i_am_the_swammi Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I voted "Too Optimistic". As he rolls out all these new plans, each seems to be pre-empted by some rhetoric about how they will help so-and-so, or how they will benefit the US in the long run. The reality is, some will work, some won't.... He needs to be honest and say "Listen, I'm not sure if what we are doing is 100% right, because our nation has never been in this exact situation before. I have been advised by those closest to me, whose opinion and knowledge I respect the most, to follow this course of action. With what we know today, we feel it gives us our best shot at recovery." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I voted "Too Optimistic". As he rolls out all these new plans, each seems to be pre-empted by some rhetoric about how they will help so-and-so, or how they will benefit the US in the long run. The reality is, some will work, some won't.... He needs to be honest and say "Listen, I'm not sure if what we are doing is 100% right, because our nation has never been in this exact situation before. I have been advised by those closest to me, whose opinion and knowledge I respect the most, to follow this course of action. With what we know today, we feel it gives us our best shot at recovery." Do you really think that the stealfromus bill is going to help? The CBO has said in 10 years we will be worse off from it. Add to it is pushing us closer to socialism and farther away from capitalism. I'm not sure he or congress are listening, I think they are just pushing a political agenda on us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I voted "Too Optimistic". As he rolls out all these new plans, each seems to be pre-empted by some rhetoric about how they will help so-and-so, or how they will benefit the US in the long run. The reality is, some will work, some won't.... He needs to be honest and say "Listen, I'm not sure if what we are doing is 100% right, because our nation has never been in this exact situation before. I have been advised by those closest to me, whose opinion and knowledge I respect the most, to follow this course of action. With what we know today, we feel it gives us our best shot at recovery." He's been doing that all along. Saying that we'll have fits and starts and somethings won't work and some will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 4, 2009 Author Share Posted March 4, 2009 Which term do you prefer for this? Anything but socialism, because socialism it ain't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Which term do you prefer for this? Hyperbole? No, wait: hyperbole. To this guy deficits= socialism. In which case, Ronald Reagan was Karl Marx. With that inmind, why should tax cuts for the rich - something the right has championed for 20 years be continued in the face of its failure? Sunsetting the tax cut in 2010 is rasing taxes/ Nope, not here. It's holding to the agreement when it was passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 4, 2009 Author Share Posted March 4, 2009 The CBO has said in 10 years we will be worse off from it. fwiw, the CBO has released an updated forecast based upon the bill that was actually passed and it does not definitely predict that the economy will be worse off in the long run (although it does still suggest that it is a possibility) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Anything but socialism, because socialism it ain't. Enlighten us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 The whole "socialist" label is a right wing talking point - back atcha pal. The socialist label is entirely appropriate, or haven't you noticed the significantly increased influence in the private sector by government. Pal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 4, 2009 Author Share Posted March 4, 2009 Enlighten us. Socialism is the government ownership of the means of production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Socialism is the government ownership of the means of production. rich people are the producers. obama owns the rich. socialism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 The socialist label is entirely appropriate, or haven't you noticed the significantly increased influence in the private sector by government. Pal. And you define that by what, comrade? TARP - started under Bush, the bailout? something needed in the face of this meltdown? Policies the current president had no control over are driving this more than he is at the moment. Do a littel research, the Front Line video posted here is a good place to start and you'd realize the market cannot correct itself, it's been so drained of capitol. Socialism? You don't understand the word, nor does driveby. The best you guys have to back this up are articles that don't make any sense. And given you guys probably don't belive his birth certificate is real anyways, I'm not sure how clearly you're thinking about this stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Norman Mattoon Thomas (November 20, 1884 to December 19, 1968) was a leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America. The Socialist Party candidate for President of the U.S., Norman Thomas, said this in a 1944 speech: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." He went on to say: "I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Socialism is the government ownership of the means of production. anything else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 (edited) And you define that by what, comrade? TARP - started under Bush, the bailout? something needed in the face of this meltdown? Policies the current president had no control over are driving this more than he is at the moment. Do a littel research, the Front Line video posted here is a good place to start and you'd realize the market cannot correct itself, it's been so drained of capitol. Socialism? You don't understand the word, nor does driveby. The best you guys have to back this up are articles that don't make any sense. And given you guys probably don't belive his birth certificate is real anyways, I'm not sure how clearly you're thinking about this stuff. Bush is as much at fault as Obama - and Congress as well. What, you think this is just a knee jerk Republican response? Since you aver that I don't understand socialism, why don't you define it for all of us. Apparently the government ownership of the vast majority of AIG doesn't fit you definition, among other overt obese government actions into the private sector. This whole situation has been initiated and magnified by government intervention and screw ups. That's not to say it is solely the government's