President Obama played golf Eighty one times in 2012.......
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
0Just saying , lets see , 52 weekends , hmmmm.?. This is the president of the free world , with all its problems , catastrophes , war , terrorism , border problems , a failing congress . Russia stepping heavily across eastern Europe again , and then his own issues , global warming , the open borders , a senate that thinks that each of them are kings, the war against Christianity ,...... A wife like ours would say NO once in a while , I mean , wouldn't she . Wonder how many basketball hook ups he did ?
War against Christianity? Really? Now they're the victims? LMAO! They've been declaring war on the world for the last 2000 years.
The job is a 24/7/365 commitment. I wonder how many late nights, red eye flights, meetings etc....
When the going gets tough, Obama goes fundraising...every time. That way, he'll be adored, because those who pay $30,000 a plate all love him.
(Of course, these very wealthy donors are not to be confused with the 1% all liberals hate!)I hate to ruin a good rant with facts but...
18. Not 81. http://obamagolfcounter.com/Actually, I count 19 but it doesn’t really matter.
In fact, his average of 1-1/2 rounds per month in 2012 is less than his average of <3 rounds per month as President. .
However, these numbers pale when compared to Woodrow Wilson who is said to have played 1,200 rounds of golf during his years in the oval office. Even Dwight Eisenhower managed 800 rounds during his eight years. {1}
{1} http://www.golfblogger.com/index.php/go … l_golfers/Really Quill? You resorted to the Wilson - Eisenhower defense?
I too found that data in my perusals, but the OP's point was already so slanted that I thought anything less than a "Bush and his Crawford ranch visits" would be wasted breath.
ps. to his credit - I think Bush was right when he made the decision to curtail his golf outings after the 2003 embassy bombing
Geez,, rHamson made the most salient point with his... "24/7/365," but I would make another to the pro-business minded posters...
Have you ever heard of businessmen speaking of how many more times the most important deals are made on the golf course rather than in the boardroom?
Of course I do have to agree that it does look bad to us every-day folks. (I refuse to use the new media buzzword - "Optics")
GAHey there, GA.
Have you ever heard that this widely circulated folklore is base on anecdotes rather than hard facts? However, it has been known to be very successfully when used on bosses and wives.
It is sort of dumb to use the President's golf games as a way to gauge his performance as president. Since you do not shadow him daily, you truly are not in a position to know, are you?
Agreed. Judge him on his performance, not method. Of course, if people would have done that realistically back in 2012, we wouldn't be suffering through his second term.
And if he had been "found out" and not re-elected how many more wars would we be fighting now?
Would Iraq have the same Issues with terrorists? Would we have had Benghazi, Libya, or Egypt? We can talk about hypotheticals on both sides of that "what if."
I see your "what if" logic but how many little messes has John McCain been vocal about committing troops too? Romney has spoken up also about sending boots on the ground to regions that are better left to figuring out their own problems. ISIL is going to feel the pain of the wagging of the finger with the executions but hopefully it will be when they sit down to dinner with their terrorist coven and have a drone explode in their laps for desert. This is a lot better and safer done from a control booth in Florida rather than an advanced fire base in Syria.
More hypotheticals? As has been pointed out by many liberals, Obama won. Who cares what somebody would have done? Let's talk about what those who are in power have actually done or failed to do.
If, however, we're going to play this "what if game" as a way of saying that the POTUS is weak but the other guy was worse, then let's at least look at both sides of the hypotheticals. Either way, it doesn't say much for Obama.I was just responding to your hypotheticals. By the way I don't care what you are. You can be a Zerple from Euthoria as far as I care about your semantics.
Semantics? Too funny.
The bottom line is that the POTUS is lazy and ineffectual. He whines about those evil republicans but doesn't have the leadership to actually meet with politicians and actually discuss a compromise. He runs to the podium instead, and he tries to convince the public he's right, hoping for public pressure on Congress. We have a leadership vacuum. Then, when this doesn't work, he says that NEVER before has the opposition been so unwilling to work with the POTUS. Excuses!
People defend him with statements like, "He's better than Romney would have been." Great, what a testimonial.They are excuses if there is some magical way he could get past the deadlocks in the chambers. I have no idea what that would be?
IMHO it is a miracle he did pass so many laws like the healthcare act and non-discrimination requirements such as tax recognition of same sex marriage and repeal of DADT.
At the end fo the day it is whether you support his policies or not, not whether he plays some golf. IMHO a president should have a few hobbies to avoid going bonkers in office. It's a stressful job.It has always been difficult to get things accomplished in Washington. To claim that little has been accomplished because of one side is simplistic and wrong. Presidents are supposed to be leaders. This POTUS has not been a leader. He merely makes excuses and then goes on vacation. Occasionally, he gives a speech to try to shame Congress into action. That's about the extent of his leadership.
Comparing liberal to liberal, Clinton was ten times the leader Obama is. He could negotiate and compromise. He could work with people. He could lead. Obama is polarizing and unable to unite. He is a horrible president, but some will simply blame Congress. Harry Truman, another liberal, used to say that the buck stopped with him. President Obama passes the buck and blames others. That's not leadership.
For the record, I did not support many of Clinton's policies either, but he was a better leader.
How was it such a "miracle" to pass Obamacare when the democrats had a majority in both houses?
Don't know B, I think that things would more likely than not have been more difficult under Romney. IMHO......
There are those of us who are not suffering. I guess because we are the majority and we elected him. My only concern with the prospect of Hillary Clinton as the next president is the prospect of eight more years of dealing with republicans as the losers. Jeeze. Did the concept of supporting whoever is in the White House die completely in America? I'd be happy with at least "loyal opposition" at this point. Where did all this hatred of the other party come from?
It measures how often he isn't doing his job though.
Let's not forget that the U.S. Congress is scheduled to work only 12 days from August 1 through October 31.
Bush took the most vacations out of any president. This is a dumb reason to critisize someone over. All you did was spout this and that with no concrete evidence or conjecture of your own. Stop taking in stupid propaganda from what you see online and get educated.
Do you really believe that Obama is the president of the free world!
Do you think that the free world extends no further than your own borders?
Do you really think you are so free?
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Why can't we as two parties simply fire the congressional incumbents collectively OUT of office ? It would be so easy if Americans haven't become so ideologically divided and I'm not even sure that we aren't divided simply out of the ability to do so ? Are we to politically immature as a culture to agree ?
Because their best interest is what they are looking out for. The two party system is detrimental to open and honest debate because the polarization leaves little room for compromise. Term limits, publicly financed campaigns and lobby reform are the best way of having our interests carried out.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Well there Freddy , Nothing excuses the fact that this IS the most uncoordinated white house administration --ever ! Given all of our domestic and foreign problems in the world today !
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Yes John I do , it just happens that America is still a nation of it's people , unlike yours . It's just that the socio- political maturity of it's people is in the pits ! The percentages of caring registered voters in America right now is somewhere around one half or less , I believe it will take a major catastrophe to get our people back into the election to election workings of it's own government . AND ,That's perhaps why so much of your forum attention is devoted to Americans and criticizing our system ! Because you have rightfully lost hope in yours .
In what way is America still a nation of it's people and the UK isn't?
It is true that as our society moves further toward American totalitarianism I start to lose hope, but I haven't lost it completely, our illiterate voters are beginning to get the message and next year should see a sea change in our situation.
BTW, the reason why I devote so much attention to these forums is not so that I can criticise your system but so that I can counter your oppression of so many.
I thought he only played golf 8 times because he was no good at it and preferred horse riding instead.
You still haven't explained to me why the free world stops at the US borders.I wouldn't bother. Explaining freedom to a socialist is like playing chess with a pigeon. The socialist would just knock over the pieces, take a dump on the board, and strut around acting like it won.
