Are the Majority of Americans Closet Socialists?

[BLADEMDA]

I think the answer to that question will be decided in November. Romney knows he has an uphill battle: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/romney-faults-those-dependent-on-government/

I'm starting to realize the USA is indeed the next France. All I can do is prepare for it.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[BLADEMDA]

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. Thomas Jefferson

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. George Bernard Shaw

Read more: http://www.joe-ks.com/Inspiring_Quotes.htm#ixzz26pJBkiQK​

 

[BLADEMDA]

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
― Alexis de Tocqueville



"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
― Alexis de Tocqueville

 

[BLADEMDA]

he continued: "It's a message which I am going to carry and continue to carry, which is that the president's approach is attractive to people who are not paying taxes because frankly my discussion about lowering taxes isn't as attractive to them. Therefore I'm not likely to draw them into my campaign as effectively as those in the middle."
The video was widely circulated after it was obtained by Mother Jones, though it had been on the Internet for weeks.
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney could be heard saying. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."
Romney added his job as a presidential candidate was "not to worry about those people


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/18/romney-sticks-by-victims-comments-but-calls-them-off-cuff/#ixzz26pKy1Ghy

 

[BLADEMDA]

Nancy Pelosi: 'Everybody Knows' Mitt Romney Won't Become President



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...mney_n_1888018.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

 

[BLADEMDA]

September 17, 2012
Majority in U.S. Still Say Government Doing Too Much

But fewer Americans now say government has too much power

by Frank Newport
PRINCETON, NJ -- A majority of Americans (54%) continue to believe the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses, although that is down from the record high of 61% earlier this summer. About four in 10 Americans (39%) say the government should do more to solve the nation's problems.

 

[BLADEMDA]

It is thus no surprise to find large partisan differences in Americans' views on the appropriate role of government. Two-thirds of Democrats think government should do more, while an even larger percentage of Republicans say government is doing too much that should be left to individuals and businesses. More than six in 10 independents agree that the government is doing too much.

 

[Consigliere]

Ok but Obama will be president for the next 4 years so better get used to it.

 

[TRuSchool]

Romney will win in a landslide not because he's Romney, but because he's not Obama. The same idiots who are saying Obama will win this election are the ones who didnt see the 2010 midterm landslide coming. Ask Chik-Fil-A if they think people support Obama

 

[chessknt]

Romney will win in a landslide not because he's Romney, but because he's not Obama. The same idiots who are saying Obama will win this election are the ones who didnt see the 2010 midterm landslide coming. Ask Chik-Fil-A if they think people support Obama

You vastly underestimate the media's ability to control this election. Obama is definitely going to win because every time Romney does something stupid (which is unfortunately fairly frequent) it gets waved around for a week on the front page.

 

[Consigliere]

Romney will win in a landslide not because he's Romney, but because he's not Obama. The same idiots who are saying Obama will win this election are the ones who didnt see the 2010 midterm landslide coming. Ask Chik-Fil-A if they think people support Obama

I'm gonna save this quote and throw it in your face November 7th.

 

[powermd]

Romney will win in a landslide not because he's Romney, but because he's not Obama. The same idiots who are saying Obama will win this election are the ones who didnt see the 2010 midterm landslide coming. Ask Chik-Fil-A if they think people support Obama

Care to make this interesting? I'll bet you $1000 Obama wins the election.

Blade, what happens to the Republic when the rich realize they can buy themselves tax breaks by purchasing politicians? Those of us who work for a living, pay taxes, and don't have enough assets to live off of carried interest are screwed no matter who wins the election. Yay!

 

[deleted126335]

I think the answer to that question will be decided in November. Romney knows he has an uphill battle: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/romney-faults-those-dependent-on-government/

I'm starting to realize the USA is indeed the next France. All I can do is prepare for it.

People vote what they believe is in their indivdual short term interest. Regan won by a landslide even though he was a small government union buster (PATCO) remember the term "Reagan Democrat". The world is harder to make a living than it used to be. Therefore many people beieve that it is in their interest to tilt left on economic policy.

If I were to bet on the election, Obama will kill Romney in the electoral college. Won't even be close.

