Socialism is Good

[Dr.Traveler]

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,

Care to explain to me again how a system that is required by law and by oath to provide goods and services first, and inquire about payment second, is going to succeed as a free market economy?

Care to explain to me how the free market will build rural hospitals, or even work in the first place in communities with a single hospital and/or doctor?

Again, holding up Capitalism as a cure all is a pleasant game, but it isn't a practical one. There are some things for which Capitalism doesn't work, just as there are things for which Socialism doesn't work either. Its the reason neither one has ever existed in a "pure" form in the world to date. Both have issues.

 

[REVxERIK]

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.

what you are is a heartless asshole who apparemtly gets hard from trying to make others feel bad about themselves, which is a pretty toxic personality. i may be a kid, and i don't know everything, but at least i have the decency to not try and crush someone just to try and get an overinflated unfounded sense of superiority. Bravo, if you're a christian then you're really slapping god and christ across the face.

 

[AllieBaba]

Tissue?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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,

Care to explain to me again how a system that is required by law and by oath to provide goods and services first, and inquire about payment second, is going to succeed as a free market economy?

Care to explain to me how the free market will build rural hospitals, or even work in the first place in communities with a single hospital and/or doctor?

Again, holding up Capitalism as a cure all is a pleasant game, but it isn't a practical one. There are some things for which Capitalism doesn't work, just as there are things for which Socialism doesn't work either. Its the reason neither one has ever existed in a "pure" form in the world to date. Both have issues.

ROFL... yeah... Socialism has a LONG and distinguished record of success...

Sadly it is a tightly kept secret... but SOMEWHERE IT WORKED GREAT... and just because no one can say where that place is... doesn't mean it didn't happen. But it is simply not true that pure Capitalism has never existed... Everytime you exchange currency for a good ro service... you engage in pure capitalism. Anytime you provide a service in exchange for goods; or goods in exchange for a service, you are engaging in pure capitalism...

Just as anytime that you shove a gun in the ribs of some passer-by and demand that they hand over their money... you are engaging in pure socialism. Anytime that you are bashing in the window of someone's car and stealing the stereo, the CDs and the guys wallet or the gals purse... you're engaging in pure socialism.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.

what you are is a heartless asshole who apparemtly gets hard from trying to make others feel bad about themselves, which is a pretty toxic personality. i may be a kid, and i don't know everything, but at least i have the decency to not try and crush someone just to try and get an overinflated unfounded sense of superiority. Bravo, if you're a christian then you're really slapping god and christ across the face.

Sis... you being a child is understandable... you being a fool is lamentable. But you trying to assuage criticism through an appeal to pity is just plain pathetic.

And FTR: I am not crushing you, I am refuting you through sound, well reasoned, logically valid argument. And as a Christian I suggest you re-examine the Church... if you've been lead to believe that we're here to kiss your ass, to provide a doormat to idiots... you've been mislead; what's more, we're not subject to the 'po-me' pleas of the addled-minded youth... we tend to hold such accountable and require them to wise up or bear the responsibility for their foolishness.

 

[DiamondDave]

I've had insurance company bureaucrats making health decisions for me! What recourse do I have?

Pay out of pocket for services and drugs the Insurer will not provide. You always have a choice. The real problem is that the Insurance policies, despite heavy regulation, are written so that a health insurer can weasel out of paying relatively easy. Even with legal council and the law on your side, the insurer can absolutely bury a lawsuit under enough legalese to tie things up until the party in question is dead, killed by the medical condition they bought insurance to help them with in the first place.

I've been fairly lucky in my dealings with insurance, but I've had family members that have had it so much worse. As soon as you introduce a pre-existing or long term condition, your relationship with your insurance provider changes dramatically.

Sounds reasonable until you figure the monthly cost at better than $500! I don't know where you live, but $500 a month is a healthy rent around here. Add the ancillary costs of living and any savings is long gone! thanks insurance companies! As long as I make you richer, I can go about in sackcloth!

Because working that second or third job to get what you need or want is so hard.... it's so much easier to insit it be given to you at the expense of someone else and mandated by a government... much the same reason a baby whines before trying something new or difficult for them

 

[mdn2000]

?

The point is, you've lost your freedom.

i've lost no freedoms...

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.

The Smelt you are refering to is not even close to being extinct, the lefty environuts did the "scientific study" by sampling the amount being sucked into the pumps, they sampled at the pumps, no samples taken in other parts of the river, so the study is skewed, you see, billions of the smelt fingerlings float right on by the pumps, the pumps do not drain the river and leave a dry riverbed on the other side of the pumps, billions of gallons of water still makes it to the Ocean, carrying billions of smelt, how do these idiots think after thirty years the smelt has survived with those massive pumps operating, if they were in danger they would be no smelt today. Thats the problem with FOX news, they report the story but did only a tiny bit of research if any, they leave the skewed data sample part out or they dont know about it.

They did the same thing when they built the bridge on the delta that connects Benica to Martinez, to show how the hammering on the bed of the river would destroy fish they put fish in a cage and jack hammered next to the cage, ignoring the fact that the fish instinctively will avoid such and awful racket.

 

[Nosmo King]

The economy wouldn't have melted down. It would have been bad for a year, maybe two. But we would have gotten through it much quicker than we're doing now.

But I find it strange that you asked why somebody else was rewarding failure, but yet that's exactly what the bailout, stimulus package, cash for clunkers, etc... are. And you obviously support bailing out failed businesses, so I ask why are you for encouraging failure by rewarding it and prolonging our downturn with bailouts and all the other nonsense?

The workers, those depending on a paycheck were not responsible for the companies failing. Those in the executive suite who made the disastrous decisions are the ones responsible.

Why should I be quick to shutter the shops and factories where the great American middle class earns a living when all it really takes is tossing some incompetent CEO earning 400x what the workers earn out on his well fed ear!

It wasn't the fault of the people who made horse carriages that automobiles came along, but should they have been given a bailout since that was how they made their living? No. They simply moved into different fields which were viable. Companies that rely on the government to subsidize them are not beneficial to the economy, they're drags on the economy. Those companies needed to fail so that the people working there and the other resources could be moved into more viable lines of work that can stand on their own in the market.

The reason carriage makers went out of business is because their product became obsolete. Have automobiles become obsolete all of a sudden?

The reason the car companies got a bailout was due to the number of people involved in this vital industry. From the tool and die makers creating the parts all the way down to the lot boys washing and prepping the new cars for sale on a dealer's lot.

Carriage makers. Please.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The workers, those depending on a paycheck were not responsible for the companies failing. Those in the executive suite who made the disastrous decisions are the ones responsible.

Why should I be quick to shutter the shops and factories where the great American middle class earns a living when all it really takes is tossing some incompetent CEO earning 400x what the workers earn out on his well fed ear!

It wasn't the fault of the people who made horse carriages that automobiles came along, but should they have been given a bailout since that was how they made their living? No. They simply moved into different fields which were viable. Companies that rely on the government to subsidize them are not beneficial to the economy, they're drags on the economy. Those companies needed to fail so that the people working there and the other resources could be moved into more viable lines of work that can stand on their own in the market.

The reason carriage makers went out of business is because their product became obsolete. Have automobiles become obsolete all of a sudden?

The reason the car companies got a bailout was due to the number of people involved in this vital industry. From the tool and die makers creating the parts all the way down to the lot boys washing and prepping the new cars for sale on a dealer's lot.

Carriage makers. Please.

The market decided those businesses weren't vital just as it decided that carriage industry was no longer vital, otherwise they wouldn't have needed a bailout. The entire industry wouldn't have disappeared, however. Ford didn't get a bailout, and neither did Toyota, Nissan, or Honda just to name a few.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

i've lost no freedoms...

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.

The Smelt you are refering to is not even close to being extinct, the lefty environuts did the "scientific study" by sampling the amount being sucked into the pumps, they sampled at the pumps, no samples taken in other parts of the river, so the study is skewed, you see, billions of the smelt fingerlings float right on by the pumps, the pumps do not drain the river and leave a dry riverbed on the other side of the pumps, billions of gallons of water still makes it to the Ocean, carrying billions of smelt, how do these idiots think after thirty years the smelt has survived with those massive pumps operating, if they were in danger they would be no smelt today. Thats the problem with FOX news, they report the story but did only a tiny bit of research if any, they leave the skewed data sample part out or they dont know about it.

They did the same thing when they built the bridge on the delta that connects Benica to Martinez, to show how the hammering on the bed of the river would destroy fish they put fish in a cage and jack hammered next to the cage, ignoring the fact that the fish instinctively will avoid such and awful racket.