In other words you realise how illusionary your freedom is but don't want to admit it so you go into abusive mode!
Why should a socialist not understand what freedom is? It seems to me that the unfree are the capitalist lackeys who must do as they are ordered to by their masters.Interesting, but nobody forces anybody to buy anything in a capitalist system, only when socialists creep in and attempt to take away our hard earned money.
That's called stealing. You wouldn't understand...Capitalism is predicated on theft and always has been. But then you wouldn't understand that not being free.
This was supposed to be a discussion about the US being the beginning and end of the free world. Why have you diverted it to a discussion of socialism?Because Socialism is steadily expanding into our economic system, thus ending freedom in America. What you don't seem to realize is though you think socialism is some alternative way of spreading equality, it always ends in murder and poverty for all. It is always implemented by force, and thus your results will always end in Stalin's Russia, or Mao's China, Castro's Cuba, Killing fields in Cambodia, North Korea Etc. unless those dictators are halted by the precepts of freedom and democracy. And no economic system has ever proved to perpetuate individual liberty more effectively than an open and free market
It's a nice idea though, to think you can force people to be equally poor, but I think Ideas should be weighed by their results rather than their intentions.What you think of as socialism is any thing but. It is capitalism protecting itself from a mob.
With one exception none of those countries that you list are even remotely socialist.
What about the force used to implement capitalism, which your country is guilty of?
And what has this got to do with the USA being the only free country in the world?
I would be interested to see an open and free market in operation, it happens in neither of our countries.John you are set in your ideology. You advocate something that history has proven never works, and I advocate a system that has been historically proven to always work. The fact is were America to fall into socialism, no other capitalistic country would be able to muster the military might to fend off the tennants of socialists and communists whose goal it is to force the rest of the world into their line of slavery.
That is how the fall of the US will be the end of the free world. The formation of the United States is a small moment of freedom and democracy in a global history repleate with Kings, Czars, Tyrants, Dictators, rulers, and slaves.
And that is what you are advocating we return to.But tell me why you believe the US to be the beginning and end of the free world, why you believe that you are free and I am not.
All you've done so far is demonstrate your lack of knowledge of socialism which was not the topic I wished to discuss.I never said the UK is not free. The topic is our lousy excuse of a socialist president failing miserably at his job, as most socialists do.
It seems to me that you are the one who possesses a deep lack of knowledge of the results of socialism, as you are the one who advocates a failed system. All you have showed is how much you think it's a good idea when the evidence is clearly contradictory.I have offered no opinion on any system in this thread. I just wanted you to explain how Obama was president of the free world. That's all. You won't do it.
Mind you, if you think your presidents actions are those of a socialist there is little hope of you understanding the rest of the world.I never said he was president of the free world. But he is a big part of the downfall of the free world. As are all socialists.
No but ahorseback opened with "Just saying , lets see , 52 weekends , hmmmm.?. This is the president of the free world ,"
Obama a socialist! Like many others you struggle to understand what socialism is, well maybe struggle is too strong a word. it implies some thought rather than just repeating parrot fashion what your capitalist masters tell you.
Truth be told it is the capitalists who are bringing down the free world (if it ever existed). The bankers who created the crash of 2008 were not socialists.
As you are so sure that Obama is a socialist can you tell me of just one socialist ideal that he has introduced?So I realize that Obama is not enough of a socialist to qualify for your standards, (which it is refreshing to know that Americans have yet to vote in an all out socialist or communist as their leader.)
But that always seems to be the problem, doesn't it? Their leaders never are able to implement enough of their economic planning policies to qualify as "real" socialists. Life just cant be miserable enough for them. So you can cop out and say that China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, etc. were never "real" Communist or socialist countries. But quite contrary to the claim, they are the most communist countries.
And that is because economic planning requires a large centralized government just like North Korea has to control all of the monetary distribution. It simply will not work to let the people make their own choices as to where and what to spend their own money on, the government must do that for you.
Now I realize that you do not except that as a true explanation as to what the intentions of socialist and communist economic planning is, but that will always be the end result, plus millions of dead people who refuse to be ruled by your purveyors of equality in poverty.
The socialist and communist vision of heaven on Earth has always ended as it began, like your Khmer Rouge progenitors would have it. No possessions, no Heaven, no Hell, just a grass mat and work till you die. Arbeit macht frei!I missed this scurrilous post. It demonstrates clearly the dangers of a little knowledge.
There are so many false assumptions in your post that to try to correct them all would take far more time than I am prepared to spend.
Let's just take one of your points-" Arbeit macht frei!" By this I take it that you have slipped into the common lazy thinking that because the party that that man took over was called the National Socialist Party then that's an end of it, he must have been a socialist. Too lazy. Even a little more knowledge would tell you that he was killing socialists and communists before he began on the Jews who, incidentally, he also thought were communists. As a good "socialist" he drove down wages and made it impossible for workers to change jobs without the permission of their capitalist bosses who he gave more power to, not less.
There is more but I'm bored now.
Please do a little more homework in future. It's embarrassing to see people make fools of themselves..And your intellectual laziness is flat out dishonesty. Again this is the result of socialism. You seem to have a hard time differentiating between intentions and results.
With socialism they intend for equality across the board. But they can only implement that through a large and powerful state to control wages, and distribute wealth. So the intention is equality, the result is gulags, concentration camps, work camps, starvation, etc.
With Capitalism the intention is you get what you work for. The result is hard work, a large middle class, and Disneyland vacation. It's not perfect, it's not a gulag, but it is the happiest place on Earth.
Anyway this doesn't move one inch towards showing me how you are free in the USA and I am not free in the UK.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
John , "why we think a free world stops at the US border ?" ........Start with this idea to chew on , Because the free world began with the US . If you read your history you will remember that , that very pursuit of a free world began as an exodus from even your very own country's borders .! And , since then the cries from Europe in particular have involved the US in more wars than need be and included in these cries are those for the US to once again go to war , the war on terrorism -that which no other superpower seems to concern themselves with spending it's treasures and blood ,. That is, as long as the US continues to be the "big brother" to the rest of the "free " world . Hey John , enjoy your freedom !
The free world might have begun with the US but then the US became unfree and remains so. Whilst the rest of the world has moved on the US is still stuck in the mindset that it had when founded. Look at the fuss when anybody suggests changing your constitution.
Remember just how long it took the "free" USA to abolish slavery and racial segregation.
The cries to go to war are totally internal, aimed at replacing free regimes with US controlled regimes.
Your war on terrorism makes us all unsafe and open to threats of terrorism. You conveniently forget that for a hundred years or more, your fellow country men and politicians were sponsoring terrorism in the UK, amongst other places. You have made a major industry out of that ultimate oppressor of freedom and that is war.
I must say (keeping my personal political standpoint out of it) that although you have a good point in saying we have a lot of problems to fix as a country, how many times Barrack Obama plays golf is irrelevant.
First off, can we admit that the president has very little influence on what actually happens in government? And that he is more of a talking face to blame our problems on rather than a raw decision maker? It's undeniable he's not Lincoln, he's not great, or even decent for that matter, but he's not the only one responsible. Spend anger on the suit-wearing, smiling gangsters that work under him. The ones who do the dirty work, and manipulate our country for their own benefit while legitimate problems are neglected.
I agree that the President is near worthless. I believe he's probably a better golfer than he is a leader of over 300 million people. I also think he's a decoy to the real enemy. Let's stop falling for it.No! Absolutely we can not say that. A leader is not a mechanic. A leader is not a coder. A leader is not the smartest guy in the field.
A leader is someone that has the vision and courage to set the course - them leave it to the helmsman to follow it. That is the job of our President.
Our president has extraordinary power to set the course of the nation. Congress either follows, adds corrections, or refutes our leader's course.
Pick two great, (and opposite), examples; FDR and Reagan. Both set our nations course. Both had a vision for our nation that resonated with the people. And in both cases our legislators followed or confronted their direction. In either case - they lead. They set the direction. That is what a leader does. That is what our presidents do.
So once again, a resounding NO! Your statement is completely wrong. A president has great influence. It only appears that he doesn't when he can't muster the will of the nation to rally to his vision.
Your comment might apply to a restaurant or convenience store manager, but not to the leader of our nation.
Pres. Obama has catchest a lot of flak for his decisions, (perhaps because he may not be tuned in to "everyday Americans"), but regardless of the reasons or results, he still sets the course for America's actions.
Geesh, equating the presidency to figure-head status seems very cynical to me.
GA
Three links in a row. Don;t you think your perspective would be a little more interesting if you offered them with a comment or two of your own?
I don't know what your perspective is because I don't follow bare links. Maybe I an not alone in this feeling.
GA
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
As John Holden should know , the other "super -powers " and I use that term loosely , have failed miserably , his own nation , England , Russia and China , in modern times and France , Portugal , Spain , in past times all realized too late that socialistic and communistic ideals do nothing but suck up a prosperous nations vital recourses and treasures . And, once a nation begins to consume itself , like a wolf eating it's own young , it can no longer call itself anything but a nation subservient to it's own taxation and costs of it's social overly abundant welfare system , thereby reducing itself to a poorer place ,. once all prosperous Industry leaves it's borders , the rich people begin to locate their resources in the more successful economies . China , for instance once a poor communistic nation is embracing it's fast growing economy based on free industry , ---with no regulations ! on the other hand , America , Its own once prosperous manufacturing corporations are leaving like flies ., it's rich people are looking to the Bahamas' for higher interest rates and lower taxes . Let's face it John , you envy America for the very freedoms that you once had ! Yours is a nation of Kings and Queens who reign over it's own people with a golden collection plate professing social prosperity and taxing you to no end ! We, on the other hand , still determine and participate in how our taxes are raised and by voting , where they go !, Our problem right now is maintaining our world superiority in economic power , white balancing the popularity of a subculture that wishes for more social spending programs ! President Obama is but a social worker on steroids and in the ways that he pushes our economy around to suit his idealistic image of a socially "shared wealth" , he is destroying our country's always independent strengths. brought on by entrepreneurial growth wisdom , through lower taxed industry and economic freedoms all based on less government ! He is intentionally diverting mega - tax dollars towards a more "shared " social programing , mostly for liberal vote buying purposes . However distorted , his picture of a new and prosperous America is in moving away from the strengths of industry and the once great American ingenuity with the ethics of hard work and towards more state welfare and generally more people eating from the public pig troth ! What was once a thriving economy with an economically lead political freedom is fast becoming another Spain . Yes John freedom is America , right now at least , but it will end with it's economic decline . So when the next Adolf Hitler comes along and begins dropping it's buzz bombing terror on England why don't you call China and see if they'll help you out ! Maybe they can do a "Lend - Lease " and save your ass , America will be too poor to do that .
And it is capitalism, not socialism that is leading the decline of our once great countries.
BTW the Queen has no legislative powers and does not raise taxes. Just another indication of your lack of knowledge of ow other countries work.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
You asked where the worlds freedom goes outside of Americas borders , I explained . I know how England's government works John , that doesn't however change the fact your government is further down the road towards socialism than ours however ,A little political envy there John?
If you think our government is even remotely socialist then you really are out of touch!
Does cutting pay for the lower paid whilst cutting taxes for the wealthy really fit into your vision of socialism?
Does privatising public utilities fit your vision of socialism?
Does privatising welfare fit your vision of socialism?
No, I don't envy your right wing government any more than I welcome ours.
You still haven't explained how you are freer than us though.
Well there we go! The chance for a useful and informative discussion on what freedom represents to different people.
Instead an uninformed tirade against socialism!- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
The privatization of corporations and pay cuts to your people were BECAUSE of being too near a socialist level ,and not being able to budget that exorbitant cost , remember how angry some of your public was ? Here's the kicker - less government + less cost = steering away from socialism . 1 + 1 = 2.......
So why have the prices of utilities gone through the roof since privatisation? Why do we now have the most expensive railways in Europe (and possibly the world) since privatisation?
Why have wages dropped since the corporations have risen in power?
Why do we have more people now living in poverty?
Why is the major growth in food banks one of the few growth areas?
It was nothing to do with anything being too near a socialist level but because the one percent weren''t able to profit so much.
What is to get? "equals more freedom" is without any meaning
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
More freedom for you and I and from what ? An economically oppressive governing tyranny . That very tyranny being those who feel that they are somehow deserving of your resources free to them for the taking . Government by definition is a mushrooming entity , thereby professing taking from your pocket for the betterment of all others . The whole problem with that idealism is that eventually we become a learned society of takers and not givers . America is fast approaching the proven socialist formula of 40 % of it's populace living on government incomes and therefore just how many people are economically attached at the hip to a tax based feeding troth ! Government monies for all ! Except -- that style of society cannot be self supporting with a vibrant and varied economy .. If I decide where my money goes , I have more freedom . If my government decides - I have less freedom .
There is nothing socialist about 40% living off the government! That is capitalism, the state (ie the people) sponsoring private profit.
The socialist creed is that if you don't work, you don't eat. How does that fit with a large percentage of the population left on the scrap heap?
That very tyranny of those who feel they are somehow deserving of your resources. Like CEOs you mean? If the minimum wage in the UK had risen at the same rate as that of CEOs since 1990, the minimum wage in the UK would be nearly £20 an hour.Instead in real terms it has fallen.
Think for yourself man, don't just parrot the lines that you have been fed.The funny thing is that you somehow believe you have some sort of freedom by working hard and making the right decisions in this democratic/republic. For years the corporate and political elite have been setting up a system of favor whereby you have to be connected to participate. How could so many jobs be sent overseas without a care as to who it was affecting? The corporate elite bought favor to set up trade agreements that got them labor for pennies on the dollar The savings they garnered were in part passed onto the consumer who in their unknowing greed bought the products to support the scam. Unknowing in that they allowed their elected officials to be bought and change laws to facilitate these corporate elite. And unknowing in that they supported the demise of their own means of making a living. Many have supported themselves by refinancing their homes and borrowing on credit cards to fill the void while the economy has a chance to recover and make them prosperous again. This they did unknowingly while their standard of living was undermined by the corporate greed and their own to support a lifestyle that was devalued despite their own efforts. The jobs are gone and many either can't be retrained due to age, economic situations or opportunities so what is to become of these people. Go away and die? Buck up and pick berries or lettuce? The corporate elites latest ploy is to vacate the country with their spoils by inversion with other corporations overseas. That way they keep their booty and continue to enjoy all the privileges of living here in the US. What a great situation for them if you can get it. Well they bought it.
Everyone thinks the President can magically change all the woes that have been created by many before him and some while he is in charge of the country. But the truth of the matter is that WE THE PEOPLE have been asleep at the wheel for many years and our lack of participation in making the right choices have been forfeited to a greedy bunch of slime bags who feed us the crap we want while scraping the cream from the surface for themselves. They do this while we believe their lies and bull$&*t and sell us false hopes to line their own pockets. It is not the politicians fault. They are doing exactly what we pay them to do because we encourage them by re electing them.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
The single biggest problem in America at this time is the high percentage of apathy of the voting public. Our congress needs to be symbolically fired , perhaps a grass roots movement to oust all or at least most incumbent senate and congressmen[women ] and definitely a change in the white-house . I believe this November will show significant changes in the power structure at the top . I could be wrong but I believe those who elected "hope and change " have learned a valuable lesson , Obama was elected primarily by eighteen to twenty eight year olds who seldom become so involved in elections , it was a brilliant move by his people . However ill conceived in reality ! An idealistic social worker cannot successfully lead a countries economy , cannot conceive of real changes in such a large economic downturn AND. can not be a world class leader . .
