It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If Obama got his way. . .

page: 7
23
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2014 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: NonsensicalUserName

Posting some actual facts and figures might help.

National Debts

Government Spending

Unemployment

Housing

Corruption factors and ratios

etc

etc





posted on May, 31 2014 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Freedom is monetary based . The more you have the more so called freedoms you can afford . So if he was able to pass all the regs. and laws he wanted ,my standard of living would go down ...cost to live up..


SM2

posted on May, 31 2014 @ 02:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
a reply to: SM2

so you think we should live in anarchy?

Personally I feel the nordic model would be just fine for the US, and would work perfectly well within the perspective of its founding principles. Frankly I don't see how they don't. The issue that led to the american revolution was a lack of representation in parliment, you have a representative if you live in the US, you just need to write them up.


feel free to think that, you have a right to your opinion, however, the U.S Constitution guarantees a republican form of government. So, therefore, no it wouldnt work perfectly well in our founding principals.

We are, and shall remain a constitutional republic.



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 05:59 AM
link   
I can't help but think that you'd find the same as you would if you had gone to sleep and free reign had been given to a republican since I think the end goal is the same for both. They just have different views on how we should all get there. We should have an experiment and divide the county in half give one half to the dems and one half to the republicans and give them free reign for a month. It would totally screw up the nation but it would end the illusion that there is any meaningful differences in the parties. Heck give them a few months I bet the two would be at war with each other only because both sides like to use war as a means to justify not having to keep a sane budget in place!



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 06:02 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

I think we would wake up with less freedom. Much much less. Sometimes this guy really scares me with some of the stuff he says, always they try to couch it and spin it, but its scarey what they are doing and further the things they want to do.

He is actually the first American president that I will say truly frightens me with his agenda. Bush probably should have scared me, but what scares me now is probably the seeing it all in action for the first time - and the fact the president approves and is still trying to expand it all.

It's... scarey stuff. I think I already woke up tomorrow, with less freedoms... which is why I feel the way I do. I wish we could wake up again and have America back.
edit on 31-5-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sunwolf

originally posted by: mymymy
a reply to: beezzer



All sounds dandy,but there are not a lot of starving people in this country as attested to by the obesity rate.Many homeless I have known don`t want Gov. provided shelter,they want to be on their own.Medical treatment is available for all indigent people in this country.That is not enough ,is it?You all want more and more programs and more and more taxes.There will never be enough money for all the grandiose schemes the so called progressives can come up with and there will never be enough taxes to foot the bill.The way of progressivism leads to ruin of this nations middle class and they will never be satisfied until all are equally poor and equally miserable.


I'm sure you've talked to the majority of the homeless in this country. I'm sure here in Ohio where I live they certainly prefer being on their own out in the winter than being able to be warm and dry in a place of their own. A great deal of homeless are that way because of this so called medical treatment that is available, crappy but still very expensive. Read up on the quality of treatment that is available to the poor, I don't consider that good enough. Despite being poor and "beneath" you, they are still human beings and deserve to be treated as such.

You're right , there are fat people in this country, so that pretty much rules out anybody being hungry. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the quality of the food they can afford or limited opportunities for physical activity.
www.cspinet.org...

We could solve so many problems in this country with less money than we throw at the rich. I never said anything about more taxes, we can cut off so much of our budget now to fund these. Cut the military budget in half, Hell, we can't even defeat poor, illiterate Afghan farmers, seems most of that money is a waste. Take the money we give to countries that hate us etc. There's thousands of possibilities this could be achieved, but nope, too many of you view this as us against them, my side your side crap and don't realize that we should all be in this together. If we ALL came together and fought for one I firmly believe everything this forum argues about would be a thing of the past



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: SM2

In what way is a social democracy incompatable with a republican form of government?



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

So now to my question. . . . .

If I went to sleep tonight, and over night, Obama got to enact every law, every wish that he desired for America, would I wake up;

Just as free as I was?
Freer than I was?
Or would I wake up with less freedoms?


I humbly offer this to you all. I only ask that you please provide support for your answers.



Well, if I went to sleep tonight, and overnight Obama got his every wish, I wouldn't wake up to anything tomorrow morning, because I wouldn't wake up. Killing me and folks like me off is the only way to stop the occasional vaccination of individualism against the virus of collectivism that is, in it's present incarnation, euphemistically referred to as "progressive".

