American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Jackson; 415172]Let me see if I understand your logic.

If you said this to a lone guman you would be considered morally correct, but if you say it to a crowd you're instead advocating an "[i]ideological defense for selfishness[/i]"?

So, the determining factor is the size of the crowd that has decided to [strike]steal[/strike] appropriate your money? [/QUOTE]It is not about some random crowd. We have a government to run with services people need and want. We all chip in according to our means. Sometimes people want things others don't, and sometimes not all spending benefits all people. It sounds like you want special treatment so you can avoid paying for things that only benefit others.

Maybe we should just throw Democracy out the window and try another system. What's your suggestion?

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 415175]I just don't understand why Educated people, would want to deny health care to anyone.

My Blue Cross health insurance company is raising their rates, again. Which will make it unfordable to many. [/QUOTE]They are raising your rates because they are getting their profits before Obama care takes effect.

[QUOTE=Esten; 415178]It is not about some random crowd. We have a government to run with services people need and want. We all chip in according to our means. Sometimes people want things others don't, and sometimes not all spending benefits all people. It sounds like you want special treatment so you can avoid paying for things that only benefit others.

Maybe we should just throw Democracy out the window and try another system. What's your suggestion? [/QUOTE]I think that, deep down, this is what you want. You keep talking about taxes in terms of rich people's ability to pay, and benefits being allocated to people based on their needs or limited means. Your last few posts repeat these phrases. That ideology is sometimes called "communism" and sometimes called "socialism."

"[i]From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)" is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program. The phrase summarizes the principles that, in a communist society, every person should contribute to society to the best of his or her ability and consume from society in proportion to his or her needs. [/i]"

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability[/url], _to_each_according_to_his_need.

This has been your abiding theme here. Whether you realize it or not, whether you're prepared to admit it or not, this is the foundation for your rhetoric. You are, at base, a socialist.

I don't say that in a pejorative, McCarthy sort of way. It used to be a common world view. There are plenty smart people who have (wrongly) held these views. Whether you're willing to concede it or not, that is exactly the perspective you've been expressing here. You may prefer to call it a Democrat perspective, or a liberal perspective, and you undoubtedly consider it a "smart" perspective. But if one is going to call a spade a spade, it is a socialist / Marxist perspective. The thoughts and ideas you are articulating, based on this perspective, have been thoroughly discredited over the past 100 years. You're free to keep trying, though, and you have plenty of company in this administration.

Unfortunately, we all have to suffer as this administration's little experiment fails. Fortunately, the majority of the public now sees that the emperor has no clothes.

Well said Stan, but what Esten never seems to grasp is what "people want and need" is not the same as what people can afford. Esten always sees the government as the single entity to provide all to the masses and class warfare is the way to go for taxes.

See my earlier post about the decline of the USA since Lyndon Johnson's administration began the systemic destruction of people's dignity and the continued assault on all those institutions which in the past made America great. As a nation we have already slid from Great to mediocrity and we are still heading down hill.

I remember Jimmy Carter telling us that American's best days were behind her – Obama's administration can not end soon enough for me. Yes he is up in the polls – above 50%. But nothing has happened yet. He may get another boost after the State of the Union, but after that the rubber meets the road and the hard choices have to be made. When this happens he will be back in the upper 30's again until he is either challenged from within his own party or outright defeated in 2012.

Hey I "want and need" an estate, stocked with hotties, fast cars, good food and the list goes on, but what I can afford is a nice home, rude American women, a used car and Micky D's. Oh well if Esten can deliver and someone else pay I'm in!

(Need to clarify here for Esten and WT69 – the last paragraph is a joke)

Here are some things I believe in:

1. A strong private sector that rewards risk-taking, hard work and innovation.
2. A private sector that avoids extreme concentration of wealth in a small group.
3. A strong government that does what the private sector cannot do well.
4. A government that limits private sector abuse through responsible regulation.
5. Redistribution to address extreme imbalances in distribution.
6. Progressive taxation.
7. Balanced budgets.