Obama is just not suited to be president pure and simple. America has gotten worse since he became "president." He became president with the purpose of pushing his socialist agenda with the ultimate purpose of destroying/dismantling American institutions and values. He intends for America to lose its status in the world. With a "president" like him, America does not need enemies.
Tell me just one element of Obama's "socialist agenda" that he has actually introduced!
The American people do not except socialism as we still have a constitution of the people, by the people and for the people. Therefore we are still a nation of laws and not socialist dictators as you would have it.
Obama is a socialist because he was raised as one from his infancy. His mentor was family friend Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the Communist Party USA. But don't let the "USA" fool you. Once the old Soviet archives were opened up, there was proof that the CPUSA was entirely under the control and direction of the Soviet Union until the latter's collapse.
Stanley Anne Dunham, Obama's mother, dabbled in socialist politics throughout her life.
Obama does relate in his books that he attended socialist conferences and read Marxist literature.
Obama believes in "spreading the wealth around" not just domestically but internationally -- soaking U.S. taxpayers for hundreds of billions of dollars sent overseas.
Obama became a "community organizer" in Chicago, working with ACORN, the Democratic Socialists of America and other avowedly socialist groups, such as the New Party, whose endorsement he sought and won in 1996.
Obama befriended hard-core, radical communists Bill Ayers and Carl Davidson, both members of the socialist Students for a Democratic Society. Ayers went on from SDS to lead the revolutionary communist Weather Underground faction responsible for a wave of terror including bombings of the Capitol, deadly bank robberies and the bombing of a police station in San Francisco that killed one officer.
While in Chicago, Obama and his family attended Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ for two decades. Wright was not only anti-American, anti-Semitic and racist, he was also a socialist, a practitioner of "Liberation Theology," who said: "We must ask the question, 'Why are there 40 million poor people in America?' And when you ... ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question you begin to question the capitalistic economy."
Which group boasts the most White House visits since Obama moved in? The Service Employees International Union, a new name for ACORN, which, according to former official Stephen Lerner, seeks to "destabilize" America's financial system through occupy-style attacks on banks and Wall Street.
Obama taught a law-school class on socialist activist Saul Alinsky, not the U.S. Constitution as he claims.
Obama endorsed Bernie Sanders, the only avowed socialist in the U.S. Congress.
The Communist Party endorsed Obama in his 2008 primary battle with Hillary Clinton.
Obama believes "our individual salvation depends on collective salvation."
As president, Obama appointed an unprecedented 45 "czars" including many socialists -- Van Jones, Anita Dunn, John Holdren, Cass Sunstein, Ron Bloom and Elizabeth Warren.
Obama believes every person has a "right" to health care. The Communist Party and the Socialist Party agree. In fact, it's part of their platforms.
Obama believes labor unions should be allowed to organize workers without approval being subject to secret ballots. The Communist Party and the Socialist Party agree. In fact, it's part of their platforms.
Obama believes there is an inherent "right" to housing. The Communist Party and the Socialist Party agree. In fact, it's part of their platforms.
Obama has promoted an open-borders agenda. The Communist Party and Socialist Party agree. In fact, it's in their platforms.
Obama has steadfastly promoted a "steeply graduated" income tax. The Communist Party and the Socialist Party agree. In fact, it's in their platforms.That's all fine and taken with a grain of salt for no sources. I would welcome them so I can see where your information is coming from. But the man has two more years in office. So I think we are safe from his radical "communist" agenda. By the way, there needs to be emphasis between communism and socialism here, since they are different and not interchangeable.
All those you mention apart from Van Jones are members of the Democrat party which is in no way socialist.
Many people apart from socialists agree that everybody has a right to health care.
Many apart from socialists agree that labour unions should be allowed to organise without conditions that nobody else is supposed to work under..
Many apart from socialists recognise an inherent right to housing.
Many apart from socialists advocate an open border policy, it's very useful for pulling wages down thus benefiting capitalists.
Many apart from socialists promote a graduated income tax.
Now would you like to tell me of any socialist policies Obama has actually successfully implemented.All socialist policies, all supported by socialists and Communists. Simply because those politicians do not walk around with a hammer and sickle tattooed on their foreheads does not disqualify them from their own ideology.
Many supported by those who aren't socialists, so again, just one socialist policy that Obama has brought in.
Again I am playing chess with a pigeon. The list just does not qualify in your mind because you don't understand how Socialism is implemented.
He has drastically expanded government, militarized the police, he uses drones, the TSA, The U.S. military now has the authority to arrest American citizens and hold them indefinitely without trial, He implemented a socialist healthcare program, expands welfare spending, allows illegal immigrants to enter our boarders, and he constantly over steps the United States Constitution, a document which is inherently antithetical to the precepts of socialism.
I would say that if it were my desire to force 300 million Americans to be socialists, I would do the exact same thing just give it a different name. Typical, historic, textbook how to build a socialist dictatorship.
"You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands." -Khrushchev
I know, I know, "He wasn't a real communist".
I'm sorry but you are demonstrating once again that you have no idea how socialism works.
What socialist health care program did he implement? Not the one that shovels money into the hands of the capitalist insurance companies.
Welfare spending is not socialist either, it's capitalism passing its costs onto the public. Remember, socialism says that if you don't't work you don't eat.
Again, immigrants are useful to the capitalists by undermining wages. Paying less is not socialism.
Oh, and communism isn't socialism either!Again, that's not the intentions but yes that is how socialism works in the real world.
Really! And your real life experience of socialism is?
There are positive and negative numbers when it comes to jobs, economy, and foreign policy under Obama. It has become the staple of the American to brand the President as the "worst" president due to the negatives with little regard for the positives; when, in all honesty, Obama is just a mediocre President like every President we have had since Clinton.
And he intends for us to lose our status? You make a lot of assumptions about people who you don't know. You him an an enemy when there needs to be actual discussion not biased assertions that stone wall any attempt at consensus.....He became president with the purpose of pushing his socialist agenda with the ultimate purpose of destroying/dismantling American institutions and values....
This is a crock of it. How has he even made a move to dismantle Wall Street? He has been in bed with them for years. They bankrolled his campaigns and he paid them off. Get your facts straight! Call him out for what he has done. You don't have to make s#!t up.
....He intends for America to lose its status in the world....
To what ends? Why would he do that? He wants to continue living here and build his library and the legacy that a good politician gets. He will be the most thrifty warrior President we have ever had as he has vacated Iraq of ground troops and we are soon to leave Afghanistan which will help the purse. He will do this while launching drone strikes that terrifies the terrorists ten times more than any whack-a-mole generals plan that has killed more than it gains in respect from the enemy.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Bottom line John , Reagan did lead and he lead well . ,actor or not , a social worker could theoretically lead as well , BUT he isn't leading well enough , not by any means ! Why , because he is neither charismatic enough , he doesn't have the "break away " leadership qualities necessary for pulling together a political consensus .! AND, more than anything , those people around him are not world class leaders , lets face it a presidential leader , in the US anyway, is a a president who surrounds himself with like minds ! Obama's surrounded himself by socially conscious idealists , professors , career intellectuals , otherwise overeducated college students , by career federal employees far too insulated from the real world .to even realize the true jungle like nature of "real world" politics ., Regan new how to speak to the voting people in America , and used that effectively to control the other half of the true power in America ......Congress !
That's the difference John - Obama is virtually spinning his wheels spending too much political capital trying to prove that he isn't way out of his league and Regan created the very league !Therefore it has absolutely nothing to do with him being a social worker and to suggest that it is is divisive..
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000=Reagan led this country to TRIUMP and RESPECT while Obumbler is leading this country to .....RUIN!
