Would not they have the most to lose? Does their wealth make them feel guilty? NO

The idea that socialism is a share the wealth program is a con game to get people to surrender their freedom to an all powerful collectivist government.

The rich have their wealth protected in family trusts and tax-free foundations. Socialism is a method to consolidate and control the wealth. Communism, or more accurately, socialism is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the elite. The plan of the insiders is to socialize the U.S., not to communize it.

The Constitution fractionalized and subdivided governmental power in every way possible. Under this system you could not have a dictatorship. In order to have a dictatorship one must have a single branch holding most of the reins of power.

As we move leftward towards socialism, the reins of power are being centralized in the executive branch of the federal government. If you wanted control over the U.S.. you would only have to control one man to control the whole works.

If you want a worldwide monopoly, you must control a world socialist government. "Communism" is a movement created, manipulated, and used by power-seeking billionaires in order to gain control over the world. First by establishing socialist governments in the various nations and then consolidating them into a all powerful world socialist super state probably under the auspices of the United Nations.

 

Did you write this Mike, or is this a cut and paste job?

Waxy

 

I must give credit to: None Dare Call it Conspiracy by Gary Allen, Concord Press, 1971.

 

Hmmmm, I would have guessed Sen. McCarthy.

Waxy

 

In this litigious society, with redistribution of wealth tax laws and financial chaos at the federal level, common sense calls for a seasoned trust and a living will.

 

The real reasons:

The extremely wealthy, for the most part, came about their money through inheritance or entertainment (music, sports, movies etc). They did not earn this money in a sense most people can appreciate. We can not associate $25 million with a task we would complete in our lifetime. Yet, a movie start may command such a price for a few months work.

If one does not have a sense of what a dollar is worth, then it is easier to depart with it. I do believe guilt plays some part, but the biggest motivating factor, laziness. The thought might be, "If I support these 500 welfare recipients, then it's no longer my problem". Or, " If they recieve just enough support to remain content, then they are not my problem".

Unfortnately, it's these same people who have the biggest influence on the voting masses.

 

It would be interesting to see the statistics on the annual income, level of education age, IQ ect. of the people who actually vote.

 

Few truly wealthy individuals think in that manner. Maybe some of the new rich have guilt, but that's not generally the case. When income or earnings reach a certain level they become cumbersome enough to require the professional management services of accountants, tax specialist CPAs, bankers and lawyers. Those experts make the decisions about charity (unless its a personal interest) foundations and such. They also shield the individuals from charity minded groups or persons.

 

If your wealthy enough to have an accountant manage your charities, that would distance you even more from an honorable reason for giving to charity. Again, indicating that the extremely wealthy are not socialist in an admirable fashion. It's just more convenient than dealing with the real problems and it provides them with a good image.

 

You're missing the point. Not just an accountant, they don't manage anything, other professionals to manage the money and taxes. The rich are far different than the average voter. Your problems aren't their problems, nor are your concerns. This has never been a world of equality. What you're experiencing and relating to is the rapidly disappearing middle class.

 

The word 'appear' is very telling.

Everybody can think of one example of an extraordinarily weathy person spouting socialist-style rhetoric (George Soros comes to mind). But for every one like that there are hundreds or thousands of equally wealthy people who keep their mouth shut and continue making money?

My challenge is to find some data that backs this argument rather than cutting-and-pasting some cobbled together conspiracy theory based on skimpy anecdotal evidence culled only to bolster one man's opinion.

I am very interested to know what you are driving towards. If, as you replied to Waxy, you are merely trying to point out the fact that things are always what they seem this would seem like an egregious way to do that.

Whistler

 

Middle Class?
Didn't that disappear in the 1980's? I have heard my parents say that we used to be middle class, but now we are all just barely above the poverty line.
Socialism? Heck, if things get any more polarized in America, I'm gonna NEED a subsidy!
The only reason I don't see this fearsome Socialist/wealth correlation is that in my experience, the wealthy are the greediest, yet the most "entitled" people out there. I really don't think the wealthy would feel comfortable sharing their incomes, or their entitlements, with the poor. So I don't buy it.
BDV

 

This is a thread that I want to respond to but to take the information at hand and form an opinion would seem half-baked to me. We must resist the urge to make an opinion and then search for substantiation, but instead to research the subject open mindedly and then use the information to mold an opinion.

 

The rich buy the politics they want, the average guy has to depend on his vote, that doesn't always work...

 

...So, how many people responding to this post with an opinion on the rich and how they think and feel are speaking from personal first hand experience??
...In other words how many of yall are rich? Now theres an opinion I'd be interested in....