I favor a mixed economy biased towards capitalism. I do not believe in 'laissez-faire' capitalism.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;415185]Well said Stan, but what Esten never seems to grasp is what "people want and need" is not the same as what people can afford. Esten always sees the government as the single entity to provide all to the masses and class warfare is the way to go for taxes.[/QUOTE]As I've said before, I support a combination of spending cuts and higher taxes on higher incomes to balance our budget. The rich elite started class warfare decades ago, and are now using this phrase to protect their interests. How sad you've fallen for it.

You said before "It starts with us." Sounds good on the surface. But where is the "us" part? All you've proposed so far is spending cuts on Welfare and Medicaid.

Did you mean "It starts with the poor."? Who in your mind are all lazy?

[QUOTE]See my earlier post about the decline of the USA since Lyndon Johnson's administration began the systemic destruction of people's dignity and the continued assault on all those institutions which in the past made America great. As a nation we have already slid from Great to mediocrity and we are still heading down hill.[/QUOTE]We prospered in the 1900's when we had higher taxation on higher incomes. Forget about the nostalgia about how much we were respected and feared. Focus on the progress of the middle class and poor. The metrics associated with these groups began stagnating or declining not with Johnson, but with the rise of the corporate special interest system since Reagan. This also coincided with the explosion in US debt beginning ca. 1982.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;415184]This has been your abiding theme here. Whether you realize it or not, whether you're prepared to admit it or not, this is the foundation for your rhetoric. You are, at base, a socialist.[/QUOTE]As you know we have a progressive taxation system, and according to multiple recent polls most Americans believe in addressing taxation and spending cuts in ways that put more of the burden on the rich. Heck, even 59% of Republicans support reducing Social Security benefits for those with higher incomes.

Therefore according to your singular socialist criteria, belief in people contributing and receiving according to their means, the United States is a socialist country and most Americans are socialists.

Good one!

I will never be able to repay you for your work in making my dalliances easier and more rewarding. Please don't view my response as hostile or as an attack (your handle isn't Esten. LOL). If and when we cross paths in Bs As (regardless of your political leanings) , I am buying.

However, I would like to politely and respectfully respond to your post in the spirit of debate, not hostility.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 415157]IT IS Not O'bama CARE.

That sounds very Racist. [/quote]The name of the guy responsible for this mess has the family name of Obama. When Hillary Clinton tried the same thing, it was called 'Hillarycare' There is nothing racist about it (other than the fact that anyone who opposes anything Obama is a defacto racist).

[quote=]All parties agreed to It. It is A Health CARE FOR ALL, Package.[/quote]Quite the contrary, the majority of the citizenry and the republican minority in the congress adamantly opposed it.

[quote=]It would cost more to appeal it.[/quote]In correct. It will save hundreds of billions and perhaps a trillion if it is scrapped.

[quote=]Use Guys need to Travel and Need some Heath CARE when you are there.[/quote]I pay for evacuation insurance if I am ill or injured while traveling abroad so that I can get back to the best health care in the world.

[quote=]Like I said It was cheaper for me to see a Doctor in Buenos Aires than in the USA.[/quote]That is not indicative of a better health care system.

[quote=]Oh, Cuba was Cheaper When I was there.[/quote]Why did Castro ban the Michael Moore movie which so glowingly lauded the Cuban healthcare system?

[quote=]I BET MOST OF YOU HAVE NEVER LEFT THE USA.[/quote]I can't speak for any of these other racist hillbillies, but I have been out of the US lots. I have been to Alaska, Hawaii and Texas, so put that in your pipe and smoke it (LOL)

[quote=]Most of you most likely did not go to school after the 12th grade.[/quote]I've got me some school'and in the class room and in the school of hard knocks.

[quote=]SCHOOL and learning is a LIFE TIME Session. YOU WILL NEVER STOP Learning and going to SCHOOL.[/quote]Unless you are unwilling to learn and ignore facts that contradict your preconceived notions.

[quote=]And if did not go and travel you will not know shit about the World Heath CARE of other Countries.[/quote]Because health care in other nations is of lower quality than that available in the US is no reason to bring the quality of care available to all Americans down.

[quote=]Only You That HAVE BEEN TO MORE THAN 70 COUNTRIES NEED ANSWER, As I Have Been.[/quote]I love you. But, traveling to 70+ countries is irrelevant to the US health care debate, except as means through which you can gauge the differential in quality of care from one country to another. I have traveled a bit. In addition to the international destinations named above, I have put my feet on several continents (still waiting for your reviews of privados in Antarctica, before I make my plans to go there and check the last one off my list)

[quote=]Travel more Then express Your opinions.[/quote]This will come as a surprise to you but, I have some opinions and I occasionally share them with others. My travel plans and my propensity to share my opinions are not necessarily correlated.

[quote=]I hear this same shit everyday on Radio free USA.[/quote]How the fuck do you have time to listen to the radio? I figure you must spend 20+ hours a day researching brothels (for which I will be eternally grateful).

[quote=]They have never left their HOUSE.[/quote]If it is a good house of ill repute, there may not be a good reason to leave it.

[quote=]Jackson mentioned about 9-11.

The Terrorists were:

Most were Saudis.

No Afghans,

No Pakistanis,

NO Iraqis. [/quote]No Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, Branch Davidians nor Jehovah's Witnesses.

[quote=]No WMDs.[/quote]While not found in the quantity expected prior to the war, there were some found. Due to the lack of visibility into the activities of the prior regime, it was nearly impossible to verify or dispel the claims made by the regime that they were actively developing NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical) weapon systems for the express purpose of destabilizing the gulf region and striking out at the Great Satan.

[quote=]WTF.[/quote]That's what I say.

[quote=]All of are boys lost for What?[/quote]I do not believe for a moment that Washington runs wars with the best interests of our heroes in mind. However, I am reminded of something Churchill is reported to have said: "We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

[quote=]OIL![/quote]You take away our oil, you do us harm. If we were able to tap the more-than-abundant oil reserves, located beneath US soil, perhaps we would not feel the need to engage in such military actions. I guess you can't have it both ways.

[quote=]Same as Vietnam.[/quote]Other than the facts that they were fought on foreign soil, resulted in far, far too many US casualties, and domestic politics played a roll in increasing the body count, there are no similarities.

[quote=]A Waste.[/quote]In the case of Vietnam, I agree in that misguided politicians in Washington wasted our greatest national resources. In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, I disagree that all Us casualties in these conflicts have been wasted.

[quote=]This is a Sex Site, Not POLITICIAL SITE. [/quote]

I believe that this is better characterized as a lifestyle site. For me and perhaps some others, engaging in political debate is part of my lifestyle. Interestingly, this thread has more posts than any other.

[quote=]JACKSON shut down all the Political Threads![/QUOTE]From usaseguide to internationalsexguide to argentinaprivate, there are more than a few locales covered. Everyone of them has local political implications. Further, travelers and expats a like might enjoy keeping up with current political themes and goings on.

WT, again, I am truly appreciative for all that you have done for our mutual benefit. I welcome, appreciate and respect your opinions and do not for a second mind that they do not conform to mind. In fact, if we all thought alike, the world would be pretty boring and all the chicas at privados would be exactly the same. I am not interested in converting you to my point of view rather, I am just interested in presenting my views.

WT69-

Don't fret, because sooner or later, the WallyWildeyes, Jacksons, and Toyman's of the USA will be guillotined and perhaps tarred and feathered by the inevitable armed insurrection that will occur in the USA if the (formerly) middle and working classes are indefinitely denied affordable healthcare and a dignified living wage. These fools are so blind in their ways (and never ending drive for larger profits) that they fail to realize that by providing the (formerly) middle and working classes with these basics they are in fact providing for the continuation of the very system that allows such wealth to be accumulated. When the majority of the population is humiliated and cannot afford to provide the basics for their family the system in place is bound to come crashing down and extremists often take power. Those opposed to any wealth redistribution in the form of government funded healthcare and higher wages should look at what happened in Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina, etc. Desperate citizens will support and vote for irresponsible populists when they are convinced that those holding the wealth at he top don't give a fuck about their welfare.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Permit me to be so bold as to provide a short history lesson on the American Healthcare System and the Federal Government.

Once upon a time we had a three tier health delivery system which worked well and was affordable for those who wished to purchase insurance or pay for it on an individual use basis.

The Primary Tier was comprised of the individual physicians and small community clinics. They treated the everyday aches and pains and mishaps of our populace. This tier represented the most cost efficient setting for this type of treatment. The vast majority of care was delivered at this level.

The Secondary Tier was the local hospitals. When the patient required care beyond the scope of the local physicians and clinics they were taken to these facilities. This represented a less cost efficient setting than the first tier due to the need for a more complex scope of services but still cost efficient for the type of care delivered.

The Tertiary Tier was comprised of the large teaching hospitals. These facilities took care of the most complicated cases and were in part funded by either their state or by the University associated with their teaching program. This represented the least cost efficient setting due to the most complex scope of services and support offered to those with the most serious injuries and illnesses.

Now during this time nearly everyone paid the stated cost of their care and of course there was some charity care provided to those in need. But in those days people were embarrassed to accept charity as it was an admission they could not care for themselves or their family. A time when people actually believed they were responsible for themselves and their families.

Enter Medicare / Medicaid. In a few short years with the Federal Government determining what would be paid to provide medical care in both rural and urban settings (with no experience I might add regarding the cost of these services except fr0m the Ivory Tower physicians who had never practiced medicine only taught and theorized).

The Primary Tier was wiped out due to the payment set by the Fed for these services were less than the cost to provide the services. Now there were few if any small clinics and family doctors in the rural areas to provide medical care, they were not willing to starve to do so.

The Secondary Tier began to collapse as the Primary Tier was collapsing, again due to the payment set by the Fed being lower than the cost of the service and with the with the loss of the Primary Tier causing an inflow of patients to a less cost efficient setting for their care. Now there are very few if any Second Tier hospitals left, they have been forced to morph into Tertiary Tier hospitals to offer the complex scope of services required under law.

The Tertiary Tier facilities only became larger with hospitals in the Secondary Tier moving up to the Tertiary Tier. Now we are treating everything at the highest and most cost inefficient level.

Several years after the first Federal price structure was established the Fed suddenly realized they had cannibalized our healthcare system and actually reduced the number of points of service for healthcare in addition to delivering healthcare in the most costly level, I. E. Tertiary Facilities. The Fed tried to change this but the system that had take decades to form naturally to meet the public's needs had been swept away by the Fed and like the Old South was Gone With The Wind, never to be seen again.

So ends the history lesson for today.

Tomorrow the Canada System – how to bring the vast majority of a country's populations healthcare status down to increase the healthcare status of a very small minority.

[QUOTE=Rock Harders;415197]...the (formerly) middle and working classes are indefinitely denied affordable healthcare and a dignified living wage.[/QUOTE]Hey Rock,

85% of Americans had and still have health care that is apparently "affordable" as they are still have it, and 90% of them have jobs that generally pay better than most of the rest of the world.

You're going to need uglier numbers than that to fuel the "inevitable armed insurrection" you're advocating.

Of course, if the liberals continue to run our country into the ground, you just might hit those numbers, but then that's the true liberal agenda anyway, right?

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Rock Harders; 415197]WT69-

Don't fret, because sooner or later, the WallyWildeyes, Jacksons, and Toyman's of the USA will be guillotined and perhaps tarred and feathered by the inevitable armed insurrection that will occur in the USA if the (formerly) middle and working classes are indefinitely denied affordable healthcare and a dignified living wage. [/quote]These are the same masses that marched their ways to the polls some 90 days ago and emphatically said the exact opposite: don't give us "free health care" or other artificial, government-created transfers of wealth from the financially-productive portion of society to the financially-consumptive portion of society. Adding hundreds of new taxes, regulation and bureaucracies to administer this socialist medical system cannot, in any contortion you or someone else may dream up, result in lower COST (I. E. The actually cost of delivery of the goods or services as opposed to the out-of-pocket-expense of the recipient of said good or service).

As for a dignified living wage, what do you think is fair? I think everyone (18-65 yrs old) has a right to $50k per year no matter what. If 50% of the country doesn't pay taxes, then the other 50% (presuming that they all make at least $50K) will need to pay into the system enough to pay for it. That seems pretty fair. So at what point, after getting used to being paid $50k per year for producing absolutely nothing, do you think that 50% receiving that benefit will seek to support themselves and reduce the strain on those supporting them?

