The failure of Obama's economics

[axia777]

Whichever way Obama chooses to go, look for an economy where the government plays an ever-increasing role, both in choosing what industries are profitable and what individual companies within each industry succeed. Again, we have been moving toward a Soviet-style command economy for decades, but this will be a sharp increase in pace.

Then what do you say about all the crap the Republicans have been pulling with the bank buy outs? Who do you blame then? Or is it all still some "Socialist" Democrats fault?

Again, I also agree. I do so hate the socialist/planned market ideal. To me it just seems to take away all need to work hard and do anything. If i can be supported totally by the state why bother training all those years to be a systems analyst when I could just as easily get an equally (if not equal then supported by the state) payed job doing one of my hobbies (rockclimbing) I would far rather climb or instruct for a living than be an analyst but there just isn't a job in it.

Yay for killing all forms of venture eh?

Why is it then that many of the "Socialistic" countries in Europe have thriving economies?

Also, just to let you know, being a Rock Climbing Intructor is a fine job. People can make a fine living doing it. For example: http://www.rockclimbingjobs.com/northeasternstates.htm

 

[Acervusvlos]

Whichever way Obama chooses to go, look for an economy where the government plays an ever-increasing role, both in choosing what industries are profitable and what individual companies within each industry succeed. Again, we have been moving toward a Soviet-style command economy for decades, but this will be a sharp increase in pace.

Then what do you say about all the crap the Republicans have been pulling with the bank buy outs? Who do you blame then? Or is it all still some "Socialist" Democrats fault?

Again, I also agree. I do so hate the socialist/planned market ideal. To me it just seems to take away all need to work hard and do anything. If i can be supported totally by the state why bother training all those years to be a systems analyst when I could just as easily get an equally (if not equal then supported by the state) payed job doing one of my hobbies (rockclimbing) I would far rather climb or instruct for a living than be an analyst but there just isn't a job in it.

Yay for killing all forms of venture eh?

Why is it then that many of the "Socialistic" countries in Europe have thriving economies?

Also, just to let you know, being a Rock Climbing Intructor is a fine job. People can make a fine living doing it. For example: http://www.rockclimbingjobs.com/northeasternstates.htm

You didn't answer his question.

What's the point of working hard, if there's no advancement?


Also. Europe is a Continent, thus, the countries act independantly when it comes to taxation/government financial tactics.
Also, those countries all have alot less people than the US. They also have alot less poverty.
If we tried to shift into Socialism now, it would fail entirely without any success.

 

[axia777]

Whichever way Obama chooses to go, look for an economy where the government plays an ever-increasing role, both in choosing what industries are profitable and what individual companies within each industry succeed. Again, we have been moving toward a Soviet-style command economy for decades, but this will be a sharp increase in pace.

Then what do you say about all the crap the Republicans have been pulling with the bank buy outs? Who do you blame then? Or is it all still some "Socialist" Democrats fault?

Again, I also agree. I do so hate the socialist/planned market ideal. To me it just seems to take away all need to work hard and do anything. If i can be supported totally by the state why bother training all those years to be a systems analyst when I could just as easily get an equally (if not equal then supported by the state) payed job doing one of my hobbies (rockclimbing) I would far rather climb or instruct for a living than be an analyst but there just isn't a job in it.

Yay for killing all forms of venture eh?

Why is it then that many of the "Socialistic" countries in Europe have thriving economies?

Also, just to let you know, being a Rock Climbing Instructor is a fine job. People can make a fine living doing it. For example: http://www.rockclimbingjobs.com/northeasternstates.htm

You didn't answer his question.

What's the point of working hard, if there's no advancement?


Also. Europe is a Continent, thus, the countries act independently when it comes to taxation/government financial tactics.
Also, those countries all have a lot less people than the US. They also have a lot less poverty.
If we tried to shift into Socialism now, it would fail entirely without any success.

But I countered his question. I say it is BS that in semi-socialized countries like Norway or France people do not work hard and advance far. It is utterly retarded to think so.

