U.S Presidency

[Generic George]

THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION PERMITS MURDER!!!!!

 

The original document contains within itself the ability to change. It seems obvious to me that the original framers (at least some of them) knew better. The Constitution allows itself to be altered. The current state of blacks in this country is certainly more in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution than it was before.

 

The Constitution's purpose is not to redistribute wealth, it's purpose is to protect freedom and stop tyranny.

 

I'm missing the part where I said the purpose of the constitution, was to redistribute wealth. While the constitution does lay down the foundation of the government, it is silent on many issues about how that government is to function and how it is to carry out those functions. The government does not equal the constitution. If the government takes money from people and doesn't exactly return that money to the people in some form (which simply isn't practical) it is engaged in redistributing wealth.

 

Personally, I think government has an obligation to help out the less fortunate, the disadvantaged, the sick and I'm willing to pay for that. I've complained about filling out my taxes (which is way more difficult than it should be), but never about paying them.

 

Well the Declaration kind of was, but I know what you mean, and I agree with that idea.

 

As an atheist, I'd have preferred if a god had been left out of the Delcaration. But then again, the rabid religious right in this country would have considered most of the Founding Fathers practically atheists if they had ever been educated on what the FF actually believed about god and the church.

 

I want less, not more.

 

Really? I'd never have guessed. But it's just silly to accuse Obama of being a socialist, because he said things are better if the government spreads the wealth around a bit. This isn't the same thing as taxing the wealthy into poverty to give big checks to the less advantaged.

 

The New Deal can hardly be given all the credit. Some say that the recovery was already starting when the New Deal began. Either way, there were many factors.

 

Reality is always more complicated, but the fact remains that life has been better for pretty much all the people in the country since the government got "redistributionist" with things like Social Security, medicaid, greater funding for education, the GI Bill, etc....

 

OK, but only if you try moving to some place like Cuba or the Soviet Union where the government has (or had) completed its plan of total redistribution of wealth.

 

Cuba and the Soviet Union are totalitarian oligarchies not real communist states. The real problem with communisim is that it completely ignores everything about how human beings have been shown to behave. It's an utopian ideal, that like most utopias, requires perfect people to work. But with perfect people ANY system of government works.

 

No extreme system ever works well in the real world and pure capitalisim is just as bad as communisim, it's just bad in totally different ways. We have rules, regulations and oversight of capitalisim in this country for a reason. As the problems stemming from the past years of "Government is bad", no oversight have shown.

 

Look, I'm not really an extremist. I just want LESS redistribution of wealth instead of MORE. Both candidates promised to increase it, but Obama tried to increase it more.

 

If you oppose that, it's fine. But trying to paint Obama as a socialist (IE. A satanic devil worshiper, who kicks babies for fun) is just stupid.

 

It sounded like you mentioned it in a way that made it sound like Palin was something special in the 'only knows how to spew rhetoric' department. You are right of course, they are all politicians.

 

It was a response to the other poster who was claiming that Obama just spewed rhetoric, as if it was something unique to him alone. Given that the Republicans have made an art out of crucifying Democrats, if they actually try to offer concrete plans or tell the public the truth about things (we're spending too much money, you can't get everything you want from the government, you need to pay higher taxes). It's silly to expect him to have done anything other than offer fairly bland platitudes and empty rhetoric.

 

You can't get elected in this country as president if you tell them what how things actually are and what's going to need to be done.

[tha_toadman]

If the government takes money from people and doesn't exactly return that money to the people in some form (which simply isn't practical) it is engaged in redistributing wealth.

 

 

And at what point do you believe we should stop this redistribution of wealth? I'm just curious.

[Generic George]

And at what point do you believe we should stop this redistribution of wealth? I'm just curious.

 

I don't know and I doubt there's a simple answer to it.

 

More than we are now, less than in a real socialist state. The purpose of a "reasonable" degree of redistribution, isn't to make everyone even or punish the successful. It's to moderate the harshness of unrestrained capitalisim and provide a degree of protection for the weak and unfortunate.

