RE: Obama is no socialist...we know.

RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

sugarpixi -> RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. (3/15/2009 10:44:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: sugarpixi Even though it doesn't look like it at some angles, I feel that a lot of what he is trying to do is push Socialism. Obviously not his intention, but it sure looks that way. Again, do you truly understand the meaning of socialism ? I think not. It is govt. ownership (actual ownership, top down) of the means of production. Obama espouses nothing of the kind. I understand it quite well, actually. The problem is that Obama is also not really Liberal or a Left Lefty or Facist or Communist. But I'm pretty young, though and still learning the big, wide, scary world of politics, so if you could find it in your heart to explain to me why Obama isn't leaning Socialist, I'm all ears (or eyes?) and would appreciate it.

kittinSol -> RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. (3/15/2009 10:49:09 AM)
Mr Rodgers already explained that to you: I quote. "[Socialism] is govt. ownership (actual ownership, top down) of the means of production. Obama espouses nothing of the kind." It is also within your power to research the meaning of the word and to see how far apart from socialism Obama really is... and ultimately, make up your mind.

shannie -> RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. (3/15/2009 10:53:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers If you really do understand this post Obama's healthcare will bring a whole lot more profits than...healthcare. We will ALL have insurance in name but little or no actual coverage. Bingo. They're not even talking about healthCARE. They're talking about health INSURANCE. We're all gonna be forced to buy corporate health insurance under the false premise that it would lower the cost. (Like the Bankruptcy Act lowered credit card interest rates?) Anyone who calls these people socialists is giving them false credit. It's all the worse of socialism (policing of the citizens, lack of competition, grinding bureaucracy) with NONE of the benefits....

sugarpixi -> RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. (3/15/2009 10:54:24 AM)
It's fine that you assume that I've done no research on the matter, and I'm fully aware that I am capable of making up my own mind. I was asking for a "WHY" because obviously everyone sees politics differently. Clearly I already have my own opinion on it, which is obviously quite different from what Mr Rodgers said. God forbid I ask for someone's opinion.

MrRodgers -> RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. (3/15/2009 10:56:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shannie Yeah, I remember Hillary Clinton's plan for so-called "socialized medicine." It primarily involved forcing the citizenry to buy corporate health insurance. These people are not "liberals," any more than the Bush administration was "conservative." They're all globalists and corporate hacks. You've got it young lady. Finally, somebody who understands. You understand that in Europe and Canada, healthcare is about health, in the US, it is about profits.

kittinSol -> RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. (3/15/2009 11:05:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sugarpixi It's fine that you assume that I've done no research on the matter, and I'm fully aware that I am capable of making up my own mind. I was asking for a "WHY" because obviously everyone sees politics differently. Clearly I already have my own opinion on it, which is obviously quite different from what Mr Rodgers said. God forbid I ask for someone's opinion. If you have researched the subject, I fail to see why you should invoke your youth and inexperience as a justification for asking the question ("But I'm pretty young, though and still learning the big, wide, scary world of politics, so if you could find it in your heart to explain to me why Obama isn't leaning Socialist."). Nor do I understand why you don't come up with your opinion, since you assure us you have formed one. God forbid you should take this post the wrong way again.

MrRodgers -> RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. (3/15/2009 11:06:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sugarpixi It's fine that you assume that I've done no research on the matter, and I'm fully aware that I am capable of making up my own mind. I was asking for a "WHY" because obviously everyone sees politics differently. Clearly I already have my own opinion on it, which is obviously quite different from what Mr Rodgers said. God forbid I ask for someone's opinion. Young lady words have meaning and the US govt. and Obama are NOT socialist at all in anyway as govt. does NOT own any means of production. Commentators here and in the public want to scare you into thinking socialism is something automatically bad and need to espouse this bullshit to keep the taxpayers bailing them out. It has been called for 30-40 years socialism for the rich (taxpayers take the risk)...capitalism for the poor....we can fail while taking on 2 or 3 jobs just to pay that mortgage and THEIR bailouts. Let me add this much sugar. True socialism has never really been tried except for those who claim communism is a form of socialism. It is a form of it but govt. not only owns the means of production but 'owns' you too. There is no private property. It is called collectivisation. The govt. essentially directs all life, i.e., planned centrally by govt. (politburo) with production quotas, rationing etc. It never worked and couldn't work...not nearly enough production or wealth to satisfy demand. Whereas in history most advocates of a republican form of socialism where there are still candidates we vote for and great public influence, property can still be owned privately and there are private financial transactions. In socialism, govt. would say own all or almost all of any stock or there is no stock but presumably the benefits of govt. ownership would flow to the public at large while now those benefits or profits...flow to investors only. Obviously Mr. Wharton believes that govt. venality would never be any worse than capitalist venality and he may be correct as reflected in all of these bailouts or the socializing of their risk, We have now the worst of all forms and the most corrupt and costly mix of risk, investment rerturns and taxpayer costs. They tell us that if AIG failed it would have brought down banking if capitalism already hasn't. Maybe bankrupt most of Europe. I say let it, then we could find a real economic system that serves everybody but not so much that we just have to create another 1000 or more billionaires.

FullCircle -> RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. (3/15/2009 11:11:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers You've got it young lady. Finally, somebody who understands. You understand that in Europe and Canada, healthcare is about health, in the US, it is about profits. The other problem when you think about it is who are the costs of healthcare past onto? They are largely passed onto the corporations that run employee healthcare schemes which means these corporations aren’t best placed to compete with overseas corporations that don't have to foot such bills. Keep this quiet because we like the advantage.[:-]

shannie -> RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. (3/15/2009 11:16:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers You've got it young lady. Finally, somebody who understands. You understand that in Europe and Canada, healthcare is about health, in the US, it is about profits. The other problem when you think about it is who are the costs of healthcare past onto? They are largely passed onto the corporations that run employee healthcare schemes which means these corporations aren’t best placed to compete with overseas corporations that don't have to foot such bills. Keep this quiet because we like the advantage.[:-] A lot of the corporations that still pretend to provide health insurance ONLY provide the group rate to their employees. They don't pay the cost of it. That is deducted from the employees' pay. I've even seen cases where they deducted the cost of the premium, plus a profit. It's not the cost of health insurance that's undermining the competitiveness of these corporations, believe me.

FullCircle -> RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. (3/15/2009 11:20:44 AM)
Is it the Unions? Corporate taxes? Red tape?

shannie -> RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. (3/15/2009 11:26:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle Is it the Unions? Corporate taxes? Red tape? They're not competitive because they don't have to be competitive. They survive and their executives bathe in champagne -- without being competitive.

Lorr47 -> RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. (3/15/2009 11:28:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Mr. Wharton is quite correct. I have tried to tell people, Obama is NO socialist and will play ball and he is already in the batter's box. He may even hit for the cycle. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031301899.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR If we have ANY socialists in this country they are from the investor class, i.e., govt. ownership of their risk with our *money*. Isn't capitalism great ? People seem to be placing Obama under a microscope and trying to see if he has socialist tendencies. So what if he does? Many programs in this country are more socialist in nature than anything else. If the voters want a government that is more socialistic, is that illegal? Only in conservative dreams or nightmares. To correct the injustices in this society perhaps a great number of socialistic programs are needed and particularly in the health care area. Great points were made about those who are anti choice but deny the mother health care during the pregnancy and upon birth deny the baby the right to health care. The more suffering is perceived by these incongruent positions, the more chance socialism will arise. The persons making socialism look good are the conservatives most against it.

Kirata -> RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. (3/15/2009 11:32:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers socialism... is govt. ownership (actual ownership, top down) of the means of production. Obama espouses nothing of the kind. You are right, that is true. Most Americans tend to associate "socialism" with government control, which, as you note, is technically incorrect. But the defining characteristic of ownership is authority and control over the disposition of a thing, and Americans know a duck when they see one. As a practical matter, the distinction is specious. K.

shannie -> RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. (3/15/2009 11:37:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lorr47 To correct the injustices in this society perhaps a great number of socialistic programs are needed and particularly in the health care area. Even if anyone in power was honestly talking about such a thing (which they aren't) ... I just can't believe that the US government could ever implement a true "socialized healthcare" program without attaching an endless swarm of demented social workers, programs, databases, and "medical police" to it. Hey, maybe they could contract it out to Blackwater (or whatever that entity changed its name to). More people would probably end up in prison (or having their kids taken away) than receive health care. Why would you trust the US government to carry out your benevolent intentions? Did they do a good job with our benevolent intentions during and after Katrina? Does anything in history tell you that it's really, truly gonna to turn out "good?"

Owner59 -> RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. (3/15/2009 11:38:42 AM)
"It's not the cost of health insurance that's undermining the competitiveness of these corporations, believe me." The health insurance industry is more of a cartel,like OPEC.Not a service business as they should be. I`ve heard it said that we pay twice as much per capita, with less successful out comes than does Europe or Canada. If true,could you explain why this is so? I don`t buy the "we have to pay for more R&D/we have better care argument". IMO,the insurers are treating us like cash-cows to supplement their high lives and doing little to add value. If anyone thinks that a Medicare bureaucrat signing off/rejecting a medical claim is any different than a private insurance bureaucrat accepting or rejecting a claim should think twice. A for-profit outfit has many more reasons to deny a patient care.And they do it everyday to thousands of deserving Americans.They`ll toss your ass off their rolls in a heartbeat even after paying their premiums for decades,if they can do it legally.

sugarpixi -> RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. (3/15/2009 11:44:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: sugarpixi It's fine that you assume that I've done no research on the matter, and I'm fully aware that I am capable of making up my own mind. I was asking for a "WHY" because obviously everyone sees politics differently. Clearly I already have my own opinion on it, which is obviously quite different from what Mr Rodgers said. God forbid I ask for someone's opinion. If you have researched the subject, I fail to see why you should invoke your youth and inexperience as a justification for asking the question ("But I'm pretty young, though and still learning the big, wide, scary world of politics, so if you could find it in your heart to explain to me why Obama isn't leaning Socialist."). Nor do I understand why you don't come up with your opinion, since you assure us you have formed one. God forbid you should take this post the wrong way again. I invoke my inexperience so that whomever I'm chatting with will understand that hey, maybe this person doesn't know every nook and cranny of the government and their ways. As I said before, I have an opinion. I don't understand what you find so strange about me asking for someone elses because I've always been under the impression that sharing opinions makes for some decent back and forth banter. If you don't care for an exchange of opinions, that's fine, but there's no reason that you should berate me for wanting to do so.

MrRodgers -> RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. (3/15/2009 12:03:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Like the likely models in England and Canada? Like Hillarycare? In Canada and Europe one pays local and federal taxes some of which funds from each, healthcare, not premiums but actual healthcare. There are few waits or waiting lines for one reason, they are healthier and ALL living longer than Americans. We spend the most per capita by a wide margin, 30% admin. and overhead costs and have the 46th ranked life expectancy. Where is our payoff for all of that money ? IF, socialzed medicine is so bad, where are all of the dead Canadians...dead Euorpeans ? Are they being 'hidden' like the liberal agenda ? They are not there. There are earlier and more dead...in America.

Lorr47 -> RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. (3/15/2009 12:07:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shannie quote: ORIGINAL: Lorr47 To correct the injustices in this society perhaps a great number of socialistic programs are needed and particularly in the health care area. Even if anyone in power was honestly talking about such a thing (which they aren't) ... I believe Obama's solution will be socialized medicine. Go Bama. I just can't believe that the US government could ever implement a true "socialized healthcare" program without attaching an endless swarm of demented social workers, programs, databases, and "medical police" to it. There are a lot of models in other countries to choose from. The US ranks so far back in the cost/benefit analysis of health care that it will be hard to pick a worse system than is currently in effect. The fundamental difference I have seen between a governmental worker and a private sector worker in health care is that the governmental worker does want to help. Hey, maybe they could contract it out to Blackwater (or whatever that entity changed its name to). More people would probably end up in prison (or having their kids taken away) than receive health care. Prince? Prince is from Ottawa county. The Prince family is so inbreed with the DeVos family that it is scary. Prince's medical solution to middle class people being sick is to have a guillotine standing by. Why would you trust the US government to carry out your benevolent intentions? Did they do a good job with our benevolent intentions during and after Katrina? Does anything in history tell you that it's really, truly gonna to turn out "good?" Look who was in charge during Katrina; who was in charge when the CIA agent's identity was disclosed to the world; who was in charge during water boarding; who started Iraq war and killed over 4,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraq's citizens;who was in charge when Afghanistan was screwed up; who denied children medical treatment by veto; who treated our veterans like trash until he was caught; (I have got to quit now I only have the use of one hand because of his medical policy) and we should not forget the Bush depression. Really up to the point Bush tanked the economy, he was using moderate sized dildos on us. Then, he said "here comes something bigger," a telephone pole. Obama is trying to extricate that .

MrRodgers -> RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. (3/15/2009 12:17:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers socialism... is govt. ownership (actual ownership, top down) of the means of production. Obama espouses nothing of the kind. You are right, that is true. Most Americans tend to associate "socialism" with government control, which, as you note, is technically incorrect. But the defining characteristic of ownership is authority and control over the disposition of a thing, and Americans know a duck when they see one. As a practical matter, the distinction is specious. K. Well, being objective you may be correct but only because no country has ever really tried true public ownership and thus govt. actually operating the means of production. The presumption is it could not or would be corrupt. The problem with that argument is that right now we see a $mutli-trillion fiasco suggesting the captains of industry know better than govt. on how to run businesses and obviously, they don't. They know they'll be bailed out instead of espousing a free market and going bankrupt. Just throw more money at them and we'll be alright which has been turned into acquisitions, bonuses and yet more capitalist venality. True to the real form of socialism many are willing to take the risk, it can't be as bad as socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor that is costing us trillions and that we have had for all of these years.

paul12000 -> RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. (3/15/2009 12:27:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: sugarpixi Even though it doesn't look like it at some angles, I feel that a lot of what he is trying to do is push Socialism. Obviously not his intention, but it sure looks that way. Again, do you truly understand the meaning of socialism ? I think not. It is govt. ownership (actual ownership, top down) of the means of production. Obama espouses nothing of the kind. Let's me see, so Obama isn't trying to buy our banks and such then? If he's not doing that, then why is he allowing his fellow lackies to yell at companies that didn't really want the stimulus packages, practically shoved it down their throats, and then turn around and yell at them for spending something on either golf tournaments or customer appreciation days? Hmmm. Isn't that government telling owners what to do and how to do it? Saying, hey we bought you, now do as we say or else. Nah, can't be socialism at work there, can it?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875