Barack Obama

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Speaking of rhetorical questions. The questions I asked in my previous reply to you were not rhetorical.

You are such a darling conservative, Tracy :-)

No, Barack Obama is not a socialist - so very far from - and since you are so keen on getting into details (aside from just sweeping generalizations, which I seem to master so well :-), then let us, indeed, get into a debate about what socialism truly is.

You confuse a socialistic approach with a social democratic point of view. These are very different in their nature in the sense that the socialist believes in a predominantly state-owned economy where as the social democrat believes in a capitalistic system BUT with certain social measures to stem up the inherent greed in people.

America today is already partly social democratic, even though not as much as Northern Europe where I come from. And Barack Obama is even far from considering the social democratic values and methods that have been in work in my country for more than two generations.

"Social democracy" is the key word, and what it actually is, is a society where we ensure equality to the degree it's possible and also accept that for a country/community/group to work to every body's benefit, we need to look after "every one".

That means, that the broadest shoulders bear the heaviest loads - as well as allowing those with the broadest shoulders to enjoy the fruit of their broad shoulders.

Believeing that non-controlled capitalism will just let wealth dribble down on every body is naiive. That has never happened and will never happen. It's a jungle-law that may seem a wonderful utopia for libertarians and other romantics with similar disregard for societies being entities where we ALL have to as happy as possible, but it will never be a fact of life.

People are greedy - that's why a degree of wealth-redistribution is necessary.

But in time people realize the moral right in thinking beyond themselves... that's why even the rich bitch about the high tax but still prefer a system where we don't accept poverty as a part of the game. As we do in my old country. And as you will, hopefully, one day come to realize in your good country as well.

But that's probably far ahead - and not even Barack Obama has such views.

So no, Barack Obama is far from socialist, but he is, indeed, a guy who seems to chime the bells for a little bit of solidarity.

And again, is that so bad?

H

[jimnaseum]

The BIG MONEY Republicans didn't put any money into this election from the start, they knew after Bush and Cheney there was no chance of winning. Todd and Sarah's pillow talk revolves around how they're going to cash in on this election after they lose.
The Swing states will decide the election, and McCain isn't doing too good there.
This election is over.
I hope that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi quietly destroy the Republican party in the next eight years. But that's just my opinion.

[Indestructable2K4]

Wow... All these long posts. I'm going to be as blunt as I can be... I'm simply NOT voting for someone who doesn't even SALUTE THE AMERICAN FLAG. What kind of President would he be?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

No, Barack Obama is not a socialist - so very far from

Again, I'm drawing a difference between the policies he will implement (social democratic if you will) and his socialist mindset, which I'm pretty sure he has given the company he keeps.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

He may not turn us into a socialist nation but he'll move us pretty far into that direction.

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

You confuse a socialistic approach with a social democratic point of view. These are very different in their nature in the sense that the socialist believes in a predominantly state-owned economy where as the social democrat believes in a capitalistic system BUT with certain social measures to stem up the inherent greed in people.

Look at my quote above. I'm not saying he will turn us into socialists. I said he will move us in that direction. The social democratic approach is a move in that direction.

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

That means, that the broadest shoulders bear the heaviest loads - as well as allowing those with the broadest shoulders to enjoy the fruit of their broad shoulders.

But that's already happening here. Probably not to the extent it is in Europe, but 40% here pay no tax. Then the next bracket is at like 2%. And it goes on up to 35% for the rich. This is exactly what you're saying. Most people here (myself included) would favor a flat tax system. Under this system, the load is linearly proportional to the broadness of your shoulders, not exponentially proportional.

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

People are greedy - that's why a degree of wealth-redistribution is necessary.

The rich here donate more to charity than anyone else in the world.

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

So no, Barack Obama is far from socialist, but he is, indeed, a guy who seems to chime the bells for a little bit of solidarity.

And again, is that so bad?

When equality is legislated that is bad. Competition is a good thing. If someone develops some product that enhances the quality of life then they should benefit from it. If they do not, then they have no motivation to develop the product. And this isn't cheap. If there's no potential of reaping the benefits, then putting resources into a dream eithout being repaid wouldn't make any sense. It's a good thing too for those socialst democrats out there who reap the benefits from the products and technologies we create.

It's what works for us. I'll try and get an answer from you again. How does our capitalist system cause you pain and misery in Indonesia?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

You are such a darling conservative, Tracy :-)

No, Barack Obama is not a socialist - so very far from

Bullshit.

Al Sharpton: "We would have to say America overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they voted for Barack Obama."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqojWrtnieI

By now I think the fact that Obama is a socialist is blindingly obvious, and the fact that you Obama lovers haven't realized it yet only shows how far you've got your head buried.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Bullshit.

Al Sharpton: "We would have to say America overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they voted for Barack Obama."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqojWrtnieI

By now I think the fact that Obama is a socialist is blindingly obvious, and the fact that you Obama lovers haven't realized it yet only shows how far you've got your head buried.

TRACY:

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Comp., and Welfare are Socialism. Health Care is Socialism.

All Socialism is evil? Canada, UK and France are NOT Communism, Marxism, Nazis, and dictatorial enemies.

As a Libertarian, you want all socialism eliminated. How 'bout people being turned away from emergency rooms based on ability to pay? Isn't that Evil Socialism to save someone's life who cannot pay on the spot for it?


TAL

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

TRACY:

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Comp., and Welfare are Socialism. Health Care is Socialism.

All Socialism is evil? Canada, UK and France are NOT Communism, Marxism, Nazis, and dictatorial enemies.

As a Libertarian, you want all socialism eliminated. How 'bout people being turned away from emergency rooms based on ability to pay? Isn't that Evil Socialism to save someone's life who cannot pay on the spot for it?


TAL

Social Security is supposed to be a backup retirement plan, not plan A. But so much of your money goes to relatively safe, low yield SS that for many people that's the only retirement they can afford, and it's inadequate. Give people the freedom to make their own retirement decisions. And if someone chooses to blow their savings on Bon-Bons why is it my responsibility to bail them out?

Medicare and Medicaid are fine, but it would be better handled by private industry with regulations.

Unemployment Compensation... why cant people save more? In our society we put so much on credit cards, we buy homes and cars with loans and put ourselves in so much debt, and when we lose a job we're screwed. If we saved more and limited ourselves to buying things we can actually afford there wouldn't be so much need for unemployment compensation would there?

Welfare gives millions of people an excuse to sit on their fat ass and not try to get a job.

And you may think national health care sounds good now. That's because all the gotchas come after BO's first term so they don't mess up his re-election bid. And let's face it, it's all about him now isn't it? That's what he told responsible democrats who were not going to vote for Obamacare until he strong armed them and told them how bad it's going to make him look if Obamacare doesn't get passed. After 2014 get ready to pay out the ass for health care. And before then, your health insurance premiums will go up because insurance companies know they are going to get screwed from Obamacare so they will spend the next 4 years raising their rates.

Unless Obamacare is struck down in court, which is very likely to happen. 37 states are objecting to Obamacare and several have filed lawsuits against it. Obamacare excludes the Amish and Christian science people for their religious reasons. But if you're catholic and object to it because it takes your tax money and pays for other people's abortions you don't get to opt out because of your religious reasons. This is a clear violation of separation of church and state where congress shall make no law favoring any religion over another. And many individuals will file law suits because the government simply has no right (assuming the constitution means anything) to force them to buy health care.

And even if it does somehow bypass all these constitutional potholes, the fact is it will not lower the deficit like BO claims. That's ridiculous. It will raise our debt even more, which we cannot afford, and it will lower the quality of health care for the 85% of Americans who are satisfied with their health care.

It's not as simple as democrats claim: Do you want free health care?? Sure, why the hell not?

If they were truthful about it the question would be: Do you want more expensive health care that's lower quality than what you currently have?
Hell no!

And that's what the vast majority of Americans are telling their lawmakers. But they failed to represent their constituents, and that's why there's the Tea Party movement - No taxation without representation!

[jimnaseum]

The Majority of people favor the Health Bill.

Hee hee hee Haw haw..Hee hee hee Haw haw....

[jimnaseum]

Karl Rove was on MSNBC this morning trying to explain how bi-partisan his Administration was and how pissing a trillion dollars into the Iraq sand was more Noble than funding a trillion dollars for the Health of 32 million Americans.
He took a cheap shot at Chuck Todd on his way out and compared Savannah Guthrie to the vacuuous Bimbos on Fox News.
Looks like the Grand Old Party has been reduced to the bitter snarls and insults of the TeaBag Party.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

Karl Rove was on MSNBC this morning trying to explain how bi-partisan his Administration was and how pissing a trillion dollars into the Iraq sand was more Noble than funding a trillion dollars for the Health of 32 million Americans.
He took a cheap shot at Chuck Todd on his way out and compared Savannah Guthrie to the vacuuous Bimbos on Fox News.
Looks like the Grand Old Party has been reduced to the bitter snarls and insults of the TeaBag Party.

And the dems continue to lie. Seriously... I have never seen such a large group of consistent liars. Tell me again how much Bush spent on the Iraq war?

[The Conquistador]

Fat comicbook store guy says:

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

The Majority of people favor the Health Bill.

Hee hee hee Haw haw..Hee hee hee Haw haw....

Now come back to the real world.

In U.S., 45% Favor, 48% Oppose Obama Healthcare Plan
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126521/Fa...care-Plan.aspx

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Social Security is supposed to be a backup retirement plan.

Medicare and Medicaid are fine, but it would be better handled by private industry with regulations.

But they failed to represent their constituents, and that's why there's the Tea Party movement - No taxation without representation!

TRACY:

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in ANY FORM are SOCIALISM, Tracy.

The RR law to NOT turn away people from the ER is socialism, Tracy. Pure capitalism is to make money, not save lives. Ins. Cos. are there to make a profit off of your life, death and sickness. Give a sick person insurance, not in America under pure capitalism.

Teddy Roosevelt & Dick Nixon wanted health care, aka socialism, Tracy.


So, save the socialism-is-Stalin BS for conservative drones.

I say there is good and bad socialism, and we will always differ.

Libertarians believe that you find anything, and everything you can to not give anyone government aid until the pool of people is too small to help even ONE person.

Yeah, the tea party is little old ladies who wouldn't harm a wing on a fly.

Imagine how they are being slimed as slurring congressman: 3 black with the n-word (1 spit on), 1 gay, 1 Mexican. In the face of a man with Alzheimer's, is that even possible? Bricks thru windows of congressional offices of Dems who voted for health care. Assassination threats to congressmen and their families. Point is that they don't want to use fire arms on these dumbocrats for health care. All they are asking in the nicest way possible is for them to change their vote from for to against. That's all they want is to kill the bill, and not the people who passed it.


TAL

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

TRACY:

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in ANY FORM are SOCIALISM, Tracy.

Not ANY form. Only in forms that are run by the government. Look up the definition of socialism.

Originally Posted by Talvenada

The RR law to NOT turn away people from the ER is socialism, Tracy.

It is in part. It is also hospitals raising rates for patients with insurance to pay for those who don't have insurance.

Originally Posted by Talvenada

Pure capitalism is to make money, not save lives. Ins. Cos. are there to make a profit off of your life, death and sickness. Give a sick person insurance, not in America under pure capitalism.

Insurance companies (yes I'll take the time to type it out just for you) are there to fill a need. People need medical coverage, they are there to provide a way to do that. Yes... big shock, it costs money to do that. Muh ha ha ha... yes MONEY!!!! Ha ha ha!!!!

Originally Posted by Talvenada

Libertarians believe that you find anything, and everything you can to not give anyone government aid until the pool of people is too small to help even ONE person.

Libertarians believe that you actually have to have a balanced budget. We don't have a balanced budget, therefore WE CANNOT AFFORD NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE! Is that so hard to understand? That you have to pay for these services? If it's not evil corporations paying for it, then it's the government paying for it. Either way the money comes from us, or as the democrats, progressives and socialists would like - from China. Libertarians have the audacity to say we have to pay for our own lifestyle. If we didn't have a debt and had positive money flow, then yeah, national health care would be affordable. But right now our country is broke and we have to get spending under control.

Originally Posted by Talvenada

Yeah, the tea party is little old ladies

Is that what they're showing on CNN these days?

Originally Posted by Talvenada

Imagine how they are being slimed as slurring congressman: 3 black with the n-word (1 spit on), 1 gay, 1 Mexican. In the face of a man with Alzheimer's, is that even possible?

What are you even talking about?

Originally Posted by Talvenada

Bricks thru windows of congressional offices of Dems who voted for health care.

What was that quote? Something about if the government does not serve its people, the people have a right to revolt? These people do not feel that their representatives are representing them. Whining about a few bricks.... They should be glad they are not being forcefully overthrown.

[GRH]

I'm sorry, I just can't take the babbling of Retard-icans seriously.

[Talvenada]

[QUOTE=TracyCoxx;139349]Libertarians believe that you actually have to have a balanced budget. We don't have a balanced budget, therefore WE CANNOT AFFORD NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE! Is that so hard to understand? That you have to pay for these services? If it's not evil corporations paying for it, then it's the government paying for it. Either way the money comes from us, or as the democrats, progressives and socialists would like - from China. Libertarians have the audacity to say we have to pay for our own lifestyle. If we didn't have a debt and had positive money flow, then yeah, national health care would be affordable. But right now our country is broke and we have to get spending under control.QUOTE]

TRACY:

So, you were against The Iraq War, right?

We could not pay for it!!

TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

What was that quote? Something about if the government does not serve its people, the people have a right to revolt? These people do not feel that their representatives are representing them. Whining about a few bricks.... They should be glad they are not being forcefully overthrown.

Egads! Someone here actually reads the Constitution!