News The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[vertices]

First, this question is laughable on its face. The fact is that Obama/Democrats believe managing/controlling/regulating the economy is the role of government.

Then please do evidence this 'fact'. And BTW news flash: most goverments with successful economies DO "manage/control/regulate" them. Has the current economic crisis taught us nothing? You seem to be staunchly advocating an extreme version of capitalism (devoid of any regulation) and anything outside this narrow definition is, to you, "socialism". To call Obama a socialist would be laughable if it wasn't so dishonest.

That's what socialism means at its core.

Erm no, socialism advocates the common ownership of the means of production. That's what it is at its core. Please explain how Obama has advocated anything of the sort? And please explain why he has 'similar socialist economic policies' to Hitler and Lenin?

Second, unless you deny that Tea party members tend to consider the economic policies of Obama/Democrats to be socialist, it's only relevant that they do, not whether you do.

Hey people can believe what they want to believe, but don't you think there is a problem when you have this horde of people, who've beliefs that are largely based on distorted ideas or untruths, spreading their unbelievably stupid ideas and untruths like wildfire. They literally have a large part of the country believing that Obama is this manic socialist who wants to kill your grandma.

There is no reason for you to pretend that you had no idea that right-wingers oppose government control of the economy (socialism).Fabricating allegations of racism with no basis might work with the idiots that fall for that kind of hate mongering, but you have provided no reason to suspect that has any basis in reality. Do you have any evidence that racism has anything to do with it?

Ofcourse there is no evidence. These days, overt racism is plainly unacceptable - it has to be subtle and there always has to be plausibility deniability. The ad isn't racist on the face of it but that's why context is ever so important. Even if was about socialism, they could have used images of Chairman Mao, Marx, etc. but no, they had to go with the worst racist eva.

Ad hominem arguments are a well known logical fallacy... This forum is for debate, not the propagation of hatespeech.

Irrrunnny

A term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. The term covers written as well as oral communication.

 

[Al68]

Then please do evidence this 'fact'.

OK, I'll use a recent "news flash" I just read:

And BTW news flash: most goverments with successful economies DO "manage/control/regulate" them.

Has the current economic crisis taught us nothing?

Apparently not, since many have been convinced that the solution is more of the (socialist) policies that caused the problems. But that has been discussed extensively in other threads, and I don't want to sidetrack this one.

You seem to be staunchly advocating an extreme version of capitalism (devoid of any regulation) and anything outside this narrow definition is, to you, "socialism".

A mixed economy is a mix of capitalism and socialism, by definition. The U.S. is a mixed economy. Using the word socialism to describe policies that shift the mix toward the socialist end is hardly a stretch. And despite repeated requests in other threads, no one on this forum has offered a different choice of a word to describe such policies other than socialist. You got one?

As far as my classically liberal economic views, sure they are considered extreme by some. But in the words of Barry Goldwater: "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice".

Erm no, socialism advocates the common ownership of the means of production. That's what it is at its core.

That's ownership and control, according to the dictionary. But ownership by definition is the right to control, so there's not much difference.

Please explain how Obama has advocated anything of the sort?

He's advocated greater government control of the economy.

Ofcourse there is no evidence.

So you admit that you can't substantiate your claim. I assume you will retract it, then, since unsubstantiated claims have no place in legitimate debate?

These days, overt racism is plainly unacceptable - it has to be subtle and there always has to be plausibility deniability.

Oh, I see. So then, do you deny your racist motives for bashing Tea party members? People using the word racist as freely as you do is why it's considered the equivalent of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. We still have real racists in this country, but referring to anyone who dares disagree with a Democrat as a racist provides them ample cover.

The ad isn't racist on the face of it but that's why context is ever so important.

So now the ad isn't racist, but the people who made it are? That's a textbook example of an ad hominem logical fallacy. If you consider the other guy's motives to be relevant to the issue, you've already lost the legitimate argument.

BTW, do you mean the context of virtually identical ads used against Clinton?

Even if was about socialism, they could have used images of Chairman Mao, Marx, etc. but no, they had to go with the worst racist eva.

So, if the ad used Mao instead of Hitler, you'd have no problem with it?

Why can't you just say you don't like the ad because whatever economic beliefs Obama may have in common with Hitler are insignificant compared to what Hitler is most notorious for?

 

[vertices]

OK, I'll use a recent "news flash" I just read:

You didn't answer the question. I asked you to evidence the "fact that Obama/Democrats believe managing/controlling/regulating the economy is the role of government".

A mixed economy is a mix of capitalism and socialism, by definition. The U.S. is a mixed economy. Using the word socialism to describe policies that shift the mix toward the socialist end is hardly a stretch. And despite repeated requests in other threads, no one on this forum has offered a different choice of a word to describe such policies other than socialist. You got one?

How about Keynesian?

I recently had the misfortune of being stabbed by a 1 year old with a plastic fork(!) - saying that Obama is lurching toward socialism is a bit like saying that kid will grow up to be a proper psychopath. You seem to think that Obama is inching closer to getting rid of financial markets altogether and transforming the US into agrarian society, where everyone is equal. Sure, Obama is relatively left wing compared with other Presidents, but being left wing isn't the same as being socialist(!)

As far as my classically liberal economic views, sure they are considered extreme by some. But in the words of Barry Goldwater: "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice".

Ironic. There is a reason why there has only ever been one truly "classically liberal" economy - that of Chile under Pinochet. This is because such "goverments" are inherently undemocratic and thus unsustainable, ie. they deny people their liberties.

That's ownership and control, according to the dictionary. But ownership by definition is the right to control, so there's not much difference. He's advocated greater government control of the economy.

Please evidence the bit in bold. Obama is on record as stating otherwise - I remember him saying that the "public option" was against American ideals (I'll post a link if you want me to) and ruled it out altogether.

We still have real racists in this country, but referring to anyone who dares disagree with a Democrat as a racist provides them ample cover.

When did I do that?

So now the ad isn't racist, but the people who made it are?

When did I say that?

BTW, do you mean the context of virtually identical ads used against Clinton?So, if the ad used Mao instead of Hitler, you'd have no problem with it?

Clinton was not black. If Mao was used, the ad would simply be (if we are charitable) extreme hyperbole, with no sinister undertones. The Hitler comparison is just twisted for the (obvious) reasons I've mentioned several times already.

In any case, it's not about what problem I have with it. To me, what's worrying, is that you've got this anti-democratic force spewing shameless, inflammatory propaganda, in the hope of undermining a government that is trying its best to clean the up the carnage left behind by the previous administration. Carnage that was 'made in America' but effects innocent bystanders outside America.

Why can't you just say you don't like the ad because whatever economic beliefs Obama may have in common with Hitler are insignificant compared to what Hitler is most notorious for?

Isn't that what I have said:

This guy [Hitler] committed a friggin genocide against millions of people on the basis of his racist ideals, and you think this was just 'incidental' to his 'Socialist' agenda? Are you kidding me?

 

[NeoDevin]

The right seems to assume that the left calls everyone who disagrees with Obama a racist. While some on the left do this, it is far from the norm (in my experience).

People on the right, however, seem to make the assumption that people who disagree with Obama do so for the same reasons they themselves do, and are not racist. You can disagree with Obama for perfectly rational and acceptable reasons, while someone else can disagree with him because they are racist. The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.

 

[mheslep]

Pray tell, which of Obama's economic policies are even remotely socialist?

Just catching this one. Try: government ownership of the country's largest automotive company GM, 2nd largest in the world, at a cost of $60B , is textbook socialism.

 

[Al68]

I asked you to evidence the "fact that Obama/Democrats believe managing/controlling/regulating the economy is the role of government".

Are you joking with this? Are you seriously asking me to prove that Democrats favor government economic regulation? Are you suggesting that they are "extremists" like me that believe in an unregulated free market?

saying that Obama is lurching toward socialism is a bit like saying that kid will grow up to be a proper psychopath.

