Is Obama the most pathetic "socialist" ever??

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Would you be getting anything different if you remain with a private healthcare model?
What I mean by that is, don't the insurance companies play the same game (death panels). Insurance premium increase = subsidies.




posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Good lord! I don't believe in State Capitalism either. That is what you keep mistaking for Socialism. State Capitalism is what the USSR was, what China is, what Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were... it is horrible.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
but but but but but the internet man told me he is a kenyan coming after my guns !!

I'm so confused now !!!!



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by region331
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Would you be getting anything different if you remain with a private healthcare model?
What I mean by that is, don't the insurance companies play the same game (death panels). Insurance premium increase = subsidies.


It is unfortunate that under current model the HMO's have somewhat of a similar system of deciding what they will pay for, however, the Obamacare model is much more Draconian, that is now govt bureaucrats will be telling people what to do, but there is going to be a transition period, and by then they will likely have pushed the single payer system and all the private businesses would be dwindled down or gone.

When it is a govt bureaucracy, not only will they be deciding what they will pay for, they will be deciding whether you can even have it.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

When it is a govt bureaucracy, not only will they be deciding what they will pay for, they will be deciding whether you can even have it.


Treatment times have improved a lot in the UK although waiting times can be too long. You do still have the option though to pay for private consulting and private treatment. I can't see why America would be any different in this respect.

The main problem in the UK is not the deciding on whether you'll get treatment. You will get the treatment but whether you can get the expensive drugs. That's what the Health Trust Panels (Death Panels) decide on and it is a big problem here.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Don't condescend to me. Those are the original meanings of Libertarian and Socialism, it isn't my fault some idiots hi-jacked the words way back when nor is my fault some idiots now continue on with it. What in that wiki you linked lends you to go off on yet another tangent about in which you replace the words State Capitalism with Socialism? Anti-State.... hello?



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Good lord! I don't believe in State Capitalism either. That is what you keep mistaking for Socialism. State Capitalism is what the USSR was, what China is, what Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were... it is horrible.


You just said you called it State Capitalism and even asked me to join you.


What you are really advocating is a kind of anarchic Communism whereby there is no real private property but everyone is real nice and gives it up on their own for the collective.

It is too bad you do not yet see your mistake. Because the truth is that something like the Soviet Union or People's Republic of China is what you will get, not a happy place where everyone just willingly gives up their property and pretends they own something. You will get the KGB or the Cheka, the Stasi, the Politburo.
The goal of all Socialist systems is to abolish private property, no matter how pretty you might try and make it sound. The end goal of all Socialist systems is COMMUNISM and abolition of private property AND OF THE NUCLEAR FAMILY.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Don't condescend to me. Those are the original meanings of Libertarian and Socialism, it isn't my fault some idiots hi-jacked the words way back when nor is my fault some idiots now continue on with it. What in that wiki you linked lends you to go off on yet another tangent about in which you replace the words State Capitalism with Socialism? Anti-State.... hello?


OMG you are completely condescending, telling people they don't know something because it doesn't seem to fit with what you think socialism is. You completely ignore all textbook definitions in favor of your Chomsky ideal. Socialism is NOT and NEVER WILL BE TRUE LIBERTARIANISM. Our Founding Fathers were the closest to real LIbertarianism we will ever get.
And DONT EVER FORGET IT.
And they did not advocate collectivism, they advocated individual liberties and PROPERTY.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Don't condescend to me. Those are the original meanings of Libertarian and Socialism, it isn't my fault some idiots hi-jacked the words way back when nor is my fault some idiots now continue on with it. What in that wiki you linked lends you to go off on yet another tangent about in which you replace the words State Capitalism with Socialism? Anti-State.... hello?


You're right Noam Chomsky and HIS Buddies hijacked the term Libertarianism and added Socialism to fool the people into believing the two can coexist naturally. As I have said, anarchism can be used by Socialists as a method, but the end result is going to be State Controlled centralized bureaucracy.

