How would you feel

[complex]

If the U.S. did turn to a socialistic country. Would you really be all that mad. Enthusiastic? How would your personal life change?

Can't say mine would be much different.

[the radiologist]

Something as little as changing into a socialistic country?

Nahhhhhh, of course it wouldn't bother me one bit. Why would it??????

:nope: :nope: :nope:

[complex]

haha i didn't mean to make light of it in that manor, it would of course be an epic change, maybe im slightly in favor and would rather see it happen

[the radiologist]

I'm not trying to put it out like that either. I want you to hear why you would be in favor of that. And what country through history, that was or still is ran by socialism, would you enjoy to live in? And in those factors, which ones are specifically related to socialism. I just never heard anybody say they think socialism is a good idea.

I know I haven't been around a wide array of people, but damn...just never heard it.

[Decyferon]

Living in a western country that has socialist leadership doesn't change much at all, here in the UK we are living under a labour government which has always been a socialist style party and there is no difference to the way it is to live in this country. Money is what drives most govenments these days and business has such a tight hold over finances etc that policy is very hard to change.

I think it wouldn' be so much of a difference in the US maybe everyone will be lucky enough to be able to see a doctor or get treatment at a hospital if it does take on elements of social healthcare, then everyone can get taxed for it and everyone has the benefi f healthcare

[complex]

in retrospect i should have done more research to use better terminology. so people know exactly what i mean. instead of going through every aspect of gov. and dissecting how i feel about it if it were socialistic, im just going to compare it to france. If the U.S. was ran the same as france. How would that be to people?

[the radiologist]

^^^^^Then there would be alot more smelly people and hookers in America.:D

[lord_casek]

Guns. Lots of guns. All firing in a volley. "The blood of patriots and tyrants" as Jefferson so aptly put it.

Such a change would be very bad for us as a nation.

[Cunt_Eastwood]

Id GTFO or stand next to Casek fixing my bayonet so to speak

[christo-f]

I don't know, Sweden is about as close to socialism a market economy can get and they seem to be doing just fine. Australia is also under a labor government, has a state healthcare system, state school system, state medical benefits system, sliding tax scale, etc. and we're doing pretty good too. France aint exactly a third world country either.

So, what's the problem?

[lord_casek]

I don't know, Sweden is about as close to socialism a market economy can get and they seem to be doing just fine. Australia is also under a labor government, has a state healthcare system, state school system, state medical benefits system, sliding tax scale, etc. and we're doing pretty good too. France aint exactly a third world country either.

So, what's the problem?


I take it that means it's ok for me to come to your house and tell you that because my walls are gray and my carper is blue, yours needs to be like that.

[Decyferon]

that is a very narrow minded view of socialism casek, what your talking about there is a dictatorship and living under a socialist government is nothing like that. In none of these countries such as Sweden, Australia, France or the UK do the government tell you how to have you house decorated.

As far as my day to day life goes the government doesn't interfere with my life in the way i dress, the things I say, the things I want to buy or sell. I am happy to pay taxes so that all people have access to healthcare and children get a decent education.

I don't see the problem to living under a socialist government. It just seems to me that Americans don't want it because it comes down to their fear of having the guns taken away from them, and I know you will disagree but I don't believe anyone should just have easy access to guns they do more damage than good. OK there are guns in the UK but gun crime is much lower here than in america.

Can i ask you, Do you think it is wrong that taxes go to providing healthcare to all people? why should people suffer because they cannot afford health insurance.

[lord_casek]

that is a very narrow minded view of socialism casek, what your talking about there is a dictatorship and living under a socialist government is nothing like that. In none of these countries such as Sweden, Australia, France or the UK do the government tell you how to have you house decorated.



You don't understand. I'm saying that since christo says it's ok for one (or more) countriy (ies) that it's not ok for us. Our country is the most unique in the world. We don't need socialism and we definitely don't want it.

I merely used an analogy.

[Decyferon]

I know what you were getting at I just wanted to question furthre Casek, you know I love these discussions lol

I think there are good elements and bad elements of any type of leadership of a country and while you don't want or need socialism, some aspects of it could benefit America and it's poorest occupants

also I don't agree with your analogy because that isn't what socialism is, your analogy was of a dictatorship, socialism doesn't dictate what the people that live in the country can do

[lord_casek]

I know what you were getting at I just wanted to question furthre Casek, you know I love these discussions lol

I think there are good elements and bad elements of any type of leadership of a country and while you don't want or need socialism, some aspects of it could benefit America and it's poorest occupants

also I don't agree with your analogy because that isn't what socialism is, your analogy was of a dictatorship, socialism doesn't dictate what the people that live in the country can do

I wasn't being analogous of socialism, more of what christo was saying. To sum it up, "it works for these countries, so what's your problem with it?".

Know what would benefit us more? Limited terms for politicians (no lifers), policy to keep drug companies from overcharging us for drugs (rest of the world gets a nice break from them...how nice), absolutely no lobbyists (no exceptions), pulling military out of other countries (they're older now, they can fight for themselves), getting back to a gold standard, no illegals allowed. do it like the rest of the honest people who are waiting for approval.

Just a few of those suggestions would take us a long way on the road to getting better and getting our global respect back.

[Decyferon]

I would agree completely with you on every point you made, it would benefit you greatly to pull military out of other countries, it is something I wish the UK would also do

[lord_casek]

I would agree completely with you on every point you made, it would benefit you greatly to pull military out of other countries, it is something I wish the UK would also do


The problem with the U.S. and UK getting out is that it doesn't make the war machine money. It loves money.

[Decyferon]

It does love the money and the governments love the fear of constantly telling us of all the bad guys that are out to take away our freedom and way of life, if we weren't fighting these countries how would they instill the fear?

[lord_casek]

It does love the money and the governments love the fear of constantly telling us of all the bad guys that are out to take away our freedom and way of life, if we weren't fighting these countries how would they instill the fear?


Ever read a book titled "The Grand Chessboard"?

[Decyferon]

no I haven't who is the author, I will order it in and give it a read if you receommend it, actually I should not be so lazy and just google it lol

[lord_casek]

The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives by Zbigniew Brzezinski

It's paperback and pretty cheap. Give it a read.

[tellurian]

As far as socialism goes Leninism is alot better than Stalinism. It was Stalin that fucked Russia up. But fuck socialism and fuck capitalism. Anarchism is where it's at.

[christo-f]

I wasn't being analogous of socialism, more of what christo was saying. To sum it up, "it works for these countries, so what's your problem with it?". I don't understand how your analogy works. You also didn't answer my question. I'm not saying that America should be socialist, that's for the US people to decide. I'm just asking why you wouldn't want it for the US, that's all. I used Sweden, Australia, etc. just as examples of countries that have elements of socialism to show that it doesn't mean dictatorship, a lack of freedom, authoritarianism or a failed economy. So, why do you think stuff like what Sweden has is not suitable for the US?

Know what would benefit us more? Limited terms for politicians (no lifers) Why do you think that? I don't disagree, I just want to know why you think this is important, policy to keep drug companies from overcharging us for drugs agreed, absolutely no lobbyists I know a lot of the cons and they are huge, but I'd still like to hear some of the pros for having lobbyists, if there are any, before I had an opinion on that matter., pulling military out of other countries (they're older now, they can fight for themselves) discussed below, getting back to a gold standard, no illegals allowed. do it like the rest of the honest people who are waiting for approval.

Just a few of those suggestions would take us a long way on the road to getting better and getting our global respect back.

As for removing the military, the standard of life for those in the US would change drastically and the US would lose a massive amount of its security if the US pulled out of all the countries it's in right now. Plus a fairly decent amount of the world would lose stability and the global economy would suffer as well.

The US provides safety and security for the worlds shipping lanes. If Indonesia/China/whoever tried to blockade the Malacca Straits, the US would see to it that it was opened again. IF Iran blocked the Straits of Hormuz, only the US could reopen it again. I've never read the Great Chessboard, but I've read a lot of other stuff by Zbignew. I'd also assume that he mentions off-shore balancing in the book, that's what the US does to stop the rise of another competitor. They destabilise regions like the Middle East, South America and so on. If they didn't you would either have a lot of internal war in the Middle East between countries like KSA and Iran would more than likely triumph and become a regional power. Under Iran's current political culture, I don't think that would be such a great idea. IF the US wasn't in Japan and ROK there would be a massive arms build up by Japan and ROK in reaction to the presence of DPRK. Since 53 there has been relative stability in the region that more than likely would not have been without the US and there would be a destabilising arms race that would result in a victor becoming powerful that could then go on to threaten the US in the future (you can bet Nukes would also be involved in the arms race).

I'm not making any moral judgments here, just trying to flesh out how the strategic situation would change if the US went isolationist. I also do not support a number of things that the US does but when I think about some of the alternatives (such as Russia being a global power, Iran controlling the Middle East and its energy reserves, China controlling the Malacca Straits, etc.) I'd much rather the way it is now. The US isn't perfect but it could be a fucking lot worse than it is with the US military deployed around the world.

[shai]

Anarchism is where it's at.

Essentially what anarchy comes down to is living really rough and people shooting at each other for reasons good, bad and entirely nonexistent. They want your stuff? You better have a bigger gun and more bullets and good aim because they aren't going to sit down and politely ask you to share your stuff with them. If you want to see anarchy in practice, take a look at Somalia. They're living the life of Riley over there!

So, prove to me that YOU and you alone could live off the land and entirely off the grid (no computer, no cell phone, basically any tech relying on a backbone/infrastructure), and are ready to kill or be killed and then I'll believe you. Until then, unless you're 15 give it a rest until you do some serious reading.

As far as the socialism in the US it's already here. It's just not called "socialism". It's called "bank bailouts" and "saving the auto industry". Did anyone besides legislators get to vote on this shit or was it pushed through for the "common good?"

[russell jones]

Let me state the obvious, that we already have many socialist policies in the U.S. To get more would not be a drastic change, but a natural progression. We are still capitalist though, so don't worry about it.

BTW, socialism and capitalism don't exist, never have, and are outdated concepts. We live in a pragmatic society, and we always have.

[Mainframe]

I take it that means it's ok for me to come to your house and tell you that because my walls are gray and my carper is blue, yours needs to be like that.

http://aseparatepeace.wikispaces.com/file/view/paranoid.JPG

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Let me state the obvious, that we already have many socialist policies in the U.S. To get more would not be a drastic change, but a natural progression. We are still capitalist though, so don't worry about it.

BTW, socialism and capitalism don't exist, never have, and are outdated concepts. We live in a pragmatic society, and we always have.

I don't think socialist policies are a form of "progression". That's just me though, and to say neither socialism or capitalism haven't ever existed, could you explain further? I would agree though, that they are out dated.

I'm also not a fan of a pragmatic society. I mean look at our boy Obama (Not the first just providing an example.). He clearly follows this and what do we get. Scientists, bankers and all of these other "experts" who put their interests and the interests of their friends over the whole populace.

Yeah, real pragmatic.

However on another note. I am seeing more and more stories about how the American public is really fuming over Obamacare.

This makes me really happy.

[Mainframe]

Scientists put their interests and the interests of their friends over the whole populace.

No. If you're just referring to Obama cabinet scientists...still no. From my experience scientists tend to be very pragmatic people, and Obama's science advisers are well qualified.

[christo-f]

If I can answer for Russell Jones, I'd guess that he means pure capitalism; that were the market dictates all and the government only goes as far as regulating property law, has never actually existed. And socialism where everything is equally distributed and and commonly owned (etc. etc.) has never really happened either.

Russell is saying that we always tend to have a mix of the two in modern life (we've never really had pure communism either, in the strict sense of the term). The US has many socialist principals because it is more pragmatic to run a nation that way. That, I believe is what Russell was referring to.

Did I get that right, Rus?

[russell jones]

If I can answer for Russell Jones, I'd guess that he means pure capitalism; that were the market dictates all and the government only goes as far as regulating property law, has never actually existed. And socialism where everything is equally distributed and and commonly owned (etc. etc.) has never really happened either.

Russell is saying that we always tend to have a mix of the two in modern life (we've never really had pure communism either, in the strict sense of the term). The US has many socialist principals because it is more pragmatic to run a nation that way. That, I believe is what Russell was referring to.

Did I get that right, Rus?


Exactly, and thanks for explaining it, because I didn't feel like it.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

I wasn't trying to offend anyone by my post. I was just trying to clarify what you meant.

Sorry for making it a chore.

No. If you're just referring to Obama cabinet scientists...still no. From my experience scientists tend to be very pragmatic people, and Obama's science advisers are well qualified.

I won't disagree that on paper they do have the qualifications. However I don't agree with the results that are coming out from these "pragmatic" people.

And to say that a scientist or financial expert, or any expert from transportation to health care couldn't be biased and come up with only pragmatic fixes to complicated problems is fine, you can think that way. I don't.

I hear different opinions from plenty of qualified people on a whole array of issues. I'm sure some of their bias's through their life experiences played a part in that.

I mean fucking doctors are supposed to be pragmatic. A lot of them act more like drug pushers. Doesn't seem like the right way to behave to me.

All I'm trying to say in theory just like a whole bunch of other political ideologies this system looks like it would work pretty well. Certainly not flawlessly. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. A lot of these people in office have merky backgrounds and have come out and have said some pretty harsh and ridiculous things in their pasts, and now they are in an actual position to act on some of their believes. Something to be wary of.

Of course on the flip side, people do mature, receive more education, and do change their opinions on all different issues all of the time.

Sorry, after the past 10 years of my own life and what I know of world history, I can only trust a handful of these guys.

[christo-f]

I'm noticing a distinct absence of Casek in this thread....

[lord_casek]

I'm noticing a distinct absence of Casek in this thread....


There are times when I just don't give a fuck, Christo. This is one of them.
It's been run into the ground.

[russell jones]

I wasn't trying to offend anyone by my post. I was just trying to clarify what you meant.

Sorry for making it a chore.



No problem, I'm just busy right now preparing my classes for the new semester and I'm a little worn out. Not offended in any way!

[christo-f]

There are times when I just don't give a fuck, Christo. This is one of them.
It's been run into the ground.

Fair enough, but you still give enough of a fuck to keep coming back and reading the thread! :p

[lord_casek]

Fair enough, but you still give enough of a fuck to keep coming back and reading the thread! :p


I like reading.

[El Mamerro]

http://www.cnet.com/i/bto/20090630/transformers_revenge_fallen_concept_art_skids_mudf lap_01.jpg

We don't really do much reading.

[complex]

I like reading.

as do i i start threads sometimes just to get opinions. other times i like to participate.
thats why i haven't really post in this thread

[Smart]

If the U.S. was ran the same as france. How would that be to people?

I doubt I could put up with the constant surrendering, I've been taught not to drop my rifle... but I do like a little lady garden but I don't approve of farmng in the pit region... but I am in favor of a national month's vacation and they're pretty easy going on weed smokers.. but I doubt I could put up with snooty waiters...

If we went socialist I'd like to see some Scandinavian style, Norway, Sweden... that stuff... hot chicks, free flowing booze, national healthcare, slick furniture, reindeer... I could bear a 42% income tax if we could all have those things...

But I also need, hot chicks, boats, fishing, beaches, weed, my FEW rational French friends...

I'm torn.

[thehaze]

McCarthyism and the Red Scare made it so the yanks are too small minded to do things that make sense.

Socialist policies are the only way to change the class structure and keep the poor alive.
If it wasn't for the free-ish health care, and the government pension system for disabled people here in Canada I'd probably be doomed to a shitty service job for life. I come from a lower class family, my mother who was a high school teacher was in a car accident and can no longer work, and my father died without life insurance.
If it wasn't for the social programs here in this country I would have never had the opportunities I have today (university being one). I can change my social condition solely because of social programs. Sounds kinda like the American dream eh?

If you look at the pro's and con's of social programs you'll soon find that there are only pros. And all you need to do to have these programs is to tax the rich at a much higher level and lower the taxes on the lower classes.

Remember if the lower classes had the means of production, they wouldn't be the lower class.

Socialism also leaves all kinds of room for individualism, those lies that were proliferated to you guys as kids about the dangers of giving to your fellow man aren't true.

The difference between socialism and capitalism, is the money you spend eventually goes back in your pocket and along the way it helps your fellow citizens, where as in a capitalist system your cash goes someone who doesn't need it and it doesn't help anyone.

Look at Venezuela, some factory workers there own the companies they work at. They work together as a whole to manufacture, market and sell their product. And together they share the profits. Its the same as working for the "man" but instead you have a higher share in your company, and you take home a higher more fairly balanced pay check.

Remember the reason why people live together to begin with is because we have better chances to survive as a group. There was no place for individuals in 10,000 b.c. and the only thing that has changed is the date. The reality is that we are pack animals, we hunt, we sleep, we fuck, we eat together. So why is it that there is a shift to individualism these days. If you ask me its to divide and conquer, the powers that be, the big corporations, the lobby groups see liberal thinking as a weapon against their power. If they can program the people to believe that the government helping them is a bad thing, then the government can loose the money through shady contracts and failed ventures to keep it for themselves.

You can't trust people, its a known fact. So you need a fail-safe against people with power so they don't abuse you, and a socialist government that genuinely works for the people does that.

The real goal should be a middle ground. Take what works and chuck the rest.

[christo-f]

McCarthyism and the Red Scare made it so the yanks are too small minded to do things that make sense. You've just generalised one of the most educated populations as a people that have zero critical thought. I'm not sure that's accurate.

Socialist policies are the only way to change the class structure and keep the poor alive.
If it wasn't for the free-ish health care, and the government pension system for disabled people here in Canada I'd probably be doomed to a shitty service job for life. I come from a lower class family, my mother who was a high school teacher was in a car accident and can no longer work, and my father died without life insurance.
If it wasn't for the social programs here in this country I would have never had the opportunities I have today (university being one). I can change my social condition solely because of social programs. Sounds kinda like the American dream eh?

If you look at the pro's and con's of social programs you'll soon find that there are only pros. And all you need to do to have these programs is to tax the rich at a much higher level and lower the taxes on the lower classes. So where's the incentive to get rich? Better to stay middle class, forego the effort to get rich and be protected against being poor. Where do I sign up?


Remember if the lower classes had the means of production, they wouldn't be the lower class.

Socialism also leaves all kinds of room for individualism, those lies that were proliferated to you guys as kids about the dangers of giving to your fellow man aren't true.

The difference between socialism and capitalism, is the money you spend eventually goes back in your pocket and along the way it helps your fellow citizens, where as in a capitalist system your cash goes someone who doesn't need it and it doesn't help anyone. Rich people don't spend more money in the economy creating opportunity to others? Do they just keep their money in the bank and only spend as much as the poor folk? Rich people either pay more due to sliding scale taxation or they pay more in goods and services taxation system which should then be diverted to public spending and communal benefit.

Look at Venezuela, some factory workers there own the companies they work at. They work together as a whole to manufacture, market and sell their product. And together they share the profits. Its the same as working for the "man" but instead you have a higher share in your company, and you take home a higher more fairly balanced pay check. Look at Venezuela, massive social schisms, regional diplomatic confrontation and an economy that is dependent on strategic resources.

Remember the reason why people live together to begin with is because we have better chances to survive as a group. Within the basic clan and tribal structures there was always competition for and domination of resources . Sure we survived as a group through an element of mutual support (which usually drew the line at defense/security and reproduction) but we still competed with each other for life sustaining resources..., sounds kind of like a modern day democratic market system, eh? There was no place for individuals in 10,000 b.c. and the only thing that has changed is the date I think you need to check yourself on this one. Sure it was harder for the individual but within social structures there was, as far as we know, competition for resources. Other than some insects like ants and bees and the bonobos, show me somewhere else in nature, which is what you're using as a benchmark here, that there wasn't competition for resources even within local and social structures. The reality is that we are pack animals, we hunt, we sleep, we fuck, we eat together but we compete for the "lion's share" of that food. So why is it that there is a shift to individualism these days. How is a capitalist society individualistic? WE still pay taxes, we still have charity and volunteerism and we still have many social behaviours that are about mutuality. The individualism that you speak of is raw anarchy, whcih we definitely do not have in places other than Somalia and Hlmand province! If you ask me its to divide and conquer, the powers that be, the big corporations, the lobby groups see liberal thinking as a weapon against their power Well actually, market liberalism is what they want. If they can program the people to believe that the government helping them is a bad thing, then the government can loose the money through shady contracts and failed ventures to keep it for themselves.

You can't trust people, its a known fact. So you need a fail-safe against people with power so they don't abuse you, and a socialist government that genuinely works for the people does that. Hang on, a socialist system does not protect you from government abuse in any way whatsoever. My evidence is North Korea, and South America for the last 50 years, to name a short few!

The real goal should be a middle ground. Take what works and chuck the rest.

The US is not a raw liberal market place/capitalist society anyway, I don't think it exists anywhere TBH. As long as you have state schools, state electricity, state water, disability benefits etc. you have elements of socialism. And this in mind I'd say that the US has done pretty fucking well for itself in the last 300 years. They've kicked everyone else's arse in pretty much everything. So, how does Canada compare to that?

[russell jones]

The real goal should be a middle ground. Take what works and chuck the rest.

That pretty much sums it up for me.

[anker.]

McCarthyism and the Red Scare made it so the yanks are too small minded to do things that make sense.

Socialist policies are the only way to change the class structure and keep the poor alive.
If it wasn't for the free-ish health care, and the government pension system for disabled people here in Canada I'd probably be doomed to a shitty service job for life. I come from a lower class family, my mother who was a high school teacher was in a car accident and can no longer work, and my father died without life insurance.
If it wasn't for the social programs here in this country I would have never had the opportunities I have today (university being one). I can change my social condition solely because of social programs. Sounds kinda like the American dream eh?

If you look at the pro's and con's of social programs you'll soon find that there are only pros. And all you need to do to have these programs is to tax the rich at a much higher level and lower the taxes on the lower classes.

.

The millions of Americans busting their asses daily at their shitty service jobs for the rest of their lives ARE living the american dream. THAT IS IT. You work, you get paid, you feed your family, and pay your bills. Whats so hard about that? If you wanna tax the rich, and give their money to dead beats...THEN NO ONE WOULD WORK HARD TO GET HIGHER PAYING POSITIONS...GOOD BYE DOCTORS...LAWYERS...SCIENTISTS, and other people you'll need at some point in time. I have no problem with the goverment helping people who actually NEED help... but there are too many people with excuses looking for a hand-out. Get a job, there are PLENTY of em out there, they just may not be up to your standards. If you wanna get somewhere, you gotta work for it. No one is gonna give it to you...too many people think diffrently these days.

[thehaze]

And this in mind I'd say that the US has done pretty fucking well for itself in the last 300 years. They've kicked everyone else's arse in pretty much everything. So, how does Canada compare to that?


We burnt down the White House.

[shai]

Get a job, there are PLENTY of em out there...

Really!

California's unemployment rate hits record high of 11.9%

Los Angeles Business from bizjournals

California's unemployment unexpectedly jumped to 11.9 percent and bucked the national trend, according to Friday data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/related_content.html?topic=US%20Bureau%20of%20Labo r%20Statistics).


The figures show the state lost a net 35,800 jobs last month and so far has lost 760,000 jobs during the past year. California tied Oregon for the fourth-highest unemployment rate in the U.S. It's behind Michigan, Rhode Island and Nevada. June's 11.6 unemployment rate set a post- World War II record.


From a national perspective, the unemployment-rate figures are a mixed-bag of news. A total 26 states reported unemployment rate increases, 17 states showed decreases and 7 states showed no rate-change.


Locally, June figures show Los Angeles County's unemployment rate is 11.6 percent. Orange County's unemployment is 9.2 percent.


The unemployment data does not reflect discouraged workers, because the report does not track that information.


---------------------------------

Care to make a retraction?

[christo-f]

We burnt down the White House.

Haha, whilst a spectacular achievement, not exactly the type I was referring to!

[anker.]

what? unemployment is up? wtf... i thought obama was gonna fix that? i'm sure therell be plenty of new goverment jobs available soon enough...

[Chappaquiddick]

The unemployment data does not reflect discouraged workers, because the report does not track that information.


I am also curious to know if it tracks how many of those people are:

1 - Too lazy to get a job. ( Trust me, I work for a union company, there are pleanty. )

2 - Won't take jobs due to them thinking they are above those positions. ( i.e. Gas stations, fast food, etc. )

3 - Are habitual users of Unemployment

This is the data I care about, not really just the base numbers. The fact is, I can drive down the street and see help wanted signs at my local thorntons gas station, a sears home center, walmart, and the dairy queen near my home. I also travel in 4 other states, and have seen the same thing. I know this isnt represenative and every locale, but it does tell me something. I really could care less what data says, polls are wrong, so is alot of data provided by these agencies. Extending unemployment benefits and making gonvernment progams for the poor larger is nothing more then gonvernment crack so to speak. They get you addicted to the gonv. then you have no choice. You either lose the drive to better yourself, or the knowledge of how to do it.

[christo-f]

Bullshit. I was on unemployment benefits and sickness benefits once. I got a job at the first available opportunity. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but you are speaking in absolutes which is plainly redundant when discussing society.

[Chappaquiddick]

Bullshit. I was on unemployment benefits and sickness benefits once. I got a job at the first available opportunity. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but you are speaking in absolutes which is plainly redundant when discussing society.

LOL. Boy, a little defensive arent you? Did anything in my post say that I was referring to everyone? Actually it says the contrary. If you dont think that there is a LARGER number of people who are abusing the system out there, you are quite naive. They abuse welfare, workers comp, disability, and yes, unemployment. I would like you to point out in my post where I say that everyone on unemployment is abusing the system. Maybe you should try reading a tad more before you start firing off at the mouth. I dont know if you thought that I was referring to you, thats maybe why you got on the defense so fast, but I dont think anywhere in my post that I made any broad sweeping generalizations.

[christo-f]

No, not at all defensive, I just think you know jack shit on the subject and I used myself as an example. I was in no way offended by what you wrote, I just thought it was bullshit.


Extending unemployment benefits and making gonvernment progams for the poor larger is nothing more then gonvernment crack so to speak. They get you addicted to the gonv. then you have no choice. You either lose the drive to better yourself, or the knowledge of how to do it.


Broad sweeping generalisations. Well the above may not precisely be defined as a generalisation but it is sure broad and sweeping! What you have stated above is a belief that people who accept benefits will lose their ability to motivate themselves to earn their own way in society as an addiction. You didn't say "the majority" or even "some people"t, you made an absolute statement in regards to a human nature. And even further on your comment, you have basically said that given a particular stimulus (free money) there will be a generalised involuntary fixed pattern of behaviour that is a constant across the species (abuse of the system resulting in lethargy and loss of knowledge). Funnily enough, that's the exact definition of instinct. That leaves no exception to the rule and room for individual difference. I think that if you follow this line of thought that you may find your statement easily disproved.

And for your subsequent comment that I would be naive to believe that the majority of welfare recipients aren't abusing the system, my reply to you would be that I am definitely naive if I form an opinion of a complex matter that is quantifiable without actually doing some research or having professional experience in the field of social welfare.

[Chappaquiddick]

Well, since you are an obvious expert in the field of welfare and human psycology, I should just stop writing? I will site some common sense examples like I did in my original post ( instead of trying to be a pretentious asshole like some people ).
Unemployment benefits in the state of kentucky are $460.00 per week in my particular field of work. How can you expect people to work when thats more then they make on an average week? I dont need to talk like a supercilius prick to get my point across. Your anger is obvious when you try to dominate someone with large words instead of making common sense arguments. Its an obvious tactic of someone who has no real substance to their point.

[Chappaquiddick]

And for your subsequent comment that I would be naive to believe that the majority of welfare recipients aren't abusing the system, my reply to you would be that I am definitely naive if I form an opinion of a complex matter that is quantifiable without actually doing some research or having professional experience in the field of social welfare.

Not in one place did I say that it is a MAJORITY abusing the system, I stated LARGER number. Making the implication that it is a larger number then you assumed in your previous post.

You should learn to comprehend English before you use your mighty big words to confuse us simple folk. I dont need a fucking english or grammer lesson, make a fucking point in your statement instead of acting like your better then someone.

[Chappaquiddick]

And even further on your comment, you have basically said that given a particular stimulus (free money) there will be a generalised involuntary fixed pattern of behaviour that is a constant across the species (abuse of the system resulting in lethargy and loss of knowledge). Funnily enough, that's the exact definition of instinct. That leaves no exception to the rule and room for individual difference. I think that if you follow this line of thought that you may find your statement easily disproved.



Instinct - Noun - an inborn pattern of activity or tendency to action common to a given biological species.

That means you're born with the trait. In my statement I said that it was "like crack". If Im not mistaken you BECOME addicted to crack and are not born with the dependancy unless under special circumstances. So once again your big worded non-substance argument is debunked.

Anything else?

[shai]

Those are all entry level jobs you listed...can you live on the minimum wage where you live? It's impossible here, even if you don't have kids or much overhead.

The last time I tried to get on-the-books work- two years ago I held two back-to-back minimum wage jobs for about a year- every two weeks I would have to make choices like "do I eat or pay rent this month?" When I'd ask for more hours I'd get "well, we'll see what we can do in a couple weeks." Come on, now...that's fucking ridiculous.

Companies that care more about their bottom line than their employees are doing far more to create a welfare class than the government. Believe that.

[christo-f]

Three separate replies Chappaquiddick! Apologies if I upset you by using words and concepts that only those with an education can understand.

Mate, yeah I do have a back ground is psychology and I also have a back ground in social sciences. The point is that you can't go making your mind up about complex and quantifiable issues based on "common sense". The world just doesn't work that way but if you think you are smart enough just to work it out on your "common sense", good luck to you mate.


Now I'm not going to argue with you about this anymore because you don't seem too bright or seem to understand some basic points. But I will give you a free lesson on what an instinct is.

yes, animals are born with instincts. they are an innate characteristic that is generalisable across a certain species. When a particular stimulus, in this case getting free money, or crack cocaine, you stated that all humans will act in a certain way. That pretty much covers the definition, stimulus equals generalisable involuntary behaviour across species.

Now the reason why you think you've debunked it is not because you understand the concept of instinct or welfare but that your original statement was silly and wrong. Not all people will get addicted to welfare and lose their drive, etc. That is obviously a completely false supposition because if it were true the numbers of welfare recipients in any given country would only ever rise and fall simply due to deaths. Now, I bet your little pea sized brain that that is not the case.


Have fun getting all pissy pants about this reply and feeling frustrated that your stunted Kentucky intellect struggles with big words and complex concepts whilst I earn much more than $460 and hour.

Goodbye little man.






/yes being childish...

[Chappaquiddick]

Im going to try to be simple so you may comprehend this.

Once again you are resorting to personal attacks, which again indicates you have no substance, and lack education or intellect.

Instinct has nothing to do with a stimulus response, thus proven by Pavlov, they are two very different concepts. You once again are having trouble comprehending this. I sited the defenition of Instinct from the Websters Dictionary. I will take that definition over any bull you try to say it means.

And again you misquote me and make up things, never, at any point, do i say that all people abuse the system, and all people get stuck in the rut of gonvernment intervention. If I did please quote me, because Im quite sure in previous posts I was very clear that it was not even the majority.

And for a person with such a impressive educational backround you should work on learning to spell GENERALIZATION correctly. When you attack someones intellect, you better not live in a glass house. Your rantings are uniformed and unitelligable. You resort to simple attacks on my intellect to try to make yourself look better instead of showing any facts to backup any of your statements.

Im just curious as to how someone making well over $460.00 per hour, which according to my pea brained kentucky math is:

460 x 8 = $3680 per day 3680 x 5 = $18400 per week and 18400 x 52 = $956800 per year

What are you doing on a graf forum sounding like someone who just found out what a thesaurus is.

Your little insult tactics might work on someone who is 14 years old, but when it comes down to it, your arguments sound like typical rhetoric from someone trying to be somthing they are not.

If you would think about what you type, before you do it, you might find that every time you try to quote what I said, you are wrong. Maybe you should try going back to the 4th grade in an American school where they can teach you simple understanding of the english language. All you do is speak in platitudes, and use large words to make morons think you know what your talking about, trust me, your a fuckin idiot.

I really hate to have to resort to personal attacks on your stupid ass, but its like talking to a parrot who only has the same dribble to repeat over and over.


Well have fun with your obviously far superior intelligence, and bumper sticker platitiudes.

[angelofdeath]

i think the easiest way to end this thread is to say one thing....

everything the government subsidizes you always get more of it. in another words if you subsidize unemployment, sickness, etc. you get more of it. this is just the fact of the matter. dont believe it, learn economics.

unemployment insurance, like all things the government does usually has a noble goal. however the unintended consequence of this is people will hold out for a much higher paying job than they otherwise would be able to get in the market at a certain time. a neighbor of mine lost a high paying construction job in march. he is in his mid 50's and no one wants to hire him at his old pay rate of 30$ an hour. he can get a job all day long at 18-20$. he told me he will stay on unemployment until it is either run out or he has a job making at least 30$ an hour again. he can make more money not working than working. if this situation happens to a boat load of the population and you have extended unemployment. this is pretty simple to figure out.

as for market prices that a few commented on earlier... sure, living on minimum wage is hard for most people. but you can believe that the market wage of various jobs is the result of millions and millions of voluntary transactions in the market place. wages always tend be close to equal to marginal revenue product. if you cant make a certain amount of money you need in a certain field, you must increase your productivity in some way and/or lower your living expenses. which for a lot of people means room mates, cutting out the bar, etc. if a company pays an employee more per hour than he can produce per hour, this is a money losing venture. most companies/people cannot afford to lose money for toooo long.

[christo-f]

Im going to try to be simple so you may comprehend this.

Once again you are resorting to personal attacks, which again indicates you have no substance, and lack education or intellect.

Instinct has nothing to do with a stimulus response, thus proven by Pavlov Hahahaha, Look up "Classical Conditioning", hahahah!!!! All you've done is found a scientific/psychological hypothesis that involves stimulus and response. What you have found is Classical conditioning where it is possible to PAIR a particular stimulus with a response through CONDITIONING. Their is also another cool little thing called Operant Conditioning. And if you're smart enough you'll even be able to work out that it is the explanation as to why gambling is rather addictive to animals. But, alas, this all has nothing to do with instinct because operant and classical conditioning are all CONDITIONED responses, not involuntary or innate like that of instinct.


MAte, didn't I just tell you that I have studied psychology??!! Why the fuck are you picking an argument with on a subject that I know about? That's just stupid. You'd be better off arguing about the virtues of having parents that are brother and sister, stick to somehting you actually understand, dude!

, they are two very different concepts. You once again are having trouble comprehending this. I sited the defenition of Instinct from the Websters Dictionary. I will take that definition over any bull you try to say it means. YES!!!, THe dictionary's definition is exactly the same as mine!!! Hahaha, can't you read?!


And again you misquote me and make up things, never, at any point, do i say that all people abuse the system, and all people get stuck in the rut of gonvernment interventionOh dear, I've been teasing a retarded person all along. That is shameful, I apologise. . If I did please quote me, because Im quite sure in previous posts I was very clear that it was not even the majority.

And for a person with such a impressive educational backround you should work on learning to spell GENERALIZATION correctly Mate, the Z in words is an Americanisation. In "old school" English we use S's. That's the way it's done in most Commonwealth countries. Just in case you don't know what the Commonwealth is, it's the vestige of the English empire, old colonies if you will. THe world and its ways do not end at the shores of the United States, my poor stunted friend. . When you attack someones intellect, you better not live in a glass house. Your rantings are uniformed and unitelligable. You resort to simple attacks on my intellect to try to make yourself look better instead of showing any facts to backup any of your statements. Facts? what like there is a LARGER number of people who are abusing the system out there,...., you mean one of those "facts"? You may want to go back and have a quick look, dude, because I'm the guy saying that one needs to do a certain amount of research or have experience in a particular field before you form beliefs and you're the guy implying that your common sense is the standard of all that's rational and obvious. I have never even put forward any "facts" in this whole discussion. The only thing that I have stated, with confidence is the definition of instinct, which you so kindly reinforced with your cute little "Webstar's Dictionary" definition.




Im just curious as to how someone making well over $460.00 per hour, which according to my pea brained kentucky math is:

460 x 8 = $3680 per day 3680 x 5 = $18400 per week and 18400 x 52 = $956800 per year

What are you doing on a graf forum sounding like someone who just found out what a thesaurus is. Ah yes, well picked up. I did state my salary incorrectly. I should have said per week, not per hour. For if it was per hour I'd surely buy you an education so I didn't have to waste my time schooling your poor stunted self.

Your little insult tactics might work on someone who is 14 years old, but when it comes down to it, your arguments sound like typical rhetoric from someone trying to be somthing they are not. What exactly am I trying to be?

If you would think about what you type, before you do it, you might find that every time you try to quote what I said, you are wrong. Maybe you should try going back to the 4th grade in an American school where they can teach you simple understanding of the english language. Oh dear. Oh dear!! I'd ask you to re-read that sentence but I'm sure that you would have noted your fault when writing it, if you were able. So, let me summarise for you "American school...., English language". And just incase you're struggling with that, England is a country. All you do is speak in platitudes , and use large words to make morons think you know what your talking about, trust me, your a fuckin idiot.

I really hate to have to resort to personal attacks on your stupid ass, but its like talking to a parrot who only has the same dribble to repeat over and over.


Well have fun with your obviously far superior intelligence, and bumper sticker platitiudes.

What the fuck does platitudes mean!!!!!





Dude, I really don't care. I would bet both my arms that in real life you are a good bloke, can paint better than me and that youtreat people with sincere respect. I'm just having a stir. Yeah, I do back what I say but that is only because I have a bit of education on the matter. And I mean a bit, literally I did one semester on welfare states and productive society. It actually bored the shit out of me and I hated it. But it did teach me one thing that all my assumptions and beliefs that I thought were common sense were totally wrong. It's really a complex issue with so may angles and facets that no one has the answer to. It's just that some know more than others.

I only knew enough to provoke you in to an argument, nothing more. I don't have any answers and I really don't know what works and what's right. I was just taking the piss out of you, mate. I don't think you are stunted, I don't think you are unintelligent. I think you're just another bloke on an internet forum like I am. Don't worry about me mate. I like to come on here and sound as smart as I can, it's all a laugh in the end, really.

[christo-f]

platitude |ˈplatiˌt(y)oōd|
noun
a remark or statement, esp. one with a moral content, that has been used too often to be interesting or thoughtful : she began uttering liberal platitudes.


THere was nothing moral or containing about anything I said!

I'm shocked to the core!

*Slaps with glove*

[christo-f]

i think the easiest way to end this thread is to say one thing....

everything the government subsidizes you always get more of it. in another words if you subsidize unemployment, sickness, etc. you get more of it. this is just the fact of the matter. dont believe it, learn economics.

unemployment insurance, like all things the government does usually has a noble goal. however the unintended consequence of this is people will hold out for a much higher paying job than they otherwise would be able to get in the market at a certain time. a neighbor of mine lost a high paying construction job in march. he is in his mid 50's and no one wants to hire him at his old pay rate of 30$ an hour. he can get a job all day long at 18-20$. he told me he will stay on unemployment until it is either run out or he has a job making at least 30$ an hour again. he can make more money not working than working. if this situation happens to a boat load of the population and you have extended unemployment. this is pretty simple to figure out.

as for market prices that a few commented on earlier... sure, living on minimum wage is hard for most people. but you can believe that the market wage of various jobs is the result of millions and millions of voluntary transactions in the market place. wages always tend be close to equal to marginal revenue product. if you cant make a certain amount of money you need in a certain field, you must increase your productivity in some way and/or lower your living expenses. which for a lot of people means room mates, cutting out the bar, etc. if a company pays an employee more per hour than he can produce per hour, this is a money losing venture. most companies/people cannot afford to lose money for toooo long.


Interesting perspective but I would like to pose a question to you good sir, GO FUCK YOURSELF!!!


I flatly refuse to discuss this issue with anyone that actually knows what they are talking about!!! :mad: :mad:

[anker.]

jolly good... cheerio!

Working a minimum wage job has got to blow ass...I couldn't imagine raising a family on a lesser paycheck...plus i'd lose a few luxuries. At least I'd qualify for assistance with food...childcare...healthcare. It just pisses me off that people abuse the system (like my sister, who refuses to get a higher paying job w/ insurance, solely so she can qualify for more benefits). I dont think i could just sit around like alot of people, and suckle off the goverment teet. Its kinda one of those situations where if you can get away with it, more power to ya i guess? I was just raised that you only deserve what you earn. But, maybe they are smarter than I am, in the long run? :) good day.

[russell jones]

Maybe you should try reading a tad more before you start firing off at the mouth.

ditto for yourself, read the posts of those you are talking to.

[lord_casek]

124.193.170.162 dbeautyska [email protected]

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

Here would be a great example that exists today of state run everything. Three letters:

D. M. V.

Ever had a good experience there? Didnt think so. Government has NEVER been efficient running anything. Socialism doesnt work. I own my own biz, and work my ass off for the life i enjoy. A system like socialism would say, 'You have dirtbikes. Your neighbor doesnt. Thats not fair, we are taking half of your earnings and redistrubuting them so your lazy neighbor can have one too.' UMMMMMM...WHAT?

When you have socialism in the U.S. is when you will also have a revolution my friends.

[shai]

Sigh...it doesn't work like that, you're free to own whatever you want in whatever quantities in your typical socialist Western European nation. (I won't argue the point about the DMV sucking, except that's it's not a federal agency.)

What a lot of people seem to be doing is conflating socialism with forced collectivism, totalitarianism and fascism. This isn't the USSR, and Obama is not Stalin. Some of you will say that taxation to pay for universal health care is the same as forced collectivism...well, that seems to be taking a very subjective view on the matter even though I can see where the logic lies, but I don't really believe that's the case. You can say it is and point to all kinds of evidence to support your claims, but I think the reason Obama won was because the majority of Americans actually WANT things like affordable health care and not because they're closet socialists.

[Mercer]

It's funny how everyone is making statements against communism not knowing the difference between socialism and communism.
It's also funny that any of you would feel like we aren't already in a socialist system.

Like how would you feel if we had food stamps, social security, medicare, public schools and so on? What? We already have?
The line between what we have and socialism has been crossed a long time ago.

[HeavensGate]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27684953@N02/4125606251/

[HeavensGate]

http://http://www.flickr.com/photos/27684953@N02/4125606251/

[shai]

It's funny how everyone is making statements against communism not knowing the difference between socialism and communism.
It's also funny that any of you would feel like we aren't already in a socialist system.

Like how would you feel if we had food stamps, social security, medicare, public schools and so on? What? We already have?
The line between what we have and socialism has been crossed a long time ago.

Some people truly believe we'd be better off without these things and that the free market would be a veritable horn of plenty for the haves and the have nots.

I disagree, I've needed or used all three at certain points in my life. There's no such thing as "health insurance for the poor" that's entirely within the private sector and not subsidized by tax money...I defy anyone who is against universal health care to show me just one 100% privately run and funded program, foundation, or charity that offers free health care for your average American male who is in his 30s and is unemployed or otherwise unable to pay for insurance.

I've looked, it doesn't exist. That means I have to live with the pain and stiffness in my back that I've had since I was 27.

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

Sigh...it doesn't work like that, you're free to own whatever you want in whatever quantities in your typical socialist Western European nation. (I won't argue the point about the DMV sucking, except that's it's not a federal agency.)

What a lot of people seem to be doing is conflating socialism with forced collectivism, totalitarianism and fascism. This isn't the USSR, and Obama is not Stalin. Some of you will say that taxation to pay for universal health care is the same as forced collectivism...well, that seems to be taking a very subjective view on the matter even though I can see where the logic lies, but I don't really believe that's the case. You can say it is and point to all kinds of evidence to support your claims, but I think the reason Obama won was because the majority of Americans actually WANT things like affordable health care and not because they're closet socialists.

Well no kidding the majority of Americans are not closet socialists, most were just deceived into thinking that this guy was really going to change things(also partly due to decades of media driven adherence to what everyone else is doing and other "dumbing" mechanisms) . Added to that was the incredibly weak lineup of opposing candidates.

And in no way can you compare a socialist west euro country to America as far as freedom to start businesses and working hard at it to accumulate wealth, and let alone own quantities of whatever as a product of that work. A frenchy could never work harder than his neighbor and expect his social status/material wealth to increase. No, no thats not fair! Plus, he prolly wouldnt want to in the first place. The government takes care of him, and makes sure he lives comfortably, so why would he want any more?

The real issue here is not whether or America can be compared to socialism or not, and if it can then 'we might as well just accept it cause its not much differant than now.' Thats insane. In America we can do whatever we want. We can start from nothing and work hard to be and have whatever the eff we please. Elitists like obama hate that. Why would they want to make that possible? That a bum can become a billionaire? No way, they want the bum to accept that hes a bum and just 'let us take care of you. We know best.'
Its about controlling the population by a small group of highly intellegent individuals that know whats "best" for everyone else. Which is the most un-American thing to ever even be considered allowed by Americans....but it works to control the populations of the apparently 'un-different' west euro nations so by golly, lets become like them!!

Americans dont become like anyone else, fools. We are Americans. We set the standards, not west europe.

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

Some people truly believe we'd be better off without these things and that the free market would be a veritable horn of plenty for the haves and the have nots.

I disagree, I've needed or used all three at certain points in my life. There's no such thing as "health insurance for the poor" that's entirely within the private sector and not subsidized by tax money...I defy anyone who is against universal health care to show me just one 100% privately run and funded program, foundation, or charity that offers free health care for your average American male who is in his 30s and is unemployed or otherwise unable to pay for insurance.

I've looked, it doesn't exist. That means I have to live with the pain and stiffness in my back that I've had since I was 27.

Undoubtedly i believe that if a person in these circumstances cant afford to be treated, effin treat them! Id pay for them, and I highly doubt the majority of Americans wouldnt do the same or would defy allowing assistance to people in those circumstances(its the taking advantage of such assistance that cant be tolerated). But that can be done by adjusting the current health care system. Why would we completely abolish it to organize an entire new one?

[shai]

The vast majority of conservatives are NOT going to pay for poor people's health care not because it's smacks of socialism, but because THAT'S WHAT OBAMA WANTS. They have made their mandate clear with the Tea Party marches. Even if it sinks the US, they are willing to stonewall and resist and filibuster for the next 4-8 years just to make sure this plan goes down in flames so they can call him a failure.

And this is where I lose track of the reasoning. How can America be #1 when it doesn't try to work together to take care of its own? When the only thing that matters is the bottom line and "Fuck you Jack, I got mine?" Where are these Christian values I keep hearing about from conservatives? Obama seems to be trying to do a good turn by the disenfranchised and the Tea Party crowd- the vast majority of whom probably go to church and consider themselves upright God-fearing Americans- is doing everything it can to throw monkey wrenches into the works.

That's not dissension or patriotism, that's sheer bloody-mindedness.

[Decyferon]

Well no kidding the majority of Americans are not closet socialists, most were just deceived into thinking that this guy was really going to change things(also partly due to decades of media driven adherence to what everyone else is doing and other "dumbing" mechanisms) . Added to that was the incredibly weak lineup of opposing candidates.

And in no way can you compare a socialist west euro country to America as far as freedom to start businesses and working hard at it to accumulate wealth, and let alone own quantities of whatever as a product of that work. A frenchy could never work harder than his neighbor and expect his social status/material wealth to increase. No, no thats not fair! Plus, he prolly wouldnt want to in the first place. The government takes care of him, and makes sure he lives comfortably, so why would he want any more?

The real issue here is not whether or America can be compared to socialism or not, and if it can then 'we might as well just accept it cause its not much differant than now.' Thats insane. In America we can do whatever we want. We can start from nothing and work hard to be and have whatever the eff we please. Elitists like obama hate that. Why would they want to make that possible? That a bum can become a billionaire? No way, they want the bum to accept that hes a bum and just 'let us take care of you. We know best.'
Its about controlling the population by a small group of highly intellegent individuals that know whats "best" for everyone else. Which is the most un-American thing to ever even be considered allowed by Americans....but it works to control the populations of the apparently 'un-different' west euro nations so by golly, lets become like them!!

Americans dont become like anyone else, fools. We are Americans. We set the standards, not west europe.

I think you have a very warped view of what it is like to live in Europe. I swear Americans have been raised with this view that we are told by the government what jobs we can work and what we can own or what we can listen to or watch, this is completely ridiculous.

Your example of the Frenchman is completely wrong, just because we may have free healthcare and other 'socialist' things you think people can't or don't work hard to improve their situations or make a name for themselves?? A bum can become a billionaire here just as he can in America, there is no difference. Our societies in Europe are just as free and full of opportunity as your's in America, it is just that you have had this warped view of socialism pushed down your throat throughout the cold war and seem to no longer understand the difference between a totalitarian facist regime and a socialist scheme that is for the good of each member of society (such as free healthcare).

[Decyferon]

The vast majority of conservatives are NOT going to pay for poor people's health care not because it's smacks of socialism, but because THAT'S WHAT OBAMA WANTS. They have made their mandate clear with the Tea Party marches. Even if it sinks the US, they are willing to stonewall and resist and filibuster for the next 4-8 years just to make sure this plan goes down in flames so they can call him a failure.

And this is where I lose track of the reasoning. How can America be #1 when it doesn't try to work together to take care of its own? When the only thing that matters is the bottom line and "Fuck you Jack, I got mine?" Where are these Christian values I keep hearing about from conservatives? Obama seems to be trying to do a good turn by the disenfranchised and the Tea Party crowd- the vast majority of whom probably go to church and consider themselves upright God-fearing Americans- is doing everything it can to throw monkey wrenches into the works.

That's not dissension or patriotism, that's sheer bloody-mindedness.

It is funny that Americans can be so proud of their country when you have people like these tea marchers who are happy to screw over their fellow country men to make a point. It is only people in America that think America is the number one place to live, don't get me wrong therer are aspects of America that I like, and I'm certainly not some anti-American mindset person, but you have one of the most selfish natures of any country, your OK so fuck all the millions of poor peopls that can't afford to go get their health problems sorted out. You managed to go to college and university and get youself a good job, well fuck the poor person whos school got no funding and they couldnt then go to college because their school had a shit reputation and now they have to work 3 jobs just to make ends meet, even though they did well at school and have worked hard their entire life.

For me people always go on about the American dream, but the American dream only really seems applicable to the well off upper middle classes who can afford to live the American dream and then the rare occason the person that manages to get themself out of the poverty that so many Americans live under. When America was a younger country and the industrial revolution was booming then yes it was a place of opportunity where you could make your name and your millions, it isn't like that anymore.

[angelofdeath]

this thread reeks of collectivism.

the govt. has been waging a 'war' against poverty since atleast the 1960's and they havent made any headway in alleviating this problem. the american 'poor' are the richest in the entire world. they drive cars, have cell phones and have internet connections. capitalism has increased the living standard of americans above most of the entire world. even the kings, not to long ago still had to piss in a pot and throw it out the window. look at what capitalism has done. the innovation. the benefits are all around you. everything you have and love you owe to capitalism.

a few things i'd like to point out... health insurance is out of the reach of some americans because of a myriad of government interventions, taxes, and regulations. not to mention malpractice lawsuits, which could be largely eliminated in some cases by the freedom to contract who in the hell you want to, with whom you want to. most of the 'poor' are poor because they want to be. look at the welfare system. if you have little to no productivity, it is much easier to find ways to feed off the welfare system, than to work for a living. where else can a 16 year old single mother have her apartment paid for? the incentives are all backwards. the incentive is not to get married, because you can increase your living standard by doing little to no work at all.

instead of going on and on about how unfair life is, (omg, you mean in america you have to buy your own food!! OMG@!!!#R$)why dont the poor people do something about it?

everyone seems to have this absurd notion that there is such a thing as 'positive' rights. what made slavery bad? was it the work? no, it was the fact that you couldnt quit. positive rights mean that in order for you to have a 'right' to healthcare, food, housing, someone must pay for it. in another words, you must take something from your neighbor. whereas the negative rights outlined in the bill of rights, means you can do what you want, as long as you dont infringe on anyone elses right. my right to not be killed means that you simply dont kill me. your right to healthcare means someone else has to pay for it.

this is all well and good if you do it voluntarily. the same as a black man working. but when force them to work, it is SLAVERY.

there isnt anyone 'screwing' over their fellow americans marching in a tea party. despite hypocrisies, they are defending their natural rights that this country was founded on.

also touched in this thread is why isnt there already a private insurance company paying for the unemployed health benefits. why dont you ask the smart lefties who are for universal healthcare?
look, lets assume that everyone is exactly how you say they are... capitalist greedy pigs that want everyone to die. why arent all the lefties clamoring about free healthcare, putting all their money where their mouth's are? why havent they created a foundation, all the billionaire lefties like warren buffett, george soro's, etc, and providing this service? well, because they are hypocrites.

another thing that needs to be touched on is the phenomenon albert jay nock, the anarchist described in the early 20th century. people are less likely to donate to charity because the govt has already seized money from them in the name of giving to charity. so most people dont donate to charity because they have wealth seized/stolen from them already for welfare handouts.

instead of allowing a corporatist or soviet healthcare system to take place, i'd much rather fix the problem of high healthcare costs with a free market alternative, making prices cheaper through competition and innovation. problem solved. there is no food crisis. there will be no healthcare crisis. the market provides. i'd also eliminate all welfare except in the most dire of circumstances. you'd also have to stop subsidizing the unemployed. who in the right mind would want to work, when you can collect a check from the government for not working for 2 years? no wonder unemployment is staying high. also an elimination of the minimum wage would stop outlawing low productivity jobs.

all this stuff are unintended consequences and a recipe for a total state. wishing for a state that only does 'good' things is an impossibility. the bad come with it. in trying to fix all these humanitarian problems you end up creating 10 more problems for each thing you attempt to fix. then you need more govt to fix the new problems you created.

separation of govt and society is the only answer. complete and total separation.

there is no american dream. there is no right to have the american dream. the american dream is simply the pursuit what you want without infringements. there is no guarantees in life. if i were poor, i'd much rather live in america, than north korea or the former soviet union. we all know how great these wonderful egalitarian systems work. as mises said... inside every socialist there is an undercover dictator.

[christo-f]

Well no kidding the majority of Americans are not closet socialists, most were just deceived into thinking that this guy was really going to change things(also partly due to decades of media driven adherence to what everyone else is doing and other "dumbing" mechanisms) . Added to that was the incredibly weak lineup of opposing candidates.

And in no way can you compare a socialist west euro country to America as far as freedom to start businesses and working hard at it to accumulate wealth, and let alone own quantities of whatever as a product of that work. A frenchy could never work harder than his neighbor and expect his social status/material wealth to increase. No, no thats not fair! Plus, he prolly wouldnt want to in the first place. The government takes care of him, and makes sure he lives comfortably, so why would he want any more?

The real issue here is not whether or America can be compared to socialism or not, and if it can then 'we might as well just accept it cause its not much differant than now.' Thats insane. In America we can do whatever we want. We can start from nothing and work hard to be and have whatever the eff we please. Elitists like obama hate that. Why would they want to make that possible? That a bum can become a billionaire? No way, they want the bum to accept that hes a bum and just 'let us take care of you. We know best.'
Its about controlling the population by a small group of highly intellegent individuals that know whats "best" for everyone else. Which is the most un-American thing to ever even be considered allowed by Americans....but it works to control the populations of the apparently 'un-different' west euro nations so by golly, lets become like them!!

Americans dont become like anyone else, fools. We are Americans. We set the standards, not west europe.

Holy jesus dude, your idea of how Europe works is so far from the truth you sound a little deluded.

Sweden is pretty much the most socialist country in Europe and my close friends who were born and live there have become quite wealthy in either the media or owning a number of clothes shops throughout the country. My friends in France that own restaurants and wine shops and others that I know who sell construction material have also become very wealthy by hard work and investment. Just like you can and do in the US, no different.

Honestly dude, you need to understand more about Europe before you form such strong opinions because the ones you have right now are not the way it is. Jesus, I live in China and it's not even like that here! You may be thinking of North Korea or China in the 1950s....

Pure socialism is fucked,
Pure free market is fucked.

A mix of the two seem to work fine for many countries around the world.

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

The vast majority of conservatives are NOT going to pay for poor people's health care not because it's smacks of socialism, but because THAT'S WHAT OBAMA WANTS. They have made their mandate clear with the Tea Party marches. Even if it sinks the US, they are willing to stonewall and resist and filibuster for the next 4-8 years just to make sure this plan goes down in flames so they can call him a failure.

And this is where I lose track of the reasoning. How can America be #1 when it doesn't try to work together to take care of its own? When the only thing that matters is the bottom line and "Fuck you Jack, I got mine?" Where are these Christian values I keep hearing about from conservatives? Obama seems to be trying to do a good turn by the disenfranchised and the Tea Party crowd- the vast majority of whom probably go to church and consider themselves upright God-fearing Americans- is doing everything it can to throw monkey wrenches into the works.

That's not dissension or patriotism, that's sheer bloody-mindedness.

I think you go a little overboard saying the 'vast majority' of conservatives--there are only a small number of nutcases that say such things at the relatively small tea parties. But you are right that most want to see obama fail, b/c what he wants for the country is completely different than what we were founded on. I hate to see conservatives pull that garbage of "get a job!" to bums and such asking for help. I think thats horrible. I would advocate to quit spending 2BILLION a week in iraq and spend that on eliminating homelessness--but dont just hand it out. That only fuels the absolutely intolerable mindset most Americans of my generation have that everything in life is handed to you.

Thus, I too believe that the mindset of "F U, I got mine" is whack, but we must consider that our most basic instinct is self preservation, and most people (including Euros) are mostly looking after #1, and/or their loved ones.

And sure, you could say most conservatives are God fearing Americans but some minor factions actions at miniscule tea parties promote hypocracy, so what? Does that mean liberals are not God fearing Americans also? No. But when you have a president in the white house thats the only one in history that refuses to pray to the God America was founded around(let alone the theory/possibility of his muslim leanings), then yes, you are going to have alot of God fearing Americans(cons or libs) that are going to try to throw a wrench in the "works" he has for the country, b/c to be quite honest, WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THIS FOOLS AGENDA IS.

Change. Thats about it. And a cabinet full of advisers that are SELF PROCLAIMED RADICAL COMMUNISTS. Oh yes, and the most radical administration we have ever seen even for most democrats..

I would say attempts to stop any kind of change away from what America has been and is could be considered patriotism. The most easy way to destroy something so mighty is from the inside out

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

And id be down to live in Europe again, i love it there! Id just say its a bit differant than the oppurtunities we have in America, just seems kinda limited in Europe.

[shai]

Of course he's going to fail. Half of Congress refuses to work with the guy. It has nothing to do with patriotism- the people that are blocking him are the same guys that take money from corporations that outsourcing jobs and jack up insurance rates.

I don't really care that much for Obama, but this is one thing I definitely agree with him on. We're falling way behind the rest of the world here in health care and life expectancy (we're 38th in that department) and half of the country seems to think that's A-OK. I don't get it.

And all they can do is call Obama a communist...well, I guess they're entitled to their opinion but I think socialism means something way different that what they think it means.

We've been headed towards corporate fascism for a long time, and it has everything to do with the neocon's agenda. They want financial control of America, and by extension of that a lot of the rest of the world. Once they have that, then they can do whatever they want.

THAT'S the plan, not communism, or socialism, or collectivism. Instead of a one world government we're going to have a board of directors, and that's going to be far worse than any plan Obama has. All they really have to do to achieve that is block Obama for the next few years, make him look like a failure, then put their guy in charge in 2012. Game, set, and match.

[angelofdeath]

fascism is bad enough. this has been going on full force since the new deal, with a good dose of socialism thrown in for good measure. fascism is bad enough. but just because fascism is bad doesnt mean we need to socialize everything instead. how about freedom?

FA hayek pointed out years back that in the US 'socialism' doesnt necessarily mean government ownership of the means of production. it means egalitarianism at all costs.

i agree with moon, i'd much rather see the overseas empire ended and troops brought home and that money used on the domestic front temporarily to pay down debt. but ultimately to eliminate all these unintended consequences, the welfare state was we know it, has to go.

instead of trying to create a totalitarian welfare/insurance/govt run medical industrial complex that is 10 times worse than the system we have now, why not decentralize and repeal? why force the entire country into a healthcare boondoggle? what i would like to see is a congress and a president that follow the constitution. that stand up and say... the govt in the US was created to provide national defense, establish free trade amongst the states and negotiate treaties. it was not created to run an overseas empire, run a domestic welfare empire with millions of citizens dependent on the central state that keep the charade going by people able to vote away the wealth of other citizens and give it to themselves. it was not created to cradle and coddle every citizen their entire life and to provide for their every need. the government is the very reason why health insurance is expensive. as of right now, we will be decentralizing and repealing all unconstitutional laws and dept's and the 10th amendment will once again reign supreme.

that is what needs to happen. there will no doubt be experiments in states to try universal healthcare. let them try it. let idaho have free market healthcare. who's business is it of anyones anyway? we'll see what works. when all teh socialized governments declare bankruptcy and the riots start, we'll see which system works better.

half of congress refusing to deal with a commie is a damn good thing. i wish half +1 of congress wouldnt of given bush a blank check to invade foreign countries whenever he wanted. we need more deadlock. we dont need compromise. we need to shut down the very entity that has caused all this social chaos. the federal government.
you cannot look to the people who have created a multitude of problems for the entire country for a fix. it is impossible. it will only lead us further down the road to serfdom. when the govt controls our healthcare, what next will they control?

as always, everyone wants security and handouts instead of freedom. just leave me alone.
why cant all these schemes be voluntary? because they cant be. its government. they have a monopoly on force. to tell you what to do. whenever they want for whatever reason. if they were voluntary transaction, it would just be the 'market.'

the entire debate on all these stupid ass totalitarian issues could be eliminated by inserting that one thing... 'these programs and institutions and taxes are all voluntary. no force will be applied to you if you do not participate. have a nice day.'

the issue isnt socialized healthcare, its FORCE. partial slavery. chained to the state

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Of course he's going to fail. Half of Congress refuses to work with the guy. It has nothing to do with patriotism- the people that are blocking him are the same guys that take money from corporations that outsourcing jobs and jack up insurance rates.

I don't really care that much for Obama, but this is one thing I definitely agree with him on. We're falling way behind the rest of the world here in health care and life expectancy (we're 38th in that department) and half of the country seems to think that's A-OK. I don't get it.

And all they can do is call Obama a communist...well, I guess they're entitled to their opinion but I think socialism means something way different that what they think it means.

We've been headed towards corporate fascism for a long time, and it has everything to do with the neocon's agenda. They want financial control of America, and by extension of that a lot of the rest of the world. Once they have that, then they can do whatever they want.

THAT'S the plan, not communism, or socialism, or collectivism. Instead of a one world government we're going to have a board of directors, and that's going to be far worse than any plan Obama has. All they really have to do to achieve that is block Obama for the next few years, make him look like a failure, then put their guy in charge in 2012. Game, set, and match.

That last paragraph is pretty interesting.

Considering that most of the "elite", have been pointing to Obama to lead that era in.

___________

Which he is. This Health Care bill is going to pass. It doesn't matter. They want it. They're going to get it.

To also push off on other peoples opinion just because you think it's a good idea for "FREE" Health Care doesn't mean it is.

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." ~ Mark Twain.

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

a very nice discussion, lads. Financial control is the aim...but do you think they already have that? Forcing healthcare on people who dont want it is NOT good for business, but i think as long as they get it through quick and its established than they dont really care about the reprecussions of it on them. What is it, like 93% of senior citizens dont want the new health care plan? But theyre going to force it anyway?

not cool bro.

[shai]

That last paragraph is pretty interesting.

Considering that most of the "elite", have been pointing to Obama to lead that era in.

___________

Which he is. This Health Care bill is going to pass. It doesn't matter. They want it. They're going to get it.

To also push off on other peoples opinion just because you think it's a good idea for "FREE" Health Care doesn't mean it is.

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." ~ Mark Twain.

I don't think Obama is that guy. He's looking like he might be the fall guy along with Bush. It's hard to say. If I had to pick someone from the Dems to be that guy, it would probably be Al Gore.

I don't think it's going to be a perfect plan, and I wish people that don't want it or need it could opt out if only so they'll shut the fuck up (but mostly because it's only fair for them to have that right). However, I don't have insurance, so I guess I should confess to having selfish motives on this one.

It's not the opinions that offend me (even though I have a hard time understanding them), but the fact that some of these people are just straight up, flat out racist with it. To them it doesn't seem to be about policy at all, they just don't want some uppity nigra telling them how they're going to pay for health care for "welfare queens" (read: black people). Maybe not you, maybe not AOD, maybe not casek...but they're not hard to spot.

[laughslast]

in retrospect i should have done more research to use better terminology. so people know exactly what i mean. instead of going through every aspect of gov. and dissecting how i feel about it if it were socialistic, im just going to compare it to france. If the U.S. was ran the same as france. How would that be to people?

if america was run the same as france......................


we would have more political parties