Obama's Candidacy

russ_watters

I don't "like" it any more than I "like" gravity. It isn't in and of itself bad or good, it just is. Defining it as "bad" carries with it the implication that a country with more equality is automatically better than one with less even if every single person in the unequal country is richer than anyone in the more equal one. Its beyond silly to focus on inequality in a vacuum.
Wow, extremist socialists think moderate socialists are actually on the other side of the fence?

Not sure why you even want to pretend like I'm doing some unfair labeling here: you referenced socialism pretty much by name in your post.

Angry Citizen

Righty-oh then. If you believe the disparity in overall wealth between the US and, say, Norway is so great as to nullify Norway's huge advantage in terms of income equality, then that's your right - but it's wrong.

No I didn't. Do I suggest government control of the means of production? No? Guess I'm not a socialist then, or even a 'moderate' socialist... I'm a social democrat. I believe in a roughly even mix of 'capitalism' and 'socialism'. It has been seen throughout western Europe as an ideal system. The more a country moves from that ideal, the more it risks falling into economic devastation. The western European nations you would denounce are actually doing much better than we are; and again, we have a significantly more right-wing economy.

russ_watters

What I believe is that the differences in quality of life between most first world nations are too small and reasons too different to be easily distinguished. But when comparing countries with larger wealth disparities, income inequality quickly become meaningless. For example, the US and China have identical income inequalities, yet the US has 6x the per capita GDP. Poverty rates in the two countries are so different as to be impossible to compare. Stop playing games. The "socialized" in "socialized medicine" medicine is a reference to socialism and acknowledging that you prefer a mix of socialism and capitalism is a reflection of your belief in some socialistic policies. There was absolutely nothing wrong with my characterization. At the same time, your rejection of the idea (unsolicited) that you are a "moderate socialist" while labeling yourself to be almost in the middle is disingenuous. A moderate anything is a person who is just toward that side of a two sided spectrum. If you're just to the left of center, you're a moderate socialist. If you're just to the right (doubt it), you're a moderate capitalist. But the difference between the two when you're almost exactly in the center (assuming you really are) is virtually nonexistent.

Moreover, you do suggest government control over some some industries, so unless you intend to play more word games with what "production" is your support of socialized medicine most certainly is a socialistic position of yours. You mean until it collapses under its own weight? Regardless, opinions are opinions and you're entitled to believe it is an ideal system regardless of evidence or logical basis. I'm not denouncing anyone and again, "better" is a matter of opinion and definition (in your case, a recursive one). Please stop with the propaganda language.

Angry Citizen

Okay. I guess you've never been an uninsured diabetic like me, who, without socialized medicine, would have to pay some five hundred dollars monthly for insulin and needles and test strips. That's a huge quality of life change, and is just one example where America and non-America differ significantly.

Chile is a great example in which laissez-faire economics collapses under its own weight, and Keynesian economics comes to the rescue. Western Europe is not 'collapsing under its own weight'. The Eurozone debt per capita average is twenty percent less than ours, while maintaining significant advantages in quality of life and a much more stable unemployment roster. I will not deny that countries like Greece are in it deep, but much of that has to do with the fact that these countries did not follow Keynesian economics. The debt must actually be paid down in times of plenty. It wasn't. Sucks for those countries - maybe if it weren't for the neo-liberal revolution that has taken place since Reagan?

WhoWee

Angry Citizen - I'm a bit confused with your postings about the benefits of Socialism in a thread titled "Obama's Candidacy" - how is this on topic? What does the defense of Socialism have to do with President Obama?

WhoWee

This recent CNN piece speaks for itself-IMO.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news...ax_rich_jesus/

"Obama: Jesus would back my tax-the-rich policy"


(Apparently the President's proposed tax strategy is faith based?)

mheslep

Owned? Half? That went out 20-30 years ago. I suppose the UK's NHS (several million employees) constitutes a high fraction of the UK economy.

mheslep

What happened to "We don't have socialized medicine". Seems clear to me that US medicine is at least half socialized - Medicare, Medicaid, and Veteran's being government single payer systems (and unsustainable).

WhoWee

Not to wander too far off topic - BUT - Medicare sets the standards for all medical billing and insurance reimbursement. I'm still trying to figure out why we are discussing Socialism in this thread about President Obama's Candidacy?

Char. Limit

Nice point. He's not a socialist, after all.

Well, if it works for the Republicans to claim that their tax strategies have God's will behind them, might as well try the same, right?

/facetiousness

MarcoD

Clearly a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. It's now the same with tax laws, of course.

WhoWee

I'm not certain what the discussion of a monarch has to do with President Obama's Candidacy either?

Number Nine

I interpreted that as a response to christian conservative leaders who apply "biblical" arguments in favour of the tax cuts and the free-market; a "**** you" of sorts to his opponents.

MarcoD

Excuses. I have to watch my mouth sometimes. I just found the similarity of the arguments of divine monarchy and 'divine taxation' striking.

And in a funny thought, wouldn't that be something, to have Romney as king. The United Kingdom of the Americas!

Forget it, back on topic to Obama, please.

Pythagorean

Yeah.. it was an obvious backhanded comment. It's very Obama-like. Any argument that it was actually faith-based is either ignorant or deceitful. Ignorance is easy to forgive. I'm pretty ignorant about politics, myself. Social sciences are vastly complex!

WhoWee

I think the statement was a bit arrogant and dismissive of religious folk - might come back to hurt him?

On the other hand, it's possible he was speaking from the heart (he did spend 20 years in Rev Wright's church in Chicago) and we got a quick look under the tent and now understand the President makes decisions based on his religious beliefs. The alternative is not very nice - is it?

Char. Limit

I don't think it matters that much. Religious people already seem to think Obama's a bad candidate - at least, every religious person I've seen on TV and in the news seems to think that.