 

[pgg]

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney could be heard saying. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."

This is Romney's Palin moment. Stick a fork in him.

 

[chessknt]

This is Romney's Palin moment. Stick a fork in him.

Yep it was a bad thing to let slip. It is even worse that it is probably completely accurate, if not underestimation. Whatever happened to protection against the tyranny of the majority?

 

[pgg]

Whatever happened to protection against the tyranny of the majority?

That's what them legislatin' from da bench, unaccountable to the electorate, serve-for-life SCOTUS guys are for. You know, the robed clerics Republicans love to hate.

 

[sisko]

yep it was a bad thing to let slip. It is even worse that it is probably completely accurate, if not underestimation. whatever happened to protection against the tyranny of the majority?

That's why the Founders intended a constitutionally-limited republic instead of a straight democracy (a.k.a. tyranny of the 50.1%). That damn commerce clause proved an Achilles heel unfortunately and sadly I agree with the general conclusion, cynical as it may sound, that this country is doomed in the long term. The leftward march continues on and at the most it might be slowed down from time to time --- pretty sad that that's the best we can hope for. Nowadays even when people talk about "cutting the size of government," what that really means is just "slowing the rate of growth of government."

 

[neuropathic]

Romney is behind in Ohio and Virginia and I think he needs to win both to have a chance. Unfortunatley, most Americans are choosing to go on a path of moral and economic destruction with 4 more years of Obama. It will be a very ugly 4 years ahead.

 

[yappy]

The majority of Americans are not socialist. The majority of Americans are selfish and vote for their own interests. Many on this board are within a minority group of the US population that can provide well for themselves [through hard work and wise decisions], don't need .gov programs, and are within the highest tax bracket in the US as result of their income.

The majority of Americans don't fall within this group; however, if they did they would vote the same way many of you are planning to. All this to say that the reason people vote the way that they do has more to do with selfishness or advancement of their own interests than some devotion to socialist ideas.

Most people are voting for their own interests - including you and me. "Don't hate the players - hate the game".

 

[yappy]

Do you mind explaining the bold more?

That's why the Founders intended a constitutionally-limited republic instead of a straight democracy (a.k.a. tyranny of the 50.1%). That damn commerce clause proved an Achilles heel unfortunately and sadly I agree with the general conclusion, cynical as it may sound, that this country is doomed in the long term. The leftward march continues on and at the most it might be slowed down from time to time --- pretty sad that that's the best we can hope for. Nowadays even when people talk about "cutting the size of government," what that really means is just "slowing the rate of growth of government."

 

[jwk]

This is Romney's Palin moment. Stick a fork in him.

No, he needs to explain it and capitalize on it. He's absolutely right - most of those 47% aren't going to vote for him because they're mooching. What he's got to get across is that there won't be anything left to mooch before long. Fortunately, a lot of the 47% also won't get off their butts to vote either.

 

[chessknt]

Do you mind explaining the bold more?

It is the cause from which Congress derives most of its power. Using that clause they have placed a tax on being alive, and the Supreme Court felt that was within the limits of our Constitution.

 

[Mman]

The majority of Americans are not socialist. The majority of Americans are selfish and vote for their own interests. Many on this board are within a minority group of the US population that can provide well for themselves [through hard work and wise decisions], don't need .gov programs, and are within the highest tax bracket in the US as result of their income.

The majority of Americans don't fall within this group; however, if they did they would vote the same way many of you are planning to. All this to say that the reason people vote the way that they do has more to do with selfishness or advancement of their own interests than some devotion to socialist ideas.

Most people are voting for their own interests - including you and me. "Don't hate the players - hate the game".

Everybody is selfish in nearly everything they do. Very little is done altruistically, I mean lots of charity and what not makes the person feel good about themselves and that is selfish as well. I'm not saying it's bad, we are all wired to be selfish.

But as to the people on this board being in the minority that works hard and earns good money, that is true. But most of the people in that same group were likely also not always in that group and know what it's like to be less than rich.

