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.
Your attacks and statement says more about you than it does me. What a copout. You only make yourself look ignorant when you copout like that. Most people know the real definition of socialism and not your loose use of the words. The right really has nothing to offer this country anymore.
How about I respond to this.
You have 2 americas as John Edwards would say.
1. Those that think fairness is to have the "rich" pay and see nothing beyond the effects of that, and uses the power of government to enforce action and payment.
2. Those that think fairness is everyone keeps what they make, the govenrment doesnt use force and is limited and small and economics are left to the working families who actually produce something.
I choose number 2.
Obama likes number 1 and it doesnt matter how much more in debt we get and how much more we spend. In fact its pretty close to the Bush plan of the last 8 years I see nothing really different other then Liberals some how now love America and the new government involvement in everyones lives and income. We are still in a war, we move troops around but none are coming home, WE STILL HAVE NO PLAN!!!! and most importantly we are STILL BROKE!!
All of which comes from the idea that big government (right or left) solves everything when in fact the bigger government the less freedom you have the sooner your economy will tank!
You can't run 2 wars, spend and borrow (hillary asking China to buy our debt) and then ask how come we are broke and some how the solution is to create new money which is promoting the problem to begin with. But government never has a problem with creating more problems that is what they do best and liberals like to make the government all the more bigger to bring "fairness" while freedom is the only way to bring about reason and pure fairness of production.
How about I respond to this.
You have 2 americas as John Edwards would say.
1. Those that think fairness is to have the "rich" pay and see nothing beyond the effects of that, and uses the power of government to enforce action and payment.
2. Those that think fairness is everyone keeps what they make, the govenrment doesnt use force and is limited and small and economics are left to the working families who actually produce something.
I choose number 2.
Obama likes number 1 and it doesnt matter how much more in debt we get and how much more we spend. In fact its pretty close to the Bush plan of the last 8 years I see nothing really different other then Liberals some how now love America and the new government involvement in everyones lives and income. We are still in a war, we move troops around but none are coming home, WE STILL HAVE NO PLAN!!!! and most importantly we are STILL BROKE!!
All of which comes from the idea that big government (right or left) solves everything when in fact the bigger government the less freedom you have the sooner your economy will tank!
You can't run 2 wars, spend and borrow (hillary asking China to buy our debt) and then ask how come we are broke and some how the solution is to create new money which is promoting the problem to begin with. But government never has a problem with creating more problems that is what they do best and liberals like to make the government all the more bigger to bring "fairness" while freedom is the only way to bring about reason and pure fairness of production.
How conveniently you point out problems and offer no solution. Its bs to say that larger gov. under Bush was geared towards helping the working people of this country. Seems to me that the two options look more like this.
1) You have the free market caitalistic belief that the wealth of a nation is measured by how well the super rich are doing. Fooling all others to follow them by pretending its the government that is theone steeling from them. This first choice will only end in a nation of slaves with no organized entity that can off set all the wealth going to the few.
2) Invest in our gov. and fight those same powers as stated in option 1 attempt to take the same control as stated before, or the outcome will be the same. Believe in our Gov. when it does good and demand it at all times.This option believes that the wealth of the nation is measured by the quality of life that all its people live by supporting a level playing field. It aims to create an environment that allows those who persue wealth have an opportunity to do so by establishing standards to create a healthy environment in the markets and business.
My option 1 is what you chose and is the wrong one in my view. You can look throughout the world and the countries with the smallest gov. seem to have virtually no middle class, instead there are the wealthy and the poor. I would love to see your examples of the world that contrdicts this. our option would lead to exactly the opposite of free.
My option would be number 2 because I believe that our nation believes in decent pay for hard work. Option 2 would allow the wealthy to be wealthy while still providing an avenue for the middle and lower to have the ability to work hard and live a decent life. In the end the only way to ensure freedom is to have the public sector strong enough to work in the publics best interest.
Our government has done much harm, but it has also done much good, and the same can be said about the private sector. Balance is the most efficient path to freedom. We need the private sector strong and healthy so we are not dependant and therefore enslaved by our government. We also need the government to ensure that we are not enslaved by the greed and power of the super wealthy thus remaining a land of free people.
I say we need to stop allowing our government to be bought by the highest bidder. The only way to do this accept the fact that government can't solve all our problems, while acknowledging that we need a strong government to protect our people from greed and hate within and abroad. We need to take back our government and we will all be better off.
Hate Obama? What are you, psychic? I don't hate Obama and you can quit with the theatrics.. I don't like Obama's policy but I don't hate Obama as you seem prescribe to anyone that disagrees with you or your loving adoration of a human being, Obama. You fit the description of an "Obama fan"... makes little sense in what you post or continue to post... so get off your rantings or perhaps our "hersey" that Obama is just another guy making the same mistakes past presidents have done.. but that wouldn't fit in your Obama religion would it? Apparently, you think too highly of yourself and your ARROGANCE shows... don't believe me? Why don't you google "poll stimulus bill work" and see HOW MANY polls show that people don't believe it to work... oh that's right, I shouldn't create doubt in your religion, your mind can't accept it...
I stand by my statement.
The NY Times/CBS poll indicates you are quite wrong. 62% believe the Stimulus Package will help the economy - in spite of what you post to the contrary.
You come across pretty arrogant yourself...
If you don't like my 'rantings' - that is really too bad - don't read them...
A recent NY Times/CBS poll indicates the American public is still solidly behind President Obama's plans to fix the economic mess he inherited.
64% of Americans support the $787 Stimulus Package
75% of Americans are optimistic about his next 4 years as president
75% think that Obama is trying to reach out and work with Republicans
80% think that Republicans should work ina bipartisan way rather than sticking to ideology
62% believe the Stimulus Package will help the economy, while only 46% feel it will help them personally
In spite of the continuous day-in-day-out negative criticism of Obama from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity (and they are on overdrive this past month), most Americans see the reality of the situation
This is a recent poll - and includes a good part of the market downturn.
It supports my belief that most Americans fully appreciate that the economic mess we are in is NOT Obama's making - and that he is trying to fix things with no support from the Republicans.
Most Americans know that he is trying hard to fix a mess that Bush handed off to him... and most Americans know that the Republicans are being pure obstructionists for political reasons and that they could care less about fixing the problem that they brought about...
They want him and the Democrats to fail and look bad - and are willing to cause the country great harm to bring about that result.
All it proves to me is that people want quick fixes when their wallets are at stake, or that most people are too stupid to realize that throwing money at something -- while in the process devaluing our currency and putting our nation even deeper in debt -- solves nothing. It solved nothing when Bush did it, and it will solve nothing when Obama does it. Maybe some people think we should just nationalize everything and be done with it. That doesn't make them right, and it doesn't make the opposition a bunch of partisan obstructionists.
Our government has done much harm, but it has also done much good, and the same can be said about the private sector. Balance is the most efficient path to freedom. We need the private sector strong and healthy so we are not dependant and therefore enslaved by our government. We also need the government to ensure that we are not enslaved by the greed and power of the super wealthy thus remaining a land of free people.
I say we need to stop allowing our government to be bought by the highest bidder. The only way to do this accept the fact that government can't solve all our problems, while acknowledging that we need a strong government to protect our people from greed and hate within and abroad. We need to take back our government and we will all be better off.
I couldn't agree more! For the last few decades it's been for sale and you know what the biggest problem is? US! We keep putting the idiots of both parties back, even after they royaly shaft us back they go... Heck, they can steal with both hands, even have money found IN THEIR FREEZER and back they go...
I'd love to see a house (no pun intended) cleaning come 2010 if we can still afford to drive to the polls, vote any incumbent out period!
You'd think after the collapse of their ideology under its own weight, they'd be a little humbled. But here they are as self-righteous and emphatic as they were in 2000 when they were convinced that, if only they could have unfettered power, they'd set the country straight.
They had it and they blew it. Now we need government to come in and pick up the pieces.
People should NOT look up the WORD socialist. They SHOULD read The Capital. Only by reading Marx and Engels can one understand socialism. And yes, with this knowledge, it is obvious that BOTH Republicans and Democrats are indeed socialists.
It is amusing that the defenders of the enemies of freedom (read Amerikan Godvernment) look at socialism and communism as completely different things. Or that they see socialism as any particular static framework.
Regardless of what Katie Couric, NBC, or your college teacher would have you believe, socialism is simply any stage of transition between capitalism and communism. Communism is simply the final stage of socialism fully realized.
To end, read the source of the sinister theory, not the accepted translation fostered by its supporters both open and secretive alike.
Another "genius" that can shed some light on earlier stupid theories is Plato. The Republic is another excellent example of an elitist defining what is "right" and "just" for all of mankind.
Well, that's a theoretical socialism of which you speak much like Adam Smith's form of capitalism doesn't really exist in reality. The most common understanding of socialism in the real world is more the Hugo Chavez Venezuelan style in which the government actively seeks to control and own the industries of its nation.
Helping flailing businesses out until they can get on their own feet again is nothing close to that style of socialism. I just wish people would stop trying to draw such a comparison. Japan bailed its flailing industries out in the 90s as well. Many countries do. It's just the way the world works today as a way of minimizing the massive peaks and valleys of the free market and building a stability into a nation.
But, if we take your definition - that it's anything between capitalism and communism (the two extremes), then it is wise that we are socialists and we should congratulate ourselves.
Imagine the chaos that would ensue if we lived with pure capitalism! Oh my. The unregulated greed that tanked our economy would have ended this nation decades ago.
The key is finding the right balance. In Europe, that balance tends to most effectively lean slightly more toward government while in the U.S. it tends to lean slightly more toward business.
Either way, it's important for a blend of government and private sector. We should get beyond this "socialist" name calling. It's getting rather tiresome.
How conveniently you point out problems and offer no solution. Its bs to say that larger gov. under Bush was geared towards helping the working people of this country. Seems to me that the two options look more like this.
1) You have the free market caitalistic belief that the wealth of a nation is measured by how well the super rich are doing. Fooling all others to follow them by pretending its the government that is theone steeling from them. This first choice will only end in a nation of slaves with no organized entity that can off set all the wealth going to the few.
2) Invest in our gov. and fight those same powers as stated in option 1 attempt to take the same control as stated before, or the outcome will be the same. Believe in our Gov. when it does good and demand it at all times.This option believes that the wealth of the nation is measured by the quality of life that all its people live by supporting a level playing field. It aims to create an environment that allows those who persue wealth have an opportunity to do so by establishing standards to create a healthy environment in the markets and business.
My option 1 is what you chose and is the wrong one in my view. You can look throughout the world and the countries with the smallest gov. seem to have virtually no middle class, instead there are the wealthy and the poor. I would love to see your examples of the world that contrdicts this. our option would lead to exactly the opposite of free.
My option would be number 2 because I believe that our nation believes in decent pay for hard work. Option 2 would allow the wealthy to be wealthy while still providing an avenue for the middle and lower to have the ability to work hard and live a decent life. In the end the only way to ensure freedom is to have the public sector strong enough to work in the publics best interest.
Our government has done much harm, but it has also done much good, and the same can be said about the private sector. Balance is the most efficient path to freedom. We need the private sector strong and healthy so we are not dependant and therefore enslaved by our government. We also need the government to ensure that we are not enslaved by the greed and power of the super wealthy thus remaining a land of free people.
I say we need to stop allowing our government to be bought by the highest bidder. The only way to do this accept the fact that government can't solve all our problems, while acknowledging that we need a strong government to protect our people from greed and hate within and abroad. We need to take back our government and we will all be better off.
First let me say in response to your statement. "Its bs to say that larger gov. under Bush was geared towards helping the working people of this country. Seems to me that the two options look more like this."
I never said Bushes America was in anyway good for working people or this country I dont know where you go that idea from.
If your refer to Bush tax cuts because I support option 2 or something you seem to think I ignored the spending of Bush and the CONGRESS.
Plus the tax cuts I would require and the cuts in government you probably mentally couldnt handle or emotionally accept.
moving on.
I have a simple question do you or do you not have choices on where to work, how much you will make in a free market, where you will spend your money and how you will spend your money? What is to stop an idealogy from destroying a country just as much as the power in the hands of the few rich? Hell the idealogy that we must make the world safe for democracy is destroying our nation and the comes from a very large strong government. I think there is a difference on strong and limited.
If washington is filled with moral and good people you will have a good government but you can't trust them to be because we probably have only a few in washington who even know what the constitution is.
Ron Paul doesnt get visits from lobbyist and "these rich elite" you refer too because he actually follows the constitution on every vote. Which is what most power money hungry, greedy elitest dont like.
So when you make the constitution your voting standard and the role of government being small you wont get many rich people controlling washington and the country. So I want a strong person of conviction to represent the people and to understand the role of government first.
I dont need a strong government to bring about power exchanges, or fight the idealogies and rich because government is not suppose to have the power to begin with. If you are saying you have a criminal case against a company BRING IT TO COURT! In my original post I mentioned option 2 because I know we have to many in washington who have no intention of changing anything only finding more power for themselves and it has nothing to do with stopping the "evil companies" you think they hate.
Watch what they do not what they say. In other words I trust the American people with their money from their paycheck first and I would rather have these evil companies lobby me for my money instead of running to the government which will have limited power and limited resources to reward anyone.
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.
