Barack Obama: Socialist

Originally posted by slackerwire

No, because I am not forced to live there.

You're not forced to live anywhere. If you don't like somewhere, move. If you don't want to live in a socialist USA, but the majority of people do and they voted for it (which hasn't happned - yet), you can always emigrate if it's really so terrible.

As I said before, life isn't fair, some people get the shaft simply by being born.

There always has been and there always will be an underclass in every society that has ever existed. Don't like it? Tough. Get used to it.

The opening of the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, states as follows:
“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."

Don't hear anything about life is tough, get used to it, we want an underclass.

Same goes with the minimum wage. It was never meant to be a living wage. If you believe otherwise, lets see some factual evidence to back up that contention.

blog.laborlawcenter.com...

And I quote:
"The minimum wage was first developed in the U.S. in 1933. While minimum wages had been established in other countries, the U.S. found itself in dire straights in terms of economic vitality in 1933. The country needed to find a way to help employees afford food and housing, even when their work was hard to find. The purpose of the minimum wage was to ensure that all employees were able to afford the basic necessities in the bad Great Depression economy."

And furthermore:
Some states also gave localities within eh states that right to decide their own minimum wages. When a locality decides its own wage, the purpose of the wage may change. For example, the purpose of the minimum wage in Santa Fe is to provide a living wage for all employees, while the purpose of the minimum wage in other localities and states is simply to ensure that all employees receive fair pay for their work.

[edit on 20-6-2008 by Alethia]

Originally posted by human8
"We can no longer tolerate the sexual exploitation of children in the form of cyber-pedophilia. We have come to an agreement: the access to child pornography sites will be blocked in France. Other democracies have done it. France could wait no longer" said the minister. (((Who is a tough old broad had been well-rehearsed.)))
en.wikipedia.org...èle_Alliot-Marie
The plan will be put into force in September by the creation of a blacklist on the basis of information received from Internet users on sites that carry offensive material.

You're knocking a country because it enforces a ban on pedophillic web sites?

Seriously?

Incidentally, the President of France is not a socialist.

[edit on 20/0608/08 by neformore]

This thread is extermly scary. It would seem that he left is embracing socialism when all they preach is an NWO from the GOP that never came. even after the left took over the House and Congress?

The world is on the brink of global conflict, hunger and economic collapse. The sad part is that I am talking about the United States. I do not want change, I want progress. I do not want to have someone try to reinvent the wheel in 4 years but learn to make the process leaner and streamlined. Remove lobbyists and futures trading. That is what I want to hear. Get rid of those 2 things and we will ahve 50 cent gas folks.

There were 8 between attacks on the WTC. Do not think that Hezbollah or any other major players are not wanting to cut the throat of America when we are at our econimc weakest and a country is divided. Read the Art of War folks or even a history book.

This year we will lose either way

reply to post by Alethia


The form of government is not in question here. Also not all these governments were communist. What is in question is the fact that they ran command and control socialist economies on a large scale. They were all dismal failures. It is this very reason that China is now a hyper capitalist fascist state instead of a communist country. The repressive government is still there, but by switching to capitalism their economy is booming and their middle class and general prosperity has greatly increased.

This is an indisputable fact of history. Yet for some reason people still think that central governments can do a good job controlling all of your economic activity. As for the failures of socialized medicine, they are quite clear.
www.aapsonline.org...
Health Care Shortage in Canada

reply to post by SevenThunders


It's a shame you feel that way, and are somehow only seeing the negative. You seem to assume that Obama will turn the US into North Korea, but what about successful socialist countries like France & the UK for example, who are both some of the wealthiest countries on earth.

As for your source of the NHS being a failure, you're quoting a US paper. Of course that would take that point of view. Please provide evidence of either the French or British saying their healthcare system is a complete failure, or evidence of the people of those countries campaigning for private healthcare, rallies calling for the healthcare system to be scraped. If it is so terrible why has it been in those countires for over 50 years? Furthermore, the movie "Sicko" by Michale Morre interviews US citizens living in France, who declare that the French healthcare system is better than the US. They show a UK NHS hospital, and the patients say they are very happy with the service, and the doctors live in $1 million homes. They even quote a politician saying if they tried to scrap the NHS the country would riot. This is at odds with this paper, which even mentions some of it was written pre-1965.

