Community | April 13, 2010 | 214 comments

Nine Myths About Socialism in the US

source: http://www.truthout.org/nine-myths-about-socialism-us58513

Image
WakeUpPeople

http://www.truthout.org/nine-myths-about-socialism-us58513

Glenn Beck and other far right multi-millionaires are claiming that the US is hot on the path toward socialism. Part of their claim is that the US is much more generous and supportive of our working and poor people than other countries. People may wish it was so, but it is not.

As Sen. Patrick Moynihan used to say "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts."

The fact is that the US is not really all that generous to our working and poor people compared to other countries.

Consider the US in comparison to the rest of the 30 countries that join the US in making up the OECD - the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. These 30 countries include Canada and most comparable European countries, but also include some struggling countries like Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Slovak Republic and Turkey.

When you look at how the US compares to these 30 countries, the hot air myths about the US government going all out toward socialism sort of disappear into thin air. Here are some examples of myths that do not hold up.

Myth No. 1: The US Government Is Involved in Class Warfare, Attacking the Rich to Lift Up the Poor.

There is a class war going on all right. But it is the rich against the rest of us and the rich are winning. The gap between the rich and everyone else is wider in the US than any of the 30 other countries surveyed. In fact, the top 10 percent in the US have a higher annual income than any other country. And the poorest 10 percent in the US are below the average of the other OECD countries. The rich in the US have been rapidly leaving the middle class and poor behind since the 1980s.

Myth No. 2: The US Already Has the Greatest Health Care System in the World.

Infant mortality in the US is fourth worst among OECD countries - better only than Mexico, Turkey and the Slovak Republic.

Myth No. 3: There Is Less Poverty in the US Than Anywhere.

Child poverty in the US, at over 20 percent or one out of every five kids, is double the average of the 30 OECD countries.

Myth No. 4: The US Is Generous in Its Treatment of Families With Children.

The US ranks in the bottom half of countries in terms of financial benefits for families with children. Over half of the 30 OECD countries pay families with children cash benefits regardless of the income of the family. Some among those countries (e.g. Austria, France and Germany) pay additional benefits if the family is low income or one of the parents is unemployed.

Myth No. 5: The US Is Very Supportive of Its Workers.

The US gives no paid leave for working mothers having children. Every single one of the other 30 OECD countries has some form of paid leave. The US ranks dead last in this. Over two-thirds of the countries give some form of paid paternity leave. The US also gives no paid leave for fathers.

In fact, it is only workers in the US who have no guaranteed days of paid leave at all. Korea is the next lowest to the US and it has a minimum of eight paid annual days of leave. Most of the other 30 countries require a minimum of 20 days of annual paid leave for their workers.

Myth No. 6: Poor People Have More Chance of Becoming Rich in the US Than Anywhere Else.

Social mobility (how children move up or down the economic ladder in comparison with their parents) in earnings, wages and education tends to be easier in Australia, Canada and Nordic countries like Denmark, Norway and Finland, than in the US. That means more of the rich stay rich and more of the poor stay poor here in the US.

Myth No. 7: The US Spends Generously on Public Education.

In terms of spending for public education, the US is just about average among the 30 countries of the OECD. Educational achievement of US children, however, is seventh worst in the OECD. On public spending for childcare and early education, the US is in the bottom third.

Myth No. 8: The US Government Is Redistributing Income From the Rich to the Poor.

There is little redistribution of income by government in the US in part because spending on social benefits like unemployment and family benefits is so low. Of the 30 countries in the OECD, only in Korea is the impact of governmental spending lower.

Myth No. 9: The US Generously Gives Foreign Aid to Countries Across the World.

The US gives the smallest percentage of aid of any of the developed countries in the OECD. In 2007, the US was tied for last with Greece. In 2008, we were tied for last with Japan.

Despite the opinions of right-wing folks, the facts say the US is not on the path toward socialism.

But if socialism means the US would go down the path of being more generous with our babies, our children, our working families, our pregnant mothers and our sisters and brothers across the world, I think we could all appreciate it.
  1. groups:
    Community,   US Politics,   Progressive America,   current cult,   6 more
  2. tags:
    Culture,  Capitalism,  Socialism,  Cultural Issues,  2 more
  3. recommended by:
    WakeUpPeople,
    Vierotchka
  4.     
    |

214 comments // Nine Myths About Socialism in the US

  • Daniel_Peddicord
    • +1
      Daniel_Peddicord  

    • on yur pointimminent, I'd bet more babies are born dead, than are aborted.. I base that on nothing, but our birthrate, which is still going up, while most industrialized countries are going down.. but I'm sure the data is out there. Before Rowe vs wade thousands of ADULTS died in botched illegal abortions. Which is more evil, killing a Zygot, or risking abortions in mexico?

