The howls against the evils of socialism and wealth distribution are now another standard brainless slogan of Republican and Libertarian supporters who are so stupid that they mindlessly repeat anything they are told like retarded sheep.
A quick examination of some basic statistics shows just how irrevocably stupid they are. • The United States "the richest country in the world" is also the world's most polarized country in the world. • In America "the richest country in the world" the richest 1% of the population owns more than the bottom 90%, while the bottom 40% own just 0.2% of total wealth. • In America "the richest country in the world" the average household is in debt 170% of per annum income--a record amount • America, "the richest country in the world" also has more people in jail per capita than any other country in the world. A clear indicator of the severe social dislocation of American society • American "the richest country in the world" has the worst rate of child poverty of all OECD countries • In America "the richest country in the world" it is expected that by 2011 5.5 a total of million families will lose their homes, putting 20 million people on the streets. • In America "the richest country in the world" the big 3 auto makers have seen their sales drop by over 35% from the same period last year, while over one million people have lost their jobs because of business downturn. In other words because the rich have all the money and the workers have none, as they are in record debt, they can no longer pay for their homes and buy new cars etc The working class are bankrupt and Republicans and Libertarians blame socialism for the economic problems of the US. How obvious is it that greed inspired capitalism is the problem and an unequal share of the wealth of the country? A five year old could work this out, but they have a lot more sense than conservative Neanderthals. On Nov 21, 3:34 pm, "M.A. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Was Obamathe Only Socialist Running?Posted byMike Tennantat 12:41 > PMGeorgeWill doesn't think so.In fact, says he, "spreading [wealth] is mostly > what Washington does. Here, the Constitution is an afterthought; the supreme > law of the land is the principle of concentrated benefits and dispersed > costs."GOP must admit it has spread wealthBy George Will > Washington Post Writers Group > Sunday, November 16, 2008 > Washington - Conservatism’s current intellectual chaos reverberated in the > GOP ticket’s end-of-campaign crescendo of surreal warnings that big > government - verily, “socialism” - would impend were Democrats elected. John > McCain and Sarah Palin experienced this epiphany when Barack Obama told a > plumber that he would “spread the wealth around.” > America can’t have that, exclaimed the Republican ticket while Republicans - > whose prescription drug entitlement is the largest expansion of the welfare > state since President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society gave birth to Medicare > in 1965; a majority of whom in Congress supported a lavish farm bill at a > time of record profits for the less than 2 percent of the American > people-cum-corporations who farm - and their administration were partially > nationalizing the banking system, putting Detroit on the dole and looking > around to see whether some bit of what is smilingly called “the private > sector” has been inadvertently left off the ever-expanding list of entities > eligible for a bailout from the $1 trillion or so that is to be “spread > around.” > The seepage of government into everywhere is, we are assured, to be temporary > and nonpolitical. Well. > Probably as temporary as New York City’s rent controls, which were born as > emergency responses to the Second World War, and which are still distorting > the city’s housing market. The Depression, which FDR failed to end but which > Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor did end, was the excuse for agriculture > subsidies that have lived past three score years and 10. > The distribution of a trillion dollars by a political institution - the > federal government - will be nonpolitical? How could it be? Either markets > allocate resources, or government - meaning politics - allocates them. Now > that distrust of markets is high, Americans are supposed to believe that the > institution they trust least - Congress - will pony up $1 trillion and then > passively recede, never putting its 10 thumbs, like a manic Jack Horner, into > the pie? Surely Congress will direct the executive branch to show compassion > for this, that and the other industry. And it will mandate “socially > responsible” spending - an infinitely elastic term - by the favored companies. > Detroit has not yet started spending the $25 billion that Congress has > approved but already is, like Oliver Twist, holding out its porridge bowl and > saying, “Please, sir, I want some more.” > McCain and Palin, plucky foes of spreading the wealth, must have known that > such spreading is mostly what Washington does. Here, the Constitution is an > afterthought; the supreme law of the land is the principle of concentrated > benefits and dispersed costs. Sugar import quotas cost the American people > approximately $2 billion a year, but that sum is siphoned from 300 million > consumers in small, hidden increments that are not noticed. > Conservatives rightly think, or once did, that much, indeed most, government > spreading of wealth is economically destructive and morally dubious - > destructive because, by directing capital to suboptimum uses, it slows wealth > creation; morally dubious because the wealth being spread belongs to those > who created it, not government. But if conservatives call all such spreading > by government “socialism,” that becomes a classification that no longer > classifies: It includes almost everything, including the refundable tax > credit on which McCain’s health care plan depended. > Hyperbole is not harmless; careless language bewitches the speaker’s > intelligence. And falsely shouting “socialism!” in a crowded theater such as > Washington causes yawning. This is the only major industrial society that has > never had a large socialist party ideologically, meaning candidly, committed > to redistribution of wealth. This is partly because Americans are an > aspirational, not an envious people. It is also because the socialism we do > have is the surreptitious socialism of the strong, e.g. sugar producers > represented by their Washington hirelings. > In America, socialism is un-American. Instead, Americans merely do > rent-seeking - bending government for the benefit of private factions. The > difference is in degree, including the degree of candor. The rehabilitation > of conservatism cannot begin until conservatives are candid about their > complicity in what government has become. > As for the president-elect, he promises to change Washington. He will, by > making matters worse. He will intensify rent-seeking by finding new ways - > this will not be easy - to expand, even more than the current administration > has, government’s influence on spreading the > wealth.http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2008/11/16/willed.html --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
