Obama couldn't govern himself out of a wet paper bag

[Dirty Penguin]

So, what you're saying is you still misunderstand socialism? We're not talking about communism, but socialism here. I'd suggest learning the difference.

But let's forget that. Let's go with your and the public's definition of socialism. No ideology is perfect on its own. You act as though, according to your definition of socialism, we don't use any such thing. Neither Obama nor most people in the country are advocating getting rid of capitalism and replacing it with socialism. What most people are advocating is regulating capitalism. Just as you think pure socialism is a bad idea, so would pure capitalism be.

Agreed.


Question: Don't we (the US) subscribe to socialism on some level? Some one mentioned to me the the Police, FD, Military and a few other organizations fall under the umbrella of socialism..?

 

[Revoltingest]

Question: Don't we (the US) subscribe to socialism on some level? Some one mentioned to me the the Police, FD, Military and a few other organizations fall under the umbrella of socialism..?

As I understand socialism, it's largely about gov't owning the means of production. The above organizations don't point strongly in that direction.
Now, if the gov't owned a car company.....

 

[Magic Man]

Agreed.


Question: Don't we (the US) subscribe to socialism on some level? Some one mentioned to me the the Police, FD, Military and a few other organizations fall under the umbrella of socialism..?

Technically that's not really socialism, but according to the new definition being used by madhatter and others these days, those things would qualify.

 

[Magic Man]

Now, if the gov't owned a car company.....

Yes, if that ever happens, we can talk about it being socialism.

 

[madhatter85]

Let's go with your and the public's definition of socialism.

If it's the public's definition of something. It's pretty much the definition. But, let's check with

Marriam-Webster -

Definition of SOCIALISM:

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

or let's check with Encyclopedia britanica:

System of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control; also, the political movements aimed at putting that system into practice.

you sir, have the wrong idea of socialism. get it straight please.

No ideology is perfect on its own. You act as though, according to your definition of socialism, we don't use any such thing.

any such what thing? please explain what you mean here.

Neither Obama nor most people in the country are advocating getting rid of capitalism and replacing it with socialism.

Even if he were, he is not doing a good job of it. Obama is soft. His convictions are failing him. he is easily swayed, and he does anything to get the vote. He is completely inexperienced and the ONLY reason he got elected was because he is half-black.

What most people are advocating is regulating capitalism. Just as you think pure socialism is a bad idea, so would pure capitalism be.

I am not saying capitalism does not have it's problems. this thread is only about how stupid Obama is.

 

[madhatter85]

Yes, if that ever happens, we can talk about it being socialism.

Not simply owning, but having control over. hmm..... :sad:

 

[Magic Man]

you sir, have the wrong idea of socialism. get it straight please.

Sorry, but I'm not the one saying things like "socialism would be great if people weren't so lazy". I have the right idea about socialism, which is why I understand that your comments about it are inaccurate.

any such what thing? please explain what you mean here.

Socialism. According to your definition of socialism, we already have many socialist aspects, as does pretty much every other industrialized country.

Even if he were, he is not doing a good job of it. Obama is soft. His convictions are failing him. he is easily swayed, and he does anything to get the vote. He is completely inexperienced and the ONLY reason he got elected was because he is half-black.

I agree except for the very last assertion.

I am not saying capitalism does not have it's problems. this thread is only about how stupid Obama is.

Then why were you making it about socialism? If this thread is about how stupid Obama is, then it's a quick one. He's not stupid in the least. He's very intelligent. Unfortunately, he just isn't the best leader and he, as you say, is too soft and too willing to compromise.

 

[Sunstone]

Obama is stupid enough to edit the Harvard Law Review.

 

[Sunstone]

I hope they get rid of social security all together. smaller government. more freedom.

How does that work? If you are 72 and have no income, how do you have more freedom than someone who is 72 and has an income?

 

[Sunstone]

After all this whining about needing to stop the Bush tax cuts and hollering about "Redistribution of Wealth" (such a load of chicken crap, that idiot)...

So, you don't believe there's been a redistribution of wealth from the middle class to upper class in this country? Before we go on, let me see if it's even worthwhile to attempt to reason with you. Please answer these two questions honestly: Are you a creationist? Are you a market fundamentalist?

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

wikipedia:


most people are unfortunately incapable of self-management and don't take care of publix property. This is why private schools often provide the best educations; private parks are cleaner than public parks. Because when people "own" something they tend to take better care of it.

When socioeconomic elements are factored out, public schools perform just as well on tests as private schools. Don't tell that to the school voucher crowd...

Concerning the rest of that post, what about people who aren't shareholders? Since we all know that a corporation should have no goal other than to generate a profit, who cares if it trashes the environment, ruins people's lives and livelihoods, or ships jobs overseas?

I would love a perfect capitalist country if there were not so many lazy idiots ruining it.

FIFY.

How does that work? If you are 72 and have no income, how do you have more freedom than someone who is 72 and has an income?

Because you have the freedom to be poor! Come on, where would anybody be without that? If you can't have the opportunity to suffer, what's the point of living in the first place?!

 

[madhatter85]

How does that work? If you are 72 and have no income, how do you have more freedom than someone who is 72 and has an income?

if you are 72 and have no income it's your own fault for not planning and saving for retirement.

 

[madhatter85]

So, you don't believe there's been a redistribution of wealth from the middle class to upper class in this country? Before we go on, let me see if it's even worthwhile to attempt to reason with you. Please answer these two questions honestly: Are you a creationist? Are you a market fundamentalist?

unfortunately yes there has been, the ideas around redistribution of weath are based on the propensity to consume index of those making more than the "cost of living" People with more wealth need to spend that money to stimulate the economy. Most of them do just that. they form companies, they employ people to care for thier properties, and most of them donate thier money to charity.

the problem is borrowing, economists believe the way to be wealthy is to borrow money . This is not always the case. Jessica Hagy put it rather simply (and humorously):

The Liberals think that wealthy persons do not spend thier money to stimulate the economy. This is rediculously false. Even if it were the government wants to punish frugality and force those who have done well for themselves to pay for some idiot to not work and do drugs. The Government does not have the right to dictate distribution of weath in the country.

as for your questions, how is it even relevant? lets stick to politics eh?

 

[Magic Man]

unfortunately yes there has been, the ideas around redistribution of weath are based on the propensity to consume index of those making more than the "cost of living" People with more wealth need to spend that money to stimulate the economy. Most of them do just that. they form companies, they employ people to care for thier properties, and most of them donate thier money to charity.

Where are you getting your stats? I'd like to see the source that says most rich people spend money to stimulate the economy, or at least spend money proportional to the amount they make or have. I'd also like to see a source that says most of them donate to charity.

The Liberals think that wealthy persons do not spend thier money to stimulate the economy. This is rediculously false.

No, it's fairly true, unless you have some good source to prove otherwise. Sure, some rich people spend some money and help stimulate the economy, but so do many non-rich people. So what? The point is that rich people don't get a tax break and pump that money back into the economy. They don't say "Oh, cool, I have an extra $500,000 a year; I'll spend it on a new company that employs 10 new people".

Even if it were the government wants to punish frugality and force those who have done well for themselves to pay for some idiot to not work and do drugs. The Government does not have the right to dictate distribution of weath in the country.

It actually has exactly that right. As has been said, right now it's being distributed to the top 1.5% of the population. We just want it to be distributed better. Also, your nonsensical musings about punishing frugality and forcing those who have done well for themselves to pay for some idiot to not work and do drugs is just plain ridiculous. If you have valid views on things that are based on facts, let's discuss them. If you're going to spout off emotionally-charge nonsense like that with no basis in reality, you should find someone on your level, like a 5-year-old.

 

[madhatter85]

When socioeconomic elements are factored out, public schools perform just as well on tests as private schools.

we are talking about socioeconomics here.

Concerning the rest of that post, what about people who aren't shareholders? Since we all know that a corporation should have no goal other than to generate a profit, who cares if it trashes the environment, ruins people's lives and livelihoods, or ships jobs overseas?

How about stopping illegal imigration? holy CRAP now there are tons of jobs for people to do! what a concept.

Because you have the freedom to be poor! Come on, where would anybody be without that? If you can't have the opportunity to suffer, what's the point of living in the first place?!

Regardless of the philisophical implications. Yes, you have the freedom to be poor and oyu have the freedom to do something about it. people have the power to make something of themselves. just because the few who choose to not make something of themselves whine about how they just can't "catch a break" validates the government in taking away from the rich? hogwash. this is exactly the kind of thinking that caused our forefathers to break away from britan "taxation without representation"

 

[Magic Man]

How about stopping illegal imigration? holy CRAP now there are tons of jobs for people to do! what a concept.

You're not really under the impression that illegal immigrants are taking our jobs, are you? I sure hope not.

Besides, you say this as if stopping illegal immigration was a simple task that could be accomplished in the next couple years.

 

[Requia]

You do realize that its the rich in this country who are causing the illegal immigration problem right?

They want employees who won't speak up about abuse (I'm not talking about low wages, I mean firing people for getting sick, not following safety standards etc), they want to continue trade policies and to continue to receive the corporate welfare that has devastated the Mexican economy and driven people over the border.

Unionize the illegal immigrant population, and stop crashing the price of corn with farm subsidies (or rewrite NAFTA to allow Mexico to put tariffs on the crops we subsidize), and the problem will be substantially reduced.

 

[Sunstone]

as for your questions, how is it even relevant? lets stick to politics eh?

As for my questions, ample experience confirms that no one can reason with a creationist or a market fundamentalist. So, before you waste my time, MH, let's just make sure that it's worth my while trying to reason with you: Are you a creationist or a market fundamentalist? Yes or no?

 

[madhatter85]

As for my questions, ample experience confirms that no one can reason with a creationist or a market fundamentalist. So, before you waste my time, MH, let's just make sure that it's worth my while trying to reason with you: Are you a creationist or a market fundamentalist? Yes or no?

Creationist in the traditional sense? no, absolutely not.

"Market Fundamentalist" is an exaggerated way of saying "Free market economist" , If it were a perfect world? sure, since it is not and generally people are greedy, no. However, to that end, there is no way of truly governing a market system because those who are governing it are inherently flawed and greedy.

 

[Revoltingest]

....ample experience confirms that no one can reason with a creationist or a market fundamentalist.

It can be done, but it helps to be friendly, tolerant & have an open mind.
Then, even Democrats & Republicans can be reasoned with.