Nonsense. You know I'm not using the word socialist to refer to your specific narrow concept of it. I'm using it in a general sense to refer to policies similar to the agendas of historical self-described socialists. Why the objection to the word "socialist", anyway? It's just a word. No one is being mislead by my use of it. And still, I'm unaware of a suitable alternative other than a detailed description of the policies referred to.

There is a reason why there has only ever been one truly "classically liberal" economy - that of Chile under Pinochet.

The U.S. was about as close as any at one time.

This is because such "goverments" are inherently undemocratic and thus unsustainable, ie. they deny people their liberties.

That isn't logically coherent. A classically liberal economy isn't a type of government. It's a type of economy that results from economic liberty. It's defining feature is individual liberty.

He's advocated greater government control of the economy.

Please evidence the bit in bold. Obama is on record as stating otherwise - I remember him saying that the "public option" was against American ideals (I'll post a link if you want me to) and ruled it out altogether.

So is Obamacare. And Obamacare is obviously "greater government control of the economy". Why do you refer to me as extreme for being against the very things you try to deny Democrats are for?

So now the ad isn't racist, but the people who made it are?

When did I say that?

Are you joking? Which part:

The ad isn't racist on the face of it...

You see, the people who came up with that ad had to attach a theme to the images, otherwise the racism would have been too obvious.

 

[vertices]

Just catching this one. Try: government ownership of the country's largest automotive company GM, 2nd largest in the world, at a cost of $60B , is textbook socialism.

Erm, there is nothing "socialist" about governments taking control of businesses that would otherwise go 'belly up'. It's just good governance that you'd expect in most mixed economies. Just out of interest, how would you describe Bush's policy of bailing out of the banks?

By stopping GM from going out of business, what Obama did was to save capitalism from itself. He averted the collapse of the financial markets, but more importantly, he saved millions of jobs. Detroit would have been a ghost town if it wasn't for his actions.

He knew this was the right call to make, and despite the barrage of senseless propaganda hurled at him, he stood his ground. He showed real leadership here.

 

[vertices]

Are you joking with this? Are you seriously asking me to prove that Democrats favor government economic regulation? Are you suggesting that they are "extremists" like me that believe in an unregulated free market?

Yes. When have they explicitly said that they believe it is their role to control or even manage the economy?

Nonsense. You know I'm not using the word socialist to refer to your specific narrow concept of it. I'm using it in a general sense to refer to policies similar to the agendas of historical self-described socialists.

You still seem, despite several requests, very reluctant to tell me which of Obama's policies are "socialist"?

And "general sense"? Good that you've started to qualify that assertion.

Why the objection to the word "socialist", anyway? It's just a word. No one is being mislead by my use of it. And still, I'm unaware of a suitable alternative other than a detailed description of the policies referred to.

You can call it what you like. Don't mean it's an accurate description of his policies tho. I have suggested suitable alternatives, such as "Keynesian" or even "left wing". Again, maybe if you could shed more light on which policies you think are socialist...

That isn't logically coherent. A classically liberal economy isn't a type of government. It's a type of economy that results from economic liberty. It's defining feature is individual liberty.

but unfettered markets are inherently inefficient, which essentially means they deny individual liberty.

So is Obamacare. And Obamacare is obviously "greater government control of the economy". Why do you refer to me as extreme for being against the very things you try to deny Democrats are for?Are you joking? Which part:

Then you would obviously be able to substantiate this claim. It is demonstrably false though - mandating health insurance will provide the insurance industry with 50 million new customers - are you seriously saying Obama will controlling the insurance industry? (Again, I note the use of the comparative, "greater" ).

Are you joking? Which part:

You've had a comprehension issue. Note the difference between 'the' and 'their'.

I so happen to think people the people who came up with the ad are probably not racist, sexist, homophobic or bigoted in anyway. Having said that, they do clearly have an agenda against Obama, and the ad was probably designed to evoke a reaction from those in the Tea Party who are bigoted.

 

[yungman]

Obama has 'similar socialist economic policies' to Hitler and Lenin?

