NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been poking around this forum a bit (new to the game and all), have posted a few times in a thread or two, and basically had a good time so far.

I am curious though, it seems many of the American posters (some assumption goes into my belief that some of these posters are American) seem to be quite happy about Americas current trend (rapid trend at that) towards a Socialist society.

This troubles me a bit.

I have lived in 5 countries not including the USA, have traveled to an additional 35 countries, and have interacted with a great many citizens from those nations. In my travels I have been overwhelmingly surprised and happy to hear from the vast majority of the people I encountered that they wanted to go to America, and many wanted to live here. When asked why, invariably the response was “the freedom to succeed or fail on my own effort” (paraphrased).

We are losing that freedom, but that is another topic altogether. For the record I am a fairly Conservative voter, with moderate to slightly liberal social views (pro homosexual marriage and adoption for example).

What I am curious about is, why is Socialism so popular amongst American youth (my nephew claims to be a socialist) and the more liberal minded Americans? America is not perfect to be sure, and neither is Capitalism; both are a damn-site better than any options I see on the horizon. (the last statement is of course opinion)

So, why do you all want Socialism in America? Truthfully I am curious; it hasn’t worked out too well for the following countries:

Venezuela
China
Viet Nam
Syria
Belarus

Honest replies sought.

Twinpappia

I'm kind of curious what kind of people you were talking to there, and in what countries.
The one guy I know of who told people he wanted to move to the US wanted to do so "because you don't have to pay any taxes there"....

People on both ends of the left/right spectrum are confusing social democracy/social capitalism (which is the system common in Europe, and is a very good system) with genuine socialism (which was practised in the former communism bloc, and is a very bad system).

People on both ends of the system are confusing social democracy/social capitalism (which is the system common in Europe, and is a very good system) with genuine socialism (which was practised in the former communism bloc, and is a very bad system).

True, but I felt that given the tone of the OP, the distinction was a bit beyond him.

Honest replies sought.

I think you need to spend less time getting your news from commentary sources and develop some critical thinking skills.

My view is that often when people talk about 'socialism' in the US, they're not talking about socialism as seen in the above countries, but more something closer to what you have in Europe (where it's working out very well thank you). In other words, social democracy with a welfare state but built on a democratic and capitalist foundation.

Other than the fringe communist parties (which every country has in the same way they have far right nationalist parties), no ones talking about real socialism.

Edit: FO put forward the distinction far more concisely than I managed.

the US will never be socialist.

but its well past time we got the government concerned with the welfare of the average citizen instead of just the rich.

It isn't socialism when everyone is treated equally horribly (e.x. former Soviet Bloc).

By the by, that American dream of sorts that those people you talked to? That died a long time ago. The principle is still around but nobody lives by it.

Moreover, this 'socialism' you claim to see America supporting is nothing of the sort. Unless a step or two away from rampant ultra-conservativism counts as a step towards socialism, in which case I would agree.

It isn't such a bad thing to want to, say, support human rights, help people in need, or similar things when you have the power to do so. In all honesty, I'd question your ability to empathize if you didn't.

So, why do you all want Socialism in America? Truthfully I am curious; it hasn’t worked out too well for the following countries:
I don't, nor do I support this administration in it's foolish continuation of congresses wreckless policies of attempting to "spend" their way out of problems.

I've said as much for 30+ years, and now most of the rest of the nation is starting to wake-up to the fact that:
a) This mounting debt is NOT susutainable

b) This is SO not the direction we want to be taking this country.

I know *I'm* not interrested in living in the "Land of the (sorta) Free."

Tallon41

Same as Eofae. Socialism isnt commuism its a much less radical form of left wing thinking that helps the underprivaleged succeed (helps not garuntees btw), whilst still allowing you to be rewarded for working hard and well and rise up the career ladder.

My view is that often when people talk about 'socialism' in the US, they're not talking about socialism as seen in the above countries, but more something closer to what you have in Europe (where it's working out very well thank you). In other words, social democracy with a welfare state but built on a democratic and capatitalist foundation.

Other than the fringe communist parties (which every country has in the same way they have far right nationalist parties), no ones talking about real socialism.

I think that when Americans hear "socialism", they go straight to "Soviet-style planned economy", because I have a hard time imagining that so many Americans are so adamantly opposed to social democracy/capitalism.

If I'm wrong, and many Americans actually think that social democracy/capitalism is the devil, then it's just another item for the "Problems with America" pile.

Alot of idealists think government control of industry is great, however they don't understand principle 1 of economics: Scarcity of resources. Thanks you damn Pinkos in Congress! You're going to break the greatest country on earth.

I don't, nor do I support this administration in it's foolish continuation of congresses wreckless policies of attempting to "spend" their way out of problems.

I've said as much for 30+ years, and now most of the rest of the nation is starting to wake-up to the fact that:
a) This mounting debt is NOT susutainable

b) This is SO not the direction we want to be taking this country.

I know *I'm* not interrested in living in the "Land of the (sorta) Free."

Tallon41
how does the national debt make you less free?

Alot of idealists think government control of industry is great, however they don't understand principle 1 of economics: Scarcity of resources. Thanks you damn Pinkos in Congress! You're going to break the greatest country on earth.
interesting point but what? when did the government start controlling industry?

Americas current trend (rapid trend at that) towards a Socialist society.

What on Earth are you talking about?

Most of the genuine socialists on NSG are quite quick to point out that Obama's economic policies in no sense are what we are talking about (nor, incidentally, are those prevailing now or in the past in the countries you mentioned.)

Alot of idealists think government control of industry is great, however they don't understand principle 1 of economics: Scarcity of resources.

"Government control of industry" (which is not in any case synonymous with "socialism") in no sense is blind to the fact of scarcity. It merely proposes an alternative scheme to dealing with scarcity.

I am curious though, it seems many of the American posters (some assumption goes into my belief that some of these posters are American) seem to be quite happy about Americas current trend (rapid trend at that) towards a Socialist society.

while a number of the socialists are comparatively much happier with obama than the war criminals of the previous regime, i can't think of a single one that is happy with him because we will soon be living a socialist paradise. perhaps they mean something different by socialism than you do?

So, why do you all want Socialism in America? Truthfully I am curious; it hasn’t worked out too well for the following countries:

Venezuela
China
Viet Nam
Syria
Belarus

Honest replies sought.

Twinpappia

But it has worked, or worked fairly well for other countries. I give you Spain, as an example. We're a constitutinal monarchy with socialist tendencies. And this has helped greatly to straighten Spain. The NHS is good, the education system has improved a lot by it, we have achieved a lot of gender equality at work, same sex marriage is possible. Granted, it hasn't fixed everything, but it has been good to my country.

I think that when Americans hear "socialism", they go straight to "Soviet-style planned economy", because I have a hard time imagining that so many Americans are so adamantly opposed to social democracy/capitalism.

If I'm wrong, and many Americans actually think that social democracy/capitalism is the devil, then it's just another item for the "Problems with America" pile.

a significant part of the population thinks (or at least claims to think) that increasing the marginal rate on the top tax bracket from 35% to 39% is the soviet-style planned economy.

True, but I felt that given the tone of the OP, the distinction was a bit beyond him.

What gives you that impresssion? I stated a position mildly, and asked an honest question? That makes me obtuse somehow?


I think you need to spend less time getting your news from commentary sources and develop some critical thinking skills.

I wasn't posting news, I was posting an opinoion based question. While I work on my "critical thinking skills" per your request, perhaps you should brush up on your reading skills.

As to what people I spoke with: South Koreans, Turks, Dutch, Italians, Germans, Saudis and Kuwatis...primarily. Not everyone I spoke to wanted to live in America, but many did. Not all were disatisfied with their own country, but many were. My post is based on personal experience and personal interractions around the globe.

But it has worked, or worked fairly well for other countries. I give you Spain, as an example. We're a constitutinal monarchy with socialist tendencies. And this has helped greatly to straighten Spain. The NHS is good, the education system has improved a lot by it, we have achieved a lot of gender equality at work, same sex marriage is possible. Granted, it hasn't fixed everything, but it has been good to my country.

You're talking about social democracy/capitalism! SOCIALISM DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOODNIGHT!

"Government control of industry" (which is not in any case synonymous with "socialism") in no sense is blind to the fact of scarcity. It merely proposes an alternative scheme to dealing with scarcity.


Uhm...Socialism is the theory of government by which the State owns all industry, or at least has large stake in it. And true, but in no situation could the government manage industry without mismanaging resources. It isn't possible.

You're talking about social democracy/capitalism! SOCIALISM DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOODNIGHT!

No, I am not talking about that. Study your global politics. And kindly refrain from using Capitals when addressing me.

No, I am not talking about that. Study your global politics. And kindly refrain from using Capitals when addressing me.

With all due respect, I am almost completely sure that Spain is NOT true socialist. I may be an ignorant fuckstick on many issues, but I don't think that even I would manage to miss a Soviet-style socialist state straddling the Iberian peninsula.

With all due respect, I am almost completely sure that Spain is NOT true socialist. I may be an ignorant fuckstick on many issues, but I don't think that even I would manage to miss a Soviet-style socialist state straddling the Iberian peninsula.

Oh please! You too? You think that Socialism equates to a Soviet-style country? Yes, you are ignorant on the subject, you are right on that bit at least.

Oh please! You too? You think that Socialism equates to a Soviet-style country? Yes, you are ignorant on the subject, you are right on that bit at least.
im pretending that he is goofing on you. it makes it much easier to take.

im pretending that he is goofing on you. it makes it much easier to take.

I'll try to do that.

Oh please! You too? You think that Socialism equates to a Soviet-style country? Yes, you are ignorant on the subject, you are right on that bit at least.

Did you not read any of the early posts in the thread?

True socialism: Soviet-style planned economy, dictatorship of the proletariat, people control the means of production, all that crap.

Social democracy/capitalism: Higher taxes, welfare, NHS, all that crap.

For the love of God, electing Obama is not going to make the US the next Soviet Union.

Come on guys, this is just getting sad and really annoying.

Uhm...Socialism is the theory of government by which the State owns all industry, or at least has large stake in it.

No, socialist theorists are much more interested in a notion of class equality, in the democratic and egalitarian merging of the categories of "owner" and "worker", than they are in a contentless "statism."

Nationalizations for the sake of, say, economic security and development, or autarky, are not genuinely socialist--nor, certainly, is a nationalized economy in the context of a political and economic oligarchy or dictatorship.

And true, but in no situation could the government manage industry without mismanaging resources.

That depends greatly on how it goes about doing so. The worry of economists that economic decisions would be made "politically" presumes an arbitrary and non-systematic way of making them. The commonly-cited examples of "actually existing socialism" fail to account for the absence of both free discussion and free elections in the relevant regimes, which eroded any possibility for holding an increasingly corrupt, incompetent, and inefficient bureaucracy accountable.

Did you not read any of the early posts in the thread?

True socialism: Soviet-style planned economy, dictatorship of the proletariat, people control the means of production, all that crap.

Social democracy/capitalism: Higher taxes, welfare, NHS, all that crap.

I believe Soviet-style socialism is generally called communism.

Then what is communism?

Stateless, classless, common ownership, bliss and harmony. It's only a theoretical system, it's not actually feasible.

I believe Soviet-style socialism is generally called communism.

Generally, but, wrong.

Stateless, classeless, common ownership, bliss and harmony. It's only a theoretical system, it's not actually feasible.

It is what we refereed to Russia as, and what Russia referred to themselves as.

Generally, but, wrong.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism

It is what we refereed to Russia as, and what Russia referred to themselves as.

They called themselves communist because that was their intended end; they never actually achieved it. They were socialist.

Authoritarian here.

I dont want a socialist America.

Shoot the Hippies, Gas the Liberals.

They called themselves communist because that was their intended end; they never actually achieved it. They were socialist.

Maybe, but look at the first definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

im sure a fight over the defintion of communism and socialism is fascinating but its not the topic of the thread eh?

no one is accusing obama of becoming a new stalin.

no one is accusing obama of becoming a new stalin.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/080928

Maybe, but look at the first definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution, and would represent a transitional stage between the capitalist and communist modes of production.

I'm afraid that's what I was taught, so socialism will always be pinko-commie crap to me.

For the love of God, electing Obama is not going to make the US the next Soviet Union.

Come on guys, this is just getting sad and really annoying.

I never mentioned President Obama at all. I haven't seen much mention of him, why would you leap to that conclusion?

Oh you mean the Government buying into private companies, seeking control of some private companies, giving taxpayer monies to private industries (and foriegn countries) without contitutional support to do so? Yeah I can see how you may have made the leap.

Still, even under GW Bush the Supreme Court tried to end a citizens right tp private ownership of land/home.....

Its the combination of these things (and others) that make ME belive there is a push towards socialism.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/080928
lol

those nuts had him setting up his stalinist state before he was even elected.

I never mentioned President Obama at all. I haven't seen much mention of him, why would you leap to that conclusion?

Oh you mean the Government buying into private companies, seeking control of some private companies, giving taxpayer monies to private industries (and foriegn countries) without contitutional support to do so? Yeah I can see how you may have made the leap.

Still, even under GW Bush the Supreme Court tried to end a citizens right tp private ownership of land/home.....

Its the combination of these things (and others) that make ME belive there is a push towards socialism.
then why dont you say what you mean?

what point did you want to make with this thread?

lol

those nuts had him setting up his stalinist state before he was even elected.

The radicals are not as few as you think: I have met numerous persons who believe Obama is a communist.

The radicals are not as few as you think: I have met numerous persons who believe Obama is a communist.
its been pushed by the conservative radio talk show hosts for months. it always amuses me to hear sean hannity scaring his audience with talk of free health care and free child care. the francification of america! quelle horreur!

