[ohio]

Can you admit that some people are poor because they are lazy, not all, not even most, but some.

If you can admit that some people are poor despite working very very hard, and some people are rich and lazy as hell. The part missing from ideological arguments like this is a sense of proportion.

Who earned their way to rich? Well someone posted the other day that 80% of millionaires in America are self-made. I'd say that's pretty damn good. Go America. That leaves 20% that *may* be lazy ****s, although in my personal experience, only about half the folks from money are lazy (although ALL of them are far better off than they would be if they started poor, but as you said yourself, we make wealth SO we can pass it to our children and their lives can be easier). So call it ballpark 10% are lazy ****s.

Now let's do the same exercise for the poor. Do you think more or less than 10% of the poor are lazy? Do you think more or less than 10% of those on welfare are milking the system? Back up your arguments.

Now for a completely separate discussion that should appeal to any libertarian or free-market economist: where does it make the most sense to INVEST (in tangible dollars) as a society in order to provide the greatest YIELDS (in tangible dollars)? This is not an ideological argument in any sense. If giving the lazy rich tons of money actually yields more to society than the investment, then we don't give a flying **** that they're lazy and didn't earn it. Are we in agreement thus far? If so, I'll go on.

 

[BMXman]

Socialism works very well in societies with civic virtue and concern for the "other man".

We are a large society with a very prevalent "Fvck you, I've got mine" mentality, for this reason I seriously doubt socialism would work in the U.S. as is.

 

[Samirol]

I am sure we can all agree it is the best country to live in bar none.

On what basis? Iceland rates highest on the Human Development Index (combines standard of living [which includes GDP], education, and health), Denmark rates the best on the Gini Coefficient, Australia rates higher in economic freedom and Hong Kong has the highest economic freedom. I'm curious if you are using objective analysis to reach that conclusion, because there are several countries that rate consistently higher than the U.S across many different analysis methods.

edit: To be clear, it is fine to say that the U.S is your favorite country, but to say that it is the best country to live in is objectively false if you use the HDI statistics.

 

[blue]

Why capitalism has failed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/business/20nocera.html?ref=business

Sorry bitches, y'all aren't looking so hot right now. Time to come up with a new system.

 

[valve bouncer]

On what basis? Iceland rates highest on the Human Development Index (combines standard of living [which includes GDP], education, and health), Denmark rates the best on the Gini Coefficient, Australia rates higher in economic freedom and Hong Kong has the highest economic freedom. I'm curious if you are using objective analysis to reach that conclusion, because there are several countries that rate consistently higher than the U.S across many different analysis methods.

Haha, Australians say that as well, standing there all hairy chested and belligerent "Australia is the bestest country in the whole f*cken world mate". I always laugh when I hear that. I always think "how many countries have you lived in to be able to make that bold statement?"

 

[Silver]

You know I was thinking about this, and something I think people miss, maybe you have missed. In America, long as we have the freedom to do so, I get to choose to some extent where I fall on that chart. I am free to make myself, to work hard, invest, and save money, all the things I was taught growing up.
But besides that my household income is under 70k for my whole family and I feel rich - I have way more than I need. Heck I might even put some more in my 401k.
Tally Ho.

Wrong again. I'm just going to start posting when you get something correct, it will save time.

There's a neat little chart on page 7 of the .pdf linked below:

http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP American Dream Report.pdf

All those goddamn semi-socialist Scandinavian countries have greater relative income mobility than the US does. Canada, Finland, Norway, and Denmark have much more relative mobilty than the US does.

 

[curtix]

Wrong again. I'm just going to start posting when you get something correct, it will save time.

There's a neat little chart on page 7 of the .pdf linked below:

http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP American Dream Report.pdf

All those goddamn semi-socialist Scandinavian countries have greater relative income mobility than the US does. Canada, Finland, Norway, and Denmark have much more relative mobilty than the US does.

Its not even possible that what I said is wrong, or do you really want me to think that what I make as far as income is totally out of my hands as in I have no control over it. Because that is what I said. Maybe take a moment and re-read.

 

[curtix]

On what basis? Iceland rates highest on the Human Development Index (combines standard of living [which includes GDP], education, and health), Denmark rates the best on the Gini Coefficient, Australia rates higher in economic freedom and Hong Kong has the highest economic freedom. I'm curious if you are using objective analysis to reach that conclusion, because there are several countries that rate consistently higher than the U.S across many different analysis methods.

edit: To be clear, it is fine to say that the U.S is your favorite country, but to say that it is the best country to live in is objectively false if you use the HDI statistics.

