class struggle is ironicaly a huge element in the primary structure of communism.what if communism is the answer to a happy society and everyone above a certain wealth mark are living the communist dream while we kept getting sold this free market capitalism bullshit, insuring we never force them to open thier communist utopia up to us?

damn, that sounds like a page out of Animal Farm.

THANK YOU, you have no idea how good that is to hear.
i was starting to think i made animal farm up in my mind as i cant find it at the library, or blockbuster.i would think that would be an important piece, but nooooooooooooo every where i look i cant find it, and my wife says she never heard it and shes the smart one, so i was really starting to think i made it up in my head.
god senility is going to suck for me if i get that far, if this got me.

now that i know it exists im gunna hunt it, well after i get a job that is cuz what good is knowing its out there if i can get to it.

oh yeah but thats th basis of communism in its idealogy.that as long as the social focus is on class struggle, wich is inherent anyway,all other divisions would become moot.it was marx's solution to the jewish problem of europe and the soviet union.eastern jews concocted zionism as the answer,while eastern european jews were living freely they didnt care, even so much so that the jews of germany said fuck zionism,berlin is the new israel.and of course we all know hitlers contribution to that debate.
so anyway communism was supposed to, in its abandonment of god create no divisions between jews and catholics of the russian church, so they may unite against the czar and make life better.the peasant is always going to have issues with the land owner, the land owner is always going to have issue with the upper class,and so on and so on, so why not make a government around that inherent fact that allows each group solidarity.its beautiful in a dark pesemistic goth kind of way.
i dont know why o felt the need to share that.

no, it was not bound to happen. we cannot take that attitude, and the more we do, the more they will continue to use us like doormats.

I agree with you, but there are only a few of us that feel this way... America has more followers than leaders... and as long as we continue to allow fox, bullshit groups (tea parties) and the government to treat our kids like sheep, we are not going to move forward...

There are to many laws that stop us from making changes... The laws that are set in place are for the rich and government to use... We need new leaders! New faces!

I feel like this because my kids are going to have to go through this... None of this affects me right now because of the jobs I've had... taxes, government, social security... are all things that don't affect me. But they do affect my friends, my family and people I care about and that's why I'm here. Hoping for a change and hoping someone in our society, stands up and make the changes happen!

Again, the attitude I have is not that I'm giving up... is just, when is the change going to happen?

Yes, I see that in your posts, I just don't want to think of these things as inevitable.

I hope not....

no, it didn't have to happen, and as long as we think that way we are nothing but lemmings marching off the side of the hill.

not as a result of apathy, but as a result of every element social security relies upon changing.more and more people living decades beyond projected, thus taking more than the expected chunk out of the pot for one, with fewer people kicking in, and standard of living increases.
we are set up to handle our golden years as if they would be happening in the 80s not the 2030s and 2040s where gas costs more than groceries.

yes and no. I think they have their greedy eyes set on social security but the FACT remains that some of what you are saying is just the BS they are feeding us to justify what they want to do. FACT remains that the DOD not only consumes the lion's share of the Federal budget, but they also consume more fossil fuels than any other entity on the planet. We have to reign them in or yes, we are going to be robbed even more than we already have been, and yes, fuel cost is a huge factor, you are right.

no of course that is true as well, we are living high on the hog in ways we cant afford to and that needs to be curtailed, but it is independant of my issue.wich i really didnt frame all that well.you decide, now that im high my shit feels clearer in my head, but it could be a flase sensation, you decide if its so.
what im saying about the social security dilema in particular is that the models we use to judge social security, and poverty lines, and any social issue thats economy isnt based in profit incentive is massively out dated.even if we were living as level as possible, the way we have it set up soc.sec. would fail.the system was designed with no regard to the current situation and doesnt meet its needs.if it were 1850 it would be a flawless system, but the reality is more people are existing between 62-90 then anytime before wich creates an age gap to cover that was seen as impossible at social securities inception.even in every person retired at 60 and lived to 70 that was a stretch as 70-80 was being officialy old.90s a rarety.centurians the stuff of lore.

take the amount of money in social security under the present system and add 50 more years onto its projected payout.even a century ago the system couldnt handle it.im saying even if you throw out the babyboom generation aspect wich has its truth but is one element, just by adding years to the average number of years it has to pay out fucks it up.it isnt prepared at all to cover living expenses for 38 yrs of a life but 10-20, when its now paying out on average 27 yrs.

the baby boom has its thing to, but its a lil shady cuz if a population explosion fucked the system up,progressively speaking it would have fixed it too.the bazillion babyboomers would have paid for thier own retirement being as now they out number us, for a time it was reversed while they were putting in.we have to be on a steady decrease of population for that to be a legit reason as fewer and fewer contributors mean less and less to work of off.

but also the radical shift in economic infrastructure hasnt been adressed at all.i mean this is a system based on an agrarian society, not one that outsourced all its jobs to other countries, and manual labor is largely under the table and not pitching in.the agrarian society didnt have the option of not pitching in.the commerce was here and self regulatory.if we are doing good we have alot of food alot of work alot of money.if doing bad people starve and dont make it to be a senior citizen.a modern post industrialist strictly consumer society has no model applicable to caring for the aged.the only people throughout history who where strictly consumers-not manufacturers (wich we almost are) were royalty.we have assumed that role on the world stage without taking tribute from them.not that we should but that is the flaw in being global royalty class.