Dewey is so 'educated' he writes 'per say'. He needs a to go to a latin class or two, or simply use a latin dictionary in order to correct his super educated presentation.

MZ,
was that avid follower or rabid follower? I'm trying to assess points.

I was going to award points for the blog, but after reading the "we the educated" line I decided against it. I didn't want to have to choose between being "either incredibly stupid or a great liar." That is a tough choice to make that seams to have no good answer. It does seam that Mr. Dewey suggests stupid is the better answer.

At the risk of being branded a liar or stupid, I think I was going to award 2 points, one each for the Saul Alinsky tactics and an extra point for the "we the educated" line. Go ahead and award points as you see fit. Rabid may have been the more appropriate word choice.

MZ, you are a thinker. Of course, Keith Dewey, who presents himself as a member of 'we the educated' must have missed the courses, not only in Latin, but also Logic 101.

Why thank you Phyllis.

If they bother you so much, why do you read them all? Blogging is a form of entertainment. If you're not entertained, don't concern yourself with them.

Of course, you could also respond by blogging on your own. My guess is you don't really find the blogs pathetic-- you just disagree with the viewpoints you're reading. So why not share with us what we've all been missing?

I.M.(NOT) Wright,
since you are one of the prime offenders here what's your beef? Remember that the next time you rail against hypocricy.

nah, he's right, they're pathetic. as is most everything on this "news site"

Sorry, I.M. Wright, I am with Patrick on this. If all these blogs are so sad, why haven't they driven YOU away? I like to see what people are thinking and as Patrick stated it is a form of entertainment. I love Patrick's blogs and I disagree with Patrick 90% of the time.

"Winston's right. I totally hate our socialized medicine system. You should have seen me wringing my hands when I had to sit through a ten minute musical piece celebrating it during the Opening Ceremonies of the Olympics."

#ThingstheQueenofEnglandneversaid.

I wonder if the Queen uses the socialized medicine system?

Joe- I don't agree with Churchill here. "Philosophy of failure" and the "creed of ignorance". Capitalism fails, which is why it has been fine-tuned to include social policies. Let's see where the deregulation of a self-governing market has got us: The Great Depression, several stock crises including the most recent 2008...

Socialism is a dirty word in America... Little do people recognize that the Progressive Era (you know, the one that followed the Gilded Age), heavily relied on socialistic policies to rebuild the economy and provide Americans with a sense of economic security after the Great Depression. Granted, this wasn't full on democratic socialism... But very similar ideologies and the acknowledgment that the working class (and by this I mean the 80%+ of the population that works for someone else) needed some security.

Socialism isn't "the equal sharing of misery"-- It's about equality, yes. It's not that everyone should make the same wages, or capitalists shouldn't profit. It's acknowledging workers deserve a fair share of the pie considering their labor contributed to the overall profits of the organization. Thus, the idea of public (or cooperative, or state-- depending on the socialist theory) ownership is born. Markets are no longer a luxury of the incredibly wealthy.

In sum, there are several schools of thought on socialism and it's not limited to one ideology. Sort of like the varying theories of capitalism (laissez-faire, state capitalism..).

Elyse - What is the fair share of the pie? How would this be determined? Isn't the best way to determine this to allow free people to agree to provide their services to an employer for an agreed upon amount?

Markets aren't the luxury of the incredibly wealthy. I started several businesses without being incredibly wealthy.

Who better than me to set what wages I am willing to pay?

Who better than those seeking work are better to determine if they accept those wages?

I force nobody to do anything. They either agree, or they don't. If they generate additional value I would be foolish to not pay them more. If they don't generate additional value, I would be foolish not to find someone else.

Elyse: very interesting point of view. Could you please give an existing nation or independent state that exemplifies your theory of socialism? Or, how about one that 'used to exist'? How long did it endure in the 'idyllic' state you describe? The closest thing that comes to mind for me is maybe King Arthur and his round table of knights. Maybe the serfs didn't own their land but they were able to grow crops and livestock for the king and knights, and certainly in that way provide sustenance for themselves. The medieval social and economic structure provided a fairly interesting form of 'socialism'.

To my way of thinking, equality is a loaded word. What are we talking about when we throw that word into the mix? The founding fathers in establishing this nation granted its citizens liberty and guaranteed freedoms no other ruling entity, historically, ever bestowed on its people. Equality of opportunity was the outcome of this. For several centuries now peoples from all over the world have fled to our country to participate in this never before conceived way of life. They fled for the liberty that no other nation provided. They fled toward the chance, not the guarantee of success and with willingness to risk failure.

Our nation isn't perfect and we do have our share of greedy villains. We have provided more people with equality of opportunity than any other. Government guaranteed outcome/security by necessity, diminishes equality of opportunity.

MZ: loaded questions and and limited characters. My main point was there are varying theories on socialism and to simplify it as one theory is "ignorant". I'm not advocating one way or another, just trying to paint a more clear picture of the ideology itself.
First off, you are right, depending on the business it doesn't have to be that expensive to start it up. What I was referring to is stock ownership shares. A very small percentage of the American population owns a vast majority of controlling stock shares.
I'm not sure what would be a "fair piece of the pie"- Democratic processes could help to establish that. For EOCs it varies. http://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-100 <--Here you can learn more about how different companies do it. Some companies don't allow any single person to own more than 10% of the shares.
Kudos to you: you don't use force with your employees and you're right about if they're earning you more you should pay them more (ideally). That's probably the biggest difference between a hands-on, hardworking self-starter and the high executives of some of the wealthiest companies. Some are so far removed from their workers and despite the handwork of the employees they're not seeing it "trickle down".
It's a complex to say the least and there's so many factors to look at. Company size, social obligations, varying functions, etc. etc. etc.

Thanks for expanding the discussion MZ, you made excellent points!

Elyse, Perhaps I could have explained my point a little better. You need to bring value to be valuable. I will agree that most businesses cannot function without people, but you should acknowledge that not all jobs require special skills. Take McDonalds for instance, a huge corporation. Without the cashiers, cooks, etc... McDonalds would not be profitable, and they are hugely profitable. Why do the workers only make minimum wage? It is due to supply and demand. There are literally millions of people who could perform the same work scope. Why would McDonalds pay them more than they are worth?

The executives at McDonalds pay many people big time money, but they bring special skills that are hard to find and harder to replace. There are thousands of people who work for the corporate structure that make well into 6 figures due to their special skills.

Certainly the CEO doesn't know every fry cook, but even if he did what do you expect to trickle down? I'll ask the same "loaded" question, what is the fry cooks fair share of the pie?

MZ: I see what you are saying. I think it would require thinking outside the lines a little bit. People don't have to make the same, but livable wages for companies that can afford to do so is not asking too much. If you followed that link, it's not about the wages it's about ownership. So in the case of McDonalds, say the fry cooks had a percentage of the company.. They keep their wages but based on the performance of the company they could have extra.
There isn't one concrete idea nor can I do it any justice in this casual conversation. There are several different approaches: many of which (as Phyllis has pointed out) have failed. Then there is social democracy (like we see in Europe). Granted, the socialist party has lost voters over the past few years.. Still there tho.
When you talk about "supply and demand"- This is the effectiveness and the pitfall to capitalism because it doesn't account for things that humans value outside of money. In this society money governs the entire rationality.
Look at how many people have gone through college to get new skills and they're walking out into an economy where despite their specialized skills there aren't the jobs available. Now too many people have skills and there aren't enough jobs to sustain them. Lots of supply, pay is low, and people are living in states of perpetual debt with limited resources. Low wages = less spending. Economics 101: Can't have a consumer based economy when consumers can't afford to consume.

Elyse, I knew many people that got "specialized" skills in college that never found a job in their field and were saddled with debt. If your skills don't add value, the specialization becomes irrelevant. You could be the best 8-track repairman on the planet, but not many people have 8-tracks anymore. Further, a degree in women’s studies isn’t that valuable to most people. You need to bring something to the table.

Why would the fry cooks have a percentage of the company? Again, there are literally millions of people that perform that work.

You cite Europe as an example of a socialist democracy while Europe is quite literally a powder keg. There is higher unemployment, worse conditions for graduating students, less potential to move upward, and the gap between rich and poor is larger in Europe. The European growth rate is miniscule with few exceptions and those exceptions are the least socialist.

