Venezuela - Are They Waking Up?
It appears some folks there are. They finally are realizing the reforms Chavez is pushing do nothing good for the citizenry. However, in Hitlery Clinton fashion, he is giving a few of the folks a couple of bucks for a little while to insure getting votes. After that, the prospects don't look too good.
The amendments would give the government control over the Central Bank, create
new types of cooperative property, allow authorities to detain citizens without
charges during a state of emergency and extend presidential terms from six to
seven years while allowing Chavez to run again in 2012.
Take a good look at Hugo's plan and try to figure how this is going to benefit anyone but Hugo. Allowing authorities to detain citizens without charges? Cooperative property? Control over the Central Bank? Looks an awfully lot like the former Soviet Union to me.
Just an observation.
posted by Ol' BC @ 6:32 PM
21 comments
21 Comments:
Regardless of whether Clinton is the next Karl Marx, the U.S.'s middle class is seeing erosion of its capital base and its rights. An occasional redistribution of wealth is necessary under a Capitalistic system, else the labor class will eventually wind up paupers.
The interesting thing about our present two party way of doing things is that the democrats can instigate this change and the republicans can change it back, thus giving a healthy and temporary boost in both directions.
I agree with some of what you say, but when they redistribute, we all become paupers. It's just a matter of how long it takes.
I don't see how a temporary redistribution of wealth makes everyone paupers. In fact, giving the middle and lower classes more tax relief might make other things possible, such as affording a semblance of health insurance, which is now quite out of reach for them.
I am not against Capitalism, yet Capitalism, just like government, is a system which affords power to some and not to others, and so much have a system of balances set up to ensure that it does not run the people into the dirt. When an economic system is based upon the exploitation of cheap labor, a system must arise that attempts to counter-balance the tendency for the rich to become richer and the poor to become poorer.
There is no ideal government just as there is no ideal economic system, therefore it is only logical to assume that whatever system we live under must be monitored and occasionally counter-balanced to correct for the inherent flaws.
Tax relief for the middle and lower classes is exactly what I've preached for years. It would also afford them more opportunity to amass wealth of their own. I'm critical of redistribution via higher taxes to the government (at any level).
I don't agree with anything Mark writes. Whether or not he's aware of it, he's advocating pure Marxism. Redistributing wealth, indeed! He's talking theft, pure and simple, just as have politico-parasites of all stripes, the world over.
He says working people will be poorer under capitalism--ignoring the fact that tens of millions starved and were executed by each: Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Roosevelt, etc, etc.
Today, even under a vastly handicapped version of capitalism, even the lowliest working man has a place to live, at least one car, tv, food on the table and clothing. To say that capitalism makes anyone poor is to ignore the entire history of the Western World.
To think socialism does anything but kill millions is to ignore the entire history of the continents of Africa and Asia--and much of the rest of the world prior to the advent of industry.
Those who despise capitalism have to realize that most of them wouldn't live beyond their first year in the absence of free trade and freedom of choice. Medicine didn't really begin until freedom of thought came into being.
The man who doesn't think he can live in a capitalist (free) world is an unwell individual indeed.
Well, you are taking my words to the extreme. I am not saying that Capitalism has caused the undermining of the middle class. I am saying that it will. It is a natural progression that in fact must happen if Capitalism is followed to its natural conclusion.
You see it today with outsourcing of jobs to poor countries. The need for cheap labor is sucking the wealth from the hands of the workers, the money they need to buy the goods that are then piped back to them. Who benefits? The producers. Not the laborers in America. This is just one example of how the search for cheap labor undermines wealth.
A healthy redistribution of wealth is necessary. And I am not talking about killing the peasants off. I am talking about a thoughtful and caring elite who should see the benefits of aiding the base of their own country by giving back and keeping their country's middle class strong.
Your argument that this is theft is simply ludicrous. If it is theft, then it is theft on every level. (While I might agree with this general premise, it is not going to make taxation disappear)
It is true that this sort of maneuvering does decrease initiative, however we are not talking about a purely socialistic system. I am talking about an occasional socialistic shot in the arm that can exist quite happily beside capitalism if we have a thoughtful governing body.
I am not talking about 50-60% income taxes like they have in Europe. I am talking modest and occasional tax increases to the extremely wealthy. This would be offset by tax relief to businesses.
Anyway, this is too weighty a matter to really get into here, but you get the general idea. I am sure you will disagree, as you seem too quick to froth at the mouth about it, but perhaps a little bit of it will make some sense.
I am saying that it will. It is a natural progression that in fact must happen if Capitalism is followed to its natural conclusion.
The need for cheap labor is sucking the wealth from the hands of the workers
A healthy redistribution of wealth is necessary.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels would be proud to know people are still buying this bullshit.
I am talking about an occasional socialistic shot in the arm that can exist quite happily beside capitalism if we have a thoughtful governing body.
This is the problem with the Left today. They come at you with this lie that they only want to implement enough socialism to keep capitalism from hurting people. Then, of course, things don't improve and probably get worse (definitely as a result of the socialism), so they insist upon more socialism. There is already more socialism than anyone can reasonably handle in America today, and these people want more of it. Why?? So they can ultimately replace the unfettered capitalism that gave America the greatest economy the world had ever seen with plain old good-old fashioned socialism a-la the USSR, Cuba, etc.
Socialism and Capitalism cannot "happily" coexist. And the bullshit about a "thoughtful governing body" is a joke. There hasn't been any such thing in this country for over a hundred years, and closer to double that. Why would you give an entity that is at best a necessary evil that kind of power?
Bullshit taken to the extreme, I must say.
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
This is the sort of inflammatory rhetoric I have come to expect from you. You back it with no examples and no evidence, so therefore I cannot even remotely take you seriously. If you are going to accuse someone of lying and spreading bullshit, perhaps you should give some evidence of your claims. And if you are going to accuse me of wanting to usher in the new Communist age, then perhaps you should not put words in my mouth. I never said this, nor do I intend it. I am talking about healthy compromise between systems, a thing that can and does exist at this present time.
Compromise is rather the backbone of the democratic process. Perhaps you've heard of it?
There is no "healthy" compromise between a system which maximizes evil (socialism) and one that minimizes it (capitalism). Compromise is rather nothing of the sort. There can no compromise on the Constitution/Bill of Rights. They are both institutions that must be followed in order for anything you advocate to be legal. What you say is like saying that I robbed a bank, so let's reach a compromise as to whether or not I broke any laws - pure unadulterated BULLSHIT.
As to what you are calling "inflammatory rhetoric", I simply quoted you and made reference to the simple fact that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels would have been happy to see that there were still people who bought into their bullshit philosophy. The things you said could have easily been said by them. Anyone who has read The Communist Manifesto could see that. The things you say are straight out of that belief system.
There can never and will never be a "healthy redistribution of wealth - that is bullshit. Since you said it, you are spreading bullshit.
The "need for cheap labor" isn't "sucking the wealth from the hands of the workers", punitive taxes on their employers is. Since you said it, you are spreading bullshit.
The only way capitalism can be said to be "undermining the middle class" would be that middle class people move up the ladder in a capitalist economy. Likewise for less wealthy people. Everyone has the same opportunity to succeed and become wealthy. Socialism merely stands in their way and tries to make the rich poor. That is bullshit. Since you said it, you are spreading bullshit.
Anyone that advocates ANY increase in socialism is bringing on the danger of a "new communist age". Look what has happened over the last 100 years. We started the ball rolling with FDR's Raw Deal, and piled on with LBJ's Great Socialism. Both have been major factors in slowing the great economic machine that is our economy.
Case in point, since you insist: "Healthcare". The US government begins subsidizing healthcare and HMOs. This took the free market out of the picture and brought in socialism. Since the cost of hospitalization and doctor visits has increased due to the socialism, the federal government now wants to dig its grimy paws deeper into our pockets and confiscate more of our money so that it can drive prices even higher by offering "free" healthcare. It's the same idiocy they apply to education. All it does is suppress the quality and increase the price.
Bring back the free market. It was a much better deal.
There is no healthy socialism. Don't you think the Founders would have made a provision for it if it had any merit at all??????
Not that I expect you to have much respect for them. After all, the things you advocate fly right into their faces.
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
Mark Asserts that he doesn't mean "50-60% income taxes like they have in Europe," not willing to recognize that, while it's not all income tax, most Americans already pay more than 50% taxes when you consider federal and state income tax, social security tax, federal and state "sin taxes" (liquor and tobacco taxes), federal and state gas and fuel taxes, state and local sales taxes, not to mention dozens of niggling litte taxes on your phones and other utilities.
If he really wants to redistribute wealth, he ought to do the moral thing (to leftist altruists) and take a homeless family into his home. He could hand out his own money to the poor (and leave mine alone). Note that leftists never want to give up their own money--just that of others.
Mark should also realize that what he calls "cheap labor" is more accurately termed "market labor," and every American is free to quit a low-paying job and get a better one, or (horrors) create a better mousetrap in his own garage.
In the decades between 1880 and 1930, before the evil FD Roosevelt very nearly destroyed capitalism in America, Messrs Harley and Davidson, the Bros Wright, A G Bell and hundreds of others (without the "benefit" of income redistribution, made themselves wealthy men because they had ideas. Income redistribution makes one sit and watch tv and drink beer.
Dr Walter E Williams defines wealth redistribution as the legalized theft of wealth from one person, and giving it to another person to whom it does not belong. I say, hooray for Dr Williams!
Dr. Williams is one of America's great minds.
Hooray, indeed!
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
Frankly, if I had money, I would want to give it to the poor, so your assertion is totally spurious and assuming. In a society of caring people, it should be everyone's duty to take care of each other. Your philosophy is one of "every man for himself". You assume that all men have equal opportunity to succeed in this country, but this is total myth.
Ask the kid in the Hartford Connecticut school who dodges bullets every day on his way to school whether he has equal opportunities.
Your philosophy is a cold one, and I am happy not to share it.
