Category: News and Views
Obama or Prezbo The Socialist
Here are some definitions that will aid in the understanding of this article, and society. The definition of socialism "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." (). This is one way to explain communism "a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state." (). Laissez-faire capitalism is "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth." (). The democratic party count rises, and in the November 2008 election many casted their votes for Barrack Obama. Some believe that Obama has socialistic ideas, or is a socialist. He certainly has proclaimed socialistic speeches. Obama claimed, "We heard the President say he has a stimulus plan to boost our economy, but we know his plan leaves out senior citizens and fails to expand unemployment insurance,
and we know it was George Bush's Washington that let the banks and financial institutions run amok, and take our economy down this dangerous road. What
we need to do now is put more money in the pockets of workers and seniors citizens, and expand unemployment insurance for more people and more time. And I have
a plan that to do just that." This generally causes people to feel at ease, but it's not effective to all. Indeed, equal tax prices for all would be a good solution, as the people who are rich are not, claimed by many, "filthy rich." We need the rich, as they invest the wisest and creates jobs. President Obama's socialistic policy concerning taxes won't help us at all. We can't afford to lose them, as the elitist, are often the successful rich small business owners. Without them we will lose much and tumble into a state such as the Great depression. Their are a few logical ways to get the economy going, for the middle class to be wealthier, but socialism is not one of them. It causes people to be equally poor. In the future, rethink about agreeing with President Obama when he says something similar to this effect, "If they have a 401(k), then they are going to see those taxes deferred, and they're going to pay ordinary income when they finally cash out. So, that's
a phony argument. You know, as I travel around the country, what I'm absolutely convinced of is that people recognize that if only 1% of the population
is doing well, when we've got wage and incomes for the average worker actually going down during a period of economic expansion, much less economic recession,
that something's being mismanaged. And they want a different approach. And that's what we're going to be offering them. John McCain is essentially offering four more years of the same policies that got us into this rut that we're in now." In essence obama is a socialist or has socialistic ideas, which is certainly unhealthy for the nation.
I take it you wrote this article?
Goodness, this piece reaks with ignorance. Rich people are not what makes this economy spin. It's money itself. Sure, rich people have a lot of money, but so do all the "poor" people combined.
I just love how this is only concerning the rich and the poor, and not middle class or upper middle class. Or are those people considered rich too?
Yeah, I probably shouldn't have posted this. I only got I forgot how many words,
The middle class is kind of pulled along. Yes, it's important, but the essential two parties contributing or helping this problem is the poor or the rich. If I gotten more words, it'd probably be much better.
All I know is that If Obama can't fofill his promises, then I'm not voting for him again! He says he can bring change, well, let's just see. If he does, great. If not, he's not getting my vote!
Wow, that is quite a pointless post really.
Firstly capitalism assumes that all services can be measured in terms of profit and that more money is alwys better, banking even artificially inflates the money supply, which is precisely the reason for inflation, in fact.
If we look at the very extremes of socialism vs capitlism:
Socialism assumes that money is equally shared by all (well over simplification) and that government, or some central body, plans projects and makes sure people got what they need. This doesn't work because of the simple facts of human nature, we're greedy and lazy. If you will get the same pay whether you work 5 hours or 15, whether you innovate and find ways of working more efficiently or you take 3 extra coffee breaks, you will ere on the side of less work, it's simple and, I think, natural. Also those in power will tend to put themselves in a nicer position than the rest, then their friends, and all f a sudden you'll hve an elite that has an extra share or, as famously put, some aremore equal than others. Thus pure socialism just will never work, however nice it sounds in theory.
Similarly pure capitalism is basically the jungle, we don't take care of each other, we compete, those who are inferior will die, we don't work together and take care of each other. As we all know, working together is what allows us to come down from the trees in the first place and now we even burn the trees and use them for jetfuel.
So the balance is always going to be protecting each other vs giving people incentive to be rewarded for working harder. In Bush's age many a director got rewarded hugely, butnot for working harder, and no one took the blame for mistakes, no one took responsibility, except the lower class whose money was stolen and spent on dubious financial deals.
Obama has only had a few moths, Bush had 8 years, let's give him a bit longer and see what he'll do. I am convinced he's trying, but I can't be convinced he'll succeed yet, but I am encouraged by the signs.
A real solution is not "either capitalism or socialism" the old monolithic party structure doesn't work. Obama is the first democrat I've voted for but only after reading his book "The Audacity of Hope", in which he takes on and challenges his own party on issues of support for small business, gun owners' rights (it was McCain that wanted registrations done at gun shows remember ... a sure-fire way to stifle the small-business gun dealers).
OK so the book has a smarmy title, but don't judge it by the cover. It's available on Web Braille, for those who subscribe, probably Bookshare as well.
The other tom-foolery going around claiming that Obama wants to "spread the wealth" demonstrates not the least education in either civics or economics:
If you give a tax break to an out-of-state corporation or land developer - by definition requiring the local population to pick up the slack - tand the developer takes off to Mexico or whatever instead of continuing to invest locally, you have indeed spread the wealth, even if you are from the right. Take it one step further: Said developer gets X tax break. Do they bring in their own roads? Do they have their own police force? Of course not! They're lined up using yours, while you give the poor sop a hand-out, you pay for their tax break, and by definition you pay for whatever city services they need.
Now, they leave and displace community members - zero responsibility (from the party who claims to support such?) and guess who gets to clean up the mess? You, the tax-paying member of the local community, because you are an honest citizen, and they are little more than gang lords.
Look at the housing crisis:
It's not about "what's fair" here: it's what you, the community, the city council person, the sheriff, etc., has to do about the mess. When houses become abandoned, or development projects like condos and such don't sell, you trade one group of squatters for another: the homeless move in. I've seen it! So, by definition,the wealth has gotten itself spread: to a new group of pan handlers / scoundrels the right would praise. These people are not worth your class envy, either. They've got their PETA-style organization - Fox News and their ilk. But they, like neighborhood raccoons, stray dogs and other unwanted pests do merit your notice.
There are a lot of rich folk who do benefit the economy, who are actual members of a community and do contribute time, resources and leadership. But those who simply move in for an easy drug-lord-style fix, and then move on, I say, we give them the treatment proscribed in the American tale "A Man Without A Country", they are not citizens in the true form of citizenship behavior.
I've digressed, but back to Obama: You elected a president, you didn't coronate a king.
I suspect the republicans will have some comeback in 2006; I think they probably underestimate their influence. The last thing we want is another episode like the past eight years. The major problem with the past eight years is you had a single party running the show like a bunch of half-drunken college freshmen with spray paint cans.
The conservative party of any government acts as the necessary friction to progressive ideas, by definition solidifying them through checks and balances. Any of you on SSI? Your republican party voted against it. Your parents use MediCare? Your republicans voted against it, and inserted checks and balances.
Not because of the reasons the left so frequently overstates, but that is in fact the role of a conservative party.
Most are excruciatingly underserved by believing they get proper news from the party-affiliated snooze networks. Now with the Internet, we blinks can get access to a lot more info, and for my part I think we probably appreciate the Internet more for this than the general population does.
Also, and I know to some this sounds like I'm a nut ball, but get a copy of the Constitution next election, and line up what any Presidential candidate promises against the job description written there. That's not set in stone of course, since said document was deliberately constructed as a living document.
I suggest skipping all the party clap trap from whatever party, either the flounders on the left or the pit bulls on the right, and do your own thinkin' ...
Okay one final thought here: I know this is history but the past is in fact prologue:
Since Americans are afraid of centralized health care - and generally like schoolhouse mediocres compare themselves to the failing student (Canada) - actually thinking it's an argument? Study two things:
Eisenhower's "big government" investments in the transcontinental highway systems. There's a "government invasion" for ya ...
Done by private contractors who bid in; the exact method Obama proposes in the aforementioned book Audacity of Hope as a way to accomplish this.
Remember that Eisenhower was a conservative, more of one than any of these rich pan handlers of today are - and he saw the wisdom in centralization and standards.
Study the back-and-forth between Edison and Westinghouse over electricity, New York City being the first "electric city", and it wasn't working out too well when every other block had a different company and different wiring systems. Oh yeah, and how about some places using AC and some using DC?
So here's the breakdown from the previous election on health care:
McCain's plan: $5000 as a tax incentive to purchase your own health insurance - paid for (if not cheerfully) by your employer via payroll deductions.
Your average health insurance for a family plan costs around $12000 anually in a group rate like Cobra Serv where you pay the full group rate price, rather than a portion of it like you do with most employers today.
For your average household, this is a big step backwards. Also, consider you have to be doing this for two years before you even see the incentive, the first year's expenses being claimed at year end when doing taxes.
A utility-based system, where private carriers bid in to cover the standard benefits - whatever those amount to - is what Obama posits in his book. I've done government contracts as a software consultant, I'm sure many of you have done the same in any number of fields. So you know, they put the project out to bid and contractors bid on it. Health care coverage then becomes another project.
This does not mean government-owned hospitals, health care centers, etc.
Consider how Fox News and the Wall Street Journal frequently posit cases where in a socialist state someone with the money to pay can't get the coverage they need. Irony sure, but Obama's proposed plan lacks most of the major components that would make it a socialist plan.
And they fail to report that an individual in this country who does not have the money can't get care. Not because of "greedy companies", after all medical space / supplies / expertise costs - everything does.
However the problem is in the extremely nonstandardized system - if we can even call it a system - that we possess.
And there's no debate as to whether or not we "should" provide health care for "those" (insert least favorite group here) people, because you are. You take your kid to the hospital, you're responsible and have insurance, so you pay your co-pay and your extra expenses (even and especially when its tight). However, that six-dollar aspirin costs as much because of all the people who don't pay.
And because their parts wear out with no maintenance, aka preventitive care, you, the paying citizen get to pay some more.
It's irresponsible. The auto industry knows it, and dealers often offer price-reduced oil changes to customers. Your PC support people know it, and recommend you run Defrag and antivirus / antispyware utilities, and you do, all of those things.
Think about this, especially you fellow parents: Would you tolerate your kid coming home from school with poor grades, saying that at least they're not as bad as so-and-so's? Would you tolerate them trying to deflect attention off themselves and onto the bad behavior of others?
I thought not.
We equally ought not to take such from these indolents on the right who are little more than peasants with money and no civic or social responsibility. They even scorn it, like the lords of medieval Europe scorned literacy. Said responsibilities are not some touchie-feelie leftist concept, they result in actual solutions to real problems.
I've been particularly hard on the right, I realize, but that's because I think they can manage this. Many of their ilk have come from the business sector and could, if they wanted and could handle the delayed gratification, solve some real problems. The problem is, they've been spoiled and coddled by religious groups and others into thinking simple plattitudes and placating those who line their pockets is enough. I'm not a member; I'm an independent. But as I said, I think they have potential but they choose not to exercise it. Instead, they read their own press clippings, a sad waste of time for some who could otherwise be innovators.
Speaking of which I gotta get back to work, even though it is Friday and the weather is just plain awesome here!
Some very good points, and some of us on the right have to admit there is rightests that shouldn't call themselves so. Some of these CEOS and managers of different companies have very bad management and is rather corrupted as well, take GM for instance.
Very good post robo.
What still boggles the mind a bit is why "socialist" is instantly such a bad term. If you look at pretty much any list trying to measure quality of life (and I know it's kind of silly, measuring quality of life is just neigh impossible really), best country/city to live in, usually the so-called Socialist countries are in the top 10 whereas the U.S., sadly, is quite a bit lower on the list.
Best country to live in last year was Ireland according to one survey, Vanu Attu by some happiness index survey, best cities to live in are usually Vancouver, Zurich and a few other Swiss cities. GDP per capita is generally higher in the European countries than here so if you measure by that still the so-called socialist countries are ahead. Best childcare or family care, again the socialist countries beat the U.S. Life here is awesome, if you are one of the lucky ones to have tons of money, but for the average person it's a lot harder to live here than some other places. There is the risk of inefficiency, excess and corruption that comes with a big government based spending program and that is to be avoided, of course, but I find it just as wasteful that, for instance, banks and CEOs here seem to think it perfectly justifiable they make 40, 80 or 100 million dollars a year (to put that in perspective, 100K would be considered pretty good sallary by anyone and assuming you have a 40-year work life you make 4 million dollars in your entire life, a good 2000 sqf house and a nice car probably cost anywhere from 120K to a million, depending where you live, you can't tell me anyone needs to make so much money they can by 40 of these every year, it's just as wasteful as government spending, at least that money would circulate better in more hands given the marginal prepensity to consume, which supposedly goes down as income goes up).
They used to justify their high sallary by their big responsibility, but as we've seen, if they fail they still expect their bonuses and the shareholders, low level employees or government to take the fall and bail them out, which, in my book, equates to no responsibility, because you can't fail as a big CEO, if you do you get punished by being paid your severence bonus of a few million dollars, get your private island and jet and then you are forced to quit.
I think there's unreasonable expectations of money and I find it perfectly natural that, for instance, government can limit maximum sallary to anyone to, say 3 million dollars per year, or at least any money above that would be strongly tied to that person's contribution for susteinable growth or development of the company or society in general.
Now I'm drifting off topic I suppose, but the bottomline is that I prefer socialist idiology to the market based crazyness over here and I think people who pegion hole themselves into either system are making a big mistake, there's lot to be learnt from both successes and mistakes of all idiologies, no one and nothing is perfect but we can combine the best elements of all ideas to come as close as possible.