How is Obama a socialist?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Budmantom
How is Obama a socialist?

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

That sounds like Obama doesn't it?

It also sounds like McCain.
It also sounds like AMerica.
It also sounds like the only sensible policy.

Are you in favor of the old societies where most live in impoverished serfdom?

I certainly hope you never procreate. America was founded around principles that are OPPOSITE socialism. I hate it when people want to turn our great country into crap like that. In socialism, it doesn't matter how hard you work or how smart you are, you will get the same as your neighbor even if he sits around all day jerking off.

I guess we know which one you are...

the united states has been a socialist state since the mid 1800's, just like every other country.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Budmantom
How is Obama a socialist?

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

That sounds like Obama doesn't it?

Hint for Budmantom: If you're trying to lie through omission and distort a source, don't make it as obvious a source as Wikipedia.

Here is the paragraph directly before Budmantom's cut and paste job. Now, together... does this sound like Obama?

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society. Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

high corporate tax rates = effective collective ownership. 40% corporate tax rate = govt is entitled to 40% of profits, 60% to shareholders. I'd say that sounds like collective ownership, couple that in with business regulations you get the administration part.

And now with Obama we are moving towards lower tax rates for the lower 95%, and higher tax rates for the upper 5%. Again, with negative tax payments, i.e. welfare checks, and a very progressive tax rate, you are one step closer to an egalitarian society.

lol


you realize that effective tax rates are much, much lower than the state rate


supposedly i'm supposed to be paying 25% of my income in taxes, i only paid like 5-10% last year.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Henry Ford established the 40 hour work week.

In our "liberal" era we also saw the currency supply only raised 150%, since being taken off the gold standard it has risen 2200%. That killed the middle class, our standard of living, the value of our dollar, the ability of one income to provide for a family, and even played a role in this recent economic crisis.

The isane amount of debt our government has plunged us in since Reagan is our biggest public issue, our private debt load is just as problematic.

you realize that stagflation was the end result of the gold standard, and that the great depression was started in large part by the gold standard raping the English economy, right?

In every modern application, the gold standard has been an abject failure.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Budmantom
What about Biden and the $150k?

What about Palin and the inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?

Are we talking about the son of a democratic congressional member hacking into her email, or is that Watergate type of activity not being pursued for some reason?

i'm pretty sure that kid is in jail atm.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,272
103
106
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: RichardE
Seems to be a pretty prevalent talking point, yet no one has actually explained how his policies are socialist in nature in respect to what socialist is, as well as in respect to how McCain is not making socialist decisions as well.


Anyone care to actually explain this point? Or did the GOP talking point bulletin not explain that in depth?

The answer below is not far from, a bit harsh perhaps.

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
its for stupid people to latch on to.

While this board may be full of Political Science majors/buffs, the average voting population certain is not.

I would guess that even though you're in Canada, you may have caught to the USA habit of *soundbites*.

Well, claiming "socialist" or even "communist" is short-hand (i.e., soundbite-type communication) for big government and high taxes. Big government will extend it's control (less freedom). High taxes wil re-distribute your money./wealth to others in a soclialist/Marxist sorta way.

Politicians here simply do not engage lengthy nuanced and academic prose. it's far easier for them to use a simple & quick term widely understood term like "socialist" to paint a picture for their listeners.

Quite effective way to communicate, really.

Because most citizens think socialism is big gov ("nanny state") and high taxes (and are not intimately familiar with the proper definition), it's not all-together an inacurrate term for politicians to use. Now, it may be false if Obama has no intention to grow gov and raise taxes, but that's an entirely different matter.

So, all the bickering and Poly Sci lessons about what is "socialism" entirely misses the point IMO. For campaign purposes, it's what people think it is.

I do, however, under the academics frustration at seeing *their* terms bastardized; try being a tax accoutant and listening to politicians discuss taxation - your head would assplode.

Fern

Damn that's an excellent synopsis and right on the mark. Yes, he might not perfectly fit the academic definition of "socialism", but he fits the understanding that the average person has of socialism. Bottom line, he wants to raise taxes (supposedly in the name of fairness), increase the scope of government, increase government spending, and he wants to take money away from those who are successful and wealthy and give it to those who have not earned anything. That's pretty much a socialist, even if he doesn't meet the academic definition.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,303
136
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Budmantom
How is Obama a socialist?

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

That sounds like Obama doesn't it?

It also sounds like McCain.
It also sounds like AMerica.
It also sounds like the only sensible policy.

Are you in favor of the old societies where most live in impoverished serfdom?

I certainly hope you never procreate. America was founded around principles that are OPPOSITE socialism. I hate it when people want to turn our great country into crap like that. In socialism, it doesn't matter how hard you work or how smart you are, you will get the same as your neighbor even if he sits around all day jerking off.

I guess we know which one you are...

the united states has been a socialist state since the mid 1800's, just like every other country.

The US is NOT socialist. Well, except maybe by the bizarre definitions of socialism being applied in this thread, and elsewhere recently by the McCain campaign. But those are NOT socialism. Socialism is DEFINED by public ownership. Period.
And there are many ways to attempt to create a more egalitarian society, liberal capitalism being one of them (that is, unless you want to ditch democracy and go back to a monarchy). The key issue here is that while socialism tries to create equality of wealth (by sharing it), liberalism only wants to create equality of opportunity. Huge difference. This ideology BTW is what we call "The American Dream."
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,303
136
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: RichardE
Seems to be a pretty prevalent talking point, yet no one has actually explained how his policies are socialist in nature in respect to what socialist is, as well as in respect to how McCain is not making socialist decisions as well.


Anyone care to actually explain this point? Or did the GOP talking point bulletin not explain that in depth?

The answer below is not far from, a bit harsh perhaps.

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
its for stupid people to latch on to.

While this board may be full of Political Science majors/buffs, the average voting population certain is not.

I would guess that even though you're in Canada, you may have caught to the USA habit of *soundbites*.

Well, claiming "socialist" or even "communist" is short-hand (i.e., soundbite-type communication) for big government and high taxes. Big government will extend it's control (less freedom). High taxes wil re-distribute your money./wealth to others in a soclialist/Marxist sorta way.

Politicians here simply do not engage lengthy nuanced and academic prose. it's far easier for them to use a simple & quick term widely understood term like "socialist" to paint a picture for their listeners.

Quite effective way to communicate, really.

Because most citizens think socialism is big gov ("nanny state") and high taxes (and are not intimately familiar with the proper definition), it's not all-together an inacurrate term for politicians to use. Now, it may be false if Obama has no intention to grow gov and raise taxes, but that's an entirely different matter.

So, all the bickering and Poly Sci lessons about what is "socialism" entirely misses the point IMO. For campaign purposes, it's what people think it is.

I do, however, under the academics frustration at seeing *their* terms bastardized; try being a tax accoutant and listening to politicians discuss taxation - your head would assplode.

Fern

Damn that's an excellent synopsis and right on the mark. Yes, he might not perfectly fit the academic definition of "socialism", but he fits the understanding that the average person has of socialism. Bottom line, he wants to raise taxes (supposedly in the name of fairness), increase the scope of government, increase government spending, and he wants to take money away from those who are successful and wealthy and give it to those who have not earned anything. That's pretty much a socialist, even if he doesn't meet the academic definition.

