The end of Obama's socialism
- Thread starter bigbadwolf
- Start date
bigbadwolf
Registered
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2005
- Messages
- 1,210
- Likes
- 189
darmanad said:
Even though these things are in consonance with the article you cite? To call him a "socialist" is absurd. And the term "liberal" simply has no real meaning. Since the lunatics and charlatans (Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Coulter) haven't got any real lefties to attack (because they mostly don't exist in the US) they go after "liberals." Yet liberals are not lefties. They don't argue against the military-industrial setup, they don't argue for nationalising the means of production, they mostly don't argue for socialised health care. If there was a real left around, you would see the same kind of demos and riots that have recently occurred in France, Greece, Spain. Chris Hedges has a good essay on the "phantom left" here:
I've been arguing along the same lines for the last two years. As someone wrote some years back, the Democrats are to the right of European conservative parties and the Republicans slightly to the left of European national front (i.e. fascist) parties.
bigbadwolf said:
Loonie, loonie. What a poisenous, self righteous gasbag. You lot can certainly dish it out and at very high volume too. But you coitainly (Curly Stooge) can't take it when somebody turns the tables on ya. Boo hoo. Not one tiny bit of self deprecating humor, not one literary flourish. Just all loudspeaker stuff. Your cure is worse than the disease. Well, you've shown us all that you are in possession of the moral and intellectual high ground..only don't go to Greece on holiday. You might climb atop Mount Olympus and the air up there is well, rarified. We might not be able to get you back down again.
bigbadwolf
Registered
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2005
- Messages
- 1,210
- Likes
- 189
geoffbob said:
Ironic that you wrote this:
Instead of "legitimate points," all you have is ad hominem attacks. Perhaps Paul Craig Roberts had a point:
I suppose the problem is that most Americans are so indoctrinated, so ill-educated, so ill-informed (if not misinformed) that they couldn't recognise an argument or counterargument if it slapped them in the face. So when they face something that runs counter to their brainwashing, they only have recourse to hurling insults (since informed debate is beyond their ken).
Jared, as a Conservative would you mind telling me what you think the fiscal policy of the US should be? Are you in favor of massive deficit spending? Do you favor a balanced budget? If so, how do you propose to bring it into balance? Where do you cut back on spending? Do you increase revenue, and if so, how? Do you have any position on health care? What is your energy policy? What do you propose re infrastructure?
What about foreign policy? What would you propse the US do in the mideast? Keep troops there, decrease troop levels, pull out quickly or something else? Iran and Israel - how do you approach the current problems involving each?
Lastly, if you say that one of the principles the USA was founded on was equal opportunity, then how do you reconcile that with slavery and the second class status of women? Are the principles on which the country was founded ever subject to modification as social conditions dictate? Are you as a representative of Conservative values not in favor of social justice?
Thanks in advance.
What about foreign policy? What would you propse the US do in the mideast? Keep troops there, decrease troop levels, pull out quickly or something else? Iran and Israel - how do you approach the current problems involving each?
Lastly, if you say that one of the principles the USA was founded on was equal opportunity, then how do you reconcile that with slavery and the second class status of women? Are the principles on which the country was founded ever subject to modification as social conditions dictate? Are you as a representative of Conservative values not in favor of social justice?
Thanks in advance.
bigbadwolf
Registered
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2005
- Messages
- 1,210
- Likes
- 189
jaredwb said:
The problem is epithets and ad hominems are serving as a sorry substitute for detailed discussion and argument.
Just go along to any Tea Party rally and make up your own mind. Look at the utterances of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Talk to the rank and file.
But every time I ask detailed questions I encounter a wall of stony silence. What are the specifics? To make for smaller government are you going to dismantle the 800+ overseas bases -- which Pat Buchanan advocates? Are you going to unconditionally pull out of the Middle East, where there seems to be no raison d'etre for being there? Are you going to impose tariffs on imports? Are you going to penalise outsourcing and US companies shifting abroad? The point here is that the so-called champions of the Tea Party movement -- Palin, Beck, Limbaugh -- have been bought and paid for by big money, and so elide deftly over these specifics. They don't intend to upset the status quo. That's why the Tea Partiers have nothing but empty slogans (Small Government! Don't Socialise Our Medicare!) and inchoate, unfocused anger that can be channeled by demagogues almost any way they see fit.
