Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With the current crop of politicians wanting more invovlment and the take over of health care, you will see that GDP number jump.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that they just want to subsidize the access to insurance and keep the actual providers of healthcare as private enterprises. Personally, I think it's a nice compromise. A mixture of public and private interests.
Quote:
In terms of taxes, it is almost at that point at the corporate level depending on which state the company resides and varying other factors. Currently my company is paying a combined 55% tax on its profits, that is just 5% away from being a socialist entity for the state.
I'm not sure I agree that it's a bad thing. Since the 70s, wealth has been stratified towards the upper 1% and corporations. Those groups have a higher ratio of wealth in relation to other groups today than they have in any recent time. It's painfully obvious that the elite economic class has had an ever increasing control of resources over the last few decades. Again, I believe above anything else that the diversification of resource control is the key to economic freedom....so take how I see the world in that light.
I also get a chuckle out of the arbitrary % of GDP that is apparently how a socialist state is determined nowadays. Of course economics itself is arbitrarily defined as to the wishes of the definer, so, hey, whatever. The idea of the US and socialist state seriously being used in the same sentence is mind boggling to me though, I must admit. It would be much easier to argue that the US is economically fascist than socialist, IMO.
In the purely US context, to be sure, the Obama nomination is historical.
In the global context, it is somewhat historical. It is certainly more historical than if a woman had won the nomination and then presidency: in that case, the US would be merely catching up to other and widely diverse societies among them, ranging from UK/France, Bangladesh, Chile, just to name a few. In the case of an African-American, there are quite strongly analogous cases that beat him to it, though very recently, i.e. Bolivia and Venezuela, and we'll see how it works out for them. In a lesser analogy, the current French president is the son of immigrants, albeit from another European country. So in a certain sense, the US is, again, merely catching up to other societies.
Now that we have put gonads and pigments aside, the real issue of historic moment facing the US and other countries of early industrialization is how their social and political structure reacts to and acts towards the globalization of industrialization and, in the US case, the role of traditional US constitutional principles, free markets, monetary and fiscal policy, foreign policy and energy policy in that context.
The risk of a socialist-type direction in the US is quite real, using the word to mean in a direction against the traditions of US constitutionalism and individual civil and economic freedoms.
It seems to me that the two-party system in the US has by now become like a two-headed monster, but the body is one. The one head steers the country in a socialist-type direction through suicidal monetary policy, the other head through suicidal fiscal policy (suicidal, that is, for the traditions of US constitutionalism and individual civil and economic freedoms).
Obama - like Hillary and McCain - is part of that same monster with two heads but one body.
Obama would be truly historical if he gave an epoch-making speech on how, in the context of the globalization of industrialization, current trends in US monetary and fiscal policy are suicidal for the traditions of US constitutionalism and individual civil and economic freedoms, and describing his policy prescriptions for preserving the best of these US traditions in a brave new world.
I'm not holding my breath waiting for such a speech.
What I do expect is pandering to this or that group, depending on whom he is speaking to at the moment, and, when it comes to making actual policy, more pork, with a few bits and pieces falling and a few sops thrown to the declining US middle class, just like the Bush Administration has done.
That is the change that we can most likely look forward to.
In the purely US context, to be sure, the Obama nomination is historical.
In the global context, it is somewhat historical. It is certainly more historical than if a woman had won the nomination and then presidency: in that case, the US would be merely catching up to other and widely diverse societies among them, ranging from UK/France, Bangladesh, Chile, just to name a few. In the case of an African-American, there are quite strongly analogous cases that beat him to it, though very recently, i.e. Bolivia and Venezuela, and we'll see how it works out for them. In a lesser analogy, the current French president is the son of immigrants, albeit from another European country. So in a certain sense, the US is, again, merely catching up to other societies.
Now that we have put gonads and pigments aside, the real issue of historic moment facing the US and other countries of early industrialization is how their social and political structure reacts to and acts towards the globalization of industrialization and, in the US case, the role of traditional US constitutional principles, free markets, monetary and fiscal policy, foreign policy and energy policy in that context.
The risk of a socialist-type direction in the US is quite real, using the word to mean in a direction against the traditions of US constitutionalism and individual civil and economic freedoms.
