Republicans find their spines:

[Parkbandit]

The House of Representatives just approved the estimated $819 billion economic stimulus plan favored by President Obama. The vote was 244 in favor to 188 against.

All Republican members present voted against the plan, according to the chart that C-SPAN was updating. (Correction at 6 a.m. ET, Jan. 29: Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla., was absent and did not vote. So 177 Republicans, not 178 as we previously stated, voted "nay.")

The Senate is expected to vote on its version -- which is likely to cost more -- within days.

Earlier, we reported:

Update at 6:03 p.m. ET. The key vote just began:

The GOP measure has been defeated 270-159, and voting has begun on the $819 billion "Democratic" package.

5:57 p.m. ET: The House is right now voting on changes Republicans would like to make to the estimated $819 billion economic stimulus plan favored by President Obama and his fellow Democrats. The GOP proposal is expected to go down to defeat.

Soon after that, the House will take up the version of the legislation crafted by the Obama administration and Democratic lawmakers. That version is expected to pass easily.

(The package is now estimated at $819 billion, not the previously reported $825 billion, because of changes made today by House lawmakers.)


http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/01/62061256/1


About fucking time. Maybe there IS hope.

[Drew]

The appropriate time to do this was during the Presidential campaign when Johnny Mac should have opposed the first "bailout".

[Stanley Burrell]

(The package is now estimated at $819 billion, not the previously reported $825 billion, because of changes made today by House lawmakers.)

V-I-C-T-O-R-Y!!!

[Stanley Burrell]

/aorta

[Khariz]

I'm very proud. I'm gonna make sure to let my Rep know it.

[crb]

Didn't you hear? That bill is good, it'll spend money on roads & infrastructure to make our country better and create jobs...

What? Only 5% of the bill is infrastructure spending? How come 95% of my talking points are about that spending then? Hrmm. I must fax President Pelosi's office for an updated set of talking points, this can't be right.

If Obama puts his foot down and vetoes this and demands the Pelosi/Reid Ettin come up with something a more efficient (ie, every dollar is either a tax cut or to build something) (and then actually hold them to that task) I'll take back everything bad I said about him. Get the pork and the nonstimulating spending out.

[Khariz]

If Obama puts his foot down and vetoes this and demands the Pelosi/Reid Ettin come up with something a more efficient (ie, every dollar is either a tax cut or to build something) (and then actually hold them to that task) I'll take back everything bad I said about him. Get the pork and the nonstimulating spending out.

That.

Unfortunately, I think all Obama is going to do is prove that I was right about him being a Socialist all along. :welcome:

[Parkbandit]

That.

Unfortunately, I think all Obama is going to do is prove that I was right about him being a Socialist all along. :welcome:


I don't really see it like that at all. The GREAT MAJORITY of the spending isn't about immediate economic stimulus but more about paying back the liberals supporters of the party. This is more about Pelosi and Reid running the government and Obama being their little bitch. So much for Obama's call for bi-partisanship and how he will mend the divide that exists in Washington.

Politics as usual... I guess he's not the 'new' type of politician everyone claimed he was...

[Khariz]

I don't really see it like that at all. The GREAT MAJORITY of the spending isn't about immediate economic stimulus but more about paying back the liberals supporters of the party. This is more about Pelosi and Reid running the government and Obama being their little bitch. So much for Obama's call for bi-partisanship and how he will mend the divide that exists in Washington.

Politics as usual... I guess he's not the 'new' type of politician everyone claimed he was...

What you said and what I said aren't mutually exclusive PB. Correct, it's not a stimulus package. Correct, he's paying back his liberal supporters. One of the ways he is doing that is by seizing massive amounts tax payer money (with the help of congress) to fund pet projects, pork, and wealth redistribution. I'm sure I don't need to go through the bill and post every example of which clauses effectively redistribute from the haves to the have-nots.

[Methais]

I dunno, I think $350m for STD prevention will surely fix the economy. Don't you?

[Khariz]

:foshizzle:
I dunno, I think $350m for STD prevention will surely fix the economy. Don't you?

[Stanley Burrell]

I dunno, I think $350m for STD prevention will surely fix the economy. Don't you?

If it's involved in research, yes.

If it's mass production of the brand of condoms that glows best in the dark, no.

If it's spent towards education, maybe. If enough people are dissuaded from having unprotected sex with hookers and become incompetent members of any workforce who consume more moneys for treating their STDs due to a lack of basic knowledge when they were a teenager due to our fine education system, it could be worthwhile. I don't like coulds, though.

As far as exploring (e.g.) proteomics from running mass spec on something like HIV goes, you overlap knowledge gained into every single tangent of life, so frickin' ridiculously, where the end result is a financially more efficient human being, that it isn't even funny. Only strict military might could outweigh the power of science. And if half our soldiers have a bioterrorism-related disease whose cell surface receptors were never found because of impeded scientific gain, we'd be fucked anyway.

Funding STD prevention the right way carries over into the chemistry, physics and mathematics department as well. $350m is also nothing when re-equipping institutions, such as the NIH, that have been absolutely decimated by appropriating funds into war, shinier automobiles and their shiny commercials, non-human/lesser imperative sciences (billions spent making the chemists one step ahead of the baseball commissioner/space exploration [if it were up to me, NASA would be recognized way more easily as being a branch of the military. Getting images of Jupiter's moon Io and its precious sulfuric volcanoes is almost as important as using the minds and tech of image-providing luxuries to see whether or not Iran is mobilizing U235]), etc.

.

Sorry about the wall-of-text, but the Superbowl is going to require me to lessen my intelligence and spend a great deal of time expectorating masterfully potato chip-chiseled feces from my anus, so I'm cashing in now.

[Back]

Republicans find their spines:

rofl. Yeah, because after eight years of republican policies we’re really doing well. More like republicans cut off their noses to spite their faces.

[Gan]

I'm really suprised that the details of the packages are not getting much advertising. All the news seems to want to cover is who voted what... Not why/what for...

[BriarFox]

The bill is pretty ridiculous at the moment, and it just sets up another wave of partisan politics if it's only passed by the Democratic majority. I hope the Senate works out a much better version.

[Gan]

A little transparency would go a long way with the Deomcratic majority as to what they're trying to pass. And would lend to more public support if it was something actualy worth passing...

[Back]

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (http://www.google.com/search?q=American+Recovery+and+Reinvestment+Act+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a). H.R.1, is out there if you really want to take the time to read through 600+ pages.

I also found this article (http://features.csmonitor.com/monitorbreakfast/2009/01/30/new-poll-shows-risks-to-opponents-of-obamas-economic-stimulus-plan/) from CSM that criticizes republicans for voting against the bill after I made my cut nose spite face comment.


When economic stimulus legislation supported by President Obama moves to the Senate next week, opponents of the plan face political risks, according to new polling data.

At a Friday breakfast with reporters hosted by the Monitor, Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg released poll results showing :

• Among all voters nationally, 62 percent favor Obama’s economic recovery plan while 28 percent oppose it.

• Obama’s economic plan is popular in the 13 states that are expected to have competitive races for US Senate seats in 2010. Voters in those states favor the plan by 64 to 26 percent.

• There is strong support for the plan among voters in the 40 Congressional districts where Democrats are expected to have the toughest time holding seats in 2010. In those Republican leaning battleground districts, voters favor the plan by a margin of 64 to 27.

When the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act came to a vote in the House on Wednesday, not a single Republican supported it. “I think the message of having zero Republicans voting for the plan was an immense error,” Greenberg said. “I think it will be seared in peoples’ consciousness.” At another point, he called it a “defining vote.”

Support for Obama’s economic policies occurs in the context of strong overall approval ratings for the new president. In the 40 Congressional districts Democrats expect to have the toughest time holding in 2010, some 70 percent of voters say they support Obama’s policies and goals versus 22 percent who oppose them. Greenberg called the level of support “intense.”

[crb]

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (http://www.google.com/search?q=American+Recovery+and+Reinvestment+Act+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a). H.R.1, is out there if you really want to take the time to read through 600+ pages.

I also found this article (http://features.csmonitor.com/monitorbreakfast/2009/01/30/new-poll-shows-risks-to-opponents-of-obamas-economic-stimulus-plan/) from CSM that criticizes republicans for voting against the bill after I made my cut nose spite face comment.
Most voters favored the initial Iraq War vote too.

It also doesn't say how informed they were.

Ask someone do we need an economic stimulus, they'll say yes.

Ask them if they support the current plan, they'll say yes.

Ask them what it is, they either won't know or say a plan to make jobs by building roads/infrastructure, and tax rebates.

Then go through line by line and ask them if they think such and such spending will create jobs. I think you'll get a lot of nos.

I think we need economic stimulus. I want to see a combination of tax cuts and infrastructure spending, I wouldn't mind seeing half a trillion keyed up for roads, bridges, power infrastructure (wind, solar, nuclear, transmission lines, drilling). We need homebuilders to stop building homes and all those construction jobs need to go somewhere. Do the rest in tax cuts, and the 4% mortgage idea is awesome. The government can borrow money at like .1% right now, loaning it back out at 4% is profitable, and that'd be a huge tax cut for every homeowner in the country.

But, the stimulus bill has about $500 billion worth of stuff that isn't any of that. If the democrats really want all that spending, let them separate it out, call it what it is, and then vote on it.

[Parkbandit]

I'm really suprised that the details of the packages are not getting much advertising. All the news seems to want to cover is who voted what... Not why/what for...


"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart. The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus," but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm's point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.

We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.

In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.

Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President's new budget director, told Congress a year ago, "even those [public works] that are 'on the shelf' generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy."

Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess which party?

Here's another lu-lu: Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator?

Another "stimulus" secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments -- that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren't job creators.

As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as "ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more.

Oh, and don't forget education, which would get $66 billion more. That's more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years ago and is on top of the doubling under President Bush. Some $6 billion of this will subsidize university building projects. If you think the intention here is to help kids learn, the House declares on page 257 that "No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools." Horrors: Some money might go to nonunion teachers.

The larger fiscal issue here is whether this spending bonanza will become part of the annual "budget baseline" that Congress uses as the new floor when calculating how much to increase spending the following year, and into the future. Democrats insist that it will not. But it's hard -- no, impossible -- to believe that Congress will cut spending next year on any of these programs from their new, higher levels. The likelihood is that this allegedly emergency spending will become a permanent addition to federal outlays -- increasing pressure for tax increases in the bargain. Any Blue Dog Democrat who votes for this ought to turn in his "deficit hawk" credentials.

This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was written based on the wish list of every living -- or dead -- Democratic interest group. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, "We won the election. We wrote the bill." So they did. Republicans should let them take all of the credit.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html

[Parkbandit]

So how many spineless Republicans are there in the Senate? I believe this bullshit spending bill that has so little to do with stimulus and everything about paying people back for the last election will still get through.. with John McCain leading the ass licking.

[Methais]

If it's involved in research, yes.

If it's mass production of the brand of condoms that glows best in the dark, no.

If it's spent towards education, maybe. If enough people are dissuaded from having unprotected sex with hookers and become incompetent members of any workforce who consume more moneys for treating their STDs due to a lack of basic knowledge when they were a teenager due to our fine education system, it could be worthwhile. I don't like coulds, though.

As far as exploring (e.g.) proteomics from running mass spec on something like HIV goes, you overlap knowledge gained into every single tangent of life, so frickin' ridiculously, where the end result is a financially more efficient human being, that it isn't even funny. Only strict military might could outweigh the power of science. And if half our soldiers have a bioterrorism-related disease whose cell surface receptors were never found because of impeded scientific gain, we'd be fucked anyway.

Funding STD prevention the right way carries over into the chemistry, physics and mathematics department as well. $350m is also nothing when re-equipping institutions, such as the NIH, that have been absolutely decimated by appropriating funds into war, shinier automobiles and their shiny commercials, non-human/lesser imperative sciences (billions spent making the chemists one step ahead of the baseball commissioner/space exploration [if it were up to me, NASA would be recognized way more easily as being a branch of the military. Getting images of Jupiter's moon Io and its precious sulfuric volcanoes is almost as important as using the minds and tech of image-providing luxuries to see whether or not Iran is mobilizing U235]), etc.

.

Sorry about the wall-of-text, but the Superbowl is going to require me to lessen my intelligence and spend a great deal of time expectorating masterfully potato chip-chiseled feces from my anus, so I'm cashing in now.

What the fuck are you talking about?


Republicans find their spines:

rofl. Yeah, because after eight years of republican policies we’re really doing well. More like republicans cut off their noses to spite their faces.

The mess we're in right now is because of democrats. They're the ones who forced banks to make all these loans to people that can't repay them because they believe everyone has a right to own a home even if they can't afford to pay for it.

Republicans were the ones who a couple years ago said that if things keep going the way they are, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were gonna be in big trouble, and it was the democrats that dismissed it saying everything would be fine.

And now they think they're the solution to the problems they created. Not to mention these socialistic policies they're trying to pass have failed repeatedly in other countries, yet they insist it's going to fix eveything anyway.

Clearly all that is Bush's fault.

[Keller]

The mess we're in right now is because of democrats. They're the ones who forced banks to make all these loans to people that can't repay them because they believe everyone has a right to own a home even if they can't afford to pay for it.

Republicans were the ones who a couple years ago said that if things keep going the way they are, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were gonna be in big trouble, and it was the democrats that dismissed it saying everything would be fine.

And now they think they're the solution to the problems they created. Not to mention these socialistic policies they're trying to pass have failed repeatedly in other countries, yet they insist it's going to fix eveything anyway.

Clearly all that is Bush's fault.

So much for post-partisan politics. Every mess is the Democrats' (all of them, I presume) fault. Republicans (all of them, I presume) objected to the problems all the Democrats were causing and all of the Democrats plugged their ears and chanted, "nah nah nah nah nah." And every country with socialistic policies has failed?

Clearly, it's all the Democrats fault.

*apologies if your rant was tongue-in-cheek, but I assumed it was not.

[Clove]

So much for post-partisan politics. Every mess is the Democrats' (all of them, I presume) fault. Republicans (all of them, I presume) objected to the problems all the Democrats were causing and all of the Democrats plugged their ears and chanted, "nah nah nah nah nah." And every country with socialistic policies has failed?

Clearly, it's all the Democrats fault.

*apologies if your rant was tongue-in-cheek, but I assumed it was not.Finally. Someone gets it.

[Stanley Burrell]

What the fuck are you talking about?

I am talking about exactly what the fuck it is I'm talking about. I'll put it like this:

I haven't been able to find any weed for a long time. And I'm a vag' about my waistline and paranoia even if I could buy some -- And because I don't trust myself with benzos or large amounts of alcohol, I'm burdened by circling thoughts and occasionally have the need to make walls-of-text.

It sucks ass. And I said I was sorry. Plz forgive :sorry:

[Methais]

Obama's still a retard no matter how you spin it and is gonna fuck things up big time one way or another, and that's what's important.

[Stanley Burrell]

He's been in office for like, a few days.

Edited to Add: A few RETARDED days, my b.

[Methais]

I was going to neg rep you, but I don't want to damage your ego too much.

EDIT: I have to spread more AIDS first anyway.

[Back]

The mess we're in right now is because of democrats. They're the ones who forced banks to make all these loans to people that can't repay them because they believe everyone has a right to own a home even if they can't afford to pay for it.

Republicans were the ones who a couple years ago said that if things keep going the way they are, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were gonna be in big trouble, and it was the democrats that dismissed it saying everything would be fine.

And now they think they're the solution to the problems they created. Not to mention these socialistic policies they're trying to pass have failed repeatedly in other countries, yet they insist it's going to fix eveything anyway.

Clearly all that is Bush's fault.

I dunno. It is difficult for me to believe that democrats were the cause when its been a republican controlled government for the past 8 years. Yes Congress as a whole should be blamed but that again falls squarely of the party in charge. How could it be any more clear cut?

And why exactly do you think socialism is a bad thing?

[Parkbandit]

So much for post-partisan politics. Every mess is the Democrats' (all of them, I presume) fault. Republicans (all of them, I presume) objected to the problems all the Democrats were causing and all of the Democrats plugged their ears and chanted, "nah nah nah nah nah." And every country with socialistic policies has failed?

Clearly, it's all the Democrats fault.


Holy Hyperbole Batman.

No one is claiming that every Democrat is at fault and that every Republican was a knight in shining armor trying to save the day. Face the facts though.. the Democrats were clearly at fault 3 years ago when they proclaimed nothing was wrong with Fanny or Freddie and that further regulations were not needed. These same Democrats were more interested in making this about how regulators came up with this preposterous assumption than they were about the facts of the problem.

There should be an inquiry as to why some members of Congress turned a blind eye to the mountain of evidence... but like they say.. Elections have consequences. The criminals are in charge of the Asylum now.. and we have no one to blame but ourselves.

[Jorddyn]

Obama's still a retard no matter how you spin it and is gonna fuck things up big time one way or another, and that's what's important.

... says the man with the hot dog cart about the man who graduated with honors from Columbia and taught Constitutional Law.

[Khariz]

I dunno. It is difficult for me to believe that democrats were the cause when its been a republican controlled government for the past 8 years. Yes Congress as a whole should be blamed but that again falls squarely of the party in charge. How could it be any more clear cut?

And why exactly do you think socialism is a bad thing?

Are you serious? Take a look at when the laws were put on the books to force the banks to loan to shitbags (hint: it wasn't a republican administration).

Why is socialism a bad thing? Have people seriously forgotten how to look backwards, examine a little thing called history, and take note of Socialism's 100% failure rate?

Yes, socialism always appears to work at first, but then you hit the downward spiral:

1. You take from the from the upper class and give it to the lower class.
2. The upper class becomes the middle class because they have no wealth.
3. You take from the middle class to give the lower class.
4. The middle class becomes the lower class.
5. OOPS, now we have all lower class (with a few wealthy bureaucrats that don't have to follow the rules because they made the rules).

Game over, revolt, press reset button, allow capitalism, and WOW, success! The market stabilizes it self! OMFG!!!!

We are in step 1. right now. It will take many years to go through the process.

[Keller]

Holy Hyperbole Batman.

That's what I said.

You're entirely too stupid to understand what I said. Here, let me draw you a picture.

[Keller]

Are you serious? Take a look at when the laws were put on the books to force the banks to loan to shitbags (hint: it wasn't a republican administration).

Why is socialism a bad thing? Have people seriously forgotten how to look backwards, examine a little thing called history, and take note of Socialism's 100% failure rate?

Yes, socialism always appears to work at first, but then you hit the downward spiral:

1. You take from the from the upper class and give it to the lower class.
2. The upper class becomes the middle class because they have no wealth.
3. You take from the middle class to give the lower class.
4. The middle class becomes the lower class.
5. OOPS, now we have all lower class (with a few wealthy bureaucrats that don't have to follow the rules because they made the rules).

Game over, revolt, press reset button, allow capitalism, and WOW, success! The market stabilizes it self! OMFG!!!!

We are in step 1. right now. It will take many years to go through the process.

I take, from your "100% failure rate", that you skipped that history class?

I'm not promoting socialism. I am promoting factual accuracy.

[Jorddyn]

Yes, socialism always appears to work at first, but then you hit the downward spiral:

1. You take from the from the upper class and give it to the lower class.
2. The upper class becomes the middle class because they have no wealth.
3. You take from the middle class to give the lower class.
4. The middle class becomes the lower class.
5. OOPS, now we have all lower class (with a few wealthy bureaucrats that don't have to follow the rules because they made the rules).


Define socialism. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Back]

Are you serious? Take a look at when the laws were put on the books to force the banks to loan to shitbags (hint: it wasn't a republican administration).

I’m only somewhat serious but always curious. Is this the “blame it on the other party/administration/someone else other than the party in power for x years argument again”? It reeks of the “blame it on someone else even though I was at fault” argument that so many people complain about yet hypocritically use.


Why is socialism a bad thing? Have people seriously forgotten how to look backwards, examine a little thing called history, and take note of Socialism's 100% failure rate?

Yes, socialism always appears to work at first, but then you hit the downward spiral:

1. You take from the from the upper class and give it to the lower class.
2. The upper class becomes the middle class because they have no wealth.
3. You take from the middle class to give the lower class.
4. The middle class becomes the lower class.
5. OOPS, now we have all lower class (with a few wealthy bureaucrats that don't have to follow the rules because they made the rules).

Game over, revolt, press reset button, allow capitalism, and WOW, success! The market stabilizes it self! OMFG!!!!

We are in step 1. right now. It will take many years to go through the process.

When have taxes not been considered socialist? Do you like having an army, a police station, a fire station, a postal service, a highway, or public school or library?

[Khariz]

I take, from your "100% failure rate", that you skipped that history class?

I'm not promoting socialism. I am promoting factual accuracy.

Nope.

Certain societies have had varying levels of successes at different levels of control on the pure socialist/pure capitalist spectrum, but no pure socialist society has ever succeeded.

[Khariz]

Define socialism. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Take any definition of it you want, and the RESULT is always what I posted. Let's use Wiki's definition:


Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.

Duh.

[Keller]

Certain societies have had varying levels of successes . . .

Varying levels of success = 100% failure rate?

Either (a) today is backwards day and I didn't get the memo, (2) you thought there was a February Fool's day, or (iii) you're a moron.

[Khariz]

I’m only somewhat serious but always curious. Is this the “blame it on the other party/administration/someone else other than the party in power for x years argument again”? It reeks of the “blame it on someone else even though I was at fault” argument that so many people complain about yet hypocritically use.

No, it's not. It's the truth. The laws that were placed on the books to FORCE banks to loan to people who they WOULD NOT OTHERWISE LOAN TO (because their credit is too bad), were part of a democratic plan of "fairness". If you want me to post citations to the law, date check it, show you who voted for it and when, I can, but it's really not necessary.




When have taxes not been considered socialist? Do you like having an army, a police station, a fire station, a postal service, a highway, or public school or library?

Did I say taxes weren't socialist? Don't confuse my hatred of socialism in general for me saying that no element of socialism should be present in society. On the socialist/capitalist spectrum, I want the society that I live in to be as far toward the capitalist side as it can be without mass corruption of business and a bankrupt military.

The Constitution of the United States allows for the Federal government to do a very few enumerated things. Over the course of our history, we have read things into the constitution that aren't literally there, and have expanded the power and reach of the federal government hundreds of times over. I mean, the Dormant Commerce Clause??????? Jesus Tittyfucking Christ, no.

SOME taxes and SOME oversight make sense. Unfortunately for me, opinions are like assholes and everyone is always going to have a differing opinion on what SOME means. When the people who think SOME means SOME+1 outnumber the people (or when judges decide for the people) who think it means SOME-1, we take the dot, and put it a little further left on the spectrum. Oh well.

[Khariz]

Varying levels of success = 100% failure rate?

Either (a) today is backwards day and I didn't get the memo, (2) you thought there was a February Fool's day, or (iii) you're a moron.

The tiny snippet of what I posted that you quoted does not support your point. I explained myself just fine, thanks. Be ignorant all you like. It doesn't mean I'm wrong.

[Jorddyn]

Take any definition of it you want, and the RESULT is always what I posted. Let's use Wiki's definition:

Duh.

I was hoping for your own words, actually. You're calling taxes socialism because they "take from the upper class and give it to the lower class", while ignoring that the core of socialism is that the government (on behalf of the people) owns and operates the income producing entities.

I would see some of our current bailouts - auto makers, bankers, and mortgage companies in exchange for equity stake - are borderline socialist, but that's not at all what you're describing in your post as they take from the rich and give to the rich.

[Back]

No, it's not. It's the truth. The laws that were placed on the books to FORCE banks to loan to people who they WOULD NOT OTHERWISE LOAN TO (because their credit is too bad), were part of a democratic plan of "fairness". If you want me to post citations to the law, date check it, show you who voted for it and when, I can, but it's really not necessary.

So it is your contention that the party not in power caused this and the party power did not. If the party that were in power did not stop the party not in power how can you blame the party not in power?


Did I say taxes weren't socialist?

No, you did not.


Don't confuse my hatred of socialism in general for me saying that no element of socialism should be present in society.

Well, that clears a few things up. But not your hatred of socialism though. So, some socialism is good. Your first statement was socialism = fail.


On the socialist/capitalist spectrum, I want the society that I live in to be as far toward the capitalist side as it can be without mass corruption of business and a bankrupt military.

And look where we are with that attitude.


The Constitution of the United States allows for the Federal government to do a very few enumerated things. Over the course of our history, we have read things into the constitution that aren't literally there, and have expanded the power and reach of the federal government hundreds of times over. I mean, the Dormant Commerce Clause??????? Jesus Tittyfucking Christ, no.

SOME taxes and SOME oversight make sense. Unfortunately for me, opinions are like assholes and everyone is always going to have a differing opinion on what SOME means. When the people who think SOME means SOME+1 outnumber the people (or when judges decide for the people) who think it means SOME-1, we take the dot, and put it a little further left on the spectrum. Oh well.

So, you are a strict Constitutionalist. I am with you on that. Yes, interpretations differ on both sides. But don’t we all want the best of it?

[Khariz]

So it is your contention that the party not in power caused this and the party power did not. If the party that were in power did not stop the party not in power how can you blame the party not in power?





It didn't happen during the Bush Administration, Back. That's what I've been trying to tell you.

Oh, and to everyone, my bad for not specifying how far toward COMPLETE 100% socialism a country has to go toward before failing. I think you get the point now, whether you agree with it or not.

And Jordynn, I don't know what you are talking about. I wasn't talking about taxes at all. You read that into what I was saying because you know that Obama is using the METHOD of taxation to accomplish wealth redistribution. I wasn't assessing the relative socialist nature of taxes at all until I responded to Back.

[Jorddyn]

And Jordynn, I don't know what you are talking about. I wasn't talking about taxes at all. You read that into what I was saying because you know that Obama is using the METHOD of taxation to accomplish wealth redistribution.

No, I know that taxes are typically quoted as being "OMG SOCIALIST" by people who misuse, overuse, abuse, and in general try to rouse panic with that word.


I wasn't assessing the relative socialist nature of taxes at all until I responded to Back.

Then I haven't a clue what you're talking about either, so I guess it's a good time to go home.

[Back]

It didn't happen during the Bush Administration, Back. That's what I've been trying to tell you.

So you blame the Clinton years. The years that we were thriving economically and ended up with a surplus at the end of those 8 years.


Oh, and to everyone, my bad for not specifying how far toward COMPLETE 100% socialism a country has to go toward before failing. I think you get the point now, whether you agree with it or not.

And Jordynn, I don't know what you are talking about. I wasn't talking about taxes at all. You read that into what I was saying because you know that Obama is using the METHOD of taxation to accomplish wealth redistribution. I wasn't assessing the relative socialist nature of taxes at all until I responded to Back.

Please do not take my curiosity of your stated opinions as insult. I really do want to understand your POV.

To add: I in no way intend to pile on criticism of your views. I really want to understand them.

[Khariz]

So you blame the Clinton years. The years that we were thriving economically and ended up with a surplus at the end of those 8 years.


You realize that the effects of new laws passed aren't felt instantaneously? The result of the laws forcing the banks to loan to shitty people is an artificial housing bubble that we just saw burst. Did other things make the bubble grow as well? Yes. Could the Bush administration have helped the situation by trying to get rid of those bad laws? Yes. Did they? No.

There's always plenty of blame to go around. All I'm saying is that the origination of the laws the forced lenders to lend to recipients that otherwise would have not received such loans, was not a republican origination. Also, the business practices that the businesses were forced to come up with to offset the Government Mandated risks they were taking (such as interest only loans and ARMs) would never have been needed or developed, or forcefully propagated without said government mandate in the first place.

So yes, the businesses were wrong to push such horrendous loans on the people in the first place, but they wouldn't have come up with such loan schemes in the first place if the mandated risk (and result need to displace) didn't call for new measures. Oh what an ugly web we weave. What I want people to understand is, is that when the government sticks its hand into a capitalist market that is functioning fine without the meddling, it almost always makes it worse. Not immediately, but in the end, we can almost always look back and say "Ah ha, see back then when the Government thought they could do it better, that started this landslide".

It's okay if you don't believe me now, but bookmark this thread and pull it back up in 2012 or 2016, and let us have this discussion then.

[Khariz]

Then I haven't a clue what you're talking about either, so I guess it's a good time to go home.

It's really simple.

Back asked me why socialism is bad. I answered him by giving a list of the RESULT of implementing socialism. You said I didn't know what socialism was. I quoted text that showed that socialism is exactly what I was making it out to be. You said something about taxes. I said WTF. You said WTF.

That's about where we are now. I wasn't talking about taxes.

[Back]

You realize that the effects of new laws passed aren't felt instantaneously? The result of the laws forcing the banks to loan to shitty people is an artificial housing bubble that we just saw burst. Did other things make the bubble grow as well? Yes. Could the Bush administration have helped the situation by trying to get rid of those bad laws? Yes. Did they? No.

There's always plenty of blame to go around. All I'm saying is that the origination of the laws the forced lenders to lend to recipients that otherwise would have not received such loans, was not a republican origination. Also, the business practices that the businesses were forced to come up with to offset the Government Mandated risks they were taking (such as interest only loans and ARMs) would never have been needed or developed, or forcefully propagated without said government mandate in the first place.

So yes, the businesses were wrong to push such horrendous loans on the people in the first place, but they wouldn't have come up with such loan schemes in the first place if they risk displacement didn't call for new measures. Oh what an ugly web we weave. What I want people to understand is, is that when the government sticks its hand into a capitalist market that is functioning fine without the meddling, it almost always makes it worse. Not immediately, but in the end, we can almost always look back and say "Ah ha, see back then when the Government though they could do it better, that started this landslide".

It's okay if you don't believe me now, but bookmark this thread and pull it back up in 2012 or 2016, and let us have this discussion then.

Everything that has gone wrong is because of previous administrations, not the current. And everything good is about the current administration, not the past.

Yeah.

This is the blame game and stinks of hypocrisy.

[Khariz]

Everything that has gone wrong is because of previous administrations, not the current. And everything good is about the current administration, not the past.

Yeah.

:) As long as you understand I don't think that, we are cool. I agree that seems to be the general sentiment though.

[Back]

:) As long as you understand I don't think that, we are cool. I agree that seems to be the general sentiment though.

There has to be some medium we can agree on to get this fucking country back on the capitalism track.

[Khariz]

There has to be some medium we can agree on to get this fucking country back on the capitalism track.

I think you already mentioned a good one: Constitutionalism

[Back]

I think you already mentioned a good one: Constitutionalism

It wasn’t called “Capitalisationism” for a reason.

[Jorddyn]

It's really simple.

Back asked me why socialism is bad. I answered him by giving a list of the RESULT of implementing socialism.

Then I guess I'm missing where you've described the socialist policies Obama is trying to implement. I did read your post where you said:

Correct, he's paying back his liberal supporters. One of the ways he is doing that is by seizing massive amounts tax payer money (with the help of congress) to fund pet projects, pork, and wealth redistribution. I'm sure I don't need to go through the bill and post every example of which clauses effectively redistribute from the haves to the have-nots.


You said I didn't know what socialism was. I quoted text that showed that socialism is exactly what I was making it out to be.

I figured you were ignoring a major part of socialism - public ownership of income producing entities. You copy/pasted the definition you found on the Internet which does include that part of the definition, but unfortunately doesn't line up with your quote above.


You said something about taxes. I said WTF. You said WTF.
That's about where we are now. I wasn't talking about taxes.

So what were you talking about?

[Khariz]

I was answering Back's question. No more, no less. That's it. Quoting something I posted days ago, in response to something else, has nothing to do with answering Back.

But back to your topic:

Wealth Redistribution is a socialist concept. Using taxation to effect socialism is one of the easiest ways. Taking my money to pay for a military that protects us all equally is one thing. Taking my money to pay some lazy slob without a job $1000 is another. The former is fine, the latter is not.

Like I said to Back, everyone's personal demarcation line is unique to him or her. We've already crossed mine.

[Gan]

There has to be some medium we can agree on to get this fucking country back on the capitalism track.

Coming from someone who's stated that Hugo Chavez is their hero (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=402814&postcount=21)... this is fucking hilarious.

:lol:

[Daniel]

It didn't happen during the Bush Administration, Back. That's what I've been trying to tell you.

Oh, and to everyone, my bad for not specifying how far toward COMPLETE 100% socialism a country has to go toward before failing. I think you get the point now, whether you agree with it or not.

And Jordynn, I don't know what you are talking about. I wasn't talking about taxes at all. You read that into what I was saying because you know that Obama is using the METHOD of taxation to accomplish wealth redistribution. I wasn't assessing the relative socialist nature of taxes at all until I responded to Back.


Care to point out how many of the projects proposed in the stim package are effectively checks to "poor lazy slobs"?

I'm genuinely interested as I haven't had the time to go through the bill itself.

[Daniel]

There's always plenty of blame to go around. All I'm saying is that the origination of the laws the forced lenders to lend to recipients that otherwise would have not received such loans, was not a republican origination. Also, the business practices that the businesses were forced to come up with to offset the Government Mandated risks they were taking (such as interest only loans and ARMs) would never have been needed or developed, or forcefully propagated without said government mandate in the first place.