/sarcasm on
Wow as far is people going to other countries Iceland isn't even on this list - GASP!!!
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_new_cit-immigration-new-citizenships
Why on Earth would so many people be coming to this country its so aweful it isnt even Socialist. I can't imagine anyone would come here from some Socialist country. /sarcasm off.

 

[Samirol]

Wow as far is people going to other countries Iceland isn't even on this list - GASP!!!
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_new_cit-immigration-new-citizenships

I don't see what that has to do with the fact that the U.S isn't objectively the best place to live

 

[Silver]

Its not even possible that what I said is wrong, or do you really want me to think that what I make as far as income is totally out of my hands as in I have no control over it. Because that is what I said. Maybe take a moment and re-read.

Your entire premise is that socialism doesn't work (and I'll be charitable and ignore the fact that you don't know what the word means, in either theory or practice) and then you made the point that the US is great because you have a choice as to where you end up on the income ladder.

Then I show you data (in handy graph form, even!) that shows that all of the semi-socialist Scandinavian countries have greater relative income mobility than the United States.

You claim it's not possible you're wrong. I claim you are retarded. Should we put it to a vote? That would be the democratic thing to do, no?

 

[Defenestrated]

but silver, what about the american dream?!

 

[Samirol]

but silver, what about the american dream?!

*silver posts graph*

but socialism doesn't work!

*nuanced argument*

but the american dream!

 

[bohorec]

/sarcasm on
Wow as far is people going to other countries Iceland isn't even on this list - GASP!!!
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_new_cit-immigration-new-citizenships
Why on Earth would so many people be coming to this country its so aweful it isnt even Socialist. I can't imagine anyone would come here from some Socialist country. /sarcasm off.

You aren't very bright are you? Your link claims that "commies" are in the 1. place:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_new_cit_percap-immigration-new-citizenships-per-capita

 

[black noise]

/sarcasm on
Wow as far is people going to other countries Iceland isn't even on this list - GASP!!!

Maybe because it's pretty easy, and always has been, to come to America and get citizenship. Do you think Iceland or any other Scandinavian country, with their reputation and small territories, would let anyone in? They're notorious for being basically impossible to immigrate to.

And you're an idiot too. There's a good chance I'll graduate college to be in the top 10% bracket, and that's not from working as hard as most of the people in the lower 90%. You can't just assume people are lazy and use that as a point in your argument.

Furthermore, someone made a point that was ignored earlier: even our poorest in America are decently well off and can get fat off too much food, drive a car, and have a house with heat and running water. Whose backs are we riding on?

 

[Samirol]

No, it isn't easy.

The poorest in the U.S are significantly less well off than the poor in other developed countries.
They have no access to healthcare and minimum wage is not a living wage. Many are living paycheck
to paycheck, and any slight disruption in their lives will mean financial ruin. We are riding on the
backs of the poor in other countries and the poor in our country.

 

[rockwool]

From the standpoint of economics mostly.
Great Read.

Excerpt:
"In a radio debate several months ago with a Marxist professor from the University of Minnesota, I pointed out the obvious failures of socialism around the world in Cuba, Eastern Europe, and China. At the time of our debate, Haitian refugees were risking their lives trying to get to Florida in homemade boats. Why was it, I asked him, that people were fleeing Haiti and traveling almost 500 miles by ocean to get to the "evil capitalist empire" when they were only 50 miles from the "workers' paradise" of Cuba? "

Full Article - Enjoy

Look at all the poor countries in the world where malnutrition, starvation, baby deaths per capita, general lack of health care, illiteracy and low schooling years, et al, and you will see that they have a capitalist system which only point is to make the money multiply.

How many socialist countries have been left to freely develop and prosper, just like the west has? Cuba has had a blockade, not just just an embargo, against it for 49 years. The last 17 that blockade has been tightened, but still they have shown remarcable steps of development. Imagine what it could have achieved if it just had been alowed by its closest neighbour (and worlds biggest market).

Venezuela is a good example of what can be achieved in just a few years of socialist ideas within a capitalist system, the poor 2/3 of Venezuelans finally have a hope as they have actually benefited from social changes since 1999 now.

Look at all the poor countries around the world that are in debt beyond recovery just because the IMF and Worldbank have imposed their terms on them; Selling out of their natural resources and state owned companies and thus minimizing the means of income to the state.

Bolivia, who renationalized its oil and gas company when Morales was elected rased its revenues of income from $200 million/year (from taxes paid by big oil) to $2 billion. How the fvck are you as a person suposed to pay of your car and mortgage with only a tenth of your salary? Needless to say, you will also starve, live in a tin house below a freeway, not be able to school your children, and eventually you will all die from easily cured diseases.

 

[Samirol]

Venezuela isn't all flowers and sunshine though, ever since the 2002 coup, Chavez has been tightening his grip significantly. The Human Rights Watch came out with a report a couple days ago.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/09/18/venezu19844.htm

(Caracas, September 18, 2008) – In its efforts to counter political opposition and consolidate power, the government of President Hugo Chávez has weakened democratic institutions and human rights guarantees in Venezuela, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.

The 230-page report, “A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela,” examines the impact of the Chávez presidency on institutions that are essential for ensuring respect for human rights and the rule of law: the courts, the media, organized labor, and civil society.

“Ten years ago, Chávez promoted a new constitution that could have significantly improved human rights in Venezuela,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “But rather than advancing rights protections, his government has since moved in the opposite direction, sacrificing basic guarantees in pursuit of its own political agenda.”

Chávez was first elected in 1998, promising to overhaul Venezuela’s largely discredited political system. The enactment of a new constitution in 1999 offered an extraordinary opportunity for the country to shore up the rule of law and strengthen the protection of human rights. Yet the report finds that this important opportunity has since been largely squandered.

“The most dramatic blow to Venezuelan democracy in the last 10 years was the 2002 coup against Chávez,” said Vivanco. “Fortunately it lasted only two days. Unfortunately the Chávez government has exploited it ever since to justify policies that have degraded the country’s democracy.”

In the absence of credible judicial oversight, the Chávez government has systematically pursued often discriminatory policies that have undercut journalists’ freedom of expression, workers’ freedom of association, and civil society’s ability to promote human rights in Venezuela.

Political discrimination

Discrimination on political grounds has been a defining feature of the Chávez presidency.

The Chávez government has engaged in wide-ranging acts of discrimination against political opponents and critics. At times, the president himself has openly endorsed acts of discrimination. More generally, he has encouraged the discriminatory actions of subordinates by routinely denouncing his critics as anti-democratic conspirators – regardless of whether they had any connection to the 2002 coup.

The courts

Another defining feature of the Chávez presidency has been its open disregard for the principle of separation of powers – and, specifically, the notion that an independent judiciary is indispensable for protecting fundamental rights in a democratic society. After the 2002 coup, the most damaging blow to the rule of law in Venezuela was the political takeover of the Supreme Court by Chávez and his supporters in 2004, which effectively neutralized the judiciary as an independent branch of government. Since the 2004 takeover, the court has repeatedly failed to fulfill its role as a check on arbitrary state action and safeguard of fundamental rights.

The media

The Chávez government has undermined freedom of expression through a variety of measures aimed at reshaping media control and content. Venezuela still enjoys a vibrant public debate in which anti-government and pro-government media are equally vocal in their criticism and defense of Chávez. However, by expanding and toughening the penalties for speech and broadcasting offenses, Chávez and his legislative supporters have strengthened the state’s capacity to limit free speech, and created powerful incentives for critics to engage in self-censorship. It has also abused the state’s control of broadcasting frequencies to intimidate and discriminate against stations with overtly critical programming.


Organized labor

The Chávez government has sought to remake the country’s labor movement in ways that violate basic principles of freedom of association. It has fired workers who exercise their right to strike, denied workers their right to bargain collectively and discriminated against workers because of their political beliefs. Through its systematic violation of workers’ right to organize, the Chávez government has undercut established unions and favored new, parallel unions that support its political agenda.

Civil society

The Chávez government has pursued an aggressively adversarial approach to local rights advocates and civil society organizations. During the Chávez presidency, rights advocates have faced prosecutorial harassment, unsubstantiated allegations aimed at discrediting their work, and efforts to exclude them from international forums and restrict their access to international funding.

The report provides detailed recommendations to the Venezuelan government to reverse the damage done by its policies and to strengthen the country’s human rights protections. These include seeking to restore the credibility of the Supreme Court through a ratification process for all justices who were appointed after the 2004 court-packing law and establishing a new autonomous agency to administer broadcasting frequencies.

