Now, tell me... How has semi-socialism worked for this country? What country does full socialism work for? Cuba? Venezuela?

I don't get what Denmark has to do with anything. Your defense budget stuff was just rambling nonsense, and you think that we should model our government after Denmark because the people of Denmark are happy according to some study? That's an excellent arguement for socialism.

Obama's a lite-socialist.

The reason Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are relevant to the credit crisis is because banks knew that if and when the entire thing came falling down, the government would come bail them out. And look what happened! The government came and bailed them out.

So add some soviet style to it. Let them know that if it came falling down, they'll go to jail, but the company would be bailed out. Something along those lines. At the very least, that they'd be unemployed. As I said, there are many methods of intervention, and the US isn't doing the greatest one.

US government doesn't know how to handle socialism at any level. I gave you a solution answering the quote right above which takes away all the downsides of socialism in the bailout context. As for what country full socialism works for: China. And, for fifty years, the Soviet Union, but they really did it poorly. They literally subscribed to that 'Everyone's equal'. Except the heads of the communist party and the KGB, but it was enough. Should've still based pay on how much work they did, and the Soviet Union would still be present today. It was horridly inefficient. Especially the agricultural sector. Now, China, they mixed capitalist elements, such as getting paid for what you do, into communism, and voila, 10% annual growth rate. Until this crisis.

It is. Look at all the advantages the US had to little Denmark, and look what mixing a bit of socialism into that country did. You can say that comparisons between countries don't make sense, but that's not the way I see it.

Look at Hong Kong. They managed to become extremely wealthy with absolutely no land area. Like Denmark, they haven't been attacked by any country in a long time. They chose capitalism, low taxes, and low regulations and became prosperous.

The wealthy of Hong Kong are prosperous. Over 80% of the city's population are poor or lower middle class.

When McCain goes on and on about Obama "spreading the wealth around," I can't help but think that that sounds good to a lot of people.

Their population is 1.5 million larger than Denmark, their economy roughly the same. However: They don't fit into the 20 top happiest countries list. See my point here? They compete in other areas, and even then, not very well, but the happiness blows 'em away. Gogo Denmark. And proper socialism. And semi-socialism.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Oct 30 2008, 12:49 am by Centreri.

What exactly did you do to earn someone else's money?

@Centreri:My point about Hong Kong is that they are so very tiny. They still managed to become a wealthy nation. Imagine if such a model was applied to a country bigger than a city.

... What aren't you getting? Capitalist Hong Kong is, population-wise, slightly greater then that of semi-socialist Denmark. Denmark has less people to add to work on the GDP, but it maintains the same GDP as Hong Kong and has very happy people. Imagine if such a model was applied to a bigger country.

To put it simply, my semi-socialist representative (Denmark) kicks your capitalist representative's (Hong Kong) ass . Feel free to bring up a similar-size (population-wise) capitalistic representative for a rematch. My Denmark will win!

What did poor and homeless people do to be born into poverty, malnutrition and poor education? What did the rich do to be born into trust funds, guaranteed college educations and wealth?

Either everybody should have to work their way up, or nobody should.

Trying to force life to be fair makes it even less fair and to more people.

Once again. I'm not rich, I'm poor ($30,000 Family Income of house of 6). But I don't find it fair that people who worked hard to get a high salary or invested a lot of their time should pay a lot more taxes.

Let's all remember the infamous quote by billionaire Leona Helmsley: "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes..."

Yeah, can anyone really argue that Warren Buffet worked harder than my friend's dad who works 10 hour shifts at a railroad station welding stuff together? I'm not saying everyone needs to make the same amount, but I wouldn't mind seeing the rich folks "suffer" a little bit to allow the commoners to get basic health insurance and the ability to keep the heat above 58 degrees in the winter. Considering that people like Warren Buffet ultimately draw their wealth from 95% of the population, isn't it fair that the lower classes get some return for some nearly-slave level labor to these deplorably rich folks? We can argue class differences all you want, but the very basic idea of not taxing rich folks more doesn't sit well with me. It's funny in a way but more sad than anything else that Republicans have been largely able to sell the idea that any socialistic tenets are inherently evil, considering that a large portion of the Republican base is composed of hard working Americans who would benefit from such a system that implemented some sort of compromise between definition-level capitalism and equality. They fail to grasp that "sharing the wealth" probably wouldn't take wealth away from them (statistically speaking). Even when you specifically are taxed right now, just think about all of the great programs that are funded (and while there are problems, the basic ideal has the best moral compass of any social system, and it has been pretty stable for many years).

I asked a Republican friend today what being an American means to her, and she replied, "It just means I was born here." Fox News and many Republican politicians tell us that conservatives are the most patriotic Americans because they are all about guns, religion, and serving in the military. Why then can't Republicans preach the American dream about equality and freedom and justice? They spit out some half-assed fear-mongering catchphrases like socialism and expect everyone to fall into line. I for one am tired of being labeled as unpatriotic simply because I believe there are more important rights to defend in the country than the right to own guns. I had one Republican (another friend) tell me that he thinks that people should be allowed to own assault rifles (at one point, he even argued about explosives and sniper rifles) just in "case" the military turns against us. Of course, making our soldiers take an oath to uphold the Constitution and all that jazz seems to be more useful than allowing every nutjob in the world to own a bazooka. God forbid that you call yourself anything other than Christian either. It's sad that politicians actually need to defend themselves on the basis of their religions. Lastly, some of us just don't believe in military service, at least for ourselves, believing that we can better serve our nation in other respects.

I am voting for Obama because he is inspirational, and he has actually instilled in me a sense of new hope for this country. I really don't need to defend myself to any of you, but Obama feels like a leader, somebody who can lead the entire nation without having 70% of Americans dislike him. It's the first time in my life that I've felt this way. If some of my points are loose, it's because I am pretty tired by this point.

Being lazy and not giving a damn. There are sooo many ways to getting out of this it's not even funny. All it takes is a little effort.
Well this depends. If you turn into a normal live living, hard working person with a good attitude that's that. However, if by rare chance you turn into one of those snobs and jackasses who just horde up money (And note, there is a HUGE and FUNDAMENTAL difference between "saving" money and "hording" money. One of those few things I've learned in macro economics ) then i see a problem.
Exactly. However, I don't think "redistributing the wealth" translates to "everybody should have to work their way up." This is the only minor problem i have with Obama. At least the way he makes it sound.


I'm not totally against the idea of taxing the rich a little more as IMO it's just one of those fundamental parts of nature; the more money you have, the more you're bound to give up. However, some of the attitudes I get from both sides of this issue are disgusting

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Oct 31 2008, 3:47 pm by MillenniumArmy.

I hope you guys know Obama and McCain are alike. Both want to give subsidies to huge corporations that makes billions of dollars.

False. A carefully administered income tax that increases greatly in % given as a person goes into the millions and hundreds of millions won't be 'to more people'.
He said 'being born' into it. It's possible to get out, but its much, much more difficult then if you were born into a proper family. Honestly, though, I blame American 'culture' for those who don't really try to get out.

Look up what a Russian Oligarch is. Billions of dollars pretty much stolen. There should be no billionaires, let alone those who do it without providing the people with anything.
If I disgusted you in any way, pl0x elaborate. CHINAMAN.
Even if so, I like the rest of Obama's ideas better. He looks like someone who will actually get some rational talk going with the rest of the world, rather than being like Bush, saying 'No one invades soveriegn countries in the 21st century'. I mean, that's just retarded, and McCain cut from the same cloth.

Let's talk about character for a minute. Doesn't Obama just come off as much more presidential? I mentioned this earlier, but I'll repeat: this is the first time that I've actually felt like a candidate for president is a genuine leader, somebody who I respect and will look to when times are tough. John McCain feels like a politician, but he does not feel like a leader. The president shouldn't be an empty suit, and that's why I want a change from the past 8 years.

@Centreri: "Happiness" is not a good measure of what an economic and political system should be like. We both know money doesn't buy happiness. And there is the question of cultural differences. This is a two-fold effect on "happiness". First, the meaning in english may not be exactly the same as in German or French. Second, the meaning of happiness changes in different cultures. To different people, happiness is different things. The Danish may find happiness in things Americans don't.

...
Okay, find a difference between happiness in Danish and happiness in English. Why is happiness not a good measure of what an economic/political system should be like? What better measure of the best system is there, then happiness? As for cultural differences, I think you just insulted American culture (something which I think doesn't really exist, actually - just hot dogs and burgers). Time to change America's culture, then? Because that's largely controlled by the state. The state influences the media which almost single-handedly shapes American 'culture'. Or, at the very least, being the state, it has the power to influence the media.

When you find a better meter to gauge the success of a state then the happiness of the people, let me know.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 1 2008, 3:28 am by Centreri.

I give up. You are actually stupid enough to think that American culture is "just hot dogs and burgers". Lets say the researchers were French, and they wanted to compare happiness in America to happiness in France. When they go to America, how do they ask people how happy they are? There are many synonyms for happinss in the English language. If they use elated, they will be more negative answers than if they had used content. Which English word is a direct equivalent for the French word they used?
Lets say an American has everything a French guy does. The French guy says he's happy, but the American says he isn't. This is because they have different views on happiness due to the culture they live in and grew up in.

Mc Cain doesn't have as good of a background, Obama graduated first in his class at harvard or something like that, whereas Mc Cain is an ex soldier. So it comes down to, are you going to choose the smarter one, or the white one?