There is no doubt that one can provide examples of someone bettering themselves in some form or fashion. I don't think anyone here is contesting that. The problem we're talking about is that most people do not have the ability or opportunity to do even that, and it has nothing to do with being lazy.

It's a logical fallacy to point to an example of success or even survival and surmise that because one person can do it, anyone not doing it has nobody to blame but themselves. We can put your logic to test and aim similar criticisms at you and your situation and surmise that you're just lazy; it's a matter of perspective.

For example, why aren't you worth millions of dollars? Why aren't you president of the United States? Have you just decided not to be rich, not to be powerful, or not to fix whatever problems you may be having because you're too lazy to do it? I doubt it. The opportunities available to you are not universal, just as the opportunities to the CEO of Goldman Sachs are not available to all, regardless of whether or not he worked for the position or it was given to him.

Or, we can look at other countries and compare. Are Mexicans overall lazier than Americans? Are Americans lazier than Norweigens? I mean, if poverty is a matter of choice or laziness, then the only way to account for rampant poverty in Mexico compared with the US is to consider that Mexicans are lazier, because after all people have gotten rich in Mexico. In Norway the poverty level is non-existent. I suppose this means that Norweigens just aren't as lazy as Americans. Does this sound plausible to you, or is more likely that the economic and political systems are affecting the poverty rates and standards of living?

So the bottom line is this; people do not choose to be poor, and suffice it to say most of the people who are poor have no way out of poverty no matter how much they work at it. And the sad truth is, so many families in this country are strained to the breaking point because both parties have to work, they have children, expenses are too high so mom has to work in the day while dad watches the kids, and then dad works at night while mom watches so that they aren't out the average $600/month for child care.

Then, when they barely get by, pay a few bills late, and have a crummy relationship because they never see each other and work for peanuts with no healthcare and are one illness or unforeseen financial burden away from total collapse, smile with their beaten bodies and minds and claim victory through broken teeth about how great life is in America.

We are very off thread here, but the United States Constitution only offers you the opportunity to make you life into what every you are able to. Our founding father understood that there will always be haves and have nots, but the government should never be the one that blocks some ones forward progress in life. For years, the government has been violating this with welfare programs that take from the rich and give to the poor. Now Obama has taken from everybody and given to the rich (the banks and car companies) and with the health care program will take from the rich (and not so rich) and give to the poor.
The biggest reason why people are not able to get ahead is the government taking you money to give to someone else, Look at you paycheck and you will see the government is taking at least 1/4 of it, What you don't see is the sale taxes that remove more and the hidden taxes on products from companies paying taxes and then needing make up this money by charging more for their products. Just think what your personal budget would look like if you could fill out a form like this instead of the one you currently fill out. It explains how many of the fortunes were made early in the twenteith century.
You need to stop looking at government to solve your problems and start looking at it as part of the problem.
Your pay check would look much better if we weren't paying millions of dollars to build airports so a congressman can fly to work or on works project that are just another way of buying votes in the next elections. When we elect someone to go to Washington D.C., they are there to serve the country, not the state that elected them. We have forgot this fact and the result is that our federal government has become one big money grab.
The only way to create wealth is to allow business to create jobs and products. The more we produce in this country, the more wealth we will create. As our production goes up, we will need more workers and that will drive workers pay up as well (unless we start importing workers). For all of this to happen, companies must keep more of their money so they can expand or reduce the cost of the items they produce. This is all done by reducing taxes.

Next people don't want to be poor, but they do choose to be poor. People decide what is most important to them in life. For some it's money or what money can buy. For others, time away from work is important. Some people are very happy to live in the middle of nowhere living off the land. We have people in this country who could pay for but don't have medical insurance because medical insurance is not important to them. Now if they need medical insurance, who's fault is it. Mine because I payed my insurance or theirs because they could have but didn't? Don't forget this is a free country and government has no right to make you decisions for you.
I can take a given person and tell them how they can improve their life. I am unable to give you one set of rules that will apply to everyone because what applies to one person may not apply to another.
The one rule that is always true is don't blame others for you own problems. It will accomplish nothing. By starting with yourself, overtime you may find yourself much better off than you thought possible.
Also, once you are in a hole, it will take you a long time to work your self out. It far better to avoid the hole in the first place.
We have many people who come to this country with nothing and do well here. Surely someone who was born here and has had the advantages of schooling and knowledge of the country should be able to do what an immigrant can do.

The cost of freedom is personal responsibility.

---

violating? I'd say that Promoting the general welfare is part of the constitution. Just because its not enumerated doesnt make it any less important

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

from wikipedia

that part about securing the blessings of liberty should make one wonder has happened

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

How come the founding fathers didn't make welfare part of the original constitution? Because Promoting the general welfare means protecting use from evil people like King George and others who mean us harm by war or taxation. It was never intended to give one class, the poor power over the rich. The goal of the constitution was so we would all live by the same set of fair rules instead of a set of rule that allow one group to take advantage of another.
Don't forget that when the constitution was written, the king favored some people in the colonies over others because they were loyal to the crown. The colonies had their fill of a government that shows favors and wanted to eliminate it. But it's back!
The constitution is not living! It was written with a very special set of idea defined by the times and to understand it you must understand the times is was written in! It was understood at the time that they may not have it right, so they allow it to be amended but not misinterpreted.
You are misinterpreting with a 21th century liberal viewpoint and not the view point of someone who for the first time in history as removed the power of an enslaving mother country.
Study your history and when talking constitution stay period relevant.
The constitution is a document that frees everybody and enslave no one. Redistributing wealth enslaves some to benefit other which is against the idea of the constitution.

---

does it now. Seems we dont agree. It doesnt imply anything about King George. It does however imply that keeping the general population healthy and free from harm a priority. like many things in the Constitution they wanted us to figure out how to make it happen. They left the door open on purpose. They knew what happened when England/London became heavily populated. illness and strife strife and illness became the order of the day. Since they were not into predicting what needed to be done they left it to us to see the general welfare be taken care of.

Poor havign power over the rich? nay nay. that is exactly what the constitution did. Ever consider what a vote means. It means that the rich are equals to the poorest among us. Its not " we the Rich people" its "we the People.." Even if they didnt include a few groups until much later it still rings true.

If anything we need laws to prevent the rich from abusing the poor

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

THEN AMMEND THE CONSTITUTION. It may be hard to understand, but a rule is something that was made for a reason and should be followed. If it's wrong then eliminate or correct it but DON'T ignore it. The constitution does not allow for wealth redistribution in it's current form but it can be changed to allow it if that is what we want. It will be the end of our country and Franklin feared it would happen some day but it may be time for something else to replace us if we are that dumb.
The fear was that the rules intended to keep every one free would be worked around given time so that anyone who could write law would create laws that favor some people or groups over others. It started almost as soon as the constitution became law but didn't take off big time till FDR was able to pack the courts with almost all liberal judges. The biggest example is Social Security which is unconstitutional but was passed by FDR and not blocked by the liberal courts. We now have a program we are unable to end that unconstitutional and it will destroy the country in both yours and life time.
Thats what you get for not paying attention to the rules.
By the way, the rich don't seem to benefit much from social security or a tax rate that hits you harder the more you make. I am sure the rich would love a flat tax or a consumption tax instead of the current tax system.

---

show one line that says you can't redistribute wealth. BTW the wealth that was gained by reaping the benefit of grossly underpaying wages for decades now. when they leave a blank on the page its for a reason. Sorry but I see just the opposite. we do NOT need an oligarchy runnig this country we are the people and by that we should be running things. just because many folks choose to ignore the country politically as a whole and ignore what is being done to them and choose to believe that nothing will change doesnt me We the people dont run the country. OK
again with the unconstitutional crapola. Look general welfare is general welfare. lump it or leave it. BTW without SSN we'd have our parents living with us if they survived long enough without medicare. Oh but thats just being irresponsible since every responsible person should have insurance and a life savings that they can tap. /End sarcasm. I don't know what world you are living in but the harsh reality is the SSN and medicare are 2 of the most successful gov't programs in the history of the country. If it werent for the Fed borrowing from both they'd be stable. Not sure how a sitting presidents court choices matter. He was giving the people waht they wanted. He was elected as a democrat and acted accordingly. I didn't see W interviewing a liberal judge for supreme court so let it rest already. I get it. you are consevative and have had your cards played out well. Not everyone is you.

