Dinosaur Topics: Socialism and Communism

[Baculus]

How do you figure? I for one filed with Earned Income Credits, I paid in a whole $250 last year and received $3000 back, I fail to see how I have paid in more since the tax break, I had paid more because of increased pay but not because of the tax break.

If you only paid $250 in Federal but you are receiving $3000, then you must have a heck of a tax accountant or some really good deductables! But you are missing my point - the "tax break" won't be paid with a direct tax raise. Anyway, your example is a good one, if I understand what you've stated: If you only paid $250 in Federal taxes but you're receiving $3000 in a return, you are taking from the Feds way more than you are putting into it.

The issue that you are missing is the Deficit Burden that is being created by this tax break: Without a reduction in spending, a tax break will increase the national debt. To quite CFTJ:

"This explosion in debt is a burden on all Americans. Over the six years, Bush’s policies will impose an average of just over $13,000 in additional debt on each man, woman and child in America—or more than $52,000 in added debt per family of four."

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/debt0903.pdf

Here is another article as a reference: http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb03st.htm

Plus you have missed the point, even though the upper class pays less in tax percentage they pay more in actual dollars.

Actually, many in the upper wealth end up receiving back more then they pay in actual dollars.

Face it The upper class and the corportations are who pay for these social programs, not the lower and middle classes. They take advantage of the programs. Therefore the wealth redistribution is truely in a downward motion, from upper to lower via social programs (welfare, medicare, medicaid, social security, etc)

It is a myth that only the upper-income earners are contributing to the federal and social insurance programs in this nation. For one, some of the programs you mentioned, Social Security and Medicare, are paid for by the workers themselves via FICA / payrolls taxes and social security that is withdrawn from every paycheck. Another big issue that often doesn't afect the upper-income earners are payroll taxes, which account for a large amount of federal taxable revenue. This affects wage earnings and those making about a certain amount, say $72,000, are exempt from this tax. Payroll taxes are one of the most most common methods to tax worker's wages and one of the least talked about issues that affect wage earners.

Also, many of these programs are not being paid by mere taxable incomes, but by federal borrowed money and other means of revenue. What do you think is the reason why our national debt has increased by such a great deal? Also, the Bush tax break increased our national debt, so we are paying for it more over the long run for a short term gain.

Furthermore, while the upper-income earners actually have the highest tax % and bracket, they also have many more means to use deductions that dramatically drop the amount that they will pay to the Federal government. It is often the middle class that does not have these deductions and methods of the upper income earners, and as a result, they end up paying a sizable majority of the revenue generated by federal taxes.

BTW, a graduated income tax system is a tenet of Communism - Marxism.

[Zguy28]

I also don't pay any federal tax and actually get more back from the Fed at tax time than I paid. Its real simple. I only make less than 60k and my wife works 10 hours a week, so she makes less than 5k a year; this lowers my tax significantly.

THe main thing though is to give over 10% of your Gross income to charity, in my case its the church and orgs like Feed the Children.

I still had to pay taxes to Maryland though

[gchwood]

It is a myth that only the upper-income earners are contributing to the federal and social insurance programs in this nation. For one, some of the programs you mentioned, Social Security and Medicare, are paid for by the workers themselves via FICA / payrolls taxes and social security that is withdrawn from every paycheck. Another big issue that often doesn't afect the upper-income earners are payroll taxes, which account for a large amount of federal taxable revenue. This affects wage earnings and those making about a certain amount, say $72,000, are exempt from this tax. Payroll taxes are one of the most most common methods to tax worker's wages and one of the least talked about issues that affect wage earners.

Also, many of these programs are not being paid by mere taxable incomes, but by federal borrowed money and other means of revenue. What do you think is the reason why our national debt has increased by such a great deal? Also, the Bush tax break increased our national debt, so we are paying for it more over the long run for a short term gain.

Furthermore, while the upper-income earners actually have the highest tax % and bracket, they also have many more means to use deductions that dramatically drop the amount that they will pay to the Federal government. It is often the middle class that does not have these deductions and methods of the upper income earners, and as a result, they end up paying a sizable majority of the revenue generated by federal taxes.

BTW, a graduated income tax system is a tenet of Communism - Marxism.

Of course everyone is responsible for paying into the system, and that money gets funnelled to the social programs. However the upper class has more money going to the system. They may avoid income tax, as many do not claim wage income, but they pay capital gains, taxes on investments, taxes on basic bank interest, huge personal property taxes. My point is yes they have more breaks open to them, but there are more taxes that are imposed upon them as well. The average shmoe doesn't have to pay FAA taxes for their private jet, or corporate taxes for their organization they funnel the money through.

[Predicto]

Are you aware that the government has not allowed the selling price of Corn to raise since the 1950's? How about the fact that we have so much Wheat that the government is begging farmers not to grow it?

Any person is going to take free money, especially if he doesn't even plan to grow wheat or barley.

I know several farmers that are about to lose thier farms because they can not support the farm on the 1950's selling price of corn in a 2006 world. The government is not necessarily helping these farmers out all the time, in fact they are mostly impeeding them

Link please.

[Baculus]

Of course everyone is responsible for paying into the system, and that money gets funnelled to the social programs. However the upper class has more money going to the system. They may avoid income tax, as many do not claim wage income, but they pay capital gains, taxes on investments, taxes on basic bank interest, huge personal property taxes. My point is yes they have more breaks open to them, but there are more taxes that are imposed upon them as well. The average shmoe doesn't have to pay FAA taxes for their private jet, or corporate taxes for their organization they funnel the money through.

I think the issue of this thread is being side-tracked with another discussion. :-)

Folks of different income strata pay different type of taxable amounts - that can be agreed upon. I think the issue that is being ignored is that the Bush tax break is inefficient and will cost many tax payers much more than they receive, and over a longer term. And never mind the issue of federal spending being increased while decreasing taxation.

But this is another Left / Right issue: The Left screams that the "rich" aren't being taxed enough, and the Right screams "We're getting paid too much!" Well, a lot of the truth it is in-between, since both sides love to purvey disinformation and myths about the tax situation. The fact is, many in the lower income bracket pay hardly any taxes, and many in the upper income bracket pay a larger amount. But the lower income bracket, who can hardly afford to get taxed, do pay through other means such as payroll taxes. And those in the upper-income bracket have many more means available to reduce these taxable amounts. It ain't so cut and dry.

[Crazyhorse1]

First off, I believe that should be "liberal democrat" not "liberal democratic". Or is that the ebonics form of the word/phrase?

Of course nothing is further from your mind. You folks don't use your minds.... It's all heart, emotion and feelings with you folks. If you used your minds you would understand how out of touch with reality your policies are.

The RICH are a parasitic class? How much welfare, food stamps, and medicare is Donald Trump taking from the local, state and federal government? Compare that to the amount he's putting INTO those same levels of government in taxes and fees. Now who's the parasite?

Gee, I didn't realize that gun control, social welfare, pacifism, and employment quotas were traditional American values. I learn something new every day. (LOL)

Adolph Hitler defined himself as the democraticly elected leader of Germany too. That doesn't mean he actually was. How YOU define yourself is irrelevant. It's how REALITY defines you that is relevant.

Thanks for calling attention to my typo and calling attention to your racism with the word "ebonics." Interesting you should think of liberals as creatures of little thought and "all heart" since it's common knowledge that liberals are much better educated than conservatives and you define "welfare" so narrowly you don't understand that Trump has received literally billions of "welfare" dollars from the feds in phony property depreciation allowances alone.

Of course, your gangster class has concealed its "welfare" from view by calling it something else- I grant. However, I'm not impressed by that. The rich are served by the government they have seized to the tune of billions, even trillions, by diverse devices and still begrudge every penny they pay back in taxes.

Please don't try to tell me the rich work hard. I'm rich. My friends are rich. I ride around in cars, hang around the office, make calls, think. Write. I'm not a migrant worker or ever a waitress or a nurse. I'm an elite, rich guy. I don't really work, receive government grants, government loans and tax breaks, like you.

Being a liberal, I also support the right to bear arms, like the liberals who founded America and hated totaliterian governments like the present one. I don't believe in the right to bear arms to hunt; I believe in the right to bear arms to oppose tyranny. American conservatives were Tories. Get your history right.

Liberals are not pacifists. Liberals started the revoltionary war, the civil war, and supported the American entrance into World War II. Conservatives, on the other hand, were Tories in the Revolutionary War, fought for slavery in the Civil War, and opposed entering World War II until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

Nice going conservative Chicken Hawks.

The numbers of conservative Chicken Hawks in the present administration staggers the imagination. Start with the old King draft dodger himself.

I miss the point of your Hitler reference, but I' ll pass up obvious comparisons of Hitler to political figures we know. I don't think any of them are liberal.

In general, you sort of have a Rush Limbaugh sort of idea of what a liberal is, as well as no idea at all of what a conservative is supposed to be. Perhaps your most absurd notion is that a conservative is a Christian and a liberal is not a Christian. Frankly, that is beyond the pale. That kind of lack of knowledge is just the kind of thing that places you in the hands of the creatures at Fox News.

[Kilmer17]

"Thanks for calling attention to my typo and calling attention to your racism with the word "ebonics." Interesting you should think of liberals as creatures of little thought and "all heart" since it's common knowledge that liberal are much better educated than conservatives and you define "welfare" so narrowly you don't understand that Trump has received literally billions of "welfare" dollars from the feds in phony property depreciation allowances alone."

I love it when elitist Liberals make grammatical and spelling errors when attempting to belittle others.

[Crazyhorse1]

The desire to distribute reources at the point of a gun is at the heart of leftism. This is also the central position of socialists.

I thought we were for gun control. Get the charges straight. Actually, many of us like guns and support the right to have them and focus not on distributing resourses but making the rich pay fair taxes like everybody else.

[Winslowalrob]

There is something that, as both the Left and the Right, we should realize in this nation: We have grown up with many elements of socialism in our nation, and many of us do not even realize it. Have you attended public school? You've been in a socialist system and an element of the Communist Manifesto. Recited the Pledge of Allegiance? This was written by a Christian socialist in the late 19th century. Social Security? Yes, a socialistic initiative as well.

What about the early development of this nation, where small communities developed rural socialism, with no regards to modern "political" socialism? This was one of the building blocks of this nation, and a community social spirit is seen as one of the hallmarks of Americana. We can all appreciate rugged individualism, but we also appreciate community and sharing among the community. That is basic socialism, minus the 19th and 20th century politics.

This nation is also rife with examples of Central Planning, another hallmark of socialism. I know of many so-called conservatives who are firm believers in central planning, though they may not realize that this is a socialist tenet as well.

And one last example of socialism in this nation: Government subsidies to corporations. This is an example of wealth being redistributed from the poor to the wealthy and is quite simply a handout from the federal government to the business world. And I would have to guess that many who work in this government-funded businesses would claim to be "anti-socialist." Hogwash.

Wealth redistribution is also practiced by the Right: Everything from taxation that favor upper income brackets to the aforementioned corporate welfare are examples of upward wealth redistribution. And why do you think the gap between the poor and the rich have been increasing? The Left have one way to redistribute the wealth, and so does the Right. The Right, just make a bigger noise of pointing at the Left with their accusations of wealth redistribution. With one side, the desire is to spread the wealth among many - with the other, the desire is to concentrate the money among the few.

So, the question has to be asked, knowing that we have grown up in a socialist influenced America - is this good or bad? Has the public school system been a failure, and is the alternative a private education system? What about the Pledge of Allegiance - scrap it for a more "non-socialism" version? Is this ideology terrible enough that we must root out every nook and cranny influence upon our society?

Keep in mind, I have always discussed Libertarianism and its positive influential ideas in this nation, with its roots in classical Liberalism. I am just having an internal debate of what elements of socialism, if any, can be useful, or if the whole system needs to be scrapped.

Sexcellent post (Not a misspelling). A lot of people really do not understand socialism in the same way that a lot of athiests do not understand christianity. But rather than try to set up a dialog, groups prefer to set up a false dichotomety of choices and get into a shouting match. The United States has beneffited from socialists, socialist ideals, and socialist polices. The United States has also benefitted from libertarians, libertarian ideals, and libertarian policies. The United States has benefitted from Diests, as well as more "hardcore" Christians. There are ideologies out there that are inherently evil (such as fascism), but I would not put socialism in that bracket. And Soclialists have done stupid things as well.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

But this is another Left / Right issue: The Left screams that the "rich" aren't being taxed enough, and the Right screams "We're getting paid too much!" Well, a lot of the truth it is in-between, since both sides love to purvey disinformation and myths about the tax situation. The fact is, many in the lower income bracket pay hardly any taxes, and many in the upper income bracket pay a larger amount. But the lower income bracket, who can hardly afford to get taxed, do pay through other means such as payroll taxes. And those in the upper-income bracket have many more means available to reduce these taxable amounts. It ain't so cut and dry.

So far as I am concerned the problem is the disproportionate amount & rate that the rich pay compared to the poor. If you want the "rich" to pay 50% and not have any loopholes or places to hide the money, that's fine.... so long as you're willing to have the poor pay that same 50% rate and not be given any loopholes or outs either. 50% of $15K makes a much bigger dent in a persons ability to live than 50% of $5M does.

[Zguy28]

Seems to me like Crazyhorse1 and Mass_Skinsfan are just 2 sides to the same coin. Your like Matalin and Carville.

[Crazyhorse1]

If liberal democrats are there to preserve american values and traditions, why do they want gun control? This country exists because our citizens had the right to arms.

How can the rich be considered parasitic when they pay the majority of the taxes? For every 1,000,000 income of the rich at 12% they pay $120,000. You would need 14.5 people making 25,000 and paying 33%taxes to equal that $1,000,000 in income. Now consider Bill Gates who averages $465,000,000 per week. Multiply that by 52 and that equals $24,180,000,000. At 12% he would have paid $2,901,600,000. For the same people making $25,000 and paying in at 33% it would take 351,709 people to match what he would have paid!!!!!

Whether he paid it or not is for the IRS to deal with.

I don't give a crap about gun control. Some liberal democrats and some Republican conservatives want gun control. Most real leftists want weapons as do members of the far right. In America today there are more people on the far right than on the far left, so the right to bear arms is better supported in the Republican party. If socialism weren't essentially dead in the democratic party, there would actually be more demand for the right to bear arms in the democratic party. To call the dem party both socialist or leftist and for gun control is actually inconsistent.

[gchwood]

You may hate Rush Limbaugh but he proves my point here:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html

here is another:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/662424/posts

and another:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121811,00.html

[Crazyhorse1]

If liberal democrats are there to preserve american values and traditions, why do they want gun control? This country exists because our citizens had the right to arms.

How can the rich be considered parasitic when they pay the majority of the taxes? For every 1,000,000 income of the rich at 12% they pay $120,000. You would need 14.5 people making 25,000 and paying 33%taxes to equal that $1,000,000 in income. Now consider Bill Gates who averages $465,000,000 per week. Multiply that by 52 and that equals $24,180,000,000. At 12% he would have paid $2,901,600,000. For the same people making $25,000 and paying in at 33% it would take 351,709 people to match what he would have paid!!!!!

Whether he paid it or not is for the IRS to deal with.

The rich are parasitic in the way they make money. They hire others to do the actual work and take a cut of the product of each worker. The overseer works less hard than the worker yet receives many times they worker's salary. After some time, the overseer hires an overseer, then other overseers...etc. His fortune expands. His work lessens. CEO's in the US are making thousands of times what the worker is making for little or no work.

There are stock options, golden parachute, board appointments...countless boondoggles to pull on the public. No bid contracts, sweetheart government deals, lobbying scandals, etc. Bush got rich running companies into the ground. Pereot got rich on government handouts, etc. Influence buying.

[Crazyhorse1]

Here's a novel idea. Why don't you put in the hard work required to become one of the "rich and fortunate" ones? All I ever hear from the left is ****ing and moaning.

Actually, I am rich, and a bit famous as well.

[The 12th Commandment]

Are you aware that the government has not allowed the selling price of Corn to raise since the 1950's? How about the fact that we have so much Wheat that the government is begging farmers not to grow it?

Any person is going to take free money, especially if he doesn't even plan to grow wheat or barley.

I know several farmers that are about to lose thier farms because they can not support the farm on the 1950's selling price of corn in a 2006 world. The government is not necessarily helping these farmers out all the time, in fact they are mostly impeeding them

Corn is on the Chicago Board of Trade, it's a commodity. Look it up.

http://www.cbot.com/

What the government has not raised is the price they pay farmers to maintain surplus production capacity. This is corn that will not be consumed. They grow it to throw it out, just to maintain the ability to produce a certain amount should the world change. I don't have a problem with this as I said before. Maybe your farmer acquintances oughto consider growing more profitable crops. I know alot of farmers too, and they gamble from year to year on what will bring them the most return. The good ones make quite a bit of money, the bad ones get bought out by the good ones.

[gchwood]

I don't give a crap about gun control. Some liberal democrats and some Republican conservatives want gun control. Most real leftists want weapons as do members of the far right. In America today there are more people on the far right than on the far left, so the right to bear arms is better supported in the Republican party. If socialism weren't essentially dead in the democratic party, there would actually be more demand for the right to bear arms in the democratic party. To call the dem party both socialist or leftist and for gun control is actually inconsistent.

How is it inconsistant to say that a socialist is in favor of gun control. Socialism is the government control of of private entities, commercial and personal. By controling whether or not an individual can have a gun and how long they have to wait to get said gun, is that not Governmental control of private entities?

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Thanks for calling attention to my typo and calling attention to your racism with the word "ebonics." Interesting you should think of liberals as creatures of little thought and "all heart" since it's common knowledge that liberals are much better educated than conservatives and you define "welfare" so narrowly you don't understand that Trump has received literally billions of "welfare" dollars from the feds in phony property depreciation allowances alone.

I am definitely prejudiced. I'm racist against Liberals, the poor, women, the unemployed and most other people who are more interested in taking things out of the system than putting things into the system.

Going to a higher level of school doesn't make one more educated. Especially if what you're being taught or learning is Wrong. Those Liberals who actually are highly educated still seem to be more concerned with their feelings than with the realities and Universal Rights & Wrongs of the world. Education is worthless if you don't get the right education and/or you don't bother to use it properly.

I will agree with you that the government needs to get out of the business of subsidizing private business. Just as it needs to get out of the business of propping up families and individuals who have no interest in helping themselves with programs like food stamps, welfare, medicare, etc....

Being a liberal, I also support the right to bear arms, like the liberals who founded America and hated totaliterian governments like the present one. I don't believe in the right to bear arms to hunt; I believe in the right to bear arms to oppose tyranny.

That surprises me. You're one of a very small Liberals who I've ever found who actually understands the Second Amendment in its proper context. Unforunately, I do wonder if you'd have the intestinal fortitude to look down the barrel of a rifle or handgun and pull the trigger on another human being if it ever came to that. That's one of the things that those Liberals who have understood the Second Amendment all admitted they could never do. Which makes the RTKBA worthless for them, so far as I am concerned.

Liberals are not pacifists. Liberals started the revoltionary war, the civil war, and supported the American entrance into World War II. Conservatives, on the other hand, were Tories in the Revolutionary War, fought for slavery in the Civil War, and opposed entering World War II until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

Modern Liberals sure haven't shown themselves as anything other than pacifists.... Vietnam being the great classic example. With the current Middle East conflict a close second. I would argue that the Tories were really the liberals, but that's a worthless case, I'm sure. The Conservatives took the stand I would have on both the other Wars you mentioned.

In general, you sort of have a Rush Limbaugh sort of idea of what a liberal is, as well as no idea at all of what a conservative is supposed to be. Perhaps your most absurd notion is that a conservative is a Christian and a liberal is not a Christian. Frankly, that is beyond the pale. That kind of lack of knowledge is just the kind of thing that places you in the hands of the creatures at Fox News.

Acutally, I'm not a very big fan of Mr. Limbaugh. He's got a whole lot of bluster but does little to no actual action. I never said a Conservative was a Christian. I said a Conservative has morals and values that are the driving force to their life. BIG DIFFERENCE. My morals/values do not come solely from a Judeo-Christian background. They come from family tradition much more than anything else.

[Predicto]

Socialism is the government control of of private entities, commercial and personal.

No it isn't. That is very simplistic.

[gchwood]

Corn is on the Chicago Board of Trade, it's a commodity. Look it up.

http://www.cbot.com/

What the government has not raised is the price they pay farmers to maintain surplus production capacity. This is corn that will not be consumed. They grow it to throw it out, just to maintain the ability to produce a certain amount should the world change. I don't have a problem with this as I said before. Maybe your farmer acquintances oughto consider growing more profitable crops. I know alot of farmers too, and they gamble from year to year on what will bring them the most return. The good ones make quite a bit of money, the bad ones get bought out by the good ones.

