I consider myself more of a bourgeois type, and I would argue most here are in the same entreprenuerial/capitalist/business mindset.
And therein lies the weakness of your perspective - you've ventured a long way from the common path on your intellectual journey, and I believe that the "mindset" in question is the last vestige of that comfortable conformity you have so nearly escaped from entirely. So long as you let your class interests influence your conclusions, you will never have a truly open mind.
Let me say that my biggest complaint is the recent "rebuilding" of a false paradigm by people such as FrankRep, who claim that Obama and Pelosi are socialists. It's foolish enough to suspect either of those partisan hacks to subscribe to any ideology whatever, yet FrankRep goes even farther to the edge of insanity by suggesting that Obama serves the interests of the laboring poor, that he opposes wealthy capitalists, that he wishes, above all things, to re-appropriate the wealth and capital of the richest 1% (gained over many centuries of government-sponsored exploitation and inequality) to the least among us.
Rather than deal with a complex issues, it's much easier to revert the world to a 1950s black-and-white reality. Cowboys are the good guys, Indians the bad. With "socialism" as the universal evil, the crusade seems rather easy: just root out these secret socialists!
The reality is that the United States, and most of the world, is controlled - as it has always been - by the rich. The rich write, interpret, and enforce the rules through a complex system of government and "private" institutions which are fundamentally interconnected. This is capitalism, or more specifically, state capitalism. Many of those who have and still do oppose this system are socialists, most of whom, but not all, are state socialists.
In some ways, the problems of state capitalism can be alleviated through a
radically free market - that is, a market
so free of the state foundations - current biased versions of contract and property law, tariffs, the money monopoly, intellectual property, transportation/communication infrastructure, subsidies, and tax-payer-funded R&D - that the massive corporate superstructure and wealth accumulation would collapse like a house built on sand (as it often does despite
increasing government measures to prop up state-capitalism: see the various crises of capitalism, such as 2007-present).
Instead, of achieving these radical reforms which would result in egalitarian effects upon the distribution of wealth and capital, the noisy proponents of "free markets"* ignore virtually all of the state foundations I listed above and instead spend all of their energy attacking so-called "socialist" policies, such as a highly progressive income tax, programs for the public, etc, which are actually just centrist compromises with state-socialism. These policies, ostensibly serving egalitarian ends yet truly serving inegalitarian ends by suppressing and accommodating resistance to state-capitalism (and thereby preserving the core of state-capitalism, which is not "laissez-faire" but "protect the rich class interests") may be argued to serve the purpose of eating away at one end of the system while the radical free market reforms
could be eating away at the other.
*One of the reasons I respect Ron Paul is that he, unlike most supposed advocates of free markets, makes the dismantling of some of these structural supports of corporate and concentrated wealth a policy priority. His disdain for the Federal Reserve - one of the most important of these structural supports - makes it extremely clear that he puts free markets ahead of those economic interests who typically fund and support "free market" politicians and think-tanks, none of whom would go so far as Paul in questioning this type of "structural corporate welfare."
