"Don't you hope Obama succeeds?"

[j2k4]

Don't you mean, "Do I hope Obama proves America can thrive under socialism?"

Well, it hasn't worked too well anywhere else, so, uh, no - I guess not.

[Snee]

Don't you mean, "Do I hope Obama proves America can thrive under socialism?"

Well, it hasn't worked too well anywhere else, so, uh, no - I guess not.

What you'll end up with is social democracy, at best. Which works well enough.

I'm only saying that because I'm in what's generally run by social democrats, and it does all right.

The taxes are higher but less people have to sleep on the streets, or die cos they lack health insurance, and fun stuff like that.

[ilw]

Don't you mean, "Do I hope Obama proves America can thrive under socialism?"

Well, it hasn't worked too well anywhere else, so, uh, no - I guess not.

?
america is pretty socialist already and a bit more 'socialism' seems to work fine in all of western & northern europe

[typeoholic]

America is destined to crash and burn anyways. (Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.)

[kAb]

Don't you mean, "Do I hope Obama proves America can thrive under socialism?"

Well, it hasn't worked too well anywhere else, so, uh, no - I guess not.

Do you really think Obama's a socialist?

Like, actually?

[bigboab]

If Obama succeeds in making the United States a little less hegemonistic and more concerned with the welfare of its own citizens that would be a winner in my eyes. Far too much of the American taxpayers money is going to prop up foreign countries.:yup:

[j2k4]

Don't you mean, "Do I hope Obama proves America can thrive under socialism?"

Well, it hasn't worked too well anywhere else, so, uh, no - I guess not.

What you'll end up with is social democracy, at best. Which works well enough.

I'm only saying that because I'm in what's generally run by social democrats, and it does all right.

The taxes are higher but less people have to sleep on the streets, or die cos they lack health insurance, and fun stuff like that.

More on this when I've got the time, Snee, but, as usual, you've gotten to the crux of the matter for me.



Don't you mean, "Do I hope Obama proves America can thrive under socialism?"

Well, it hasn't worked too well anywhere else, so, uh, no - I guess not.

?
america is pretty socialist already and a bit more 'socialism' seems to work fine in all of western & northern europe

Misapprehension and a wee bit of an overstatement, Ian.

Again, I'll expand, but it'll have to be later.


America is destined to crash and burn anyways. (Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.)

Can't let you get away without backing that up; you're right about the history, of course, but selling us short into the bargain.



Don't you mean, "Do I hope Obama proves America can thrive under socialism?"

Well, it hasn't worked too well anywhere else, so, uh, no - I guess not.

Do you really think Obama's a socialist?

Like, actually?

He's smart enough not to admit it, but his ideas are socialist, absolutely.


If Obama succeeds in making the United States a little less hegemonistic and more concerned with the welfare of its own citizens that would be a winner in my eyes. Far too much of the American taxpayers money is going to prop up foreign countries.:yup:

Less hegemonistic?

I'll go along with that - it's a lot less expensive.

[pentomato]

Bush and company burned America to the ground, they ruin millions of lives, what could Obama do to screw it up more? I think Bush did it already.
Obviously capitalism under Bush didn't work did it? Millions loosing their houses, millions loosing their jobs, gosh I think republicans really did it this time.
Lack of oversight in the financial system, corruption runned rampant with the republican administratio, congress and the senate, bravo I hope Obama can change the way America has been going for the last eight years, a retard drove this beautiful country to the ground.
We have more homeless than ever, two wars that had nothing to do with America's security and a huge deficit that will screw future generations.
Stop the socialist crying already. it is getting old.

[clocker]

Don't you mean, "Do I hope Obama proves America can thrive under socialism?"


One can only hope.
Bush totalitarianism didn't work out too well, did it?

[typeoholic]

Can't let you get away without backing that up; you're right about the history, of course, but selling us short into the bargain.


History has a way of repeating itself; that, my friend, is enough to back up my statement. ;)

[pentomato]

Don't you mean, "Do I hope Obama proves America can thrive under socialism?"

Well, it hasn't worked too well anywhere else, so, uh, no - I guess not.

What you'll end up with is social democracy, at best. Which works well enough.

I'm only saying that because I'm in what's generally run by social democrats, and it does all right.

The taxes are higher but less people have to sleep on the streets, or die cos they lack health insurance, and fun stuff like that.
If you are talking about Europe, my god I want to die before I get sick there, they don't have half the medicines we have in the USA.
What good is it to have health insurance, if they don't have medicines?

[Snee]

What you'll end up with is social democracy, at best. Which works well enough.

I'm only saying that because I'm in what's generally run by social democrats, and it does all right.

The taxes are higher but less people have to sleep on the streets, or die cos they lack health insurance, and fun stuff like that.
If you are talking about Europe, my god I want to die before I get sick there, they don't have half the medicines we have in the USA.
What good is it to have health insurance, if they don't have medicines?
:blink:

Seriously :blink:

EDit: And just to hammer the point aaall the way home. (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html)

-=-=-

Public education, that's something you may want to funnel some of those new tax dollars into, J2.

[pentomato]

If you are talking about Europe, my god I want to die before I get sick there, they don't have half the medicines we have in the USA.
What good is it to have health insurance, if they don't have medicines?
:blink:

Seriously :blink:

EDit: And just to hammer the point aaall the way home. (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html)

-=-=-

Public education, that's something you may want to funnel some of those new tax dollars into, J2.

I was in an european country 2 years ago and they didn't have lots of medicines we have here.
Here in the US, if you have to go for an operation, they will do it right away, in Europe where social medicine is free, they have to wait years sometimes, and sometimes they die waiting.

[Snee]

You're terribly dense, or a really obvious troll, you know.


Europe isn't one nation, and most of the countries that had better overall health care standards in 2000 than the US already, were european. And this was before Bush raped the bank to start a couple of wars and redecorate Iraq.

I'm sure Bosnia or whatever was bad, but it wasn't all of europe.

And nor is all of europe social democrat.

[pentomato]

You're terribly dense, or a really obvious troll, you know.


Europe isn't one nation, and most of the countries that had better overall health care standards in 2000 than the US already, were european. And this was before Bush raped the bank to start a couple of wars and redecorate Iraq.

I'm sure Bosnia or whatever was bad, but it wasn't all of europe.

And nor is all of europe social democrat.

No I am not a troll I am just telling you, thank you for clarifying that Europe is not one country, did you get that on a dictionary?
And I am talking about Spain, France, germany etc etc, and all those countries in the european union, their health care will never be able to compare to the one in the United States, with or without Bush.

[Snee]

Knowing stuff like how you don't have a clue about Europe probably comes from me living there, and, you know, not having had to wait years for medicine which according to you I couldn't possibly have taken when I needed it.

From WHO, average overall health care standards in 2000, one (1) being the best:

1. France
7. Spain
25. Germany
39. USA

By the sound of it they were far better then, and probably not much worse (compared to how they were then) now.

[bigboab]

You're terribly dense, or a really obvious troll, you know.


Europe isn't one nation, and most of the countries that had better overall health care standards in 2000 than the US already, were european. And this was before Bush raped the bank to start a couple of wars and redecorate Iraq.

I'm sure Bosnia or whatever was bad, but it wasn't all of europe.

And nor is all of europe social democrat.

No I am not a troll I am just telling you, thank you for clarifying that Europe is not one country, did you get that on a dictionary?
And I am talking about Spain, France, germany etc etc, and all those countries in the european union, their health care will never be able to compare to the one in the United States, with or without Bush.

I have relatives who live in Ohio. Since they retired through ill health treatment has left them with no monetary reserves. The health service in the UK is free to all. I have not heard of anyone dying because they were refused long term beneficial treatment. There are people who have been refused palliative medicines that are too costly. Private medicine is available if you want it. We have the best of both worlds.:)

[The Flying Cow]

There's no point trying to argue with someone like that pentomato. (Read my sig). A debate where one of the parties observes absolutely no respect for the other, and sees itself as far superior, is doomed from the outset.

For the record, you raise relevant and real issues. Socialist health care, especially where I live, is a complete and aberrant failure of epic proportions. It is not uncommon for people to go without treatment, due to wait times, and to die in the process as well.

The state's generally highly complex bureaucratic machine, as Kafka so eloquently exemplifies in more than one of his works, is more often than not ineffective and unnecessary.

England is not a good example when one talks of the European Union's failed socialist health care systems. I'm sure, moreover, that you weren't referring to it pentomato.

[pentomato]

There's no point trying to argue with someone like that pentomato. (Read my sig). A debate where one of the parties observes absolutely no respect for the other, and sees itself as far superior, is doomed from the outset.

For the record, you raise relevant and real issues. Socialist health care, especially where I live, is a complete and aberrant failure of epic proportions. It is not uncommon for people to go without treatment, due to wait times, and to die in the process as well.

The state's generally highly complex bureaucratic machine, as Kafka so eloquently exemplifies in more than one of his works, is more often than not ineffective and unnecessary.

England is not a good example when one talks of the European Union's failed socialist health care systems. I'm sure, moreover, that you weren't referring to it pentomato.

Nope, I was refering to Spain, their healthcare if I am not mistaken is the same as the rest of Europe, I was there two eyars ago and I had to take my daugther to the hospital because of asthma, their care can't compare to what she gets in the US, of course I had to pay around $600, much less of what I would pay here.
The pharmacies there do not have a clue about what a cough night syrup is, and other medicines you need they don't have them either, this was my experience anyway.
Of course a pump for asthma such as ventolin ( rescue inhaler) there costs 50 euros, here around $150, but I prefer the system here.
There are many more things about it, for example, there you can't ask questions, they look at you like why are you asking, or you ask to much, here in the US that's my right, as it is my right to enter the emergency room with my daugther, there they don't let you.

[pentomato]

Knowing stuff like how you don't have a clue about Europe probably comes from me living there, and, you know, not having had to wait years for medicine which according to you I couldn't possibly have taken when I needed it.

From WHO, average overall health care standards in 2000, one (1) being the best:

1. France
7. Spain
25. Germany
39. USA

By the sound of it they were far better then, and probably not much worse (compared to how they were then) now.

I lived in Spain for a bunch of years, do not patronize me with the average overallhealth care. What I see is that europeans with money come to the Us for care.
Someone that I love very much had blood clots in her brain, they operated her, she didn't come out ok, she can't move her right side in her whole body, they don't have rehabilitation for that there, here she woulnd't leave the rehab place, till her right side would be ok again.
I have seeing people dying because they would have heart attacks or other things, and they would have to wait years for an operation, the wonderful socialized medicine killed them.
Here if you need your tonzils removed, they do it the week after, there you have to wait years, till your number comes up. enough said

[The Flying Cow]

What I see is that europeans with money come to the US for care.

Also true.

[devilsadvocate]

You know for every horror story one comes up with about social medicine the same examples can be found in our system and vice versa. People with insurance here are denied treatment by their insurance companies all the time. Choice here comes with ability to pay. Waiting times are shorter here because so many can't afford to be in the queue and go untreated. There is no difference in emergency waiting times.
I see Americans going to other countries for operations because it's cheaper and the quality is equal or in some cases better. I read some insurance companies even offer to pay travel cost because it saves them money.
The USA comes so far down the list not because of the standard of treatment but because of the limited access.

[The Flying Cow]

Right, but in standard of treatment, I'll tell you right out of the bat, socialist care is bollocks.

We have too many doctors, the state hospitals are flooded with them (hello public debt), they are careless and rude to patients, patients have to wait sometimes years, unless, of course, you have a way of getting ahead in the queue (knowing someone, who knows someone, who was flirted with by someone in a bar one night, who is the cousin of the man in charge of door-keeping someone else's neighbor's chihuahua), not to mention that the system isn't free, per se. It is cheaper, definitely not free. I got "treated" for my injured knee, and it still hurts 3 months later. I doubt they actually diagnosed the issue properly, even after 2 radiograms taken.

[pentomato]

You know for every horror story one comes up with about social medicine the same examples can be found in our system and vice versa. People with insurance here are denied treatment by their insurance companies all the time. Choice here comes with ability to pay. Waiting times are shorter here because so many can't afford to be in the queue and go untreated. There is no difference in emergency waiting times.
I see Americans going to other countries for operations because it's cheaper and the quality is equal or in some cases better. I read some insurance companies even offer to pay travel cost because it saves them money.
The USA comes so far down the list not because of the standard of treatment but because of the limited access.

I know there is a lot of true to that, but in this country even medicaid, the federal and state health insurance is great, and any hospital or clinic that receives federal dollars, by law they have to help you any way.
Even pharmaceutical companies, they help with medicines.
American's go to third world countries for operations tha's true, but sometimes they get back dead or with other deseases., the funny one is sometimes they go to third world countries for plastic surgery and when they get back, they have to be fix here.

[Frankthetank1]

The world should hope he succeeds, because when America's economy goes to the shitter, the worlds economy will follow.

[pentomato]

Right, but in standard of treatment, I'll tell you right out of the bat, socialist care is bollocks.

We have too many doctors, the state hospitals are flooded with them (hello public debt), they are careless and rude to patients, patients have to wait sometimes years, unless, of course, you have a way of getting ahead in the queue (knowing someone, who knows someone, who was flirted with by someone in a bar one night, who is the cousin of the man in charge of door-keeping someone else's neighbor's chihuahua), not to mention that the system isn't free, per se. It is cheaper, definitely not free. I got "treated" for my injured knee, and it still hurts 3 months later. I doubt they actually diagnosed the issue properly, even after 2 radiograms taken.

And the state dictates how much a doctor can make.

[devilsadvocate]

And the state dictates how much a doctor can make.

Really? Even private practice doctors? care to back that up?

[pentomato]

And the state dictates how much a doctor can make.

Really? Even private practice doctors? care to back that up?

I didn't say private practice doctors, I am talking about health insurance in countries where is run by the goverment.
In private practice I guess they can charge a million bucks an hour, that's their prerogative.

[devilsadvocate]

So what your saying is that in government run health systems doctors are paid a salary.

Except in rare circumstances I think you'll find that goes with any government employee

Unless private practice is illegal then I don't know just what your point is supposed to be.

[Barbarossa]

Well I haven't got a bad word to say about the free Health Service in the UK. They've always been there when I've needed them throughout my life, and I've never had cause for complaint.


In my opinion the press paints a bleaker picture than the real state of affairs.

[bigboab]

So what your saying is that in government run health systems doctors are paid a salary.

Except in rare circumstances I think you'll find that goes with any government employee

Unless private practice is illegal then I don't know just what your point is supposed to be.

In the National Health Service doctors can also run a private practice along with their commitment to the NHS. Ten years ago I went for an Angiogram at an NHS hospital. The person sitting next to me was getting his done privately. He, like me was informed he needed a bypass. He got his bypass two months later in an NHS hospital. I got my treble bypass in the same hospital five months later. Both operations were done by the same surgeon. So if you are willing to pay money you can jump the queue. The story of life.:lol:

[Snee]

I lived in Spain for a bunch of years, do not patronize me with the average overallhealth care.
"patronize"?

Yeah, I guess that's one way to call quoting statistics composed by health care professionals and investigators.



What I see is that europeans with money come to the Us for care.

Yeah, and some americans go to private clinics abroad. As a statement, saying that some people go to the US for health care doesn't prove all that much. Private clinics with enough funding are generally better than the basic health care you get, anywhere.

Some treatments aren't legal everywhere, either, and some are done a lot more in certain countries. Different kinds of elective surgery seem to be an american speciality, for instance.


Someone that I love very much had blood clots in her brain, they operated her, she didn't come out ok, she can't move her right side in her whole body, they don't have rehabilitation for that there, here she woulnd't leave the rehab place, till her right side would be ok again.
I've never been to Spain, or had a stroke in Spain, but funnily enough, I've a hard time believing your personal experiences better represent the state of things than what aforementioned investigators said.

Espicially considering that my country was rated a fair few places below Spain (although quite a bit over the US) and stroke-victims, or anyone else really needing it, for that matter, being denied physiotherapy doesn't really match my experiences.



I have seeing people dying because they would have heart attacks or other things, and they would have to wait years for an operation, the wonderful socialized medicine killed them.
Here if you need your tonzils removed, they do it the week after, there you have to wait years, till your number comes up. enough said
Tying in with someone else said, you'll have to look far for a system where there are no queues whatsoever in health care. The only way to get around that is to pay more than the others.

Some people do end up waiting for a bit, if their conditions aren't life threatening and there's a backlog of emergencies. That's not going to be any different in the US, though. Oh, except that:



Waiting times are shorter here because so many can't afford to be in the queue and go untreated.

...Sweet. I'd do great, the unemployed among my pals in the US, though, wouldn't.

And no, we don't have to wait years to have our tonsils removed.


Basically, our system, which I suppose is somewhat like the british, means that everyone is entitled to a certain standard of care, no matter their means. Beyond that, it's then possible to get better care if you pay for it.

In the end, the care available for everyone here is decent and they'll do what they can to make sure you survive and are able to get back up, as opposed to "you can't pay, lulz. You can't have that transplant".

Call me crazy, but I'd rather have our system any day of the week.

[pentomato]

"patronize"?

Yeah, I guess that's one way to call quoting statistics composed by health care professionals and investigators.



What I see is that europeans with money come to the Us for care.

Yeah, and some americans go to private clinics abroad. As a statement, saying that some people go to the US for health care doesn't prove all that much. Private clinics with enough funding are generally better than the basic health care you get, anywhere.

Some treatments aren't legal everywhere, either, and some are done a lot more in certain countries. Different kinds of elective surgery seem to be an american speciality, for instance.


Someone that I love very much had blood clots in her brain, they operated her, she didn't come out ok, she can't move her right side in her whole body, they don't have rehabilitation for that there, here she woulnd't leave the rehab place, till her right side would be ok again.
I've never been to Spain, or had a stroke in Spain, but funnily enough, I've a hard time believing your personal experiences better represent the state of things than what aforementioned investigators said.

Espicially considering that my country was rated a fair few places below Spain (although quite a bit over the US) and stroke-victims, or anyone else really needing it, for that matter, being denied physiotherapy doesn't really match my experiences.



I have seeing people dying because they would have heart attacks or other things, and they would have to wait years for an operation, the wonderful socialized medicine killed them.
Here if you need your tonzils removed, they do it the week after, there you have to wait years, till your number comes up. enough said
Tying in with someone else said, you'll have to look far for a system where there are no queues whatsoever in health care. The only way to get around that is to pay more than the others.

Some people do end up waiting for a bit, if their conditions aren't life threatening and there's a backlog of emergencies. That's not going to be any different in the US, though. Oh, except that:



Waiting times are shorter here because so many can't afford to be in the queue and go untreated.

...Sweet. I'd do great, the unemployed among my pals in the US, though, wouldn't.

And no, we don't have to wait years to have our tonsils removed.


Basically, our system, which I suppose is somewhat like the british, means that everyone is entitled to a certain standard of care, no matter their means. Beyond that, it's then possible to get better care if you pay for it.

In the end, the care available for everyone here is decent and they'll do what they can to make sure you survive and are able to get back up, as opposed to "you can't pay, lulz. You can't have that transplant".

Call me crazy, but I'd rather have our system any day of the week.

What's up with your unemployed friends in the USA?
Have you ever lived in the USA? If you didn't this conversation is over, because you don't have a clue how life in the US is, I have lived in both places, so I can tell you wich one is better when it comes to healthcare, you can't.
Have a nice day

[devilsadvocate]

Don't you mean, "Do I hope Obama proves America can thrive under socialism?"

Well, it hasn't worked too well anywhere else, so, uh, no - I guess not.

This is where the problem in the statement made by Limbaugh lies.
It's not that one thinks he will fail, which is a very legitimate concern. It's people hoping he fails.

If he proves America can thrive under socialism, why would it matter how it worked out elsewhere?

[j2k4]

Can't let you get away without backing that up; you're right about the history, of course, but selling us short into the bargain.


History has a way of repeating itself; that, my friend, is enough to back up my statement. ;)

History does indeed repeat itself.

History tells us socialism is a half-measure in practice, and allows those who administer it to feel "real good" about their efforts, while relieving citizens of the "burden" of social guilt.

History also teaches us such that across-the-board tax cuts increase revenue and social benefit, while tax increases do just the opposite.

You need more back-up, my friend.



Don't you mean, "Do I hope Obama proves America can thrive under socialism?"

Well, it hasn't worked too well anywhere else, so, uh, no - I guess not.

This is where the problem in the statement made by Limbaugh lies.
It's not that one thinks he will fail, which is a very legitimate concern. It's people hoping he fails.

If he proves America can thrive under socialism, why would it matter how it worked out elsewhere?

You have been victimized by the media's selective editing vis a vis Limbaugh, but nevermind; while you attempt (vainly) to split semantic hairs, you overlook a tremendous opportunity to explain why Obama's brand of socialism will be different (i.e., successful).

Take your time - I'll wait.

[devilsadvocate]

You have been victimized by the media's selective editing vis a vis Limbaugh, but nevermind; while you attempt (vainly) to split semantic hairs, you overlook a tremendous opportunity to explain why Obama's brand of socialism will be different (i.e., successful).

Take your time - I'll wait.
Not at all, I listened to Rush's original statement and his rationalization of what he was saying.
Other than the level of social programs (and as far as I can see he has no intention of going down the same route) I don't know if there will be differences. What is success for one is failure for another. You only have to read the posts in this thread to see that.

But you have either missed or decided to ignore what I was saying.
So I'll try to put it another way.

Your statement says to me that you HOPE Obama can't prove socialism can work here. Not that you don't think he can.
If it does work then the only objection could be ideological and not because of effectiveness.

[j2k4]

Your statement says to me that you HOPE Obama can't prove socialism can work here. Not that you don't think he can.
If it does work then the only objection could be ideological and not because of effectiveness.

Oh, okay.

Let's leave "hope" out of it.

Here's what I think:

Socialism is Communism for chicken-shits.

It marginalizes personal potential by financially penalizing those who produce, and steals any semblance of personal impetus from those who are not so well-off, whether that be due to circumstance or laziness.

Maybe our British cohort will understand if I say "Richard is good; Onslow, not so much."

The plain fact is that cars, telephones, airplanes, railroads, banks, medicines, computers, skyscrapers and Ipods were built, invented, founded, or established by people who wanted to be rich, not by people suffering all-encompassing altruism.

Another plain fact relates to the air of elitism that has historically permeated the halls of capitalism - laws are written to control questionable behaviors, then ignored when these elites skate past them, giving them no mind, or are caught red-handed, which hands are then given a mild slap.

You may argue the effectiveness of the death penalty in preventing murders; would you argue it would not have given someone such as Bernard Madoff pause, or perhaps stifled some of these "golden parachutists"?

What if Marc Rich had been handed a ticket to the electric chair, rather than a Presidential pardon?

Capitalism works, when it is properly policed.

Socialism doesn't work, period, and Obama is not the one who will prove otherwise.

In closing, I will note that the "fairness" desired by liberals and socialist everywhere is, sadly, unattainable, and I shouldn't have to tell you why.

[devilsadvocate]

You really don't have to waste time trying to explain why you don't like social programs, your ideology isn't a mystery.

As i said before

It's not that one thinks he will fail, which is a very legitimate concern. .

If you had originally written you don't think it will succeed, instead of hoping it won't, I wouldn't be responding.
Both capitalism (even properly policed) and socialism have their failures, they both have their successes.

What you are doing is hoping the one you despise fails. You fear it succeeding because it would prove you wrong and your ideology is more important than something that may be a good thing for the country if it succeeds.

It's one thing to doubt something will work, it's another to hope it doesn't.

But then it depends on what success is defined as and who is doing the defining.

I wouldn't worry if I were you. There's plenty of people with the ability to make sure neither side gets to see if their way really works.

[ilw]

Capitalism works, when it is properly policed.


if you weren't such a chicken-shit capitalist you wouldn't have a government managed police force.