I'm surprised that you think 1 paper, from a US publication commenting on another countries healthcare system with some of it's information written before 1965, constitutes proof that these healthcare systems are a failure.

[edit on 20-6-2008 by Alethia]

Originally posted by Alethia


You're not forced to live anywhere. If you don't like somewhere, move. If you don't want to live in a socialist USA, but the majority of people do and they voted for it (which hasn't happned - yet), you can always emigrate if it's really so terrible.

Socialism is unconstitutional, and it would take an obscene amount of morons in order to amend it.

The opening of the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, states as follows:
“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."

Don't hear anything about life is tough, get used to it, we want an underclass.

This may come as a shock to you, but there was an underclass as he was writing those words.

blog.laborlawcenter.com...

And I quote:
"The minimum wage was first developed in the U.S. in 1933. While minimum wages had been established in other countries, the U.S. found itself in dire straights in terms of economic vitality in 1933. The country needed to find a way to help employees afford food and housing, even when their work was hard to find. The purpose of the minimum wage was to ensure that all employees were able to afford the basic necessities in the bad Great Depression economy."

And furthermore:
Some states also gave localities within eh states that right to decide their own minimum wages. When a locality decides its own wage, the purpose of the wage may change. For example, the purpose of the minimum wage in Santa Fe is to provide a living wage for all employees, while the purpose of the minimum wage in other localities and states is simply to ensure that all employees receive fair pay for their work.

Is that supposed to be your big "prove slacker wrong" piece of proof? A blog post written by an HR employee?

Oddly enough, the U.S. code dealing with minimum wage doesn't mention living wage.

Source

The minimum wage was established under the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938. The FLSA doesn't mention living wage either.

Next time, try to use better source material other than some HR rep's opinion.

reply to post by Alethia



Neither France nor the UK are socialist countries, though to the extent they adopt socialism they suffer economically. Indeed Western europe has seen negative economic growth for quite some time and they face a huge burden of unfunded mandates to support their ever increasing welfare state. That's why France started importing Muslims like crazy. They needed workers to help pay the welfare state burden. However it's reached a critical mass there. The French are too fearful to stop the violence that the Muslim religion demands of it's followers, but that's another story.

truth be told each person here should pay there fair share With NO possable work around to avoid it.
if a man earns 100.00 and pays 32% of that in overall taxes so should the man earning 1,000,000.
yet.. the guy who earns $1m has Many work arounds offered to him to the point to where he can hide almost ALL $1m and not have to pay a dime.
we all know its the truth.. with wealth comes privlage. i dont mind people Being rich. but i DO care that they Dont pay the same % i pay Because they make more.

btw Star trek = a free socilist goverment.

and yer misleading yerself if u think people who work for min wage made more choices. mabby like the 25k people GM laid off (many of witch Are doing that now ) cause GM just Had to make the car in china to make more Corp profits.
people work for min wage now 8( people who used to earn20+ a hour but.. got laid off cause there company decided to build there prodict overseas and avoid paying people here in the usa.) but then again the people ive seen post here think those same people are scum 8( is a shame.
i would totaly and 100% support a law forcing US companys Licenced IN the USA to pay there employee's the US min wage of any employee they have NO matter where they are employed or where they live.
that means companys like Nike would be forced to paly there slave labor people 7+ an hour ! ( and that.... would be good for the global econamy! )

Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the public

Subject to control of the PUBLIC. So what are you scared of the PUBLIC!

I don't agree that socialism has the answers how can one ideology encompass the best governance for a country. It's got alot going for it though, and if you want the best for your country you would implement some socialist ideas, like you already have done.

Obviously socialism is not what Barack Obama stands for, however that word has been pedalled in connection with Obama by some people on ATS in their campaigns of support in the next Presedential election. It is poor to promote propaganda, the misrepresentation and distortion of people and ideas on both sides, in my mind your stealing their vote with lies. Allthough I suppose thats what modern politics is about.

Do the people who use the word understand it's meaning in it's generic sense and not in how it's evolved in your minds and others to become 'COMMUNISM', laughable is your lack of discernment and disturbing is your support of the lie.

UK and France are composites of ideologies some socialist, some capitalistic, we stuck with the policies that worked it's a good of example of how an administration should work, unlike what we have now.

I think it was Pierre LeRoux who stated that evryone is a socialist from the day they are born to the day they die, you partake, you interact, now that is socialism. Evrything else is an interpretation on the theme.

Anyway let's get back to whats more important Go team Red!! actually I like Blue more than Red. Go team Blue!! yeehaa!!

The myth of drip down economics being a good thing really tickles me - all it really means is that the government makes the rich people even more wealthy in the hope that some of that wealth will reach the poor.

And it doesn't work.

There also seems to be a lot of people still living in the McCarthy era and thinking that socialism = communism, which is a quite silly really, especially when you consider the fact that communism has never been praticed by ANY country.

I live in the UK and whilst it's true that our system of government leaves something to be desired, I would rather have our government and economic model than that of the US where you are basically doomed to a life of sub-standard healthcare, low wages (poverty level) poor nutrition etc and where life expectancy is one of the lowest in the western world.
Life Expectancy by Country

The modern world is one where we should be at a stage where we are civilsed enough, and socially responsible enough to protect the weaker members of our societies - not just throw them on the scrapheap saying "I'm alright jack, I've got mine"
That's the kind of attitude which see's wars and famine at every turn.

reply to post by slackerwire


That is your biggest flaw in your argument. You will stop investing because you will only make $.72 instead of $.85 on every dollar earned through investment.

So you going to take $.0 earnings instead or just spend everything you make? That is just faulty thinking. .No matter what the tax rates people will always invest their extra money. Maybe it will be in a CD or savings account? - these are currently taxed as ordinary income. That is higher than what Obama's "suppossed" new capital gains rate would be.

I am not for new higher taxes by the way, but your reasoning is faulty.

As far as socialism, the neccesities of modern life leave the people reliant on certian industries. The major ones are healthcare, energy, food, transportation, housing and communications. These are all needed to be a contributing member of society. Profit needs to come out of these industries, otherwise the greedy capitalist will end up sucking every dime from the lower and middle classes, depriving them the ability to properly compete. Just like you are seeing now. These industries have sucked every drop out of many americans and then it abandons them by sending their jobs overseas. American capitalism does not work, expect for the select few.

I'm not promoting Obama, because I think the one side is an obvious evil, and the other is a wolf in sheeps clothing. But its certainly not his socialist standing that makes me think that. There are many things we've been taught not to consider. The fact that democracies that look after their own, have not only honor, do well in business, and have the highest standards of living in the world. This video is one of my favorite. It looks like some people have already ascended:

Socialism is fine, for those who wish to employ it. I, as an American, do not believe it's the right method to live by.

While I'd love to live by emotionalism and rose-colored ideals, I'd prefer to live in a world where a man can earn what his ability has wrought and keep what he earns.

This is the foundation of liberty: personal property.

Regardless of what the proponents of Socialism might say, I owe nothing to my fellow man. Fundamentally, unearned money is spent far less prudently than money earned. Social Programs, for the most part, equate to unearned and undeserved money.

The MAJOR tenant missed by big government solutionists, is that because I do not believe the Federal Government should do it, that it should not be done at all, thus creating the baseless idea that we are simply greedy and should be dismissed or scorned.

When push comes to shove, I earn my money through hard work, and no one has more right to my money than me. Period, and I defy anyone to prove otherwise. As it stands now, I have bread taken from the mouths of my three children, to be wantonly given to those who have failed to earn it and will probably continue to.

Many people do not know how to manage money, save money, use money wisely. This is not my problem and should not be remedied through removal of my property.

Simply put, the sign on the door to America once read "Liberty", although now it seems to read more like something Europe might have.

I've lived and visited many countries in Europe, and they are beautiful places with a rich history of their own. They are starkly different than American for good and ill, but because they employ a system does not mean it would be appropriate to add additional Socialist programs over a Capitalist framework (the education system for example of such mismatched applications).

reply to post by KrazyJethro


Yeah,
because capitalism works SOOOO very well.

How much you paying at the pump now?

How much extra are you paying for weekly groceries now?

Not to mention utilities.

Capitalism at work - and out of control - it's now government by corporate decree.

Freedom my backside - you have as much freedom as the corporate world allows you to have.

No more.

reply to post by Johnmike


Try at the beginning and show how capitalism benefits the vast majority of the people of a country, instead of just making silly one line statements which have no merit.

As usual.

Socialism is the collective ownership, or control, by the people of the means of production.

In other words you, the worker, will be a co-owner with the other workers and will benefit equally from the profits made. This increases the incentive to work because you directly benefit from the companies success.

Show me a country that does, or has ever, done that? Russia, China, UK, France etc... NOT socialist.

The two most obviously used to argue against socialism…

In summary then, to the answer to the question of was Russia socialist, we’d have to say no, Russia did indeed have a real working class revolution, and was on the road to socialism, but it was prevented from getting there…

Source

…In other words, China is going through a transition from feudalism to capitalism. I just don’t see calling such a transition socialism.

Source

Government owned industry and services is NOT socialism. Social, social programs, social engineering, national socialism etc… NOT socialism. I often see people equating these terms with socialism, a miss-understanding of terms.

Socialism is not more government. Government is not necessary for socialism to work. I advocate Libertarian Socialism, socialism without government.

Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives…
…It is recognized that there are authoritarian systems and behavior, distinct from libertarian, or non-authoritarian ones. Since capitalism's early beginnings in Europe, and it's authoritarian trend of wage-slavery for the majority of people (working class) by a smaller, elite group (a ruling, or, capitalist class) who own the "means of production": machines, land, factories, there was a liberatory movement in response to capitalism known as "Socialism". In almost every case, the socialist movement has been divided along authoritarian, and libertarian lines. The anarchists on the libertarian side, and the Jacobins, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, and reformist state-socialists on the authoritarian side. (And liberals more or less split down the middle.)

No room in socialism for slackers. If you don’t do your share then you won’t share in the wealth created, simple. You guys have got it all backwards. The system we live in now encourages laziness. It divides and turns us against each other for our own survival, so instead of working together to better our lives we fight with each other to take what we can, regardless if you really need it or not. It brings out our worst traits, greed, dishonesty, jealousy etc.... The present 'system' is a perversion.

Edit; oh yeah forgot, Obama and the demorats...NOT socialist.

[edit on 21/6/2008 by ANOK]

I mean your inability to look at something scientifically. For example, your use of a logical fallacy, attempting to mislead us into believing that correlation implies causation. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. This is a huge one you just used. Argument from ignorance applies because you suggested that the free market is the only cause of gas and grocery prices, which is obviously false. It can also be seen as affirming the consequent.
And a huge example of cherry picking.

And your last post is a classic ad hominem and perhaps an appeal to ridicule.


Keep it up, budski. You're really helping me study flaws in reasoning.

reply to post by ANOK


I'm not going to pick out fallacies and be a prick, but you just made a bunch of claims about what should be.

To examine what's wrong with socialism, you have to use economics.

Originally posted by Johnmike
reply to post by ANOK

 

I'm not going to pick out fallacies and be a prick, but you just made a bunch of claims about what should be.

Oh? Well go head and be a prick. What fallacies? I just explained what socialism actually is as apposed to what the statist MSM would like you to believe it is.

Let's hear what you've got, from what I've read of your other posts it won't be much, bring it on...

Your world of economics is just an illusion to control you. You probably wouldn't know how to survive without it...lol