|
What Right Wingers Mean When They Call Obama A "Socialist" (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
assuming your'e right, i think you may be overestimating that 1% of wage earners.
according to 2005 US stats (the latest i can find at the moment) the top 1% of wage earners begins at around the $350,000 per year mark. i think you may be refering to the top .01% |
I mean the top 1% of overall income. Most of the people that I know who are extremely wealthy don't rely on wages. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
I mean the top 1% of overall income. Most of the people that I know who are extremely wealthy don't rely on wages. |
i'm sorry but aren't income and wage essentially the same thing only on different time scales?
you mean top 1% of overall worth? i'm just trying to understand you thats all.
edit> you're right (i'm not sure about the trans-national thing) i was getting confused. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
which is a complete myth? my standard for what makes a particular country great? which was really more of a response to your suggestion that its not the amount of money the top 1% of the population can steal from everybody else.
or was it the fact that it's so much more possible here to reach your financial goals whether that be wanting to be in that 1% bracket or some other arbitrary percentage? |
Both I guess. My original comment was aimed at you saying how "easy" it was for people to move into the top 1% of the population (in terms of wealth and power) in America compared to other countries. I don't think it is particularly easy in any country, in fact, it is practically impossible unless you are born into wealth. It's a complete myth that it is easy to do so simply by being "entrepreneurial". This is the American Dream that the power elite in America use to trick the population that the economic model which gives them all their power and wealth from everybody else is somehow open to new members if you work hard enough - it isn't
| quote: | | look George, i never said my country is/was the "greatest". i don't even pretend to know how to either quantify a statement like that or qualify it. |
Fair enough, but I do have views on what makes a country "great". I think factors related to the well being of the population as a whole makes a country great, and I do not count the collective wealth of a country (GDP for example) as an indicator of greatness because in reality GDP etc is concentrated in the hands of the few, not the many.
| quote: | | i realize you probably hate my country |
Not true at all. I don't like the "American" economic model (of which the UK is nearest to out of our European partners), but that doesn't mean I "hate" America. I don't particularly like America's foreign policy but again, doesn't mean I hate America! I've been to America and met some great people and had a good time, and would love to go back.
| quote: | | outright socialism isn't going to fix her faults nearly as much as it would diminish her strengths. |
I don't think anyone's calling for "outright socialism" (assume: communism?) are they? I'm certainly no fan of communism or extreme socialism. But lets face it, your ideal economic model has recently been proven to be perhaps the most epic fail in history. Your economic model states markets can, and must, regulate themselves - nope. At the end of the day, the biggest socialist intervention your country has ever seen (and big socialist interventions in the EU) have had to be implemented to try and resolve capitalism's failure... |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
i'm sorry but aren't income and wage essentially the same thing only on different time scales?
you mean top 1% of overall worth? i'm just trying to understand you thats all.
edit> you're right (i'm not sure about the trans-national thing) i was getting confused. |
Maybe that's what I mean. Are investments considered wages? I didn't think they were but I guess now I'm the one who is confused. :conf: |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
:wtf: yeah, find a better word.
youre saying Quakers were liberal?:crazy:
Abolitionist, in Europe and elsewhere, saw slavery as a moral afront to God. it was as simple as that. fundamentalist who already saw the Church of England as the corrupt hand of the King saw the slave trade as a sin and the Church's involvement in the trade an abomination. |
As I understand it, to be a liberal, means a desire for rapid or moderate change. An abolitionist in the 1850's would be someone who wanted to change the prevailing economic system of the southern states. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
i sometimes wonder if these people would more readily adopt a Western European model approach to political policy than what has made this country so great in the past. does that make me a racist or does that only apply to black people that share the same view?
Malcolm X was, in fact, towards the end of his life a socialist. his embracing a milder black nationalist approach through Islam naturally drew him to prefer a socialist model of government over a capitalistic imperial one.
MLK was a registered Republican as were most black Americans since the Abolitionist movement. remember the abolitionist movement was started by a bunch of "right wing fundamentalist wing-nuts" to use a popular modern epithet people love to use here so frequently.
to paint all modern conservatives as racist spawned from the ilk of J. Edgar Hoover is not only "disingenuous" but patently absurd and insults my intelligence.
we accuse people of espousing socialist points of view not because of the color of their skin but because they espouse a socialist point of view.
if i ever read an article that was premised strictly on the "politics of fear" this would definately be one. |
You're attempting to paint your own history here that is contrary to the history that occurred.
The Ring-Wing Fundamentalist Wing-Nuts have ALWAYS been against positive progress; just because the name of their party was flipped does not mean they were the patron saints of civil rights. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| Most people don't even know what socialism means, and that includes the vast majority of americans. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
You're attempting to paint your own history here that is contrary to the history that occurred.
The Ring-Wing Fundamentalist Wing-Nuts have ALWAYS been against positive progress; just because the name of their party was flipped does not mean they were the patron saints of civil rights. |
apparently you missed what i was trying to say. the article wanted to paint modern conservatives in a way that was completely irrelevant to history.
if you want to dispute the historical references i made about Malcolm X, MLK or the abolitionist movement be my guest, but youre going to need to bring more than just a contempt for Christianity because what your definition of "positive progress" doesn't mean anything else but what you consider positive. nothing more. |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by George Smiley
Both I guess. My original comment was aimed at you saying how "easy" it was for people to move into the top 1% of the population (in terms of wealth and power) in America compared to other countries. I don't think it is particularly easy in any country, in fact, it is practically impossible unless you are born into wealth. It's a complete myth that it is easy to do so simply by being "entrepreneurial". This is the American Dream that the power elite in America use to trick the population that the economic model which gives them all their power and wealth from everybody else is somehow open to new members if you work hard enough - it isn't]
best quote I've seen in awhile on here. The class divide in the United States is just as bad as in any other country, if not worse in some ways. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
apparently you missed what i was trying to say. the article wanted to paint modern conservatives in a way that was completely irrelevant to history.
if you want to dispute the historical references i made about Malcolm X, MLK or the abolitionist movement be my guest, but youre going to need to bring more than just a contempt for Christianity because what your definition of "positive progress" doesn't mean anything else but what you consider positive. nothing more. |
Of course I "want to dispute" your historical references... where did you even come up with that garbage? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
Of course I "want to dispute" your historical references. |
the floor is yours.
*holds breath* |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
| It's pretty funny how subjective the smearing is. If only the Dems had labeled Bush a Nazi in 2000.. |
|
|
|
|
