About to lay into a Anti Obama post, what to attack on

[Bluewolf]

OK, I admit when I said that I would like to see Obama assassinated, I've crossed the line there. I've been bashed other places for supporting McCain, and it kinda boiled over. I'm sorry for that and the flame, I took it out on you and I apologize. I will rectify this by not continue flaming but calmly explain why I feel the way I feel.

I still not a fan of Obama. The guy is pretty sensier about what he think he is doing is right (I'll give him that much) but is the man's judgement scares the living daylights out of me! The people he associated with in the past and his extremest past gives me concerns abouhis judgement. Judgement that could may or may not have dire consequences to the country.

The reason why I said that Obama's socialist agenda was gonna ruin the nation's already fragile economy. When you tax businesses, they're gonna have to make up the loses some where. I mean hire prices, fewer jobs, and it will also encourage them to outsource to other countries. It doesn't take a genius to know that is a bad thing. This is especially true to me since my mother's business will be affected by that. It isn't just big business, that will be affected. Small businesses as well, but they will get hit the hardest, because they don't have the same amount of resources, and options to choose from.

I believe it's down right immoral to take money away from somebody who actually earned it. On the soul reason because he makes more than most people. People call this the "fairness doctrine" the ironic thing about that it's not fair at all!

Imagine if you are a farmer(this is just and example to help you get your head around this) If you worked hard to grow some kind of crop to help feed your self and/or your family during the winter. Then imagine somebody from the government coming over to your farm, and tell you that you have to give it to somebody who has less than you do. You give it because it's the law and you have to, because somebody has taken a good portion of your crop. You either have to work twice as hard, or go hungry. The who person who has less got what he needs, but what about the person who put his blood, sweat, and tears into it? It came at a great cost and he might go hungry in the winter.

The problem with socialism that it is not fair, and it doesn't work. What you are doing is punishing the people who worked for their means, their hopes for a better life, and rewarding people who don't contribute. This is where it starts to break down, when people are given what they needed rather than work for it and contributing the pool that is gonna get passed out. They will start to work less, then people who contribute the most, pay the price when more is taken from them to compensate for the loss. Eventually the contributors can't stay afloat, and then whole thing comes crashing down, and everybody suffers. It's a good idea on paper, but the human condition is it's major and fatal flaw.

But why is there such a stigma, and hatred for capitalism?

I have several thoughts on that, but first a little history lesson...

Capitalism first began in the middle ages, when peasants who started exchange goods or services, for goods, services, and currency to support them selves. This practice grew in time but it didn't grow into the capitalism as we know it untill the industrial revolution, but the growth spurt did have some negative consequences. Back then governments didn't think that this new breed of capitalism needed any kind of regulation. As a result the owners of these big companies started to screw over their employees, and their consumers. Like people would be forced to work long hours, with little pay, and with no breaks. Customers get stuck with spotty and some times harmful merchandise, for high prices, with misleading advertising. It took a while but the government to see the need and started to correct the problems.

However the years when people are getting screwed by people who had more than them destroyed any chance of trust between capitalism and the populace. It caused some hateful feelings that deeply rooted into the every man. This hatred is the motivation that drove Marx into writing the communist manifesto, and the birth of unions.

Also I believe people are naturally jealous at people who have more than them. Also the social classes between the blue collar workers, and the white collar management has an impersonal element that cause people not relate as well. Also propitiates the evil %5 stereotype that the Democratic party loves to demonise.

What makes the US economy work so well that it is self balancing and is natural to the human condition. People want more of something, (IE usually money). Capitalism forces people to contribute to get what they want, if people want a better life (you might call it the American dream). They either work to get a better job or start a venture them selves. In the fight to get more, businesses are watched by the government. They are forced to follow guidelines to protect their employees, and their customers.

Also the consumer has power over businesses, if you don't like them... you don't have to buy from them, thanks to anti-trust laws there is no monopolies and there is always another place to go to. Which brings us an other benefit, corporate competition! When businesses compete the consumer reaps the rewards! Like lower prices and better quality products. They are willing to do what ever it takes to make you do business with them. It's like when two divorced parents fight for the love of their child(ren)as a result the kid(s) gets two Christmases, or two romantic rivals fight for the affections of a lady. This element also help drives growth of technology. People just don't realize how much power they have over a conglomerate like... lets say Microsoft.