“Chávez has actively sought to project himself as a champion of democracy, not only in Venezuela, but throughout the region,” the report observes. However, “Venezuela will not achieve real and sustained progress toward strengthening its democracy – nor serve as a useful model for other countries in the region – so long as its government continues to flout the human rights principles enshrined in its own constitution.”

there are some other excessive things the report brings up

Several high-ranking government officials explicitly threatened retaliation against signers. In one prominent expression of support for political discrimination, then-Health Minister Roger Capella, told members of the press in March 2004 that health workers and doctors who had signed the recall referendum would be fired because to sign the petition was “an act of terrorism.” Capella added that “the only doctors who will work in the country’s hospitals will be comrade medics committed to the revolutionary process.” On the following day, Capella rectified his comments, stating that they had a “personal connotation” and that discrimination on political grounds is unconstitutional. Nonetheless, given that Capella made his initial statements in a public forum, speaking as a government official, they could not be easily retracted or lightly forgotten.

Now, Chavez's socialist authoritarian government is miles better than a neoliberal authoritarian government, but there are some worrying signs. He has respected the people's wishes w/r/t his failed constitutional reforms, so I don't think he will be a dictator. As a support of South American socialist movements, I find Venezuela's developments disturbing, but it could very well just be growing pains.

I was very happy to see the presidents of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela fully supporting Morales. South America is going through some exciting times.

 

[valve bouncer]

Oh sh*t, now you've done it.

 

[curtix]

there are some other excessive things the report brings up

Care to back that up. The Excessive part.

 

[curtix]

Look at all the poor countries in the world where malnutrition, starvation, baby deaths per capita, general lack of health care, illiteracy and low schooling years, et al, and you will see that they have a capitalist system which only point is to make the money multiply.

How many socialist countries have been left to freely develop and prosper, just like the west has? Cuba has had a blockade, not just just an embargo, against it for 49 years. The last 17 that blockade has been tightened, but still they have shown remarcable steps of development. Imagine what it could have achieved if it just had been alowed by its closest neighbour (and worlds biggest market).

Venezuela is a good example of what can be achieved in just a few years of socialist ideas within a capitalist system, the poor 2/3 of Venezuelans finally have a hope as they have actually benefited from social changes since 1999 now.

Look at all the poor countries around the world that are in debt beyond recovery just because the IMF and Worldbank have imposed their terms on them; Selling out of their natural resources and state owned companies and thus minimizing the means of income to the state.

Bolivia, who renationalized its oil and gas company when Morales was elected rased its revenues of income from $200 million/year (from taxes paid by big oil) to $2 billion. How the fvck are you as a person suposed to pay of your car and mortgage with only a tenth of your salary? Needless to say, you will also starve, live in a tin house below a freeway, not be able to school your children, and eventually you will all die from easily cured diseases.

Riddle me this - Socialism in America - Was it what the signers of the constitution had in mind.
and
If all the Socialist countries are so great why do so many people come here , stay here, and not immigrate to Canada to say the least.

 

[curtix]

I don't see what that has to do with the fact that the U.S isn't objectively the best place to live

Its an opinion. And I guess so many immigrate here because it sucks so much right? Because of the Terrible Healthcare, the predetermined failure. LOL.

 

[curtix]

Your entire premise is that socialism doesn't work (and I'll be charitable and ignore the fact that you don't know what the word means, in either theory or practice) and then you made the point that the US is great because you have a choice as to where you end up on the income ladder.

Then I show you data (in handy graph form, even!) that shows that all of the semi-socialist Scandinavian countries have greater relative income mobility than the United States.

You claim it's not possible you're wrong. I claim you are retarded. Should we put it to a vote? That would be the democratic thing to do, no?

A vote here - lol. Unless I am busy blowing hot air up all the libs ass I just get more and more personal attacks. Shows a key difference between us. But besides that MANY MANY MANY people come here and make a heck of a life for themselves - in many options are rich ( in the global sense) and you want me to believe that is because everything here sux. Save your breath. Go live in another country for a while.

 

[curtix]

but silver, what about the american dream?!

Just keep trying to kill it. I am busy living it. go work for what you want in life and stop petitioning the government to give it to you - or - Go live the Chinese dream, that seems more up your ally, Heck under some old school Communist governments they even give you bread everyday for free, just stand in line, how great is that. Leave the hard work to those of us stupid enough to try it.

 

[curtix]

You aren't very bright are you? Your link claims that "commies" are in the 1. place:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_new_cit_percap-immigration-new-citizenships-per-capita

Look at totals. Never mind I know that you cant admit it, its ok.

 

[curtix]

The poorest in the U.S are significantly less well off than the poor in other developed countries.
They have no access to healthcare and minimum wage is not a living wage. Many are living paycheck
to paycheck, and any slight disruption in their lives will mean financial ruin. We are riding on the
backs of the poor in other countries and the poor in our country.

You are crazy, Ever been to South Africa... I have I lived there. You are CRAZY this it total BS.

 

[valve bouncer]

You are crazy, Ever been to South Africa... I have I lived there. You are CRAZY this it total BS.

Since when is South Africa a developed country? Maybe if you're white I suppose.

 

[Samirol]

I was referring to the excessive use of power in Venezuela, and I'm worried that he will go too far.

The Scandinavian countries take in many more refugees from war-torn countries, and the US has better PR. The Scandinavian countries don't quite have the poverty on their borders. Russia isn't in a good state since its dive into neoliberalism, but Central and South American countries are worse off.

I think it depends which founders you asked. Jefferson wanted a real democratic agrarian society, Hamilton wanted a business empire, Washington wanted an isolationist society with a strong federal government. They aren't a hivemind with all the same ideals, they were each different. I know Jefferson is turning in his grave at the state of our society.

If we determine how good a country is based on immigration numbers, then we have to assume that they have the means and abilities to immigrate to any country they want, and that they know about the state of affairs of every country on Earth. For example, let me use laundry detergent. Can you determine what is the best laundry detergent on Earth based on sales? Absolutely not, because for that to be an accurate measurement, everyone would have to have knowledge of every type and quality of laundry detergent being sold.

Curtix, you may be living the American Dream, but many aren't.

I don't consider, and I don't know anyone that considers South Africa a developed country.

edit: The founding fathers would be very upset at U.S imperialism and the size of the military. My guess is that you cherry pick the things the founders would want. The founders were fairly anti-religious.

 

[ohio]

Jgo work for what you want in life and stop petitioning the government to give it to you

The funniest thing about this argument is that it is always offered up to people who ARE living the American dream and stand to gain nothing directly (but very much indirectly) by helping to lift up their fellow coutrymen. Take this board. Everyone on here is privileged enough to have access to a computer and spare time to post political bull**** on a mountain bike message board. We're all relatively well off. No one sucking on Mama America's teat. So are you under the impression that all of us are arguing because we don't want to work for anything in life?

Do you think to yourself "well, I worked damn hard to get where I am. And though there are ways it could have been easier, or even ways that the government could have helped me achieve more and be an even more productive member of society, I suffered. So I'm going to be a vindictive asshole, and make sure as many people as possible suffer like I did. Builds character, goddammit."

 

[rockwool]

"The main difference between capitalism and socialism is this: Capitalism works."

For a select few. Those with the wherewithal to invest, build or otherwise take advantage of the opportunities it presents. The rest of us are subject to the trickle down whims of the powers that be.
In small doses, socialist policies work fantastically. To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities etc. Small communes still survive based on Socialist principles. But that is the key, they are small and the occupants are truly interested in the success of the community. Once larger populations are introduced, they become lazy and less interested in doing what is right and good for the community...

Socialism works very well in societies with civic virtue and concern for the "other man".

We are a large society with a very prevalent "Fvck you, I've got mine" mentality, for this reason I seriously doubt socialism would work in the U.S. as is.

A participatory society/democracy is the answer, that way people will feel like they can change things around them and their hoplessness is swoped for energy they can put into their society.

 

[rockwool]

Oh sh*t, now you've done it.

Haha, he shoulda know betta not to mess with me about Tatoine. I will Samirol him up and smoke him like a philly blunt. irate2:



About HRW, I had no high notions of them before I read that report as they are known to have let CIA operatives within their staff, and compare their board to Amnesty's and you will see a significant difference; Amnesty's board is made up of activists while HRW's is all Babylon, every single one of them could be a CFR member.

I will get back to you with comments on that report tomorrow.

Riddle me this - Socialism in America - Was it what the signers of the constitution had in mind.
and
If all the Socialist countries are so great why do so many people come here , stay here, and not immigrate to Canada to say the least.

Riddle you this - What the Neo Cons have turned your country into was everything your founding fathers wanted to prevent from happening. You now have a government that doesn't fear the power of its people, but the quite opposite.

People from poor countries move to all western countries because our governments and multi national companies are, from the colonial days to our days of neo colonialism, exploiting their natural resourses and forcing them to sell out their state owned companies, so that some in the west can get even richer, leaving the people starving even worse than 30 years ago, so they come here because we don't let them live there. Menstruating moaners, aren't they?

You are crazy, Ever been to South Africa... I have I lived there. You are CRAZY this it total BS.

South Africa is a poor nation, mister, and the poor in the US have it waaaay worse than the poorest in any Skandinavian or Nordic country. :realitycheck:

 

[X3pilot]

Would one of you smarter debaters here answer me a question?

Is the proposed and current bailouts that the government is sponsoring not almost socialism, just in a higher sense?

I'm not being a smart ass, I'm trying to learn.

 

[Defenestrated]

Would one of you smarter debaters here answer me a question?

Is the proposed and current bailouts that the government is sponsoring not almost socialism, just in a higher sense?

I'm not being a smart ass, I'm trying to learn.

The federal government basically seized AIG, which is fairly Socialist. Except since the Governmental system isn't organized or constructed with socialism in mind, the power over AIG is now in the hands of bureaucracy and not AIG's employees.

Riddle me this - Socialism in America - Was it what the signers of the constitution had in mind.
and
If all the Socialist countries are so great why do so many people come here , stay here, and not immigrate to Canada to say the least.

1. Thomas Jefferson was radically leftist, he was strongly egalitarian, he was disgusted by the centralization of populations in urban cities, the undemocratically controlled influence that chartered corporations had over the state (which has become infinitely worse today with the deregulation that has been going on since his time), etc...

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
-Thomas Jefferson

2. Have you ever been to Canada? I've been through Vancouver several times and you would be surprised at how many Indian and Asian immigrants there are (both in the city and especially at the Airport).

 

[Samirol]

Would one of you smarter debaters here answer me a question?

Is the proposed and current bailouts that the government is sponsoring not almost socialism, just in a higher sense?

I'm not being a smart ass, I'm trying to learn.

well, in a socialist society, the business would be owned and operated by the government

It is corporate welfare, not socialism. Socialism is a buzz word used to freak people out.

Fannie Mae before it was turned into a corporation was socialist.

Edit: The main difference is that the government is doing conservatorship and that kind of stuff in order to return it to the free market. I don't consider it socialist, since it will be returned to private hands soon.

 

[MMike]

Would one of you smarter debaters here answer me a question?

Is the proposed and current bailouts that the government is sponsoring not almost socialism, just in a higher sense?

I'm not being a smart ass, I'm trying to learn.

That's what I was thinking. Tax payer money is being..."redistributed" for the apparent good of the many.....just a little after the fact. Seems pretty close to socialism to me.....even moreso than Canada. I don't think we HAVE $700 billion to kick around.

 

[curtix]

The federal government basically seized AIG, which is fairly Socialist. Except since the Governmental system isn't organized or constructed with socialism in mind, the power over AIG is now in the hands of bureaucracy and not AIG's employees.



1. Thomas Jefferson was radically leftist, he was strongly egalitarian, he was disgusted by the centralization of populations in urban cities, the undemocratically controlled influence that chartered corporations had over the state (which has become infinitely worse today with the deregulation that has been going on since his time), etc...


2. Have you ever been to Canada? I've been through Vancouver several times and you would be surprised at how many Indian and Asian immigrants there are (both in the city and especially at the Airport).

I agree it is basically socialist and a bad plan that will cost us in the end.

1) You gonna mention any of the others - or is TJ the only one that counts.
2) No.

 

[Samirol]

That's what I was thinking. Tax payer money is being..."redistributed" for the apparent good of the many.....just a little after the fact. Seems pretty close to socialism to me.....even moreso than Canada. I don't think we HAVE $700 billion to kick around.

It sure as hell isn't being redistributed to the poor, if anything, it is bourgeois socialism

I can't really claim to know enough about economics to say if it will be good or bad, because government intervention in the 20s would have helped, and it was the hands off policy that threw it into the deep end.

However, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act is what caused this entire mess, and Gramm just happened to be presidential campaign co-chair and top economic adviser.

Canada isn't socialist at all, but I'm sure you know that. The government takeover isn't for the government, it is to return it to a profitable business enterprise. I don't see that as socialist, but rather it uses somewhat socialist means to achieve a capitalist end.

 

[Defenestrated]

Well if the FED didn't rescue AIG and others, there might be a meltdown. This is because we have let these corporations grow so large and permeate so many aspects of our lives that they are essentially too big to fail, meaning that if they did, too many innocents would suffer for the mistakes of a few.

We should not have deregulated the industry, that way we wouldn't be obligated to pay them out of trouble when we already have an 11 trillion dollar deficit.

 

[ohio]

As I've pointed out, arguing socialism with regards to present day american politics is no more relevant than arguing Fascism or Theocracy. None have anything to do with policies we will realistically see in our lifetime, and all are just alarmist absolutist labels that idiots unwilling to spend the time to understand the real issues either use or respond to.

I think it is interesting to point out that current conservative Amercian policy believes strongly in corporate welfare and has repeatedly shown itself willing provide assistance, aid, and forgiveness to corporate mistakes. This is in stark contrast to their views and policies on individual welfare. I know the fundamental belief is that corporations add to the economy so we should keep them alive. However, a foundering corp that just doesn't work is as much of a drag on the economy as a foundering individual that just doesn't work, except on a scale multiplied by the number of employees. Conversely, an investment in the right individuals can have the same returns and yields that investment in the right corporations can. Perhaps curtix can explain to be why conservatives have such faith in corporations and such little in individuals.

 

[rockwool]

Venezuela isn't all flowers and sunshine though, ever since the 2002 coup, Chavez has been tightening his grip significantly. The Human Rights Watch came out with a report a couple days ago.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/09/18/venezu19844.htm



there are some other excessive things the report brings up



Now, Chavez's socialist authoritarian government is miles better than a neoliberal authoritarian government, but there are some worrying signs. He has respected the people's wishes w/r/t his failed constitutional reforms, so I don't think he will be a dictator. As a support of South American socialist movements, I find Venezuela's developments disturbing, but it could very well just be growing pains.

I was very happy to see the presidents of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela fully supporting Morales. South America is going through some exciting times.

I was referring to the excessive use of power in Venezuela, and I'm worried that he will go too far.

And become like all the other classical banana republic regimes he's been fighting against? Please look again in the "South American thread" for some examples of what destinguish Chavez's rule with the rule of the oligharks.


This one is for VB to bang his head to like he was watching Led Zeppelin live.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3813

Venezuela Expels Human Rights Watch Director for “Meddling Illegally”

Mérida, September 19, 2008 (venezuelanalysis.com)--

The Venezuelan government expelled two employees of the U.S-based NGO Human Rights Watch (HRW), Americas Director José Miguel Vivanco and Americas Deputy Director Daniel Wilkinson, after the two presented a report that praised Venezuela's 1999 Constitution but harshly criticized the "government's willful disregard for the institutional guarantees and fundamental rights that make democratic participation possible."

In a press release, the Venezuelan Foreign Relations Ministry said Vivanco and Wilkinson "have done violence to the constitution" and "assaulted the institutions" of Venezuela by "meddling illegally in the internal affairs of our country."

The ministry also said the HRW report is linked to the "unacceptable strategy of aggression" of the United States government. The ministry said the expulsion of Vivanco and Wilkinson was in the interest of "national sovereignty" and "the defense of the people against aggressions by international factors."

Constitutional lawyer and National Assembly Deputy Carlos Escarrá explained to the press, "The constitution of Venezuela expresses that a foreigner with a tourist visa cannot make commentaries against the President of the Republic."

Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolás Maduro warned in a press conference that "any other foreigner... who attempts to come to Venezuela and use our democratic order, with the total freedom of expression, to assault our institutions in a rude manner... will receive the same reply."

HRW's report, titled "A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela," says the two-day coup against President Hugo Chávez in April 2002 was the "most dramatic setback" to the human rights guarantees of the 1999 Constitution, but that the Chávez administration has since used the coup as a pretext to undercut those rights.

Specifically, the government has engaged in "discrimination on political grounds," "open disregard for the principle of separation of powers," and has "undercut journalists' freedom of expression, workers' freedom of association, and civil society's ability to promote human rights in Venezuela," according to the report, which bases its conclusions on interviews conducted over the past two years.