Which only goes to prove the point I've been making all year, that the Pubs are the lowest common denominator party this year, catering to the populist ignorance of the baser of society. It's just the opposite of where the Dems were 4 years ago (but with a different rabble as their base).

It won't work for you. One, because that party never wins, being too absorbed with catering to their extreme elements to capture the independent and moderate votes necessary for either party to win. And two, because it was the Pubs who just DOUBLED the size and cost of the federal budget AND the federal debt in the past 8 years. So it's insanely disingenuous to pretend to be the small govt party now. Fool me once and all that...
 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
76
Originally posted by: Craig234

You're completely wrong, and only serve my point about the effective propagandizing that's happened.

That is *not* what socialism is, what you say, not at all.

Before we even talk about it, we have to note that there are no 'firm definitions' at the policy level on any ism. Capitalism, Socialism, Libertarianism all have disagreements.

But here's a typical proposal from a self-described socialist leader: a business owner can only make up to five times as much as the average worker.

If the average worker makes $50,000 and by offering more to be a good CEO, you can make $250K, are you saying that's not an incentive?

As I recall, even in periods of our peak 'capitalism', the ratio has tended to be maybe 20 or 25 times as much. In recent years, because of *corruption*, not 'earning it', CEO's in the US (not the rest of the world, where it's remained at similar levels) have turned that into hundreds of times as much, I recall seeing 400-1 ratios mentioned.

Socialism as I understand it understands and supports rewarding productivity - just not to the extreme that an unregulated corrupt system allows, and that is better for most people.

In our 'liberal era', say WWII-LBJ, we had a thriving middle class and a thriving economy - and no shortage of 'rich people', just with less concentration of wealth than now (or just preceding the great depression, when concentration of wealth was a factor in the economy's problems, and the last time the levels were at current rates).

You display that you are conditioned on the word socialism, not informed. You are armed only with a straw man argument, and you should learn a little about its definition and its flavors. Socialists led the fight in the US for the 40 hour work week, for example, the idea that the owners should not be able to pressure workers into 60 hour work weeks while unemployment was high, simply because it increased their profits to do so and keep a large supply of people ready to replace them. Was that such a bad idea?

Socialists were leaders in the fight for the woman's right to vote as well. Against that?

Edit: but then again your first insult shows you are an idiot, so this post is for others.

I am not sure if you are intentionally misrepresenting socialism by omission The most common definition of socialism, according to the Oxford Guide to Philosophy (I make the strangest impulse buys ever.) is: (1) State ownership of the means of production and control over investment throughout the economy. (2) more equal distribution of wealth and income than typically found in capitalism. (3) Democratic election of government officials responsible for economic decisions. There is a further much more dangerous and harmful subset called "central-planning socialism" where the government decides all factors of production and the prices at which they will be sold.

The problem with socialism is not that socialists are evil, but socialism in all but its weakest forms is incapable of actually handling all the decision making that is required for a society to function at anything near peak efficiency. I really wish we didn't have this knee jerk reaction of socialist= bad, it is fundamentally flawed, but intelligent discussion about its weakness in comparison with the weaknesses of the capitalism really would help people better understand the world we live in. But then again, I guess that might get in the way of watching the next American Idol, and dear god what horror we would experience if we actually learned something instead of watching people embarass themselves.

*EDIT*: Oh, and Obama is not a socialist, he just believe more regulations are necessary to improve the capitalistic system. Whether he is right or wrong, only time can tell. And for the record, I believe in the Friedman method.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: RichardE
Seems to be a pretty prevalent talking point, yet no one has actually explained how his policies are socialist in nature in respect to what socialist is, as well as in respect to how McCain is not making socialist decisions as well.


Anyone care to actually explain this point? Or did the GOP talking point bulletin not explain that in depth?

The answer below is not far from, a bit harsh perhaps.

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
its for stupid people to latch on to.

While this board may be full of Political Science majors/buffs, the average voting population certain is not.

I would guess that even though you're in Canada, you may have caught to the USA habit of *soundbites*.

Well, claiming "socialist" or even "communist" is short-hand (i.e., soundbite-type communication) for big government and high taxes. Big government will extend it's control (less freedom). High taxes wil re-distribute your money./wealth to others in a soclialist/Marxist sorta way.

Politicians here simply do not engage lengthy nuanced and academic prose. it's far easier for them to use a simple & quick term widely understood term like "socialist" to paint a picture for their listeners.

Quite effective way to communicate, really.

Because most citizens think socialism is big gov ("nanny state") and high taxes (and are not intimately familiar with the proper definition), it's not all-together an inacurrate term for politicians to use. Now, it may be false if Obama has no intention to grow gov and raise taxes, but that's an entirely different matter.

So, all the bickering and Poly Sci lessons about what is "socialism" entirely misses the point IMO. For campaign purposes, it's what people think it is.

I do, however, under the academics frustration at seeing *their* terms bastardized; try being a tax accoutant and listening to politicians discuss taxation - your head would assplode.

Fern

Damn that's an excellent synopsis and right on the mark. Yes, he might not perfectly fit the academic definition of "socialism", but he fits the understanding that the average person has of socialism. Bottom line, he wants to raise taxes (supposedly in the name of fairness), increase the scope of government, increase government spending, and he wants to take money away from those who are successful and wealthy and give it to those who have not earned anything. That's pretty much a socialist, even if he doesn't meet the academic definition.

Which only goes to prove the point I've been making all year, that the Pubs are the lowest common denominator party this year, catering to the populist ignorance of the baser of society. It's just the opposite of where the Dems were 4 years ago (but with a different rabble as their base).

It won't work for you. One, because that party never wins, being too absorbed with catering to their extreme elements to capture the independent and moderate votes necessary for either party to win. And two, because it was the Pubs who just DOUBLED the size and cost of the federal budget AND the federal debt in the past 8 years. So it's insanely disingenuous to pretend to be the small govt party now. Fool me once and all that...

Obama has been a great caterer, his base proves the intellectually abyss survives on both sides on the aisle.

Dems been in power the last two years, what did they do to reduce the spending/expansion of government? We all know they deregulated Wall Street in 1999, look how well that worked....

We need a smaller government, and yes the Pubs (along with the dems) have bloated our government and our debt to unsustainable levels. Can McCain reverse the trend, at least he recoginizes the problem and pledges to address it seriously. His track record at least shows his personal disdain for excessive spending.

Obama, eh screw it, let's just add another trillion to the debt. He not only acts as if there is no problem, he campaigns to make it worse and people line up and cheer, unbelievable....
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,303
136
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Obama has been a great caterer, his base proves the intellectually abyss survives on both sides on the aisle.

Dems been in power the last two years, what did they do to reduce the spending/expansion of government? We all know they deregulated Wall Street in 1999, look how well that worked....

We need a smaller government, and yes the Pubs (along with the dems) have bloated our government and our debt to unsustainable levels. Can McCain reverse the trend, at least he recoginizes the problem and pledges to address it seriously. His track record at least shows his personal disdain for excessive spending.