 

[DoctwoB]

All this "tyranny of the majority" stuff just doesn't fly with the facts. The states with the largest % of poor, non income tax paying individuals will go to Romney in a landslide (alabama, mississippi, georgia, Louisiana, arkansas, south carolina, texas, with the exception of Florida).

The 47% in those states are the only reason Romney has a chance.

 

[BLADEMDA]

The majority of Americans are not socialist. The majority of Americans are selfish and vote for their own interests. Many on this board are within a minority group of the US population that can provide well for themselves [through hard work and wise decisions], don't need .gov programs, and are within the highest tax bracket in the US as result of their income.

The majority of Americans don't fall within this group; however, if they did they would vote the same way many of you are planning to. All this to say that the reason people vote the way that they do has more to do with selfishness or advancement of their own interests than some devotion to socialist ideas.

Most people are voting for their own interests - including you and me. "Don't hate the players - hate the game".

Most of the 47% who are not paying any taxes vote in their self-interest. I'm willing to pay more taxes to save this nation but NOT to increase govt. spending on social programs.

Those who rob Peter to Paul will always vote for any politician who supports that strategy; the problem is Peter is going broke as well.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Everybody is selfish in nearly everything they do. Very little is done altruistically, I mean lots of charity and what not makes the person feel good about themselves and that is selfish as well. I'm not saying it's bad, we are all wired to be selfish.

But as to the people on this board being in the minority that works hard and earns good money, that is true. But most of the people in that same group were likely also not always in that group and know what it's like to be less than rich.

Most of Grandparentys wern't rich but they knew how to work and NOT expect a handout from Uncle SAM.

No longer is it embarassing to collect food stamps, disability, Medicare, etc.; these days it is par for the Obama Course.

 

[countingdays]

All this "tyranny of the majority" stuff just doesn't fly with the facts. The states with the largest % of poor, non income tax paying individuals will go to Romney in a landslide (alabama, mississippi, georgia, Louisiana, arkansas, south carolina, texas, with the exception of Florida).

The 47% in those states are the only reason Romney has a chance.

People who actually see the able-bodied men and teen pregnancy girls on welfare support it less. People in Vermont who think those are hard-working people who just can't find jobs support welfare.
Old people in florida have known for decades that they were ****ing over future generations and didn't care, why should they care now?

 

[pgg]

No, he needs to explain it and capitalize on it. He's absolutely right - most of those 47% aren't going to vote for him because they're mooching. What he's got to get across is that there won't be anything left to mooch before long. Fortunately, a lot of the 47% also won't get off their butts to vote either.

I don't see a plausible way for any candidate to capitalize on attacking the people. There wasn't a good way for Obama to spin "clinging to religion and guns" and there isn't a good way for Romney to spin this. There are plenty of problems with what Romney said, but here are the top two:


One, it's bull****. Most of the 47% who don't pay federal income tax aren't moochers, they're working poor. Exactly the sort of people Romney should be courting, because THEY are the ones who are un- or under-employed, and THEY are the ones who might be receptive to the core message of his campaign: that Obama hasn't fixed the economy, and the working middle class and working poor could do better with him leading.

Assuming that they're all Obama supporters is also ridiculous. Some of them are going to be single issue voters on abortion, or believe Obama's a Muslim with a forged birth certificate. And even if he was right, there's nothing to be gained by calling out half the country.

There's a reason Romney said these things behind closed doors to wealthy donors: he knew (or someone on his staff told him) that saying it in public would be a campaign disaster.




Two, even if it wasn't bull****, it's still a blunder. Whether the 47% statement is correct or incorrect is irrelevant. Let's not miss the thunderstorm searching for a silver lining. Take a step back:

If Romney came out and said that >90% of black people were going to vote for Obama no matter what he said or did, he'd probably be correct. But if in the same breath he had other derogatory things about black people, he wouldn't just lose the last 10% of that demographic. There are a hell of a lot of non-black people who'd be really upset with comments like that, and they might get off the fence onto Obama's side.

It's the same thing here. You don't have to be in the bottom 47% to have some sympathy toward them and feel some anger or backlash toward the rich guy criticizing them.


