Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: shadowman who wrote (11749)	10/5/2005 7:34:41 PM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

shadowman > Economic and political views and policy in this country have been bought and paid for by those with the means to do so. That's a matter of opinion. It's true that the wealthiest are in a position to influence policy but I would imagine, since the US is, in fact, a nation, and indeed a democratic one, that all have contributed to a lesser or greater extent. But all have not been "equally" compensated. The US is not yet a dictatorship, nor overtly a fascist state, and so policy should actually reflect the will of the people not merely the oligarchy. For what it's worth, I'm not a communist, not a socialist, not even a liberal, but I would argue there has to be fairness. For example, that workers are fired in order that CEO's remuneration can increase I would regard as obscene. This is a not only a moral issue but a practical one and one which is based on the lessons of history. In terms of my argument, a society which demonstrates manifest unfairness, even dishonesty, is not acting in its own best interest. Furthermore, the US has always, as a leading nation, set an example to the rest of the world -- and indeed the rest of the world has to a lesser or greater extent followed the US' example embodied, not only in its Constitution and Bill of Rights, but in its way of life. I know I have. I seriously doubt that this is the case today. > God forbid that the USA would see fit to adopt a more progressive social welfare system or possibly try to regulate the rampant free market system in a way that might usher in a more equitable distribution of wealth. As I have tried to argue briefly above, a winner-take-all situation is not necessarily the best for a nation, any nation. What is the ideal, that I cannot say but I do not think that Americans, themselves, can be happy to know that, while the number of billionaires has increased, that increase has been accompanied by an increase in poverty of some millions of their fellow countrymen. > To quote those on the right and many Democrats..that would be socialistic and smack of communism The Democrats are no longer an effective opposition party in the US. In fact, the policy of the Democratic leadership is virtually identical to that of the Republicans. This is understandable because both parties are actually parties of big business since only big business can afford the enormous sponsorship needed to put someone in the Congress. In the circumstances, a large section of the American populace has tacitly been disenfranchised. Again, I would regard this as a serious problem in any nation purporting to be a democracy.