Prove Your Point: Is our country moving toward Socialism?

[Bathead]

The face palm is because your claims are ridiculous and paranoic. Show us specific hard evidence to back up your claims and we'll believe you.

 

[Kelly]

This is a laughable topic. It would be WRONG to say Obama hasnt done some acts that could be considered Socialist in nature (fireing a c.e.o., ect.) HOWEVER...there is 1 big thing everybody seems to be forgetting.

These laws are TEMPORARY. They EXPIRE. Aside from the fact that anybody who thinks were really moving toward socialism, where they tell you what kind of job you have, where you can and cannot live, ect. than you honestly just dont have a clue. The U.S. government wont be owning banks or cars companies forever; rather they are stepping in to get them back on their feet so they can THAN BECOME A PRIVATE COMPANUY AGAIN WITHOUT ****ING OVER ALL OF ITS WORKERS AND INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE rather than just letting them fail.

What the Obama Administration has done is taken the nessecary steps to prevent another great depression. You can disagree with it in principle all you want because I would argue that even Obama himself doesnt like what they did, but the reality is they HAD to do.

Republicans sit around *****ing about this and that and yet have never offered a single alternative that had any real chance of success. They cry about how the debt or defecit has spiked, yeah, that sucks. I am sure Obama is not happy about that. However, it was spiked to solve an obnoxiously long list of messes that HAD to be solved, and in order to solve them, it was going to point blank take MONEY. Until a conservative offers an alternate sort of plan to what Obama has done that would actually solve our problenms instead of just crying about the possible negatives, I dont see how anybody can say what Obama is doing is wrong.

Facts are facts. Obama was FORCED to make the choices he had to clean up the problems W made. Nobody gives a rats ass if its playing the blame game because its the bloody truth; if the conservatives and Republicans were able to view things realistically and not only as conservatives they might be able to figure that out and therefore have a prayer in upcoming elections; however as Mike Steele has been showing us for the past few months, theyd rather just continue embarassing themselves in the eyes of the every democrat, most independents, some conservatives, and mos tof the world overseas.

All I see is "Spending isnt wrong, but spending stupidly is". Ok Einstein, what would you guys consider to be "spending smartly" and I dont want the answer to start with a "not" i.e. "Not giving banks 500 billion" or whatever it was. Its the same way ONLY focusing on the negatives of these plans rather than any positives isnt a very accurate or realistic way to look at things, but yet thats what most do just to make Obama look bad.

My opinion is and will be for a while that is far too early to success or failure on the Obama adminstartion; if your gonna call failure early it would make sense to have an alternative to what hes done to solve our problems. Anybody who calls failure early without those

Spoiler

aka most of the conservatives on this board

is doing 2 things. 1, proving Obamas point that people are indeed bitter about the government...and 2, exposing yourself as nothing more than a biased Obama hater, which basically makes the post worthless.

It is a topic that has been brought up in several threads here, therefore I felt it needed to be proven, or not proven in a thread of its own. If you are not able to contribute to one or the other....other than throwing around generalizations about "conservatives" and "obama haters" then move on Excel, this isn't a topic for you.

 

[DACrowe]

When the government actually takes over running all hospitals, puts salary caps on medical employees' salaries, such as doctors and nurses and actually acts as a single national bank that handles all the lending and payments in the country (something similar to what CONSTITUTION FRAMER Alexander Hamilton wanted)...

then yes, I'd say we're headed towards socialism.

Providing affordable healthcare to those who otherwise would not be covered and attempting to save the financial institutions are about as socialistic as FDR's New Deal, LBJ's Great American Society, Civil Rights Act or Nixon's social security and affirmative action programs.

If those were all socialist programs we've been moving towards socialism since Theodore Roosevelt was elected president and began sanitation regulation, created national parks upon undeveloped land and disrupted corrupt and illegal, but perfectly created in the market, companies and would-be corporations.

So no, I think historically our nation tends to become more progressive every generation and take more aggressive and wiser steps to solve the problems that ills this nation. You cannot say that the quality of life for average Americans did not greatly increase because of the New Deal's legacy or the Great American Society's, etc. We are witnessing a push to this country again.

As for the bail-outs, they are as about as socialist as the one all the Republicans pushed for from Bush's administration from September 2008. It simply an attempt to revive the economy and salvage the economic system the "perfect market" is founded upon before we slip into a real depression like the one of 1929. It's learning from our past mistakes. The market cannot fix itself when it is run on the oligarchy of the banking system which if collapsed would take the "perfectly competitive self-irrigating" market with it.
If you want to call those moves towards

 

[Heretic]

I cant help noticing that you felt the need to atack the Republicans, when this thread really doesnt make any reference to who is to blame.

You are right though...this country has been slowly moving towards socialism for a long, long time. We are currently in a weird, privatized gains, socialized risk area.

And this "fix" is...well...fixed. You have some banks, such as BB&T which are doing well...they had a smarter business plan than their competitors. Now, in a normal world, their competitors would go out of business, shifting more business towards BB&T and a continuatin of smart business practices...but thats not what happened. The Federal Government FORCED BB&T to take bail-out money that it didnt want or need. Then, it shoved a multitude of restrictions onto the company, that would have put the company is serious jeopardy. The company scrambled and begged the government to PLEASE accept the payback on the loan...and as a result, cut dividends for the first time in the companys history...hurting its perceived value. In other words...you either play ball the governments way, or we sink you in favor of the banks that we own.

 

[Paradoxium]

When the government actually takes over running all hospitals, puts salary caps on medical employees' salaries, such as doctors and nurses and actually acts as a single national bank that handles all the lending and payments in the country (something similar to what CONSTITUTION FRAMER Alexander Hamilton wanted)...

then yes, I'd say we're headed towards socialism.

Providing affordable healthcare to those who otherwise would not be covered and attempting to save the financial institutions are about as socialistic as FDR's New Deal, LBJ's Great American Society, Civil Rights Act or Nixon's social security and affirmative action programs.

If those were all socialist programs we've been moving towards socialism since Theodore Roosevelt was elected president and began sanitation regulation, created national parks upon undeveloped land and disrupted corrupt and illegal, but perfectly created in the market, companies and would-be corporations.

So no, I think historically our nation tends to become more progressive every generation and take more aggressive and wiser steps to solve the problems that ills this nation. You cannot say that the quality of life for average Americans did not greatly increase because of the New Deal's legacy or the Great American Society's, etc. We are witnessing a push to this country again.

As for the bail-outs, they are as about as socialist as the one all the Republicans pushed for from Bush's administration from September 2008. It simply an attempt to revive the economy and salvage the economic system the "perfect market" is founded upon before we slip into a real depression like the one of 1929. It's learning from our past mistakes. The market cannot fix itself when it is run on the oligarchy of the banking system which if collapsed would take the "perfectly competitive self-irrigating" market with it.
If you want to call those moves towards

I would agree about the Theodore Roosevelt part (Along with LBJ etc..). And by "Progressive" each generation, you mean in a euphemistic way for its actual political ideology, then that is correct. Most of the higher standards of living is a result innovation in technology and health, not because of government policy. These policies would be meaningless without the innovations; try "regulating" a atavistic society. Now, make no mistake as I am not a uber free marketeer (there are few quirks), but do not scale towards more control. This has a lot more to do with with the irrationality of people, than the reasons that Progressives may have.

And btw we haven't learned anything about the past. This supposed oligarchy of banks was a result of a intervention in of itself - the Federal Reserve (while Private, it certainly does not operate as such) and its quantitative easing and a heavy dose of corporatism. In the last couple of months, we are strengthening this oligarchy even more in what little is left of the free market. As I put it, you would not have these overpaid bankster and bad loaning practices if you didn't have the cheap credits to begin with. And what do we do? We flush more cheap credit and blame the consequences of this action on the free market.

 

[Kelly]

I just deleted half of this thread because of off-topic swine flu conspiracy talk....

Take this to the conspiracy thread please.

Only warning being given...

 

[Matt]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/25/AR2009052502104.html

The consolidation of government power continues. Yeah, I'd say we're getting pretty close to a socialist regime.

 

[voyzovrezon]

Providing affordable healthcare to those who otherwise would not be covered and attempting to save the financial institutions are about as socialistic as FDR's New Deal, LBJ's Great American Society, Civil Rights Act or Nixon's social security and affirmative action programs.

If those were all socialist programs we've been moving towards socialism since Theodore Roosevelt was elected president and began sanitation regulation, created national parks upon undeveloped land and disrupted corrupt and illegal, but perfectly created in the market, companies and would-be corporations.

So no, I think historically our nation tends to become more progressive every generation and take more aggressive and wiser steps to solve the problems that ills this nation. You cannot say that the quality of life for average Americans did not greatly increase because of the New Deal's legacy or the Great American Society's, etc. We are witnessing a push to this country again.

This is why I like the idea of socialism. It can coexist with capitalism. The U.S. is proof. Enron, AIG, Fannie Mae, and the auto companies are examples of what happens when capitalism goes amuck, and the CEO's get pay and bonuses 20 times greater than the average worker. (there are exact figures out there, I'll see if I can find them).

 

[voyzovrezon]

According to the AFL-CIO, it's more like nine times.

A chief executive officer of a Standard & Poor's 500 company was paid, on average, $10.4 million in total compensation in 2008, according to preliminary data from The Corporate Library.
Excessive executive compensation has taken center stage since the government bailout of banks that began in September 2008. Americans have expressed outrage as CEOs and other executives responsible for the financial crisis have pocketed millions of dollars from bonuses and golden parachutes. CEO perks alone grew in 2008 to an average of $336,248—or nine times the median salary of a full-time worker. Meanwhile, the economy tanked for working people while many companies were bailed out with more than $700 billion in taxpayer money, as well as low-interest loans and guarantees

http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/
.

 

[Paradoxium]

This is why I like the idea of socialism. It can coexist with capitalism. The U.S. is proof. Enron, AIG, Fannie Mae, and the auto companies are examples of what happens when capitalism goes amuck, and the CEO's get pay and bonuses 20 times greater than the average worker. (there are exact figures out there, I'll see if I can find them).

The fact you cited Enron and Fannie Mae and accusing their fail as a result capitalism is.... amusing. Don't get me started on the AIG bonus issue and the auto bailouts. It's like accusing the steering wheel, whilst you are driving drunk and getting into a car crash.

 

[Arc-Light]

The fact you cited Enron and Fannie Mae and accusing their fail as a result capitalism is.... amusing. Don't get me started on the AIG bonus issue and the auto bailouts. It's like accusing the steering wheel, whilst you are driving drunk and getting into a car crash.

Voyzovrezon wasn't talking about their failure, but their abuse of capitalism which has been going on in this country since the industrial revolution.

 

[voyzovrezon]

The fact you cited Enron and Fannie Mae and accusing their fail as a result capitalism is.... amusing. Don't get me started on the AIG bonus issue and the auto bailouts. It's like accusing the steering wheel, whilst you are driving drunk and getting into a car crash.

I point them out as examples of how capitalism runs amok. I don't think U.S. tax payers should be bailing them out however, they broke ethics rules and even broke the law and took advantage of deregulations. Even liberals like me were against the bailouts.

Kucinich has the right idea:

[YT]2b1k_hF_yI0[/YT]

 

[Paradoxium]

I know what voyzovrezon said.

My point is, Fannie Mae and Enron are poster childs of government intervention, mingling and corporatism. That is not real capitalism. It's closer to socialism is nothing else.

 

[voyzovrezon]

I do think governmental regulations are necessary. One of the stipulations of the original bailouts legislation was to have a curb on executive pay. Those companies taking the bailout had to agree to it. That part of the legislation died in the senate, unfortunately.

In the meantime, a company like Halliburton can have tax shelters in the Caymen Islands. Talk about corporatism!

 

[Paradoxium]

I will make some concessions with you, capitalism is not perfect. There are many flaws and quirks this much I admit. Much of it has to do with patterns of irrational predictability and asymmetry of information. I do believe it is the case, that even in a full on laissez faire environment, actual pay-to-merit will not always be congruent. Maybe the CEO likes that hot secretary, and offers her a raise. These are cases of irrational but normal human behavior. In some instances, people raise the cost of certain goods to raise demand, which is strange on the surface because you would expect the contrary. But human behavior values perceptibly expensive things, even if there is a large and/or cheap supply of it.

With that said and done, the high pay and bad loans stems from monetary policy: cheap credits (hear those stories of slashing interest rates?). Who supplies the cheap credit? The Federal Reserve... privately owned and publically operated to circumvent the law. Aka government intervention and management of the economy - socialist economics.

Guess what?

You wouldn't need regulation if the cheap credit didn't exist, because these companies wouldn't have the credits in the first place to give out these bad loans. By virtue of these, they would have to regulate and discipline themselves to survive, because no such crutch (cheap credit) exists anymore, aka capitalism. By this same virtue they would not be able to give the wads of cash to executives.

The Enron issue is another complicated matter.

 

[voyzovrezon]

With that said and done, the high pay and bad loans stems from monetary policy: cheap credits (hear those stories of slashing interest rates?). Who supplies the cheap credit? The Federal Reserve... privately owned and publically operated to circumvent the law. Aka government intervention and management of the economy - socialist economics.

Guess what?

You wouldn't need regulation if the cheap credit didn't exist, because these companies wouldn't have the credits in the first place to give out these bad loans. By virtue of these, they would have to regulate and discipline themselves to survive, because no such crutch (cheap credit) exists anymore, aka capitalism. By this same virtue they would not be able to give the wads of cash to executives.

This is one case in which Ron Paul makes sense to me. It's like who's watching the watchers.

 

[Paradoxium]

I am actually not comfortable with Ron Paul. While he reads some of the literature I do read, it was not a case of my reading them because he reads it. I think he is absolutely wrong in his approach to the inflation issue and simplifying it as a case of printing money = inflation. It completely ignores the velocity of money (money travels and can stay put), and credit destruction (i.e. bankruptcies).

I do think there are flaws in capitalism and they can be somewhat tweaked with very simple, elegant and well thought out policy/regulation. Good policy accounts for the laws of unintended consequences. This law applies to both public and private matters.

The irrationality thing is the biggest flaws of capitalism, the system assumes most people are rational in general, and there can be large scales of irrationality at play. But I also think socialism doesn't account for these irrationality either, hence violating the laws of unintended consequences.

 

[redfirebird2008]

oops, just saw Kel's post.

 

[Varient]

Interesting thread,.. Props Kel.

 

[BlackLantern]

The system is fine, its the people in charge that are greedy and let that greed rule their decisions

 

[Kelly]

oops, just saw Kel's post.

No problem, I was just jealous that it was getting more discussion than my topic... Then I realized, damn.....I was in on that discussion as well....lol

Interesting thread,.. Props Kel.

Thank you.......I'm looking forward to some provocative debate.....I hope.....

 

[SuBe]

Not Proof, But interesting Commentary from Russia (with Love)

American capitalism gone with a whimper

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.






True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

Speak your mind on Pravda.ru forum

 

[Varient]

Not Proof, But interesting Commentary from Russia (with Love)

i'm thinking this was written by an american to stir *****.

too bad, so sad that SO MANY mistake the current happenings in this country for budding Socialism.

Nobody studies History anymore or they would know that there have been many and much worse examples of "socialism" in the way America has handled business in the past starting with Salvery followed by sharecropping.

Tsk - I promised myself I would comment only if I had something to contribute - but this was too obvious a pointed stick jabbed between the bars of my cage to ignore.

I just can't take seriously the mouthings of someone supposedly from a failed superpower that had to be saved by us on three occasions.

V.

 

[SuBe]

Wow, I guess you don't understand what is going on at all.

Oh well.

 

[Varient]

Wow, I guess you don't understand what is going on at all.

Oh well.

Nah,.. not at all.
I've just heard the same silliness as your russian writer over the last nine months from repubs who bounce from topic to topic trying to find something that sticks to Obama that unfortunatly for them,.. has been done before with people they have no problem with.

I'm kinda surprized you have not noticed how they bleat about something,... the full story comes out or the admin does other than they have been saying will happen, and they lose credibility and bounce to the next topic.

After nine months of this - reading some faus russian crow about the socialization of America is just more of the same.

Today for example: GM was headed for bankcrupcy BEFORE Obama became president,....

Gee,.... it happens,... Govt takes up the slack,... and here come the same folk pointing at the government taking the hit as "socialism"

I almost wish the government would just back off all the stuff that is failing due to greed and expose the stupidity in doing nothing like so many are trying to promote.

I'll say it a second time, people don't read their history, people insist on being stuck on stupid in regards to what is happening now as compared to what has come before.

It's just scary to listen to "America's foreign policy was arrogant" becoming "Obama said that America is Arrogant."

Ignoring history and twisting someones words because you have an issue with them is just the begining of the same old saw.

You are right,... I agree completly with you,... I don't understand what is going on - Please enlighten me.


V.