Barack Obama and Socialism

[BladesofReason]

Actually, you're wrong. Most homeless people aren't there because of bad luck, they're there because they're drunks and drug addicts. The few who are genuinely in rough times or are mentally ill I can understand helping, but the drug addicts? I have no sympathy for them. I've spent a lot of time doing drugs and a lot of time watching friends go down the wrong paths - snorting coke, shooting heroin, and when they end up homeless and begging for change, I won't feel sorry for them - they were warned, and they don't deserve part of my paycheck.

You are aware that addiction to drugs is not a choice but, in the minds of the addicted almost a necessity? The choice to continue using drugs isn't always theirs to make anymore. Granted the decision to START very well could have been. It is also possible that they started as a means to escape living in a crappy situation without any means of improving it because of a system that makes advancement out of poverty next to impossible.

You're very lucky if you spent a lot of time doing drugs and didn't get caught in them like your friends but others aren't so lucky. I'm not for giving homeless drug addicts a house and new car but I do support at least giving them the opportunity to clean up their act.

Edit: Whoah dude...you scare me something fierce. You've clearly bought into the party ideas about Obama and it's very clear nobody is going to convince you otherwise... You insinuated in your own post there that he was in fact a terrorist after you said nobody was saying he was. You're right, no one is saying that, but you're sure thinking it loudly.

 

[Mistah Kurtz]

Actually, you're wrong. Most homeless people aren't there because of bad luck, they're there because they're drunks and drug addicts.

Link please.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D0CEFD61331F932A15751C1A967958260
Is the NYT liberal enough for you?

 

[Tjebbe]

For starters, stop with the USSR references: Socialism is not Communism. And they didn't even do communism right, for that matter.

As an outsider, it is my humble opinion that capitalism has a tendency to collapse into an oligarchy, and that America is a very good example of that. So 'socialist' arrangements to counter that are not only nice to have; they are essential to keep a country's affairs balanced.

Basic health-care should be a given, why would someone who is born rich and never earned a penny in their lives get better health-care than someone who has worked 16 hours a day on a minimum wage since the day he was able to? (heh, minimum wages are socialism too).

 

[Mistah Kurtz]

Actually, you're wrong. Most homeless people aren't there because of bad luck, they're there because they're drunks and drug addicts. The few who are genuinely in rough times or are mentally ill I can understand helping, but the drug addicts? I have no sympathy for them. I've spent a lot of time doing drugs and a lot of time watching friends go down the wrong paths - snorting coke, shooting heroin, and when they end up homeless and begging for change, I won't feel sorry for them - they were warned, and they don't deserve part of my paycheck.

You are aware that addiction to drugs is not a choice but, in the minds of the addicted almost a necessity? The choice to continue using drugs isn't always theirs to make anymore. Granted the decision to START very well could have been. It is also possible that they started as a means to escape living in a crappy situation without any means of improving it because of a system that makes advancement out of poverty next to impossible.

You're very lucky if you spent a lot of time doing drugs and didn't get caught in them like your friends but others aren't so lucky. I'm not for giving homeless drug addicts a house and new car but I do support at least giving them the opportunity to clean up their act

Addiction is not a god damned disease - it's a choice. You choose to start using drugs, and you choose to continue using them. That's why some addicts kick the stuff - they choose to. It's called WILLPOWER, not that I'd expect a communist to understand that. The reason I never got addicted to hard drugs is because I didn't use them - I stuck to beer, pot, and pharmacy drugs such as DXM and Vicodin. After using vicodin a few times, particularly, I decided to stop before I got hooked because i found myself wanting to do it again and again - my friends were not so smart. They only wanted to get high, and didn't care about the consequences. They've dug their own grave and now they have to live in it. I offered advice and warnings to these people, and some of them are now crackheads and heroin addicts jumping states to avoid arrests. I have no sympathy for them - you make your own choices in life, and it's not up to the government to help you when you fuck up. The way a society advances is by having the FREEDOM TO FAIL - something that communism attempts to eliminate completely. Sorry, but that's just not fair for the people who work hard.

And to the person asking "How much money does someone need" - the answer is: As much as they want. If you're happy making 30k a year, then more power to you. You've achieved happiness. Some people want more lucrative jobs, so they work harder. They work their way through school, they scrimp and save, they work hundred hour weeks. How dare you attempt to take away the fruits of their labor in vein of your fucked up concept of 'fairness' and 'equality'? People are not equal despite what the Marxists authors may have told you.

 

[Mistah Kurtz]

For starters, stop with the USSR references: Socialism is not Communism. And they didn't even do communism right, for that matter.

As an outsider, it is my humble opinion that capitalism has a tendency to collapse into an oligarchy, and that America is a very good example of that. So 'socialist' arrangements to counter that are not only nice to have; they are essential to keep a country's affairs balanced.

Basic health-care should be a given, why would someone who is born rich and never earned a penny in their lives get better health-care than someone who has worked 16 hours a day on a minimum wage since the day he was able to? (heh, minimum wages are socialism too).

You raise a valid point - how is it fair that people born into wealth don't have to work as hard as the rest of us and still get a leg up on life?
Well, it isn't. But to stop that would be detrimental to a much more important aspect of fairness - the right to work and acquire wealth. Should you be able to pass on to your children what you've earned in your life? Is it immoral for someone to work hard through their life to send their kids to school and buy a house you can one day pass on to them? Of course not. The fact that some people have it easy by accident of birth is certainly infuriating to everyone not so lucky, and I understand your resentment. You cannot, however, take away a persons right to do what they want with their money.

 

[bad rider]

Who cares if his policies are socialist, they just seem to be the best considering the current climate.

 

[Doug]

Who cares if his policies are socialist, they just seem to be the best considering the current climate.

Indeed! And I don't really care if he was a super-socialist, so long as he gets the US economy working.

 

[minignu]

Actually, you're wrong. Most homeless people aren't there because of bad luck, they're there because they're drunks and drug addicts.

Link please.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D0CEFD61331F932A15751C1A967958260
Is the NYT liberal enough for you?

Correlation =/= Causation. If you have basically nothing, of course the temptation to take heroine or crack goes up. It doesn't necessarily mean most homeless people are in this position because they took drugs or drink earlier on. When Britain started the progress to a welfare state, they actually did do their research and found that many of those living poverty were in that position due to no fault of their own. 100 years on and the neo-cons still can't grasp this fact. And a study of 113 people of a group of poor people, then 644 dead people of the same group isn't exactly statistically valid. Not to mention, you can still have a "home" but still live in abject poverty.

 

[Ray Huling]

Hospital bills woman who never saw a doctor
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27299090/wid/11915773?GT1=31037

Note: this story takes place in Dallas, Texas, which is not in Canada.

 

[scarbunny]

Actually, you're wrong. Most homeless people aren't there because of bad luck, they're there because they're drunks and drug addicts. The few who are genuinely in rough times or are mentally ill I can understand helping, but the drug addicts? I have no sympathy for them. I've spent a lot of time doing drugs and a lot of time watching friends go down the wrong paths - snorting coke, shooting heroin, and when they end up homeless and begging for change, I won't feel sorry for them - they were warned, and they don't deserve part of my paycheck.

You are aware that addiction to drugs is not a choice but, in the minds of the addicted almost a necessity? The choice to continue using drugs isn't always theirs to make anymore. Granted the decision to START very well could have been. It is also possible that they started as a means to escape living in a crappy situation without any means of improving it because of a system that makes advancement out of poverty next to impossible.

You're very lucky if you spent a lot of time doing drugs and didn't get caught in them like your friends but others aren't so lucky. I'm not for giving homeless drug addicts a house and new car but I do support at least giving them the opportunity to clean up their act

Addiction is not a god damned disease - it's a choice. You choose to start using drugs, and you choose to continue using them. That's why some addicts kick the stuff - they choose to. It's called WILLPOWER, not that I'd expect a communist to understand that. The reason I never got addicted to hard drugs is because I didn't use them - I stuck to beer, pot, and pharmacy drugs such as DXM and Vicodin. After using vicodin a few times, particularly, I decided to stop before I got hooked because i found myself wanting to do it again and again - my friends were not so smart. They only wanted to get high, and didn't care about the consequences. They've dug their own grave and now they have to live in it. I offered advice and warnings to these people, and some of them are now crackheads and heroin addicts jumping states to avoid arrests. I have no sympathy for them - you make your own choices in life, and it's not up to the government to help you when you fuck up. The way a society advances is by having the FREEDOM TO FAIL - something that communism attempts to eliminate completely. Sorry, but that's just not fair for the people who work hard.

And to the person asking "How much money does someone need" - the answer is: As much as they want. If you're happy making 30k a year, then more power to you. You've achieved happiness. Some people want more lucrative jobs, so they work harder. They work their way through school, they scrimp and save, they work hundred hour weeks. How dare you attempt to take away the fruits of their labor in vein of your fucked up concept of 'fairness' and 'equality'? People are not equal despite what the Marxists authors may have told you.

Ok so no ones equal, I don think this is what Obama is trying to say. What im seeing is a sensible solution to a huge probalem, last census it was 47 million americans. However thats fine they dont have health cover they are all bums with no jobs.

