Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Saw Obama at the rally in Kansas City tonight
Mr. O:
I realized both candidates is gonna take us to socialist.
Rugged Monk:
--- Quote from: S P I C E on October 18, 2008, 10:48:54 PM ---He will be one of the worst presidents of all time :'(
--- End quote ---
Why yous keep saying that? goddammit give the man a chance..
ωεεźγ ғ:
--- Quote from: Rugged Monk say 'Sapere aude!' on October 19, 2008, 01:53:48 AM ---
--- Quote from: S P I C E on October 18, 2008, 10:48:54 PM ---He will be one of the worst presidents of all time :'(
--- End quote ---
Why yous keep saying that? goddammit give the man a chance..
--- End quote ---
lolol
The King:
--- Quote from: pc8381 on October 18, 2008, 11:55:24 PM ---I realized both candidates is gonna take us to socialist.
--- End quote ---
What exactly is wrong with a little socialism? Taxing the rich more? That's socialist, do you have a problem with that? Universal health care, something every other modern nation has, except the US? That's socialism, do you have a problem with that? What exactly is wrong with socialism. You people say it like it's cancer. Capitalism is cancer, the free market is cancer. It's evil, all about greed, and keeping the poor poorer and the rich richer. Tax those millionaires, they don't need the money. The current crisis proves capitalism is flawed. And the only thing socialist about Obama's plan is tax policy and health care. Doesn't sound that bad.
Prikkebeen:
--- Quote from: The King on October 19, 2008, 01:10:39 PM ---
--- Quote from: pc8381 on October 18, 2008, 11:55:24 PM ---I realized both candidates is gonna take us to socialist.
--- End quote ---
What exactly is wrong with a little socialism? Taxing the rich more? That's socialist, do you have a problem with that?
--- End quote ---
The degree of taxing in a country equals the degree of statism, of which socialism is one form. Socialism, preaching an equal income for all, is extremely hazardous when you look at what it implies. Yes, people "contributing" equally according to their financial strength sounds legitimate, thus the (financially) strong would carry more of the weight on their shoulders. But tell me, is that also what you do when you go out for dinner with a bunch of friends? Do you split the bill according to the size of your wallets, or will each pay his own fair share? Ultimately, that's what socialism preaches: letting the little man from the majority take from the big shot's wallet that which he needs. And who is to decide about what the little man needs? Of course: it's those in power who democratically represent him. And so it happens that in a municipalty in the calm north of my country, some alderman from the socialist party decided to raise the amount of cash the people on welfare get when their tv's break down. It went from 170 to 450 euros. Why? "Because it's a basic right of the people!" I myself have been using a 100 euro tv for a while now. You can get a flat screen for 150 if you bother making a careful decision. But this alderman decided that the little man needs 450, thus the little man gets 450. That's your "little socialism:" letting people work their asses off for a tv - or allowing lazy bastards to sit at home in front of their new flat screen tv. That's very social, because in the end everyone has a flat screen tv. That's plain logic, isn't it?
--- Quote ---Universal health care, something every other modern nation has, except the US? That's socialism, do you have a problem with that?
--- End quote ---
Don't get it twisted. Many countries have well organized health care for all of their people, but that doesn't mean they've organized it the Obama way. Once he becomes your president, soon you will see the difference.
--- Quote ---What exactly is wrong with socialism. You people say it like it's cancer. Capitalism is cancer, the free market is cancer. It's evil, all about greed, and keeping the poor poorer and the rich richer.
--- End quote ---
Now why would that be of interest to anyone? Corporate heads want wealthy people who have the financial power to consume. To buy products from one company, and not the other, because they prefer the first. That's when the other company will have to improve. That's the quality of the thing you're calling cancer. And a free market is precisely the requirement to establish that. No, it will not achieve "equality" in goods. It will achieve growth, because every man will want to make the best of himself to get the best for himself. Denouncing that is like denouncing your own right to exist.
--- Quote ---Tax those millionaires, they don't need the money.
--- End quote ---
That's right. Fuck them, on behalf of everyone with less money. You'll see what it does to your economy if you overtax those whose money keeps the world turning through their investments and ideas.
--- Quote ---And the only thing socialist about Obama's plan is tax policy and health care. Doesn't sound that bad.
--- End quote ---
Indeed, that doesn't sound bad if you forget to mention that a tax policy is the most fundamental part of a government plan, and all else revolves around it.
--- Quote ---The current crisis proves capitalism is flawed.
--- End quote ---
Or, more accurately, it proves that the people who live in the system of capitalism are flawed. The state of the economy tells you little about the workings of capitalism as a theoretical system.
Have you considered that maybe in a healthy capitalist economy, banks too could go bankrupt, just like newspapers, bus companies and drug stores? If they don't do well, they'll go down. That's capitalism: to have your business be successful, you'll need quality. Some of those failing banks are going down because they are fundamentally rotten. They're run poorly. Bad businesses. If other banks start messing up the sub prime market and you know the advantage they seemingly get is a hoax, instead of feeling yourself forced to play along according to their lousy rules, you should have the lousiness exposed and prove yourself to be trustworthy. You can blame that on greed, but that's only a part of the deal. Greed isn't a problem until ignorance comes into play. Now there's your problem of the financial crisis: the people weren't organized well enough to notice what had been coming. Had they had an ombudsmanlike organization keeping an eye out on the market on their behalf, they would have known better. But they hardly knew, thus the problem was coming at full speed. It's no wonder only a few banks are left practically unharmed - most banks were too much interconnected with the rotten apples. You can't expect to do a hiv-patient without a condom and get away safely. Ultimately, those banks also failed. Is that because capitalism has been exposed as a failure, or perhaps more like the opposite? Remember that capitalism is all about quality... That which is unfit for survival, won't survive in a healthy capitalist economy. There go your sub prime speculators.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version