I also know that Europe acts as separate countries. I think I pointed that out when I named them as such.

Another thing of note, if we can spend all most three trillion dollars on this war in Iraq, I think it is justified that we can spend a few billion on things like Universal Health Care. I also never said I wanted America to completely shift to full Socialism. A careful melding of Capitalism and Socialism would do just fine. A free business market with a Federally run Health Care system sounds pretty good to me.

Also of note: Obama NEVER said he wants to socialize America. If he did, please give me an example. Because you can't. He is a Democrat, not a socialist.

 

[Acervusvlos]

Whichever way Obama chooses to go, look for an economy where the government plays an ever-increasing role, both in choosing what industries are profitable and what individual companies within each industry succeed. Again, we have been moving toward a Soviet-style command economy for decades, but this will be a sharp increase in pace.

Then what do you say about all the crap the Republicans have been pulling with the bank buy outs? Who do you blame then? Or is it all still some "Socialist" Democrats fault?

Again, I also agree. I do so hate the socialist/planned market ideal. To me it just seems to take away all need to work hard and do anything. If i can be supported totally by the state why bother training all those years to be a systems analyst when I could just as easily get an equally (if not equal then supported by the state) payed job doing one of my hobbies (rockclimbing) I would far rather climb or instruct for a living than be an analyst but there just isn't a job in it.

Yay for killing all forms of venture eh?

Why is it then that many of the "Socialistic" countries in Europe have thriving economies?

Also, just to let you know, being a Rock Climbing Instructor is a fine job. People can make a fine living doing it. For example: http://www.rockclimbingjobs.com/northeasternstates.htm

You didn't answer his question.

What's the point of working hard, if there's no advancement?


Also. Europe is a Continent, thus, the countries act independently when it comes to taxation/government financial tactics.
Also, those countries all have a lot less people than the US. They also have a lot less poverty.
If we tried to shift into Socialism now, it would fail entirely without any success.

But I countered his question. I say it is BS that in semi-socialized countries like Norway or France people do not work hard and advance far. It is utterly retarded to think so.

I also know that Europe acts as separate countries. I think I pointed that out when I named them as such.

Another thing of note, if we can spend all most three trillion dollars on this war in Iraq, I think it is justified that we can spend a few billion on things like Universal Health Care. I also never said I wanted America to completely shift to full Socialism. A careful melding of Capitalism and Socialism would do just fine. A free business market with a Federally run Health Care system sounds pretty good to me.

Also of note: Obama NEVER said he wants to socialize America. If he did, please give me an example. Because you can't. He is a Democrat, not a socialist.

It's what he plans to DO that is socialist.
You can be a Fascist, and not know it (I'm a conservative, but let's be honest, Bush was pushing us toward Fascism, Reagan is rolling over in his grave whenever people associate Bush with the republican party.)
At the same time, you can be a Socialist without even saying it. He may not even CONSIDER it socialism. But still, doing something 'for the good of the majority of society' is SOCIALISM. That's what the democratic platform is, instead of supporting businesses that provide for people, they provide for people directly.

Both systems suck, to be honest, and, I know I'm going to spell it wrong, but, Lezzaiz Faire is the only way to go. We'll never reach it, though.

 

[Acervusvlos]

Also, regarding healthcare.

I don't MIND it. But, if I pay for my own insurance, and can afford healthcare, I should be able to jump to the front of the line. It's only fair. I paid, so I get the benefits.

 

[PersianLlama]

http://www.jibjab.com/originals/time_for_some_campaignin

Care to have some content in this post besides the link?

Anyway, I like Obama's plan, the tax raise only affects rich people, and there's been analysis done, I can't remember the exact numbers but John Mccain's plan will raise our debt about 14 trillion dollars, and Obama's plan would raise our debt about 78 billion dollars.

I heard that from an anaylist on Nine News right after the 3rd debate.

I want some proof on that one.

Besides Obama says he's going to tax the rich folks even more, their tax rate is already 35% which is the second highest in the world. In my mind taxing somebody because he is successful is such bullshit I think their should just be less government spending.

Oh god, the rich person can't get a botox injection every week? And he loses money to help others? What a sick bastard this type of government is. People don't deserve to be helped.

 

[Acervusvlos]

http://www.jibjab.com/originals/time_for_some_campaignin

Care to have some content in this post besides the link?

Anyway, I like Obama's plan, the tax raise only affects rich people, and there's been analysis done, I can't remember the exact numbers but John Mccain's plan will raise our debt about 14 trillion dollars, and Obama's plan would raise our debt about 78 billion dollars.

I heard that from an anaylist on Nine News right after the 3rd debate.

I want some proof on that one.

Besides Obama says he's going to tax the rich folks even more, their tax rate is already 35% which is the second highest in the world. In my mind taxing somebody because he is successful is such bullshit I think their should just be less government spending.

Oh god, the rich person can't get a botox injection every week? And he loses money to help others? What a sick bastard this type of government is. People don't deserve to be helped.

You know, this is just wrong on many, many levels.

Not EVERY rich person is a dickhead. I knew MANY when I was young, and they gave HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars to CHARITY. They also voulenteered to help the community when they weren't working their asses off for the paycheck they deserve.

IF YOU WORK HARD, YOU DESERVE A REWARD FOR THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE.

 

[PersianLlama]

http://www.jibjab.com/originals/time_for_some_campaignin

Care to have some content in this post besides the link?

Anyway, I like Obama's plan, the tax raise only affects rich people, and there's been analysis done, I can't remember the exact numbers but John Mccain's plan will raise our debt about 14 trillion dollars, and Obama's plan would raise our debt about 78 billion dollars.

I heard that from an anaylist on Nine News right after the 3rd debate.

I want some proof on that one.

Besides Obama says he's going to tax the rich folks even more, their tax rate is already 35% which is the second highest in the world. In my mind taxing somebody because he is successful is such bullshit I think their should just be less government spending.

Oh god, the rich person can't get a botox injection every week? And he loses money to help others? What a sick bastard this type of government is. People don't deserve to be helped.

You know, this is just wrong on many, many levels.

Not EVERY rich person is a dickhead. I knew MANY when I was young, and they gave HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars to CHARITY. They also voulenteered to help the community when they weren't working their asses off for the paycheck they deserve.

IF YOU WORK HARD, YOU DESERVE A REWARD FOR THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE.

AND NOT EVERY RICH PERSON DOES THAT, IN FACT MOST DON'T! AND WHAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE TAX IF THEY ALREADY DONATE SHITLOADS? HAY I CAN TYPE IN CAPS TOO FOR SOME STUPID REASON.

 

[axia777]

It's what he plans to DO that is socialist.
You can be a Fascist, and not know it (I'm a conservative, but let's be honest, Bush was pushing us toward Fascism, Reagan is rolling over in his grave whenever people associate Bush with the republican party.)
At the same time, you can be a Socialist without even saying it. He may not even CONSIDER it socialism. But still, doing something 'for the good of the majority of society' is SOCIALISM. That's what the democratic platform is, instead of supporting businesses that provide for people, they provide for people directly.

Both systems suck, to be honest, and, I know I'm going to spell it wrong, but, Lezzaiz Faire is the only way to go. We'll never reach it, though.

Laissez-faire? You mean like during the Industrial Revolution? When we had things like child slave labor?

And again, please point point out an example of Obama's plan that is directly socialistic.

Also, again, if Obama is socialistic what do you make of the plan to buy into the bank system with Federal money backed by Bush and his fellow Republican's? Is this not socialistic?

 

[JMeganSnow]

Keynes was pretty much dead on when it came to solving the crisis of the 1930's and is still pretty much dead on when it comes to the rule that consumption oils the economy. Without consumption (even with high costs of living) there can be no production, and it's still production that fuels the economy. Not financing.

Keynes' solution was "have a huge world-destroying war"? Otherwise this is bull. The policies enacted by Hoover and FDR made the Depression worse and prevented recovery, they didn't solve it. In fact, the worst years of the depression didn't come until well into FDR's administration.

Saying that consumers are irrelevant is rubbish. Consumers are the driving force behind the economy. Without people to buy products or services innovations, investments and production is unnecessary. Why? There's no one to buy it. That's why the great masses should always be able to consume, as they (to speak in Keynesian terms) 'oil the economy'.

Saying that consumption drives the *economy* is rubbish. Consumption is the *ultimate*, not the *efficient* use of assets--once things are consumed they're taken out of circulation and removed from the *economy*. Production drives the economy, and wealth is simply a measure of *unconsumed* goods.

This is easily demonstrable by the following thought experiment: what would happen if you were to start a farm in a remote area and then import 10,000 people who eat what you've grown but produce nothing? Within days your farm and anything you've saved will be gone. Those 10,000 consumers didn't somehow *magically* make your farm produce more. What happened? I thought consumption fuels production!

The potential for securing future profits from increased trading scope can help determine where capital is directed, but the simple prospect of throwing their stuff into a pit and setting fire to it is not going to encourage anyone to make more stuff, which is what "consumption" literally is.

Oh, it's true that there should be accumulated wealth to finance innovations and investments. This comes from banks. Banks should be a continueous force in the economy, and therefore not allowed to fall. Letting banks fall will only hurt the fragile economic structure. That's why the Dutch government was spot on in purchasing a national bank. It's a costly investment, but one that will definately pay off in the future while it guarantees financial life in the present.

Um, accumulated comes from people who produce more than they consume. Banks *store* wealth, they don't *manufacture* it. And a centrally-managed banking system just means that any errors in judgment of the central planners will wreck the finances of the entire country, not just the few people that particular bank could convince to be their customers. Kind of like what's happening in the U.S. as we speak.

A free, heterogenous, non-centrally-planned economy is amazingly robust and can weather just about any kind of disaster with equanimity. It is only with the advent of central planning that these huge economic crashes have begun to occur with distressing regularity. Alan Greenspan did a *fairly* good job of holding them off for a while, but *he* was criticized for keeping the money supply low and interest rates high.

Politicians love to imagine that they can secure a state of permanent economic boom by fiddling with factors they don't understand, but wealth is ultimately determined by the people who create it. Government creates nothing, it can only destroy.

 

[Archon]

Then what do you say about all the crap the Republicans have been pulling with the bank buy outs? Who do you blame then? Or is it all still some "Socialist" Democrats fault?

I'd respond in two ways. First, I'd say that "the crap" being "pulled" with the bank buy outs cannot be attributed to the Republicans, seeing as the buy out is a piece of legislation, and the Democrats control both houses of Congress.

Second, I'd say that I'm against the bail-out regardless of whether it originated from Republicans or Democrats, and am against most of the other "solutions" that are being proposed. The economic administrators of our government, on both parties, have ruined the financial well-being of America. Giving them more power will simply mean more harm.

To the extent McCain will do less harm than Obama, I'm pro-McCain, but I feel as though I'm being asked whether I'd like my broken leg "cured" with amputation above or below the knee.

 

[werepossum]

SNIP
Lobbyists are hated (at least rhetorically) by both parties, so I fail to see how this applies to Obama especially.

SNIP
So if that much control exists, why the vanishing corporate benefits? The massive balloon of executive pay?
Surely the first thing the standard politico would do would be to fix those two?

SNIP
This is extremely vague.

SNIP
Again, if you are not engaging in hyperbole, why has this not already happened?

SNIP
If this holds true, EU nations should be locked dead. They are not.

Dang, a quote tree. I'll take these in order to avoid doing the same.

Lobbyists are not hated by either party. You could make the argument that each side hates the other side's lobbyists, that's about it. It applies slightly more to Obama only because the Republicans have to give at least lip service to preferring private market solutions; Democrats do not.

I don't know to what "vanishing corporate benefits" you refer. As to the issue of executive pay, Obama may well decide to limit executive pay by confiscatory tax rates. As always, however, expect lots of exceptions to be written in. As government control increases as it definitely will under Obama (and probably will under McCain), corporate welfare will inevitably increase. As corporations are increasingly shielded from consequences, expect executive pay to increase.