My comment: With all the community radio stations that have flourished (and TV too?) all over VE, and one national TV channel that's run by community organizations, how is it possible to "undercut journalists"? Journalism is flourishing on all levels, not only on a coorporate level like before.
Workers are joining unions, old and new, and the government is infact incuraging it in companies that it has bought! Is the HRW complaining about that one single union that stood on the oligarchs side during the coup and the strike? All coup plotters got amnesty, surely Chavez included that union in it..

According to a press release from the U.S.-based Venezuelan Information Office (VIO), the HRW report portrays isolated incidents in Venezuela as though they were common occurrences, and "reads like the talking points of Venezuela's discredited opposition."

The VIO further pointed out that the "most fundamental" human rights to food, education, and health care have been expanded in Venezuela, and that this has been recognized by the United Nations Development Program.

The Venezuelan representative in the Inter-American Human Rights Court, Germán Saltrón, said the accusations of political discrimination in the report are contradicted by the fact that the people who participated in the coup against Chávez in April 2002 were granted amnesty.

The president of the Venezuelan National Assembly, Cilia Flores, declared Thursday that "those who denounce that in Venezuela there is no freedom of expression do so excercising their freedom of expression." Flores further denounced the cases in which "foreigners in Venezuela abuse the freedom of expression by lying unabashedly."

National Assembly deputy Tulio Jiménez said the HRW report was carefully timed to influence Venezuela's upcoming regional and local elections, and to cover up the coup plot that was recently discovered. "[The report] seeks to make banal the plans to assassinate the president," said Jiménez.

The HRW report comes two months before Venezuela's regional and local elections, which both the Chávez administration and the opposition have said are crucial for defining the course of the country in the remaining five years of Chávez's presidency.

HRW has issued reports that are critical of the Chávez administration in the months leading up to crucial Venezuelan elections in the past, raising suspicion that the reports seek to sway Venezuelan voters against the president.

In June, July, and August 2004, two months prior to the referendum on Chávez's mandate in office, HRW published several reports that claimed that there is no independence of the branches of power in the Venezuelan government. In October 2007, two months prior to Venezuela's Constitutional Reform Referendum, HRW warned that if the reform is approved, the right to due process could be suspended in some situations by the president.

The most recent report and the expulsion of Vivanco and Wilkinson come during a time of relatively high tension between the U.S. and Venezuelan governments.

Last week, the Venezuelan government discovered a coup plot by retired Venezuelan military officers, and U.S. Ambassador Patrick Duddy was expelled. The U.S. responded by dismissing Venezuelan Ambassador Bernardo Alvarez and reiterating its accusations that the Venezuelan government facilitates drug trafficking and has links to terrorist groups.

There is a pattern in the US-HRW's actions, what could be conincidences to one has no knowledge of how the Matrix works.



Here's more about the US using all its means for propaganda to consolidate its world hegemony:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3807

Venezuela Says U.S. Uses Anti-Drug List as “Weapon of Domination”

Venezuelan government officials rejected the U.S. government's renewed placement of Venezuela and the addition of Bolivia to a list of principal countries where illegal drugs are transported or produced, calling it a political maneuver meant to weaken the Venezuelan and Bolivian governments at a time when both are confronting potential coup d'états waged by domestic opposition groups.

The director of the Venezuelan National Anti-Drug Office (ONA), Nestor Reverol, said the list violates the United Nations Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, which was passed by the U.N. General Assemly in 1974.

Article 32 of the Charter establishes that states do not have the right to employ economic measures which coerce another state to subordinate its sovereign rights, Reverol pointed out.

The Scandinavian countries take in many more refugees from war-torn countries, and the US has better PR. The Scandinavian countries don't quite have the poverty on their borders. Russia isn't in a good state since its dive into neoliberalism, but Central and South American countries are worse off.

The city of Södertälje in Sweden, which has a population of about 100.000, received during 2007 more Iraqi refugees than the whole of the USA!

 

[Samirol]

And become like all the other classical banana republic regimes he's been fighting against? Please look again in the "South American thread" for some examples of what destinguish Chavez's rule with the rule of the oligharks.

He is quite a distance from the tyrannical right-wing dictatorships, but I'm suspicious of authoritarianism in general.

It is absolutely pitiful how few refugees the U.S has taken in.

The US doesn't care what the UN says, the Iraq War proved that.

The HRW is highly critical of the United States and Israel as well, I doubt that they have some other scheme going on to overthrow Chavez.