Reply With Quote
And I think if anyone is going to bring us smaller government it certainly isn't the Republicans. The largest decrease in federal bureaucracy in modern times was during the Clinton administration.
That's the definition of socialism. Socialism means the government owns the means of production. Period. I know that the correction definition of socialism isn't "popular" with the Hanni s, because without it they can't define Obama as a Socialist.
Socialists do indeed prefer a more equitable distribution of income, but so do most economists. It's not healthy to have the extreme concentration of wealth directed upwards into the highest tax brackets like what has taken place over the past eight years. The arguments against progressive taxation is that it's not fair and it's better to let the rich keep their money and invest it in the economy rather than giving it to the government, which would lead to greater prosperity and job creation. Well, Bush's taxes have led to greater prosperity for the highest brackets, but we're hemorrhaging jobs and the economy's in the ter. How have Bushonomics worked out the past eight years? We tried it your way and it doesn't work.Socialists hate capitalism because they believe that the wealth is concentrated among a small portion of society and makes it an unfair system.
There is ONE definition of socialism you conserva . Socialism is when the government owns the means of production. If conserva s are to be believed, the difference between capitalism and socialism is the difference between taxing the highest brackets at 36 percent and 39 percent. Brilliant, insightful, trenchant analysis.There are different theories of socialism -- all with the point being to distribute the wealth evenly
And I think if anyone is going to bring us smaller government it certainly isn't the Republicans. The largest decrease in federal bureaucracy in modern times was during the Clinton administration.
Oh and for the record I'm a believer that certain government programs need to be expanded and others decreased. That has nothing to do with socialism but simply with running our country efficently.
My problem lies with this labeling of Obama as a socialist under the false context that he's a huge departure from our current leadership or McCain.
That is not an Observation - we can actually start with Woodrow Wilson ( read the Forgotten Man and Liberal Fascism) and move forward. The New Deal -- Social Security is a drain on the system and has been - should have never been done or allowed to expire like it was supposed to... Just read those books and you will see all the negatives. I can refer a few others to you -- There aren't many pictures though so it might not help you as much as it would a person with say a 5th grade reading level.
Obviously it is my reading level that is lacking. It is obvious by your incredible grammar skills combined with your obvious understanding of the word observation.
I merely strive to reach half of your intellect. I set attainable goals.
That's the definition of socialism. Socialism means the government owns the means of production. Period. I know that the correction definition of socialism isn't "popular" with the Hanni s, because without it they can't define Obama as a Socialist.
Socialists do indeed prefer a more equitable distribution of income, but so do most economists. It's not healthy to have the extreme concentration of wealth directed upwards into the highest tax brackets like what has taken place over the past eight years. The arguments against progressive taxation is that it's not fair and it's better to let the rich keep their money and invest it in the economy rather than giving it to the government, which would lead to greater prosperity and job creation. Well, Bush's taxes have led to greater prosperity for the highest brackets, but we're hemorrhaging jobs and the economy's in the ter. How have Bushonomics worked out the past eight years? We tried it your way and it doesn't work.
There is ONE definition of socialism you conserva . Socialism is when the government owns the means of production. If conserva s are to be believed, the difference between capitalism and socialism is the difference between taxing the highest brackets at 36 percent and 39 percent. Brilliant, insightful, trenchant analysis.
No re it does not mean the government owns the means of production. IT is "collectively" owned and administrated or better word distributed. you liberalerina . and if you want to be realistic - socialism is just a half-way house towards communism. Therer are several different theories and forms of socialism. it is like talking ot the freaking wall.
What kind of government is China running now ?
you say the bush economics dont work and the economy is in the crapper - the economy of the whole world is in the crapper Einstein - Socialist nations - Communists -- Old Chavez is having trouble keeping the lights on for his people - it doesn't work. Capitalism works. THe system will correct itself. Small government -- lower taxes will attract businesses here and they will bring jobs. The USA might actually start to produce something again instead of just consuming and taking out l ines of credit.
Are you still here ? Run along now ... go pass out some cigs to homeless folks and drive them to the voting booth for Obama. Register the Spurs in Ohio to vote for him too... run along
You think the root of the current economic problems lie within socialist countries and you make these claims in the same post you use to call someone else re ed? Well, I suppose life is easier when you walk around with a low level understanding of the world you live in.
The US still produces many things but I can understand why you fail to see the value in ideas and only the value in trinkets that come from an assembly line. It usually takes someone a bit smarter to understand the concept of seeing value in information.
implacable44, imagine that some people would claim that the average working person's lot had improved since the New Deal. What do they know, right? It was far better when a man would earn an honest dollar for a day's twelve hour labor, was it not? Oh yeah, and when sluggards (and their families) could be jailed for not paying their bills on time.
I'm merely sitting here enjoying the trainwrecks that are your posts. Carry on, don't let me distract you from your nonsensical ramblings.
Sorry, but that is what socialism is. If you have trouble with that concept, then there's really no point in trying to talk sense to you.
China is a dictatorship. You didn't ask me what kind of economy they're running, mostly a market economy.What kind of government is China running now ?
So Sweden embarked on a program of drastic deregulation and drove the world economy into the crapper. Thanks for the analysisyou say the bush economics dont work and the economy is in the crapper - the economy of the whole world is in the crapper Einstein - Socialist nations - Communists -- Old Chavez is having trouble keeping the lights on for his people - it doesn't work.
Well, the govt definitely got larger under Bush, that's for sure.
As for the federal bureaucracy decrasing under Clinton, do you have any sources for that? I've never heard that before.
The National Performance Review
One of the most ambitious, and, by many accounts, most successful attempts to reform and reshape the bureaucracy was Vice President Al Gore's National Performance Review (NPR). The stated goals of the NPR were to:
Despite its focus on changing the bureaucratic culture of government administration, the first NPR Report was a stereotypically "bureaucratic" do ent. It was too-long and too technical and was largely ignored. In contrast, the second report, the cover of which is pictured on the right, was short, easy to read and filled with Dilbert cartoons. The second report is symbolic of the ways the bureaucracy has changed and is continuing to change. There is a heightened sense of accountability to the people, the "customers" of each agency and department. And there is a greater willingness to engage in critical self-evaluation and change. As the cartoons suggest, the bureaucracy might even be learning to laugh at itself a bit. For an update on the National Performance Review and its successes, you can visit the NPR web site.
- Cut "red tape & rules" by half
- Establish "Customer Service" standards for every department, agency and bureau
- Give bureaucrats at the "street-level," where they interact with the people, more discretion to respond to particular needs and cir stances
- Eliminate waste, overlap and duplication
With George W. Bush's victory in 2000, the NPR was disbanded in favor of other reform efforts. But the NPR's impact has outlasted its existence as a formal bureaucratic reform initiative.
http://www.thisnation.com/textbook/b...cy-reform.html
I am so tired of people who do not know the difference between economic systems and governmental systems.
No sir - that is not what socialism is - look it up --even the webster definition will not return such a simpleton view on Socialism.
China is a dictatorship and a market economy ? That is all I need to know about your understanding of governemtn and economy --
Sweden ? all of the Obamaites love to look at Sweden - as of today -- not the Sweden of the 1990's though where they suffered a meltdown very similar to what we are going through when the real estate bubble burst.
I laugh sometimes at the knee-jerk conservatives who freak out when they hear "socialism". 99% of them have thus far shown they have no idea what socialism really is. They likely don't even know what communism is. They simply live in fear of that which is foreign and unknown to them.
Well, the party of Robert Taft, Dwight Eisenhower and William F. Buckley is dead. To be replaced by this:
I think you are referring to yourself when you speak about lack of understanding
"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society."Right, all capitalist, market-based societies are inherently democratic.China is a dictatorship and a market economy ? That is all I need to know about your understanding of governemtn and economy --
Seriously, how can people be this dumb?
Its just annoying that people can't discern the American sphere of politics and where it lies in the entire political spectrum. Actually its really just annoying that people are ing re ed and my first state is merely a symptom of this disease.
I didnt say they were democratic... How can you be that stupid ?Right, all capitalist, market-based societies are inherently democratic.
Seriously, how can people be this dumb?
Irony at its best.
How do you think Clinton achieved record decreases in the deficit and national debt? In fact he put up a budget surplus, which was unheard of in the Reagan/Bush Sr. era.
And then along came good old GWB and spent like a drunken sailor. Now we have a record high $ 10 trillion in federal debt, and a very real possibility that the dollar will suffer a back-breaking crash when other countries wise up to the fact that we have dug ourselves deeper and deeper into an unsustainably large hole.
Here's the data on the size of the federal budget by the way (USD trillions)
Clinton budgets (submitted the year before, obviously):
1996 - 1.6; 1997 - 1.6; 1998 - 1.7; 1999 - 1.7; 2000 - 1.8; 2001 - 1.9
Bush budgets (again, submitted the year before):
2002 - 2.0; 2003 - 2.2; 2004 - 2.3; 2005 - 2.4; 2006 - 2.7; 2007 - 2.77; 2008 - 2.9; 2009 - 3.1
Given your stance on fiscal conservatism, do you feel dumb for having voted for Bush now?
Conservatives talking about balanced budgets and small govt is a huge reason why they have no credibility at this point, after the Repugs they put in office in to 2000 have so thoroughly raped govt, most often to the $advantage of the conservatives.
QFT.
Seriously, how can any of you lib s that have watched our government operate over your lifetime think that Obama's solution of more government involvement in anything is a good thing for us?
And don't give me 'it was great until W. got elected', that's bull . The government's been growing steadily since the end of WW2, and that's a bad thing.
More bureaucracy isn't the answer today, it never has been. Yet Obama wants to have the government oversee damn near everything. that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