You can call it whatever the heck you like but it is not liberty and it is not free enterprise.

You clearly will not listen to me, so how about the actual words of someone who writes about anarchism
Anarchist Communism Its Basis and Principles by Peter Kropotkin(even the name sounds Russian)

Anarchism, the no-government system of socialism, has a double origin. It is an outgrowth of the two great movements of thought in the economic and the political fields which characterise the nineteenth century, and especially its second part. In common with all socialists, the anarchists hold that the private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is condemned to disappear; and that all requisites for production must, and will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common by the producers of wealth.


www.fourmilab.ch...

I rest my case.
edit on 2-2-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   
LOL

Well you can't rob from the rich and give to the poor(spread the wealth) without using the state. The state decides who to target who to take from and give to who are deemed to be worthy.

That is statism and by the way anyone get the GM dividend checks?

Nope. .
edit on 2-2-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
LOL

Well you can't rob from the rich and give to the poor(spread the wealth) without using the state. The state decides who to target who to take from and give to who are deemed to be worthy.


Sort of like Sullas Proscriptions? Well ..... without involving the poor.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by region331

Originally posted by neo96
LOL

Well you can't rob from the rich and give to the poor(spread the wealth) without using the state. The state decides who to target who to take from and give to who are deemed to be worthy.


Sort of like Sullas Proscriptions? Well ..... without involving the poor.


Obamacare law states that EVERYONE HAS to buy health insurance whether they want it or not, or be penalized by the IRS through tax collection. This is draconian and force. Also, the only step further would be single payer(like SS or Medicare where there are deductions taken from your paycheck whether you are using it or not).

Do you have automatic deductions from your paycheck to pay for healthcare? Because a Socialist system means that someone has to pay, that is forced redistribution of income for the benefit of others. I am guessing that you have high taxes withheld and think that the govt is just paying for all your stuff, but you are the govt and you pay.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 




You just said you called it State Capitalism and even asked me to join you.


I think I misunderstood what you said in the post I was responding to, sorry. I was thinking you had finally used the proper term (State Capitalism) for what you have been condemning all this time as Socialism. I've been at this all day because I'm home sick with the flu and I don't really watch much TV. It might be nap time




What you are really advocating


I'm not advocating anything. That is the ideology I find myself most closely identifying with and my insisting on correct definitions is simply that.

And I'm happy to correct you on the following...



whereby there is no real private property


Clearly there is. Worker ownership. Ownership has a definition does it not? Private property also has a definition doesn't it?



but everyone is real nice and gives it up on their own for the collective.


Now your trying to patronize me and make me appear to be all flowery and Utopian. I assure you, I hold no such notion of utopia. Being responsible unto yourself and for your family is damn hard work.



Because the truth is that something like the Soviet Union or People's Republic of China is what you will get, not a happy place where everyone just willingly gives up their property and pretends they own something.


Surrendering to the State is a bad idea any transition period from private to worker is doomed to fail. Once the State has the power it will not relinquish it. Modern Socialists know this. Socialists back then knew it too, you should read some of the debates. Ultimately, sadly it is the people who gave up and traded Liberty for Comfort. I guess that is why I don't advocate for armed or violent Revolution. I don't see a people willing to give up comfort and to be quite honest I have to admit that I would sacrifice anything and everything if my child were starving or hurt, that's where they always get us. So I vote for Liberty as much as I can, I talk about things I feel deprive people of Liberty, Capitalism being one of those things... and hope that with every election I see more choices for Liberty, seems the opposite though.



The goal of all Socialist systems is to abolish private property, no matter how pretty you might try and make it sound.


No, that is the goal of the State.



AND OF THE NUCLEAR FAMILY.


Interesting... what Liberty minded person defines 'family'?



Our Founding Fathers were the closest to real LIbertarianism we will ever get. And DONT EVER FORGET IT.


You're getting a little scary there lady.



You're right Noam Chomsky and HIS Buddies hijacked the term Libertarianism and added Socialism to fool the people into believing the two can coexist naturally.



Etymology

The word stems from the French word libertaire. The use of the word "libertarian" to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.[11] Hence libertarian has been used by some as a synonym for left anarchism since the 1890s.[12] The term libertarianism is commonly considered to be a synonym of anarchism in countries other than the US.[9] Albert Jay Nock and H.L. Mencken were the first prominent conservatives in the US to call themselves "libertarians," which they used to signify their allegiance to individualism and limited government, feeling that Franklin D. Roosevelt had co-opted the word "liberal" for his New Deal policies, which they opposed.[13]


wiki
edit on 2-2-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Karl Marx defined the nuclear family as bourgeois and believed that family was an exploitation of children. This is why Hillary, a Marxist, promotes Communism in her book, "It Takes A Village:, that is the State controls how children are raised.
Marx's beliefs are in the Communist Manifesto.

Hillary uses the UN to promote her Marxist ideals of the State controlling the family and the child rearing.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by region331
 


Oh please, donald trumps wife said the best thing to invest in is pharmaceuticals. Honestly, the medical, hospicals etc industry is thriving . Expensive treatments need funding and usually they are raised, when poorer folk are ill. They raise the money in the UK, and usually get it.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I don't think that is quite what she meant, but clearly she believes in Government as does every single politician. Republicans say it's okay to exploit to gain wealth, no need to feel guilty as it's our God given right to deny any one their God given rights. Democrats say it isn't okay to exploit to gain wealth but it's the status quo, here's a cookie it will be okay.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Obamacare law states that EVERYONE HAS to buy health insurance whether they want it or not, or be penalized by the IRS through tax collection. This is draconian and force. Also, the only step further would be single payer(like SS or Medicare where there are deductions taken from your paycheck whether you are using it or not).

Do you have automatic deductions from your paycheck to pay for healthcare? Because a Socialist system means that someone has to pay, that is forced redistribution of income for the benefit of others. I am guessing that you have high taxes withheld and think that the govt is just paying for all your stuff, but you are the govt and you pay.


You're going to get different answers whoever you ask and since you're asking me, you'll get my answer. Feel free to take it with a pinch of salt.

Things work a little bit differently in the UK than in the US.
If you're an employee you don't ever directly deal with the our equivalent of the IRS. Your employee does it on your behalf. So you don't sit at home at the end of the tax year and fill in your own personal tax forms to your state and federal government. All that happens is that you get a amount for tax deducted from your Gross Pay. I think 95% of people in the UK fall into the lower tax bracket so roughly pay around 23% of their monthly salary to the government. And that's it. Well at least in terms of direct tax on your income.

Now there's no way that is going to cover all our services. We only have a working population of about 25 million people (I think). The National Health Service alone I think costs around £100 Billion a year. So a lot more tax revenue is collected via massive tax on vehicle fuel. We also have sales tax on the majority of things we buy (at 20%) and local services tax based on your property value.

On the whole though, if you add it up I reckon that the average person probably relinquishes around 50% of what they earn to TAX. Which I think is the same for most Western Countries. I know talking to my American friends (once you consider all the hidden taxes) they agree that they probably pay the same. Sweden, you just pay the 60% lump out of your salary straight off (and a lot of Sales Tax).

I think perhaps on the whole, we probably pay similar amounts but I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that we probably get a bit more back in the way of social services - like the NHS. Unfortunately I think a lot of your tax in the US goes into a massive pot called Defence.




edit on 2-2-2013 by region331 because: stuff



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
reply to post by region331
 


Oh please, donald trumps wife said the best thing to invest in is pharmaceuticals. Honestly, the medical, hospicals etc industry is thriving . Expensive treatments need funding and usually they are raised, when poorer folk are ill. They raise the money in the UK, and usually get it.


Sorry, you've blind-sided me there. To what are you referring?



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 





Republicans say it's okay to exploit to gain wealth, n


Bull S.

Name one



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Is it your shift now?
It's not a direct quote.





 
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join