Obama wins, we lose. McCain wins, we lose.

[Bongulator]

I wouldn't call it 'short-sighted' to believe that the Republicans are good for the rich. I've been on this planet since the 60s, and it's been that way for at least the last 40 years. I'm thinking long-term. Destroying our middle-class, by doing a massive wealth transfer from the middle class to the rich, is bad for this country in the short term *and* the long term. This country can't survive without our middle class.

As for entitlements, you mean such things as Social Security. Well, damn right people feel entitled to Social Security. They pay into it for 30 years, *shouldn't* they be entitled to draw back from it? It's money they paid into it, it's *their* money, so of course people are entitled to it. Nothing wrong with that. It's like if you work for a month and get a paycheck, then you go to the bank and ask for some of your money. Don't you feel entitled to it?

 

[ccodiane]

I wouldn't call it 'short-sighted' to believe that the Republicans are good for the rich. I've been on this planet since the 60s, and it's been that way for at least the last 40 years. I'm thinking long-term. Destroying our middle-class, by doing a massive wealth transfer from the middle class to the rich, is bad for this country in the short term *and* the long term. This country can't survive without our middle class.

As for entitlements, you mean such things as Social Security. Well, damn right people feel entitled to Social Security. They pay into it for 30 years, *shouldn't* they be entitled to draw back from it? It's money they paid into it, it's *their* money, so of course people are entitled to it. Nothing wrong with that. It's like if you work for a month and get a paycheck, then you go to the bank and ask for some of your money. Don't you feel entitled to it?

Entitled? What about the entitlement of tomorrows Americans not to be saddled with their parents and grandparents blunders? I realize that those that paid in deserve compensation, but at what cost? You work the month for your pay, and then when you go to collect you see the boss run out back and mug some poor young couple at gun point......he comes back and pays you.....fair is fair.

 

[medicineman]

I wouldn't call it 'short-sighted' to believe that the Republicans are good for the rich. I've been on this planet since the 60s, and it's been that way for at least the last 40 years. I'm thinking long-term. Destroying our middle-class, by doing a massive wealth transfer from the middle class to the rich, is bad for this country in the short term *and* the long term. This country can't survive without our middle class.

As for entitlements, you mean such things as Social Security. Well, damn right people feel entitled to Social Security. They pay into it for 30 years, *shouldn't* they be entitled to draw back from it? It's money they paid into it, it's *their* money, so of course people are entitled to it. Nothing wrong with that. It's like if you work for a month and get a paycheck, then you go to the bank and ask for some of your money. Don't you feel entitled to it?

Yeah, that's what I don't get about all these "Conservatives" and their entitlement bullshit about Social security. I paid into it for 50 years, why shouldn't I be entitled to my pension? BTW Had the federsl Government not raided the SS security fund to put into the general fund to make the deficit look lower, there would be enough money in the SS security fund for 3 generations at least. At one point, just the interest was funding the pensioneers, but the politicos couldn't stand that, a program that actually was working, lets steal the money. When the checks stop coming, thats when the revolution will begin

 

[ViRedd]

"When the checks stop coming, thats when the revolution will begin"

And/or when the checks that DO come aren't worth anything.

The answer is to privatize Social Security in order to keep the politician's hands off of it.


Vi

 

[medicineman]

"When the checks stop coming, thats when the revolution will begin"

And/or when the checks that DO come aren't worth anything.

The answer is to privatize Social Security in order to keep the politician's hands off of it.


Vi

Heck, they aint worth much now., But if you give it to wall street, well, we cant remember 1929, but a few folks can and I'll bet they might have second thoughts about giving it to wall street. In fact the stock Bubble hasn't burst yet, but if I were a betting man, I'd say there is a huge correction coming, and maybe even abject failure. I've pulled out of stocks and gone to the money market, I'm trying to get my wife to move her 401 over as well, in fact the only really safe place I can see at present is inside my home safe. But what's a life savings worth when the dollar is worth 4 cents. I should have robbed banks for a living, turnabout is fair play.

 

[Garden Knowm]

"When the checks stop coming, thats when the revolution will begin"

And/or when the checks that DO come aren't worth anything.

The answer is to privatize Social Security in order to keep the politician's hands off of it.


Vi

who would you suggest? Haliberton...

LOL


Come VI... the government and the private is ONE in the same...