    • 3 years ago
  • wally60
    • +2
      wally60  

    • socialism is the only anser.we have seen capitialism and it is ugly.greed is what send our kids to war.corruption starts with the mayors and council of small towns
      and runs its coarse to the white house.we already pay 55%tax and we dont see shit for it.i know a few capitilasts that are wealthy and there arnt any that havent
      screwed someone to get there.

    • 3 years ago
  • IMMININT
    • 0
      IMMININT  

    • A good point about the data was made to me, and thats regarding the collection of the information. Such as Infant Mortality. Does this include abortion?

    • 3 years ago
  • WakeUpPeople
  • IMMININT
    • 0
      IMMININT  
    • WakeUpPeople:

      Sorry for the lack of knowledge, but is there anywhere that states how the data is collected then and criteria for each? I was having issues looking that up. I believe in it, but I like to be able to argue the validity when spoken about.

    • 3 years ago
  • IMMININT
    • 0
      IMMININT  

    • There isn't a single citation or reference to data in this article thus making it completely worthless... Thanks for wasting everyone's time even if there is truth to this.

    • 3 years ago
  • WakeUpPeople
    • 0
      WakeUpPeople  
    • IMMININT:

      The OECD was mentioned 10 times in the above article. If you google OECD it is the first link. I would provide the link for you, but I want you to learn how to do it on your own. All of the data you need is on that site.

    • 3 years ago
  • IMMININT
  • WakeUpPeople
  • IMMININT
  • edoyle7
  • lovelander
  • wellhunggimp
    • 0
      wellhunggimp  

    • Too bad the teatards won't even attempt to read something that conflicts with what their high priests (Beck, Limbaugh, Palin) tell them to believe.

    • 3 years ago
  • Gordie_Caie
  • FoosMaster
  • UrbanGypsy
    • +1
      UrbanGypsy  

    • I am and always will remain a supporter of Capitalism even though I believe in regulation, social programs, and welfare programs, universal healthcare, etc...

      In that sense I'm what in Europe they would call a Social Democrat.

    • 3 years ago
  • spanishinquistion
  • independentthinker
  • lovelander
  • wally60
  • Kaze_no_Kae
  • Kaze_no_Kae
  • eskimoe
    • 0
      eskimoe  

    • Weak argument. They are using the word socialism because it sounds negative to the American public. Beck feels that maybe these changes will have an affect on how he and people like him will make money. He is scared.

    • 3 years ago
  • FoosMaster
    • +2
      FoosMaster  

    • ALL governments around the world use some form of Socialism. Any tax levied to give support to any public program to benefit any part of society is a form of Socialism. We have been living in a Socialist society for a long time.
      The problem is that now the Social programs benefit the Rich elite instead of the society. Socialism in the proper balance is suppose to benefit All of society, not just one part, Rich or Poor. We have seen a HUGE social transfer of wealth in our nation in the past 30 years. The problem is that the transfer has been in the Wrong direction.
      We live in a Very complicated society and the solution(s) to our problems is Much more complicated than “taking from the rich to give to the poor”. Society must be Balanced in proper measure. Currently the scales are extremely tipped to favor the Rich.
      We need “Balance”!!!

    • 3 years ago
  • kitteneater
  • independentthinker
  • Future_America
    • -1
      Future_America  

    • Myth No. 9 is true, but if you look at the total amount of money the US gives in foreign aid, it's one of the highest. Since the US is the richest country than even a small percent is a large amount of money.

      The US can definitely give more.

    • 3 years ago
  • WakeUpPeople
    • 0
      WakeUpPeople  
    • Future_America:

      Yeah, I think it was appropriate for that myth that they use percentage, but you are correct.

      I've wondered though if China gets pissed when we give foreign aid, considering they own so much of our debt.

    • 3 years ago
  • independentthinker
  • independentthinker
  • wally60
  • Mark701
    • +4
      Mark701  

    • Good post. One correction and a couple of points.

      "Myth No. 8: The US Government Is Redistributing Income From the Rich to the Poor.

      "There is little redistribution of income by government in the US in part because spending on social benefits like unemployment and family benefits is so low."

      Not exactly. Starting in 1980 there's been an enormous redistribution of wealth from the poor and the middle classes to the wealthy. It started with the bull-shit theory of "trickle-down" economics that was introduced by Reagan. The theory, generally speaking is, if you let the rich keep their money, they will reinvest in the economy and the benefits will trickle down to the middle and lower classes. Aside from the insult that the vast majority of Americans should be happy with crumbs of the wealthy, it been proven over and over again that it doesn't work.

      What the wealthy do with the vast excess they receive is to put that money in untraceable overseas accounts and non taxable interest accruing trust funds. The money that does get invested goes to overseas projects that employ foreign labor. For example, Intel just built a manufacturing facility in China that employs 4000 workers.

      Enter the new "Golden Rule" i.e. those with the gold make the rules. Nowadays the ones with the gold are corporate lobbyists and wealthy individuals. Since the 1980's tax laws have been tweaked and re-tweaked to reduce the tax burden on the wealthy. A small example is this. Say you're a guy like Warren Buffet or play a pro sport or are a wealthy actor. For the sake of discussion let's say you make 20 million/year.

      Unlike you and I whose income is immediately taxed before we receive payment, a wealthy individual has the option of taking their salary and putting it into an interest bearing trust fund PRIOR to having any taxes taken out. Then they are taxed on only the amount they actually withdraw from the trust fund. This makes a huge difference in the amount of income available to the US government for stupid things like good roads and education. Realistically, their total income should be taxed like someone who receives a lump sum lottery payment. Instead, they are taxed on perhaps the half-million or million they live on while the vast majority of their money remains safely tucked away from Uncle Sam making them millions in interest.

      Another thing is that the tax rate has been consistently lowered for the wealthy by every Republican president since Ronnie. The argument is that they shouldn't have to pay more than the rest of us as a percentage of our wages. BULLSHIT. When most people pay their taxes, it affects they way they live. Maybe they won't be able to afford a car they need, or daycare, or decent health insurance etc. Many of the wealthy could afford to pay 99% of their income in taxes and it wouldn't affect the way they live one tiny bit. So they can certainly afford to pay more than the 15% they are currently paying. Also, income is taxed, not wealth. Many wealthy ensure that the vast majority of their income is invested in things that can't be taxed, like trust funds or Cayman Bank accounts.

      In short, there are only so many dollars to go around and the wealthy have ensured they have most of them.

      The culmination of this NONSENSE was witnessed (again) in 2009. Exxon-Mobil and GE, two of the richest corporations in the world paid ZERO taxes to the US government. Got that? Nothing, nada, zip.

      Recommended reading: "Perfectly Legal" and "Free Lunch" by David Cay Johnson (who is also a Republican). Prepare to be nauseated.

    • 3 years ago
  • WakeUpPeople
  • independentthinker
    • 0
      independentthinker  
    • Mark701:

      Just to clarify each administration in the past is guilty of contributing to this mess. But history tells us that LBJ put the most entitlement programs into effect and they are still with us today --but greatly expanded upon.

    • 3 years ago
  • tommic
    • 0
      tommic  

    • All of the crap being written about Mao and Maoism. Mao did some horrendous things. He was responsible for millions of deaths. However the preceeding government of China prior to Mao was one of super rich and dirt poor. Mao made numerous mistakes along the way but a country of 1.6 billion could never be governed by a parlimentary government. Nothing would ever get done.
      The Chinese have multiple problems, bigger than most countries and a small group of leaders at the top has done more for the Chinese people than all the prior governments they had for a hundred of years.

    • 3 years ago
  • sk0j0
    • 0
      sk0j0  

    • Haha Just posted this on FB with the title "WAKE UP PEOPLE" didn't realize until now that that's the posters name. wtg.

    • 3 years ago
  • tommic
  • remanns
  • Jahvega
    • +2
      Jahvega  

    • Keep the truth coming out Fam! Seeing this let me know I am not alone in this quest to save our country our world, or humanity!

    • 3 years ago
  • veronaaa
    • +3
      veronaaa  

    • i love this. more needs to be spoken of this. more education on socialism needs to be brought to the younger generation. because hopefully we will be taking over these morons in office.

    • 3 years ago
  • AndrewH13
    • +1
      AndrewH13  

    • Why do 99% of the right wingers I see work the fear angle?
      "Osama Obama" "Obamunism" "Obomba"

      I mean, it's EVERY sign I see. "Be afraid! 'Cuz I AM!"

    • 3 years ago
  • independentthinker
  • FoosMaster
  • AndrewH13
  • TheBianca
  • Mark701
    • 0
      Mark701  
    • TheBianca:

      Why does anyone talk about socialism at all? We've paid income taxes since the 1930's and that money is redistributed for various government functions that help people AND business. Did big business call it socialism when we bailed their sorry butts out in 2008?

      There was a priest that once said. "When I feed the poor, I am called a saint, when I ask why the poor have no food, I am called a Communist. I think that more or less sums the arguments against socialism.

    • 3 years ago
  • independentthinker
  • independentthinker
    • -7
      independentthinker  

    • There are sooooooo many factual errors in this article I won't even bother discussing them. The author needs to get to a library once in a while or just reread Moynihan's quote every hour on the hour.........

    • 3 years ago
  • DRudeBoy
  • ii386
    • 0
      ii386  
    • independentthinker:

      Please, do bother and discuss them. Don't claim something is incorrect, that you know the correct answers, and then suggest that the author go to a library to get educated---if you know the facts then share them.

    • 3 years ago
  • independentthinker
    • 0
      independentthinker  
    • DRudeBoy:

      Let me use the Myth No 2 as an example “infant mortality rate” as one example. Not taken into account in this broad statement is we suffer more obesity (about 10 times as much as the Japanese) and we have more births to teenagers (seven times more than the Swedes). Nearly 40 percent of American babies are born to unwed mothers.
      Factors like these are linked to low birth weight in babies, which is a dangerous thing. In a 2007 study for the National Bureau of Economic Research, economists June O'Neill and Dave O'Neill noted that "a multitude of behaviors UNRELATED to the health care system such as substance abuse, smoking and obesity" are connected "to the low birth weight and preterm births that underlie the infant death syndrome." Do ya’ think……….
      The World Health Organization compiles these statistics, but it is up to the respective countries to be honest in their reporting. We as an open society have our statistics for all to review, I doubt many other countries are doing the same………..I’ll let you all do your own research on the other assertions.

    • 3 years ago
  • independentthinker
    • 0
      independentthinker  
    • ii386:

      Let me use the Myth No 2 as an example “infant mortality rate” as one example. Not taken into account in this broad statement is we suffer more obesity (about 10 times as much as the Japanese) and we have more births to teenagers (seven times more than the Swedes). Nearly 40 percent of American babies are born to unwed mothers.
      Factors like these are linked to low birth weight in babies, which is a dangerous thing. In a 2007 study for the National Bureau of Economic Research, economists June O'Neill and Dave O'Neill noted that "a multitude of behaviors UNRELATED to the health care system such as substance abuse, smoking and obesity" are connected "to the low birth weight and preterm births that underlie the infant death syndrome." Do ya’ think……….
      The World Health Organization compiles these statistics, but it is up to the respective countries to be honest in their reporting. We as an open society have our statistics for all to review, I doubt many other countries are doing the same………..I’ll let you all do your own research on the other assertions.

    • 3 years ago
  • UtopianSky
  • independentthinker
  • JonRaymond
  • kennymotown
    • +8
      kennymotown  

    • If you don't know me (Kennymotown) by now then I shall reiterate my feelings about Socialism. I am all for a Democratic Socialistic country in the realm of a Denmark and welcome any movement towards it. Capitalism has run amok and the time is ripe for the people to demand a huge change in a new direction. Educating the public is a huge chore and it is being done slowly. With capitalism showing it's true colors (Winner take all, screw the rest of you) the chore will be much easier. I truly believe that nobody is worth a billion dollars and this idea that millions is just not enough has screwed the rest of us and the commons we all share. Our infrastructure is crumbling all around us and that is the biggest part of our commons. But the public welfare is lagging behind 30 or so progressive country's throughout the world. It is pretty funny to actually sit back and watch the cancer spread in capitalism because thats just how unfettered capitalism always turns out! When you realize talkers like Rush and Beck who make hundreds of millions of dollars keeping the public ignorant I guess to the fat cats that want those guys to keep talking the crap they spew, then I guess they are worth the millions they get.

    • 3 years ago
  • remanns
  • tommic
  • Kelly61
    • 0
      Kelly61  

    • I like how the sign in the photo has Stalin, a hardline extreme rightwing leader, along with Marx and Lenin. Just cause they are all Russians doesn't mean they all had the same ideals.

