Barack Obama and Socialism
- Thread starter Mistah Kurtz
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That's the problem with democracy every five penny twammer gets a vote.[/quote]
*facepalm*
i do however like 'twammer' as in insult.
*facepalm*
i do however like 'twammer' as in insult.
Let us all thank Commrade Brown for the National Health Service. I am so glad I live in the United Socialist States of Britain!Mistah Kurtz post=18.74687.842555 said:
Well done for totally missing the point.
I think some form of health care that covers every American is necessary - it'll lower operating costs for businesses and improve quality of life. I don't care how it happens or how it works as long as it covers everybody and avoids adverse selection. There are ways to do that other than single-payer health care, which is a good thing, because I don't think that could ever happen here. There's no way a bill supporting single-payer health care would ever pass in the United States, even with a Democratic majority.
That being said, I think a lot of people ignore the fact that the European economy is largely dependent upon the American economy. America's fiscal and economic problems are affecting every nation in the world, whereas I can't imagine a crisis in, say, Belgium, affecting the United States one iota. This is, obviously, because the American economy is stronger (or at least larger and more influential). Big and strong enough to support systems that I don't think would work on their own. (I remember hearing about how France had some sort of law that prevented long-time employees for getting fired for pretty much any reason short of a misdemeanor or felony - utterly ridiculous. Not sure if it's still standing, though). The problem is that not everybody in America benefits from the strength of cash flow and production.
Still, I'd like to see some of that higher standard of living here, in America. The added peace of mind of universal coverage (even if it isn't completely free) would help ease a lot of worries that people have. One of the problems I have about the Democratic Party, though, is that they're afraid to make any substantial changes or overhauls to our entitlement systems. They seem to think that a slightly higher payroll tax will take care of it. If left as is, Medicare is going to bankrupt this country within my lifetime. And yet there are some who balk at the idea of ANY change at all (i.e. an increased retirement age). They don't want to piss off all the old people who have voted Democrat since FDR ran for office. I don't necessarily advocate privatization like some people do, but I'm willing to consider it as a solution if nothing else works. Some politicians wouldn't, and I think that's a problem.
That being said, I think a lot of people ignore the fact that the European economy is largely dependent upon the American economy. America's fiscal and economic problems are affecting every nation in the world, whereas I can't imagine a crisis in, say, Belgium, affecting the United States one iota. This is, obviously, because the American economy is stronger (or at least larger and more influential). Big and strong enough to support systems that I don't think would work on their own. (I remember hearing about how France had some sort of law that prevented long-time employees for getting fired for pretty much any reason short of a misdemeanor or felony - utterly ridiculous. Not sure if it's still standing, though). The problem is that not everybody in America benefits from the strength of cash flow and production.
Still, I'd like to see some of that higher standard of living here, in America. The added peace of mind of universal coverage (even if it isn't completely free) would help ease a lot of worries that people have. One of the problems I have about the Democratic Party, though, is that they're afraid to make any substantial changes or overhauls to our entitlement systems. They seem to think that a slightly higher payroll tax will take care of it. If left as is, Medicare is going to bankrupt this country within my lifetime. And yet there are some who balk at the idea of ANY change at all (i.e. an increased retirement age). They don't want to piss off all the old people who have voted Democrat since FDR ran for office. I don't necessarily advocate privatization like some people do, but I'm willing to consider it as a solution if nothing else works. Some politicians wouldn't, and I think that's a problem.
This is what real Americans are like. Basically it's a voting bloc. Think of it as an ultra conservatie group.Taxi Driver post=18.74687.844246 said:
Basically if they could, they would build a time machine and live in the 1950's forever. Of course, if they did that, they would have jobs. Some of them do have jobs.
An era where even political dissent would result in you getting a knock on the door from a government agency who was conducting a Witch Hunt in order to find communists and communist sympathizers in America.
A time when segregation was the norm, and all kinds of other stupid. Homosexuality was illegal and often considered a mental illness.
An era where even political dissent would result in you getting a knock on the door from a government agency who was conducting a Witch Hunt in order to find communists and communist sympathizers in America.
A time when segregation was the norm, and all kinds of other stupid. Homosexuality was illegal and often considered a mental illness.
It tends to fail, that's what's wrong. And don't try to use the argument of successful European socialist countries, as I'll just use the incredible growth of Asian capitalist economies with varying government types.hippieshopper post=18.74687.842501 said:
barrack obama is by no means socialist he is not even left wing.... all he is is more left wing than the republican party.... now ralph nader he is rather left wing....
All economies tend to fail; that's entropy in action, with ordered systems tending to fall into disorder. It's what an economic system can do to mitigate those failures, and what it can do between failures, that's important. Pure markets tend to amplify the economic swings, so the peaks are very high but the valleys are damned low too. Planned markets even things out but you have to be careful that growth doesn't go flat as a result... remember entropy, so flat actually leads to decline. I favour a mix of the two that gets some shallow peaks and valleys like a market economy but doesn't flatten out as badly as a planned economy does.Logan Frederick post=18.74687.844345 said:
And all those Asian capitalist economies you're pointing to are actually mixed economies to varying degrees... chaeboels and zaibatsus have considerable government interests in them, for instance.
-- Steve
Frankly, I find this entire debate staggeringly alarming. I have a laundry list of reasons I can check off, but I'll just comment on a couple of key points.
Firstly, both sides of the debate are constantly spewing misinformation about the benefits of their preferred system, the demerits of the other side's, and the causes of our current problems. No reasonable conclusions can ever be drawn as long as the people discussing the matter are mindlessly spouting party-endorsed talking points.
Secondly, it showcases the fact that the nation is in the middle of a culture war that's divided the populace into fundamentally incompatible segments who can never agree on a number of important issues. The nation's character has been splintered, so no policies, regardless of whose they are, can ever represent the interests of everyone. That's a much larger problem than any being discussed in regard to our upcoming elections, and one that will haunt us for generations to come. It's nothing short of lunacy for us to be battling over these issues instead of working to resolve these incompatibilities through any means necessary, even if the outcome is the separation of the USA into two sovereign states. Once that's been accomplished, we can work toward the betterment of society, rather than the repression/destruction of the other side. And on that day, pigs will fly on magic anvils made of butterscotch and the moon will razz a passing comet.
And another thing... why are so many people in such a rush to be just like other nations when those same nations they want to emulate have problems that equal or exceed our own? Doesn't it make much more sense, in an era where politics are evolving into such complex forms at such a rapid pace, to keep a number of different methods active in the world? As the USA tries to be more like Europe or Canada, we're robbing those people of the innovations we might devise through our methods, as well as robbing ourselves of the benefits of their systems once they've been refined or the knowledge of why they failed. But again, flying pigs and a moon raspberry.
Firstly, both sides of the debate are constantly spewing misinformation about the benefits of their preferred system, the demerits of the other side's, and the causes of our current problems. No reasonable conclusions can ever be drawn as long as the people discussing the matter are mindlessly spouting party-endorsed talking points.
Secondly, it showcases the fact that the nation is in the middle of a culture war that's divided the populace into fundamentally incompatible segments who can never agree on a number of important issues. The nation's character has been splintered, so no policies, regardless of whose they are, can ever represent the interests of everyone. That's a much larger problem than any being discussed in regard to our upcoming elections, and one that will haunt us for generations to come. It's nothing short of lunacy for us to be battling over these issues instead of working to resolve these incompatibilities through any means necessary, even if the outcome is the separation of the USA into two sovereign states. Once that's been accomplished, we can work toward the betterment of society, rather than the repression/destruction of the other side. And on that day, pigs will fly on magic anvils made of butterscotch and the moon will razz a passing comet.
And another thing... why are so many people in such a rush to be just like other nations when those same nations they want to emulate have problems that equal or exceed our own? Doesn't it make much more sense, in an era where politics are evolving into such complex forms at such a rapid pace, to keep a number of different methods active in the world? As the USA tries to be more like Europe or Canada, we're robbing those people of the innovations we might devise through our methods, as well as robbing ourselves of the benefits of their systems once they've been refined or the knowledge of why they failed. But again, flying pigs and a moon raspberry.
Neither candidate is anywhere close to ideal. But the lesser of two evils idea comes into play.
One of many reasons:
http://www.neverfindout.org/
One of many reasons:
http://www.neverfindout.org/
Why? Why not just have more political parties? A two-party system is a very odd idea because, frankly, two parties is not enough to cover all the political ideas and direction a country or its people can have. Especially not a country as big as the USA. (This is also one of the reasons that Americans are viewed quite stereotypical in much of the world. There is not enough political diversity)Verigan post=18.74687.844385 said:
Loading up on more political parties doesn't solve the cultural problem. If anything, it would exacerbate it by breaking the populace into even more incompatible segments along lines of race, religion, location, and single issues that a lot of people put excessive emphasis on.
Well, John McCain must have once been a socialist, because it turns out that for years he supported higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for lower taxes on the middle-class. The YouTube don't lie: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=d8EyGpOU3qM
There you go, and now he is singing a completely different story. So the path the US is headed towards is socialism period. Let's not forget that BOTH nominees voted for the Bailout package. A bill that establishes the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The Treasury has $700 billion to buy up toxic mortgages, securities and related assets that have undermined the nation's financial architecture. So now, any way you spin it, the Government is going to own these assets, paid for with OUR tax money. They are going to privatize the potential profits and then socialize the losses. Meaning if they make any money off this bill we will see NONE of it...not one red cent. But when everything goes belly up like it's bound to, the tax payer has to foot the bill. Both the candidates voted for this. They are both socialists, they are simply taking different roads to get there. And the sad thing about it is that the A-typical American is too busy living beyond their means thinking the Government will solve all their problems they don't care about how much control they are giving them. Whine about it all you want, but it's the U.S. citizen who, by making a habit of buying things they can't afford...like houses, cars, TVs, any big ticket item and putting it on credit. The Mortgage crisis is only PARTLY to blame for this mess. It's really the idiotic, financially uneducated, American Citizens who are to blame. It's just that no one in the white house has to balls to blame them(us) for it. Now these same idiots who have been living in the lap of luxury for the past decade think it's the Government's responsibility to "Bail us out". Now I'm not saying that is the only reason this country is falling apart at the seams. But what is wrong with a potentially democratic government with a socialist undertone, because it's blatantly clear that the average citizen has very little involvement with local, state or federal government these days. We and our parents allowed this to happen and allowed the Government run around with a blank check for decades and now we have to pay the price.
There you go, and now he is singing a completely different story. So the path the US is headed towards is socialism period. Let's not forget that BOTH nominees voted for the Bailout package. A bill that establishes the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The Treasury has $700 billion to buy up toxic mortgages, securities and related assets that have undermined the nation's financial architecture. So now, any way you spin it, the Government is going to own these assets, paid for with OUR tax money. They are going to privatize the potential profits and then socialize the losses. Meaning if they make any money off this bill we will see NONE of it...not one red cent. But when everything goes belly up like it's bound to, the tax payer has to foot the bill. Both the candidates voted for this. They are both socialists, they are simply taking different roads to get there. And the sad thing about it is that the A-typical American is too busy living beyond their means thinking the Government will solve all their problems they don't care about how much control they are giving them. Whine about it all you want, but it's the U.S. citizen who, by making a habit of buying things they can't afford...like houses, cars, TVs, any big ticket item and putting it on credit. The Mortgage crisis is only PARTLY to blame for this mess. It's really the idiotic, financially uneducated, American Citizens who are to blame. It's just that no one in the white house has to balls to blame them(us) for it. Now these same idiots who have been living in the lap of luxury for the past decade think it's the Government's responsibility to "Bail us out". Now I'm not saying that is the only reason this country is falling apart at the seams. But what is wrong with a potentially democratic government with a socialist undertone, because it's blatantly clear that the average citizen has very little involvement with local, state or federal government these days. We and our parents allowed this to happen and allowed the Government run around with a blank check for decades and now we have to pay the price.
Only if the governmental system was based on the requirement that one party had the majority and that that party governed. With multiple parties the government would have to be based on coalitions (like the governments of continental Europe). While this would have the problem of forcing people to work together, it would also be more democratic.Verigan post=18.74687.844543 said:
There are more than two political parties in the US. It just so happens that most of them are so oppressed by the big two and all of the special rules that they have in their favor that you never hear about them.Xaryn Mar post=18.74687.844516 said:
With respect, if we take your argument and turn it around it could be used to defend a one-party state in terms of maintaining national unity.Verigan post=18.74687.844543 said:
I don't think the US really needs to turn to, say, an Italian "pizza parliament" of parties; I think that'd lead to chaos. But some viable third (or even fourth) party choices might halt the Dem/GOP's tendancies to drift to the extremes of their policy bases and thus induce this huge split of which you justifiably complain.
-- Steve
Well, I have to say this. I like high taxes. It's really hard to choke down, but with the high taxes I hope to one day pay, The government can be of some use. They could pay off our debt, pay for some decent healthcare, pay for a better education and social security system. Americans need to stop clinging to your damn money, you probably already have more stuff than you will ever need. Pay the taxes. It's gurenteed in life so you might as well have it pay for somthing nice.