Customer Discussions > Politics forum

Our Socialist trend.....


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 76-100 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 12, 2012 5:48:15 PM PST
M. Daniel says:
visionary says: "The same way voting for any representative gives you (or is supposed to) the right to tell him what you want him to do."

And your Rep can tell the Senate and administration what to do?

visionary says: "My view is to allow the people to vote for the people they want in office."

Then why do you think we were more democratic when we could elect fewer of our officials (and fewer Americans could vote)?

visionary says: "Those groups have a minor influence over the government when compared to the corporations and the wealthy who control the people and legislators through think tanks, radio, television, and straight bribes to the legislators."

If all the corporations and wealthy wanted to end Social Security and Medicare and had to go against the AARP, you think the corporations would win? No way. Bribes carry less weight than votes.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 12, 2012 6:02:41 PM PST
Sam Clemens says:
There is an important distinction to be made between regular garden-variety free enterprise and Corporate (Vulture) Capitalism, which frequently receives "corporate welfare" in the form of litttle or no taxes, and subsidies, has no loyalty to any country, nor anything in the way of business ethics (and has, increasingly--in recent years--been moving jobs overseas and moving profits into off-shore accounts). All they care about is maximizing profits, and trimming costs (and getting their people into office--jerks like Obama and Bush). And, in the Walls Street/banking spheres, there has been an enormous amount of corruption and "white collar crime."

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 12, 2012 6:07:59 PM PST
I think they consider unemployment benefits, Medicare and Social Security welfare too.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 12, 2012 8:05:29 PM PST
visionary says:

kbw [[They are compete as capitalists on the world stage. ]]

What does that mean?

=================================

The world marketplace is a world capitalist marketplace. Countries and their business complete as such. The socialism ends at the nation's border.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 12, 2012 8:11:06 PM PST
Mende Mui says:No, the current form of Capitalism doesn't
=============

Chile is hardly en example of open market capitalism.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 12, 2012 8:13:11 PM PST
Katrina says:That, and closing a lot of Mental Hospitals, throwing the people out on the streets.
================
because he lost a lawsuit by the ACLU who said the government didn't have the right to imprison these people in mental institutions against their will.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 12, 2012 8:20:56 PM PST
visionary says:
================
the on ewe have with small government.

Your extreme bias against the rich only misleads you. Your position appears to such that if we could only get rid of the wealthy and their influence; the people who would eventually rise to be in power would do everything for the best interest of the people. Most naive of you at best.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 12, 2012 8:22:26 PM PST
visionary says:Are you not concerned about the ravages on the Canadian lands to access the tar
========================
that is the concern of the Canadians and they are going to "ravage" them rather we have a pipeline or not.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 12, 2012 8:30:09 PM PST
visionary:Wrong. Under socialism the people would own the means of production not the government or the capitalists:

===================

and where does the creation of new wealth come from? Socialism doesn't create new wealth. It is a recipe for stagnation.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 12, 2012 8:48:26 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 12, 2012 8:57:15 PM PST
Sam Clemens says:

There is an important distinction to be made between regular garden-variety free enterprise and Corporate (Vulture) Capitalism, which frequently receives "corporate welfare" in the form of litttle or no taxes, and subsidies, has no loyalty to any country, nor anything in the way of business ethics (and has, increasingly--in recent years--been moving jobs overseas and moving profits into off-shore accounts). All they care about is maximizing profits, and trimming costs (and getting their people into office--jerks like Obama and Bush). And, in the Walls Street/banking spheres, there has been an enormous amount of corruption and "white collar crime."
-------------------------------
thanks say for your "please take of me post" type post.

These corporations have to complete against by providing the public with products they need and desire. This competition is better for all. The soviet Union was a dump except for where it had to complete with Americans, and that was in space and military weapons.

If we had socialism like Vis wants, you would still be driving early model Ford Pintos and AMC pacers 40 years later.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2012 7:14:38 AM PST
freedom4all says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2012 7:56:20 AM PST
M. Daniel says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2012 8:03:13 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 13, 2012 8:06:21 AM PST
Mende Mui says:
"The free market is right not because it is more efficient, it is, but because it is the only moral system."

- We are arguing from an economic stand point, not from a moral stand point because modern capitalism it's self might be seen as immoral to many people. The main point of implementing any economic system is to have efficiency.. and or greater good for the majority of the population. That was the main utilitarian goal!

Posted on Feb 13, 2012 8:21:31 AM PST
M. Emrich says:
Here is an example where I think Socialism works in a capitalistic society, and it is one that comes up all the time; healthcare. Now it has grown in the last 30 years from 10% of GDP to 18% of GDP and certainly rising. It is a burden on growth in other business segments. If we had Universal Health Care, right off the bat Workers Comp is gone. Those who argue against it say that the increase in taxes would be a burden to economic growth. I say the private sector costs far exceed that. Many business owners now say that they have no costs because they offer no benefits, but they still have workers comp and they have more issues with employees having health problems in a broken system. Happy, healthier employees translates to greater productivity. It is a win-win in my book.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2012 8:31:53 AM PST
visionary says:
daniel [[When you can show me how my life today is being controlled by the wealthy and what freedoms I had in previous years I do not have today.]]