Conservatives believe government is a necessary evil and that the free market and individuals acting in their own best interest make America great. Liberals believe the free market and individuals acting in their own best interest are necessary evils and government makes America great. Republicans, counting on many conservative votes and few liberal votes, have to at least pay lip service to smaller, less intrusive government. Democrats, counting on many liberal votes and few conservative votes, do not have to pay lip service to smaller, less intrusive government. Democrats are therefore much more free to introduce new and larger government programs and increased government control and regulation. Obama, being both a Democrat and the most liberal senator in the Senate, can therefore be expected to introduce more government control, both in increased regulation and in increased corporate welfare, by simply looking at the programs each party and each end of the political spectrum have actually introduced and supported. If this is vague, you don't follow politics in the USA.

The re-distribution of income has been happening since before World War 2. We have welfare programs, Earned Income Tax Credits, economic tax rebate incentives based not on how much tax you have paid, but simply on whether you paid any tax, and most of all, the progressive tax system by which my boss pays not only more tax than I do, but also a proportionally higher tax rate. All these things are re-distribution of wealth where government takes more from one person, takes less from a second person, and gives to a third person to make wealth more evenly distributed. I'm not saying this is totally bad, but it's asinine to not admit it's happening.

People in EU nations are indeed less likely to move up or down in socio-economic class than are Americans, simply because EU nations provide more support and confiscate more wealth. This makes it more difficult to accumulate the capital needed to start a small business GIVEN THE SAME PER-CAPITA WEALTH, but also means that children of the poor start out at less of a disadvantage than do children of the poor in the United States. Again, to what extent you want to reward hard work and good ideas versus equalizing results and protecting the downtrodden will depend on which system you prefer. However, the effect of the US crash on EU markets and banks makes it pretty clear how much EU wealth is generated in the USA. If you don't believe that, try asking Archon how many hours a week he puts in, especially as this was getting off the ground. Success within capitalism comes from good ideas and a lot of hard work; 35 hour work weeks and six weeks of vacation don't get you to the top. Equalizing results and protecting the downtrodden may be noble, but it inherently leaves a lower average. In the case of the EU nations, they are able to lean on US military spending for protection and utilize US markets for profits. When the USA becomes, in effect, an EU-style country, there's going to be a need for EU nations to make radical changes to avoid recession.

Axia, did you notice that a much higher proportion of Democrats than Republicans voted for the bailout plan? I blame it on both parties, although I don't even mind the bailout, which probably had to be done, as much as Congress' total lack of addressing the underlying causes, much of which was directly caused by government actions. Without changing the system or punishing those who acted irresponsibly, the system will only march toward an even bigger crash necessitating an even bigger bailout. THAT is what pisses me off.

 

[Archon]

Another thing of note, if we can spend all most three trillion dollars on this war in Iraq, I think it is justified that we can spend a few billion on things like Universal Health Care. I also never said I wanted America to completely shift to full Socialism. A careful melding of Capitalism and Socialism would do just fine. A free business market with a Federally run Health Care system sounds pretty good to me.

How much would universal health care cost? Certainly not "a few billion". Take McCain's "$5000 per American" for health insurance, which Obama has already indicated he thinks isn't enough. Multiply $5000 for health care times 300 million Americans. The result is $1.5 TRILLION dollars per year. That's the cost of universal health care. The War in Iraq has cost about $200-500 billion annually, much, much less than health care.

Setting aside cost comparisons, there's no reason that expenses fighting a war wouuld justify providing health care. Fighting wars is one of the few legitimate exercises of government power. Providing health care is....something that's being driven by Baby Boomers who are seeing their health care costs go up, and once again steering America's policies to their own self-interest.

