What has Obama's presidency done for you?

NoClue · #**101** 08/10/11, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by linn

Excuse me, now that I have proved to you that Obama care is essentially socialized medicine and given evidence that Obama supports and socialist organization, you have to branch off into something else. Obama is for a socialist society and he has associations with domestic terrorists and a hate-preaching racist.

You didn't prove anything of the kind (or anything at all, for that matter) - you quoted from a single source, that isn't authoritative and only marginally supports your claim - and you still haven't answered the basic question:

Since when does socialism aim at funneling more money to corporations rather than the government itself?

linn · #**102** 08/10/11, 12:44 PM

Here is another quote from another source. I can just keeping pitching. Obama and company are sure bent on gouging the rich to give to the poor.

"With Socialism there is not rich or poor. Everyone is equal, taxes are high because the government runs your health care."

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-socialism.htm

NoClue · #**103** 08/10/11, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by linn

Here is another quote from another source. I can just keeping pitching. Obama and company are sure bent on gouging the rich to give to the poor.

"With Socialism there is not rich or poor. Everyone is equal, taxes are high because the government runs your health care."

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-socialism.htm

You can keep pitching, but you're still wrong.

What Obamacare does is force Americans to turn control of their healthcare over to a non-governmental organization - i.e. a corporation who is going to make a profit the controllers of which are going to be even more rich than they already are.

THAT IS NOT SOCIALISM

You can't prove anything by providing quotes that while they may share your opinion, do not agree with the basic facts:

Quote:

so·cial·ism /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled
[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

but yields very capitalistic profits to private individuals who own and control the means of production.

You could argue that Obamacare is totalitarian, or authoritarian, plutocratic, or corporatist; even that it smacks of fascism, and I would argue on your side. Instead you insist that it's socialism, when it very obviously isn't.

linn · #**104** 08/10/11, 12:57 PM

You haven't proven anything either, just offered your opinion. Here are a couple of more quotes from a socialist webstie. I guess you can put a spin on that also
"Socialist Action argues that the problems of exploitation and oppression in the world today can ultimately be solved by first replacing the capitalist system with a socialist system. The chief means of production should be socialized, that is, taken out of the private hands of the capitalists and put under public ownership, that is, government ownership." (Hmmm, sounds something like a National Healthcare System.)
"Money currently spent on the military could be spent instead on cleaning up the country's air and waterways and developing environmentally safe technology."
"A socialist government of the United States would end this country's oppression of Third World nations because it would not be defending corporate profit." (Sounds like the liberal rantings during the presidential debates.)

Sounds like what this administration is moving toward.

http://www.socialistaction.org/socialism.htm

NoClue · #**105** 08/10/11, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by linn

You haven't proven anything either, just offered your opinion.

I've already given the definition of socialism several times.

Obamacare requires citizens TO BUY health insurance from a non-governmental entity and subsidizes that purchase for those with insufficient income AND fines those who refuse to purchase insurance.

With me so far?

The definition of Obamacare is not compliant with the definition of socialism.

Why?

Because the insurance is purchased from someone other than the government: the government doesn't control the means of production or the means of distribution - it's only mandating that a transfer of wealth from citizens to insurance providers (and presumably to health care providers at some point)

With me so far?

A does not equal B

Insurance providers and health care providers are still free to make a profit, and to invest the proceeds as they see fit as any other business interest does.

QED
Obamacare is not socialism

Got it?

linn · #**106** 08/10/11, 01:15 PM

I have got that this is your opinion. That doesn't make your right. "A reasonable definition of socialized medicine is possible. Socialized medicine exists to the extent that government controls medical resources and socializes the costs. Reasonable people can disagree over whether Obama’s health plan would be good or bad. But to suggest that it is not a step toward socialized medicine is absurd."
Got that?????? But I really doubt, as all you want to do is expound.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9679

Cornhusker · #**107** 08/10/11, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tricky Grama

Yup, that & the fact that all the ones I disagree with post when I'm asleep.

They probably sit up all night copying our posts and emailing them to DHS

Cornhusker · #**108** 08/10/11, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoClue

I've already given the definition of socialism several times.

