Curse

Winterclaw · Nov 04, 2008, 12:56 PM // 12:56

Quote:

Books smarts will fix this situation

IMO that was part the problem with the JFK and LBJ administrations: they thought book smarts alone would do it. We ended up with a decade of civil unrest and one of the worse run wars ever. Book smarts alone isn't enough. Take Obama when he's off script and he turns in to one political gaffe after another. This could be due to his inexperience.

Anyways Obama has a secular religion I'm guessing and I think it's a dangerous one.

DarkNecrid · Nov 04, 2008, 02:22 PM // 14:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

IMO that was part the problem with the JFK and LBJ administrations: they thought book smarts alone would do it. We ended up with a decade of civil unrest and one of the worse run wars ever. Book smarts alone isn't enough. Take Obama when he's off script and he turns in to one political gaffe after another. This could be due to his inexperience.

Anyways Obama has a secular religion I'm guessing and I think it's a dangerous one.

Obama is Christian just like every other person in the US practically, not that it matters.

Quote:

I didn't mean that socialism is gone ... but you can't deny that so many of the 'ideals' are being replaced by free-market concepts that actually work in the the real world.

No they haven't, Europe hasn't change much of its policies at all. Most of Europe is in fact better off than we are right now, why would they change to something that obviously is doing shittier than they are? lol.

I don't even know why we're talking about Socialism, anyone who thinks Obama is Socialist is an idiot who doesn't know what Socialism is. When he says spread the wealth, he doesn't mean it the way Socialists mean it. Socialism is a type of government where the means of production and distribution are owned by the state (note: Obama is still private owned production & distribution like Capitalism) and the classes as we know it don't exist because all 3 of them are basically equal (like Communism, but in Communism the means of production & distribution is common ownership not state) in every way (note: Obama isn't making them equal, he's just taking away a small bit from the top end and giving a little to the bottom end. It's closing the gap if anything, but it's nothing REMOTELY close to socialism.).

Basically Obama takes away from the top 1% (who can all afford it, they are rich for a reason: they have a lot of money and they know how to keep it no matter what.) and spreads it across the bottom so that people can afford health care etc. This isn't socialism, it's social democracy. The two are not similar at all, and indeed we are already partially social democratic from the Great Depression. You see, in the Great Depression, the president passed this thing called Welfare, what happens is is a lot of the money every tax payer pays, goes to the poor. So basically the #1 complaint from most GOP (b...but...joe do not work down the road is gonna get my HARD WORKIN MONIES...) already happens because it's fundamental (neigh, key.) to keeping the economy running. Essentially Obama is doing a bigger welfare for the lower and middle class because the economy *is* close to the Great Depression. Unfortunately (or fortunately, rather) we're not going to have a World War 3 to get us out of our economic troubles any time soon, the fastest way to helping the economy is always boosting the lower end, the lower end is what makes the backbone of the work force and are the workers who help produce everything, boosting them is always a good thing, and hurting the 1% of the people who have 10 gajillion dollars and street smarts to keep their money anyways, isn't going to hurt anybody. Giving the already rich tax cuts so they keep even more money they aren't obligated to spend (rich people don't like to spend their money.) doesn't help anybody at all.

Shasgaliel · Nov 04, 2008, 02:43 PM // 14:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

I don't even know why we're talking about Socialism, anyone who thinks Obama is Socialist is an idiot who doesn't know what Socialism is. When he says spread the wealth, he doesn't mean it the way Socialists mean it. Socialism is a type of government where the means of production and distribution are owned by the state (note: Obama is still private owned production & distribution like Capitalism) and the classes as we know it don't exist because all 3 of them are basically equal (like Communism, but in Communism the means of production & distribution is common ownership not state) in every way (note: Obama isn't making them equal, he's just taking away a small bit from the top end and giving a little to the bottom end. It's closing the gap if anything, but it's nothing REMOTELY close to socialism.).

When Eastern Europe was socialistic there ways a saying that the difference between democracy and social democracy is like between a chair and electric chair....

I agree with your tax argumentation. US is one of the countries which actually falls very bad in the poverty reports based on some of the economic indicators such as ones counting differences between the richest and the poorest or the increasing differences between those groups (or just looking at percentage and income of the poorest). Ok it is the case in almost every big country but the argument on the reducing those differences is very plausible.

Here is a link to a quite old but very important article:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/oct2007/usa-o16.shtml

Frank Dudenstein · Nov 04, 2008, 03:36 PM // 15:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

I don't even know why we're talking about Socialism, anyone who thinks Obama is Socialist is an idiot who doesn't know what Socialism is.

No one thinks Obama is a socialist as defined by your college textbooks. We are complaining because he advocates many facets of Western European-style socialism ... which I think is indisputable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

Most of Europe is in fact better off than we are right now, why would they change to something that obviously is doing shittier than they are? lol.

Surely you can't say that with a straight face. You want to take a 3-month snapshot and make comparisons? How about something more intellectually honest, like the last 10 years. Or last 20 years. Or last 100 years i don't care. Use any measure you wish ... GDP, economic growth, standard of living of the top10%, standard of living of the bottom 10%, I don't care ... history has proven time and time again the free markets make the rich richer, the middle class richer, and the poor richer. Are ther ups and downs? Yes. Is some regulation required? Yes. Should the government get the hell out of the way wherever it can? Absolutely yes. History is on my side here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

long rambling paragraph about social democracy, welfare and the great depression

Our tax code is already ridiculously progressive. Does it need to be progressive? Yes. Have we reached to point where it is so progressive it's actually not beneficial? We passed that point long ago.

There's a reason why every time taxes are cut the economy surges. It's amazing that Europe is just discovering this, and equally amazing how quickly we forget it. Unfortunaltely class welfare makes for such great sound bites.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

Giving the already rich tax cuts so they keep even more money they aren't obligated to spend (rich people don't like to spend their money.) doesn't help anybody at all.

If you think rich sit on their money, you are clueless. If they did, they would never have become rich in the first place. The rich INVEST their money. Investment gives companies and individuals the capital to grow their businesses. Make more widgets. And expand to markets they haven't hit yet. They hire more workers, and expand wages and benifits to keep their workers from going to other companies who are also expanding. I work for a big company, trust me I experience this first hand. Investment helps EVERYONE and is the reason why this america has such high salaries *across the board* and the highest standard of living in the world.

No one is arguing that ONLY the rich should pay less taxes. We are arguing that EVERYONE should pay less taxes. Selectively punishing the rich makes for great stump speeches and is popular with the economically ignorant ... but it's bad for everyone in the long run.

DarkNecrid · Nov 04, 2008, 03:46 PM // 15:46

Quote:

No one thinks Obama is a socialist as defined by your college textbooks. We are complaining because he advocates many facets of Western European-style socialism ... which I think is indisputable.

o no advocating things that would help our economy, what a monster.

Quote:

Surely you can't say that with a straight face. You want to take a 3-month snapshot and make comparisons? How about something more intellectually honest, like the last 10 years. Or last 20 years. Or last 100 years i don't care. Use any measure you wish ... GDP, economic growth, standard of living of the top10%, standard of living of the bottom 10%, I don't care ... history has proven time and time again the free markets make the rich richer, the middle class richer, and the poor richer. Are ther ups and downs? Yes. Is some regulation required? Yes. Should the government get the hell out of the way wherever it can? Absolutely yes. History is on my side here.

Europe has been ahead of us economic wise for some time now, if you would take the time to check out any economic world wide reports, we're usually at ~12th world wide with the 11 countries ahead of us being in Europe/Asia.

As for your last thing, yes they invest their money, no duh, but they still sit on a large majority of it too. If they invested it all they wouldn't be rich either. (Also we don't have the highest standard of living, Norway is #1, USA comes in at #6. 3 of the 5 things above us are European too, hmmm...)

sixofone · Nov 04, 2008, 04:23 PM // 16:23

How many poor people create jobs?

On the other hand: economies collapse when 1% or less control 90% or more of a nation's wealth. Economies thrive when you have a strong, stable middle class.

Winterclaw · Nov 04, 2008, 04:51 PM // 16:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

Obama is Christian just like every other person in the US practically, not that it matters.

That's debatable. The commonly held conception of him is that he joined Trinity united mostly for street credibility and he seems to gravitate a little bit towards extreme black liberation, as he had a mentor when he was growing up in Hawaii that was like Wright (forget the guy's name).

DarkNecrid · Nov 04, 2008, 04:51 PM // 16:51

Yes but it's not just the 1% who are uber rich that create jobs, either. The upper class does, but not all of the upper class is affected by Obama's plan in any great way (small business is notably not affected at all, and we have a lot of small business in our country, since it's kinda what it's founded on), the only people who get hurt are the 1%, but not in any substantial way (well, for the money they have lmao). They'll live. Whereas the poor people who can't afford to get a surgery that could keep them alive, won't.

EDIT:

Quote:

That's debatable. The commonly held conception of him is that he joined Trinity united mostly for street credibility and he seems to gravitate a little bit towards extreme black liberation, as he had a mentor when he was growing up in Hawaii that was like Wright (forget the guy's name).

No it isn't, he is Protestant Christian. That's it. Now if you can prove it (ie: him or any of his family saying otherwise) without conspiracy crafting (heh his mentor believes in X so he must be X, heh his reverend is X/Y/Z he must believe that too...), I'll say I'm wrong, but every neutral online & offline resource says Protestant Christian, he says Protestant Christian, his family practices Protestant Christian, etc. Also extreme black liberation isn't a religion or anything, it's a thought process but he has said numerous times he doesn't agree to it (indeed a majority of black people thought what Wright said was wrong so...). Just because you have ties to something doesn't mean you agree to it. My grandpa is racist, does that mean I am a racist? No good sir, it does not.

Master Fuhon · Nov 04, 2008, 06:39 PM // 18:39

Socialism and communism are theorycraft ideas that never come to pass when people try them. What I look at specifically are Marxist ideals, 'overthrowing capitalists is the way to socialism'. We are raising taxes on them right now based on a view that they are oppressors (who knows how true it is, government is partially responsible).

With capitalists out of power, people start to hope that the workers will regain control over themselves in a classless society. But what ends up happening is a totalitarian regime comes in and appoints themselves above the classless masses.

And Al Gore lost my respect when he got out of his chair and stared down Bush during the 2000 debates. He went into self-imposed exile after that loss and came back angrilly attacking the Bush administration on environmental issues. He's calmed down considerably in the last 8 years. Do we really care how smart someone is if they are so tightly wound and emotionally repressed that they blow up over insults in public like that? I mean yell at the guy will you, but it worries me when I think this guy is ready to become violent when he has his hands on nukes and runs the military.

I can't believe how McCain can even comparatively be called angry when he lost in 2000 to Bush as well. Bush's campaign really insulted McCain personally with attacks on his wife for drug abuse, and his adopted daughter.

Absinth187 · Nov 04, 2008, 06:46 PM // 18:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

Yes but it's not just the 1% who are uber rich that create jobs, either. The upper class does, but not all of the upper class is affected by Obama's plan in any great way (small business is notably not affected at all, and we have a lot of small business in our country, since it's kinda what it's founded on), the only people who get hurt are the 1%, but not in any substantial way (well, for the money they have lmao). They'll live. Whereas the poor people who can't afford to get a surgery that could keep them alive, won't.

So what do you make of the fact that in 2006, $706 billion in income was reported to the IRS, and that two thirds came from households making $250,000 or more? Giving tax credits to people who didn't pay income tax in the first place IS re-distribution of wealth. The Obama campaign has already lowered the margin of increased taxation several times. It's a slippery slope.

Quote:

No it isn't, he is Protestant Christian. That's it. Now if you can prove it (ie: him or any of his family saying otherwise) without conspiracy crafting (heh his mentor believes in X so he must be X, heh his reverend is X/Y/Z he must believe that too...), I'll say I'm wrong, but every neutral online & offline resource says Protestant Christian, he says Protestant Christian, his family practices Protestant Christian, etc. Also extreme black liberation isn't a religion or anything, it's a thought process but he has said numerous times he doesn't agree to it (indeed a majority of black people thought what Wright said was wrong so...). Just because you have ties to something doesn't mean you agree to it. My grandpa is racist, does that mean I am a racist? No good sir, it does not.

There's a huge difference in your grandpa analogy, and an adult choosing to attend a church with an extreme black liberation philosophy for twenty years. Obama separated from TUCC for political reasons. He's no dummy. Take a look at the religious affiliations of US Presidents. How could he expect to win without claiming to be Christian?

Master Fuhon · Nov 04, 2008, 06:56 PM // 18:56

And on presidential candidates lying, there are two ways to view it. If they lie on purpose, I think we catch them most of the time. Other times, they lie because they have a weak belief system that goes unchallenged. They believe the lies they tell too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc
Wow.

See if you can find more of 2000 Bush, before his view of the world changed under the pressure of crisis. His talk sounds good, but it's safe to say his view of the world changed because it was wrong. If he accurately had a view of the world as a more hostile place we wouldn't have been 'surprised' by his behavior.

Absinth187 · Nov 04, 2008, 08:04 PM // 20:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Fuhon

And on presidential candidates lying...

Pretty sure Bush isn't running for office this go 'round.

Master Fuhon · Nov 04, 2008, 08:53 PM // 20:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absinth187

Pretty sure Bush isn't running for office this go 'round.

You're supposed to be taught in school that intelligence isn't the ability to discern the difference between the electric chair, guillotine, and firing squad. It's to figure out the pattern that connects 3 seemingly unrelated things. It does not matter that you can memorize 1+1=2 if you can't understand the pattern of addition.

The relatively primitive argument that McCain is like Bush, requires at least a minimal grasp that having a 90% similar voting record could equate similarity. (even though the record changed every year from about 77%-95%ish)

Believing that a change in aesthetics matters is the definition of prejudice (and stupidity if you are still of school age). It's up to you to determine the difference between Bush's aesthetics and the pattern of his behavior.

roshanabey2 · Nov 04, 2008, 08:56 PM // 20:56

the rest of the world want obama to win I don't know if Americans know this......

Winterclaw · Nov 04, 2008, 09:10 PM // 21:10

All the more reason for the US to vote McCain...

DarkNecrid · Nov 05, 2008, 01:09 AM // 01:09

Quote:

So what do you make of the fact that in 2006, $706 billion in income was reported to the IRS, and that two thirds came from households making $250,000 or more? Giving tax credits to people who didn't pay income tax in the first place IS re-distribution of wealth. The Obama campaign has already lowered the margin of increased taxation several times. It's a slippery slope.

Yes it's a redistribution of wealth, come back to me when this means anything because it sure as hell isn't Socialism. (But of course, you'd have to know what the RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO Socialism is, it's more than just a redistribution of wealth.)

Quote:

All the more reason for the US to vote McCain...

I hope you realize that unlike us, the rest of the world isn't completely dumb and has been laughing at us for picking George Bush twice in a row.

Rhamia Darigaz · Nov 05, 2008, 01:58 AM // 01:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

All the more reason for the US to vote McCain...

"us against them" nationalism makes me lol

Master Fuhon · Nov 05, 2008, 02:04 AM // 02:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

I hope you realize that unlike us, the rest of the world isn't completely dumb and has been laughing at us for picking George Bush twice in a row.

I posted a video a few posts up of George Bush preaching isolationism back in 2000. If the rest of the world cared about American politics back then, they would have picked him. Al Gore was talking about taking an involved stance in the world back then. John Kerry ran on isolationist platform and the rest of the world wanted him too.

Americans only pay attention to politics every 4 years, and the rest of the world has just started to pay attention to ours in 2004. I don't worry about them laughing because they laughed when our economy failed, without realizing it would hit them too. They only know about American presidents for a whole 4 years. That's less than college students.

Isolationism fails every time someone preaches it. European nations are turned inward focusing on themselves. They would be vulnerable as anyone to being attacked. The middle east is about countries having no recognition for boundaries, any of these nations could start the next war. Africa is a mess. Obama got jumped on in Democratic primaries for preaching isolationism, he was finally able to win over moderate votes by rethinking things.

I thought declaring Pennsylvania for Obama was pretty huge. Exit polling is no more off than 3%-10% in any of the states. That means that people are lying that they are voting Obama, and really voting McCain by this small of a margin. Doesn't look like enough for McCain to pull it out. Obama will probably take 290-300ish, but I'm interested in seeing if Obama holds his projected 8-9% edge in popular.

Edit: Already at around 290-300ish projected, FL and OH would push that to 340+.
Edit2: Showing my youth, U.S. always goes into isolationism after war times, allowing the rest of the world to degrade on its own. Kind of phony to preach about it while extended in so many countries and at war though.

MMSDome · Nov 05, 2008, 02:43 AM // 02:43

4 years of Soviet America.

America is RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOed.

Winterclaw · Nov 05, 2008, 03:07 AM // 03:07

MMSDome, this is just the beginning. We've been moving towards Soviet America since Wilson. We had far jumps to the left with Roosovelt and LBJ, I don't see us not making another one. As someone from Florida, Obama fought to keep our state's votes from counting in the primaries until he had it wrapped up. How can we trust him to do anything else if he tried to corrupt our democratic system? America, we have a new president that is in it only for himself: Barak "Nick Saban" Obama...

What pisses me off the most is we where one Supreme Court Justice from overturning Roe v. Wade and at least sending it back to the states. As far as I'm concerned, the modern equivilant to slavery is going to be sticking around for a while longer.

I really feel like I need to do a why I hate John McCain, but in short:
1. Too moderate.
2. Shot himself in the foot by voting for the bail out.
3. Didn't raise money thanks to public financing.
4. Didn't go agressively enough after Obama.
5. Didn't act like he wanted it.
6. Wasted his chances at the debates.
7. Pretty much behaved like he had no idea what he was doing and expected to make up for 4 months and a lack of money in 72 hours.
8. Hurt the party as a whole.

At least the Republicans have a chance at filibuster right now, but it's too much to hope one of the moderates like McCain won't switch sides.