Not less obvious but similar.

True, but not what I'm going after.


Socialism, in the most fundamental sense, is basically a reaction to the inequalities associated with capitalism. Welfare, progressive tax systems, etc., is merely a way of limiting the negative consequences of those inequalities.

In our educational system (college is the best example), it is standardized so no matter what class you take, if you work hard enough, ideally you should be to get an A (4.0 GPA). That means a student in economics, chemical engineering, geology, art, etc. have the same potential to get a 4.0 GPA.

If we applied this to the working world, it would be if everyone who worked 60 hours a week, no matter the job, gets paid $40,000 a year, everyone who works 40 hours a week gets paid $30,000 a year, etc. Now, it seems that most Republicans have forgotten what the definition of socialism means but I'm sure this system fits the socialist definition. Therefore, it is not logical to apply welfare to an already existing socialist system.


A good response to anyone who mentions this is to agree with the GPA redistribution program under one condition. The grade you recieve be weighted by the salary in the field of the class you are taking. For example, if you are in a field where the average salary is $50 grand. Receiving a B (that is average nowadays) give you a 5.0. If you receive an A, then you get the 95% salary, lets say $80,000, or an 8.0. Also, in order to graduate, a 4.5 GPA has to be maintained so if you are taking classes in a field where the average salary is only $30,000 (3.0), you are fucked.

It would also work better as an analogy if the teacher changed the relationship of the students to the teaching and setting of the test (the means of production).

Socialism isn't about making everything and everybody even :P

But the target audience are people that do believe that! They don't care what socialism actually is (that would involve facts and critical thinking), they just care about what they believe socialism is. You know, their gut feeling.

And the beat goes on... duh duh duh
 

Romney says no to "Net Neutrality".
Romney Cites Energy Report That Advocates Carbon Price.

I'm saying that Germany is more socialist, but they have a fundamentally different government, and relationship of their people, to that government. For instance, they have little or no tax on their companies, who sell their products overseas, and bring that money back into Germany. In the US, we tax any funds like that, with the second highest corporate income tax, in the world.

That's why German products like BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and many other products, sell so well, around the world, BUT the jobs are kept in Germany to a large extent. American corporations can't do that, and it's a huge mistake. To even start to compete, we have to go offshore, and the money has to stay there, or be ridiculously taxed. (double taxed). Also, the gov't has a fundamental obligation to create jobs for it's citizens. I believe (but not sure), that it is in their constitution.

Their opinions of their gov't, are substantially different than ours. And I must say, we have had a HUGE number of absolute assholes in our legislature, over the years. Their cronyism and crass ability to exploit their position for huge monetary gain, just stinks to high heaven. If you or I did what they do, we'd be sent to prison (insider trading, just for one way they do it).

If the people want to go socialism, I have no problem with it. I don't believe it works well, but I KNOW you can't just grab some highly socialistic laws, and start shoving them down our throat, the way Obama has. You want to change to a national health care system, fine. I'm for it!

First, study what other countries have done, and let's get the best parts into our own, and leave out the parts that didn't work well. Second, do a pilot study in a state or region, and prove that it works. THEN, write up the federal laws, and enact it. Don't shove a 2,000+ page law at us, with no time to study it - or even READ it through, and say "we'll pass it now, and read it later".

That's bullshit!

We have lobbyists, unions, race baiters, bald face liars, and class haters, all well expressed in our gov't. What we don't have are statesmen, making wise decisions, in large numbers. The idea that the federal gov't would turn down something like the Keystone pipeline project, at a time when jobs are so badly needed, and fuel is up to $4++ a gallon (in CA), just drives me around the bend.

And is anybody talking about cutting our corporate tax rate so $$$ from overseas operations can come back to the US? Let us compete with other countries, more evenly, instead of having the $$$ taxed twice (once in the other country, and again when it returns to the US).

All you hear is:

Crickets.

And about how well Obama sounds when he's imitating Al Green, and all the other "your candidate is a jerk because...".
I want some good government out of our legislative branch, and we just haven't been getting it. And yeah, I believe socialism is demotivating for the people who have it, if it's overused, or set up in a stupid fashion.

I mean, every year we find out "Oops!, we have another 10,000 people who received some welfare benefit, who have been dead for at least a year", kind of stuff. And we will sue every state that wants to require a photo ID, when you vote. Because BY GOD!, we want those Zombies, to be represented by our fraudulent party! :(

And I want to get our medical drug costs down! No reason in hell why we should have to spend 2-10 times as much for drugs, than other countries, like Canada. And tax loopholes - oh don't get me started on tax loopholes. That's the most asinine example of lobby and political favoritism, that you'll ever live to see.

