You just went on to justify my point about loving money. It's not the people of the United States that are important to you, it's how you can take advantage of their money. :| Tsk tsk.
Dear God, where do you get this nonsense? What makes you think I want *anything* to do with their money? If you read my post you'd have come to the conclusion that, no, I don't want to control their wallets; I want to leave them alone. The only one's taking advantage of their money are those such as yourself who so often advocate confiscating their wealth, giving it to the government, and redistributing it. Again, because I care for the People, I want them to earn and make as much as they can.
I think the general level of happiness among the governed is a much better indicator of prosperity. So we're going to never see eye to eye. I care about the needs of people. You care about how much you stand to gain.
Caring about the people and serving their interests are two different things. Nobody will ever admit to no caring about people. I don't doubt you "care" about people or sincerity. I doubt your judgment on economic matters and on how best to serve the people. I care about the needs of the people too, I just think individualism far better promotes their well-being than government.
And what do *I* stand to gain? Look guy, I make minimum wage in a blue collar job and as a soldier. I'm not raking it in in any sense of the term. I still prefer the power of the individual over the government bureaucrat any day of the week. Outside of its legitimate functions, government doesn't function as well or efficiently as the private sector. So you can continue to demonize my belief in economic liberty as uncaring and unsympathetic, but it won't get you anywhere and it sure won't erase the fact that capitalism and not socialism was responsible for the abundance of wealth we've created. A free market is a healthy market. I stand to gain what exactly?
There is no such thing as a free person. We all answer to something. You'd just rather we submit to the economy than anything else. Free market only means we're shackled by the need to make more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more money. So to argue we're freer people because there's no limit to our upwards mobility is a lie.
This is really nothing more than a childish version of nihilism or something. You're not even arguing facts or evidence, just an odd spin of economic prosperity that honestly doesn't amount to much. Nobody "submits" to anything in a free market. The whole point of free markets is making people free of restraint, regulation, of submission. The freest societies on Earth are those which have in their time instituted trade and free markets. The nations with "shackles" more often than not reject those principles. Your description of capitalism is better suited for socialist nations like Cuba.
As for free people not existing... Free has a definition. A free person is one who is "enjoying personal rights or liberty, as a person who is not in slavery" Being free doesn't mean you don't obey laws or act responsibly. That's complete disregard for its meaning. It's like when a couple pages ago someone was throwing the word fascist at me without knowing what that word meant. Or intolerant. Or genocide. Or in your case, free. People need to stop using words outside of their meaning. Back on point though, yes, there are free people. Hundreds of millions of them.
Not going to argue that our government didn't eff things up by getting mixed up in things they shouldn't have, but there are definite areas where government involvement can be quite positive. How'd we get through the Great Depression? Oh yeah the government had to hold up the economy so that our country could survive.
This is a classic example of historical revisionism. The Great Depression only ended once the military industrial complex got geared up for war. The war industry (that's right, industry) saved the economy, as did the American workers. A war time economy brought us back. The New Deal actually deepened the Depression, and FDR even admitted he didn't know what he was doing. He was no economist and his policies screwed Americans. He raised marginal tax rates to over 90%. Do you really think that helped? FDR had FOUR terms as president. You'd think this magic government cure would have worked by the time WWII came around. FDR's policies didn't help the economy, even most economists that don't favor supply-side economics, have reached that conclusion. FDR taxed even more than Hoover, restricted trade, and attacked business and the American farmer.
WWII saved our economy. And even then, the Great Depression was only followed by temporary economic stability. After the war ended the economy took another dive. That's because government statism doesn't revive economies. Once the MIC took a backseat to social programs again, we felt the effects. The New Deal, the War on Poverty, the Great Society, Hope and Change. It doesn't work, never has, and never will. It's ridiculous to credit the government with "saving" our economy.
I'm just going to feel sad that you measure the success of your life in dollars.
More like I measure my success as a worker in what I make and earn.
Life is about living. Enjoy the time you have and live it up. You worry so much about making as much as you can while you can but n-n-n-n-n-newsflash: it ain't coming with you when you die.
You make it like all I care about is money. That's false. I do however recognize that merely "living" doesn't pay the bills. Money matters and money is important. Your quasi-apathy doctrine is unrealistic, Utopian, and a tad silly. It's dishonest to downplay the importance money has. Dollars isn't the reason for living, but it is what puts bread on the table. That's why it matters. Bread and butter issues matter to me, not being filthy rich and having it after death like some Egyptian Pharaoh.
Stockpile it all you want but a billion in the bank isn't going to improve your life :B
That's the most incorrect cliche ever.
Maybe it's because you were poor that you think money is the be-all-end-all. After you actually get some and can afford whatever you want you'll realize it feels pretty empty. Or then again, maybe you'll get caught up in the figures and simply enjoy those six digit incomes. Maybe it gets you off. I dunno.
You have a knack for trying to appear sympathetic to the plight of the disadvantaged, but when push comes to shove it's all rhetoric with nothing to back it up other than snide and rude remarks about another's upcoming of personal life. I'm still pretty poor. I don't think money is everything, nor love it, nor get off on it, and your characterizations are unfounded. Your insults are only overshadowed by your presumptions.
All I know is that there's more than life than money.
I never said otherwise.
ps- And as much as you want to scare me with the word "socialism"... who cares? Capitalism and Socialism both have their place and both can be abused. Absolutely no political analyst (who has any brains) is going to claim capitalism is a perfect system.
Considering capitalism has benefited mankind more than any other and has served as the best economic path to further the human condition, whereas socialism ruins nations and lives and slowly makes slaves of people, I think only one has a place in America. And I never said capitalism was perfect. Nobody ever has, not even the father of it, Adam Smith. Man is imperfect, and as such so too will his institutions; economics as well. However it's the most perfect kind out there.
pps- You just remind us of good 'ol All American Glenn Beck. And you think he's uncomfortable to listen to? But, seriously, I'd probably say you haven't crossed into the Beck zone quite yet :p There's still hope for 'ya.
The man cries on camera for no reason. I agree a lot with some of his principles, but he's too weird to watch. I do love his Obama Soviet national anthem, but really I prefer other sources of news and opinion.
