Is the US headed towards a socialist government?

[NicksLP]

Wow Jester and Kandrathe, you both seem well versed (better than most on a public gaming forum anyway) when it comes to these kinds of things. A well of general knowledge. The 2012 crap aside (which I brought up as a joke, but do actively continue to research because it does interest me) I wanted to say my piece when it comes to this socialist government noise. As you know the stimulus bill has been passed and now all of the states are awaiting there cut. Know who else gets a cut? The same guys that got us into this mess. Guess who is going to be held responsible: Noone.

Let's us compare Bush and his war on 'turrorists' to Obama and the Financial Crisis (as a euphamism).

Bush within a few years of invading Iraq, toppled there regime and arrested Saddam Hussein. Yet this wasn't the guy we are after. In the 8 years of Bush's presidency he never found Bin Laden. Not because we couldn't, mind you, but because there is a far darker game of chess being played when it comes to the CIA funded Al-queda group and its chosen retard of a leader, Bin Laden (I apologize to all retards for the comparison).

Obama, on the other hand, upon making it into office has had a great many problems laid at his feet. Now this man doesn't have all the answers, so he is calling on all of the 'great minds' of America to help solve these issues. He preaches Bipartisianship and fairness yet has been pushing his own agenda maliciously. Judd Gregg, a respected grassroots republican senator from NH DECLINED Obama's request to serve as commerce secretary (or some such position under the president) surprising everyone and there mom. The senator stated that there were 'things that just could not be compromised' and that he did not feel right working with Obama. So much for bipartsianship. Why would a respected man like Gregg, who is coming to the end of his career as he gets up there in age, say "No." to the president? Simple, not all of us Americans are going to allow our country to go the way of the buffalo. Socialism can be used as a tool, but will not become our government. I am an independant, and I did vote for Obama... I'm really hoping I didn't make a mistake (not that'd matter anyway as the guy won via landslide).

So no, our country is not heading towards a socialist government. More or less an empowered Federal government, which isn't much better as I am a true believe in the States and there inherent power over the Federal government.

I guess only time will tell!

[Jester]

Obama, on the other hand, upon making it into office has had a great many problems laid at his feet. Now this man doesn't have all the answers, so he is calling on all of the 'great minds' of America to help solve these issues. He preaches Bipartisianship and fairness yet has been pushing his own agenda maliciously. Judd Gregg, a respected grassroots republican senator from NH DECLINED Obama's request to serve as commerce secretary (or some such position under the president) surprising everyone and there mom. The senator stated that there were 'things that just could not be compromised' and that he did not feel right working with Obama. So much for bipartsianship. Why would a respected man like Gregg, who is coming to the end of his career as he gets up there in age, say "No." to the president? Simple, not all of us Americans are going to allow our country to go the way of the buffalo.

I am somewhat confused by your logic here. A Republican (note: from the party opposite the president) is offered a key administration position by Obama. (He does not have to give the Republicans any key posts at all. Certainly Bush never gave any to the Dems.) That Republican, after mulling it over, feels he cannot work with Obama, and claims that there are things he cannot compromise about.

The conclusion is that this is a failure of Obama to be bipartisan, and he is maliciously (With malice? Really?) pursuing his own agenda? That he can't compromise? That bipartisanship is out the window *because of Obama*?

I don't get it.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I don't get it.

Oh. It's been awhile for you liberals... Get used to that... When in doubt blame the POTUS. I mean I'm already PO'd about the extremely cold winter he's given us.

[kandrathe]

Now, probably, this is all probably for the best. Bipartisanship is overrated: The Dems have their plan, and if it works, it'll be obvious who gets credit, and if it flops, we'll know what the alternative plan was, and judge accordingly. But the Republicans, save for a woeful few, have been throwing an anti-tax tantrum, rather than building consensus on a stimulus bill.

It may be that the Republicans will need to self destruct before a real libertarian party can emerge from its ashes. I really believe that it can be the middle way. I'm not a raving Ron Paulite, but whenever he lays out his arguments I tend to agree with him.

[eppie]

I'm not saying that businesses are infallible, but as a whole, the aggregate of allowing market forces to determine the course of the river will be a better result than getting out the government bulldozers and digging a channel for the economy.

I don't agree. First because in most western countries the real personal risk of a business owner is 0. Business goes bad? File for bankrupcy and start again. On average a government will know better what is good for it's people (as long as it doesn't make decissions based on what industry lobby groops tell to do).
The next argument is that it is very easy to make money on useless things (so not things as bread, houses, water, cloths). And I think that once you have a crisis as big as this one, and the government will have to pay, better to let the government decide what to do (as you said the most important thing is that people get jobs, and thus money to spend, thus stimulating the economy) even though something might be useless, at least you don't let some business owner profit from it in an unfair way.

And, some things might seem useless to you, but I think not being able to get a private party to step in and seeing a profit and being useless are two different things. I wonder if we would have GPS satellites if a private company needed to pay the whole track.

[kandrathe]

I don't agree. First because in most western countries the real personal risk of a business owner is 0. Business goes bad? File for bankrupcy and start again.

This is a ludicrous statement. The people who try to start a business risk their own capital. As a business grows they may attract outside investors, which they then are also tasked to try to protect. There is a tremendous risk. On the contrary, government takes the money away from the people to spend it. Government risks nothing.

On average a government will know better what is good for it's people (as long as it doesn't make decisions based on what industry lobby groups tell to do).

This is why you are a socialist, and I am not. To me, government is a necessary evil to insure a free society. Anything more than that is repressive.

The next argument is that it is very easy to make money on useless things (so not things as bread, houses, water, cloths). And I think that once you have a crisis as big as this one, and the government will have to pay, better to let the government decide what to do (as you said the most important thing is that people get jobs, and thus money to spend, thus stimulating the economy) even though something might be useless, at least you don't let some business owner profit from it in an unfair way. And, some things might seem useless to you, but I think not being able to get a private party to step in and seeing a profit and being useless are two different things. I wonder if we would have GPS satellites if a private company needed to pay the whole track.

This is a fundamental question of freedom. If you believe that currency (money) is an expression of the fruits of your labor. Then employment is a contract between a worker (with skills) and the business (needing the skill) with the result of a wage. Should a person be able to trade that wage for benefits of their own choosing? Yes, they will need clothing, food, shelter, but they might also enjoy playing a computer game once in awhile. While not needed for survival, and perhaps frivolous, shouldn't people be allowed to choose the benefits they wish to acquire as a result of their labor? From the business side of a computer game, what could be more lucrative? You build the software once, then sell it millions of times without the need for additional labor. It's like printing money. The extension to your proposal would then be that only those things that produce "needs" should be stimulated, which ignores the reality that most employment in our modern age produces "wants". Materials sciences, industrialization, and automation have made the clothing, feeding, and housing of our people a minor part of the economy.

[NicksLP]

I am somewhat confused by your logic here. A Republican (note: from the party opposite the president) is offered a key administration position by Obama. (He does not have to give the Republicans any key posts at all. Certainly Bush never gave any to the Dems.) That Republican, after mulling it over, feels he cannot work with Obama, and claims that there are things he cannot compromise about.

The conclusion is that this is a failure of Obama to be bipartisan, and he is maliciously (With malice? Really?) pursuing his own agenda? That he can't compromise? That bipartisanship is out the window *because of Obama*?

I don't get it.

-Jester

Why is it Obama's fault? Easy, when first offering the position to Gregg, Obama led the man to believe he would have far greater control over things (like helping rebuild the private economy) than in actuality. Gregg wasn't worried about losing his seat to a democratic appointee because NH governor Lynch promised the seat would go to a Republican (said republican was preparing to go to DC when Gregg out of nowhere declined). American politics is a GAME, we have two seemingly polar opposite powers always vying for power in an almost "high-tide, low-tide" type of manner. So yes, any failure of bipartsianship will lay at the feet of Democrats now, not the GOP-- as the party is very much still in pieces.

Oh. It's been awhile for you liberals... Get used to that... When in doubt blame the POTUS. I mean I'm already PO'd about the extremely cold winter he's given us.

He gave me one hell of a flu, too!


EDIT: I wrote a paper my junior year of high school (4+ years ago now) quoting George Washington who was warning the people about the dangers of a 2-party system and the destruction it would bring to our country. Nobody cared then and its too late to do anything about it now. Too many selfish ass holes still want to get paid (via our tax dollars).

[Jester]

Why is it Obama's fault? Easy, when first offering the position to Gregg, Obama led the man to believe he would have far greater control over things (like helping rebuild the private economy) than in actuality. Gregg wasn't worried about losing his seat to a democratic appointee because NH governor Lynch promised the seat would go to a Republican (said republican was preparing to go to DC when Gregg out of nowhere declined). American politics is a GAME, we have two seemingly polar opposite powers always vying for power in an almost "high-tide, low-tide" type of manner. So yes, any failure of bipartsianship will lay at the feet of Democrats now, not the GOP-- as the party is very much still in pieces.

Perhaps Gregg is just being overly generous, but his statements are pretty solidly in support of Obama, and he admits that it is policy differences, and not a lack of bipartisanship on Obama's part, that made him withdraw.

Since Obama was elected on the policies he is pursuing, the ones which Gregg apparently cannot reconcile himself with, this all seems very reasonable to me.

From where I sit, it sounds like some heavyweight Republicans leaned on him, in order to undercut Obama's credibility. But that's just speculation.

-Jester

[Delc]

On average a government will know better what is good for it's people (as long as it doesn't make decissions based on what industry lobby groops tell to do).

That assumes that we elect qualified people to make these decisions, and not movie stars, pro-wrestlers, and anyone else with the money to run a campaign.

[kandrathe]

That assumes that we elect qualified people to make these decisions, and not movie stars, pro-wrestlers, and anyone else with the money to run a campaign.

Although, in some cases (Sonny Bono), they are better at politics than their former profession. I would like our elected public servants to be given a modest flat salary (average wage for their district adjusted yearly to that level), with a bonus structure based on a review of their performance by their constituents.

[Jester]

Although, in some cases (Sonny Bono), they are better at politics than their former profession. I would like our elected public servants to be given a modest flat salary (average wage for their district adjusted yearly to that level), with a bonus structure based on a review of their performance by their constituents.

I think Burke's Address to the Electors of Bristol has something to say about that idea.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I think Burke's Address to the Electors of Bristol has something to say about that idea.

For any one opinion, certainly, but to be judged by the mass of constituents, why not? At least this may prompt people to consider what their representative has done to earn their wages, which after all are a stipend collected from the masses themselves. If they work for me, and yes, I do value their judgment, then beyond the periodic vote, poor performance would yield to them a paltry wage. As for the Bush years, I sometimes feel like I would like my money back.

[Jester]

For any one opinion, certainly, but to be judged by the mass of constituents, why not? At least this may prompt people to consider what their representative has done to earn their wages, which after all are a stipend collected from the masses themselves. If they work for me, and yes, I do value their judgment, then beyond the periodic vote, poor performance would yield to them a paltry wage. As for the Bush years, I sometimes feel like I would like my money back.

There is no reason to turn their salary into a popularity contest. At barest minimum, it will be a strong financial incentive to "bring home the bacon." Such behaviour is already widespread, on the force of nothing more than regional pride and the need for re-election. Do you really want to link salaries to it?

Imagine a representative who stands up, against a bill she knows (and the public knows) will bring thousands of jobs and millions of dollars to his constitutency and says "I'm sorry, but this is not in the interest of the public at large, however profitable it would be for my constituents." Now, maybe enough voters in her constituency will look the other way, or even appreciate her moxie, that she won't lose the next election. But it will cost her in popularity. Do you really want to punish that? There is already a check for poor representation on election day. Could the paltry savings to the public possibly be worth it?

-Jester

Afterthought: It is also an encouragement to Gerrymandering, even in safe seats for incumbents.

[kandrathe]

There is no reason to turn their salary into a popularity contest. At barest minimum, it will be a strong financial incentive to "bring home the bacon." Such behaviour is already widespread, on the force of nothing more than regional pride and the need for re-election. Do you really want to link salaries to it?

Imagine a representative who stands up, against a bill she knows (and the public knows) will bring thousands of jobs and millions of dollars to his constitutency and says "I'm sorry, but this is not in the interest of the public at large, however profitable it would be for my constituents." Now, maybe enough voters in her constituency will look the other way, or even appreciate her moxie, that she won't lose the next election. But it will cost her in popularity. Do you really want to punish that? There is already a check for poor representation on election day. Could the paltry savings to the public possibly be worth it?

-Jester

Afterthought: It is also an encouragement to Gerrymandering, even in safe seats for incumbents.

I would envision a government which does not steal money from the people to pay for pork projects. Some day our children or grandchildren will hate this generation for all this excessive spending while borrowing from the future tax payers. Gerrymandering is no more a danger than it already is, and if the people put up with criminality, then they deserve what they already have now, a kakistocracy.

Here is an example of our blatantly arrogant leaders;


"Las Vegas, Nev. (October 23, 2008) -- Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regional Affairs Dennis Alvord (second from right) and U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (far right) present a $2 million EDA investment check to the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) Research Foundation and Clark County, Nev. The investment will help build the UNLV Harry Reid Research & Technology Park."

That's right, its the Harry Reid Research & Technology Park. The pork that Harry Reid had put into the EDA budget, is now going into a project with his name on it. Or, consider the huge pork laden "Early Treatment for HIV Act" reintroduced by Pelosi, who owns a significant amount of J&J and Amgen stock. Guess who will get the contract if that bill passes? Robbery. It's just robbery. And, it's not just the D's, but I single these two out because they are the fargin leaders of the House and the Senate. If they are doing this, what are the less scrupulous doing?

[Occhidiangela]

This conversation is vacuous and valuable evidence of people missing the point.

Bush spent over five years being fiscally irresponsible.

Obama is, for whatever reasons, following in his footsteps of fiscal irresponsibility after he stated that things would change. I don't see much change, other than the printing presses using more ink.

Debt increases, government prints money, and what is backing it up?

Not the US economy, which has been incrementally sold out for the past twenty years.

And you idiots are quibbling over socialism or democracy.

It would be funny, if it weren't so pathetic.

It doesn't matter what you call your government if you are broke.

Occhi

[Jester]

I would envision a government which does not steal money from the people to pay for pork projects. Some day our children or grandchildren will hate this generation for all this excessive spending while borrowing from the future tax payers. Gerrymandering is no more a danger than it already is, and if the people put up with criminality, then they deserve what they already have now, a kakistocracy.

Robbery. It's just robbery. And, it's not just the D's, but I single these two out because they are the fargin leaders of the House and the Senate. If they are doing this, what are the less scrupulous doing?

Both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are popular in their districts. Your measure would do nothing to them. Pork makes you popular in your district and unpopular everywhere else. It would create a perverse incentive to do exactly what you are trying to prevent.

If your idea is that Gerrymandering is not going to be affected by an added incentive to Gerrymander, then I'm not sure what to say. Seems pretty obvious to me. Joe Democrat and Jane Republican get together, probably along with their state level equivalents, shake hands, and turn their 45-55 and 55-45 districts into 30-70 and 70-30 districts. Hey presto, instant pay raise for both.

-Jester

[Jester]

Thank you Occhi, for another valuable contribution of calling everyone else pathetic idiots.

Warms the cockles of my heart to know you're still there under the bridge.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are popular in their districts. Your measure would do nothing to them. Pork makes you popular in your district and unpopular everywhere else. It would create a perverse incentive to do exactly what you are trying to prevent.

Yes. I'm sorry to confuse the topics here. You are correct, in that if a district was filled with hogs at the public trough, then this measure would not interrupt that level of greed and corruption. I was just also inserting my outrage at the blatant disregard for House and Senate ethics exhibited by Reid and Pelosi who are obviously enriching themselves and self aggrandizing themselves at the peoples expense.

If your idea is that Gerrymandering is not going to be affected by an added incentive to Gerrymander, then I'm not sure what to say. Seems pretty obvious to me. Joe Democrat and Jane Republican get together, probably along with their state level equivalents, shake hands, and turn their 45-55 and 55-45 districts into 30-70 and 70-30 districts. Hey presto, instant pay raise for both.

From my digging into this topic I find it would not be unlawful unless minorities are underrepresented in the redistricting, so if the constituencies allow it then it can be done. And... Maybe Nancy Pelosi does accurately represent her district and the people there probably DO love her and would give her a sizable bonus. That would be their right.

[NicksLP]

This conversation is vacuous and valuable evidence of people missing the point.

Bush spent over five years being fiscally irresponsible.

Obama is, for whatever reasons, following in his footsteps of fiscal irresponsibility after he stated that things would change. I don't see much change, other than the printing presses using more ink.

Debt increases, government prints money, and what is backing it up?

Not the US economy, which has been incrementally sold out for the past twenty years.

And you idiots are quibbling over socialism or democracy.

It would be funny, if it weren't so pathetic.

It doesn't matter what you call your government if you are broke.

Occhi

It doesn't matter what you call your government if you are broke.

Well, considering even if America officially went bankrupt and other countries/corporations began divvying up our beloved country I bet my part of the debt that you'd have at least 100 million angry patriots still dedicated to the constitution and our washed up democracy. This thread, a long with everyones opinions in it are valid and are obviously are of the utmost interest to those of us who have taken part in this discussion. It's pessimists like you who would throw what we have left of this country to the wolves just to prove some whiny-ass point.

And you idiots are quibbling over socialism or democracy.

It would be funny, if it weren't so pathetic.

Firstly, the former part of your statement doesn't actually make sense. Noone is quibbling, and its a discussion about how big government is back to play a roll in our democracy, not an argument or debate between socialism and democracy.

Your statements would be insulting if you weren't obviously such a moron.

[kandrathe]

You might not want to poke that bear with that sharp stick...