the rich barely pay into SSN. For me it would be fare if they were taxed on every dollar they make. but thats just me. IIRC the max wage taxed for ssn is $106,000 which is a pitance on some executive wages. By comparison I'd like to not pay for freeways in any state I choose. Since I don't benefit from the ones I don't like why should I pay for it. Again its general welfare not pinpoint specific welfare.
Flat tax consumption tax? where did this come from. we have a a flat consumption tax when you purchase items you pay. the problem with this come to wages vs tax ion items. Simply put a person making 1000 a week vs one make 100 week and paying for a $10 item at 10% that makes the percentage of tax on wages paid by the person making $1000 at 0.1% the taxes on the lower wage earner would be 1%. this is just for comparrison but you can easily see how this hurts the poor more than the rich

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Laws protection are intended so everyone is treated fairly. What if someone was elected to president and gave an executive order that all people who didn't vote for him should be executed. In your world they would be, in mine the president would be impeached. You just can't follow what feels good at the time.

As for Social Security and Medicare being successful. I have never been able to figure out how to get out of the program. They just keep taking that money out of my check. Also even if they didn't raid the funds, it will run out of money unless it's changed. It will just take longer to do so. By the way Bernie Madoff was a successful investor and he wasn't doing anything that the government isn't doing as well. Only problem is nobody is checking the government's books and taking them to task for problems in programs.

At first I didn't understand why they set the country up as a Republic. After a while, I came to the understanding is that Politicians lie and people will vote their pocket book instead of whats best for the country. We are losing the regulation that the founding fathers installed because of the primary system and many of our problems today where caused by the people having direct control of the government instead of someone who has a much more detail idea of what the tradeoffs are.

Social Security is a problem today because people started to depended on it. Before it existed, people SAVED for their retirement, lived with their children and were live in child care or in some case lived with charity workers. Retirement for the most part was when you were no longer able to work or for the very wealthy. I fully expect Social Security to be gone by the time I am able to collect it so I am putting money away and expect to work till I am 70 or 80 years old. I have longevity in my blood so I need to figure for 100 years of life even without that great Obama healthcare. How we as a country will recover from the failure of Social Security, I don't know. Who ever gets stuck with the mess will have contributed little to it's creation but will get all the blame from decision made over the last 80 or so years.

We are so directed by those in power that we don't see the truth. We could cut the cost of medicine by 50% if we had tort reform. Because of Lawyers, doctors have very high insurance, run extra test to protect themselves and if they have someone falsely sue them, they may spend a year in court for nothing. It is an item Obama will not change, but if it were fixed along with a few other issues, our medical cost could be greatly reduced. It makes me wonder is going through Obama's head to ignore such a simple low cost fix and instead give use a 1000 page health care plan that will cost an enormous amount of money and not kick in for 5 years.

As for redistributing the wealth in the constitution, you may want to consider what was intended by this
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
In my dictionary, uniform means not ganging on one group over another.

While I understand your argument on Consumption taxes and once though it might have merit, I have changed my mind because the poor don't by mansions, yachts, expensive art, expensive cars and many other costly things. The rich don't hide that money, If they don't spend it, they invest it and create jobs for others. It will be paying taxes because someone will be spending it. Maybe just not the rich person who put it to work.
One other detail the liberals tend to forget is that the wealthy have always been big contributers to charity. What is currently being done by governments was once taken care of by the rich. Charities constructed hospitals, took care of old people, ran soup kitchens and many other activities that are no longer done because the government has taxed their money away, took a cut for themselves, then payed overpriced government contractors to provide the same service. This is an improvement?

---

Our founding father understood that there will always be haves and have nots, but the government should never be the one that blocks some ones forward progress in life. For years, the government has been violating this with welfare programs that take from the rich and give to the poor. Now Obama has taken from everybody and given to the rich (the banks and car companies) and with the health care program will take from the rich (and not so rich) and give to the poor.

Right, I see. As it stands today, the government is standing in the way of people via welfare programs. Oh yeah, but the founding fathers, they had it right... just nevermind the slavery, oppression of women and minorities, wholesale genocide of Native Americans, incarceration of people with alternative political ideologies, rounding up of the Japanese in the 20th century... it just seems the further back you go the less oppressive US government gets... right.

If you're going to cite the founding fathers as an alternative to modern government oppression, this entails refuting so many of these issues that we have slowly overcome.

The biggest reason why people are not able to get ahead is the government taking you money to give to someone else, Look at you paycheck and you will see the government is taking at least 1/4 of it, What you don't see is the sale taxes that remove more and the hidden taxes on products from companies paying taxes and then needing make up this money by charging more for their products.

Wrong again. 32% of working Americans do not pay in any income tax at all. The demographic above that pays very little. Then there are all of the children, elderly on Social Security, and the unemployed not paying taxes. If your poverty rate was on par with the number of participating tax payers you may have an argument. But this isn't reality.
Tax rates are not creating poverty here. Even if they were, you've had 20 of the last 28 years with Republicans cutting taxes, and with each of them in office, the standard of living has dropped in the US.

Next people don't want to be poor, but they do choose to be poor. People decide what is most important to them in life. For some it's money or what money can buy. For others, time away from work is important. Some people are very happy to live in the middle of nowhere living off the land. We have people in this country who could pay for but don't have medical insurance because medical insurance is not important to them.

Wow, you must live in a really nice bubble. There are people that work their butts off and eat beans and rice trying to get ahead and can't make it. But I did notice that you just continued to spout your political line without reflecting on any of the points I brought up that falsify your argument. You'll believe what you want to believe so I'll just stop there.

Laws protection are intended so everyone is treated fairly. What if someone was elected to president and gave an executive order that all people who didn't vote for him should be executed. In your world they would be, in mine the president would be impeached. You just can't follow what feels good at the time.

As for Social Security and Medicare being successful. I have never been able to figure out how to get out of the program. They just keep taking that money out of my check. Also even if they didn't raid the funds, it will run out of money unless it's changed. It will just take longer to do so. By the way Bernie Madoff was a successful investor and he wasn't doing anything that the government isn't doing as well. Only problem is nobody is checking the government's books and taking them to task for problems in programs.

At first I didn't understand why they set the country up as a Republic. After a while, I came to the understanding is that Politicians lie and people will vote their pocket book instead of whats best for the country. We are losing the regulation that the founding fathers installed because of the primary system and many of our problems today where caused by the people having direct control of the government instead of someone who has a much more detail idea of what the tradeoffs are.

Social Security is a problem today because people started to depended on it. Before it existed, people SAVED for their retirement, lived with their children and were live in child care or in some case lived with charity workers. Retirement for the most part was when you were no longer able to work or for the very wealthy. I fully expect Social Security to be gone by the time I am able to collect it so I am putting money away and expect to work till I am 70 or 80 years old. I have longevity in my blood so I need to figure for 100 years of life even without that great Obama healthcare. How we as a country will recover from the failure of Social Security, I don't know. Who ever gets stuck with the mess will have contributed little to it's creation but will get all the blame from decision made over the last 80 or so years.

We are so directed by those in power that we don't see the truth. We could cut the cost of medicine by 50% if we had tort reform. Because of Lawyers, doctors have very high insurance, run extra test to protect themselves and if they have someone falsely sue them, they may spend a year in court for nothing. It is an item Obama will not change, but if it were fixed along with a few other issues, our medical cost could be greatly reduced. It makes me wonder is going through Obama's head to ignore such a simple low cost fix and instead give use a 1000 page health care plan that will cost an enormous amount of money and not kick in for 5 years.

As for redistributing the wealth in the constitution, you may want to consider what was intended by this
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
In my dictionary, uniform means not ganging on one group over another.

While I understand your argument on Consumption taxes and once though it might have merit, I have changed my mind because the poor don't by mansions, yachts, expensive art, expensive cars and many other costly things. The rich don't hide that money, If they don't spend it, they invest it and create jobs for others. It will be paying taxes because someone will be spending it. Maybe just not the rich person who put it to work.
One other detail the liberals tend to forget is that the wealthy have always been big contributers to charity. What is currently being done by governments was once taken care of by the rich. Charities constructed hospitals, took care of old people, ran soup kitchens and many other activities that are no longer done because the government has taxed their money away, took a cut for themselves, then payed overpriced government contractors to provide the same service. This is an improvement?

Not sure how my world came about but actually I would expect any member of the military and civilian authority to decline to act because it is an unlawful order. Which is part of the law dictating unlawful orders from any military commander which as it happens the president is commander and chief of.

getting out of SSN is very simple. Contact your local Social security office and ask about opting out. What this will get you is freedom from medicare social security and that pesky unemployment benefit people get when their company decides they are able to do without ones services.

Feel free to read about republics, which we are, here

Social security became a necessity when those wonderful investment folks took wall street for a ride back in 1929 and basically lost everyones money. Funny thing is people were saving and investing for retirement back then and they got screwed over by the very same folks that are turning the screws today. BTQ wouldnt it have been great if we got the social security reform W wanted. So we could put our money in private investment account that invest in the markets. Markets that took a dump and lost half their value. I think we made a wise choice to ignore the monkey in the suit.

taxes are levied evenly check out sales taxes and fishing licenses.
the check out the 16th amendment

the rich rarely invest in anything more extravagant than bonds and stocks. neither of which creates jobs. Last I checked neither of these things opened a factory anywhere recently.

the reason the rich contribute is 2 fold
first they actually have large sums of money to contribute. second they were getting a tax break for their massive contributions.
as I recall congress got a bill passed because Cheney gave the University of Wyoming $6. million of his $7million in earnings in one year. since their was no cutoff on contributions he got a tidy little return that year.

from my count you are batting 1.000% wrong on all topics please try again some time. while you may think what you think is reality it just take a bit of honesty to really get to the heart of the matter. watching fox news and listening to rush limbaugh are not the means to understanding the system and how it works.

But back to Cuba since we've wasted enough time demonstrating fact vs fiction[/url]

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing. They knew they were leaving the job half done, but doing the job right would have started the civil war about 70 years early and would have ended the country before it ever started. That was the reason they allowed changes to the constitution. Their hope was that latter changes would finish the job they started. We all know what the civil war and equal rights marches of the 50's and 60's did to the country, Think of what that would have done to a country still finding it's footing. Several of the founding fathers position is clearly documented on this issue so we know this is true. If it were not for the southern states, I assure you the constitution would look different. I am not sure females would have the vote, and most likely they would not have.
Indians on the other hand were treated as if they were another country. No special provision were needed till we pushed so far west that we needed other provision. Even today, indian reservations are not fully under control of the United States Government.
As for tax rates, I am single, no deductions and pay 14% to Social Security along with federal and state taxes. I know what you are about to say SS is only 7%. My company wanted to hire so they worked out a spread sheet where they put in what they were willing to pay before taxes, insurance and other items giving a much smaller amount that would be the number on the persons pay check, Your pay check would be about 7% more without the employer social security payment.

People can take two views of life. They can like Obama whine and blame everyone else. Nothing will change other than they will drive away the people who might want to help them.
Or they can say life stinks. but I am not going to let it beat me. This will draw help because people see that giving just a little help can make a big difference.
If you think you are a loser, you will become one.
I don't live in a nice bubble. it hurts me to see someone who could have a much better life but is unwilling to do what is needed.
My viewpoint was what settled this country. Because of my age, I still recall a time before the great society where we didn't rely on the government to solve our problems. The progressive ideas are destroying our ability to take care of ourselves. Don't forget that Franklin said those who give up freedom for security will find that they have neither.
If you want to live in a world where the government has total control over your life, fine. But please leave me out of your view of heaven because that's my view of hell.

To skildude, ok, but will that get me my money back? I don't think so.

You need to read your history a little more. The people that got us into the 1929 crash were the same people that got us into this one. The federal government. In the 1929 crash, the federal reserve board - fed for short left interest rates very low for a long time making it possible to by stock on margin with very little outlay. First rates should not have been that low. And second, when they tightened them, people couldn't make margin calls leading to the crash.
This time around, the federal government wanted the banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford them. If the banks didn't make the loans, the federal government would and did make them regret it. Then when the people were unable to pay the loans, it all came crashing down like the banks knew from the start.
Yes, Wall Street was involved in both cases, but the opportunity for Wall Street to make a mess of things wouldn't have existed if the federal government had not opened the door. This time around, Bush tried several times to stop the crash before it happened, but was unable to get anything through congress. It's possible a stronger president might of made a difference, but a good deal of money was being made so it's unlikely anything would have changed.

I have seen a different country than you have skildue. There is only 14 years difference our age, but those few years have altered our country and not for the best. I can see the future given the current path we are on and the results will be inflation, government control of all sources of information. All of us will be equal except for the government and there will be no reason to work hard because there will be no reward.I might be an exile because of my ideas even though the way I think was common in my childhood.
You need to find out what the progressive movement truly is. I don't think you will like it when you know more about it. Much of it is what Hittler did in world war II. It involve a population easily controlled by the government. They will use rewards, threats or elimination if needed. Obama has said he feels the constitution is flawed and would like to change it. If he fails at that, a friendly court would do just as well.
I don't know if you noticed, but the only news service to question Obama is Fox. The White house is in full attack mode because they want Fox to get in line with the other news services. One mind with one thought, what a scary thought. I am Borg.

---

anyway back to Cuba. Cuba being what it is. needs infrastructure. The whole country has basically been starved for technology, information and for some modernization. It would be difficult in the long run not just the short term to get Cuba modernized. It seems that the only real industries are Tobacco, sugar cane, and Anti-American rhetoric. I don't see Cuba changing like the Eastern block countries did. Most Eastern Europeans didnt embrace Communism. Cubans for the most part seem to want communism. Unlike marx I look at Ho Chi Min and what he did for Viet nam. He knew that they had a large population of uneduacted people. they needed to educate and improve the entire country. He also knew Capitalism presented to a primarily feudal society would be catostrophic for the people. Communism is a short term solution for such a society which could eventually move into capitalism. This is what is so unlike Marx. Communism isnt the permanent solution but a starting point to allow a country and its people develop to a point whereby they can engage in other forms of govenance without being bullied into a Capitalism which would clearly enslave the poor into very poor wages and worse living conditions brought about by corporations seeking low cost alternatives to current production in China and elsewhere.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing. They knew they were leaving the job half done, but doing the job right would have started the civil war about 70 years early and would have ended the country before it

Ludicrous idea. That the founding fathers were opposed to slavery but let it exist for the sake of saving the country. Especially when considering that the civil war was not over slavery, but opposition to the candidate. The confederate states engaged in secession before Lincoln even took office.

Aside from that, whether or not you want to say it was related to slavery or not and just cite that the founding fathers kept slavery in place for the sake of the nation, how then do you explain not giving women equal rights, or other minorities that were not slaves? Would that have caused a civil war as well? The new Italian constitution in 1947 granted equal rights for women and there didn't seem to be any concerns about that breaking up the country. As a matter of fact, the founding fathers looked the other way on policy in regard to many issues that have been overturned that would not have dissolved the country. This is evidence quite simply that the founding fathers were not very progressive at all, rather than some genius long term plan.

That was the reason they allowed changes to the constitution. Their hope was that latter changes would finish the job they started.

These "changes" you refer to in the constitution entail broadening the scope, not changing previous policy. Otherwise, the laws regarding free speech, press, or quartering of soldiers could simply be overturned. The constitution is flexible so that as the country evolves, new rights, new issues, new topics can be added. It's inflexible however in regard to previously outlined specific rights. This is why the right to bear arms, rights against self-incrimination, etc. still exist. They are inflexible.
The reason that minorities were able to be granted equality before the law on the constitutional level is only because there were no previous amendments specifically barring that. The constitution in regard to previous findings is unchangeable. Otherwise, you can just remove the bill of rights whenever you want.

As for tax rates, I am single, no deductions and pay 14% to Social Security along with federal and state taxes. I know what you are about to say SS is only 7%. My company wanted to hire so they worked out a spread sheet where they put in what they were willing to pay before taxes, insurance and other items giving a much smaller amount that would be the number on the persons pay check, Your pay check would be about 7% more without the employer social security payment.

Wrong. You're assuming that because a company's costs are lower that they'll increase wages. There is no law or universal standard governing this. If the employer didn't have to pay their 7% share of your earnings in SS tax it's very unlikely that they'll continue to pay that in the form of increased wages. A good example of how your trickle down savings doesn't get applied is to look to Coca-Cola that for 2 years paid not a single penny in income tax, yet employee wages remained unchanged.

People can take two views of life. They can like Obama whine and blame everyone else. Nothing will change other than they will drive away the people who might want to help them.

Nothing will change? Heh, ok. Challenging the establishment from the bottom is what leads to change. To blame others (especially when others are to blame) is the direction change comes from. It's when people don't complain, don't whine, or don't ask for change that nothing changes.

I don't live in a nice bubble. it hurts me to see someone who could have a much better life but is unwilling to do what is needed.

You do in fact live in a bubble. If you believe that poverty is a matter of choice or complacency then you are far separated from the struggles of so many Americans that dedicate their lives to getting out of poverty and never achieve it. Clearly if that's your explanation for poverty, you are in a bubble. Just like McCain not even knowing how much a gallon of gas costs or how to even use a computer. I take it this means since poverty is a matter of choice you're agreeing that Mexicans are lazier than Americans, and Americans lazier that Norwegians. Since it is not the political or economic institutions in place that determine standards within society and is up to personal choice, I guess some races are just lazier than others huh?

