Who'll be the better president?

[Polaris573]

Originally Posted by newconroer

A conservative would be a constitutionalist ideally.

Not really. The constitution was born out the ideas of laissez-faire liberalism (not to be confused with new liberalism) which only has loose connections to modern conservatism (think modern economic conservatism without supply-side Keynesian economics and social conservatism). Social conservatism seeks to use the government to enforce its specific view of morality on the populous for better or worse. This is opposed to the ideas of laissez-faire liberalism which idealizes individualism and negative liberty.

You cannot ascribe modern political labels to older documents as they are generally not inline with each other.

[Apocolypse007]

If you've got a minute, read this article. It's very touching. (don't worry, its not off topic)

http://leishacamden.blogspot.com/200...t-matters.html

[Bigjohn]

Originally Posted by Odin Eidolon

i dunno if i have to laugh or to cry. its quite evident that you have a very twisted view of Europe. As Tatty said



it isnt the definition of fair thats the problem here, but maybe the one of selfishness. What you seem to want is a bigger and bigger social gap that will destroy your society. we are already seeing this moral decay.
Once upon a time.... i heard of a country that was respected for its ideals of freedom, for the possibilities that it offered to its inhabitants. I heard that everyone there could have a second possibility and that money seemed to be growing on trees. Now i cant believe to that fairy tale. i see a country that needs the biggest army in the world to have some type of respect (better called fear, awe). I can only see a country where the soldiers torture their prisoners, and where hatred grows and grows, where the murders per year are more that in all Europeans coutries together. I see a mutilated and reactionary economy, where people has to secure loans to live.

The problem is that you are selfish. you dont look at the prosperity of your nation but only at your gains. And this will backfire on you. In fact it is backfiring on you.

"The Poors? Those who arent able to gain money cause they are lazy and stupid" NO, thanks.
And the concept of success is distorted too. In this money-based society who is rich is successful. I think that successful is someone that is happy with what he does in its life. The goal of life isnt making money, its being happy. thats rarely the same thing.

Fair means "don't take what's not yours". To have a surrogate (the government) do it, is the same as doing it yourself.

Yes, it's about what's mine is mine. Why should I belive that the government knows better than I what to do with my money! Does some crackhead need the money more than my kids? IN my opinion, no... NO.

[brian.ca]

Originally Posted by Wile E

And to add to this:

Raising the taxes on the rich is a terrible idea. The rich own all of the businesses that drive our economy. If Obama raises taxes for them, do you think they are going to keep their business here? No, they aren't. They are going to outsource, cut jobs, cut wages/benefits, etc to make up the losses. Them doing that equals less jobs for us Americans, pay cuts, etc., and will do nothing but lead to the further collapse of our economy.

For those that actually paid attention, Reagan's trickle down policies actually worked. Fatten the pockets of the people that own the business that run this country's economy, and those people dump more money into their business, which in turn leads to more jobs, better paying jobs, better equipment, better working conditions, etc. It worked, and it worked well. It was Clinton's administration that nullified them, and put our country where it is today.

This is one thing that I could understand but never fully agree with when thinking about politics/economics.. Ok, less taxes = more profit = more incentive for a business to set up shop/stay in an area, it's hard to argue against that b/c in itself is obviously true. But there is a hell of a lot more to the process than that that people don't seem to always acknowledge.

My immediate thought/response when I see something like "If Obama raises taxes for them, do you think they are going to keep their business here?" is, how many of them actually have a choice? ex: If walmart has to pay an extra $x amount in taxes are they going to move all their stores to Mexico? Obviously not b/c a lot of the walmart company is local business based on the local market and is simply not outsourceable.

But then there are those who's jobs aren't quite based on a local market. If a Walmart in Mexico can take it's directives from a corprate office in the US, couldn't corprate office just as well be located in Guatamala where they might have to pay less in taxes? So why wouldn't it move there or some other country with lower taxes? Well, if California were to raise taxes on local businesses and Alaska to abolish all of it's taxes would silicon valley just start packing up and move north? I'd doubt it. Along the same lines while a lot of hollywood production takes place in Vancover now b/c it's cheaper to do business there I don't think many (if any) studios or hollywood elites (highly payed actors, writers, producers, directors etc.) have made the move yet. So I can only think that some business is also limited by simply the localization/supply of it's important people. It would make sense that if the board of directors can't speak chinese that the corporate office won't move to China. If the supply of electronic engineers, designers, software programmers etc. in Estonia is lacking, tech companies aren't going to move there no matter how much they'll save on taxes.

Goods are more easily outsourced, but then I'd have to wonder how much of it that can be outsourced hasn't already been. The purpose of business is to make money afterall... I find it hard to believe that if a company can save $1million a year in operating costs by having their product made in China and shipping it back that they would wait until the government starts charging them an extra an extra $500k/yr before doing so. Plus then you also get free market influences, people who want to buy American made/produced etc.

Now don't get me wrong, to think that anything can happen with out consequence is stupid, if a tax hike puts a company in a hard place they have to react. Even if they remain in a good place after the hike they still have a right to react but to talk about it like they're holding all the cards seems either narrow minded, over dramatic, or a case of fear pushing reason out of the picture.

To me it seems like a large chunk of American bussiness is there b/c of the huge market or b/c the people in / important to the business are & like it there and I'd question how likely that is to be changed by tax hikes unless they come to really stupid levels (which I don't believe to be truely possible).

Like with most arguements I belive there tends to be less susbtance in the far ends than in the middle. In this case that is, I believe both sides need ea. other and to argue for one end at the expense of the other with out considering the current state of balance between the two seems silly. Offhand I'd imagine the vast majority of Americans do not make $250k+ a year and that that same vast majority of Americans are the market that most companies will sell their goods and services to and make their money off of. Putting money in the high end can trickle down to the low but shouldn't it also be able to go up? If the middleclass has more money aren't they likely to spend or invest it (even if they save it, unless they're hoarding it under their matresses isn't the bank they put it into likely to invest it). Don't those actions in turn mean more money for the business end?

[Wile E]

While you make some very solid points, you seemed to focus on the outsourcing aspect of my argument, but what of just plain old cuts to employee benefits (something I have felt the sting of personally), or job cuts, or lowering the company's average wages? These things happen every time the rich has to give more of their money away. Sure, they could easily absorb the costs, but the greedy bastards never do.

[SK-1]

Do we have enough members to become our own country? TPU-NATION.
W1zz is president. Now just let your imagination run...

[wahdangun]

Originally Posted by SK-1

Do we have enough members to become our own country? TPU-NATION.
W1zz is president. Now just let your imagination run...

yeah that a good idea, now we just need to look an island for sale.

[Wile E]

Originally Posted by SK-1

Do we have enough members to become our own country? TPU-NATION.
W1zz is president. Now just let your imagination run...

But then porn would be illegal. We can't have that.

[Bigjohn]

In a libertarian society, banging a chick for $$ is no worry. Neither is smoking a fat splif.

Until it comes to the point where you're taking money from someone else to pay for the choices you make. Then, you're stealing and you are punished.

[proletariandan]

Originally Posted by Bigjohn

Yes, it's about what's mine is mine. Why should I belive that the government knows better than I what to do with my money!

It is only yours subjectively - it has been allocated to you via the present socioeconomic relations of our society ie the market - meaning the value of your labor is determined by the management of your company instead of society as a whole, which is ultimately the source of all production. I don't necessarily trust a bourgeois government to distribute money in a way more equitable than the market they preside over, but in principle taxes are a step towards a more socially accurate distribution of wealth.

[Bigjohn]

Originally Posted by proletariandan

It is only yours subjectively - it has been allocated to you via the present socioeconomic relations of our society ie the market - meaning the value of your labor is determined by the management of your company instead of society as a whole, which is ultimately the source of all production. I don't necessarily trust a bourgeois government to distribute money in a way more equitable than the market they preside over, but in principle taxes are a step towards a more socially accurate distribution of wealth.

