Let me explain something....

57 posts / 0 new
Last post
mykcob4's picture
Let me explain something....

I have heard the denigration of all sorts of things that actually should be valued instead of dismissed or mischaracterized.
Political Correctness is simply respecting others for who and what they are. It isn't giving someone extra privileges or anything of the sort.
What some call "wealth redistribution" is a dog whistle against equal opportunity. Mischaracterizing equal opportunity is just a form of racism.
Now many terms in our modern language have become "dirty" words.
Words like Liberal, Socialism, Communism, Equal Rights, Women's Rights, Environment, Animal Rights, Minority, Immigrant, Conservation, Federal Government, Social Justice & Responsibility, Evolution, and much more. They have taken on a connotation that they don't deserve. They have those labels because of the endless propaganda spewed by the extreme right.
Most people don't know what these terms really mean. They just repeat what they have learned from the propaganda that they have consumed.
The biggest problem is with the youth that is mislead. They have never had to pay taxes, have never had to be responsible for themselves or anyone else. They just live a comfortable life and complain about things that they don't know anything about and have had no experience with. Sure everyone has a right to their own opinion, but not every opinion is right. Especially those that have no experience or knowledge or what they are having an opinion on. They are just regurgitating what they have heard. How could they know what paying bills are all about, about wondering how one is going to make ends meet, how to take care of a family? They don't, but yet they shoot their mouths off as if they have done it.
It's the same with religious people. Now there is no way on earth that they have talked to a god, witnessed a miracle, had a prayer come true, had a real NDE, had a real "vision", or anything of the like. Yet, they scream at the top of their lungs that they have and that their god is real, and that facts are untrue just because those facts don't fit the narrative that they want to believe in. They won't conduct a rational conversation. At some point, their argument falls apart because there is always a giant gap that they cannot span. At that point, they resort to proselytizing or using some inane pat statement like "god moves in mysterious ways.
For me this becomes tiresome. Young inexperienced loud mouths telling me all about the world that they haven't even really lived in, and religious nuts arguing in circles of illogic.
I have met some conservatives that can have a good argument and some valid points, but those individuals always speak from experience and knowledge. I have even met a few (very few) believers that can talk about facts rationally, but they have always had the courtesy to not propose some batshit crazy nonsense.
So the next time one of you believers want to talk about an issue, remember that proselytizing or bible quotes only take away from your credibility. And when one of you youthful conservatives want to talk politics, you'd better be sure what you are talking about, and the fact that you don't have any experience with dealing with the real world. That you are speaking in hypotheticals and assumptions. That definitions are not always black and white. The gray area is in the experience and the reality.
People like to equate Hillary Clinton with Donald Trump. They call her baby killer and criminal and all sorts of things that are simply untrue. They are just regurgitating the crap they have heard from Fox or some other propaganda mill, where as Trump is defined by facts. We know that he is a racist by his own words and actions. We know that he doesn't respect women by his words and his actions. We know that he is a pathological liar by his words and his actions.
Now I could spend the time a successfully refute every accusation made about Hillary Clinton some thirty years of accusations. And I could produce all the facts about Trump, but I won't because you all know the truth. Trump is not fit for the job and may have committed treason.
Conservatism is based on self. Not self-reliance but self-importance and selfishness.
Liberalism is based on social responsibility and equal opportunity.
Religion is based on a myth.
Atheism is based on facts.
I just thought I would take the time to explain this. Maybe some will get it, and maybe not. I expect I will get a great deal of flack concerning what I have written, but it won't change the facts.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

CyberLN's picture
I would disagree with you to

I would disagree with you to some extent, myk. For example, you said, "Young inexperienced loud mouths telling me all about the world that they haven't even really lived in...". They certainly have lived in the world. I'm older than you are so should my opinion weigh more than yours? Length of time on the planet doesn't necessitate more accuracy in opinion. It doesn't produce greater value. And one person's opinion is not the ultimate measuring stick against which all other opinions should be compared. Maybe I've misunderstood what you've said in your OP. But it sounds a bit on the righteous side to me.

