The American People voted for Socialism.

[ToadBrother]

According to the Reverend Al Sharpton the American people voted for Socialism when they voted for Barack Obama.

Didn't Barack try and distance himself from socialism? From what I remember, every time someone brought it up he said, "Now wait a minute, I want to be clear..." never admitting to being a "socialist". He, for some reason, found the word unpleasant.

The United States has been technically a socialist state since at least the 1930s. The problem is that it's such a dirty word down there that no socialized program can ever be efficiently created or run, lest it seem too socialist. Hence you have subsidized health care for millions of Americans, but the luckless bastards whose incomes fall in the gray zone get none at all.

If you want to complain about Socialism in the United States, you need to find a time machine, go back about 75 years and do it there.

[Sir Bandelot]

Also attempts at regulation of bank financial activities (to prevent more toxic loans), and attempts at capping the bonuses given to financial (and automotive) CEO's. Whether successful, or not.

[Pliny]

We already know what a failure the capitalists' attempt at low-income housing has turned out - a world wide recession.

Capitalists attempted low-income housing? I wonder if that wasn't heavily endorsed by government?

In comparison, socialistic Canada with its highly regulated banking system and universal health care is still doing alright.

You admit Canada to being socialistic? You might have an argument with that from the Liberals and the NDP.

I would say that Harper's GST cut helped quite a bit to keep the economy healthier than the US. And as for banking, Harper didn't have the CRA pushing banks to make NINJA loans and Freddie Mac guaranteeing them. CRA = Community Re-investment act

NINJA = No Income No Job - Approved

The CRA and Freddie Mac are not capitalist concepts.

As America passes Health Care Reform, we welcome her to the 21st century.

With the passage of Obamacare and it's government solutions we acknowledge the demise of the principles that made America great and kept it great and it's slip into mediocrity with the rest of the western democracies where greatness is measured in terms of entitlements.

[punked]

Capitalists attempted low-income housing? I wonder if that wasn't heavily endorsed by government?

You admit Canada to being socialistic? You might have an argument with that from the Liberals and the NDP.

I would say that Harper's GST cut helped quite a bit to keep the economy healthier than the US. And as for banking, Harper didn't have the CRA pushing banks to make NINJA loans and Freddie Mac guaranteeing them. CRA = Community Re-investment act

NINJA = No Income No Job - Approved

The CRA and Freddie Mac are not capitalist concepts.

With the passage of Obamacare and it's government solutions we acknowledge the demise of the principles that made America great and kept it great and it's slip into mediocrity with the rest of the western democracies where greatness is measured in terms of entitlements.

CRA was approve in 1977 you know that right? The biggest problem was Bushes push in 2004 "A home for every American" although get up the right wing garbaged just makes you look silly every time you repeat it. It really wasn't the poor driving the ousing bubble though and that is a misconception that anyone who knows anything about economics can see.

[Moonlight Graham]

With the passage of Obamacare and it's government solutions we acknowledge the demise of the principles that made America great and kept it great and it's slip into mediocrity with the rest of the western democracies where greatness is measured in terms of entitlements.

Sometimes government solutions are needed, as disdainful as they may sometimes seem. Its been very much shown that pure radical socialism/communism doesn't work well, and its been shown that laissez-faire doesn't either (ie: business-owner exploitation of workers pre-Great Depression, which led to the New Deal in the U.S. and govt enforced minimum wages and union rights etc.). If you look at the countries which rank at the top of having the highest standard of living, health etc. they strike a good balance between free open markets and gov't intervention/social programs. Clinging to some principle/ideal seems counter-intuitive rather that doing what actually works.

The U.S. is by far the richest and most powerful country in the world. Yet they rank 13th on the U.N. Human Development Index, which ranks countries overall based on life expectancy, average standard of living (GDP-per-capita), adult literacy rates etc. With the resources the U.S. has they should be the #1 country to live in by a long shot!

The U.S. certainly has the best healthcare in the world IF YOU CAN ACCESS IT. Canada has a doctor shortage, longer ER wait times, and longer wait times for surgery. Yet Canada, with its yucky social programs and gov't run healthcare system, ranks higher in average life expectancy and child mortality rates than the U.S. The U.S. also spends more per capita on healthcare than Canada, but the results are less, at least averaged across the whole population.

Socialism oooh no such a scary word! What the concept of socialized healthcare basically means is that even though i may not know people from another city, i still give a crap about their health and well-being and i'm willing to give up a few bucks to ensure it.

[blueblood]

CRA was approve in 1977 you know that right? The biggest problem was Bushes push in 2004 "A home for every American" although get up the right wing garbaged just makes you look silly every time you repeat it. It really wasn't the poor driving the ousing bubble though and that is a misconception that anyone who knows anything about economics can see.

Then there's this beauty by Clinton in 1992

from wiki

Legislative changes 1992

Although minor amendments were made directly to the CRA concerning the consideration of minority and female owned institutions & partnerships during evaluations, other portions of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored enterprises that purchase and securitize mortgages, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing.[4]

It was the poor who drove the housing bubble. They bought houses that they couldn't afford. They could have chose to rent, but their sense of entitlement got the better of them. The US and the world is poorer because of it.

[Moonlight Graham]

It was the poor who drove the housing bubble. They bought houses that they couldn't afford. They could have chose to rent, but their sense of entitlement got the better of them. The US and the world is poorer because of it.

That's only 1 side of the story.

[bloodyminded]

Why do we insist upon calling mixed economies "socialist"? There is no pure capitalist society. Zero.

Hell, the moment you decide to have a military (for example), you are by definition engaging in a type of public funding which is effectively socialistic.

Edited March 28, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Michael Hardner]

Why do we insist upon calling mixed economies "socialist"? There is no pure capitalist society. Zero.

Hell, the moment you decide to have a military (for example), you are by definition engaging in a type of public funding which is effectively socialistic.

Further to that... "socialist" is now defining itself as a country who changes the direction on the persistent tax cuts that have been happening for 30 years now. If anybody submitted a plan to have the tax rates that existed under Reagan that would be deemed socialist.

But, as you're well aware, this is just sloganeering and name-calling. Pointing out facts tends to stop these stupidities in their tracks, or alternately it brings out some kind of silly 'rationalization'. This happened, for example, when somebody pointed out that Rush Limbaugh's assertion that banks took "all of the risk" for student loans was absolutely false, and he came back with the rationalization that those loans would not be guaranteed by the government if the banks filled out the paperwork incorrectly.

[Pliny]

I will keep saying that socialism is an evolutionary progression toward the totally socialistic state - a totalitarian central authority that engineers society and the economy entirely. The basic reason that it is evolutionary is that it provides benefits and entitlements to the citizenry that become politically impossible to remove. Eventually, the economy cannot bear the burden of the ever increasing entitlements that government legislates and promises it's citizens. Either that becomes understood and entitlements are removed or the nation collapses and is either taken over by dictatorial forces or rarely, forces that wish to limit government.

There are socialistic concepts in the fabric of American society. Most were introduced when socialism was a popular theory and the centralization of government power was seen as a positive social move. Economically, the central bank theory and the resulting monopolization over the creation of money made the economy socialistic.

Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Jimmy Carter and now Barack Obama are heavy proponents of socialism - engineering society by government. Eventually, in the socialist progression all production must be taken over to be distributed by the State.

Social services in the form of medicare, medicaid, old age pensions, universal health care are all socialist concepts and contribute to the progressive march to the inevitable. WE in Canada have gone far enough. The States, under Obama and with Pelosi and Reid respectively in the congress and the Senate will quickly surpass us if they are given free reign to do so.

[Pliny]

Why do we insist upon calling mixed economies "socialist"? There is no pure capitalist society. Zero.

Hell, the moment you decide to have a military (for example), you are by definition engaging in a type of public funding which is effectively socialistic.

True enough. It is a progression. I am not an anarchist but believe government should be limited in their mandate. The American Constitution attempted to limit government by making it almost impossible to enact legislation. Government, it seems like to interpret things in their favour. The Federal Reserve Act is definitely not a good act.

People in Canada have no idea how much they pay every year personally for their health care. If they did know this they might not think so highly of our health care system. One thing for sure, they would demand better service than the mediocre service they will find when they find themselves in need of health care.

[Moonlight Graham]

I will keep saying that socialism is an evolutionary progression toward the totally socialistic state - a totalitarian central authority that engineers society and the economy entirely.

I think this is a slippery-slope argument. Social programs = eventual socialistic totalitarian state is a definite reach. I think its true that people can get a feeling of entitlement from certain social programs, but its not true that a gov't can't scale back social programs and social spending. Canada's social spending grew much during the 60's and 70's, but then was significantly cut during the late 80's and 90's.

Who knows, maybe there will be another era like the neo-liberalism of the 80's and 90's where Canada makes even deeper cuts and the debt needs to be reigned in. It wouldn't be very hard to privatize things like the LCBO and CBC.

[blueblood]

Who knows, maybe there will be another era like the neo-liberalism of the 80's and 90's where Canada makes even deeper cuts and the debt needs to be reigned in. It wouldn't be very hard to privatize things like the LCBO and CBC.

The thing is, parties that invoke massive changes often take a bath at the polls. Trudeau and Mulroney are evidence of that. Chretien was able to get the PMO majority with similar polling numbers to Harper due to more parties in the house.

Chretien was able to get away with his slashes because of a battered and divided opposition. That and it was time to pay the Piper for Trudeau's grand experiments in gov't spending.

[Topaz]

Last night on Sean Hannity show, he had Dick Morris on, and he said that the way the republicans and the tea partiers can stop the health care package is to elect more Republicans in November to the congress and the senate and then with the control they have, unfund the health care system then it will die! Is this country on another road to civil war?

[ToadBrother]

Last night on Sean Hannity show, he had Dick Morris on, and he said that the way the republicans and the tea partiers can stop the health care package is to elect more Republicans in November to the congress and the senate and then with the control they have, unfund the health care system then it will die! Is this country on another road to civil war?

This would require 2/3s majorities in both Houses. While it's pretty certain now that the Dems will at least lose control of the Senate, and probably the House of Representatives as well, I don't think anyone is predicting that they're going to get veto-proof majorities.

This is precisely what David Frum was talking about and why he was booted out of the American Enterprise Institute. There's no way that the Republicans are going to get the numbers to overthrow this legislation. Frum's criticism of the GOP and its new alliance with the Tea Party lunatics may have cost him a job, but it's spot on. Obama was elected with a clear mandate, and the Republicans had the opportunity to work with the Democrats and to shape the bill, but instead they refused and were locked out.

This health care bill is here for good, and by the time the benefits are being felt by a lot of Americans, it will be like Medicare in Canada, absolutely impossible to remove or substantially alter.

[Shady]

So is Al Sharpton finally admitting that Obama's a socialist? Who knew I'd actually agree with him on something. Actually, I also agree with him on school vouchers and charter schools. Geez, I'm starting to scare myself.

[Pliny]

I think this is a slippery-slope argument. Social programs = eventual socialistic totalitarian state is a definite reach. I think its true that people can get a feeling of entitlement from certain social programs, but its not true that a gov't can't scale back social programs and social spending. Canada's social spending grew much during the 60's and 70's, but then was significantly cut during the late 80's and 90's.

Yes, governments can and do scale back social programs but pay a political price. Generally, they add a different program, like Chretien added Gun control.

Chretien managed to lose a billion dollars in the HR department, pay off his cronies in the sponsorship scandal with all the money he cut from spending and start the gun registry.

Who knows, maybe there will be another era like the neo-liberalism of the 80's and 90's where Canada makes even deeper cuts and the debt needs to be reigned in. It wouldn't be very hard to privatize things like the LCBO and CBC.

The Liberals never cut the size of government and that's the important point. They slashed transfer payments to the provinces, provinces dealt with the cut in transfer payments and tried to keep social programs going withtheir usual annual increases, which is what some of those cuts were. Just cuts to the annual increase.

What social programs disappeared in the 80's and 90's?

Back to the slippery slope argument. Entitlements are not easily surrendered. That point has to be admitted, and with both sides legislating their own "important" social entitlements government eventually reaches leviathon size. More and more people work for the State or contract to the State and dependency upon the State of the population becomes too burdensome.

I know three guys in a small business and their wives all work for the government, one's a nurse, one's a clerk and the other is a 911 operator (huge money) and they all make better money than their husbands not to even mention benefits. They are in a very competitive trade and by industry standards are doing alright but it certainly looks better to be getting a government cheque and forget the headaches of the private world of filling out forms and mailing cheques to government who does very little for business.

[Pliny]

Last night on Sean Hannity show, he had Dick Morris on, and he said that the way the republicans and the tea partiers can stop the health care package is to elect more Republicans in November to the congress and the senate and then with the control they have, unfund the health care system then it will die! Is this country on another road to civil war?

Liberals are pacifists aren't they? Oh..except for Bill Ayers and his weather underground group oh..and don't forget the revolutionary marxists (now wearing the cloak of Environmentalism)...well...maybe there will be a civil war.

[Pliny]

This would require 2/3s majorities in both Houses. While it's pretty certain now that the Dems will at least lose control of the Senate, and probably the House of Representatives as well, I don't think anyone is predicting that they're going to get veto-proof majorities.

This is precisely what David Frum was talking about and why he was booted out of the American Enterprise Institute. There's no way that the Republicans are going to get the numbers to overthrow this legislation. Frum's criticism of the GOP and its new alliance with the Tea Party lunatics may have cost him a job, but it's spot on. Obama was elected with a clear mandate, and the Republicans had the opportunity to work with the Democrats and to shape the bill, but instead they refused and were locked out.

This health care bill is here for good, and by the time the benefits are being felt by a lot of Americans, it will be like Medicare in Canada, absolutely impossible to remove or substantially alter.

With control of Congress and the Senate they will not be able to repeal Obamacare as long as Obama is President. As you say they will need 2/3rd's majority and even if they got that Obama would just veto the act to repeal it. the only thing they will be able to do is de-fund Obamacare. Not pass any legislation to finance it. Easily done.

They don't need any votes to not pass something.

I don't think the Americans will get a chance to get used to it. Most of the benefits don't kick in until after 2012. But as you say if it stays around it will be absolutely impossible to remove or substantially alter.

[Shady]

Most of the benefits don't kick in until after 2012.

Exactly. The tax increases kick in right away, but the majority of the benefits don't start until 2012 and even 2014.

[ToadBrother]

With control of Congress and the Senate they will not be able to repeal Obamacare as long as Obama is President. As you say they will need 2/3rd's majority and even if they got that Obama would just veto the act to repeal it. the only thing they will be able to do is de-fund Obamacare. Not pass any legislation to finance it. Easily done.

They don't need any votes to not pass something.

True enough, but if they go that route, they risk political damage. Though opinion seems very divided on the health care bill, it certainly isn't as all-encompassingly negative as Limbaugh and his ilk like to claim.

I don't think the Americans will get a chance to get used to it. Most of the benefits don't kick in until after 2012. But as you say if it stays around it will be absolutely impossible to remove or substantially alter.

I think the odds are pretty good that Obama will get his second term. The Republicans are literally falling to pieces again. The Republicans will obviously regain at least the Senate, maybe the Reps too, though I think that's still a little to difficult to call. But the Tea Party fanatics are not going to win the Republicans the presidency. In fact, for the Republicans, that's looking like a disaster in the making, another Bob Dole moment seems in the cards, or something far worse if they select Palin. Obama has already demonstrated a capacity for building an electoral machine the like of which the United States, perhaps even the Industrialized World has never seen. What have the Republicans got? A bunch of whack jobs shouting "nigger" and "faggot", and once again a leadership that seems to have been rendered practically catatonic, too afraid to condemn these foaming maniacs and demonstrate once for all that the GOP isn't just the home were religious nuts and ideological cranks end up.

Edited April 1, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Michael Hardner]

I think the odds are pretty good that Obama will get his second term. The Republicans are literally falling to pieces again. The Republicans will obviously regain at least the Senate, maybe the Reps too, though I think that's still a little to difficult to call. But the Tea Party fanatics are not going to win the Republicans the presidency. In fact, for the Republicans, that's looking like a disaster in the making, another Bob Dole moment seems in the cards, or something far worse if they select Palin. Obama has already demonstrated a capacity for building an electoral machine the like of which the United States, perhaps even the Industrialized World has never seen. What have the Republicans got? A bunch of whack jobs shouting "nigger" and "faggot", and once again a leadership that seems to have been rendered practically catatonic, too afraid to condemn these foaming maniacs and demonstrate once for all that the GOP isn't just the home were religious nuts and ideological cranks end up.

Two other strong points in Obama's favour:

1. The economy should be in better shape.

2. With Healthcare, he cleared a logjam, and did something that people said couldn't be done. There is ostensibly some negative feeling around this bill, but he can at least say that he showed leadership in this matter.

[Shady]

I think the odds are pretty good that Obama will get his second term.

Really? Do Presidents usually get re-elected with massive unemployment and zero economic growth?

The Republicans are literally falling to pieces again.

Huh?

Poll: Democrats’ favorable rating now lower than GOP’s

Gallup

Poll: More blame Obama for poor economy, unemployment

USAToday

Yep, those odds for Obama keep getting better and better!

[Smallc]

Zero economic growth? You're dreaming.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-31/u-s-economy-factories-drive-growth-as-orders-stockpiles-rise.html

Edited April 1, 2010 by Smallc

[Michael Hardner]

Yep, those odds for Obama keep getting better and better!

Shady - let me introduce you to the 'sine wave'. 2 years in, Obama's popularity should be, and likely is, at its worst point. He's made an incredible achievement in pushing a tough, expensive, and highly liberal social program. I doubt anybody thought this would be possible. We're only 2 years in, and from here on in, he can start to reap the rewards.

If Palin is the candidate, then it will be a cakewalk for him. Her latest controversy is that FOX faked an interview between her and someone called L.L. Cool J ? She gets less presidential at every commercial break.

We'll be right back.