Soviet-style Breadlines come to America.

[thejester]

Because I don't believe that anyone can seriously and honestly convince himself that the word "style" means "proof of underlying identical socio-economic conditions."

Who the fuck said it did? This is just your strawmaning bullshit. The objection to the term stems from the fact that in the Soviet Union, breadlines existed because there was a shortage of food, not because - as is now the case in the US - poor people are getting shafted. Anything else is irrelevant to the objection.

I even gave numerous examples of other uses of the term "Soviety-style" or "Russian-style" in which nobody would even dream of making such a connection, and not one of the people promoting this idea bothered to comment on any of them.

If I told you that the US prison system there were Nazi-style camps, would the image you get be of barbed wire and guards (ie a camp), or something more sinister?

Hell, you don't even try to defend this absurd leap in logic; you simply attack me for not being able to prove any particular hypothesis for whatever this ulterior motive might be. So either you know it's indefensible and are playing games, or you've got some kind of mental disease which prevents you from either seeing the problem of constructing a rebuttal to my arguments on the matter.

What arguments? 'I don't see it your way so you must all be rabid American capitalists'? I have already repeatedly said that the leap in logic is far from it, and you have failed to reply to that. You seem to be hell bent on ignoring that DEATH, phongn and IP all immediately posted an objection on the basis that whereas these breadlines were the result of poor people getting shafted, in the USSR they were the result of there not being any food. We're talking the basic mechanics of the English language - by adding Soviet style there is an immediate implication that there is something more to the breadline than it being a breadline. And Soviet-style breadlines were the result of nationwide food shortages, not poor people getting the arse.

And yeah, I was attacking your hypothesis. You assumed that anyone objecting to the term must have been American. I'm not, so I posted to show that yes, that is how it immediately came across. And rather than reconsider and think you might be wrong, you expanded your psychological crap to try and shoehorn me in - which is bullshit, and now you're bending even further backwards to try and find my ulterior motive rather than just fucking accepting that yes, that is the image it immediately conjures.

[Adrian Laguna]

Well maybe you shouldn't speak so bombastically and melodramatically on your own authority. Ossus IS less universal and arrogant in his claims, and it is within his magisterium. Is it within yours? I don't know many economics graduate students, even the Marxian ones, who speak with such tenured authority on the topic as you. I find it odious, especially because, from what I have gathered, your expertise is library or Internet reading. Autodidactics are not the same thing as education and experience in a field.

I thought that around these parts attacking an argument's style over its substance was frowned upon.

Capitalist free-market economics is about maximizing efficiency and productivity and therefore producing maximal profit, which is considered an ideal outcome. I disagree that this is an ideal outcome, and therefore there is no real baseline between myself and Ossus or really anyone else on this issue.

I do believe Darth Wong has explicitly criticized the idea that profit maximization is the ideal goal of society, and I can think of a few people who likely also agree on that point. For my part, I believe the State's raison d'etre is protecting its citizens.

Again, the year is irrelevant. I disagreed her views then, and I disagree with them now. I realize that they are not the same set of views, that does not bar me from disagreeing with the new set as well as the old.

The reasons for disagreeing differ, that's why she brought the year up, she wanted to know why you disagreed now.

And my point that Marina, upon deciding the "correct" way for herself to live, still wants to sledgehammer everyone else into the same box whether or not that's a good idea (and I would say not, since civilization requires a diversity of skills, jobs, and yes, lifestyles) still applies.

Does she? Marina lives a frugal life, and she does say that people need to be more frugal, but self-serving consumerism is the primary reason our economy is heading to the shitter, so people do need to be more frugal.

[Darth Wong]

Because I don't believe that anyone can seriously and honestly convince himself that the word "style" means "proof of underlying identical socio-economic conditions."

Who the fuck said it did?

You did, by "refuting" the charge with the oh-so-devastating comment that these breadlines aren't as common as they were in the USSR. Pure red-herring which is ONLY relevant if you were promoting the interpretation I accused you of.

I even gave numerous examples of other uses of the term "Soviety-style" or "Russian-style" in which nobody would even dream of making such a connection, and not one of the people promoting this idea bothered to comment on any of them.