Just sayin'

mykcob4's picture
@Cyber LN

@Cyber LN
I am talking about people that have no practical experience. No, it isn't righteous at all or intended to be. I am just saying that a person that pays bills, makes ends meet, takes care of themselves and a family (what ever that family is comprised of) has credibility. People that just spew stuff that they heard and have not one whit of experience have no credibility. They might have an opinion, but no credibility.

CyberLN's picture
Well, I disagree that a

Well, I disagree that a person who pays bills, takes care of themselves / family, etc., necessarily has credibility. Some of them are complete and utter assholes without a lick of sense. Just as some 15 year olds are wise, kind, and full of thought.

I think that saying someone is "just spewing stuff they've heard" based on a handful of sentences written in an Internet forum is not particularly compelling evidence to prop up that assertion. Years on the planet earth do not, in themselves, provide for, nor subtract from one's ability to form a cogent opinion.

mykcob4's picture

At least those assholes have earned the right because they draw on experience. They aren't just mouthing words that have been put in their head. They have a reason for saying what they say. They may be wrong, but at least they have a valid reason.
And I am not basing my OP off of a handful of sentences off of the internet. I am basing it on life at large.
Sure there are some 15-year-olds that are smarter than others, but "wise"? Nah. Wisdom takes time and experience. Full of thought sure, maybe. Most of them are full of something but rarely is it thought.
Anyone can form an opinion. Cogent opinion? Nah! Parroting propaganda mills is not forming a cogent opinion.

Kwahu Jakquai's picture
I do agree with you upon the

I do agree with you upon the aspect of the fact that folks need to understand things better before they start to argue and disagree about matters they have no understanding of. But then again perhaps they can gain far more by learning about how the world "really" works through honest discourse.

mykcob4's picture
Also, CyberLN....What is the

Also, CyberLN....What is the legal voting age? Do you think that that is just some arbitrary age? There is a reason that the voting age is where it is.

Harry33Truman's picture
Inversion of reality myckbob,

Inversion of reality myckbob, 'political correctness' has gained a bad connotation because that's what it deserves. I'm with John Cheese, and the same goes with communism, socialism, and all the other forms of authoritarianism you mentioned. The most prominent advocates against these things actually tend to be liberals like Dusty Smith among others. You just can't get over how some people have different opinions than you so you blame it on 'the far right,' or the Slavs, or whoever the scape goat is in any given hour of hate.

The next time you make an absurd post like this I'm not even going to bother. I'm sorry you're going through manopause, but that's not my fault- it isn't some Russian conspiracy to take over the world, and it wasn't 'the far right. Ronald Reagan didn't give you ED, that was old man time.

mykcob4's picture
So, Harry Truman you only

So, Harry Truman you only resort is a personal attack. Typical.
My moniker is Mykcob4 not what you posted.
Socialism is not authoritarian.
You didn't give any example of what John Cleese or Dusty Smith believes about Political Correctness.
I haven't even mentioned "Slavs".
The childish insults about "manopause" and ED are just immature and moronic.
You are a prime example of the OP. You have no experience, you regurgitate propaganda that you have heard seen or read from far right propaganda outlets. You haven't had to take care of yourself or anyone else. You have no responsibilities. You don't know what you are talking about.

Harry33Truman's picture
You resorted to personal

You resorted to personal attacks long before me, and even then, I was still making valid points. You can't handle people disagreeing with you, or supporting a different candidate than you, so you rationalize it by claiming it is an evil Russian conspiracy or 'the far right.'

John Cheese was one of the leading writers and actors at Monty Python, you can see his mall about it here:

Also, yes, Socialism is a form of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is defined as:
'Advocating the principle of obedience to authority as opposed to individual liberty.'

I.e. government control> individual choice, which is exactly what socialism is, taking control over means of production from individuals and having the government control it.

mykcob4's picture
Nope, Harry Truman, you are

Nope, Harry Truman, you are wrong. I didn't attack you on this thread. You just got your feelings hurt and lashed out.
You are wrong about Socialism as well. Socialism doesn't in any way oppose individual or civil liberty. In fact, it supports both.
Government regulation is not government control It's holding people and corporations responsible for their own actions.
You are purposely expanding the meaning of authoritarianism because the term has become vogue of late. Self-discipline is authoritarian somewhat.
Socialism advocates responsibility, not obedience....big difference.
The facts about the Russians are that they interfered in the last presidential elections. That isn't a conspiracy, it's a fact.


I can handle people that don't agree with me. What I will not abide is someone that speaks out of turn meaning that they have no practical knowledge or experience about what they are advocating. You have neither so your opinion is invalid.
To you, Socialism, Liberalism, conservatism, can only be words. You haven't lived them, experienced them.
For the record, I don't advocate socialism either. I advocate fair government, equal opportunity, and the rule of law.
I have lived these experiences first hand. I speak from experience. I pay taxes, pay bills, earn a living, take care of myself and others, maintain a home, own a business, have an education, served my country, put food on the table, vote in elections, volunteer to help others, make donations.
I even pay for the internet that I am using right now.
You don't do any of that and never have. Probably never will.

Harry33Truman's picture

The definition of socialism, irrespective of what Bernie Sanders said, is government control over the economy it is collectivism, that isn't even deniable. The fact that you are trying to deny that demonstrates that it is you who doesn't know what they are talking about. Read any dictionary, look into the founding documents of it, you will find that what I am saying is he unmitigated truth.

Government regulation has nothing to do with 'holding people accountable.' That is what courts and law enforcement are for, regulatory agencies are independent powers, unelected, who get to write up their own laws and enforce whatever penalties they deem fit separate of the judicial system. They do t have to give you a trial, a lawyer or even a jury- they aren't limited by constitutional restrictions on excessive fines either. Their basically like a secret police. Most regulations aren't even aimed at 'holding people accountable.'

I didn't expand the definition of authoritarianism, I gave you the word for word definition of it. I didn't change any part of it.

Hillary Clinton Lost the election, so she blamed it on the Russians. Most people don't accept it, Trump is still president, and is likely to get a second term, and regardless of how many times you repeat this bull, he is still president, so buckle up and enjoy the ride, maybe you'll get someone less stupid in 7 years, or maybe not, I don't care.

I didn't even advocate anything, I just didn't accept your dogma, so you freaked out. Socialism, Liberalism, and Conservatism are ideas, and in the modern sense, they are stupid ideas.

LogicFTW's picture
Back around November 2016 I

Back around November 2016 I was worried that tRump could possibly win again in 2020 for presidency. Hey he beat all odds to win the primary and then presidency. Why could he not win again in 2020? voter suppression, gerrymandering, and his large base of support, makes it possible. (Although if democrats can come up with a better candidate then Clinton, the Republicans are in trouble despite their built in advantages.

Since then, tRump has done nothing but lose support, he won by a hair in 2016, and since then has lost millions of supporters. Over the next 3 years he is likely to only lose more. He will lose much of the religion vote as Planned parenthood continues to get funding from the government, he can blame his own republican party and democrats all he wants, some of his followers might still think he is right, but the fact he can do nothing will still be there. The powerful NRA and gun lobby, is realizing gun sales are down because no one fears that their right to buy/own a gun will be taken away so their is no "fear" sales of guns. Perhaps most importantly, people will have 4 years to realize he is not making any of his campaign promises, and he is unable, (no one is able,) to bring high paying jobs back to rural, America. No president in the history of tracking poll support of presidents has had such low ratings a mere 6 months into their first term. He, like any other politician ran on a bunch of promises, and is not fulfilling those promises to anyone except the very rich and few elite.

Unless something major happens and changes, in favor for tRump, I would bet my house on tRump not winning in 2020. How republicans in general do in 2018 will also be very telling. I am also fairly certain tRump is finding he hates the job of presidency and while he will never publicly admit, the last thing he wants to do is to be president for an additional 4 years. I think it is likely he will find some excuse to not run at all 2020. Although one can not discount his general narcissistic personality. Perhaps he can please both by having an excuse to bow out of presidency but running tRump media network.