Obamacare requires citizens TO BUY health insurance from a non-governmental entity and subsidizes that purchase for those with insufficient income AND fines those who refuse to purchase insurance.

With me so far?

The definition of Obamacare is not compliant with the definition of socialism.

Why?

Because the insurance is purchased from someone other than the government: the government doesn't control the means of production or the means of distribution - it's only mandating that a transfer of wealth from citizens to insurance providers (and presumably to health care providers at some point)

With me so far?

A does not equal B

Insurance providers and health care providers are still free to make a profit, and to invest the proceeds as they see fit as any other business interest does.

QED
Obamacare is not socialism

Got it?

Obama requires us to but insurance from the insurance companies who paid him to pass Obamacare.
What happened to the trillion or so he got for this mess?

NoClue · #**109** 08/10/11, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by linn

You haven't proven anything either, just offered your opinion. Here are a couple of more quotes from a socialist webstie. I guess you can put a spin on that also
"Socialist Action argues that the problems of exploitation and oppression in the world today can ultimately be solved by first replacing the capitalist system with a socialist system. The chief means of production should be socialized, that is, taken out of the private hands of the capitalists and put under public ownership, that is, government ownership." (Hmmm, sounds something like a National Healthcare System.)
"Money currently spent on the military could be spent instead on cleaning up the country's air and waterways and developing environmentally safe technology."
"A socialist government of the United States would end this country's oppression of Third World nations because it would not be defending corporate profit." (Sounds like the liberal rantings during the presidential debates.)

Sounds like what this administration is moving toward.

http://www.socialistaction.org/socialism.htm

Except for one important fact: Capitalism is thriving under Obama - earnings continue to increase; producitivity is increasing, etc. and he is making no attempt to do anything other than increase it - to the point of requiring citizens to patronize certain industries under penalty of law.

NoClue · #**110** 08/10/11, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by linn

I have got that this is your opinion. That doesn't make your right. "A reasonable definition of socialized medicine is possible. Socialized medicine exists to the extent that government controls medical resources and socializes the costs. Reasonable people can disagree over whether Obama’s health plan would be good or bad. But to suggest that it is not a step toward socialized medicine is absurd."
Got that?????? But I really doubt, as all you want to do is expound.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9679

but your bolded statement isn't proof of anything, and doesn't even present itself as a fact.

So yes, I get that the source of your quote is expressing his or her opinion.

In order for you to disprove my argument, you have to show that my definition of socialism is incorrect, or that my presentation of Obamacare is flawed. You haven't done either, just produce isolated quotes of others who feel that obamacare is socialism.

Stop taking this personally. I would present the same argument to the Cato institute - the facts about what socialism is and what obamacare is simply don't support their argument, and in fact, the gist of their argument is that it isn't what obamacare is that makes it socialist, but what they believe it will become. Or, in other words - Obamacare could lead to socialized medicine, therefore, it IS socialized medicine. That's just not sound logic. It could also lead to a violent backlash and the ultimate overthrow of the government, in which case one might argue that Obamacare is anarchism (which, of course, would be ludicrous).

NoClue · #**111** 08/10/11, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cornhusker

Obama requires us to but insurance from the insurance companies who paid him to pass Obamacare.
What happened to the trillion or so he got for this mess?

I have no idea.

Impeach him and find out. I'll back you 100%.

linn · #**112** 08/10/11, 01:38 PM

I don't have to disprove anything. You disprove my quotes from the socialist website. I am sure you will come up with some rigmarole, but that doesn't prove anything except that you are longer winded and more fond of reading your own writing.
No, in fact I have already disproven your statement, right from the mouth of socialism:
""Socialist Action argues that the problems of exploitation and oppression in the world today can ultimately be solved by first replacing the capitalist system with a socialist system. The chief means of production should be socialized, that is, taken out of the private hands of the capitalists and put under public ownership, that is, government ownership."

http://www.socialistaction.org/socialism.htm

NoClue · #**113** 08/10/11, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by linn

