Capitalism, Pros and Cons

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
What I consider to be unfair is the wasteful use of tax money. Programs which have outlived their usefulness, assuming they ever had any, seem to continue forever.

A thorough clean out of the system would save billions which would ease the tax burden on all.

Indeed - but we all know it's easier to give than take away.
As soon as someone takes money from the pile they will be accused of being insensative.
Bah!

Which is why I was disappointed when the thrust toward term limiting Representatives and Senators fizzled.

 

[Mixed View]

Do you dems realize that stealing is illeagal. soon we're gonna be like Canada and their tax percentage on the rich is 63. That is stealing.

 

[shuamort]

Do you dems realize that stealing is illeagal. soon we're gonna be like Canada and their tax percentage on the rich is 63. That is stealing.

Let's see, under Bush we've seen:
$300 billion dollars go to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Spending has mushroomed by 23.7 percent in 2004
Discretionary spending has gone up 31.5 percent
Bush has also enacted a $400 billion, 10-year enlargement of Medicare
$87 billion in expanded benefits for farmers
$40 billion for increased veterans' payments and the Air Force's leasing and buying of refueling tankers.
Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill during his three years in office. http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-09-04-2.html

'Conservative' Bush Spends More than 'Liberal' Presidents Clinton, Carter

Bush Shares Blame for Pork-barrel Bill: As the Steward of Taxpayer Dollars, He Should Dust off Unused Veto Pen


So, how do you think we're going to be able to repay all of these debts that are accruing without cutting spending and raising taxes? Bush's spending is completely out of control. At least Kerry, whom I didn't care for all that much, realized that whenever he would vote on a spending bill that he had a way to pay for it. What's going on now is pure irresponsibility.

 

[V.I. Lenin]

Do you dems realize that stealing is illeagal. soon we're gonna be like Canada and their tax percentage on the rich is 63. That is stealing.

The rich get there money from the workers.

The workers make the product, get paid a small amount and the boss makes the money from his production.

The boss makes money from the workers labor.

Is this not theft?

 

[Squawker]

I have some questions for the Liberals/Socialist/Communist people in the forum. I am lumping Liberals into this debate because it is just a back door word “progressives” like to use to hide the fact that they are Socialists. I have seen some arguments against our current system, but I haven’t seen any strong arguments supporting socialism/communism. I want to know why you think in the 21st century, any government should be allowed to take more money than they already do, from hard working individuals. Why do you think they should give most of it to the government to redistribute as they see fit? I can see giving money to disabled people, the elderly, or people who need a helping hand. How do you think you could demand free people to turn over all their money in a free society without using force? How do envision forcing them to continue to work for no personal gain? If you believe in the Marx theory of redistribution of wealth, would you just use marshal law to take over all the businesses? What makes you think your form of government is superior to any other?

 

[anomaly]

I have some questions for the Liberals/Socialist/Communist people in the forum. I am lumping Liberals into this debate because it is just a back door word “progressives” like to use to hide the fact that they are Socialists. I have seen some arguments against our current system, but I haven’t seen any strong arguments supporting socialism/communism. I want to know why you think in the 21st century, any government should be allowed to take more money than they already do, from hard working individuals. Why do you think they should give most of it to the government to redistribute as they see fit? I can see giving money to disabled people, the elderly, or people who need a helping hand. How do you think you could demand free people to turn over all their money in a free society without using force? How do envision forcing them to continue to work for no personal gain? If you believe in the Marx theory of redistribution of wealth, would you just use marshal law to take over all the businesses? What makes you think your form of government is superior to any other?

You've made some staggering errors here, to say the least.

"Why do you think they should give most of it to the government to redistribute as they see fit? I can see giving money to disabled people, the elderly, or people who need a helping hand."-So you would be for 'privatised redistributive policy'? What you speak of is charity, which would never help the world's workers in any significant way. From the day they are born into a capitalist society, humans are taught that individualist needs come first, and that the position one finds themselves in is really one's own fault. Given this, does it not seem absurd that any capitalist would want to give money to a failure, or help a failure in any significat way. After all, under this train of thought, that's what the poor are-failures. Why give to help others when one can spend and help himself? This is why we need those terrible taxes to fund redistributive policy. If you haven't noticed, humans are naturally obedient to authoritative figures. Government is such a figure, which is why we pay our taxes, along with the threat of punishment if we fail to do so. Under democratic socialism, we try to mix the best of both worlds. Set up a centralized government with substantial power to enact redistributive policy to help the majority-the worker, while at the same time keeping this government in check with the power of democracy. Clearly, an 'organized charity system' (taxes) will inevitably be far more effective that a private system of individual charity, which may or may not raise sufficient funds to actually help the people it intends to.