Alot of idealists think government control of industry is great, however they don't understand principle 1 of economics: Scarcity of resources. Thanks you damn Pinkos in Congress! You're going to break the greatest country on earth.

1- "A lot".

2- There is no government control of industry, and it isn't what Obama proposes; you, however, seem to ascribe the wrong meaning to the expression.

3- I would like to assume that people in the government can understand such a simple concept as "scarcity".

4- "Pinkos". Cute. That expression doesn't mean what you think it means, but it doesn't stop it being cute that you use it. As in pitiable.

5- America is not the greatest country on Earth.

5- America is not the greatest country on Earth.

^ This, we all know it is Australia. :)

a significant part of the population thinks (or at least claims to think) that increasing the marginal rate on the top tax bracket from 35% to 39% is the soviet-style planned economy.

Distribution of resources from the wealthy to the poor? Not that I would be saying that increasing taxes means that we are sunddenly a soviet style planned economy.

^ This, we all know it is Australia. :)
with a little bit more water, this would be so true!

^ This, we all know it is Australia. :)

>.>

<.<

*Gets BE a ticket to Brazil in Carnaval*

Still think so? :p

5- America is not the greatest country on Earth.

Where is, then?

with a little bit more water, this would be so true!

That is a very good point.

>.>

<.<

*Gets BE a ticket to Brazil in Carnaval*

Still think so? :p

:D Get me to go to Carnaval and I may just change my mind.

Where is, then?

Somewhere where they have enough healthcare that people don't die of poverty?

Where is, then?

By what criteria? Amount of people who would call it the greatest country on Earth, you'd likely get China or India. Ask a bunch of American otakus and you'll get Japan. Go to RedneckInbred County and they'll say "Murka". And on. It. Goes.

Somewhere where they have enough healthcare that people don't die of poverty?

I'm not saying America's the greatest country on Earth, I'm just asking which one he thinks is best. It's off topic so I'll make a new thread.

Somewhere where they have enough healthcare that people don't die of poverty?

Does such a place exist?

I'm not saying America's the greatest country on Earth, I'm just asking which one he thinks is best. It's off topic so I'll make a new thread.

Please do.

Please do.

I have.

True, but I felt that given the tone of the OP, the distinction was a bit beyond him.

then why dont you say what you mean?

what point did you want to make with this thread?


I did, read my original post. The question was simply why you want socialism in America. Pretty simple question.

"You" refers to those that do.

I did, read my original post. The question was simply why you want socialism in America. Pretty simple question.

"You" refers to those that do.
then its too vague.

almost no one wants socialism in america but perhaps there are people who want things that YOU consider socialsm.

Does such a place exist?

At the riskof making this a Canadian vs. US healthcare systems thread, I would argue that this does not happen in Canada.

I don't, nor do I support this administration in it's foolish continuation of congresses wreckless policies of attempting to "spend" their way out of problems.

I've said as much for 30+ years, and now most of the rest of the nation is starting to wake-up to the fact that:
a) This mounting debt is NOT susutainable

b) This is SO not the direction we want to be taking this country.

I know *I'm* not interrested in living in the "Land of the (sorta) Free."

Tallon41

Here, here! BOTH parties drive the debt up! The Republicns drive it up with spending for wars, and the Democrats drive it up with spending for social programs. It's gotten to the point where we almost owe more than we can ever pay. My question is, "Who tha FRACK is minding the store??" :(

then its too vague.

almost no one wants socialism in america but perhaps there are people who want things that YOU consider socialsm.

Its too vague? Really? Maybe I wanted to leave room for discussion. If you can't or don't want to respond to a vague question, why post?

Really, its my thread; if you judge it unworthy of your time...leave it.

Its too vague? Really? Maybe I wanted to leave room for discussion. If you can't or don't want to respond to a vague question, why post?

Really, its my thread; if you judge it unworthy of your time...leave it.
you cant come back 3 pages in and criticize the answers you get to your vague question.

its YOUR fault that people took your post "the wrong way"

Its too vague? Really? Maybe I wanted to leave room for discussion. If you can't or don't want to respond to a vague question, why post?

Really, its my thread; if you judge it unworthy of your time...leave it.

When you ask about socialism in the US, what do you mean by 'socialism'?

So, why do you all want Socialism in America? Truthfully I am curious; it hasn’t worked out too well for the following countries:

Venezuela
China
Viet Nam
Syria
Belarus

Honest replies sought.

Twinpappia
Let's quit worrying about the exact label we want to apply... I know that's a pipe dream here, but try anyway.

What we should be worried about is the increasing encroachment of government into what should be private affairs. The Presidential firing of GM's CEO should worry us. The reduction of tax deductions for charitable contributions should worry us. The outright nationalization of banks and the demand to control other financial institutions should worry us.

In fact, the events of the last 60+ days should scare the hell out of all of us. There's no room in this president's agenda for capitalism and free enterprise.

Venezuela
China
Viet Nam
Syria
Belarus

Countries where it has worked:
Sweden
Norway
Germany
France
Belgium
the Netherlands
the United Kingdom

The secret: They're not dictatorships.

the United Kingdom

Lolwut?

Let's quit worrying about the exact label we want to apply... I know that's a pipe dream here, but try anyway.

What we should be worried about is the increasing encroachment of government into what should be private affairs. The Presidential firing of GM's CEO should worry us. The reduction of tax deductions for charitable contributions should worry us. The outright nationalization of banks and the demand to control other financial institutions should worry us.

In fact, the events of the last 60+ days should scare the hell out of all of us. There's no room in this president's agenda for capitalism and free enterprise.
im much more worried that GM is in such a bad spot that it would "let" the president "fire" mr. wagoner so that they can get the bailout money that will keep them out of bankruptcy.

im much more worried that the banks are so shakey that it might be necessary to nationalize them in order to keep the country from a complete financial collapse.

the situation that the country is in today scares me far more than any measures the obama administration is taking to fix it.

When you ask about socialism in the US, what do you mean by 'socialism'?

Now see? That is a valid question. Instead of attacking my original post out of some wanton desire to make him/herself look more important, this poster chose to ask a simple straight forward question.

My answer is this:

1. The government (controlled by any party) spending taxpayer money on private industries.

2. The weakening of the peoples right to land ownership. (allowing a state or the federal government to take property to give/sell to another private party in an attempt to increase taxes etc) (this does not include the forced buying of land to expand highways, build police/fire stations etc.)

3, Forcing citizens to give up their money to those who haven't got as much money. This is done through a "free" healthcare system. We require drivers to have auto insurance, we can also require citizens to carry health insurance.

4. Government take over of private industries. This is already starting to occur, and one Senator even suggested (and I quote) "socializing the oil industry".

6. Using government money to pay for housing, medical, food to able bodied people.

7. Creating "special" taxes to punish companies making "too much" money.

That is a start, may expand on it later.

According to the GOP, the following are "socialist" policies:

Any form of health care that isn't run by private companies
Quality public education
Programs which provide financial support for the elderly after they retire
Programs which provide food to people who haven't got enough food
Money to repair public roads and bridges
Funding for emergency services and disaster relief
Taxes on anybody who makes more than $100K per year

So yeah, I'm all for "socialism."

Lolwut?

It worked until Thatcher tore a good chunk of it out.

Countries where it has worked:
Sweden
Norway
Germany
France
Belgium
the Netherlands
the United Kingdom

The secret: They're not dictatorships.

What makes you think it works in those countries? I lived in the Netherlands for 2 years....I didn't see it working too well, and my Dutch girlfriend sure as hell wasn't happy about it.

As for Germany, I spent 8 years there; not pretty really. Not the worst case scenario but my god the tax rates in the country....oh and the additional taxes: Taxed per room in the house, per square meter of roof, auto taxes, man the list is damn near endless....

You may have to define "working" for me...

It worked until Thatcher tore a good chunk of it out.

It wasn't really Socialism, and it wasn't great. See union strikes all through the 60s and 70s, bringing the government to its knees and such.

According to the GOP, the following are "socialist" policies:

Any form of health care that isn't run by private companies
Quality public education
Programs which provide financial support for the elderly after they retire
Programs which provide food to people who haven't got enough food
Money to repair public roads and bridges
Funding for emergency services and disaster relief
Taxes on anybody who makes more than $100K per year

So yeah, I'm all for "socialism."

Since we're listing places where the government (at any level) spends, you forgot:
Police patrols
Fire department access

And the kicker:
The military - the oldest socialist organization of all! Most of the loud soldiers (in the US) are flaming neocons.
Well, if they think socialism is such a bad thing, they should quit the military! :p

You forgot:
Police patrols
Fire department access

And the kicker:
The military - the oldest socialist organization of all! Most of the loud soldiers (in the US) are flaming neocons.
Well, if they think socialism is such a bad thing, they should quit the military! :p

Even Adam Smith said that a military is one of the few things that a government should provide and play an active role in.

Even Adam Smith said that a military is one of the few things that a government should provide and play an active role in.

The bit about the military was meant for a laugh. Hence the :p at the end.

The radicals are not as few as you think: I have met numerous persons who believe Obama is a communist.
he's very, very liberal, i was told. i have seen the american far left/radical is moderate conservative/center-right on the world scale. which works because we are a center right nation. i think he's a radical on the american scale because of his change, change, change. talk. but american radical left is not world left so he's not a socialist or communist.

When we talk about socialism 'working', what the heck are we talking about?

Since we're listing places where the government (at any level) spends, you forgot:
Police patrols
Fire department access

And the kicker:
The military - the oldest socialist organization of all! Most of the loud soldiers (in the US) are flaming neocons.
Well, if they think socialism is such a bad thing, they should quit the military! :p

Spending money on infrastructure in America = socialism.

Spending money on infrastructure in countries we've invaded = not socialism.

Now see? That is a valid question. Instead of attacking my original post out of some wanton desire to make him/herself look more important, this poster chose to ask a simple straight forward question.

My answer is this:

1. The government (controlled by any party) spending taxpayer money on private industries.

2. The weakening of the peoples right to land ownership. (allowing a state or the federal government to take property to give/sell to another private party in an attempt to increase taxes etc) (this does not include the forced buying of land to expand highways, build police/fire stations etc.)

3, Forcing citizens to give up their money to those who haven't got as much money. This is done through a "free" healthcare system. We require drivers to have auto insurance, we can also require citizens to carry health insurance.

4. Government take over of private industries. This is already starting to occur, and one Senator even suggested (and I quote) "socializing the oil industry".

6. Using government money to pay for housing, medical, food to able bodied people.

7. Creating "special" taxes to punish companies making "too much" money.

That is a start, may expand on it later.
oh well then

we already have socialism in america and i want america to be socialist because it makes for a better, happier, more productive society.

So, why do you all want Socialism in America? Truthfully I am curious; it hasn’t worked out too well for the following countries:

Venezuela
China
Viet Nam
Syria
Belarus

Honest replies sought.


Honestly, I think t's because people who support the idea of Socializing America believe the only reason Socialism has failed elsewhere is because it wasn't they themselves implementing it. "We'll get it right!"

i think he's a radical on the american scale because of his change, change, change. talk.

Keyword being talk. He's centre left, at most.

It wasn't really Socialism, and it wasn't great. See union strikes all through the 60s and 70s, bringing the government to its knees and such.

What were they striking about?

How does socialism make for a more productive country?

Taking away the incentive to excell takes away what made America great.

When we talk about socialism 'working', what the heck are we talking about?

An oxymoron. ;) /jk

Now see? That is a valid question. Instead of attacking my original post out of some wanton desire to make him/herself look more important, this poster chose to ask a simple straight forward question.

My answer is this:

1. The government (controlled by any party) spending taxpayer money on private industries.

2. The weakening of the peoples right to land ownership. (allowing a state or the federal government to take property to give/sell to another private party in an attempt to increase taxes etc) (this does not include the forced buying of land to expand highways, build police/fire stations etc.)

3, Forcing citizens to give up their money to those who haven't got as much money. This is done through a "free" healthcare system. We require drivers to have auto insurance, we can also require citizens to carry health insurance.

4. Government take over of private industries. This is already starting to occur, and one Senator even suggested (and I quote) "socializing the oil industry".

6. Using government money to pay for housing, medical, food to able bodied people.

7. Creating "special" taxes to punish companies making "too much" money.

That is a start, may expand on it later.

Yeah, see...that's not really socialism, but as Patroclus' lover pointed out, we should quit worrying about the exact label we want to apply, as that's a pipe dream here.

So, you don't think the government should spend money on private industries. Does that count defense spending? Let's say the only company that can provide some essential component of an important piece of military equipment is going under. Should the government have an obligation to maintain that corporation?

Why do you believe that there is a weakening of people's rights to land ownership?

Your healthcare system is expensive and lets people die of poverty. Developed nations with public healthcare have less expensive systems that are of comparable quality and treat everyone regardless of income. The US, by the way, is very far from a public healthcare system. Unless all the insurance lobbyists somehow magically disappeared.

Government takeover of private industry (if it is actually occurring) is sometimes good, just like privatisation is sometimes good.

Numbers six and seven are too vague for me to even ask intelligent questions.

Speaking of vague, your OP was too vague.

What were they striking about?

Oh, fuck, everything. But the dockworkers' strike was a big one. They had half day contracts, so if they had a job in the morning, they weren't guaranteed a job a few hours later. So they stopped working. Then they got equal rights.

How does socialism make for a more productive country?

Taking away the incentive to excell takes away what made America great.
the socialism you outline does not take away any incentive to strive for excellence. instead it takes away some of the impediments of trying something new.

Oh, fuck, everything. But the dockworkers' strike was a big one. They had half day contracts, so if they had a job in the morning, they weren't guaranteed a job a few hours later. So they stopped working. Then they got equal rights.

Where could they not work in the afternoon? Just there, or not anywhere?

the socialism you outline does not take away any incentive to strive for excellence. instead it takes away some of the impediments of trying something new.