Were there a real populist movement by and for the people, I'd probably be one of the first to jump on the bandwagon. Instead, there's this sorry travesty of a "movement" ....
darmanad said:
Sure, I'll do my best...and again, this is my own opinion...and I would classify myself as a Conservative/Libertarian.
Of course I am in favor of a balanced budget and no more spending.
Fed Tax code: Tax code needs to be scrapped completely and rewritten. Flat Federal income tax of 15% for EVERYONE (everyone pays taxes). All business, 17% flat rate. No more of the top 5% paying 70% of the taxes. No capital gains and no estate tax. (I think Singapore's tax policy is a good model to follow) All of a sudden, you have the other 50% of the U.S. contributing revenue and companies and individuals not trying to look for ways to not pay taxes, imagine that.
Social Security and Medicare...HAVE to be cut. There is no possible way to balance the budget without doing it. Call me crazy, but I believe they should both be privatized, actually, I think SS should be phased out (and yes, with minimal gov oversight)....and before you start screaming about evil private companies, Medicare rejected 4 times the claims that the top 4 insurance companies did...combined (2008). SS is a massive ponzi scheme and didn't we just put someone in jail for that?
Healthcare as always, legal reform (tort), open state lines, and MINIMAL and I mean minimal Gov oversight. I think raising the age limit to 26 on a parents plan is a disgrace, so back down to 21. I'm conflicted on the existing conditions. It's like selling a broken car to someone knowing that I will have to pay out of my own pocket for fixes that I know are going to happen...that is not good business. Still, I am sure there is a way to provide that coverage, maybe a charitable pool that the other policy holders can CHOOSE to donate to (and most who can, will).
We need to cut the Post Office, Amtrak, and half of the cabinet posts and their respective depts (EDUCATION, agriculture, etc).
Fannie/Freddie...gone or sold to private enterprise.
Minimal oversight on banks, financial services, etc.
NO MORE TOO BIG TOO FAIL
In short, from a fiscal side, the less government the more I like it. I'm aware that most of these would be near impossible but I believe they are necessary for the country to truly get back on track.
Foreign Policy
I'm not afraid to say "war on terror" and it is a war. I lived in NYC when 9/11 took place...so I've seen it first hand. We stay on the offensive until we are safe, as long as it takes. IF we can do so with minimal troops on the ground, all the better. I certainly don't think that telling our enemies we are leaving in June of 2011 is a wise strategic move. And if Pakistan is where the enemy is, then what the hell are we doing somewhere else? IF the Pakistan Gov doesn't help, then we withdraw ALL financial aid...not 1 more cent.
On a side note about Islam: When I lived in Singapore, the mix of religions and cultures was amazing. The State celebrated all the major religious holidays, Christmas, Ramadan, etc. There was no ACLU suing a state for having a Christmas tree or Star of David in front of the building. There needs to be a serious effort to merge the TRUE Muslims with the West.
Energy: Global warming is garbage. We open up ANWAR for drilling tomorrow. We provide incentives for PRIVATE companies to research and develop alternative energy means...but we have to be realistic, we will never be off oil...so why not use ours.
Iran: Huge threat, I think they are talking much more than is actionable...still, Military action is close to being the only option.
Israel: Don't know enough about the history and current situation to give a good opinion. Still, I support their independent state actions as an ally.
Side Notes:
I think marijuana should be legal
I think the Fed needs to give back to the states all powers they have stolen.
I don't think any Gov dillweed should have any say over what I eat or if I want to have a free toy in my kids Happy Meal.
Let's take a look at the ORIGINAL Constitution and get back to the basics...it's been mutilated, twisted, and misread for too long.
bigbadwolf said:
1. What does outsourcing have to do with smaller government? IF the government hadn't given so much power to unions and stopped taxing businesses out of the wazoo, there wouldn't be much of an incentive to move jobs out of the country...making a profit is NOT a bad thing. And I have seen 1st hand, jobs outsourced or shifted abroad "spread the wealth"...isn't that what you want? More opportunities for the developing countries? It ALSO creates jobs in the U.S.
2. Smaller Government doesn't mean a less secure Gov. There are PLENTY of Gov programs that can and should be completely dismantled. I would say that National Security (especially now) is not one of them. And I am sure there are plenty of bases that can be closed without harming our strategic presence around the globe. When you wake up and realize we have a real WAR on our hands, then you can talk about closing more bases and withdrawing from the Mid-East (but I would guess your mind would change a bit when you see towers falling down a few blocks from where you are getting dressed for work)
3. The empty slogans seemed to have paid off on Tues...you continue to brush aside a movement, much like the Dems did, that has changed the scope of U.S. politics. I'm guessing your idea of a "real" populous movement is what is going on in France?? WAKE UP!
4. Have YOU been to a Tea Party rally. Study just came out a few days ago (independent source) that the Tea Party and Republican party is more diverse than the Democratic party...go figure.
5. What "discussion" did Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have when shoving the Healthcare disaster down the throats of the U.S.?? Republicans REPEATEDLY said, we have ideas, we can help, let's compromise...but nothing from the left. WHO doesn't want to have an open discussion???
bigbadwolf
Registered
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2005
- Messages
- 1,210
- Likes
- 189
jaredwb said:
No it doesn't. The wealth has accumulated in the hands of a global class of billionaires. Take India, for example -- touted as a success story by neoliberal shills like Tom Friedman. The average calorific intake has actually declined during the last twenty years. Just as disparities have been increasing in the USA, they have been increasing in other parts of the world that have gone along with the "Washington Consensus."
Bringing up unions -- do you bother to think about what you write or just type whatever tired old cliche comes to mind? Germany is a more heavily unionised country than the USA. The wages of its skilled workers are high. Why has manufacturing not imploded there? Why has unchecked outsourcing and transplanting of manufacturing not occurred there? If we take the logic of competitive wages at face value, American workers would need to be paid at levels comparable to Chinese and Indians. The USA industrialised behind a tariff wall -- and this was what made possible a middle class. The abolition of the tariff wall, coupled with unfettered movement of capital -- euphemistically called "free trade," "globalisation," etc. -- has benefited a small class of investors and speculators, but wreaked havoc on the American population at large. I might recommend Paul Craig Roberts' book, "How the Economy was Destroyed." Instead of incisive thought from the Tea Partiers, you have inanities like this coming from the likes of Rand Paul:
But coming back to your question of what outsourcing has to do with small government: the process of "globalisation" -- outsourcing, transplanting manufacturing, the development of a global financial system that makes the other things possible, the military muscle to back it up with -- are all intimately connected with big government. Big government and big capital are tied together -- something Tea Partiers cannot understand.
*Sigh* -- the Pentagon has estimated there are not more than 100 Al-Qaeda people in Afghanistan. Why, then, is the US still involved there? The US government made a completely deceitful argument about WMD, and links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam to serve as a casus belli. Again, do you think about what you write? The "war on terror" is open-ended, where the "terrorists" are never clearly defined, where the "objectives" keep changing according to expediency (Saddam has WMD --> Saddam was a bad guy --> We're engaged in nation-building --> We're restoring democracy). With regard to Afghanistan, Obama has given no clear reason for continued involvement. The point is a militarised empire like the US is now engaged, by the logic of its military-industrial complex, in unending warfare for no clear reason. Among other things, this is bankrupting the people who live in the empire. What the Tea Partiers don't seem to get into their thick skulls is that while they have this militarised, paranoid government, they can't simulataneously have a small government.
Watch, wait, listen. Nothing has changed. Neither side has ideas; both uphold the status quo. Something you don't seem to understand, making silly divisions, as you do, between the "liberals" and Republicans/Tea Partiers. As others have pointed out, if voting could change anything, they'd have abolished the ballot box a long time ago.
There is no movement, I reiterate. It's smoke and mirrors, red herrings. For a movement to exist, a clearly enunciated ideology would be necessary, coupled with a way to realise it. The Bolsheviks had it, the Nazis had it. The Tea Partiers don't. Wake up.
There is no "left" in the US. As Nader pointed out some years ago, both Democrats and Republicans are dialling for the same dollars. There are no ideological differences between them. The only difference is that the Democrats are hypocrites becaue they have a different electoral basis, which they have to deceive.
The healthcare "reform" was written by industry lobbyists. Obama is a moron who understands nothing except to be a good house negro. Reid and Pelosi -- whom I hold in greater contempt than any Republican -- are corporate puppets. Are these the people you call the "left?"
The "reform" isn't a disaster for those who wrote the bill. It's a windfall. In your mind, is this what it means to be "left?"
What the Tea Partiers don't have the cojones, the brains, the ideology, the organisation, the common voice, to say is that something more radical is needed. But this is what happens when you have corporate puppets like Palin, Beck, and Limbaugh heading this "movement." Pied pipers, I think. At least Buchanan has been openly hinting that politics as usual is simply not working.