    • 3 years ago
  • Pedroptz
  • slarabee
  • WakeUpPeople
  • 1storange
  • Null81
  • WakeUpPeople
  • remanns
  • carmalite
    • +3
      carmalite  

    • If the average American were educated they would know that Socialism is not Communism and they would know what constitutes democratic socialism.

      They would also know that they are being played by CORPORATIST PROPAGANISTS who are fermenting unrest even better than a foreign country could do and they are doing it for a reason, because they want pure corporatism.
      And they are laughing at the morons while they make their way to the bank with their millions and their idiot listerners are getting poorer and poorer.
      Oh and BTW if ONLY we were headed towards Socialism. We are headed toward Corporatism which is as horrible as Communism for the vast majority of people.

    • 3 years ago
  • mitekillem
    • +5
      mitekillem  

    • Yeah, but the rich don't want that. Who do you think owns the TV stations, where people get their info? -Who are the Tea Parties helping? -The far right....the rich "old money" companies, the media, etc, etc.

      I wonder when people are going to wake up and realize that "socialism" isn't a form of government, it's a form of economy. It's not to be feared, but to be utilized for the greater good. The "moral minority", should be supporting this, but they're told not to by people like Glenn Beck, Faux News, and other millionaires.

    • 3 years ago
  • carmalite
  • Pedroptz
  • Paratus
  • tommic
    • 0
      tommic  
    • Paratus:

      In the end the government will be a primary provider of services but they will not take over manufacture and or distribution of goods. Thats about as far as socialism will go. Corporate welfare will live on as it has but in service industries government may take much greater control through laws and legislation where in manufactured goods government may bail them out but not with intent of controlling means. It will be a interesting walk down the economic path we about to proceed through. Not great, not bad but interesting.

    • 3 years ago
  • carmalite
  • Paratus
    • 0
      Paratus  
    • tommic:

      If the gov takes over manufacture and distribution we will have Communism. What we will have, for a while , is a hybrid of Fascism and Socialism. Thank you Barry

    • 3 years ago
  • Paratus
    • 0
      Paratus  
    • carmalite:

      Corporatism has been going on for over a hundred years. One of the tenants of the Confederate Constitution was the end of corporate welfare. We need to return to the Constiuttion. If we follow that document we will put an end to lobbyists and any inscetuous relationship between corporations and government.

    • 3 years ago
  • Pedroptz
    • +1
      Pedroptz  
    • Paratus:

      Please tell how can you ( USA) be so tolerant about lobbying , its pure corruption and they don't even cover it up! But maybe I have a confused idea about it. Do I?

    • 3 years ago
  • Paratus
  • Davidod
    • +2
      Davidod  
    • Pedroptz:

      You're getting the idea:

      Corporatism is an economic system under which democracy operates, and has been described as 'socialism for big corporations'. It's nothing new: in fact, it's been the operating mechanism by which U.S. government has operated for a century. This system reached it's breaking point during the financial crisis, where the principle was best described as, "privatization of profits, and socialization of losses". It's truly a blending of the worst of BOTH economic systems (capitalism and socialism).

      Lobbyists are the foot troops by which the controlling corporations dole out money to government to advance their political agenda. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations have little restrictions on donations of funds, it's pretty clear the fix is in. Consider that ruling as a job stimulus bill for media outlets.

      What's funny is ObamaCare was being decried by Palin for it's risk of "death panels", as if the goons of Obama's socialists were going to be deciding Suzie's sprained ankle meant she'd need to be 'euthanized' instead of cured. What drivel....

      Instead, the forgoing of the public option was the sacrifice Democrats accepted in order to get the legislation passed: the option of healthcare exchanges was a MAJOR coup for the healthcare insurers (Blue Cross, WellPoint, etc) as a blatant example of corporatism in action. Fact is, this was a major score for Republicans, although they're trying to keep the faux outrage alive to use as a "throw them out in November!" rhetoric.

      The actions of ALL politicians over the past 60 years only makes sense, if one considers who's funding the special-interest groups that 'greases the wheels'. Hence why Obama truly is no different from Bush; any differences stem from serving a different group of special interests, alone.

    • 3 years ago
  • Pedroptz
    • 0
      Pedroptz  
    • Davidod:

      Thanks for taking the time typing that, I believe that nowadays governments prefer protecting the big companies that the actual people, they have become too big

    • 3 years ago
  • tommic
    • +2
      tommic  

    • Its time for everyone to read the following
      we as a country are already utilizing many aspects of socialism weaved into our capitalist structure, the states own schools, universities, Administration of medicaid/medicare social security
      Time to take a chill pill and a reality check

      Marxism: The economic, social, political, pseudo-scientific philosophy, theory, belief, or system based on the works of Karl Marx of Germany. The theory seeks the elimination of the notion of private property in order to gain control of the economic "means of production" by taking it from the bourgeois (the wealthy or propertied class) for the benefit of the proletariat (working class.)

      Socialism
      1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
      2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
      3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

      Fascism
      A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
      A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
      Oppressive, dictatorial control.

    • 3 years ago
  • 1storange
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • DRudeBoy
  • DRudeBoy
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • DRudeBoy
    • +4
      DRudeBoy  
    • ibrake4rappers13:

      Well...

      you're wrong.

      Class struggle can entail any ideology

      Maoism has more to do with transforming the populace as a whole and including all segments of society, especially rural peasants, in the class struggle.
      Mao was very anti-bureaucratic and very into mass, popular actions. The mass line approach.

      I'm not advocating this, I'm just correcting you.

    • 3 years ago
  • mitekillem
  • onemalefla
  • sgwhites
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • DRudeBoy
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • DRudeBoy
  • Davidod
    • +1
      Davidod  
    • ibrake4rappers13:

      So I cannot agree with Mao on some issues, without becoming a Maoist? What % do you use as your criteria to determine when someone crosses the line to become an official "fill in the blank" -ist?

      Even a blind mouse finds the cheese (e.g. I agree with some of what Beck and Palin are saying), and as the old saying goes, even the most bald-faced lie is built on grains of truth.

      Hell, I even agree with some of what Hitler SAID as his ideology (he was also interested in limiting corporate influence), but that doesn't make me a Nazi, does it?

      Just saying, don't be so swayed by meaningless 'labels' that some spout so readily, without even knowing what they're saying (and if their signs are any indication, they can't even spell the "I'm trying to sound smart" words). Doing so only sets you up to be manipulated, used....

    • 3 years ago
  • Naxxie
    • +2
      Naxxie  
    • ibrake4rappers13:

      you can't be serious.. lol because a person agrees with one statement someone made, makes them a maoist? have tunnel vision much? lol one of my favorite quotes.. although non-political is from the marquis de sade.. which states, No lover, if he be of good faith, and sincere, will deny he would prefer to see his mistress dead than unfaithful. Ok so if I happen to agree with this one statement.. although he's got many infamous quotes.. does this make ME a sadist? Hardly lol it's close minded people like you that are turning this country into a bunch of scared chickens running around blindly with their heads cut off.

      OMGGGGGGGG Health Care is coming to get us!! Get your guns!! Pitchforks, torches!! hahaha!! I guess it's ok by you to spend trillions on a bogus self serving war.. and losing, murdering thousands of people.. but we can't spend on health care? So you're OK with spending money to kill people in war and kill the people who can't afford decent heath care? I bet you'd make a good running mate for Palin. LOL wow wow wow!!

    • 3 years ago
  • Naxxie
  • tommic
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • WakeUpPeople
    • +3
      WakeUpPeople  
    • ibrake4rappers13:

      Neither. We want effective government. One that addresses the general welfare, not the corporate welfare. One that takes concern of its people rather than massive corporations or military conquest. One that supports its people rather than enslaving them by use of class warfare. One that takes a vested interest in the education of its people. One that takes action to address the current crises of its time.

      Here are a few good people who would agree:

      "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government." ~Thomas Jefferson

      "If there is one principle more deeply rooted in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest." ~Thomas Jefferson

      "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomas Jefferson

      "Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor." ~Thomas Jefferson

      "Let your heart feel for the afflictions and distress of everyone, and let your hand give in proportion to your purse." ~George Washington

      "Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education." ~Franklin D. Roosevelt

      "It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach." ~Franklin D. Roosevelt

      "One thing is sure. We have to do something. We have to do the best we know how at the moment... If it doesn't turn out right, we can modify it as we go along." ~Franklin D. Roosevelt

      "An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity." ~Martin Luther King, Jr.

    • 3 years ago
  • UtopianSky
123
1 - 100 of 214

top videos