The Audacity of Socialism.

[Trainwreck2100]

remember the story of christ and the prince who wanted to enter the kingdom of god? Jesus asked the prince to give all his riches to the poor, the prince just turned away an ran.

I don't remember that story.

[FromWayDowntown]

n/m

[2centsworth]

What I'm really interested in is electing a President who will claim for himself unprecedented executive power while manifesting a willingness to defy both legislative and judicial acts with radical and untenable legal arguments for vesting incredible amounts of unchecked power into the White House. Truly, I think of "electing" a President as being my quadrennial chance to pretend as though I have some say in who shall serve as King.

I'm also interested in electing a King, errrrr President who can ensure that the nation incurs incredible expenses through actions that create more problems than they solve. Frankly, who doesn't want to live in a nation that is so burdened by a spending deficit that its currency is steadily weakening against the world market and whose people have seen nearly-unprecedented increases in the costs of things that have largely become essential to their lives? I think of electing a President as a means to ensure that the income I'm allowed to keep goes less and less far with each passing year.

Finally, I'm interested in electing a President who does little more than instill grave skepticism a large portion of the populous. Really, what fun would life be without intense divisiveness with a large group of people questioning the government and another large group contending vociferously that the first large group has no basis to question the President's motives or the results of his actions? I think of electing a President as a means to ensure that the political gulf in the country will be exploited and expanded for purely political gain.

Screw "socialist" candidates -- it's really about ensuring that the American President lives up to the legacy of the Administration that came before it and will boldly take on the foregoing issues in a way that past Administrations have been unwilling to!

From my blackberry, so ill keep it short. What's ur argument counselor? Obama is a socialist, but beTter than the alternative? Obama isn't a socialist? These seem like str8 forward questions that can be answred y or n.

[clambake]

From my blackberry, so ill keep it short. What's ur argument counselor? Obama is a socialist, but beTter than the alternative? Obama isn't a socialist? These seem like str8 forward questions that can be answred y or n.

i think you could have left it at "yes".

[FromWayDowntown]

From my blackberry, so ill keep it short. What's ur argument counselor? Obama is a socialist, but beTter than the alternative? Obama isn't a socialist? These seem like str8 forward questions that can be answred y or n.

The notion that Obama is a socialist is a red herring; aside from being little more than a convenient broad stroke that is an inflammatory proxy for real thinking about the policy differences between the candidates, the label is insignificant because there is zero chance that even a President who was truly a socialist could enact purely socialistic policies (though the notion of an imperial presidency, as advocated for by the current Administration, might actually make that more possible than it has ever been).

Ultimately, my point is that mischaracterizations and irrelevant labels aside, even a socialist couldn't do as much harm as the anti-socialist administration currently in power has done. So, yes, I'd honestly probably prefer a socialist to a President who purports to be something else but consistently pursues policies and activities that subvert the founding principles of the nation and the best interests of its citizens.

[clambake]

2cents.......you are becoming an "unstable alarmist".

[Cry Havoc]

socialism has failed at every attempt. But hey!he's young has great soundbites and says all the right cool things!!!!!!!!!

Please show me an example of a successful "democracy". Thanks for playing.

[2centsworth]

The notion that Obama is a socialist is a red herring; aside from being little more than a convenient broad stroke that is an inflammatory proxy for real thinking about the policy differences between the candidates,

that has to be one of the most wussified answers I've ever heard. Inflammatory. I didn't want to hurt your feelings. This election is about Obama and figuring out who he is. At this point he's a closet communist and at best a hard socialist per the IBD editorial.

the label is insignificant because there is zero chance that even a President who was truly a socialist could enact purely socialistic policies (though the notion of an imperial presidency, as advocated for by the current Administration, might actually make that more possible than it has ever been).

Imperialist, how inflammatory. I'm offended.

Ultimately, my point is that mischaracterizations and irrelevant labels aside, even a socialist couldn't do as much harm as the anti-socialist administration currently in power has done.