Also the American economy is not a capitalistic state. The American economy is what is called a 'Mixed' economy. Yes, the United States is majorly capitalistic, however the government does have some traits that resembles socialism. Somethings like Post Office is apart of the government. Also things we have in place to take care of the sick, the old, and people who just cannot take care of them selves, like; social security, welfare, and food stamps.

If you want a strong but fair economy. What we need is not a radical change such as this, but rather some improvements on what we already have.

What we really should be asking of our leaders is a higher minimum wage. People used to be able support a modest middle class life style on minimum wage, what we have now is too low people can barely support them selves by the skins of their teeth. Some people even support families on that. Not just that it greatly reduces a person's spending power.

Lower taxes, not just for the lower and middle classes but for every one! That's double for businesses. When businesses have less taxes and doing well everybody benefits. They can hire more people, prices will go down, and they will be able to invest more into technologies that will benefit everybody! It will strenghten people's spending power and people will make money, so the government will gain more in taxes with out actually raising them.

Demand proper and responsible regulation. What caused the recent crash in stock market because banks where allowed to make risky loan offers in attempt to make more money on the recent housing boom. People went bankrupt and loosed their homes because of it. As a result the banks couldn't regain that money, and they went bankrupt them selves. This could have been avoided if the government put responsible regulations into place

Besides the shitty hope for Obama's assasination. What is the best route to debate it? I am going to raise:
That the tax on companies is not going to hit hard enough for his exampl
That most farmers probably don't get that much anyway
That corperations don't need more tax breaks
That socialism is not communism nor is it a bad thing to use as a negative


Is there anything other things I should raise with hij.

[Eleas]

Is there anything other things I should raise with hij.

Well, the hypocritical statement about Obama's supposed "extremist past," when that as compared to McCain's first choice (Palin) is insignificant.

[Samuel]

The people he associated with in the past and his extremest past gives me concerns abouhis judgement. Judgement that could may or may not have dire consequences to the country.

That is just vague enough to be meaningless.

The reason why I said that Obama's socialist agenda was gonna ruin the nation's already fragile economy.

Which is why Europe's economy collapse... oh no, it didn't. Of course, socialized medicine is a NET GAIN.

When you tax businesses, they're gonna have to make up the loses some where. I mean hire prices, fewer jobs, and it will also encourage them to outsource to other countries. It doesn't take a genius to know that is a bad thing. This is especially true to me since my mother's business will be affected by that. It isn't just big business, that will be affected. Small businesses as well, but they will get hit the hardest, because they don't have the same amount of resources, and options to choose from.

Unless you only tax big businesses.

I believe it's down right immoral to take money away from somebody who actually earned it. On the soul reason because he makes more than most people. People call this the "fairness doctrine" the ironic thing about that it's not fair at all!

So we should abolish the progressive income tax system?

Imagine if you are a farmer(this is just and example to help you get your head around this) If you worked hard to grow some kind of crop to help feed your self and/or your family during the winter. Then imagine somebody from the government coming over to your farm, and tell you that you have to give it to somebody who has less than you do. You give it because it's the law and you have to, because somebody has taken a good portion of your crop. You either have to work twice as hard, or go hungry. The who person who has less got what he needs, but what about the person who put his blood, sweat, and tears into it? It came at a great cost and he might go hungry in the winter.

Except that isn't the case. The tax increases are on people making over 250,000.

The problem with socialism that it is not fair, and it doesn't work.

The Soviet Union existed for 74 years. That isn't exactly "not working". It works poorly. As for not being fair, that assumes the current situation is fair. Which it isn't.

What you are doing is punishing the people who worked for their means, their hopes for a better life, and rewarding people who don't contribute. This is where it starts to break down, when people are given what they needed rather than work for it and contributing the pool that is gonna get passed out. They will start to work less, then people who contribute the most, pay the price when more is taken from them to compensate for the loss. Eventually the contributors can't stay afloat, and then whole thing comes crashing down, and everybody suffers. It's a good idea on paper, but the human condition is it's major and fatal flaw.