So yes, the businesses were wrong to push such horrendous loans on the people in the first place, but they wouldn't have come up with such loan schemes in the first place if the mandated risk (and result need to displace) didn't call for new measures. Oh what an ugly web we weave. What I want people to understand is, is that when the government sticks its hand into a capitalist market that is functioning fine without the meddling, it almost always makes it worse. Not immediately, but in the end, we can almost always look back and say "Ah ha, see back then when the Government thought they could do it better, that started this landslide".

It's okay if you don't believe me now, but bookmark this thread and pull it back up in 2012 or 2016, and let us have this discussion then.

The amount of justification in your statements here are baffling. The government forced corporations to make butt loads of money while outsourcing the risk to other entities? I mean, like they totally held a gun to their head and said "YOU GET RICH WHILE WE FUCK UP THE REST OF THE COUNTRY"?

Is that really what you want to be saying here?

You don't think that corporations hyper leveraging their assets, negating the importance of mitigating risk and otherwise being greedy motherfuckers didn't exacerbate this problem to the upteenth degree didn't have some role in this problem?

You need to get a grip.

[Khariz]

The amount of justification in your statements here are baffling. The government forced corporations to make butt loads of money while outsourcing the risk to other entities? I mean, like they totally held a gun to their head and said "YOU GET RICH WHILE WE FUCK UP THE REST OF THE COUNTRY"?

Is that really what you want to be saying here?

You don't think that corporations hyper leveraging their assets, negating the importance of mitigating risk and otherwise being greedy motherfuckers didn't exacerbate this problem to the upteenth degree didn't have some role in this problem?

You need to get a grip.

So you think that the companies would have lent to those pieces of shit without the government forcing them to? Let me go get that grip :)

[Daniel]

So you think that the companies would have lent to those pieces of shit without the government forcing them to? Let me go get that grip :)

I don't know. Let's answer this question: Would they have made a lot of money off of it?

Your answer to that question will answer the question you asked.

[Khariz]

I don't know. Let's answer this question: Would they have made a lot of money off of it?

Your answer to that question will answer the question you asked.

I get what you are saying. In that thing you quoted of me though, I did admit that the way the companies went about it was pretty shitty.

Let me convert what happened into a grotesque sexual encounter:

The government said, "You will fuck these STD ridden whores".

The companies said, "But we'll get STDs, I guess we need to wear a condom".

Then someone craftier in the company said, "No wait, fuck that, screw the condoms, we'll wear these giant, hollowed out strap-on dildos and fuck these STD ridden whores in the ass.

And the choir sang, "HELL YEAH!".

[Daniel]

I get what you are saying. In that thing you quoted of me though, I did admit that the way the companies went about it was pretty shitty.

Let me convert what happened into a grotesque sexual encounter:

The government said, "You will fuck these STD ridden whores".

The companies said, "But we'll get STDs, I guess we need to wear a condom".

Then someone craftier in the company said, "No wait, fuck that, screw the condoms, we'll wear these giant, hollowed out strap-on dildos and fuck these STD ridden whores in the ass.

And the choir sang, "HELL YEAH!".


Your analogy leaves a little bit to be desired.

Bottom line is that no one told corporations to massively leverage their assets in a questionable business model while not even making an attempt to mitigate their exposure.

To simply say that it's the government's fault, when these corporations were not only complicit, but proactive in creating the situation that ultimately ruined them, is entirely full of shit.

[Stanley Burrell]

...

In all seriousness, people do realize that no one actually knows what the hell to do about the economic crises and how to fix it, right?

[Khariz]

Your analogy leaves a little bit to be desired.

Bottom line is that no one told corporations to massively leverage their assets in a questionable business model while not even making an attempt to mitigate their exposure.

To simply say that it's the government's fault, when these corporations were not only complicit, but proactive in creating the situation that ultimately ruined them, is entirely full of shit.

I agree. It makes for good forum-going though, eh?

[Keller]

The tiny snippet of what I posted that you quoted does not support your point. I explained myself just fine, thanks. Be ignorant all you like. It doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Ignorant is claiming (a) there has ever been a 100% Socialist state and (b) that all of them failed.

[Gan]

Care to point out how many of the projects proposed in the stim package are effectively checks to "poor lazy slobs"?

I'm genuinely interested as I haven't had the time to go through the bill itself.

Where do I get in line?

[Back]

Coming from someone who's stated that Hugo Chavez is their hero (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=402814&postcount=21)... this is fucking hilarious.

:lol:

I still think the natural resources of the country should be a benefit to all that countries inhabitants. And I don’t think that ideal conflicts with capitalism.

[Gan]

I still think the natural resources of the country should be a benefit to all that countries inhabitants. And I don’t think that ideal conflicts with capitalism.

The devil is in the details. Who says a country's national resouces are not a benefit to all of our [a capitalist economy] inhabitants now?

[Methais]

BREAK TIME!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLSnZjLPor8&NR=1

[Back]

The devil is in the details. Who says a country's national resouces are not a benefit to all of our [a capitalist economy] inhabitants now?

Because you and I do not profit from the sale of gasoline, for example. We pay out the ass for it, along with heavy taxes imposed by who other than our own government, to the people who produce it. And the people who produce it post larger profits every year and get tax breaks on top of it.

And that is just the simple part of it domestically.

[Gan]

You should define your definition of profit. I feel that I definatley profit by having a for-profit/competetive market company produce gasoline.

Ask Hugo Chavez how well his nationalized industries are running right now. Pay close attention to his petrol and milk industries...

I think you should stick to art stuff. Seriously.

[Back]

You should define your definition of profit. I feel that I definatley profit by having a for-profit/competetive market company produce gasoline.

Ask Hugo Chavez how well his nationalized industries are running right now. Pay close attention to his petrol and milk industries...

I think you should stick to art stuff. Seriously.

Yeah. The ideal of helping people is not profitable so should be discouraged.

And what the fuck does art do? Goddamn pornography when you get right down to it.

[Gan]

Yeah. The ideal of helping people is not profitable so should be discouraged.
A) Thats not what I said.
B) Since you opened the door, lets take a look how nationalized industries help people. We'll start with your hero Hugo Chavez and take a peek at how his nationalizing industries in Venezuela have helped his people.

The venezuelan government owns the following industries:

Oil - PVDSA: Max production capability down 1m barrels/day from previous pre-nationalized capabilities. (1) (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12853975)

Electricity: 3 nationwide blackouts in 2008 along with power generation 20% below required level for a stable grid. (5) (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE49M0BW20081023)

Cement/Steel Producers: Steel production drops 15.4% in 2008 from previous year. (4) (http://forum.gsplayers.com/www.steelbb.com/?PageID=157&article_id=56643)

Milk and Meat distributors: 75% of all food is now imported (1) (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12853975)

Banking industry: Pegged currency to the dollar (overvalued rate of 2.15 bolivares to 1 US $) (1) (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12853975)

Mining industry: Gold mines are the next nationalization target. (1 (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12853975))

Taxes: Most national taxes have doubled. (1) (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12853975)

Private Investment: All but run off by Chavez taking over all resource sectors. (1) (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12853975) (2) (http://www.economist.com/countries/Venezuela/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Forecast) (3) (http://www.economist.com/countries/Venezuela/profile.cfm?folder=Profile%2DEconomic%20Data)

Inflation: 31% for 2008 (3) (http://www.economist.com/countries/Venezuela/profile.cfm?folder=Profile%2DEconomic%20Data)

Sources:
(1) http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12853975 (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12853975)
(2) http://www.economist.com/countries/Venezuela/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Forecast (http://www.economist.com/countries/Venezuela/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Forecast)
(3) http://www.economist.com/countries/Venezuela/profile.cfm?folder=Profile%2DEconomic%20Data (http://www.economist.com/countries/Venezuela/profile.cfm?folder=Profile%2DEconomic%20Data)
(4) www.steelbb.com/?PageID=157&article_id=56643 (http://www.steelbb.com/?PageID=157&article_id=56643)
(5) http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE49M0BW20081023 (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE49M0BW20081023)


And lets take a look at how safe it is to travel in the country where its citizens are so helped by the state.



CRIME: Venezuela and its capital, Caracas, are reported to have among the highest per capita murder rates in the world. Most murders go unsolved. The poor neighborhoods that cover the hills around Caracas are extremely dangerous. These areas are seldom patrolled by police and should be avoided. Armed robberies are common in urban and tourist areas throughout Venezuela, even areas presumed safe and visited by tourists. Crimes committed against travelers are usually money-oriented crimes, such as theft and armed robbery. Incidents occur during daylight hours as well as at night. Many criminals are armed with guns or knives and will use force. Jewelry attracts the attention of thieves. Travelers are advised to leave jewelry items, especially expensive-looking wristwatches, at home. Gangs of thieves will often surround their victims and use a chokehold to disable them, even in crowded market areas where there is little or no police presence. Theft from hotel rooms and safe deposit boxes is a problem, and theft of unattended valuables on the beach and from rental cars parked near isolated areas or on city streets is a common occurrence. A guarded garage or locked trunk is not a guarantee against theft. Pickpockets concentrate in and around crowded bus and subway stations in downtown Caracas. Subway escalators are favored sites for "bump and rob" petty thefts by roving bands of young criminals. Many of these criminals are well dressed to allay suspicion and to blend in with crowds using the subways during rush hour. Travelers should not display money or valuables.

"Express kidnappings," in which victims are seized in an attempt to get quick cash in exchange for their release, are a problem. One common practice is for kidnappers to follow potential victims into building garages and kidnap them at gunpoint. Kidnappings of U.S. citizens and other foreign nationals, from homes, hotels, unauthorized taxis and the airport terminal do occur, and are more frequently being reported to the embassy.

U.S. citizens should be alert to their surroundings and take necessary precautions.
The Department has received reports of robberies during nighttime and early morning hours on the highways around and leading to Caracas. Reports have specifically involved cars being forced off the La Guaira highway leading from Caracas to the Maquetía International Airport, and the "Regional del Centro" highway leading from Caracas to Maracay/Valencia, at which point the victims are robbed. The Department recommends avoiding driving at night and in the early morning where possible.

Police responsiveness and effectiveness in Venezuela vary drastically but generally do not meet U.S. expectations. U.S. travelers have reported robberies and other crimes committed against them by individuals wearing uniforms and purporting to be police officers or National Guard members.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1059.html#crime


The economics behind competition and profit seeking behavior demonstrate a greater good than nationalizing them as a means of populist and short sighted redistribution behaviors.

If Venezuela doesnt sway your opinion, you can always look at Cuba... or the differences between North Korea and South Korea.

Capitalism is not the dEvil and neither is profit seeking behavior. What makes these things bad is when you add greed into the equation.

[Gan]

http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gifRepublicans find their... (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?p=881599#post881599)02-02-2009 10:24 PM I still think the natural resources of the country should be a benefit to all that countries inhabitants. - Back
LOL

[Daniel]

A) Thats not what I said.
B) Since you opened the door, lets take a look how nationalized industries help people. We'll start with your hero Hugo Chavez and take a peek at how his nationalizing industries in Venezuela have helped his people.

The venezuelan government owns the following industries:

Oil - PVDSA: Max production capability down 1m barrels/day from previous pre-nationalized capabilities. (1) (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12853975)

Electricity: 3 nationwide blackouts in 2008 along with power generation 20% below required level for a stable grid. (5) (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE49M0BW20081023)

Cement/Steel Producers: Steel production drops 15.4% in 2008 from previous year. (4) (http://forum.gsplayers.com/www.steelbb.com/?PageID=157&article_id=56643)

Milk and Meat distributors: 75% of all food is now imported (1) (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12853975)

Banking industry: Pegged currency to the dollar (overvalued rate of 2.15 bolivares to 1 US $) (1) (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12853975)

Mining industry: Gold mines are the next nationalization target. (1 (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12853975))

Taxes: Most national taxes have doubled. (1) (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12853975)

Private Investment: All but run off by Chavez taking over all resource sectors. (1) (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12853975) (2) (http://www.economist.com/countries/Venezuela/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Forecast) (3) (http://www.economist.com/countries/Venezuela/profile.cfm?folder=Profile%2DEconomic%20Data)

Inflation: 31% for 2008 (3) (http://www.economist.com/countries/Venezuela/profile.cfm?folder=Profile%2DEconomic%20Data)

Sources:
(1) http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12853975 (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12853975)
(2) http://www.economist.com/countries/Venezuela/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Forecast (http://www.economist.com/countries/Venezuela/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Forecast)
(3) http://www.economist.com/countries/Venezuela/profile.cfm?folder=Profile%2DEconomic%20Data (http://www.economist.com/countries/Venezuela/profile.cfm?folder=Profile%2DEconomic%20Data)
(4) www.steelbb.com/?PageID=157&article_id=56643 (http://www.steelbb.com/?PageID=157&article_id=56643)
(5) http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE49M0BW20081023 (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE49M0BW20081023)


And lets take a look at how safe it is to travel in the country where its citizens are so helped by the state.


http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1059.html#crime


The economics behind competition and profit seeking behavior demonstrate a greater good than nationalizing them as a means of populist and short sighted redistribution behaviors.

If Venezuela doesnt sway your opinion, you can always look at Cuba... or the differences between North Korea and South Korea.

Capitalism is not the dEvil and neither is profit seeking behavior. What makes these things bad is when you add greed into the equation.


