Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

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


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. - 3/15/2009 12:35:46 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

Thank you for one of the most well-written and amusing pieces of political camoflage I've read in a while. I do agree with Mr. Wharton on one thing:

"If Obama is a socialist, then on health care, he's doing a fairly good job of concealing it".

Right on both counts. Liberals always have to hide their agenda. 

Well the key here is that there is ALWAYS to be a profit...always. Obama's healthcare means I am now looking at health insurance stocks...heavily discounted. If this is inacted...they are going up...up...up.

(in reply to truckinslave)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. - 3/15/2009 12:36:08 PM   
FullCircle


Posts: 5713
Joined: 11/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paul12000
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?

 
You don't want to see the alternative to the bank rescue package unless you are an anarchist, so if we can agree the rescue package was needed to protect savers can we then decide in what form it takes i.e. is it going to be a hand out with no guarantee of return or any say in what the money is spent on or is it going to be an investment? Would you give your money away and not want a say in what it was being used for? These are unique times and so you are seeing things that look similar to things of the past but they are not.

< Message edited by FullCircle -- 3/15/2009 12:37:32 PM >


_____________________________

ﮒuקּƹɼ ƾɛϰưϫԼ Ƨωιϯϲћ.

(in reply to paul12000)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. - 3/15/2009 12:48:37 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
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.

You go it but you can rely upon America's capitalists and govt. to screw it up. We will have insurance forced upon us and at our expense, with little actual healthcare but will have the effect taking it off the corporate ledger. So while the 'insured' is no better off, the corporate bottom line will look a whole lot better.

An indicator of such 'success' will be how hard business will lobby FOR it. They will no longer be paying anything toward our healthcare as corp. tax have shrunk to almost nothing yet will either keep truly competitive but I am not so sure, why ? Because they could just pocket the money. I am watching but not with bated breath.

< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 3/15/2009 12:49:55 PM >

(in reply to FullCircle)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. - 3/15/2009 1:06:37 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paul12000


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?




Tell me, have you just come out of a "Rip Van Winkle " slumber and haven't realized it was Bush and Paulson who pushed the bank bailout package down the throats of many banks who did not feel they needed it?

< Message edited by rulemylife -- 3/15/2009 1:07:29 PM >

(in reply to paul12000)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. - 3/15/2009 1:07:04 PM   
paul12000


Posts: 27
Joined: 11/20/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle

quote:

ORIGINAL: paul12000
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?

 
You don't want to see the alternative to the bank rescue package unless you are an anarchist, so if we can agree the rescue package was needed to protect savers can we then decide in what form it takes i.e. is it going to be a hand out with no guarantee of return or any say in what the money is spent on or is it going to be an investment? Would you give your money away and not want a say in what it was being used for? These are unique times and so you are seeing things that look similar to things of the past but they are not.


What alternative are we talking about here? The rescue package wasn't needed for all the banks, but companies, I.E. Wells Fargo, said, they didn't need or want it. However, the government made them take it anyways in the name of helping them out.. They didn't ask for it! Who is the government to say who can and can't have money in the first place? Then after that, the companies, ok, we got this money.. They said, go forth and stimulate the economy with it.. Alrighty, let's put our head together, the best way to stimulate the economy is to actually put the money in circulation. So, some companies say, here's an idea.. Let's go to the party store and BUY party stuff.. cause BUYING puts money into circulation.. Hey, we need people to help run this event.. let's HIRE people to PAY, cause that circulates money, gets it to work.. So, they HIRE people.. Now we need to let our CUSTOMERS know that we are glad they come to us for stuff, so, we need to advertise.. we need to HIRE advertising personnel and then PAY the newspaper to print our ads.. So far so good, this money isn't sitting in our vaults doing nothing, cause we need to STIMULATE the economy, after all, Obama and his gang said, go forth and stimulate the economy. Then the big event comes, and the world hears about it. Then Obama's lackies begin to FUSS! Hey, we didn't give you the money to STIMULATE the economy that way, you are to do it OUR way or ELSE.. Then they looked at another group of companies.. Some didn't need it, was forced to take it, decided to sponsor a golf game with it, which again, involved alot of cash circulation to help everyone involved to have cash to actually do something with it, and again the government reared its ugly head and demanded them to not stimulate the economy in that way.