Huh... I don't think Fox stood on the proposition that the Smelt is going extinct... why would they? They're merely reporting what the Envir-cranks are using as their reational for destroying one of the largest sources of food production in the US.

I for one do not give a red rats ass about the smelt... if it goes extinct... that's perfectly fine with me. But, as you've said, even a smelt possesses the instinct to survive sufficient to avoid running healdlong into big, dark, clanging mechanisms...

I recall a couple of decade ago when the same Enviro-cranks were clambering on about the destruction of sea-life due to the building of oil rigs in the Gulf. They claimed that the rigs would force sea-life away from the drilling area and cripple the ecology... blah blah blah...

Turns out that the sea-life doens't really give a damn what gets set on the floor of the gulf... and that given the Gulf O'Mexico is pretty much a huge underwater desert, bottom wise; that where ever or whatever you set on the bottom; sea-life will cling to and around it; which it further turns out developes an entirely NEW ecology which actually fosters an increase in that sea-life.

Let's be honest here... it is impossible to underestimate these Eco-diots...

 

[Nosmo King]

It wasn't the fault of the people who made horse carriages that automobiles came along, but should they have been given a bailout since that was how they made their living? No. They simply moved into different fields which were viable. Companies that rely on the government to subsidize them are not beneficial to the economy, they're drags on the economy. Those companies needed to fail so that the people working there and the other resources could be moved into more viable lines of work that can stand on their own in the market.

The reason carriage makers went out of business is because their product became obsolete. Have automobiles become obsolete all of a sudden?

The reason the car companies got a bailout was due to the number of people involved in this vital industry. From the tool and die makers creating the parts all the way down to the lot boys washing and prepping the new cars for sale on a dealer's lot.

Carriage makers. Please.

The market decided those businesses weren't vital just as it decided that carriage industry was no longer vital, otherwise they wouldn't have needed a bailout. The entire industry wouldn't have disappeared, however. Ford didn't get a bailout, and neither did Toyota, Nissan, or Honda just to name a few.

GM still maintains a 20% market share of vehicles sold. Not vital? Ask Studebaker what's 'vital'. The executives in the corporate suite at GM headquarters "made the decision", not the vaunted 'market'.

And you would punish all the GM employees for the incompetence of the management of GM. Is it any wonder why Conservatives are viewed as hating working people?

 

[Nosmo King]

Pay out of pocket for services and drugs the Insurer will not provide. You always have a choice. The real problem is that the Insurance policies, despite heavy regulation, are written so that a health insurer can weasel out of paying relatively easy. Even with legal council and the law on your side, the insurer can absolutely bury a lawsuit under enough legalese to tie things up until the party in question is dead, killed by the medical condition they bought insurance to help them with in the first place.

I've been fairly lucky in my dealings with insurance, but I've had family members that have had it so much worse. As soon as you introduce a pre-existing or long term condition, your relationship with your insurance provider changes dramatically.

Sounds reasonable until you figure the monthly cost at better than $500! I don't know where you live, but $500 a month is a healthy rent around here. Add the ancillary costs of living and any savings is long gone! thanks insurance companies! As long as I make you richer, I can go about in sackcloth!

Because working that second or third job to get what you need or want is so hard.... it's so much easier to insit it be given to you at the expense of someone else and mandated by a government... much the same reason a baby whines before trying something new or difficult for them

Up until a few years ago, I had no opportunity to work a second job. Ever consider that? Of course not! When things don't fit into the narrow template Conservatives place over e very aspect of modern life, an excuse appears and that excuse is designed solely to belittle or mock those whose lives don't fit that narrow template.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The reason carriage makers went out of business is because their product became obsolete. Have automobiles become obsolete all of a sudden?

The reason the car companies got a bailout was due to the number of people involved in this vital industry. From the tool and die makers creating the parts all the way down to the lot boys washing and prepping the new cars for sale on a dealer's lot.

Carriage makers. Please.

The market decided those businesses weren't vital just as it decided that carriage industry was no longer vital, otherwise they wouldn't have needed a bailout. The entire industry wouldn't have disappeared, however. Ford didn't get a bailout, and neither did Toyota, Nissan, or Honda just to name a few.

GM still maintains a 20% market share of vehicles sold. Not vital? Ask Studebaker what's 'vital'. The executives in the corporate suite at GM headquarters "made the decision", not the vaunted 'market'.

And you would punish all the GM employees for the incompetence of the management of GM. Is it any wonder why Conservatives are viewed as hating working people?

Well I'm not a conservative so I must not hate working people. At any rate, you can try to discredit the issues I raised as hating the working class but you can't ignore the fact that the market decided that GM was supposed to go out of business. People didn't want what they were supplying, therefore they needed to go out of business so those resources could be utilized productively in the economy. Now they're simply wasting resources and are a drain on the economy.

 

[eagleseven]

GM still maintains a 20% market share of vehicles sold. Not vital? Ask Studebaker what's 'vital'. The executives in the corporate suite at GM headquarters "made the decision", not the vaunted 'market'.

And you would punish all the GM employees for the incompetence of the management of GM. Is it any wonder why Conservatives are viewed as hating working people?

The rule of morons who don't understand that management and labor share the same fate are why American businesses, like GM, are being raped by foreign competition.

 

[Nosmo King]

The market decided those businesses weren't vital just as it decided that carriage industry was no longer vital, otherwise they wouldn't have needed a bailout. The entire industry wouldn't have disappeared, however. Ford didn't get a bailout, and neither did Toyota, Nissan, or Honda just to name a few.

GM still maintains a 20% market share of vehicles sold. Not vital? Ask Studebaker what's 'vital'. The executives in the corporate suite at GM headquarters "made the decision", not the vaunted 'market'.

And you would punish all the GM employees for the incompetence of the management of GM. Is it any wonder why Conservatives are viewed as hating working people?

Well I'm not a conservative so I must not hate working people. At any rate, you can try to discredit the issues I raised as hating the working class but you can't ignore the fact that the market decided that GM was supposed to go out of business. People didn't want what they were supplying, therefore they needed to go out of business so those resources could be utilized productively in the economy. Now they're simply wasting resources and are a drain on the economy.

If GM deserved to die, why all the fuss and feathers over the president firing the CEO? If GM deserved to die, what fate should befall the workers who have given GM years of service? The communities in which these workers live and shop? The retirees who had "guaranteed" benefits? Just more carnage after Capitalism gets its own first?

 

[eagleseven]

If GM deserved to die, why all the fuss and feathers over the president firing the CEO? If GM deserved to die, what fate should befall the workers who have given GM years of service? The communities in which these workers live and shop? The retirees who had "guaranteed" benefits? Just more carnage after Capitalism gets its own first?

You really do live in a fantasy world where bad things don't happen to good people...

...I am unsurprised you support Obama.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

GM still maintains a 20% market share of vehicles sold. Not vital? Ask Studebaker what's 'vital'. The executives in the corporate suite at GM headquarters "made the decision", not the vaunted 'market'.

And you would punish all the GM employees for the incompetence of the management of GM. Is it any wonder why Conservatives are viewed as hating working people?

Well I'm not a conservative so I must not hate working people. At any rate, you can try to discredit the issues I raised as hating the working class but you can't ignore the fact that the market decided that GM was supposed to go out of business. People didn't want what they were supplying, therefore they needed to go out of business so those resources could be utilized productively in the economy. Now they're simply wasting resources and are a drain on the economy.

If GM deserved to die, why all the fuss and feathers over the president firing the CEO? If GM deserved to die, what fate should befall the workers who have given GM years of service? The communities in which these workers live and shop? The retirees who had "guaranteed" benefits? Just more carnage after Capitalism gets its own first?

The President has no authority to fire CEOs, and doing so sets a bad precedent. The workers need to find viable occupations that add to the economy rather than detract from it as GM does. I once again point to the example of the carriage makers, they lost their jobs when the automobile became popular so should they have been propped up by the government despite not producing a product that the public wanted?

 

[Nosmo King]

Well I'm not a conservative so I must not hate working people. At any rate, you can try to discredit the issues I raised as hating the working class but you can't ignore the fact that the market decided that GM was supposed to go out of business. People didn't want what they were supplying, therefore they needed to go out of business so those resources could be utilized productively in the economy. Now they're simply wasting resources and are a drain on the economy.

If GM deserved to die, why all the fuss and feathers over the president firing the CEO? If GM deserved to die, what fate should befall the workers who have given GM years of service? The communities in which these workers live and shop? The retirees who had "guaranteed" benefits? Just more carnage after Capitalism gets its own first?

The President has no authority to fire CEOs, and doing so sets a bad precedent. The workers need to find viable occupations that add to the economy rather than detract from it as GM does. I once again point to the example of the carriage makers, they lost their jobs when the automobile became popular so should they have been propped up by the government despite not producing a product that the public wanted?

If there was one carriage shop employing 8,000 workers then maybe, yes they should have been propped up. If those carriage makers could not go directly to work for one of the automobile manufacturers then they should have received some unemployment insurance benefits. If the owner of the carriage shop could not see that perhaps he should start making automobile bodies, then maybe he should have been fired. But the workers deserved better.

The communities affected by a massive GM shut down deserve better too. Ever been to Lordstown, Ohio? There, Reagan's tax cuts to big industry convinced steel manufacturers to pack up the mill and ship it to Singapore, or Korea or Guatemala. That threw thousands out of work. then NAFTA convinced other manufacturers to do the same, only this time the means of production were shipped to Mexico.

Now, you want the Capitalist juggernaut to finish the job and eliminate GM. What is to become of the American middle class? Policies like these are why it's a simple leap to believe Conservatives hate working people.

 

[Nosmo King]

Pay out of pocket for services and drugs the Insurer will not provide. You always have a choice. The real problem is that the Insurance policies, despite heavy regulation, are written so that a health insurer can weasel out of paying relatively easy. Even with legal council and the law on your side, the insurer can absolutely bury a lawsuit under enough legalese to tie things up until the party in question is dead, killed by the medical condition they bought insurance to help them with in the first place.

I've been fairly lucky in my dealings with insurance, but I've had family members that have had it so much worse. As soon as you introduce a pre-existing or long term condition, your relationship with your insurance provider changes dramatically.

Sounds reasonable until you figure the monthly cost at better than $500! I don't know where you live, but $500 a month is a healthy rent around here. Add the ancillary costs of living and any savings is long gone! thanks insurance companies! As long as I make you richer, I can go about in sackcloth!

Because working that second or third job to get what you need or want is so hard.... it's so much easier to insit it be given to you at the expense of someone else and mandated by a government... much the same reason a baby whines before trying something new or difficult for them

My business travels preclude the shot at working a second job. I'm 52 years old and a college graduate. This Capitalist system is eating me alive. Why should I devote all my spare time to work for the benefit of a drug company or insurance company? Should health care cost so much? Should it eat up so much of my income? Nothing else does. Not my mortgage (which was paid off five years early). Not my tax bill (which Conservatives claim I don't have since I'm not on the top rung of wage earners).

work a second job! Find me one!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If GM deserved to die, why all the fuss and feathers over the president firing the CEO? If GM deserved to die, what fate should befall the workers who have given GM years of service? The communities in which these workers live and shop? The retirees who had "guaranteed" benefits? Just more carnage after Capitalism gets its own first?

The President has no authority to fire CEOs, and doing so sets a bad precedent. The workers need to find viable occupations that add to the economy rather than detract from it as GM does. I once again point to the example of the carriage makers, they lost their jobs when the automobile became popular so should they have been propped up by the government despite not producing a product that the public wanted?

If there was one carriage shop employing 8,000 workers then maybe, yes they should have been propped up. If those carriage makers could not go directly to work for one of the automobile manufacturers then they should have received some unemployment insurance benefits. If the owner of the carriage shop could not see that perhaps he should start making automobile bodies, then maybe he should have been fired. But the workers deserved better.

The communities affected by a massive GM shut down deserve better too. Ever been to Lordstown, Ohio? There, Reagan's tax cuts to big industry convinced steel manufacturers to pack up the mill and ship it to Singapore, or Korea or Guatemala. That threw thousands out of work. then NAFTA convinced other manufacturers to do the same, only this time the means of production were shipped to Mexico.

Now, you want the Capitalist juggernaut to finish the job and eliminate GM. What is to become of the American middle class? Policies like these are why it's a simple leap to believe Conservatives hate working people.

So despite the fact that they weren't producing something anybody wanted you think they should have been propped up. That doesn't help the economy whatsoever. It retards growth and leads to economic stagnation.