Obama, eh screw it, let's just add another trillion to the debt. He not only acts as if there is no problem, he campaigns to make it worse and people line up and cheer, unbelievable....

Okay, now your koolaid stupidity and reciting of wingnut talking points is just getting too surreal.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,272
103
106
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: RichardE
Seems to be a pretty prevalent talking point, yet no one has actually explained how his policies are socialist in nature in respect to what socialist is, as well as in respect to how McCain is not making socialist decisions as well.


Anyone care to actually explain this point? Or did the GOP talking point bulletin not explain that in depth?

The answer below is not far from, a bit harsh perhaps.

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
its for stupid people to latch on to.

While this board may be full of Political Science majors/buffs, the average voting population certain is not.

I would guess that even though you're in Canada, you may have caught to the USA habit of *soundbites*.

Well, claiming "socialist" or even "communist" is short-hand (i.e., soundbite-type communication) for big government and high taxes. Big government will extend it's control (less freedom). High taxes wil re-distribute your money./wealth to others in a soclialist/Marxist sorta way.

Politicians here simply do not engage lengthy nuanced and academic prose. it's far easier for them to use a simple & quick term widely understood term like "socialist" to paint a picture for their listeners.

Quite effective way to communicate, really.

Because most citizens think socialism is big gov ("nanny state") and high taxes (and are not intimately familiar with the proper definition), it's not all-together an inacurrate term for politicians to use. Now, it may be false if Obama has no intention to grow gov and raise taxes, but that's an entirely different matter.

So, all the bickering and Poly Sci lessons about what is "socialism" entirely misses the point IMO. For campaign purposes, it's what people think it is.

I do, however, under the academics frustration at seeing *their* terms bastardized; try being a tax accoutant and listening to politicians discuss taxation - your head would assplode.

Fern

Damn that's an excellent synopsis and right on the mark. Yes, he might not perfectly fit the academic definition of "socialism", but he fits the understanding that the average person has of socialism. Bottom line, he wants to raise taxes (supposedly in the name of fairness), increase the scope of government, increase government spending, and he wants to take money away from those who are successful and wealthy and give it to those who have not earned anything. That's pretty much a socialist, even if he doesn't meet the academic definition.

Which only goes to prove the point I've been making all year, that the Pubs are the lowest common denominator party this year, catering to the populist ignorance of the baser of society. It's just the opposite of where the Dems were 4 years ago (but with a different rabble as their base).

It won't work for you. One, because that party never wins, being too absorbed with catering to their extreme elements to capture the independent and moderate votes necessary for either party to win. And two, because it was the Pubs who just DOUBLED the size and cost of the federal budget AND the federal debt in the past 8 years. So it's insanely disingenuous to pretend to be the small govt party now. Fool me once and all that...

I don't believe either party is the party of "small government", they both will squander as much as they can. The difference is that Obama will have the capability of doing so with his fellow democratic squanderers.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Budmantom
How is Obama a socialist?

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

That sounds like Obama doesn't it?

It also sounds like McCain.
It also sounds like AMerica.
It also sounds like the only sensible policy.

Are you in favor of the old societies where most live in impoverished serfdom?

I certainly hope you never procreate. America was founded around principles that are OPPOSITE socialism. I hate it when people want to turn our great country into crap like that. In socialism, it doesn't matter how hard you work or how smart you are, you will get the same as your neighbor even if he sits around all day jerking off.

I guess we know which one you are...

You're completely wrong, and only serve my point about the effective propagandizing that's happened.

That is *not* what socialism is, what you say, not at all.

Before we even talk about it, we have to note that there are no 'firm definitions' at the policy level on any ism. Capitalism, Socialism, Libertarianism all have disagreements.

But here's a typical proposal from a self-described socialist leader: a business owner can only make up to five times as much as the average worker.

If the average worker makes $50,000 and by offering more to be a good CEO, you can make $250K, are you saying that's not an incentive?

As I recall, even in periods of our peak 'capitalism', the ratio has tended to be maybe 20 or 25 times as much. In recent years, because of *corruption*, not 'earning it', CEO's in the US (not the rest of the world, where it's remained at similar levels) have turned that into hundreds of times as much, I recall seeing 400-1 ratios mentioned.

Socialism as I understand it understands and supports rewarding productivity - just not to the extreme that an unregulated corrupt system allows, and that is better for most people.

In our 'liberal era', say WWII-LBJ, we had a thriving middle class and a thriving economy - and no shortage of 'rich people', just with less concentration of wealth than now (or just preceding the great depression, when concentration of wealth was a factor in the economy's problems, and the last time the levels were at current rates).

You display that you are conditioned on the word socialism, not informed. You are armed only with a straw man argument, and you should learn a little about its definition and its flavors. Socialists led the fight in the US for the 40 hour work week, for example, the idea that the owners should not be able to pressure workers into 60 hour work weeks while unemployment was high, simply because it increased their profits to do so and keep a large supply of people ready to replace them. Was that such a bad idea?

Socialists were leaders in the fight for the woman's right to vote as well. Against that?

Edit: but then again your first insult shows you are an idiot, so this post is for others.

1. How can I be 'completely wrong' if there is no firm definition?

2. The US was founded on the principle that the government butts out. Obviously we need government controls in place to protect us from ourselves, but you are proposing that the government basically run our lives. Why should a CEO be limited to $250,000? If the shareholders agree that he should get $1,000,000,000/year, LET THEM give it! It's up to them. The problem is that we're too lazy to do anything but sit around and complain about it. Instead of paying the government to tell you how to run your life, get out there and do it yourself.

3. I am most certainly NOT making a straw man. YOU are taking what I said and reading into it so far that you're creating your own straw man and claiming that it's mine.

4. You are now using your own logical fallacy. I'm not an expert in that field and don't recall the name, but now you're trying to say that I am against the entire concept of government intervention if I disagree with any form of government intervention.

Again, I hope that you don't ever procreate. I can smell the stench of your smug from all the way over here.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Obama has been a great caterer, his base proves the intellectually abyss survives on both sides on the aisle.

Dems been in power the last two years, what did they do to reduce the spending/expansion of government? We all know they deregulated Wall Street in 1999, look how well that worked....

We need a smaller government, and yes the Pubs (along with the dems) have bloated our government and our debt to unsustainable levels. Can McCain reverse the trend, at least he recoginizes the problem and pledges to address it seriously. His track record at least shows his personal disdain for excessive spending.

Obama, eh screw it, let's just add another trillion to the debt. He not only acts as if there is no problem, he campaigns to make it worse and people line up and cheer, unbelievable....

Okay, now your koolaid stupidity and reciting of wingnut talking points is just getting too surreal.

They are not talking points, those are the legitimate concerns and issues I have with Obama's economic plan. Get your head out of Obama's ass and read, you will see I agree the GOP (along with dems) have fiscally screwed the American public. Anyone with an IQ over 5 will tell you the negative impact deficit spending has on the value of the dollar, the trade deficit, and consequently our standard of living. I am a liberal with the exception of a few select issues, unfortunately Obama is on the wrong side of the most important in my mind.

