Barack Obama and Socialism

[LadyZephyr]

When left wingers tell you that you're poor and destined to stay that way, STOP BELEIVING THEM!

Sure. As soon as someone actually says that, I will be sure to not believe them.

You know what? I am lower-middle class. I cannot find a job and have been actively searching for half a year. My mother just took on her third job thanks to a friend helping her get hired. We used to be middle class. Over the last four or five years, we've slipped more and more due to rising costs of nearly everything. We've saved and been thrifty as hell. I gave up video games for two years and haven't purchased a new game in.... three years, if I'm remembering correctly. Everything is pre-owned and bought with a employee discount Mum has. Last Wednesday, I sold all my spare controllers and two old PS2 games to buy two days worth of meals.

I don't give a good goddamn about the rich. When the top one percent has fucking eighty percent of the entire nation's wealth, they can deal with some more taxes so I can afford to eat.

As my family sees it, the 'trickle down' economic system hasn't worked in ages. We're more than willing to try something new.

I am so sick of people saying "you're taking money from hard-working Americans." My family is hard-working and is still fucked.

 

[Good morning blues]

Poor rich people. God forbid they give back to the country that gave them the means and opportunity to become wealthy, and to its people who sustain that wealth.

And free health care? That will never work! Except in UK, France, Canada, Cuba...

And have you ever talked with the average person in, say, Canada that has had to deal with their "free health care" system? If you had, you wouldn't so smug. Fact is, with a free health care system, almost no one gets the help/treatment they need when they actually need it. Since everyone is covered for everything, most people go to the doctor for ANYTHING. Oh, I stubbed my toe, better see the doctor! My stomach hurts, better go to the ER! This happens all of the time in those countries you listed, and it inundates the hospitals and doctor's offices so that, when a legitimate patient comes in with a real medical dilemma, they have to wait not hours, but days even weeks before they can see a doctor. Then there's trying to get prescription medication. Oh dear Christ, I'm not even going to get into that. Point is, sure the system works in so far as it provides free health care for everyone. However, it often fails those it tries to help because the system simply can't keep up. Take it from someone that has not only lived, for 2 years mind you, in a country that has free health care, but has family and friends living there who have had to deal with the so called "perfect free health care system".

Uh, I'm Canadian, and every time I or any of my family has gone to the hospital, we've been sorted according to proper triage procedures, and nobody's ever had to wait more than a few hours for anything urgent. This summer I arrived at the ER in anaphylactic shock, and was given a bed as soon as the triage nurse got to me (which was a couple of minutes after I arrived). If you have a broken arm, you'll probably be given a couple of painkillers and have to wait an hour or two. If you stubbed your toe or have a stomach ache, you'll be waiting until they don't have anything more pressing, and you'll likely be told to go to a regular clinic as soon as you walk in. I've never had any issues with prescription drugs.

What does take a long time is elective procedures. I had to wait a couple of months to see the allergist, for instance, but I'll gladly take that if it means that everybody's being given access to quality preventative care.

 

[kurokotetsu]

And if that guy who effed up stops sitting around waiting for the government to pay for his life, he can find a job and fight for his well-being rather than lay back and accept his fate.

Find a job where? McDonald's? Wal-Mart? What if he's an illegal immigrant? What if he's a heroin-addicted hobo? Are these people employable? Will anybody hire them? Would you hire them?

They allowed themselves to be a heroin-addicted hobo, so it is not for the good citizens of the U.S. to have to raise that person up in the world, it's for themselves to do so.

Illegal immigrant? Should have come over legally. Enough said. If they can't do so, it is not our governments job to baby their needs if they don't ask for it, since typically they sneak over instead of contacting Immigration services, etc.

Children that are born with the addiction allowed themeselvees to be addicts? Interesting point o view.

Also illigeal immigrants. THey don't migrate legally because for the POSSIBILITY of a Visa the US Governmetn asks for 100$, which most of them don't see in several months. And even after paying most of them are refused the Visa. Why? Because they don't want more immigration. And immigrants do teh worst jobs most of the tiem, like working in greenhouses from sun to sun.

To the defenders of free market, how do you justify the current crisis?

 

[LadyZephyr]

As for Obama being a Socialist, just about anyone is a Socialist these days in America.

Here are two quotes from the book that that idea that government regulation/participation in the economy is a form of serfdom: a book called _The Road to Serfdom_ from F.A. Hayek. This book is kind of the touchstone of post-WWII Capitalist thought. These are some of the passages from that book that might surprise you--see how far the ideological inspiration for fans of Capitalism in previous generations looks like what we call Socialism today:

For instance, to limit working hours, to require certain sanitary arrangements, to provide an extensive system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. There are, too, certain fields where the system of competition is impracticable. For example, the harmful effects of deforestation or of the smoke of factories cannot be confined to the owner of the property in question. But the fact that we have to resort to direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper working of competition cannot be created does not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function.

and

But there are two kinds of security: the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance for all and the security of a given standard of life, of the relative position which one person or group enjoys compared with others. There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision. It is planning for security of the second kind which has such an insidious effect on liberty. It is planning designed to protect individuals or groups against diminutions of their incomes...It is important not to confuse opposition against the latter kind of planning with a dogmatic laissez faire attitude.

I think I'll have to look into finding that book. I have a dislike of pure capitalism very pro-regs, but this sounds interesting.

 

[Azeban]

While sarcasm can be an effective tool for getting your point across, let's try not to use it. The other party gets offended and Godwin's law is evoked.

Aw! I was just about to pull out my favorite picture [http://static.flickr.com/47/136631046_55bf303549_o.gif]!

Spoilsport.

-- Alex

I lol'ed.

Anyway, I've never heard of this capital gains thing Cheese is describing. I always assumed that the rich got by taxes some how; I guess that's one of their methods.

 

[Dr Spaceman]

Poor rich people. God forbid they give back to the country that gave them the means and opportunity to become wealthy, and to its people who sustain that wealth.

And free health care? That will never work! Except in UK, France, Canada, Cuba...

And have you ever talked with the average person in, say, Canada that has had to deal with their "free health care" system? If you had, you wouldn't so smug. Fact is, with a free health care system, almost no one gets the help/treatment they need when they actually need it. Since everyone is covered for everything, most people go to the doctor for ANYTHING. Oh, I stubbed my toe, better see the doctor! My stomach hurts, better go to the ER! This happens all of the time in those countries you listed, and it inundates the hospitals and doctor's offices so that, when a legitimate patient comes in with a real medical dilemma, they have to wait not hours, but days even weeks before they can see a doctor. Then there's trying to get prescription medication. Oh dear Christ, I'm not even going to get into that. Point is, sure the system works in so far as it provides free health care for everyone. However, it often fails those it tries to help because the system simply can't keep up. Take it from someone that has not only lived, for 2 years mind you, in a country that has free health care, but has family and friends living there who have had to deal with the so called "perfect free health care system".

Uh, I'm Canadian, and every time I or any of my family has gone to the hospital, we've been sorted according to proper triage procedures, and nobody's ever had to wait more than a few hours for anything urgent. This summer I arrived at the ER in anaphylactic shock, and was given a bed as soon as the triage nurse got to me (which was a couple of minutes after I arrived). If you have a broken arm, you'll probably be given a couple of painkillers and have to wait an hour or two. If you stubbed your toe or have a stomach ache, you'll be waiting until they don't have anything more pressing, and you'll likely be told to go to a regular clinic as soon as you walk in. I've never had any issues with prescription drugs.

What does take a long time is elective procedures. I had to wait a couple of months to see the allergist, for instance, but I'll gladly take that if it means that everybody's being given access to quality preventative care.

Well done blues. I can't believe how many times I've heard that the Canadian health care system is perhaps more efficient at dealing with important, life-or-death issues even if "elective" surgery takes a bit longer.

Let me point out that it seems like every couple of months we hear about people bleeding to death, waiting endless hours for treatment, etc. at American hospitals. Come on, we're America! Shouldn't we be doing shit better than the Canadians? (No offense, Canadians. It's just that, you know, a lot of Americans make fun of you. (No offense, Canadians, I don't mean to perpetuate stereotypes, but I think it's aboot time Americans aspired to achieve something you guys did first, and lose our superiority complex with your country. (Sorry, didn't mean to throw in that aboot, but... uh... take off, you hosers! (Clearly, much of my Canadian stereotypes are influenced by Strange Brew. (Haven't seen Strange Brew? What are you doing sitting at your computer? Go rent it!)))))

EDIT: Added news article about hospital in Dallas, Texas overlooking a patient with a broken leg: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,442602,00.html

 

[Alex_P]

Anyway, I've never heard of this capital gains thing Cheese is describing. I always assumed that the rich got by taxes some how; I guess that's one of their methods.

The flip side to that is payroll taxes, which wage-earners really can't get around (since they're deducted from your paycheck before you get it). Any figures that just show income taxes but not payroll taxes end up greatly under-representing how much "middle-" or "working-" class folks end up paying.

-- Alex

 

[Azeban]

All necessities of life should be provided for me. I shouldn't have to work for them, work is hard.

Again, good use of sarcasm to rudely make a point.