"How do you think you could demand free people to turn over all their money in a free society without using force? How do envision forcing them to continue to work for no personal gain?"-This is just completely wrong. Socialism would not make individuals pay all of their incomes into taxes, that's just insane. Taxes may not even be raised, as defense spending would likely be lowered. Money, class, and everything else capitalist will still exist under socialism, they will simply be lessened. Socialism is essentially controlled capitalism. It is a form of capitalism, but one that can be exponentially more fair, more equal (I know 'more equal' is hard to imagine for all you black-and-white thinkers out there). Wages will still exist, too, so people will still work for personal gain.

"If you believe in the Marx theory of redistribution of wealth, would you just use marshal law to take over all the businesses? What makes you think your form of government is superior to any other?"-I don't quite know what you're saying here. 'Marshal law'-is this referring to military action in general? I myself am a critic of military revolution in wealthy capitalist countries, but I am not opposed to it in poorer countries, where people are far worse off (and have few rights). And our form of government? What is that? What is our form? Do you mean democracy? I have no idea what you are attempting to say here.

 

[Squawker]

This was a bit hard to follow Anomaly, check out the new tutorial for some help using the quote code. That would help a lot. :lol: You are not talking about a different system at all, just more taxes and more social programs to waste our money on.

Clearly, an 'organized charity system' (taxes) will inevitably be far more effective that a private system of individual charity, which may or may not raise sufficient funds to actually help the people it intends to.

This just burns my :moon: Do you realize that 20 cents on the dollar actually goes to the welfare recipient, and the rest goes for a bloated bureaucracy in the government run "charity"? Private charities have a bit better rate, with Churches and individual groups the best rate.

Socialism would not make individuals pay all of their incomes into taxes, that's just insane. Taxes may not even be raised, as defense spending would likely be lowered. Money, class, and everything else capitalist will still exist under socialism, they will simply be lessened. Socialism is essentially controlled capitalism.

Then why do you call yourself an anti-capitalist? I thought you advocated total government control of the evil corporations. The top income tax rate in Socialist France is around 55 percent. What would you suggest for us?

I myself am a critic of military revolution in wealthy capitalist countries, but I am not opposed to it in poorer countries, where people are far worse off (and have few rights).

I don’t understand what you would do for them. How would you improve their live? If not capitalism, then what?

 

[anomaly]

This was a bit hard to follow Anomaly, check out the new tutorial for some help using the quote code. That would help a lot. :lol: You are not talking about a different system at all, just more taxes and more social programs to waste our money on.
This just burns my :moon: Do you realize that 20 cents on the dollar actually goes to the welfare recipient, and the rest goes for a bloated bureaucracy in the government run "charity"? Private charities have a bit better rate, with Churches and individual groups the best rate.

Then why do you call yourself an anti-capitalist? I thought you advocated total government control of the evil corporations. The top income tax rate in Socialist France is around 55 percent. What would you suggest for us?
I don’t understand what you would do for them. How would you improve their live? If not capitalism, then what?

It was most likely hard to follow because you didn't read it closely. Rather than toy with the holy 'Quote' system, I decided to use good ol' " marks. Perhaps such markings anger you in some way? But anyways...

PRivate charity is more effective? And if the government was reformed, the welfare system along with it? Private charity does not bring in near as much as taxes, obviously, yet you refer to them as if they've already eliminated poverty! Private charity is a joke. That's why we need government takeover of industry (perhaps you misread the entire thing, from the looks of your response). I am an anti-capitalist, and I am for a government that completely controls the economy, but a democratic one.

Socialist France? Are you mad or high, because I hope its one of them, lol. France isn't socialist, they are the USA back in the '50s, with heavy regulation. Does government control industry? Hardly. Honestly, I don't even know how to respond to such a false claim. The only socialist countries in the world are run by dictators. What if the people democratically owned their own economy, instead of one man? That's what I'm talking about: democratic socialism!