Since Obama and gang aren't even near socialist, they would have no reeason to first off hand out money, and then secondly tell us how to use that money. If I am willingly giving someone money to borrow, I think they can do whatever it is they need to do with it, as long as they pay me back. If they don't pay me back, then I know not to give them money any more, and put them on a do not trust list. When they come crawling back for more, then I go, no, you used the first loan unwisely, why should I give you more, you're out of luck.. They may hate me for it, but I'm not gaining more money by giving away money to someone who don't know what they are doing with it in the first place.

(in reply to FullCircle)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. - 3/15/2009 1:08:18 PM   
TNstepsout


Posts: 1558
Joined: 8/3/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: TNstepsout

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: TNstepsout

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I can't believe Huckabee said the quote in the article.

Then again, when you believe that evolution didn't happen I guess you can convince yourself of anything.




I don't know which quote you are referring to, but according to the article, the only things quoted by Huckabee are "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics may be dead, but the Union of American Socialist Republics is being born." and "Lenin and Stalin would love Obama".



And your point is?



That you may have misunderstood who said what.



Is elaboration a possibility or we we going to continue playing guessing games?



I guess we keep playing because I was very clear.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. - 3/15/2009 1:13:23 PM   
paul12000


Posts: 27
Joined: 11/20/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: paul12000


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?




Tell me, have you just come out of a "Rip Van Winkle " slumber and haven't realized it was Bush and Paulson who pushed the bank bailout package down the throats of many banks who did not feel they needed it?


More of the question of, wasn't most or all of our politicians were in on it, including our current president as well as the past. If Obama was against it, he'd not be continuuing the planned program of shoving money down people's throat then yell at them for spending it.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. - 3/15/2009 1:14:03 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
Well if I'm confused I would guess that you were not.

(in reply to TNstepsout)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. - 3/15/2009 1:16:05 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
Regardless, is it so much trouble to clarify?

(in reply to TNstepsout)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. - 3/15/2009 1:17:01 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paul12000

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?

Problem is, that clearly is not what's happening. By far most of corp. America loves this stimulus package. What was spent on golf parties etc., etc. was TAXPAYER money and if they get any of my money my reps. damn well ought to tell them what they personally can't do with it.

The govt. has bought no company with these bailouts or the stimulus and gives no orders on their business plans. The only regulation and there has always and still, very little of that is now...where is OUR taxpayer money going and why.

So NO socialism is not happening here. The closest we get is 36% (minority, bailout ownership of Citi) and the taxpayer MAY get it back or somekind of return...but I doubt it, all the while having no say in how Citi operates or just how many partiers or bonus barons they have.

(in reply to paul12000)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. - 3/15/2009 1:18:34 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
I see, so it really doesn't matter who initiated the plan as long as you can somehow blame Obama for it.

(in reply to paul12000)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. - 3/15/2009 1:30:57 PM   
paul12000


Posts: 27
Joined: 11/20/2007
Status: offline
I blame government in total for it, not just Obama. I blame Obama for allowing and the continuuing of the so far not so great plan that I've not seen a single penny of. Yes, someone says it is tax payers money, but am I controlling that once the government gets ahold of it, or is the government? If I am controlling my portion of the tax money, then I'd like it back please, since I know that the government is gonna spend it on stupid stuff. (Hey, that sounds familiar) I vote against the people who are unwisely giving away my portion of money to these companies and people that are begging for it. I'm only one person, even though, my vote supposed to make a difference, it doesn't make that much of one if 2 are voting against my one, and the government is gonna listen to the 2 and ignore my one totally.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. - 3/15/2009 1:41:33 PM   
FullCircle


Posts: 5713
Joined: 11/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paul12000
What alternative are we talking about here? The rescue package wasn't needed for all the banks, but companies, I.E. Wells Fargo, said, they didn't need or want it. However, the government made them take it anyways in the name of helping them out.. They didn't ask for it!


