ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

The President Obama appreciation thread

Invader_Wishfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27518

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 6:10 am

"Please be more specific, then."


I said "20th century American history disagrees." That is quite specific.


"Socialism is not just an American idea nor is it the first country to be tried in."


I never claimed otherwise.


"It has been tried, in many countries, cities and people’s all with destructive, devaluing or crippling results."

False. I've already provided an example to the contrary.

"Europe is filled with examples, and if America continues, we will be the next example."


Europe is also filled with examples of rampant corporatism, which is not only the very thing the Founding Fathers fought against, it is the very thing the is most destructive to our current economy. It is only anti-socialists (or, perhaps, pro-corporatists) that suggest otherwise.


"The entirety of the argument, “We cannot know because it has never been tried” is a straw man argument. It assumes that we must try and experiment to discover that the values are false or unworkable."


False. It assumes only that it has not been tried, therefore we cannot know whether any related claims are true or false. It does not preclude the concept of "let's never try and therefore never know."


"But socialism has been tried, and it has been found wanting."


Creating the most powerful superpower in existence thus far is wanting?


"It cripples nations with debt and unfunded liabilities"


Sure, if you insert corporatism into the mix.


"-why would America be any different?"


A rather irrelevant question, since America has already proven to be different in spite of socialist programs.


"American is unique in its hard work ethos, its desire to rise up and be better, not because the government says we have to but because we choose to."


Tell me you're joking. In the past few decades, America has been known for its over-the-top social programs. More and more people follow the concept of "why work when others are working for me?" Which is a bastardizastion of what those social programs are supposed to be for... They were designed to help those who NEED help, not those who want it. And yet, we (the government) seem to be encouraging people to want it.


"But, that isn’t what socialism promotes. Socialism promotes dependency, it promotes selfishness and promotes laziness."


False.


"Not exactly, though I am sure, once more, we will debate terms. By public ownership, I mean public monies and policies being set up to control the private life of the individual."


But don't you see the contradiction here? In order for control of private life to be instituted, such control must be instituted publicly. IE, democratic votes. Democracy is the basis of socialism. And centralized control is the antithesis of democracy.


"To aid this discussion, I will give a more concise definition of socialism, one I found in a book on the subject:


'The central planning of non-public goods/services.'"


Non-public. And just like that, the definition defies itself.


 


"Central planning is the core of socialism."


Wrong. Unless you're talking about State Socialism, which, if my arguments haven't already suggested, is something a vehemently oppose.


"Regardless of the other descriptors, at the heart of this economic system is the desire to control outcomes of the market and the products that people purchase."


Through the will of the people... Which, no matter what, is central to any but the most authoritiratian type of economy.


"This concept is antithetical to freedom and free markets."


That's not a surprise. Free markets don't work. For any market to function and be equitable, there must be some for of restrictions, whether strict or lenient.


"The concepts of freedom and socialism don’t mix very well as eventually you either have one or the other."


 Not so. Socialism requires the freedom of choice.


"This is why I call Obama a socialist. He wishes to bring all aspects of private industry under federal control."


If that were true, I'd be his cook.


"The automobile industry was a start."


Again, just a rip-off of what Bush Jr. did with the banks.


"Obamacare does it with the health care industry."


Which was created by Republican Romney.


"It is nothing new in the education system."


No kidding. Thomas Jefferson was a big supporter.


"Americans have been experimenting with socialism for years but now it is piling up debt and seeking to expand itself."


 So how did we become a superpower BEFORE we got into debt?


"Obama has done more, gone farther and shows no respect for the Constitution, except when it suits him politically. I’ll not disagree with Bush Jr or Clinton, but cite examples of Regan and Bush Sr."


Bush Sr.: Desert Storm.


As for Reagan, I'm too young to remember. That's why I said "I'm sure." I could look into it if you like.


"Socialist. Should have let them fail."


A business contract is socialist?!


"But they don’t. They are bound by contracts to the auto unions which result in them being in a worse financial situation than before."


Those contracts are what give those idustries the right to buy back their stocks, thereby paying of the loans (bailouts).


On a seperate note, what the hell is up with the various font sizes?!


 photo spok_zps253ab564.gif

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 1:02 pm

I was going to place this in the government spending thread.... but it's now locked...


 


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57575927/taxpayer-money-finances-irs-star-trek-video/


 


This IRS & Star Trek

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 8:17 pm

@invader_wishfire:


Please do me a favor and define socialism. It is apparent that we are using two different terms and by your own definition, America is socialist nation. I would agree, but probably not for the same reasons.


It sounds like you are talking more about a true democracy, a feat that is very difficult to do since a true democracy requires the vote of the voting population, citizens, are every piece of legislation. That is a democracy.


Again, I have researched socialism, from multiple sources, and I am referring to state socialism, which is about centralized, state power, which Obama is for.


Great, Bush Jr. started bail outs with the banks-doesn't make it less wrong, anti-capitalistic or socialist. Again, they should have let the auto industry and the banks deal with it in the market, which isn't a free market so we don't have to worry about that aspect.


Um, Bush Sr went to war-that's not expansionist of federal power.


Obamacare was also conceived by Clinton and I'll not disagree with Romney's idea in Massachusetts. Its still a bad idea, one that will ultimately increase health care costs and destroy that market.


So again, here is my definitions of socialism, from Webster's Dictionary. If you disagree, please offer a different definition, with proof that it works:


Definition of SOCIALISM

1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
 
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

Invader_Wishfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27518

Report this Mar. 25 2013, 4:19 am

"Please do me a favor and define socialism. It is apparent that we are using two different terms and by your own definition, America is socialist nation. I would agree, but probably not for the same reasons."


That's a hard thing to ask. There are many different types of socialism, and, as a result, just as many definitions. I guess the best I can do is to ask you to base my definition of socialism on my arguments. Like I've said prior, ask me questions and I will do my best to answer.


"It sounds like you are talking more about a true democracy, a feat that is very difficult to do since a true democracy requires the vote of the voting population, citizens, are every piece of legislation. That is a democracy."


I agree, true democracy is a very difficult thing to institute. I don't believe that it is impossible, but I also don't believe that it is something that can be accomplished in the foreseeable future.


However, I do believe that we have the right to demand a vote on divisive issues. A prime example would be Obamacare; a lot of people supported it. A lot of people hated it. In such cases, the people should have the right to choose.


"Again, I have researched socialism, from multiple sources, and I am referring to state socialism, which is about centralized, state power, which Obama is for."


And as I have stated, that is a system to which I oppose.


"Great, Bush Jr. started bail outs with the banks-doesn't make it less wrong, anti-capitalistic or socialist. Again, they should have let the auto industry and the banks deal with it in the market, which isn't a free market so we don't have to worry about that aspect."


My point was that a free market system would allow for businesses to make contracts with governments, so long as both parties consented. If such contracts were not allowed, that would be a restriction, which means that a free market system was not in existence.


"Um, Bush Sr went to war-that's not expansionist of federal power."


You don't believe that convincing the Congress to declare war on a party that has posed no threat to the US is "not expansionist?" What would you call it?


"Obamacare was also conceived by Clinton and I'll not disagree with Romney's idea in Massachusetts."


If you don't disagree with Romney's idea, then you support a type of socialist idea.


"Its still a bad idea, one that will ultimately increase health care costs and destroy that market."


Yeah, I don't buy that. There's no reason for health care costs to increase unless health care providers decide to use it as an excue to increase costs. Which isn't neccessary.


"So again, here is my definitions of socialism, from Webster's Dictionary. If you disagree, please offer a different definition, with proof that it works"


First: You are cherry-picking definitions. As I've already said, there are multiple types of socialism, each with their own definitions.


Second: The definitions you choose are all for state socialism, which I've stated that I oppose.


Third: Why do you demand proof from me when you offer none of your own?


 


 photo spok_zps253ab564.gif

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Mar. 25 2013, 4:34 pm

Here's the thing, I have offered proof of my own, definitions of my own and research of my own. Every source that I have researched has boiled socialism down to central planning and state control.I have read articles, books and other sources, including Forbes calling Obama's policies "Marxist." Ok, not socialist, so you may have a point there


Please, if you don't like it or disagree with it, the provide examples to the contrary.


In addition, I am not for Romney's health care plan, Obama's plan or any other government health care plan as they are dysfunctional. And yes, Obamacare will increase cost.The video link shows that between taxes, new regulations and government bureaucracy, costs will go up.


Presidents go to war. It is up to Congress to allow it to continue. So, no, that isn't expansionist because it doesn't add power to the federal government.


Also, we do not have a completely free market, nor do I believe in completely laissez faire economy. Some regulations are necessary, but not always strict government controls. As with many things in life, a balance must be achieved. The government doesn't doesn't always provide balance, as there is no competition to ensure government practices become better or more suited to the needs of its populations.


I get that people don't like unfairness or unevenness or disparity, winners and losers. I understand that. I don't like the fact that people have no morals and do things that hurt other people. Unfortunately, I cannot legislate them to behave. I cannot force fairness, whatever that means, nor does removing capital or other private property eliminate inequality. In fact, the Founding Fathers warned that to take one person's property and give it to another fosters greed, laziness and envy, not freedom.


I worry that the desire to create a more "fair" country will create those things and take away freedoms.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Mar. 25 2013, 5:57 pm

Quote: fireproof78 @ Mar. 25 2013, 4:34 pm

>I get that people don't like unfairness or unevenness or disparity, winners and losers.
I don't understand the "everyone gets a trophy" and that nobody should win/lose ideology.

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this Mar. 27 2013, 11:11 am

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Mar. 22 2013, 3:44 am

Quote: Sehlat123 @ Mar. 19 2013, 11:34 am

>

>

>Wow, did you guys hear about Elizabeth Warren's 22 dollar minimum wage? How did that women even get elected?? Does she not understand basic economics?

>

It is both ridiculous and short-sighted.

The minimum wage should follow inflation, placing the minimum wage at (if I'm not mistaken) an average of about $10.50 per hour.

The minimum wage should directly reflect the cost of living. As such, it seems to me that, rather than raising the minimum wage, we should look into reducing the cost of living.


Elizabeth Warren was quoting a study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research:

"Between the end of World War II and 1968, the minimum wage tracked average productivity growth fairly closely. Since 1968, however, productivity growth has far outpaced the minimum wage. If the minimum wage had continued to move with average productivity after 1968, it would have reached $21.72 per hour in 2012 - a rate well above the average production worker wage."

In other words, the "job creators" and "wealth producers" are hoarding all the profits and every argument against raising the minimum wage is complete and utter bullsh!t.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Mar. 27 2013, 7:06 pm

Right, companies hoard their profits and do nothing with them...


Actually, the arguement belies any change in the market, in supply and demand, economy upturns and downturns and the like. It assumes a constant state of increase, which is not real economics.


In addition, I would not rely on the government to make it right.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Mar. 28 2013, 11:00 am

Quote: fireproof78 @ Mar. 27 2013, 7:06 pm

>

>Right, companies hoard their profits and do nothing with them...

>Actually, the arguement belies any change in the market, in supply and demand, economy upturns and downturns and the like. It assumes a constant state of increase, which is not real economics.

>In addition, I would not rely on the government to make it right.

>
The socialists just don't understand basic economics and the value of money or cycles.  Someone cannot become "rich" by just hoarding what they've got.  People earn wealth by using their money to create products/services to earn even more money.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Mar. 28 2013, 8:06 pm

Invader_Wishfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27518

Report this Mar. 29 2013, 3:10 am

"Here's the thing, I have offered proof of my own, definitions of my own and research of my own. Every source that I have researched has boiled socialism down to central planning and state control.I have read articles, books and other sources, including Forbes calling Obama's policies "Marxist." Ok, not socialist, so you may have a point there


Please, if you don't like it or disagree with it, the provide examples to the contrary."


That's one problem with socialism... There are so many different definitions (as well as definitions within definitions), that it's difficult to pinpoint what type is which. I had hoped that my arguments would have given you basis for my definition.


"In addition, I am not for Romney's health care plan, Obama's plan or any other government health care plan as they are dysfunctional."


I wouldn't say "dysfunctional," so much as "not properly thought through."


"And yes, Obamacare will increase cost.The video link shows that between taxes, new regulations and government bureaucracy, costs will go up."


Ah, okay. We looked at "increasing costs" as something different. When you said that, you were thinking through taxes/social programs, whereas I was looking at as the potential results of private medical companies.


"Presidents go to war. It is up to Congress to allow it to continue."


No, it's up to Congress to allow it to happen in the first place; Article I, Section 8, Clause 11


"So, no, that isn't expansionist because it doesn't add power to the federal government."


So, yes, it is expansionist since it was done without the legal consent of the Congress.


"Also, we do not have a completely free market, nor do I believe in completely laissez faire economy. Some regulations are necessary, but not always strict government controls. As with many things in life, a balance must be achieved. The government doesn't doesn't always provide balance, as there is no competition to ensure government practices become better or more suited to the needs of its populations."


I believe that we are in agreement here. While I do believe in restrictions, I believe in fair (as opposed to strict) restrictions.


"I get that people don't like unfairness or unevenness or disparity, winners and losers. I understand that. I don't like the fact that people have no morals and do things that hurt other people."


That's the problem with modern corporatism. The "no morals" and "hurting other people" parts, that is.


"Unfortunately, I cannot legislate them to behave."


I see a difference between "behaving" and "following the rules."


"I cannot force fairness, whatever that means,"


Fairness is easiest to define at the lowest level; someone who works full time at the minimum wage should be able to provide for him or herself. Nothing more.


The further up the ladder they go, the harder it is to determine "fair."


"nor does removing capital or other private property eliminate inequality."


That us why I support a fair tax system just as much as I support a fair wage system.


"In fact, the Founding Fathers warned that to take one person's property and give it to another fosters greed, laziness and envy, not freedom."


They also warned about the slavery instituted by corporatism. Yet, in both cases, look at where we are. That is why we need to seek, fight for, and institute balance.


It's not an easy process, but it's also not impossible.


"I worry that the desire to create a more "fair" country will create those things and take away freedoms."


Probably because the focus on both of the large sides is what constitutes "fair."


 photo spok_zps253ab564.gif

Invader_Wishfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27518

Report this Mar. 29 2013, 3:13 am

Quote: darmokattanagra @ Mar. 27 2013, 11:11 am

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Mar. 22 2013, 3:44 am

Quote: Sehlat123 @ Mar. 19 2013, 11:34 am

>

>

>

>Wow, did you guys hear about Elizabeth Warren's 22 dollar minimum wage? How did that women even get elected?? Does she not understand basic economics?

>

It is both ridiculous and short-sighted.

The minimum wage should follow inflation, placing the minimum wage at (if I'm not mistaken) an average of about $10.50 per hour.

The minimum wage should directly reflect the cost of living. As such, it seems to me that, rather than raising the minimum wage, we should look into reducing the cost of living.

Elizabeth Warren was quoting a study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research:

"Between the end of World War II and 1968, the minimum wage tracked average productivity growth fairly closely. Since 1968, however, productivity growth has far outpaced the minimum wage. If the minimum wage had continued to move with average productivity after 1968, it would have reached $21.72 per hour in 2012 - a rate well above the average production worker wage."

In other words, the "job creators" and "wealth producers" are hoarding all the profits and every argument against raising the minimum wage is complete and utter bullsh!t.


I know what Warren was quoting. The problem with that is that productivity is not directly linked to wages.


Productivity, in the past half (or even full) century is linked to the abilities of the computer and/or automated machines that the workers operate, not the workers themselves.


Minimum wage, therefore, is linked directly to one thing, and one thing only; the livable wage. In other words, every argument based on "productivity" is complete and utter bullshit.


 photo spok_zps253ab564.gif

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Apr. 01 2013, 9:59 am

Anyone want a good laugh?


 


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/03/29/presidential-proclamation-national-financial-capability-month-2013


 


 


They really should have posted it today....


 


 


fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Apr. 02 2013, 11:01 am

@Invader:


I appreciate your response and giving me more of an idea of where you are coming from.


One question I have regarding your post is how do you institute balance?


And I would ask anyone to offer an opinion. How do we balance it in a way that doesn't affect freedom or our Constitution (since this is a USA based question)?

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Apr. 05 2013, 10:57 am

Post Reply

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: Richard Evans

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum