Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Motivational Memes - from Viral Blasts

50 Amazing Life Lessons Everyone Needs. These Will Change Your Life.


Original post: http://www.viralblasts.com/50-amazing-life-lessons-everyone-needs-these-will-change-your-life/

Its easy to lose ourselves in life sometimes. Life isn’t always easy, after all. Bad phases can come and go, or come and stay for a long time. But, we need to go on, and if we do we often come out stronger than we were before. Below are the best inspirational quotes to help you out during those tough times and hopefully give you some motivation, or at the very least something to think about.

1.


2.


3.


4.


5.


6.


7.


8.


9.


10.


11.


12.


13.


14.


15.


16.


17.


18.


19.

20.

21.


22.


23.


24.


25.


26.


27.


28.


29.


30.


31.


32.


33.


34.


36.


37.


38.


39.


40.


41.


42.


43.


44.


45.


46.


47.


48.


49.


50.

Thursday, January 31, 2013

If You're Too Busy to Meditate, Read This

This morning, like every morning, I sat cross-legged on a cushion on the floor, rested my hands on my knees, closed my eyes, and did nothing but breathe for 20 minutes.
People say the hardest part about meditating is finding the time to meditate. This makes sense: who these days has time to do nothing? It's hard to justify.
Meditation brings many benefits: It refreshes us, helps us settle into what's happening now, makes us wiser and gentler, helps us cope in a world that overloads us with information and communication, and more. But if you're still looking for a business case to justify spending time meditating, try this one: Meditation makes you more productive.
How? By increasing your capacity to resist distracting urges.
Research shows that an ability to resist urges will improve your relationships, increase your dependability, and raise your performance. If you can resist your urges, you can make better, more thoughtful decisions. You can be more intentional about what you say and how you say it. You can think about the outcome of your actions before following through on them.
Our ability to resist an impulse determines our success in learning a new behavior or changing an old habit. It's probably the single most important skill for our growth and development.
As it turns out, that's one of the things meditation teaches us. It's also one of the hardest to learn.
When I sat down to meditate this morning, relaxing a little more with each out-breath, I was successful in letting all my concerns drift away. My mind was truly empty of everything that had concerned it before I sat. Everything except the flow of my breath. My body felt blissful and I was at peace.
For about four seconds.
Within a breath or two of emptying my mind, thoughts came flooding in — nature abhors a vacuum. I felt an itch on my face and wanted to scratch it. A great title for my next book popped into my head and I wanted to write it down before I forgot it. I thought of at least four phone calls I wanted to make and one difficult conversation I was going to have later that day. I became anxious, knowing I only had a few hours of writing time. What was I doing just sitting here? I wanted to open my eyes and look at how much time was left on my countdown timer. I heard my kids fighting in the other room and wanted to intervene.
Here's the key though: I wanted to do all those things, but I didn't do them. Instead, every time I had one of those thoughts, I brought my attention back to my breath.
Sometimes, not following through on something you want to do is a problem, like not writing that proposal you've been procrastinating on or not having that difficult conversation you've been avoiding.
But other times, the problem is that you do follow through on something you don't want to do. Like speaking instead of listening or playing politics instead of rising above them.
Meditation teaches us to resist the urge of that counterproductive follow through.
And while I've often noted that it's easier and more reliable to create an environment that supports your goals than it is to depend on willpower, sometimes, we do need to rely on plain, old-fashioned, self-control.
For example, when an employee makes a mistake and you want to yell at him even though you know that it's better — for him and for the morale of the group — to ask some questions and discuss it gently and rationally. Or when you want to blurt something out in a meeting but know you'd be better off listening. Or when you want to buy or sell a stock based on your emotions when the fundamentals and your research suggest a different action. Or when you want to check email every three minutes instead of focusing on the task at hand.
Meditating daily will strengthen your willpower muscle. Your urges won't disappear, but you will be better equipped to manage them. And you will have experience that proves to you that the urge is only a suggestion. You are in control.
Does that mean you never follow an urge? Of course not. Urges hold useful information. If you're hungry, it may be a good indication that you need to eat. But it also may be an indication that you're bored or struggling with a difficult piece of work. Meditation gives you practice having power over your urges so you can make intentional choices about which to follow and which to let pass.
So how do you do it? If you're just starting, keep it very simple.
Sit with your back straight enough that your breathing is comfortable — on a chair or a cushion on the floor — and set a timer for however many minutes you want to meditate. Once you start the timer, close your eyes, relax, and don't move except to breathe, until the timer goes off. Focus on your breath going in and out. Every time you have a thought or an urge, notice it and bring yourself back to your breath.
That's it. Simple but challenging. Try it — today — for five minutes. And then try it again tomorrow.
This morning, after my meditation, I went to my home office to start writing. A few minutes later, Sophia, my seven-year-old, came in and told me the kitchen was flooded. Apparently Daniel, my five-year-old, filled a glass of water and neglected to turn off the tap. Oops.
In that moment, I wanted to scream at both Daniel and Sophia. But my practice countered that urge. I took a breath.
Then, together, we went into action mode. We got every towel in the house — and a couple of blankets — and mopped it all up, laughing the whole time. When we were done soaking up the water, we talked about what happened. Finally, we all walked together to our downstairs neighbors and took responsibility for the flood, apologized, and asked if we could help them clean up the mess.
After that, I had lost an hour of writing. If I was going to meet my deadline, I needed to be super-productive. So I ate a quick snack and then ignored every distracting urge I had for two hours — no email, no phone calls, no cute Youtube videos — until I finished my piece, which I did with 30 minutes to spare.
Who says meditation is a waste of time?

Originally posted at http://blogs.hbr.org/bregman/2012/10/if-youre-too-busy-to-meditate.html 

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

America’s Founders Voted on Whether America Is a Christian Nation; It’s Not.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

~Treaty of Tripoli (Ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by President Adams)

I do struggle to understand how so many people continue to propagate this notion that America is a Christian nation.  We’re not a Theocracy. Our founders expressly voted on such a resolution in fact.  It’s called the Treaty of Tripoli …

For a great history lesson – read more HERE:
President Adams signed the treaty and proclaimed it to the nation on 10 June 1797. His statement on it was a bit unusual: “Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.”
What happened then? Did our heroes pay a heavy price? Skeptical that the public even knew about the treaty, I went to the periodicals reading room of the Library of Congress in, appropriately enough, the Madison Building. After some poking about I found out how to get access to newspapers of the 1790s, mostly on microfilm, but in a few cases I saw the actual papers of the day.
I found the treaty and Adams’ statement reprinted in full in three newspapers, two in Philadelphia and one in New York City and, in one case, held the actual newspaper (the Philadelphia Gazette and Universal Daily Advertiser for Saturday, 17 June 1797) in my hands. There is no record of any public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.

From: ClassWarfareExists - http://www.classwarfareexists.com/americas-founders-voted-on-whether-america-is-a-christian-nation-its-not/ 

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Motivation Link

http://thinktraffic.net/motivation

Monday, November 12, 2012

The "Cheap Labor" Conservatives

Defeat the Right in Three Minutes

by Conceptual Guerilla

Original Post:  http://sideshow.me.uk/annex/defeattherightin3minutes.htm


Defeat The Right In Three Minutes

by Conceptual Guerilla Have you got three minutes. Because that's all you need to learn how to defeat the Republican Right. Just read through this handy guide and you'll have everything you need to successfully debunk right-wing propaganda.
It's really that simple. First, you have to beat their ideology, which really isn't that difficult. At bottom, conservatives believe in a social hierarchy of "haves" and "have nots" that I call "corporate feudalism". They have taken this corrosive social vision and dressed it up with a "respectable" sounding ideology. That ideology is pure hogwash, and you can prove it.
But you have to do more than defeat the ideology. You have to defeat the "drum beat". You have to defeat the "propaganda machine", that brainwashes people with their slogans and catch-phrases. You've heard those slogans."Less government", "personal responsibility" and lots of flag waving. They are "shorthand" for an entire worldview, and the right has been pounding their slogans out into the public domain for getting on forty years.
So you need a really good slogan - a "counter-slogan" really, to "deprogram" the brainwashed. You need a "magic bullet" that quickly and efficiently destroys the effectiveness of their "drum beat". You need your own "drum beat" that sums up the right's position. Only your "drum beat" exposes the ugly reality of right-wing philosophy - the reality their slogans are meant to hide. Our slogan contains the governing concept that explains the entire right-wing agenda. That's why it works. You can see it in every policy, and virtually all of Republican rhetoric. And it's so easy to remember, and captures the essence of the Republican Right so well, we can pin it on them like a "scarlet letter".
Is there really a catch phrase - a "magic bullet" - that sums up the Republican Right in such a nice easy-to-grasp package. You better believe it, and it's downright elegant in its simplicity.
You want to know what that "magic bullet" is, don't you. Read on. You've still got two minutes.

Right-Wing Ideology in a Nutshell

When you cut right through it, right-wing ideology is just "dime-store economics" - intended to dress their ideology up and make it look respectable. You don't really need to know much about economics to understand it. They certainly don't. It all gets down to two simple words. "Cheap labor". That's their whole philosophy in a nutshell - which gives you a short and pithy "catch phrase" that describes them perfectly. You've heard of "big-government liberals". Well they're "cheap-labor conservatives".
"Cheap-labor conservative" is a moniker they will never shake, and never live down. Because it's exactly what they are. You see, cheap-labor conservatives are defenders of corporate America - whose fortunes depend on labor. The larger the labor supply, the cheaper it is. The more desperately you need a job, the cheaper you'll work, and the more power those "corporate lords" have over you. If you are a wealthy elite - or a "wannabe" like most dittoheads - your wealth, power and privilege is enhanced by a labor pool, forced to work cheap.
Don't believe me. Well, let's apply this principle, and see how many right-wing positions become instantly understandable.

  • Cheap-labor conservatives don't like social spending or our "safety net". Why. Because when you're unemployed and desperate, corporations can pay you whatever they feel like - which is inevitably next to nothing. You see, they want you "over a barrel" and in a position to "work cheap or starve".

  • Cheap-labor conservatives don't like the minimum wage, or other improvements in wages and working conditions. Why. These reforms undo all of their efforts to keep you "over a barrel".

  • Cheap-labor conservatives like "free trade", NAFTA, GATT, etc. Why. Because there is a huge supply of desperately poor people in the third world, who are "over a barrel", and will work cheap.

  • Cheap-labor conservatives oppose a woman's right to choose. Why. Unwanted children are an economic burden that put poor women "over a barrel", forcing them to work cheap.

  • Cheap-labor conservatives don't like unions. Why. Because when labor "sticks together", wages go up. That's why workers unionize. Seems workers don't like being "over a barrel".

  • Cheap-labor conservatives constantly bray about "morality", "virtue", "respect for authority", "hard work" and other "values". Why. So they can blame your being "over a barrel" on your own "immorality", lack of "values" and "poor choices".

  • Cheap-labor conservatives encourage racism, misogyny, homophobia and other forms of bigotry. Why? Bigotry among wage earners distracts them, and keeps them from recognizing their common interests as wage earners.

The Cheap-Labor Conservatives' "Dirty Secret": They Don't Really Like Prosperity

Maybe you don't believe that cheap-labor conservatives like unemployment, poverty and "cheap labor". Consider these facts. Unemployment was 23 percent when FDR took office in 1933. It dropped to 2.5 percent by time the next Republican was in the White House in 1953. It climbed back to 6.5 percent by the end of the Eisenhower administration. It dropped to 3.5 percent by the time LBJ left office. It climbed over 5 percent shortly after Nixon took office, and stayed there for 27 years, until Clinton brought it down to 4.5 percent early in his second term.
That same period - especially from the late forties into the early seventies - was the "golden age" of the United States. We sent men to the moon. We built our Interstate Highway system. We ended segregation in the South and established Medicare. In those days, a single wage earner could support an entire family on his wages. I grew up then, and I will tell you that life was good - at least for the many Americans insulated from the tragedy in Vietnam, as I was.
These facts provide a nice background to evaluate cheap-labor conservative claims like "liberals are destroying America."
In fact, cheap-labor conservatives have howled with outrage and indignation against New Deal liberalism from its inception in the 1930's all the way to the present. You can go to "Free Republic" or Hannity's forum right now, and find a cheap-labor conservative comparing New Deal Liberalism to "Stalinism".
  • Cheap-labor conservatives opposed virtually all of the New Deal, including every improvement in wages and working conditions.

  • Cheap-labor conservatives have a long and sorry history of opposing virtually every advancement in this country's development going right back to the American revolution.

  • Cheap-labor conservatives have hated Social Security and Medicare since their inception.

