posted
Chris, Syn: I was being sarcastic. Admittedly, what I wrote above isn't much of an exaggeration compared to some of the stuff Rush et al. routinely say.
My point is the same as yours: inventing Obama's supposed "messiah-hood" among liberals has become a standard debating tactic for the far right. It allows conservatives to claim that anything Obama does that falls below "miraculous" is a complete and utter failure.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Chris, Syn: I was being sarcastic. Admittedly, what I wrote above isn't much of an exaggeration compared to some of the stuff Rush et al. routinely say.
My point is the same as yours: inventing Obama's supposed "messiah-hood" among liberals has become a standard debating tactic for the far right. It allows conservatives to claim that anything Obama does that falls below "miraculous" is a complete and utter failure.
Ok ^^ I have trouble with sarcasm on the net. Unless it's me, then folks don't get I'm being sarcastic...
But they should come up with better arguments. The mess of this economy could take forever to clean up... I doubt anyone could go POOF and fix the whole thing in just a few months.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:...he is the perfect politician and gives great speeches (as long as his teleprompter is functional)...
I still don't understand this persistent nutjob talking point. Obama uses a teleprompter during his speeches. So do many other politicians. How the hell did this become something to mock him for?
Well, in all seriousness, it seems to have been picked by a loose consortium of conservative commentators as one of those oblique statements or accusations, that aren't really damning, but are meant to imply through repetition that they are unusual, and therefore aberrant. It's one of those bastions of conservative talk that seems to be fostered by the spoken medium more than anything. If you think of it, it would be unacceptable, and would appear even more childish, for a conservative writer to make constant allusion to a point of fact without ever explaining or making clear its real significance (and more importantly, the context of the fact), but for a radio personality, who is expected to talk informally and off the cuff, constant allusions and shaded references to non-existent controversy are more accepted. This little jab is no different from the annoying repetition by some liberals of little meaningless anti-conservative or pro-environment sayings and sentiments that are not really references to facts, but more to a sort of system of belief that assumes righteousness- so we can simply say: "haliburton" and "blackwater" and "Enron," and those ciphers serve in the place of substantive thoughts or actual understanding.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Obama uses a teleprompter during his speeches. So do many other politicians.
And the ones who don't have written notes. Why would using high tech tools to do THE EXACT SAME THING be a *bad* thing or indicate inferiority?
Lincoln read the Gettysburg address off of a notebook page or a postcard, unless I am misremembering my history. He wrote it on the train on the way to give the speech, according to lore. What a lazy bastard- he only had to memorize a 5 minute speech.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: This little jab is no different from the annoying repetition by some liberals of little meaningless anti-conservative or pro-environment sayings and sentiments that are not really references to facts, but more to a sort of system of belief that assumes righteousness- so we can simply say: "haliburton" and "blackwater" and "Enron," and those ciphers serve in the place of substantive thoughts or actual understanding.
I don't disagree that, say, "haliburton" has become a cipher. However, there is a substantive issue underlying it (assuming you're talking about the Iraq reconstruction contracts), unlike the teleprompter talking point. Perhaps the teleprompter references find their analogue in the belittling of 'bushisms'.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps bushisms are the more appropriate analogue. To be completely candid, I'm fairly sure that this particular sophistry is largely if not totally the territory of conservatives at the moment. It's deeply entwined with what conservative talk radio is pretty much all about. Correct me if you think me wrong, but liberal leaning radio sources, I'm thinking specifically of NPR, concern themselves to a much greater degree in contextualizing and analyzing events according to different viewpoints, with an eye for presenting those viewpoints as intertwining threads. Conservative radio of the moment is very much about eliminating dissonance and creating a kind of monocular vision of events- even if key facts and contexts need to be ignored in order to do so.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, we're around the $13 trillion mark. And if you take the take as a percentage of our GDP, we're about in the same amount of debt as in the 1950's.
If we get into the same levels as the 1940's, we may have to worry.
Ben Bernanke runs the Fed, but it's owned by the people.
posted
Also, the derivatives market value is based on notional value. That's the amount used to calculate payments, not the amount that actually changes hands. The maximal amount that could change hands in a worst case scenario is considerably lower than that, and even in very bad scenarios, what has been the case is that institutions will have positions that cancel each other out, lowering the actual amount changing hands even further.