In other words, Mark's apparently telling us, "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts."
He says he has no money, or he would help the poor. In America, if one has no money, one is not a productive individual. Non-productive individuals are the ones who want to receive all that stolen money, to which he does not belong.
I fail to see any facts within any of your messages. Now, if you wish to present some actual evidence, then I will rethink my position. Your attitudes are full of mere opinion, conjecture and "chicken little" postulations. Socialist programs exist within this country and I see nothing to indicate that they are the cause of the ruin of the Republic.
I am a productive individual, just not in the way you perceive to be the "good". You equate productivity within the market place as a moral imperative while you imply that people who are productive in different ways are miscreants and unworthy of holding opinions.
I am not greedy. I don't need anyone to take care of me, government or otherwise, but let's face it, there are some who do. This is where socialist programs can and must exist, if we are to call ourselves a "humane" civilization.
This is where socialist programs can and must exist, if we are to call ourselves a "humane" civilization.
Bullshit. Plain and simple.
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
There are many facts within my replies, but Mark chooses not to see them, calling them opinions.
To social/moral relativists of his sort, 2+2=4 is only an opinion. Rather than practice what he preaches, and extending a hand toward nearby unfortunates, he claims poverty himself (while attempting to maintain that he's really a productive individual), preferring to use the brute force of an out-of-control government to make others pay for the aid.
He refuses to see that giving handouts to those who refuse to be responsible for their own lives only creates immobile drones of them, and also works to hobble those of us who are, in fact, productive.
He insists that his productivity is not the kind that's visible in the "material realm," and uses this for an excuse to eschew aiding others.
Sorry, I find this attitude reprehensible--the same kind of mindset that allows Algore to preach the religion of Global Warming while traveling about in private jet planes and mega suv's--while consuming more than twenty times the amount of energy in his mansion than the average homeowner. Hypocrites with a capital HYPOCRITE.
"...he claims poverty himself (while attempting to maintain that he's really a productive individual)"
Do you see how you equate poverty to lack of productivity here? Being poor does not imply lack of productivity. In many cases it implies lack of access to opportunity.
My basic argument is that it should be a moral imperative to take care of those people who cannot take care of themselves. In addition, we should try to give everyone equal opportunity through education and social capital.
This is why I am studying to be a teacher in many respects. I am not "productive" at this time because I am in school. I am most certainly poor. Even when I was working, I was poor. To make a reasonable living I would have to have been productive ten hours a day seven days of the week. Your arguments seem to be completely out of touch with the guy who has no real education, who works two jobs, lives in a trailer and has three kids and a wife to feed.
The reality is that people do not have equal opportunity in this life--- in any life. So, should we not work to better all life? Would this not make us stronger as a society?
First, one doesn't start a family until after he's established the ability to care for a spouse and children. Every parent should teach his children thus, and every individual should conduct his life thus.
Second, only the very fortunate begin life with the proverbial silver spoon--although such is much more likely in a capitalist system than otherwise. I didn't, nor did most of the folks I know. One must work hard, learn as much and as fast as possible and make one's own opportunities.
I'm always amazed when I encounter someone who hasn't realized this by the age of.....about sixteen.
I suppose those are the people of whom Mark speaks as being unable to "take care of themselves." People who deny the facts of reality until they are into middle age, then complain that no one gave them a chance.
Fo this, according to Mark, we have to voluntarily subject ourselves to being mugged by government thugs who will first line their own pockets, then give a pittance to those irresponsible drones.
It may happen. I may have to allow myself to be shackled and raped for the benefit of those who don't wish to be responsible for themselves, but I won't like it, I won't condone it and I'll slip out of the noose as soon as I can.
Your attitude speaks to a fundamental lack of understanding regarding reality. The very teen agers you speak of, why, Col. Hogan, do you believe they know nothing about opportunity? Do you think it is their fault? You seem to prove my point when you attempt to make your own:
Not everyone understands the system as we have it, the system which supposedly requires one to find opportunity on their own.
No one really has asked me where the tax money should really go, and I would answer: Education and improved access to the very social networks and opportunities you speak of.
The little kid living in the slums of Boston doesn't have a chance, statistically speaking. Why? Because his world is all about lack of opportunity. He sees no opportunity! He is isolated, both by poverty and many times by race. Some kids in these areas have never been out of there very small zone of influence.
Do these kids have the same opportunities as the middle class white kid who knows professionals in the community, is encouraged to go to college, and doesn't have a life filled with gang violence and the proliferation of drugs?
What is your answer, Colonel? Every man for himself? Good luck, kid!
Gosh Mark ..
Are you a socialist or something?
An enemy of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak?
An enemy of our capitalistic economic system's unfair salaries?
An enemy of its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance?
You act like this is somehow a good thing, even though you've been proven wrong time and again.
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
I'm afraid I can't respond, as I do not understand what you are trying to say. Your sentences are grammatically terrible and your point is vague at best. My apologies. Clearly it is my own lacking of understanding that is to blame.
Post a Comment
<< Home