  • Many cheap-labor conservatives are hostile to public education. They think it should be privatized. But why are we surprised. Cheap-labor conservatives opposed universal public education in its early days. School vouchers are just a backdoor method to "resegregate" the public schools.

  • Cheap-labor conservatives hate the progressive income tax like the devil hates holy water.

  • Cheap-labor conservatives like budget deficits and a huge national debt for two reasons. A bankrupt government has a harder time doing any "social spending" - which cheap-labor conservatives oppose, and . . .

  • Wealthy cheap-labor conservatives like say, George W. Bush, buy the bonds and then earn tax free interest on the money they lend the government. The deficit created by cheap-labor conservatives while they posture as being "fiscally conservative" - may count as the biggest con job in American history.

  • "Free Trade", globalization, NAFTA and especially GATT are intended to create a world-wide "corporate playground" where national governments serve the interests of corporations - which means "cheap labor".
The ugly truth is that cheap-labor conservatives just don't like working people. They don't like "bottom up" prosperity, and the reason for it is very simple. lords have a harder time kicking them around. Once you understand this about the cheap-labor conservatives, the real motivation for their policies makes perfect sense. Remember, cheap-labor conservatives believe in social hierarchy and privilege, so the only prosperity they want is limited to them. They want to see absolutely nothing that benefits the guy - or more often the woman - who works for an hourly wage.
So there you have it, in one easy-to-remember phrase. See how easy it is to understand these cheap-labor conservatives. The more ignorant and destitute people there are - desperate for any job they can get - the cheaper the cheap-labor conservatives can get them to work.
Try it. Every time you respond to a cheap-labor conservative in letters to the editor, or an online discussion forum, look for the "cheap labor" angle. Trust me, you'll find it. I can even show you the "cheap labor" angle in things like the "war on drugs", and the absurd conservative opposition to alternative energy.
Next, make that moniker - cheap-labor conservatives - your "standard reference" to the other side. One of the last revisions I made to this article was to find every reference to "conservatives", "Republicans", "right-wingers", and "righties", and replace it with "cheap-labor conservatives". In fact, if you're a cheap-labor conservative reading this, you should be getting sick of that phrase right about now. Exxxxcellent.
If enough people will "get with the program", it won't be long before you can't look at an editorial page, listen to the radio, turn on the TV, or log onto your favorite message board without seeing the phrase "cheap labor conservatives" - and have plenty of examples to reinforce the message. By election day of 2004, every politically sentient American should understand exactly what a "cheap labor conservative" is, and what he stands for.
Now if you stop right here, you will have enough ammunition to hold your own with a cheap-labor conservative, in any public debate. You have your catch phrase, and you have some of the facts and history to give that phrase meaning.
But if you really want to rip the heart out of cheap-labor conservative ideology, you may want to invest just a little bit more effort. It still isn't all that complicated, though it is a bit more detailed than what we have covered so far.

Less Government and Cheap Labor

"Less Government" is the central defining right-wing slogan. And yes, it's all about "cheap labor". Included within the slogan "less government" is the whole conservative set of assumptions about the nature of the "free market" and government's role in that market.. In fact, the whole "public sector/private sector" distinction is an invention of the cheap-labor conservatives. They say that the "private sector" exists outside and independently of the "public sector". The public sector, according to cheap-labor ideology, can only "interfere" with the "private sector", and that such "interference" is "inefficient" and "unprincipled".
Using this ideology, the cheap-labor ideologue paints himself as a defender of "freedom" against "big government tyranny". In fact, the whole idea that the "private sector" is independent of the public sector is totally bogus. In fact, "the market" is created by public laws, public institutions and public infrastructure.
But the cheap-labor conservative isn't really interested in "freedom". What the he wants is the "privatized tyranny" of industrial serfdom, the main characteristic of which is - you guessed it - "cheap labor".
For proof, you need only look at exactly what constitutes "big government tyranny" and what doesn't. It turns out that cheap-labor conservatives are BIG supporters of the most oppressive and heavy handed actions the government takes.
  • Cheap-labor conservatives are consistent supporters of the generous use of capital punishment. They say that "government can't do anything right" - except apparently, kill people. Indeed, they exhibit classic conservative unconcern for the very possibility that the government might make a mistake and execute the wrong man.