Gasoline and Oil are commodities as well so why blame Bush for the rise in those prices?

[Crazyhorse1]

I am definitely prejudiced. I'm racist against Liberals, the poor, women, the unemployed and most other people who are more interested in taking things out of the system than putting things into the system.

Going to a higher level of school doesn't make one more educated. Especially if what you're being taught or learning is Wrong. Those Liberals who actually are highly educated still seem to be more concerned with their feelings than with the realities and Universal Rights & Wrongs of the world. Education is worthless if you don't get the right education and/or you don't bother to use it properly.

I will agree with you that the government needs to get out of the business of subsidizing private business. Just as it needs to get out of the business of propping up families and individuals who have no interest in helping themselves with programs like food stamps, welfare, medicare, etc....

That surprises me. You're one of a very small Liberals who I've ever found who actually understands the Second Amendment in its proper context. Unforunately, I do wonder if you'd have the intestinal fortitude to look down the barrel of a rifle or handgun and pull the trigger on another human being if it ever came to that. That's one of the things that those Liberals who have understood the Second Amendment all admitted they could never do. Which makes the RTKBA worthless for them, so far as I am concerned.

Modern Liberals sure haven't shown themselves as anything other than pacifists.... Vietnam being the great classic example. With the current Middle East conflict a close second. I would argue that the Tories were really the liberals, but that's a worthless case, I'm sure. The Conservatives took the stand I would have on both the other Wars you mentioned.

Acutally, I'm not a very big fan of Mr. Limbaugh. He's got a whole lot of bluster but does little to no actual action. I never said a Conservative was a Christian. I said a Conservative has morals and values that are the driving force to their life. BIG DIFFERENCE. My morals/values do not come solely from a Judeo-Christian background. They come from family tradition much more than anything else.

I appreciate the clarity and logic of your response. Answer this, if it interests you: Why would you tend to be harder on those who might commonly be thought of as losers in our social system than you are on those who might be said to be winners in our social system.

[Winslowalrob]

How is it inconsistant to say that a socialist is in favor of gun control. Socialism is the government control of of private entities, commercial and personal. By controling whether or not an individual can have a gun and how long they have to wait to get said gun, is that not Governmental control of private entities?

Not at all. Socialism is not the government control of personal entities. It is not the government control of me or you. Some people might consider that the control of commercial entities equates with the control of people, but that is outside of the realm of the supplied definition; it is a supposed logical extension.

[brewdogmike]

The rich are parasitic in the way they make money. They hire others to do the actual work and take a cut of the product of each worker. The overseer works less hard than the worker yet receives many times they worker's salary. After some time, the overseer hires an overseer, then other overseers...etc. His fortune expands. His work lessens. CEO's in the US are making thousands of times what the worker is making for little or no work.

If I capitalize a business and assume all the financial risk, then hire someone to work for me, you're saying that I'm not entitled to the profit? How are people supposed to get jobs if no one hires them?

If the workers demand more and more money, their product will no longer be competitive and the business will go bankrupt. CEO pay is determined by boards of directors elected by the stockholders -- and anyone can buy stock on a very open, transparent, free market. The CEO's pay and benefits have to be disclosed to the SEC!

There's just so much here, I don't even know where to start. Crazyhorse, you say that "communist" is a dinosaur term, and then you recycle this tired, worn-out, thorougly discredited Bolshevism. If the shoe fits...

[luckydevil]

Socialism is ok with me, as long as it's voluntary.

[luckydevil]

The rich are parasitic in the way they make money. They hire others to do the actual work and take a cut of the product of each worker. The overseer works less hard than the worker yet receives many times they worker's salary. After some time, the overseer hires an overseer, then other overseers...etc. His fortune expands. His work lessens. CEO's in the US are making thousands of times what the worker is making for little or no work.

There are stock options, golden parachute, board appointments...countless boondoggles to pull on the public. No bid contracts, sweetheart government deals, lobbying scandals, etc. Bush got rich running companies into the ground. Pereot got rich on government handouts, etc. Influence buying.

You sound like a marxist. Are you?