Barack Obama and Socialism

[Mistah Kurtz]

Maybe everyone should be responsible for their own choices. Seems a lot simpler.

So if a rapist comes up to a woman and rapes her, she should take responsibility?
So the child should be thrown out into the cold the moment it's born?

That is personal responsibility. Everyone worrying about there own lives.
But we don't do that do we? No we have cops to stop the rapist and we hold kicking your baby out in the cold to make it's own way as abominable.
we are social animals, we have family units, friends, religions and cultures. We banded together to protect each other, because it was mutually beneficial.

-----------------------No longer reply directly, general reply on socialism-----------

The fact of the matter is not everyone CAN be rich, no matter how talented they are. If everyone is a rich entrepreneur then everyone dies of starvation, society needs it's lower class to exist. The world needs farmers, CEOs while beneficial are unnecessary.

Should those who work hard -to benefit the group- be rewarded? HELL YES. Those who benefit the group more have earned it. But it's not like our system rewards people solely based on talent and hard work, it does to an extent but there are other less good ways to get rich as well. You can get more money just by exploiting the system and not actually contributing, you can make a shit ton of money being born with it thus having earned nothing.
And you know what? most people aren't talented, most people are by definition average and no matter how hard average people work they won't do much better than average if they do it honestly.

At the end of the day, society is built by everyone. And that means the system should benefit everyone, not just the nobility. There is no good reason to support a system that doesn't benefit you after all, so shouldn't the majority of average hard working folks rise up and tear down the lucky few unless those lucky few say "behold the benefits your holding us up gives you". Society exists to benefit everyone, it needs to own up and start doing that. That doesn't mean we should drag down the talented and hard working who contribute the most, and it doesn't mean we should reward people for doing nothing, it means that everyone who participates in the system should clearly benefit from doing so.

Police officers are not a form of socialism. At all. Baby's shouldn't be thrown out in the cold, they should be taken car of by their parents until they reach an age that they can take care of themselves. Your argument is nonsensical and infantile.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Really?
Celebrating Hayzoos' birth?
Since when?
I say it's a celebration of the birth of Mithra, or Horus.

Ave, Sol Invictus!

-- Steve

CHRISTMAS IS NOT A PAGAN HOLIDAY YOU FUCKING IDIOT!
Christmas takes place on what WAS a pagan holiday. Two holidays can take place on the same day you fucking halfwit.

I guess I really need to stop tapping on Kurtz's glass. And I'm definitely not going to continue this particular subject here, and risk further derailing the thread. Sorry about that.

-- Steve

 

[CoziestPigeon]

EDIT: Useless information spewed out of my ass, would have just fueled the idiotic argument against Obama.

But really, Canada is not socialist. Obama wants to give you guys what we have here in Canada.
But totally, voting for Obama will make you into the next USSR. And the next Hitler will come from Nunavut. (that's in northern canada incase you didn't know)

 

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Police officers are not a form of socialism. At all. Baby's shouldn't be thrown out in the cold, they should be taken car of by their parents until they reach an age that they can take care of themselves.

Police officers aren't a form of socialism? There using the power of the group to create benefits for the majority, which is what socialism is about. It is the idea.
But the child being taken care of means the child isn't taking personality responsibility for it's life. How is it acceptable that the social net should take care of children, but not those members who get unlucky. There are plenty of species that throw there kids out in the cold and the kids do fine, our kids can't do that obviously but we are social animals.

Your argument is nonsensical and infantile.

Infantile?

 

[WitherVoice]

I generally consider myself a rather cynical, misanthropic individual, which makes it wonderful to discuss modern democratic socialism with US citizens... it never fails to make me feel like a paragon, practically a saint.

Socialism works when people wrap their minds around this simple concept: you will ALWAYS foot the bill. No system makes that go away.

In its pure form, capitalism is based upon the idea that selfishness is good, because it provides you with an incentive to be awesome: you can then make other people give you more stuff to partake in your awesomeness. Fine in theory, and works for several people out of every thousand.

But now for some random, frustratingly unfair reason, an individual loses his ability to be awesome. Perhaps he is hit by a car and forced into a lengthy hospitalization, which fortunately his insurance pays for. Or perhaps it doesn't. Perhaps his insurance company find that their lawyers are so awesome that they'd rather give them stuff in order to make sure the unfortunate chap who got hit by a car gets nothing. Let's assume that happens, because statistically it does. People are screwed over in ways similar to this regularly. Suddenly, the up-and-comer is neck deep in debt due to his recovery. Perhaps he is no longer awesome enough to get enough stuff to make that debt disappear. He's ended up, through no fault of his own except possibly believing in honesty and/or altruism, on what a lot of people would consider rock bottom: in debt, and without the ability to do productive work... or, at least, without the ability to convince anyone that they should allow him to work for them. That's ONE way, there are as many ways to "rock bottom" as there are people in the world. Some manage to escape this road, but many don't.

Now the people who end up like this are unlikely to be very happy about it. Some die deep in debt, and that debt disappears. Or does it? Guess not. SOMEONE must pay. This uncleared debt will be shuffled around a bit, but in the end it will somehow end up with people who are not responsible for it. Someone who ends up costing an insurance company a lot of money will cost all other customers of that insurance company money. If he has no insurance but gets treatment from the government will cost the taxpayers money. If he can't get that either, he will either starve to death, which most people would percieve as a problem, or he will turn to crime to get by. Perhaps he will find that, in illegal activities he is still capable of greatness, costing society huge sums in money taken and injury inflicted upon it, and then possibly after that in prison time and such. And for this person he has made a rational choice. Turning to crime is basically as simple as saying "my survival and/or growing pile of stuff is worth more than my life, the lives of others, and my freedom". If your life is worth nothing, who's to fault this decision?

I could go on listing examples. The point is, ALL costs will end up somewhere.

Under socialized medicine, the person who got hit by a car will have the treatment he needs, because society has decided that people should have that. If he loses his ability to work then that is still unfortunate for him, but he will not be up to his neck in debt because of it. And hey, if he recovers, he can then go back to work. Even if he doesn't make much, he'll still not be costing society. No matter how low he falls, he has some worth, he has something to LOSE by stepping outside the law.

I live in a socialist democracy. I am happy to pay my taxes; I do not need medical insurance, but if I want to I can get it in order to recieve something beyond what will be provided for me as a citizen, which is "all I need to live a productive and healthy life". If I decide to stop working and recieve benefits, I will end up with a life where I have enough money for food and shelter, but nothing else. Barely for clothes to look presentable on a job interview. I will also be required to take any job I am offered, or I will not be given said money anymore. If I'm ill, effort will go into making me better, since I'm more use and less hassle when I'm not ill.

Do I subsidise some lazy people who abuse the system? Most likely. Those people are criminals, and quite frankly they are costing me less living on the minimum that they're swindling society for, than they are if they were locked up. They're not generally causing me any real grief directly either, because robbing me of what I have would quite frankly be a lot of work. If they steal anything that matters, wether by getting it from welfare or anywhere else, it's quite likely that they WILL be punished. Which will be costly, but less irksome. If people are happy living on the minimum that society gives them and expending time and effort avoiding the jobs they are required to take, then are they really the kind of people you would actually want DOING anything? Keeping in mind that just killing them off would not only be cruel and inhumane, but also costly.

Basically, socialism can be exploited, as can any system. However, just like in your capitalist world, I find that I have no end of incentives to work, be awesome, and have people give me stuff. Granted, the more stuff I get, the more of it I will have to give away, but quite frankly I will also actually HAVE more stuff, which is apparently quite the selling point. If I decide to work less, I will give less. Works marvelously. In fact, I find that the system under which I live gives me more incentives to work towards my betterment, as a lot of the random factors that could undo my hard work are far less likely to do so. Injury, bad luck, fateful mistakes... these things can still ruin my life, but it is far less likely that a single injury, a single spell of bad luck, or a single mistake will cost me everything.

So well. That was a metric crapton of text. Noone will read it. Doesn't really matter, I'll still be living under a system which has a vested interest in my well-being; that's the key difference. The United States healthcare system exists to produce money. My country's system exists to produce health.

 

[Mr. Moose]

Really?
Celebrating Hayzoos' birth?
Since when?
I say it's a celebration of the birth of Mithra, or Horus.

Ave, Sol Invictus!

-- Steve

CHRISTMAS IS NOT A PAGAN HOLIDAY YOU FUCKING IDIOT!
Christmas takes place on what WAS a pagan holiday. Two holidays can take place on the same day you fucking halfwit.

We can continue this argument in a PM if you wish to.

My Atheist Christ-Myther knoweldge versus your....
what are you?

 

[TheGreatGonzo26]

Personally, I would like to see the US try out the Socialized health care system that France has, because it seems to be working for them. I could stand to pay higher taxes if it meant lowering our National Debt because lord knows someone's going to come knocking and want us to pay it back one of these days.

