Marxist movement

Correlation is not the same thing as causation. If you put Kim Jong-Il in charge over here and give him absolute authority, we would have issues as well. Corrupt people exist, regardless of economic policy. If those people are able to seize power, then bad stuff is going to happen. Communism, socialism, Marxism, (insert polarizing buzzword here), etc. do not cause corruption. It is a matter of implementation rather than ideology.

You're marginalizing the issue in a way that is not productive to the discussion. I value rational thought and argument over catchphrases. No offense intended, but this ties in to my original statement. The schools of thought upon which you base your statements have been well marketed in the south. And, like I said, I'm sick of being sold.

Again, gross overgeneralization. I am also an advocate of small government. But when you figure out that the big kid in the sand box (use Madoff as an example) doesn't play well with others, you have to regulate him, and mitigate any risk that he may pose to the other kids. You also have to make sure he shares his toys. If we would all agree to play nice, then government could remain small. But we (collectively speaking) don't.

You're very fortunate.

Again, I'm no expert on any of these issues. My views are simply based on an ideology of right and wrong, not just for me, but for the collective.

:iagree:

And just for a fun exercise, let's look at my specific situation. I am currently attending a state-funded institution. I am receiving federal grants and federally subsidized loans to pay for that education. When I graduate, I plan to teach. Thus, I will be receiving a salary that is (more or less) paid by the state of Texas. A portion of this salary will go toward repaying those federal loans; the repayment will, by federal mandate, be income-sensitive, and the portion that I am unable to pay will be subsidized by the federal government. In 5 years, the state of Texas will repay a very large portion of the loans for me. In 10 years, the federal government will forgive the entire balance because I am a public servant. After 25 years, I can retire on a government pension, and I fully intend on enjoying every minute of all of it. And just think, a monster like me is going to be teaching your children. :scared:

Am I glad that my income is low enough to qualify for these aids? No. Am I happy that I have the opportunity to participate and contribute to the economic machine? Absolutely. But we all must agree that this is not a capitalist mechanism.

The big kids have manufactured this huge ominous spectre and named it socialism, marxism, communism, etc. and told us to be afraid, be very very afraid. Well, after I've watched the same movie enough times, I know what happens when the guy goes down in the basement, and frankly, I'm just tired of hearing it.

If you believe that your right to own a lot of furniture supercedes another individual's right to eat, then we have fundamental differences that are not reconcilable. What I would like, though, is for those who hold this viewpoint to own it. Quit hiding it behind frothy speeches, sexy candidates, and fear of the unknown. I enjoyed the show for a while, but now, it's just sad and tired.

 

Agreed. Down with the trickle down.

 

This is actually a very good observation as it was the constitutional amendment that abolished slavery in the US that provided the legal argument supporting the eventual adoption of our taxation and legal structure for corporations.

Well done. Too bad that execution of the rules doesn't take into account the argument made to get the rules put in place. Of course they're also the reason that seizing won't happen without significant changes to the constitution or someone accusing a corp of treason against the national interest.

 

Health care bribery scandal widens
Emergency room overcrowding putting patients at risk - The Globe and Mail

I can't remember a single election in the history of Canada during my lifetime where the inability to access health care was not one of the top three issues. The idea that you can just make a law saying it's free and suddenly everybody will have it is ridiculous. It has to be paid for, meaning there are massive shortages when everybody starts using up the available funds in the system without consequence.

Countries create shortages to the extent that they offer "free" health care. If you want to see a perfect example of this, look at how even Canada doesn't socialize its dental care, whereas the UK does. In the UK, people have had to pull their own teeth because it's impossible to get in to see a dentist in a short amount of time:

Man pulls out 13 of his own teeth with pliers 'because he couldn't find an NHS dentist' | Mail Online

There is no such thing as a "free lunch." Someone paid for it.

Your example is terrible in comparison to the Canadian system, though. There is no income cut-off point. Nobody has to pay the real cost of their medical insurance, regardless of their income. Because there is no financial consequence to using medical care, there are shortages.

You're right. That is distribution of wealth. How is it moral? Why should people who decide not to have children be forced to pay for the children of those who do decide to have them?

As far as I can see, the sole argument you have made for making one group of people labor for others is that you have personally benefited from the spoils of others' labor. What is the difference between that argument and that of a thief or a slave driver?