Socialism.. does anyone have a clue.

George W. Bush is a concept I cannot reconcile with "lesser of two evils." I couldn't even feel good begrudgingly calling him the lesser of two evils compared to Stalin.

Unfortunately going back 4000 years, almost all leaders have used that line.

rushfan4 wrote: And the two previous elections were decided because "God wants me to be president".  Not too educated a choice on that side either.

True. But then again, how many U.S. presidents haven't used that line? And we tend not to elect people who aren't clearly and obviously Christian. Although Obama is one of the few exceptions I think.


Edited by birdwithteeth11 - March 29 2009 at 21:13

debrewguy wrote: birdwithteeth11 wrote: debrewguy wrote: rushfan4 wrote: Aye, but then who is regulating the regulators? Er, the politicians, who are regulated , or rather held to account by the voters , who , in the U.S. , apart from a small minority of 10%, will vote the same party line their entire lives. And when the majority of voters either don't vote or aren't intelligent enough to make an informed decision, then what? Then - Bush. But Obama's win has been , in part, based on his ability to get "new" voters out. The marginalized. The poor. The minorities. And it didn't hurt to have that regular political occurrence - "let's try the other side" .

Too bad the "marginalized, poor, and minorities" aren't generally well-educated in this country. And he got them out to vote because they heard him say stuff like "affordable health care for all" and took it to mean "the government is going to give me free stuff". Trusting people who are ill-informed will only lead to mob rule, something the Founding Fathers seem to have understood.

The elections in 2000 and 2004 were a pick between "the lesser of two evils" (although I think 2008 was too). I think the lesser evil won in 2000 and 2004, but not in last year's election.

*Awaits thrown stones*


Edited by birdwithteeth11 - March 29 2009 at 21:09

BTW, the stimulus packages were first planned and presented by Bush. Obama has added to them. All western governments, and just about any semi industrialized country is also following suit.
Most of the time, it is really nothing more than to appear to be doing something. And most of it is nothing more than pork barreling. A little for you , a little here, a little there (if a billion is a little).
For it to be "investing" in the future would mean to leave the bailed out to their fates, instead of greasing the invisible hand of the market. It would mean studying countries like Denmark who have almost eliminated any reliance on foreign fuels, and even oil, for that matter. Or countries like Germany who charge companies for  the costs of recycling all goods sold in their country. Thereby shifting the true cost to the producer, not the taxpayer. The consumer now pays for what he buys, without his neighbour subsidizing less environmentally friendly choices.
Or looking into T Boone Pickens proposal for a massive wind energy project stretching through the American Mid West down to the gulf of Mexico. Or finally setting up a Universal Health Care program that will eliminate that cost from American companies trying to compete with other countries that  don't offer that to their workers. Not to mention the economic benefit gained by improving the health of your entire available workforce.
How about a massive one-time injection of funds in to the basic education system - elementary & high schools. Teachers, tutors, special education services. A bigger social service to actually help those who want to get off welfare or a never ending chain of dead end low paying jobs. Not to just kick them outto cut them off, but to prepare them to better contribute to the country they live in.
How about injecting massive funds into crime fighting. No, not the drug war. That, frankly, is something that the U.S. should really take time to hear about the solutions that will work better than incarcerating more & more people withtout denting the rate of crime.
No, I mean more police, more detectives, more ressources given to fight internet fraud & crime. More ressources to battle organized crime. More ressources to educate the young about drugs, including the deadliest ones - alcohol & tobacco. More ressources to intervene before a kid gives up, and figures he or she has nothing to lose, or nowhere to go.
This ,rather than mandatory minimums, longer sentences, basically anything and everything that doesn't actually force hard fiscal decisions on those "leaders" too scared to have to make choices about how they spend their constituents tax money.

Spend money on research. Pure research. Any discoveries to be patented or licensed, with any revenue coming back to the governement.

There's tons of beneficial spending. But most of what the citizenry demands is to serve their own special interests. "Save my job" ! GM can't fail, that'll put hundreds of thousands out of work". Yet, how many people  have lost or will lose their jobs in small & medium businesses ? Any bailouts for them ?

Garion81 wrote: debrew guy wrote: rush fan 4 wrote: Aye, but then who is regulating the regulators? Er, the politicians, who are regulated , or rather held to account by the voters , who , in the U.S. , apart from a small minority of 10%, will vote the same party line their entire lives. So, by a twisted socialistic bent, these loyal registered voters, Republican & Democrat, ensure that the cream is replaced by mindless froth. Don't blame the system for not working when you can't be bothered to work at looking past "your' party's platform and question the true merit of any policy proposal. And for those GOPHers here, if any of you can still keep a straight face while claiming your party to be the fiscally responsible one ... well ... you probably believe that it was proven that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam was allied with Al-Qaeda, and that Mr Hussein was brought down because he was a dictator ( no reference as to why Somoza, Pinochet, any of the Chinese leaders are not). Swift Boaters for truth, alert ... there is another threat to GOP hegemony ... we must sink reality once more.   and it was the Democrats that mired us in Vietnam.   Both parties have long records of bad decisions.  Don't be taking a high road for the Dems here. This is the biggest problem that the citizens who vote can't get past party lines and rhetoric that not surprisingly falls by the wayside when a politician is elected.  The pork barrel expenditures that Obama signed without a bat of an eye is true to form for all politicians no matter what lable they put to themselves. So where is the change he promised?  What happened to the line by line budget scrutiny he promised.  This wasn't the "stimulus" package so why the rush and how easily he dismissed the pork barrel provisions. We as citizens are to blame for what we get. BTW I am not a registered republican nor democrat.