Lol @ you using Venezuela to correlate capitalism with public safety.

How about you look at some of the socialist countries of Europe and let us know how that murder rate plays out.

FYI The US has one of the highest, if not the highest, incidence of crime of any major industrialized country (hint: Venezuela is not a highly industrialized country).

This is a myopic analysis that doesn't even pass the first whiff of the bullshit test.

[Gan]

Lol @ you using Venezuela to correlate capitalism with public safety.

How about you look at some of the socialist countries of Europe and let us know how that murder rate plays out.

FYI The US has one of the highest, if not the highest, incidence of crime of any major industrialized country (hint: Venezuela is not a highly industrialized country).

This is a myopic analysis that doesn't even pass the first whiff of the bullshit test.

Feel free to put your money where you're mouth is.

[Daniel]

Feel free to put your money where you're mouth is.

I don't really have time to hold your hand through political science research 101.

My point is simply that if you want to make a condemnation of a economic ideology through a statistic correlation, then A) you might actually want to run that correlation and B) you might want to use the best possible example as opposed to the worst possible example.

Suggesting that Venezuela is the only and/or best example of socialism in practice right now is disingenuous at best and outright retarded otherwise.

I'll put you in a good direction though. Take a look at the Human Development Index and tell me how many "socialist" countries outrank the United States.

I'll even make it easy for you and provide a link:

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

[Gan]

Lol. This is a forum not a policy seminar. The points I made and sourcing used is more than enough to point out how Back's hero and the nationalization approach to resources fails the evolution from for-profit .

And tell me again how there is no coorelation to crime rate and poverty? I'm sure all that oil profit is really helping the poor in venezuela right now...

Do us a favor and put the crackpipe down.

[Parkbandit]

Yeah. The ideal of helping people is not profitable so should be discouraged.


Take it from me.. helping people can be VERY profitable. :)

And that you somehow believe Hugo Chavez was in anything to help anyone but himself is hysterical.

[Daniel]

Lol. This is a forum not a policy seminar. The points I made and sourcing used is more than enough to point out how Back's hero and the nationalization approach to resources fails the evolution from for-profit .

And tell me again how there is no coorelation to crime rate and poverty? I'm sure all that oil profit is really helping the poor in venezuela right now...

Do us a favor and put the crackpipe down.


Oh. So your point wasn't about socialism in general but about Hugo Chavez and Venezuela?

Okay.

I can buy that. As long as we're not drawing conclusions on the usefullness of economic models from your posts.

For the record: I said there is no correlation between crime rate and economic systems as there are plenty of countries that employ socialist leaning economic models who do not have a lot of poverty. A lot meaning, less than the United States.

Also for the record: The countries that are pulling more people out of poverty than any other are also using state capitalist systems that rely on nationalized forms of commerce. So, that argue falls pretty flat too.

You're good if you just keep it to Venezuela though.

[Jorddyn]

Wealth Redistribution is a socialist concept. Using taxation to effect socialism is one of the easiest ways. Taking my money to pay for a military that protects us all equally is one thing. Taking my money to pay some lazy slob without a job $1000 is another. The former is fine, the latter is not.

Like I said to Back, everyone's personal demarcation line is unique to him or her. We've already crossed mine.

So long as you understand that while it may cross your "personal demarcation line", it isn't socialism.

[Gan]

Oh. So your point wasn't about socialism in general but about Hugo Chavez and Venezuela?

Okay.

I can buy that. As long as we're not drawing conclusions on the usefullness of economic models from your posts.

For the record: I said there is no correlation between crime rate and economic systems as there are plenty of countries that employ socialist leaning economic models who do not have a lot of poverty. A lot meaning, less than the United States.

Also for the record: The countries that are pulling more people out of poverty than any other are also using state capitalist systems that rely on nationalized forms of commerce. So, that argue falls pretty flat too.

You're good if you just keep it to Venezuela though.

Glad you finally comprehended my point. Grats, your half a clock.

[Daniel]

Glad you finally comprehended my point. Grats, your half a clock.

You'll have to excuse me for missing that since you started out your analysis with..


A) Thats not what I said.
Since you opened the door, lets take a look how nationalized industries help people. .


If you had said let's look at how Venezuela helps it's own people and only Venezuela we wouldn't have had this problem. As was said, "Venezuela" is probably not the best example to illustrate your point.

[Khariz]

So long as you understand that while it may cross your "personal demarcation line", it isn't socialism.

Again, I didn't say it was. I said we are starting step #1 of the results of socialism on that list that I made. We won't complete step #1 for years, and may never, if we correct the issue before then. I think you totally misunderstood my comments from the get-go. I wasn't talking about OUR situation (back when you accused me of such anyway). I was merely answering Back's questions "What is so bad about Socialism anyway?"

But because you are already accusing me of discussing this anyway, I might as well go ahead:

We haven't gotten "too far" into the results of trying to implement socialism to stop ourselves yet. We could easily slide down that slope though. The fastest way to keep sliding? A little thing called bipartisanship :) Because even though the law will pass without the republicans voting for it, a whole new crew of republicans will enter the house in 2 years when everyone sees how the shit has hit the fan (if it does). But that's only true if they play the political game of not voting for it now, to have something to campaign on then.

Once they have a majority in the house, they can cockblock and stop our country from sliding further down the slope toward "too late" socialism. If, however, they decide to work with the democrats in the spirit of bipartisanship, they'll never get more republicans into congress because the democrats will be able to say "but but but, they voted for it too, it's not our fault!". The smartest political move that republicans can make right now is not voting for the bill, in unity. It's also a political gamble though. If for whatever reason the plan doesn't bomb like it economically should, republicans are done:)

I predict that whether the stimulus plan does or does not accomplish anything within the next two years (especially with so much of the money allocated not being used until 2012+ anyway), that regardless of the actual results, republicans will claim it did nothing, and campaign on that anyway.

[And again, just for clarification's sake, I'm not a republican. I happen to think they would do a better job of taking the country in a direction that I would personally like to go, but I have no problem making statements like that last sentence there, because after all, politics is MOSTLY about keeping your party in power, and only secondarily about doing what's best for the country. Sad, but true.]

[Daniel]

The smartest political move that republicans can make right now is not voting for the bill, in unity. It's also a political gamble though. If for whatever reason the plan doesn't bomb like it economically should, republicans are done:)



I fully endorse Republicans thinking this.

IMO, it's the best way to ensure that the party is increasingly marginalized and ultimately deemed irrelevant by the vast majority of Americans. Hopefully that will coincide with the resurgence of a party that actually cares about the values that the Republicans are supposed to care about. i.e. America first.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

While tongue in check I agree with Daniel. You should always voice your opinion, otherwise how can you complain or laud praises upon whatever it is you voice your opinion on after the fact?

Or you could be Tamral.