You sit here and tell me deficit spending is a significant problem, but back the candidate that promises additional deficit spending. That's kool-aid stupidity, thank god he has already show he can't keep his promises. Vote for a liar that has said he will add to a problem you easily see, that's right, just suck it down......


 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: microbial
I wrote this in another thread, but it fits here too.:

"You know, all this bullshit "re-distribution of wealth" rhetoric from the right is so willfully ignorant.

Capitalism is one of the most liberal economic ideas ever conceived. Historically, this country is tied to capitalistic origins in England where the concentration and accumulation of wealth by feudal lords and kings was so centralized into the hands of just a few.

From this environment our country was born and capitalism is unequivocally meant to be a vehicle for redistributing and decentralizing wealth (a very effective vehicle, when allowed to operate without corruption).

So the take-home message is that Capitalism is at it's most pure and organic form, all about spreading the wealth.

Today, 2008, we have corrupted our economic systems so much--we have essentially returned back to a modern form of feudalism."

Time to fix what is broken.

You're sort of right - but our founding fathers' main act was not 'capitalism', it was to distribute power out of the hands of the noble class and into the hands of the people.

That's because they saw the benefits of 'small business' - that's who Americans were - not to be abused by 'big business' - that was the British East India Company.

If they'd had any idea of the level of abuse of modern corporatism, I think they'd reiterate why they distributed power with democracy to fix the abuse.

Yet you want to hand all the power over to the government... You realize that if you get your way and socialism really takes over like Obama wants, then things will go back to what people originally fled England to get away from.
 

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
12,627
3,014
136
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: microbial
I wrote this in another thread, but it fits here too.:

"You know, all this bullshit "re-distribution of wealth" rhetoric from the right is so willfully ignorant.

Capitalism is one of the most liberal economic ideas ever conceived. Historically, this country is tied to capitalistic origins in England where the concentration and accumulation of wealth by feudal lords and kings was so centralized into the hands of just a few.

From this environment our country was born and capitalism is unequivocally meant to be a vehicle for redistributing and decentralizing wealth (a very effective vehicle, when allowed to operate without corruption).

So the take-home message is that Capitalism is at it's most pure and organic form, all about spreading the wealth.

Today, 2008, we have corrupted our economic systems so much--we have essentially returned back to a modern form of feudalism."

Time to fix what is broken.

You're sort of right - but our founding fathers' main act was not 'capitalism', it was to distribute power out of the hands of the noble class and into the hands of the people.

That's because they saw the benefits of 'small business' - that's who Americans were - not to be abused by 'big business' - that was the British East India Company.

If they'd had any idea of the level of abuse of modern corporatism, I think they'd reiterate why they distributed power with democracy to fix the abuse.

Yet you want to hand all the power over to the government... You realize that if you get your way and socialism really takes over like Obama wants, then things will go back to what people originally fled England to get away from.
you are providing no facts, only insinuations. do you consider the $700b bailout/rescue socialism?
 

microbial

Senior member
Oct 10, 2008
350
0
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: microbial
I wrote this in another thread, but it fits here too.:

"You know, all this bullshit "re-distribution of wealth" rhetoric from the right is so willfully ignorant.

Capitalism is one of the most liberal economic ideas ever conceived. Historically, this country is tied to capitalistic origins in England where the concentration and accumulation of wealth by feudal lords and kings was so centralized into the hands of just a few.

From this environment our country was born and capitalism is unequivocally meant to be a vehicle for redistributing and decentralizing wealth (a very effective vehicle, when allowed to operate without corruption).

So the take-home message is that Capitalism is at it's most pure and organic form, all about spreading the wealth.

Today, 2008, we have corrupted our economic systems so much--we have essentially returned back to a modern form of feudalism."

Time to fix what is broken.

You're sort of right - but our founding fathers' main act was not 'capitalism', it was to distribute power out of the hands of the noble class and into the hands of the people.

That's because they saw the benefits of 'small business' - that's who Americans were - not to be abused by 'big business' - that was the British East India Company.

If they'd had any idea of the level of abuse of modern corporatism, I think they'd reiterate why they distributed power with democracy to fix the abuse.

Yet you want to hand all the power over to the government... You realize that if you get your way and socialism really takes over like Obama wants, then things will go back to what people originally fled England to get away from.

Well, that's exactly it. Power = Wealth

It has already happened--modern day feudalism.

We have returned to the great centralization and accumulation of wealth in the hands of just a very few.

Who do you think actually makes policy in this country? "Drill, Baby, Drill" That's who.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: RichardE
Seems to be a pretty prevalent talking point, yet no one has actually explained how his policies are socialist in nature in respect to what socialist is, as well as in respect to how McCain is not making socialist decisions as well.


Anyone care to actually explain this point? Or did the GOP talking point bulletin not explain that in depth?

The answer below is not far from, a bit harsh perhaps.

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
its for stupid people to latch on to.

While this board may be full of Political Science majors/buffs, the average voting population certain is not.

I would guess that even though you're in Canada, you may have caught to the USA habit of *soundbites*.

Well, claiming "socialist" or even "communist" is short-hand (i.e., soundbite-type communication) for big government and high taxes. Big government will extend it's control (less freedom). High taxes wil re-distribute your money./wealth to others in a soclialist/Marxist sorta way.

Politicians here simply do not engage lengthy nuanced and academic prose. it's far easier for them to use a simple & quick term widely understood term like "socialist" to paint a picture for their listeners.

Quite effective way to communicate, really.

Because most citizens think socialism is big gov ("nanny state") and high taxes (and are not intimately familiar with the proper definition), it's not all-together an inacurrate term for politicians to use. Now, it may be false if Obama has no intention to grow gov and raise taxes, but that's an entirely different matter.

So, all the bickering and Poly Sci lessons about what is "socialism" entirely misses the point IMO. For campaign purposes, it's what people think it is.

I do, however, under the academics frustration at seeing *their* terms bastardized; try being a tax accoutant and listening to politicians discuss taxation - your head would assplode.

Fern

Damn that's an excellent synopsis and right on the mark. Yes, he might not perfectly fit the academic definition of "socialism", but he fits the understanding that the average person has of socialism. Bottom line, he wants to raise taxes (supposedly in the name of fairness), increase the scope of government, increase government spending, and he wants to take money away from those who are successful and wealthy and give it to those who have not earned anything. That's pretty much a socialist, even if he doesn't meet the academic definition.

Which only goes to prove the point I've been making all year, that the Pubs are the lowest common denominator party this year, catering to the populist ignorance of the baser of society. It's just the opposite of where the Dems were 4 years ago (but with a different rabble as their base).

It won't work for you. One, because that party never wins, being too absorbed with catering to their extreme elements to capture the independent and moderate votes necessary for either party to win. And two, because it was the Pubs who just DOUBLED the size and cost of the federal budget AND the federal debt in the past 8 years. So it's insanely disingenuous to pretend to be the small govt party now. Fool me once and all that...

Obama has been a great caterer, his base proves the intellectually abyss survives on both sides on the aisle.