Lemmings occasionally "progress" right off of the edge of a cliff every so often, too.

There's collectivism and "progressivism" for ya in a nutshell.


SM2

posted on May, 31 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
a reply to: SM2

In what way is a social democracy incompatable with a republican form of government?


Really? You are seriously asking that?

Ok, I'll bite to humor you. First, the "American Dream" can not exist within a social democracy. Mainly because of Co-determination and it basically being a stepping stone to true socialism. It is American culture and custom that the fruits of my labors belong to me and I alone determine what is best for my business. Yes I may get input from my employees, however, I am not forced to give employees a substantial say in what my business does or does not do. Yes I will hire managers to manage aspects of my company, but i will not have the janitor giving input into internet security and investment strategies. That is co-determination. That is how Germany does it, and I am sure some other nations, and hey, that is their bag, that is their business, however, that is not how it is done in America.

I will give you the mixed economy aspect of social democracy, as that is essentially what we have now, especially after the last crash with all the bailouts and the HCA. However, unlike a true social democracy's mixed economy, we still have some semblance of capitalism.

Social democracies also tend to favor welfare capitalism....

The ideal Social-Democratic welfare state is based on the principle of universalism granting access to benefits and services based on citizenship. Such a welfare state is said to provide a relatively high degree of autonomy, limiting the reliance of family and market (Ferragina and Seeleib-Kaiser 2011).[13] In this context, social policies are perceived as 'politics against the market' (Esping-Andersen 1985). Christian-democratic welfare states are based on the principle of subsidiarity and the dominance of social insurance schemes, offering a medium level of decommodification and a high degree of social stratification. The liberal regime is based on the notion of market dominance and private provision; ideally, the state only interferes to ameliorate poverty and provide for basic needs, largely on a means-tested basis. Hence, the decommodification potential of state benefits is assumed to be low and social stratification high (Ferragina and Seeleib-Kaiser 2011).[13]

Based on the decommodification index Esping-Andersen divided into the following regimes 18 OECD countries (Esping-Andersen 1990: 71):

Liberal: Australia, Canada, Japan, Switzerland and the US;
Christian democratic: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and Italy;
Social Democratic: Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden
Not clearly classified: Ireland, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

These 18 countries can be placed on a continuum from the most purely social-democratic, Sweden, to the most liberal country, the United States (Ferragina and Seeleib-Kaiser 2011).[14]

en.wikipedia.org...


Then you have to factor in that the Nordic model nations have some of the highest overall tax burdens in the world, as a percentage of the GDP All of these things are reasons why it wouldnt work within the Constitutional republic (had we not stryaed away from it)



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: SM2

you didn't answer the question.

I asked how the concept of social democracy was incompatable with the concept of a republic.

You just seem to be rambling about taxes and wellfare spending, the possible effects of wellfare spending and etc. None of which actually answeres the question.

Yes Social democracy can place a higher-tax burden on a country, yes, a social democracy can have a lot of government-provided welfare/social programs. However I do not see how this makes it impossible to have a constitutional republic.

We would still have representatives, we would still elect public officials to represent our interests in state and federal government, we'd still have rights that have to be respected. None of this prevents social-democratic policies from being implemented.


SM2

posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: NonsensicalUserName

A social democracy being at it's heart a socialist form of government inspired by the writings of Marx, kind of like a half step to true socialism, would not work. Just because you can elect representatives does not mean it would work. What about private ownership of property and private ownership of the means of production? Oh, according to Social democrats, I can own the means of production, I just have to run it how other people tell me to. So, I supply the knowledge, the work to get it going and all of the capital, then the janitor and security guards can tell me how best to run the business from the bottom up? If they knew so much about my fictitious business, why are they sweeping my floors? The American system was created to offer each individual the pursuit of happiness and their dreams. Not to take from them and give to people that have no drive, no ambition, no desire to do anything other that watch others work and complain that they have nothing.

In a social democracy it is not a matter of "can have a higher tax burden, or higher welfare costs and participation" it is a hallmark of the system. It is part of what the whole system is built on. more taxes, more government programs = more government rules, regulations, intrusion, more government employees and all this adds right up to more government power, which is counter to what the Constitution guarantees . How does all of that sound like limited Federal government, limited government intrusion and freedom to pursue ones dreams , retain the fruits of their labors and right to make your own decision on what to do with your own property (businesses are property) ?