If I told you that the US prison system there were Nazi-style camps, would the image you get be of barbed wire and guards (ie a camp), or something more sinister?

That's an excellent example, for MY argument. If you said the US had a Nazi-style death camp, I would look for similarities within the camp itself: the way it looks, they way it is operated, etc. I would not assume that all manner of socio-economic factors must also be similar. If they gassed prisoners, I would consider it a Nazi-style death camp even if they aren't Jews or Slavs. I would consider it a Nazi-style death camp even if it's the only one, instead of being just one of many as the Nazis had. I would consider it a Nazi death camp even if the controlling regime was absolutely nothing like the Nazis in any way other than the fact that they have this camp.

See the problem? You're introducing all kinds of dissimilarities OUTSIDE the line to show that it's not a breadline. You raise an example which supports my argument, not yours. And you still insist that there is no underlying defensive mechanism driving you, which can only mean that you're either lying or an imbecile because you still don't get it.

[Broomstick]

And my point that Marina, upon deciding the "correct" way for herself to live, still wants to sledgehammer everyone else into the same box whether or not that's a good idea (and I would say not, since civilization requires a diversity of skills, jobs, and yes, lifestyles) still applies.

Does she? Marina lives a frugal life, and she does say that people need to be more frugal, but self-serving consumerism is the primary reason our economy is heading to the shitter, so people do need to be more frugal.

If I was any more frugal at this point I'd be starving. However, we're not talking about my present circumstances.

People need to be more frugal, however, I don't think we're at the point we all need to live like monks. People need to start living within their real means and resources instead of on credit. Within those limits, however, I feel there should be maximum liberty to choose how to spend resources.

Pure capitalism, like pure communism, is not a good system. However, aspects of captialism are good. Partly, it's a matter of scale. Within a family unit communism's ideal of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" is achievable and arguably necessary. Infants, for example, need much and contribute little. Adults contribute much. Beyond a certain size, though, the system breaks down and that size is well under 150 people. A family size group works, a larger one breaks down in greed and elites. For a middle level grouping, a small business, say, capitalism works well. The ability to make a profit from one's labors is an incentive to work harder. It can be an incentive to do things differently, more efficiently, or whatever. However, at a certain point you run into such effects as the tragedy of the commons and the problem of needing a social safety net. For very large groups, such as cities and nations, you need regulation and controls to prevent abuses, tragedies of the commons, and protect the environment and certain critical resources.

[apocolypse]

Because I don't believe that anyone can seriously and honestly convince himself that the word "style" means "proof of underlying identical socio-economic conditions." I even gave numerous examples of other uses of the term "Soviety-style" or "Russian-style" in which nobody would even dream of making such a connection, and not one of the people promoting this idea bothered to comment on any of them.

It's because the examples given would seem to be a bit different. A "Russian-style hat" for instance doesn't have any ties, either directly or indirectly, to socio-economics. Breadlines do have these ties. I'm not going to make a economics connotation with your example simply because there's no reason for me to do so. The wording of Marina's title strongly suggests something that it isn't.

[Surlethe]

Every time someone proposes raising taxes, someone says the rich will just pack up and leave the country. How often have they actually done that?

It seems similar to the common "I'll move to Canada if Bush/McCain/Romney/GenericRepublican gets elected" complaint. Every time a Republitard is elected, I'm sure a few people carry through and move to Canada, but most people stay put and grumble for four more years. At the same time, I'd bet that if McCain were elected, fewer people would move to Canada than if Huckabee or Tancredo were elected. The situation seems the same with taxing the wealthy: raise taxes, and some might find the new tax rate intolerable and leave. The question to ask is, is that number non-negligible? The answer: probably, given that wealthy people didn't flock from the US in the '50s when the top income tax bracket was over 90%.

[Darth Wong]

Because I don't believe that anyone can seriously and honestly convince himself that the word "style" means "proof of underlying identical socio-economic conditions." I even gave numerous examples of other uses of the term "Soviety-style" or "Russian-style" in which nobody would even dream of making such a connection, and not one of the people promoting this idea bothered to comment on any of them.

It's because the examples given would seem to be a bit different. A "Russian-style hat" for instance doesn't have any ties, either directly or indirectly, to socio-economics. Breadlines do have these ties. I'm not going to make a economics connotation with your example simply because there's no reason for me to do so. The wording of Marina's title strongly suggests something that it isn't.

What are you talking about? Of course a Russian-style hat has outside connotations; it just has different outside connotations than a bread line does. A Russian style hat (of the type that I'm visualizing) implies that the weather is rather cold. Does this mean that, if someone in a warm climate owns a Russian-style hat, then it is no longer a Russian-style hat?

[thejester]

You did, by "refuting" the charge with the oh-so-devastating comment that these breadlines aren't as common as they were in the USSR. Pure red-herring which is ONLY relevant if you were promoting the interpretation I accused you of.

That's the most pathetic dodge I've ever seen. Not only do you misrepresent what has been said (that breadlines are less common is incidental to the key point of what caused the breadlines), you fail to actually answer the question...because you can't. It's an absolute falsehood to suggest that anyone is disagreeing with the comparison because socio-economic conditions are not identical. It's being attacked on the basis that they key piece of imagery it evokes - food shortages - is not what is happening in the United States.

See the problem? You're introducing all kinds of dissimilarities OUTSIDE the line to show that it's not a breadline. You raise an example which supports my argument, not yours. And you still insist that there is no underlying defensive mechanism driving you, which can only mean that you're either lying or an imbecile because you still don't get it.

What the fuck? At what point has anyone denied the existence of breadlines? The whole point is that breadlines exist, they're just not Soviet-style breadlines.

And you have beautifully missed the wood for the trees with that example. A camp (note camp, not 'death camp') is a camp is a camp is a camp, in the same way that a breadline is a breadline is a breadline. By introducing 'Nazi-style' or 'Soviet-style' you introduce a commentary. It doesn't matter whether it is is 'in' or 'out' of the breadline; by saying Soviet-style a comment is explicitly made, that for whatever reason this breadline is not like other breadlines. And the point, which you seem to willfully ignore every time I post, is that for me and multiple others in this thread, the clear reference in Soviet style is not length (they were hardly unique in being long) but a physical shortage of food. It's not that hard to grasp.

PS: Please, please please take your psychological bullshit and shove it.

[Big Phil]

snip

I have no issue with your basic premise, that the government should spent a certain amount of money on its citizens. I take issue with a) your vague plan for how to pay for it, and b) your less vague plan for how to distribute the money.

a) can you get a little less vague and make some suggestions here? You're suggesting taxing "the filthy rich," but who are they, and how would you tax them? More importantly, how are you going to get rid of tax loopholes?

b) Since welfare has shown itself to be such a success (think of the people who spent decades on welfare before its "reform"), your suggestion of giving people $5,000, $10,000, or $20,000 cash is not the best of ideas. I would suggest a better way of spending this money would be to do the following
-universal, single payer healthcare
-food stamps for those who need it
-Education vouchers (not my ideal, but I'm just throwing out ideas here)

Those are just some top-of-mind suggestions. There are plenty of other, better ways to help out the poorest of the poor than giving them cash and hoping for the best.

[apocolypse]

Because I don't believe that anyone can seriously and honestly convince himself that the word "style" means "proof of underlying identical socio-economic conditions." I even gave numerous examples of other uses of the term "Soviety-style" or "Russian-style" in which nobody would even dream of making such a connection, and not one of the people promoting this idea bothered to comment on any of them.

It's because the examples given would seem to be a bit different. A "Russian-style hat" for instance doesn't have any ties, either directly or indirectly, to socio-economics. Breadlines do have these ties. I'm not going to make a economics connotation with your example simply because there's no reason for me to do so. The wording of Marina's title strongly suggests something that it isn't.

What are you talking about? Of course a Russian-style hat has outside connotations; it just has different outside connotations than a bread line does. A Russian style hat (of the type that I'm visualizing) implies that the weather is rather cold. Does this mean that, if someone in a warm climate owns a Russian-style hat, then it is no longer a Russian-style hat?

That's not what I'm saying though. I said that ""A "Russian-style hat" for instance doesn't have any ties, either directly or indirectly, to socio-economics. Breadlines do have these ties. I'm not going to make a economics connotation with your example simply because there's no reason for me to do so." I'm not saying that there are no other connotations possible with "Russian-style hat", I'm saying using it as an example is a bit wonky since I don't see anyone making a socio-economic connection with it in the first place.

[Darth Wong]

You did, by "refuting" the charge with the oh-so-devastating comment that these breadlines aren't as common as they were in the USSR. Pure red-herring which is ONLY relevant if you were promoting the interpretation I accused you of.

That's the most pathetic dodge I've ever seen. Not only do you misrepresent what has been said (that breadlines are less common is incidental to the key point of what caused the breadlines), you fail to actually answer the question...because you can't.

Obviously, you are too stupid to realize that the cause of the breadlines and the frequency of the breadlines are both equally irrelevant to the fact that the breadlines can be said to be "Soviet-style". As in your silly "Nazi-style death camp" example, all that matters is the nature of the object itself, not its causes or frequency.

It's an absolute falsehood to suggest that anyone is disagreeing with the comparison because socio-economic conditions are not identical. It's being attacked on the basis that they key piece of imagery it evokes - food shortages - is not what is happening in the United States.

Food shortages are not a piece of imagery, fool. They are an underlying cause. That's the whole point I'm making; the breadlines themselves are the image, and the food shortages are the cause. Your inability to distinguish the image from its underlying cause is your problem, not mine.

What the fuck? At what point has anyone denied the existence of breadlines? The whole point is that breadlines exist, they're just not Soviet-style breadlines.

Because you think that "style" = "cause". Sorry, that's not what it means.

And you have beautifully missed the wood for the trees with that example. A camp (note camp, not 'death camp') is a camp is a camp is a camp, in the same way that a breadline is a breadline is a breadline. By introducing 'Nazi-style' or 'Soviet-style' you introduce a commentary.

Yes, and that commentary relates to the characteristics of the camp itself, not its underlying causes. What part of this do you not understand? Are you saying that if some country created Nazi-style death camps for different reasons than the Nazis did, then they wouldn't be Nazi-style death camps?

It doesn't matter whether it is is 'in' or 'out' of the breadline; by saying Soviet-style a comment is explicitly made, that for whatever reason this breadline is not like other breadlines.

Yeah, it means that it looks like a Soviet one.

And the point, which you seem to willfully ignore every time I post, is that for me and multiple others in this thread, the clear reference in Soviet style is not length (they were hardly unique in being long) but a physical shortage of food. It's not that hard to grasp.

Please, show me a picture of a breadline and point me to where you can see the underlying food shortages that caused it.

PS: Please, please please take your psychological bullshit and shove it.

Why? You're only proving my point with your increasingly tortured rationalizations. How many times do I have to point out that the image and its underlying cause are two different things, only to see you pretend they are not?

[phongn]

Before you go further with this, do you understand what GDP represents, Destructionator?

EDIT: And as a minor note, this may just be my upbringing, but I'd hardly find a household income of $100K for a family with children to be "filthy rich."

[thejester]

Obviously, you are too stupid to realize that the cause of the breadlines and the frequency of the breadlines are both equally irrelevant to the fact that the breadlines can be said to be "Soviet-style". As in your silly "Nazi-style death camp" example, all that matters is the nature of the object itself, not its causes or frequency.

Food shortages are not a piece of imagery, fool. They are an underlying cause. That's the whole point I'm making; the breadlines themselves are the image, and the food shortages are the cause. Your inability to distinguish the image from its underlying cause is your problem, not mine.

My God, how can you not understand by now? Yes, the image is different to the underlying cause. The image is the breadline. By adding 'Soviet-style' you add a commentary on top of that image that goes beyond the image itself and, in this case, invokes the underlying cause. Multiple people have seen that, but rather than accept that at face value you insist on the fact that you're right and only people threatened by the OP could think otherwise.

Because you think that "style" = "cause". Sorry, that's not what it means.

That doesn't answer the question.

And you have beautifully missed the wood for the trees with that example. A camp (note camp, not 'death camp') is a camp is a camp is a camp, in the same way that a breadline is a breadline is a breadline. By introducing 'Nazi-style' or 'Soviet-style' you introduce a commentary.

Yes, and that commentary relates to the characteristics of the camp itself, not its underlying causes. What part of this do you not understand? Are you saying that if some country created Nazi-style death camps for different reasons than the Nazis did, then they wouldn't be Nazi-style death camps?

Are you willfully missing the point? The example was showing that to conjure the image, you need only use the word itself; and that by attaching something additional you make a commentary on that. It's not that fucking difficult. I understand what you're saying, but it's not relevant to my point.

It doesn't matter whether it is is 'in' or 'out' of the breadline; by saying Soviet-style a comment is explicitly made, that for whatever reason this breadline is not like other breadlines.

Yeah, it means that it looks like a Soviet one.[/quote]
What the fuck does that mean? What do Soviet breadlines look like that makes them different to American or Chinese or African breadlines?

Please, show me a picture of a breadline and point me to where you can see the underlying food shortages that caused it.

Show me a picture of a Soviet-style breadline.

Why? You're only proving my point with your increasingly tortured rationalizations. How many times do I have to point out that the image and its underlying cause are two different things, only to see you pretend they are not?

Jesus Christ, a sufficient image is conjured by breadlines. Soviet-style attaches an explicit commentary to the image. How many times do you have to be told?[/url]

[Big Phil]

You're suggesting increasing the top tax bracket from 35% to 53%, right. Here's a question: do you understand how income tax brackets work in the US?

Why are all of these taxes coming from personal income? Why not from corporate taxes, sales taxes, tariffs, gasoline taxes, or other revenue sources?

Lastly, why should the rich pay to support people who don't want to work? That is what you're suggesting, isn't it? Hell, never mind the rich, why the hell should I pay to support someone who doesn't want to work? I have no issue with public assistance to working poor or people who've lost their job, but supporting someone's lazy ass in perpetuity, why?

[Lusankya]

You're suggesting increasing the top tax bracket from 35% to 53%, right. Here's a question: do you understand how income tax brackets work in the US?

The top tax bracket in Australia is 48.5% (the medicare surcharge makes that effectively 50% if you don't have private health insurance). I believe it's higher in some European countries. 53% isn't a huge amount higher than that, so boo hoo.

Why are all of these taxes coming from personal income? Why not from corporate taxes, sales taxes, tariffs, gasoline taxes, or other revenue sources?

I got the impression that he was just looking at income distribution. Is there any particular reason why he has to discuss a reform EVERY single tax source when he can make his point effectively merely by addressing income tax?

Lastly, why should the rich pay to support people who don't want to work? That is what you're suggesting, isn't it? Hell, never mind the rich, why the hell should I pay to support someone who doesn't want to work? I have no issue with public assistance to working poor or people who've lost their job, but supporting someone's lazy ass in perpetuity, why?

Don't US unemployment benefits have a time limit? In Australia you can get the dole forever, so long as you show that you're looking for work. To me, this seems reasonable. Tell me, how long do you think the government should support people who want to work, but can't find work?

Granted, I think Destructionator's idea is rather simplistic, but what exactly is the problem with providing every citizen enough money for a basic standard of living?

[Gerald Tarrant]

Income, households.
100k-150k: 12,000 households
150k-200k: 3,600
200k-250k: 1,300
250k+: 1,700 (I'll come back to this one; more information is needed, since the distribution is so horribly skewed above this point.)

Assume the distribution in each block is linear, we can multiply the average of the block by number of households to get estimated gross income:

125k * 12,000 = $1.5e9
175k * 3,600 = $6.3e8
225k * 1,300 = $2.9e8
Total so far: $2.4e9

Big problem here, most data like this (include the wikipedia info here) delineates in the thousands of households you need to bump those exponents up by 3.

[K. A. Pital]

And as a minor note, this may just be my upbringing, but I'd hardly find a household income of $100K for a family with children to be "filthy rich."

It is rich. Maybe not "filthy" rich but rich.

Also, what's the sudden problem with taxing the rich? You of course realize that most of the poor people are working, not unemployed, given how low unemployment in America is?

the clear reference in Soviet style is not length (they were hardly unique in being long) but a physical shortage of food

There wasn't a "physical shortage of food", but a failure of distribution. A physical shortage is not necessary for a deficit; in absence of freely rising prices, even a minor distribution failure would cause gross disturbances.

Length and waiting time is what most people recall (at least here) as typical "soviet" waiting lines (hell, they call lines in a bank for payments "soviet ques" due to longitude but of course not to a physical shortage of money).

[Broomstick]

Don't US unemployment benefits have a time limit?

Yes. Six months.

(Got my last check earlier this month )

[Ghost Rider]

Define what is rich, because I have not seen it in my line of work, until you hit the multi-million part. In the US it starts at $336,500 taxable income as the considered start of the highest income bracket. Then of course there's all the little things that happen. You lose every benefit or tax break starting at around $150K married(which is completely different outlook then single).

What happens to a married couple who has one kid but make a GROSS of 150K?

-Child(ren) aren't consider any sort of break. Phased out completely. In fact they begin to phase out a great deal of any daycare or afterschool payments you did for the child(ren).

-Any benefits from education is thrown out the window. So any loan interest you earned or any tuition you paid, phased out.

-They in fact start phasing out your money that you spent on your mortgage, medicine, taxes you've paid to real estate, and any donations you've made...along with a whole litany of things. And they phase this out directly.

-Any retirement plan UNLESS it's a Self Employment Plan are phased out completely.

THEN add problems with the AMT, which hits you after your taxable income is determined. Which is the the tax the government crated in the 40's for the sole purpose of taxing the rich.

Usually when the couple does everything right(Witholding at higher rates because of how it's determined and paying estimated taxes), they still can owe around 2-3K more. And before someone goes that's not so bad...this is after they withold on their gross paycheck a tune of 30K combined and make an estimated payment totaling around 7-8K. So it adds up significantly depending on where you live.
Also when one asks how much one makes and lives, one has to consider standard of living of that area. Which is why Broom's story is one of the few that is painful to think about. Her area is not known for a low standard of living. Her living off whatever she makes, she could move to another part of the country and be considered easily well off...but that is another story. The point is...simply blurting out that one can live off 20K is fucking absurd and presumptious that your area's standard of living is equal across the board.

Another thing most people never realize is that to achieve rich are people who do things that are borderline with their money or place in other areas that are untaxable. This flies over 99% of people's heads because they see someone with more money and assume the US government is protecting them. Fuck no. Until you start opening trusts and able to shunt money into various tax exempt accounts, the US government rapes you hardcore, do it with a smile.

In the end, people who make broad generalizations of the rich, should define what the fuck is rich, because in the eyes of the IRS and those who handle this shit? It's around the multi million point with a variety of trusts and the ability to put money in places which are unavailable to most of the population.

[Big Phil]

You're suggesting increasing the top tax bracket from 35% to 53%, right. Here's a question: do you understand how income tax brackets work in the US?

The top tax bracket in Australia is 48.5% (the medicare surcharge makes that effectively 50% if you don't have private health insurance). I believe it's higher in some European countries. 53% isn't a huge amount higher than that, so boo hoo.

You completely missed my point - I asked if he understood how they worked, not how the rate compares to other countries.

Why are all of these taxes coming from personal income? Why not from corporate taxes, sales taxes, tariffs, gasoline taxes, or other revenue sources?

I got the impression that he was just looking at income distribution. Is there any particular reason why he has to discuss a reform EVERY single tax source when he can make his point effectively merely by addressing income tax?

He's clearly focused only on screwing over the "filthy rich" and hasn't really thought through the consequences or the process by which this could take place. Hell, he doesn't have any real concept of what "rich" is in this country.

Lastly, why should the rich pay to support people who don't want to work? That is what you're suggesting, isn't it? Hell, never mind the rich, why the hell should I pay to support someone who doesn't want to work? I have no issue with public assistance to working poor or people who've lost their job, but supporting someone's lazy ass in perpetuity, why?

Don't US unemployment benefits have a time limit? In Australia you can get the dole forever, so long as you show that you're looking for work. To me, this seems reasonable. Tell me, how long do you think the government should support people who want to work, but can't find work?

Granted, I think Destructionator's idea is rather simplistic, but what exactly is the problem with providing every citizen enough money for a basic standard of living?

They do, but he's suggesting allowing everyone on the public dole in perpetuity.

Moreover, $15,000 for a family of 3 or 4 people is so far below the poverty line it isn't even funny. Simplistic doesn't even begin to describe his idea.

[Jaevric]

Provide someone with a physical or mental handicap or a real disorder that prevents them from working? Sure, I can see the government stepping in and providing a basic standard of living in the form of food stamps, health care, and subsidized housing.

Provide someone who has lost their job and is seeking employment with financial assistance and especially health care? Even over a longer period than six months? Absolutely, provided they're really looking for employment. And that's pretty hard to prove -- I know someone who was "looking for a job" for over a year and showed up to all of her interviews without taking a shower or washing her hair or dressing up. At all. Because she knew her family was going to support her whether she was working or not. You can't really tell me she was "looking for employment," she was making every effort to make sure she didn't get a job. When that particular branch of the family said "Find a job or leave," she picked "leave" and moved into a different person's house to sponge off of for another year or two.

Provide someone who has just graduated high school and decided "Hey, I really don't need more than $20,000.00 a year to keep a decent apartment and afford food, booze, and cable TV" with the money for that? At the expense of the "rich" who make $100,00.00 a year in--just for example--California or Florida? That's ridiculous. $100,000.00 a year in rural North Carolina or Mississippi might be a *lot* of money. That same amount in some other areas is middle-class, maybe not even upper middle-class.

Also, take into consideration that the lower rungs of society generally have the fastest population growth. Now imagine a century or two of the government subsidizing people who are making no effort at working and are being paid $15 or $20,000 a year to basically do nothing. No need for improving their education because the government will take care of them. No need for finding a better job because they can afford the basics on the government's dime and, let's face it, people are lazy. I don't think it would be a "small minority" of the population that would be willing to let the government support them in that fashion.

Sorry, this seems like a disaster waiting to happen.

[Darth Wong]

My God, how can you not understand by now? Yes, the image is different to the underlying cause. The image is the breadline. By adding 'Soviet-style' you add a commentary on top of that image that goes beyond the image itself and, in this case, invokes the underlying cause.

So you keep saying. In fact, the rest of your post (and your entire argument in this thread) is entirely predicated upon that oft-repeated claim. However, since I have provided examples where someone would NOT make that leap, and you have said nothing to refute them, it is obvious that your dogged persistence in repeating this claim is the only real argument you have.

Are you saying that if some country created Nazi-style death camps for different reasons than the Nazis did, then they wouldn't be Nazi-style death camps?

Are you willfully missing the point? The example was showing that to conjure the image, you need only use the word itself; and that by attaching something additional you make a commentary on that. It's not that fucking difficult. I understand what you're saying, but it's not relevant to my point.

That's really not an answer. The fact is that you have no answer; you know perfectly well that "Nazi-style" or "Soviet-style" need not encompass underlying causes; only the imagery. But it's clear now that you will never acknowledge this point, and you intend to "win" this interminable argument (which no one else is clearly even paying attention to any more) by simply repeating it until I give up.

I'll go right back to my first post in this thread: nobody thinks a food bank breadline means anything in America because it only affects poor people. We proudly consider ourselves to be "not poor", and in a capitalist mindset, this means we don't have to give a shit.

[Darth Wong]

The filthy rich would probably be anyone making over $100,000 a year.

I may be many, many things, but I am not "filthy rich".

[Coyote]

Jester, think about it, and turn the question around-- not too long ago there was a European leader, I forget who it was, maybe Blair or Sarkozy, who ran an "American-style" campaign for office.

Does this mean that the Europeans have switched from Parliamentary systems to two-party Federalist systems, with Republicans and Democrats? Or does it mean that there were aspects of the election that were similar to the types of things seen and done in American political campaigns, probably the use of media or opponent-smearing styles, without necessarily implying that the entire government had been altered?

[Illuminatus Primus]

The ultra-rich make much of their money from capital gains tax, which is an absurdly low tax, than the income tax.