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.

 

Why vote for a socialist? Re: Sen. Obama

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2008 @ 07:44 PM
link   
I just got in a heated debate with my brother, as he was upset that I called Obama a socialist. Now, my brother could not name a SINGLE socialist program that worked, and was fixated on the idea that Universal healthcare was a right of living in "the most successful country on earth". I had argued that seeing as socialism and it's weapons are never successful, and seeing as Obama has done NOTHING, EVER, in his entire political career, other than deny the white culture that raised him, then what are the rewards of voting for him?
Universal HC is a joke. To think that I have no right to tell someone how to eat, or exercise, or dress (weather appropriate) but that I might have to pay for their care when they are affected by these choices, seems a little odd to me. I believe in free child healthcare, and pregnant mothers, but only if we bring back nutrition and exercise to their schools.
So why are all you Obamiacs voting for him? I am not here to "flame" anyone, I just really want someone to tell me a reason why they would vote for him, besides the fact that he is a democrat, or that he professes "change", or that he is not Mccain. And could you point out a socialist program that works now? I would like to help my brother at least be able to validate his argument.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by jasonjnelson]




posted on May, 31 2008 @ 08:04 PM
link   
I don't think he's saying he's for "socialism" as it has been defined in the past. It seems maybe it's just a plan to make people more accountable for their community, and not just for themselves.

I'll agree that, if he and his administration don't at the same time do something to cheapen the rising energy costs, this plan won't work. If his administration doesn't make good on his promises to cut out lobbyists from their financial influence on congress and deny those same lobbyists jobs in his admin, then this could be a real disaster. I guess maybe this is a very legitimate fear that a lot of people have...

But to say, if this is what you are saying, that you don't have a responsibility to take care of your fellow man when they are down is selfishness. If you agree that we as a species are social animals, than we need to become MORE social, not more self interested.

To label a man you don't know on the same level as Nazis, just because he supports giving everyone the same chance at good health... is kind of extreme.

I do wonder what that means for big pharma and vulture insurance companies. Will it help them, hinder them, or will it merge them and turn the healthcare system into a Brave New World type gov't entity?

But lemme just ask this for clarification....

You don't think universal healthcare will work for you? Or you just don't think it will work PERIOD because of the way things are?

You have a right to be suspicious of it, but I'm wondering what your personal feelings on what true socialism could be if it worked right.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   
The United States is a very young country. We got way too much power on a global scale in a very short period of time. That power has gone to our .s and we now suffer for that.

We are now a Fascist country where the corporations dictate policy. The corporations want free trade agreements so they can pay third world countries slave wages to increase the money they put into their own pockets for the products they sell.

They don't care if a pregnant mother has insurance, they don't care if people die of starvation, they don't care if all the world suffers. They only care about how much money they can stuff into their pockets while they are here.

The person who dies with the most toys wins.

If one candidate would stand up and propose a windfall tax on corporations, I would support him. A tax that would confiscate all profit over 25% to be given to the charities of the world.

Every year their value would increase so capitalism would be alive and well. It would increase by 25%

It's simply placing a limit on greed. The greedy still get their cut.

The people in charge would have to decide on spending the money on their workers, or giving it to the government.

Just my thoughts,



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by dunwichwitch
I don't think he's saying he's for "socialism" as it has been defined in the past. It seems maybe it's just a plan to make people more accountable for their community, and not just for themselves.


Actually, he wants to make people in Maine responsible for people in Oregon. That is not the job of the federal government, and it is not the job of those people in Maine. I am a long time volunteer, philanthropist (the little I can), and a Veteran. But my set of social values and volunteerism was learned in a community. My church.


I'll agree that, if he and his administration don't at the same time do something to cheapen the rising energy costs, this plan won't work. If his administration doesn't make good on his promises to cut out lobbyists from their financial influence on congress and deny those same lobbyists jobs in his admin, then this could be a real disaster. I guess maybe this is a very legitimate fear that a lot of people have...


Until a repeal is made of the law that allows corporations to be counted as citizens, then there will be no change by any administration. People are mad about who Mccain knows, well who do you think got Obama on his feet? The fact is, you repeal that law, and now we have parity. Corporations are no different than the Unions and their special interests that have aligned with the Dems for years. Both special interest groups do need to be heard in congress, as they greatly affect many American Lives, however, there needs to be not just a glass wall around such activity, there needs to be actual open admission of any corporate or union involvement in politics.


But to say, if this is what you are saying, that you don't have a responsibility to take care of your fellow man when they are down is selfishness.


I point to my answer above. I am not selfish, but I don't want my money and resources to go to heal people of diseases that are easily prevented. I cannot deny smokers health care, nor deny them smoking. People eat badly, and exercise little, and then get expensive medical conditions. You see, when the government takes control of so much, and they fail so badly, I have no faith in their further actions.


If you agree that we as a species are social animals, than we need to become MORE social, not more self interested.


How is granting a person the ability to do what they want considered selfish. We are not talking about the disabled, we are not talking about the mentally ill. We are talking about average Americans who make daily choices.


To label a man you don't know on the same level as Nazis, just because he supports giving everyone the same chance at good health... is kind of extreme.


Hmmm... I will just ask you to point to one place where I compared Obama to the Nazis. Or I could just forward you the e-mail of the contribution I made online to the Obama Campaign.


I do wonder what that means for big pharma and vulture insurance companies. Will it help them, hinder them, or will it merge them and turn the healthcare system into a Brave New World type gov't entity?


How about we just educate people on their Ph levels? Or on the importance of a healthy diet and exercise? or preventative care? We took P.E. out of schools because fat kids got too embarrassed. And to clarify, I am not talking about people with thyroid conditions. I am talking about the rest of them. The overwhelming majority.


But lemme just ask this for clarification....
You don't think universal healthcare will work for you? Or you just don't think it will work PERIOD because of the way things are?


How about yes to both? I am a vet. I am a product of the VA healthcare system. I know what that system is like compared to my other insurance. You wait MONTHS for treatment, never see the same doctor, never see an ACTUAL doctor. It's horrible. As my brother and room mate are disabled vets, I see it all.
Doctors are overwhelmed because the real sick people are hidden under the unhealthy ones.
And where is it said that we are justified in giving state care to a person over 85, giving transplants to people over 70, and life time convicts the best care money can buy? Who said that we are granted the inalienable right to live indefinitely? I mean, if you can afford it, sure. But really? No one in this new generation saves, so are we expecting them to live into the century mark on the state dime?


You have a right to be suspicious of it, but I'm wondering what your personal feelings on what true socialism could be if it worked right.


Ahhh, the real meat of the debate.

Socialism only works in a family unit. In a society where each job has a real value on it, (I'm sorry, garbage truck drivers are less needed than doctors. We could all drive our trash to the dump, but I can't do a self appendectomy.) you can never have successful socialism. And also, over a large enough space, the resources needed by each group can vary to such a degree, that personal freedoms would need to be completely taken away. This tough, is a much, much larger debate.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mrwupy
 


My future retirement is tied up in these evil corporations. Exxon was the largest taxpayer in the world, ever, last year. Maybe you can point out one successful charity or social program? Or do you forget what the U.N. does with it's money? (oh, and pick one that is not church based, those actually do okay.:roll



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Socialism is a large government model where the Socialist government takes care of its children. Communism takes this even further by having all businesses owned by the "state" in one form another.

Do you want to be treated like a child who doesn't know what is best for you? Socialists claim they do know what is best for you (and conversely that you do not).

Socialism, like it's more extreme form Communism, completely destroy competition. Competition in the form of health care and business create more and better choices in higher quality product and services. Without competition, things quickly become dysfunctional and unorganized.

A "universal healthcare" system would be constantly allocating resources to, for example, "Illegal Aliens" in the USA. A decrease in resources causes more unattended health care, not to mention bad services.

Do you want to pay for someone elses health care that is careless with their health, with your taxpayer dollars? You shouldn't.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by jetxnet]



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
reply to post by mrwupy
 


Maybe you can point out one successful charity or social program? Or do you forget what the U.N. does with it's money? (oh, and pick one that is not church based, those actually do okay.:roll


Excuse me? There are hundreds if not thousands of successful, non-religious charities and organizations in America. One example is the American Red Cross, which is a secular organization.

And as far as social programs, I wont go into Europe, as many people seem to argue over whether or not their healthcare programs work well. I will, however, point out how FDR practically saved America's economy with a series of social programs called the New Deal. I'm sure there are plenty of other social programs that are extremely successful, I just don't feel like looking them up right now.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jetxnet
Socialism, like it's more extreme form Communism, completely destroy competition. Competition in the form of health care and business create more and better choices in higher quality product and services. Without competition, things quickly become dysfunctional and unorganized.

A "universal healthcare" system would be constantly allocating resources to, for example, "Illegal Aliens" in the USA. A decrease in resources causes more unattended health care, not to mention bad services.

Do you want to pay for someone elses health care that is careless with their health, with your taxpayer dollars? You shouldn't.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by jetxnet]


Competition in the Healthcare industry creates only expensive medicine and death, I'm afraid.

As far as illegal immigrants, I have yet to see a Universal Healthcare proposal that promises anything to non-citizens, so that argument is completely moot.

And as for your last statement, let's just say no one lives forever. I'd like to see just how "careless" you'd feel if you went to the doctor's office with a lump and they found cancer. Time ravages us all.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Europe hasn't been the EU long and you're already starting to see alot of European people becoming increasingly frustrated and upset with their new blanket Utopia. As more of the freedoms are taken away, slowly but surely, they are realizing that to their Socialist programs, they are just a number in the Sheep heard.

The same happened with Hong Kong, at first it was good, the promises etc., and then Hong Kong became angered by the mainlands imposing and medaling in Hong Kong's affairs. Originally, it was agreed between HK and the mainland that HK would have it's own mini-government, that didn't adhere to the mainland's strict Communist rules and regulations. Well, after a short time, HK is now under nearly complete mainland rule.



[edit on 31-5-2008 by jetxnet]



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jetxnet
Europe hasn't been the EU long and you're already starting to see alot of European people becoming increasingly frustrated and upset with their new blanket Utopia. As more of the freedoms are taken asway, slowly but surely, they are realizing that to their socialist programs, they are just a number in the Sheep heard.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by jetxnet]


That's why I didn't want to get into it. For every conservative American that says their system sucks, there's an equally hot-.ed liberal that says its perfect.

Frankly, I don't see why anyone should take your opinion seriously unless you live over there. I don't, so I don't get into it.

And you certainly don't need to live in a socialist or communist government to have your rights stripped away, we have plenty of problems retaining our rights here in good 'ol capitalist USA. The only right social medicine takes from you is your choice to be ripped off by Company A or Company B.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Both models are flawed, but if I had to choose, it would definitely be Capitalism. With Capitalism, you are more of an individual and treated like one. With Socialism/Communism, you are even below a number, just existing and a liability to the ruling Elite government. If they don't want you around, you don't have a choice.

In Capatilism, at least you're not a liability but more of a commeditie. You do have more rights and choices. You are more free to make your own decisions and conclusions.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jasonjnelson
 


Wow. I brought out a good frickin' post from you.

I cannot argue with you at all, because I actually agree with everything you said.

I also realize that it is 100 percent probable that Barack may be just the mouthpiece for the hidden movers and shakers of this world. Is he witting or unwitting? If I were an evil genius, I'd go with an unwitting puppet, myself. I can't blame him just yet. If we're gunna play this political game, which everyone is... who's the better choice? We have no choice, and I'm with anyone who feels just as frustrated... but I'm not going to go hang the spokesman without knowing who he's speaking for. I am more analyzing the man as an individual.

All I know is that Hilary and McCain have clearly showed that they are accomplices, not pawns. I haven't seen that from Obama as much. I don't trust any of them... but Obama has shown that he is much more "real" than the other two... even though he's playing the whole political denial crap... but what do you expect? He's a politician.

Maybe he IS Hitler in disguise.

You won't know until he man is in office.

It's scary.

I just don't know anymore, really.


EDIT:

It sucks because we're voting on "who's lying the least?"

[edit on 31-5-2008 by dunwichwitch]



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jasonjnelson
 

First of all you need to become more informed as to what you are talking about. The term "Universal Health Care" is rather broad and many like yourself have tied the meaning to "Socialized Medicine" that many other countries have, but it is not the same thing and is not a Socialist program. In fact, even the New York Times has a problem distinguishing the difference between Universal Health Care and Hillary Clinton's proposal of a "plan to secure health insurance for all Americans".

Clinton to Propose Universal Health Care

A health insurance coverage plan is not Universal Health Care and is certainly not Socialized Medicine. Now Barack Obama has a similar insurance coverage plan, but again it is not Socialized Medicine.

Are you going to label him a Socialist only on this one point? Or do you always ignorantly stereotype people this way. Maybe, you just here to spew out anti-Obama propaganda?