I understand that you are an admirer of the Social Democracy, and hey, that is great for you. I do not think any less of you for it, everyone has their own opinion and the right tell it to others. however, to think that an essentially socialist system is compatible with a Constitutional Republic that specifically guarantees a specific form of government is pretty much a failing argument. if I go to Mcdonalds and order a big mac, you can not give me a six piece chicken nuggets,claim it is compatible and charge them for 8 big macs and expect the customers to be just fine with that. That is about the same argument you are making here.



People need to get over this whole economic justice/income equality bullcrap. The world needs people to if you want fries with that. I am sorry but a person sweeping up the popcorn at a movie theater is not entitled to the same income as someone who owns their own business, or someone that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of training to become a surgeon, nuclear physicist , or other such professions.
edit on 46062 by SM2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: SM2

private ownership has nothing to do with a republic.

the word republic describes a system of government, with representatives making decisions on behalf of the people.

it can also describe a government without a monarch.
Once again you ignored the question.
edit on 1-6-2014 by NonsensicalUserName because: (no reason given)


SM2

posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: NonsensicalUserName

No, I answered the question, just not the way you wanted me to.

Private property rights has everything to do with OUR republic, it is one of the main pillars the nation stands on.

Using your statements, a republic being a system of government, well, so is a social democracy. You can not have two systems of government for one nation. Furthermore, a democracy is NOT a republic, a republic , especially ours, protects the minority vs the majority. Checks and balances. Your rights end when they infringe on mine. A democracy is mob rules. Majority always wins, even if it tramples over someone elses rights. That is directly opposing to what our republic stands on. A full out democracy is one of the most brutal forms of government and has always, historically ended with bloodshed. Remember "A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner"

Furthermore, the way our republic was intended, the representatives in the house, they did not make decisions on our behalf, they represented our wishes. The people made the decisions and the reps carried it out. The states are represented by the senate. Which is why senators were not directly elected by the people, but by the states houses.

edit on 35062 by SM2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: SM2

I really hope you are trolling...

perhaps you're confusing social-democracy with democratic socialism; the two are not mutual; social democrats believe that there is a place and role for capitalism(a market economy) ; democratic socialists believe otherwise(no markets no capitalism). If you're ranting about Democratic Socialists you're making a bit more sense,which isn't the case if you're ranting about Social Democrats.

rationalwiki.org...




The stereotype that the Nordic model is a bureaucratic, Soviet-style mess also borders on the wilfully ignorant. In addition to atypically high union membership, there is a deep commitment to modernizing with the times - to combat outsourcing and wage dumping (as a consequence of globalization), Scandinavia is balls-deep in free trade[6] while trading corporate taxes for VATs.[7] This regulatory environment is known as flexicurity: Ease of hiring and firing workers is offset with high minimum wage, skills upkeep and the insurance that they won't go into poverty while unemployed.




posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   
The short answer to this question is that nothing would change. President Obama, despite his charges of "socialism," is a capitalistic pig. The fact that his "socialist" policies are hundreds of pages long, even up to a startling 2,000, proves that his allegiance lies with whoever can fill his pockets with gold (as does his filthy wife who sold her "Blackness" out quoting her college thesis). Ron Paul predicted this. He said, "Will Obama turn out to be an Uncle Sam of We the People, or an Uncle Tom of the corporations?" Sadly, history has shown it was the latter. Good job America, you go from Nixon to Ford to Carter to Reagen to Bush to Clinton to Bush to now Obama. Yup, although I despise Winston Churchill for dragging us into a war that could have been prevented, he was definitely correct to say, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average-voter" (although, in America, it would more accurate to say five-second; I'm glad the British are a tad bit smarter than the sheep here in this pitiful country).



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Simply, I feel 0bama is a sociopath. I have known a few, and his behavior parallels the ones I know. He is self serving at anyone's cost. Answer: I would feel like I had lost many a freedoms and was on the road to servitude or Tyranny.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer
My Dear Friend, I Think The Clock Would Have Stopped,,,,,, If Obama Got His Way!

www.timeanddate.com...
Thank Any G-d or G-ds you might believe in, The Clock is Still Ticking!!

Bumped For A Good Reason!
edit on 5-6-2014 by guohua because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-6-2014 by guohua because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join