Harry33Truman's picture
That depends on who the

That depends on who the democratic nominee is. The support for trump as a person has never been lower, but the opposition to establishment democrats like Clinton has never been higher. If the democrats nominate her or someone like her, Trump will get a second term, but if they nominate a populist, or even a moderately tolerable candidate, Trump will lose by a landslide because the only reason he looked good was because he was standing next to shrillery, if people are offered a way out Trump loses his support. As it is right now, the democrats are not learning, so if the elections were held today, Trump would win, but if something changes in the next 3.2 years, the democrats maybe on.

LogicFTW's picture
I agree, Hillary Clinton was

I agree, Hillary Clinton was a lousy candidate that represented business as usual in politics, except the fact that she was a woman. I never liked her very much either. And if the democrats tried to run her or someone similar they are not helping them selves. But do remember millions more people voted for Clinton then Trump. People like me that realized as bad as Clinton was, we could plainly see trump was worse. Trump won on the thinnest margin on the electoral vote, while republicans continue to stack the electoral votes in their favor, they are also badly fracturing their own party. There is even some talk of tRump running independently because tRump does not like most republicans and most republicans do not like tRump. It is actually quite interesting to me now the situation tRump and republicans find them selves in, where even with total republican control in the house, senate and presidency, as well as majority in governments, cant agree on anything big. The republicans have become their own worst enemy on anything they cannot sneak by the 99%

I feel just about all major politicians are playing a game where they try to get votes by making all sorts of promises, but are really just interested in serving themselves and the rich people/corporations that put them there. A game that almost all of us Americans are aware of, but are too busy finger pointing at the "other side" then to actually get together and vote in people that actually represent them instead of the 1%. I felt Bernie Sanders represented this best out of all major candidates, but the establishment has done a damn good job as pointing any slightly socialistic "big" government is bad bad bad for the people it would serve. I get people felt tRump was anti establishment, the brick through the window. He sort of is anti-establishment. The problem is, he is even worse then the current establishment. Fortunately for us, he is mostly a lame duck president. Republicans are quickly learning it is more damaging to their own election chances to support tRump then it is to not support the president.

Flamenca's picture
I hope this would help you to

I hope this would help you to understand why Mykcob (and me) disagree with you about the definition.

In case it's unreadable: http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_socialism.html


Attach Image/Video?: 

algebe's picture
@Harry: "John Cheese was one

@Harry: "John Cheese was one of the leading writers and actors at Monty Python"

His name's Cleese. His father formally changed the family name from Cheese to Cleese long before John was born. John Cleese is one of the greatest comedic actors and writers ever, and second only to Charlie Chaplin as a Hitler impersonator. In my opinion, his greatest work wasn't Monty Python, Fawlty Towers, or Fish Called Wanda, but a little-known movie called "Clockwise."

mbrownec's picture
@Harry Truman

@Harry Truman

Socialism is a form of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is defined as:
'Advocating the principle of obedience to authority as opposed to individual liberty."

Harry, I have been a socialist for over 30 years and I've NEVER known socialism or communism to be what you describe.

Once again I must document to you that what you describe is State Capitalism ... not socialism. State Capitalism is defined as:

State Capitalism is an economic system in which the state undertakes commercial (i.e., for-profit) economic activity, and where the means of production are organized and managed as state-owned business enterprises (including the processes of capital accumulation, wage labor, and centralized management), or where there is otherwise a dominance of corporatized government agencies (agencies organized along business-management practices) or of publicly listed corporations in which the state has controlling shares. Marxist literature defines state capitalism as a social system combining capitalism with ownership or control by a state; by this definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation, extracting the surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production.
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism)

As a longtime socialist, the following is what genuine socialism really is:

Real socialism is de-centralized and results in a society where voluntary relationships, cooperation and mutual aid replace domination, competition and coercion.

Socialists advocate for a society in which the working class community members collectively own the means of production and the distribution of goods and services for the benefit of everyone according to each individual's own self-defined needs.
(Source: https://www.socialismuntangled.com)

Harry, you will never be able to discern truth until you broaden your education beyond your sources that merely feed your bias.

As one can readily see, genuine socialism has NEVER been tried at any time or in any place.

Harry33Truman's picture
First of all, socialism is

First of all, socialism is defined as government control over the economy. State Capitalism was a term you people made up when central economic planning was proven to be a failure, so you called it state capitalism and pulled this bullshit of 'real socialism has never been tried before!' Which is to say that real socialism would work, and since socialism has always failed, that wasn't real socialism. It's like the theists who define God as a being that exists, and thereby conclude that God exists.

Second of all, what you are describing is left anarchism, which, yes has been tried before in Spain in 1936- I'm not going to tell you how it turned out but, it failed.

algebe's picture
@mbrownec: "working class

@mbrownec: "working class community members collectively own the means of production"

As you say, that system has never been properly tried, although one of the S's in USSR stood for "socialist." To me your definition of socialism sounds most like the social structure in a medieval monastery. But is it really workable on a larger scale?

I guess that the working class community members would form committees to run the means of production and distribution, and allocate the output according to need. And then you would need committees of committees to administer resources and logistics across wider areas and at the industry level. When you get to that level, you would start to need a national committee (Politburo, State Council) to set policies about industries, employment, resources, the environment, etc. At what stage in this evolution would your pure socialism turn into state capitalism?

Committees can be very hazardous to your health.

mbrownec's picture
@Harry Truman

Poster deleted duplicate post. Sorry!

algebe's picture
Mykcob4: "Political

Mykcob4: "Political Correctness is simply respecting others for who and what they are."

You're wrong there, or perhaps you have a different definition of PC in the US. Where I live, PC is a way of shutting down debate on important issues by feigning indignation, often on behalf of other people who are supposedly unable to speak up for themselves. When taken to extremes, it creates a climate of fear that shuts down free speech. PC is also a weapon used by religions, especially Islam. Criticize Islam and you're an Islamophobe.

Wealth redistribution is a not a dog whistle against equal opportunity. Wealth can only be redistributed after wealth has been earned. I specifically used the word "earned" because it's working people, not the super-rich, whose hard-earned wealth gets redistributed through progressive taxation. So-called wealth redistribution does little to help the poor. The funny thing about income transfer is that income gets transferred from A to C via B, where B is a class of politicians and bureaucrats who take a big slice out of the cake as it passes through their hands. Equal opportunity is a totally different thing.

Socialism is an interesting word. What does it mean to you? In my experience growing up in the UK and New Zealand, it meant the government nationalizing big industries and controlling all others. In the end, we had trains that ran (sometimes) for the benefit of train drivers and conductors, planes that flew for the benefit of pilots and cabin crew, and to hell with the passengers. The British car industry became a joke. The coal industry became a feudal fiefdom dominated by union barons living in big mansions. People died when the wheels fell off their cars, and froze to death when the power stations shut down due to a lack of fuel. If you want to understand life in a socialist state, imagine a country where every aspect of your life is controled by the post office.

I think your demon-right/angel-left dichotomy is outdated and over-simplistic. If freedom means anything, we need to beware both of socialist utopias and plutocratic slave states.

mykcob4's picture
@ Algebe

@ Algebe
Criticizing something has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with respect and recognizing people for who they are.
For example, blacks want to known as blacks and not niggers. It would be politically incorrect to call them niggers.
"Wealth redistribution IS a dog whistle against equal opportunity. The top 1% pay virtually no taxes yet they complain about taxes. They call taxation "wealth redistribution".
FYI "demon" and "angel" are not really in my usual vocabulary.

algebe's picture
@Mykcob4: "For example,

@Mykcob4: "For example, blacks want to known as blacks and not niggers."

Well that's one of the problems with PC. It substitutes euphemisms for real understanding and real solutions. I'm just disappointed that some people still think it's necessary to identify and classify other people on something as trivial as melanin levels in the 21st century. And how do you know what "blacks" want to be called anyway?