Which is why the progressive income tax has never been implementated, right?

What makes the US economy work so well that it is self balancing and is natural to the human condition. People want more of something, (IE usually money). Capitalism forces people to contribute to get what they want, if people want a better life (you might call it the American dream). They either work to get a better job or start a venture them selves. In the fight to get more, businesses are watched by the government. They are forced to follow guidelines to protect their employees, and their customers.

You are aware of the multiple and repeated scandals involving poor quality food products recently? Or the fact that not all people have the opportunity to do so.

Also the consumer has power over businesses, if you don't like them... you don't have to buy from them, thanks to anti-trust laws there is no monopolies and there is always another place to go to.

No, large number of customers have power. One individual doesn't.

As for no monopolies... Microsoft ring a bell? That is pretty close to a monopoly. Energy companies go to actual monopoly and they managed to screw over California in 2001.

Which brings us an other benefit, corporate competition! When businesses compete the consumer reaps the rewards! Like lower prices and better quality products. They are willing to do what ever it takes to make you do business with them. It's like when two divorced parents fight for the love of their child(ren)as a result the kid(s) gets two Christmases, or two romantic rivals fight for the affections of a lady. This element also help drives growth of technology. People just don't realize how much power they have over a conglomerate like... lets say Microsoft.

Except that this is also the reason businesses didn't employ blacks before the 70s. After all, anyone can influence them! Which is similar to the Prop 8 campaign in California.

Also, socialism doesn't affect competition. The companies still compete.

Also the American economy is not a capitalistic state. The American economy is what is called a 'Mixed' economy. Yes, the United States is majorly capitalistic, however the government does have some traits that resembles socialism. Somethings like Post Office is apart of the government. Also things we have in place to take care of the sick, the old, and people who just cannot take care of them selves, like; social security, welfare, and food stamps.

Than I guess there has never been a capitalist state, now has there? And the Soviet Union wasn't a communist state- we can try again.

If you want a strong but fair economy. What we need is not a radical change such as this, but rather some improvements on what we already have.

Where has Obama shown he is going to do a major change.

What we really should be asking of our leaders is a higher minimum wage. People used to be able support a modest middle class life style on minimum wage, what we have now is too low people can barely support them selves by the skins of their teeth. Some people even support families on that. Not just that it greatly reduces a person's spending power.

Which would also raise prices and make it harder to run businesses.

Lower taxes, not just for the lower and middle classes but for every one! That's double for businesses. When businesses have less taxes and doing well everybody benefits. They can hire more people, prices will go down, and they will be able to invest more into technologies that will benefit everybody! It will strenghten people's spending power and people will make money, so the government will gain more in taxes with out actually raising them.

We did that for the last 8 years.

[Junghalli]

You could try pointing out that his farmer analogy is flawed because unless he lives in a cabin in the woods he's benefiting from government services like police and fire departments every day. He himself acknowledged the post office. Lolbertarians tends to be rather simple-minded about taxes: they only see what's being taken from them, and not what's being given to them. Given that he benefits from these services it's only fair he pays back. And not everyone in the US may use all the services he benefits from, but they still have to pay for them, so it's also fair that he still has to pay for services he doesn't use too, such as tuition relief for low-income college students and emergency financial relief for the unemployed. Hell, it's always possible he might just need the latter somebody, although lolbertarians are usually too arrogant to admit it; they tend to think if they got layed off they'd somehow pull themselves up by their bootstraps by sheer macho virtue and determination.

Also, if I'm reading this correctly he's already acknowledged that a mixed economy is not a bad thing, so we're halfway there. The lolbertarian boogeyman is hordes of indolent welfare bums who spend their whole lives on the dole; I doubt many democratic politicians are actually fond of such people. The logical solution to prevent their nightmares from happening is to kick moochers' asses on a case by case basis, not deny helpful services to everyone just because some people might abuse them.

[Samuel]

Made classic mistake- piece by piece approach.

Here is the deal- Obama isn't a socialist. In fact, his entire post lacks any details whatsever about... any accusation actually. Get him to say something concrete.

[The Romulan Republic]

Would his comments about hoping for an Obama assassination fall under "inciting violence" legally? Perhaps you should simply report this to the Secret Service.

[Junghalli]

Would his comments about hoping for an Obama assassination fall under "inciting violence" legally? Perhaps you should simply report this to the Secret Service.

I don't think so. He just said he hoped it would happen, he never said somebody should go out and do it.

Anyway if he thinks that's going to give power back to the Republicans he's a moron. Biden would just take over. In fact I'd wager it'd likely earn the Dems "sympathy cred".

[Darth Wong]

This guy seriously thinks "capitalism began in the middle ages?"

How were the wealthy landowner class of Ancient Rome not capitalists? They had money, they owned the means of production (the farmland), their assets generated wealth for them which they didn't have to work for ... how is that not capitalism?

[Surlethe]

Capitalism died in the middle ages; the economy reverted back to a barter system in the early middle ages and didn't develop currency again until the late middle ages.

[Darth Wong]

Capitalism died in the middle ages; the economy reverted back to a barter system in the early middle ages and didn't develop currency again until the late middle ages.

The concept of capitalism does not intrinsically require currency or a modern financial system; it only requires the ability to own wealth and have that wealth generate more wealth for you. A feudal lord could be considered a capitalist; he owned the means of production (the land) and it created wealth for him without necessarily requiring his personal work output. More land = more wealth, even if he didn't lift a finger. The fact that it was accumulated in terms of gold, art, and debauchery rather than currency doesn't really change the matter.

[Darth Wong]

Ah, what the hell, why not make an example of how to respond to this tard:

The reason why I said that Obama's socialist agenda was gonna ruin the nation's already fragile economy. When you tax businesses, they're gonna have to make up the loses some where. I mean hire prices, fewer jobs, and it will also encourage them to outsource to other countries. It doesn't take a genius to know that is a bad thing.

When you tax the middle class, they have to make up the losses somewhere. I mean they buy less goods, pay for fewer services, etc. When you habitually borrow from the future, we have to make up the debt somewhere. That means debt-servicing costs, loss of flexibility during downturns, etc. There is no free ride; Reaganites thought that endless borrowing was the solution, and what did that get you? A ten trillion dollar debt. Interest payments alone are strangling your government's ability to operate.

This is especially true to me since my mother's business will be affected by that. It isn't just big business, that will be affected. Small businesses as well, but they will get hit the hardest, because they don't have the same amount of resources, and options to choose from.

Utterly false. Most small businesses do not net $250k after expenses, salaries, etc.

I believe it's down right immoral to take money away from somebody who actually earned it. On the soul reason because he makes more than most people. People call this the "fairness doctrine" the ironic thing about that it's not fair at all!

Sheer ignorance. The Fairness Doctrine was a media rule in which political commentary had to be balanced by opposing viewpoints. It has nothing to do with tax rates that vary with income. The fact is that no one in a modern society earns anything in isolation; your earning power (and indeed your entire lifestyle) is dependent upon being a member of a well-regulated society which provides the infrastructure in which your mode of income is possible. We must all pay to support that society; failing to do is immoral.

Imagine if you are a farmer(this is just and example to help you get your head around this) If you worked hard to grow some kind of crop to help feed your self and/or your family during the winter. Then imagine somebody from the government coming over to your farm, and tell you that you have to give it to somebody who has less than you do.

My in-laws are farmers. They struggled to survive on pitiful income that often dipped below $20k per year, while other farmers who had more land cruised along making more than a million dollars a year. Did those other farmers work so much harder? Nope, they actually worked less, but they owned more land. That's the nature of capitalism; it is also why the wealthy should be asked to pay a greater share, because wealth comes easier to you when you're already wealthy. That is part of the fundamental nature of capitalism which people like you either do not understand or do not care to acknowledge.

You give it because it's the law and you have to, because somebody has taken a good portion of your crop. You either have to work twice as hard, or go hungry. The who person who has less got what he needs, but what about the person who put his blood, sweat, and tears into it? It came at a great cost and he might go hungry in the winter.

Huge strawman fallacy; when you raise taxes on the wealthy, you are taxing income that was much easier for them to acquire than it is for lower-income people, and there is no chance of them going hungry.

The problem with socialism that it is not fair, and it doesn't work.

The problem with capitalism is that it is not fair, and it doesn't work. In reality, all "capitalist" countries are a mixture of capitalist economies and socialist policies. We find a middle ground to operate in, rather than taking the completely absurd position that we must adopt one dysfunctional extreme or the other.

What you are doing is punishing the people who worked for their means, their hopes for a better life, and rewarding people who don't contribute.

Nonsense. In reality, people who make more than $250k/yr often work less than people who make $30k per year. Do you really think that a person who makes $250k/yr necessarily works ten times as hard as someone who makes $25k per year?

Our labour market has a decidedly non-linear relationship between work and income; your continual attempts to pretend otherwise will not change that reality.

This is where it starts to break down, when people are given what they needed rather than work for it and contributing the pool that is gonna get passed out. They will start to work less, then people who contribute the most, pay the price when more is taken from them to compensate for the loss. Eventually the contributors can't stay afloat, and then whole thing comes crashing down, and everybody suffers. It's a good idea on paper, but the human condition is it's major and fatal flaw.

That is true in communism, where the incentive curve has a slope of 0. However, merely adjusting the incentive curve does not do this, as long as it continues to have a slope greater than 0.

But why is there such a stigma, and hatred for capitalism?

I have several thoughts on that, but first a little history lesson...

Capitalism first began in the middle ages, when peasants who started exchange goods or services, for goods, services, and currency to support them selves. This practice grew in time but it didn't grow into the capitalism as we know it untill the industrial revolution, but the growth spurt did have some negative consequences. Back then governments didn't think that this new breed of capitalism needed any kind of regulation. As a result the owners of these big companies started to screw over their employees, and their consumers. Like people would be forced to work long hours, with little pay, and with no breaks. Customers get stuck with spotty and some times harmful merchandise, for high prices, with misleading advertising. It took a while but the government to see the need and started to correct the problems.

However the years when people are getting screwed by people who had more than them destroyed any chance of trust between capitalism and the populace. It caused some hateful feelings that deeply rooted into the every man. This hatred is the motivation that drove Marx into writing the communist manifesto, and the birth of unions.

Where did you learn your history? There has always been capitalism; it did not begin in the middle ages. And without socialist controls, the wealthy have always and will always screw the poor.

Also I believe people are naturally jealous at people who have more than them. Also the social classes between the blue collar workers, and the white collar management has an impersonal element that cause people not relate as well. Also propitiates the evil %5 stereotype that the Democratic party loves to demonise.

I am a white-collar worker. I understand the necessity for higher-income people to pay their share. I understand the great debt that I owe to a society which makes it possible for me to earn an income by sitting behind a desk instead of being outside staking railroad ties into the ground.

What makes the US economy work so well that it is self balancing and is natural to the human condition. People want more of something, (IE usually money). Capitalism forces people to contribute to get what they want, if people want a better life (you might call it the American dream). They either work to get a better job or start a venture them selves. In the fight to get more, businesses are watched by the government. They are forced to follow guidelines to protect their employees, and their customers.

Actually, the US economy was more pro-business in the 1920s, from which we got the Great Depression. A much more socialist government followed, which persisted until the 1980s and the Reagan Revolution. After Reagan, we've had a gigantic explosion of debt, leading us right into the current crisis. Like it or not, the period of greatest American prosperity was actually the period of greatest American socialism. In the 1950s, tax rates on the wealthy were far higher than they are today.

Also the consumer has power over businesses, if you don't like them... you don't have to buy from them, thanks to anti-trust laws there is no monopolies and there is always another place to go to. Which brings us an other benefit, corporate competition! When businesses compete the consumer reaps the rewards! Like lower prices and better quality products. They are willing to do what ever it takes to make you do business with them. It's like when two divorced parents fight for the love of their child(ren)as a result the kid(s) gets two Christmases, or two romantic rivals fight for the affections of a lady. This element also help drives growth of technology. People just don't realize how much power they have over a conglomerate like... lets say Microsoft.

It's funny that you praise anti-trust laws, because anti-trust laws are socialist. They were created for the benefit of society, not business and not a free market. They actually restrict the abilities of business to freely operate. In fact, one of the things the Bush Administration has done is to weaken anti-trust laws, and allow large mergers that a trust-buster would have frowned on.

Also the American economy is not a capitalistic state. The American economy is what is called a 'Mixed' economy. Yes, the United States is majorly capitalistic, however the government does have some traits that resembles socialism. Somethings like Post Office is apart of the government. Also things we have in place to take care of the sick, the old, and people who just cannot take care of them selves, like; social security, welfare, and food stamps.

So why do you keep saying socialism is bad?

If you want a strong but fair economy. What we need is not a radical change such as this, but rather some improvements on what we already have.

So you admit that the US has a mixed capitalist/socialist economy, but you argue that any inclusion of socialist policies would be "radical change?" Do you see the contradiction there? Obama is just talking about rolling back tax rates to what they were under Clinton; how "radical" is that?

What we really should be asking of our leaders is a higher minimum wage. People used to be able support a modest middle class life style on minimum wage, what we have now is too low people can barely support them selves by the skins of their teeth. Some people even support families on that. Not just that it greatly reduces a person's spending power.

That is another socialist policy. I thought you said socialism is bad.

Lower taxes, not just for the lower and middle classes but for every one! That's double for businesses. When businesses have less taxes and doing well everybody benefits. They can hire more people, prices will go down, and they will be able to invest more into technologies that will benefit everybody! It will strenghten people's spending power and people will make money, so the government will gain more in taxes with out actually raising them.

Ah yes, the "bury your head in the sand and ignore the math" policy. This is how your country got itself $10 trillion in debt.

Demand proper and responsible regulation. What caused the recent crash in stock market because banks where allowed to make risky loan offers in attempt to make more money on the recent housing boom. People went bankrupt and loosed their homes because of it. As a result the banks couldn't regain that money, and they went bankrupt them selves. This could have been avoided if the government put responsible regulations into place

Mechanistically, that's a major cause. But the larger problem is that the borrow-and-spend policies of the Republicans from Reagan onwards (with the notable exception of Bush Sr) have pumped trillions of dollars into the economy on false pretenses: borrowing it from future generations. They did this to curry favour with stupid voters who did not understand that they were being sold a false bill of goods and fake prosperity. Flush with extra cash, we started looking for ways to spend it, thus fueling bubble after bubble.

[Surlethe]

Capitalism died in the middle ages; the economy reverted back to a barter system in the early middle ages and didn't develop currency again until the late middle ages.

The concept of capitalism does not intrinsically require currency or a modern financial system; it only requires the ability to own wealth and have that wealth generate more wealth for you. A feudal lord could be considered a capitalist; he owned the means of production (the land) and it created wealth for him without necessarily requiring his personal work output. More land = more wealth, even if he didn't lift a finger. The fact that it was accumulated in terms of gold, art, and debauchery rather than currency doesn't really change the matter.

Argh, you're right. My bad.

[Bluewolf]

Ok, the debate blew over a few days ago but I will post it. It also went to PM's

[Bluewolf]

To be honest he did not really argue any of his points. He got sprang on by 3 other people but this is what I said:

Well it seems someone has been drinking Republican Kool Aid. Lets get the gloves on:

The reason why I said that Obama's socialist agenda was gonna ruin the nation's already fragile economy.

Ok, for one, if you are going to use the word socialism as a smear word or a policy that automatically equals bad then you are misguided. Its a system like any other and is flawed. Another thing it does not simply equal communism. A very real example of this is Europe with national healthcare which creaties a NET GAIN. Europe is hit hard as the US and its still virtually keeping alfoat so its not budget breaking.

When you tax businesses, they're gonna have to make up the loses some where. I mean hire prices, fewer jobs, and it will also encourage them to outsource to other countries. It doesn't take a genius to know that is a bad thing. This is especially true to me since my mother's business will be affected by that. It isn't just big business

For a start you assume the tax is going to be a crippiling one and later you use a very flawed sconario which I will get to later on. $250,000 sounds well off. Sorry but meduim-big buisness is going to be big and doing well for itself in a country that is struggling in debt, espcially in the middle class areas. Many are poor and go poorer and there is no reason why taxation can't be raised if you are doing well. Its called progressive taxation and it already exists. Futher more they wont outsource that much due to the tax break going. There will not be that much of a benefit. Oh and how much does your mothers buisness own? Figures, now.

I believe it's down right immoral to take money away from somebody who actually earned it. On the soul reason because he makes more than most people. People call this the "fairness doctrine" the ironic thing about that it's not fair at all!

So we should abolish any progressive tax system? I mean we can't have those who earned it pay some pack into the goverment system that pays for services now can we? How dare they also try and help the poor! You earnt it!

Snipped out fllawed farm sconario

For a start this is for people earning over $250,000 which is well off! Also raise the point that the goverment asks for your money anyway to pay for lesser off people and services so unless this magical farm is in the middle of nowhere or not part of society then its still paying. I also doubt that many farms that earn over $250k will struggle to pay a bit more tax. Finally you make it look like the Sheriff of Nottinghan will come at their door and take all their money away.

The problem with socialism that it is not fair, and it doesn't work.

Again you make it seem like socialsim=communism and even that worked, if poorly for 74 years but thats not the point. I could also say the same to capitalsim. Plus again, progressive taxing has been implimented beforehand.

What you are doing is punishing the people who worked for their means, their hopes for a better life, and rewarding people who don't contribute. This is where it starts to break down, when people are given what they needed rather than work for it and contributing the pool that is gonna get passed out. They will start to work less, then people who contribute the most, pay the price when more is taken from them to compensate for the loss. Eventually the contributors can't stay afloat, and then whole thing comes crashing down, and everybody suffers. It's a good idea on paper, but the human condition is it's major and fatal flaw.

Ahahaahaahaa

Sorry I needed to get that out. Have you seen the wave of news about poor quality products recently? Do you realise that people may desperatly need a tax releif who are not well off and that benefit scroungers can just be rooted out right? Or are you going to say that those people who struggle don't deserve your "hard earned money?" Do you even realise some people are trapped in a certain job or are suffering medically so as not to get a better job?

Quote:
But why is there such a stigma, and hatred for capitalism?



Becuase it has done a lot of damage to society, people and lives over its long history.

Also the consumer has power over businesses, if you don't like them... you don't have to buy from them, thanks to anti-trust laws there is no monopolies and there is always another place to go to.

Only in large groups does the consumer have any real power against them. Plus, no monopolies? Does Microsoft ring a bell to you?

Which brings us an other benefit, corporate competition! When businesses compete the consumer reaps the rewards! Like lower prices and better quality products. They are willing to do what ever it takes to make you do business with them. It's like when two divorced parents fight for the love of their child(ren)as a result the kid(s) gets two Christmases, or two romantic rivals fight for the affections of a lady. This element also help drives growth of technology. People just don't realize how much power they have over a conglomerate like... lets say Microsoft.

Companies can be influenced. For example it did not stop blacks not being employed in the 70's. Two coperatations can easily cut quailty, f*** up prices and mislead if it suits them over their rivals. Coperate influence for example of it hitting policy would be the Yes on Prop 8 campain. You seem to assume yet again that socialsm is communism and its not. Also you would want vital services like healthcare companies competing? Because if so that is mad. Treatment could vary and cost in vastly different amounts.

Also the American economy is not a capitalistic state. The American economy is what is called a 'Mixed' economy. Yes, he United States is majorly capitalistic, however the government does have some traits that resembles socialism. Somethings like Post Office is apart of the government. Also things we have in place to take care of the sick, the old, and people who just cannot take care of them selves, like; social security, welfare, and food stamps.

Obama's "socialst" policies so far seem to be giving people a chance at better healthcare to help fix the universally broken US insurance system and to do some more proggressive tax breaks/increases. Thats hardly a call to a socialst state

If you want a strong but fair economy. What we need is not a radical change such as this, but rather some improvements on what we already have.

Some systems are broken and can't be improved on and some need change. Simple as that. Obama wants to do both.

Lower taxes, not just for the lower and middle classes but for every one! That's double for businesses. When businesses have less taxes and doing well everybody benefits. They can hire more people, prices will go down, and they will be able to invest more into technologies that will benefit everybody! It will strenghten people's spending power and people will make money, so the government will gain more in taxes with out actually raising them.

Which we did the last 8 years and it worked fine, right?

The reason I said that Obama was a socialist, because he wants to and I quote 'redistribute the wealth'. At the core this is socialism. All it does is punish the most productive members of society, and rewards the lazy. I would be able to live with Obama as president if weren't for this.

Thats Communist at heart and Commiunsim does not EQUAL socialism. Oh and how is helping the poor and weak, rewarding the lazy.

Yeah, my taxes would probably be lower, but when businesses try to make up for the loss, good luck finding a job. My mother's business is going to take hit when he decides to enact his new tax policy. Also, I'm scared for a REAL possibility of another depression.

AGAIN, GIVE ME HER INCOME AND WE ARE ALREADY IN A RECCESION/DEPRESSION. WE NEED MEASURES TO GET OUT OF IT. Again, prove to me that it will cause her buisness to collapse.

Going to either extreme is a bad Idea, that's why The US is a mixed economy state. I feel Obama is trying to fix something that is not broken and might indeed break it as a result. When what it really needs is to be better maintained.

He is not going to another extreme and he is fixing something thats already been horribly broken. That will help maintain it.

>He did though, defend some of his points on healthcare as some challenged him on it.<

Yeah, but that is YOUR choice. You can donate to people who actually need it. But it needs to stay that way... A

donation. Don't get me wrong you should give to the needy.

Personally, I think it's unethical to force such a thing. When your forcing some one to donate, then it's not really a donatio

n


By that logic lets get rid of all benefits, services paid by taxes, the full monty. You know why its "forced on you"/ Because people are selfish. If universal healthcare existed in the US then more people would be able to get jobs, there would be less sick and injured and there would be far far less poor due to not having to pay for their own medical bills. Therefore a more productive workforce. You are just a selfish little person who does not consider other people.

When I said that, I was talking about people who actually went and set out to make living. You know those people who start up businesses, and worked their fingers to the bone so it can be successful. Like my mother when she started her business, she worked 12-14 hour days for a year, with no vacation just so it wont fall in it's first year, even now she works past full time, and not a lot of time to her self. Obama's plan hurts people like her.

Give me her income and prove that she will go out of buissness due to it. If she is earing over 250k then she is pretty well off.

Yeah, capitalism is not perfect, and I never said it was. However in comparision it's better than the alternatives.

That value you mention was to regain from a loss. Like supply/demmand, taxes, resources, etc.

Also to the CEO's deffence. Those people probably went through years of collage, and to get even higher years in the company. Yet, I do agree to an extent they are over paid.

What, more policies that would probably help capitalism in the long term and society at the same time? Oh and CEO's may be qualified but are just so selfish as well just focusing on money money money. Oh glorious capitalsm. Also, again, no one wants to get rid of it!

Also I didn't say the rich, I was saying lower taxes to businesses. Like I said before, when business is good, people are better off.

I know the minimum wage thing was left, but I believe it's nessary when people have way too hard of a time supporting them selves.

Wait, what? $250,000 is not rich? I want to know what you are smoking.

Oh and if people were not having to pay for their own HEALTH. A considered right here (Europe and for reference I am in the UK), maybe they would not NEED a wage increase. Same with a tax break.

What's bad about something that drives people to achieve better thing?

When the system you so gloriously defend hampers that and hurts others.

I'm glad to see that not every one thinks I'm still the immature twat I was when I first joined.

NO, your are not but you portray yourself here as a selfish deluded person who needs a reality check.

Oh and Zombie, you really do not know what you are talking about.
--------------
He is in his 20's and Zombie was a user saying stpuid things like (Hello USSA). The user called Anubis was hit by 4 at once as said so he felt people were too harsh on him. This led to him getting blocked (friend &foe list) and given a warning as he did not back down when a mod said. He did take it up over PM though.