Dems been in power the last two years, what did they do to reduce the spending/expansion of government? We all know they deregulated Wall Street in 1999, look how well that worked....

We need a smaller government, and yes the Pubs (along with the dems) have bloated our government and our debt to unsustainable levels. Can McCain reverse the trend, at least he recoginizes the problem and pledges to address it seriously. His track record at least shows his personal disdain for excessive spending.

Obama, eh screw it, let's just add another trillion to the debt. He not only acts as if there is no problem, he campaigns to make it worse and people line up and cheer, unbelievable....

WHY do we need smaller government? That seems to be the cornerstone of conservative philosophy, even though the folks you elect NEVER follow it, but I have yet to see a good argument as to why "smaller" is the best adjective we can attach to government. Obviously wasting money is a bad idea, but conservative arguments against government rarely, if ever, venture into arguments about the value of government spending...you just want to take an axe to the entire thing. Increased spending is treated as the gravest possible affront to our way of life, whether or not it's a good use of money.

In other words, you'd rather have a $900 million dollar program that doesn't work rather than a $1 billion dollar program that gives us a good value for our tax dollar. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing inherently bad about the idea of low taxes and low spending, but only when it's about EFFICIENCY instead of just size...and so far I haven't seem much from McCain or any other Republican that makes me think they want a working government, they just want a cheaper one. Even if Obama's plans end up costing a little more, I'd rather see government do something constructive with my tax dollars instead of not taking as many, but putting those dollars they do take in a big pile on the White House lawn and setting them on fire.

But honestly that's all beside the point, because in addition to having a questionable view of government, the conservative political philosophy remains mostly just an interesting theory. I hear "we want small government", but what I see is the conservatives supporting a President and a Congress that spent many years greatly expanding government spending, violating the constitution and making America look like land of the assholes. McCain talks an OK game, but his VP pick is possibly the worst choice for the job ever...and she was chosen to appeal to the religious right, which definitely isn't big on reducing the interference of government into our private lives. And let's not forget that conservative views are most strongly held in states that benefit the most from a large federal government subsidizing their crappy economies.

I think that, properly argued, I could be brought around on the idea of smaller government being a good idea. But if there is a group of people out there on the right who ACTUALLY support small government, I've yet to meet them. All I see is people complaining about how taxes are bad because government should just leave us alone and stay out of our private lives, followed by vehement support for policies that allow the President being able to spy on, jail and torture anyone he likes for any reason at all. Small government is a pretty hard sell in the first place, much less when it's coming from a group of people who seem totally incapable of practicing what they preach.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,303
136
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Obama has been a great caterer, his base proves the intellectually abyss survives on both sides on the aisle.

Dems been in power the last two years, what did they do to reduce the spending/expansion of government? We all know they deregulated Wall Street in 1999, look how well that worked....

We need a smaller government, and yes the Pubs (along with the dems) have bloated our government and our debt to unsustainable levels. Can McCain reverse the trend, at least he recoginizes the problem and pledges to address it seriously. His track record at least shows his personal disdain for excessive spending.

Obama, eh screw it, let's just add another trillion to the debt. He not only acts as if there is no problem, he campaigns to make it worse and people line up and cheer, unbelievable....

Okay, now your koolaid stupidity and reciting of wingnut talking points is just getting too surreal.

They are not talking points, those are the legitimate concerns and issues I have with Obama's economic plan. Get your head out of Obama's ass and read, you will see I agree the GOP (along with dems) have fiscally screwed the American public. Anyone with an IQ over 5 will tell you the negative impact deficit spending has on the value of the dollar, the trade deficit, and consequently our standard of living. I am a liberal with the exception of a few select issues, unfortunately Obama is on the wrong side of the most important in my mind.

You sit here and tell me deficit spending is a significant problem, but back the candidate that promises additional deficit spending. That's kool-aid stupidity, thank god he has already show he can't keep his promises. Vote for a liar that has said he will add to a problem you easily see, that's right, just suck it down......

I don't care what McCain promises. That's campaign trail rhetoric. Every independent expert analysis of the candidates' economic proposals (and there have been several) indicates that McCain would increase spending AND the deficit faster than Obama.

I acknowledge that this is a genuine challenge for both candidates, but when you have McCain supporters like yourself pretending that he is going to attack the deficit based on vague promises he's made while in the same breath he promises tax cuts and increased spending... well, don't talk to me about koolaid and liars, eh? It's getting boring.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,272
103
106
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: RichardE
Seems to be a pretty prevalent talking point, yet no one has actually explained how his policies are socialist in nature in respect to what socialist is, as well as in respect to how McCain is not making socialist decisions as well.


Anyone care to actually explain this point? Or did the GOP talking point bulletin not explain that in depth?

The answer below is not far from, a bit harsh perhaps.

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
its for stupid people to latch on to.

While this board may be full of Political Science majors/buffs, the average voting population certain is not.

I would guess that even though you're in Canada, you may have caught to the USA habit of *soundbites*.

Well, claiming "socialist" or even "communist" is short-hand (i.e., soundbite-type communication) for big government and high taxes. Big government will extend it's control (less freedom). High taxes wil re-distribute your money./wealth to others in a soclialist/Marxist sorta way.

Politicians here simply do not engage lengthy nuanced and academic prose. it's far easier for them to use a simple & quick term widely understood term like "socialist" to paint a picture for their listeners.

Quite effective way to communicate, really.

Because most citizens think socialism is big gov ("nanny state") and high taxes (and are not intimately familiar with the proper definition), it's not all-together an inacurrate term for politicians to use. Now, it may be false if Obama has no intention to grow gov and raise taxes, but that's an entirely different matter.

So, all the bickering and Poly Sci lessons about what is "socialism" entirely misses the point IMO. For campaign purposes, it's what people think it is.

I do, however, under the academics frustration at seeing *their* terms bastardized; try being a tax accoutant and listening to politicians discuss taxation - your head would assplode.

Fern

Damn that's an excellent synopsis and right on the mark. Yes, he might not perfectly fit the academic definition of "socialism", but he fits the understanding that the average person has of socialism. Bottom line, he wants to raise taxes (supposedly in the name of fairness), increase the scope of government, increase government spending, and he wants to take money away from those who are successful and wealthy and give it to those who have not earned anything. That's pretty much a socialist, even if he doesn't meet the academic definition.

Which only goes to prove the point I've been making all year, that the Pubs are the lowest common denominator party this year, catering to the populist ignorance of the baser of society. It's just the opposite of where the Dems were 4 years ago (but with a different rabble as their base).

It won't work for you. One, because that party never wins, being too absorbed with catering to their extreme elements to capture the independent and moderate votes necessary for either party to win. And two, because it was the Pubs who just DOUBLED the size and cost of the federal budget AND the federal debt in the past 8 years. So it's insanely disingenuous to pretend to be the small govt party now. Fool me once and all that...

Obama has been a great caterer, his base proves the intellectually abyss survives on both sides on the aisle.

Dems been in power the last two years, what did they do to reduce the spending/expansion of government? We all know they deregulated Wall Street in 1999, look how well that worked....

We need a smaller government, and yes the Pubs (along with the dems) have bloated our government and our debt to unsustainable levels. Can McCain reverse the trend, at least he recoginizes the problem and pledges to address it seriously. His track record at least shows his personal disdain for excessive spending.

Obama, eh screw it, let's just add another trillion to the debt. He not only acts as if there is no problem, he campaigns to make it worse and people line up and cheer, unbelievable....

WHY do we need smaller government? That seems to be the cornerstone of conservative philosophy, even though the folks you elect NEVER follow it, but I have yet to see a good argument as to why "smaller" is the best adjective we can attach to government. Obviously wasting money is a bad idea, but conservative arguments against government rarely, if ever, venture into arguments about the value of government spending...you just want to take an axe to the entire thing. Increased spending is treated as the gravest possible affront to our way of life, whether or not it's a good use of money.

In other words, you'd rather have a $900 million dollar program that doesn't work rather than a $1 billion dollar program that gives us a good value for our tax dollar.

Governments can not do anything efficiently -- ever. The only thing the government should do is that which can't be done some other way. That's the philosophy behind smaller government. And in your example, yes spending $1 billion on a good program is better than spending $900 million on a bad one, but the reality is that with government programs, spending $1 billion on something usually means $600 million of waste and corruption and $400 million on the actual need. As such, by default I'm for anything that reduces government spending.

The problem is that both parties want to increase the size of government, just in different ways.

Even if Obama's plans end up costing a little more, I'd rather see government do something constructive with my tax dollars instead of not taking as many

They won't cost a little more, if history is a guide, just about every major government program ends up costing an enormous amount with crappy results.

What in history (not just in the US but around the world) makes you think big government programs are ever the best answer to a problem?

but what I see is the conservatives supporting a President and a Congress that spent many years greatly expanding government spending, violating the constitution and making America look like land of the assholes.

No argument there, the supposed conservatives betrayed the conservative values.

I think that, properly argued, I could be brought around on the idea of smaller government being a good idea. But if there is a group of people out there on the right who ACTUALLY support small government, I've yet to meet them. All I see is people complaining about how taxes are bad because government should just leave us alone and stay out of our private lives, followed by vehement support for policies that allow the President being able to spy on, jail and torture anyone he likes for any reason at all. Small government is a pretty hard sell in the first place, much less when it's coming from a group of people who seem totally incapable of practicing what they preach.

Again, I'd love to argue with you on that one, but that's essentially true.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Originally posted by: Rainsford
...

WHY do we need smaller government? That seems to be the cornerstone of conservative philosophy, even though the folks you elect NEVER follow it, but I have yet to see a good argument as to why "smaller" is the best adjective we can attach to government. Obviously wasting money is a bad idea, but conservative arguments against government rarely, if ever, venture into arguments about the value of government spending...you just want to take an axe to the entire thing. Increased spending is treated as the gravest possible affront to our way of life, whether or not it's a good use of money.

In other words, you'd rather have a $900 million dollar program that doesn't work rather than a $1 billion dollar program that gives us a good value for our tax dollar.

Governments can not do anything efficiently -- ever. The only thing the government should do is that which can't be done some other way. That's the philosophy behind smaller government. And in your example, yes spending $1 billion on a good program is better than spending $900 million on a bad one, but the reality is that with government programs, spending $1 billion on something usually means $600 million of waste and corruption and $400 million on the actual need. As such, by default I'm for anything that reduces government spending.

The problem is that both parties want to increase the size of government, just in different ways.

Even if Obama's plans end up costing a little more, I'd rather see government do something constructive with my tax dollars instead of not taking as many

They won't cost a little more, if history is a guide, just about every major government program ends up costing an enormous amount with crappy results.

What in history (not just in the US but around the world) makes you think big government programs are ever the best answer to a problem?

but what I see is the conservatives supporting a President and a Congress that spent many years greatly expanding government spending, violating the constitution and making America look like land of the assholes.

No argument there, the supposed conservatives betrayed the conservative values.

I think that, properly argued, I could be brought around on the idea of smaller government being a good idea. But if there is a group of people out there on the right who ACTUALLY support small government, I've yet to meet them. All I see is people complaining about how taxes are bad because government should just leave us alone and stay out of our private lives, followed by vehement support for policies that allow the President being able to spy on, jail and torture anyone he likes for any reason at all. Small government is a pretty hard sell in the first place, much less when it's coming from a group of people who seem totally incapable of practicing what they preach.

Again, I'd love to argue with you on that one, but that's essentially true.

I honestly don't know that government is or can be the answer, but I think our focus would be better spent on making government EFFECTIVE rather than debating and voting based on pretty arbitrary determinations about appropriate size of government. Mostly because I think we can all agree that there are certain functions the government can (and should) do, and we can debate other areas of government policy...but debating size allows for too much empty rhetoric and not enough actual policy. You might be right that government can't do things efficiently, and that's a reason to not support UHC (for example), so let's discuss THAT instead of making UHC a debate about it being "big government" or "socialism", words that are totally relative and that make it difficult for anyone against UHC to then turn around and argue for increased defense spending.

Shifting the debate that way could also allow for better results at holding politicians accountable. If each program has to stand on its own merits instead of being supported or attacked based on broad platitudes about government size and function, I think it could reduce a lot of wasteful spending and maybe help bring the other side on board with programs they might not otherwise support.
 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
76
Originally posted by: Rainsford

WHY do we need smaller government? That seems to be the cornerstone of conservative philosophy, even though the folks you elect NEVER follow it, but I have yet to see a good argument as to why "smaller" is the best adjective we can attach to government. Obviously wasting money is a bad idea, but conservative arguments against government rarely, if ever, venture into arguments about the value of government spending...you just want to take an axe to the entire thing. Increased spending is treated as the gravest possible affront to our way of life, whether or not it's a good use of money.

In other words, you'd rather have a $900 million dollar program that doesn't work rather than a $1 billion dollar program that gives us a good value for our tax dollar. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing inherently bad about the idea of low taxes and low spending, but only when it's about EFFICIENCY instead of just size...and so far I haven't seem much from McCain or any other Republican that makes me think they want a working government, they just want a cheaper one. Even if Obama's plans end up costing a little more, I'd rather see government do something constructive with my tax dollars instead of not taking as many, but putting those dollars they do take in a big pile on the White House lawn and setting them on fire.

But honestly that's all beside the point, because in addition to having a questionable view of government, the conservative political philosophy remains mostly just an interesting theory. I hear "we want small government", but what I see is the conservatives supporting a President and a Congress that spent many years greatly expanding government spending, violating the constitution and making America look like land of the assholes. McCain talks an OK game, but his VP pick is possibly the worst choice for the job ever...and she was chosen to appeal to the religious right, which definitely isn't big on reducing the interference of government into our private lives. And let's not forget that conservative views are most strongly held in states that benefit the most from a large federal government subsidizing their crappy economies.

I think that, properly argued, I could be brought around on the idea of smaller government being a good idea. But if there is a group of people out there on the right who ACTUALLY support small government, I've yet to meet them. All I see is people complaining about how taxes are bad because government should just leave us alone and stay out of our private lives, followed by vehement support for policies that allow the President being able to spy on, jail and torture anyone he likes for any reason at all. Small government is a pretty hard sell in the first place, much less when it's coming from a group of people who seem totally incapable of practicing what they preach.

