Obama's financing

[Ddrak]

If Socialism is "allowing the government to control all aspects of its people then the current administration is a hell of a lot more socialist than either McCain or Obama would be. Do I really need to say more than "Patriot"?

Seriously though, calling Obama is about as close to being a "Socialist" as McCain is to being a Fascist. The first criteria for Socialism is the people commonly own everything through the proxy of government - that is no one individually owns anything. That's hardly being preached and it's just hysterical nonsense to even suggest it. Increased regulation and reduced freedom in what may currently be a market system (broken or not) is not "socialism". The DSA aren't really socialist either in the true sense of the word, and the SP-USA isn't either: both reject Lennin's theories.

I didn't see Obama calling for nationalization of the oil industry. Where did you get that from? Windfall taxing is silly, I agree, but not socialism by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it's no more socialism than giving the oil industry a "tax holiday" is capitalism. It's just silly reactionary politics. Adjusting taxation is really the essence of the capitalist democratic system and both sides play it to their own benefit.

The Canadian model of health care isn't the only system out there, and it's rather stupid to compare it to any of the models presented by the Dems (none of which are particularly entertaining in my view anyway). Nations with universal health care systems do pretty much universally better on a general level than the US currently does. That's not to say that they are the absolute best that can be done but just a reflection on how broken the US system currently is. While you scoff at "rationing health care", isn't that really what happens in the US every day? Too poor? Sorry, no medicine for you.

Obviously you shouldn't pay for illegals, but remind me again who is suggesting you should? Sounds like a strawman to me.

Universal health care is a great idea. Society, through its government, *should* be providing basic health care a fundamentally good national policy. Private health insurance for basic health is a failed idea because the fundamental policy of insurance agencies is to minimize payouts, which means their basic desire is to not treat you if they can possibly get away with it. They'd be failing their shareholders if they did any differently. Government's big problem is rampant inefficiency and red tape, but that's really a separate issue from health management. Establish a program. Make it *simple* and *basic*. Get people healthier and save the entire nation money.

A national health system should cost no more than the amount you already pay the insurance companies if implemented competently, and if done properly it really should be cheaper. Of course, any government will screw it up in a decade or two from special-interest lobbying even if they get it right to start with, so I dunno what the real solution to that is.

Most of the governments of Europe are somewhat left of the US in monetary policy with significantly higher taxes. How's the Dollar going again vs the Euro? I'd avoid comparisons to Europe to push any sort of right-wing agenda. Of course, the current government's agenda hasn't been particularly smart in any case and certainly not fiscally responsible so it doesn't exactly count.

Interestingly, I see in many ways the EU gravitating to a model that worked so well for the US into a United States of Europe, while both parties in the US really seem to want to force the US away from a state based model into a single large federal government.

Dd

[Klast Brell]

This may be a bit premature, but I have been waiting a long time to throw it back in the neocon's faces.

If you hate America so much why don't you leave?

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

Klast - I do hope you're not aiming that comment at me. Considering I'm not a neo-con, nor do I hate this country so much that I want to leave. In fact, quite the opposite. I'd rather visit with people, vote, complain/applaud my Congress-people, and continue to serve the nation in any way I can. It's worth the effort.

Ddrak - "Patriot" definitely sends a message to me in regards to "current event" socialist methodologies. As you also stated, knee-jerk reactions work well for no one. Obama hasn't directly called for the nationalization of oil, however, based on his consistent, democratic voting record - he'd almost have to support it. Even then, Congress makes laws, not the president. I think a large fear, even using Fallakin's "Obama = Socialism" comment, is that Dem. Pres + Dem. Congress = Hot, Fast Dem. Laws to be passed with little to no contention. Many of their ideals increase the amount of government control over many important aspects. As personal opinion, I don't think the gov't in it's current state can successfully run a 7-11. And, as a true question I ask - what has the government successfully run in the last 20 years?

I wasn't comparing, though perhaps I should have, the uni-care systems. I was merely sharing some input that I had received about Canada's system. I've read poor thing about England's system as well. It was Sweden, I think, that started the notion of rationed health care, and that spread around fairly quickly. As for "too poor" -- nope, haven't seen it. The "poor" are treated without question, at least here in the Midwest. In fact, a local hospital closed down due to (poor financial planning?) spending too much on pro-bono medicine.

Gov't red tape is a separate issue, however -- I think that's one, big separate issue.

A national health system should cost no more than the amount you already pay the insurance companies if implemented competently

Again, counting on the gov't to do something competently...I'm starting to wonder if it's my zero faith in government or the tone of which these policies would be put into place.

Interestingly, I see in many ways the EU gravitating to a model that worked so well for the US into a United States of Europe, while both parties in the US really seem to want to force the US away from a state based model into a single large federal government.

I do appreciate that statement. Perhaps too, that is the greatest concern for folks like me.

-TF

[Ddrak]

(sorry for quote/reply - getting lazy)

Dem. Pres + Dem. Congress = Hot, Fast Dem. Laws to be passed with little to no contention.

A lot of that depends on whether they get 60 seats in the Senate, which I would still consider unlikely (is it even mathematically possible?). The GOP could happily stall pretty much anything they don't like with filibusters. Perhaps the saving grace is the Dems aren't usually nearly as organized and "lock-step" as the GOP, though with a charismatic President (can't deny Obama has a lot of charisma) they'd probably fall into line eventually.

Coming from Australia, there was a lot to US politics that confused me. Over here, I'm typically strongly in favor of the right-wing party (confusingly called the "Liberal Party") and get frustrated with the left-wing party who operate very much as a single entity with members being forbidden in most cases from voting against the party itself. In the US, the situation seemed reversed so while I tended towards the right, the strict control of the party turned me off as well. Similarly, the right wing in the US tended to play partisan politics a lot more (talk shows etc.) while I noticed the partisan nature of politics much more from the left over here (powerful unions being very vocal).

Given the current efforts of the Democrats with their 2-house majority and the fact they've basically rolled over to Bush on almost everything he's threatened vetos on (save the farm bill which probably deserved a veto), I fail to have any confidence they could successfully pass a controversial bill even if they had a supermajority in both houses and a friendly President.

Not that any of that counters your argument, which is fair. Too smooth a ride is always bad for any country.

And, as a true question I ask - what has the government successfully run in the last 20 years?

Nothing that hasn't been hopelessly distorted by special interests. That's the real issue I have with health care - private industry doesn't handle it properly because of the very nature of it being so essential and the government tends to screw up anything it touches.

As for "too poor" -- nope, haven't seen it. The "poor" are treated without question, at least here in the Midwest. In fact, a local hospital closed down due to (poor financial planning?) spending too much on pro-bono medicine.

It happens in bigger cities where emergency wards fill up and don't receive funding to manage all the patients. The fact that hospitals are still ethically required to treat every emergency patient but have no way of recovering costs from delinquent patients is just insane and it's unsurprising to hear of hospitals just closing down as a response. So while you may not see the poor being turned away directly, what you are seeing is hospitals closing down because they can't service the poor without some sort of assistance that can only come from government.

On national health care, I liked the way the Aussie system was designed, before it reached the screwed up state it's in now. The original plan was you had essential services paid for by the government at a specified rate with doctors free to charge whatever they wanted leaving the patient responsible for the difference. Private health cover could then insure for things that weren't deemed essential, and also insure for that gap. It left both patients and doctors free to choose prices, but guaranteed services for everyone because a subset of doctors were happy to work for the government price and therefore get the increased business of operating a "free" clinic.

These days it's all fucked up. The govt has put all sorts of insane regulations on what can and can't be insured (the gap can't be insured any more, for example) because it wasn't fair that rich people could go to more expensive doctors without directly paying, and you have to fill in so much paperwork to get paid that it's barely worth the effort. Then the government subsidizes private health insurance because they want people to use it more often, but makes it so difficult to understand what you're really getting that the essence of a free market (a well informed consumer) is just gone. Another fantastic example of governments screwing stuff up.

Having said all that, I still think the Aussie system is better than the US one simply because I don't have to trust an employer to deal fairly on my behalf for my health. I deal with the insurance company directly which gives them some incentive (inside the stupid govt regs) to make me happy and avoid me taking my business elsewhere. After 7 years of fighting Aetna and USHC for every cent, I'm glad to not have to deal with it any more.

Dd

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

Liberal "left" Democrats -- Religious "right" Republican...

I'm a non-partisan Conservative. I just want the people that will do a solid, honest job.

I guess that's why I'm hoping a 3rd party can get in on the debates (other than Nader) to "shake it up" a little bit. I'm not sure people are really happy of either of the status quo parties. Picking the lesser of two evils sucks.

-TF

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Lesser of two evils, at least in my eyes, is McCain. I don't absolutely dislike the guy, but I do believe that there was a better candidate for the Republicans than him.

And the only reason I see him as the lesser of two evils is because I don't roll my eyes in disbelief every time he opens his mouth.

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

I'm trying to roll around the notion of "moral" victory by voting for Bob Barr. I like his policies better, and it keeps me from having to pick lesser of two evils, but...3rd party candidates just don't win. The fear of spoiling the vote for McCain is overwhelming.

-TF

[Lurker]

No, should I? What resources do you count on? Perhaps I can go there and learn another side of things.

I extracted a list of beliefs from The Democratic Socialists of America web site. I found several things on there that I disagree with that they're fervently in favor.

I know I've been out of the loop for awhile, but what does the Democratic Socialists of America have to do with the Democratic Party or Obama?

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

A statement was made at how Obama and the democratic party seem to have some very socialist ideals. I used that site to compare some socialist ideals vs some of the Obama camp notions.

-TF

[Harlowe]

Tarfang,
My primary new sources are NPR, Bill Moyer (PBS), BBC, MSNBC, Salon and for fun the Daily Show, Colbert Report & the Onion, but I look at many sources for news, but never Fox. I learned first-hand what sensationalistic hacks they were when they reported on the 35W bridge collapse.

A statement was made at how Obama and the democratic party seem to have some very socialist ideals

By who and what the did they base that on? You pull up an American organization that has "socialist" in it's title, but socialism isn't a one-size fits all sort of designation. What aspects of actual "socialism" make Obama someone with very socialist ideals.

Lurker,

Who knows, that organization doesn't even mention Obama on it. It's just more wtfuckery.

[Partha]

I know I've been out of the loop for awhile, but what does the Democratic Socialists of America have to do with the Democratic Party or Obama?

SOP for the Republicans: Anything to the left of Somoza is 'socialist'.

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

Harlowe - I do my best to stay away from Faux News if I can help it, for the same reason you have. Previous poster in this thread said "Obama wins, welcome to Socialism" or something to that effect. I've never said Socialism is any one thing or a "one size fits all" methodology. I'm not sure there will ever be a party, political or otherwise that'll ever be one size fits all. That site just seemed to have the bulk of it available for linking. The fact that it was also American vs. European put an interesting twist on using it as a resource. Their goal with that site is to be a resource for Socialism in America.

I've not singled out Obama as a socialist either. If I have, please quote me so I can put my foot in my mouth. I've called the democratic party "socialist" with some of their latest intentions. Maxine Waters nearly flubbed it when speaking to the oil companies. Michelle Obama, though the media has deflated this as a "gaff," with her "someone will have to give up their their pie for someone else to get a bigger piece."

It's simply my opinion, I've given some links and some evidence that has helped me form that opinion. Is this good old fashioned Maxism? Has Hitler, Lenin, or Stalin risen from the grave to take away our freedoms as a nation, no. Do I think their intentions are alive and well, absolutely! Do I think we'll be a Socialist nation after this next election, not even close. However, history has a LOT of valuable lessons for us to reflect upon.

Partha, are you actually going to supply anything worth reading, or shall I just stick to the notion you're a one-liner passerby that can only roll their eyes and say "whatever?" If you feel I'm wrong, prove it. If you have something to attempt to sway my position that Obama and the democratic party as is are a bunch of short sided, pocket-lining, self-serving, liberal doucherockets, please -- post it. I happily await any input. The world is big, I know I haven't been to the end of the intarwebz and seen it all.

-TF

-TF

[Harlowe]

Tarfang,

As I recall, you said you were a "conservative" but not a party hack. Since Republicans spend money as readily if not more so than the Dem's have, they don't get to be the "conservatives" anymore. Socially conservative - maybe. With statements like this..

If you have something to attempt to sway my position that Obama and the democratic party as is are a bunch of short sided, pocket-lining, self-serving, liberal doucherockets, please -- post it.

You sound like another rabid and irrational hack if you ask me. Too bad because your posts start out thoughtful then end in just a bunch of partisan shit-slinging.

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

My political leanings don't allow me to show levels of frustration or exaggerate my point of view? When did that happen? I'm frustrated with people who don't at least make an attempt to articulate their feelings, yet are more than happy to snipe at others.

Harlowe, I appreciate you used the term "thoughtful" to reflect, even in some part, your view of my posts. I apologize that I come up short in the end. It really is my goal to see some true dialog to make heads or tails of our shared, given situation. Sadly, I tend to add in extra commentary that muddies the waters. "Shit slinging" isn't something I'm exactly proud of, though it seems necessary to reach certain people.

Looking into the Hall of Flame, I know there's a post in there that says...

Sorry if I'm a little rusty, haven't talked to anyone who's conversation basically comes accross as "HURRRRR HURRRRR" in a while.

I think I tend to react to those types of comments. There are things I believe are straightforward and makes tremendous sense, yet, others don't see it. Or worse, tell me I'm an idiot, but couldn't show me where I'm wrong. An example of this would be the Senates ruling today to "bail out" $300 Billion worth in mortgages. I think this is ridiculous, and those people who lent out/took out more than they could cover, should suffer their losses. Yet, now all of us will have to suffer to make up the difference. I'm sure someone on these boards will take one look at this post and go "You're an idiot, how can you not see it's good the gov't did this?!" -- but, fortunately, won't show me a link showing how great it is the gov't did it.

It's interesting, as a person who doesn't know who to vote for (well, somewhat) that I can't seem to get any "play" when it comes to discussing the real issues. Maybe people just read the last parts of my posts and think of me as a "rabid and irrational" hack, when I'm really just fighting to understand things. The irony is I'm coming to a board made "famous" for flaming and e-peen smashing for this type of discussion.

Anyway, game on - I suppose!
-TF

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

D'oh -- double post. *wanders off to die in a fire*

[Embar Angylwrath]

I'm trying to roll around the notion of "moral" victory by voting for Bob Barr. I like his policies better, and it keeps me from having to pick lesser of two evils, but...3rd party candidates just don't win. The fear of spoiling the vote for McCain is overwhelming.

-TF

As a side comment (replying to the conundrum of a protest vote)...

Sometimes its necessary to lose a few elections before leadership stands up and takes notice of the defections. If enough people cast protest votes such that the Republicans lose because of them, the Republican leadership will either 1) have to change, or 2) deal with a legitimate and growing third party.

So maybe casting a protest vote in this election may scuttle McCain's chances at the White House. I ask you.. so what? Is McCain really going to be that radically different from Obama? Probably not. About the only thing he can do is whip out the veto, since the Dems will control both the Senate and the House. In all honesty, if you were going to toss a vote to make a statement, this is the election to do it.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

But only if you really want to concede that Obama is a better candidate...

Which he's not.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You're missing the point.

The protest vote isn't about Obama, its about the Republican Party. A protest vote isn't a vote FOR Obama, its AGAINST the policies of the Republican Party as they exist today. If a person thought Obama was the better candidate, they'd vote for him, not for someone else.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

I understand the point, and it is in essence conceding that Obama is the better candidate...

If you want to make a point, write in the better Republican politician that isn't McCain.

[Ddrak]

I think he's saying to vote for Barr as a protest, not to vote for Obama.

Dd