Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29
  1. #21  
    Senior Member Troll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Not Amused
    Posts
    852
    Personally, I think capitalism is better because I reject the idea that the government is entitled to take things from me or anyone else in an effort to make life more "fair" for other people.

    I also prefer capitalism because most of the people who employ people in this country seem to be capitalists who are driven by profit.

    I've also noticed that whenever I'm waiting on the government to provide me with any good or service, I seem to wait longer and get crappy service. Government websites are also a lot harder to use than private sector ones.

    To make a long story short, government can't do anything that the private sector couldn't do better. If you took away the government power to tax and made federal agencies compete for business in the free market as they are, Social Security and the USPS would evaporate in a year with Medicare and the FDA not far behind.

    Socialism is like masturbation. It sounds like a good idea, but in the end, you're just screwing yourself.
    Last edited by Troll; 03-07-2010 at 06:58 PM. Reason: "Post Office", duh.
    Nothing helps a bad mood like spreading it around.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    nc
    Posts
    663
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    0.5% of the population owns 49% of all privately-owned corporate stock.

    the top 1% holds about 35% of wealth.

    These are the people in that class.
    ..and millions work for this top 1%. We manage to earn salaries that allow us to live better than the vast majority of people elsewhere.

    Remember, many of our poorest people are overweight. It's exclusively an American problem.

    In the winter, you have heat, summer A/C. Flick the switch and the lights come on. It ain't that simple all over. You have a comfortable existence. So comfortable that you have time to sit around and manufacture problems for yourself. If you were being shot at, or had to ration your goods, you'd be less involved in social statistics.

    Pardon me if I don't share your outrage over these class inequalities.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by 3rd-try View Post
    ..and millions work for this top 1%. We manage to earn salaries that allow us to live better than the vast majority of people elsewhere.

    Remember, many of our poorest people are overweight. It's exclusively an American problem.

    In the winter, you have heat, summer A/C. Flick the switch and the lights come on. It ain't that simple all over. You have a comfortable existence. So comfortable that you have time to sit around and manufacture problems for yourself. If you were being shot at, or had to ration your goods, you'd be less involved in social statistics.

    Pardon me if I don't share your outrage over these class inequalities.
    Yes there's a difference between third world starving countries and the worlds most wealthy nation, but why is it that other nations who are also fairly wealthy do not show such staggering inequality?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Super Moderator BadCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    In your dreams
    Posts
    15,616
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Yes there's a difference between third world starving countries and the worlds most wealthy nation, but why is it that other nations who are also fairly wealthy do not show such staggering inequality?
    What do you do for a living?

    rm -rf obama*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    nc
    Posts
    663
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Yes there's a difference between third world starving countries and the worlds most wealthy nation, but why is it that other nations who are also fairly wealthy do not show such staggering inequality?


    Staggering inequality? If Europe can be used as an example, then "middle class" moves down a few notches as far as expendable income is concerned. Lowering the higher levels may bring about equality, but your life doesn't improve. So, unless you're obsessed with envy, your existence doesn't improve. So, what's the point.
    Look at true day-to-day life. Let it be a guide. It's not just starving third world countries. This is a great place to be even if you're lower middle class. You'll still exist in a humane environment, with reasonable creature-comforts, transportation, food EVERY day. And, because of America's economic system, you've always got a shot at moving yourself up the ladder. No guarantees, but it happens every day. It's hard to live without hope. And, the true reality is, you don't have to here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida. The Cuban Part.
    Posts
    3,007
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    government regulation saying what I can or can't do with my dollar or with the club I own?

    sounds like socialism to me

    -Joe the poster
    The free market also says quite a bit about it too. . .if a club charges too much for a drink or for a dance, the managers are pricks, no one wants to go or work there...and the club either suffers majorly or goes out of business.

    ~QC
    "The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is hard business. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." Rudyard Kipling - (1865-1936)

    Context doesn't matter to this liberal it seems/ as long as it satisfies his godless dreams/ like monkeys throwing sh!t as castles in air/ as long as he throws/that is the extent of his care.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Senior Member aerojarod's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Blue State
    Posts
    279
    A completely unregulated capitalist economy is about as dangerous as a direct democracy. There is no cognitive dissonance to be both a fervent capitalist and also wish to regulation in the market. The scope and magnitude that the Federal Government should play in that role is the age-old dissagreement between the left and right.

    Just like our Founders warned that this experiment in Liberty would fail if the people lost their moral and religious guidance... the Capitalist market is also dependant on the integrity of those that participate.

    Which side of the aisle is it again that seems to be slowly and methodically pushing the country away from our common ethical and moral underpinnings again? Or at least trying to equivocate them away with multi-cultural relativism?

    Hmmm...
    "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
    It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
    -- John Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,573
    Quote Originally Posted by movie buff View Post
    "Socialism worked just fine in USSR for over 70 years, turning a backwards illiterate
    desperately poor peasant country into the second most powerful military-industrial
    empire in the world."
    Never mind that there were massive deaths from famine and government crackdowns on dissent, and also never mind that in the 70 years that Russia suffered under the scourge of Socialism, over 10 million Christians were tortured and executed for committing the horrible crime of refusing to deny Christ and convert to atheism.
    Of course, that DUmmy would probably regard such a genocide as a wonderful improvement which should be implemented everywhere in the world.


    I know, that one is either really young and doesn't remember the days of the Iron Curtain, or is totally deluded. The numbers of citizens of the USSR that starved to death during WWII is probably higher than the number of jews the nazis killed in their concentration camps.


    If one wants to overlook their human rights' record, one could make a case that communism brought China into the 20th century. But what made them a 21st century economic power had a lot more to do with backing away from straight-out communism and adapting a level of capitalism in their economy than it did with communism or socialism.


    But China and Russia had one major thing in common that led to communist takeovers-they are huge geographical areas that encompass many cultures within their borders. This caused most of both nations to miss out on the industrial revolution, and be very far behind the large western nations and economies like the US, Britain and Germany. It was a situation that communists could exploit for their own benefit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Yes there's a difference between third world starving countries and the worlds most wealthy nation, but why is it that other nations who are also fairly wealthy do not show such staggering inequality?

    YES!!!


    Let's bring most people DOWN to the lowest level instead of bringing the majority to higher levels.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •