Income Redistribution

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

No no, there’s nothing ethical or unethical about it, period. Marx’s argument, that is presently being so dramaticaly confirmed, was that capitalism doesn’t work. That’s why we need an alternative, because eventually, we’ll have to change.[/quote]

Part of the issue on this thread currently, and in real life generally, is that many folks do in fact feel there ARE ethical issues with either system (thus the highly charged rhetoric we see). I am not concerned with the ethics for the time being though.

To the point about capitalism failing and thus needing socialism, I will again employee the less-than-scientific glance around the world and recent history method. Using the start of the United States (~250 years) we can surmise which countries and economies have done the best or simply survived at all. I am genuinely going to try and avoid cherry picking and it is also very important to note that different types of government interventions exists which have different effects on the efficiency of an economy (e.g. high taxes with low regulatory measure effects the economy much differently than medium taxes and high regulatory measures).

  • Soviet Russia has fallen as well as virtually all of its satellite nations.
  • Cuba has an economy which is performing so poorly that its own leaders have publicly admitted socialized agriculture and other measures have failed and must be redressed (in line with ‘socialism’)
  • America has become the wealthiest country on the planet and remains so by some margin
  • China’s economic renaissance has come in lock step with its liberalization of its economy, starting with its “economic development zones” along the coast which were far less regulated than the hinterland based on the idea freer markets do better
  • Greece and the rest of the more socialized PIIGS have or are on the brink of financial insolvency
  • France, the most highly socialized of Europe’s economies in many respects, has had chronic high-unemployment for the better part of a decade particularly among young workers.
  • The UK went from being one of the worst performing economies in Europe before Margret Thatcher and the ‘Tall Poppies’ reforms to be one of, if not the, best performing economy in Europe
  • New Zealand, while having in general a highly socialized society, has the most productive per capita agricultural sector in the world. It is also the only pure free market agricultural sector in the world with zero subsidies. After an initial period of shock, the market recovered and now their farmers are the highest paid and most productive workers in the world by some measure. Compare this to highly regulated continental Europe and the difference is striking. To be fair, they are also better than the US in this respect as our agricultural sector is highly subsidized and highly regulated
  • The Scandinavian countries enjoy a generally robust economy while still being highly socialized, but despite very high tax rates have surprisingly low regulatory measures in place for the market.
  • Somalia, one of the only stateless or near-stateless societies on earth, has had one of the fastest growing economies and life spans of any country in Africa. Periods of outsider intervention (e.g. Ethiopia, the US, the United Nations, etc.) have caused notable disruptions to these trends. Certainly not a utopia as some anarchists would claim, but shows economies can do much better without a government than with one, socialist or “capitalist”.

The list goes on and their are outliers in every instance, but I do not think that history or evidence is on the side of socialism.

Regarding Marxisms predictive power, I would also point out the Austrians do in fact have a high predictive power compared to other schools of economic thought. Many Austrians predicted the dotcom and housing bubbles accurately for example.

Of course for a number of reasons predictions in general are often not a sign of efficacy as anyone who has seen a fortune teller before can attest.

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:But I haven’t. I admit the government can, and in many instances does, provide management of resources. I contend this is precisely what owners of businesses do as well.

You may have different feelings on this, but from what I have gleaned from your comments and many of the posts in this thread there is a feeling that business owners are exploiting their workers by profiting from their labor, as if there organizing efforts were not also a job which demands a wage for the organizing work done. In short, a business owner is being productive by his organizing efforts so that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts (i.e. the individual laborer).[/quote]

You seems to be making the same mistake as most others who have a problem with Marxism–I’m not positive, but it appears here that you are referring to small business owners, whom Marx didn’t really care about. His analysis concerns itself with a large, industrial economy. Corporations and big business is his subject. The small business owner may profit off the work of his employees, but he also works himself–this is the defining characteristic of a capitalist: one who does not need to work to support himself, but derives his income from ownership of assets. The small business owner probably could not maintain his standard of living were to stop working. Therefore, he is not a capitalist.

So in short, it looks like you’re extending Marx’s theory too far, or rather incorrectly.

[quote]If a business owner is NOT productive as you define it, then it is difficult to surmise how government organization also funded by the work of others IS productive. And if it is not, and capitalist/business owners are exploitative of their workers and effectively thieves, how then can we say the government is in any way different in this regard? Or do you simply believe that a government is going to be superior at organizing given enough information (this would assume objective price theory to be correct as otherwise values are by definition unknowable and in fact different from person to person)?

Following from this, the question would then become which method is superior at producing wealth as both rely on fundamentally the same method of organizing/exploitation (forgoing the ethical arguments). I would say an objective glance at the wealthiest societies would show that market systems are superior to centrally planned ones in pure efficacy.

I am also foregoing for the time being the distinction in types of government intervention (i.e. tax rates vs. regulatory measures- both affect the market but are not synonymous even if they are often highly correlated with each other).
[/quote]

This is a good, intelligent post. I think, however, my response should clear up the rest of it. Let me know if I’m wrong.
[/quote]

I see what you are saying, but I would argue you are focusing on outlier cases. 99+% of the US economy is in fact small business. While admittedly ~80% of the wealth resides with ~20% of the population, creating a system that focuses only on outliers (both rich and poor) ignores the vast majority of the rest of society who would be harmed by attempts to eliminate the extremes.

It is also worth noting that given the peculiarity of US tax and corporate laws any business filed as a sole proprietorship is considered for tax purposes a single “individual”. While other types of corporations without a single owner are accounted for, sole proprietorship can confuse the situation. For example, a sole proprietor owns 100% of a company and has 10 employees. The company makes $2,500,000 dollars. Minus product cost, insurance costs, taxes, employee salaries, overhead and advertising expenses, the business makes a 100,000 profit. Even if the owner takes out no money, the “individual” i.e. the business, is taxed as if there was a 100,000 income for the individual. While expenses and deductions can be made, this still blurrs the lines of how much wealth actually exists with how few people. The reality is wealth is probably far better dispersed than we think it is given the huge volume of sole proprietorships that still employ people and reinvest in the business even if our tax code does not recognize this.

Long post short, there is no utopia under any system period. Bad people and hard cases will always exist. It is the nature of the world and not just the human world. But I believe if you look at the majority of people and forgo outlier cases on either end of the spectrum, capitalism benefits more people and creates more wealth per capita than any other system that has ever existed.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Then consider how we define people based on income, into “lower class”, “middle class”, and “upper class”.

Or the reaction people collectively give to a person with a huge house (and wonder why all those McMansions which harmed the housing market were built)

Or consider the fraudulent advertising many supplement companies will engage in, rationalizing the practice with “We’re a business, we need to make money”.

I know, I know, these are all small examples. But life is a whole bunch of small examples that add up to bigger facts.[/quote]

But you still miss the larger point:

The only way to change people’s minds is to set the example by living a virtuous life. Talking about it and actually doing it are two separate things. For this reason it takes many generations to make a significant change of “social attitude”.

Personally, I think you are too focused on the collective. You should worry about your own success rather than worry about what the automatons are are watching on TV.[/quote]

Right. I should just worry about getting as much money as possible and finding ways to get some other fool to work hard so I can profit from it. [/quote]

Is that your definition of success? How do you sleep at night?

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

  • America has become the wealthiest country on the planet and remains so by some margin

[/quote]

I think its faulty logic to attribute this fact to capitalism when so much of the nations wealth was derived from slave labor.

The history of our country is one of displacing or killing the original inhabitants and forcing others to do backbreaking work all their lives for no money.

Its a bit insulting when so many who benefit from that history dismiss those facts and want to credit capitalism, or religion, or whatever else they want, for the financial success of the USA.

The system of “Make others work for you” worked very well when those others didnt have the option to quit. Now the poor majority has the right to quit, and, increasingly, they do so. When this happens enough, the economic system fails.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

  • America has become the wealthiest country on the planet and remains so by some margin

[/quote]

I think its faulty logic to attribute this fact to capitalism when so much of the nations wealth was derived from slave labor.

The history of our country is one of displacing or killing the original inhabitants and forcing others to do backbreaking work all their lives for no money.

Its a bit insulting when so many who benefit from that history dismiss those facts and want to credit capitalism, or religion, or whatever else they want, for the financial success of the USA.[/quote]

So?

Other people robbed what they could lay their hands on too and they also had slaves.

And yes, the Ottoman Empire and Imperial China are no more and the is still makes the most money.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

  • America has become the wealthiest country on the planet and remains so by some margin

[/quote]

I think its faulty logic to attribute this fact to capitalism when so much of the nations wealth was derived from slave labor.

The history of our country is one of displacing or killing the original inhabitants and forcing others to do backbreaking work all their lives for no money.

Its a bit insulting when so many who benefit from that history dismiss those facts and want to credit capitalism, or religion, or whatever else they want, for the financial success of the USA.[/quote]

Not an insignificant point, but I think one that can be accounted for. Slavery was phased out by the free market in much of the country precisely because it was inefficient and ultimately a poor economic model (this is also why slavery started to die out peacefully around the world). Economic production in the South was much lower than the industrialized North and slavery ultimately stunted the economy of the South. Slavery was also removed as an economic model entirely over a century ago and if you look at nothing but the time after slavery the US still grew faster and became wealthier than any other country in the world.

The point is that while you can’t ignore economic progress occurred while slavery existed, the fact that slave holding sectors UNDERPERFORMED in the same time period compared to non-slaving holding sectors you can see that if anything it is amazing the economy still continued to grow so rapidly while being drug down by the inefficiencies of the slave holders. By all accounts we would have grown FASTER if slavery had been ditched in the South, especially without a massive civil war that devastated the economy and the populace thrown in there.

To the point of natural resources the US enjoys via stolen land, I would point to the likes of Russia, China, South America (Brazil and Argentina in particular) who also enjoy(ed) vast natural resources often pillaged from the indigenous people at some point in their history. They have not progressed as the US has and they have also had far longer to develop their economies yet failed to match our unprecedented wealth creation in what is a remarkably short period of time. Communism has been shown to collapse on itself in a much shorter time frame than the US has been around.

Again every situation is unique, but the trends would seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of more capitalistic economies as an overall more productive model than more socialistic countries. Admittedly there are many degrees and both terms are very broad in scope.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

  • America has become the wealthiest country on the planet and remains so by some margin

[/quote]

I think its faulty logic to attribute this fact to capitalism when so much of the nations wealth was derived from slave labor.

The history of our country is one of displacing or killing the original inhabitants and forcing others to do backbreaking work all their lives for no money.

Its a bit insulting when so many who benefit from that history dismiss those facts and want to credit capitalism, or religion, or whatever else they want, for the financial success of the USA.[/quote]

So?

Other people robbed what they could lay their hands on too and they also had slaves.

And yes, the Ottoman Empire and Imperial China are no more and the is still makes the most money.

[/quote]

So?

So saying “America is rich because of capitalism” is a lie when America is rich because of slavery.

We should avoid lies, because lies are bad. Or do you want to argue about that, too?

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]benos4752 wrote:Umm, wow…talking to you is like talking with the handicapped…fucking retard…

How in the hell did I not know what I was talking about? You’re the one who said, ‘Thanks to my American “freedom,” I am legally prohibited from traveling there’[/quote]

By “travelling there,” most people do not mean “spend the afternoon there” which, thanks to US law, is all I can do. Did you read the link? If you stay longer than a day, that’s considered prrof that you’ve spent money, which is against the law. So yes, I am prohibited by US law from travelling to Cuba.

You’re just pissed off that you leaped before you looked, and now you look like an ass.

[quote]And besides, dipshit, I wasn’t talking about getting a license or some shit, people go there all the time, from this country and others, to buy things there, or vacations etc. You just have to go through another country, like Mexico for example. Happens everyday.

And to top it off, none of us said to go visit there. Go move there. If it’s such a utopia, leave us alone to fail and go live in your communist heaven. Trust me, no one is going to stop you from moving there. Reading comprehension, use it little boy.[/quote]

But I don’t want to move there. I don’t want to move anywhere. My family and friends are here. My life is here. I never said it was a utopia, dumbass, that’s just you dishonestly trying to get out of a debate that you know you’d lose. Do you even read these posts before your programming kicks in?

[quote]So, thank you for making yourself look like an idiot, once again.
[/quote]

Jesus, what a dumb cunt.[/quote]

First, you are the one who brought up traveling, not me. But since you want to keep bringing it up, you don’t disclose it dumbass. People go there all the time and spend time and money, they just don’t disclose it. And unless the government is tracking you for some reason, you’re fine. Legal, no. Done, all the time. And this may surprise your ignorant liberal mind, but I actually support open trade and travel with Cuba.

Explain something to me. How did I jump without looking when you’re the one who decided to bring up traveling?

And secondly, I couldn’t give a flying fuck what you want. You sit here and say how America needs to change. You make claims that there are all these flourishing socialist countries. You post ‘data’ showing that Cuba is so much better than the US in so many areas. Well, then go there. If these other countries are so marvelous, than just go there. Leave us a lone and go to these other countries.

This is going to be a long winter break…then I get to go to a uni and be surrounded by liberal, communist fucktards like Ryan here…yay me

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

  • America has become the wealthiest country on the planet and remains so by some margin

[/quote]

I think its faulty logic to attribute this fact to capitalism when so much of the nations wealth was derived from slave labor.

The history of our country is one of displacing or killing the original inhabitants and forcing others to do backbreaking work all their lives for no money.

Its a bit insulting when so many who benefit from that history dismiss those facts and want to credit capitalism, or religion, or whatever else they want, for the financial success of the USA.[/quote]

So?

Other people robbed what they could lay their hands on too and they also had slaves.

And yes, the Ottoman Empire and Imperial China are no more and the is still makes the most money.

[/quote]

So?

So saying “America is rich because of capitalism” is a lie when America is rich because of slavery.

We should avoid lies, because lies are bad. Or do you want to argue about that, too?[/quote]

Other people had slaves and yet remained poor-

There goes your argument.

This may be incorrect logic but isn’t the American gov’t is/going broke. That other thread on 200 trillion national debt, while the number may be wrong, I did see a post about it being closer to 130T. Either way, I believe it is the corporations in America that have the money, and not the gov’t, because of being in so much debt. Anyone correct/help out with my thinking here?

[quote]benos4752 wrote:
First, you are the one who brought up traveling, not me. But since you want to keep bringing it up, you don’t disclose it dumbass. People go there all the time and spend time and money, they just don’t disclose it. And unless the government is tracking you for some reason, you’re fine. Legal, no. Done, all the time. And this may surprise your ignorant liberal mind, but I actually support open trade and travel with Cuba.

Explain something to me. How did I jump without looking when you’re the one who decided to bring up traveling?

And secondly, I couldn’t give a flying fuck what you want. You sit here and say how America needs to change. You make claims that there are all these flourishing socialist countries. You post ‘data’ showing that Cuba is so much better than the US in so many areas. Well, then go there. If these other countries are so marvelous, than just go there. Leave us a lone and go to these other countries.

This is going to be a long winter break…then I get to go to a uni and be surrounded by liberal, communist fucktards like Ryan here…yay me[/quote]

Just because you can do it and get away with it doesn’t change the fact that it is illegal.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

  • America has become the wealthiest country on the planet and remains so by some margin

[/quote]

I think its faulty logic to attribute this fact to capitalism when so much of the nations wealth was derived from slave labor.

The history of our country is one of displacing or killing the original inhabitants and forcing others to do backbreaking work all their lives for no money.

Its a bit insulting when so many who benefit from that history dismiss those facts and want to credit capitalism, or religion, or whatever else they want, for the financial success of the USA.[/quote]

So?

Other people robbed what they could lay their hands on too and they also had slaves.

And yes, the Ottoman Empire and Imperial China are no more and the is still makes the most money.

[/quote]

So?

So saying “America is rich because of capitalism” is a lie when America is rich because of slavery.

We should avoid lies, because lies are bad. Or do you want to argue about that, too?[/quote]

Other people had slaves and yet remained poor-

There goes your argument.

[/quote]

I think the other guys reply better defeated that argument, but I’ll concede your point, that slavery isnt the main factor to Americas success, but will say it was a factor.

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
This may be incorrect logic but isn’t the American gov’t is/going broke. That other thread on 200 trillion national debt, while the number may be wrong, I did see a post about it being closer to 130T. Either way, I believe it is the corporations in America that have the money, and not the gov’t, because of being in so much debt. Anyone correct/help out with my thinking here?[/quote]

Matty-

There are a number of issues with this analysis that are far too lengthy to go into in too much depth.

Suffice it to say, the government is in debt because it has borrowed money (i.e. sold bonds to private investors and other countries and pays a dividend on the money borrowed- somewhat different than how you would get a loan, but amounts to the same thing) to fund itself and various other entitlements and liabilities.

Corporations do not necessarily receive any of this money. It is the case though that many corporations have in fact received some of the governments borrowed money via TARP and other bailouts. So while it is true that some corporations have some of this borrowed money, it is as a result of the governments decisions that they have it and they could not borrow money against the national debt by themselves. Corporations generally raise money via the sale of stock on the world market(s) (e.g. the New York Stock Exchange is one such market).

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]Dijon wrote:Isn’t socialism what they - any communist state - were aiming for at the get-go? You can set up your socialist paradise but my point is it won’t last long.

My opinions are not based on what anyone has said on this forum, but rather what I have been told by people that have lived in states that attempted to adhere to the ideology that you are such a proponent of.[/quote]

Well, here’s the thing: whether the answer is yes, or whether the answer is no, it really doesn’t matter very much. Here’s why:

no matter what system you live under, the government has stated goals. The socialist states failed to live up to those goals, but also, capitalist states have failed to live up to their goals. The US, more than anyone else, as much as we talk a good game about the “rule of law,” chuck the law out the nearest window when the government really wants something done. Just look at Wikileaks. They’ve committed no crime. The DOJ has no basis whatsoever, none, zero, zilch, the null set, NOTHING in the law even begins to support their attempt to prosecute them. At least none that doesn’t ALSO allow them to prosecute the New York Times (which they are not doing). But here they are, preparing to prosecute.

The whole point is that, whether you talk about the socialist states, or the present capitalist state, neither one was run by the people. In all of them, there’s a seperate political/economic class that rules, supposedly, “in the interests of” the people. So the opint is that it’s not really the stated goals that matter nearly as much as the composition of the government that must carry them out. None of the socialist states came about in the manner that Marx described; by mass worker revolt.

I think the lesson is that we can’t trust one party to rule in the interest of another. If we want the people to rule, the people themselves must run the government. This is highly unlikely under capitalism.
[/quote]

Wouldn’t having a minimal state, existing only to protect from foreign invaders and from physical aggression from inside the country, with strict limits on the power of the government allow people to organize along the lines that THEY deemed best, rather than the government? A centralized state as Marx envisions makes this as much an impossibility (the people ruling themselves that is) as our current system.

Let me also say I agree with many of your statements about the hypocrisy of the US. I am absolutely ashamed of the way we have behaved as an imperial power insisting upon itself and attempting to domineer the world. This is precisely why I advocate against a powerful state. Without a powerful government, the US would be unable to project its force upon the rest of the world with any real effect (as big as Apple is it would have a hard time funding a para-military group capable of dictating the foreign affairs of many sovereign states). I believe that power, particularly unchecked power (and let’s face it, the ‘who watches the watchmen’ conundrum is nearly impossible to fully solve), does in fact corrupt and this is why I want to limit such power.

A centralized state with the power to annex property, direct production, dictate pay, etc. would by definition have so much power it would be impossible to adequately scrutinize it all from the inside. Technology like WikiLeaks is making this situation better, but it is difficult to say it will ever fully redress the problem.

So in short, I agree governments serve a purpose but tend to corrupt and miss their stated aims. I just think giving them more power does not correct this issue and in fact exacerbates it.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The system of “Make others work for you” worked very well when those others didnt have the option to quit. Now the poor majority has the right to quit, and, increasingly, they do so. When this happens the business owner replaces their sorry ass with the next man because people are always looking for work.[/quote]

More like it.

You are worth what you’re worth. Bet you don’t have a problem with employees leaving for better jobs…

[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The system of “Make others work for you” worked very well when those others didnt have the option to quit. Now the poor majority has the right to quit, and, increasingly, they do so. When this happens the business owner replaces their sorry ass with the next man because people are always looking for work.[/quote]

More like it.

You are worth what you’re worth. Bet you don’t have a problem with employees leaving for better jobs…[/quote]

sure he does, he thinks whoever wants to sit home on unemployment should be able to and anyone that works and has made decent money should have to pay for it.

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The system of “Make others work for you” worked very well when those others didnt have the option to quit. Now the poor majority has the right to quit, and, increasingly, they do so. When this happens the business owner replaces their sorry ass with the next man because people are always looking for work.[/quote]

More like it.

You are worth what you’re worth. Bet you don’t have a problem with employees leaving for better jobs…[/quote]

sure he does, he thinks whoever wants to sit home on unemployment should be able to and anyone that works and has made decent money should have to pay for it. [/quote]

If you want there to be money, you need there to be businesses and such where money can change hands. This is known as an economy. It’s good that smart men start companies and make a lot of money. They CREATE jobs and those who don’t have the intelligence or balls to start a business can have these jobs and feed their family. Make it easier to start companies/keep companies.

I have an issue when people in a position of power take advantage of others and aren’t punished. That is all. YOU DETERMINE YOUR OWN WORTH.

[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The system of “Make others work for you” worked very well when those others didnt have the option to quit. Now the poor majority has the right to quit, and, increasingly, they do so. When this happens the business owner replaces their sorry ass with the next man because people are always looking for work.[/quote]

More like it.

You are worth what you’re worth. Bet you don’t have a problem with employees leaving for better jobs…[/quote]

sure he does, he thinks whoever wants to sit home on unemployment should be able to and anyone that works and has made decent money should have to pay for it. [/quote]

If you want there to be money, you need there to be businesses and such where money can change hands. This is known as an economy. It’s good that smart men start companies and make a lot of money. They CREATE jobs and those who don’t have the intelligence or balls to start a business can have these jobs and feed their family. Make it easier to start companies/keep companies.

I have an issue when people in a position of power take advantage of others and aren’t punished. That is all. YOU DETERMINE YOUR OWN WORTH. [/quote]

I meant the marxist you were conversing with.

I don’t disagree with you, but right now we are letting the government take advantage of us.

we are working and being responsible, but allowing them to take our money and give to those that don’t want to. in order to build dependents and buy votes.

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The system of “Make others work for you” worked very well when those others didnt have the option to quit. Now the poor majority has the right to quit, and, increasingly, they do so. When this happens the business owner replaces their sorry ass with the next man because people are always looking for work.[/quote]

More like it.

You are worth what you’re worth. Bet you don’t have a problem with employees leaving for better jobs…[/quote]

sure he does, he thinks whoever wants to sit home on unemployment should be able to and anyone that works and has made decent money should have to pay for it. [/quote]

If you want there to be money, you need there to be businesses and such where money can change hands. This is known as an economy. It’s good that smart men start companies and make a lot of money. They CREATE jobs and those who don’t have the intelligence or balls to start a business can have these jobs and feed their family. Make it easier to start companies/keep companies.

I have an issue when people in a position of power take advantage of others and aren’t punished. That is all. YOU DETERMINE YOUR OWN WORTH. [/quote]

I meant the marxist you were conversing with.

I don’t disagree with you, but right now we are letting the government take advantage of us.

we are working and being responsible, but allowing them to take our money and give to those that don’t want to. in order to build dependents and buy votes.
[/quote]

I wasn’t yelling at you just people who think everything’s gotta be fair. Things aren’t fair nor should they be. It’s still survival of the fittest, but now everybody survives it’s just how well your lifestyle is.

Yes, the gov takes too much. Why can’t we have a monetary system like our founding fathers put into place? I think I know. Crooks at the top and idiots at the bottom.