[j2k4]

You really don't have to waste time trying to explain why you don't like social programs, your ideology isn't a mystery.

I like social programs that work just fine.

Further, I believe such social programs that are necessary should be funded and administered at the state and local levels, primarily because proximity makes for propriety, and the resultant bureaucracies are much more efficient and accountable.

I realize, however, that you do not hold with efficiency and accountability, because of your ideology, which is not the secret you think it is.


As i said before

It's not that one thinks he will fail, which is a very legitimate concern. .

Parse that and get back to me.


If you had originally written you don't think it will succeed, instead of hoping it won't, I wouldn't be responding.

So then you admit you are quibbling over a semantic issue - this is a welcome development.


Both capitalism (even properly policed) and socialism have their failures, they both have their successes.

But you aren't concerned in any way over the numbers of successes versus failures, or you'd be a capitalist as well.


What you are doing is hoping the one you despise fails. You fear it succeeding because it would prove you wrong and your ideology is more important than something that may be a good thing for the country if it succeeds.

I despise Obama?

I have to assume you don't know what the word actually means.


It's one thing to doubt something will work, it's another to hope it doesn't.

Understand this:

I don't hope it doesn't work.

I don't merely doubt that it will work.

I am absolutely positive it won't work.

Surely you can discern the difference.

Or maybe you can't.


But then it depends on what success is defined as and who is doing the defining.

Then this begs a question:

How do you define success?


I wouldn't worry if I were you. There's plenty of people with the ability to make sure neither side gets to see if their way really works.

The one purely sensible sentence in your entire post, though, if Obama fails to enact his disastrous agenda, it will be due to a few democrats' having suffering an attack of conscience.




Capitalism works, when it is properly policed.


if you weren't such a chicken-shit capitalist you wouldn't have a government managed police force.

I can't make any sense of that, Ian.

I used "police(d)" as a verb, not a noun.

Our congress has failed to close loopholes and concoct effective regulation (look under "election (re-)" to see why this is).

[clocker]

History also teaches us such that across-the-board tax cuts increase revenue and social benefit, while tax increases do just the opposite.


History teaches us no such thing. (http://rricketts.ba.ttu.edu/Tax%20Rates%20and%20Revenues.htm)

[j2k4]

Nah.

Since those who're taking in this debate here need a tiny history lesson, I'll let Glenn Beck provide it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwZp_bhGAgA

Suffice it to say, if we had the time and inclination, we could throw up any numbers of statistics, graphs, charts or video testimony to support our arguments; I will settle for saying that if we picked up that particular gauntlet, by the end of a short time you would be running out of evidence while I would still be going strong.

We might do better to discuss how Obama's plans to raise the capital gains tax out of sight will depress revenue and, hence, the economy...very easy to understand.

[monkeyicious]

I'm a US Citizen.
Of course I want Obama to succeed.
I'd want any president to succeed.
It's in my best interest.
Do I think someone else had a better chance?
That's the real question to ask.

[j2k4]

I'm a US Citizen.
Of course I want Obama to succeed.
I'd want any president to succeed.
It's in my best interest.
Do I think someone else had a better chance?
That's the real question to ask.

A better chance to succeed?

Why do you think Obama will succeed?

He's not offering anything new - he's basically just an up-beat (HOPE!) Jimmy Carter.

[devilsadvocate]

If you had originally written you don't think it will succeed, instead of hoping it won't, I wouldn't be responding.

So then you admit you are quibbling over a semantic issue - this is a welcome development.



Err Sherlock- whole point of the reply was about the difference.

A very important semantic issue.

There is a huge difference in meaning.


example -

A child is going to have a very risky last chance operation that has had limited success in the past to remove what would be a fatal tumor from his brain.


1) I don't think it will work.

2) I hope it doesn't work.

See the difference?

To drive it home-

"Don't you hope the doctor succeeds?"

Don't you mean, "Do I hope the doctor proves the child can thrive with this operation?"

Well, it hasn't worked too well anywhere else, so, uh, no - I guess not.


I do note that you eventually wrote "I don't hope it doesn't work." but this is a complete 180 from your original statement.

I only have what you write to go by. If it just came out wrong and you didn't mean what you originally said or you have changed your mind I accept what you are saying now.

[j2k4]

So then you admit you are quibbling over a semantic issue - this is a welcome development.



Err Sherlock- whole point of the reply was about the difference.

A very important semantic issue.

There is a huge difference in meaning.


example -

A child is going to have a very risky last chance operation that has had limited success in the past to remove what would be a fatal tumor from his brain.


1) I don't think it will work.

2) I hope it doesn't work.

See the difference?

To drive it home-

"Don't you hope the doctor succeeds?"

Don't you mean, "Do I hope the doctor proves the child can thrive with this operation?"

Well, it hasn't worked too well anywhere else, so, uh, no - I guess not.


I do note that you eventually wrote "I don't hope it doesn't work." but this is a complete 180 from your original statement.

I only have what you write to go by. If it just came out wrong and you didn't mean what you originally said or you have changed your mind I accept what you are saying now.

So what you're saying is to mind my words so you don't have to.

Funny - under other circumstances I would remind you that it is the liberal camp which habitually defends flexo-bendy word meanings, but nevermind.

By the way-

If all your postage is to be of the following flavor-


Err Sherlock- whole point of the reply was about the difference.

A very important semantic issue.

There is a huge difference in meaning.

I would suggest you learn to speak as much or as often about the issue(s) at hand, rather than becoming preoccupied with tangential...chaff.

[clocker]

Nah.

Since those who're taking in this debate here need a tiny history lesson, I'll let Glenn Beck provide it:


I reject your assertion that Glen Beck is a suitable teacher of history and
I suspect that I could trade links with you till the cows come home, your claim of superior stamina be damned.

Of course you want Obama to fail...his success would throw your entire worldview into disarray.

[ilw]

Capitalism works, when it is properly policed.


if you weren't such a chicken-shit capitalist you wouldn't have a government managed police force.

I can't make any sense of that, Ian.

I used "police(d)" as a verb, not a noun.

i did also notice you used the passive to make it ambiguous as to who would be doing the 'proper policing'. So who will be policing capitalism? And who will be deciding what is proper?

[The Flying Cow]

rather than becoming preoccupied with tangential...chaff.

Quite the ventriloquist, Mr. Kevin.


Edit: I must stop using smilies.

They artificialise every post.

[j2k4]

Nah.

Since those who're taking in this debate here need a tiny history lesson, I'll let Glenn Beck provide it:


I reject your assertion that Glen Beck is a suitable teacher of history and
I suspect that I could trade links with you till the cows come home, your claim of superior stamina be damned.

Of course you want Obama to fail...his success would throw your entire worldview into disarray.

Beck was merely reciting history, not inventing it.

Much as I believe I harbor a carefully-crafted world-view, I would not mind being surprised into reconstructing it.

Can you say the same?

Having said all that, I suspect the folly of Obama's plans (such as they are) will be revealed in fairly short order; that is to say, with in the first year or so.

He will not serve a second term absent some sort of congressional/judicial amendment of relevant documents - this would certainly be required, as such things are no longer allowed as public options.

[j2k4]

rather than becoming preoccupied with tangential...chaff.

Quite the ventriloquist, Mr. Kevin. :whistling

I have no talent for that particular art, my bovine friend.

Gee, I sure miss my smilies.

[clocker]

He will not serve a second term ...
I'll take that bet.

[j2k4]

He will not serve a second term ...
I'll take that bet.

Done.

[Snee]

What's up w.dabsith your unemployed friends in the USA?
Have you ever lived in the USA? If you didn't this conversation is over, because you don't have a clue how life in the US is, I have lived in both places, so I can tell you wich one is better when it comes to healthcare, you can't.
Have a nice day

And yet, one has to wonder if you've actually lived in either one :dabs:

The Spain you describe doesn't seem to match up very well with reality, and nor does your fantastic image of the US match what aforementioned pals have told me about their situation.

I guess one shouldn't expect too much from someone who's basing his opinion of european health care on one or two experiences he once thought he had in Spain :blink:

Also, you certainly haven't been here, so you can't really say anything about our health care, now can you? Or indeed european health care in general, going by the same logic.

See, I've just had a friend told me how he can't even afford to have a simple allergy test, over there. I've had lunches more expensive than what it'd cost me, here.

That came up when I brought up this thread in a conversation with a few people I play games with online, the other day, and the funny thing is that they don't quite seem to agree with you. This would be a couple of americans, as well as a few europeans.

[Snee]

Any thoughts on the difference between socialism and social democracy, J2?

Also, I don't think of Obama as a socialist, other than his choice of words, sometimes (cf "revolution"). Liberal, yes, though. Even social democrat would be moving in another direction, I reckon.

I see him as a fair bit right of any socialists I've ever met, tbh.

[j2k4]

Any thoughts on the difference between socialism and social democracy, J2?

Also, I don't think of Obama as a socialist, other than his choice of words, sometimes (cf "revolution"). Liberal, yes, though. Even social democrat would be moving in another direction, I reckon.

I see him as a fair bit right of any socialists I've ever met, tbh.

Allow me to ask you, first, as I meant to, before I was sidetracked by the wily Clocker.

For the nonce, I see social democrat-ism to be a polite way to refer to socialism without actually using the word.

Call it de-stigmatized or thinly disguised, and slightly less-than-full-strength.

[Rat Faced]

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 a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.

Due to Human Nature (Greed) it's a lovely theory that can't work in practice in its pure form, except in very small close knit communities.

It is the opposite of Capitalism, which has recently shown it can't work in its pure form for the very same reason: Human Nature (Greed).


Social Democracy is an attempt to blend the two Theories.

It encourages people to make money by supporting Business, so that the taxation of this money can be used to fund Socialist "Values" eg: Free Universal Health Care.

Again, this is the Theory... and again it fails to take in Human Nature...

However, it's not nearly as bad as either a Pure Socialist System or a Pure Capitalist System.

[j2k4]

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 a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.

Due to Human Nature (Greed) it's a lovely theory that can't work in practice in its pure form, except in very small close knit communities.

It is the opposite of Capitalism, which has recently shown it can't work in its pure form for the very same reason: Human Nature (Greed).


Social Democracy is an attempt to blend the two Theories.

It encourages people to make money by supporting Business, so that the taxation of this money can be used to fund Socialist "Values" eg: Free Universal Health Care.

Again, this is the Theory... and again it fails to take in Human Nature...

However, it's not nearly as bad as either a Pure Socialist System or a Pure Capitalist System.

Says you.

So, in the U.K., greed goes unsatiated.

Sounds dangerous.

[Rat Faced]

So, in the U.K., greed goes unsatiated.

Sounds dangerous.

Unfortunatley, the "Tories" *spits* de-regulated to follow the US Model.

Equally unfortunate, "New Labour" *spits* decided that it was actually another Tory Party and left it that way.

Result: Our system is almost as badly hit as your own but with a currency that other countries dont need to hang onto in order to buy their Oil.. meaning that our Government can't bail our economy out to the same extent as your own. (Don't stop 'em trying though!!!)

Ulike many people, I don't totally blame New Labour. They didnt reverse the changes brought in by the Tories, so they must bear some responsibility, but it was the Tories that brought those changes in.


A little like the Council Tax that the Tories bleat and moan about, without reminding everyone they wrote the legislation in the 1st place, y'know?

Amazing how fickle a politicians memory is ;)

[ahctlucabbuS]

You're still at it I see.

Applause! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7870638.stm)

[j2k4]

You're still at it I see.

As are you.


Applause! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7870638.stm)

I'm sure you'll be shocked to learn I have no problem with Obama's little announcement; a business having received a government bailout should regard itself as having been co-opted by government auspices, and so, much less guided by capitalist dogma.

Socialist businesses should pay even executives a socialist wage.

This is not to say I hope these businesses fail; I do not.

I am perhaps more appalled than even you at the "golden parachutes" enjoyed by failed executives; it offends my capitalist tendencies to see poor efforts/results rewarded at all, much less so handsomely, and further, by means of what amounts to a guaranteed contract.

On the other hand, I would like to see a system by which an utterly failed executive is severed/fired with no compensation whatsoever.

I am sure you would argue that last is unfair to the executive, who is at bottom just another worker.

[Rat Faced]

Everyone makes mistakes, you shouldn't be rewarded for it, I agree.

Neither should you be fired for making a mistake.. but should if your found to make so many mistakes that your inefficient. Thats business.

I also belive that if a Bank is in public ownership, then the executives should only be paid what other Civil Service executives are paid. If they are good enough to pay off the Exchequer early and buy themselves back, then fine, they will then be in a position to show good performance and go back onto a Private Sector wage.

Stuff 'em, they're now glorified Civil Servannts.. pay 'em as such. No Civil Servant gets paid anywhere near the limit that Obama has set... its Far too Generous. The arguement that they have to pay the going rate has gone.. If they dont like it, get a job in one of the other finance houses.

[j2k4]

Then call it social democracy, Obama-style, and start criticizing him, ffs.

[Rat Faced]

I just did, didn't I?

[j2k4]

I just did, didn't I?

By golly, you're right.

First I've heard that - slipped right by me.

Well done, sir.

[pentomato]

Then call it social democracy, Obama-style, and start criticizing him, ffs.

Your people used to say that Bill Clinton the best president ever, was a socialist, damn were you wrong.
Don't you republicans have something better to do, other than wasting your time with crap like socialism? Stop been babies already, you lost the election on the presidence, on the senate, on congress, do you need something to suck on?
It will be only 8 years and this time I promisse you, he won't bankrupt america more than it is, Bush made sure nobody could screw worst than he did. Do you want a lollie pop?

[j2k4]

Then call it social democracy, Obama-style, and start criticizing him, ffs.

Your people used to say that Bill Clinton the best president ever, was a socialist, damn were you wrong.
Don't you republicans have something better to do, than wasting your time with crap like socialism? Stop been babies already, you lost the election on the presidence, on the senate, on congress, do you need something to suck on?

I don't know what to say.

Really.

[pentomato]

Your people used to say that Bill Clinton the best president ever, was a socialist, damn were you wrong.
Don't you republicans have something better to do, than wasting your time with crap like socialism? Stop been babies already, you lost the election on the presidence, on the senate, on congress, do you need something to suck on?

I don't know what to say.

Really.

Your problem as every republican is that you guys talk and talk and never say anything, wait, that's the definition of insanity.
what about that lollie pop?

[pentomato]

Socialism can't be that bad, when Bush never cared about the poor going broke, frozen without heat here in the north east, and Hugo Chavez Venezuelan's president gave oil to poor neighboorhoods in the United States, so your argument about socialism tells me that socialists help the poor and capitalists do not give a damn about the one's that need help the most, could it be that only exxon mobile and company had Bush in their pockets and those are the ones that benefit in capitalism?

[Busyman]

Socialism can't be that bad, when Bush never cared about the poor going broke, frozen without heat here in the north east, and Hugo Chavez Venezuelan's president gave oil to poor neighboorhoods in the United States, so your argument about socialism tells me that socialists help the poor and capitalists do not give a damn about the one's that need help the most, could it be that only exxon mobile and company had Bush in their pockets and those are the ones that benefit in capitalism?

Socialism can be that bad.

There are poor that go broke that don't bother to put in the work to stay afloat. You have those busting their asses to make ends meet and those that only look for handouts.

I still think capitalism is best. It spurs innovation and a sense of accomplishment. Work harder, make more money.

The problem is that like any government, proper laws need to be in place to curb crap in the system. Unchecked capitalism can lead to abuses just like any unchecked power.

[ahctlucabbuS]

I'm sure you'll be shocked to learn I have no problem with Obama's little announcement; a business having received a government bailout should regard itself as having been co-opted by government auspices, and so, much less guided by capitalist dogma.

For once we're in agreement. Good.


I am sure you would argue that last is unfair to the executive, who is at bottom just another worker.

That's your assumption which I won't touch.

No western country today is practicing 'socialism' in its true meaning. All move towards 'capitalism' one way or the other, granted, more or less so.

Throwing the term around as one sees fit, far from illuminating the issue at hand.

[pentomato]

Socialism can't be that bad, when Bush never cared about the poor going broke, frozen without heat here in the north east, and Hugo Chavez Venezuelan's president gave oil to poor neighboorhoods in the United States, so your argument about socialism tells me that socialists help the poor and capitalists do not give a damn about the one's that need help the most, could it be that only exxon mobile and company had Bush in their pockets and those are the ones that benefit in capitalism?

Socialism can be that bad.

There are poor that go broke that don't bother to put in the work to stay afloat. You have those busting their asses to make ends meet and those that only look for handouts.

I still think capitalism is best. It spurs innovation and a sense of accomplishment. Work harder, make more money.

The problem is that like any government, proper laws need to be in place to curb crap in the system. Unchecked capitalism can lead to abuses just like any unchecked power.

Wowww I was been sarcastic, but you just wrote the definition of capitalism lol

[bigboab]

Capitalism cannot survive without the exploitation of the masses.

[j2k4]

I am sure you would argue that last is unfair to the executive, who is at bottom just another worker.

That's your assumption which I won't touch.

No western country today is practicing 'socialism' in its true meaning. All move towards 'capitalism' one way or the other, granted, more or less so.

Throwing the term around as one sees fit, far from illuminating the issue at hand.

So you think I'm being obscure.

Perhaps, then, you might lift the veil on socialism and educate the lot of us - I'll make some popcorn.


Capitalism cannot survive without the exploitation of the masses.

Yes it can; however, certain liberal auspices define even reasonable prices and fees for goods and services as "exploitation".

If, in the next few years, I develop a bunch of new contracts and become rich, while paying my employees a reasonable wage, and pay my taxes, am I practicing "exploitation"?

[pentomato]

Capitalism cannot survive without the exploitation of the masses.

True, very true, almost as slavery...

[pentomato]

That's your assumption which I won't touch.

No western country today is practicing 'socialism' in its true meaning. All move towards 'capitalism' one way or the other, granted, more or less so.

Throwing the term around as one sees fit, far from illuminating the issue at hand.

So you think I'm being obscure.

Perhaps, then, you might lift the veil on socialism and educate the lot of us - I'll make some popcorn.


Capitalism cannot survive without the exploitation of the masses.

Yes it can; however, certain liberal auspices define even reasonable prices and fees for goods and services as "exploitation".

If, in the next few years, I develop a bunch of new contracts and become rich, while paying my employees a reasonable wage, and pay my taxes, am I practicing "exploitation"?

So you think employers pay their workers what they deserve, expecially in this times?
High gasoline prices, food etc, these days are reasonable?
Corporations dictate what we pay, and guess what? we are slaves of what they dictate we will pay for anything they want to, so yes that's exploitation of the masses, when people have to quit their jobs because gas prices are to high, when we have to buy less food, because we can't afford what we need.
And regardless of what we pay for food or at the pump, our salaries do not go up, corporations make al the money.

[Busyman]

Capitalism cannot survive without the exploitation of the masses.

Bunkum.

Exploitation can thrive in any system. Also what you call exploitation is a great wage in many places.

[Snee]

Any thoughts on the difference between socialism and social democracy, J2?

Also, I don't think of Obama as a socialist, other than his choice of words, sometimes (cf "revolution"). Liberal, yes, though. Even social democrat would be moving in another direction, I reckon.

I see him as a fair bit right of any socialists I've ever met, tbh.

Allow me to ask you, first, as I meant to, before I was sidetracked by the wily Clocker.

For the nonce, I see social democrat-ism to be a polite way to refer to socialism without actually using the word.

Call it de-stigmatized or thinly disguised, and slightly less-than-full-strength.

Call it not the same thing, and you'll be on target.

While I don't have a problem with socialism, social democracy isn't it. The current batch of tards here don't even have a handle on communism, ffs.

They still share certain goals, but the way I see it, broad strokes, social democracy replaces things like having the elite run things with having elections, and revolution with persuasion.

As for how they vote and act nowadays, I'd put them somewhere slighly left of center (keep in mind that I see liberals as being more rightward bound, though). They still lobby for social justice, but they aren't anti-market/capitalist or anything.

Might as well call them social moderates, really. Inclinations towards both left and right regarding their beliefs. This is our kind, though, results may vary. The british ones seem less socialist still. But I'm not really up to speed on their ideologies, so I dunno.

[Rat Faced]

Communism is not Socialism, it's State Capitalism. Fact.

We've come across this problem before: Define Socialism... I gave my definition somewhere, and also stated that I didn't think pure socialism could work above "Commune" level.


Libya is "Socialist", look at its Constitution. To me, and probably you, its a Dictatorship and I can't see how the two can work together.

However, i'll stick my head out with a current "Socialist" state (ie Social Democratic) that works and isn't Communist: Portugal

[j2k4]

Capitalism cannot survive without the exploitation of the masses.

True, very true, almost as slavery...

Slavery?

What slavery?

[j2k4]

Libya is "Socialist", look at its Constitution. To me, and probably you, its a Dictatorship and I can't see how the two can work together.

The U.S. is a republic - look at it's constitution.

Obama is a socialist, and I don't see how the two can work together.

[Rat Faced]

To be fair, Minimum Wage in the US is virtual slavery (unless its changed n the last year or so radically)

[j2k4]

What's bottom end over there?

[Rat Faced]

£5.73/Hr with 24 Days paid holiday per year at this moment in time.

Not as impressive to show off with the current exchange rate or I'da mentioned it in the last post :lol:

[j2k4]

£5.73/Hr with 24 Days paid holiday per year at this moment in time.

Not as impressive to show off with the current exchange rate or I'da mentioned it in the last post :lol:


So, about eight-and-a-half bucks American plus five weeks a year off, paid.

And your employment rate?

[Rat Faced]

Depends which job your on about lol

Its more than Minimum on both though ;)

[pentomato]

Libya is "Socialist", look at its Constitution. To me, and probably you, its a Dictatorship and I can't see how the two can work together.

The U.S. is a republic - look at it's constitution.

Obama is a socialist, and I don't see how the two can work together.

I repeat, you said the samething about bill clinton, do you want the lollie pop now?
This is like the song of the cuco man, at some point you are going to loose your mind lol

[j2k4]

Depends which job your on about lol

Its more than Minimum on both though ;)

No, perhaps I should have asked what percentage of your workforce is unemployed.

[j2k4]

The U.S. is a republic - look at it's constitution.

Obama is a socialist, and I don't see how the two can work together.

I repeat, you said the samething about bill clinton, do you want the lollie pop now?
This is like the song of the cuco man, at some point you are going to loose your mind lol

You're getting high marks for nonsensical content, now; record-setting marks, actually - entertainment value is also through the roof.

[Snee]

Communism is not Socialism, it's State Capitalism. Fact.

Dunno about "capitalism" (although it definitely worked like that in old Czechoslovakia, come to think of it), but yeah, it's not the same thing either.

Reason I brought it up is that afaik, socialism was meant to be a bridge between conventional society and communism, originally. I reckon.

Yet we've had a bunch of gutless wonders denounce communism, due to it being "evil" or somesuch. That's social democracy for you.

Communism is more utilitarian than anything, IMO, "for the greater good". And as far as I'm concerned it brings some good ideals, although it may be a tad uncompromising.

Socialism is better in that it picks out a lot of the good, and focuses more on the individual.

Social democracy is milder still. But like I said, I don't reckon Obama is even that far left, probably.

[Rat Faced]

Depends which job your on about lol

Its more than Minimum on both though ;)

No, perhaps I should have asked what percentage of your workforce is unemployed.

Official Figures at the moment, I believe, are:

US 7.6%
UK 6.1%

However I'm always suspicious of "Official" figures..

Various countries almost certainly count them different ways.

I'm pretty sure Thatcher (better known as that evil fucking witch) only officially counted those unemployed between the ages of 58 - 60 with both parents present when they signed on, as an example.

I think New Labour and the US use a similar counting methodology, as it really gets those numbers looking better ;)