 

[Trace2010]

Personally, I would like to see the US try out the Socialized health care system that France has, because it seems to be working for them. I could stand to pay higher taxes if it meant lowering our National Debt because lord knows someone's going to come knocking and want us to pay it back one of these days.

Again, state run health care in the United States will tank for two reasons:

1) Too many people on the take who do not contribute in the form of taxes.
2) Too many people who CAN afford health care on their own taking the cheaper alternative. That is what happened to Hawaii's idea of CHIP. If you are against me on this point, walk over to your nearest school (elementary or middle) and ask yourself: How many families of these students are on free/reduced school lunches that actually are needy?
3) Texas state run children's programs like WIC and CHIP are always in budget deficit because it is also exploited by illegal immigrants.


Socialism is not just about where money comes from, but WHERE MONEY GOES. So the argument of simply wanting to return the tax bracket to the terms before W is irrelevant.
SIDE NOTE: Obama/Biden Left-Wing opinions I do not agree with:

1) I don't see Obama/Biden rallying their troops under the provision that it is "patriotic to pay taxes". Under current system, a majority of people voting Democrat either don't make enough money to pay anything or get enough in government write-offs so they get their entire withholdings back. If you want to tell me creating a Socialist government is okay: fine, just so long as I know that EVERYONE benefitting from said society is also a CONTRIBUTOR. Until then, get stuffed.

2) The reason Joe the Plumber would still not vote for Obama is because he happens to be AMBITIOUS, and knows that even if he is not in the $250,000 tax bracket now, he may be later.

3) Any government regulation of business IS socialism. This includes child labor laws, safe working conditions, the minimum wage law, etc.

4) "We need an economic bailout package that will help main street as much as Wall Street." News flash, Obama. "Main Street" fucked Wall Street this time. Now if I can get all of middle class America to simultaneously default on their credit cards....

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Again, state run health care in the United States will tank for two reasons:

1) Too many people on the take who do not contribute in the form of taxes.
2) Too many people who CAN afford health care on their own taking the cheaper alternative. That is what happened to Hawaii's idea of CHIP. If you are against me on this point, walk over to your nearest school (elementary or middle) and ask yourself: How many families of these students are on free/reduced school lunches that actually are needy?
3) Texas state run children's programs like WIC and CHIP are always in budget deficit because it is also exploited by illegal immigrants.

1) Prosecute tax evaders for a change, instead of enshrining them. Though I suppose that's not what you meant by "on the take"...

2) Make it a universal premium system with a universal standard of care. Everyone pays, everyone gets the same service. Don't worry, the elitist snobs will still be trying to buy their own, special care outside that system... which in my opinion is fine so long as they don't default on their premiums for the universal system, same as private schools and taxpayer-funded public schools.

3) Three is more than two. Also, the "illegal alien" canard could easily be handled if you just let the poor bastards register and pay taxes without gettin' all "zOMG alienz bleh!" on them. Remember your ancestors were immigrants too, if you trace back enough generations.

1) I don't see Obama/Biden rallying their troops under the provision that it is "patriotic to pay taxes". Under current system, a majority of people voting Democrat either don't make enough money to pay anything or get enough in government write-offs so they get their entire withholdings back. If you want to tell me creating a Socialist government is okay: fine, just so long as I know that EVERYONE benefitting from said society is also a CONTRIBUTOR. Until then, get stuffed.

2) The reason Joe the Plumber would still not vote for Obama is because he happens to be AMBITIOUS, and knows that even if he is not in the $250,000 tax bracket now, he may be later.

3) Any government regulation of business IS socialism. This includes child labor laws, safe working conditions, the minimum wage law, etc.

4) "We need an economic bailout package that will help main street as much as Wall Street." News flash, Obama. "Main Street" fucked Wall Street this time. Now if I can get all of middle class America to simultaneously default on their credit cards....

1) What's wrong with your economic system if enough people in your country don't earn enough to pay taxes that they can determine who'll be the next president? If you have that many down-and-outs, your system's frankly busted and needs a shake-up anyway, no matter which direction it goes.

2) Joe the Plumber isn't ambitious, he's dogmatic. If he's anything but a trained seal for the far right, he hasn't shown me much in the way of signs. In any case, most of his arguments boil down to "I got mine" and I don't really empathise too much with that.

3) If actually having laws prohibiting unsafe working conditions and child exploitation is socialist then it's time to put on the berets, comrades, because you're living the People's Dream right now. And if you advocate getting rid of said laws, well, that didn't work out too well in the days of Dickens' childhood.

4) One third of sub-prime mortgages were sold to people who qualified for prime mortgages... largely, or so I'm told, because the banks offered bigger commissions to brokers selling subprimes. It's not Main Street's fault that the banks put themselves in an untenable position because they couldn't see more than a quarter- or half-year ahead. Besides, if you think caveat emptor applies to Main Street then you should accept that it applies to Wall Street and they should've taken a better look at the crap they were buying.

-- Steve

 

[Trace2010]

Let me respond inside your argument to make sure I get everything:

Again, state run health care in the United States will tank for two reasons:

1) Too many people on the take who do not contribute in the form of taxes.
2) Too many people who CAN afford health care on their own taking the cheaper alternative. That is what happened to Hawaii's idea of CHIP. If you are against me on this point, walk over to your nearest school (elementary or middle) and ask yourself: How many families of these students are on free/reduced school lunches that actually are needy?
3) Texas state run children's programs like WIC and CHIP are always in budget deficit because it is also exploited by illegal immigrants.

1) Prosecute tax evaders for a change, instead of enshrining them. Though I suppose that's not what you meant by "on the take"...

-Then most of the elite in both parties won't have a leg to stand on, which personally is fine by me. Yet it still does not address the problem that taking x percentage of 65% of a country's population will not be able to fund the millions

2) Make it a universal premium system with a universal standard of care. Everyone pays, everyone gets the same service. Don't worry, the elitist snobs will still be trying to buy their own, special care outside that system... which in my opinion is fine so long as they don't default on their premiums for the universal system, same as private schools and taxpayer-funded public schools.

--I also agree, but how many people who are currently paying nothing will actually bone up to paying this "premium" which will basically be a tax on the lower class?


3) Three is more than two. --Yes it is, lol--but the extra example in Texas was too rich to pass up.


Also, the "illegal alien" canard could easily be handled if you just let the poor bastards register and pay taxes without gettin' all "zOMG alienz bleh!" on them. Remember your ancestors were immigrants too, if you trace back enough generations.

1) Once again, it's easier to do it illegally than legally.
2) Trust me: I remember well enough:
-Two sides came up through Galveston to become farmers out in Tyler and West Texas (Czech)
-Two sides came across through Ellis Island (Irish and Polish): one side became Pennsylvania coal miners, the other became farmers out in Indiana
-All knew they could speak their native tongue in their homes/communities, but out in the outside world, they needed to know how to speak English
-All were discriminated against when they got off the boat ("No Irish need apply", and the Red Scare, and WWII)
-None had welfare, health care, or free medical care allotted to them (this was turn of century)

1) I don't see Obama/Biden rallying their troops under the provision that it is "patriotic to pay taxes". Under current system, a majority of people voting Democrat either don't make enough money to pay anything or get enough in government write-offs so they get their entire withholdings back. If you want to tell me creating a Socialist government is okay: fine, just so long as I know that EVERYONE benefitting from said society is also a CONTRIBUTOR. Until then, get stuffed.

2) The reason Joe the Plumber would still not vote for Obama is because he happens to be AMBITIOUS, and knows that even if he is not in the $250,000 tax bracket now, he may be later.

3) Any government regulation of business IS socialism. This includes child labor laws, safe working conditions, the minimum wage law, etc.

4) "We need an economic bailout package that will help main street as much as Wall Street." News flash, Obama. "Main Street" fucked Wall Street this time. Now if I can get all of middle class America to simultaneously default on their credit cards....

1) What's wrong with your economic system if enough people in your country don't earn enough to pay taxes that they can determine who'll be the next president? If you have that many down-and-outs, your system's frankly busted and needs a shake-up anyway, no matter which direction it goes.
--Dangerous train of thought there...people forget that where you go to is just as important as what you are running from....just a lesson in history---
I am actually in the across the board (quasi-"tithing") system of thought on this issue. I do not believe America can last much longer freeloading people who make/report less than $15K a year (there will be just too many of them). I like the possibility of a 10% across the board income tax. More people paying into the system, more people paying less taxes.

2) Joe the Plumber isn't ambitious, he's dogmatic. If he's anything but a trained seal for the far right, he hasn't shown me much in the way of signs. In any case, most of his arguments boil down to "I got mine" and I don't really empathise too much with that.
--Funny, I hear that all the time from the numerous minorities I live with down here..."as long as I get mine.". I don't buy that much either, but these same minority groups touted out 93,000 Mexican Demos for Hillary Clinton, and now complain that Barack Obama is "ignoring the Hispanic vote". Go figure--


3) If actually having laws prohibiting unsafe working conditions and child exploitation is socialist then it's time to put on the berets, comrades, because you're living the People's Dream right now. And if you advocate getting rid of said laws, well, that didn't work out too well in the days of Dickens' childhood.
--I was merely commenting on the misconstruence of liberal media in stating that general government intervention in big business is always socialistic in nature.---heard it on Alan Combs two nights ago as he was engaging someone from the right.--


4) One third of sub-prime mortgages were sold to people who qualified for prime mortgages... largely, or so I'm told, because the banks offered bigger commissions to brokers selling subprimes. It's not Main Street's fault that the banks put themselves in an untenable position because they couldn't see more than a quarter- or half-year ahead. Besides, if you think caveat emptor applies to Main Street then you should accept that it applies to Wall Street and they should've taken a better look at the crap they were buying.
--What's funny is I totally agree with you on this point...I was never for the bailout of either Main Street or Wall Street to begin with. I understand that both candidates approved of the bailout (it is an election year), and the President signed it because it was an election year, but ultimately it does nothing to reverse the downward spiral (foreign investors are merely shortselling over a longer period of time).
-- Steve

 

[Mistah Kurtz]

CHRISTMAS IS NOT A PAGAN HOLIDAY YOU FUCKING IDIOT!
Christmas takes place on what WAS a pagan holiday. Two holidays can take place on the same day you fucking halfwit.

I'm confused. If we celebrate something on the day of a pagan holiday, primarily using pagan rituals, isn't that a pagan holiday?

Out of the entire array of celebratory traditions associated to Christmas only one is not pagan in origin. Hanging the stockings by the chimney. And that's actually done to remind us of the generosity of the Catholic Saint Nicolis. Praise Santa.

For pagans it is, but for Christians it's not. This is not hard to understand.
If someone decides to create a new holiday, say, 'environmental destruction day' and put it on the same day as 'arbor day', people celebrating enironmental destructino day are not celebrating arbor day just because it takes place at the same time.

Jesus Christ.

 

[Mistah Kurtz]

You know what's funny? The left wingers bleat endlessly about the GOP being the party of the rich, but Obama has spent more money on a presidential election in history - he's raised far more money from his corporate fat cat democrat cronies than Mccain has, and has spent more than 3 times the amount McCain has on TV commercials. So much for the party of the rich...

Actually most of that money came from grass roots organizers and people who donated $20 here and $20 there. So what were you yammering about again?

I'm yammering about retarded democrats bitching about republicans buying the election when Obama just did the exact same thing. You aren't bitching about that now, are you? Go figure, fucking hypocrites..

 

[Mistah Kurtz]

You know what's funny? The left wingers bleat endlessly about the GOP being the party of the rich, but Obama has spent more money on a presidential election in history - he's raised far more money from his corporate fat cat democrat cronies than Mccain has, and has spent more than 3 times the amount McCain has on TV commercials. So much for the party of the rich...

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, Obama has raised more money from more individual donators than any candidate in election history. It makes sense that as a result, he would spend more money, what else would he do with it? If anything, it's a testament to the amount of people completely sick of the current status quo. I guess attacking Barack Obama because more people support him than any candidate ever works out in some weird neo-conservative branch of logic.

I'm not attacking Obama for spending money - I'm attacking democrats for bitching for decades about republicans buying the election and now that a Democrat is buying an election they suddenly don't mind.

Hell, he even bought a 30 minute infomercial to take place before a sporting event, and when time got short, obama decided that rather than have him cut some time that it would be better to forgo the national anthem. Not that he would have bothered crossing his heart while it was sung, but still...

You'd think that a presidential candidate would at least PRETEND to be patriotic, why do his supporters not care about this?

Not only is this untrue, you're also completely crazy if you think patriotism consists only of listening to some clown recite the national anthem. Patriotism is fighting for the people of the country, for basic liberties such as health and education. Patriotism is setting an example to the rest of the world, presenting the USA as a beacon of liberty and freedom as the founding fathers intended.

[/quote]
Actually, no, that's not what patriotism means. I suggest you look up the word.
And stop lying, Obama absolutely DID do this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fwog6E08CFU
Why do Obama supporters just deny every shitty thing he's ever done? Why not explain it instead - all it does is make you look like liars and idiots.

 

[clubhaus]

Having a socialist economic view will lead more Americans into a lazy I don't have to work to make a living attitude. I don't hate the rich for making money. I hate lazy, welfare collecting schmucks who can work but won't because they make more money collecting welfare than they could working. We are enablers in this country!!!