And Clinton signed into law that you could keep any capital gains that you made by selling your house. Repeatedly.
My distaste for the GOP extends more to its' methods of politicking since Lee At**ter's Willie Horton ads.
I thought Bush Sr as decent president, and a decent man. His son, despite winning two terms ... well ... when you can't say anything good ... But Bush Sr could listen to advice from allies (our PM Mulroney suggesting how he could best approach the French President to get help get Europe on side for the invasion of Iraq)
Even Reagan, that Neo-Con icon, I've read enough to believe that he had a pragmatic bent to his politics. In watching a PBS program the other night, I was surprised to learn that he had reversed his early tax cuts when it became apparent that it would put the country dangerously in debt in the short term AND long term.
I would question his eventual place in the Presidential pantheon. But he did make the country feel better about themselves, and for the first time in a decade or more, re-instill that pride in America that had slowly been battered by a series of historical slaps that the U.S. got.

debrew guy wrote: rush fan 4 wrote: Aye, but then who is regulating the regulators? Er, the politicians, who are regulated , or rather held to account by the voters , who , in the U.S. , apart from a small minority of 10%, will vote the same party line their entire lives. So, by a twisted socialistic bent, these loyal registered voters, Republican & Democrat, ensure that the cream is replaced by mindless froth. Don't blame the system for not working when you can't be bothered to work at looking past "your' party's platform and question the true merit of any policy proposal. And for those GOPHers here, if any of you can still keep a straight face while claiming your party to be the fiscally responsible one ... well ... you probably believe that it was proven that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam was allied with Al-Qaeda, and that Mr Hussein was brought down because he was a dictator ( no reference as to why Somoza, Pinochet, any of the Chinese leaders are not). Swift Boaters for truth, alert ... there is another threat to GOP hegemony ... we must sink reality once more.

birdwithteeth11 wrote: Syzygy wrote: rushfan4 wrote: True, but it was still a big factor and one reason why the Soviet Union was so far behind the rest of the world technologically.  Although the biggest factor might be another famous saying.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely, which unfortunately seems to be another unfortunate human nature trait.   Except in the case of financiers, bankers, CEOs and those other masters of the universe who are regulated by the unseen hand of the market and therefore can be trusted implicitly to act for the greater good, right? Actually, your average Joe is regulated by the "invisible hand" that Smith talked about. In fact, you're influenced by it every day when you decide to go and buy something. To give you an example: say you walk into a bakery and want to buy a loaf of bread. Right now, you're the demander because you are demanding a product. The supplier, the guy behind the cash register or the owner of the bakery, has a product that has been created by the laborer, the baker, who creates a product that the supplier will eventually sell and hope to make a profit off of it. As the demander, you want to buy that loaf of bread at the lowest possible market price, and the supplier wants to sell that bread so as to make the highest profit possible. He will probably base how much to charge people for a loaf of bread based on certain market conditions (labor, the price of wheat and flour, etc etc) and sell it to you at a price that both earns him maximum profit and yet still not be too high for you to be willing/able to buy it. If you decide that the price is indeed reasonable and you require a loaf of bread, chances are you're going to buy it. So from the time you walk into the bakery until the time you walk out of it with that loaf of bread, you're entering into the market system that Adam Smith often spoke of (see, the guy wasn't as crazy as so many think he turned out to be). I'd give you an example of a larger-ticket item (buying a house, a car, or something similar) but it will have to wait until tomorrow because I'm dog tired right now. Plus I proved my original point of how you yourself are regulated by an invisible hand, not just people who are bankers, CEOs, and other financial hotshots. And besides, a business isn't started because someone is "trying to do the right thing". People start businesses because 1) they believe there to be a market for what goods/services their business will provide and 2) they'll be able to make a profit off of it. In an ideal world, businesses would be willing to do the right thing and government wouldn't interfere unnecessarily in the private sector. But as it is we have incompetent CEOs who run companies into the ground and hurt thousands upon thousands of their employees and a government that's like a five year old who couldn't tie his own shoelaces if he was offered ice cream. I'll stop there before I start going off on tangents and forget who I am and why I'm typing such a long response.

birdwithteeth11 wrote: I'd give you an example of a larger-ticket item (buying a house, a car, or something similar)

debrewguy wrote: rushfan4 wrote: Aye, but then who is regulating the regulators? I forgot to respond to some of the other things I wanted to mention. Er, the politicians, who are regulated , or rather held to account by the voters , who , in the U.S. , apart from a small minority of 10%, will vote the same party line their entire lives. So, by a twisted socialistic bent, these loyal registered voters, Republican & Democrat, ensure that the cream is replaced by mindless froth. Don't blame the system for not working when you can't be bothered to work at looking past "your' party's platform and question the true merit of any policy proposal. Solution: no more professional politicians and term limits. And for those GOPers here, if any of you can still keep a straight face while claiming your party to be the fiscally responsible one ... well ... you probably believe that it was proven that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam was allied with Al-Quaeda, and that Mr Hussein was brought down because he was a dictator ( no reference as to why Somoza, Pinochet, any of the Chinese leaders are not). Saying that I'm still a Republican would be like saying that I can sell you the Brooklyn Bridge for $10. I'm a fiscal conservative, and the only thing the Republican party still has going for it is the fact that they have a few sound economic policies. Otherwise they're as bad as the Democrats. The war in Iraq could be a topic in and of itself. But it currently doesn't relate to the topic at hand: Socialism Swift Boaters for truth, alert ... there is another threat to GOP hegemony ... we must sink reality once more. Again, go take this to the political discussion thread. It doesn't belong here.