And finally, you reveal your shallowness, and close-mindedness. There are, contrary to your distorted view, alternatives to capitalism, alternatives that are able to give a majority in this world a better life. Is that not worth fighting for? Are you so attached and faithful to your pathetic capitalist system that you have acquired an inability to think past it, and, God forbid, ponder alternative systems?

 

[Squawker]

That's why we need government takeover of industry (perhaps you misread the entire thing, from the looks of your response). I am an anti-capitalist, and I am for a government that completely controls the economy, but a democratic one.

I am asking questions to understand your position. You keep going around them. Would you please clarify exactly what your perfect Government/Society would look like and operate?

 

[Fantasea]

\PRivate charity is more effective? And if the government was reformed, the welfare system along with it? Private charity does not bring in near as much as taxes, obviously, yet you refer to them as if they've already eliminated poverty! Private charity is a joke. That's why we need government takeover of industry (perhaps you misread the entire thing, from the looks of your response). I am an anti-capitalist, and I am for a government that completely controls the economy, but a democratic one.

Some folks do not see it your way. It is quite complete, therefore, quite long, but take a look here: http://www.acton.org/publicat/books/transformwelfare/sirico.html

Here's an excerpt.

I believe that private charity has the following advantages over government sponsored welfare:

Private charity is in accord with subsidiarity and enables genuine compassion. An effective welfare system will allow those closest to the individuals in need to be the resources of first resort. Spheres of responsibility would emanate from the person to his family members, to neighbors, to religious institutions, to towns and cities, and then to the states. The federal government would only be involved when lower orders cannot do the job, in cases of clear urgency effecting the well-being of society as a whole, and then only for brief periods so as not to replace the social functions of the lower order. Members of churches would become directly involved in the lives of the poor people in their own communities. These committed local people and groups will work to encourage the weak to become stronger, the dependent as independent as possible. This process will, in turn, revivify local churches by encouraging them to retrieve their original sense of social mission and ministry.

Private charity can better discern the needs of the poor they are involved with. The response could be more humane and tailored to meet specific circumstances and needs.

Private charity would be in accord with human freedom. It is a free and therefore more meaningful moral response. We improve both the lives of those we give to as well as our own lives through this process.

Private charity is less likely to establish a culture of dependency. An impersonal check given without any expectations for responsible behavior leads to a damaged sense of self-worth. Assisting someone out of love can help develop a vision of worth and dignity within those helped. The beauty of local efforts to help the needy is that they humanize welfare. They allow for one person to help another to pursue his creative potentials. They make the individual receiving aid realize that he must work to live up to the expectations of those helping him out. This sense promotes community.

Private charity would be cost-effective. Decentralization would provide for less costly ways of helping the poor and removing red-tape and over-regulation. Ineffective programs would shut down rather than be refunded through federal aid. Money would be channeled to address the most urgent needs. Local solutions allow for a flexibility that is simply impossible at the federal level.

This all cannot happen if we do not try. This cannot happen if we do not place the impetus for charitable giving back where it belongs—in the hands of individual Americans, who through their own efforts or organizations can fulfill their moral obligations to those less fortunate.

There are those who doubt the ability of the private sector to meet the overwhelming needs that exist. Where would the money come from? Wouldn’t the rich just ignore the poor? The questions, in fact, are endless. We can never answer every objection to reform. Many people will maintain the assumption that needy people will not be cared for if the role of government is diminished in the provision of welfare. To overcome this mentality, we will need the faith it took to leap from communism to a free market in Soviet Russia. We need faith that the American people are up to the task.

Welfare socialism has failed to attain perfect security for all people. There will always be older people, children, poor men and women, the disabled, and the unemployed who need our help. The issue is not how to create a perfect world without poverty, but how we can create a system that is most adept at finding those who need our help, meeting their needs, and when possible, helping those people toward a life of independence.

Whatever imperfections such a transformation in the system would produce, it must be compared to the present system, which has been an abysmal failure. The only way out of this mess is to return much of the responsibility for dealing with these problems back to its proper place: the private sector.

One of the tragedies of the our thirty-year experiment in social engineering is our loss of the practical knowledge of how we can effectively help poor people improve their lot.

Authentic charity cannot be centrally planned any more than an economy can be. The spontaneous efforts of private individuals, houses of worship, and charities will work, however imperfectly. Whatever its flaws, a system based on greater private charity will allow caregivers to learn from their own mistakes.

After reading the piece from which this was exerpted, you would be well advised to read the writings of the rest of the contributors.

 

[anomaly]

Some folks do not see it your way. It is quite complete, therefore, quite long, but take a look here: http://www.acton.org/publicat/books/transformwelfare/sirico.html

Here's an excerpt.

I believe that private charity has the following advantages over government sponsored welfare:

Private charity is in accord with subsidiarity and enables genuine compassion. An effective welfare system will allow those closest to the individuals in need to be the resources of first resort. Spheres of responsibility would emanate from the person to his family members, to neighbors, to religious institutions, to towns and cities, and then to the states. The federal government would only be involved when lower orders cannot do the job, in cases of clear urgency effecting the well-being of society as a whole, and then only for brief periods so as not to replace the social functions of the lower order. Members of churches would become directly involved in the lives of the poor people in their own communities. These committed local people and groups will work to encourage the weak to become stronger, the dependent as independent as possible. This process will, in turn, revivify local churches by encouraging them to retrieve their original sense of social mission and ministry.

Private charity can better discern the needs of the poor they are involved with. The response could be more humane and tailored to meet specific circumstances and needs.

Private charity would be in accord with human freedom. It is a free and therefore more meaningful moral response. We improve both the lives of those we give to as well as our own lives through this process.

Private charity is less likely to establish a culture of dependency. An impersonal check given without any expectations for responsible behavior leads to a damaged sense of self-worth. Assisting someone out of love can help develop a vision of worth and dignity within those helped. The beauty of local efforts to help the needy is that they humanize welfare. They allow for one person to help another to pursue his creative potentials. They make the individual receiving aid realize that he must work to live up to the expectations of those helping him out. This sense promotes community.

Private charity would be cost-effective. Decentralization would provide for less costly ways of helping the poor and removing red-tape and over-regulation. Ineffective programs would shut down rather than be refunded through federal aid. Money would be channeled to address the most urgent needs. Local solutions allow for a flexibility that is simply impossible at the federal level.

This all cannot happen if we do not try. This cannot happen if we do not place the impetus for charitable giving back where it belongs—in the hands of individual Americans, who through their own efforts or organizations can fulfill their moral obligations to those less fortunate.

There are those who doubt the ability of the private sector to meet the overwhelming needs that exist. Where would the money come from? Wouldn’t the rich just ignore the poor? The questions, in fact, are endless. We can never answer every objection to reform. Many people will maintain the assumption that needy people will not be cared for if the role of government is diminished in the provision of welfare. To overcome this mentality, we will need the faith it took to leap from communism to a free market in Soviet Russia. We need faith that the American people are up to the task.

Welfare socialism has failed to attain perfect security for all people. There will always be older people, children, poor men and women, the disabled, and the unemployed who need our help. The issue is not how to create a perfect world without poverty, but how we can create a system that is most adept at finding those who need our help, meeting their needs, and when possible, helping those people toward a life of independence.

Whatever imperfections such a transformation in the system would produce, it must be compared to the present system, which has been an abysmal failure. The only way out of this mess is to return much of the responsibility for dealing with these problems back to its proper place: the private sector.

One of the tragedies of the our thirty-year experiment in social engineering is our loss of the practical knowledge of how we can effectively help poor people improve their lot.

Authentic charity cannot be centrally planned any more than an economy can be. The spontaneous efforts of private individuals, houses of worship, and charities will work, however imperfectly. Whatever its flaws, a system based on greater private charity will allow caregivers to learn from their own mistakes.

After reading the piece from which this was exerpted, you would be well advised to read the writings of the rest of the contributors.

And if these little local spheres of responsibility fail terribly (as they most likely will, neighborly 'love' is diminishing from America, and very few families can simply give each other money, most of them need it), how will the staggering needs of the poor be met? The capitalist idea of 'decentralization' and 'deregulation', of indivdualism, has no answer. Without a properly funded federal government, the poor will inevitably slip behind; in rich countries, this makes life chances for the poor go way down, in poor countries, life chances are too low to be measured. For private charity to work, we'd have to assume that every family in the US is buddy-buddy with a rich family, a family that can afford to give a poor one a few hundred bucks a month. This is simply unrealistic. Did you ever notice how the poor seem to group together, often to make ends meet, and they can barely get by with federal aid? Now what makes you, in your obviously infinite wisdom, believe that if this federal aid is stripped of them they can survive? Next we must realize the cold hard facts of capitalism, that it supports individualism, warns against collectivism, and makes of point of reminding us that our socioeconomic status is really our fault, and that if we're 'successful', if we're rich, let us not give to the failures (the needy), but live to the fullest with all of our wealth. With this kind of social norm, which of course is very prevalent in such a culture as the USA, one wonders if private welfare is even theoretically possible, let alone practical.

 

[Fantasea]

And if these little local spheres of responsibility fail terribly (as they most likely will, neighborly 'love' is diminishing from America, and very few families can simply give each other money, most of them need it), how will the staggering needs of the poor be met?

Charities organized in pre-Revolutionary times are still meeting their responsibilities today. Dedicated persons can do what government flunkies won't.

The capitalist idea of 'decentralization' and 'deregulation', of indivdualism, has no answer. Without a properly funded federal government, the poor will inevitably slip behind; in rich countries, this makes life chances for the poor go way down, in poor countries, life chances are too low to be measured. For private charity to work, we'd have to assume that every family in the US is buddy-buddy with a rich family, a family that can afford to give a poor one a few hundred bucks a month. This is simply unrealistic. Did you ever notice how the poor seem to group together, often to make ends meet, and they can barely get by with federal aid? Now what makes you, in your obviously infinite wisdom, believe that if this federal aid is stripped of them they can survive? Next we must realize the cold hard facts of capitalism, that it supports individualism, warns against collectivism, and makes of point of reminding us that our socioeconomic status is really our fault, and that if we're 'successful', if we're rich, let us not give to the failures (the needy), but live to the fullest with all of our wealth. With this kind of social norm, which of course is very prevalent in such a culture as the USA,

What a crock.

one wonders if private welfare is even theoretically possible, let alone practical.

I've read that about 80% of the federal welfare budget is eaten up by overhead and administrative costs. I'll leave it to you to decide whether private charities do better than that. (Don't ask me to confirm the 80%. Do some research and either refute or confirm it.)

 

[anomaly]

Charities organized in pre-Revolutionary times are still meeting their responsibilities today. Dedicated persons can do what government flunkies won't. What a crock.I've read that about 80% of the federal welfare budget is eaten up by overhead and administrative costs. I'll leave it to you to decide whether private charities do better than that. (Don't ask me to confirm the 80%. Do some research and either refute or confirm it.)

Apparently you don't like to debate. "What a crock". That's nothing. That's your meaningless opinion, meaningless because you back it up with no evidence no facts, not even any organized thought. To your other two points, I have simply this to say: You will undeniably agree that the human organism is greedy, and you will use that to 'refute' socialism. As little sense as that makes, the greedy human organism is applicable to this problem. How can you even suspect that private charity, given out by greedy beings living in a greedy society can match the monetary value, or even come close, raised by taxes. What you'd see is rich families grudgingly giving out as little money as they can to relatives, while the completely poor families suffer. Poor, working class families have a struggle to get by now, and yet you believe they'll be perfectly fine bearing the burden of all their poor relatives. Poverty would most definitely rise, but if that's what you're after, and I'm all but convinced that it is, pursue this dream of yours.

 

[Fantasea]

Apparently you don't like to debate. "What a crock". That's nothing. That's your meaningless opinion, meaningless because you back it up with no evidence no facts, not even any organized thought. To your other two points, I have simply this to say: You will undeniably agree that the human organism is greedy, and you will use that to 'refute' socialism. As little sense as that makes, the greedy human organism is applicable to this problem. How can you even suspect that private charity, given out by greedy beings living in a greedy society can match the monetary value, or even come close, raised by taxes. What you'd see is rich families grudgingly giving out as little money as they can to relatives, while the completely poor families suffer. Poor, working class families have a struggle to get by now, and yet you believe they'll be perfectly fine bearing the burden of all their poor relatives. Poverty would most definitely rise, but if that's what you're after, and I'm all but convinced that it is, pursue this dream of yours.

You don't debate. You regurgitate a constant stream of socialist propaganda that moans, groans, complains, condemns, and whines about the system which has done more to improve the status of more people world wide than any other system.