LOL
Karl Marx much?

Nobody but me OWNS my labor, and, that which I gain for it is therefore mine entirely.

Unless of course you believe that we're all slaves to the state...

[CStylen]

Originally Posted by proletariandan

It is only yours subjectively - it has been allocated to you via the present socioeconomic relations of our society ie the market - meaning the value of your labor is determined by the management of your company instead of society as a whole, which is ultimately the source of all production. I don't necessarily trust a bourgeois government to distribute money in a way more equitable than the market they preside over, but in principle taxes are a step towards a more socially accurate distribution of wealth.

For future reference, which communist organization do you belong to?

Wiki: The proletariat (from Latin proles, "offspring") is a term used to identify a lower social class; a member of such a class is proletarian. Originally it was identified as those people who had no wealth other than their sons; the term was initially used in a derogatory sense, until Karl Marx used it as a sociological term to refer to the working class.

According to Marxism, capitalism is a system based on the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie (the "capitalists", who own and control the means of production). This exploitation takes place as follows: the workers, who own no means of production of their own, must seek jobs in order to live. They get hired by a capitalist and work for him, producing some sort of goods or services. These goods or services then become the property of the capitalist, who sells them and gets a certain amount of money in exchange. One part of the wealth produced is used to pay the workers' wages, while the other part (surplus value) is split between the capitalist's private takings (profit), and the money used to pay rent, buy supplies and renew the forces of production. Thus the capitalist can earn money (profit) from the work of his employees without actually doing any work, or in excess of his own work. Marxists argue that new wealth is created through work; therefore, if someone gains wealth that he did not work for, then someone else works and does not receive the full wealth created by his work. In other words, that "someone else" is exploited. Thus, Marxists argue that capitalists make a profit by exploiting workers.

[Polaris573]

Originally Posted by proletariandan

It is only yours subjectively - it has been allocated to you via the present socioeconomic relations of our society ie the market - meaning the value of your labor is determined by the management of your company instead of society as a whole, which is ultimately the source of all production. I don't necessarily trust a bourgeois government to distribute money in a way more equitable than the market they preside over, but in principle taxes are a step towards a more socially accurate distribution of wealth.

Ah but the money gets collected by whom and goes to whom for what reason and in what amount for each reason? The Soviet Union failed because the same powerful elite, the bourgeois, that would run corporations in a capitalist society used the government to obtain more power and wealth to the detriment of the proletariat. In fact, one could argue that a communist economic system, no matter how well meaning, cannot possibly be fair for a large society. The large static bureaucracy cannot respond in an equitable fashion to all groups of people. At least in a capitalist society the abusive power is spread over numerous power bases instead of just one, and leaves room for new, more fair, power bases to arise for a short time until their eventual bureaucratic corruption. Not only this but in a fixed wage, communist, democracy/republic where it takes wealth to run for office in a large nation there is no room for advancement of the proletariat to voice their opinion on how the nation is run since they will never have the opportunity to generate the necessary capital to run for office. This has the effect of keeping the present members of the bureaucracy in power as well as their children, creating a hereditary oligarchy. It actually benefits the proletariat for the government to be a dictatorship so they can climb the ranks of the party and at least have a chance to run the government.

Of course there is always a question of should an engineer or doctor make more than someone that works in McDonalds? If you say yes then you are treating the two laborers inequitably just like in a capitalist society, nothing is solved. If you say no then what reason is there for someone to become a doctor when he/she can easily flip burgers and make the same amount of money. You can argue that doctors are driven individuals that want to help people and would not be satisfied doing anything else, but becoming a doctor is a brutal, brutal, process and a difficult job even after earning your MD. I don't know a single med-school student (rest assured I know a lot of them) that isn't there partially for the money. Same for engineers.

Communism is a wonderful ideal, it even works on a small scale. Applied full scale to a large economy and nation, it has never once worked. All socialist nations are capitalist/socialist hybrids, even china is becoming that way.

[Odin Eidolon]

Originally Posted by Bigjohn

When the policies of a party are socialist, it does not matter what banner they fly at their convention, they're socialists.

Your statement is like if I was wearing a badge that proclaimed me to be italian, but i'm not, but the badge says so so you must believe that I am??

Man, you really dont know what socialism is. You have never had a real socialist party and now you take for socialist a centered one. I Europe Obama's ideas would be taken as centered, even a little moved to the right. You have absolutely no idea what a socialist is, if you say Obama is! A socialist would never agree with obama about taxation, education, foreign policy. If Hitler is -100 and Stalin +100, i would say that Obama is between -20 and +10, in the middle.

[Odin Eidolon]

Originally Posted by Tatty_One

By my measure because I live in Europe, little point in measuring another whole continent by the way you catagorise and conduct your politics because the box dont fit, if your definition of "right" or republican is to the right of one of our politicians, what do you do? call him a socialist, there is a whole range of ideologies in between before you get there, life or politics isnt that straight forward.....I wish it was!

In the UK, we no longer have a party that can be called anything near socialist, lets call that a worlwide benchmark and not a US one

yeah thats exactly what it is like in all Europe

[ManofGod]

If I had to choose between these only, I would vote for McCain then. Sorry but I really do not like class warfare, everyone should get tax cuts. Of course, I voted for Ron Paul so that would make sense.

[Odin Eidolon]

Originally Posted by Bigjohn

Fair means "don't take what's not yours". To have a surrogate (the government) do it, is the same as doing it yourself.

Yes, it's about what's mine is mine. Why should I belive that the government knows better than I what to do with my money! Does some crackhead need the money more than my kids? IN my opinion, no... NO.

i think that i have already answered to this in my post you quoted. Selfishness and greed are the cancer of humanity.

[Odin Eidolon]

Originally Posted by CStylen

For future reference, which communist organization do you belong to?

Wiki: The proletariat (from Latin proles, "offspring") is a term used to identify a lower social class; a member of such a class is proletarian. Originally it was identified as those people who had no wealth other than their sons; the term was initially used in a derogatory sense, until Karl Marx used it as a sociological term to refer to the working class.

According to Marxism, capitalism is a system based on the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie (the "capitalists", who own and control the means of production). This exploitation takes place as follows: the workers, who own no means of production of their own, must seek jobs in order to live. They get hired by a capitalist and work for him, producing some sort of goods or services. These goods or services then become the property of the capitalist, who sells them and gets a certain amount of money in exchange. One part of the wealth produced is used to pay the workers' wages, while the other part (surplus value) is split between the capitalist's private takings (profit), and the money used to pay rent, buy supplies and renew the forces of production. Thus the capitalist can earn money (profit) from the work of his employees without actually doing any work, or in excess of his own work. Marxists argue that new wealth is created through work; therefore, if someone gains wealth that he did not work for, then someone else works and does not receive the full wealth created by his work. In other words, that "someone else" is exploited. Thus, Marxists argue that capitalists make a profit by exploiting workers.

The world atm is going exactly as you (and Marx) described...

[Tatty_One]

Originally Posted by Bigjohn

Fair means "don't take what's not yours". To have a surrogate (the government) do it, is the same as doing it yourself.

Yes, it's about what's mine is mine. Why should I belive that the government knows better than I what to do with my money! Does some crackhead need the money more than my kids? IN my opinion, no... NO.

I completely understand where you are coming from on this one.....however (you just knew there was going to be a "but"), using your theory, which I happen to agree with, who pays for all your public services, education (and in the UK, we have free healthcare) etc etc.

[proletariandan]

Originally Posted by CStylen

For future reference, which communist organization do you belong to?

None, actually. I took up Marxism on my own and haven't found/identified with any of the various socialist/communist sects in the US.

Originally Posted by Polaris573

Ah but the money gets collected by whom and goes to whom for what reason and in what amount for each reason? The Soviet Union failed because the same powerful elite, the bourgeois, that would run corporations in a capitalist society used the government to obtain more power and wealth to the detriment of the proletariat. In fact, one could argue that a communist economic system, no matter how well meaning, cannot possibly be fair for a large society. The large static bureaucracy cannot respond in an equitable fashion to all groups of people. At least in a capitalist society the abusive power is spread over numerous power bases instead of just one, and leaves room for new, more fair, power bases to arise for a short time until their eventual bureaucratic corruption. Not only this but in a fixed wage, communist, democracy/republic where it takes wealth to run for office in a large nation there is no room for advancement of the proletariat to voice their opinion on how the nation is run since they will never have the opportunity to generate the necessary capital to run for office. This has the effect of keeping the present members of the bureaucracy in power as well as their children, creating a hereditary oligarchy. It actually benefits the proletariat for the government to be a dictatorship so they can climb the ranks of the party and at least have a chance to run the government.

I dont idealize the USSR, especially after the Stalinists took power, but there were positive aspects that are usually ignored due to the crimes he and his followers committed. I'll just say this: Russia had no experience with bourgeois, liberal democracy; something that I think could have laid the groundwork for a more democratic communism. The vast majority of the population were uneducated and devastated by WW1, the Civil War (which is actually a misnomer considering dozens of countries including the US sent troops against the Bolsheviks), and WW2; not an environment mentally or physically conducive to the building of a socialist society. Lenin and Trotsky both knew the revolution could only be a step towards world revolution and that isolated, the Russians would likely fail.

Originally Posted by Polaris573

Of course there is always a question of should an engineer or doctor make more than someone that works in McDonalds? If you say yes then you are treating the two laborers inequitably just like in a capitalist society, nothing is solved. If you say no then what reason is there for someone to become a doctor when he/she can easily flip burgers and make the same amount of money. You can argue that doctors are driven individuals that want to help people and would not be satisfied doing anything else, but becoming a doctor is a brutal, brutal, process and a difficult job even after earning your MD. I don't know a single med-school student (rest assured I know a lot of them) that isn't there partially for the money. Same for engineers.

Communism is a wonderful ideal, it even works on a small scale. Applied full scale to a large economy and nation, it has never once worked. All socialist nations are capitalist/socialist hybrids, even china is becoming that way.

I agree. Marxism has ever argued for complete equality of wages; the 'to each according to his need' dictum assumes a distant future where exists such an abundance of production that there would be no need for stratified wages. Whether wages would be decided democratically by everyone in a society, community, or individual business - I don't think a janitor would have a problem giving a doctor or engineer many times his own wage - there has to be some material incentive, but of course public education, healthcare, transportation, communication, etc. would all be provided equally by the state.

I personally think that a modern 'hybrid economy' under a communist government would put the 'commanding heights' of the economy in the public realm (transportation, communication, hospitals, refineries, power plants, schools, laboratories, etc.) and would regulate but leave in private control small businesses that work better when not centrally managed. Cuba seems to be going in this direction economically; its a shame that political reform is blocked by (logically from a capitalist point of view) continuing US hostility and efforts at regime change.

There can be no hybrid socialism without the working class having political power; that was never the case in China. In the US, the bourgeois state intervenes in the economy to maintain an internal and external army to strengthen its hand against revolutions abroad and at home and to keep the working class appeased. Bourgeois state capitalism in the US (and China too) has more in common with fascism than Marxist socialism.

[Odin Eidolon]

Originally Posted by proletariandan

None, actually. I took up Marxism on my own and haven't found/identified with any of the various socialist/communist sects in the US.



I dont idealize the USSR, especially after the Stalinists took power, but there were positive aspects that are usually ignored due to the crimes he and his followers committed. I'll just say this: Russia had no experience with bourgeois, liberal democracy; something that I think could have laid the groundwork for a more democratic communism. The vast majority of the population were uneducated and devastated by WW1, the Civil War (which is actually a misnomer considering dozens of countries including the US sent troops against the Bolsheviks), and WW2; not an environment mentally or physically conducive to the building of a socialist society. Lenin and Trotsky both knew the revolution could only be a step towards world revolution and that isolated, the Russians would likely fail.



I agree. Marxism has ever argued for complete equality of wages; the 'to each according to his need' dictum assumes a distant future where exists such an abundance of production that there would be no need for stratified wages. Whether wages would be decided democratically by everyone in a society, community, or individual business - I don't think a janitor would have a problem giving a doctor or engineer many times his own wage - there has to be some material incentive, but of course public education, healthcare, transportation, communication, etc. would all be provided equally by the state.

I personally think that a modern 'hybrid economy' under a communist government would put the 'commanding heights' of the economy in the public realm (transportation, communication, hospitals, refineries, power plants, schools, laboratories, etc.) and would regulate but leave in private control small businesses that work better when not centrally managed. Cuba seems to be going in this direction economically; its a shame that political reform is blocked by (logically from a capitalist point of view) continuing US hostility and efforts at regime change.

There can be no hybrid socialism without the working class having political power; that was never the case in China. In the US, the bourgeois state intervenes in the economy to maintain an internal and external army to strengthen its hand against revolutions abroad and at home and to keep the working class appeased. Bourgeois state capitalism in the US (and China too) has more in common with fascism than Marxist socialism.

you couldnt say it better! Thats exactly what i was writing right now, but i realized that it was easier to quote your post

[Apocolypse007]

a well documented article from rolling stone that shows why John is not the Maverick (I'm so tired of hearing that word) that he says he is:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto...maverick/print

[trt740]

what do you think. I will keep my thought to myself for now, but what do you think. These are very conservative Christian leaders in the USA speaking on Obama, so be nice even if you don't like this but what do you think all ideas are welcome, but don't get crazy. I do understand some people are not religious here and don't believe religion should be a issue in this election, and thats fine but express your opinion like an adult. As disclosure I am very religious but don't assume I agree with this video. I just thought it might spark some interesting adult and respectful debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pG5jUFDwWs

[TUngsten]

Originally Posted by trt740

what do you think. I will keep my thought to myself for now, but what do you think. These are very conservative Christian leaders in the USA speaking on Obama, so be nice even if you don't like this but what do you think all ideas are welcome, but don't get crazy. I do understand some people are not religious here and don't believe religion should be a issue in this election, and thats fine but express your opinion like an adult. As disclosure I am very religious but don't assume I agree with this video. I just thought it might spark some interesting adult and respectful debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pG5jUFDwWs

a) Fox News...we all know it's a conservative right-wing propaganda machine
b) we have no idea what Obama said that they are supposedly referring to, as there was only a few seconds of him speaking, and from what I can tell his comments were taken totally out of context as fuel for right-wing manipulation...
c) who cares what the religious right think anyway? I don't...
d) there's nothing in that video that says a single substantive thing about anything Obama's actually said
e) again, there's not a single thing in that video that goes beyond the opinions of a few right-wing commentators, no facts, no nothing

[trt740]

Originally Posted by TUngsten

a) Fox News...we all know it's a conservative right-wing propaganda machine
b) we have no idea what Obama said that they are supposedly referring to, as there was only a few seconds of him speaking, and from what I can tell his comments were taken totally out of context as fuel for right-wing manipulation...
c) who cares what the religious right think anyway? I don't...
d) there's nothing in that video that says a single substantive thing about anything Obama's actually said
e) again, there's not a single thing in that video that goes beyond the opinions of a few right-wing commentators, no facts, no nothing

You have to have a right and a left opinion so you can find the middle ground. Although I don't agree with all that you said thx for stating what you believe. Obamas comment were not taken out of context , but I'm not sure he said too much wrong, but then again some of what he said does trouble me a bit.


I deleted the other post because it was just too unfair and i'm not about that.