It sounds like you are for spreading the wealth around or “trickle up poverty”. The more we model ourselves after Europe, the more we will become Europe. It is not the paradise you might think it is.

We're loosing base here MZ. I'm not advocating one way or another or claiming it's some sort of paradise. Just expressing flaws with our systems and theirs. I don't think education should be building careers, but helping people develop critical minds (a necessity for democracy). As with anything, I think we can learn from those around us (from the smallest level to the largest) to improve our situation on a societal level.
I too, know several people who graduated with certain degrees and are now working a job that has really nothing to do with their degree. I know people who opted to go back for their masters to give themselves more of an edge. I know programmers that have been in business for 20+ years whose departments are being outsourced to India (and many companies are learning that the work isn't necessarily better because its cheaper... so we may see more of a shift back here for our tech skills).
In sum, we live in a global society now. A choice of one country may directly or indirectly affect another.

When we talk about unemployment, let's see how that has changed in the US after 2008. Unemployment rates skyrocketed and then people could not find jobs. These weren't lazy people, these were people who worked their entire lives. So now people are allowed to be on unemployment for 99 weeks, enough time to develop new skills or invest in a new line of business- or is it? In 2009 we shared the same employment rate as the EU. Now, EU as a whole has a higher rate...

The EU includes 27 countries.. Germany has an unemployment rate of 5.6%.. They have a lower unemployment rate than the US. Spain and Greece have shockingly high numbers- Especially for their youth. Youth have the highest unemployment rates, this is a global trend. But this also explains why Europe as a whole has such a high rate, it's an average based on 27 countries.
One way to combat this is to have young people develop skills that are in-demand (as you said). I also see this as semi-problematic because then as a country we're breeding people for production. In essence we're not teaching people to think critically, we're teaching them to perform better for means of capital pursuit.
Tell me how the USA is in "economic crisis" and CEO's pay have risen upwards of 27% over the past year. Not the case with small-medium size business. Local companies have struggled (as a general whole).
Between 1978 and 2011 CEO pay has grown 725% while worker pay fell 2% (http://www.epi.org/publication/ib331-ceo-pay-top-1-percent/). Who am I to say what's fair... But those numbers don't add up and it seems to have a trickling effect on the economy. Money still isn't going to job creation and these companies have no obligation to America. There was a time where they did. An employer took pride putting people to work and ensuring they could live. Not the case anymore: globalization. Do we accept the situation and start selling labor for the same cost as China, Philippines, etc?

Yep,
The desperation is beginning to show. Now we have to prepare ourselves to survive the tsunami of horse-hockey they will throw out trying to see if any of it will stick.

CKT,
ROTFLOLUIB
Rolling on the Floor Laughing out loud until I barf. Here's to you I.M. Wright

Please note Keith's most recent comment. I told you it wasn't a typo! LOL! And notice the kindness which follows his use of Webster's to fog his misapplication of 'meaning' and 'definition'. This scolding comment of his is a MILD compared to his foot prints on other blogs. I am thus in the role uneducated school marm hiding Ryan's lies and in the process I insult ANY intelligence.

I think Keith is a good kid, trying to find his way. I like his bravery in risking his thoughts and opinions to the 'public'. I can only condone his efforts if not his conclusions.

Keith A Dewey: Please keep it simple for me. You should also use smaller words so us simpletons can better understand your provocative and thought provoking points. I fear that your message is going way over the heads of the conservatives and that you are only preaching to the "educated" choir.

I went back and re-read your post with Webster's Third Unabridged in hand and am happy to say that now I understand your point. I fully agree that Paul Ryan is a liar per say and that he should fane stupidity in lieu of admitting that he is a liar.

Please disregard my earlier posts. At the time they were written I didn't fully understand that I was dealing with an intellectual superior. I bow before your brilliance and look forward to being further enlightened by more of your posts in the future.

I, as a conservative independent voter, grovel in simple, and I most appreciate your willingness to talk down to me in the future. Enjoy your free cell phone.

Kieth A Dewey Are you saying that Barak Obama has not told even one lie since he has been President ??? a yes or no answer please