good to know. I think I’ll shut down now anyway and get some work done.

    Thanks!

  19. Tootie, more than likely your comment didn’t get zapped on the other thread it was probably a technical error. It happens from time to time. It happened to me yesterday and I restarted my computer and all was well again.

Comments are closed.