Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
I have a better idea.
Why don't you elucidate further on this ^ statement, then tell us which party(s) executed that last bit.
You may finish by telling us very precisely and exactly who you should be fearing; don't be afraid to look beyond political ideology.
The topic of this thread is "forms of government". I stood up in favor of socialism due to its ability to meet the needs of the masses. You are the one who wants to look dem/rep on this one. The massively rich (which wouldn't have control in a socialist gov.) are the ones who were "too big to fail" here. Nice system. :ermm:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
999969999
But, I believe the majority of that 40% you claim is poor are quite simply lazy or unwilling to take the risks necessary to reap the rewards of the capitalist system. If my ancestors had played it safe and just stayed in Austria, I would probably be a poor kid in Austria right now. It was a risky but profitable adventure for them to come here from Austria.
Socialism is negative because it seeks to strip away wealth from people like me and give it to poor lazy people who should get off their asses and go to work.
Calling the bottom 40% lazy is an entirely ignorant statement. I've done the 3 jobs (70+ hours/week) thing. That doesn't solve ALL of one's problems, either...
How does one take risks when they cannot afford to eat healthy/nutritious food, don't own a home, are behind on their rent, have more debt (because of unmet basic needs) than they can pay back, etc.
I don't begrudge your luck, but your ignorance pains me. If you have nothing to invest, it won't grow.