Vote!

[shadyone]

Davidson

/thread

[Muljaque]

Now will someone lock it?

[Terekronos]

Muljaque

Now will someone lock it?

Maybe, but I might as well take a stab at this.

Socialism, Ristead, is a political system where the means of production are ALL owned collectively.

The key word there is "all". If it's a mix, it isn't socialism, it's a mixed system. And since pretty much every modern developed country is a mixed system I'm not sure what the big deal is.

And, yes, they need to be mixed. Capitalism generally works better when people have both the regulatory structure to ensure that the game is played fairly, and the social safety net that gives people the security they need to take a chance and better themselves: whether by getting more education, starting a business, or even something as simple as switching jobs.

When people better themselves, they generally become more productive; when people become more productive, the economy becomes more productive. The disincentive of somewhat increased taxes is comparatively small, and the societal benefits are vast. So a mixed system makes sense. (That's why the Scandinavian countries tend to be so successful, and why European per-hour per-capita productivity is actually HIGHER than American. They just generally work less hours and take longer vacations.)

Anyway, nobody's going to take you seriously if you just yell "SOCIALISM!" like that's a trump card. If it were, Obama wouldn't have completely crushed the people who called him that. But he did, so it isn't. Cold War's over, and it was the mixed system that won.

Edit: oh, and by the way, the richest 1% don't create all the jobs. Most jobs come from small businesses. And tax burdens don't really make the difference as to whether or not a company relocates overseas; that's all about wage differentials. Tax burdens may be a small incentive, but a workforce that costs a tenth of an American one will trump any tax incentive you could care to name.

[Jaga]

Well I'm going to repost what I remember because someone made a mistake when they went to reply >.<

Neit provided a link the our Constitution in which we all know the following line: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

The arguement between both sides stems from how we view the role of the federal government. It seems the federal government has moved away from 'puruit' towards 'guarantee' of happiness. They are going out of their way to ensure that people obtain things that they could be getting for themselves. Just look at some of the social engineering the government has been performing recently. Healthcare, housing, and welfare.

For healthcare, the problem isn't availability or quality, its the cost. The government should be doing more to lower the cost of healthcare, not providing it for everyone (yes, I know it sucks not having insurance and becoming injured. But why should everyone else pick up your bill? We already have a major problem paying for the well being of illegal immigrants that come into our country).

As for housing, why is the government forcing banks to make loans to low-income persons? A house is a large investment that is more than just the house. I don't think people realize all the costs associated with owning a house and then they can't keep up with the finances. What is wrong with lving within your current means by renting a house or apartment while you build up credit and cash? It seems that as governmet impliments more programs, they only mess things up more. They should focus on fixing the current programs or removing them before they start adding more. I mean, isn't social security supposed to go bankrupt shortly?

As far as Obama, I really don't like the guy for his stance on policies, or the lack thereof. I don't really buy into his hope and his 'change this' and 'change that' rhetoric. The man has only been a senator for around four years, two of which he spent campaigning for president. The man is an unknown and he had very little record for people to go to see what stance he has taken previously. This is where his associations came into play. Typically, you fall into crowds with which you have something in common with. Most of Obama's associates were very shady and brought up questions about the mans character. So a very short record and questionable associations were not very reassuring to me.

The moment I lost total interest in Obama becoming president came during the general election. As a Pennsylvanian, when I heard the comment he made behind closed doors in San Francisco when he thought no one was recording really turned me off. I don't like having a person who is supposed to represent me talking down about me.

Now Obama is our president. Am I happy about it? Ofcourse not. Am I going to live with it? Ya. Now that he has the job, I'm not just going to jump into his camp and say he'll do great though. He's going to have to earn my support and respect, its not something that should be thrown around. I have my reservations about the man, but as I tell the people that complain about Bush. We won't know how good/bad a president did until 20 years down the road.

[Risteard]

Jaga

Well I'm going to repost what I remember because someone made a mistake when they went to reply >.<

Neit provided a link the our Constitution in which we all know the following line: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

The arguement between both sides stems from how we view the role of the federal government. It seems the federal government has moved away from 'puruit' towards 'guarantee' of happiness. They are going out of their way to ensure that people obtain things that they could be getting for themselves. Just look at some of the social engineering the government has been performing recently. Healthcare, housing, and welfare.

For healthcare, the problem isn't availability or quality, its the cost. The government should be doing more to lower the cost of healthcare, not providing it for everyone (yes, I know it sucks not having insurance and becoming injured. But why should everyone else pick up your bill? We already have a major problem paying for the well being of illegal immigrants that come into our country).

As for housing, why is the government forcing banks to make loans to low-income persons? A house is a large investment that is more than just the house. I don't think people realize all the costs associated with owning a house and then they can't keep up with the finances. What is wrong with lving within your current means by renting a house or apartment while you build up credit and cash? It seems that as governmet impliments more programs, they only mess things up more. They should focus on fixing the current programs or removing them before they start adding more. I mean, isn't social security supposed to go bankrupt shortly?

As far as Obama, I really don't like the guy for his stance on policies, or the lack thereof. I don't really buy into his hope and his 'change this' and 'change that' rhetoric. The man has only been a senator for around four years, two of which he spent campaigning for president. The man is an unknown and he had very little record for people to go to see what stance he has taken previously. This is where his associations came into play. Typically, you fall into crowds with which you have something in common with. Most of Obama's associates were very shady and brought up questions about the mans character. So a very short record and questionable associations were not very reassuring to me.

The moment I lost total interest in Obama becoming president came during the general election. As a Pennsylvanian, when I heard the comment he made behind closed doors in San Francisco when he thought no one was recording really turned me off. I don't like having a person who is supposed to represent me talking down about me.

Now Obama is our president. Am I happy about it? Ofcourse not. Am I going to live with it? Ya. Now that he has the job, I'm not just going to jump into his camp and say he'll do great though. He's going to have to earn my support and respect, its not something that should be thrown around. I have my reservations about the man, but as I tell the people that complain about Bush. We won't know how good/bad a president did until 20 years down the road.

Thank you Jaga for voicing your sound opinion :)

I'm glad someone here doesn't mind voicing their opinion (without flaming others and providing actual content)

[Terekronos]

Jaga

Well I'm going to repost what I remember because someone made a mistake when they went to reply >.<

Neit provided a link the our Constitution in which we all know the following line: &quot;We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness&quot;.

The arguement between both sides stems from how we view the role of the federal government. It seems the federal government has moved away from 'puruit' towards 'guarantee' of happiness. They are going out of their way to ensure that people obtain things that they could be getting for themselves. Just look at some of the social engineering the government has been performing recently. Healthcare, housing, and welfare.

For healthcare, the problem isn't availability or quality, its the cost. The government should be doing more to lower the cost of healthcare, not providing it for everyone (yes, I know it sucks not having insurance and becoming injured. But why should everyone else pick up your bill? We already have a major problem paying for the well being of illegal immigrants that come into our country).

As for housing, why is the government forcing banks to make loans to low-income persons? A house is a large investment that is more than just the house. I don't think people realize all the costs associated with owning a house and then they can't keep up with the finances. What is wrong with lving within your current means by renting a house or apartment while you build up credit and cash?

As far as Obama, I really don't like the guy for his stance on policies, or the lack thereof. I don't really buy into his hope and his 'change this' and 'change that' rhetoric. The man has only been a senator for around four years, two of which he spent campaigning for president. The man is an unknown and he had very little record for people to go to see what stance he has taken previously. This is where his associations came into play. Typically, you fall into crowds with which you have something in common with. Most of Obama's associates were very shady and brought up questions about the mans character. So a very short record and questionable associations were not very reassuring to me.

The moment I lost total interest in Obama becoming president came during the general election. As a Pennsylvanian, when I heard the comment he made behind closed doors in San Francisco when he thought no one was recording really turned me off. I don't like having a person who is supposed to represent me talking down about me.

Now Obama is our president. Am I happy about it? Ofcourse not. Am I going to live with it? Ya. Now that he has the job, I'm not just going to jump into his camp and say he'll do great though. He's going to have to earn my support and respect, its not something that should be thrown around. I have my reservations about the man, but as I tell the people that complain about Bush. We won't know how good/bad a president did until 20 years down the road.

Well, a few things come to mind.

First, the &quot;pursuit&quot; in the American Constitution is not a chase. It's the occupation of happiness, or (to bring it back to WoW) the profession of happiness. Being starving, alienated, and helpless to change that--with all the societal strife and instability that such ensures--doesn't sound like much of a pursuit to me. Such might be social engineering, but what of it? Any system of government is made with an eye to the society it inhabits. EVERY decision of government is social engineering. That's why the society needs to make them collectively through the mechanism of democracy.

Healthcare availability and quality is a problem, to a lot of people. Nobody whose child is sick is going to say 'well, I would go to the doctor, but I think I'm gonna contribute to my 401(k) instead!' But the nice thing is that universalized health care solutions reduce cost, not raise it. A single (or dominant) health care insurer is able to bargain down costs, just like a big company like Wal-Mart or Microsoft is.

(And, by and large, illegal immigrants pay a lot more into the system than they take out. They generally work, since they can't get welfare, are afraid to use services, and pay consumption taxes while paying for what government services they CAN get access to. They don't pay income taxes, but neither do a lot of rich people with good accountants)

Yes, you're right about people buying homes without really being able to afford it. I rent too. But that isn't the only thing going on with the current credit crunch. It had a lot more to do with bank deregulation, which had been a Republican hobby-horse for decades, and a multi-trillion dollar market in Credit Default Swaps, which had little to do with housing except in that bad housing was the spark for the bonfire.

Making the banks loan money is more about making them loan money to each other, and that's a very good thing because banks hoarding their money is a very very very bad thing. Keynes' greatest insight was realizing that, and realizing that preventing recessions and depressions was as much about stopping people from hoarding money.

In any case, &quot;shady connections&quot; aside (Harvard Federalist society lawyers and University of Chicago economists are pretty shady, yeah), I do think he'll do a decent job. He's smart enough to pierce through all the namecalling of SOCIALISM and whatnot and get down to what's actually going on underneath. After the Cheney/Rove administration, it'll be a nice change, and so will an American leader that people around the world (and in America) actually like for a change. :D

[Terekronos]

And now for a better rant. Why the HELL am I all of a sudden having to write raw html whenever I want to post something here? HTML that, as the quote stuff shows, isn't even working properly? Is there a setting I mixed up or something?