Don't depend on corporate PR to tell you the truth about events because they will always say business is good. Governments can't force corporations to take money how do they force this exactly? You could argue perhaps that some banks didn't need it but a lot of them did and a lot of people have savings with those banks that did. Now if you give money to one bank obviously some others may be put at a disadvantage and so will have to ask for money also. There are a couple of UK banks that chose not to take government handouts though and to maintain their decision making independence; that is their choice.
quote:


Who is the government to say who can and can't have money in the first place? Then after that, the companies, ok, we got this money.. They said, go forth and stimulate the economy with it.. Alrighty, let's put our head together, the best way to stimulate the economy is to actually put the money in circulation. So, some companies say, here's an idea.. Let's go to the party store and BUY party stuff.. cause BUYING puts money into circulation.. Hey, we need people to help run this event.. let's HIRE people to PAY, cause that circulates money, gets it to work.. So, they HIRE people.. Now we need to let our CUSTOMERS know that we are glad they come to us for stuff, so, we need to advertise.. we need to HIRE advertising personnel and then PAY the newspaper to print our ads.. So far so good, this money isn't sitting in our vaults doing nothing, cause we need to STIMULATE the economy, after all, Obama and his gang said, go forth and stimulate the economy. Then the big event comes, and the world hears about it. Then Obama's lackies begin to FUSS! Hey, we didn't give you the money to STIMULATE the economy that way, you are to do it OUR way or ELSE.. Then they looked at another group of companies.. Some didn't need it, was forced to take it, decided to sponsor a golf game with it, which again, involved alot of cash circulation to help everyone involved to have cash to actually do something with it, and again the government reared its ugly head and demanded them to not stimulate the economy in that way.

The problem with the banking world is largely based around paranoia; they are all holding onto their money and refusing to lend to other banks because they can't account for the risks on other banks balance sheet and so it is a blind bet. Government underwriting these banks lending power is a way of giving some confidence back if done correctly.
 
You are right though the idea that money makes money is a fallacy all that ever happens is that money moves around and so does debt. The game is ensuring the debt doesn't stay in any single place for too long, kind of like musical chairs and when the music stops the institution holding the debt sinks. The only people that make money are those that produce things and banks need to bet on the companies that they think will make money in the coming months rather than just hoard the money for a rainy day. To have the confidence to bet on companies they need a comfort zone a lot of them don't currently feel.
quote:


Since Obama and gang aren't even near socialist, they would have no reeason to first off hand out money, and then secondly tell us how to use that money. If I am willingly giving someone money to borrow, I think they can do whatever it is they need to do with it, as long as they pay me back. If they don't pay me back, then I know not to give them money any more, and put them on a do not trust list. When they come crawling back for more, then I go, no, you used the first loan unwisely, why should I give you more, you're out of luck.. They may hate me for it, but I'm not gaining more money by giving away money to someone who don't know what they are doing with it in the first place.

The problem with this argument above is the fact we know banks have put shareholders and executives first rather than practicing moral behaviour, so we can conclude that given the bailout money they will make the same mistakes as before and you may as well be signing a blank cheque to an executive. The other problem with the above argument is that fact no one will fill the void if the bank fails so you will have no alternative to lend to. Also you will not see the results of your choices now for a long time, so you'll lend your money and in ten years and you'll be faced with history repeating itself and a bunch of executives blaming personnel that have left the banking system.
 
You ask: “What about the last bailout where did that money go ten years ago.”
They’ll say “In the past we have made mistakes, we put our hands up. We’ve gone through our decision making process and removed a number of board members who were part of that failing.”
 
How long does the average banking executive stay in their job, when the rewards are so high for a short term contract?

< Message edited by FullCircle -- 3/15/2009 1:42:44 PM >


_____________________________

ﮒuקּƹɼ ƾɛϰưϫԼ Ƨωιϯϲћ.

(in reply to paul12000)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. - 3/15/2009 1:42:02 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: shannie


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?"


I'm sorry, I'm a little confused.

Isn't the U.S. government us?

(in reply to shannie)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. - 3/15/2009 1:42:33 PM   
paul12000


Posts: 27
Joined: 11/20/2007
Status: offline
quote:


So NO socialism is not happening here. The closest we get is 36% (minority, bailout ownership of Citi) and the taxpayer MAY get it back or somekind of return...but I doubt it, all the while having no say in how Citi operates or just how many partiers or bonus barons they have.


So, it's safe to say that 36% socialism is NO socialism whatsoever, even though we doubt we'll ever see that portion of nonsocialism back to us? And the government has already proven they will fuss about parties, unless that 36% is getting away with it somehow cause it's part of the nonsocialist group.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. - 3/15/2009 1:45:35 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I see, so it really doesn't matter who initiated the plan as long as you can somehow blame Obama for it.

You've got it. I think I'll sell my $500,000 house (2 years ago) for $200,000 and bame it on Obama.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. - 3/15/2009 1:47:21 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paul12000

I blame government in total for it, not just Obama. I blame Obama for allowing and the continuuing of the so far not so great plan that I've not seen a single penny of. Yes, someone says it is tax payers money, but am I controlling that once the government gets ahold of it, or is the government? If I am controlling my portion of the tax money, then I'd like it back please, since I know that the government is gonna spend it on stupid stuff. (Hey, that sounds familiar) I vote against the people who are unwisely giving away my portion of money to these companies and people that are begging for it. I'm only one person, even though, my vote supposed to make a difference, it doesn't make that much of one if 2 are voting against my one, and the government is gonna listen to the 2 and ignore my one totally.


Then I hope you voted for Obama since everything you are bitching about was enacted under Bush.

(in reply to paul12000)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. - 3/15/2009 1:47:54 PM   
shannie


Posts: 200
Joined: 1/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: shannie


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?"


I'm sorry, I'm a little confused.

Isn't the U.S. government us?



In theory only.  I didn't hear any great demand "by the people" for any of the pro-corporate legislation that's been shoved down our throats for the last decade, nor did I see "the people" benefit from any of it. 

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. - 3/15/2009 1:52:46 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paul12000

quote:


So NO socialism is not happening here. The closest we get is 36% (minority, bailout ownership of Citi) and the taxpayer MAY get it back or somekind of return...but I doubt it, all the while having no say in how Citi operates or just how many partiers or bonus barons they have.


So, it's safe to say that 36% socialism is NO socialism whatsoever, even though we doubt we'll ever see that portion of nonsocialism back to us? And the government has already proven they will fuss about parties, unless that 36% is getting away with it somehow cause it's part of the nonsocialist group.

BTW, paul I want proof that Wells Fargo, BoA or any bank refused $billions of handout/bailout money. That's sacrilege for our brand of capitalist. Are they sick ? Nothing more out there to buy with that money ? No more big time beach parties ? 

Get a grip. It's stimulus for a bank to spend our money and not me ? We have been told for 40 years to cut taxes so people have more money to spend. Now it is the banks that are to be consumers and just go out and spend our money on themselves ? 

You have to be joking. That money was to solidify their balance sheets and for lending...period. No it is not socialism, because by the numbers we get minority ownership, like I wrote, bailout ownership not controlling ownership.

Socialism is govt. owning at a minimum, controlling ownership. There may not be any stock or govt. would own at least 51%, hire the entire board of directors and make all of the decisions. That is clearly NOT happening.

(in reply to paul12000)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. - 3/15/2009 1:53:26 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: shannie

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: shannie


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?"


I'm sorry, I'm a little confused.

Isn't the U.S. government us?



In theory only.  I didn't hear any great demand "by the people" for any of the pro-corporate legislation that's been shoved down our throats for the last decade, nor did I see "the people" benefit from any of it. 



I hesitate to ask the question because I share the blame, but whose fault is that?

(in reply to shannie)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Obama is no socialist...we know. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.093