Make it private and it surely falls out of the peoples hands.... the proof is in the past!

iloveyou

 

[undertheice]

Make it private and it surely falls out of the peoples hands....

another bassackward bit of denial, all too typical of those in favor of the stalinist stylings of the new left. what is it you think privatization means? maybe you think it means turning over your life savings to masked gunmen and having no control over how it is used. well that's the system we have now and i don't really see how it could go much worse. we have been sinking money into the black hole of government all our lives and they have been robbing us blind, using funds from social security to bankroll their little pet projects and feathering their own nests with our future. privatization means cutting government out of the loop. it means an end to the most massive pyramid scheme in history and a return to the concept of individuals taking control of their own destiny. of course there will be those that try to swindle us out of our savings and that should be controlled. that is government's job, not attempting to babysit and coddle the entire population as if we were too foolish to make intelligent decisions on our own.

 

[Bongulator]

If you're that much against the social security system, get a job that doesn't pay into it. They do exist. My significant other hasn't paid into social security in more than 33 years (and so is ineligible to draw a social security check), but she has a decent retirement plan managed by her employer that provides her about $72k/year and somewhat adjusts for inflation. We have choices now, so there's no need for a change, other than to make sure when the boomers retire, they get their social security checks (which they paid for).

Personally, I've never accepted any government money, except my paychecks when in the Army. No emergency room visits, no welfare, no food stamps, no unemployment, and when I'm eligible for social security I'll probably pass on that too. I prefer to be a giver rather than a taker, and in addition to not ever availing myself of any government resources, I also gave them four years of my life, in and out of combat. In other words, I have only given to this country, never taken, and that's the way I want it to stay. If the government were to start sending me SS checks, I'd tear them up. I didn't even accept the tax rebates this year, although I could have.

 

[ViRedd]

^^^ Now there's a true American! ^^^

​

 

[Garden Knowm]

whoa buddy.. i think you read into my statement just a bit,..

just because I said I'm not fooking your wife.. doesn't mean I am fooking your mom..

how about you ease off on jumping to conclusions so we can come up with a solution.., or are you more interested in being right?

All I'm saying is, the governement is the same as the people. it is nothing but symatnics.. I am not suggesting the gorvernement is better than privatization.. I am suggesting that privatization has some serious problems..

iloveyou

another bassackward bit of denial, all too typical of those in favor of the stalinist stylings of the new left. what is it you think privatization means? maybe you think it means turning over your life savings to masked gunmen and having no control over how it is used. well that's the system we have now and i don't really see how it could go much worse. we have been sinking money into the black hole of government all our lives and they have been robbing us blind, using funds from social security to bankroll their little pet projects and feathering their own nests with our future. privatization means cutting government out of the loop. it means an end to the most massive pyramid scheme in history and a return to the concept of individuals taking control of their own destiny. of course there will be those that try to swindle us out of our savings and that should be controlled. that is government's job, not attempting to babysit and coddle the entire population as if we were too foolish to make intelligent decisions on our own.

 

[ccodiane]

Thinking is above your pay grade, g-knownothing.......seriously, think about it.........what a fucking joke

 

[ccodiane]

iloveyou .......

 

[ccodiane]

Koko the ape seemed more sincere......

http://koko.org/friends/images/Koko/koko_signs_love.jpg


"koko signs love".........

 

[undertheice]

All I'm saying is, the government is the same as the people. it is nothing but semantics.. I am not suggesting the government is better than privatization..

the problem would seem to be that the government is not the same as the people. where private enterprise must conform to the marketplace and regulation, government has built such a shell around itself that it is its only oversight. the more power we invest in government, the more impermeable that shell becomes. we have given over the education of our children, our investments for our old age, our safety and security. now there are some who would hand over the medical and financial wellbeing of our entire nation as well. considering the waste and corruption inherent in such a massive bureaucracy, it hardly seems rational to equate the two.

I am suggesting that privatization has some serious problems..

there are problems with any change. taking back a bit of the power that has been stolen from us is no exception, but it would seem to be worth the trouble.

 

[Arraya]

You got that right. They are controlled by the same criminal syndicate. What you are witnessing is a complete systemic failure of the banking system and devolution to totalitarianism. We are going into a new reality, soon. Watch it happen.

 

[Garden Knowm]

MARX said you can't MAKE a communist society.. but rather a communist society is the normal evolution from a democracy..

iloveyou

 

[ccodiane]

Where were you educated GNM? Does this look familiar? Sounds like YOU.

Written by Kari Boyd McBride for Feminist Theories, [SIZE=+1]Women's Studies 305.[/SIZE]


Classical Marxism, as articulated by Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) (drawing on the work of G. W. F. Hegel [1770-1831]), developed a materialist theory of history. According to Marx and Engels, all social and cultural forms, relationships, and identities were dependent on and derived from the particular economic system of any era. The particular mode of production of an era formed the base structure of society; all other aspects, including literature, religion, and even identities (one’s sense of self), were merely superstructure growing out of the economic structure. Particular economic systems will thus produce particular forms of literature and subjectivities: the realist novel is a product of capitalism, replacing earlier forms (romance, epic) particular to aristocratic and monarchic rule. In any economic system, those who control the modes of production will be the movers and shakers of the society; their thinking, values, and perspectives will be dominant. The maintenance of any system is dependent on the existence of ideology that functions to prevent the dispossessed of any economic system from seeing their real relationship to power structures. Ideology produces a false consciousness of oneself and one's relationship to history and works best when it is invisible (i.e., it looks like common sense or "truth"). So a capitalist system is dependent on ideologies like meritocracy ("anyone can grow up to be president") that mask the realities of exploitation and privilege and keep the proletariat (working class) subjugated to the bourgeoisie (middle class) who grow rich on the surplus value of lower class labor. It is this surplus value that creates capital--not simply money, but wealth that accrues to the class that controls the means of production. Through this process, the labor of the proletariat becomes alienated.
The most important modifications of these ideas have come from Louis Althusser (1918-1990) who expanded on Marx's understanding of ideology. For Althusser, ideology is not exactly a false system of ideas but rather the conceptual framework through which one interprets self, culture, and history. Ideology saturates everything, from language to cultural practices. Both the oppressors and the oppressed see the world through ideology. Human life as we understand it is dependent on a functioning ideology that makes sense of self and world. So ideology produces not only our culture (the superstructure) but our very consciousness of ourselves. Thus there is no essential individual human subject that pre-exists society; rather society creates subjectivities and teaches us how to be "subject." (As Marx had said, it is not consciouness that determines being; rather, social being determines consciousness.) Althusser contrasts ideological state apparatuses--the political system, religion, schools, advertising, the law, the media, sports--that evoke willing submission to dominant culture with repressive state apparatuses like prisons and the military that compel submission. For Althusser, there is very little hope for social change or betterment because of the pervasive and invisible dominance of ideology and ideological state apparatuses.
Althusser also developed the concept of interpellation or being hailed or called out--the way in which ideological state apparatuses call forth a particular identity that we then recognize in ourselves, e.g., the way in which an advertising campaign can create a desire to be or look in a certain way. We "see ourselves" or hear our name called (to maintain Althusser's metaphor) in the image and find our identity in buying the product. Are you a Halston woman?
Further modification of ideology came from Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) with his idea of hegemony, the notion that domination is not achieved through force but through complex negotiations among various interests. Dominance is never imposed from the top down nor is it articulated univocally through language or ideological apparatuses. Hegemony is achieved not primarily through compulsion, but rather, through continual negotiation and the winning of active or inactive consent from a majority of parties.

http://www.ic.arizona.edu/ic/mcbride/theory/305marx.htm

(I'm sure that beautiful background comforts you.)

 

[ccodiane]

excerpt:

Althusser also developed the concept of interpellation or being hailed or called out--the way in which ideological state apparatuses call forth a particular identity that we then recognize in ourselves, e.g., the way in which an advertising campaign can create a desire to be or look in a certain way. We "see ourselves" or hear our name called (to maintain Althusser's metaphor) in the image and find our identity in buying the product. Are you a Halston woman?

Are you a seemore buds grower?

 

[Johnnyorganic]

MARX said you can't MAKE a communist society.. but rather a communist society is the normal evolution from a democracy..

iloveyou

Correct. And Marx was right.

"Democracy is the road to socialism." - Karl Marx

The only problem as I see it is the founders explicitly sought to avoid establishing a democracy. Nowhere is democracy mentioned in the founding documents. The United States of America was established as a constitutional republic.

Democracy was a product of the progressive reforms of the early 20th century.

 

[undertheice]

MARX said you can't MAKE a communist society.. but rather a communist society is the normal evolution from a democracy..

...and yet societies continue to attempt to create a workers' paradise through socialist machinations. for a communist society to evolve from democracy, government must first be rendered powerless. from a near-anarchist state it is possible for a communalist spirit to emerge, but such an experiment has never been tried on a large scale. government has always stepped in and stolen the people's power, creating the sort of stalinist empire we seem to be approaching.