It seems to me that the two-party system in the US has by now become like a two-headed monster, but the body is one. The one head steers the country in a socialist-type direction through suicidal monetary policy, the other head through suicidal fiscal policy (suicidal, that is, for the traditions of US constitutionalism and individual civil and economic freedoms).
Obama - like Hillary and McCain - is part of that same monster with two heads but one body.
Obama would be truly historical if he gave an epoch-making speech on how, in the context of the globalization of industrialization, current trends in US monetary and fiscal policy are suicidal for the traditions of US constitutionalism and individual civil and economic freedoms, and describing his policy prescriptions for preserving the best of these US traditions in a brave new world.
I'm not holding my breath waiting for such a speech.
What I do expect is pandering to this or that group, depending on whom he is speaking to at the moment, and, when it comes to making actual policy, more pork, with a few bits and pieces falling and a few sops thrown to the declining US middle class, just like the Bush Administration has done.
That is the change that we can most likely look forward to.
Are there really American's of African descent who have been elected to lead other countries as you state? Or perhaps there are African Bolivians who have been elected? The historical context is that of American History and will be studied in that discipline and as you suggest probably not in the syllabus for World History.
I heard a Chinese guy was once the leader of China. Then a black guy was the leader of Mozambique. A woman once ran the UK and Germany. There might have even been a couple kids back in Egypt who had their fingers on the button. In terms of US history, yes, this could be significant, but only because of the color of his skin. In all other parts of the world, a black, asian, or female leader is nothing new. The OP has proven my point all along. Obama is nothing new aside from the color of his skin. Personally, that makes as much impact on my voting for or against him as the color of his socks.
Are there really Americans of African descent who have been elected to lead other countries as you state? Or perhaps there are African Bolivians who have been elected?
I did not state that, I think you misinterpreted. Please try again. "Analogous", "analogy" are key words. It takes a few jumps in logic that I do not care to go through in detail, but it stands.
In any case, my point is that what should be of real historic moment right now is not the tribal/clan/ethnic/racial/national background of this or that candidate or head of government, but the way in which the next head of government will, or will not, shape the course of developments of a given country's social and political life in the current context and, in the particular case of the US, whether its traditions of constitutionalism and individual civil and economic freedoms are worth preserving in the new global context.
Now, one may argue that a head of government's background may influence the scenario described. Ideally, it shouldn't, though in the real world it may, at least to some extent.
My personal view is that the traditions of US constitutionalism and individual civil and economic freedoms, concretely under erosion, are worth preserving in the new global context, and if Mr Obama intends to champion those traditions, inclusive of all US citizens, then he is certainly welcome.
My expectation, however, is that, by and large, he will be business as usual. The biggest concern is that he will exacerbate the problems of the domestic US economy largely brought on by suicidal monetary policy by implementing a suicidal fiscal policy on top of that.
No one is talking about monetary policy, and that is very alarming. One would hope, at least, that when the presidential campaign gets going in earnest, after the conventions, the two candidates will expound in excruciating detail their fiscal policy proposals and vow, on their reputations, that they will make every attempt to implement them and at least veto any attempts to the contrary, regardless of the majority in Congress, and let checks and balances do the rest.
But a clear debate on at least fiscal policy will also probably prove to be wishful thinking.
All that you state about our need to discuss the issues and especially fiscal policy more are obviously correct. However the OP of the thread was can we all appreciate this historical moment and yes historians consider it that. Now the substance of the campaigns thus far may not be one for the ages. Perhaps the historical moment is not as strong with you as it is with others.
All that you state about our need to discuss the issues and especially fiscal policy more are obviously correct. However the OP of the thread was can we all appreciate this historical moment and yes historians consider it that. Now the substance of the campaigns thus far may not be one for the ages. Perhaps the historical moment is not as strong with you as it is with others.
Very well, then.
I would say that it is too early to affirm whether, or at least to what extent, Mr Obama's nomination is historical.
I think it is consistent with human nature to assert that it will largely depend on the direction and success of his, eventual, presidency.
If he is a failure, it will be a footnote. If his presidency leads to world peace and security based on, let's say, wise and successful energy policies that benefit all of humanity, whether or not he is directly responsible, then indeed he could be considered a savior.
Seriously, do you people who talk about the evil socialist devil actually know anything about economic theory or do you just babble senselessly based upon the half baked thoughts that arbitrarily pop in your head?
I think it's just a knee-jerk conditioned response for a lot of people. They think more government = socialism, even though it's the Republicans who have exploded the size and scope of government over the past seven years. But that's OK for them, because the Republicans are "protecting freedom," except, of course, that they're not.
2008 is a historical year. It will be the first time in the country's long history that a black man will be elected to take the helm as Commander in Chief. This is absolutely incredible. He promises to be the best that we've ever had. He will have done so by being extraodinarily dignified in the face of a hostile media, political snipers, hateful, narrow-minded voters who can't stomach the idea of a black man being in charge. He will have prevailed by overcoming the type of special adversity that only black men confront in this country. I'm talking about the adversity of being given less consideration than others at every turn. I'm talking about the adversity of being considered inferior as a matter of course. Nothing was handed to Barack Obama. He earned every single step and worked exceptionally hard. He is the man of steel. He has demonstrated the range and versatility to navigate his way through the maze and road blocks that define the road for brilliant black people, road blocks that whites don't face. Morgan Freeman said once that adversity does not build character, it reveals it, and in Barack Obama you who are able, are witnessing a man with the type of character that has been unrecognizable and absent from the White House since JFK.
This man stands out even more when we consider what we have been living through these past 7 years. This country has been controlled by a man named George who has no more business being president than Curious George. In fact, he looks like Curious George. Bush has done nothing for this country. He lied to go to war, then attacked a sovereign nation unprovoked, killing thousands and thousands of innocent men, women, and children. He has killed Americans by lying. He has sent this country to a place where we don't belong, into a war that we cannot win militarily. You cannot win an ideological war with greater military power no more than you can stamp out AIDS by banning same sex marriages. George Bush is inarticulate despite going to Yale. He is decisive in his ineptness and as the Europeans say, "frighteningly ignorant." Many people in this country are starving for someone in the White House with some dignity for God's sake! That certainly excludes McCain, who is too a pathetic man. McCain's definition of dignity is to speak in a mummified fashion, quietly praying to God that people don't recognize that he is representing a party that told us that Bush was the best candidate it could produce. TWICE! He doesn't want people to recognize that he represents a party that has done nothing right.
This is Barack Obama's time and the country will benefit immensely. It is a critical moment in history and a sign of progression. He is backed by extraordinary, enlightened, progressive people of all races. Either embrace and support the moment, or be trampled by it and take your seat on the bottom.
Yes, this is a historic event in U.S. political history, no doubt about it. And after the last seven years, people are desperate to project their hopes onto someone who has both broken the white male stranglehold on presidential politics and who talks a very, very good game. I've called Obama the Reagan of the left, and for good reason. People were hungry for an inspirational leader when Reagan won, and whether you agreed with his politics or not, people responded to his optimism that America could be a better place.
It's happening again with Obama, and I think people who want to dismiss him as an inexperienced extremist with no chance at winning are doing themselves a HUGE disservice. We live in an extremely superficial society, where more people can tell you who's on American Idol than who sits on the Supreme Court. It doesn't matter if you had the most experienced person in the world running against Obama. If he can talk a good game and inspire people, that's the only thing that will matter to many, many Americans. A LOT of people are enamored with him, and they're going to vote for him no matter what. His opponents had better take this into consideration.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bush has done nothing for this country. He lied to go to war, then attacked a sovereign nation unprovoked, killing thousands and thousands of innocent men, women, and children. He has killed Americans by lying. He has sent this country to a place where we don't belong, into a war that we cannot win militarily. You cannot win an ideological war with greater military power no more than you can stamp out AIDS by banning same sex marriages. George Bush is inarticulate despite going to Yale. He is decisive in his ineptness and as the Europeans say, "frighteningly ignorant." Many people in this country are starving for someone in the White House with some dignity for God's sake! That certainly excludes McCain, who is too a pathetic man. McCain's definition of dignity is to speak in a mummified fashion, quietly praying to God that people don't recognize that he is representing a party that told us that Bush was the best candidate it could produce. TWICE! He doesn't want people to recognize that he represents a party that has done nothing right.