All these big corporations that all lined up to support Obama care -- and then immediately after it was passed, 98% of them lined up to get in their own exemption from it, which was built into the law, of course!

:rolleyes:

Actually, Canada is not a bad model to look at. They went progressive/liberal for many years, until it damn near bankrupted the country. Then they swung back and went largely conservative with a political party, and look at how well they're doing! Their dollar is worth more now, than ours are - and THAT is just for starters.

Unfortunately, our political party is also home to lots of less than desirable types, that give the whole conservative philosophy, a bad taste. That's a shame, because conservatism is not what you learned from Bush (one or two), or what the liberals try to frame it as.

As far as business went, Clinton ranks highest among recent Presidents, as a conservative (not counting Reagan, of course).

I think that's quite a fair point actually.

Sure, it's logical and practical. It's also impossible in a society where the Drug, Insurance, and Medical Device industries, own so many politicians.
The ONLY way it can happen is the way it did, making huge concessions to those industries, then slowly chipping away at those concessions until the plan is the best it can be. In the mean time, although not the best, millions more have at least some coverage.

And even this plan, a grab bag of Republican proposals, is deemed "highly socialistic".

The problem is, with our current stupidity of paying 2-10X what Canada pays for the very same drugs, you run the whole program into the red, and convince even more people, that the whole idea is a terrible one.

It doesn't have to be that way. There may be more expedient idea's for getting the cart of a National Health Plan moving, but when you're relying on horsepower, it's important to remember to put the horse BEFORE the cart, and not after it.

It isn't just WHAT you do, it's the order you do them in that's important, as well.

You don't have to sound SO surprised. :D

Yup, that would be bad. Luckily, as EVERY investigation has shown, it hasn't.

One of the 47% Romney isn't concerned about...

http://news.yahoo.com/slammed-using-...XBhZ2U-;_ylv=3

The stigmatizing comes from Reagan's myths of the welfare queen in the Caddy and furs, and the lazy Black Buck with the food stamps buying the best steaks in the market. It's been carped by the right ever since, even though it's been disproven repeatedly. Before then, reasonable people understood that giving a helping hand to needy people was a good thing.

Personal story.. In 1970 I got in a squeeze between sudden divorce and being forced out of work for five months by a strike of the shop union at Westinghouse. I was salaried but we honored their picket line for two weeks and when we went back were laid off for the duration. Westinghouse fought our collecting unemployment during the layoff.

To make a long story longer, I collected welfare and food stamps for three months until the unemployment finally kicked in. I even got double food stamps one month through a clerical error. At that time you got a voucher in the mail and took it to the bank where they would give you the actual stamps. When I tried to return the stamps to the welfare office they had no mechanism to retrieve them, so told me to keep them.

It was tough getting by on unemployment (paying two lawyers and all) but when I went back to work the state sent me a letter asking me to repay the welfare. I did that over a couple months and became square with the state, meaning I would be eligible to collect again should the need arise, but didn't have to repay the food stamps. I feel it's a good program, working the way it did.

Now I realize welfare's been a tool for several generations, to keep them ghetto niggers in line so they won't be raping the white women with their free time they have, since we won't give them jobs. This was planned by some, but mostly unintended consequences to most of the population. It's a bad situation and very very difficult to remedy now. It's also, with the help of Reagan's myths, easy lose sight of the fact that most people on welfare are not black, and not in northern cities, but in the south.

So part of the problem is racism, partly misinformation, and partly cussedness.

List your "investigations", because it's common in So. CA, and infamous in Nevada and Illinois.

Bottom line is, nearly EVERYONE has a valid photo ID. You need it to get a checking account, driver a car, travel out of the country, I need it when I withdraw cash from my bank, get a library or video store card, sometimes, even to cash a check.

And all those who don't have a valid photo ID, can get one from the state, for free.

So WHAT'S the *BIG PROBLEM* in showing it, when we vote?

Name another country where you vote, without showing an ID (either a card or a thumb/finger print, or both).

Not Mexico, not Canada! Here's the requirements for Canada:

WHY do we need NOTHING in order to vote? What possible reason could there be for that?

Voter F-R-A-U-D.

England (can't talk for any other part of the UK).

You show your voting card. But that just has my name, address and voting number on it. I could easily use my sister's or my sister-in-law's or even my mother's voting card for all the interest which is shown in it. In fact I do know people who have voted for friends/ relatives/ housemates etc. It's illegal, but only in the same way it's fraud for me to use Mum's debit card - I've only ever done it when asked and with permission for a specific purpose.