Is Obama a socialist?

[Jon]

Because everyone saw the market failing from a mile away, right? You say you have a background in investment and finance, congrats. Not everyone does, and that they lack that background doesn't mean they are stupid or irresponsible.

Everyone saw the market declining at some point. Well, anyone with any knowledge of economic principles. Recessions aren't only inevitable, they are necessary and healthy for an economy.

Because the wealth that we have in our society means we should not be letting old people die in the street.

Darwinism. Sorry, I live by it.

Awesome idea. So the poor can opt out of it, because they need money now (which they do), and then starve to death when they hit 70.

See my statement above.

 

[del]

del, if you were to calculate the interest those retirees would have earned on what they paid into the Medicare system, they're taking out a lot less than what they could have had if they had invested that money elsewhere.

if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. she doesn't, she isn't and retirees on average take out much more than they put in, without even adjusting for inflation. sorry, them's the facts.

 

[Jon]

So you are retracting your earlier statement that Medicare isn't a Socialist program? You make a good point about SS but I think this illustrates another, more important point: Not all social programs are created equally. Anyone who has ever worked in healthcare and billed medicare will tell you that they are the easiest payor to work with. They pay quickly, electronically and without dispute. This is more than I can say for most Private payors. Social security is a wreck.

You claim to be independent but it's clear that your view of "socialism" is one that has been driven by the fact that the GOP has turned this into a dirty word.

I never said Medicare wasn't a socialist program. I said it was clearly a socialist program. What I said was when a RETIREE who paid into the system benefits from it, they are simply taking what they paid back. That's not who the program was meant to benefit. It's meant to benefit people who can't put as much in or people who didn't put anything in to be able to take out the same amount. THAT'S the ideal behind socialism.

I was against socialism long before the GOP made it a talking point in this election. I've never in my life voted Republican. This election would have been my first time voting for a Republican, before McCain supported one of the worst economic bills in history (and one of the most socialist bills in history).

 

[Larkinn]

Everyone saw the market declining at some point. Well, anyone with any knowledge of economic principles. Recessions aren't only inevitable, they are necessary and healthy for an economy.

Sorry, but not everyone has time to focus on finance their entire lives.

Darwinism. Sorry, I live by it.

Congratulations. Live by it all you want, but your in the tiny minority and we are a Democracy.

 

[Jon]

if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. she doesn't, she isn't and retirees on average take out much more than they put in, without even adjusting for inflation. sorry, them's the facts.

You're right. Dollar for dollar, they HAVE to take out more than they put in, because the value of money has increased. But if they were allowed to invest that money into an actual retirement plan that earned even 3% interest (which is an extremely low percentage average over the last 40 years) over the last 40 years, they'd be much better off.

 

[Jon]

Sorry, but not everyone has time to focus on finance their entire lives.

True, which is why those of us that do are constantly preaching its benefits to the rest of the world. The need to save for retirement is advertised EVERYWHERE. If people would listen, they would know that.

The truth is that social security is a failing system anyway. People who paid into it are NOT getting out enough to live off of in their retirement. Now people who are paying into the system also realize the need to invest MORE money into retirement. That's why the government created Keough plans and IRA's and gave people tax breaks for putting into these accounts. They know social security isn't enough, but instead of fixing it, they give people the option of saving more for retirement.

Congratulations. Live by it all you want, but your in the tiny minority and we are a Democracy.

I don't mind being in the minority, but I don't see how Darwinism and democracy are mutually exclusive.

 

[Navy1960]

Sorry, but not everyone has time to focus on finance their entire lives.



Congratulations. Live by it all you want, but your in the tiny minority and we are a Democracy.

A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch,[1][2] but in which the people (or at least a part of its people)[3] have impact on its government.[4][5] The word originates from the Latin term res publica, which literally translates as "public thing" or "public matter".

The organization of republics can vary widely. The first section of this article gives an overview of the characteristics that distinguish different types of republics. The second section of the article gives some short profiles of the most influential republics by way of illustration. A more comprehensive list of republics appears in a separate article. The third section is about how republics are approached as state organizations in political science: in political theory and people governed.

Democracy is a form of government in which the supreme power is held completely by the people under a free electoral system. It is derived from the Greek δημοκρατία ([dimokratia] (help·info)), "popular government"[1] which was coined from δήμος (dēmos), "people" and κράτος (kratos), "rule, strength" in the middle of the 5th-4th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.[2] In this form, there were no defined human rights or legal restraints upon the actions of assembly, making it the first instance of "illiberal democracy


“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
ATTRIBUTION: The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.

This country is not a pure democracy, it is a representative democratic republic. Larkin. If it were a democracy everything we do including voting for president would be done by a majority rule and that is simply not the case.