But what if you miss the payment for your health insurance because your company goes bust? Suddenly your one of those bums with no health care, better make sure you dont do something stupid like get cancer or hit by a car.

Nationalised health care is a good thing for everyone if you cant see that then you are a fucking moron.

 

[Eyclonus]

Why is it that so many of you from the states go apeshit about Socialised Medicine?

A subsidised healthcare system is fucking brilliant.
I know about 18 people who need lifesaving medication that is nearly triple the price in America, but around about $58 a bottle in Australia, cheaper in Britain too.

 

[WitherVoice]

I was going to say something, but I think WitherVoice really said everything I was going to say... And he said it better. Where are you from, WitherVoice?

Norway

 

[malestrithe]

Well, McCain supported the Banking bailout too. Obama's Socialism is more uniform than McCain's. McCain wants socialism for the rich. When they make mistakes, he is glad to give them govt money to help their mistakes. For the rest of us, McCain wants Capitalism. If we mae a mistake, its our ass.

obama wants more uniform socialism.

 

[Alex_P]

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

Why, Jackson, of course! His family wasn't wealthy or prominent -- they were recent immigrants and his dad died a few weeks before he was born, -- and his education was pretty patchy, but he managed to work his way up to a law career, then politics, then financial prosperity, then the presidency. Oh, and he managed to become a general, too.

Of course, Jackson is also one of the strangest and most hotly-debated presidents we've ever had.

-- Alex

 

[Uncompetative]

Ok. I think that Socialism is a dirty word.

So, we all need to think of another new word that is therefore free from negative associations. A clean word.

Citizenism

Now. Here is the idea.

If you are a US Citizen you are protected by the State. Accident and emergency healthcare will be automatically provided so that your life is saved if you get stabbed by a mugger who steals your only means of identification and you are left in a bad way unable to prove that you have health insurance. (Unlimited universal health care is not part of this deal, that is extra. So, if you are pregnant and go into labor you will get free medical assistance, but if the baby is born prematurely it is at the hospital's discretion whether it is put into an incubator or left to die - this is where charitable organisations can come into the picture as every Christian American seems so keen on saving the life of an individual whilst it is still a cute kid). Floods, tornadoes and hurricanes will receive Federal assistance and the Nation itself will be defended from territorial attack - i.e. surface-to-air missiles on the tops of skyscrapers to prevent another 9/11 rather than invading Iraq. You are also always entitled to welfare, so when unemployed or sick you can get back on your feet and contribute to the economy again.

Yet, if you are a US Citizen you are expected to protect the State. That includes going to war to help defend your country - if you are not a 'unfit psychopath' - jury service, volunteering some of your time to help out in natural disaster situations (e.g. forest fires), even just picking up litter and helping to maintain parks and gardens if you are unfit for combat, etc.

In this way those rich people who whine about supporting the indolent poor through a Socialist system will be exposed as unpatriotic. This is because many of the people they criticize as 'parasites' on their entrepreneurial efforts are prepared to die for their country. That's the deal.

Of course this also allows you to factor out all the illegal immigrants who are not Citizens. That is why I didn't call it Peoplism.

 

[YukoValis]

I gave up giving a damn about politics long ago, so I won't water down my response with a lot of numbers and "he said, but did" sentences. The economy is screwed up. Anyone able to fix this can be an Elitest, non-white, pervert who has orgies in the oval office for all I care.

I would vote for obama (if I chose to vote) because it's like choosing the lesser evil. Besides if elected McCain will probably die or Obama might just be assassinted so we are really voting for vice presidents. Now Palin (Stalin), Anyone who wants to argue about electing a person who makes Women, Republicans, and Christians look bad is an idiot.

 

[Doug]

I'm fine with it because it's already over. The Federal government now has a controlling interest in the top 9 banks in America. On a Republican President's watch and with his adamant support. The government now controls the economy and the free market is dead. Frankly, I always thought the fantasy of getting rich and owning your own business was just as probable as winning the lottery but that's just me.

Yup, it probably is over - and to be fair, alot of countries (including the UK) have begun nationalizing/buying controlling interests in top banks.

To be fair, I have to wonder if the free market can work. Its pretty clear from these events, its not a stable system. It promotes performance over everything, including the safety of the cash and the finanical system as a whole. It promotes the gains of a individual who is reckless over the stably of the whole network.

As we can witness, mortgue providers wanted to out-perform their rivals (because thats what capitolism enthusizes). So, they applied pressure to the sales folk, who in turn offered special deals and so forth to poor people who couldn't afford the mortgues, really, but would never have an offer like it, so they went for it. Hoorah, sales are up, bonuses all around. What happens when the mortgues default? Bah, who care's, we'll have sold it all off by then! Someone else's problem.

And now its our mess - the system promotes 'its someone elses problem' over everything. When did we revert back into a predator species?

Honestly, about the best way to organize a finanical system would be to let scientists and engineers design it. It'd reduce the environmental impact of the reckless industries, and be more likely to be sustainable, rather than the boom/bust madness that only encourages us to live beyond our means at the cost of future generations.

 

[Ray Huling]

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

Barack Obama.
Abraham Lincoln.
Bill Clinton, too, actually.

 

[Alex_P]

Now Palin (Stalin)

Palin is not Stalin.

Stalin had a very nuanced understanding of culture and history, for example.

-- Alex

 

[wgreer25]

I agree, what's wrong with socialism?

A lot. For one, if the government freely takes money from the those that work hard to earn it, and gives it to those that do nothing, there's literally no incentive to work. Therefore, with no one willing to hold a job for fear of having their money taken, the economy falters. Even if Obama only raises taxes on those making over 250k a year and starts heavily taxing corporations, to be able to cover the ridiculous amounts of money he plans on spending for things such as "free" universal health-care, he'd have to take 95% or more of the upper classes income. You may say, "That's fine with me. I want some free cash so let's stick it to the man!" Trouble is, who is it that employs the average person? That's right, the rich cats. The company owners. The upper class. If they start losing most of their income, one of three things will occur. 1: Either they'll close up shop because it can't turn a profit or they'll go bankrupt. 2: They'll pack up and relocate their business overseas. Thus, taking their products, money, and jobs away from the American public. 3: These companies will, to have any hope of covering the taxation and still turn a profit, raise the price of their products. Thus, passing the burden onto the average citizen so that, in the end, those making under 250k end up having to pay the taxes anyway. In any of these cases, the economy will likely take a huge hit and collapse. You think it's bad now with the bankrupting of a few banks, imagine what it'll be like if it happens to every market and every industry. Socialism seems like a great idea that some (mostly those that are too lazy to do things themselves or just want everyone else to give them what they need) hold in high regard, but fact is, it never really works out as planned.

However, I have to add that I think our current form of a "free market" is also flawed. A free market only works if there are solid, logical, and fair safe-guards in place that are strongly enforced instead of just suggested.

As a final note, just to clarify, I hate both candidates. Obama speaks in prophetic rhetoric and makes promises he, in all honesty, simply can not keep. McCain, to me, seems like a colossal tool. He's not Bush, but then again, he seems like he has no idea what he's doing. So, I'm not sure which would be worse in office. Someone that would cause a total upheaval of everything this government was founded on and likely cause it to falter; or someone that seems like a bumbling fool that would have to learn everything as he goes. I hate to say it, but I almost wish Hillary was still in the running. I hate her with a passion but damned if she doesn't seem like a better choice then the two jackasses we have as our current choices.

You and I agree completely, including your assessment of the candidates. The best thing that could happen would be to reinstate the Glass Stegal (sp?) act that was created after the great depression (bank/insurance/investment brokers regulation). That would be the government regulation to keep a free market more honest.

Socialism at it's very core is flawed. It is the best tool to keep a poor man poor. The chinese proverb "give a man a fish" is the best example of why Socialism is bad. Government regulation is a better answer for the economy than small steps toward Socialism. This "bailout" plan is a HUGE step toward Socialism. The government "sold" the bailout to the public by saying they would buy up the toxic loans, but the bailout was essentially a blank check to the treasury department, and now they are buying interest in the banks, that they regulate. I firmly believe that this was their goal all along, they pulled the old bait-and-switch. But I'll put my conspiracy theories aside for now.

And there is something that you guys need to be set straight on. ANYONE who is willing to work for it, can get the things/job they want. I went to public schools, I went to a public University and took out a large amount in student loans to pay for school. I worked through college and did 2 years of co-oprative education. I got a technical degree (chemical engineering) and used school programs to help find my first "after college" job. Now, it is many years later and I am comfortable in the upper middle class, because I WORKED to get there. Anyone can do what I did. And don't give me that crap of where you were raised or what color your skin is. I had to live in the middle of Cracktown while I was in school, because I knew that I couldn't afford anything more. Too many people are duped into thinking they can't do any better than they have now. If they work they can.

Now I'm not saying that programs like Unemployment and Welfare don't serve a very good purpose, but they should be coupled with a job training/education program is you are going to get the money (i.e. prove you are going to eventually get off the program). I have a very close friend who was laid off and took unemployment, he found another job in his previous pay range in 2 months, in the mean time, he worked at the post office. That is how the system should work.