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 11:02 PM
link   
My main beef with socialism is that it's too authoritarian. It demands a government that constantly intrudes on your life, and generally tramples all over individual liberties. But you know who is more authoritarian than Obama? John McCain and Hillary Clinton. And Ron Paul is nuts.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by jasonjnelson
 

Would you say this about any democrat or is it just Obama that you want to pick on? I'm not a fan of Obama and his boy band type of fans; however, I cannot vote for a man who wants an endless war and who believes that the economy is improving. Does that mean that I would vote for Obama because he's not McCain? Maybe, but at least I know that Obama does share a couple of my views, even if he I'm unclear on everything else he intends to do in Washington.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Hal9000
 


Sorry, I was at a dinner party. I make the meanest Peach Mango Salsa you will ever have.

Oh, thats right, you were calling me ignorant. hmmmm.....

Well, maybe I am. I would like to think, having lived in every part of this country, and every major area in this world, that my experience in life can amount to nothing in the eyes of someone as educated as you are.

But I will try to further the explanation of my points. To start with the easiest, here you go...this is my email confirmation from he obama campaign. I will forward all the actual e-mails to anyone who wants them.
Hi,

S F. in New York, NY just made a donation to match yours!

S F. in New York, NY might choose to write you a personal message (over 90% of people do). If they do, you'll receive a separate email with that message in a moment.

Want to make another matching donation to double someone else's impact? You can do it right now:

my.barackobama.com...

Thank you!

Second, I don't want any coverage hat is mandated or served by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. That is NOT THEIR JOB. 'nuff said.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by scarlett1125
reply to post by jasonjnelson
 

Would you say this about any democrat or is it just Obama that you want to pick on? I'm not a fan of Obama and his boy band type of fans; however, I cannot vote for a man who wants an endless war and who believes that the economy is improving. Does that mean that I would vote for Obama because he's not McCain? Maybe, but at least I know that Obama does share a couple of my views, even if he I'm unclear on everything else he intends to do in Washington.


Good point. Read my history, I do not want to be there anymore. As a matter of fact, I just posted an essay here....
Pullout of Iraq!

But Mccains quote belongs in context. Besides, don't look at me. I supported Romney and Paul. (my dream ticket)

Most Democrats are socialists at heart. It is true, don't deny it.
I said don't.
I just thught Obama was a Kennedy for a second there. Then I remembered Jack was a war hero. Oops.... then I saw what he and his wife really thought of my skin color.... And then I realized he was the most liberal do-nothing there was in the senate. Sorry, but Bill fooled my dada, Barrack won't get me.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by jasonjnelson
 

Well, I'm sure that your "mean Peach Mango Salsa" is as advertised, but are you telling me that your best response is providing nothing but a campaign raising website? This has nothing to do with the topic at hand and it shows the depth of your credibility.

Please show the distinguished members here that the insurance coverage plan proposed by the Democratic candidates is the same as Socialized Medicine. And while your at it, what else do you base your accusation that Barack Obama is a Socialist?



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 02:16 AM
link   
a few replies here. Many of the ideas i see of socialism here are wrong. In fact i think a socialist democracy is the only possible humane form of government, at any rate, our police system is socialist. Our Fire department is socialist. these things work pretty well. Most countries out there have successful blends of social programs with their democracies or parliaments. In fact our health care is ranked like 47th, behind even CUBA, and yet it sucks in the most money. Doesnt seem to be such a good system to me. And of course no socialist governments have ever been succesful and i'll tell you why. There hasnt been a single socialist government that the US hasnt gone to war with either through economic warfare, propaganda, assassination, suporting coups or subversives. Name me one if you can. Socialism has never gotten its chance, at least, not since the early native american tribes. They had successful socialism. And there are plenty of communes around too that are successful.
Now as to my earlier comment...i guess i shouldnt stress that Cuba's medical system is better than ours like thats a surprise, after all, cuba exports more trained doctors and nurses than any other country in the world. Hows THAT for socialism??



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 02:24 AM
link   
another couple comments to various posts
1) our capitalism may see to the needs of americans, but it has forced much of the world to remain in third world status. Ask columbia, congo, indonesia, vietnam, iraq, el salvador, the phillipines,cambodia, laos or many others what our capitalism has done for them.

2)hillary's health insurance for everyone plan is just a way to take billions of dollars from the tax payers and give a big chunk of it to the insurance companies before it goes to the hospitals. We might as well have a direct tax to the medical industry and cut the insurance companies out of it.

Further, true socialist ideas arent authoritarian and dont trample rights. Its just that most americans cant differentiate between socialism and communism, and also that most people associate socialism with the failed and battered examples we are left with after countries like cuba and venezuela are beaten and attacked by the United states for a few decades. Just as america is no true example of "democracy" its more of a corporate dictatorship, and russia is no real example of "communism" its more of a traditional dictatorship



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join