 

[Larkinn]

True, which is why those of us that do are constantly preaching its benefits to the rest of the world. The need to save for retirement is advertised EVERYWHERE. If people would listen, they would know that.

And people who don't save should die, down the line, right? By the way, its pretty hard to have a nest egg of hundreds of thousands of dollars while living in abject poverty.

The truth is that social security is a failing system anyway. People who paid into it are NOT getting out enough to live off of in their retirement.

I agree. But something is a LOT better than nothing.

Now people who are paying into the system also realize the need to invest MORE money into retirement. That's why the government created Keough plans and IRA's and gave people tax breaks for putting into these accounts. They know social security isn't enough, but instead of fixing it, they give people the option of saving more for retirement.

Sure if you are middle class. Not so much if your poor. Oh, and all those IRA accounts just sunk like a stone.

I don't mind being in the minority, but I don't see how Darwinism and democracy are mutually exclusive.

In essence, they aren't. But since we live in a democracy and your views are the minority, Darwinism gets the shaft, as it should.

 

[Larkinn]

[/B]

A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch,[1][2] but in which the people (or at least a part of its people)[3] have impact on its government.[4][5] The word originates from the Latin term res publica, which literally translates as "public thing" or "public matter".

The organization of republics can vary widely. The first section of this article gives an overview of the characteristics that distinguish different types of republics. The second section of the article gives some short profiles of the most influential republics by way of illustration. A more comprehensive list of republics appears in a separate article. The third section is about how republics are approached as state organizations in political science: in political theory and people governed.

Democracy is a form of government in which the supreme power is held completely by the people under a free electoral system. It is derived from the Greek δημοκρατία ([dimokratia] (help·info)), "popular government"[1] which was coined from δήμος (dēmos), "people" and κράτος (kratos), "rule, strength" in the middle of the 5th-4th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.[2] In this form, there were no defined human rights or legal restraints upon the actions of assembly, making it the first instance of "illiberal democracy


“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
ATTRIBUTION: The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.

This country is not a pure democracy, it is a representative democratic republic. Larkin. If it were a democracy everything we do including voting for president would be done by a majority rule and that is simply not the case.

We also live in a system with a president, a Congress, and 50 states. We DO live in a Democracy, although its not a pure Democracy. But yet you missed the fact that I never said pure democracy, I merely said Democracy.

Funny how you quote from Wikipedia, but miss this part of it:

In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.

Thanks for the civics lesson, but you might want to educate yourself before you try to lecture others.

 

[Jon]

And people who don't save should die, down the line, right? By the way, its pretty hard to have a nest egg of hundreds of thousands of dollars while living in abject poverty.

You're right, it is. But who's fault is it those people live in poverty? Not mine.

I agree. But something is a LOT better than nothing.

They could have something better than what they have if they managed their own social security.

Sure if you are middle class. Not so much if your poor. Oh, and all those IRA accounts just sunk like a stone.

No, they didn't. Most IRA's aren't invested in the stock market. 401(k)'s are, but that's a different type of retirement altogether. Most IRA's are simply deposit accounts at a bank. As long as the bank doesn't fail, a person's IRA is fine. And, IRA's were already insured up to $250,000. Which reminds me, I never did look to see if the bailout included an FDIC increase on IRA's... (edit: it didn't, they are still covered at $250,000).

 

[Navy1960]

We also live in a system with a president, a Congress, and 50 states. We DO live in a Democracy, although its not a pure Democracy. But yet you missed the fact that I never said pure democracy, I merely said Democracy.

Funny how you quote from Wikipedia, but miss this part of it:



Thanks for the civics lesson, but you might want to educate yourself before you try to lecture others.

Your most welcome, I see you took advantage of the link I provided and thats a good thing Larkinn and in keeping with USMB policy not to post the entire article on this thread, I did not think it important to fill the thread up with the entire article however , I will be happy to make an exception so that you don't think I am lecturing you in civics and yes I did read the whole thing and yes I did read that part but thank you for posting it again so I could read it again. As for your assertion that the United States is a democracy , I really do hate to burst your bubble here, but when you go vote for president, you do realize your NOT voting for president right? Your voting for electors. So tell me what part of democracy that represents to you, when those electors are not bound by law to vote for a particular candidate. However , if I am jumping to conclusions about your use of the word democracy then fogive me.

 

[Jon]

when those electors are not bound by law to vote for a particular candidate

Actually, 24 states have laws that can punish faithless electors. The punishment includes misdemeanor charges and fines.

 

[Navy1960]

Actually, 24 states have laws that can punish faithless electors. The punishment includes misdemeanor charges and fines.

That does not make their votes in the electorial college any less valid.

 

[Navy1960]

Actually, 24 states have laws that can punish faithless electors. The punishment includes misdemeanor charges and fines.

Actually this would make an interesting debate, are electors bound to their candidates even though by law in some states they have to pledge to do so? I'm not really sure on this but, in 2000 a Gore elector refused to vote in protest and there are a few instances of this. Let's say for an example, an elector signs a pledge to vote for McCain in this case and then goes to the college and switches their vote to Obama knowing the punishment they face in doing so. Is that an invalid vote? As far as I can see there is nothing in the constituion that would make it invalid. just a faithless vote, and as far as I can see a Supreme Court decision that says a state can force a person to pledge to vote for a particular candidate in Ray v. Blair. Would make a good thread if someone thinks it worth starting.

 

[Larkinn]

Your most welcome, I see you took advantage of the link I provided and thats a good thing Larkinn and in keeping with USMB policy not to post the entire article on this thread, I did not think it important to fill the thread up with the entire article however , I will be happy to make an exception so that you don't think I am lecturing you in civics and yes I did read the whole thing and yes I did read that part but thank you for posting it again so I could read it again. As for your assertion that the United States is a democracy , I really do hate to burst your bubble here, but when you go vote for president, you do realize your NOT voting for president right? Your voting for electors. So tell me what part of democracy that represents to you, when those electors are not bound by law to vote for a particular candidate. However , if I am jumping to conclusions about your use of the word democracy then fogive me.

Perhaps you are unaware, but the president is the only individual which is elected through the electoral college. That doesn't mean we somehow don't live in a Democracy.

Oh, and as far as the electoral college goes, we are voting, not for the president, but for people to represent us when they vote for president. That would be, not direct democracy, but representative Democracy. Which as I explained, is a form of Democracy.

 

[Larkinn]

Actually this would make an interesting debate, are electors bound to their candidates even though by law in some states they have to pledge to do so? I'm not really sure on this but, in 2000 a Gore elector refused to vote in protest and there are a few instances of this. Let's say for an example, an elector signs a pledge to vote for McCain in this case and then goes to the college and switches their vote to Obama knowing the punishment they face in doing so. Is that an invalid vote? As far as I can see there is nothing in the constituion that would make it invalid. just a faithless vote, and as far as I can see a Supreme Court decision that says a state can force a person to pledge to vote for a particular candidate in Ray v. Blair. Would make a good thread if someone thinks it worth starting.

No, they just get punished if they vote differently. It doesn't invalidate the vote.

 

[Navy1960]

No, they just get punished if they vote differently. It doesn't invalidate the vote.

Still they get punished after the fact, so the question remains, if a faithless elector casts a ballot for another candidate is that ballot accepted. I cannot see why it would not be, however, I know that when that elector gets home they are facing legal issues for doing so. It's one of the reasons why I thought it might make for an interesting debate. I wonder how far a state can go in replacing an elector with an alternate if let's say they vote the wrong way? Right up to the last moment, or is the die cast once the vote has been set. or is it after certification? I think you and I are looking at an orange and calling it an orange by different names there Larkinn, still it's an orange. So I see your point and hopefully you can see mine.

 

[Larkinn]

Still they get punished after the fact, so the question remains, if a faithless elector casts a ballot for another candidate is that ballot accepted.

I would bet yes. Looking at the case you posted makes me be less sure that the vote would be valid, but I still lean strongly on the "yes it would be" side.

I cannot see why it would not be, however, I know that when that elector gets home they are facing legal issues for doing so. It's one of the reasons why I thought it might make for an interesting debate. I wonder how far a state can go in replacing an elector with an alternate if let's say they vote the wrong way? Right up to the last moment, or is the die cast once the vote has been set. or is it after certification? I think you and I are looking at an orange and calling it an orange by different names there Larkinn, still it's an orange. So I see your point and hopefully you can see mine.

As far as Democracy goes? No, your just misunderstanding the term and assuming I mean direct democracy, when I mean Democracy which includes representative Democracy.

 

[Navy1960]

I would bet yes. Looking at the case you posted makes me be less sure that the vote would be valid, but I still lean strongly on the "yes it would be" side.



As far as Democracy goes? No, your just misunderstanding the term and assuming I mean direct democracy, when I mean Democracy which includes representative Democracy.

perhaps, but perhaps you assumed that when I posted this "representative democratic republic" I meant to imply that this is a pure republic. Again, I go back to the orange, same thing different name. my original post was not a lecture per se, it was to point out that this country is not by any stretch of the imagination a democracy "emphasis on the the small "d" lol

 

[jimmyb]

My fear is that this will be the beginning of the end of this country as we know it. Overall standards of living decrease exponentially where redistribution of wealth is extreme.