Arguing that Romney's bashing of the 47% won't hurt him with the other 53% is as ridiculous as saying that if he pulled out a KKK hood it wouldn't hurt him because Obama's got a lock on the black vote anyway.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

Most of the 47% who are not paying any taxes vote in their self-interest. I'm willing to pay more taxes to save this nation but NOT to increase govt. spending on social programs.

Those who rob Peter to Paul will always vote for any politician who supports that strategy; the problem is Peter is going broke as well.

Most of Grandparentys wern't rich but they knew how to work and NOT expect a handout from Uncle SAM.

No longer is it embarassing to collect food stamps, disability, Medicare, etc.; these days it is par for the Obama Course.

I'm grateful for pgg's comments above so that sane voice throws this out. Newsflash, Blade, your grandparents were part of that 47%! Social security isn't taxed, so yeah, old folks (who often vote R) are part of that percent.

Additionally, many of these people pay comparable total tax rates as a percentage of their income (federal payroll and income, state, and local) as Romney does on his millions.

 

[countingdays]

I don't see a plausible way for any candidate to capitalize on attacking the people. There wasn't a good way for Obama to spin "clinging to religion and guns" and there isn't a good way for Romney to spin this. There are plenty of problems with what Romney said, but here are the top two:


One, it's bull****. Most of the 47% who don't pay federal income tax aren't moochers, they're working poor. Exactly the sort of people Romney should be courting, because THEY are the ones who are un- or under-employed, and THEY are the ones who might be receptive to the core message of his campaign: that Obama hasn't fixed the economy, and the working middle class and working poor could do better with him leading.

Assuming that they're all Obama supporters is also ridiculous. Some of them are going to be single issue voters on abortion, or believe Obama's a Muslim with a forged birth certificate. And even if he was right, there's nothing to be gained by calling out half the country.

There's a reason Romney said these things behind closed doors to wealthy donors: he knew (or someone on his staff told him) that saying it in public would be a campaign disaster.




Two, even if it wasn't bull****, it's still a blunder. Whether the 47% statement is correct or incorrect is irrelevant. Let's not miss the thunderstorm searching for a silver lining. Take a step back:

If Romney came out and said that >90% of black people were going to vote for Obama no matter what he said or did, he'd probably be correct. But if in the same breath he had other derogatory things about black people, he wouldn't just lose the last 10% of that demographic. There are a hell of a lot of non-black people who'd be really upset with comments like that, and they might get off the fence onto Obama's side.

It's the same thing here. You don't have to be in the bottom 47% to have some sympathy toward them and feel some anger or backlash toward the rich guy criticizing them.


Arguing that Romney's bashing of the 47% won't hurt him with the other 53% is as ridiculous as saying that if he pulled out a KKK hood it wouldn't hurt him because Obama's got a lock on the black vote anyway.

There's nothing controversial about it. People have unlimited appetites for free stuff. 47% don't pay, so tax funded things are free. Having a large percentage of prople not doing for their country but having their country do for them is the end of our republic.

 

[DoctwoB]

There's nothing controversial about it. People have unlimited appetites for free stuff. 47% don't pay, so tax funded things are free. Having a large percentage of prople not doing for their country but having their country do for them is the end of our republic.

Correction: 47% don't pay income tax. Why is the bolded so hard for some people to understand? Most still pay payroll, local, and state taxes, or are retirees who paid said taxes while they were working (and still pay sales taxes, property taxes, and eventually "pay" estate taxes). Often times their tax burden as a % of income is less then the 1% due to lower tax rates on capital gains and the regressive nature of most state sales taxes.

 

[chessknt]

There's nothing controversial about it. People have unlimited appetites for free stuff. 47% don't pay, so tax funded things are free. Having a large percentage of prople not doing for their country but having their country do for them is the end of our republic.

We live in the era of Orwellian political correctness--the content of a statement is less important than how it is delivered. Look at Wilson, he called Obama out on a flat lie during his address to Congress and was rewarded with negative press and a formal Congressional rebuke.

 

[DoctwoB]

We live in the era of Orwellian political correctness--the content of a statement is less important than how it is delivered. Look at Wilson, he called Obama out on a flat lie during his address to Congress and was rewarded with negative press and a formal Congressional rebuke.

On the contrary. We live in an age of political mudraking, in which it is accepted that politicians and their parties accuse opponents of outright lies without consequence either legally or at the polls. Wilson's outburst was more of a wrong place/wrong time thing, in that it was rude and violated procedure. Had he made the same accusation to the press outside the capital, there would have been no consequence.

BTW where in obamacare is it said that we'll give free coverage to illegals (what Wilson accused Obama of lying about)?

 

[pgg]

We live in the era of Orwellian political correctness--the content of a statement is less important than how it is delivered.

Heh. If you think the importance of delivery is a new quirk of a recent slide into Orwellian political correctness, you must be very young.

Besides, it wasn't just the delivery that sucked, but as I wrote above, the content was simply wrong too.

Look at Wilson, he called Obama out on a flat lie during his address to Congress and was rewarded with negative press and a formal Congressional rebuke.

Well yeah, if you're such a unmannered lout that you'll heckle the President (any President!) at the State of the Union Address, you deserve to be slapped by your better-mannered colleagues.

 

[Osteoimperfecta]

Romney is that interception prone QB. They rarely win superbowls.

 

[pgg]

There's nothing controversial about it. People have unlimited appetites for free stuff. 47% don't pay, so tax funded things are free. Having a large percentage of prople not doing for their country but having their country do for them is the end of our republic.

I personally think everyone should pay some federal income tax, even if it's a very progressive token 2 or 3%.

But "47% don't pay" is a gross overstatement. The deficit isn't a consequence of refundable federal child tax credits to lower wage earners. And again - whether you agree that it's controversial or not - I hope I can convince you that it is, at best, poor campaign strategy to go out of your way to alienate the working poor and the unemployed, given that your central campaign talking point is that you'd create more jobs than the incumbent.

 

[sisko]

Do you mind explaining the bold more?

Not trying to get up on my soapbox here too much but somebody did ask for an explanation...

On the issue of constitutional republic vs. democracy... one of those things that kind of irks me when everybody (including conservatives, usually) refer to our system as a democracy and hold up "democracy" as the ideal. I know it's a kind of shorthand most of the time and most people are not referring to a pure democracy, but still... In democracy qua democracy, if 50.1% vote to rape and pillage the other 49.9%, that's allowed, perfectly fine and acceptable. It's proceduralized mob rule.

We do use democracy for electing people to serve in the government. But the more fundamental and far more important fact is that we have a constitution that places limits on what those people in the government can do. We limit their power, we limit the ability of the majority to violate the rights of the minority simply by virtue of their numbers.

Or at least that's what the Constitution was intended to do. Certain inconsistencies or loopholes if you will made their way into the document however, probably the worst being the one giving Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. The intention of this clause was very limited in scope, but being written in such general terms it has allowed the proponents of a strong and powerful central government to try and use it to justify almost anything they want to do.

 

[chessknt]

The deficit isn't a consequence of refundable federal child tax credits to lower wage earners. And again - whether you agree that it's controversial or not - I hope I can convince you that it is, at best, poor campaign strategy to go out of your way to alienate the working poor and the unemployed, given that your central campaign talking point is that you'd create more jobs than the incumbent.

Indeed, it was a stupid move that is just sealing his likely fate. No idea why he didn't do exactly what you said--focus on helping the 47% instead of berating them.

Physician reimbursement is also not responsible for the deficit (or healthcare inflation), but politics is about picking easy targets with small voter bases, not doing what is right or effective. It is much easier to gut provider pay and tout overhead waste than tell the politically active seniors that they are going to have to pay more or get less.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Romney did make a blunder in that statement about the 47 percent; but, it was a small blunder. Romney needs to focus on the intent behind his statement: The choice between an entitlement, government centered society or a free market economy where hard work and job opportunity create wealth.

Many of those 47 percent want work and want to do better than they have been over the past 4 years. Romney should appeal to them that independence, hard work and economic success is the American way.

I believe Romney can and will recover from the gaffe by explaining his intent was to energize those people who want to do better in life with less government interference. Tax reform and less regulation will mean more jobs for Americans.

 

[countingdays]

Indeed, it was a stupid move that is just sealing his likely fate. No idea why he didn't do exactly what you said--focus on helping the 47% instead of berating them.

Physician reimbursement is also not responsible for the deficit (or healthcare inflation), but politics is about picking easy targets with small voter bases, not doing what is right or effective. It is much easier to gut provider pay and tout overhead waste than tell the politically active seniors that they are going to have to pay more or get less.

He is focused on helping the 47% by allowing job creation.
Obama and other socialists do nothing to improve life for the poor in the long term.

 

[BLADEMDA]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB1dG1Bg1xM&feature=youtube_gdata_player


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge3aGJfDSg4&feature=youtube_gdata_player


Obama believes in redistribution of wealth. He views government as the means to the ends for taking money and giving it to others. Clearly, this is socialism and European style taxation.

 

[pgg]

Romney did make a blunder in that statement about the 47 percent; but, it was a small blunder. Romney needs to focus on the intent behind his statement: The choice between an entitlement, government centered society or a free market economy where hard work and job opportunity create wealth.

No no no, this may be true but it won't help him win. It's rhetoric that plays right into Obama's "he doesn't care about you" game plan.

Many of those 47 percent want work and want to do better than they have been over the past 4 years. Romney should appeal to them that independence, hard work and economic success is the American way.

I believe Romney can and will recover from the gaffe by explaining his intent was to energize those people who want to do better in life with less government interference. Tax reform and less regulation will mean more jobs for Americans.

He needs to talk less about philosophy, independence, the rewards of honest work ... and more about the economy and job creation.

The 47%, and indeed the 99% if you believe in that phony distinction too, care less about socialist vs libertarian ideals than they do about their prospects for employment. Most would be happy to accept bigger government if it meant a job (even if it was just for a little while).

He is focused on helping the 47% by allowing job creation.
Obama and other socialists do nothing to improve life for the poor in the long term.

I basically agree with you here. But these are long term goals and projects when the near term goal is 270 electoral votes.

 

[pgg]

Obama believes in redistribution of wealth. He views government as the means to the ends for taking money and giving it to others. Clearly, this is socialism and European style taxation.

Maybe so. But pointing that out won't win votes, because (believe it or not) there are a lot of people in this country who look at European style socialism and think, gee, it wouldn't be so bad to live in a country like Sweden.

IF Europe implodes in the next seven weeks, then maybe Romney could point to that burning example as where Obama's policies might take us. But for now, for the left and a big chunk of the middle, "socialism" simply ISN'T the dirty word the right thinks it is.


I just think that when you're talking about those un- or under-employed poor / middle class undecided voters in Iowa or Florida or Virginia, abstract discussions about "socialism" aren't going to talk them into voting for Romney.

Since you're a trained scientist, here's an experiment: Ask the next person you meet in person to define socialism. I bet he won't be able to put together a coherent definition.

Then ask him what a "job" is.

 

[BLADEMDA]

http://www.cafepress.com/hyperbolegear.399433502

 

[jpark1800]

Americans LOVE socialism: Bernie sanders who is a socialist is the third most popular politician

America is going to be a weird place. I seriously am aghast as to the amount of ppl in this country who seriously believe ppl making above 250K are crooks and frauds. I think when Obama said "you didnt build that", the thing that SHOCKED ME was that there were so many ppl in the crowd with an angry tone of voice that agreed.

This is the future of America: We will head in the direction of France and Greece, AND IN PARTICULAR, the direction of INDIA. It will be very hard to make above 250K and the only people who will be making it are those supported by the fed gov (hospital CEOs, union bosses, trial lawyers). The politicians will grow extremely wealthy (google Gandhi nehru family corruption to see how our politicians will end up). It will be the privileged elite, academics, and those politicians who pander to all minorities (except for Asians, as Asians do not vote reliably liberal according to research), a term called 'vote-bank' politics in Indian politics.

The upper middle class (from 250k-750k) will VANISH. You will be paid only a little bit above a schoolteacher, if you are an MD.

