.... guess I should have gone to Boston Univ. .......  for what....  I have no clue........

    --- Neither Does She .....

Quite simply, today's American style socialist wants someone else to take responsibility for their well being and pay their bills.  Much like children. 

Is income inequality a problem that needs to be addressed ?

How much further can it go before the pitchforks are out ?

Income inequality is an invention of the people, who as kids never resolved the conflict they felt when Johnny showed up with a much nicer bike. They grow up believing in things like income re distribution. IOW, stealing. The kids who decided they'd figure out how to earn a bike as nice, or nicer than Johnnys grow up believing in capitalism. 

Ok, thanks for that well thought out reply. Now I’m convinced  the problem doesn’t exist.

Its not a problem unless your sense of well being is affected by envy.  Wanna make as much as a CEO?  Then do what you need to do to become a CEO.  There's a high price to get there as you'll need to sacrifice a lot of your personal life.  But it really comes down to deciding what you need and working for it. What someone else makes is irrelavent. 

Mcfarmer 

The real question is do I own my life? Do I have the freedom to choose my own path? 

Hey, you don't have to be a CEO to become wealthy. If a kid starts early enough, he can develop his body so that he can become a sports star, and even white kids can become rappers. Lets not forget the road to becoming Movie Stars where even being ugly wont hurt.

Of course, if they dont make it, the fast foods are always hiring, and Mom and Pop's basement is always available.   

Hi Gunter,

All due respect but this is the type of inflammatory post MetMike said he would police regardless of political affiliation. 

Socialists don’t despise personal wealth or many of the other direct inaccuracies at this link referencing AOC. 

Another take: We already pay collectively for many things which benefit us all. The recent government shutdown pointed to some - like the Coast Guard. Other (common sewers, running water, airports, health departments, road services and many more) examples are plentiful. The question really is in which ones does it make sense to share expenses and which ones are excessive.

This current USA oligarchy exists because of the destructive excesses of runaway capitalism. Does anyone think it is reasonable that Amazon profited 11 billion bucks and pays nothing towards portions of the infrastructure and shared expenses?

The answer is somewhere between “no one pays for any common societal structure and supports” on one end and “those who profit mightily from this structure have greater obligations to it”. 

Respectfully offered.

Lar

Carl.   You really think sports and entertainment are the only way to make money?  If that's the case, I guess I understand why you may support income redistribution 

"You really think sports and entertainment are the only way to make money?"

Tim, if I did, I would not have been able to retire at 55.

I do think some sort of income redistribution is warranted, but I can't think of a way to do it except thru increased taxes on the wealthy and corporations. 

Like you, that idea scares me ... unless the increase could be specifically allowcated to somethig specific ... like infrastructure. 

Hi Lar,

Thank you for your thoughtful post.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I grew up in what was then called “West Germany”, after WW2. It was a “Federal Republic”, but there was a lot of socialism involved.

The one and only airline (Lufthansa) was government owned. The railway was owned by the government, and you could set your watch by their trains’ departure.

Healthcare, dental care, retirement… all taken care off by the government, and it was great! (my mother had a mastectomy , and after that, they sent her to a 6-month spa treatment in Italy, every year).

There was absolutely no homelessness, because the government took care of people in need.

Off course, the taxes were high.

Side by side with this, there also was “capitalism”. There were lots of very rich people.

So you had the “rich people”, and the “working class” people. The working class people were not envious of the rich people, because they lived quite well and had nothing to complain about.

(At this point, I need to add that this was a long time ago, and things may have changed in Germany since then. I understand, railway and Lufthansa have become public corporations since then, and I have no idea how their healthcare system works today…. And, the influx of refugees and the ongoing mass migration has turned things ugly)

However, the linked article seems to focus on AOC, who is a special case. IMHO, to me she seems to be more of a communist, then a socialist.

She does seem to hate rich people…. Otherwise she would have seen the improvements and wealth Amazon would have brought to her community. She considered it a victory to have driven Bezos away.

As Jim Woods said “she is a danger to the US”

Have a great day, Lar

inflammatory?  you want inflammatory just wait til Pelosi, waters, and company find out they will be required to ride a stage coach back and forth to California......and the rich libs from Hawaii in our current congress cannot get home at all. If the women cortex is going to put these silly thoughts out there she should be required to defend them or apologize.

Hi Gunter,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

This link is as inaccurate, mischaracterizing and inflammatory as the ones that have been censored by our moderator. Just that the target here is on the left side of the isle instead the right.

This link perpetuates misunderstanding, mischaracterizes intent/purpose and furthers divisions. It’s one group characterizing another such that the target appear stupid and unreasonable. It moves perceptions further from a place of real understanding.

I hold you in very high esteem which is why I followed your link. I was expecting food for thought and was surprised to find junk food.

Lar.  You appear to be unfamiliar with the writings of Marx and the stated opinions of most of the leftists in American politics today.  Or are you simply ignoring them?

1. TimNew,

When one group tries to define another it doesn’t understand or agree with, much is mischaracterized. I could just as easily find this type of link describing all Donald Trump supporters or police officers as racist. The source would claim to know all there is to know about it and cite reports or case study.

This does nothing to move us forward and only makes the divide greater. Metmike said these are the kind of posts he would censor. While censorship is a slippery slope he did say he would not let his personal opinion bias his decisions. 

So you feel it's unfair to hold a groups stated opinions and objectives again st them.  

TimNew,

I want 

1) the censorship here to even handed. It’s best though if we manage ourselves rather than requiring moderator censorship.

2) Those of us who are looking to advance relations and understanding with those of different beliefs should be called on it when contributing to further divisiveness. When someone says “I think or my beliefs are” about another group - that’s ok. That’s  expressing an opinion. To characterize another group and declare/define them as hateful or evil further divides. “Socialists hate personal wealth” attempts to negatively define a group rather than express an opinion. Personally, I hate what some people will sometimes do to others for the love of money but amassing large cash assets is not a bad thing in and of itself. The love of money above all other things is an example of a destructive trait. Having wealth is not a bad thing but sometimes people/corporations will do unconscionable things to keep or acquire it. If someone defines Socialist, Republicans, Nationalists, Liberals or Globalists by a negative catchword then it is easy to keep them as enemies. If we keep inaccurately trying to characterizing each other as stupid, unreasonable or evil this perpetuates the division in our country. We are not enemies. There are certain behaviors I do feel are evil but most of the conflict comes from a different belief about how to improve our circumstances. Civil war anew will be inevitable if we don’t find a better way to work with each other.

A great post, lar.

"It’s best though if we manage ourselves rather than requiring moderator censorship."

A moderators dream come true!!!

So Lar..  For my edification. What are your thoughts on MOJO's"Hate Groups"post?

Hi Tim New,

Edit: sorry, I think I misread your question. (Please define “Mojo’s hate groups”.)

I never saw it - send me a link please  

That could be perceived as deliberately obtuse but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.   https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/24432/

Being intentionally obtuse? Sad to say that I’m unintentionally obtuse when it happens. It has been happening more frequently and even more involuntarily these last few decades. *Sigh*

I misread and thought you said “Mojo’s hate posts”. Thanks for the link and benefit of the doubt. I hadn’t read it.

My opinion on it:

I think it stimulated an interesting discussion. I concur with the follow up discussion that the activity of and number of hate groups increased under Obama's administration. I never thought the USA would see a black president in my lifetime. Jim Crow was brilliant at creating a system of oppression which adapts and morphs. The system of both subtle and overt privilege did not adaquately suppress Obama’s advance and... one got through. Why, at the beginning of his presidency did the republican congress declare its stated number one priority for the country was to insure Obama only had one term? That was the number one business of Congress??? So yes, I believe  the Obama Administration stimulated previously inactive racist hate groups to be more active. The pendulum swings.

I think candidate trump first got a foothold into the party nomination by animating this passionate group. Others joined in later as he touted his business acumen and brand. I think trump created a safe public space for more of them to standup more proudly and aggressively to take back a status they felt slipping away.

Women are the most current stimulated segment of our population. I think mainstream latino america is beginning to percolate - it is one of the fastest growing segment of our population. The pendulum swings back and forth. 

I thought the article itself poised data which could be verified or disconfirmed. 

Why do you ask?