"Freedom" thread or something

I do seriously wish people would think about/look into what they consider wealthy.

It's almost always the multi millionaires. The CEOs and bankers. That is like the root of all evil for the left..but that article did make a good point. That's like the .1%
I see the $500,000 mark as making the top 1% ... there is a good chance a good number of those people earned that wealth. When I was at Aflac briefly some of the big wigs (the state managers) made that type of money, and let me tell you... I couln't hack it at the bottom! 

In order to get to their level requires a f**king sh*t ton of life consuming work. I'd hate to punish those people.

In fact they had different sales plans you could follow, depending on what level of income you'd like to hit. The "best" path got you to $250,000 (the Obama mark of wealthy) and very few were that good...the left needs to take a serious look at who are these wealthy and not the number.





Edited by JJLehto - May 04 2012 at 18:56

"Liking" something on Facebook not protected by First Amendment.

Hey, what ever happened to this thread being all about Sweden?

Haven't checked out the rest of the site.  Suppose I should have posted the original source of the article.

I still do love Sweden.
In fact it was Sweden that changed my views from full out socialist to not...when I found out about how free their markets are, and things like lack of a minimum wage and etc
I just no longer see it as an appropriate, or realistic, solution to the US.

Or anywhere really...that region of the world must drink from magic spring water, they somehow have made the system work for 60 years. Also helped that they were in a unique situation entering the "industrialized" world.
Though there are challenges it faces, and I believe it's welfare state is getting difficult to maintain.

Maybe proof that even in the very best of worlds, eventually it's bound to become unsustainable?

. And truer than Slarti's...

^ The government would be comprised  of people who would be shaped in their actions by the culture no?

I think it will fall apart in Sweeden too eventually. 

I don't really support privatizing SS. I see the arguments about having some choice, having the money actually be invested, having the system be sustainable, etc. However, it just seems like it'll become a handout to financial institutions which will control wealth being forcibly taken from people to be put to their own abuses which will ultimately lead to the money being squandered and these institutions being protected for ineptitude with the money.

Just eliminate any withholding system. If I want to invest my money let me invest it. If I want to spend my money, let me spend it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that unforeseen consequences could make a private social security scheme worse than the purely governmental one despite the higher ROI expected. It's a common problem which occurs when we privatize something. You essentially replace one evil with two evils working together. Government run institutions get replaced by a symbiotic rule of government and business who in turn enrich each other through you. We can see this with private prison systems.

For this reason, I tend to only support privatization when it means true privatization - completely eliminating government control from that sphere. When you leave government force involved and invite in private businesses to run the show, you haven't freed the market, you've just let some huge corporation in on the fun of looting you.

(Don't freak out on me. I know this isn't different than what you're saying; I just feel the need to elaborate on my part. )