My favorite rationale to date has been the idea that even if business are on average much worse than government, because we get to choose the best of the best businesses we should get better service from private businesses just because we keep the best and get rid of the rest. I am recreating this hypothetical argument from memory so please bear with me.

Let us rate our satisfaction with a "product" on a scale of 1-100, and lets just say that government will provide us that "product" at a rating of 90. For the purpose of making this simple assume everything except product satisfaction is equal for everything. Government really does do a good job, we don't need a crappy government to make the argument that private business is better. However, private industries provide us with products that have an average rating of 60, and a standard deviation of 10. With these assumptions the government is going to do a better job than almost every private industry, but private industry has an advantage, pure numbers. Eventually, one of those businesses will come out above a 90 rating, it will be very rare, but any person who thinks he can do better is able to try, and when someone does we get a better product. I hope that makes sense.

Now of course all these arguments rely on several assumptions about free markets, and consumer choice that are not all perfect, and not always true. But, on the other hand for a large strong government to be the best choice, it requires that the people always elect good politicians, it requires the politicians always make good policies and laws, and it requires the government to appoint good people. And now that I have written way too much, the best argument for small government may be good ol GWB. For big government to be a good thing, it should be just as good with elected idiots as it is with elected geniuses.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
Originally posted by: daishi5
Originally posted by: Rainsford

WHY do we need smaller government? That seems to be the cornerstone of conservative philosophy, even though the folks you elect NEVER follow it, but I have yet to see a good argument as to why "smaller" is the best adjective we can attach to government. Obviously wasting money is a bad idea, but conservative arguments against government rarely, if ever, venture into arguments about the value of government spending...you just want to take an axe to the entire thing. Increased spending is treated as the gravest possible affront to our way of life, whether or not it's a good use of money.

In other words, you'd rather have a $900 million dollar program that doesn't work rather than a $1 billion dollar program that gives us a good value for our tax dollar. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing inherently bad about the idea of low taxes and low spending, but only when it's about EFFICIENCY instead of just size...and so far I haven't seem much from McCain or any other Republican that makes me think they want a working government, they just want a cheaper one. Even if Obama's plans end up costing a little more, I'd rather see government do something constructive with my tax dollars instead of not taking as many, but putting those dollars they do take in a big pile on the White House lawn and setting them on fire.

But honestly that's all beside the point, because in addition to having a questionable view of government, the conservative political philosophy remains mostly just an interesting theory. I hear "we want small government", but what I see is the conservatives supporting a President and a Congress that spent many years greatly expanding government spending, violating the constitution and making America look like land of the assholes. McCain talks an OK game, but his VP pick is possibly the worst choice for the job ever...and she was chosen to appeal to the religious right, which definitely isn't big on reducing the interference of government into our private lives. And let's not forget that conservative views are most strongly held in states that benefit the most from a large federal government subsidizing their crappy economies.

I think that, properly argued, I could be brought around on the idea of smaller government being a good idea. But if there is a group of people out there on the right who ACTUALLY support small government, I've yet to meet them. All I see is people complaining about how taxes are bad because government should just leave us alone and stay out of our private lives, followed by vehement support for policies that allow the President being able to spy on, jail and torture anyone he likes for any reason at all. Small government is a pretty hard sell in the first place, much less when it's coming from a group of people who seem totally incapable of practicing what they preach.

My favorite rationale to date has been the idea that even if business are on average much worse than government, because we get to choose the best of the best businesses we should get better service from private businesses just because we keep the best and get rid of the rest. I am recreating this hypothetical argument from memory so please bear with me.

Let us rate our satisfaction with a "product" on a scale of 1-100, and lets just say that government will provide us that "product" at a rating of 90. For the purpose of making this simple assume everything except product satisfaction is equal for everything. Government really does do a good job, we don't need a crappy government to make the argument that private business is better. However, private industries provide us with products that have an average rating of 60, and a standard deviation of 10. With these assumptions the government is going to do a better job than almost every private industry, but private industry has an advantage, pure numbers. Eventually, one of those businesses will come out above a 90 rating, it will be very rare, but any person who thinks he can do better is able to try, and when someone does we get a better product. I hope that makes sense.

Now of course all these arguments rely on several assumptions about free markets, and consumer choice that are not all perfect, and not always true. But, on the other hand for a large strong government to be the best choice, it requires that the people always elect good politicians, it requires the politicians always make good policies and laws, and it requires the government to appoint good people. And now that I have written way too much, the best argument for small government may be good ol GWB. For big government to be a good thing, it should be just as good with elected idiots as it is with elected geniuses.

You can make a Wholesale change of Government every 4 Years.

Government can do things very well, but if people send others to Government who don't think Government can do anything, you'll end up with ineffective Government. It ain't Rocket Science.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: daishi5
Originally posted by: Rainsford

WHY do we need smaller government? That seems to be the cornerstone of conservative philosophy, even though the folks you elect NEVER follow it, but I have yet to see a good argument as to why "smaller" is the best adjective we can attach to government. Obviously wasting money is a bad idea, but conservative arguments against government rarely, if ever, venture into arguments about the value of government spending...you just want to take an axe to the entire thing. Increased spending is treated as the gravest possible affront to our way of life, whether or not it's a good use of money.

In other words, you'd rather have a $900 million dollar program that doesn't work rather than a $1 billion dollar program that gives us a good value for our tax dollar. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing inherently bad about the idea of low taxes and low spending, but only when it's about EFFICIENCY instead of just size...and so far I haven't seem much from McCain or any other Republican that makes me think they want a working government, they just want a cheaper one. Even if Obama's plans end up costing a little more, I'd rather see government do something constructive with my tax dollars instead of not taking as many, but putting those dollars they do take in a big pile on the White House lawn and setting them on fire.

But honestly that's all beside the point, because in addition to having a questionable view of government, the conservative political philosophy remains mostly just an interesting theory. I hear "we want small government", but what I see is the conservatives supporting a President and a Congress that spent many years greatly expanding government spending, violating the constitution and making America look like land of the assholes. McCain talks an OK game, but his VP pick is possibly the worst choice for the job ever...and she was chosen to appeal to the religious right, which definitely isn't big on reducing the interference of government into our private lives. And let's not forget that conservative views are most strongly held in states that benefit the most from a large federal government subsidizing their crappy economies.

I think that, properly argued, I could be brought around on the idea of smaller government being a good idea. But if there is a group of people out there on the right who ACTUALLY support small government, I've yet to meet them. All I see is people complaining about how taxes are bad because government should just leave us alone and stay out of our private lives, followed by vehement support for policies that allow the President being able to spy on, jail and torture anyone he likes for any reason at all. Small government is a pretty hard sell in the first place, much less when it's coming from a group of people who seem totally incapable of practicing what they preach.

My favorite rationale to date has been the idea that even if business are on average much worse than government, because we get to choose the best of the best businesses we should get better service from private businesses just because we keep the best and get rid of the rest. I am recreating this hypothetical argument from memory so please bear with me.

Let us rate our satisfaction with a "product" on a scale of 1-100, and lets just say that government will provide us that "product" at a rating of 90. For the purpose of making this simple assume everything except product satisfaction is equal for everything. Government really does do a good job, we don't need a crappy government to make the argument that private business is better. However, private industries provide us with products that have an average rating of 60, and a standard deviation of 10. With these assumptions the government is going to do a better job than almost every private industry, but private industry has an advantage, pure numbers. Eventually, one of those businesses will come out above a 90 rating, it will be very rare, but any person who thinks he can do better is able to try, and when someone does we get a better product. I hope that makes sense.

Now of course all these arguments rely on several assumptions about free markets, and consumer choice that are not all perfect, and not always true. But, on the other hand for a large strong government to be the best choice, it requires that the people always elect good politicians, it requires the politicians always make good policies and laws, and it requires the government to appoint good people. And now that I have written way too much, the best argument for small government may be good ol GWB. For big government to be a good thing, it should be just as good with elected idiots as it is with elected geniuses.

You're argument is a good one as to why I don't want the government to build my car, or do any number of other things, but not everything people want or need can be expressed in terms of markets and products. While I think the free market is a great solution to many problems, it is not a good solution to ALL problems, because not every problem is a market type of problem. Businesses have no interest in products and services that can't make them a profit in some way, but not everything in the world can be looked at in those terms. For private industry to be the solution, it has to be a problem that private industry can profit from solving. And as much faith as I have in capitalism, I'm not sure that's a safe assumption to go with.

But the other question I have is why people would be better consumers than they are voters, which would seem to underpin the free market approach. If people can't elect a good President, why would they be able to choose a good product made by a good company? If the problem is that voters are stupid (and there would seem to be some evidence to suggest that this is true), it would follow that consumers are pretty stupid too...we're not talking about two different groups of people here.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
68,850
26,631
136
"Socialist" is a throw away insult used by adults in situations where middle-schoolers would use the term "i love you". In this case, "socialist" means nothing more than "I'm not voting for Obama and I don't feel like explaining why".
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,272
103
106
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: daishi5
Originally posted by: Rainsford

WHY do we need smaller government? That seems to be the cornerstone of conservative philosophy, even though the folks you elect NEVER follow it, but I have yet to see a good argument as to why "smaller" is the best adjective we can attach to government. Obviously wasting money is a bad idea, but conservative arguments against government rarely, if ever, venture into arguments about the value of government spending...you just want to take an axe to the entire thing. Increased spending is treated as the gravest possible affront to our way of life, whether or not it's a good use of money.

In other words, you'd rather have a $900 million dollar program that doesn't work rather than a $1 billion dollar program that gives us a good value for our tax dollar. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing inherently bad about the idea of low taxes and low spending, but only when it's about EFFICIENCY instead of just size...and so far I haven't seem much from McCain or any other Republican that makes me think they want a working government, they just want a cheaper one. Even if Obama's plans end up costing a little more, I'd rather see government do something constructive with my tax dollars instead of not taking as many, but putting those dollars they do take in a big pile on the White House lawn and setting them on fire.

But honestly that's all beside the point, because in addition to having a questionable view of government, the conservative political philosophy remains mostly just an interesting theory. I hear "we want small government", but what I see is the conservatives supporting a President and a Congress that spent many years greatly expanding government spending, violating the constitution and making America look like land of the assholes. McCain talks an OK game, but his VP pick is possibly the worst choice for the job ever...and she was chosen to appeal to the religious right, which definitely isn't big on reducing the interference of government into our private lives. And let's not forget that conservative views are most strongly held in states that benefit the most from a large federal government subsidizing their crappy economies.

I think that, properly argued, I could be brought around on the idea of smaller government being a good idea. But if there is a group of people out there on the right who ACTUALLY support small government, I've yet to meet them. All I see is people complaining about how taxes are bad because government should just leave us alone and stay out of our private lives, followed by vehement support for policies that allow the President being able to spy on, jail and torture anyone he likes for any reason at all. Small government is a pretty hard sell in the first place, much less when it's coming from a group of people who seem totally incapable of practicing what they preach.

My favorite rationale to date has been the idea that even if business are on average much worse than government, because we get to choose the best of the best businesses we should get better service from private businesses just because we keep the best and get rid of the rest. I am recreating this hypothetical argument from memory so please bear with me.

Let us rate our satisfaction with a "product" on a scale of 1-100, and lets just say that government will provide us that "product" at a rating of 90. For the purpose of making this simple assume everything except product satisfaction is equal for everything. Government really does do a good job, we don't need a crappy government to make the argument that private business is better. However, private industries provide us with products that have an average rating of 60, and a standard deviation of 10. With these assumptions the government is going to do a better job than almost every private industry, but private industry has an advantage, pure numbers. Eventually, one of those businesses will come out above a 90 rating, it will be very rare, but any person who thinks he can do better is able to try, and when someone does we get a better product. I hope that makes sense.

Now of course all these arguments rely on several assumptions about free markets, and consumer choice that are not all perfect, and not always true. But, on the other hand for a large strong government to be the best choice, it requires that the people always elect good politicians, it requires the politicians always make good policies and laws, and it requires the government to appoint good people. And now that I have written way too much, the best argument for small government may be good ol GWB. For big government to be a good thing, it should be just as good with elected idiots as it is with elected geniuses.

You're argument is a good one as to why I don't want the government to build my car, or do any number of other things, but not everything people want or need can be expressed in terms of markets and products. While I think the free market is a great solution to many problems, it is not a good solution to ALL problems, because not every problem is a market type of problem. Businesses have no interest in products and services that can't make them a profit in some way, but not everything in the world can be looked at in those terms. For private industry to be the solution, it has to be a problem that private industry can profit from solving. And as much faith as I have in capitalism, I'm not sure that's a safe assumption to go with.

But the other question I have is why people would be better consumers than they are voters, which would seem to underpin the free market approach. If people can't elect a good President, why would they be able to choose a good product made by a good company? If the problem is that voters are stupid (and there would seem to be some evidence to suggest that this is true), it would follow that consumers are pretty stupid too...we're not talking about two different groups of people here.

The voters/consumers/people in general are indeed stupid, but the critical driver of the private vs government equation you're not taking into account is that in a free market a corporation has an incentive to do better. A government - as a monopoly - has no such incentive, that's why just about all government agencies and programs are incredibly wasteful and inefficient. If by law you could only buy one kind of car, how good do you think that car would be?? Is it because consumers are brilliant? No, it's because they can vote with their wallet with direct measurable results. When it comes to choosing politicians, things become a lot more abstract, requiring the consumer (voter) to largely make decisions based on their predispositions and gut feel rather than actual facts.

Also, following the same logic, you could see how private corporate ownership of certain things is not a good idea and how government regulation is needed. A corporation would have no incentive to keep from polluting the environment if the public can't easily see a direct impact of their pollution. Medical care (licensing) is another example. As a layman, I don't know if someone is qualified to be a doctor or not, and a corporation has no incentive to do that screening for me. Hence government regulation of medical licensing.