Don't forget that Franklin said those who give up freedom for security will find that they have neither.

Actually, what Franklin said was more like,
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

(direct quote taken from Franklin's memoirs published in 1818).

I for one don't take a quote from a famous person and equate it with fact or truth by default. Afterall, we can surmise by this statement that there are people that Franklin feels shouldn't have either security or liberty.
But, we can also falsify this remark by reflecting upon my previous example of Russia; the Russians gained freedom after the abandonment of the Soviet Union, but lost lots of security. With the life expectancy dropping 15 years and Russia having the second highest incarceration rate in the world (second only to the US!) since the change in 1991, it's obvious that Russians have less security than freedom. Freedom and security are not interdependent. They are separate issues.

Unless you want to argue that having a local police department in my town results in my having neither security or liberty because I'm trading my freedom to do whatever I want to whomever I want in exchange for the protection and security of a law enforcement body, then you must recognize that sometimes the trade off is good, works, and one can have both.


skildude;

I don't see Cuba changing like the Eastern block countries did. Most Eastern Europeans didnt embrace Communism. Cubans for the most part seem to want communism.

You raise a very good point here and I agree with what you're saying, so let's extrapolate a bit on why that is.
The reason for this phenomenon is that most of Eastern Europe felt that it could survive or do better without communism. Cubans rightfully feel otherwise. The reason being the trade embargo and pressure from a hostile nation only a few miles away. A capitalist system could never survive the economic and political challenges that Cuba faces, but the system they have now does. They are largely dependent upon their current system because they rightfully understand that no other system would work under the current conditions. With Eastern Europe, this wasn't the case as communism (and I use that word loosely) was largely imposed upon them by a neighboring, more powerful nation. Unlike Eastern Europe, the Cuban revolution and movements were homegrown within the country, not imposed by a larger foreign nation. That detail right there creates huge differences in perspectives of the populous.

Communism is a short term solution for such a society which could eventually move into capitalism. This is what is so unlike Marx. Communism isnt the permanent solution but a starting point to allow a country and its people develop to a point whereby they can engage in other forms of govenance without being bullied into a Capitalism which would clearly enslave the poor into very poor wages and worse living conditions brought about by corporations seeking low cost alternatives to current production in China and elsewhere.

While I disagree with this assessment, I think it brings up good points. How? Well Marx doesn't disagree with some of it. Using communism to start a society is not something Marx would have disagreed with. He even writes that most societies and organized systems come after communist systems. But then he also outlines it as an evolutionary process where capitalism is a transitional stage used to build infrastructure and such which then evolves back into communism. The "evils" and oppression of capitalism are required to pave the way through a popular movement towards permanent communism. That's the idea.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to have a political debate and I already know that you and I will disagree upon many things, but your analysis isn't that far off from Marx with the exception being the that communism is a short term solution. And that itself is a matter of personal opinion, perspectives, and goals.

I gave up the arguement already. Shes clearly not going to think about anything we write. Just give the standard rebuttles we could hear from hannity or beck.

The point I made about Communism in Viet nam is a matter of history. Ho Chi Minh was an educated man. He knew Viet nam would be badly abused by a capitalistic society. His intent had teh US gov't paid attention was to eventually move out of a communistic socoety and develop into a Capitalistic one when the peoplewere ready. This isnt my opinion. You may remember that Clinton signed a trade agreement with Viet nam. This seems to be the first steps toward them coming out of Communism and into the modern capitalistic world
this would be my opinion.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Oh, I didn't disagree with you on Uncle Ho's motives, that's why I didn't comment on Vietnam, rather touched on the aspects and ideals surrounding Classical Marxism instead :)

I'll even go so far as to say Minh was a good man with good intentions that honestly did what he thought was good for his people.

heck you can even look at Cuba doing something similar. Unfortunately Castro didn't see his country ever coming back out of communism. He saw American interest(the MOB/Big business) as detrimental to his country. Indeed the US gov't held up a corrupt administration in Cuba that allowed th e Mob to flourish. It was highly unlikely that the Gov'yt of Cuba would have solved its problems politically. they really did need a revolution. The problem Castro ran into was the same as the dog that finally catches the car. He didn't and doesn't know what to do with it.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope