In reply to N Sperlo:
You have now!
I respectfully suggest you didn't grasp what the man was saying.
In reply to N Sperlo:
You have now!
I respectfully suggest you didn't grasp what the man was saying.
In reply to oldsaw:
I have a tenancy to overlook minor details from time to time.
SOCIALISM
In reply to oldsaw: My point is that the United States already has, and has had for a very long time, significant socialist programs in place. Taxes themselves are socialist. Anything resulting from taxes that benefits the public at large is socialist. All the things I mentioned previously, and many more.
People who don't own cars pay taxes to keep roads paved. Childless adults pay taxes to send children to school. These and more are good things because it makes the society I have to live in a better place.
Now, toss in health care. People on the right all have their panties in a bunch because the Democratic Party wants to reign in the skyrocketing costs of health care so that more people can afford it. THE HORROR OF IT ALL!!!
Free markets are great until they aren't. The free market gave us this massive recession and mortgage crisis, decimated the US's manufacturing sector, and has sent countless good-paying jobs to other countries. The free market has, for the first time, given us a generation of people who believe they are not and will not be better off than their parents. A free market must be, simply must be, properly regulated because if it isn't it will always - ALWAYS - eventually screw the many (working class people) in favor of the few (greedy rich people).
Now, to your point. I understand it fully. You're just wrong. For the third time: Show us how any of the things I mentioned are not covered in the very definition you linked to.
John Stossel was maybe the worst moderator I've ever seen in a debate. He was clearly biased towards the left, and threw loaded questions in a completely inappropriate manner. I expect a moderator to remain neutral and run the debate in an organized manner. CNN and Stossel were disgusting.
WTF, Palin wasn't on stage, why bring her up? Clearly the media can't go 15 minutes without mentioning her in some way. Pathetic.
Bachman like her or not was the winner. She is a loon, but was articulate and as I see it, eliminates Palin from the discussion. She is the tea party favorite, and seems much more informed than Palin. (so is my dog 
) I don't see her as electable, but watch for her as a VP candidate. Her comment about letting France lead in Libya may have been true, but it showed she isn't ready for prime-time. You don't make mocking jokes about allies if you want to be prez.
Palenty is too religious to be elected
Newt is too Newt to be elected
Ron Paul comes off as too whiney and wimpy to be elected (shame as he has a ton of good ideas)
Cain really stumbled, and spewed talking points. Not at all what I had hoped for.
Santorum seems to young, cocky and inexperienced. I see this as a warm-up for next time.
This leaves the GOP nominee.....Mitt Romney. He didn't hurt himself, seemed reasonable, and can deal with the slings and arrows of the race.
Romney --- Bachman vs. Obama-Biden
Obama wins, but it will be closer than people think.
^Because the usage has changed, and these things are expected in a taxed society. Yes, there is an element of Socialism in it, but we just refer to it as Society.
100 years ago Libertarian basically indicated you were an Anarchist. Now it's come to mean a large group of people (like myself) that consider themselves to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
Not really sure how the aggressive pedantry moves the debate forward in an interesting/informative way.
JeffHarbert wrote: Now, to your point. I understand it fully. You're just wrong.
Wrong because I have an opposing opinion? That means you are equally wrong.
So be it............
For the third time: Show us how any of the things I mentioned are not covered in the very definition you linked to.
I never said your list was excluded from the definition; the word encompasses far more.
Joe Gearin wrote: John Stossel was maybe the worst moderator I've ever seen in a debate.
It was John King.
Joe Said Newt is too Newt to be elected.
Touche, Sir. Touche.
z31maniac wrote: 100 years ago Libertarian basically indicated you were an Anarchist. Now it's come to mean a large group of people (like myself) that consider themselves to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
One of the problems with identifying with the Libertarian party is what that actually means. I define libertarian as someone who wants freedom from government influence as it relates to personal choices. For example: free to use drugs, free to have an abortion, free to consume media in whatever form is most convenient, free to travel without restrictions, privacy from government intrusion, etc. Fiscal policy doesn't factor in, but again - that's my definition.
Free Markets
Markets are not currently free. If one industry enjoys tax cuts and benefits that another industry cannot partake of, that is NOT a free market. Car Dealers have ensured they do not operate under the same laws as other industry. Therefore the used and new car market is not free. A free market is a market where the playing field is level and equal for all industries.
Most "free marketers" actually just want markets free from government restrictions, not government benefits.
JeffHarbert wrote: In reply to oldsaw: My point is that the United States already has, and has had for a very long time, significant socialist programs in place. Taxes themselves are socialist. Anything resulting from taxes that benefits the public at large is socialist. All the things I mentioned previously, and many more. People who don't own cars pay taxes to keep roads paved. Childless adults pay taxes to send children to school. These and more are good things because it makes the society I have to live in a better place. Now, toss in health care. People on the right all have their panties in a bunch because the Democratic Party wants to reign in the skyrocketing costs of health care so that more people can afford it. THE HORROR OF IT ALL!!! Free markets are great until they aren't. The free market gave us this massive recession and mortgage crisis, decimated the US's manufacturing sector, and has sent countless good-paying jobs to other countries. The free market has, for the first time, given us a generation of people who believe they are not and will not be better off than their parents. A free market must be, simply must be, properly regulated because if it isn't it will always - ALWAYS - eventually screw the many (working class people) in favor of the few (greedy rich people). Now, to your point. I understand it fully. You're just wrong. For the third time: Show us how any of the things I mentioned are not covered in the very definition you linked to.
Dude, chill, you're floundering this thread. You also just said that we've always had socialism and then said the free market ruined the economy - contradicting yourself isn't nice.
DILYSI Dave wrote:Joe Gearin wrote: John Stossel was maybe the worst moderator I've ever seen in a debate.It was John King.
Yeah, that guy.......he sucked
oldsaw wrote: Nothing you've listed there defines socialism, but keep tryin'.............
oldsaw wrote: How about a simple link to a dictionary's definition? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
oldsaw wrote: I never said your list was excluded from the definition; the word encompasses far more.
Whatever, man. You clearly implied that I was wrong to say those things are socialist, and now you're backpedaling.
tuna55 wrote: You also just said that we've always had socialism and then said the free market ruined the economy - contradicting yourself isn't nice.
I don't see those statements as being contradictory if taken separately.
We have always had socialism. RE: The Puritans who landed at Plymouth rock were very socialist. Same with the Brits at Jamestown. Fast forward through our countries history and there are other examples.
The free market did have a hand in the economic down turn. The deregulation, what most refer to as "free markets", of the housing loan industry and banking industries had a direct impact on the current depression. If not out right causing the current depression by destabilizing banks and lowering home prices.
Xceler8x wrote: The free market did have a hand in the economic down turn. The deregulation, what most refer to as "free markets", of the housing loan industry and banking industries had a direct impact on the current depression. If not out right causing the current depression by destabilizing banks and lowering home prices.
Providing subsidies for banks and new homeowners and completely socializing the two biggest lenders in the county is not what I would call "deregulation".
Xceler8x wrote:z31maniac wrote: 100 years ago Libertarian basically indicated you were an Anarchist. Now it's come to mean a large group of people (like myself) that consider themselves to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.One of the problems with identifying with the Libertarian party is what that actually means. I define libertarian as someone who wants freedom from government influence as it relates to personal choices. For example: free to use drugs, free to have an abortion, free to consume media in whatever form is most convenient, free to travel without restrictions, privacy from government intrusion, etc. Fiscal policy doesn't factor in, but again - that's my definition. Free Markets Markets are not currently free. If one industry enjoys tax cuts and benefits that another industry cannot partake of, that is NOT a free market. Car Dealers have ensured they do not operate under the same laws as other industry. Therefore the used and new car market is not free. A free market is a market where the playing field is level and equal for all industries. Most "free marketers" actually just want markets free from government restrictions, not government benefits.
Oppressive taxation removes your freedom to do things you want by restricting your ability to aquire the necessary resources.
That's how I see them as intertwined, but like you said, that is just my opinion.
tuna55 wrote: Providing subsidies for banks and new homeowners and completely socializing the two biggest lenders in the county is not what I would call "deregulation".
Those aren't regulations, they're subsidies. That's the goody without the strings.
Regulations are the things that specify what these institutions could and could not do, and there was, I believe, a combination of deregulation and of failing to update regulations to accommodate some of the dubious "innovative financial products and services" that helped lead to the current state of things.
So, you're right that there was intervention, but it was coincident with deregulation.
ransom wrote:tuna55 wrote: Providing subsidies for banks and new homeowners and completely socializing the two biggest lenders in the county is not what I would call "deregulation".Those aren't regulations, they're subsidies. That's the goody without the strings. Regulations are the things that specify what these institutions could and could not do, and there was, I believe, a combination of deregulation and of failing to update regulations to accommodate some of the dubious "innovative financial products and services" that helped lead to the current state of things. So, you're right that there was intervention, but it was coincident with deregulation.
The dirty little secret is that subsidies nearly always equal regulations. Want your money? This is what you need to do...
Well, from what I have seen, regulation both encouraged (get people in homes) and failed to discourage (allowing that asset bundling and the insuring of it) the crisis. I would have to say though FAR more damage was done by the "unregulated" free will of the banks than by the regulations (if that is what that really was) to encourage home ownership.
That being said, considering WHO was regulating them (essentially the same people who they are supposed to be regulating). I am not confident that they would have stopped them anyway.
heh.. find me am industry that we deregulated that didn't collapse under it's own weight soon afterwards
oldsaw wrote: If you are claiming that law enforcement, fire protection, education, infrastructure creation and maintenance are what now defines "socialism", well, you're both very adept at lowering the bar.
Staying out of this for the most part. No, really. But this is a very interesting post. Of course, all those things are the very definition of Socialism. It's not a dirty word. It's just been co-opted by so many people that it is now believed by many to be some kind of catch all that is virtually synonymous to Nazi.
We are and have always been a Socialist nation to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly lesser. But, yes, anything that is collective and supported by public money is Socialist. That's what it means. Public schools, police, fire, military, highways, city sewage, public emergency medical systems- it's all Socialism. Socialism is certainly a good thing in many instances. I don’t think anyone (or very many at least) would say otherwise. Some feel that it should be limited as much as possible while others feel we need more of it. That's the disagreement- how much Socialism there should be in a Capitalistic system. What services need to be available to everyone regardless of means and what services should be paid for by individuals and provided by for profit companies. Trying to make the word Socialism sound like something evil doesn't get us anywhere.
And as someone else mentioned, the problem with the Health Care law is that it isn’t Socialist. It would work much better if it were. This odd hybrid leaves a lot to be desired. In an effort to make it something that isn’t Socialist, we just built a less efficient system and it gets “Socialist” and “Government run” hung on it even though it is neither of those things, much to the disappointment of many. In so doing, they really have drawn up a good example of how Socialism can be much more efficient than Capitalism.
Our system will certainly not run as efficiently as Socialist systems in Canada or England. The free market nature of it will insure that a good portion of the money in the system will go to profits for share-holders rather than care for people. The argument in favor of that kind of system would be that competition for those dollars will lead to better care and innovation. But there’s no way to argue that health care cost plus profit will cost less than health care cost alone. Though you could argue that any system will have some inefficiency and the private system we have now is more efficient than the hybrid system being implemented. Given the rise in costs and number of people who can’t afford the current system I would think that argument would be difficult to make, but it could be, and is being made.
tuna55 wrote: The dirty little secret is that subsidies nearly always equal regulations. Want your money? This is what you need to do...
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that the subsidies did include some strings. And yes, those are regulations. So when I say "deregulation", I'm not talking about the total removal of all restrictions. That's pretty much unheard of. The deregulation of an industry is a removal of some restrictions, not an abolition of all of them. It's a fair point that the subsidies usually come with regulation, and thus my phrase "goody without the strings" is not entirely accurate.
So while there may have been some new regulations, removal of central regulations and failure to regulate new activities helped along the current issues. I mean, ideally we shouldn't have to regulate against the behavior which was the actual cause, but reality bears out the stance that we do in fact need to have and enforce such regulations.
ransom wrote: but reality bears out the stance that we do in fact need to have and enforce such regulations.
This is the part I would disagree with. Assuming you never did anything to give the banks subsidies or to "bail them out". A bank fails because it's lending policies were stupid, OK, it failed. Maybe the next guy that starts a bank will have learned something.
JeffHarbert wrote:oldsaw wrote: Nothing you've listed there defines socialism, but keep tryin'.............oldsaw wrote: How about a simple link to a dictionary's definition? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialismoldsaw wrote: I never said your list was excluded from the definition; the word encompasses far more.Whatever, man. You clearly implied that I was wrong to say those things are socialist, and now you're backpedaling.
To take the flat fish out of the fryer, is it fair to say that JH is suggesting that there are socialist elements to our society and that Oldsaw is suggesting that a society doesn't become truly Socialist until a certain portion of production is socially controlled and that we're not at that point yet?
Could we agree on that and drop the subject?
tuna55 wrote: This is the part I would disagree with. Assuming you never did anything to give the banks subsidies or to "bail them out". A bank fails because it's lending policies were stupid, OK, it failed. Maybe the next guy that starts a bank will have learned something.
Well, maybe. Except in the situation we had, the banks (many of them) had tied and leveraged their bad assets with insurance (bad idea on top of bad idea), everything was essentially tied together. The failure of that "system" would have collapsed the global economy in a big way. A lot of the world is built and propped up on credit (look at the balance sheets of most countries) and the "belief" that the money is there (which it really isn't). It is hard to say what the exact result would have been (I am no expert) but I suspect it would have been BAD, as in REALLY BAD. So it's not just about A bank.
Also, you mention the guys in the banks would have learned something... well one of those "somethings" would have been, "wow, I made a BUNCH of money!!" The guys that run the banks would probably be some of the least affected in that situation. Come on, you know how that stuff works, they would be right back on top probably making themselves richer and more powerful then before.
You'll need to log in to post.