Anyone who is under the age of 35 should realize that national health care is against your self-interest more than almost anything you can possibly imagine. You will literally be subsidizing an entire generation of your elders, who grew up with less taxes and less debt than you, and are now asking you to fund their social security and healthcare, while operating in a far more competitive global economy. Meanwhile, over time, the universal health care will decline in standard of quality (as socialized medicine is everywhere not as effective as our private system - which is why rich people come to the US for their medicine) so that by the time YOU are elderly, your health care will not be as good as what today's elders enjoy.

While you are it, why not vote for higher social security benefits, too? Let's see if we can totally bankrupt the nation before any of us hit 50.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

Lobbyists are not hated by either party.

?I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over."- Obama, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/

"The federal government spends too much money, squanders precious resources on questionable projects pushed by special interests, and ignores the priorities of the American taxpayer." Mccain, http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/4a3ab6fe-b025-42b1-815b-13c696a61908.htm

I'd thought they were both kept men, but apparently not...

As always, however, expect lots of exceptions to be written in.

Defend this statement.
Government control does not equal special treatment until you've established a link as such.

Liberals believe the free market and individuals acting in their own best interest are necessary evils and government makes America great.

Defend this statement.

However, the effect of the US crash on EU markets and banks makes it pretty clear how much EU wealth is generated in the USA.

Defend this statement.

People in EU nations are indeed less likely to move up or down in socio-economic class than are Americans

http://www.iserp.columbia.edu/news/articles/mexico_mobility.html
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_03.html

As government control increases ... expect executive pay to increase.

Why?

I'm not saying this is totally bad, but it's asinine to not admit it's happening.

Straw man.

 

[NeedAUserName]

For some reason, why do i feel that i will only feel rage towards this video?

His voice is irritating already.

No, you're not the only one.

Yeah I don't feel I am taking it to far when I say his voice makes me want to kick a small dog off a bridge Anchorman style.

 

[Dogeman5]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ea9_1222928000

I think you should watch it...

I watched it and I must agree with the only Intelligable people here who are not screaming about politics

For some reason, why do i feel that i will only feel rage towards this video?

His voice is irritating already.

No, you're not the only one.

If we were to ignore the big Controversial draw of the video (starts with a "Pol" and ends witha "tics")
We can see that this movie was some cheap project for a 15-year-old to get credit in a graphic arts class
Congratulations, You can Alpha Tween

 

[BaronAsh]

http://www.jibjab.com/originals/time_for_some_campaignin

Care to have some content in this post besides the link?

Anyway, I like Obama's plan, the tax raise only affects rich people, and there's been analysis done, I can't remember the exact numbers but John Mccain's plan will raise our debt about 14 trillion dollars, and Obama's plan would raise our debt about 78 billion dollars.

I heard that from an anaylist on Nine News right after the 3rd debate.

I want some proof on that one.

Besides Obama says he's going to tax the rich folks even more, their tax rate is already 35% which is the second highest in the world. In my mind taxing somebody because he is successful is such bullshit I think their should just be less government spending.

Oh god, the rich person can't get a botox injection every week? And he loses money to help others? What a sick bastard this type of government is. People don't deserve to be helped.

I am currently 15 years old my parents make on annual about 40,000$ dollars a year combined without taxes.

I plan to go to college get a degree in Architecture and become a rich man I have worked my ass off to get to were I am now in a program called E.M.I.T. and when and if I do become a rich man I don't want to be discriminated against tax wise because I worked my ass off to become rich.

Besides you kind of missed the point of LESS GOVERNMENT SPENDING in other words, less government in general.

 

[Lvl 64 Klutz]

Note*McCain is one dead beat away of dying. I'm scared of Sarah Palin.

I'm not a McCain supporter, but if Cheney can survive a term...

Do you realize how Sarah Palin is not qualified for the job?

Of course, trust me I hate her, I was simply commenting that it's not like there's anything close to a guarantee that McCain would die in office.

 

[werepossum]

Lobbyists are not hated by either party.

?I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over."- Obama, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/

"The federal government spends too much money, squanders precious resources on questionable projects pushed by special interests, and ignores the priorities of the American taxpayer." Mccain, http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/4a3ab6fe-b025-42b1-815b-13c696a61908.htm

I'd thought they were both kept men, but apparently not...

As always, however, expect lots of exceptions to be written in.

Defend this statement.
Government control does not equal special treatment until you've established a link as such.

Liberals believe the free market and individuals acting in their own best interest are necessary evils and government makes America great.

Defend this statement.

However, the effect of the US crash on EU markets and banks makes it pretty clear how much EU wealth is generated in the USA.

Defend this statement.

People in EU nations are indeed less likely to move up or down in socio-economic class than are Americans

http://www.iserp.columbia.edu/news/articles/mexico_mobility.html
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_03.html

As government control increases ... expect executive pay to increase.

Why?

I'm not saying this is totally bad, but it's asinine to not admit it's happening.

Straw man.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize anyone still actually believed what a politician says whilst running for office. Perhaps you could look at the millions Barack Obama has steered to ACORN or Tony Rezko. Or the special low interest rate he received. Or look at whose jets John McCain has used for his travel, before he could afford his own. Those might be a tad more realistic than campaign statements, ya think? Perhaps even look at how much each has accepted from lobbyists to run for president. American politicians love to pretend they hate lobbyists; the truth says otherwise. In fact, many bills are written in initial form by lobbyists.

I may be wrong about average mobility in the USA. However my original point was that the USA allowed better upward mobility than the EU countries because it is easier to save capital and easier to get into business. However I still think the US system is better for the exceptional person who has a good idea and is willing to work harder than the average bear, even if socialism may be better at moving everyone toward an average salary, which is after all the goal of socialism - moving everyone to that average wage. (I say "may" because I have a gut distrust of anything printed in the New York Times or generated by Columbia University, both of which are dedicated to moving the USA to the left for political reasons.)

As to the rest of your "Defend this statement" remarks, have you actually read any bills enacted into law? Almost every bill has a tax break for this company or a grant for this special interest or a regulatory exclusion for that company. If you believe government control of an industry does not equal special treatment for some parts of that industry, then you obviously believe government is always unbiased and fair. Even if that were true - if government did not, say, grant a tax break to a particular company because a powerful chairman's son was a lobbyist for that company - what would government control do except create special treatment for one company over another? Why control an industry if you do not show special favor? HOW could you control an industry without giving special treatment of one company over another or that industry over other industries? What can government do that does not favor one company over another, yet still somehow controls that industry?

Similarly, if you do not understand liberal and conservative wings of the American political spectrum, how can we even have a political conversation? Have you not noticed that for every problem, liberals call for government regulation, a new government program? Have you not noticed conservatives calling for smaller, less intrusive government and de-regulation?

Those favoring the EU-style Western Socialism like to point to the current US financial crisis as a failure of our less-socialist system. How then do you explain the bank failures and bailouts in Iceland, France, the United Kingdom? The world-wide stock market downturn? The EU generates large amounts of income in the United States, and when the US goes down, the EU goes down with us. If this were not true, we would not be seeing the same problems in the EU - socialism would insulate their economies. Yet you don't see nearly the reverse effect; when EU nations go into recession, seldom is the USA affected. For example, half of worldwide automobile profits are generated in the USA, and large parts of that profit go to EU nations as well as to Japan and Korea. For instance, Ford trucks use automatic transmissions made in France. The US economy drives the EU economy, and when the US goes socialist, that income will dry up.

And you need to read the definition of a straw man; I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

You know what, I think george washington was correct. He was against a two-party system and you know what? It would probably be for the better I think. Our country would still be Democratic institution because still the two houses of congress would hold all the power. But the man who the party thinks did the most, Plus 3 others could be voted for. With limits on the amount of spending.(.50cent from each americans tax break would yeild around 100 million(And this comes from a really low figure such as if only 200 million people actually do their tax break.)one million for each canidate. They could not use anymore or any-less. This would stop the influencing power of PAC, And special intrest groups running out government. Then the rest of the money could be used by the government to say, Miltary pay increase, Better benefits if dieing and stuff. Or it could be distrubuted 1.5 million to each state which then the states could have more funding while the government still has some left over.