If you give someone something for free, what is their incentive to earn more so that they can afford to actually pay for it? If I can get it for free without doing anything, I sure as shit am not going to bust my ass just to make enough money so that I can pay a market price for it. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

[quote=]These fools are so blind in their ways (and never ending drive for larger profits) that they fail to realize that by providing the (formerly) middle and working classes with these basics they are in fact providing for the continuation of the very system that allows such wealth to be accumulated.[/quote]I disagree. The pursuit of personal self-interest (a right imbued upon us by our creator, enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and formerly guaranteed by the US Constitution) and conservative folkways and morays, developed over centuries, are what enabled the creation of the greatest economic engine and the most just and compassionate society man has ever known. It ain't perfect but it is the best.

The Left, whether misguided or purposeful, is fully vested in destroying what is great about America.

[quote=]When the majority of the population is humiliated and cannot afford to provide the basics for their family the system in place is bound to come crashing down and extremists often take power.[/quote]When a majority is enslaved by generations of handouts, they lose the ability to fend for themselves.

[quote=]Those opposed to any wealth redistribution in the form of government funded healthcare and higher wages should look at what happened in Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina, etc.[/quote]Hmmm, now look at what shining beacons they have all become as Utopian workers' paradises leading the world in terms of longevity, quality of care, economics and personal satisfaction. Viva la revolucion!

[quote=]Desperate citizens will support and vote for irresponsible populists when they are convinced that those holding the wealth at he top don't give a fuck about their welfare.[/quote]That is one way to explain Obama's electoral win.

Mongers-

More conservative drivel from WW, who decided to respond to my post (without actually reading it) with more of his puritan "city upon a hill" long winded nonsense. If you had actually bothered to read my recent posts in this thread before responding, you would realize that I have been adamantly against the "obamacare" health care reform monstrosity. Your entire "liberals destroyed america" argument is complete bullshit; the USA is teetering on bankruptcy today because of the actions and decisions made by the neo-conservative administration in office from 2001-2009. The most 'conservative' of all, your very own Dick Cheney, famously said "deficits don't matter", and he practiced what he preached, being the second in command of an administration that took a multi billion dollar federal budget SURPLUS and turned it into a TRILLION dollar DEFICIT. The warning about what happened in Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador and Argentina, was just that, a warning, meaning that the wealthy in the USA should care about how the middle and working classes in the USA are treated in order to keep the current system in place and prevent a disastrous situation from happening as has happened in those places.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

[QUOTE=Rock Harders;415213]The warning about what happened in Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador and Argentina, was just that, a warning, meaning that the wealthy in the USA should care about how the middle and working classes in the USA are treated in order to keep the current system in place and prevent a disastrous situation from happening as has happened in those places.[/QUOTE]Rock,

The [I]middle and working classes in the USA[/I] are in fact much better off (re: prosperous) than their counterparts in the countries you itemized.

Actually, [I]the middle and working classes in the USA[/I] are in fact much better off (re: prosperous) than their counterparts [B]ANY WHERE ELSE in the WORLD[/B], which pretty much leaves your argument sputtering around the room like a loose balloon.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Rock Harders; 415213]Mongers-

More conservative drivel from WW, who decided to respond to my post (without actually reading it) with more of his puritan "city upon a hill" long winded nonsense. [/quote]I think my response is spot on. What Puritanical statements have I ever made? I don't recall bringing religion, outside of its role as it relates to the founding of our country, into the discussion. As for nonsense, how do you support your proposal that the American working man should pay out of his own pocket to support the American sitting-on-his-ass-man?

[quote=]If you had actually bothered to read my recent posts in this thread before responding, you would realize that I have been adamantly against the "obamacare" health care reform monstrosity. [/quote]Good for you. You must be smarter than you appear.

[quote=]Your entire "liberals destroyed america" argument is complete bullshit;[/quote]I'll avoid using terminology like 'illiterate douche bag' (however appropriate it may be). Never have I said that America has been destroyed. If you could both read and comprehend, you'd be able to understand that.

"The Left, whether misguided or purposeful, is fully vested in destroying what is great about America."

The left attacks exceptionalism, individualism, advancement based upon merit, innovation and winning. Where is the fallacy of my argument.

[quote=]the USA is teetering on bankruptcy today because of the actions and decisions made by the neo-conservative administration in office from 2001-2009.[/quote]If you think Bush was a Neo-com, you are dumber than I thought. If you think that the Bush White House is responsible for dolling out billions in bad loans to unworthy borrowers, your analysis might need some tweaking.

[quote=]The most 'conservative' of all, your very own Dick Cheney, famously said "deficits don't matter", and he practiced what he preached, being the second in command of an administration that took a multi billion dollar federal budget SURPLUS and turned it into a TRILLION dollar DEFICIT.[/quote]Wow, and for all these years, I thought that the House was responsible for spending. By the way, how's your boy Obama been doing on the deficit front?

[quote=]The warning about what happened in Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador and Argentina, was just that, a warning, meaning that the wealthy in the USA should care about how the middle and working classes in the USA are treated in order to keep the current system in place and prevent a disastrous situation from happening as has happened in those places.[/quote]That warning makes about as much sense as warning drivers on I-95 of congestion the M3 outside London.

[quote=]Suerte[/QUOTE]Whatever

[QUOTE=Rock Harders; 415197]WT69-

Don't fret, because sooner or later, the WallyWildeyes, Jacksons, and Toyman's of the USA will be guillotined and perhaps tarred and feathered by the inevitable armed insurrection that will occur in the USA if the (formerly) middle and working classes are indefinitely denied affordable healthcare and a dignified living wage. These fools are so blind in their ways (and never ending drive for larger profits) that they fail to realize that by providing the (formerly) middle and working classes with these basics they are in fact providing for the continuation of the very system that allows such wealth to be accumulated. When the majority of the population is humiliated and cannot afford to provide the basics for their family the system in place is bound to come crashing down and extremists often take power. Those opposed to any wealth redistribution in the form of government funded healthcare and higher wages should look at what happened in Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina, etc. Desperate citizens will support and vote for irresponsible populists when they are convinced that those holding the wealth at he top don't give a fuck about their welfare.

Suerte,

Rock Harders[/QUOTE]Look at median per capita income adjusted for purchasing power in the USA compared to other countries. Or the number of cars, television sets, air conditioned houses and the square footage of living space compared to the population. Jackson is right on this one and you're wrong.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 415219]Rock,

The [I]middle and working classes in the USA[/I] Are in fact much better off (re: prosperous) than their counterparts in the countries you itemized.

Actually, [I]the middle and working classes in the USA[/I] Are in fact much better off (re: prosperous) than their counterparts [B]ANY WHERE ELSE in the WORLD[/B], which pretty much leaves your argument sputtering around the room like a loose balloon.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]I would put it a bit differently:

The middle class actually exists in the United States. I haven't been to Cuba, so I can't say much about the country. But, as for the rest of the places listed, Argentina included, the middle class really doesn't exist. That's true of nearly all South America, with the exception of Brazil and Chile. I'm pretty sure Cuba lacks a middle class, as well, but can't speak from personal experience and don't want to draw WT's ire since I'm so provincial.

I know that "middle class" is a relative term (relative to upper and lower classes) but it is the one facet of Argentina that really stands out when you're there. There are folks who are undeniably rich, and there are folks who are undeniably living paycheck to paycheck. I would characterize the latter as "lower" or "working class" by American standards, regardless of income. There are very few people in between.

This is what "soak the rich" populist / socialist rhetoric really leads to when put into practice. You get a lot of words about standing up for the little guy, and making sure that everyone gets a slice of the pie. But, what really happens is that the middle class vanishes, or is never allowed to come into being, and you end up with two poles: the very rich and the very poor. The very rich then help support the corrupt administration and keep quiet about the wealth they are amassing. You see this in Russia, Venezuela and Argentina today. The very poor are dumb enough to believe that "soak the rich" strategies will change things and that those who bloviate this sort of rhetoric have their best interests at heart. Venezuela and Argentina are great examples of this today.

It's not the rich who suffer when the socialists / populists take over. It's the middle class, and those in the working class who might aspire to be middle class.