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Please excuse the mispelling and punctuation ! Before you engage the spelling police ..
Sorry, on the strength of this post I just had to go back and look
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Here's a real life experience in socialism John ! Obama has mandated for every American that they must purchase government mandated insurance coverage , or pay a federal fine ! Yet , here in the state of Vermont where I live , the two underwriters of insurance coverage have requested to the state an increase of 10-- 12 % for the year ending 2014 only ! Had he also regulated the cost of health care increases , he may have gained more favor ,he didn't though ! Blue Cross / Blue Sheild insurance companies have requested such increases EVERY year John . They have also gained a reputation for denying coverage for certain operations and sickness', This isn't Englands socialist health care system where nobody pays a dime for all care / at government expence , Its a mandated purchase of coverage by profit based companies . So much for the free choice purchase of health care coverage ! = Socialism !
That's not socialism... You need to read what socialism is....
Oh he doesn't need to read about socialism, he knows it all, got it from his capitalist mates!
But that isn't socialism, that's pure capitalism! Notice you mention two underwriters, what are they doing there if you truly have socialised medicine? You also mention that Obama didn't regulate the cost of healthcare, why didn't he? Because he didn't want to upset his capitalist mates!
And you fail to understand the British system as well. Rather than nobody paying a dime, we all pay, the difference is that we don't pay a profit based company which is were your argument that you have socialised medicine falls downOh I missed this one first time round!
You are saying that if he had made health care nearer to the socialist model he would have gained more favour!He did make it closer to socialism than capitalism.
In what respect? You still have to pay private insurance companies.
How did he make it closer to socialism? The ACA? That's it?
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
In order to understand the complexities of capitalism - socialism and in light of the elitist idealistic slant to this conversation , I will explain that I have to break a subject down to its simplest form to understand it . So -
Socialism - our hands in each others pocket to "share "our wealth .
Capitalism - I work and earn equally beside you and we take our paychecks home to spend as we chose and can afford .
Communism -still being determined .So let's get this straight. What you are saying is that with socialism a few get very rich at the expense of the many while with capitalism everybody has enough to live off, there is no poverty and no want.
Yeah right.How do you get rich by splitting one living wage among several families? (Socialism)
How can there be no poverty when some won't work and produce? (Capitalism)No, that's capitalism. Socialism gives everybody a living wage.
No, when some can't work and produce which is capitalism. I know you love to believe that everybody who is not working is doing so by choice, but it just isn't so.End the disussion, GM said "oh please" which always completely negates any other persons opinion!
"Gives" being the operative word - when a person is paid more than the value of his work it becomes "gives" and has to come from someone else. Socialism, in other words.
Just as you love to believe that everyone would produce at high levels if only "The Man" would let them. Neither is true.Don't be so pedantic, Gives is a shorter form of "allows every man to" Mind you I'm glad you see the dangers of paying more than a person is worth-all those over paid CEO's!
When have I ever suggested that everyone would produce at high levels?
Failure to pay a living wage and the government, ie you, has to step in and top up that wage. Capitalism in other words.
The top 1% could give a million dollars to every person in this country. True socialism is complete division of wealth. That means every ounce of our countries wealth is split between every person. The problem with that is people feel that they are entitled to more for a job that requires more knowledge. This is, in fact, a handicap to society. People see one dimensional and don't pursue goals for the act of bettering the social circle. Socialism only works if people negate what makes them human. You know: greed, prejudice, unwilling to cooperate with each other. Etc.
With that in mind, we have to enable a system like capitalism because human nature negates the ability for anything else to work efficiently. The "social" programs introduced into our government and economy are only socialist by, at best, 5 degrees.Care to provide proof that the top one percent could give a million dollars to every citizen, or is this a "blind statement" a liberal might make?
A million $$ per person is over 350 Trillion dollars. No, I don't think it's factual at all.
This came from the same person who said I was making a blind statement when I said that the POTUS is trying to push us closer to socialism. Hmmm. . .
One is shown to be untrue by simple arithmetic. The other is a simple statement of fact - why then do you say neither is true?
Both are demonstrated to be untrue by a simple examination of the facts.
It is a fact that Obamacare is a step CLOSER to socialism.
Redistribution of wealth to support universal health care is a key goal of socialism. Everybody knows that. Why are you claiming otherwise?
No, most Americans who do not understand socialism think that.
When anything is designed to fatten the coffers of private enterprise it is not socialism. It is capitalism.Great spin! Obamacare isn't about fattening the coffers of health professionals, though that may actually happen as a result. It's about redistributing wealth through universal health care, a socialist's dream.
Prove it! If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it usually is a duck and Obama is redistributing wealth from you to the all ready rich.
What, you are off the Obama bandwagon? Yes, the POTUS has hurt the middle class. Agreed.
A useless argument. Personally I don't think Obama had in mind to fatten the insurance companies (and along with them a handful that work/own them) - I think he really thinks that giveaways to the poor are good for the country and is too stupid to realize it doesn't. He is a very smart man in some ways, but basic economics isn't one of them, and I do believe he was taken in by the do-gooders that think everyone is entitled somehow to anything they want.
You claim he doesn't care about the poor, only the rich. As neither opinion has much to base it on, it is a fruitless claim either way.No, the only thing he should give to the poor are good jobs where they can support themselves and their country.
This Liberal [I use liberal in it's classic European form to mean one who supports the free market but with a conscience] idea that you bribe people not to riot and steal your ill gotten gains is no substitute for actually doing something positive.
If he cares about the poor, how many jobs has he created?You seem to think that jobs can be instantly created out of thin air, and it is true ONLY if that job giver has an endless supply of ready cash to subsidize a failing business. Obama seems to think he HAS that endless supply of cash, but it can only come from the producers of the country that create the wealth.
So who ELSE do you think can instantly create jobs, jobs without a market for what is produced? You want to "give" jobs - who is giving and how are they financing the project?
(And yes, Obama created thousands of jobs in the insurance field. With the cost of those jobs to be paid for by the producers of the country.)If what you say is true don't you think you ought to stop abusing those without work?
BTW, There is nothing instant about seven years which is the time since the last crash. And who mentioned subsidising failing businesses?"Abuse" indicates an action; something actively done, not merely refusing to provide support for someone unwilling to support themselves. Can't see that I do that.
If it were possible to instantly and always supply jobs, at a profit and with no capital costs, do you not think someone would be doing that? No - to provide that mythical "living wage" you demand everyone have regardless of the value of their work it takes a profit. A profit that just isn't there, which is why there are insufficient jobs for everyone. Plus, of course, not everyone chooses to work when they can live off the fruits of someone else's labor.May I recommend you to "Back to Work: The Story of PWA Harold L Ickes" where he thoroughly disproves all your claims.
Basically the government did what it should and kick started the economy by providing some work which had a knock on effect, generating even more unsubsidised jobs, and, eventually recouping all the costs.Really? Mr. Ickes must be a really smart man if he can show that every start up business can hire unlimited workers and make a profit doing so. Smart man!
As far as government kick starting the economy by providing jobs, I believe that's exactly what I said. Workers can always be hired if profit is not a motive and unlimited cash is available to subsidize the workers salaries.Who mentioned start up businesses apart from you?
No, profit was not a motive.
As you seem rather uninformed on your own history have a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Wor … nistration
I'm sorry it's a wikipedia article but it's a start.Good! That's twice now you've indicated that government, with it's unlimited funding and no regard for ROI, can hire unlimited people with no regard to costs. We agree here.
But of course, that cannot continue for long without bankrupting the country - it's of no more value than simple giveaway programs like our welfare (government jobs very seldom produce anything of real value, after all). And I'm sure that even a socialist like yourself, albeit an intelligent one, understands that unlimited giveaways will eventually bankrupt even a government. One has only to look at Greece to see that in action.
So government jobs are not the answer. Private business is, unless the country is straight communism. And private business, whether headed by John Holden or Wilderness, cannot hire indiscriminately and stay in business. So why do you accuse ME of not providing jobs - I do not have unlimited funds to subsidize it and don't think you do either!!"Government jobs very seldom produce anything of real value!"
Like the Grand Coulee Dam or Boulder Dam or the Hetch-Hetchy Dam or sewers in Chicago not to mention reservoirs, highways, hospitals, trains, ships, dry docks and much more. Don'y forget all the jobs these jibs created in steel works and concrete works and timber yards.
Oh and you did not have unlimited funds to provide all this though it did pull you out of a bad rescission.Not real positive, but I believe private enterprise built all those dams. It certainly built the roads (and own some of them), it built the hospitals, ships, trains and dry docks and outside of naval vessels owns all of them. The vast majority are for profit, too.
It certainly helped pull out of a recession (although it wasn't the only thing helping, either), but what does that have to do with anything? Roosevelt's big plans and jobs kick started the economy, yes, (and WWII finished the job) but also kick started the "borrow from our kids" concept that will kill this country if not stopped and stopped fairly soon. Overall it has been a disaster for this country as the populace demand more and more freebies, all to paid for by their kids in the future.Private enterprise backed by the government in many cases, directly by the government in many more. Taxes were collected on profits thus helping to repay the cost.
Our kids end up paying because of short sighted greed. When times are good we cut taxes rather than laying aside a surplus to carry us through the bad times.My apologies: I took "government jobs" to mean jobs with the government as the employer, with payroll checks coming from the government. You obviously meant "government subsidized jobs" instead, and yes those produce something of value most of the time. Not all, but most.
Sure taxes collected on profits helped pay for it; 30% tax on 10% of the cost (profit) will help a tremendous amount, won't it?
Unfortunately all too true. Small local governments can and do carry a savings - my county had enough to carry the schools through the recession without firing teachers but now faces the unenviable task of rebuilding it as people scream about tax rates - but most government agencies are required to either spend their budget or lose it and there is no savings plan for a group of politicians that can always raid your pocketbook for more. You're right - greed is never ending problem and it isn't limited to only the rich, the business owners and politicians. It continues right down to the man in the street that wants a wage raise with no more justification than he wants an easier life.
But here, when times were good we didn't save, we gave it away to the non-producers. Then, when the recession hit (caused primarily by the housing collapse caused by greedy people wanting homes they couldn't afford) there was nothing left to spend BUT the future. So we spent that, but not in productive work - we spent it buying health insurance for those that could not (or would not) produce enough to buy it themselves. Which, of course, includes a hefty portion towards insurance company profits and more paper-shufflers, neither of which I consider "productive".When will you get it that people wanting homes didn't cause the crash! That was irresponsible banks who didn't care whether the borrower could repay or not.
Sorry, John - in this country politicians changed the rules for banks, forcing them to make much too high a percentage of questionable loans. Loans that were taken by people that could not afford the payments, knew they could not make the payments but took the mortgage offered in accordance with the law anyway.
The greed of the people and the greed (and stupidity) of politicians buying votes caused the recession. Not the bankers following the law and guidelines required of them. It's convenient, and soul satisfying, to put all the blame on the bankers but it didn't go down that way. Now it's true that after those loans were made the bankers bundled them with better loans and sold them as a package (which was unethical at best) but bottom line is that the liberal politicians forced them into making loans they knew as well as the consumer would not be paid back.Actually the banks all on their own devised the tool that let them make loans to people who could not afford them.
Wasn't it clever of them to get you all to cover their backsides?Do a little research, John - you will find it just as I said. In addition you will find that the banks TOLD the politicians it wasn't wise and it could not work, but the wonderful plan to give people something they couldn't afford themselves was put into action anyway. And the world went into recession because of the greed of the American public and the stupidity of American politicians trying to turn the country socialist.
But either way, banks or politicians, the fault ultimately lies with people wanting what they could not afford. Even if the banks DID devise the plan and secretly gave it to the politicians behind closed doors, it is the people that signed on the dotted line, hoping against all reason that they could make payments even as they knew they couldn't. It's called greed, and assigning blame to someone else doesn't fix it; it just makes devils out of bankers that only followed the law. Just another case of voting themselves that "bread and circuses" Heinlein referred to.I actually did a considerable amount of research, not just a little, even down to the name of the bank that thought up the tool and never used it as they realised that it was just too toxic.
And you do of course that there is nothing socialist about owning your house! That is pure capitalism as Thatcher realised when she arranged for as many people as possible to own their own houses as they would then be more likely to vote for a capitalist party, rather than socialist one.No of course not! Noting socialist about owning a home at all!
Unless, of course, someone else has to pay for it - then it very definitely becomes socialist in nature as capitalists buy their own things. And if Thatcher "arranged" for people to "own" their own home I'd have to assume that the "arrangements" were just that. Someone else paid for at least a part of it, as in subsidizing it through the government.If somebody else was paying for the housing then why did the buyers inability to pay have any affect at all?
Because a rather pathetic effort was made to conceal the socialism aspect in capitalism. They were supposed to pay for it, even as everyone knew they couldn't. All couched in the theory that the banks could afford a handful (read: millions) of people defaulting on their loans because everyone knows banks are both evil and rich.
And most of the public fell for the guise; witness how many think it was those evil banksters that made the loans by choice in an effort to promote bankruptcy and foreclosures. Good thinking there; everyone knows that those evil companies make lots and lots of money with every foreclosure.I've told you before, just because you don't like something does not make it socialism!
The banks weren't promoting bankruptcy and foreclosures, they didn't care because by the time the loans went bad they'd already sold them on and the fate of the borrowers was of absolutely no concern of their's."The banks weren't promoting bankruptcy and foreclosures"
I know that and you know that, but it isn't what is being said "on the street". There, it is too common knowledge that money is made by foreclosing on a house or driving someone to bankruptcy. The same way it is known that banksters caused the recession because they are evil, money grubbing monsters that have all the money in the world. "The street" knows this because they have been told those same evil bankers caused the recession by forcing innocent people into mortgages they could not afford and the (usually wrecked) home defaults to that evil banker who presumably sells it for far more than is owed even if the loan was always for more than 100% of value.
Rather sad the way people believe totally illogical things, isn't it? We could even start with the concept that bankers make mortgages; they don't, at least not here and not for the most part (my own is directly from the bank I deal with, though). They are made through a broker like Quicken Loans who never collects the first payment from the home owner and is not a bank at all.It is rather sad that people believe totally illogical things like getting people to buy their houses is a socialist thing, and paying people not to work is a socialist thing as well.
I'm glad that you understand how banks distanced themselves from the money they lend. They lend Quicken Loans (eg) half a million and then sell that loan on to others, including UK banks, how else do you think your banks lending habits brought down our banks?LOL "It is rather sad that people believe totally illogical things like getting people to buy their houses is a socialist thing" Gotta love it when you twist the truth into something totally opposite. I've made it clear that the socialist thing was government forcing banks to make unsustainable loans so that people could have a house for a year or so, not encouraging people to take out mortgages they can actually afford. You know better than that!
But of course paying non-producing people is socialist; capitalists would never do such a thing! Payment is made ONLY for services/products received (hopefully of at least similar value to the payment). It IS in the countries interest to help as needed, but "needed" is key here. When someone simply doesn't want to work any more there is no reason to pay them (like the miners we've discussed before that refuse to retrain or move).
If your banks bought contracts with third parties and never bothered to read them, shame on them. And if they bought loan contracts (mortgages) without bothering to learn the laws under which they were made or the ability of the home owner to repay, same thing. Even I, naive as I am, would not do that! I've kind of assumed that when a country as large as the US has trouble it boils over to others as well, ballooning into worldwide with time, but you're saying your bankers are as stupid as our politicians? You guys really ARE in trouble! (Maybe the Scots made the wrong choice?)And I've made it clear that the government did not force the banks to make money at all your expense, even if it did, it is illogical to claim that it is socialist. Socialism would have built the houses and then let them out at an affordable rent.
Neither is there anything socialist about none producing people. That's capita;list again, the socialist fought against paying people to be unemployed, remember the maxim, he who does not work does not eat.
And yes, our bankers are about as stupid as your politicians and your bankers. No bank went broke in the UK by buying toxic loans, we bailed them out with the equivalent of one years GDP.It's true that socialism would have built the houses and given them away. And yes, I know the maxim of working and eating.
But those are perfect socialism, and there is no such thing. Instead we have socialistic governments, countries and people. Those who have prostituted true socialism into little more than playing Robin Hood. True socialism can work with small groups, but the Robin Hood idea is about all that can be done with large groups, particularly when it is a capitalistic world (capitalistic used in the same vein of thought). And that idea will either be held firmly in check or it will destroy the society it is used on whenever that society grows too large and that dreaded thing call competition begins to raise its ugly head. Whenever the greed of the people becomes too great, just as in a workable capitalistic society.
I feel for you and your country if it cost a year's GDP; we got by for considerably less. A very large amount, but not THAT large. Instead we also came out of it with an even bigger problem in that creeping (leaping and jumping now) socialistic concept that people are entitled to things they cannot provide themselves but want anyway. The concept that is destroying the EU except that here we know only capitalism and tried to combine the two into one with very predictable results. Those at the top profit, those at the bottom get bigger chains and those in the middle pick up the cost.Why do you assume that if somebody is not being screwed for a large profit they are somehow getting something free?
Yes, let's dismiss one statement, because the other is statistically false. That's great reasoning.
No, I said that neither statement was factual, not one is so let's dismss both.
Yeah, right. That was your point. You didn't intend to dismiss a point with sarcasm, not at all.
No, no sarcasm, just plain honest disagreement.
OK, point out what you consider to be sarcasm, I can't see it.
I concede that I was quick to make an assumption and retract the first part of my statement. The rest holds true. And you should accept when you make blind statements and learn from them rather than use someone else's mistake in thought to justify your own. That just builds an argument around mistakes. If you'd like to read more about the psychological component that makes people act the way they do that drives my opinion on the factors that make socialism not work, I have a hub that has plenty of cited sources on the issue.
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000-capitalism, BEST BET for a quality standard of living!
Another good joke! Try telling that one to the billions living in poverty as a result of capitalism.
"as a result of capitalism."
How can it be the result of capitalism, where everyone earns according to their work? Shouldn't that be as a result of not working?What about those not allowed to work or are expected to work for less than subsistence?
I've never met anyone outside of a jail or underage that "wasn't allowed to work".
As far as earning less than subsistence, well, if that's all you can produce you need to find another line of work. Not all jobs produce something of more value than that "less than subsistence" and no employer should be forced to pay more for something than it's intrinsic value, as determined by what it can be sold for. No committee in the world is competent to set values based on the needs of the seller - that can and does only result in socialism, or "getting something for nothing".Wilderness, take a deep breath, meditate...... No use in further discussion. You TRIED time and time again regarding the argument at hand.......
I am in agreement with your premise. There are even underage children and criminals who DO work. People can work if they have THE DESIRE to. There ARE people who CAN but WON'T work.So when someone disagrees with your opinion and gives a credible argument, it is pointless? Are you implying he is uneducated? Are you implying he should not discuss the issue because he differs in opinion?
Got it in one! nobodies else's opinion or experience counts.
Haven't you? Or haven't you cared to see them? Every day I walk down the street and see them. Many of them were unemployed until the last recession made them unemployed and now they find themselves unable to commute to the far east where all the jobs have moved to.
There you go again, a man is only worth what he is worth to another man! Artefacts are more important than the maker! Pure capitalism!Don't know about you, but I don't buy people and therefore have no idea of what a man is worth.
What he produces, what the results of his labor is worth is, of course another story. We all buy that, and all have a good idea of what it is worth.But you buy a man's labour and thus value that man's labour!
Correct. Are you trying to claim that what a man has for sale is his worth? Because I vehemently disagree with that concept.
Then like a true capitalist you value a man for what he produces and if you can increase that value by risking that man's life you will do so.
I am claiming that what is valuable is the man and not his product.I think you need to read a little closer. The value of a man is NOT what he is selling, whether that be labor or oranges.
Yet you keep insisting that a man be paid what HE is worth, not what the value of his product is worth. It would seem that it is you confusing the two, not I, that it is YOU willing to put a value on a man, not I.Yes, I value the man, you don't!
That was easy, wasn't it?No, it's not clear at all. The value of a man is far more than I could ever pay. Far more than anyone, even Bill Gates, could ever pay.
Yet you seem to think you can buy that man. For shame!So because you cannot afford the value of a man you are happy for him to live in poverty!
It is only you who is even thinking of buying and selling man!What does my financial state have to do with a man living in poverty? Are you suggestion I should join him there, sharing what little I have, so he can have more without working? Or do you address the supposed rich employer that cannot afford to pay more and stay in business, feeding his own family thereby?
Oh, you mean that because no one cares to buy the product they are selling (a specific labor) at this moment and place they are actively being prevented from working at all. They can't mow lawns, they can't dig ditches, they can't paint houses, they can't do anything but hit the welfare office for another check.
Yes, I disagree.Well we are discussing different cultures here so I can only speak for the UK.
In the UK a man might find some work, though he'll find that many of his neighbours are in a similar position to him, no spare cash to pay somebody to mow his lawn, but then if he cannot find enough work to keep himself and his family, that little work bars him from claiming anything.
It's a brave (or foolish) man with a family to support who will cut off his own safety net.And it your stance that because no one wants the specific product being sold and the specific price being asked it is the action of prospective buyers that is not allowing work to be done.
I again disagree.
But it's good to see a glimmer of hope in you, John - recognizing that excessive welfare and giveaway programs destroy the incentive to move on in life and productively work at something else is a major step for a socialist.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Here ! here !, " Intellectual laziness" ! I like that , 100 % right , and ethical , moral and social laziness to go along with it . Capitalism allows , successfully, for the individual accomplishments to be recognized . One worker is happy with his meager paycheck . Another is an entrepreneur who will create a business of paychecks for many others ! Another will , working hard , make his way up through this very system and become well off and successful ,YES another will work for minimum wages ie. that's why its called minimum wage , for whatever reason the menial wage for menial jobs .Whether that be because of mental limitations or lower ended income of a business ! An example , food service , The only rich people in socialism are those who are smart enough to game the system of " one for all -all for one " Show me the rich man who comes from socialism and I'll show you someone "connected " to the government . Or who was smart enough to go outside of the socialism box and play the free market . Enough said --- Our biggest problem in America are those who are changing the demographics , those who are expecting more to come from the "Many " and go to the rest --that's the largest cultural problem in America today ! And that includes corporate subsidies and welfare .
It's a mental limitation to believe that society can only function in this crude set up. And a government governing the social programs to the extent you are talking about is communism. You really need to make the distinction.
I don't know of a country with a modern economy that has a socialist government.
But let's look at the so-called worst cases--communist governments. Take China, the Communist party had to embrace capitalism. And now, it's the biggest market in the world for German-made luxury cars (not the U.S., as free-marketers would believe).And WalMart is the biggest and most trusted grocery store!
Then, take Cuba. It had to allow for a free market on owning homes and having restaurants. And now it had to deregulate the car market, allowing for imports.
