The Obama File: Democratic Socialists Of America

[Coyote]

"Efficiency" based on market principles isn't always the best thing - human beings aren't products, services or numbers.

"Efficiency" often means in a choice between corporate profit and environmental degradation, community health, or occupational health and safety - profit wins out unless there is some sort of enforced rule and penalty system and the only entity that can adequately do that is the government.

Or, "gubmint" as you seem to want to call it, though it sounds more like a flavor of chewing gum.

 

[Oddball]

"Efficiency" based on market principles isn't always the best thing - human beings aren't products, services or numbers.

"Efficiency" often means in a choice between corporate profit and environmental degradation, community health, or occupational health and safety - profit wins out unless there is some sort of enforced rule and penalty system and the only entity that can adequately do that is the government.

Right..."Efficiency" almost always means that the whole world goes to hell in a bucket, unless there's a nice little gubmint bureaucrat -to whom the failings and foibles of humankind never ever apply- there to make everything all fair-n-square.

Spare me.

 

[Coyote]

"Efficiency" based on market principles isn't always the best thing - human beings aren't products, services or numbers.

"Efficiency" often means in a choice between corporate profit and environmental degradation, community health, or occupational health and safety - profit wins out unless there is some sort of enforced rule and penalty system and the only entity that can adequately do that is the government.

Right..."Efficiency" almost always means that the whole world goes to hell in a bucket, unless there's a nice little gubmint bureaucrat -to whom the failings and foibles of humankind never ever apply- there to make everything all fair-n-square.

Spare me.

I didn't say that. Now, can you offer up any actual points or are we just going to get stuck on this silly emotional tangent reminiscent of fruit-flavored chewing gum?

 

[Oddball]

No, you implied it by only making a list of the possible negative externalities...Which, BTW, would constitute torts that could be handled via the legal system, without creating massive and wasteful bureaucracies instead.

That's how statist apologist boilerplate works, speaking of fruity chewing gum.

 

[Coyote]

No, you implied it by only making a list of the possible negative externalities...Which, BTW, would constitute torts that could be handled via the legal system, without creating massive and wasteful bureaucracies instead.

That's how statist apologist boilerplate works, speaking of fruity chewing gum.

No. I made a statement - I implied nothing.

Again - are you going just going to sit on your twat and mouth a bunch of statist-apologist-gubmint garble or actually address the points?

It has the potential to be an interesting dialogue, if it can overcome ideological rhetoric.

 

[Oddball]

You made a prejudicial statement, which only considered negative externalities of privately run institutions like roads, schools, fire and police services as valid...That was no accident.

This ain't my first rodeo.

 

[Coyote]

You made a prejudicial statement, which only considered negative externalities of privately run institutions like roads, schools, fire and police services as valid...That was no accident.

This ain't my first rodeo.

Almost any statement of opinion is going to be "prejudicial". I made a statement of MY opinion.

You made a statement of YOUR opinion:

Ahhh...The old red herring boat nets yet another bounty.

Just because those things are done by collectivist structures doesn't mean that's the only or most efficient way that they can be done. In fact, the late great Robert Nozick came up with workable ways each and every one of those things could be done by free enterprise and voluntary exchange. Moreover, only one item there -the armed forces- is provided for in the federal charter.

In any case, if that's the best list you can come up with of the "great successes" of socialism in America, I wouldn't be too eager to bring up the matter to begin with.

....which, by the way sounds pretty "prejudicial" too.

If it ain't your first rodeo, quit acting like it is by assuming implications that aren't being made.

 

[Coyote]

Well...crap. It's YOU isn't it Dude?


Pesky name changes.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Oh, geez! get off it already!

I'm a socialist and I'm severely disappointed with Obama. Shit! He had the perfect opportunity to socialize the entire banking industry and he didn't do it. Damn!

Get a clue. Obama is not a socialist. Bummer.

It's nothing to be proud of being a socialist. that is unless you hate the freedoms that you have as an American.

It's not so much that socialists hate their own freedoms; it's that they hate everyone else's.

All animals are equal -- but some are more equal than others.

Samuel Colt made everybody equal

 

[Oddball]

You made a prejudicial statement, which only considered negative externalities of privately run institutions like roads, schools, fire and police services as valid...That was no accident.

This ain't my first rodeo.

Almost any statement of opinion is going to be "prejudicial". I made a statement of MY opinion.

You made a statement of YOUR opinion:

Ahhh...The old red herring boat nets yet another bounty.

Just because those things are done by collectivist structures doesn't mean that's the only or most efficient way that they can be done. In fact, the late great Robert Nozick came up with workable ways each and every one of those things could be done by free enterprise and voluntary exchange. Moreover, only one item there -the armed forces- is provided for in the federal charter.

In any case, if that's the best list you can come up with of the "great successes" of socialism in America, I wouldn't be too eager to bring up the matter to begin with.

....which, by the way sounds pretty "prejudicial" too.

If it ain't your first rodeo, quit acting like it is by assuming implications that aren't being made.

OK...How 'bout you come up with a less arguable list of "successes" of the federal socialistic welfare state?...No punting to local matters like fire & police departments, sewer and water, etcetera.

 

[AquaAthena]

Well...crap. It's YOU isn't it Dude?


Pesky name changes.

Yes, our *Dude* is no longer. *cry* I think he should have changed his user to Ram! That is how I see him and his infinite wisdom, intelligence and common sense. Plus he's so kewl. He is STILL the man!

 

[Coyote]

You made a prejudicial statement, which only considered negative externalities of privately run institutions like roads, schools, fire and police services as valid...That was no accident.

This ain't my first rodeo.

Almost any statement of opinion is going to be "prejudicial". I made a statement of MY opinion.

You made a statement of YOUR opinion:

Ahhh...The old red herring boat nets yet another bounty.

Just because those things are done by collectivist structures doesn't mean that's the only or most efficient way that they can be done. In fact, the late great Robert Nozick came up with workable ways each and every one of those things could be done by free enterprise and voluntary exchange. Moreover, only one item there -the armed forces- is provided for in the federal charter.

In any case, if that's the best list you can come up with of the "great successes" of socialism in America, I wouldn't be too eager to bring up the matter to begin with.

....which, by the way sounds pretty "prejudicial" too.

If it ain't your first rodeo, quit acting like it is by assuming implications that aren't being made.

OK...How 'bout you come up with a less arguable list of "successes" of the federal socialistic welfare state?...No punting to local matters like fire & police departments, sewer and water, etcetera.

I'm not talking about the "federal socialistic welfare state". Now who's making prejudicial statements?

Here is my list. Whether or not they are "success'" depends on how you term it - I regard success as better than what I've seen done privately on a large scale. I also happen to personally believe that the best results are through a combination of private and public.

Welfare. Welfare is a comprehensive term - it's not one program. It includes disability payments and services, housing, aid to children through schools, medical etc. Yes - the current welfare system SUCKS. It sucks because it is big, centralized, one-size-fits all. It sucks because one of the unintended consequences is dependency/entitlement mentality. I believe it needs considerable overall. But I still believe it's better than a solely private system. I do not support a system as comprehensive as those found in some European countries - but that is not what we have.

The reason is that when we depended on private charities alone there was considerably more REAL poverty in the United States. By that I mean real hunger, children living on the streets, inability to afford even the most basic medical care. Disabled people who couldn't work with help had no choice but to be dependent on others. Private charities do a lot of good but they did not and can not and will not provide a complete enough safety net on a large scale. Charities will often have strings attached - that is not necessarily a bad thing and it's their right but it restricts the pool - they do not have to help anyone or everyone in need. They can pick and choose according to their criteria.

For all it's problems - I define it as "successful" because it's safety net is more comprehensive than what was available before.

Consumer protection/Food safety/Workplace safety - I'm lumping these together for convenience and again, look at history as an example of what it was like before we had any sort of federal oversite or rules. Look at what happens when those rules are relaxed (BP oil spill, Massey mine disaster) and compliance is optional. Sure we still have outbreaks of E. Coli in food supplies - but far less frequently then before and we have mechanisms in place to track it down, enforce recalls, remedy it and not hide it. We have one of the safest food supplies in the world no matter where you are in this country.

Public Education. Sure, we here a lot of hype on how "bad" it is and how "good" private is.

But what are the facts?

Public schools must take EVERYONE. Private schools can pick and choose and no government has the right to force them to take everyone. That can certainly skew statistics when you're looking at "success".

Both gun the gamut from excellent to poor but when it comes to public schools all the hype is on how "poor they are".

How "poor" are they really?

According to a 2006 report referenced in this article

:
...The Department of Education has released a new report on the quality of education offered by public schools vs. private schools. The release was timed for Friday and, according to the New York Times, "was made with without a news conference or comment from Education Secretary Margaret Spellings."

If this suggests to you that public schools came out OK in this new study, you'd be right. Basically, it was a review of NAEP scores in math and reading that was controlled for things like gender, race, English proficiency, poverty level, etc. Here are the average scores for public schools compared to private schools:

* 4th grade reading: +1.1 points.
* 4th grade math: +4.1 points.
* 8th grade reading: -5.7 points.
* 8th grade math: +0.6 points.

Not great when it comes 8th grade reading, but better in the lower grades then private and better in math.

The author also concludes: But what does seem to show up over and over again is the effect of concentrated poverty. Nearly everything I've read suggests that when the number of kids in poverty reaches about 50% in a school, teaching becomes nearly impossible — and that this matters much more in secondary school than in elementary school.

And public schools must take everyone.


Another example I would give is environmental protection - despite the cumbersomness of the system, it is better than most private attempts.

 

[Coyote]

Well...crap. It's YOU isn't it Dude?


Pesky name changes.

Yes, our *Dude* is no longer. *cry* I think he should have changed his user to Ram! That is how I see him and his infinite wisdom, intelligence and common sense. Plus he's so kewl. He is STILL the man!

Ah...I liked The Dude

 

[rightwinger]

It's nothing to be proud of being a socialist. that is unless you hate the freedoms that you have as an American.

It's not so much that socialists hate their own freedoms; it's that they hate everyone else's.

All animals are equal -- but some are more equal than others.

Samuel Colt made everybody equal

For the most part...he just made them equally dead

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is news?

All Democrats are Socialists and every once in a while they admit it publicly

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrA9zj94NuU]YouTube - MAXINE WATERS OUTS THE DEMS SOCIALIST AGENDA[/ame]

 

[AquaAthena]

Well...crap. It's YOU isn't it Dude?


Pesky name changes.

Yes, our *Dude* is no longer. *cry* I think he should have changed his user to Ram! That is how I see him and his infinite wisdom, intelligence and common sense. Plus he's so kewl. He is STILL the man!

Ah...I liked The Dude

Yes, I did too. I associate my image of him with that username, as it is just the highest one can go, to my mind... I thought of Ram, after watching a commercial of the Ram truck, and thought if he HAD to change his name, that would be more in keeping with my subjective image of him. Either way, " a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet."

 

[Coyote]

Yes, our *Dude* is no longer. *cry* I think he should have changed his user to Ram! That is how I see him and his infinite wisdom, intelligence and common sense. Plus he's so kewl. He is STILL the man!

Ah...I liked The Dude

Yes, I did too. I associate my image of him with that username, as it is just the highest one can go, to my mind... I thought of Ram, after watching a commercial of the Ram truck, and thought if he HAD to change his name, that would be more in keeping with my subjective image of him. Either way, " a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet."

and be as thorny

 

[AquaAthena]

Ah...I liked The Dude

Yes, I did too. I associate my image of him with that username, as it is just the highest one can go, to my mind... I thought of Ram, after watching a commercial of the Ram truck, and thought if he HAD to change his name, that would be more in keeping with my subjective image of him. Either way, " a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet."

and be as thorny

 

[Claudette]

Oh Yes. LOL

 

[theHawk]

I don't know how any true American can support Socialism. We should each be required to take care of ourselves without the help of the evil government who wants to rule our lives and establish death panels

We don't need socialist programs like..

- Education
- Police and Fire protection
- Roads, bridges, tunnels
- Water and sewer systems
- Government funded medical research
- Armed forces

Wow you're an idiot. None of those things is "socialism".
All of those things can also be done with local governments, save the armed forces.

Oh I get it now......

It is only SOCIALISM if Obama does it

Please, if Obama's budget was to only fund all of those things I really wouldn't have a problem with it.

Which one does taking over car companies fall under? - "roads, bridges, tunnels"?
How about bank takeovers? Teamster's union bailout?

You sure like to ignore 90% of your party's agenda when it suits you.