One can see all about us how the wealthy control our lives. Their games on Wall Street have brought the economy down, millions of people are jobless, wars are being fought, etc. All of that affects you.
A rotting economy decreases your freedoms in many ways. Your neighborhoods are more susceptible to crime, economic mobility is reduced, community life and social relations are spoiled, general mental problems and drug use are increased, physical health and life expectancy are reduced, educational performance by our young deteriorates, violence increases, more is spent on prisons; in other words, we now have a dysfunctional society where freedoms for everyone are reduced.

[[You ignored these developments unless you think it was more democratic when we only elected our House members. ]]

This country was more democratic prior to the takeover by the business class (wealthy and corporate execs) in the mid-70s. Now we have no democracy but a plutocracy. Rule by the rich.

[[Because you have not given me one example of how people had more power over their lives in previous years.]]

Anytime one has access to their elected officials, more power over their lives exists. That was true before the wealthy took over by using their riches to bribe officials. The civil rights movement is a huge example of more freedoms to the middle class.

[[You ignored my examples about use of the social media to defeat the Bank of America and SOPA. ]]

What is your contention with those two entities?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2012 8:33:25 AM PST
JKW Retired says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2012 8:40:57 AM PST
visionary says:
daniel [[The soldiers died for our political system both back when it was less democratic and in modern times as it has become more democratic.]]

This country continues to become LESS democratic since the mid-70s. It is being changed into a banana republic by the rich.

[[Other than WWII, when was our democracy threatened? ]]

Democracy in this country has been threatened continuously since the constitution was signed. WWII held a slight threat but that was miniscule compared to what is happening today. Today the conservatives attempt to spread democracy throughout the globe (at least they make a show of doing so) while killing it here with political manipulation of wealth.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2012 8:46:08 AM PST
freedom4all says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2012 8:49:10 AM PST
freedom4all says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2012 8:51:34 AM PST
visionary says:
daniel [[I doubt you would have more cash, but you certainly would not have a higher standard of living.]]

The standard of living is relative in any country. The items you mention (more than one car, cell phone, etc,) are nothing compared to the 40,000 sq foot mansions, the $200k automobiles, access to legislators, island homes obtained by the wealthy during that time when middle class incomes stagnated and upper class incomes grew rapidly.

[[To blame corporations and wealthy for crime in the cities and higher tuition is just silly.]]

As the rich become uber-rich they can send their kids to expensive schools and those schools can raise the tuitions, squeezing out anyone else. The wealthy gentrify the cities forcing the lower classes out and into crime.

[[This is your answer to every problem--the wealthy did it. ]]

Not every but most.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2012 8:52:41 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 13, 2012 8:54:47 AM PST
freedom4all says:
ME, the problem with the American healthcare industry is not the profit of its providers but the lack of competition because of the industry's use of government to create a cartel.

American Heath Care is a Cartel in collusion with government. It is crony capitalism. As with all cartels its purpose is to keep its prices high by limiting competition. It is not unlike OPEC and DeBeers.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2012 9:00:33 AM PST
visionary says:
daniel [[And your Rep can tell the Senate and administration what to do?]]

Not 'tell' but persuade.

[[Then why do you think we were more democratic when we could elect fewer of our officials (and fewer Americans could vote)?]]

Because the effect of bribery was nowhere near as huge as now. The swinging doors were not in play when fewer Americans could vote.

[[If all the corporations and wealthy wanted to end Social Security and Medicare and had to go against the AARP, you think the corporations would win?]]

They are trying to kill Social Security and Medicare and will succeed as long as people like you leave themselves open to being duped.

[[Bribes carry less weight than votes. ]]

Tell that to the politicos of today and watch the laughter erupt.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2012 9:04:08 AM PST
visionary says:
kbw [[Countries and their business complete as such. ]]

I give up on you. You can't write a lucid statement.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2012 9:07:09 AM PST
visionary says:
kbw, There you go again. I won't hire a translator, so I can't reply.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2012 9:11:31 AM PST
visionary says:
kbw [[that is the concern of the Canadians and they are going to "ravage" them rather we have a pipeline or not.]]

We encourage them to tear up their land if we buy from them or cooperate with them. It appears you don't care if the whole world is raped as long as 'you' didn't do it. Am I correct?

Why don't you encourage conservation instead of the ruin of our planet?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  43
Total posts:  1165
Initial post:  Feb 9, 2012
Latest post:  Feb 28, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions