Explaining Socialism to a Republican

[bengalrick]

Sorry we are veering off target hear guys. I don't want to get into a debate about fascist vs. communism.  I am hearing you Lucid and not trying to avoid your questioning. 

 

The point I was trying to make is when you start using words like fascism and communism, people shut down. They say "Obama isn't a socialist" "Obama is a fascist" and it defeats the point that things are fucked up and need to be changed, whatever the hell it is called.

[|Lucid|]

Sorry we are veering off target hear guys. I don't want to get into a debate about fascist vs. communism.  I am hearing you Lucid and not trying to avoid your questioning. 

 

The point I was trying to make is when you start using words like fascism and communism, people shut down. They say "Obama isn't a socialist" "Obama is a fascist" and it defeats the point that things are fucked up and need to be changed, whatever the hell it is called.

 

I think it is relevant to the discussion though..Social Security is offensive to a fascist.  It's why the program could be in real trouble. It pisses a fascist off when they are forced to pay for some poor person's health care or retirement.  They resent having to pay into a system that they can't benefit from.. It's why there has been such a push to privatize it.. Because they want to get their grubby little fingers in there to "get back what is theirs".. And since they are fascist, they believe that might makes right, and since they have power, it is not only their right, but their god given DUTY to use that power to get what they want.

 

It's that mind set Mussolini illustrates so well in his little encyclopedia entry on the subject.

[|Bunghole|]

Social Security should pay people that desperately need it enough to pay their rent, buy enough food to get by and all their bills and medical costs. Plain and simple.

[bengalrick]

 

I think it is relevant to the discussion though..Social Security is offensive to a fascist.  It's why the program could be in real trouble. It pisses a fascist off when they are forced to pay for some poor person's health care or retirement.  They resent having to pay into a system that they can't benefit from.. It's why there has been such a push to privatize it.. Because they want to get their grubby little fingers in there to "get back what is theirs".. And since they are fascist, they believe that might makes right, and since they have power, it is not only their right, but their god given DUTY to use that power to get what they want.

 

It's that mind set Mussolini illustrates so well in his little encyclopedia entry on the subject.

 

How is it fascist to pay into a system that is never going to benefit you? The point of the program is to pay into this pot of money your whole life, and then be able to retire into a reasonable life. As the baby boomers start to retire and the birth rates continue to decrease, social security will start to fail. As of right now, social security will become insolvent around 2033 according to most places I read. Of course there can be changes that can make it last longer. We can do the few things we mentioned in this thread to help the problem but the real problem is that the ratio between new workers and retirees is going to continue to go up. So why are we going to go and call people fascists instead of facing the realities of the system.

 

Social security has been a Godsend for many and many people. It has worked rather well so far but we can look ahead and say "well its not going to forever." Why not make the right decisions now to make sure it does. In 2050 I will be 68 years old so I expect to retire then or a little earlier than that. I honestly don't think that I will be getting much of anything by then out of the system. If we know that now, why not start to move to a system that will actually do as we need it to do. Even FDR, when he wrote the bill, said it "would saddle future generations with huge debts - or higher taxes - as the number or retirees expanded." And so here we are but instead of figuring out good ways to move to a better system, we are debating whether or not I am a fascist because I "want what is coming to me." Why am I any different than the retirees in the next 10 years? Are they greedy to want "what is coming to them" too?

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/04/09/the_origins_of_entitlement_113768.html

[|Lucid|]

 

How is it fascist to pay into a system that is never going to benefit you? The point of the program is to pay into this pot of money your whole life, and then be able to retire into a reasonable life. As the baby boomers start to retire and the birth rates continue to decrease, social security will start to fail. As of right now, social security will become insolvent around 2033 according to most places I read. Of course there can be changes that can make it last longer. We can do the few things we mentioned in this thread to help the problem but the real problem is that the ratio between new workers and retirees is going to continue to go up. So why are we going to go and call people fascists instead of facing the realities of the system.

 

Social security has been a Godsend for many and many people. It has worked rather well so far but we can look ahead and say "well its not going to forever." Why not make the right decisions now to make sure it does. In 2050 I will be 68 years old so I expect to retire then or a little earlier than that. I honestly don't think that I will be getting much of anything by then out of the system. If we know that now, why not start to move to a system that will actually do as we need it to do. Even FDR, when he wrote the bill, said it "would saddle future generations with huge debts - or higher taxes - as the number or retirees expanded." And so here we are but instead of figuring out good ways to move to a better system, we are debating whether or not I am a fascist because I "want what is coming to me." Why am I any different than the retirees in the next 10 years? Are they greedy to want "what is coming to them" too?

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/04/09/the_origins_of_entitlement_113768.html

 

 

It's not.. It's the opposite of fascist.. I think you misunderstood what I was saying.  And I don't think anyone has called you a fascist at all.. At least I myself never had any such thoughts or intentions. I think we were talking about the plutocrats and corporatist's who have seized our democracy.. At least that's who I was referring to.  I also think most of the Republican v. Democrat (R v L) is a big dog and pony show to keep the masses distracted.

[Jamie_B]

 
 
It's not.. It's the opposite of fascist.. I think you misunderstood what I was saying.  And I don't think anyone has called you a fascist at all.. At least I myself never had any such thoughts or intentions. I think we were talking about the plutocrats and corporatist's who have seized our democracy.. At least that's who I was referring to.  I also think most of the Republican v. Democrat (R v L) is a big dog and pony show to keep the masses distracted.

x2

[Homer_Rice]

Not so sure why the assertion that SS is a form of insurance is controversial. Horse's mouth (7 pg pdf.)

[|Elflocko|]

 

 

It's not.. It's the opposite of fascist.. I think you misunderstood what I was saying.  And I don't think anyone has called you a fascist at all.. At least I myself never had any such thoughts or intentions. I think we were talking about the plutocrats and corporatist's who have seized our democracy.. At least that's who I was referring to.  I also think most of the Republican v. Democrat (R v L) is a big dog and pony show to keep the masses distracted.

 

X3

[sois]

 

How is it fascist to pay into a system that is never going to benefit you? The point of the program is to pay into this pot of money your whole life, and then be able to retire into a reasonable life. As the baby boomers start to retire and the birth rates continue to decrease, social security will start to fail. As of right now, social security will become insolvent around 2033 according to most places I read. Of course there can be changes that can make it last longer. We can do the few things we mentioned in this thread to help the problem but the real problem is that the ratio between new workers and retirees is going to continue to go up. So why are we going to go and call people fascists instead of facing the realities of the system.

 

Social security has been a Godsend for many and many people. It has worked rather well so far but we can look ahead and say "well its not going to forever." Why not make the right decisions now to make sure it does. In 2050 I will be 68 years old so I expect to retire then or a little earlier than that. I honestly don't think that I will be getting much of anything by then out of the system. If we know that now, why not start to move to a system that will actually do as we need it to do. Even FDR, when he wrote the bill, said it "would saddle future generations with huge debts - or higher taxes - as the number or retirees expanded." And so here we are but instead of figuring out good ways to move to a better system, we are debating whether or not I am a fascist because I "want what is coming to me." Why am I any different than the retirees in the next 10 years? Are they greedy to want "what is coming to them" too?

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/04/09/the_origins_of_entitlement_113768.html

 

It's insurance, not retirement benefits.  Insurance.  Insurance doesn't mean that you always get what you put in.  Please learn what insurance means. 

 

PS:  Do you think in 2050 there will be zero employed people paying into the program?  Do you think the work base is going to dwindle?  If the system can make it through the top-heavy era of baby boomer retirement, surely it will be there for you.

 

Your opinion is like so many other people's in the fact that your starting point is that SS = retirement.  That is NOT THE INTENT.  If you can't understand that, there is nothing further to discuss with you.

 

Not so sure why the assertion that SS is a form of insurance is controversial. Horse's mouth (7 pg pdf.)

 

Yes.

[T-Dub]

Honestly? If SS is gone when & if I reach retirement age, so be it.  Considering all the money I lose every paycheck to various governments, I'm not going to complain about paying SS.  It's like complaining about the relative pittance going to my school district.  I take pride in living in a country where we've decided as a society to care for the less-fortunate, to educate everyone regardless of their circumstances and try to insure nobody is going hungry or sick for lack of money. Talk to me about how huge corporations like Apple get out of paying taxes while a significant portion of my income disappears into a system largely controlled by those same corporations.

 

Fuck it; I'll go you one better: I'm for a certain degree of socialism.  More of it, if anything.  I've seen where the worship of money, unchecked greed and consumerism that is our current form of barely-regulated capitalism is taking us and I am less than impressed.

[MichaelWeston]

Honestly? If SS is gone when & if I reach retirement age, so be it.  Considering all the money I lose every paycheck to various governments, I'm not going to complain about paying SS.  It's like complaining about the relative pittance going to my school district.  I take pride in living in a country where we've decided as a society to care for the less-fortunate, to educate everyone regardless of their circumstances and try to insure nobody is going hungry or sick for lack of money. Talk to me about how huge corporations like Apple get out of paying taxes while a significant portion of my income disappears into a system largely controlled by those same corporations.
 
Fuck it; I'll go you one better: I'm for a certain degree of socialism.  More of it, if anything.  I've seen where the worship of money, unchecked greed and consumerism that is our current form of barely-regulated capitalism is taking us and I am less than impressed.

. X10001

[bengalrick]

Honestly? If SS is gone when & if I reach retirement age, so be it.  Considering all the money I lose every paycheck to various governments, I'm not going to complain about paying SS.  It's like complaining about the relative pittance going to my school district.  I take pride in living in a country where we've decided as a society to care for the less-fortunate, to educate everyone regardless of their circumstances and try to insure nobody is going hungry or sick for lack of money. Talk to me about how huge corporations like Apple get out of paying taxes while a significant portion of my income disappears into a system largely controlled by those same corporations.

 

Fuck it; I'll go you one better: I'm for a certain degree of socialism.  More of it, if anything.  I've seen where the worship of money, unchecked greed and consumerism that is our current form of barely-regulated capitalism is taking us and I am less than impressed.

 

Dude what if you are less fortunate when your retire and SS is depleted? The whole point of 'socialism' is to help your fellow man. One very important aspect of that is the make sure the program will be around when you retire, as you are included in that. Part of the problem that socialism doesn't work, it requires good management.

[bengalrick]

 

 

It's not.. It's the opposite of fascist.. I think you misunderstood what I was saying.  And I don't think anyone has called you a fascist at all.. At least I myself never had any such thoughts or intentions. I think we were talking about the plutocrats and corporatist's who have seized our democracy.. At least that's who I was referring to.  I also think most of the Republican v. Democrat (R v L) is a big dog and pony show to keep the masses distracted.

 

my bad then lucid, I took it as you calling me that indirectly. I agree with the ending of your post. We clearly don't agree on SS but the whole point imo is that we get off on tangents about things like that, and we don't come together on the things we do... Like rep vs. dem, socialists vs capitalists. plutocrats vs. corporatists... Although these are important topics, the key to leadership is finding the things we can agree on and making things better. Then based off of that compromise and respect built up for the other side, you can start to make tougher decisions that we all don't necessarily agree on. And that only happens with compromise from both sides, as any person in a marriage will attest to :)

[bengalrick]

 

It's insurance, not retirement benefits.  Insurance.  Insurance doesn't mean that you always get what you put in.  Please learn what insurance means. 

 

PS:  Do you think in 2050 there will be zero employed people paying into the program?  Do you think the work base is going to dwindle?  If the system can make it through the top-heavy era of baby boomer retirement, surely it will be there for you.

 

Your opinion is like so many other people's in the fact that your starting point is that SS = retirement.  That is NOT THE INTENT.  If you can't understand that, there is nothing further to discuss with you.

 

 

Yes.

 

 

Its insurance in that when you meet the requirements (age) then you start to receive it. If you don't then it is forfeited. I know what the hell insurance is. 

 

I almost laugh at your 'if we can get through the baby boomers period.' What the hell do you think I am arguing... All studies say that we are not going to. To answer your question though, yes I know there will be workers in 2050 to pay for SS. The problem is that there will be a crap load of retirees in the near future and there will be less paying in than will be payed out. Therefore the program is in real trouble. As I quoted above, FDR specifically called for this to happen in the future.

 

I frankly am pretty done with you though man. You need to learn to respect people if you want respect back. If you don't want to respond back, trust me I will lose no sleep.

[|Lucid|]

 

my bad then lucid, I took it as you calling me that indirectly. I agree with the ending of your post. We clearly don't agree on SS but the whole point imo is that we get off on tangents about things like that, and we don't come together on the things we do... Like rep vs. dem, socialists vs capitalists. plutocrats vs. corporatists... Although these are important topics, the key to leadership is finding the things we can agree on and making things better. Then based off of that compromise and respect built up for the other side, you can start to make tougher decisions that we all don't necessarily agree on. And that only happens with compromise from both sides, as any person in a marriage will attest to :)

 

 

I'm not sure about that. Unless you are arguing for privatization of the program.

[sois]

 

Its insurance in that when you meet the requirements (age) then you start to receive it. If you don't then it is forfeited. I know what the hell insurance is. 

 

I almost laugh at your 'if we can get through the baby boomers period.' What the hell do you think I am arguing... All studies say that we are not going to. To answer your question though, yes I know there will be workers in 2050 to pay for SS. The problem is that there will be a crap load of retirees in the near future and there will be less paying in than will be payed out. Therefore the program is in real trouble. As I quoted above, FDR specifically called for this to happen in the future.

 

I frankly am pretty done with you though man. You need to learn to respect people if you want respect back. If you don't want to respond back, trust me I will lose no sleep.

 

Two things:  The population is going up thanks to all the Mexi's.  Exponentially.  I will need some data to agree with your statement that more will be paid out than in.  You said in one of your posts (I think) that the birth rate is going down.  I don't think that is true.  

 

Secondly, look at your first statement.  Do you think conditions are the same now as they were when SS was established?  Life expectancy is WAAAAAAY up.  It was never intended for you to draw on this $$$ into your 90s.  You were maybe supposed to get it for a few years and then die.  

 

Just because we live longer now doesn't mean you can twist the original intent of the program.  Nobody was supposed to live this long.  http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2011/022.pdf   

 

SS age should be 72 at minimum, not 62.

[Jamie_B]

http://www.agjohnson.us/glad/if-not-capitalism-what/

 

 

If Not Capitalism, What?

You are critical of capitalism, but what is the alternative?

When I think about alternatives to capitalism, I go back to basics, to the question of what any economic system actually is and what it does. In every kind of society, whether it’s communal hunting-and-gathering or global industrial capitalism, the answer has two parts.

The first has to do with how a society goes about producing goods and services. In one sense this refers to the method of producing something and what’s used to produce it. Hunter-gatherers don’t plant crops, for example, while agrarian societies cultivate fields with plows, and industrial societies use heavy machinery and other technology to plant, harvest, and process food and even make some of it up in the lab.

 

In another sense, the act of production is also social—people are organized in relationships through which goods and services are produced. It’s the difference, for example, between shoes being made by independent shoemakers working on their own in small shops and shoes being mass produced by worker-employees in factories owned by someone else.

 

The second thing to know about an economic system is what happens to what is produced—how it’s distributed among people in the society and who benefits. In other words, what’s the point of economic activity?

 

If you look at most human societies over the last several hundred thousand years, the point of economic systems has been quite simple and unsurprising—to provide for the needs of the people who participate in them. The tribe needs a way to come up with food and shelter because the people of the tribe have to eat and get out of the rain. Cooperation and sharing have been important values because they make for efficient production and it’s how you make sure everyone gets what they need. Which has been the point in most places for most of history.

 

The most important thing to realize about industrial capitalism is that it is not organized to meet the needs of the people who participate in it. It is not the first system for which this has been true, but it is the latest version and it dominates the world. It’s true that capitalists have to produce things that people need (or, if not, to persuade them that they do) in order to sell goods and make a profit. If, as a result, capitalism does happen to meet the needs of people, that’s fine, but that is not the point of the system. The point is to allow individuals to compete with one another in order to maximize personal wealth. How this affects everyone else is, within fairly broad limits, largely beside the point.

 

This means that when a small portion of the population manages to take most of the wealth for themselves, the system is simply operating as it is designed to do. If millions of people don’t have enough food or shelter or decent healthcare, or if roads and bridges and schools are falling apart, or if the planet and other species are being degraded or destroyed, none of this is taken as a sign that the economic system itself is failing. To see how this shows up, all you have to do is look at the list of ‘economic indicators’ used to show how well the economy is doing. There you will find hardly anything designed to measure the quality of people’s everyday lives, the degree to which their needs as human beings are being met. Not to mention the well-being of the planet and non-human species whose fate is inseparable from our own. Such things are not represented because they are not the point of the capitalist economic system.

 

Over the vast majority of human experience, organizing the world in such a way would have made no sense at all. It would have seemed bizarre and profoundly unwise, even murderous and suicidal, and a repudiation of what it means to live as a full human being. That an economic system would not only allow but encourage a small minority to take almost everything for themselves, that it would support the belief that there is no such thing as too much, that human beings can do whatever they want and imagine a future in which they thrive while the rest of the planet goes under, is so far beyond the boundaries of reality as to be, well, a little crazy. And yet that is precisely where we are, living a kind of systemic insanity based on fantastically insupportable assumptions.

 

So, if not capitalism, what?

 

It’s really very simple: An economic system designed first and foremost to meet the needs of human beings and the Earth and the non-human species who call it home, that honors the biological and moral fact of life that we are indeed all in this together.

And how to we get there?

 

We can only begin where we are, facing the first obstacle in our path, which is the sacred assumption of capitalism that the pursuit of individual greed can be the basis for a moral society and a sustainable planet. Challenging this assumption will mean, among other things, changing the rules that both allow and encourage the unlimited and unaccountable private accumulation of wealth; the massive and reckless gambling and speculation in the financial industry that enriches the few while producing catastrophe for everyone else; and the power of wealth to control major institutions, including the political system.

 

There are societies that provide an example of what an alternative might look like. Norway is one. It was relatively untouched by the 2008 financial meltdown that rocked the world, because Norway doesn’t allow individual and corporate greed to be the dominating force in their economy. Banks and other financial institutions, for example, are highly regulated and income taxes are high enough to generate the revenue that provides for the basic needs of everyone, such as health care and education.

 

It’s important to be aware that many of the defining characteristics of capitalism are retained. Businesses are privately owned, for example, by individuals and corporations. One exception to this are resources that are vital to everyone’s wellbeing, such as energy, which are either owned or tightly regulated by the government on behalf of the entire country. Norway’s abundant North Sea oil reserves, for example, are owned by the country as a whole and not private corporations, and the income generated is distributed across the entire population.

 

There is a name for this kind of economic system. It’s called ‘democratic socialism’. We hear all the time in the U.S. that we’re supposed to be afraid of the ‘socialism’ part because it supposedly means a loss of freedom and the value of the individual. That certainly happened in the first large-scale attempts at socialism—the Soviet Union and China—but there are numerous current examples such as Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, and the Netherlands where socialist principles have worked out much differently (the ‘democratic’ part). If by ‘freedom’ we mean being able to do whatever we want regardless of the consequences, then socialism does mean less freedom than we have in the U.S. But such limits affect primarily the wealthy and corporations, not the great majority of ordinary people. Which is why it is the wealthy and powerful, especially through their control of the mass media, who are continually warning us about the ‘dangers’ of socialism.

 

Americans are routinely told that we are the most free people on the planet, that everyone wishes they were American, that our standard of living and health care system are the best in the world. But any serious look at the evidence quickly shows this isn’t true. Just ask Norwegians (or Swedes or Danes or . . . ) who routinely come out far ahead of the United States on measures of personal happiness and quality of life, including crime, health care, social mobility, income, wealth, and democracy.

 

Finding an alternative to capitalism begins with confronting the reality of the economic system we all participate in and how it shapes our lives and the planet we live on.

 

 

[T-Dub]

 

Dude what if you are less fortunate when your retire and SS is depleted?

 

What if I get hit by a meteorite? Then I'd get nothing.

 

The whole point of 'socialism' is to help your fellow man.

 

 

No, the whole point of socialism is public ownership.

 

One very important aspect of that is the make sure the program will be around when you retire, as you are included in that.

 

 

Whether the program is around in 20 years doesn't determine its value now.  I would venture to guess that if it isn't, it won't be because of any failing in the SS program itself.

 

 

Part of the problem that socialism doesn't work, it requires good management.

 

 

That's interesting that it "doesn't work", considering that just about every other first-world nation has a more socialist-leaning economic model than our own & they seem to be getting along at least as well as we are..  By what standard would you claim that our form of capitalism is "working"?

[bengalrick]

 

What if I get hit by a meteorite? Then I'd get nothing.

 

 

No, the whole point of socialism is public ownership.

 

 

Whether the program is around in 20 years doesn't determine its value now.  I would venture to guess that if it isn't, it won't be because of any failing in the SS program itself.

 

 

 

That's interesting that it "doesn't work", considering that just about every other first-world nation has a more socialist-leaning economic model than our own & they seem to be getting along at least as well as we are..  By what standard would you claim that our form of capitalism is "working"?

 

What if I get hit by a meteorite? Then I'd get nothing.

 

Nor would you need a retirement so although you are right, I don't think you are understanding my point.

 

 

No, the whole point of socialism is public ownership.

 

I prefer private ownership... I guess to each his own, right?

 

 

Whether the program is around in 20 years doesn't determine its value now.  I would venture to guess that if it isn't, it won't be because of any failing in the SS program itself.

 

Really? Is that how we can justify all the debt that we continue to put ourselves in? "Well our economy is doing great now so it doesn't matter if our kids are going to be burdened by all of our debt." I COMPLETELY disagree with this statement. If you don't understand and react to the future, you will continue to be behind. The failing will be because the system is designed for more workers than retirees. If that changes, the system will fail.

 

 

That's interesting that it "doesn't work", considering that just about every other first-world nation has a more socialist-leaning economic model than our own & they seem to be getting along at least as well as we are..  By what standard would you claim that our form of capitalism is "working"?

 

Based on the fact that we have the largest economy in the world, and it isn't even close. I have said it somewhere, that we need (and do) mix capitalism with socialism and that neither will work exclusively imo. The point is where we draw the line into what should be gov't ran and what should be market ran. Both have their pro's and con's.

[Jamie_B]

We are also 41st in income inequaltiy according to the CIA, with many of these countries above us not being 1st world countries.

 

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html

 

 

Having the largest economy in the world doesnt mean much if the vast majority of it is going to the 1%. That isn't the mark of a healthy economy.

[sois]

We are also 41st in income inequaltiy according to the CIA, with many of these countries above us not being 1st world countries.

 

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html

 

 

Having the largest economy in the world doesnt mean much if the vast majority of it is going to the 1%. That isn't the mark of a healthy economy.

 

Our laws do not discourage wealth hoarding.

[Jamie_B]

 

Our laws do not discourage wealth hoarding.

 

 

Sadly

[bengalrick]

So based on the World Bank statistics, the US has a GDP of 15,684,800,000,000. Compare that to ALL 40 countries that are above us on your study and they ALL come up to 15,245,564,000,000 (8,227,103,000,000 is China alone). So basically of all the countries that are doing better at us as far as distributing wealth, we have a higher GDP than ALL of them combined.

 

I almost fell out of my chair when you talk about healthy economies and I see Zimbabwe ahead of us. Any economic study that includes them higher than the U.S. should be a huge red flag. BTW, I said the largest economy, not the strongest or healthiest. Although your study would not help make a case for any of those 3. 

 

Lesotho 2,448 South Africa 384,313 Botswana 14,411 Sierra Leone 3,796 Central African Republic 2,139 Namibia 12,807 Haiti 7,843 Colombia 369,813 Honduras 17,967 Guatemala 50,806 Hong Kong 263,259 Thailand 365,564 Paraguay 25,502 Bolivia 27,035 Chile 268,314 Panama 36,253 Brazil 2,252,664 Papua New Guinea 15,654 Zambia 20,678 Swaziland 3,747 Costa Rica 45,127 Gambia, The 917 Zimbabwe 10,814 Sri Lanka 59,421 Mexico 1,177,271 Singapore 274,701 Ecuador 84,532 Madagascar 9,975 China 8,227,103 Dominican Republic 58,951 El Salvador 23,787 Rwanda 7,103 Malaysia 303,526 Peru 197,111 Georgia 15,829 Argentina 474,865 Mozambique 14,588 Jamaica 14,840 Bulgaria 51,030 Uruguay 49,060 United States 15,684,800

[Jamie_B]

One of us is reading the ranking wrong. I'm fairly sure that the ranking is from most unequal to most equal. So the US is actually better than Zimbabwe, but not as good as most 1st world countries.

 

Further what does it matter if we are the largest if we dont have at least somewhat of a fair distribution. Isnt the point to have a healthy economy?

[bengalrick]

Your right Jamie... I was reading it wrong. I think that we you deal with percentages of wealth, and the US has so much more wealth though, this breakdown can be misleading. 

 

But to your overall point, I am not arguing that I there should be more fair distribution. I think there are many ways that we can do that, without drastically raising taxes that would to make them more fair.

 

We need to focus on providing better education that is available to everyone. We need to fix the SS loopholes. We need to cap the deductions that the ultra wealthy can take advantage of. I think that we need some real immigration reform that will allow better avenues for hard working (and legal) immigrants to come into our country and pay taxes. Where I steer the furthest from the rep party and conservatives is in this avenue. I would actually say that I am more liberal on that issue than I am conservative. As long as illegial immigrants are not given status above those that are waiting their turn, I am all for immigration reform. Although that particular issue would probably make the rich vs. poor gap bigger, I am more focused on overall fairness and not equity fairness.