Those who raise the specter of socialism and communism don't know much about world affairs. Yes, there are dictatorships--like Saudi Arabia. But the divide between the rich and the poor in Arabia is not as big as that of the U.S.A.
But yes, the welfare check is addictive. That's why President Clinton signed a law that says that no one can receive it (mother's with kids) for more than 5 years.
So, what are we arguing about here? That's what I don't get.
One true fact about President Obama is that he is the most questioned leader ever. Questioned about his policies, questioned about his personal time and questioned even about being human. Funny that no other president has underwent so much scrutiny. As a people, I wonder why? I have a few hunches and it is surely not his desire to play golf. Just on race/ethnicity alone it was the perfect storm to use him as an example to smack on the erroneous label of the "worst president" as most of the positiveness from his presidency has been overlooked as Fred Arnold stated earlier. Maybe as a society we should worry about the true issues and learn to put our own biases away and allow the man to do his job, certainly what Congress and the House couldn't do..
Here we go again, the race card. My hunch is that he's questioned, because his actions and policies warrant serious questions.
Is he questioned more than ANY president? I doubt that very much. I'm pretty sure plenty of people would say that Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, FDR, Nixon, and even Carter had a lot of people questioning them too.
I don't even see the relevance of this, All of the Presidents take multiple vacations, trips, etc. A lot more than any of us normal folks can anyway. George Bush flew over the devastation of Hurricane Katrina coming back from a vacation. I'm not trying to defend Obama in anyway, hes not the best President, however he isn't the worst either. If you think everything is going to be better once Obama is out of office, you clearly don't understand the problems this country has.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Actually that is correct ! He isn't the worst president ever . But that is a far cry from an excuse for being just one more like all the others . We need major change in our choices of leaders in America . We have evolved into a culture of a voting people choosing our leaders like we pick the new "American Idol "......Not good enough . Voting and living in a democracy is a privilege that requires our responsible participation ,Even In elementary school we had to study for tests and to improve our grades in school , to improve our minds and so our lives . But as a voting public we can let it all slide ? And we sure did in 2008 !
Agreed.......it's actually becoming almost pathetic the way our society has become/handles things....No one is accountable for their actions, everything is labeled instead of resolved and the people we are supposedly held up to the highest standards are the liars and crooks. Until both parties (Democrat and Republican) start working together instead of against each other, things will never change.
Also concur with Alpha, the MOST LOGICAL statement made by far!
I think this goes back a lot longer than many would like to believe.
Your country used to provide us with great amusement when people would sue (and win substantial amounts of money) for actually doing idiotic things themselves.
Now we don't laugh as much, we just do the same.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
In all actuality , True and pure Socialism would probably be a step up from what America IS fast becoming ., And a true idealist would see that the newest track towards the future in America is more like MEonism !
Let's get back to the original topic: vacations. Congress will work 8 days between September 1, 2014 and November 11, 2014. This, of course, includes declaring war and they taking 7 weeks off.
Now, should we really call Obama a slacker for taking the time to relax and play some rounds of golf? Isn't he allowed some time off from managing a war?I don't honestly care if he knocks balls around every day. I'm more concerned with the job he does while working than with what he does with time off.
Unfortunately, he's not doing a good job even when he's on the job. That's the bigger problem-- he's a sucky leader.+1,000,000,000,000,000,000-isn't a leader but a disaster! He's a joke really! But there are "those" who applaud this disaster, how unfortunate indeed!
Yes, surrounding himself with Republicans was not a wise move.
The funny thing is that we have so much socialism within our "democratic/republic" we for get what we do receive as a result. I have had many discussions with those who believe we should do away with the socialized police and fire departments. Do away with socialized prisons and especially socialized court officers. They would rather have us hire these individuals on a singular basis as they feel we would be better served through holding them accountable for their job related actions. Can you imagine getting a fireman to testify for a cop who witnessed an arson case all the while finding a judge to hear the case to convict and then sentence to a prison that will accept a contract to incarcerate the convict. You need some sort of socialized government to better serve the populace.
I thought you were well down the road to private prisons, I know we are.
There is an increasing amount of privately run prisons but they are paid for by the government. Hence the prisons are still technically socialist. For them to be totally private they would need to be funded by those who have been wronged and pay the private company to incarcerate their felon. It puts a whole new meaning to a bought judge.
No, no, private profit at the public expense is not socialism.
"...You need some sort of socialized government to better serve the populace."
Blasphemy! Of course you are right, but how dare you speak that which should not be spoken.
I am not sure I am against privatized penal institutions, ( I feel I am for it, but need to look into it more to be sure), but I completely agree with your law enforcement and social emergency, (firefighters), examples.
GAUnless you believe that profit should be a factor in sentencing policy, how can you be in favour of private prisons?
I'm missing the connection, unless you would also extend it back to police, fire, military and all other forms of protection. What are you seeing between a judge doing the sentencing and a business run prison?
Evidence that judges sentencing is influenced in favour of prison where a profit is to be made.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo … ck-scheme/*shrug* A crooked judge going to jail for wrongdoing. Still don't see what that's got to do with for-profit jails except to point out what we already know - there is potential for wrongdoing in everything we do.
Ah yes, what does it matter if a few kids get wrongfully banged up as long as somebody makes a profit out of them.
You're getting rather predictable John. The comment had nothing to do with that and you know it - rather it has to do with bad people, whether in government or business.
I don't know that any business needs "justification", but I will say that, in most cases, if private enterprise can do a better job more efficiently than government (meaning most of the time) then it should do so.
But I AM like GA here - I'm not real happy with the concept because it is 'way to easy to abuse a prisoner. Still, I'm not educated enough to say yes or no.For a little amusement you should do a little research into the private companies running prisons in the UK.
John, I am beginning to feel I am treating you rudely for not replying to your responses. I hope you will accept that that is not my intent.
GANo, not at all GA. In the scrum that is forums some points are directed at specific people in which case I would expect an answer from that person, some are interjected for common use.
If you've got nothing to say, why waste time saying it?
A point of contention could arise if a private entity is sued or held accountable for a prisoners abuse or death. With the government running the facility there is an accountability that comes with being run by the government and subsequent operations would continue as usual with whatever modifications are warranted. But with a private entity the defense of the actions or admission of wrongdoing could result in a loss of the contract. Therefore the facts surrounding the case could have much more exposure to perjury and abuse. Mind you the civil servants and bureaucrats administering this could be subject to just as much corruption but the possibility is less because they will not stick their necks out to possibly lose their jobs for another.
Succinctly stated I might add. On to the next thread, NEXT!
Related Discussions
- 158
What Should the One Term President Obama do with the Rest of his Term?
by Mister Veritis 12 years ago
Golf?Basketball?Poetry Readings?Expensive vacations at taxpayer expense?Bully additional US Allies?
- 44
How MANY of you believe that the reelection of President Obama was a
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 years ago
harbinger of bad things to come? Do you believe that the economy will become worse as a result of President Obama's reelection? If you are a Democrat, do YOU regret voting for President Obama?
- 11
Can President Obama win in 2012?
by Angel Caleb Santos 12 years ago
Can President Obama win in 2012?
- 40
Palin Announced On CNN She Can Beat President Obama in 2012 Election
by Jezzzz 13 years ago
The story hit the airways that Palin said that she could beat President Obama in the 2012 Presidential Election. What do you think.. Can she do it?
- 16
What is your one prediction for 2012?
by Anish Patel 11 years ago
What is your one prediction for 2012?What will the new year bring? Will the world economy bounce back? Will the United States have a new President? Will Pakistan still be our 'ally' ? Will Justin Bieber still be around?
- 32
To all conservatives out there, what are the 10 ways that President Obama is des
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 years ago
To all conservatives out there, what are the 10 ways that President Obama is destroying this countrybesides instituting Obamacare?