No, thanks. I still like socialism, old-style such. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" still strikes me as an excellent principle. My problem with "socialism" today is that the first part is being ignored and the second part extended to cover every want.

I want governments to create distribution channels so that socialism can exist and be efficient. But I don't want governments to create distribution channels in order to create socialism.

This administration doesn't care if people create new jobs.  In fact, they most likely discourage it as that will reduce the amount of people on government assistance, which is one of their top goals.

Not aggressive, passionate. That's the problem with people like you. You have a pre-judged mentality about Americans and everything we say or do is seen as if we are all battle hungry.

Ironically, rather than commenting on the point, you commented on the insult. You failed to defend your point with this comment Cykomir. We don't know you personally, but we know what you comment and unless what you comment does not portray who you are we can make educated guesses of who you are.

But here's the real kicker. Let's say these multi-millionaires did give up this excess money and it was given to those who were poor. Who's to say those who are not poor but are not rich either would also want a piece of that pie. Why would it be fair for the poor to get more money for less work or skills? Would this not simply make the poor population bigger an in turn shrink the middle and rich class? Even worse if less people worked in order to get this excess money from the rich how will the rich make more money to give away if it is these poor and middle class who work for them? In the end, rather than making the poor better, we would simply be bringing everyone down to the poor level and this is an improvement?

Because I don't feel like replying to an insult. If I made points to you calling you [Generate Random Insult for Republican=]a Redneck who just wanna spit into black people's face, you wouldn't feel like replying to the point like I have been civil in the discussion.

And that is where you fail horribly, with you "educated guess". You seem to have a very basic profile of peoples posting here. I have been called antisemitic earlier just because of some comment on Israel. You called me an Antiamerican, jumping a looooong way from my argumentation against USA exceptionalism toward a more rational, but not malevonent foreign policy history.

Ergo, by saying that "The USA aren't automatically in the moral right", I was put in the anti-american part of your spectrum, totally ignoring the nuances I'm trying to send across. It's easier to demonise the other side. The American political system runs on demonisation right now. The more you demonise them, the easier it is to dismiss what they say as fanatical nonsense.

Actually, that might have been because of the type of comment you made "on Israel".

It's not impossible to make an anti-Semitic comment on Israel, you know.

Perhaps you are perceived to have a history of using "aren't automatically" as a  springboard to "cannot be". I don't now remember what it was you said about Israel but I have seen so many people use that strategy that it wouldn't surprise me if those who defend the US would hastily prepare a defence against that particular logical fallacy.

That was sarcasm Chuck, I know there are folks in the 47% that don't feel that way.

You are young yet.  You will be assimilated.

No, you have socialistic leanings because you want to believe in the goodness of your fellow man.  Your response above yells it (one part ignored, one part extended).  Most of your articles do as well.  You want to think that most people are altruistic at heart.

I was that way once too.  But I got tired of being proved wrong.

The Democrat party is quite clever. I believe "ability" is a big part of their end game. When they can get the percentage, addressed in this article, to say 60% or more that's when the check will be due. The Democrats will have their coveted opposition proof majority. Then the government will "demand" your sweat (everyone has the "ability" to do that) to pay for your entitlements and other forms of government care. Basically, many will be the new indentured servants (the kind word for slavery), the government will be your master. Funny thing is how willing many are to help achieve this goal.

I've made parallel comparisons to to the pre-Civil War South before. The plantation owners didn't go away, they are in the government. The only difference is they are not solely whites now, and the new slaves won't all be black. Green is the only color that matters. Does anyone really believe a wealth politician lambasting the "rich"? Apparently so. Why some may ask? It's about power and control, some people crave it above all else. As for the slaves, in at a close second to life, they will fight tooth and nail to keep what they believe is owed to them. People are being conditioned now that their needs will be provided for them. they are the new rights, and we all fight for our rights. The politicians (plantation owners) will stay in power, earning more money off the labor, at the nationalized companies and beholding private businesses, and will sprinkle a few crumbs from time to time to keep the peasants calm. Step out of line, no health care, no job, and you whither and blow away.

The problem with Socialism is someone is always above the rules, someone always has the power and gets more of the benefit. Oh, it's a wonderful concept... if you live on a planet occupied by robots.  

Cikomyr, ok, tell me this.  Why was it so important for you to know the socioeconomic breakdown in a statistic where that isn't an issue?

So now, to sepatate my opinion of Cikomyr from the point I made... I'll repost just the point...

I take this topic one step further.  Of the people who do pay taxes, how many of us are actual "net tax payers".  Add whatever that percentage to this 47% and you get the picture.  Most Americans don't add a red cent to the federal budget... and lefties want to make the percentage of people who do shoulder the tax burden even smaller.

Brad isnt' talking about general numbers here, he is talking about people... People the left couldn't possibly care less about... both the ones left shouldering the burdon, and the ones left unemployed by draconian and bigoted tax policies.

Well put.

Oh I know, I just wanted to point out I was one of those.

Yeah, I saw your initial post. BTW how does it feel to be a minority of the minority?

is that like a double negative?  So now Charles is in Charge?

lol