  • Cheap-labor conservatives complain about the "Warren Court" "handcuffing the police" and giving "rights to criminals". It never occurs to them, that our criminal justice system is set up to protect innocent citizens from abuses or just plain mistakes by government officials - you know, the ones who cant do anything right.

  • Cheap-labor conservatives support the "get tough" and "lock 'em up" approach to virtually every social problem in the spectrum. In fact, it's the only approach they support. As for the 2,000,000 people we have in jail today - a higher percentage of our population than any other nation on earth - they say our justice system is "too lenient".

  • Cheap-labor conservative - you know, the ones who believe in "freedom" - say our crime problem is because - get this - we're too "permissive". How exactly do you set up a "free" society that isn't "permissive"?

  • Cheap-labor conservatives want all the military force we can stand to pay for and never saw a weapons system they didn't like.

  • Cheap-labor conservatives support every right-wing authoritarian hoodlum in the third world.

  • Cheap-labor conservatives support foreign assassinations, covert intervention in foreign countries, and every other "black bag" operation the CIA can dream up, even against constitutional governments, elected by the people of those countries.

  • Cheap-labor conservatives support "domestic surveillance" against "subversives" - where "subversive" means "everybody but them".

  • Cheap-labor believers in "freedom" think it's the government's business if you smoke a joint or sleep with somebody of your own gender.

  • Cheap-labor conservatives support our new concentration camp down at Guantanamo Bay. They also support these "secret tribunals" with "secret evidence" and virtually no judicial review of the trials and sentences. Then they say that liberals are "Stalinists".

  • And let's not forget this perennial item on the agenda. Cheap-labor conservatives want to "protect our national symbol" from "desecration". They also support legislation to make the Pledge of Allegiance required by law. Of course, it is they who desecrate the flag every time they wave it to support their cheap-labor agenda. [Ouch! That was one of those "hits" you can hear up in the "nosebleed" seats.]
Sounds to me like the cheap-labor conservatives have a peculiar definition of "freedom". I mean, just what do these guys consider to be "tyranny".
That's easy. Take a look.

  • "Social spending" otherwise known as "redistribution". While they don't mind tax dollars being used for killing people, using their taxes to feed people is "stealing".

  • Minimum wage laws.

  • Every piece of legislation ever proposed to improve working conditions, including the eight hour day, OSHA regulations, and even Child Labor laws.

  • Labor unions, who "extort" employers by collectively bargaining.

  • Environmental regulations and the EPA.

  • Federal support and federal standards for public education.

  • Civil rights legislation. There are still cheap-labor conservatives today, who were staunch defenders of "Jim Crow" - including conspicuously Buckley's National Review. Apparently, federal laws ending segregation were "tyranny", but segregation itself was not.

  • Public broadcasting - which is virtually the only source for classical music, opera, traditional theatre, traditional American music, oh yes, and Buckley's Firing Line. This from the people constantly braying about the decay of "the culture". The average cost of Public Television for each American is a whopping one dollar a year. "It's tyranny I tell you. Enough's enough!"
See the pattern? Cheap-labor conservatives support every coercive and oppressive function of government, but call it "tyranny" if government does something for you - using their money, for Chrissake. Even here, cheap-labor conservatives are complete hypocrites. Consider the following expenditures:
  • 150 billion dollars a year for corporate subsidies.

  • 300 billion dollars a year for interest payments on the national debt - payments that are a direct transfer to wealthy bond holders, and buy us absolutely nothing. Who knows how many billions will be paid to American companies to rebuild Iraq - which didn't need rebuilding three months ago. [i.e., before we invaded. - Ed.]

  • That's all in addition to the Defense budget - large chunks of which go to corporate defense contractors.
Is the pattern becoming clearer? These cheap-labor Republicans have no problem at all opening the public purse for corporate interests. it's "social spending" on people who actually need assistance that they just "can't tolerate". And now you know why. Destitute people work cheaper, while a harsh police state keeps them suitably terrorized.

Wednesday, October 03, 2012

Socialist Defined - from Ted McLaughlin

Is The United States A Socialist Nation ?

We hear the word "socialism" thrown around a lot these days by those on the right. Some of them claim we are fast becoming a socialist nation, while many other right-wingers say we are already there. And some of them use the word "socialism" interchangeably with "fascism" and "communism" -- as though the three meant the same thing. They don't.

I thought with all of the ridiculous right-wing ideas floating around, maybe this would be a good time to explain just what socialism is, and examine whether or not the United States is a socialist country (or on the road to becoming a socialist country). The first thing that needs to be cleared up is that socialism, despite what many right-wing ideologues want you to believe, is NOT a form of government (like democracy, plutocracy, monarchy, dictatorship, etc.). It is an economic system. Further, it is an economic system that can only truly exist in a true democracy or a representative democracy.

First, let me define exactly what a socialism is. I will use the definition I learned back in college, because it is still the best definition I've heard. There are three aspects to socialism -- the socialist intent, the social safety net, and the government ownership of industry critical to the nation. To meet the definition of a "socialist nation", the "socialist intent" is required along with at least one of the other two aspects. So, does the United States meet this definition? Is it truly a socialist nation? Let's examine each of the three socialist aspects as they relate to the United States.

SOCIAL SAFETY NET

The United States has adopted at least a rudimentary social safety net, which tries to prevent any of its citizens from falling through the cracks of society into an abject and debilitating poverty. One of the oldest of the socialist programs in this country is free public education. Free public education has been a remarkably effective program, giving many a path to upward mobility and making this nation a leader in the world. The program is not without its problems these days (largely due to underfunding and community apathy), but I would venture to say that nearly all Americans approve of free public education and would not want it to go away.

Then there is Social Security. This program has brought us from a majority of the elderly living in poverty to less than 10% in poverty today. It has also been remarkably effective in achieving it purpose. Medicare is the same. Because of medicare, all people over the age of 65 now have a decent level of medical care. Polls have shown that a huge majority of Americans approve of these two programs and do not want them abolished -- even though they are socialist programs.

Another social safety net program is unemployment insurance. This prevents a worker who has lost his/her job through no fault of his/her own efforts, to have some income while looking for another job. Without the program, many of these workers would fall into poverty almost immediately. Again, this is a socialist program with large community support.

Then we have the programs designed to help the truly poor. Some of these people need help for only a short time (due to an economic or other tragedy in their life), while others may need help for the remainder of their life (because of some kind of disability). These are programs like Aid To Families With Dependent Children, Food Stamps, and Housing Assistance. There can be discussion over whether these programs work as well as they should, but only the hardest-hearted among us would want to abolish them altogether.

There may be other socialist safety net programs, but that is enough for this discussion. It is obvious that the United States has created and maintains the social safety net aspect of socialism. Whether it is inadequate, excessive, or at a correct level can be debated, but it is doubtful that most Americans would like to do without it.

OWNERSHIP OF CRITICAL INDUSTRY BY GOVERNMENT

This aspect doesn't need a lot of discussion. Our federal government does not own any industries -- critical or otherwise. Some state and local governments have assumed ownership of power plants or water suppies, but even most of these are owned by private interests. Critical industries, like the steel industry, are privately owned. And even in the huge military/industrial complex, which relies on government money to survive, production is controlled by and profits go to private owners. This aspect of socialism simply does not exist in the United States.

SOCIALIST INTENT

That leaves us with the final aspect of socialism -- the socialist intent (a requirement for a socialist nation). The socialist intent is to put individual citizens in charge of their own lives (including and especially economically). This would be true of the top 10% of Americans (and particularly the top 1%), but it is not true for the vast majority of the other 90% of Americans.

Most Americans are still at the mercy of corporations and businesses for their economic well-being, and they have little to no control over that. For a short while in this country, as unionism was growing, there was some movement toward this, but it has stopped. With the decline of unions and the rise of corporate power, the United States is actually moving away from putting individuals in charge of their own lives right now, and government policies like "trickle-down" economics has hastened this movement toward a corporate plutocracy (which is the exact opposite of the socialist intent).

The "socialist intent" has not been accomplished in the United States, and it is unlikely to be accomplished at any time in the near future. And the more this nation moves from a democracy to a plutocracy, the more it moves away from both the intent and reality of socialism.

CONCLUSION

Is the United States a socialist nation? No, it is not. While the United States democracy does have some socialist programs (programs that are popular even with Americans saying they abhor "socialism"), the United States is not a socialist democracy. It lacks both the government ownership of critical industry, and more importantly, the socialist intent.