Comments about ‘Letter: Socialism, like salt’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, April 16 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Howard Beal
Provo, UT

Mike Richards:

You probably give more to charity than the President and I probably do as well. But that's up to us and that's up to him.

Kora
Cedar Hills, UT

Why do all the wealthy liberals fight tooth and nail to keep all of their money and to accumulate more, while attacking capitalism? They will demand $20-40 million per movie but attack overpaid doctors and hospital CEOs who make far less money. For all of their money, what do they truly contribute to society to earn such wealth? Are they not truly the ones socialists should be attacking, instead of those who contribute far more for their incomes?

I am not a hypocrite, so I do not complain or care if they make so much, even if it makes it so I can't afford to see their movies. It is their right to earn what they can. But don't complain what I earn, which is a small fraction of theirs, while praising them for being supporters of the socialist cause. If they were true believers in their espoused doctrine, they would live much more humbly, and give much more of their wealth away.

It is simple, don't complain that those who earn less than you should pay more, unless you are willing to sacrifice your wealth and live at the same level.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@jsf
Within 5%? Oh well then my answer is...
there is none that even exist (successful or failed) and you're grossly overstating what people who have problems with income inequality are after.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Roland Kayser" lets look at what you said and think about it deeper. You said that from 1940 to 1980 we had greater income equality than we currently do. What has changed? Is the nation as a whole more or less regulated? Does the government have more or less power over your life than it did before 1980?

If we had greater income equality when there were few regulations and the government had less power, what does that say? An open minded person would say wow, that sure makes socialism look like a dead end road.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT
To "Roland Kayser" lets look at what you said and think about it deeper. You said that from 1940 to 1980 we had greater income equality than we currently do. What has changed? Is the nation as a whole more or less regulated? Does the government have more or less power over your life than it did before 1980?

========

The nation as a whole is more regulated - environment, Food, Water, Air, etc.

BUT

Is less regulated in regards to MONEY.

Taxes were LOWERED on the uber-wealthy.
Trickle-down economics was a lie,
it has FAILED.

LESS Government regulations regarding Outsourcing and Off-shoring.

Banks have become Much LESS regulated.
The repeal of the Glass Steagall Act of 1933.

and

Republicans have started 3 wars with no way [or fore seeable intent] to pay for them.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Open Minded Mormon" what do yu mean money is less regulated?

Banks and investments are more regulated than they ever have been at any other time in history. You forget that banks had added regulations added during the 1940's when FDR began to push for easier credit. Then again when we disconnected the dollar from the gold standard.

Here are some of the bank acts that ADDED regulations since 1933:

Banking Act of 1935, establishing the FDIC as a permanent agency.

FDIC Act of 1950 expanded the power of the FDIC.

CRA of 1977 added regulations madating lower lending requirements.

The Truth in Savings act of 1001 added regulations regarding interest and fees for savings accounts.

The Expedited Funds Availability Act of 1987 regulated the amount of time a bank could hold a check before deposititing it into an account.

The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 added additional regulations to banks in their reporting to federal agencies.

Just look at the CFR and the number of regulations that have apply to banks alone. That doesn't include rules from government agencies.

What do wars that Demcorats voted for have to do with anything?

ugottabkidn
Sandy, UT

The comments I see defending Frank's misunderstanding that it is unbridled capitalism that is killing the middle class is nothing more than an offensive front on those of us who have worked hard for a generation only to see wages stagnate, benefits eroded, and the cost of living skyrocket, and a constant attack on the paid "insurance" we call Social Security, yet the overall wealth of the nation is as great as it ever has been. Please, someone explain to me why wealth distribution from the bottom up by gouging the working poor is so good for the economy.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

Socialsim in Utah means candidates other than Eagle Forum hand picked people.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

Redshirt.... not so fast.

You said "If we had greater income equality when there were few regulations and the government had less power, what does that say?"

Depends on what is being regulated? For example, lets take transportation. During the period in question we had a highly regulated transportation system, both in the air and in ground transport. Since the 80s it has become highly deregulated. And as such, average wages have fallen. The number of companies competing, has also fallen.

International trade is far less regulated now... and look at the impacts that has had on jobs. NAFTA has had a huge impact.

So you can't make blanket statements that we are more or less regulated. In many aspects we had parts of our economy much more regulated before the 80s.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "UtahBlueDevil" but we have more airlines now than we did in the 1980's. In fact, if you look at a list of US airlines we have MORE large airlines now than we did in the 1980's. Yes wages have fallen, but that shows you how overpriced the regulations were causing.

I think that your examples only show that with fewer regulations, things only get better.

Look at NAFTA. Once you cut regulations for trade between the US and Mexico, the Mexican economy began to grow a lot. The income inequality between the US and Mexico DECREASED once there were fewer regulations.

Thanks for helping to prove my point.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments