Glad to see you can write without petty insults;
So we agree that “To “some degree” this country has become socialist”; to your question “why and who is pushing this agenda” I can answer.
Why; because nearly 90% of the wealth in this country is owned by 10% of the population. I am all for there being people that are rich, i.e. have more money/assets than others, but I feel it is a problem when it is that far out of balance. For example, if 10% of the population owned just 20% of the wealth the remainder of the population would have twice as much.
Who; me and any one else who believes the above why; and believe me that’s a lot!
You go on to write,“The Military is not an example of Socialism”; I disagree. The government collects funds/taxes to provide for the common defense. This is by definition socialism. In feudal times the lord of the land provided defense etc via an indentured servitude system and our current socialist system evolved from that.
Then you write providing infrastructure “is not socialism but redistributing property”; semantics my friend, redistribution sounds like socialism to me! As a matter of fact a favorite line of the socialist bashers is redistribution of wealth!
I don’t really understand you jealousy paragraph. I suspect it’s something about me not being rich and paying as much tax as the rich people. If I am correct then here’s what I have to say; I am certainly not rich; last year my households income was a little over 100k, give or take a few bucks. My wife and I both work; we own a single family home and 2 cars. Without digging out the forms, combined state and fed taxes were a little over 20%; I think we paid our fair share. I have no problem with an aggressive graduated income tax similar to what we had under Eisenhower; income over 400K was taxed at 90% then. I believe the highest rate is just under 40% currently. I do not believe the Bush tax cuts should be extended for those with “higher” incomes; I am open to negotiating what “higher” income is.
Then you write,“the higher income brackets pay MORE than their fair share”; that is your opinion, not mine. A simple example, Meg Whitman spent $140 million dollars on her failed gubernatorial campaign in California; IMO no one should have $140 million dollars they can just blow not affecting their life style; so to me Meg Whitman has not paid her fair share.
So the gist of it is we disagree; I’d like to debate and discuss more. I’m glad you wrote in a civil tone this time around.
I agree with some of what you said until you got to your example of Meg Whitman. Who are you to say that she has too much money and what she should do with HER money that she EARNED? Her money is the 'fruit' of her labor to spend, donate, or what ever she wants to do with it. She didn't steal it like the Kennedy's, Rothchilds, etc, did. Sounds like you are jealous of someone that has that kind of money. If you're not, you sure come off sounding like you are.
If you want her and other Rich people to pay their fair share. FAIR/FLAT TAX is a better solution than we have now!
Since you apparently have issues with RICH people, I think this might interest you.
In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.
If you take the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts, Democrats represent about 58 percent of those jurisdictions…seems democrats are the party of the rich!
Riddle me this: why does someone that doesn't work, doesn't pay taxes, on Foodstamps, wic, medicaid, etc, get $3 -$7,000 in the form of a tax RETURN check every year? They by no means PAID their fair share into the system. Redistribution is wrong and basically STEALING!
Have a good weekend :-)