I am an Agnostic Conservative Republican and proud of it
if i wanted to see the employees fired,
the assets stripped
and the profit sent to the cayman islands accounts
Quote: thecesspitNo, socialism is "social ownership of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy "
It's very specific about ownership, not about taxation systems. Wealth redistribution is a factor in most economies, and not in and off itself socialist.
If the US is passing laws to make public private enterprises, then you have socialism. Increasing the welfare state maybe a left-leaning policy. I'd say it's a big factor in a most centrist governments. Democratic parties (social Democrats, liberal Democrats, progressive, Labour parties) always tend to favour a larger state welfare system. By all means, say that's a bad thing. But it's not in and off itself socialism. A government could run a very free-market system, with little state run facilities (no centralized health care, education, transport, etc) and still have a large welfare state (and thus a progressive wealth redistribution), run via taxation. This would not be socialist. In fact, isn't this much like the US today?
Don't tell me - Obama is a flaming Capitalist....
Quote: MauiSunsetDon't tell me - Obama is a flaming Capitalist....
Never said that either. But it's not as simple as saying "Capitalism/Socialism". Socialism means something specific, not just "anti-free market Capitalism".
But I would say Obama is a Capitalist.
Quote: Wavy70Which private enterprises are being forced to be public? What is it called when you take traditionally government entities such as prisons and sell them to private industry.
I have no idea which ones. It was a question posed to those saying the US is becoming more socialist.
Privatization is normally a sign of a right-wing, free-marketer fiscal policy. Maggie Thatcher was a huge proponent of it in the UK. And selling of government run services and industries is definitely the opposite of socialism.
Quote: KeyserThis will help put things into prospective.
Which person do you feel would be the most qualified to run a fortune 500 company?
What if the company was in serious financial trouble?
Would you choose a successful businessman with years of experience, or would you choose a community organizer?
Would you choose Obama?
or
Would you choose Romney?
I like the attitude but sadly Americans have been so dumbed down that most will think the Fortune 500 is a NASCAR race............
Quote: MauiSunsetI'm a Conservative - I don't give things away.
If you want to spend the time to find the truth it is all over the internet.
Don't think for a second that anything on TV hasn't been spun and slanted towards the Left.
If you can't find the reference to the 48% tax payers who don't pay Federal Income Taxes in 5 hours of looking, then let me know and I'll take 10 seconds to find it....
As I said in my last post have a happy life. No use trying to debate wiht a regressive closed minded "person" who can not back up themselves.
Your obnoxiousness is only outweighed by your ignorance. Thanks for playing.
Quote: thecesspitI have no idea which ones. It was a question posed to those saying the US is becoming more socialist.
Privatization is normally a sign of a right-wing, free-marketer fiscal policy. Maggie Thatcher was a huge proponent of it in the UK. And selling of government run services and industries is definitely the opposite of socialism.
Should law enforcement be privatized? Even Thatchr didn't sell the prisons.
Quote: AZDuffmanReagan hated the poor!"
Then again, Reagan did hate the poor---there were so many fewer of them when he left office than when he came in he must have gotten rid of them somehow!
The number of Americans below the poverty level increased 8.4% from 29.272 million in 1980 to 31.745 million in 1988,
please stop making up comments without supporting them with the facts.
Quote: Wavy70Should law enforcement be privatized? Even Thatchr didn't sell the prisons.
No, but prison privatisation is happening in the UK at the moment. Should it happen? I don't know. My gut says no, but that's not a great answer.
There is also talk about the current Conservative/Liberal coalition privatizing parts of the police force. That seems bloody crazy to me.
I've said my piece about religion and nothing ever gets settled there either.
What can I say I just love a good fist fight.
I'm out of here, if you want to ask me a question just PM me and I'll PM back.
Best of luck to you guys..........
Quote: thecesspitNo, but prison privatisation is happening in the UK at the moment. Should it happen? I don't know. .
It has had mixed results at best here. Since the pay is poor the guards are not well trained and in many instances cost the state a lot in law suites.
But should law enforcement be a for profit industry with little oversight?
Quote: Wavy70But should law enforcement be a for profit industry with little oversight?
it already is
Quote: KeyserThe movie, "Atlas Shrugged" should be mandatory viewing in our public schools. Entitlement has become the game of politicians. Ann Rand (probably misSpelLed) saw it coming years ago. She witnessed just how devastating socialism and communism really are.
Shame. If we had a better education system I would suggest reading the book. One of the better drug fueled novels of its day.
But really the movie from last year? Starring Taylor Schilling? Wow that movie was about the worst adaptation possible. That version would make Rush a liberal.
Quote: WongBoit already is
But should it?
Quote: KeyserThis will help put things into prospective.
Which person do you feel would be the most qualified to run a fortune 500 company?
What if the company was in serious financial trouble?
Would you choose a successful businessman with years of experience, or would you choose a community organizer?
Would you choose Obama?
or
Would you choose Romney?
In that case I would choose Romney but how is he going to outsource all of us to China?
But he is the last person I would vote to run a country. I would take Newt over Mitt any day.
Being next door to MA I meet very few who would vote for him again.
Quote: WongBodelete
I disagree
Quote: MauiSunsetIt's easy to copy and paste "facts" from both political websites - it never wins arguments.
American has a simple decision to make - vote Democrat and become more Socialistic or vote Republican and become less Socialistic.
Like it or not Socialism is where we are headed in the future - there are too many Americans who want the good life and will vote in politicians to take money from "the rich" than folks who want to work hard and make the money themselves.
As a Capitalist I try to study these trends and profit from them. I don't invest in America anymore and haven't for a long time. I invest in other countries, some I despise, but that's where the money is to be made. I'm one of those guys who got tired of working hard and have having fellow Americans tell me I don't need the money I made and take it from me by force.
America is way too hostile to business anymore; as soon as it figures that out the money and jobs will flow back in. Don't hold your breath.......
But for some reason you still choose to live here. You haven't found a better country to LIVE in yet, have you? You may choose to invest in other countries, but obviously, when YOU have weighed all the plusses and minuses, you LIVE in this country. There must be some redeeming characteristics left? By the way, I do agree with you that the fact that somewhere around half of Americans get some form of government check is a big help to getting Democrats elected. But I think you have to be a little careful, in that most of those are Social Security checks, and those people where "Makers' as you call them, and have EARNED the right to be "Takers", by their years of contributions.
Mitt Romney is not going to win any of his three or four home states.Quote: Wavy70Being next door to MA I meet very few who would vote for him again.
Quote: WongBoThe number of Americans below the poverty level increased 8.4% from 29.272 million in 1980 to 31.745 million in 1988,
please stop making up comments without supporting them with the facts.
Far more than accounted for by the 17MM increase in the entire population. Please do not insult my intelligence by cherry-picking a number like this.
Anyone who lived in the 1980s saw the boom in the economy and increase in living standards.
Quote: Wavy70Which private enterprises are being forced to be public?
GM for one. And the health insurance companies are in the sights, Obama has said as much. Don't forget Amtrak.
Quote: KeyserThe movie, "Atlas Shrugged" should be mandatory viewing in our public schools. Entitlement has become the game of politicians. Ann Rand (probably misSpelLed) saw it coming years ago. She witnessed just how devastating socialism and communism really are.
We should not stop there. I keep telling people we are now living in a combination of:
1. 1984
2. Animal Farm
3. Brave New World
4. Atlas Shrugged
To be honest, "Animal Farm" is the only one that has shown up since Obama's cult of personality took hold----"Yes, we can, yes we can!"-----"Four legs good, two legs bad!" The others have been going on for some time but really accellarated since 2008.
I find it amazing how little the lamestream media covered the Obama Administration's action of suing Boeing for OPENING a plant in NC. This was a direct parallel to the part of Atlas Shrugged where they passed the law stating you could not move a plant from your home state and added the "Colorado Tax" to make things "fair."
Quote: AZDuffmanFar more than accounted for by the 17MM increase in the entire population. Please do not insult my intelligence by cherry-picking a number like this.
Anyone who lived in the 1980s saw the boom in the economy and increase in living standards.
the increase in general population is not "far more" than the 8.4%increase of people living in poverty.
1980 population 226M
1988 population 244.5M
it is about the same, ergo, Reagan did nothing to alleviate it.
Quote: AZDuffmanGM for one. And the health insurance companies are in the sights, Obama has said as much. Don't forget Amtrak.
As I understand it, GM wasnt forced into public ownership. It was either government or death. Are you saying GM should have been left to fail, and the remaining pieces left for sell off?. The US owns about 33% of GM now, and about 27% is owned by the Socialist Republic of Canada and by Ontario. I believe the plan is for the US to sell of its ownership over time. The northern owners will probably keep their slices.
Amtrak was much the same story, though Nixon wanted it to die out. But yes, the nationalisation of passenger rail in 1971, by a Republican, was a socialist step... public ownership of industry. I assume here you would also advocate for the removal of its subsidies, and for it to be private or die?
I ask to make sure I understand.
Quote: thecesspitAs I understand it, GM wasnt forced into public ownership. It was either government or death. Are you saying GM should have been left to fail, and the remaining pieces left for sell off?. The US owns about 33% of GM now, and about 27% is owned by the Socialist Republic of Canada and by Ontario. I believe the plan is for the US to sell of its ownership over time. The northern owners will probably keep their slices.
GM ownership legally should have gone to the bondholders who could then have done as they wished with it. B Hussein Obama sent the bondholders an "up yours" card, gave their stake to the UAW, and took the rest.
Quote:Amtrak was much the same story, though Nixon wanted it to die out. But yes, the nationalisation of passenger rail in 1971, by a Republican, was a socialist step... public ownership of industry. I assume here you would also advocate for the removal of its subsidies, and for it to be private or die?
Yes, Amtrak should be left to die. The northern corridor could be sold to run pofitably, send the rest to the scrap heap.
Quote:Yes, Amtrak should be left to die. The northern corridor could be sold to run pofitably, send the rest to the scrap heap.
Hmm, actually, the parts should be sold to the highest bidder if there is one who can do with the assets what they will. Surely? :)
Quote: thecesspitHmm, actually, the parts should be sold to the highest bidder if there is one who can do with the assets what they will. Surely? :)
Of course they would. My guess is the Northeast Corridor would attract many bids. The runs from the northeast to Chicago maybe some. The long-haul stuff is pretty much worthless. All that keeps it open is so many congressional districts will vote on the other worthless stuff to keep their worthless stuff.
Yes, have an auction. Don't throw good money after bad with the dream of high-speed rail--get rid of this turkey.
Quote: AZDuffmanOf course they would. My guess is the Northeast Corridor would attract many bids. The runs from the northeast to Chicago maybe some. The long-haul stuff is pretty much worthless. All that keeps it open is so many congressional districts will vote on the other worthless stuff to keep their worthless stuff.
Yes, have an auction. Don't throw good money after bad with the dream of high-speed rail--get rid of this turkey.
Actually, it doesn't matter if high-speed rail is a dream or not. As the tracks on most of the network apart are owned by the freight companies, you could close down the passenger rail now and re-open it in 20 years if there became a need for long-haul passenger rail again (I could see that happening).
VIA rail in Canada is in much the same position. The long haul routes are lose money. The shorter routes don't. The Canadian from Toronto to Vancouver is a lovely journey though, and does anchor some of the more isolated towns together. But that's okay, Canada seems happy to have socialized transport network (see BC Ferries,
for another example of subsidized transport).
I suspect Alaska Ferries and Washington State Ferries are also subsidized by the State.
Personally, America should keep Amtrak running. I like your tax dollars subsidizing my travel down there.
Quote: FrGambleI think maybe I should write-in the Wizard for president.
Geez! What did he do to you? ;)
Quote: SOOPOOBut for some reason you still choose to live here. You haven't found a better country to LIVE in yet, have you? You may choose to invest in other countries, but obviously, when YOU have weighed all the plusses and minuses, you LIVE in this country.
This is a pretty bad argument. I could name a few countries I'd live in rather than in US, but it's not like anyone invites me to live there.
There are also lots of people who would rather live in the US than the shit hole they are in now, but they also can't just come in an rent an apartment. For better or worse, the world does not work like that. You get to live where you can, not where you want.
Quote: weaselmanThis is a pretty bad argument. I could name a few countries I'd live in rather than in US, but it's not like anyone invites me to live there.
There are also lots of people who would rather live in the US than the shit hole they are in now, but they also can't just come in an rent an apartment. For better or worse, the world does not work like that. You get to live where you can, not where you want.
Name those few countries. Which of those would not allow me to retire there?
Quote: SOOPOOName those few countries. Which of those would not allow me to retire there?
Well .. I don't know about you and retire ... Can you retire in Belgium? Sweden? Denmark? Netherlands? (maybe, you can, I just don't know).
But when it comes to me and work ... I don't have enough money to retire in any country, and, if I did, I don't think I would care all that much where I live. So I am taking about choosing a country where one can live, work, and provide for their family. The universe of possibilities is rather restrictive.
Quote: NareedLet's rephrase, which part says "take your neighbor's money and labor by force and spread it among the needy?"
Can you name any first-world country, perhaps even second-world that doesn't? Would you prefer the destitute to roam the streets begging and resorting to crime instead?
Quote: SOOPOOName those few countries. Which of those would not allow me to retire there?
According to Michael Moore, the happiest country on earth is Norway.
Quote: WizardCan you name any first-world country, perhaps even second-world that doesn't?
Now? No. But some countries, including the US, made do without an income tax for decades.
Quote:Would you prefer the destitute to roam the streets begging and resorting to crime instead?
As though they don't?
But the poor are just an excuse. In America most welfare is spent on middle-class and rich individuals and corporations. You know, Social Security, Medicare, bailouts, subsidies, "incentives," etc. It's either handing out goodies so people will vote for a given party, or paying off "supporters."
Now, what aprt of any religion says "Thou shalt take money and labor by force from your neighbor and use it to get reelected by whatever means are necessary"?
Quote: WizardWould you prefer the destitute to roam the streets begging and resorting to crime instead?
What conservatives are saying, Wiz, is that we need to encourage people to work, not use their energy to game the government system. It worked in the 1996 welfare reform act. When poeple learned they were cut off after 2 years all of the sudden they learned to take any old job. What we have now is people demanding a middle class lifestlye that working people pay for. That is not right.
Quote:According to Michael Moore, the happiest country on earth is Norway.
According to Michael Moore, Cuba has great medical care, yet if you go to a hospital there you have to bring your own bed linnens and light bulbs for the room. I doubt there is a way to "measure happiness" in a quantifiable way.
Is it like that in Norway too?Quote: AZDuffmanAccording to Michael Moore, Cuba has great medical care, yet if you go to a hospital there you have to bring your own bed linnens and light bulbs for the room. I doubt there is a way to "measure happiness" in a quantifiable way.
Quote: AZDuffmanAccording to Michael Moore, Cuba has great medical care, yet if you go to a hospital there you have to bring your own bed linnens and light bulbs for the room. I doubt there is a way to "measure happiness" in a quantifiable way.
You pay for what you use in that model. You want linen, you pay for the linen. I thought some of the right advocated for a medical usage model where people pay for the general services they need, and take insurance for the big ticket illnesses. Like the airline model, you get a basic flight for cheap, you want baggage and dinner? You pay extras. In Cuba everyone gets the medical treatment. The rest, you pay or work out for yourself.
Bhutan runs it's own net happiness score, and uses that as a measure of success of the government, rather than GDP.
Quote: thecesspitYou pay for what you use in that model. You want linen, you pay for the linen. I thought some of the right advocated for a medical usage model where people pay for the general services they need, and take insurance for the big ticket illnesses. Like the airline model, you get a basic flight for cheap, you want baggage and dinner? You pay extras. In Cuba everyone gets the medical treatment. The rest, you pay or work out for yourself.
If somebody wants to set up a hospital stay that way, fine with me. But don't tell me that "Cuban socialized medicine is better than what we have in the USA!" Don't take a boatload of crybabies in a boat on film with a bullhorn saying they would be glad for Cuban socialized medicine because it is "so good."
You see, my problem is not that they do it. My problem is the lefties who say how great the Cuban mecical system is, some say better than the USA, and ignore the fact that you get no sheets and used needles when you show up.
Quote: s2dbakerIs it like that in Norway too?
Fly over and find out.
Norway does well off of their soverign oil investment fund. Without capitalism nobody would be buying their oil and they would be freezing in the dark. They are little more than a UAE for people who prefer winter to summer weather.
"the six Walmart heirs, whose wealth equals that of the entire bottom 30 percent"
That's impressive.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhat conservatives are saying, Wiz, is that we need to encourage people to work, not use their energy to game the government system.
That is hardly only a conservative statement. Anyone remotely close to center would agree with it. If you want to look at who encourages working I would look at who supports middle-class tax cuts and spending on education.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhat conservatives are saying, Wiz, is that we need to encourage people to work, not use their energy to game the government system.
I agree that minimizing the game-ability of the government system is a good thing, but as for the first part, encouraging people to work is necessarily only a short-term strategy. What answer does conservative capitalism have for an American economy where most labor is sourced from abroad and, more to the point, labor productivity is so high that there simply aren't enough jobs to go around? If demands for goods and services are met by only 2/3 of Americans working, what will become of the other third?
Put another way, the fundamental premise of capitalism is that private companies control the goods and services they sell. Our current economy features both private and public-sector workers. About 17% of workers work for some government entity, unemployment is about 8%, so the remaining 75% of workers work for private companies. What happens if (and when) those private companies become so productive with their workforces and automation technology that they decide that they only need 50% of workers (domestically) to produce the goods and services they sell? There are three outcomes:
1) The government picks up the slack somehow -- necessarily a socialist policy.
2) The country decides to live with 33% unemployment.
3) 25% of the workforce leaves the country.
If I missed an outcome, what is it? And if you dispute the premise of a future where American businesses are too efficient to support full employment, why?
Quote: MathExtremistWhat answer does conservative capitalism have for an American economy where most labor is sourced from abroad and, more to the point, labor productivity is so high that there simply aren't enough jobs to go around? If demands for goods and services are met by only 2/3 of Americans working, what will become of the other third?
Most conservatives woulnd't know capitalism if it shook their hand.
That aside, the same thing that's happened before when jobs moved or were replaced by automation or increased productivity: a growing economy will create new demand for new jobs.
Quote: MathExtremist
Put another way, the fundamental premise of capitalism is that private companies control the goods and services they sell. Our current economy features both private and public-sector workers. About 17% of workers work for some government entity, unemployment is about 8%, so the remaining 75% of workers work for private companies. What happens if (and when) those private companies become so productive with their workforces and automation technology that they decide that they only need 50% of workers (domestically) to produce the goods and services they sell? There are three outcomes:
1) The government picks up the slack somehow -- necessarily a socialist policy.
2) The country decides to live with 33% unemployment.
3) 25% of the workforce leaves the country.
If I missed an outcome, what is it? And if you dispute the premise of a future where American businesses are too efficient to support full employment, why?
Your premise here is (mostly) the theory called "surplus labor." In a nutshell it states that workers are so productive that no matter what all the wages of labor cannot soak up all of the production in an economy and unemployment will result. It is a flawed theory. First of all, if this was the case then at every invention there would be more and more unemployment. Right from when a horse was attached to a plow it would be, "farmers are out of work, we are doomed!"
Several things happen. The first is what is called "creative destruction." This is when shrinkage in unemployment in one industry allows othes to open up. For sake of argument imagine Pittsburgh in the late 1800s. A person wants to start an aluminum smelting plant. But all of the workers are over at Carnegie Steel, not enough skilled labor is available. Then someone invents a new casting process, causing a layoff of 20% of the workforce. Those 20% take jobs at the aluminum smelter. Now the steelworkers can be paid more, the price of steel can fall, and there is a new product available for the general public.
On a smaller scale, if one company has a tech breakthrough that allows a 50% reduction in workers the remaining workers will probably be more skilled and be paid more, while the price of the product will fall or/and qulity rise as the producer tries to gain advantage in the marketplace. But again, the other workers will be absorbed into the economy elsewhere as people take the savings on the product and invest it in other production or consumption.
History is full of examples of this happening. Come here to Pittsburgh and see the remaining steel mills. The parking lots that were jammed in the 1960s are nearly empty as more steel is made. See how many more cars GM makes with fewer workers than before. Yet new employers came about.
The economy is dynamic, not static. There is no fixed amount of wealth or jobs. When you engage in socialism to protect jobs the results are:
1. The owned company loses all incentive to be efficient. Quality falls, prices rise, and losses mount.
2. Fewer workers and resources are available to new industry. Where would Apple and Microsoft have gotten talent had we propped IBM up?
3. No sane person would open a business as they might be taken over and suerly will be taxes to death.
Quote: WizardThat is hardly only a conservative statement. Anyone remotely close to center would agree with it. If you want to look at who encourages working I would look at who supports middle-class tax cuts and spending on education.
This would be Bush and the GOP 2001-date. As to spending more on education I say we spend enough for the results we get. Time to explain to the education establishment that in the real world bad results get less funding and the managers there get fired. In this thread we have seen the correlation between spending and results is not there, if it were Washington, DC would have the best schools on the planet.