Pray tell, which of Obama's economic policies are even remotely socialist?

You see, the people who came up with that ad had to attach a theme to the images, otherwise the racism would have been too obvious. They chose "socialism", knowing full well the comparison was just absurd..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNJsTjblC-Y&feature=search

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcJvOnCD1ls&feature=search

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvGsWQ69Tzk&feature=search

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlxKxKwyfX0&feature=search

HC bill cut $500 billion from medicare and increase medicaid.

Pledge $100 billion to help third world nations to reduce polution.

 

[vertices]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNJsTjblC-Y&feature=search

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcJvOnCD1ls&feature=search

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvGsWQ69Tzk&feature=search

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlxKxKwyfX0&feature=search

HC bill cut $500 billion from medicare and increase medicaid.

Pledge $100 billion to help third world nations to reduce polution.

So where did Obama say he wanted to take control of the economy?

 

[yungman]

So where did Obama say he wanted to take control of the economy?

Bank bailout, GM and Crysler, Government control health care, cap and trade.

 

[yungman]

Well it is simply not politically feasible for him reverse many of the morally contemptible policies of the Bush administration (eg. there are issues of where to settle innocent Guantanemo detainees-it would political suicide to do the right thing, ie. grant them residency in the US). But to give him credit, the first thing he did in office was to find ways to close down Guantanemo. And he has affirmed his commitment to human rights (he is on record as saying that torture is wrong), and he hasn't waged wars of aggression or unashamedly scapegoated muslims, nor is he obsessed with national security, etc. etc...

Look like Bush tax is not that bad to him after all. He might extend Bush tax that he so trash in his campaign.


This guy committed a friggin genocide against millions of people on the basis of his racist ideals, and you think this was just 'incidental' to his 'Socialist' agenda? Are you kidding me?

Can you honestly see no problem in comparing America's first black President (and what he symbolises) to the most powerful, racist person, ever?

What is the difference whether he is the first black president. Last I check we are for racial equality, the color of the skin makes not difference. If he is a bad president, call it as it is.

This sentence sound racist to me. Are we for the best person that can do the job or are we just for a black president? Can we not critize obama because he is a black president?

Facist and socialist have a lot in common. They both are for government control, government provide for the people.

 

[mheslep]

Erm, there is nothing "socialist" about governments taking control of businesses that would otherwise go 'belly up'.

Then you don't understand the term.

It's just good governance that you'd expect in most mixed economies. Just out of interest, how would you describe Bush's policy of bailing out of the banks?

By stopping GM from going out of business, what Obama did was to save capitalism from itself. He averted the collapse of the financial markets, but more importantly, he saved millions of jobs. Detroit would have been a ghost town if it wasn't for his actions.

He knew this was the right call to make, and despite the barrage of senseless propaganda hurled at him, he stood his ground. He showed real leadership here.

The reasons why Obama bought out GM, good or bad, are another issue. Government ownership of the means of production by this government or any other is textbook socialism! I'd don't say that this by itself means Obama is overall a socialist, or intends socialism for the entire economy, but this particular action was.

 

[turbo]

The reasons why Obama bought out GM, good or bad, are another issue. Government ownership of the means of production by this government or any other is textbook socialism! I'd don't say that this by itself means Obama is overall a socialist, or intends socialism for the entire economy, but this particular action was.

So were loan guarantees that bailed out Chrysler "socialism"? It seems to me that keeping American jobs and healthy competition in American industrial production is a national security issue worth investing in.

Have the actions of the Fed (keeping prime rates artificially low for decades) risen to your definition of "socialism"? Certainly, people like myself who have saved all our lives have taken it in the neck (no interest on our savings) to keep Wall Street happy. The Tea Party is very free and loose with their insults and their lack of definitions for the terms thrown about in the course of their insults. They may have damaged the Maine GOP irreparably by hijacking the GOP party platform earlier this year. Maine voters tend to be pretty independent, and will reject any candidate that hews to radical ideologies. Senators Collins and Snowe can probably ride out the Tea Party tide, but other candidates will be painted by the neo-con party platform and will be forced on the defensive. A two-party system works OK here, but when one party can be attacked because of the radical nuts that inhabit it, the system will break down. Not good.

I am a political conservative who doesn't agree with giving away the farm to big businesses, banks, etc. They need to be regulated and overseen and not allowed to control our economy. Intervention, however, should be reserved for clear-cut issues of "common good", IMO (saving jobs, saving domestic manufacturing capacity among them). Neo-cons have turned common sense on its head and the GOP has followed in lock-step, creating a perverse atmosphere in which businesses "should" be allowed to do as they wish, and the benefits will "trickle down" on the populace. Now we have a "Tea Party" movement rallied by FOX and its allies that is strident and remains to the right of the GOP. The divisiveness and lack of substance is destructive, though it makes for good copy come time for the news.

 

[vertices]

Erm, there is nothing "socialist" about governments taking control of businesses that would otherwise go 'belly up'.

Then you don't understand the term.

The bit is bold is the key. I hate bandying around terms such as these but in the interests of concision, Obama was being state capitalist when he bailed out GM.

The reasons why Obama bought out GM, good or bad, are another issue. Government ownership of the means of production by this government or any other is textbook socialism! I'd don't say that this by itself means Obama is overall a socialist, or intends socialism for the entire economy, but this particular action was.

As I mentioned before, Obama acted to save capitalism from itself. You see, a market economy, with its serious systematic inefficiencies, can not just correct itself without government intervention.

 

[yungman]

I think the Tea Party is the best thing happen to this country. Both party are so deep involve in the corruptions. It has been business as usual for a long time. Democrats are hijacked by the progressives, both party pander votes from hispanics and now we have the big illegal problem.

Tea Party is not really a party. It is make up of ordinary people that usually quiet and mine their own business. They only rise up when they see the amministration is going in the wrong direction. This is a grass root organization that is a spontaneous movement.

We are in deep trouble, we cannot be business as usual. You see what the democrats did in the last two years and we had Republican in control for a long time. There's a big problem with both particular the democrats.

 

[Galteeth]

Here is something Ron Paul wrote that might be useful for the discussion.
Socialism vs Corporatism

by Ron Paul

Lately many have characterized this administration as socialist, or having strong socialist leanings. I differ with this characterization. This is not to say Mr. Obama believes in free-markets by any means. On the contrary, he has done and said much that demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding and hostility towards the truly free market. But a closer, honest examination of his policies and actions in office reveals that, much like the previous administration, he is very much a corporatist. This in many ways can be more insidious and worse than being an outright socialist.

Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers.

A careful examination of the policies pursued by the Obama administration and his allies in Congress shows that their agenda is corporatist. For example, the health care bill that recently passed does not establish a Canadian-style government-run single payer health care system. Instead, it relies on mandates forcing every American to purchase private health insurance or pay a fine. It also includes subsidies for low-income Americans and government-run health care “exchanges”. Contrary to the claims of the proponents of the health care bill, large insurance and pharmaceutical companies were enthusiastic supporters of many provisions of this legislation because they knew in the end their bottom lines would be enriched by Obamacare.

Similarly, Obama’s “cap-and-trade” legislation provides subsidies and specials privileges to large businesses that engage in “carbon trading.” This is why large corporations, such as General Electric support cap-and-trade.

To call the President a corporatist is not to soft-pedal criticism of his administration. It is merely a more accurate description of the President’s agenda.

When he is a called a socialist, the President and his defenders can easily deflect that charge by pointing out that the historical meaning of socialism is government ownership of industry; under the President’s policies, industry remains in nominally private hands. Using the more accurate term – corporatism – forces the President to defend his policies that increase government control of private industries and expand de facto subsidies to big businesses. This also promotes the understanding that though the current system may not be pure socialism, neither is it free-market since government controls the private sector through taxes, regulations, and subsidies, and has done so for decades.