Nobody is saying that people shouldn't work.

 

[Flour]

I was going to post something a little more intelligent, but after reading a bit more, I no longer care.

Why don't all the rich people go to some goddamn island, and see how long they survive without the poor people doing the work for them?
Maybe a few months of hard work will make them appreciate how a socialized health system will keep the poor happy.

I'm happy to be Dutch, at least here the welfare checks are about as much as(if not more than) most poor American families make in one month. This with an unemployment rate averaging around 3.8%-4% in the last 10 years, compared to 4,5%-5% in America.(if an American source is to be trusted)

 

[Alex_P]

This with an unemployment rate averaging around 3.8%-4% in the last 10 years, compared to 4,5%-5% in America.(if an American source is to be trusted)

Quick point about unemployment rates:

Most economists say that some number is good. That's because near-0 unemployment means the job market is unhealthy -- either nobody is changing jobs or the economy is so starved for jobs that job-changers and incoming young workers get snapped up immediately. American economists usually go for 4-5%, IIRC.

Of course, another thing that makes unemployment statistics kinda screwy is that, traditionally, people who aren't interested in getting a job don't count as "unemployed."

-- Alex

 

[HSIAMetalKing]

Socialism isn't the dirty word people like to think it is.

 

[742]

so wait.. we should take from people with gold plated shark tanks on their private jets and give to people who can barely eat, or cant afford to keep LIVING? yes. thats a fucking stupid idea.

right now the US government(and im sure quite a few others, but especially this one in the past few years) takes from the poor and gives it to the rich, and i just dont think thats fair. i think a few years of countering that would be quite good.

were socialist right now, were just favoring the rich side. they can afford accountants congressmen judges (not that those are particularly costly) and lawyers.

 

[Brett Alex]

Theres a difference between keeping society from collapsing (I'm talking about some warefare and schools, not the crisis crap) America has always been know for the oppertunity it has. Almost everyone who has came to America didn't have a dollar to their name and yet now their decedents are doing pretty damn well for themselves compared to starving in the street of Tegucigalpa.

Hang on, can you name an American President who did not come from a very wealthy background?

The land of opportunity stuff is pretty good when you want to make a speech, but wouldn't it be far better to have most people living pretty well, at the expense of a few living incredibly well?
I'm not suggesting full scale socialism or communal farms, but maybe just I dunno, free healthcare and tertiary education? Is that too much to ask?

 

[Doug]

What's wrong with free healthcare? Should someone do without having their hand put back on just because they can't pay a bill?

Health care is not a right. Just because it's important to staying alive doesn't mean it's a right. Food isn't a right, is it? Hobos are starving in the street, why shouldn't they get food just because they can't pay a grocery bill? People need cars to get to work - should the government buy poor people cars too? Should someone be deprived of transportation just because they can't pay a bill?

So far what I'm seeing is a shameless support for socialism. I'm actually pretty surprised.
Socialism is wrong because it takes away the incentive to work and takes away the power of the individual. When left wingers tell you that you're poor and destined to stay that way, STOP BELEIVING THEM! In America you work for what you get and you don't resent those who reap the rewards for their efforts. In the words of Glenn Beck, 'why should someone who worked hard their whole life have to cut a check for the guy who fucked up their order at McDonalds?"

Food should be a right, yes. Health care should be a right too and over here in the UK it is. Cars aren't a right, but there is public transport (although thats poor over here if you live outside the cities).

You state socialism is wrong because it removes the motive to work. When applied to the middle and below classes, yes. When applied to the multi-multi-billionaires who own something like 95% of American's wealth whilst being 5% of the population, no. Half of them are from 'good families', i.e. they inherinted it. Remind me again, America's supposed to be classless, no? Seems like you already have a nobility.

So, is taking some of the vast wealth from these individuals, and giving it to the workers who probably part-generated that cash right? Maybe.

 

[stompy]

Of course, another thing that makes unemployment statistics kinda screwy is that, traditionally, people who aren't interested in getting a job don't count as "unemployed."

-- Alex

Aren't those not looking counted as 'not in the labour force'? And those that are looking, but not currently employed, those are 'unemployed'.

 

[Spinozaad]

I'm all for classic liberalism/conservatism. It works, just observe the statistics. Don't critically analyse them, though.

 

[GCM]

Why do I keep seeing these threads? Why do people keep coming to the Escapist to talk about Obama? And by that I mean trying to derail him.

And why are some people so afraid of socialism, anyway? The administration already basically took 700 billion from the people to give to the banks because they were in hardship. Tell me that that's capitalism.

It's as though you're afraid of it to the point of avoiding it completely. That's extremism, isn't it?