Taxes, "Spreading the wealth", and Socialism

@raditz8526 Said

Which countries would this be?

@SaraMcName Said

The United States has suffered the consequences of "spreading the wealth" in the form of crime associated with public housing and financial problems associated with subprime loans, but other nations have suffered more. The most prominent example could be the Russian Empire. The consequences of "spreading the wealth" in the Russian Empire is a list of tragedy and starvation, but the more interesting story is how the American journalists lied about it.

For example, Josef Stalin's attempt to "spread the wealth" resulted in mass murder and other atrocities. Walter Duranty, a New York Times reporter in the Soviet Union at the time, knew about them, but he didn't write about them. Maybe wanting to "spread the wealth" causes blindness.

@SaraMcName Said
Choose Athens over Sparta. Choose not "spread the wealth." Choose "spread the opportunity."

@jonnythan Said

Of course, this election isn't between "spread the wealth" and "spread the opportunity."

@SaraMcName Said
However, ever since 1896, the Democrats, with the possible exceptions of Kennedy and Clinton, have been more and more about "spread-the-wealth."

@SaraMcName Said
So in my never-to-be-humble opinion, the election is a choice between "spreading the wealth" and "spreading opportunity." I have great grandchildren on both sides of the issue. Some want the government to feed them for the rest of their lives. Some want careers in which they will feed themselves. When the tax takers, who want to be fed, out number the ones who feed, the nation is is deep trouble.

@jonnythan Said

Only if you temper this by saying that the Republicans are more about "spend-the-wealth." Under the past 3 Republican presidents, we've had record budget deficits and national debt, largely because they insisted on spending so much money on military operations and infrastructure.

I'm an independent. Well, really, I'm a libertarian. I do not vote for Republicans or Democrats except in extreme cases, so I'm not defending the Democrats because they share my politics. If you know anything about libertarianism, you already know that my politics are virtually the opposite of modern American liberalism.

In my view, the Republicans have, for virtually my entire life, have been for big government and big spending - at least as big as the Democrats. Sure, they say they want small government and low spending, but they just can't seem to do it.




There's nothing about McCain or his policies that can be characterized as "spread the opportunity." McCain's government will spend just as much as, if not more than, Obama.

@ybom Said

I tend to agree with your posts. I find it sad that the gop is all about fascism these days. What is your definition of Libertarianism btw?

@jonnythan Said

I dunno, hard to pin down to a definition. I think that people should have the power to be repsonsible for their own lives and well-being. I believe in the Constitution. I believe the states should have more power. I believe the federal government should be a lot smaller and the majority of the big agencies should be summarily disbanded. I think that a large portion of the federal government's policies and actions are completely unconstitutional. I believe that private competitive companies and citizens can do a better job than the government - at everything.

I believe in a small government that abides by the basic principles of the US Constitution. A government that taxes less, doesn't try to legislate morality, doesn't try to protect you from itself, and generally lets you live your life and spend your money as you see fit.

A lot of this has been, or was, part of the Republican platform since Reagan. Despite the talk, though, they haven't actually done anything to accomplish any of it.

@jonnythan Said

Only if you temper this by saying that the Republicans are more about "spend-the-wealth." Under the past 3 Republican presidents, we've had record budget deficits and national debt, largely because they insisted on spending so much money on military operations and infrastructure.

I'm an independent. Well, really, I'm a libertarian. I do not vote for Republicans or Democrats except in extreme cases, so I'm not defending the Democrats because they share my politics. If you know anything about libertarianism, you already know that my politics are virtually the opposite of modern American liberalism.

In my view, the Republicans have, for virtually my entire life, have been for big government and big spending - at least as big as the Democrats. Sure, they say they want small government and low spending, but they just can't seem to do it.




There's nothing about McCain or his policies that can be characterized as "spread the opportunity." McCain's government will spend just as much as, if not more than, Obama.