Why vote for a socialist? Re: Sen. Obama

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
I am tired of answering you. It's like you really don't read. I've given my solution. You asked for the conformation that I donated. Now you act like you don't know. I give up.

I was not asking for confirmation that you donated. You claimed that this e-mail reply showed how Obama was a socialist. You said you would show us how his health care plan showed that he was socialist. You also said he supported a fair wage bill and can't support that claim either.

Maybe your tired of answering because you simply can't back up anything your saying.

edit: OK I went back through this thread again and see that you didn't say the e-mail showed that he is a socialist. You kept bringing up this e-mail for some reason and I misunderstood it. I apologize for that, but I still don't think you have shown us how Obama is a socialist.

[edit on 6/3/2008 by Hal9000]

Okay, so he estimates that his health "insurance" plan, will cost between 50-65 billion usd a year. But his staff and others who answered questions later said that it could easily reach 75 billion a year.

Where to get that money? By eliminating tax cuts, or taxing if you will, the wealthy. BTW, they are still short billions even after "fixing" the Bush tax cuts But here's the thing with these programs the gov't starts. First, it ALWAYS expands, because they NEVER complete their mission, always saying that it's not the execution, we just need MORE money.

Taking money from the rich leads to money taken from the middle class and Corporations. (seeing as I hope to be middle class and I have stock right now, this affects me.)

Sen. Obama has also supported numerous bills that will be "comprehensive" in their approaches to immigration reform. Meaning that he wants to add 12 million to the amount that he wants to cover. This is not included in his estimates, and would almost double the costs associated.

Since socialism is CLEARLY defined as the use of illegal taxes for the above, then that is what this is. And that makes him a socialist. I don't care how you think of socialism, because "A rose of a different color...".

This all requires that you and I have read the same information. That we feel the same about our U.S. tax codes. And that we both agree that it is not within the power of the federal gov't to do any of this.

As for your other recurring point. At what point did the Gov't stop supporting medical research? If we were still actively doing research, then there would be advances that were available immediately as generics.

Second, have you still not scrolled back to see where I advocated the reinstatement of P.E. in schools? Or the necessity of proper eating and exercise? Or the need to eliminate unnecessary visits to the doctor? Or the whole insurance system?

What the heck man? did you read any of it, or just the parts you wanted to respond to? You see this as some clear cut argument, when all it really takes is to look at our governments history of F-ing things up on a large scale to know that this will be more wasteful than anything. It is socialism, just with a different paint job. Just like Obama IS THE MOST LIBERAL DEMOCRAT (and democrats ARE socialists). oh, but without the history of doing anything.

But back to my original point,. It is not my job to support ANYONE who I cannot control or moderate their bad behaviors.
And seeing as I would rather DIE than have someone watch over me like that, I will never force it on someone.

Does this answer your question? Can you finally answer mine?

P.S. I copied my donation statement in the early part of this thread so that I could show I was not some "Barack Hater". I guess we both got confused on that one. My bad.



[edit on 3-6-2008 by jasonjnelson]

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
Okay, so he estimates that his health "insurance" plan, will cost between 50-65 billion usd a year. But his staff and others who answered questions later said that it could easily reach 75 billion a year.

I have seen even higher estimates than that to cover all 47 million of the uninsured. What I can't find out is if any of these 47 million include those that can afford to buy it, or if that is the number that cannot afford it. With limited time, I can't go through to really dig into the cost and the actual number needing to be covered by the government. What ever it is it will be expensive according to Obama's plan.

Where to get that money? By eliminating tax cuts, or taxing if you will, the wealthy. BTW, they are still short billions even after "fixing" the Bush tax cuts But here's the thing with these programs the gov't starts. First, it ALWAYS expands, because they NEVER complete their mission, always saying that it's not the execution, we just need MORE money.

I don't have a problem paying for it by rolling back those tax cuts, but lets leave that debate for another day. The wealthy were paying less taxes than they have in the past even before these cuts. The remaining would come from the same place everything else does. Our tax dollars. This would preclude a fiscally sound budget without waste, but when the Government takes in 2.5 trillion dollars a year, I don't why we couldn't be able to pay for it without raising taxes.

In reality, if Obama were elected and proposed this plan, by the time they got it through (if it actually would make it through) the legislative process, the plan will probably not resemble his proposal. He would be president, but he would not be a dictator. It has to be approved by a few more people before it would happen. I just believe that if it were possible to have everyone covered with health care insurance, that the cost of health care would become more affordable for everyone, including you.

BTW, I found this New York Times webpage that compares all three candidates health care plans. Now Hillary's and Barack's plan are similar, but have you looked at McCain's. He want to do the same thing except instead of paying for it with taxes, he would give a tax credit for those that purchased insurance. What difference does it make, whether the government pays for it, or it reduces it's income? The end result is the same. I guess that makes McCain a socialist too.

Sen. Obama has also supported numerous bills that will be "comprehensive" in their approaches to immigration reform. Meaning that he wants to add 12 million to the amount that he wants to cover. This is not included in his estimates, and would almost double the costs associated.

I have not heard that and would appreciate a reliable source for that. If that were true, then he would be wrong to include illegals in this program. Again, just because he wants to do it, won't mean he will get to do it.

Since socialism is CLEARLY defined as the use of illegal taxes for the above, then that is what this is. And that makes him a socialist. I don't care how you think of socialism, because "A rose of a different color...".

This all requires that you and I have read the same information. That we feel the same about our U.S. tax codes. And that we both agree that it is not within the power of the federal gov't to do any of this.

If you are referring to “taxation without representation", or something to that effect, I will say that am aware of what you mean, but would have to respectfully disagree. If the government could not generate an income by taxing us, it would not exist. That is another debate to leave for another day.

But let's get back to your definition of socialism. I believe your issue with this is what many call the re-distribution of wealth. That is part of the definition, but not all of it. Here is a full definition from Wikipedia.

Socialism is a socio-economic system in which essential industries, social services, property and the distribution of wealth are publicly and cooperatively owned and democratically controlled with a view to equal opportunity and equal benefit for all. Since the ownership and distribution of wealth is controlled by the whole community as a collective, and not individually or by groups of individuals that do not comprise a whole community, socialism has been identified with communism. In a practical ideology, members of the community would contribute as much as reasonably possible, yet they would be capable of consuming as much as reasonably necessary.

Socialism

By this definition, the government would own the hospitals and employ the health care providers, which is not part of Obama’s plan or any of the other candidates. In other countries that have socialized medicine, given that each country varies and is unique, but for some this is how it is run.

So if you believe that fulfilling only part of the definition is enough to make the claim that it is socialized medicine, you would only be half right or half wrong.

My whole point earlier was that when referring to socialized medicine MOST other people would think you are referring to the same thing that other countries have, and Obama’s plan is anything but that. I believe that this was intentional misleading and is a tactic used all the time. You can argue semantics all you want, but unless you are clear or that you tell the whole truth, then IMHO you are being dishonest.

As for your other recurring point. At what point did the Gov't stop supporting medical research? If we were still actively doing research, then there would be advances that were available immediately as generics.

I made no reference to medical research. You must be thinking of someone else.

Second, have you still not scrolled back to see where I advocated the reinstatement of P.E. in schools? Or the necessity of proper eating and exercise? Or the need to eliminate unnecessary visits to the doctor? Or the whole insurance system?

Yes I saw that. Is this your plan to reduce health care costs?

One of the causes of the rising cost of health care is uninsured patients. They can’t afford the insurance, and can’t pay for the services. How is this plan going to fix that? The fact is health care is expensive and is too much of a burden to pay without insurance. How can you do without it?

What the heck man? did you read any of it, or just the parts you wanted to respond to? You see this as some clear cut argument, when all it really takes is to look at our governments history of F-ing things up on a large scale to know that this will be more wasteful than anything. It is socialism, just with a different paint job. Just like Obama IS THE MOST LIBERAL DEMOCRAT (and democrats ARE socialists). oh, but without the history of doing anything.