Electing a hard core socialist is irrelevent? In what country? Maybe in Cuba.

So, yes, I'd honestly probably prefer a socialist to a President who purports to be something else but consistently pursues policies and activities that subvert the founding principles of the nation and the best interests of its citizens.

fiscally your preference will be devestating.

[2centsworth]

2cents.......you are becoming an "unstable alarmist".

watch the following link and discuss, and then maybe I'll think of you as more than a sheep.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2528226.shtml

[FromWayDowntown]

that has to be one of the most wussified answers I've ever heard. Inflammatory. I didn't want to hurt your feelings. This election is about Obama and figuring out who he is. At this point he's a closet communist and at best a hard socialist per the IBD editorial.

Hmmmm. I didn't realize that the election was about a single candidate. I had this silly, surely-outdated notion that the election was about discussing pressing national problems and trying to find solutions to those problems through weighing the relative virtue of the policy initiatives of two or more candidates, and not just about deciding how best to characterize one guy's political philosophy.

Oh, and I don't really give a damn about the labels that you use -- my point is that it's a base political strategy that has little to do with any foundation in absolute truth. Republicans refer to troubling Democratic candidates as socialists/communists; Democrats refer to troubling Republican candidates as racists/elitists. Neither description is actually correct in any real political sense, but each is useful in attempting to lure voters to one side or the other of the political debate.

I guess that I should also start taking the conclusions of editorial writers -- never biased in any manner, of course -- as gospel in assessing that single candidate.

I assume, since the election is about Obama, that you're presuming an Obama victory?

Electing a hard core socialist is irrelevent? In what country? Maybe in Cuba.

You show me the laws that a President is able to pass without the assistance of Congress. It's awfully difficult to impement a socialist agenda, which would necessitate significant changes in statutory law, without the indulgence of Congress. Until the President is able to enact laws without Congressional assistance, I'm not terribly concerned with the possibility that the divisive political discourse of the day has his opponents labelling Obama with tags grounded in hot rhetoric that is aimed solely at the lowest common denominator in the electorate.

fiscally your preference will be devestating.

Well, I see the decision to elect a conservative Republican has done wonders for the American economy in the last 8 years.

[clambake]

watch the following link and discuss, and then maybe I'll think of you as more than a sheep.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2528226.shtml

thanks for advising me to read what i already know. i don't feel there are that many people in this political forum who aren't aware of our current situation. you do, however, tend to avoid the reasons and cause of such a dramatic plunge in the state of the union.

calling obama, or anyone else a socialist is clearly an unstable alarmist retort.(minus the wit).

i, for one, would be willing to have a tax hike on my dividends, distributions, and capitol gains to go directly to a national healthcare system. it will be less painful if we all do it together.

but you are fixated on the people who receive medicare or have any general medical needs that they can't afford. (and i'm guessing it's because you are not one in need) why don't you man up and do something for your fellow americans. they are part of the country as well.

[2centsworth]

Hmmmm. I didn't realize that the election was about a single candidate. I had this silly, surely-outdated notion that the election was about discussing pressing national problems and trying to find solutions to those problems through weighing the relative virtue of the policy initiatives of two or more candidates, and not just about deciding how best to characterize one guy's political philosophy.

Economics is of the upmost importance IMO. Being a closest communist is very important!!

Oh, and I don't really give a damn about the labels that you use -- my point is that it's a base political strategy that has little to do with any foundation in absolute truth. Republicans refer to troubling Democratic candidates as socialists/communists; Democrats refer to troubling Republican candidates as racists/elitists. Neither description is actually correct in any real political sense, but each is useful in attempting to lure voters to one side or the other of the political debate.

Again, when discussing economic policy whether someone is a socialist is extremely relevent.

I guess that I should also start taking the conclusions of editorial writers -- never biased in any manner, of course -- as gospel in assessing that single candidate.

I assume, since the election is about Obama, that you're presuming an Obama victory?

accepting conclusions, no, but discussing the points instead of dismissing them as inflamatory. The editorial isn't diversionary in economic circles.

You show me the laws that a President is able to pass without the assistance of Congress. It's awfully difficult to impement a socialist agenda, which would necessitate significant changes in statutory law, without the indulgence of Congress.

This is an thread about economics. I know you feel more comfortbale discussing other topics, but just try.

Until the President is able to enact laws without Congressional assistance, I'm not terribly concerned with the possibility that the divisive political discourse of the day has his opponents labelling Obama with tags grounded in hot rhetoric that is aimed solely at the lowest common denominator in the electorate.

I don't want to sound like a broken record, ECONOMICS!


Well, I see the decision to elect a conservative Republican has done wonders for the American economy in the last 8 years.[/quote]

[clambake]

Economics is of the upmost importance IMO. Being a closest communist is very important!!



Again, when discussing economic policy whether someone is a socialist is extremely relevent.



accepting conclusions, no, but discussing the points instead of dismissing them as inflamatory. The editorial isn't diversionary in economic circles.




This is an thread about economics. I know you feel more comfortbale discussing other topics, but just try.


I don't want to sound like a broken record, ECONOMICS!


Well, I see the decision to elect a conservative Republican has done wonders for the American economy in the last 8 years.

[/QUOTE]

wow. my previous post in this thread was spot on regarding your motives.

[clambake]

the more i think about it, the more i find your sig..........fu*k it. nevermind.

[2centsworth]

thanks for advising me to read what i already know. i don't feel there are that many people in this political forum who aren't aware of our current situation. you do, however, tend to avoid the reasons and cause of such a dramatic plunge in the state of the union.

calling obama, or anyone else a socialist is clearly an unstable alarmist retort.(minus the wit).

i, for one, would be willing to have a tax hike on my dividends, distributions, and capitol gains to go directly to a national healthcare system. it will be less painful if we all do it together.

you could do a 1 year 100% tax on all income and assets and it still wouldn't be enough.

but you are fixated on the people who receive medicare or have any general medical needs that they can't afford. (and i'm guessing it's because you are not one in need) why don't you man up and do something for your fellow americans. they are part of the country as well.

medicare will bankrupt our country if nothing is done to fix a broken system. I'm maning up for for my kids. You can continue making believe you're doing something.

[2centsworth]

the more i think about it, the more i find your sig..........fu*k it. nevermind.

say it, because you're obviously a "man".

[FromWayDowntown]

Economics is of the upmost importance IMO. Being a closest communist is very important!!

Oh, I see. So the fact that economics is of the utmost importance to you necessarily means that it is of the utmost importance to the electorate and really the only issue in this campaign?

See, my point in responding to this thread was to suggest that it's pretty silly to make the choice to vote for a particular candidate about a single issue, such as economics. As my original post suggested, voting with economics in mind can (most decidedly) lead to a number of other problems. Curiously, among the problems arising from the last presidential elections is a growing economic problem . . . .

Again, when discussing economic policy whether someone is a socialist is extremely relevent.

Sure. But, again, he could be all that you claim him to be -- something I'd dispute because I think that label is too easily applied in cir stances where it is wholly inappropriate -- but that wouldn't make any difference if Congress won't pass laws reflecting that economic philosophy. And, ultimately, I suspect that the majority of Congress will resist the enactment of laws that are truly socialist in nature out of pragmatism, if nothing else.

accepting conclusions, no, but discussing the points instead of dismissing them as inflamatory. The editorial isn't diversionary in economic circles.

I am discussing the point -- I'm saying: (1) the use of the label "socialist" is inflammatory because it's not actually correct; and (2) the term is a diversion inasmuch as it divisively suggests to voters that Obama doesn't warrant their consideration because he's going to (I'll paraphrase) create the Union of American Socialist Republics. With that, while economic policy is undoubtedly an important issue, it's hardly the only issue in a presidential election.

This is an thread about economics. I know you feel more comfortbale discussing other topics, but just try.

Interesting non sequitor. You want me to talk about generalized descriptions of the economic policies of a presidential candidate and think that it's irrelevant to that discussion to note that a president cannot enact laws to change economic policy? It seems pretty clear that the only acceptable response from anyone to your thread is: "You're right, 2centsworth. Nobody should vote for Obama."

Well, I see the decision to elect a conservative Republican has done wonders for the American economy in the last 8 years.

With all of your concern for economics, it's fascinating to me that you chose to avoid that point.

[2centsworth]

Oh, I see. So the fact that economics is of the utmost importance to you necessarily means that it is of the utmost importance to the electorate and really the only issue in this campaign?

See, my point in responding to this thread was to suggest that it's pretty silly to make the choice to vote for a particular candidate about a single issue, such as economics. As my original post suggested, voting with economics in mind can (most decidedly) lead to a number of other problems. Curiously, among the problems arising from the last presidential elections is a growing economic problem . . .

what economic problems and how are they the fault of the current administration? I'm not suggesting there aren't problems, but I would like to know how this can be blamed on Bush or the Republicans?

Sure. But, again, he could be all that you claim him to be -- something I'd dispute because I think that label is too easily applied in cir stances where it is wholly inappropriate -- but that wouldn't make any difference if Congress won't pass laws reflecting that economic philosophy. And, ultimately, I suspect that the majority of Congress will resist the enactment of laws that are truly socialist in nature out of pragmatism, if nothing else.

We will have a liberal congress, what's to stop Obama the socialist?

I am discussing the point -- I'm saying: (1) the use of the label "socialist" is inflammatory because it's not actually correct;

Let's see, he wants to redistribute wealth, enanct the windfall tax, introduce a global welfare tax...hmmm doesn't sound socialist to me, yeah right.
and

(2) the term is a diversion inasmuch as it divisively suggests to voters that Obama doesn't warrant their consideration because he's going to (I'll paraphrase) create the Union of American Socialist Republics. With that, while economic policy is undoubtedly an important issue, it's hardly the only issue in a presidential election.

he absolutely is trying to make it the socialist republic and with that comes a whole list of evils.

Interesting non sequitor. You want me to talk about generalized descriptions of the economic policies of a presidential candidate and think that it's irrelevant to that discussion to note that a president cannot enact laws to change economic policy? It seems pretty clear that the only acceptable response from anyone to your thread is: "You're right, 2centsworth. Nobody should vote for Obama."

you're wrong on the first count counselor, but I can't argue the second

With all of your concern for economics, it's fascinating to me that you chose to avoid that point.

did you not read the article? Plus, do a quick search under my name and you'll find plenty of specific economic opinions and policies.

[ElNono]

We will have a liberal congress, what's to stop Obama the socialist?

Do you use liberal and socialist interchangeably?
Do they mean the same to you?
Do you believe all liberals are socialist?
Do you actually believe most liberals are socialists?
What do you know about socialism?
How would you describe the 'economic stimulus' checks in a capitalist context?
Would bailing out failing companies with tax money be a socialist action?

I need to know more about the fallacies you believe in before actually going deeper in the discussion.

[FromWayDowntown]

what economic problems and how are they the fault of the current administration? I'm not suggesting there aren't problems, but I would like to know how this can be blamed on Bush or the Republicans?

This could certainly should be the end of the discussion.

Those massive deficits the government is running aren't economic problems? The declining value of the dollar is not an economic problem? The reduction of spending power for Americans relative to their salaries is not an economic problem?

Or do you dispute that the President and those in his party are significantly responsible for those problems?

Let's see, he wants to redistribute wealth, enanct the windfall tax, introduce a global welfare tax...hmmm doesn't sound socialist to me, yeah right.

Yeah, doesn't sound like broad generalizations to me, yeah right.

he absolutely is trying to make it the socialist republic and with that comes a whole list of evils.

Please provide me with concrete examples -- not "he's going to redistribute wealth" or "he's going to enact the windfall tax" (which, even if true, he couldn't do without Congressional support) -- something specific that would mark his administration as an effort to wholly socialize America.

did you not read the article? Plus, do a quick search under my name and you'll find plenty of specific economic opinions and policies.

Okay, great. That should make it very easy for you to concisely state for me how it is that the economy is better today than it was in 2000 or even 2004 because Americans elected a conservative republican who eschews socialist policy.

[FromWayDowntown]

Do you use liberal and socialist interchangeably?
Do they mean the same to you?
Do you believe all liberals are socialist?
Do you actually believe most liberals are socialists?
What do you know about socialism?
How would you describe the 'economic stimulus' checks in a capitalist context?
Would bailing out failing companies with tax money be a socialist action?

I need to know more about the fallacies you believe in before actually going deeper in the discussion.

It seems quite clear that the answer to each question is "Yes." Which has been a significant aspect of my point, all along.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

socialism has failed at every attempt. But hey!he's young has great soundbites and says all the right cool things!!!!!!!!!

Come on. It worked in the USSR. No wait. It's worked in Cuba. No wait. It's worked in Venezuela. No wait. It's worked in North Korea. No wait...

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

The notion that Obama is a socialist is a red herring; aside from being little more than a convenient broad stroke that is an inflammatory proxy for real thinking about the policy differences between the candidates, the label is insignificant because there is zero chance that even a President who was truly a socialist could enact purely socialistic policies (though the notion of an imperial presidency, as advocated for by the current Administration, might actually make that more possible than it has ever been).

With a Democratic Congress in tote, how can you say that?

Ultimately, my point is that mischaracterizations and irrelevant labels aside, even a socialist couldn't do as much harm as the anti-socialist administration currently in power has done. So, yes, I'd honestly probably prefer a socialist to a President who purports to be something else but consistently pursues policies and activities that subvert the founding principles of the nation and the best interests of its citizens.

The ups of the Bush Administration shouldn't give Obama a free run at ing over our country in a marxist fashion.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Republicans refer to troubling Democratic candidates as socialists/communists;

Obama's talking about taking profits from big oil and giving everyone a big welfare check. How is that not socialist? Particularly on an industry that already pays three times more in income taxes than it makes in profit, and pays 1/3 of all corporate income tax in this country?

Obama wants to kill capitalism. Period. For all his talks about bemoaning class warfare and the like, he sure seems bent on propagating it.

[ElNono]

Obama's talking about taking profits from big oil and giving everyone a big welfare check. How is that not socialist? Particularly on an industry that already pays three times more in income taxes than it makes in profit, and pays 1/3 of all corporate income tax in this country?

Obama wants to kill capitalism. Period. For all his talks about bemoaning class warfare and the like, he sure seems bent on propagating it.

Hmm, and using billions of tax dollars to bail out mismanaged companies is capitalism? Is Bush a socialist? And for as much as you like to think you know about socialism, I can tell you're not that well informed. A true socialist wouldn't just tax the Oil Co's profits. True socialism would make the Oil Co's government owned, by basically invoking that the resources belong to the country and it's citizens. For examples, see Mexico and Venezuela. A windfall profits tax would just be a very mild action on a socialist scale.
That is, obviously, if such a tax would pass Congress scrutiny, as FWD correctly pointed out. Some of you forget that Oil Co lobbying doesn't just fill Republican pockets.

And for all of you whining about how this guy would be terrible for our economy, I think it's going to be hard for him to do worse than the current guy, who is going to leave office with the worse deficit any administration has ever left behind, not to mention a weakened currency. So Obama or whoever comes next will have their work cut out for them.