COMMENTS:
http://www.miami. com/mld/ miamiherald/news/ opinion/16584623. htm
"J. Bradford DeLong, professor of economics at UC-Berkeley, was assistant treasury secretary during the Clinton administration."
The hardcore socialist part was implied.
Wow, the guy is a tool. But come on Herzog, why do you still insist on bringing the Clinton admin into things? It's dead and gone man
Voted : A hardcore socialist
Sounds like a Socialist to me. I would be shocked if it were any of the other two...
As a hard core socialist *ahem* this seems like a vieled attack on the philosophy of the fair distribution of wealth.
The wealthy didnt become wealthy all by themselves, there is always a degree of exploitation in order to amass their fortunes, socialist just feel that the playibg field should be more even and that the workers who do the majority of the work be as generously compensated as those who do little if nothing other than bringing the capital.
The obscenely wealthy should be an embarrassment to anyone who walks past a homeless man or sees a child starving in a third world nation.
Just how much is enough?
Thats a common misunderstanding of what Socialism is... the old 'lets all be cookie cutter conformists working for half a crown'
Pop over to my user page for a full explanation of socialism, it may help see where I am coming from and hopefully clear up a lot of misconceptions about what Socialism is.
Voted : A professor of economics at UC-Berkeley
Might have been the asst SecTreas, though. No matter. Such an imbalance is unrealistic. Just fix the damn system to remove all the loopholes and leaks, make it fair for all.
"As a hard core socialist *ahem* this seems like a vieled attack on the philosophy of the fair distribution of wealth. "
There's nothing fair about taking 95% of a mans belongings. The difference between your standard of living on the majority of the poor in the world, is about like the difference between bill gates and you. Would you favor a 95% tax on your own wealth to even things out? Or is it different when your money is involved?
" The wealthy didnt become wealthy all by themselves, there is always a degree of exploitation in order to amass their fortunes, socialist just feel that the playibg field should be more even and that the workers who do the majority of the work be as generously compensated as those who do little if nothing other than bringing the capital."
That's great, so the people who generate capital, who creat jobs, will disappear under a wave of new taxes. Do you derive some pleasure from seeing everyone fail, so long as no one is above you?
"The obscenely wealthy should be an embarrassment to anyone who walks past a homeless man or sees a child starving in a third world nation."
No, that should be an embarassment to anyone who votes socialist. Look at the poor nations in the world, they aren't exactly libertarian.
Its ok Herzog, your record on misunderstanding socialism is well documented.
Those of you who actually want to know what socialism really is and not the spoonfed media version, can look at my userpage for more details.
Herzog's view on the world is, if you are born into privilege, then responsibilty to our fellow man is all fine and dandy as long as their ivory tower isnt assailed.
|
