BlackPhx
Posts: 3432
Joined: 11/8/2006
Status: offline
|
This is a FR..not a response to any one person but a response to a point of view.
~FR~ So·cial·ism 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
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Ok..there is the meaning of socialism according to Webster.
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
We can throw out definition 1 as frankly so far the government doesn't seem to want to produce anything besides hot air, national debt and rhetoric.
Moving on to definition 2 a:
So far no one, not Obama, not Bush, not one person in the Senate or the House that I know of is even suggesting that Private Property is done away with, all assets seized and administered by the government for the benefit of all..
So On to definition 2 b:
Again nothing is being owned by the state or in this case the Federal government..no nationalization of car companies, Oil companies, Food Production, etc. Ummm hold on.. the Government IS buying into the Banks and there is a proposal that the government should buy up mortgages that are in default, but that is already under consideration by the current administration, though McCain is pushing for the mortgage buyouts if he is elected.
On to definition 3 and this section of it:
unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
We have a winner here I think. Definitely a part of Obamas economic plans for the Federal Tax Code..or is it? All things being equal whether you are an owner of a company or an employee you are working. 8 hours a day or 60 hours a week, 2 jobs or only 1, your labor is your labor and you earn what you have agreed to earn. You accepted the job at the pay scale offered or you work (owner) until you are earning what you think you are worth. But the guy who isn't working should be earning what you who are busting your hump is, so we will take money from you and give it to him. So this new Tax Plan is socialistic and a Bad New Thing. Poppycock and BS.
The programs at State and Federal levels have used tax money from nearly the get go to pay for wars, federal projects and to aid the destitute, aged and infirm. The Social Security Act of 1935 was enacted to establishe a system that required the current working generation to contribute to the support of older, retired workers. The Act was passed in response to old-age dependency resulting from Depression-generated phenomena. This statute provided for a federal program of old-age retirement benefits and a joint federal-state venture of unemployment compensation. In addition, it dispensed federal funds to aid the development at the state level of such programs as vocational rehabilitation, public health services, and child welfare services, along with assistance to the elderly and the handicapped. The act instituted a system of mandatory old-age insurance, issuing benefits in proportion to the previous earnings of persons over sixty-five and establishing a reserve fund financed through the imposition of payroll taxes on employers and employees.
Socialism at it's best and in play long before anything Obama has proposed. Again, he says he will let the current Bush Tax credits lapse as they are scheduled to do. BUT, The House and Senate are the ones who have to vote on them to keep them in play or make them permanent, NOT the President, though he can line item veto or veto the bills, usually not the best way to start an administrative term. Democrats and Republicans, together make the decision with their vote. He is also saying he is placing other credits into play (IF of course they are approved by the House and Senate). They may be more relevant to the economic situations in current play. I don't know, you don't know, only his economic advisors have a clue as of yet.
As for those who were financed by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae..yes they were designed to hlelp those who were low income to get into affordable housing. They helped with first time homeowners at the state level, and many of those buyers are struggling to pay off their loans, but they are doing it despite rising property taxes and insurance.
They were not designed to finance flippers, people looking to buy distressed houses and turn them around for a profit, but BANKERS encouraged that behavior. Nearly every get rich quick speal out there tells you how to buy the house with no money down with financing through FM loans, clean em up and flip them at a higher rate..raking in the profits. Banks loved it, fast turnover, money out, money in on to the next mortage. They also encouraged people through some very liberal terms into buying more home than they could afford with lovely promises that they could refinance interest only loans in a year or two when their incomes were better or more established with better credit ratings. People bought into that, and those who did without reading the fine print, or figuring the worst case scenarios are a good majority of those who find themselves in foreclosure right now. They never counted on the property taxes rising along with the inflated home prices, or T-bill interest rates suddenly jumping 20 and 30 percent in a couple of months. For me, an ARM Mortgage means an Arm and a Leg..not just adjustable rate mortgage. Never count on the raise you MIGHT get next year to figure out what you can pay today. You may not have that job next year. You may fall ill. Many things can happen. Figure out what you can afford to pay RIGHT now, then under cut that by 30% and look for what will fit into that budget. Then if anything happens next year you should still be able to afford the roof over your head even if you have to forgo the cable and big screen tv.
Don't get me wrong. Master and I carry debt. A home, a car, some major purchases (we do 0 interest 0 payments for 1-3 years and bank the payments in growth accounts) and renovations, but worse case scenario, if he lost his job, we could clear our immediate debt save for the house and car and those bills we can afford along with food and utilities for a year if he doesn't find another. My income would pay the Mortgage and food and he isn't too proud to take day labor or even McDonalds if it pays the bills, while he looks. Might be a lot of pasta but we would make it.
Too many people these days are one paycheck away from disaster, but frankly that isn't the governments fault. THAT comes from the need for instant gratification, keeping up with the neighbors and latest tech and the encouragement of "Easy" credit that lures even the experienced in.
TINSTAFL. "There is no such thing as a free lunch."
Poenkitten
|
RE: Obama: "Most liberal voting record in Congress... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread