Post a New Topic
I'll be reading this to our family before Thanksgiving dinner: "The Real Meaning of Thanksgiving"
Original post made
by Brad, Amador Estates,
on Nov 21, 2011
You won't learn this from our public school teachers, our textbooks, our American mainstream media.
The Real Meaning of Thanksgiving is to give thanks to the birth of Free-Market Capitalism over Collectivism in all its forms (e.g. socialism, marxism, communism, etc.).
At first the new colonists had a "utopian" collectivist method of growing crops but because this method of "spreading the wealth" was determined an abject failure and that if they continued with this method, the collective would starve.
Realizing that another season like those that had just passed would mean the extinction of the entire community, the elders of the colony decided to try something radically different: the introduction of private property rights and the right of the individual families to keep the fruits of their own labor.
As Governor Bradford put it:
â€œAnd so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end. . . .This had a very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted then otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little-ones with them to set corn, which before would a ledge weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."
The Plymouth Colony experienced a great bounty of food. Private ownership meant that there was now a close link between work and reward. Industry became the order of the day as the men and women in each family went to the fields on their separate private farms. When the harvest time came, not only did many families produce enough for their own needs, but they had surpluses that they could freely exchange with their neighbors for mutual benefit and improvement.
I hope you will find this to be important to share with your family ... and while you're at it...to the "Occupy Protestors" too.
Posted by Jiaf
a resident of Amador Estates
on Nov 26, 2011 at 12:28 pm
The GOP's idea of closing tax loopholes is akin to Mitt Romney laying off 1000 workers and calling his action 'restructuring'. Who's fooling whom?
But I digress. Back to the fascist girls. They claim I'm self-centered, but then when I defer to the American public's idea of what counts as fair redistribution of income (e.g., higher taxes on the rich), they cry out for my own personal view. The Fat Kath refers to the top 50% or top 10% as if those are fixed categories. Let me tell you something, Fat Kath. There's a big difference between the top 10% possessing, say, 15% of the nation's wealth and what we have today with the top 10% possessing 80% of the nation's wealth.
Fat Kath seems horrified that a woman who inherited 700 grand from a homeless man the woman had befriended would purchase with it a Lexus. Oh my Gawd! But what the fascist Fat Lady doesn't (can't) comprehend is that the woman who inherited 700 grand did not acquire it through exploitation of others' labor. Big capitalists cannot make their fortunes without standing on the backs of (and crushing) the people they employ. Using military, police, private thugs, and buying off "intellectuals," big capitalists have been able to "normalize" a condition that puts 80% of the wealth in 10% of the population's hands. It is a mainstay of capitalism. Put up a mall, and then make sure that there are low-income apartment bldgs nearby for the minimum wage workers. Capitalist pay their workers only as much as it takes to get the worker to return to work the next day. If a worker produces 1000 widgets per hour, and the capitalist can get by paying the worker for only producing 10 widgets, keeping the profit from 990 widgets for himself, that is what he does. It amounts to capitalist exploitation of labor. Yep, MAYBE the pay for 10 widgets is enough for the worker to barely support a family; maybe not. Point is, in capitalism's systematic exploitation of labor, the capitalist couldn't care less whether the laborer lives or dies (especially when there is another worker to work at bare minimum as replacement). As a democratic socialist, I believe that capitalism should be and can be replaced by democratic means. I think a genuinely democratic society where people are well educated and well informed of facts and have genuine voice will reveal an impetus to move in the direction of socialism.
Socialism is not antithetical to wealth (e.g., owning a Lexus). It _is_ antithetical to an accumulation of wealth based upon human beings' exploitation of other human beings.
One way to move in this direction (there are many, and too numerous to explicate here), is to take John Rawls' redistribution principle seriously. In brief: any policy or program that benefits the wealthiest should be offset by even more benefits going to the poorest. This should amount to a steady narrowing of the gap between rich and poor. In our society, the rich end up paying approximately 8-9% of their income in taxes; the poor end up paying 11% of their income in taxes. An example: we already have a "higher" tax rate for rich. But it needs to be extended much farther than that. No one making subsistance wages should be forced to pay a 7% sales tax on consumer items. Conversely, in order to make up for the lost tax revenue, the wealthy should be forced to pay, say, a 20% sales tax on their purchases. Keeping matters simple, for the sake of argument, a single mother of two earning 22 thousand per year would pay no taxes whatsoever, which would allow her to maximize the 22 thousand for her and her kids. The Fat Kat earning a million per year will have to pay more (as calculated by the 'lost revenue' brought about by tax relief for the poor). Call me crazy, but I do not see a qualitative difference between $1 mill and a 1/2 mill. Nor do I think most Americans would, either.(Most Americans favor an economic distribution system [e.g., Sweden's] where the top 20% of income earners earn 36% of the nation's total income pie. I call this a good start....)
Does this mean _substantially_ higher taxes for the rich -- the 10% that already own 80% of America's wealth? Of course it does. But it also means lowering/eliminating the taxes of those who occupy the lowest rungs of the economic ladder.
Does socialism mean nationalizing all capitalist (exploitative) enterprises? Perhaps. Or perhaps not. If capitalists are willing to forego the unjust profits they take from workers' hides, then no. If capitalists are willing to sell their holdings to the workers who sustain them, then no. Point is: many different options ... all of which would likely ensure that 1 in 5 kids in America will not go to bed hungry. In virtually every scenario, the capitalist would have to relinquish a goodly part of his wealth. Poor thing! But wealth accumulated via exploitation of humans is not a right. It is simply a dollar amount that a democratic nation can decide to distribute in ways that reflect the public will. (And, oh, I can hear the fascist girls, Fat Kath and her cloying-for-attention daughter,Stace, already crying a river at the very thought that the fat kat capitalist might have to sacrifice any part of his bliss. Tsk, tsk.)
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Nov 28, 2011 at 8:32 am
Still degrees of socialismNorth Korea on one end and Sweden at the other running away as fast as it can.
Let's make this easy for younot a tea bagger, not a fascist, the US is certainly not Nazi Germany or headed in that direction. Why the qualifier of "modern day" Sweden; were you making one of your twisted lies turn on yourself, again?
Then you read why Friedman went to Chile.
Well, see, all that jumping aroundtell me this isn't mockery of the poor. You wrote: "Yep, Fat Kath lifted herself up by her own bootstraps. No one helped her. She raised herself without family; she had no teachers as she educated herself outside of the classroom; she only purchased books at private book stores because public libraries are socialist and she didn't want to take anything that was a handout; she never in her life used public roads but rather always walked barefoot through fields and briar patches because she didn't want anyone thinking she was sponging off US taxpayers." I was a kid at the time, of course. My family worked and paid taxes, of course. While my parents were able, I went to Catholic schools. And when money was tight, they took on additional jobs. No welfare, no unemployment, no handouts. Libraries and roads are socialistmaybe, by the teeniest _degree_, given your penchant for calling everything socialist to suit your arguments. Did like to run barefoot when I could. And I'm sure if my father met you, he'd have balled up his blue collar, union, Democrat fist (it was Chicago, remember?) and point a finger at you and call you a fool.
Don't hold up the Democrats as saviors. You keep equating hoarding of wealth with fascism, yet we have wealthy Democrats: Kennedys, Rockefellers, Clintons, Gore, Kerry, Harman, Buchanan (FL), Feinstein and getting richer (insider trading isn't insider trading if you are, say, Nancy Pelosi, et al) with friends like billionaires Warren Buffet (although he contributes to a lot of campaigns), George Sorros, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Charles Koch, Kirk Kerkorian, Abigail Johnson, Steven Ballmer, and we could include more from Hollywood. And before you fire up your keyboard, the same lists exist for wealthy Republicans. They _all_, regardless of affiliation, are keeping their powder dry.
Best political cartoon of the weekend (I paraphrase) about the failed Super Committee: "Oh no, we failed, and it's the other side's fault, and now the clock will run out on increased taxes, and _you_ will have to pay the $1.3 trillion."
Posted by Jiaf
a resident of Amador Estates
on Nov 29, 2011 at 4:32 pm
When the Fat Kath and her counting computer state that I'm "not a member of this community," if they mean I am not a member of the P-town fascist clown club, then they're definitely onto something. When they say they speak for the community, they are correct only with the caveat that 'the community' they refer to is the aforementioned fascist clown club.
Neither Fat Kath nor her counting computer know what they are talking about when they claim that there is no such thing as a socialist success story. Ever read about citizens in self-described democratic socialist states feeling trapped in them? Neither have I. Instead of linking everything democratic and socialist with N. Korea, they might try looking underneath Fat Kath's own big fat nose. For there is quite an impressive array of successful socialist programs operating right here in the United States. These include, for example, public education, public transportation, medicare, "Obamacare" -- hmmmm, sure don't hear those Republican pres candidates talking about repealing "Obamacare" very often anymore, do we? Why not? Because the overwhelming majority of socialist programs in the United States -- many still in a state of imperfection -- have or will have shown themselves to be a distinct advance over what they have or will have replaced.
Over the past century or so, largely on account of progressive workers' unions, minority group activists, women, students, the state has responded to an increasingly enlightened public that recognizes that the principles of democratic socialism are far more preferable than the let-them-eat-cake-or-die ideologies of capitalism-corporatism. Oh, we usually haven't called these progressive principles 'democratic-socialist' because highly financed right-wing propaganda has succeeded in linking anything that is progressive, democratic, and socialist to communism, Marxism, and totalitarianism. See the steady stream of uproariously funny rants by the likes of Jimbo and steve, trapped inside their ignorant little skulls, who are too stupid to even begin to appreciate differences between democratic and socialist ideas, on the one hand, Marxist-Leninist ideas on the other. (Hint: one is motivated by increased democratization, the other by power.) See the likes of the fascist sisters, Fat Kath and Slithering Stace, taking their cues from Fox News and the right-wing, fascist blogosphere and linking up anything socialist with N. Korea and other authoritarian states.
Although a majority of America's populace has learned that progressive, democratic-socialist policies and practices must be called something else than what they are in order to escape the well-financed right-wing's attempts to liken them to Marxism, the contents of those policies and practices are unmistakably socialist in content. The struggle on behalf of democratic socialist principles is ongoing. It takes place on numerous sites that range from street OWS protests, to courtrooms, to local and nat'l elections. The struggle is increasingly between democratic-socialist principles and the ideologies of fascism. The reason why public discourse has recently become so polarized is not because people on both sides have suddenly become uncivil. No, it is because the struggle has become increasingly more stark. The Democratic Party, always with trepidation, and always needing a spurring from the majority of the populace, represents saving those democratic-socialist laws and policies that already exist, and promoting those that inevitably must (and will) exist -- such as eradicating the inhuman disparity of wealth between the Fat Kath's "blissful rich" and the majority of working-class peoples in this nation. Those siding with the right, ever richly rewarded by the upper crust that feeds upon the working classes through unfair tax policies and exploitative labor practices, can only squawk and peck away at those who critique the remaining injustices before us.
When pressed, the right-wing fascists begin to show their true colors. Hence the Fat Kath's woefully ignorant: "There isn't a socialist success story, particularly if measured by the people trapped in it [sic] and no matter what modifier you put in front of it." I don't know whether it is sheer stupidity or blind faith she places in the mythological idea of blissfulness that she erroneously associates with being rich. Either way, the statement is laughably wrongheaded ... until, that is, one recognizes the extreme perniciousness that emanates from its core. And the two fascist queens demand respect? Sorry. No can do.
Posted by Jiaf
a resident of Amador Estates
on Nov 29, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Well, there's the Slithering Stace pointing to how beleaguered unions have tightened their ranks against attempts to bust them up. All her supposed critique can do is point to matters that are internal to unions and their democratically elected leadership. Doesn't want to admit that unions have been an extraordinary progressive force in this country and for decades set industry-wide standards for nonunion as well as unionized workers' efforts to extract a fairer wage from capitalist profiteers. If unions are to be critiqued it is because they have been 'too successful', with money-grubbing capitalists going abroad in order to undercut unions' inroads towards getting their workers a fairer wage. (Why do you think companies/corporations spend so much money in order to bust them up?) Her daffy examples, accompanied with silence on union advances, suggests strongly that she's against child labor laws, federally regulated workplace safety regulations, and the minimum wage -- all union achievements. And she talks about freedom. Yeah, freedom for capitalist pigs to exploit human beings for profit.
Then there's Fat Kath's critique of public education. "Crumbling under the weight of pensions," she quips. What a joke. The US socialist public education system is hands down the greatest educational system in the world. Students from all over the world are tripping over themselves to gain admission to US public universities; don't see much of a reverse trend at all. If our socialist public education system still shows room for progress, it is not because of pensions. Rather, it is because of widespread poverty in this country, created and sustained by capitalist power, exploitation, and greed. As study after study shows, with very few exceptions, public schools in relatively wealthy communities are more successful than public schools in economically depressed communities. Why? Because teachers cannot maximize their potentials as teachers without parental cooperation. In economically depressed communities, parental cooperation is considerably harder to elicit, as holding down two jobs, or extreme exhaustion or, yes, extreme depression and attempts to cope with alcohol and drugs, militates strongly against vigilant attendance at parent-teacher meetings. The problem is poverty. That's the dirty little secret that Fat Kath's and Slithering Stace's obsession with teachers' pensions tries to ignore. The fascist right is only too happy to endorse their obsession. You won't hear them talk about a need to eradicate poverty, because that would entail that the rich contribute their fair share for the greater good of society.
Fat Kath claims to be working class. Here are her words: "I am the working class, Bozo." (Note how she feels so comfortable in this context, talking about being working class, hurling a name at those she disagrees with. See? That's what happens when you're aiming upward!) But then she denies her own class roots: "Born, raised in the working class -- many of whom have found their bliss, by the way. It's not exclusive to the rich." If this isn't the saddest case of class denial I have ever seen, I don't know what is. Stats show an extreme unlikelihood that a child born in poverty will go on to succeed in the upper echelons of education; stats show how the typical child's working-class 'success' is that of going an educational rung or half-rung more than his/her parents. That is, the child of working-class high school educated is likely to stop at a high school education; in the event they go on, it is most probable that they will go on to earn an AA or a BA from a working-class university, meant for working-class students, and structured to help working-class students get working-class jobs. In contrast, look at how the class system is stacked in favor of upper class kids. They don't drop out; and they are statistically highly likely to earn post-grad degrees in law, medicine, sciences, business, etc. The class system is so stacked in favor of the rich and to the disadvantage to the poor that it can only revolt anyone who considers it seriously. But there's the fascist Fat Kath telling us to forget about class inequality and its crushing effects upon the working classes because, statistically speaking, once in a (very great) while, there emerges an exception who is able to advance into the world of the wealthy elite. "Many of [the working class] whom have found their bliss[!!!]" What a glop of distorted, untrue gunk she offers.