 

Soaking the rich doesn't work any more than trickle down economics ever worked. It's stupid to punish people for being sucessful, but it's equaly stupid to free the successful from any obligation to the rest of society.

 

Some sort of nationalized healthcare wouldn't be a bad start. As it is we have all the worst aspects of a free market system, combined with all the worst aspects of a socialized system. We pay more per person for healthcare, cover fewer people and get worse treatment than any other developed country. Our public health indicators are worse than practically any other developed country. Our current system just doesn't work and nobody is happy with it.

 

I got seriously ill earlier this year and could quite easily have died. I happen to have good healthcare through my company. So I didn't suffer any financial setbacks, but another person could easily have had everything they had get wiped out, for no other reason than they got unlucky in life.

[tha_toadman]

I got seriously ill earlier this year and could quite easily have died. I happen to have good healthcare through my company. So I didn't suffer any financial setbacks, but another person could easily have had everything they had get wiped out, for no other reason than they got unlucky in life.

 

Sorry to hear that. You should have just asked for your check for $86,000 from Uncle Sam to help pay for it. Just kidding.

 

I do agree though with your last post. And from the sounds of it, Obama should attack that nationalized healthcare issue first and foremost. Once he does that (and maybe cuts me another $1,200 stimulus check), then I'll "concede".

[Descalzo]

I'm missing the part where I said the purpose of the constitution, was to redistribute wealth.

This is what I was talking about:

Do you understand that redistribution of wealth is one of the fundamental purposes of government?

 

Taken with the rest of what you just posted, it sounds like you were meaning something a little different than what I thought. Thanks for clearing it up. Especially the Palin/rhetoric bit.

[Generic George]

This is what I was talking about:

 

I know what you were referring to, my point in the rest of the paragraph was that the government is a distinct entity from the constitution. It may provide the foundation for the US government, but the two are not identical.

 

The government does a lot of things that aren't strictly speaking, laid out in the constitution. While it's arguable that some of them do actually exceed what's permitted in a strict reading of the constitution, a lot of them are IMO equally necessary in a modern society.

 

Taken with the rest of what you just posted, it sounds like you were meaning something a little different than what I thought. Thanks for clearing it up. Especially the Palin/rhetoric bit.

 

NP, you seem like a pretty reasonable guy. The context in one's head and the subtleties of conversation don't come across well in BBS posts do they?

[solaar]

The so-called 'redistribution of wealth' is one of those emotive terms that trigger serious attacks of socialism paranoia in certain people. McCarthy would be proud of you if he hadn't prematurely kicked the bucket due to alcoholism (which most likely triggered his mental illness)...

 

Apart from the fact that the paranoid need help now, they are also totally unaware of certain simple facts. One of those facts - money needs to remain in circulation at face value to keep an economy going. Too much private money concentrated and idling in just a handful of individuals (preferably hidden in some dubious, substance-less objects or in bank accounts in overseas tax havens) is to the economy what tuberculosis is to the human body.

[Alessandro17]

Very well said, solaar. That is just common sense. The enlightened "socialist" European countries (France, Germany, the Netherlands, UK to a much lesser extent, the Scandinavian countries) have always understood that.

[mifki]

guys who {censored} cares. obama's head could get blown off anytime in the near future i predict...

[dies]

guys who {censored} cares. obama's head could get blown off anytime in the near future i predict...

 

I don't know...

 

If you think about it, it doesn't really make much sense to make a martyr out of him.

 

Not to mention the backlash such an event would have...

 

 

Of course "thinking" isn't really a strongpoint among racists so you might be right.

[brainbone]

The Constitution's purpose is not to redistribute wealth, it's purpose is to protect freedom and stop tyranny.

 

To greatly oversimplify, it can be argued that progressively redistributing wealth helps protect the freedoms of the middle and lower class, and helps diffuse tyranny of the "ruling class". Take it too far, however, and you end up with the USSR.

[aduffbrew]

To greatly oversimplify, it can be argued that progressively redistributing wealth helps protect the freedoms of the middle and lower class, and helps diffuse tyranny of the "ruling class". Take it too far, however, and you end up with the USSR.

A lot of things can be argued.

 

Here is an interesting article for those thinking that if we just turn back the policy clock to a kinder gentler time of American economic superiority that all will be right as rain.

 

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/social_democracy_anyone.php

 

His conclusions aside, the author does an excellent job in assessing the situation in which the United States currently finds itself.

 

I propose that the purpose of government can be boiled down into just one simple concept: the promotion of individual well-being. We banded together in pre-history to protect ourselves from the elements, predators and competitors and to share in the responsibilities of resource development. Having to go it alone was pretty much a death sentence in those days. Government is just an evolution of that very same survival instinct. Now, there is a subtle distinction between promotion and provision. Look it up in Dictionary if you need to.

 

So what is well-being? Well, that can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. I would hope our evolved sensibilities in this matter include the need for universal education and healthcare. Again, I use the word universal in its purest sense. Please consult Dictionary if needed. Education and healthcare are vital to any vibrant economy and universal availability is in the community's best interest. Government sponsored social democracy promises the highest standards of service and innovation through resource efficiency and the elimination of redundancy. Market sponsored social democracy promises the highest standards of service and innovation through competitive choice. One can argue the first inspires human-nature and the second capitalizes on it.

 

Now we can argue which has the better track record. We can also argue the finer philosophical points. But there is no arguing which finds itself on more solid ground today... not yesterday, not tomorrow, but today. The current American system of Corporate sponsored social democracy is in its death throws... as the $55 - $70 trillion in unfunded entitlements indicate. That does not mean Government sponsored social democracy is the narrow gate by which all must enter humanity's future utopia. We have not found our silver bullet. Horrible inequities remain. The experimentation must go on.... and while the Federal and State Governments of the United States have increasingly introduced programs and legislation in favor of such government sponsorship, our Constitution is expressly written to favor another route... Market sponsored social democracy... which is a post Corporate model based on the libertine ideals that founded this country. Universally affordable, accessible and effective healthcare and education can flourish in such a system.

 

Let Europe advance her government sponsored social experimentation and let us continue ours. Here, when I say continue, I mean scrap this hodgepodge goliath of waste and start fresh! *laugh* By tackling society's problems from different angles, collectively we will learn much more than if we all jumped on the same band wagon.

 

Now, returning to the topic at hand. Neither Obama or McCain share my views on this. That doesn't mean I'm not thrilled Obama won. Well, maybe thrilled is a strong word, pleased? He and I are much more aligned in foreign policy which I feel has a better chance of improving our economic life here at home than anything else discussed during the campaign.

[solaar]

What the article describes has absolutely nothing to do with social-democracy. It comes across like an appeasement for a reactionary government in total failure, a lame excuse for what went horribly wrong although 'actually' the USA already 'have' a social-democrat system in place. Well the truth is, they don't. It couldn't be any farther from it right now, and it probably was even farther in 2004 when the article was written. (A bit of an exception -from what I know- is Massachusetts and probably a few other north-east states.)

 

Ultimately the latest events on the markets should make everybody suspicious about private entities whose sole motivation is a commercial one. Privates entities should make everybody suspicious when it comes to handing matters over to them that are of collective interest. Speaking for myself, I would never want to be at the mercy of privates for basic issues such as education. It is beyond me how some people have this seemingly blind trust in private companies but get paranoid as soon as they ever so remotely get reminded of 'socialism'.

Here's a message for you guys - Hammer and sickle are buried and McCarthy is dead. For good.

 

Define 'individual well-being'. Where does it start, where does it end? When is it too 'well' before it turns potentially detrimental for everybody, the 'individualists' included? Do you include some temp hired executive cashing in obscene amounts of golden parachute money despite (or perhaps even for) obvious incompetence? And dare to define well-being within a context of lack or even total non-existence of true substance. (I'm not even referring to the astronomical fortunes a handful of founders of groundbreaking companies have made and later in life decide to become philantropists.) I'm talking about corporate gamblers, executive scavengers supported by a buddy system and lucky opportunists whose only driving force is unlimited greed and who prove to possess the sense of responsibility of a 6 year old. It is plutocracy and nepotism at their finest, state-sponsored through deregulation.

 

There are in fact quite a few individuals who never became wealthy, let alone rich, but whose contributions to society are many times more precious than those of the above mentioned individuals. That is, as a result of competent, intelligent, responsible and moderate behaviour. Those attributes don't require private wealth to thrive.

 

Blind deregulation and institutionalised ignorance for large-scale collective interests has perverted the so-called 'free' economy to a casino operating around artificially inflating and deflating values of virtual objects with money that wasn't the gambler's money to begin with. The unregulated capitalism raised an army of self-indulgent nepotists, ridiculing any social-democrat idea until they realise that money isn't edible.

 

Lottery gains get taxed heavily and instantly whereas gains from glorified gambling on the financial and stock markets don't. I reckon it's about time to rethink some fundamentals of what a capitalist economy really stands for and, first of all, what its realistic value to a whole society truly represents if left totally uncontrolled by anybody except by itself.

[aduffbrew]

What the article describes has absolutely nothing to do with social-democracy.

Well duh!

 

Thanks for the rant dude. Did we catch you at a bad time?

[solaar]

Well duh!

 

Thanks for the rant dude. Did we catch you at a bad time?

Nah... any time is a good time. What you call a rant, we call a discussion.

 

You see, in a social-democracy everybody is cordially invited and actually encouraged to voice their opinion and their well-reflected counter argument. Even if it's a loud one. What we don't approve of though is when somebody pulls a gun due to lack of verbal arguments...

[m16]

If Europeans are so enlightened how come is the US economy stronger than the European Unions? You don't have to deal with the "south" like we do in the US....

[peach-os]

If Europeans are so enlightened how come is the US economy stronger than the European Unions? You don't have to deal with the "south" like we do in the US....

 

 

 

The National Bureau of Economic Research will announce in six months that the US is in a economic recession since six months - so you have six more months to believe in that

[solaar]

If Europeans are so enlightened how come is the US economy stronger than the European Unions? You don't have to deal with the "south" like we do in the US....

Oh is it now? Last time I checked the US economy was in fairly deep sh*t, just like pretty much everybody is right now.

 

We also have our 'South' that lives mainly off of tourism and bargain-hunting northeners on the real estate market, craving some sunshine, better food, booze and pretty senoritas. Plus we have 'the East' with their cheap and quite decent labour pushing hard into the West. (Don't get me wrong here, there's no judgement on my part. I reckon the Eastern EU countries are contributing as much as they can.) However... imagine the US would open their borders to Mexico...

 

Don't mix up strength with substantial long-term stability. The US economy may look big and powerful on the surface since they have their hands somewhere in most parts of the world, but in the long run, if they keep driving the same old tired route of living off of credit only this can crumble quite swiftly and painfully for everybody. It can't be healthy long-term to keep feeding massive economic efforts into a handful of fat cats on top whose only driving force is to let the economy bleed into their pockets.

[m16]

How come does the semi conductor industry reside here? Because our economic system of high freedom spurs innovation and ensures that we will have one of the strongest economies in the world. A recession doesn't mean our economy is any less smaller than Europes... You need to look at how we got big in the first place - economic freedom... And the market will pick up soon...

[peach-os]

How come does the semi conductor industry reside here? Because our economic system of high freedom spurs innovation and ensures that we will have one of the strongest economies in the world. A recession doesn't mean our economy is any less smaller than Europes... You need to look at how we got big in the first place - economic freedom... And the market will pick up soon...

it´s funny how you change your opinion bit by bit - but you wouldn´t admit that you are just pretending knowledge and insist on it.

 

let´s have a look on some facts instead of spreading halfknowledge

 

this is a comparison of the euro zone and the united states.

this includes countries like slovenia, but not countries like denmark,sweden and the uk.

I guess even you will be able to read the development.

 

look forward to the data of 2008 having the biggest public debt ever - it s time to stop dreaming