I don't have to disprove anything. You disprove my quotes from the socialist website. I am sure you will come up with some rigmarole, but that doesn't prove anything except that you are longer winded and more fond of reading your own writing.
No, in fact I have already disproven it right from the mouth of socialism:
""Socialist Action argues that the problems of exploitation and oppression in the world today can ultimately be solved by first replacing the capitalist system with a socialist system. The chief means of production should be socialized, that is, taken out of the private hands of the capitalists and put under public ownership, that is, government ownership."

http://www.socialistaction.org/socialism.htm

I agree that this is a very socialist agenda - but this is not at all what Obama is doing - in fact, he's doing just the opposite and transferring public assets into private hands - the exact opposite of what an actual socialist would be doing.

I've gotten long winded because no matter how explicitly I lay out my case for you, the only counter you seem able to provide is one that in no way counters my argument or supports yours.

Nevada · #**114** 08/10/11, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by linn

Obama and company are sure bent on gouging the rich to give to the poor.

I suppose that all insurance is taking from the fortunate and giving to the unfortunate. After all, if you are unfortunate enough to have your house burn down your insurance company will give you money collected from people who were fortunate enough to not have their houses burn down. Isn't that redistribution of wealth, socialism, and perhaps even communism?

linn · #**115** 08/10/11, 02:40 PM

That is a little different. I you have insurance on your house, you have paid for that through the nose. Not the same thing at all and you know it.

linn · #**116** 08/10/11, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoClue

I agree that this is a very socialist agenda - but this is not at all what Obama is doing - in fact, he's doing just the opposite and transferring public assets into private hands - the exact opposite of what an actual socialist would be doing.

I've gotten long winded because no matter how explicitly I lay out my case for you, the only counter you seem able to provide is one that in no way counters my argument or supports yours.

Exactly how is Obama transferring public assets into private hands. It seems to me that he and the liberals are bent on taking our private assets and transferring it into government hands.

I disagree with you statement, but we are not going to agree and I fear some of my comments could have been nicer, so I am going to quit before I embarrass myself by becoming really petty.LOL

Nevada · #**117** 08/10/11, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by linn

That is a little different. I you have insurance on your house, you have paid for that through the nose. Not the same thing at all and you know it.

Compared to the cost of replacing your house, you only contributed a token amount.

If fire insurance on your $150K home is $50/month, so you contribute $600/year. Say you own a home for 10 years and pay $6,000 on fire insurance premiums over that time, then your house burns down. The fortunate people pay $144,000 while you only paid $6,000. That's not "paying through the nose", that's contributing only a small part while the fortunate people paid the rest.

Why should the fortunate people have to contribute to your bad luck? That certainly sounds like redistribution of wealth to me.

Nevada · #**118** 08/10/11, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by linn

Exactly how is Obama transferring public assets into private hands. It seems to me that he and the liberals are bent on taking our private assets and transferring it into government hands.

Government spending winds up in the hands of individuals. Government spending creates jobs, and cutting government spending kills jobs.

linn · #**119** 08/10/11, 03:01 PM

Yes, much of the government spending ends up in the hands of individuals who never did a day's work in their life. Government spending has gotten us in the mess we are in now.

Nevada · #**120** 08/10/11, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by linn

Yes, much of the government spending ends up in the hands of individuals who never did a day's work in their life. Government spending has gotten us in the mess we are in now.

Conservatives have always felt that way, even when the proposed programs are for very good causes. When I was in firefighter training we were presented with a history of organized firefighting. I found it interesting how Ben Franklin faced as much conservative opposition to his fire department idea as he did. The prevailing idea was that people who were careful with fire should not have to pay for the carelessness of others. The town hall exchange went something like this.

Conservative: Why should I be taxed to help some idiot who let his house catch on fire?
Ben: Not everyone who has a fire is an idiot. Remember that last year when old Jim Whatshisname's barn burned down?
Conservative: Yes, but old Jim Whatshisname is an idiot.
Ben: Do you know him?
Conservative: No, but anyone who would let his barn catch on fire has to be an idiot.

And so it goes with conservatives -- for 200 years. And they still feel that way today about issues just as critical; universal health care for example.