I think it is best to research which countries are moving towards more capitalism. I heard Canada is starting to loosen up. Heck, even Rwanda is more pro-biz than the US now. My hope is that while socialism takes over America, I hope that the third world gets richer and more capitalist. I would move there. If you cant move, then maybe just buy up real estate. I don't know.

The big difference that most dumbo liberal voters are incapable of grasping is that although Britain and other socialist countries give great benefits, everything is pretty much run ENTIRELY by the government. But if socialism takes place here in the US, things will be run by the government AND huge corporations (only the corporations that benefit from CRONY CAPITALISM).

America will be a mix of CRONY CAPITALISM and SOCIALISM. Pathetic.

 

[alpha2agonist]

Do you ever REALLY listen to yourself? Do you really think all of this is new, this argument has been going on since at least the 1880's. Really everyone read a little history take a deep breath and get a grip. check out the railroad strike of 1877, the depression, civil war then come talk about how bad it is.

 

[pgg]

Do you ever REALLY listen to yourself? Do you really think all of this is new, this argument has been going on since at least the 1880's. Really everyone read a little history take a deep breath and get a grip. check out the railroad strike of 1877, the depression, civil war then come talk about how bad it is.

That's odd.


My impression is that the people who have "read a little history" tend to be the ones who have an appreciation for just how bad things can get. These people (and I include myself among them) realize just how close to the edge our fragile and interconnected and overleveraged financial system got in 2008, we realize the magnitude of the problems brewing, and we realize another Depression (or worse) is probably coming.

We have specific reasons for believing so: debt and energy chief among them.


On the flip side are the guys who think the problems really aren't so bad, and that we can't slip into another Depression, because, well, because we're special or something, and we just can't. On the bright side, maybe those guys will "read a little history" once they find themselves reliving it.

 

[yappy]

It is true. As much of the world is moving to the right - we in the US are moving toward the left.

Though, I think we should be careful of looking at history. It's not some sort of predictor that must repeat itself. Each time is specific unto itself. Sometimes it bugs me how people hold this notion that there are always parallels from the past to the future. As if time bends back on itself and we're destined to repeat old problems/challenges. The world is not that mysterious. Things happen because things make them happen and things are not the same as they were.

New times, new challenges, new circumstances, new outcomes.

 

[BrakngLyv]

Look at Wilson, he called Obama out on a flat lie during his address to Congress and was rewarded with negative press and a formal Congressional rebuke.

AND more than $2 million in campaign contributions in the aftermath. Let's be honest...

 

[likeaboss]

Americans LOVE socialism: Bernie sanders who is a socialist is the third most popular politician

America is going to be a weird place. I seriously am aghast as to the amount of ppl in this country who seriously believe ppl making above 250K are crooks and frauds. I think when Obama said "you didnt build that", the thing that SHOCKED ME was that there were so many ppl in the crowd with an angry tone of voice that agreed.

This is the future of America: We will head in the direction of France and Greece, AND IN PARTICULAR, the direction of INDIA. It will be very hard to make above 250K and the only people who will be making it are those supported by the fed gov (hospital CEOs, union bosses, trial lawyers). The politicians will grow extremely wealthy (google Gandhi nehru family corruption to see how our politicians will end up). It will be the privileged elite, academics, and those politicians who pander to all minorities (except for Asians, as Asians do not vote reliably liberal according to research), a term called 'vote-bank' politics in Indian politics.

The upper middle class (from 250k-750k) will VANISH. You will be paid only a little bit above a schoolteacher, if you are an MD.

I think it is best to research which countries are moving towards more capitalism. I heard Canada is starting to loosen up. Heck, even Rwanda is more pro-biz than the US now. My hope is that while socialism takes over America, I hope that the third world gets richer and more capitalist. I would move there. If you cant move, then maybe just buy up real estate. I don't know.

The big difference that most dumbo liberal voters are incapable of grasping is that although Britain and other socialist countries give great benefits, everything is pretty much run ENTIRELY by the government. But if socialism takes place here in the US, things will be run by the government AND huge corporations (only the corporations that benefit from CRONY CAPITALISM).

America will be a mix of CRONY CAPITALISM and SOCIALISM. Pathetic.

Seriously dude wtf are you talking about?