In other words, the derivatives market isn't nearly so big as $700 trillion sounds. There are not people out there with the power over trillions of dollars (with the possible exception of a small number of elected and appointed government officials).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Ok, so if you throw in State debt, Fed Balance sheet (unknown), Treasury Balance sheet, Freddie and Fannie, state pension funds and social security, the REAL debt is somewhere between $13 trillion and 202 trillion.
How fast can you repay a $100 trillion dollar debt at $10 dollars an hour?
I recognize that the Derivatives market is based on notional value, but the estimates I've seen, when low-balling it, still call it at $70 trillion in a best case scenario.
If we've got the Wall Street geniuses playing the derivatives like they played Credit Default Swaps on Lehman Brothers and AIG, there shall come another day when the US TAXPAYER has to foot the bill for a very rigged system.
Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton. He's a Goldman Sachs frat boy to the core.
"The People" Do NOT own the Fed. Look it up.
Posts: 377 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Yes they do, since it was created via Congress.
IP: Logged |
quote:I recognize that the Derivatives market is based on notional value, but the estimates I've seen, when low-balling it, still call it at $70 trillion in a best case scenario.
That's absurd. One tenth is way, way too high, when many of those derivatives are interest rate swaps (and are not based on ten percent interest).
This slate article ( http://www.slate.com/id/2202263 ) references a calculation that the total market value of derivatives in 2007, when the derivative market was notionally valued at about $600 trillion, was just under $15 trillion. That's less than one fortieth. What's more, that's before taking into account offsetting positions, that bring the total down to around $3.3 trillion.
In other words, anyone making an estimate of $70 trillion is either an idiot, a liar, or being misunderstood.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes they do, since it was created via Congress.
Not only that, but the Fed is entirely controlled by a board fully appointed by elected officials, that the Congress has the power to dissolve at will.
In other words, it is firmly a part of the Federal bureaucracy, and not a private organization at all. It directs the actions of private banks.
You're the one who should have looked it up, Thor.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We get "change" every election. He promised "change"....it shows how stupid the average American is. Bush was not on the ballot and Obama ran for "change" against Bush. McCain would've been change against Bush.
Obama still blames Bush. His polls fall with this tired argument...eventually, the "change" needs to produce from fruit.
It's like buying a car from the guy on the tv screaming......"I've got a car for you". Idiots believe it, they want a different car. They hate the car they have and there's someone promising them their dream car. Forget the fact there are 310 million different opinions of what that dream car is. Unfortunately, we elected a socialist who wants a one size fits all solution to everything. You get a Yugo.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Obama still blames Bush. His polls fall with this tired argument...eventually, the "change" needs to produce from fruit.
So you deny that he got left a raw deal?
There's nothing to be gained by ignoring the fact that Obama took office with a half dozen major problems staring him right in the face that he had no role in creating and that demanded his immediate attention. It's also true that some of the solutions now vilified were put into place by Bush and not Obama.
We have to ask ourselves a couple of different questions regarding Obama. How much time do we allot him to fix which problems? He's been in office for less than two years. It took eight or more to create these problems. Well if you think of 2001 or 2002 as the real beginning, then let's say it took 6 or 7 years. Has it been your experience in life that problems that long in the making are usually solved in one third the time it took to create them?
The other question we have to ask is one of trajectory. Does it appear that the things Obama is doing to ameliorate our problems are headed in the right direction?
I think I know your answer to the second question, but an answer to the first might be interesting.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It took a lot more than 8 years to create these problems. Everyone wants to ignore the fact that Fannie and Freddie started the economic domino effect. Decades of Progressive policies lead to this downturn. The housing crisis started it all. Progressives forced banks to lend and when it went sour, the banks were called "predatory lenders".
Obama did inherit a shit sandwich but it's a sewer now.
quote:Obama uses a teleprompter during his speeches. So do many other politicians.
And the ones who don't have written notes. Why would using high tech tools to do THE EXACT SAME THING be a *bad* thing or indicate inferiority?
Lincoln read the Gettysburg address off of a notebook page or a postcard, unless I am misremembering my history. He wrote it on the train on the way to give the speech, according to lore. What a lazy bastard- he only had to memorize a 5 minute speech.
Well the audience was pretty upset afterwards a I remember the story.
I went to his inauguration. It was something I will remember for the rest of my life. I wasn't old enough to vote at the time, but standing out there in 10 degree weather with literally hundreds of other people made me feel like a part of something really important. Now that the magic of that moment has faded, I am rather ambivalent towards him.
Maybe this is how every presidential election works out, but it seems to me like the people who didn't vote for Obama have been more vocal than ever. The Tea Party is pretty much a direct retaliation to Obama's election and you can't drive a mile without seeing a One-Big-Ass-Mistake-America bumper sticker. He deserves more time if you ask me. Heck, we voted Bush in for a second term didn't we?
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course he deserves more time....he has four years to prove himself. In the two he's had....? Just because you failed the mid-term, doesn't mean you'll fail the course.....you can still eek out a C, if you're lucky.
He's a failure due to his let down. He can't live up to the hype. The Nobel committee is certainly regretting their decision and every Obama supporter I know has apologized to me since.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
i need to make a drinking game based on squirreling out instances of 'he's a failure because he is in no way as awesome as I expect liberals were supposed to find him'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: My point is the same as yours: inventing Obama's supposed "messiah-hood" among liberals has become a standard debating tactic for the far right. It allows conservatives to claim that anything Obama does that falls below "miraculous" is a complete and utter failure.
posted
Nobel Peace Prize Winner....don't blame conservatives for the expectations.....they didn't vote for him.
He was awarded this prize for what he "promised". The conservatives are standing around saying, "I told you so." He's a new media version of a baby hugging politician. Propaganda is only obvious in retrospect.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nobel Peace Prize Winner....don't blame conservatives for the expectations.....they didn't vote for him.
What does a five person committee of Norwegians have to do with Obama-supporter expectations? None of us voted for him for the Peace Prize either.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Obama uses a teleprompter during his speeches. So do many other politicians.
And the ones who don't have written notes. Why would using high tech tools to do THE EXACT SAME THING be a *bad* thing or indicate inferiority?
Lincoln read the Gettysburg address off of a notebook page or a postcard, unless I am misremembering my history. He wrote it on the train on the way to give the speech, according to lore. What a lazy bastard- he only had to memorize a 5 minute speech.
Well the audience was pretty upset afterwards a I remember the story.
I went to his inauguration. It was something I will remember for the rest of my life. I wasn't old enough to vote at the time, but standing out there in 10 degree weather with literally hundreds of other people made me feel like a part of something really important. Now that the magic of that moment has faded, I am rather ambivalent towards him.
You are much older than I expected!
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
OMG! DID YOU HEAR THEIR BUILDING A MOSQUE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF GROUND ZERO? Forget Policy and they economy! Lets ALL SCREAM OUR OPINIONS!
Meh. If the Catholics can build churches within 4 blocks of a school or daycare, who are we to say that Muslims can't build a Mosque 4 blocks from Twin Tower Ash?
quote:Nobel Peace Prize Winner....don't blame conservatives for the expectations.....they didn't vote for him.
What does a five person committee of Norwegians have to do with Obama-supporter expectations? None of us voted for him for the Peace Prize either.
Sure, sure, deny responsibility now that he's crashing and burning. We all know you voted to give him the Peace Prize, just own up to it already.
I'll bet King of Men voted for it too. He is Norwegian, after all.
As critical as everyone seems to be, can you give me one good example of Obama "crashing and burning"?
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:every Obama supporter I know has apologized to me since.
I voted for Obama and I'm not sorry. The right has viciously hated him since before he took office so I'm not concerned about their current dislike of him. I know many of the left are disappointed because they had expectations of him that had nothing to do with what he said he was going to do. Obama was a moderate candidate who's largely attempted to fulfill his campaign promises. We've gotten credit card reform. We have health care reform. We have financial regulatory reform. We no longer have combat troops in Iraq. And he still has two years to go! If the economy was doing better (which really, how much control does a president truly have over that), I think his poll numbers would be quite high.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Lincoln read the Gettysburg address off of a notebook page or a postcard, unless I am misremembering my history. He wrote it on the train on the way to give the speech, according to lore. What a lazy bastard- he only had to memorize a 5 minute speech.
I know, right? And such a well known speech, too.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: I know many of the left are disappointed because they had expectations of him that had nothing to do with what he said he was going to do.
Well.
quote: One of the exemptions allowed to deny Freedom of Information requests has been used by the Obama administration 70,779 times in its first year; the same exemption was used 47,395 times in Bush's final budget year.
An Associated Press examination of 17 major agencies' handling of FOIA requests found denials 466,872 times, an increase of nearly 50% from the 2008 fiscal year under Bush. ... On March 16 to mark annual Sunshine Week, designed to promote openness in government, Obama applauded himself by issuing a statement:
"As Sunshine Week begins, I want to applaud everyone who has worked to increase transparency in government and recommit my administration to be the most open and transparent ever."
quote:In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ's New Arguments Are Worse Than Bush's ... It's an especially disappointing argument to hear from the Obama Administration. As a candidate, Senator Obama lamented that the Bush Administration "invoked a legal tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court." He was right then, and we're dismayed that he and his team seem to have forgotten.
Sad as that is, it's the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes.
This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one — not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration — has ever interpreted the law this way.
quote:President Obama's endorsements of Bush-Cheney antiterror policies are by now routine: for example, opposing the release of prisoner abuse photographs and support for indefinite detention for some detainees, and that's just this week. More remarkable is White House creativity in portraying these U-turns as epic change. Witness yesterday's announcement endorsing military commissions. ... But the debate that has convulsed the political system since 9/11 isn't about procedural nuances. It has been over core principles, with Democrats decrying a "shadow justice system" and claiming that "Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists."
The latter quote is from a speech by Senator Obama in 2007 denouncing "a legal framework that does not work." He also referred to the civilian criminal justice system and courts martial that Democrats then claimed, and many still claim, are the right venues for antiterror prosecutions. After the Supreme Court's Boumediene decision gave terrorists habeas rights, Mr. Obama again laid into the Bush Administration's "legal black hole" and "dangerously flawed legal approach," which "undermines the very values we are fighting to defend."
Of a sort. A sort that many people find very disappointing coming out of a process that was handled extremely poorly.
quote:We have financial regulatory reform.
We have something that is called financial regulatory reform. Does it represent actual meaningful reform? Barely. It has little teeth and does not address most of the major issues that people pushing for reform wanted it to address.
And, I should mention, it appears that we're still giving near interest free loans to investment banks who are then buying government investments with this money. Or to put it another way, we're giving them money for free that they are turning around and loaning to us at interest.
quote:We no longer have combat troops in Iraq.
That's not true. We've reduced our troops by a lot, but we still do have combat troops in Iraq, they're just called something different.
--
President Obama, as Mucus pointed out, is even worse that the Bush administration in the expansion of executive power and secrecy that candidate Obama heavily criticized. He has blatantly reneged on his promise of an open, transparent administration.
He also reneged on his promise to keep lobbyists out of his administration, and instead opened his doors wide to them. And how about BP's ability to strictly control press, citizen, and governmental access to the Deepwater Horizon spill site?
---
The War on Obama Republicans are ridiculous, highly irresponsible and, in some cases, I'd say bordering on treasonous, but that doesn't mean that aren't many serious reasons to be unhappy with President Obama's performance.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: As critical as everyone seems to be, can you give me one good example of Obama "crashing and burning"?
In the absence of the republicans getting him to fail in his verious 'waterloos,' which went on to become law, the crashing and burning is inferred from his midterm ratings slump.
Of course, if that's crashing and burning, then reagan and clinton, et. al., also 'crashed and burned.'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nobel Peace Prize Winner....don't blame conservatives for the expectations.....they didn't vote for him.
What does a five person committee of Norwegians have to do with Obama-supporter expectations? None of us voted for him for the Peace Prize either.
Sure, sure, deny responsibility now that he's crashing and burning. We all know you voted to give him the Peace Prize, just own up to it already.
I'll bet King of Men voted for it too. He is Norwegian, after all.
As critical as everyone seems to be, can you give me one good example of Obama "crashing and burning"?
Really? The whole... I'll bet KoM is involved too cause he's Norwegian and those shifty Norwegians are all in on it... that didn't make it obvious I was screwing around? I'm sorry. Let me clarify... that post was screwing around. I don't like much of what Obama has done in office, and I sincerely hope he does not get elected to a second term, but I don't particularly think he's "crashing and burning."
PS: I also don't actually think Soapinureye is old enough to have been present for Lincoln's inauguration. But his post sort of reads that way. I was screwing around there, too. I was in a silly, whimsical mood last night. Sorry if that didn't come across.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: PS: I also don't actually think Soapinureye is old enough to have been present for Lincoln's inauguration. But his post sort of reads that way. I was screwing around there, too. I was in a silly, whimsical mood last night. Sorry if that didn't come across.
I laughed. It read that way to me, too.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:MrSquicky: The War on Obama Republicans are ridiculous, highly irresponsible and, in some cases, I'd say bordering on treasonous, but that doesn't mean that aren't many serious reasons to be unhappy with President Obama's performance.
You know the thing that's pissed me off the most lately about Republicans is that they're hammering away at issues I either totally disagree with them about, hammering away at trumped up social issues that we shouldn't even be discussing, or just outright slandering Obama. But there are legitimate things that I think I'd really be distressed about that one has to dig to find, like the information Mucus posted above. The Obama Administration IS doing things that I don't like, but the Republicans, oddly, aren't talking about them.
Is it because these are hot-button issues for Democrats and not Republicans? Sounds like a perfect cross-party tactic to swipe away at some independent voters, but they're sticking to character assassination instead of substantive policy issues. I don't usually say this, but that's pretty dumb political tactics from the Republicans (and I say this next part all the time), as well as being harmful to the country as a whole in neglecting their duties as the keeping-him-honest opposition.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
""" We have financial regulatory reform."""
Written by Barney Frank, who dated a senior executive at Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac for six years, and by Chris Dodd, who put a single line into the Bailout Bill that allowed all Bank Execs to keep their bonuses.
It's not reform at all. It creates a bunch of committees and more regulatory groups.
It allows you to sue banks if the economy crashes. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
The Financial Reform Bill is a tragic joke.
Posts: 377 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Obama uses a teleprompter during his speeches. So do many other politicians.
And the ones who don't have written notes. Why would using high tech tools to do THE EXACT SAME THING be a *bad* thing or indicate inferiority?
Lincoln read the Gettysburg address off of a notebook page or a postcard, unless I am misremembering my history. He wrote it on the train on the way to give the speech, according to lore. What a lazy bastard- he only had to memorize a 5 minute speech.
Well the audience was pretty upset afterwards a I remember the story.
I went to his inauguration. It was something I will remember for the rest of my life. I wasn't old enough to vote at the time, but standing out there in 10 degree weather with literally hundreds of other people made me feel like a part of something really important. Now that the magic of that moment has faded, I am rather ambivalent towards him.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Lincoln read the Gettysburg address off of a notebook page or a postcard, unless I am misremembering my history. He wrote it on the train on the way to give the speech, according to lore. What a lazy bastard- he only had to memorize a 5 minute speech.
I know, right? And such a well known speech, too.
Lisa: Please message me at your soonest convenience.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Must be a case of reincarnation.
My parents are Buddhist and, to the extent that I was brought up with a religion, that religion was Buddhism. When I was a kid, I always wanted to remember a past life, but I never did.
I guess what I'm saying is: I'm a little jealous, Soap. I wish I could remember Lincoln's inauguration.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nobel Peace Prize Winner....don't blame conservatives for the expectations.....they didn't vote for him.
What does a five person committee of Norwegians have to do with Obama-supporter expectations? None of us voted for him for the Peace Prize either.
Norwegians are the prime example of socialist success in the world. They have a common race, a common work ethic, a homogeneous society. Obama's ideas work in places like Switzerland. They're suckers for his words. Those of us that don't live a lily white, socialist eutopia have other issues to deal with. Just don't try to put put up a minaret in Sweden.....the best socialist country in the world. It works there and it would've worked for Hitler too, had he succeeded in eliminating the non productive and "greedy" members of his society. Socialism can work in an intolerant society where everyone works the same, is satisfied with the same standard of living and has a common culture.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The American Progressive is a different breed than the examples they hold up in the world. Japanese and Swedish people aren't the "melting pot" of America. In those countries, they have a common interest. Hitler wanted to make a "common" interest as well. The National Socialist Party needed to eliminate the different to have a chance to achieve the current examples of successful socialism.
American Progressives are coming at it from a completely different angle. Look at their own words, their own titles. Our president wants "social justice" and spent half his life in "liberation theology". The terms "justice" and "liberation" should spell out the difference. Their own titles identify they come from a grievance position. This brand of socialism isn't the same as Sweden or Japan. This brand identifies an oppressor and applies blame for a perceived injustice, it doesn't look to a common goal. Our brand is closer to Hitler than the Swedes and Japanese. They are homogeneous...Hitler's dream. For Hitler to achieve "social justice" and "liberation"....he needed to eliminate the Jews who held wealth during their depression. He needed to eliminate the non-productive Down's Syndrome kids and the mongrel races who had a different culture.
American Progressives' own organizational titles identify the fact that we are not homogeneous and united. They have a target and want pay back. Socialism cannot succeed in America. It might in Japan, Sweden or Hitlers anticipated utopia.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nobel Peace Prize Winner....don't blame conservatives for the expectations.....they didn't vote for him.
What does a five person committee of Norwegians have to do with Obama-supporter expectations? None of us voted for him for the Peace Prize either.
Norwegians are the prime example of socialist success in the world. They have a common race, a common work ethic, a homogeneous society. Obama's ideas work in places like Switzerland. They're suckers for his words. Those of us that don't live a lily white, socialist eutopia have other issues to deal with. Just don't try to put put up a minaret in Sweden.....the best socialist country in the world. It works there and it would've worked for Hitler too, had he succeeded in eliminating the non productive and "greedy" members of his society. Socialism can work in an intolerant society where everyone works the same, is satisfied with the same standard of living and has a common culture.
So in other words, nothing.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Socialism works in societies of common culture and common living standards. "Social Justice" means everyone is the same...of course in practice...government connected get better food and better living. The elite shift from the smart and hard working to the politically connected.
I prefer a system where the lazy people with broken families attend "liberation theology" churches and protest for "social justice" while the hard working stable families have a chance to succeed without political connections.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Must be a case of reincarnation.
My parents are Buddhist and, to the extent that I was brought up with a religion, that religion was Buddhism. When I was a kid, I always wanted to remember a past life, but I never did.
I guess what I'm saying is: I'm a little jealous, Soap. I wish I could remember Lincoln's inauguration.
Socialism works in societies of common culture and common living standards. "Social Justice" means everyone is the same...of course in practice...government connected get better food and better living. The elite shift from the smart and hard working to the politically connected.
Yes, because of course in a capitalist society, hard work and brains are the only virtues that lend one to advancement. Connections matter not one whit. Isn't there some Glenn Beck you could be listening to, malanthrop?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Connections matter a lot. Those connections are what has corrupted capitalism....Fannie and Freddie. Pure capitalism has no connections. In a purely capitalistic society, there are no businesses "too big to fail". In a purely capitalistic society, there are no "bail outs". Congress is considering bailing out union pension funds with tax payer money. Currently, unions workers are less than 15% of the American workforce. Why should the other 85% bail out their pension funds? Maybe because the unions are "politically connected" and support the current administration.
The connections are a corruption of capitalism.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You keep saying, "In a purely capitalistic society..." Maybe you could give an example, malanthrop? Realizing that facts and honest, straightforward arguments aren't really your 'thing', I suspect it will take awhile.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
America was a purely capitalistic society. There aren't any "purely capitalistic" societies left. If there was a media market crash, who would be "too big to fail", Fox News or NBC?
Everyone forgets that Fannie and Freddie were the first dominoes to fall. They were government created and backed lending organizations. They are banks with unlimited access to tax payers dollars. The loans they made were for "social justice" reasons. Of course, it's called "predatory lending" when it turns sour.
Purely capitalistic countries??? none left.
Capitalism is self correcting....government interference is the problem.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Admittedly, what I wrote above isn't much of an exaggeration compared to some of the stuff Rush et al. routinely say.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