Using precise terms can prevent future statists from successfully blaming the inevitable failure of their programs on the remnants of the free market that are still allowed to exist. We must not allow the disastrous results of corporatism to be ascribed incorrectly to free market capitalism or used as a justification for more government expansion. Most importantly, we must learn what freedom really is and educate others on how infringements on our economic liberties caused our economic woes in the first place. Government is the problem; it cannot be the solution.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-04-25/obama-is-a-corporatist/

 

[turbo]

I think the Tea Party is the best thing happen to this country. Both party are so deep involve in the corruptions. It has been business as usual for a long time. Democrats are hijacked by the progressives, both party pander votes from hispanics and now we have the big illegal problem.

Tea Party is not really a party. It is make up of ordinary people that usually quiet and mine their own business. They only rise up when they see the amministration is going in the wrong direction. This is a grass root organization that is a spontaneous movement.

We are in deep trouble, we cannot be business as usual. You see what the democrats did in the last two years and we had Republican in control for a long time. There's a big problem with both particular the democrats.

Do you live in the US? Do you speak English fluently? I'm not trying to us an ad-hom argument, but your last post belies both of my questions.

 

[mheslep]

So were loan guarantees that bailed out Chrysler "socialism"?

If you think I'm somehow singling out Obama from Bush, you're mistaken. To the extent the action meet's the definition I posted above: "Government ownership of the means of production" the action is socialism. Loans to the banks and Chrysler are not per se ownership, but yes they do flirt with the line, and Bush was flirting with that line, especially to the extent his treasury secretary forced the banks to take those loans or suffer action to replace bank officers by government regulators.

It seems to me that keeping American jobs and healthy competition in American industrial production is a national security issue worth investing in.

Well then the government should obviously take over all US companies if you really think "jobs and healthy competition" is the only outcome from government take overs.

 

[Evo]

Here is something Ron Paul wrote that might be useful for the discussion.

Ron Paul is a good example of politics gone wrong. It might be a toss up between Ron Paul and Louie Gohmert though. Is there something in the water in Texas?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-august-17-2010-dick-armey

 

[turbo]

Well then the government should obviously take over all US companies if you really think "jobs and healthy competition" is the only outcome from government take overs.

That is a ridiculous extrapolation, and I think you know it. The "free trade" mania that allowed American companies to export US jobs oversees with no tax implications made a lot of millionaires into billionaires while keeping US workers' earnings flat in non-adjusted terms and declining in real terms.

 

[yungman]

Do you live in the US? Do you speak English fluently? I'm not trying to us an ad-hom argument, but your last post belies both of my questions.

Yes, why? I am not exactly trying to answer your question. More the opinion on Tea Party.

 

[mheslep]

That is a ridiculous extrapolation, and I think you know it.

Yes of course I do. I also think it just as ridiculous to assume that creating a massive government run auto company will automatically create net "American jobs" or "healthy competition".

 

[mheslep]

Ron Paul is a good example of politics gone wrong.

Generally I agree that Dad Paul is a little nutty, then a moment after that thought I see the 'main stream' politicians doing things I consider much nuttier ($1.4 trillion deficits, 2nd guessing Cambridge street cops, etc). So recently the elder Paul doesn't look so frothy in the mouth.

 

[Al68]

When have they explicitly said that they believe it is their role to control or even manage the economy?

I didn't say they said that explicitly. Saying it explicitly would imply that it needed to be said explicitly. So instead it's an obvious underlying assumption in everything else they say. The laws they advocate and enact do in fact exercise control of economic matters.

You can call it what you like. Don't mean it's an accurate description of his policies tho. I have suggested suitable alternatives, such as "Keynesian" or even "left wing".

Except neither of those is an accurate description.

Again, maybe if you could shed more light on which policies you think are socialist...

All of the economic policies contained in their platform: http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html . Again, I'm using the word "socialist" to refer to the socialist aspects of a mixed economy, not as a reference to a completely socialist economic system.

but unfettered markets are inherently inefficient, which essentially means they deny individual liberty.

Complete baloney.

So is Obamacare. And Obamacare is obviously "greater government control of the economy". Why do you refer to me as extreme for being against the very things you try to deny Democrats are for?Are you joking? Which part:

Then you would obviously be able to substantiate this claim. It is demonstrably false though - mandating health insurance will provide the insurance industry with 50 million new customers - are you seriously saying Obama will controlling the insurance industry? (Again, I note the use of the comparative, "greater" ).

Huh? Do you not realize you just substantiated my claim? Mandating insurance isn't "control"? Deciding the contents of policies isn't "control"? Forcing people to buy a product sold by insurance companies isn't "control"? Outlawing "major medical insurance only" policies isn't control? Do you not know what the word "control" means? I'll give you a hint: it's the opposite of "unfettered" in the context you used it above.

It's obvious that you fully understand what I mean by "control", you know it is absolutely true, but try to deny it anyway, while advocating government economic control in the same post. Are you that afraid of honest debate?

You've had a comprehension issue. Note the difference between 'the' and 'their'.

I so happen to think people the people who came up with the ad are probably not racist, sexist, homophobic or bigoted in anyway. Having said that, they do clearly have an agenda against Obama, and the ad was probably designed to evoke a reaction from those in the Tea Party who are bigoted.

So the ad isn't racist and the people who came up with the ad aren't racist. And Hitler, the racist in the ad, is depicted as "bad". But other Tea Party members that might see the ad are racist. That's your claim? Seriously?

 

[Al68]

Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government.

I would have no problem using the word corporatist instead of socialist to describe that, except that the word corporatist/corporatism isn't well known to mean that. And if it were, the objection to the word socialist would just extend to the word corporatist.

The bottom line is that those who want to control people will object to any word that means "those who want to control people".

 

[yungman]

Generally I agree that Dad Paul is a little nutty, then a moment after that thought I see the 'main stream' politicians doing things I consider much nuttier ($1.4 trillion deficits, 2nd guessing Cambridge street cops, etc). So recently the elder Paul doesn't look so frothy in the mouth.

Ron Paul is a Libertarian that gone nowhere and now he change to republican party.

Well the democrats party completely hijacked by the progressives. Everything is race, whenever people disagree, they cry racist. The country is a lot more divided since obama and the democrats control both houses.

What is a few trillions?! Just keep printing and borrowing, devalue the dollar and you don't have as much debt!

 

[Galteeth]

Ron Paul is a Libertarian that gone nowhere and now he change to republican party.

Not exactly. This is a bit off topic, but he was a republican congressman from 1976 to 1984. He then ran for president in 1988 as a libertarian. He was re-elected to congress in 1996 as a republican, and in his last presidential run, sought the republican nomination.

 

[vertices]

I didn't say they said that explicitly. Saying it explicitly would imply that it needed to be said explicitly. So instead it's an obvious underlying assumption in everything else they say. The laws they advocate and enact do in fact exercise control of economic matters.

So Obama no longer wants to "control the economy", rather he wants to "exercise control of economic matters"? So when Bush bailed out the banks, this to you, must have been manic socialism, no?

Except neither of those is an accurate description.

So Obama's policies are not left wing?

All of the economic policies contained in their platform: http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html . Again, I'm using the word "socialist" to refer to the socialist aspects of a mixed economy, not as a reference to a completely socialist economic system.

So can you pick out a couple of policies you believe to be socialist. You are constantly redefining what you mean by the word - I'm genuinely trying to understand what you mean by it, help me out here.

And again, I would put it to you, that "left wing" would be a more accurate phrase to use. Using socialism in the context you describe is equivalent to using the word "authoritarian" to describe governments that have socially conservative policies.

Complete baloney.

Free markets have been mathematically proved to be systematically inefficient; they therefore leads to outcomes that deny individual people their 'economic liberties'.

Huh? Do you not realize you just substantiated my claim? Mandating insurance isn't "control"? Deciding the contents of policies isn't "control"? Forcing people to buy a product sold by insurance companies isn't "control"? Outlawing "major medical insurance only" policies isn't control? Do you not know what the word "control" means? I'll give you a hint: it's the opposite of "unfettered" in the context you used it above.

It's obvious that you fully understand what I mean by "control", you know it is absolutely true, but try to deny it anyway, while advocating government economic control in the same post. Are you that afraid of honest debate?

So now you are redefining your of concept socialism again, first it was "controlling the economy", then it was "taking control over economic matters" and now it is simply taking "control", fullstop.

And you can't really even accuse Obama of that. In the healthcare debates, he never actually laid out a program of his own - he left to Congress to iron out all details.

The US spends an extortionate amount on healthcare per capita and the health outcomes are still pretty poor compared with countries which have "socialised medicine". Leaving things to the market has left 50 million people without health coverage, this isn't just chronically inefficient, it's unsustainable with an ageing population. Obama, was doing something that presidents are meant to do - fix systematic problems.

If you want to call him socialist for that, that's upto you, but an rational person can see that his actions in fact support the free market. The defining feature of a market economy is that it constantly adjusts itself to produce Pareto efficient outcomes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency). When you can get more value for money, without harming anyone (ie. exactly what Obama wanted to do) - this is by definition not Pareto efficient.

So the ad isn't racist and the people who came up with the ad aren't racist. And Hitler, the racist in the ad, is depicted as "bad". But other Tea Party members that might see the ad are racist. That's your claim? Seriously?

Read what I wrote. Where did I say the TP members might see the ad as racist?

 

[Al68]

So Obama no longer wants to "control the economy", rather he wants to "exercise control of economic matters"?

Seriously? Who would be so pedantic as to consider those two different things in the context I used them?

So when Bush bailed out the banks, this to you, must have been manic socialism, no?

No. But it was fairly socialist. I never used the word "manic", or anything similar, in any of my posts.

So Obama's policies are not left wing?

Sure, but "left-wing" is far too vague and has too many different meanings to different people (other than "socialist") to be used for that purpose. Many call me a "left-winger" because my libertarian viewpoint applies equally to social issues.

So can you pick out a couple of policies you believe to be socialist. You are constantly redefining what you mean by the word - I'm genuinely trying to understand what you mean by it, help me out here.

You know exactly what I mean. Using different words that mean the same thing isn't "redefining" anything. You can pick any two of their economic policies you want, but it won't matter. Your objection to the use of the word "socialist" is as semantical as regarding "control the economy" and "exercise control of economic matters" as substantively different. How about making a real point if you have one?

Using socialism in the context you describe is equivalent to using the word "authoritarian" to describe governments that have socially conservative policies.

No, it's the equivalent of using the word "authoritarian" to refer to the authoritarian aspect of a policy that is both authoritarian and "socially conservative" to make it clear that you oppose it because it's authoritarian instead of because its socially conservative. A good example might be using the word "authoritarian" instead of "socially conservative" to describe drug laws, to more precisely describe the reason for opposition.

Would you prefer "economic authoritarianism" to "socialism"? Perhaps that would better describe why I, and other libertarians, oppose Democrat's economic agenda.

Free markets have been mathematically proved to be systematically inefficient; they therefore leads to outcomes that deny individual people their 'economic liberties'.

Still nonsense. Still logically incoherent. You advocate denying people economic liberty because economic liberty denies people economic liberty? And you haven't provided any substantiation for the absurd argument that free markets are "systematically inefficient", and you won't.

So now you are redefining your of concept socialism again, first it was "controlling the economy", then it was "taking control over economic matters" and now it is simply taking "control", fullstop.

Yes, I used three different phrases that mean the exact same thing in the context I used them. That's hardly "redefining a concept"?

Anyway, it's now perfectly clear that you understand exactly what I mean by "socialist", and are merely objecting to the word being used. Feel free to substitute "economic authoritarianism" in all my posts.

Do you not have any substantive argument against my position? There are far more logically consistent and compelling (even if invalid) arguments against my position than you have presented in this thread.

Read what I wrote. Where did I say the TP members might see the ad as racist?

Then who are you claiming is racist?