@Mykcob4: "The top 1% pay virtually no taxes"

Exactly. So whose income is being redistributed? I think America, like many other Western countries, needs some creative thinking on taxation. The systems we have now are ludicrously complex and blatantly unfair. And is income redistribution the purpose of the tax system anyway? I thought taxes were to pay for government spending on essential services.

I used the words "demon" and "angel" to describe your very clear-cut identification of right = bad, left = good. The political spectrum isn't as simple as that. And in my experience at least, scoundrels, racists, lunatics, and religious crackpots are distributed pretty evenly right across that spectrum.

Harry33Truman's picture
You're still peddling

You're still peddling classicism. The '1%' is anyone earning 6 digits or more, and they pay 40~% of all taxes.

mykcob4's picture
You're wrong Harry Truman.
Harry33Truman's picture
Another problem, mykbob, you

Another problem, mykbob, you post propaganda outlets as sources. This is from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis:
The top 1% of earners pay 24% of all income taxes.

LogicFTW's picture
You said 40 percent a few

You said 40 percent a few post earlier.

I actually feel, income taxes and income inequality while unfair, is not as quite as bad as the general wealth inequality.

Also the 1% is not "anyone" earning 6 digits or more. It is, as of 2011, it is 389k. It is likely that figure is well over 400k now. And the average income of the 1% is solidly in the 7 digits. Perhaps thats where you got your original 40% number, 40% of the taxes are paid by people earning 100k or more. (Not the 1 percent but more like the top 5 percent.)

Also the 1% earn roughly 24% of all disposable income in the US. So really, the extremely high income earners are just paying a roughly flat tax on their income, and not getting taxed more % then their peers by their base numbers.

The wealth inequality is much more extreme. And rapidly getting more extreme. And the republicans want to do away with things like "estate" taxes which will only further accelerate the extreme wealth inequality the US is in.

To me, the very idea of a "billionaire" is an enormous assault anyone that works hard. You could work hard, and do all the right things your entire life, and a billionaire will make more in 1 hour, doing nothing, then you or I will in your entire hard working life time. To me, there is no circumstance where that is fair.

I am a white male, born in a stable upper class family. I have had many advantages based on where and to who I was born. This assault on hard working is even more extreme for those born in disadvantaged minorities and lower classes. Some of the hardest workers I know are people making 5-10 bucks an hour doing hard physical labor day in and day out. With little to no advancement opportunity or ability to change their fortunes. Many poorer disadvantaged youth end up trying to finish high school in a highly unstable environment at home, poor education in schools in disadvantaged areas, and with increasing pressure to go out and get a job as soon as possible to help put food on the table and keep the lights on before they can even finish high school. College and the enormous debt that comes with it is an impossible pipe dream to these disadvantaged youth even if they manage to obtain a good enough education in high school to be able to have the tools to get through college.

Harry33Truman's picture
A billionaire earning a

A billionaire earning a billion dollars does not physically harm anyone, if anything his business would raise wages for lower income workers.

LogicFTW's picture
Perhaps not directly

Perhaps not directly physically harm. And certainly countless examples where a billionaires company raised the income of it's workers. An easy and well known example is the Walton's, the family of Walmart founder: Sam Walton. At a total wealth of at least 150 billion dollars. While inflation adjusted average wage of their employees has stayed the same, or gone down in the last 3 decades during the enormous rise of Walton's families wealth. A rise of over 60 billion dollars in just the last decade while much of the country went through a severe recession.

The richest family in the world, the Walton's, control their Walmart empire with an iron grip. They figured out long ago they can reap them selves yet more wealth and income if they make sure their stores do not unionize. A union can force Walmart to pay fair wages, provide benefits and treat their employees beyond simply: expendable.

Walmart company does two things when their is hints of unionizing, they send a special team of people to display a bunch of anti union propaganda to the store employees, they also identify and quickly eliminate the leaders of the unionizing organization. Typically finding an excuse to fire them through dense legalese from their large and experienced attorney team, there even is anti union promises you have to sign when you apply for a job at Walmart. They also take over most of the work if the newly formed union chooses to strike, and hire on temp workers from out of state. If the union manages to stay strong through a mostly ineffectual strike, and a union does, against all odds, of this highly trained experienced union busting group, manages to form, they simply shut down the store for a year or two. The union has no money, the employees typically do not have money saved to last a year or two, they lose. Walmart simply loses the profits of 1 store out of the thousands they own. All the employees lose their jobs, and in smaller towns, the town suddenly loses a huge source of tax dollar revenue that often times can number over 50% of the retail tax dollars a town receives. All the mom and pop stores are mostly long gone, and everyone that did shop at that WalMart is now forced to drive out of town to spend their retail dollars in a different town. With the huge loss in tax dollars, and sudden large upswing in the unemployed seeking assistance, a town can quickly run through emergency reserves of cash and be forced to shut down services like police and fire.

And of course, at this point everyone that takes time to research possibly striking in Walmart becomes aware of this tactic and realize is futile. It is far cheaper for Wal-Mart to close a few stores and prevent unionizing spreading across their stores, then it is to pay their employees a fair wage with good benefits.

If Wal-Mart had to pay unionized fair wages, with decent, livable, benefit packages, and actually give people full time jobs too the vast bulk of the millions of employees they have, you can bet the Walton family would not be raking in billions of dollars a year. Some other company that employed the same tactics would be paying their owners the billions instead. Walmart employees over 2 million employees. Giving all the employees a 1 dollar an hour wage increase would equal 4 billion dollars alone. (Walton family earned roughly 9 billion in 2013.) A simple 2 dollar an hour wage increase + some benefits, would wipe out the 9 billion that Walton family revived in 2013 no problem.

If the richest family in the world employs those tactics, exactly how much money do you think the Walton family would invest back into their employees if they get a sudden tax break windfall? They employ such brutal tactics like I outlined above, and now suddenly with billions of dollar windfall they going to go: "oh hey, we already made 9 billion last year, how about we just give our employees the additional 8 billion we just got in our tax windfall!" Especially when the Walton family and other extremely rich families/people spend millions a year pushing legislation to favor them.

Now not all billionaires are like the Walton's, The currently 2 richest people in the world, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, talk a lot about income inequality, and they give billions away, and have pledged 99% of their fortunes to charity causes. Where they give to the real bottom end of extreme inequality, the poor in poor nations that do not even have social safety nets. I am not saying they are angels either, plenty can be written about how Bill Gates and Buffet caused a lot of damage as they amassed their fortunes.

My point is, any billionaire is an affront to hard working person that believes in fairness. There is nothing fair about a billionaire doing nothing for 1 hour, earning more then a life time of hard work from the vast majority of us. No one is worth in 1 hour of doing nothing, what your average hard worker earns in a life time of working hard. No one needs that kind of wealth either. No one needs 300 foot private yachts, no one needs private jets. First class on a commercial jet is more then plenty for those that work hard and want some comfort when they travel.

LogicFTW's picture
You have to understand that

You have to understand that the left and right, (more specifically: the "far" right,) is very different in the US then in the countries you have lived in and currently live in.

Also everything in the US has been pushed constantly to the right overall for the last few decades. A trend that only accelerated recently.

Inequality, (especially wealth instead of just income,) in the US is at extreme levels now among the very highest in the "developed" world. Being compared with countries like Chili and Mexico. A bad sign for by far the world's wealthiest nation.

Even I am mostly blind to the incredible inequality in the US. I never end up in rural America, where half the town is unemployed, and most every household is living under 20k a year. I live in a wealthier suburb of a large city, where average household income is above 50k a year.

The Walton family alone has more wealth then 150 million Americans, (a little less then half the US population.) Most of these 150 million have negative wealth or near zero wealth, subtracting debts from assets.)

If people are okay with one family having more wealth then half the population, when are they not okay with it? When 1 family has more wealth then 75% of the population? Current trends and proposed tax law changes will likely get us to that point fairly soon.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.