fault - it isn't. But the government has extended itself well beyond the bounds that the Constitution allow it and this is exactly what we get for it. As for what we need to get out from under this? We need production. Bailouts provide capital with no production (and in the recent cases, massive capital with no stipulation on its uses - incredible idiocy beyond any rational person's comprehension), so the liklihood that they will provide any relief other than on a short term basis and that they will in the long term only make the problem worse is virtually assured. Bailouts also provide false security and do not allow our economic system to function properly. If Bear Stearns had been allowed to fail a while back when this whole mess started (and had Congress had kept their noses out of the lending sector) we wouldn't be where we are now - not even close. Edited March 4, 2009 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 4, 2009 Author Share Posted March 4, 2009 (edited) anything else? anything else what? The definition of socialism is the government ownership of resources (like property, means of production, etc.) Edited March 4, 2009 by wiegie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 But the government has extended itself well beyond the bounds that the Constitution allow it and this is exactly what we get for it. Please elaborate on this with sections of the constitution. I double dog dare you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Please elaborate on this with sections of the constitution. I double dog dare you. I must have missed the section that allows the Federal government to actively participate in private enterprise. Could you cite that for me, please? Oh, after you define socialism for all of us first, please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I must have missed the section that allows the Federal government to actively participate in private enterprise. Could you cite that for me, please? Oh, after you define socialism for all of us first, please. Perhaps you missed the section that doesn't allow it? Where is ti BB? Please, you invoked it first so you should be the first to back it up. Socialism is government control of the means of production. AIG isn't that, nor was it taken over by the Obama Adminisration. One more dodge from you and it'll be 100% you're talking out of your ass. So once again, where in the constitution does it say what you're saying it says? It isn't the long a document - you should be able to track it down pretty easily. If it exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 rich people are the producers. obama owns the rich. socialism. The rich own the poor. Health care is a mess that needs to be fixed now. That will help the rich, the poor and everyone inbetween. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 (edited) rich people are the producers. obama owns the rich. socialism. Poor people make rich people poor. Supply side economics is a proven failure. We have to grow the middle class again. That means a slight shift in the tax structure and investments in things that help the middle class, like again, the talking points which are absolutely correct - healthcare, education, and energy. A healthy middle class = increased spending power = a healthy economy which benefits those rich people. Edited March 4, 2009 by CaP'N GRuNGe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Perhaps you missed the section that doesn't allow it? Where is ti BB? Please, you invoked it first so you should be the first to back it up. Socialism is government control of the means of production. AIG isn't that, nor was it taken over by the Obama Adminisration. One more dodge from you and it'll be 100% you're talking out of your ass. So once again, where in the constitution does it say what you're saying it says? It isn't the long a document - you should be able to track it down pretty easily. If it exists. You're freakin' kidding, right? The Constitution establishes the powers of the Federal government. It establishes what the Federal government can do. It is a ceding of certain rights of the States to allow for one unifying body. Anything not expressly provided to the Federal government by the Constitution is not within the Federal government's jurisdiction. In other words, if something is not in the Constitution means that the Federal government has no authority over it - not the other way around. You have it completely backwards. Then the amendments expressly state what exact and specific rights the Federal government can not take away from citizens. That you don't understand that is appalling and clearly shows why you take the position that you do. Talking out one's ass - that's clearly your province. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Oh, and the socialism thing: Main Entry: so·cial·ism Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\ Function: noun Date: 1837 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods It appears that "your" definition comes up just a wee bit short - kind of like your understanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 4, 2009 Author Share Posted March 4, 2009 Main Entry: so·cial·ism Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\ Function: noun Date: 1837 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods that sounds pretty much like exactly my earlier definition of socialism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Perhaps you missed the section that doesn't allow it? Where is ti BB? Please, you invoked it first so you should be the first to back it up. Here's some more for you. James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, clarified the authority of the federal government in the Federalist Papers #45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." Take that & Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Here's some more for you. James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, clarified the authority of the federal government in the Federalist Papers #45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." Take that & Two things: first off, that is NOT the constitution. As a result, it isn't law. Secondly - and this is the most important - it proves MY point not yours. Is the INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AIG part of "foreign commerce"? You bet it is Comrade. Thanks for playing - but if you can find something in the Constitution I'm more than willing to concede your point. But you can't, so I won't. And finally, if it transgresses over this definition that certainly doesn't make it socialism. Not even close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.