Your whole "equality" agenda bullshit is pure hypocrisy. So tell me, if you're for equality, why do you support people inheriting large sums of money and effectively having a leg-up against the rest? Not exactly equality, is it? Oh that's right, you're only for equality when it suits you.

Yes, Wall Street gave plenty to Obama and he's been the best conservative president in modern times. Funny how that works.

Correction, socialism is the equal distribution of all wealth. Capitalism stamps the poor down further in order to raise the value of the dollar. After all, there have to be classes that do the dirty work, right? You conservatives claim "everyone can be rich if they want to", but you realise what that ideology would lead to? Extreme inflation, and the dollar becoming worth less. Thereby, the wealthy like to keep their little collective group small in able to keep the value of their wealth high.

Hahahahahahahahahhahahaha! No man, you don't need to say a single thing!

what does people inheriting money have anything to do with inequality. you are saying it would somehow be equal to have the government confascate private property. thats equal?, really.

edit:  is this fair. top 1% of earners pay 40% of income taxes. top 5% pay over 60%. top 10% pay 75%, top 20% pay nearly 90%. bottom 50% pay 0%. bottom 20% pay -2.9%. tell me, is that fair. is it. is it fair. 

hold, let me answer that, NO! thats bullshit

if you think thats what socialism does, or if you think its so great, please be my guest, partake in it, or move somewhere where they have it. but thankfully history shows time and time again that socialism doesnt work and capitalism works (not what we currently have). socialism is a race to the bottom of the income ladder, for 95% of the people, keeping the rich rich. capitalism is almost always a race to the top.

studies show that on america poor people dont stay that way for long. for example in 1996 the bottom 20% of earner saw the incomes rise by 233% by 2006. and the CBO found that from 1994 to 2004 bottom 20% of earners saw the largest increases in their income than any other group.

you have a very scewed and inaccurate view of what capitalism is, which is both shocking and apolling. also you have no idea what causes inflation. and with capitalism their is actually people that can move up, that means people of all classes, so yes you will have some lower class, but in socialism, there is only one class, and that is th poor.

You are confusing Capitalism with Corporatism.  America hasn't been a Capitalist economy for a very long time.

You didn't answer my first question. How is it equal when descendants of rich families can become rich themselves without earning it? How is that equal opportunity? Sounds pretty skewed opportunity.

Psst, by the way, that whole 95% owning all of the wealth? That's what's happening to America due to capitalism. You can call it corporatism, but the truth of the matter is, capitalism is not stable. It is merely to precursor to corporatism. Do I need to bring up Standard Oil in the 19th century? So was breaking Standard Oil up considered socialist? they are redistributing tons of wealth after all...

Most low income earners only see wage increases due to rising of the minimum wage (oh no! socialism is coming to get us!) However,  Since the 1990s, 40 percent of the increased wealth went into the pockets of the rich minority, while only 1 percent went to the poor majority. the gap between rich and poor is widening, and the rich cannot be happier.

I can see I'm dealing with someone new to economics, so let me give you a simple example. Say that an entire constituency becomes very wealthy. Services around that area realise that their constituents can pay more for their services now. Thus, prices rise. After all, paying $10 for a loaf of bread still is reasonable to 100% of their constituents since they're all wealthy, right? Competition will not work because of the tremendous margin made giving those services more power on the supply side. Thus, other services will be forced to play ball and rise prices accordingly, or be forced out of business due to high raw material prices. Rinse, repeat.

Socialism only becomes poor due to the collective consequences of the community. Too many people wanting a free ride. However, people are able to get a free ride in capitalism. It's called being born into a wealthy family, and live a worry-free lifestyle on the backs of the workers (the only people who actually generate wealth. None of this shifty wealth-out-of-thin-air stockmarket crap). And it's people like you who advocate unfair bullshit like this.

thats it, out of of the crap he spewed, you only correct him on him mixing up corporitism with capitalism. surely you can do better than that, like address his laughable death tax agument, if you can call it that.

anyway for bolded. obama a conservative? O_o ha. well i guess that make George bush a liberatarian, Clinton a tea party conservative, and reagan an anarchist.

but that would make you right bug wealthy ceos and corporations do only give to conservatives, that would be becuase there has never been a conservative elected in amercian history, even Van Jones would be considered an establishment republican

You know what's crap? Your claim of pretending to give a shit about equality. Your system left blacks and women to fend for themselves in a society where 100% of the wealth was controlled by the white males. It's like starting a 2km race where the white men get 1.99km head start. If you're truly for equality, then let people have equal opportunity at birth, not carry on from a legacy where the race has been incredibly skewed.

For the record, Raegan would NOT be classed as conservative nowadays. The spectrum has shifted so far to the right that the Republicans would drive him away, with claims of being a socialist. Obama however....well those tax cuts for the wealthy are still in play, and werent even touched in the so-called "bipartisan" talks to raise the debt ceiling. You claim him to be something else, and you're only trying to convince yourself.

I consider it a bigger root issue.  Once you understand this concept, understanding the others becomes more clear. 

Fordy, do you not understand the absolute impossibility of an equal start in life?  Do you plan for every child to have the same parents with the same income?  That's a rather communist direction, wouldn't you say?  

Зен, да нифига он не "recitfied". Вроде взрослые люди, а рассуждают как второклашки, какую-то пургу про "self-determination is the prime right of all peoples" гнал и прочая. Так, будто эти права в воздухе висят, пользуйся - не хочу. Во-первых, люди тут ни при чем, речь о праве нации, во-вторых, право - вторично, реальность - первична. Праву нужен закон и сила принуждения оного. А какая у нас реальность эти занимается? Правильно, полудохлый, но все же ООН. Собственно, где мандат ООН на применение силы в Югославии? Не было его. Единственное, что эта ООН родила - небезызвестная резолюция 1244, которая постфактум констатировала отделение Косово. Ну и к слову, фиг его знает, как там в СРЮ - это пусть тутошний серб скажет - но в СФРЮ согласно конституции автономные края (Косово и Метохия, Воеводина) не имели права на отделение, его имели республики. Короче, сильно сомневаюсь, что отделение Косово - конституционный акт даже по законам СРЮ, тем более по законам международным.

Это если быть формалистом и рассуждать с т.з. законности, что вообщем-то само по себе наивно.

Xen, he recitified nothing. Grown men, but think like still at kindergarten. There was some juvenile talk about "self-determination is the prime right of all peoples" etc, as if those rights come out out of thin air. First, people have nothing to do with it, we're talking about nations here. Second, reality defines law, not vice versa. What reality do we have now? Exactly, barely functional, but still the UN. Was there appropriate UN mandate that approves aggression towards Yugoslavia? Nope. The only relevant document that UN have issued on the matter - notorious resolution 1244, which post factum defined Kosovo status. BTW I'm unaware of FRY laws (that's a question to the local Serb), but according to SFRY Constitution autonomous provinces of Kosovo and Metohija, Vojvodina didn't have self-determination right, but republics did. In short, I'm in serious doubt, that self-proclamation of independence by Kosovo is an lawful act even by the laws of FRY, let alone international law.

That's if we pretend of being formalistic and discuss the matter from the law point of view, which is naive by itself.

Yes, I am aware of it. Even with an estate tax, the wealthy still have the upper hand throughout the life of the parent. I'm not saying 100% estate tax is the solution to fully solve it, but I believe it would make a hell of a difference.

If anything, ingenuity should be rewarded, not just the pure luck that you happened to be born into a better-off family.