Yes, I read it, but it is not realistic. If we can’t trust the government to do this then we have to leave it up to the free market to do it. Oh wait, that’s what we’ve been doing. And we have millions of people who don’t pay for services they receive so the hospitals stick the bill with those of us that do pay.

But back to my original point,. It is not my job to support ANYONE who I cannot control or moderate their bad behaviors.
And seeing as I would rather DIE than have someone watch over me like that, I will never force it on someone.

Let’s see if you feel the same way when you’re older and have to rely on help others.

Does this answer your question? Can you finally answer mine?

I will say it was an attempt to answer it, but I don’t agree with it, just as you won’t agree with mine.

What question are you referring to now that I was supposed to answer? Was it this question?

And you still, STILL, have not answered my query as to my responsibility for those that lead unhealthy lifestyles.

If so, I did answer it in the following post.

I guess I’m not the only one having trouble reading.

I can't stand to sit and do all this quoting crap again, no offense. I will argue those that I can remember, and touch up if needed.

A tax credit says that I get to spend the money the way I want to. This is not socialism. They shouldn't be getting most of the taxes they get anyway.

As for your taxation point? Yes, the gov't needs an income to survive. I'm a 29 year old college graduate, not an idiot. However the gov't long ago exceeded it's authority and reach. They have appropriated far more than their share. The state and local governments are the ones that should be taking care of most of this, not our federal government.

Our medical system needs a complete, COMPLETE overhaul. It is run by administrators, and adding another layer will not help. There needs to be so many issues addressed, many of which would eliminate MANY of the common problems we face. If you do not see the results of my ideas earlier, then you know nothing of the simple answers, like maintaining a Ph balance a certain level. (it eliminates the spread of cancer, and needs no drugs.) But yes, that is a whole other thread.

Sen. Obama presents a comprehensive immigrant package that would make 12 million new people eligible for social services. Most, if not all, of these people are low income. This will add a significant amount of numbers to his projected estimate.

The government does own and run MANY hospitals. Ever hear of the military? they help service members AND their families. And don't forget the good old VA...

And when I am 80, if I am in poor health, need possibly millions to stay alive for twenty more years, but I'm broke? just give me some pain killers, I'm content with where I'm headed. I'll wait it out....

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
A tax credit says that I get to spend the money the way I want to. This is not socialism. They shouldn't be getting most of the taxes they get anyway.

I agree that it is not socialism. I was being sarcastic.

So if this health care plan was voluntary using McCain's tax credit incentives, do you think that is a plan that you would support? If that is how the legislators got the bill through, that would be fine with me. I think that would be great.

Our medical system needs a complete, COMPLETE overhaul. It is run by administrators, and adding another layer will not help. There needs to be so many issues addressed, many of which would eliminate MANY of the common problems we face.

I totally agree, but in reality, I don't see that happening. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do this.

Sen. Obama presents a comprehensive immigrant package that would make 12 million new people eligible for social services. Most, if not all, of these people are low income. This will add a significant amount of numbers to his projected estimate.

Still waiting on that reliable source.

Otherwise, I will part feeling satisfied that anyone reading this thread will have at least some chance of being better informed.

Thanks for the discussion.

Originally posted by dunwichwitch
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 don't think it's selfishness at all. The problem is that when a person has everything given to him/her what is the motivation to do anything? I don't think it's fair that I work 60 hours a week to provide for my family and the government takes a large percentage of it to give to those who do absolutely nothing to better this country.

I've worked in the neighborhoods that are supported by these policies. There is literally an entire class of citizens in this country that have been raised to believe that the government is there to provide everything needed. I spent three summers during/after college putting installing roofing in these neighborhoods. Every house in the neighborhood had able bodied adults that spent the day on the front porch drinking. They were all on public assistance and we're living better than I was.

Can anybody explain to me why we have illegal aliens coming into this country by the millions to do "jobs that Americans won't do" and yet we have millions of able bodied people who refuse to work and live off of our dime? This dependancy that socialist policies are slowly creating is going to be the death of freedom in this country.