Isn't it ironic that

[kandrathe]

Again you mistake my proposal for communism.

No. I don't see much of a difference between everyone working for the government, and the government taking most of your wages. It is a system that will guarantee a huge gap between those who "own" business versus those that "work" for the business. Even then, the State will begin to tax the business to the point where there is little difference between corrupt influence and state control of capital. Shall we talk about Freddie, Fanny, or Haliburton anyone?

You see things too black and white. Do you think somebody that is such a bad example of a human being that wants to sit on his ass to get half a salary would certainly become a hero if the government takes away his income? No he would problem become a burglar, a drug dealer or an investment banker.

Freedom is a pretty black and white issue. If the fruits of your labor are not yours, but taken by the State, then you are not free. Consider that 100 percent taxation is just another name for 100 percent slavery. At some point, the overseer will need to come by and make sure we are all working.

Your example of 1/2 a salary does not make sense because even in Holland a single mother with small child living on welfare does not have a great life in terms of spending money. And I have 0 possibility to think that people would choose for that 'deal' if they were able to find a normal job. And if I was that single mother on welfare reading your post I would be very insulted. Because their work is of no use you mean???? Too black and white again, and on the edge of insulting.

53 percent of American's are employed by the government already. The point is not whether the work is useful or not, it is where the funds come from to support the weight of the government. When I redo my bathroom, I make decisions on the materials based on what I can afford. The government just raises taxes to cover their expenses, and every new government job is another pig at the public trough. When 47 percent of tax payers are expected to support social programs and the other 53 percent, something is wrong. It is an unsustainable overhead. It is the same thing that is wrong with the US education system, where in many school districts 2/3rds of the employees are administration. Imagine a business where 53% of the employees were managers who only supervised other staff. It is a ludicrous proposition which would kill a business. The welfare system I was describing was the one that collapsed in Germany after reunification. It was unsustainable for a number of reasons which had to do with attitude. You immediately paint the dramatic picture of the poor single mother on government assistance. Yes, there will be those cases of a 90 year old blind quadriplegic with diabetes that may need our help to survive. What about the 25 year old software engineer who was laid off and would rather sit in his parent basement and play video games rather than get a new job?

The form of capitalism today finds investment bankers, photo models, Britney Spears and professional athletes the most valuable people......this is of course NOT a basis for a sound economy.

Why not. I'm not a big fan of "stardom" as a career, but it does show what a person can be worth at the extreme. Value is what one person will pay for a good or service. If someone, or something is undervalued it will be sold in a "black market", which is what happens in Russia and the US. There is also the problem in the US where recipients sell their "Food Stamps" or some products purchased with them in order to buy drugs (including cigarettes and booze). If you tried to limit a "Britney Spears" income, she would have secret concerts and sell CD's on the black market. The reality is "she" makes very little of the money produced by her stardom, and her handlers, and distributors make most of the money. "She" is a product, just like "GI Joe" and just as plastic and unreal. It is exactly the basis of a sound economy. Here is a better example. Say I make and sell clay pots from 100% home grown materials on my property. What part of my earnings from my labor will the government take from me?

Sorry for the incorrect sentence. I mean the government should make sure these greed motives can be realized to the extreme. In the society in the west today it was seen as positive to be as greedy as possible; lend as much as you can, don't study but try to be a good basketball player because you will be rich, play with other peoples money and get very rich and if you screw up we will bail you out etc.

I'm not against some regulations to protect people from predation by the most unscrupulous. The problem we see now is that certain institution's became "too big to fail". This means that the failure of companies like AIG, Bear Sterns, Merrill, and Lehman would destabilize the entire global financial market. I'm not opposed to the bailout, but it should have some consequences for those that were running with the scissors. In fact, the $700bn bailout, might actually turn a profit if most people are able to repay their mortgages. It's the risk of these mortgage backed securities that has become untenable because of the down turn in the valuation of homes.

The more social countries in Europe like Denmark and Sweden are also among the richest, most productive and happy places. It is not like Soviet Russia here, people drive big cars, makes lots of money etc.....the only thing we do is pay a little more tax.

There is little taxation difference between Sweden, Denmark and the USA now. Except, the US spends much of its tax money on things that are beyond the borders of the US. In that respect, the people of Sweden are better off, but just as much of a slave as those in the US.

Again you are talking to me as if I was proposing a new Maoist state.....which I was not.

China is just a different shade of gray. It matters little if I'm a slave to the State directly, or indirectly by excessive taxation.

And poor Orwell, he would turn around in his grave when he could here all those people using his books as an argument against communism.

The principle I was getting at is the difference between the pipe dream that is sold as propaganda Mr. Snowball, and the reality of tyranny revealed by Napoleon the pig. Try applying the book to the current US government, rather than the Soviet Union. The difference is how fast you boil the frogs, but the end result is the same. Frog soup.