Socialism is Good

[Vast LWC]

Yes, our 16.3% unemployment is a good sign for the economy. The fact is that the economy is not improving, because the fundamentals of the economy have only gotten worse since this crisis hit. More inflation, more debt, businesses as a drain on the economy, etc... This recession isn't over. If they've succeeded in reflating the bubble, and that's a big "if," then we're simply going to see a bigger bust down the road.

In November of 2007, when this recession officially started, Unemployment was at 4.5%.

It was at 8.9% in February when Obama took office.

Unemployment is currently at 9.6%.

Google - public data

Which means that almost all this unemployment happened under the Bush administration.

You can try to use any form of distorted figures you want, and claim that they're the "true" unemployment rate, but then of course you would have to apply those same figures to every other presidency, with the end results being exactly the same.

The way they computed unemployment during the Great Depression was to also count those who have simply given up searching for a job and those who are looking for a job but have taken on a temporary low paying job in the meantime. If we add those two categories to today's unemployment numbers we come up with 16.8%. Which means that we're much closer to the Great Depression's unemployment numbers than the government would like to admit.

But they used the numbers that we use now for the Reagan administration, which had a high unemployment rate of 10.4% 2 1/2 years after Reagan took office. So, by your count Reagan had an 17.6% unemployment rate?

And, no matter what the method you use to calculate it is, Unemployment has still only risen by around .7% since Obama took office.

In addition, Women did not work during the Great Depression, which means that depression numbers, if directly compared to todays numbers, would be around a 60% unemployment rate.

 

[Vast LWC]

Why would we be supporting this war? Sounds like China's neighbors should be supporting their war if China invades.

China's neighbors are our allies. We would be right in the thick of it.

We would be fools to be right in the thick of it. Our government wants China to continue to buy our debt, opposing them in such a way would lead to them refusing to buy any more of our debt. Our government would be shooting itself in the foot. We need China to be able to fund the wars we're in now, they're not going to fund a war against them.

If we had a war with China, our existing debt to them would cease to exist, thus eliminating our need to get money from them...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In November of 2007, when this recession officially started, Unemployment was at 4.5%.

It was at 8.9% in February when Obama took office.

Unemployment is currently at 9.6%.

Google - public data

Which means that almost all this unemployment happened under the Bush administration.

You can try to use any form of distorted figures you want, and claim that they're the "true" unemployment rate, but then of course you would have to apply those same figures to every other presidency, with the end results being exactly the same.

The way they computed unemployment during the Great Depression was to also count those who have simply given up searching for a job and those who are looking for a job but have taken on a temporary low paying job in the meantime. If we add those two categories to today's unemployment numbers we come up with 16.8%. Which means that we're much closer to the Great Depression's unemployment numbers than the government would like to admit.

But they used the numbers that we use now for the Reagan administration, which had a high unemployment rate of 10.4% 2 1/2 years after Reagan took office. So, by your count Reagan had an 17.6% unemployment rate?

And, no matter what the method you use to calculate it is, Unemployment has still only risen by around .7% since Obama took office.

In addition, Women did not work during the Great Depression, which means that depression numbers, if directly compared to todays numbers, would be around a 60% unemployment rate.

Yes, Reagan's numbers would be higher.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

China's neighbors are our allies. We would be right in the thick of it.

We would be fools to be right in the thick of it. Our government wants China to continue to buy our debt, opposing them in such a way would lead to them refusing to buy any more of our debt. Our government would be shooting itself in the foot. We need China to be able to fund the wars we're in now, they're not going to fund a war against them.

If we had a war with China, our existing debt to them would cease to exist, thus eliminating our need to get money from them...

I doubt the Chinese would see it that way. But it wouldn't change the fact that we still wouldn't be able to afford another war.

 

[Vast LWC]

Uhhh not all economists agree that we're in an actual recovery by a longshot.

Ludwig von Mises Institute - Homepage

Yeah, there's always going to be a nay-sayer or two somewhere...

Let's say the vast majority of the major economists are saying the recovery is going well.

To put it another way, the "major" economists who failed to see this downturn coming believe we're in a real recovery whereas those economists who did see this downturn coming do not see us as being in a real recovery.

To put it another way, you can just look at the economic indicators yourself, rather than trust someone else's opinion.

Just look at the Stock Market, the Housing Market, the Durable Goods market, etc, etc.

Unemployment is the last thing to go, but the growth rate is slowing.

 

[Vast LWC]

The way they computed unemployment during the Great Depression was to also count those who have simply given up searching for a job and those who are looking for a job but have taken on a temporary low paying job in the meantime. If we add those two categories to today's unemployment numbers we come up with 16.8%. Which means that we're much closer to the Great Depression's unemployment numbers than the government would like to admit.

But they used the numbers that we use now for the Reagan administration, which had a high unemployment rate of 10.4% 2 1/2 years after Reagan took office. So, by your count Reagan had an 17.6% unemployment rate?

And, no matter what the method you use to calculate it is, Unemployment has still only risen by around .7% since Obama took office.

In addition, Women did not work during the Great Depression, which means that depression numbers, if directly compared to todays numbers, would be around a 60% unemployment rate.

Yes, Reagan's numbers would be higher.

And the Great Depression numbers would be MUCH higher, due to the lack of women in the workforce.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

But they used the numbers that we use now for the Reagan administration, which had a high unemployment rate of 10.4% 2 1/2 years after Reagan took office. So, by your count Reagan had an 17.6% unemployment rate?

And, no matter what the method you use to calculate it is, Unemployment has still only risen by around .7% since Obama took office.

In addition, Women did not work during the Great Depression, which means that depression numbers, if directly compared to todays numbers, would be around a 60% unemployment rate.

Yes, Reagan's numbers would be higher.

And the Great Depression numbers would be MUCH higher, due to the lack of women in the workforce.

Not true. That's how the Great Depression numbers were calculated, and those were the official numbers.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Ya mean I lost the "freedom" to get laid off, lose my health insurance and go bankrupt paying inflated bills to hospitals and medical specialists? Oh no! Whatever shall I do without that precious "freedom"?

Conservatives equate "freedom" with exploitation. They equate health care reform with socialism.

Can any redefinition offered by Conservatives be seen as anything other than bullshit?

How about the freedom to not live in tax slavery to the state for the rest of our existence and have at least the opportunity to get your head and shoulders out of the drowning waters of that taxation.

You are willing to trade one kind elite for another. At least currently you have the ability to possibly join that elite if you have the skill and the gumption. But you will happily trade that off to get even with people you don't know in some sort of "eat the rich" fit. Doing your best to imitate "reign of terror" France for none of the reason.

Instead, you will have a political elite which will not be switched out or entered into by those not chosen. That means 99% of the people. You will get to equal with everyone else who will be just as low as you. You will not be raised up. Everyone will be dropped to the same level. Because the services that need the taxes will cost ever more. Your demand to "eat the rich" will never be sated, first the top 1% will be eaten, then there will be a new top 1%, you will eat each one in succession until no one dare be the top 1% lest they be eaten by the hunger mob with their enforcer, the government.

Then you will have a country that demands from its government more than it produces. The tax bill can never be paid. Where there once was wealth at the top there will be no top to store wealth. And America will have just what the other over the top welfare states have. Jack. Past its prime half life.

If that's what you want, I desperately hope you don't get it. If you do, I will not be here to enjoy it with you. Some places in this world still have freedom, I'll be there .....(incidentally, with the rich you were trying to eat cuz very few will stand still to be eaten).

And here I've heard that only the rich pay taxes!

Pretty much:

The top 1 percent of all households got 18 percent of all personal income and paid nearly 28 percent of all federal taxes in 2005, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The top 1 percent now pay a significantly larger share of taxes than before President Bush's tax cuts, and also have a larger share of income.
The nonpartisan CBO keeps track of such things and published its most recent tables in December 2007. The information to answer this question is in "Summary Table 2: Shares of Federal Tax Liabilities, 2004 and 2005."