To the extent you continue to spout that crap, I'll continue to respond as I did.

 

[anomaly]

You don't debate. You regurgitate a constant stream of socialist propaganda that moans, groans, complains, condemns, and whines about the system which has done more to improve the status of more people world wide than any other system.

To the extent you continue to spout that crap, I'll continue to respond as I did.

First, what other economic system was 'worldwide'? No other, capitalism is the first. Second, I think I'm going to enjoy the new you, as you are just making yourself look foolish.

"To the extent you continue to spout that crap, I'll continue to respond as I did"- So you're not going to like me unless I think like you do? Frankly, I'm relieved.

 

[Squawker]

I am asking questions to understand your position. You keep going around them. Would you please clarify exactly what your perfect Government/Society would look like and operate?

Maybe Fantasea is right. I have been trying to pin you down on what an anti-capitalist society would be like. :sigh:

 

[Fantasea]

Indeed - but we all know it's easier to give than take away.
As soon as someone takes money from the pile they will be accused of being insensative.
Bah!

It will be interesting to see the results of the committee that is currently working on recommendations for military base closings. It will be further interesting to see how the administration and the congress follow through on the recommendations.

No doubt there will be considerable weeping and gnashing of teeth.

 

[Fantasea]

Apparently you don't like to debate. "What a crock". That's nothing. That's your meaningless opinion, meaningless because you back it up with no evidence no facts, not even any organized thought. To your other two points, I have simply this to say: You will undeniably agree that the human organism is greedy, and you will use that to 'refute' socialism. As little sense as that makes, the greedy human organism is applicable to this problem. How can you even suspect that private charity, given out by greedy beings living in a greedy society can match the monetary value, or even come close, raised by taxes. What you'd see is rich families grudgingly giving out as little money as they can to relatives, while the completely poor families suffer. Poor, working class families have a struggle to get by now, and yet you believe they'll be perfectly fine bearing the burden of all their poor relatives. Poverty would most definitely rise, but if that's what you're after, and I'm all but convinced that it is, pursue this dream of yours.

You consistently judge all men by your own standards. The problem with that, fortunately, is that all men are not like you.

The mass of men are intelligent, industrious, individuals who in addition to earning enough to support themselves with a relative degree of comfort and at the same time contribute enough of their earnings, assets, and wealth in the form of taxes and charity to support their unfortunate or unwilling brethren.

Yes, there are those as you describe and identify with. However, they are in the minority. You strip away their dignity; you deny them hope. These words ring true:

"To eat bread without hope is still slowly to starve to death."
Pearl S. Buck​

 

[anomaly]

You consistently judge all men by your own standards. The problem with that, fortunately, is that all men are not like you.

The mass of men are intelligent, industrious, individuals who in addition to earning enough to support themselves with a relative degree of comfort and at the same time contribute enough of their earnings, assets, and wealth in the form of taxes and charity to support their unfortunate or unwilling brethren.

Yes, there are those as you describe and identify with. However, they are in the minority. You strip away their dignity; you deny them hope. These words ring true:

"To eat bread without hope is still slowly to starve to death."
Pearl S. Buck​

This entire response is too Americanized to ever hold true, as you never look at situations, much less empathize with, non-Americans. The world is no so fuzzy and cute as you describe, and capitalism has ruined a great many lives. The problem now is not your poor argument, because now you simply ignore the entire problem, instead claiming, perhaps telling yourself, that there is no problem. This debate of ours has watered down to your blatant knowledgable ignorance, your willed ignorance.

 

[Fantasea]

This entire response is too Americanized to ever hold true, as you never look at situations, much less empathize with, non-Americans. The world is no so fuzzy and cute as you describe, and capitalism has ruined a great many lives. The problem now is not your poor argument, because now you simply ignore the entire problem, instead claiming, perhaps telling yourself, that there is no problem. This debate of ours has watered down to your blatant knowledgable ignorance, your willed ignorance.

Still can't express a cogent thought without having to resort to insult, can you?

Page back and you will find post after post in which I point out to you the FACT FACT FACT that the countries with the greatest social problems are those which are governed by tyrants who have no concern for the welfare of their subjects.

If you want to fix the social problems in these countries first fix the governments.

 

[NeCom]

If the Capitalist aruges that people can make their way out of poverty through hard work its worng. If you are in poverty you need tons of luck to bring yourself out because of a thing called Good Credit Bad Credit No Credit! What kind of place do we live in when if you have no credit and you want to pay upright you cant! I do not belive in credit it destroys lives, while making somes nice. Another thing, What makes a man that isnt that smart and works manual labour any worse than a man who is brillant working with a pen and paper, in reality it is the individual who fuels communism, not all people want to work the same job considered to be higher paying, if i want to work with my muscle rather than my brain i should have the same standard as the person who is a CEO at a big corperation, Equality

 

[Fantasea]

:wcm

If the Capitalist aruges that people can make their way out of poverty through hard work its worng.

Tens of millions of immigrants in the United States will disagree with you.

If you are in poverty you need tons of luck to bring yourself out because of a thing called Good Credit Bad Credit No Credit!

Poverty and credit are mutually exclusive. Credit assumes income, beyond living expenses, that can repay the debt according to the agreed upon terms.

What kind of place do we live in when if you have no credit and you want to pay upright you cant!

Would you lend your money to someone who couldn't pay it back?

I do not belive in credit it destroys lives, while making somes nice.

The responsible use of credit is what makes it possible for a person to purchase a home, a car, or other goods.

Another thing, What makes a man that isnt that smart and works manual labour any worse than a man who is brillant working with a pen and paper,

What makes an entertainer or sports figure worth the money he is paid?

in reality it is the individual who fuels communism, not all people want to work the same job considered to be higher paying, if i want to work with my muscle rather than my brain i should have the same standard as the person who is a CEO at a big corperation, Equality

You were born about a hundred years too late. The ideas you espouse were popular in Russia after the revolution.

The worth of a person's "labor" is based upon the value of the contribution he can make to his employer or to society. Manual labor, while honorable, never has, and never will, be the source of wealth.

Realistically, the better educated a person becomes, the greater will be his earning potential. Compare the earnings of the average high school drop out with the earnings of the average high school graduate and the earnings of the average high school graduate with the average college graduate.

Education in the US is available to all and immigrants seem to take better advantage of the opportunities than do those who are native born. With an education comes a job with the kind of income that will qualify one for all the credit he needs.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Pros: Absolutly nothing, except a few people live in extreme luxury without ever having to lift a finger

Cons:exploitive, most "elected" people are filthy rich, and just about everything else that's horrible(countless)

Down with Money!Down with Fascism!Down with Capitalism!Let the Fires of Red Revolution Burn the Capitalists to the Ground!

Forward the Revolution!For Socialism!Forward Communism!Forward Democracy!

 

[Comrade Brian]

If the Capitalist aruges that people can make their way out of poverty through hard work its worng. If you are in poverty you need tons of luck to bring yourself out because of a thing called Good Credit Bad Credit No Credit! What kind of place do we live in when if you have no credit and you want to pay upright you cant! I do not belive in credit it destroys lives, while making somes nice. Another thing, What makes a man that isnt that smart and works manual labour any worse than a man who is brillant working with a pen and paper, in reality it is the individual who fuels communism, not all people want to work the same job considered to be higher paying, if i want to work with my muscle rather than my brain i should have the same standard as the person who is a CEO at a big corperation, Equality

You are exactly right by the way, don't let these petty capitalists fool you. They say this to increase their own personal profits, not yours, not anyone elses. You aren't alone there are millions of comrades around the world. many will try to help you if you need it! So long, Comrade!

Oh yes, keep up the good work, Comrade!

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

You are exactly right by the way, don't let these petty capitalists fool you. They say this to increase their own personal profits, not yours, not anyone elses. You aren't alone there are millions of comrades around the world. many will try to help you if you need it! So long, Comrade!

Oh yes, keep up the good work, Comrade!

How many anti-capitalistic communist "comrades" do you have in Minnesota?

Try to stick more to arguments rather than phrases that end with exclamation points.

Pros: Absolutly nothing, except a few people live in extreme luxury without ever having to lift a finger

Ehh? How about equal oppurnunity for one.

Cons:exploitive, most "elected" people are filthy rich, and just about everything else that's horrible(countless)

There are flaws in the system, no doubt, but I don't see the exploitation. The reason most elected people are filthy rich is because of how much money it takes to run for office.