It merely unlocks the door. You still have to open it.

the socialism you outline does not take away any incentive to strive for excellence. instead it takes away some of the impediments of trying something new.


Really? If the government says "don't worry; here is a house, car, food, health care, and some living money..." where is the incentive to get off your ass and do something?

Then if you DO get off your ass, you pay half your earnings or more in taxes (between state and federal)..what incentive is there to continue?

Seriously.

Where could they not work in the afternoon? Just there, or not anywhere?

What happened was you'd turn up to the docks and ask for a job. If you were hired you'd be hired only until the afternoon, when you had to get re-hired. Obviously people wanted a little more job security than that.

What happened was you'd turn up to the docks and ask for a job. If you were hired you'd be hired only until the afternoon, when you had to get re-hired. Obviously people wanted a little more job security than that.

That particular strike was justified.

Describe for me, if you will, the most ridiculous pre-Thatcher strike you can think of.

Really? If the government says "don't worry; here is a house, car, food, health care, and some living money..." where is the incentive to get off your ass and do something?

Then if you DO get off your ass, you pay half your earnings or more in taxes (between state and federal)..what incentive is there to continue?

Seriously.

Except that's not really happening, so you have nothing to worry about.

Really? If the government says "don't worry; here is a house, car, food, health care, and some living money..." where is the incentive to get off your ass and do something?

Then if you DO get off your ass, you pay half your earnings or more in taxes (between state and federal)..what incentive is there to continue?

Seriously.
that wasnt in your outline of what socialism is to you.

It merely unlocks the door. You still have to open it.
exactly. no one can make you strive for excellence they can only make it easier or harder to do so.

Really? If the government says "don't worry; here is a house, car, food, health care, and some living money..." where is the incentive to get off your ass and do something?

Then if you DO get off your ass, you pay half your earnings or more in taxes (between state and federal)..what incentive is there to continue?

Seriously.

Food, shelter, and medical care should be regarded as rights that anyone with a job should be guaranteed. (As for the disabled, retired, and minors, it wouldn't be right to kick them to the curb.)

EDIT: Like I said earlier, all those programs do is loosen the hinges and open the lock. You still have to turn the knob to get anywhere.

Describe for me, if you will, the most ridiculous pre-Thatcher strike you can think of.

Printers' strike.They went on strike because new technology pretty much rendered them useless. Nobody cared. Happened just after my dad left the printing trade as well, so he was lucky there.

Printer's strike.They went on strike because new technology pretty much rendered them useless. Nobody cared. Happened just after my dad left the printing trade as well, so he was lucky there.

That is pretty off-the-wall. Did they ever hear of higher education or retraining? :p

that wasnt in your outline of what socialism is to you.

It sure was, almost word for word....

That is pretty off-the-wall. Did they ever hear of higher education or retraining? :p

No, but they had heard of failing and whining.

It sure was, almost word for word....

Could you provide an example of how these things are happening in the present day USA?

It sure was, almost word for word....
then youll have to show me where anyone is proposing that people get free houses and free cars.

Keyword being talk. He's centre left, at most.
all democrats, that are not moderate or conservative democrats are american center-left.

all democrats, that are not moderate or conservative democrats are american center-left.

No. There will be some socialist Democrats, maybe even Communist ones, so I'd say that's wrong.

all democrats, that are not moderate or conservative democrats are american center-left.

Right....
http://hawgfrog.com/images/fonda_vietnam.jpg

Could you provide an example of how these things are happening in the present day USA?


Yep.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/30/obama-auto/

The government telling a company how to run its buisness AND/OR giving it our money....without constitutional support by the way.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/FSP/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29110391/?gt1=43001

http://www.usc.edu/dept/gero/nrcshhm/library/PDF/gov.pdf
http://rhol.org/rental/housing.htm

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123802775876343021.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783_pf.html

There ya go, the last one was dealt with eventually by Presidential intervention...thank god.

However; it shows me (opinion) where our nation is headed.

No. There will be some socialist Democrats, maybe even Communist ones, so I'd say that's wrong.

Just like there are some Fascist Republicans, maybe even Nazi ones.

Right....
http://hawgfrog.com/images/fonda_vietnam.jpg

Good for her.

Just like there are some Fascisr Republicans, maybe even Nazi ones.

And? Was there a point behind this, H2?

then youll have to show me where anyone is proposing that people get free houses and free cars.


To some extent I used exaggeration to make a point. I apologize.

Good for her.

She supported an army that massacred millions of civilians.... And she thought America should "pray" to become communist.

And? Was there a point behind this, H2?

Not letting NNLDI get away with making that claim.

To some extent I used exaggeration to make a point. I apologize.
so MY point stands.

She supported an army that massacred millions of civilians....

So did the other side.

Just like there are some Fascisr Republicans, maybe even Nazi ones.

But I rarely hear someone saying "good for her" about such a Republican.

Not letting NNLDI get away with making that claim.

What claim that not all all democrats, that are not moderate or conservative democrats are american center-left, that in fact somw may be even further left then centre left?

Also it doesn't disprove his claim at all, it just makes another claim.

so MY point stands.

Not really, see my post in reply above with my links. I believe our government is headed that way rapidly, and I think it could be our downfall as a nation.

What claim that not all all democrats, that are not moderate or conservative democrats are american center-left, that in fact somw may be even further left then centre left?

No, that there are "some socialist (buzzword) Democrats and some communist (buzzword) ones".

His claim does not need "disproving", it's made to inflame. It needs countering.

So did the other side.

Millions? I think not. And whereas the ones killed by Americans were condemned by most of the army, the Viet Cong never cared.

Millions? I think not. And whereas the ones killed by Americans were condemned by most of the army, the Viet Cong never cared.

South Vietnamese civilian dead: 1,581,000*
Cambodian civilian dead: ~700,000*
North Vietnamese civilian dead: ~3,000,000*
Laotian civilian dead: ~50,000*

Edit: Has anyone ever noticed that an image of the Fall of Saigon would make a nice wallpaper?

Not really, see my post in reply above with my links. I believe our government is headed that way rapidly, and I think it could be our downfall as a nation.
no

im not going to go off reading a bunch of links that you cant be bothered to quote from. if you want to debate, debate. dont link to other people's thoughts and leave me guessing what your point is.

No, that there are "some socialist (buzzword) Democrats and some communist (buzzword) ones".

Well regardless as I said in my edited post your claim still doesn't disprove his, all you did was make another claim.

no

im not going to go off reading a bunch of links that you cant be bothered to quote from. if you want to debate, debate. dont link to other people's thoughts and leave me guessing what your point is.


The poster wanted examples, to put those examples in my own words would have made them useless as support for my hypothesis. To copy and paste them here would have make the post a mile long and really really annoying. So I linked the data the poster wanted.

What's wrong with that?

Well regardless as I said in my edited post your claim still doesn't disprove his, all you did was make another claim.

Disproving his claim would require me to prove a negative. Countering his claim with another one doesn't require me to prove anything unless HE proves the claim HE made first.

Disproving his claim would require me to prove a negative. Countering his claim with another one doesn't require me to prove anything unless HE proves the claim HE made first.

Well regardless your post does not actually stop him from getting away with his.

So just a question, you would say the most far left a democrat will be at the moment is centre left?

Just like there are some Fascisr Republicans, maybe even Nazi ones.

I doubt Nazi.

Well regardless your post does not actually stop him from getting away with his.

So just a question, you would say the most far left a democrat will be at the moment is centre left?

Depends. American or World?

The poster wanted examples, to put those examples in my own words would have made them useless as support for my hypothesis. To copy and paste them here would have make the post a mile long and really really annoying. So I linked the data the poster wanted.

What's wrong with that?
if he wanted links thats fine. it doesnt address MY point which still stands until you address it.

I doubt Nazi.

And I doubt Communist.

Depends. American or World?

Since we are talking about Americans belonging to the Democrat party in America I would say American.

South Vietnamese civilian dead: 1,581,000*
Cambodian civilian dead: ~700,000*
North Vietnamese civilian dead: ~3,000,000*
Laotian civilian dead: ~50,000*

Edit: Has anyone ever noticed that an image of the Fall of Saigon would make a nice wallpaper?

I would like the link, if you please, and a source showing that the 3,000,000 killing in the North were done by Americans. I also imagine you know that the majority Cambodian killings were not America's doing, bombing and all.

Since we are talking about Americans belonging to the Democrat party in America I would say American.

American far-left is the world's "left". :p

And I doubt Communist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda

And I doubt Communist.

Fonda.

Oh, and I am positive that there are Nazi Republicans.

I would like the link, if you please, and a source showing that the 3,000,000 killing in the North were done by Americans. I also imagine you know that the majority Cambodian killings were not America's doing, bombing and all.

Wikipedia, Vietnam War.

Regardless, as shown, the US DID kill q goodly amount of civilians that is very likely to surpass a million.

Fonda.

Oh, and I am positive that there are Nazi Republicans.

Well, then, NNLDI is wrong.

the socialism you outline does not take away any incentive to strive for excellence. instead it takes away some of the impediments of trying something new.

If this is the point you wanted me to answer then my answer is this: To give a man/woman everything they need to survive makes them less likely to struggle to succeed. (opinion)

If we (humans of any nation) do not need to strive for survival, we (as a species) are less likely (opinion) to excell.

Does that answer your question?

Well, then, NNLDI is wrong.

He certainly is. I have met a number of Republicans who speak of exterminating Mexicans and Muslims.

And Reagan was pretty damned racist, as he left the Democratic party because it supported the integration of schools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush

American far-left is the world's "left". :p

haha I am well aware of that.

Well, then, NNLDI is wrong.

Wait a minute if Fonda is a democrat and also a communist then doesn't that make him right?

Wikipedia, Vietnam War.

Regardless, as shown, the US DID kill q goodly amount of civilians that is very likely to surpass a million.

The average Vietnamese civilian was screwed either way.

Wait a minute if Fonda is a democrat and also a communist then doesn't that make him right?

Wrong on the point of there being no Nazi Republicans.

haha I am well aware of that.



Wait a minute if Fonda is a democrat and also a communist then doesn't that make him right?

Prescott Bush was a Republican and also a Nazi.

He certainly is. I have met a number of Republicans who speak of exterminating Mexicans and Muslims.

And Reagan was pretty damned racist, as he left the Democratic party because it supported the integration of schools.


Asked why he, an ardent New Deal liberal in his youth, had turned away from the Democratic Party, Reagan said simply: "I didn�t leave the Democratic Party. It left me."

found in Reagan's 1964 convention speech, "A Time for Choosing":

"As a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration. Back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his party was taking the part of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his party, and he never returned to the day he died, because to this day, the leadership of that party has been taking that party, that honorable party, down the road in the image of the labor socialist party of England."

I dont see a thing about school integration here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush

Rumors about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush ... have circulated widely through the internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated. Despite some early financial dealings between Prescott Bush and a Nazi industrialist named Fritz Thyssen (who was arrested by the Nazi regime in 1938 and imprisoned during the war), Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathizer.

No, he wasn't a Nazi.

Prescott Bush was a Republican and also a Nazi.

And what has that got to do with the original statement that you decided to pounce on that caused this sorry mess?

He still has gotten away with his statement that you didn't want him to get away with.

No, he wasn't a Nazi.

Okay, so he wasn't.

Then here is my second move:

Some (http://wonkette.com/407198/michele-bachmann-calls-for-armed-revolution) Republicans (http://vodpod.com/watch/1472758-keith-olbermann-vs-rep-michele-bachmann-revolution-comments) are (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/3/23/712199/-Michele-Bachmann-Wants-A-RevolutionNeeds-Bigger-Army-) seditionists (http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/03/26/michelle-bachmann-calls-for-violent-revolution/).

If this is the point you wanted me to answer then my answer is this: To give a man/woman everything they need to survive makes them less likely to struggle to succeed. (opinion)

If we (humans of any nation) do not need to strive for survival, we (as a species) are less likely (opinion) to excell.

Does that answer your question?
sure.

wrong but sure.

we do not have to make life as difficult as possible in order to get the best out of people. as long as the best is possible then making sure that people dont have to risk everything in order to strive for excellence is a good idea.

Some (http://wonkette.com/407198/michele-bachmann-calls-for-armed-revolution) Republicans (http://vodpod.com/watch/1472758-keith-olbermann-vs-rep-michele-bachmann-revolution-comments) are (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/3/23/712199/-Michele-Bachmann-Wants-A-RevolutionNeeds-Bigger-Army-) seditionists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Bachmann).

I totally agree, and think it's horrific. I said so in the New American Revolution thread.

Asked why he, an ardent New Deal liberal in his youth, had turned away from the Democratic Party, Reagan said simply: "I didn�t leave the Democratic Party. It left me."

found in Reagan's 1964 convention speech, "A Time for Choosing":

"As a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration. Back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his party was taking the part of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his party, and he never returned to the day he died, because to this day, the leadership of that party has been taking that party, that honorable party, down the road in the image of the labor socialist party of England."

I dont see a thing about school integration here.

Oh--well he was still an asshole.

"Reagan did not support federal initiatives to provide blacks with civil rights.[32] He opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964[33] and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, supported by Martin Luther King, Jr., among others, and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson.[32] His opposition was based on his view that the federal government should not overtly provide for people.[32]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ronald_Reagan#Minorities

I totally agree, and think it's horrific. I said so in the New American Revolution thread.

Good. So if buzzwords "Socialist" and "communist" are thrown around, I get to use "Fascist" and "Seditionist".

Oh--well he was still an asshole.

"Reagan did not support federal initiatives to provide blacks with civil rights.[32] He opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964[33] and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, supported by Martin Luther King, Jr., among others, and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson.[32] His opposition was based on his view that the federal government should not overtly provide for people.[32]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ronald_Reagan#Minorities

So his decision had nothing to do with race. Thanks for sinking your original argument. Your opinion that he was an "asshole" well, you are entiltled to your opinons.

Nice retreat though.

Good. So if buzzwords "Socialist" and "communist" are thrown around, I get to use "Fascist" and "Seditionist".

Buzzword! Thankyou! I was trying to use that the other day. Back to your argument, however, the use of seditionist in that case is totally accurate, and my use of socialist and communist towards Jane Fonda is accurate as well. It's just you that failed to back up your Nazi claim.

So his decision had nothing to do with race. Thanks for sinking your original argument. Your opinion that he was an "asshole" well, you are entiltled to your opinons.

Nice retreat though.

Has nothing to do with race. :tongue: He was against school-integration, adored Jefferson Davis, said that equal voting rights were "humiliating the South", and you expect me to believe race has nothing to do with it? He called all his racist opinions "small government" talk, and said he switched parties because he wanted "smaller government".

So his decision had nothing to do with race. Thanks for sinking your original argument. Your opinion that he was an "asshole" well, you are entiltled to your opinons.

Nice retreat though.

You DO, of course, realize that that motherfucker of a Republican "hero" who deserved the inglorious Alzheimer's death he got considered "small government" more necessary than the basic equality your country is supposed to have been founded on, right?

Buzzword! Thankyou! I was trying to use that the other day. Back to your argument, however, the use of seditionist in that case is totally accurate, and my use of socialist and communist towards Jane Fonda is accurate as well. It's just you that failed to back up your Nazi claim.

I recant it, and we have two buzzwords for two buzzwords. We're even.

So his decision had nothing to do with race. Thanks for sinking your original argument. Your opinion that he was an "asshole" well, you are entiltled to your opinons.

Nice retreat though.
they were still assholish opinions no matter how he formed them. time has shown him to have been very wrong on those issues.

You DO, of course, realize that that motherfucker of a Republican "hero" who deserved the inglorious Alzheimer's death he got considered "small government" more necessary than the basic equality your country is supposed to have been founded on, right?

Probably was an Ayn Rand fan.

Probably was an Ayn Rand fan.

There's a fine line between being an Ayn Rand fan and yellow spots on her picture.

You DO, of course, realize that that motherfucker of a Republican "hero" who deserved the inglorious Alzheimer's death he got considered "small government" more necessary than the basic equality your country is supposed to have been founded on, right?

And in a happy coincidence, skyrocketed the national debt too. ;)

And in a happy coincidence, skyrocketed the national debt too. ;)

Tripled it.

they were still assholish opinions no matter how he formed them. time has shown him to have been very wrong on those issues.

Voting record in this case has little to do with is beliefs on race. Poorly written legistlation is often the reason people vote against supposedly much needed legislation.

For example: John McCain voted against more funds for the troops in Iraq becuase of all the crap tagged on to the bill. The negative out weighed the positive and his vote went as it did. This didnt mean that John McCain didnt support the troops.

I believe if you looked deeper you would find that the same applies to those votes by Ronald Reagan. You won't though, you need your petty hate to keep you warm.

Voting record in this case has little to do with is beliefs on race. Poorly written legistlation is often the reason people vote against supposedly much needed legislation.

For example: John McCain voted against more funds for the troops in Iraq becuase of all the crap tagged on to the bill. The negative out weighed the positive and his vote went as it did. This didnt mean that John McCain didnt support the troops.

I believe if you looked deeper you would find that the same applies to those votes by Ronald Reagan. You won't though, you need your petty hate to keep you warm.

But he specifically said he was against integration and equal rights, so your theory falls down. Even if he was never a politician, his words would show him to be a racist.

"I am against equal rights for all races, but I am not racist." It sounds like every right-wing "states-rights" supporter I have ever heard.

The poster wanted examples, to put those examples in my own words would have made them useless as support for my hypothesis. To copy and paste them here would have make the post a mile long and really really annoying. So I linked the data the poster wanted.

What's wrong with that?

What you should have done is then quote the relevant text from each link that supports your assertions. You should laso cleraly show which assertion is supported by which link. What you have here:

Yep.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/30/obama-auto/

The government telling a company how to run its buisness AND/OR giving it our money....without constitutional support by the way.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/FSP/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29110391/?gt1=43001

http://www.usc.edu/dept/gero/nrcshhm/library/PDF/gov.pdf
http://rhol.org/rental/housing.htm

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123802775876343021.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783_pf.html
....

is just a bunch of spam for what it adds to the debate.

No matter. I still looked at them. This is what I found:

The first article clearly states that the White House is not trying to tell a company how to run itself. Note the first paragraph of the article:

President Obama said Monday his administration has "no intention" of running General Motors, even as the White House demanded the resignation of the automaker's CEO and called for a "better business plan" before considering lending more government money to bail out the company.

Your second link talks about the SNAP, a nutritional program for disabled and low-income people. I assuem this is supposed to be evidence for how the government is giving money to able bodied people. Do you have a source that shows what percentage of SNAP recipients are not disabled?

Your third link is aboutthe octuplets mom and how she gets food stamps for her disabled kids. Let's file this one under 'money to able-bodied people' and also under 'failure to provide evidence'.

Your fourth link is about housing assistance for disabled people, elderly, and low income people. Again, I would like a source showing what percentage are used by able-bodied people. Please note that most senior citizens who apply for such housing specifically ask for homes with no stairs. Do you count them as able bodied?

Your fifth link is about the same thing. See above.

Your sixth link is just an editorial. I don't want to read someone else's interpretation of the facts. I want the facts, please. If I wanted to settle for an interpretation that mirrored yours, I would just believe you and not ask for sources.

Your seventh link is from 2005. It would seem that the trend towards socialism through land seizures began during the Bush administration. Kinda like the food and housing programs were also begun long ago by different administrations.

And I think that's it.

I believe if you looked deeper you would find that the same applies to those votes by Ronald Reagan.

Reagan wasn't voting on legislation in 1964 and 1965. As an advocate for right-wing causes, he was participating in the attempt of the Republican Party to recruit white racists and undermine the Democratic base.

The fact that the rhetoric wasn't overtly racist changes nothing.

The way I see it, trillions of dollars that doesn't exist have been squandered by the government in order to provide their corporate buddies with massive sums of money for questionable and irrelevant goals. While this has been going on, the corporate system has been allowed to bankrupt itself and threaten the welfare of every American in the country. Now, you have a government that wants to spend trillions more on plans and goals that will actually improve the quality of life of all Americans, provide security against the whims of foreign oil(and large domestic oil megacorporations) and the untrustworthy governments that control it and bring the country into the 21st century against the will of those still trying to squeeze the 20th dry. All in an attempt to do what was ignored up until now.

Hey, if we're going to spend money we don't have, I at least want good value for it. ;)

But he specifically said he was against integration and equal rights, so your theory falls down. Even if he was never a politician, his words would show him to be a racist.

"I am against equal rights for all races, but I am not racist." It sounds like every right-wing "states-rights" supporter I have ever heard.

I have to ask for sources on your statement, thanks.

Voting record in this case has little to do with is beliefs on race. Poorly written legistlation is often the reason people vote against supposedly much needed legislation.

For example: John McCain voted against more funds for the troops in Iraq becuase of all the crap tagged on to the bill. The negative out weighed the positive and his vote went as it did. This didnt mean that John McCain didnt support the troops.

I believe if you looked deeper you would find that the same applies to those votes by Ronald Reagan. You won't though, you need your petty hate to keep you warm.
oh i dont hate reagan for his stance against those bills. not even for his fight against medicare.

i hate him for his treasonous act of secretly selling arms to iran and pretending that that was going to somehow get our hostages out of lebanon.

I would have to say that I (prehaps biastly say) am for Socialism. Look at the Economy of all the countrys around the world. Ok, Look at China's economy. Predicting groth in this economic climate! Now you must agree that is astounding and from the DDR there moto; "WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE". Really, sure it has it's bad sides Even capitalism has its bad sides!

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security". - Benjamin Franklin

This tenet has driven American Society since it's inception. Any increase of Government power, any lost freedom, any intrusion into the private sector, these have been heavily opposed throughout American History, and rightly so.

The OP asked why so many of us were willing to do just that: give up essential liberties for temporary security. No one has answered yet in this thread. There has been hemming and hawing about what socialism is (by definition, an economic system based on state ownership of capitol), there has been unnecessary goading of the op to clarify extrememly clear statements, there have been insults, misdirections and subject changes.

There have not been refutations of fact: the verifiable policies being enacted, the definition of socialism (not a dissertation on the form of socialism practiced here or there), or the fact that these policies are garnering large support. Bear in mind that the type of socialism here, there, or yonder is irrelevant when things here fit the very classic definition. I shouldn't have to state something so obvious, but after reading this thread to date, I feel it necessary.

I will answer the OP's orginal question: Because too many of us have it too good. Too many of us are at least two generations away from any real oppression or hardship. Because we have airconditioning, 13 years of education (average), because we haven't had a war here in living memory and seen that devestation, because we've rarely if ever gone hungry. Because we've always had medicine available, clean water, and meat with every meal. Because of all of these things, we take for granted that these aspects of our lives, our freedoms, are truly inalienable by nature rather than by nurture. We believe that these freedoms cannot ever be denied to us here, in the United States, and so we turn our eyes away from them. We do not value them as we should, and, as with all things of little value, become ready to barter them for temporary security. We lose sight of the fact that those seeking power rarely merit it, and usually say whatever is needed to achieve it.

In my opinion, Ben was right: those unwilling to protect their freedoms in the hard times do not deserve them. It is only my hope that they never lose the freedom to be so undeserving.

Twinpappia: Don't let ashmoria get to you. He/She/It wants to. That is all they want: not meaningful discussion, just satisfying trolling. From your posts, you seem to be better than that.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1964reagan1.html

Excellent speech by Ronald Reagan, sadly its as relevant today as in 1964.

I have to ask for sources on your statement, thanks.

I was not directly quoting him, you silly sod, I was merely summing-up what he said. He claims he is not racist, but he also says that races and sexes should not have equal rights.

He opposed this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_1964

Give me one good argument why those laws should not have been put into force.

*snip*

If you think our government is even anywhere close to even your (wrong) definition of socialism as "government ownership of capital", then you are severely confused.

The vast majority of capital remains in private hands, and is likely to for the foreseeable future. Obama is extremely hesitant to even take the comparatively minor step (recommended by plenty of experts on both the left and the right) of temporary nationalizations.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security". - Benjamin Franklin

This tenet has driven American Society since it's inception. Any increase of Government power, any lost freedom, any intrusion into the private sector, these have been heavily opposed throughout American History, and rightly so.

The OP asked why so many of us were willing to do just that: give up essential liberties for temporary security. No one has answered yet in this thread. There has been hemming and hawing about what socialism is (by definition, an economic system based on state ownership of capitol), there has been unnecessary goading of the op to clarify extrememly clear statements, there have been insults, misdirections and subject changes.

There have not been refutations of fact: the verifiable policies being enacted, the definition of socialism (not a dissertation on the form of socialism practiced here or there), or the fact that these policies are garnering large support. Bear in mind that the type of socialism here, there, or yonder is irrelevant when things here fit the very classic definition. I shouldn't have to state something so obvious, but after reading this thread to date, I feel it necessary.

I will answer the OP's orginal question: Because too many of us have it too good. Too many of us are at least two generations away from any real oppression or hardship. Because we have airconditioning, 13 years of education (average), because we haven't had a war here in living memory and seen that devestation, because we've rarely if ever gone hungry. Because we've always had medicine available, clean water, and meat with every meal. Because of all of these things, we take for granted that these aspects of our lives, our freedoms, are truly inalienable by nature rather than by nurture. We believe that these freedoms cannot ever be denied to us here, in the United States, and so we turn our eyes away from them. We do not value them as we should, and, as with all things of little value, become ready to barter them for temporary security. We lose sight of the fact that those seeking power rarely merit it, and usually say whatever is needed to achieve it.

In my opinion, Ben was right: those unwilling to protect their freedoms in the hard times do not deserve them. It is only my hope that they never lose the freedom to be so undeserving.

Twinpappia: Don't let ashmoria get to you. He/She/It wants to. That is all they want: not meaningful discussion, just satisfying trolling. From your posts, you seem to be better than that.
wow i dont think ive ever been accused of trolling before. not just here but anywhere on the internet.

i fail to see how terrible prosperity is. are you arguing that we were better off back in the 1800s when we lived and died without government interference?

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1964reagan1.html

Excellent speech by Ronald Reagan, sadly its as relevant today as in 1964.
he was fighting MEDICARE--medical care for the elderly.

not so great really.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security". - Benjamin Franklin

This tenet has driven American Society since it's inception. Any increase of Government power, any lost freedom, any intrusion into the private sector, these have been heavily opposed throughout American History, and rightly so.

The OP asked why so many of us were willing to do just that: give up essential liberties for temporary security. No one has answered yet in this thread. There has been hemming and hawing about what socialism is (by definition, an economic system based on state ownership of capitol), there has been unnecessary goading of the op to clarify extrememly clear statements, there have been insults, misdirections and subject changes.

There have not been refutations of fact: the verifiable policies being enacted, the definition of socialism (not a dissertation on the form of socialism practiced here or there), or the fact that these policies are garnering large support. Bear in mind that the type of socialism here, there, or yonder is irrelevant when things here fit the very classic definition. I shouldn't have to state something so obvious, but after reading this thread to date, I feel it necessary.

I will answer the OP's orginal question: Because too many of us have it too good. Too many of us are at least two generations away from any real oppression or hardship. Because we have airconditioning, 13 years of education (average), because we haven't had a war here in living memory and seen that devestation, because we've rarely if ever gone hungry. Because we've always had medicine available, clean water, and meat with every meal. Because of all of these things, we take for granted that these aspects of our lives, our freedoms, are truly inalienable by nature rather than by nurture. We believe that these freedoms cannot ever be denied to us here, in the United States, and so we turn our eyes away from them. We do not value them as we should, and, as with all things of little value, become ready to barter them for temporary security. We lose sight of the fact that those seeking power rarely merit it, and usually say whatever is needed to achieve it.

In my opinion, Ben was right: those unwilling to protect their freedoms in the hard times do not deserve them. It is only my hope that they never lose the freedom to be so undeserving.

Twinpappia: Don't let ashmoria get to you. He/She/It wants to. That is all they want: not meaningful discussion, just satisfying trolling. From your posts, you seem to be better than that.

First, wonderful post.
Second, truthfully; no interntet person can "get to me". If my wife and children love and respect me that's all I need. (they do, at least they say they do and act like it...). The attempt to hem me into a word or phrase is a typical discussion board method of diverting the actual discussion. I am used to it.
Third, WONDERFUL POST!

he was fighting MEDICARE--medical care for the elderly.

not so great really.

He was fighting government provided medical care.

Soheran - Umm..yes, that definition is actually Socialism, sorry. And yes, the MAJORITY of capital remains in private hands. But not all. And the Governement is busy 'acquiring' more, at bargain basement prices. Do I need to quote you sources, like, a dictionary perhaps? And, I believe that Twinpappia is trying to talk about the welfare system, which does support tens of millions of abled bodied people. This is pretty much common knowledge: for confirmation, call your local Department of Human Services.

Ashmoria - I think that, people today as 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and 233 years ago must always actively prevent their government from taking advantage of them. As far as implying that today's prosperity is due to government interference, I will copy Soheran, and ask for sources.

He opposed equality, he tripled the deficit, he hated long hours, he sold weapons to Iran, he put Saddam Hussein in power--what is not to hate?

He was fighting government provided medical care.
to be specific MEDICARE. the program that provides medical care for the elderly and (some) disabled.

what a dick.

Ashmoria - I think that, people today as 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and 233 years ago must always actively prevent their government from taking advantage of them. As far as implying that today's prosperity is due to government interference, I will copy Soheran, and ask for sources.
you are the one who used prosperity as an example of what is wrong with the country today. im not trying to say that it is all due to the government. im wondering what could possibly be so wrong about it and whether or not you wish we werent so prosperous.

to be specific MEDICARE. the program that provides medical care for the elderly and (some) disabled.

what a dick.

And persons are still voting for him!
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QNIU6_yczvo/SZnjz_XZt4I/AAAAAAAABZU/IS7KS8KPEQU/s320/zombiereagan.jpg

I would have to say that I (prehaps biastly say) am for Socialism. Look at the Economy of all the countrys around the world. Ok, Look at China's economy. Predicting groth in this economic climate! Now you must agree that is astounding and from the DDR there moto; "WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE". Really, sure it has it's bad sides Even capitalism has its bad sides!

China has a huge population, a lot of development to do, and routinely exaggerates their statistics.

Really, the fact that you even mention the GDR shows how little you know on the subject. As the richest and most prosperous communist bloc country, the GDR was still a dump by Western standards, and the FRG was just streaks ahead in every regard.

Soheran - Umm..yes, that definition is actually Socialism, sorry. And yes, the MAJORITY of capital remains in private hands. But not all. And the Governement is busy 'acquiring' more, at bargain basement prices. Do I need to quote you sources, like, a dictionary perhaps? And, I believe that Twinpappia is trying to talk about the welfare system, which does support tens of millions of abled bodied people. This is pretty much common knowledge: for confirmation, call your local Department of Human Services.

Ashmoria - I think that, people today as 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and 233 years ago must always actively prevent their government from taking advantage of them. As far as implying that today's prosperity is due to government interference, I will copy Soheran, and ask for sources.

As it happens, that isn't Socialism. But thanks for trying.

Out of interest, have you ever actually studied political ideologies?

Ashmoria - Intentionally misunderstanding clear statements? I stated, rather clearly, that the problem was taking prosperity for granted, not that prosperity was the problem. See the difference?

Also, Umm, medicare vs. government provided health care. Health care need not be provided by the government, which has already been stated to you. Are you not understanding the seperation of concept?

Reagan was not against health care for the elderly, etc, but against the government regulating it. Why? Well, caring for such a person now, I can tell you it's just about useless. Medicare recipients still have to have a private insurance (seen a humana commercial yet?). Things would be far less complicated by properly subsidizing private insurance.


Please, keep the intentional density coming. I enjoy pointing out the obvious to those ignoring it.

And yes, the MAJORITY of capital remains in private hands. But not all.

...yes, like in every society in human history. So?

And the Governement is busy 'acquiring' more, at bargain basement prices.

Right, because no one in the private sector wants to buy it. :rolleyes:

Do I need to quote you sources, like, a dictionary perhaps?

No, a dictionary is a pretty bad source for political definitions. You'd be better off dealing with the body of socialist political and economic theory, but, of course, you won't, because it would only prove you wrong.

For what it's worth, however, from Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism): "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

"The community" is hardly synonymous with "the government." I have my problems with this definition, too, but it is better.

I am curious though, it seems many of the American posters (some assumption goes into my belief that some of these posters are American) seem to be quite happy about Americas current trend (rapid trend at that) towards a Socialist society.

Fail.

He opposed equality, he tripled the deficit, he hated long hours, he sold weapons to Iran, he put Saddam Hussein in power--what is not to hate?

Let us not forget his support for the Contras (and the subsequent World Court ruling that found the US responsible for sponsoring terrorism and ordered the US to pay several billion to Nicaragua which have yet to be paid), the invasion of Grenada, aid to the Colombian, Guatemalan, and El Salvadorean dictatorships, funding Noriega's drug industry, and supporting apartheid South Africa.

Ronnie Raygun's foreign policy was something else.

Ashmoria - Intentionally misunderstanding clear statements? I stated, rather clearly, that the problem was taking prosperity for granted, not that prosperity was the problem. See the difference?

Also, Umm, medicare vs. government provided health care. Health care need not be provided by the government, which has already been stated to you. Are you not understanding the seperation of concept?

Reagan was not against health care for the elderly, etc, but against the government regulating it. Why? Well, caring for such a person now, I can tell you it's just about useless. Medicare recipients still have to have a private insurance (seen a humana commercial yet?). Things would be far less complicated by properly subsidizing private insurance.


Please, keep the intentional density coming. I enjoy pointing out the obvious to those ignoring it.

Firstly, properly subsidising private insurance is still some measure of government health care.

Secondly, healthcare is not a system which should be run for profit. The sorry state of the US system, with high expenditures and low returns, demonstrates this adequately.

Ashmoria - Intentionally misunderstanding clear statements? I stated, rather clearly, that the problem was taking prosperity for granted, not that prosperity was the problem. See the difference?

Also, Umm, medicare vs. government provided health care. Health care need not be provided by the government, which has already been stated to you. Are you not understanding the seperation of concept?

Reagan was not against health care for the elderly, etc, but against the government regulating it. Why? Well, caring for such a person now, I can tell you it's just about useless. Medicare recipients still have to have a private insurance (seen a humana commercial yet?). Things would be far less complicated by properly subsidizing private insurance.


Please, keep the intentional density coming. I enjoy pointing out the obvious to those ignoring it.
so you think we should act as if the wolf is at the door in order to ......?

you arent making much sense with that.

what is the difference between having the government run medicare and having the government pay private insurance companies to do so? except that the private insurance companies would make money, of course.

Soheran - And who exactly controls a community?

Uvv- subsidation does not grant control, however, which is the operable difference.

Ashmoria - We should maintain our freedoms rather than selling them for possible short term fixes. And hey, maybe I wasn't clear that the difference between government control and government spending is...government control. Difficult concept?

UvV- http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

(especially like that first line "Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism


Now, we've got Princeton, Wikipedia, and Webster. But if those aren't enough, just google 'Socialism definition'. You've studied Googalian ideologies, yes?



Once again, however, the issue is not What socialism is. It is why Americans are allowing their government to take powers normally reserved for, at the very least, some definitions of Socialism. The OP has pretty well confirmed this. The question is not difficult. Why allow the government to take away freedoms, based solely on its word, which is enourmously untrusted by the population based on approval ratings.

Ashmoria - We should maintain our freedoms rather than selling them for possible short term fixes. And hey, maybe I wasn't clear that the difference between government control and government spending is...government control. Difficult concept?
so you prefer a bunch of businessmen to run our health care because they will be ....fairer? more accurate? more humane?

what freedoms do you feel we have traded away for a short term fix? and what short term fix are you talking about?

For what it's worth, however, from Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism): "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

"The community" is hardly synonymous with "the government." I have my problems with this definition, too, but it is better.

Try a quote from my A level textbook:


Socialism, as an ideology, has traditionally been defined by its opposition to capitalism and the attempt to provide a more humane and socially worthwhile alternative. At the core of socialism is a vision of human beings as social creatures united by their common humanity. This highlights the degree to which individual identity is fashioned by social interaction and the membership of social groups and collective bodies. Socialists therefore prefer cooperation to competition. The central, and some would say defining, value of socialism is equality, especially social equality.

Not sure if this is much better, and is definitely somewhat simplistic, but it should suffice. Notably, this draws out why socialists believe in common ownership, which is (I feel) the more essential characteristic.

Uvv- subsidation does not grant control, however, which is the operable difference.

You failed to address my second objection - the fact that private healthcare, as implemented in the USA, sucks.

UvV- http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

(especially like that first line "Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Now, we've got Princeton, Wikipedia, and Webster. But if those aren't enough, just google 'Socialism definition'. You've studied Googalian ideologies, yes?

See my previous post. Or just quote the whole first sentence, which is rather more than you conveniently snipped it at: "Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation." (emphasis mine). All of a sudden its something quite different.

Edit: I ask again if you have ever actually studied political ideologies.

Let us not forget his support for the Contras (and the subsequent World Court ruling that found the US responsible for sponsoring terrorism and ordered the US to pay several billion to Nicaragua which have yet to be paid), the invasion of Grenada, aid to the Colombian, Guatemalan, and El Salvadorean dictatorships, funding Noriega's drug industry, and supporting apartheid South Africa.

Ronnie Raygun's foreign policy was something else.

I do not believe even Bush compares.

Many Americans don't want socialism in America and I am one of them.

Ashmoria - Capitalism, a system in which consumers control the economy by selective spending. Interesting concept, which addresses both of your points with just a modicum of thought. I wouldn't want to deprive you.

Oh, shucks, I can't resist. Yes, business men will make money, but they will also be forced to give the best possible care, because of a competitive market. I.E., if Insurance Company A takes advantage of customers, and Insurance company B give good service, B will thrive and A will flounder. There is always guaranteed to be a B, because someone will always realize that there will be money to be made doing so. Look at wal-mart.

But it gets Better! The people that make money, guess what they do with it? They invest it back into the economy, producing more capital, which is allocated based solely on consumer spending trends. This means consumers determine where the capital goes! It is a tailor made economy to what we want. Now, take away that competition, you get companies driving up massive national debt by not being allowed to flounder, you get a fall in the economy due to an inability to reallocate capital. Wow, sure seems familiar to me.

UvV - Thank you for that definition, I especially like the part about 'Socialists therefore prefer cooperation to competition". While this thread is not supposed to be about the merits of socialism, that sums it up. News flash guys, 46 percent of us don't want to cooperate. America gives us the freedom not to. Which part of your argument address why it is ok to force us to, again?

Many Americans don't want socialism in America and I am one of them.

Many Americans also do not know what Socialism is. Are you one of them? A quick definition of socialism, if you please. Or just the sort of government actions you would call socialist, if you're too lazy for that.

Soheran - And who exactly controls a community?

In the context of the community as political entity? Itself.

Now, we've got Princeton, Wikipedia, and Webster.

Hmm... how about some actual socialist literature?

I've always liked the formulation here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm) (the Preamble).

It is why Americans are allowing their government to take powers normally reserved for, at the very least, some definitions of Socialism.

"Some definitions of Socialism" accuse of being "socialist" any system involving more government intervention than Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism.

More to the point, such "powers" are not new: governments throughout the history of capitalism have provided public funds to companies, intervened in the financial sector, and provided social programs for the poor and the unemployed.

Why allow the government to take away freedoms

The (democratically-elected) government is not "tak[ing] away freedoms."

UvV - No, it doesn't mean something entirely different. I snipped because the second half is irrelevant. I was demonstrating that, as my previous posts stated, Government ownerships is, in fact, an integral part of the very definition of Socialism. Plain and clear, right? If it is unclear, specify what is unclear, and I will make it clear, but please please please, do not take it to some irrelevant tangent. My points to date:

1.)Socialism involves government ownership of capital.
2.)Our government is obtaining ownership of capital.
3.)This at least partially fits the definition of Socialism.
4.)America is not Socialist.
5.)The majority of Americans would reject open Socialism.
6.)Therefore, policies granting the American Government Ownership of Capital are bad.

Ashmoria - Capitalism, a system in which consumers control the economy by selective spending. Interesting concept, which addresses both of your points with just a modicum of thought. I wouldn't want to deprive you.

Oh, shucks, I can't resist. Yes, business men will make money, but they will also be forced to give the best possible care, because of a competitive market. I.E., if Insurance Company A takes advantage of customers, and Insurance company B give good service, B will thrive and A will flounder. There is always guaranteed to be a B, because someone will always realize that there will be money to be made doing so. Look at wal-mart.

But it gets Better! The people that make money, guess what they do with it? They invest it back into the economy, producing more capital, which is allocated based solely on consumer spending trends. This means consumers determine where the capital goes! It is a tailor made economy to what we want. Now, take away that competition, you get companies driving up massive national debt by not being allowed to flounder, you get a fall in the economy due to an inability to reallocate capital. Wow, sure seems familiar to me.


except when the cost of insurance is subsidized by the government, thus shielding it from many economic realities. and why would we prefer that health care be run by insurance companies instead of government? what is the benefit to that?

again, what are these freedoms that we are trading away for which short term fix?

Ashmoria - Capitalism, a system in which consumers control the economy by selective spending. Interesting concept, which addresses both of your points with just a modicum of thought. I wouldn't want to deprive you.

Oh, shucks, I can't resist. Yes, business men will make money, but they will also be forced to give the best possible care, because of a competitive market. I.E., if Insurance Company A takes advantage of customers, and Insurance company B give good service, B will thrive and A will flounder. There is always guaranteed to be a B, because someone will always realize that there will be money to be made doing so. Look at wal-mart.

Interesting fiction, but the facts disprove it. The healthcare system in the USA, run by this sort of principle, is more expensive and provides worse care than any European country, all of which have proper state run health systems.

(To the best of my recollection. No warranty)


UvV - Thank you for that definition, I especially like the part about 'Socialists therefore prefer cooperation to competition". While this thread is not supposed to be about the merits of socialism, that sums it up. News flash guys, 46 percent of us don't want to cooperate. America gives us the freedom not to. Which part of your argument address why it is ok to force us to, again?

It comes part and parcel with the ideas of government and democracy. That's why. If you want a democratic government, and the majority of the people want the government to provide a decent healthcare system, you have to go along with it. Your only possible way to avoid this is to dispose of either democracy or government.

Soheran - First bit, you mean government, second bit, irrelevant as the definition of Socialism is not the topic. However, to continue with your argumentative streak, the definition and ideology of traditional socialism contains exactly what I have said it contains: Government Ownership of Capital. Rather than listing all of the Additional aspects of Socialism, why not disprove that one, of pipe down.

Next, the operable difference between current and past government interventions in the private sector is the permanent establishment of direct government control and oversight over otherwise private industries. Perhaps in your refutation of that you could show some source work, perhaps a past example of the Government de facto firing a private citizen with no legal process, reason, or proof of broken laws?

Next, yes, the democratically elected government is taking away freedoms, for instance, the freedom of GM to employ the CEO of its choice. The freedom of consumers to choose which businesses succeed and fail, such as AIG. The freedom of states to write their own policy (see: state stimulus funds, strings attached). These freedoms are important, constitutional. If you disagree, perhaps you could tell me specifically in which way these freedoms are not being taken, or perhaps where they are denied in the constitution (start with the 10th amendment). Or, perhaps you could change the subject, or maybe harp on something having nothing meaningful to do with discourse.

UvV - No, it doesn't mean something entirely different. I snipped because the second half is irrelevant. I was demonstrating that, as my previous posts stated, Government ownerships is, in fact, an integral part of the very definition of Socialism. Plain and clear, right? If it is unclear, specify what is unclear, and I will make it clear, but please please please, do not take it to some irrelevant tangent. My points to date:

Both are integral parts. Indeed, the second is more important than the first. Socialism is essentially about equality and egalitarianism in society, not merely about the ownership of capital.

Of course, you also need to realise that public ownership does not mean state ownership. The socialist workers cooperatives in Argentina who took their factories from the owners, and operated them themselves against the wishes of the government, are proof enough of this.


1.)Socialism involves government ownership of capital.

Errico Malatesta, Peter Kropotkin, Mikhail Bakunin, and Emma Goldman all wish to disagree with you.


2.)Our government is obtaining ownership of capital.

Correct, but irrelevant.


3.)This at least partially fits the definition of Socialism.

Only just - government != community, government ownership of capital != socialism, and there is far more to socialism than simply public ownership of capital. But apart from being nearly completely wrong, you're right!


4.)America is not Socialist.

True, unfortunately. Nor will these policies you are objecting to make it socialist.


5.)The majority of Americans would reject open Socialism.

Well, I never denied the majority of Americans were not ignorant about what socialism actually is.


6.)Therefore, policies granting the American Government Ownership of Capital are bad.

Unfortunately, you have completely failed to demonstrate this.

...
Oh, shucks, I can't resist. Yes, business men will make money, but they will also be forced to give the best possible care, because of a competitive market. I.E., if Insurance Company A takes advantage of customers, and Insurance company B give good service, B will thrive and A will flounder. There is always guaranteed to be a B, because someone will always realize that there will be money to be made doing so. Look at wal-mart.
...

This is not borne out in the reality of healthcare spending. If this were true, the US would have the least expensive healthcare system in the developed world, instead of the most expensive.

The competitive market only works if consumers have a good idea of what they are spending on and can make informed choices. Since it takes many years of specialised training to become a medical professional, we can safely say that most consumers cannot make informed decisions about their medical expenses, at least, not as informed as the sellers of the services. Since most of the knowledge is in the hands of the providers (medical staff), how are the consumers (the patients) supposed to know they are making the best decisions?

Soheran - First bit, you mean government,

Don't tell me what I do and do not mean.

However, to continue with your argumentative streak, the definition and ideology of traditional socialism contains exactly what I have said it contains: Government Ownership of Capital.

"Traditional", yes, and "contains", yes.

But that is not the same thing as "socialism as such is synonymous with the government ownership of capital"--which is what you'd actually need here. :rolleyes:

Next, the operable difference between current and past government interventions in the private sector is the permanent establishment of direct government control and oversight over otherwise private industries.

What are you talking about? Nothing about any of this is "permanent", much to the contrary. You seem to not understand the concept of a "crisis."

Next, yes, the democratically elected government is taking away freedoms, for instance, the freedom of GM to employ the CEO of its choice.

You mean, the government is attaching conditions to bailing out GM? So what? That is not akin to taking it over: GM is not automatically entitled to government bailout money.

The freedom of consumers to choose which businesses succeed and fail, such as AIG.

Consumers do not "choose which businesses succeed and fail", consumers choose which businesses they do and do not purchase from. Consumers did not get together and decide that AIG should fail. Indeed, it was not even a general reluctance to do business with it that caused its failure: it was a particular aspect of the economic crisis.

The freedom of states to write their own policy (see: state stimulus funds, strings attached).

Again, states are not automatically entitled to those funds. If the government chooses to give it to them with conditions, so what?

These freedoms are important, constitutional.

Actually, not one of those freedoms is in the Constitution.

Go ahead, find them.

Ashmoria - Subsidation does not 'shield from economic pressures', at least not the company. It takes people who cannot pay for the product, and choose the product themselves. I.E., non-competitive companies fail. And be clear, the only aspect of Health Care which should be under the perview of insurance companies, is the Health Insurance. Doctors should run their practices, hospitals run themselves, etc.

Which freedoms, for which fix? Read the thread. I'm not going to respond to drivel.

UvV - 1st, not fiction, fact. Perhaps you would be so kind as to locate precisely when the USA was not longer the worlds number one in terms of medical care provided? Was this before, or after government interference begain in the healthcare system?

2nd-, Ah, good old democracy. Of course it makes sense that whatever the majority wants is what the government has to do, right? I mean, certainly we have no checks and balances written into our constitution to ensure that personal liberties are guaranteed regardless of popular vote. Sure is a good thing, too. I'd hate to see what would happen to our great nation if some minority group popularly disapproved of was allowed actual equality and the guaranteed same liberties as the rest of us (sarcasm).

The fact is that, while yes we are a democracy, we are also a republic, and have a constitution. That means that decisions, such as the ones in question, are constitutionally left to the states, within the bounds of the limitations provided by the constitution, such as respecting individual rights. Further, because our constitution guarantees certain rights, and these types of policies interfere with these rights, they themselves are unconstitutional, and thereby illegal, regardless of popular opinion. The only way to change that is to get down and go all animal farm on the constituion (pigs cannot sleep in beds...with sheets). This is precisely what has many of us worried. While sure, people like what's happening right now, and the rest of us are ridiculed, eventually, these things happening now will be codified. That ain't good, and if that needs explanation, well, you probably wouldn't understand it anyway.

Next, the operable difference between current and past government interventions in the private sector is the permanent establishment of direct government control and oversight over otherwise private industries. Perhaps in your refutation of that you could show some source work, perhaps a past example of the Government de facto firing a private citizen with no legal process, reason, or proof of broken laws?

where do you get the idea that its permanent? and the man did not have to resign. all he had to do was to refuse the bailout money.


Next, yes, the democratically elected government is taking away freedoms, for instance, the freedom of GM to employ the CEO of its choice. The freedom of consumers to choose which businesses succeed and fail, such as AIG. The freedom of states to write their own policy (see: state stimulus funds, strings attached). These freedoms are important, constitutional. If you disagree, perhaps you could tell me specifically in which way these freedoms are not being taken, or perhaps where they are denied in the constitution (start with the 10th amendment). Or, perhaps you could change the subject, or maybe harp on something having nothing meaningful to do with discourse.

gm can do as it pleases as long as it doesnt take government money. states are free to refuse the stimulus money. AIG can fail if it wants, consumers have nothing to do with its success or failure at this point.

do you have any REAL freedoms that are being taken away?

Ashmoria - Subsidation does not 'shield from economic pressures', at least not the company. It takes people who cannot pay for the product, and choose the product themselves. I.E., non-competitive companies fail. And be clear, the only aspect of Health Care which should be under the perview of insurance companies, is the Health Insurance. Doctors should run their practices, hospitals run themselves, etc.

Which freedoms, for which fix? Read the thread. I'm not going to respond to drivel.


as others have said, if your supposition were true we would have the least expensive most efficient health care on the planet. as it is not true, there is something wrong with your thesis.

and i have read every post you made. i have seen no discussion of what freedoms we are losing for what fix. (except as addressed in my post above)

asking for clarification is not drivel.

The fact is that, while yes we are a democracy, we are also a republic, and have a constitution. That means that decisions, such as the ones in question, are constitutionally left to the states, within the bounds of the limitations provided by the constitution, such as respecting individual rights. Further, because our constitution guarantees certain rights, and these types of policies interfere with these rights, they themselves are unconstitutional, and thereby illegal, regardless of popular opinion. The only way to change that is to get down and go all animal farm on the constituion (pigs cannot sleep in beds...with sheets). This is precisely what has many of us worried. While sure, people like what's happening right now, and the rest of us are ridiculed, eventually, these things happening now will be codified. That ain't good, and if that needs explanation, well, you probably wouldn't understand it anyway.

were you equally worried about the constitution when mr bush was president?

UvV - 1st, not fiction, fact. Perhaps you would be so kind as to locate precisely when the USA was not longer the worlds number one in terms of medical care provided? Was this before, or after government interference begain in the healthcare system?

Ah, I see. So the facts that a) the US has one of the worst healthcare systems of any developed nation and b) the US has one of the most privatised healthcare systems of any devoped nation, taken together with the fact that c) most of Europe has excellent healthcare systems, run by the state, obviously implies that The problems with the US healthcare system would be fixed by taking out all government intervention!?

Are you freaking insane?


2nd-, Ah, good old democracy. Of course it makes sense that whatever the majority wants is what the government has to do, right? I mean, certainly we have no checks and balances written into our constitution to ensure that personal liberties are guaranteed regardless of popular vote. Sure is a good thing, too. I'd hate to see what would happen to our great nation if some minority group popularly disapproved of was allowed actual equality and the guaranteed same liberties as the rest of us (sarcasm).

The fact is that, while yes we are a democracy, we are also a republic, and have a constitution. That means that decisions, such as the ones in question, are constitutionally left to the states, within the bounds of the limitations provided by the constitution, such as respecting individual rights. Further, because our constitution guarantees certain rights, and these types of policies interfere with these rights, they themselves are unconstitutional, and thereby illegal, regardless of popular opinion. The only way to change that is to get down and go all animal farm on the constituion (pigs cannot sleep in beds...with sheets). This is precisely what has many of us worried. While sure, people like what's happening right now, and the rest of us are ridiculed, eventually, these things happening now will be codified. That ain't good, and if that needs explanation, well, you probably wouldn't understand it anyway.

Well, unfortunately, much of socialism is quite nicely in line with your constitution, not incompatible with it. You know, all those inconvenient bits about "equality" which you were dismissing earlier. Or, you know, as the people realise exactly how much capitalism has screwed them over, they'll put the relevant provisions in there? Democratically, as it happens.

IF our health system was the worst why would European (and Canadian, and a almost every other nations) wealthy come here for care?

Costs in medical care across our nation are high partially due to the insurance they must carry due to decades of insanely large lawsuit payouts. Its damn near criminal.

And did you acutally say that healthcare should be not for profit? Um, then how do we encourage people to become medical professionals?

IF our health system was the worst why would European (and Canadian, and a almost every other nations) wealthy come here for care?

The best for the wealthy, poor for the others.

IF our health system was the worst why would European (and Canadian, and a almost every other nations) wealthy come here for care?

Because the wages are insane. The worlds very best are often to be found working in the USA. However, if you are not the super rich, especially if you are lower-middle to lower class, the healthcare system absolutely sucks. On nearly every objective measure - infant mortality, life expectancy, cost to quality of treatment - it sucks.


Costs in medical care across our nation are high partially due to the insurance they must carry due to decades of insanely large lawsuit payouts. Its damn near criminal.

Indeed. Damn those lawyers for making people accountable for their mistakes, even when those mistakes might be fatal.


And did you acutally say that healthcare should be not for profit? Um, then how do we encourage people to become medical professionals?

If I am having a doctor operating on me, I don't want her to be only working in the field for the pay it has. I want her working there because she values the patients.

Also, false dichotomy. The fact that the healthcare system should not be run for profit does not mean that medical professionals should not be paid. It simply means that it should not be run to profit a corporation, but to benefit the patients. No turning people away because they can't afford treatment. No crippling people with debt to pay their medical bills. No insurance companies and hospitals making a fortune off the backs of the sick.

The way it should work (in a system with a government) is simple. If you need health services, you go. Whether that's a consultation, a pre-emptive checkup, a broken bone, major surgery, or just a toothache. The government pays the medical practitioner for their time taken in treating you, and for the costs of necessary treatment. Simple, easy, cheap by comparison to the current mess.

IF our health system was the worst why would European (and Canadian, and a almost every other nations) wealthy come here for care?

Costs in medical care across our nation are high partially due to the insurance they must carry due to decades of insanely large lawsuit payouts. Its damn near criminal.

And did you acutally say that healthcare should be not for profit? Um, then how do we encourage people to become medical professionals?
they come for cutting edge treatments.

you keep changing subjects. lawsuits for malpractice arent the issue here eh?

people become medical professionals because they like the job. just like any other profession. you dont need the draw of getting rich to attract good candidates to medical and nursing schools.

UvV - I never said health care didn't suck. I admit it needs improvement. Ignoring more than two hundred years of successful economic policy is not the improvement it needs, however.

Good for Errico Malatesta, Peter Kropotkin, Mikhail Bakunin, and Emma Goldman. However, as our government is busy obtaining ownership of capital, whatever variation of Socialism they preach is irrelevant to what seems to be happening here. You do see, I hope, that an ideal in Europe does not translate into a reality here? That the actions happening now determine that reality? That these actions do, as has been repeatedly stated, fit at least some forms of socialism? Please, dispute any of that.

UvV...Umm.. You keep asking me about politcal ideologies...you ever study logic? You can't discount part of an argument as irrelevant when it supports the conclusion. Further, while you address the conclusion, you do it incorrectly. I do not have to prove a negative, you have to prove the positive. I.E., I can say making a Socialist America is bad without the need for proof, you have to proof it is good: you want to make the change, not me. But, as you insist, I'll grant some anyway. Socialism has more failures than successes, and the failures more often follow the crossover trend we seem to be following than the successes do. Feel free to prove otherwise.


Soheran- Genius. Read. I never said that government ownerships of capital is synonymous with Socialism. I said, clearly and repeatedly...CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY, that government ownership of capital is an aspect of some forms of Socialism. You admited that is true, so quit arguing that it is true! Further, this is relevant because, in conjunction with the very clear trends and sentiments towards class equality prevalent in the media and this thread, Socialism sure as crap comes to mind. Do you perhaps dispute the government ownership of capital in conjunction with a 'class equality' movement seems to fit well with socialism? Do you?

You are correct: GM is not entitled to a bailout. They are entitled to fail. They should fail. Even offering them a bailout disenfranchises me, the tax paying consumer. I chose them to fail, I chose not to give them my money, but they get it anyway. The fact that unrestricted government conditions accompany this bailout give the government unwarranted control over a private entity. Obviously, they will take the money, because it isn't in human nature to turn down billions of dollars. But it should not be available, and the conditions attached lessen the subsequent freedom of every other business in america. Offering a bailout with conditions is approximately one half of a step from what chavez does.

Consumers do choose which business succeed and fail, exactly as you said: by choosing which businesses to make purchases from. Many purchases = success, few purchases = failure. This is basic economic theory.

AIG Specifically is the victim of bad business practices. These practices made the company non-viable. Because of the nature of their business they were, say, about on par with Wal-Mart, if it suddenly agreed to give away three quarters of all merchandise for free. This fits neatly into the way things ought to be. Viability determines profitable sales determines sucess.

States are not entitled to the funds, correct. However, the government Is Not Entitled to restrict the state in any way not specified by federal law. Since the conditions are not legislative but executive, they violate the 10th amendment. You say so what? Umm..you realize how important the constitution is, right?

Not in the constitution? Bull.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

10th Amendment, US Constitution. Perhaps you can show me where those particular freedoms have been delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the states, to prevent them being reserved to the States respectively, or to the people? Please, show me.

UvV - I never said health care didn't suck. I admit it needs improvement. Ignoring more than two hundred years of successful economic policy is not the improvement it needs, however.


so have you given up on the idea that we are surrendering freedoms for some kind of bad fix?

Ashmoria - If it is not restricted, it is permanent. Besides, the conditions for many of the stimulus funds contain conditions that extend in perpetuity, after the funds are no longer being paid. And remember the reasonable man test: What reasonable man will turn down billions of dollars?

As stated, there is a good case to be made the the health care system is largely broken because of, not in spite of government interference: you cannot say that a purely capitalistic approach has failed, when it has not been tried. I have also listed quite repetitively and succinctly the freedoms being endangered: this is precisely the type of clarification I will not further make. Yes, I have always been very aware of my constitutional rights friend, how about you?

UvV- Hmm, yea, that is the gist of what I am saying. America has proven hundreds of times over that it's capitalist system surpasses any other system in the world on any number of subjects. The fact what those we fail the most on are the ones we are least capitalist about seems telling to me.

And yes, equality is a great thing. Much of socialism seems nice. But, lets look at what you said: that much of socialism is compatible with the constitution. Not all of it. I'll take life under this constitution, thank you very much. By all means, those compatible parts, take them up if the work and are approved. I'm only opposed to those incompatible parts. Make sense?

And who, exactly has our capitalist system screwed over? Bull crap, man, the very vast majority of people here, even illegal aliens, live excellent lives. There are exceptions, but show me the nations that doesn't have any poor, any homeless, or any terminally ill. While you're at it, since America is so bad, show me which of these Socialist countries has more Americans applying for citizenship than they have citizens applying for American Citizenship.

You're big on sources, quote some when you make these sweeping 'america sucks' statements, since you seem to expect them in refutation.

Parkus Empire - Look man, I grew up poor. Excellent health care. Vision, dental, everything. I'm middle class now, working my ass off, and I don't have that kind of health care. Not because government provided healthcare is better, but because it incurs costs that the rest of us have to pay for. You missed the mark.

UvV - The wages for medical care are not insane, they are on par for similarly skilled and educated professions. Yes, malpractice suits are not all bad. However, I believe that what Twinpappia meant were the frivolous suites, 5 million dollars awarded or missing a stitch, 3 million dollars because the doctor didn't go over the meaning of absolutely every single english word on the bottles lable (like twice or day).

You're right, medical professionals should work for the good of patients. But since that would leave about one doctor per million world wide, lets get real. And I agree, that would be an absolutely great, wonderful system you just mention. Everybody goes to get their medical treatment, and the government pays. See that I agree. It's the part about government controling any aspect other than paying that I disagree with. Simple distinction.

Ashmoria - I don't know what rock you live under, but people associate certain professions with money. If you want money and respect, you become a doctor. If you just want money, you become a lawyer. If you want money and power, you become a politician. Pretty common knowledge here.

Ashmoria - Um..did you read that whole line before you quoted it? (Ignoring more than two hundred years of successful economic policy is not the improvement it needs, however.)

It pretty plainly states that surrending freedoms for a 'fix' is not good. Not Good. I'd go all caps, but hopefully this gets that point across?

Off to play with my kids, they just got home from school. Back later perhaps.

Parkus Empire - Look man, I grew up poor. Excellent health care. Vision, dental, everything. I'm middle class now, working my ass off, and I don't have that kind of health care. Not because government provided healthcare is better, but because it incurs costs that the rest of us have to pay for. You missed the mark.

You probably do not not have that health care any more because you are an adult.

Because the wages are insane. The worlds very best are often to be found working in the USA. However, if you are not the super rich, especially if you are lower-middle to lower class, the healthcare system absolutely sucks. On nearly every objective measure - infant mortality, life expectancy, cost to quality of treatment - it sucks.

Let's use some really objective measures.
1. Breast Cancer Survival Rate
USA -- 81% ( By far and away the best -- See the first table)
France -- 76%
UK -- 71%
http://www.imaginis.com/breasthealth/statistics.asp

2. Prostate Cancer Survival Rate
USA -- 99.3%
France -- 66%
UK -- 55%
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/prostate/incidence/

Why would the individual cancer survival rates be so much higher in a country with lousy medical care? It's not, of course. The care in the USA is far superior than in NHS style countries. We don't have the waits that allow the cancer to grow to the point where it's not easily treatable.

I don't, nor do I support this administration in it's foolish continuation of congresses wreckless policies of attempting to "spend" their way out of problems.

I've said as much for 30+ years, and now most of the rest of the nation is starting to wake-up to the fact that:
a) This mounting debt is NOT susutainable

b) This is SO not the direction we want to be taking this country.

I know *I'm* not interrested in living in the "Land of the (sorta) Free."

Tallon41

Living here in the South, where anything short of Theocratic Fascism is considered "socialist," I am having a hard time figuring out what "freedoms" we are losing under the new administration.

I think that I understand the misunderstanding here. Two sides, side A (for socialism) side B (against Socialism).

Those of us on side B, we are not opposed to Healthcare, or government services of any type. Any type. We admit that our system has problems, but we generally believe that it is a good system that has worked well for centuries.

The fact that we admit that there is room for improvement does not automatically mean socialism is right, in fact, quite the opposite as side A seems to believe in its perfection (that being unattainable, there must be flaws, either hidden by or unknown to side A).

What it means is this. We over here on side B oppose two, teensy tiny little words that you guys simply assume are ok, that socialism in practice throws into just about everything. We fear these two words, because these are the two words we ran away from England over, way back in the day. Because these two words are antithesis to what it traditionally means to be American.

Those two words are "Government Control". You want the government to pay for health care, fine. Try to get that to happen without giving it some control. You want government oversight of industry? Try to prevent them getting a measure of control. Our nation was founded to keep control in the hands of Citizens, and out of the hands of Government. If you find a way to get these wonderful things you want to happen without the Government getting any control, I'm all for it. But don't ignore the fact that, right now, the Government is taking plenty of control. Every new resolution, every bill, every stimulus dollar, the government takes more and more control. Over our employers, the goods and services we have available.

And remember that never, ever, in the history of the Human race, has any Government stopped taking more power once they start, not voluntarily. Every stable government in history has been kept in check, its power strictly regulated by its population in one way or another. Most of the unstable governments in history and in existence got that way by taking more and more power. Don't take my word, crack a history book!

So if you want government health care, or these other programs and services, you want class equality, bug off or tell me how you plan to prevent 'Government Control'.

And for those of you that approve of Government Control, well, can't say it. Not politely.

I never said that government ownerships of capital is synonymous with Socialism.

...yes, you did, right at the start:

"by definition, an economic system based on state ownership of capitol [sic]"

Do you perhaps dispute the government ownership of capital in conjunction with a 'class equality' movement seems to fit well with socialism?

Yes: you could have a "corporatist" totalitarian autocracy that owns the means of production and backs redistribution but refuses to take the democratic step of backing worker power. That would be left-authoritarian, but not socialist.

But this is not the point. The point, as I said in my original post, is that there is nothing socialist--even BY your wrong definition--about the present government's policies.

The fact that unrestricted government conditions accompany this bailout give the government unwarranted control over a private entity.

It doesn't give the government any kind of "control." The company is free to refuse. If not, it is making a consensual exchange--you know, the entire foundation of market systems. :rolleyes:

the conditions attached lessen the subsequent freedom of every other business in america.

How about we ask other corporations, "How would you like billions of dollars in exchange for a few alterations in upper management?"

I have a feeling the response would be something along the lines of "Please don't throw me in the briar patch."

Offering a bailout with conditions is approximately one half of a step from what chavez does.

No, Chávez nationalizes, without consent, and without the objective of bailing out: his aim is to construct an economy with high levels of state ownership on a permanent basis, not to restore certain companies to the point where they can effectively survive on their own as private entities.

The two are completely different.

Consumers do choose which business succeed and fail, exactly as you said: by choosing which businesses to make purchases from. Many purchases = success, few purchases = failure. This is basic economic theory.

This is the consequence of their actions, yes. It is not, generally, an intended consequence.

In the particular case of AIG, its failure was judged to have significant effects on the general health of the economy, making keeping it afloat a public good--and by the very nature of public goods, individual consumers cannot be expected to bear the costs of doing so through their purchasing decisions.

Now that's basic economic theory. ;)

However, the government Is Not Entitled to restrict the state in any way not specified by federal law.

Yes, that's why the "restrictions" are conditions on the granting of federal aid, not decrees that the states must follow.

Where have you been, say, the last eighty years?

Perhaps you can show me where those particular freedoms have been delegated to the United States by the Constitution

My interests in constitutional law are elsewhere, and I don't trust myself to give you a good explanation of how such powers have been read into the Constitution's delegations.

Nevertheless, I can tell you that you are on the wrong side of history: large-scale federal government intervention in the economy of this sort dates at least back to the New Deal, was challenged then, and was upheld (ultimately).

And in a happy coincidence, skyrocketed the national debt too. ;)

Tripled it.

Y'all do realize that Obama plans to add about 9.3 trillion to the national debt by 2019. Not only is that not halving the national debt by 2012, but it's more than any of the 43 Presidents combined added.

Bush's deficit is bush league when you compare it to what President HopeandChange proposes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_budget

Y'all do realize that Obama plans to add about 9.3 trillion to the national debt by 2019. Not only is that not halving the national debt by 2012, but it's more than any of the 43 Presidents combined added.

Bush's deficit is bush league when you compare it to what President HopeandChange proposes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_budget

So all three are assholes, what is your point?

Ashmoria - Um..did you read that whole line before you quoted it? (Ignoring more than two hundred years of successful economic policy is not the improvement it needs, however.)

It pretty plainly states that surrending freedoms for a 'fix' is not good. Not Good. I'd go all caps, but hopefully this gets that point across?
i want to know WHAT freedoms are not worth WHAT fix.

Why would the individual cancer survival rates be so much higher in a country with lousy medical care?

Differences in screening make for a lot of it. Note that the US also has higher incidence rates. I fail to see how that has much of anything to do with health care policy in general.

Ashmoria - If it is not restricted, it is permanent. Besides, the conditions for many of the stimulus funds contain conditions that extend in perpetuity, after the funds are no longer being paid. And remember the reasonable man test: What reasonable man will turn down billions of dollars?

Ashmoria - I don't know what rock you live under, but people associate certain professions with money. If you want money and respect, you become a doctor. If you just want money, you become a lawyer. If you want money and power, you become a politician. Pretty common knowledge here.
if you are so sure its permanent im sure that you can show us some reliable sorce on the subject. as far as i can see the plan is to buy assets then sell them back to the companies in question (or on the open market) as soon as possible.

lots of people would love the chance to go to medical school or nursing school even if they didnt make a fortune in the end. if we had to go to a nationalized system we would get THOSE people as doctors and nurses in the future.

Melungia - I can answer that.

1.) Capitalistic freedom...I.E. the freedom to determine which goods and services survive by purchasing them. Because failing companies are being propped, reallocation of capital is being prevented. This means that, whatever better company might eventually replace GM won't, which hurts us and curtails our freedom in choosing goods and services.
2.) The freedom to spend my own darned pay check. Increased debt = increased taxes. There is no permanent escape. Obama might put the tax hikes off for his successor, but they will come.
3.) The freedom to hire or fire those of my choosing. See GM CEO, and I repeat, not human will reasonably refuse billions of dollars.
4.) The freedoms including in the 10th Amendment. The executive conditions being placed on states, and through them the people in them, violate the 10th amendment. while many states are refusing funds because of these conditions, others cannot afford to do so, and as a result are subjecting their citizens to programs and rules which have not passed national legislature, and would never pass state legislature.
5.) The freedom to be upper class. There are increasing financial restrictions against the affluent. The test, in America, used to be 'does it apply to all equally', but is now 'apply it to all who can afford it'.
6.) The freedom to hold my government accountable. Thousand page bills are being rushed through in days. These bills could easily, if stripped of excess crap, be merely tens of pages. As it is, literally thousands of earmarks and stipulations have been passed which no reasonable American can be aware of.

There are others, but these get the gist across.

Those two words are "Government Control". You want the government to pay for health care, fine. Try to get that to happen without giving it some control.
yes i would rather have government control than to be under the control of some paperpusher at the insurance company.

and yes, i would like to have government have some control over the abuses of industry.

IF our health system was the worst why would European (and Canadian, and a almost every other nations) wealthy come here for care?
...

They don't. Most of us who live in the developed world use the health services that are already freely available to us.

Let's use some really objective measures.
1. Breast Cancer Survival Rate
USA -- 81% ( By far and away the best -- See the first table)
France -- 76%
UK -- 71%
http://www.imaginis.com/breasthealth/statistics.asp

2. Prostate Cancer Survival Rate
USA -- 99.3%
France -- 66%
UK -- 55%
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/prostate/incidence/

Why would the individual cancer survival rates be so much higher in a country with lousy medical care? It's not, of course. The care in the USA is far superior than in NHS style countries. We don't have the waits that allow the cancer to grow to the point where it's not easily treatable.

Your sources do not say what you claim.

The breast cancer death rate is as follows:

Japan 8.3
Singapore 15.8
Italy 18.9
Switzerland 19.8
Australia 18.4
Canada 21.1
Netherlands 27.5
UK 24.3
Sweden 17.3
Denmark 27.8
France 21.5
United States 19

As you can see, five developed nations have better survival rates (i.e. lower death rates) than the USA. Sixth place out of twelve does not count as being 'far and away the best'.

As for cancer survival rates, at least we don't have this problem:

Many Pancreatic Cancer Patients Not Offered Surgery

A U.S. study found that nearly 40 percent of early-stage pancreatic cancer patients who qualified for surgery did not get it, greatly reducing their life expectancy.

The researchers noted that about 30 percent of patients with early stage pancreatic cancer who have surgery live at least five years, compared with less than five percent of those who don't have surgery, the Associated Press reported.

The analysis of national cancer data revealed that 3,644 (38 percent) of 9,559 early-stage pancreatic cancer patients were not offered surgery. Those least likely to be offered surgery were: blacks, patients older than 65, and those with less education and lower annual incomes.

There may be a number of reasons why so many patients aren't offered surgery, said study co-author Dr. Mark Talamonti, a cancer surgeon at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago and chief of surgical oncology at Northwestern University's Medical School.

He said the factors include: lack of access to centers with experience in doing the surgery; lack of doctor awareness about improvements in the surgery; and the fact that many doctors view pancreatic cancer as a virtual death sentence, the AP reported.

The findings were published in an early online edition of the August issue of the journal Annals of Surgery.

So, while the USA may have a slightly better survival rate for some forms of cancer, it does have a distressingly high mortality rate for those who are not so rich.

Y'all do realize that Obama plans to add about 9.3 trillion to the national debt by 2019. Not only is that not halving the national debt by 2012, but it's more than any of the 43 Presidents combined added.


I've pointed out to you before, what I consider your two great sins - those being the apparent inability to reconcile different details as being different, and a fundamental inability to make numbers work.

First - I have to point out that deficit and debt are not the same thing, and Obama talked about halving the deficit.

Second - it is entirely possible to halve the national deficit (or the debt) by 2012 AND add 9.3 trillion to it by 2019.

For several reasons - not only that the national debt and the deficit are two different things, but also... because 2012 and 2019 are not actually the same year.

When you look at the figures for fiscal 2009, you have the $1.2 trillion deficit that started in October, which was handed over by Bush. Bush also handed over a debt of about $5.8 trillion. That's about $7 trillion down on the books, before Obama does anything. (You'll notice that Repulicans don't mention that when they're bitching about what Obama 'wants' to add). Add crumbling infrastructure AND a recession with real potential to tip over into depression (if it hasn't already) AND extricating us from two ongoing wars... and approximately doubling the debt by 2019 isn't all that big a deal.

Indeed, Bush could have offset the 2009 deficit by not granting more than a trillion dollars of tax breaks, and Bush also managed to double the national debt. Without starting in one of the deepest recessions in a hundred years.

Let's use some really objective measures.
1. Breast Cancer Survival Rate
USA -- 81% ( By far and away the best -- See the first table)
France -- 76%
UK -- 71%
http://www.imaginis.com/breasthealth/statistics.asp

2. Prostate Cancer Survival Rate
USA -- 99.3%
France -- 66%
UK -- 55%
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/prostate/incidence/

Why would the individual cancer survival rates be so much higher in a country with lousy medical care? It's not, of course. The care in the USA is far superior than in NHS style countries. We don't have the waits that allow the cancer to grow to the point where it's not easily treatable.

What's the US doing different that gives it a 99.3% survival rate for prostate cancer?

Soheran - Well, I apologize that my 7 subsequent clarifications have not done it for you.

You state that there is nothing socialist about government ownership of capital and class equalization. Please, quote sources, and, don't go off topic...address the previous sentence.

No 'consensual exchange' is made under duress, such as laying off all employees, losing retirement, etc. No reasonable person would refuse a bailout in that condition: it is under Duress. Because it is under duress, and with a predictably favorable condition to the government (though not the tax payer), it does in fact gain the government control. All semantics aside, Control is when you tell someone to fire someone and they do.

These companies are not agreeing to a 'billions of dollars for in exchange for a few alterations in upper management'. They are taking billions of dollars, which should never have been offer (you keep ignoring that point) in exchange for essentially permanet oversight and partial ownership. Lets not neglect those. Permanent Oversight. Partial Ownership. Those would be the parts at the core of the argument, not the misdirecting points you keep throwing out.

You are right. It is very different to, under duress, reconstruct an economy with middling levels of government ownership on a permanent basis. Because let us be clear: the government is taking partial ownership of financial institutions and other coorporations with no provision to return that ownership to the private sector at a later date. certainly, more than a half steps difference.

It doesn't matter that businesses sucess and failure is unintended by individual capitalist consumers: the mainenance of viability, success and failure it brings, and restructing or capital to where consumers want it is part and parcel of the capitalist economic system, which I might add has trounced every other type of economy for how long?

Those restrictions: well, they are on aid granted by legislation, the restrictions are executive (...not decided upon by those elected to decide upon them), and do not expire. The government is allowed, as I recall from the last 80 years or so of legislation, to (1) mandate through legislation, (2) stipulation how federal money can be spent. The 10th amendment, should, at least, prevent the executive branch from unilaterally applying permanet policy to legislated federal money. By decree, as it were. Yes, states can refuse the money, and many are. However, (a) the money was legislated for them and they should recieve it, (b) some absolutely, because of budget constraints, cannot afford to refuse it. Decree by durees is not the type of legislation our constitution allows for. By all means, address my points or ask for clarification of them. Or, you know, ignore a whole new batch of them to dredge up another obscure irrelevant point.

Ashmoria - Your response related to freedoms and fixes does address the statement in any. Instead it asserts your ability to think for yourself, which the rest of us at least marginally assumed.

Soheran- Myrmidonisia was giving the only actual statistic related to US vs no-US healthcare in this thread, those such has been asked from repeatedly from those claiming that health care is supperior outside the US. That makes the stat directly relevant, and enlightening in that no rebuttal statistic has been made readily available.

Ashmoria - Instead of constantly shifting your burden of proof, why don't you show me where these things are not permanent?

And 'the chance to go to medical school or even nursing school'...who doesn't have that chance right now? I'm pretty sure that if you want it, and have the gpa, you can go to either or at government expense right now. Since 'those' aren't the people we are already getting, why would they suddenly jump forward under your hypothetical situation? Don't just make another sweeping statement prove it through logic or source. Either one works, having statements with neither are just embarrassing to read.

What's the US doing different that gives it a 99.3% survival rate for prostate cancer?

The strange thing is, neither of the links Myrmidonisia provided actually had the statistics he cited.

Ah, yes. The conservative rants against "socialism" or "socialist policies." These people are about a hundred years behind the time. In case you didn't notice every April 15, the US does not have a small government, and it does not have a free market. We spend far more, per-capita and in gross, on various "socialist" causes than many "socialist" nations, only we get far less return in terms of quality of life. The subsidized, regulated, protected and nationalized economy is not the end-all, be-all of life. GDP does not measure happiness. And the "conservatives" are always less concerned with their avowed principles, like "capitalism," then with getting their piece of the socialist pie. Case in point, every government hand-out since the first bailout under Bush.

The least we could do, since we're clearly all so comfortable tossing around trillions of dollars of taxpayer income as long as 'the economy' does well, is maybe get some decent fucking healthcare.

Or, we could just go on about "socialism" or other scare-words that were clever and effective why, just the other century, and continue to gulp down every bit of that socialist pie like a bunch of self-hating hypocrites.

The only thing keeping me from treating the standard 'conservative' party-lines seriously is the self-identifying 'conservatives' themselves. Whining about "socialism" does nothing to help.

What's the US doing different that gives it a 99.3% survival rate for prostate cancer?
This is only my conclusion, but I'd say increased testing and less time on waiting lists.

The strange thing is, neither of the links Myrmidonisia provided actually had the statistics he cited.

I know, I looked because I'm amazed that the US seems to have pretty much cured one of the most prevalent forms of cancer and then not told the rest of the world about it.

I figure it was a typo.

Ashmoria - Your response related to freedoms and fixes does address the statement in any. Instead it asserts your ability to think for yourself, which the rest of us at least marginally assumed.

i dont know what you are responding to.


Ashmoria - Instead of constantly shifting your burden of proof, why don't you show me where these things are not permanent?


you made the assertion--one that goes against the common understanding of the programs--it is your burden to prove it.


you need to learn to use the quote function.

if you need to quote more than one post you click on the + button at the bottom right corner of each post then on the QUOTE button on the last one you are going to quote. when the new page loads, they will all be there.

They don't. Most of us who live in the developed world use the health services that are already freely available to us.



Your sources do not say what you claim.

The breast cancer death rate is as follows:

Japan 8.3
Singapore 15.8
Italy 18.9
Switzerland 19.8
Australia 18.4
Canada 21.1
Netherlands 27.5
UK 24.3
Sweden 17.3
Denmark 27.8
France 21.5
United States 19

As you can see, five developed nations have better survival rates (i.e. lower death rates) than the USA. Sixth place out of twelve does not count as being 'far and away the best'.

As for cancer survival rates, at least we don't have this problem:



So, while the USA may have a slightly better survival rate for some forms of cancer, it does have a distressingly high mortality rate for those who are not so rich.
Wrong, buddy. Those are deaths, not death rates. Read the whole legend.

As far as pancreatic cancer goes, nearly everyone diagnosed with it dies. No matter when they're treated.

Wrong, buddy. Those are deaths, not death rates. Read the whole legend.

The legend:

Note: numbers are per 100,000.Source: J. Ferlay, F. Bray, P. Pisani and D.M. Parkin. GLOBOCAN 2002. Cancer Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide. IARC CancerBase No. 5, version 2.0. IARCPress, Lyon, 2004.

Please note that it does not make some sort of difference between deaths and death rate, even if that were possible.

Wrong, buddy. Those are deaths, not death rates. Read the whole legend.

you know, sometimes i wonder if the root causes of right-wingerness include illiteracy and innumeracy

The legend:



Please note that it does not make some sort of difference between deaths and death rate, even if that were possible.
I can't help it if you can't understand simple math. The number of deaths per incidents of breast cancer in the USA is 19/101.1. The survival rate is 1- that rate times 100. That's 81%.

you know, sometimes i wonder if the root causes of right-wingerness include illiteracy and innumeracy
No, that's a property of the left. I'm calculating survival rates, not comparing deaths per 100,000.

No, that's a property of the left.

Nyuk nyuk. Burnnnnn!