The top 1 percent in 2005 were those households with income of at least $307,500, and they got 18.1 percent of all "comprehensive" income, which includes all cash income plus the cash value of such benefits as Medicare and food stamps.

As for taxes, CBO calculates that the top 1 percent paid 27.6 percent of all federal taxes, including:

* 38.8 percent of federal individual income taxes

* 4.0 percent of federal social insurance taxes (Social Security and Medicare)

* 58.6 percent of corporate income taxes (indirectly, through stock ownership)

* 5.5 percent of federal excise taxes (on such things as gasoline, tobacco, alcoholic beverages and telephones.)

The share of taxes paid by different income levels have changed over time.


The share now borne by the top 1 percent is the highest it has been since 1979, the earliest year for which CBO has figures. And surprisingly, it is larger than in 2000, the last year of President Bill Clinton's administration, before President Bush signed a series of tax cuts that benefited upper-income taxpayers by cutting the top rate on federal income taxes, cutting the rate on capital gains taxes and reducing the estate tax. One reason is that the top 1 percent now receive a greater share of income than at any time covered by CBO's statistics, though those households receive only slightly more than the 17.8 percent share they got in 2000.
Fact Check

What is it?

Don't know, I didn't see it.

Do we all pay taxes or just the wealthy?

That depends what "we" you are talking about. The "we" that is in the Top 60% of income earners pays some kind of income tax (although this year it goes down to more like the Top 52%). As you can see from above, by the time you get down to the 50th percentile, you ain't paying much.

Because that is the justification for cutting the tax burden on the top wage earners!

There might be a point here somewhere, but the language was too imprecise to make the point.

And when we can no longer afford the premiums for health insurance, will we rejoice in our "freedom"?

Hmmm....under the Republican plan you would get tax credits or advance tax credits depending on how poor you were. Under the Dem plan, they would charge you with a misdemeanor and send you to jail for a year. (And fine you)

The rate of increase is unsustainable.

Which is why you have to institute Health Savings Accounts as part of any reform. Until you start caring what your health care costs, the system will remain broken. No country that has public health care has fixed this problem. The solution is always less health care. RATIONING.

Yet we must preserve the "Freedom" of the health insurance providers to rake us out with the trash.

No, we must preserve a system that provides the best quality health care of any in the world across the board. We must fix those areas that are broken figure out how to use market forces to drive down costs including:
- Ending the artificial limitation on purchasing insurance across state lines
- Allowing people to contract for only amount of insurance they want to have
- Changing law suits to use the British model of "loser pays" (atty fees)

And here I've been paying taxes that go to programs I wholeheartedly disagree with.

Have you? Top 50% are you? One of those rich assholes that's ruining this country and you freely admit to it? You should be ashamed (at least the way you talk about what you do to the rest of us).

Corporate welfare, a blotted military industrial complex, tax breaks for the rich.

I was with you until you started "blotting the military" I'm not sure what that's about.

When I want some help to defer the high cost of health care, I'm called "Marxist".

You only want to defer it? You should be called something worse than a Marxist. How about we strive to end it by reform instead of replacement?

But I've come to expect that from the Conservatives.

Now we get to the stupid and insipid partisanship part of the post. I think we're going to go rapidly (and vapidly) downhill now.....everyone hold tight.

Why?

I dunno, you ran out of intelligent things to say but still wanted to type?

Because this variety of name calling is on the front of the Conservative playbook published in 1947 and not updated for better than 60 years!

I see and since 1947 a liberal has never called someone on the right a name? Try again!

I'm sure that Conservatives have the same concerns about losing, or acquiring health coverage.

Yes.

Why do they resist a government reform plan?

They do not resist a reform plan. They resist replacing the current system with a system that is proven to fail everywhere. There is a very specific, targeted reform plan, but the Dems block it and resist it.

Because the talking heads told them to! For every Conservative that shouts about a big media boogieman, there is a Glenn Beck or a Rush Limbaugh or a Fox News telling them it's all too true.

Silly LIBERAL diatribe only useful in the LIBERAL echo chamber. Save it for buddies.

And how many people can the classification of "rich" hold?

Who cares. This isn't about rich people and poor people. When will you understand that? Ever??? I seriously doubt it.

Historically, we know it's far too few to be a realistic goal. Most of us would settle for "comfortable". In this class, we can afford to buy a home (not a McMansion), put our kids through school, retire in comfort, put something away for a rainy day and pay our bills on time with a little left over each month for discretionary spending.

When you write a 1.5 Trillion dollar check, how are YOU and people similarly situated going to pay for it? Because that's what you trying to do right now.

 

[Vast LWC]

Yes, Reagan's numbers would be higher.

And the Great Depression numbers would be MUCH higher, due to the lack of women in the workforce.

Not true. That's how the Great Depression numbers were calculated, and those were the official numbers.

Yes, but the numbers only included those "able to work" (men) relative to those who were working.

Since the female half of the workforce generally didn't work at all, they weren't included in the tallying in the first place.

Therefore one cannot make any reasonable comparison of the two sets of numbers, as the size of the potential workforce has effectively doubled.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And the Great Depression numbers would be MUCH higher, due to the lack of women in the workforce.

Not true. That's how the Great Depression numbers were calculated, and those were the official numbers.

Yes, but the numbers only included those "able to work" (men) relative to those who were working.

Since the female half of the workforce generally didn't work at all, they weren't included in the tallying in the first place.

Therefore one cannot make any reasonable comparison of the two sets of numbers, as the size of the potential workforce has effectively doubled.

Yes, you can. You're calculating those who are looking for a job in the unemployment numbers. Women, for the most part, were not looking for a job during the Great Depression therefore they wouldn't be calculated.

 

[Vast LWC]

As for taxes, CBO calculates that the top 1 percent paid 27.6 percent of all federal taxes

And they own 38% of the wealth.

Which means they pay less as a percentage of their income.

The share now borne by the top 1 percent is the highest it has been since 1979, the earliest year for which CBO has figures.

And their share of the wealth has risen in equal proportions.

 

[mdn2000]

We would be fools to be right in the thick of it. Our government wants China to continue to buy our debt, opposing them in such a way would lead to them refusing to buy any more of our debt. Our government would be shooting itself in the foot. We need China to be able to fund the wars we're in now, they're not going to fund a war against them.

If we had a war with China, our existing debt to them would cease to exist, thus eliminating our need to get money from them...

I doubt the Chinese would see it that way. But it wouldn't change the fact that we still wouldn't be able to afford another war.

You dont get the choice of "affording" a war. We dont need China to buy our debt, we dont need anyone to buy our debt, thats all double speak by rich bankers, wall street, the fed, and politicians. The only reason debt is sold is because the bankers are controlling the government and making a fortune. Thats the global economy, stealing the fruits of my labor that I aint earned and selling it to china.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If we had a war with China, our existing debt to them would cease to exist, thus eliminating our need to get money from them...

I doubt the Chinese would see it that way. But it wouldn't change the fact that we still wouldn't be able to afford another war.

You dont get the choice of "affording" a war. We dont need China to buy our debt, we dont need anyone to buy our debt, thats all double speak by rich bankers, wall street, the fed, and politicians. The only reason debt is sold is because the bankers are controlling the government and making a fortune. Thats the global economy, stealing the fruits of my labor that I aint earned and selling it to china.

I agree. China needs to stop buying our debt right now. But from the government's standpoint, a war with China is a lose-lose situation.

 

[Tech_Esq]

As for taxes, CBO calculates that the top 1 percent paid 27.6 percent of all federal taxes

And they own 38% of the wealth.

Which means they pay less as a percentage of their income.

Don't be so dishonest. This is the quote:

The top 1 percent in 2005 were those households with income of at least $307,500, and they got 18.1 percent of all "comprehensive" income, which includes all cash income plus the cash value of such benefits as Medicare and food stamps.

As for taxes, CBO calculates that the top 1 percent paid 27.6 percent of all federal taxes, including:

* 38.8 percent of federal individual income taxes

* 4.0 percent of federal social insurance taxes (Social Security and Medicare)

* 58.6 percent of corporate income taxes (indirectly, through stock ownership)

* 5.5 percent of federal excise taxes (on such things as gasoline, tobacco, alcoholic beverages and telephones.)

So the top 1% got 18.1 percent of all comprehensive income and paid 27.6 percent of all federal taxes. A lower not a higher amount, as a proportion.

When we're talking about income taxes, you can't start talking about "wealth" because those are apples and oranges. Wealth include non-income (owned property, stocks, bonds, art and anything else that can be accumulated over time).

Also, your number for wealth did not include a link. If you want to shop that around, provide some support for it.

The share now borne by the top 1 percent is the highest it has been since 1979, the earliest year for which CBO has figures.

And their share of the wealth has risen in equal proportions.[/QUOTE]

Unsupported contention. Link?

 

[Contumacious]

You're holding up Capitalism as some sort of magic cure all totem. Free Markets work for a lot of things, but Health Care is not one of them.

And you came to this conclusion how?

Healthcare has been regulated since 1840. So unless the powers-that- be allow the free market to work you do not know what it can do,


.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

YouTube - Socialism is Good (社会主义好) - English subtitles


YouTube - OBAMA SONG OFFICIAL VIDEO - Michael Franti and Spearhead


Ah, those were the days...and how things have changed.

BRAVO!
BRAVO!
BRAVO!
BRAVO!
BRAVO! ​

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

explain where obama is being socialist again? non partisan sources please, not just claims and conspiracy theories

ROFLMNAO... Well now that is sad.

Yet another victim of the Leftist Indoctrination system...

so·cial·ism [sṓshə lìzəm]
or So·cial·ism [sṓshə lìzəm]
n
1. political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles

So... we can take this context and look to the take over of GM, Chrysler, Freddy and Fannie.. dozens of Banks; and the entire National Healthcare Scheme...

2. movement based on socialism: a political movement based on principles of socialism, typically advocating an end to private property and to the exploitation of workers

HOPE! ... CHANGE! ... YES WE CAN! Hussein's usurpation of THOUSANDS of franchise CONTRACTS; not to mention the attack upon Insurance and Banking industries... with each of them revolving around these industries exploitating the 'workers'...

3. stage between capitalism and communism: in Marxist theory, the stage after the proletarian revolution when a society is changing from capitalism to communism, marked by pay distributed according to work done rather than need

The resume of the Hussein Regime and the Pelosi - Reid Legislature.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

well, socialism is bad for the top ten percent, who own 90 percent of the stock. And by the way, this is not a made-up statistic.

Who owns the media? The rich. Who speaks on the media? Even proported liberal katie couric gets paid 15 million plus, each year. The rich own the media, the people on the media are rich, the talking heads who convince you how bad socialism is, are well, rich.

The brainwashing against socialism is perhaps the biggest bit of brainwashing that comes over the savagely capitalistic media. The lack of any talking about our out-sized defense budget, and constant hitlerian interference in the world, our need for constant wars, is not allowed. Our media spans the right-center, to the insanely right-wing these days.

Brainwashing, teaching, a fine line exists between them. Only those able to step back, look at themselves and others in this world, will ever be able to break the bonds. Certain types in society, authoritarian types, will never break from their brainwashing dogma. These were the supporters of hitler, and mussolini, and tojo of japan during ww 2. They thought they were right, and supporters and enemies were tortured into compliance.

Capitalism--socialism--communism is more of a scale, a number line, than are they any specific place. Like one tunes in a station on an old transistor radio, to try to find the perfect place, we have to tune in our economic situation. At times, a slightly different setting works better than at other times. Dogmatically staying with a certain position results in 20 percent unemployment rates that we've got now.

We could stand to move a bit left, to bring some jobs home, and to shift some of the maldistributed income we've dumped on the rich, into creating jobs for the poor. Certainly one can't claim capitalism is a great system, with our current employment situation, with our massive crime statistics, with 45,000 dying each year for lack of affordable health care, or insurance companies' bad behavior.

You have to look at everything you've ever learned, and decide whether it is brainwashing or not, but with our society failing as badly as it is, you've got to think we're really screwed up somehow, and we've been moving clearly to the right for decades now, shoveling heaping piles of money on the rich, and what have we ended up with? Of course, we've ended up with some oversized cash-stuffed rich folks, and about a sixth of the population without jobs, or a pot to piss in. But the real mistake those who still hang tenatiously to a job make is in thinking that at some point it won't hit them, hit their families, or their children. Don't make that mistake. Let's tune this thing in a little better, for coverage for all of us, and stop burying the rich, with money, by digging our own graves.

^^^^ imbecile ^^^^​

 

[Maple]

Well, Socialism is bad for the top ten percent, who own 90 percent of the stock. And by the way, this is not a made-up statistic.

Who owns the media? The rich. Who speaks on the media? Even proported liberal Katie Couric gets paid 15 million plus, each year. The rich own the media, the people on the media are rich, the talking heads who convince you how bad socialism is, are well, rich.

The brainwashing against Socialism is perhaps the biggest bit of brainwashing that comes over the savagely capitalistic media. The lack of any talking about our out-sized defense budget, and constant Hitlerian interference in the world, our need for constant wars, is not allowed. Our media spans the right-center, to the insanely right-wing these days.

Brainwashing, teaching, a fine line exists between them. Only those able to step back, look at themselves and others in this world, will ever be able to break the bonds. Certain types in society, authoritarian types, will never break from their brainwashing dogma. These were the supporters of Hitler, and Mussolini, and Tojo of Japan during WW 2. They thought they were right, and supporters and enemies were tortured into compliance.

Capitalism--Socialism--Communism is more of a scale, a number line, than are they any specific place. Like one tunes in a station on an old transistor radio, to try to find the perfect place, we have to tune in our economic situation. At times, a slightly different setting works better than at other times. Dogmatically staying with a certain position results in 20 percent unemployment rates that we've got now.

We could stand to move a bit left, to bring some jobs home, and to shift some of the maldistributed income we've dumped on the rich, into creating jobs for the poor. Certainly one can't claim capitalism is a great system, with our current employment situation, with our massive crime statistics, with 45,000 dying each year for lack of affordable health care, or insurance companies' bad behavior.

You have to look at everything you've ever learned, and decide whether it is brainwashing or not, but with our society failing as badly as it is, you've got to think we're really screwed up somehow, and we've been moving clearly to the right for decades now, shoveling heaping piles of money on the rich, and what have we ended up with? Of course, we've ended up with some oversized cash-stuffed rich folks, and about a sixth of the population without jobs, or a pot to piss in. But the real mistake those who still hang tenatiously to a job make is in thinking that at some point it won't hit them, hit their families, or their children. Don't make that mistake. Let's tune this thing in a little better, for coverage for all of us, and stop burying the rich, with money, by digging our own graves.

margaret thatcher- " socialism works fine until you run out of other people's money."

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It makes no difference whether Obama is a socialist or a fascist. His policies are statist. You are no more free, ultimately, under either economic system. The question is only what type of bonds have you been constrained by? Does it really matter if your bonds are made of nylon or dacron?

The point is, you've lost your freedom.

i've lost no freedoms...

No?

Well you apparently didn't own one of the thousands of Franchises that Hussein just wiped out by fiat...

You must not be one of the people who make their living in the financial business; who work for a ridiculous base salary and who signed contracts tying them to specific performance criteria, who after they met that criteria, their company was prevented from performing opon those contracts...

You must not be one of those who has been waiting on GM to release the new Z28... and can't buy one because GM's largest stockholder, the BOY King... doesn't 'feel' that a Muscle car is the way to go...

You're clearly not a Farmer in central California which King Hussein and the Socialist Left are bankrupting to prevent a 2" fish from going extinct... so you're not watching your property dry up and borrowing against all hope and everything that GENERATIONS of your family have worked for over a century... nor are you one of the tens of thousands of individuals who depended upon those farms for their livelihood...

What you ARE, is an ignorant child... who doesn't even know what freedom is and thus has no idea what she may or may not have lost with regard to it.