Communist scolding usa Socialist president

[bladex76]

wow i never thought i would see the day when a Communist country would scold our Socialist president. Ya gotta love it! is this how bad our economy is ??
NYT: China scolds US on debt (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44045568/ns/business-us_business/)

[Jackal]

For a socialist country, there sure is a lack of social services for the needy but plenty of support for the powerful and greedy.

[SugaSweet]

China is more capitalist then the US or most of western Europe.

[Ben]

wow i never thought i would see the day when a Communist country would scold our Socialist president. Ya gotta love it! is this how bad our economy is ??
NYT: China scolds US on debt (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44045568/ns/business-us_business/)

Well, China isn't a communist country. It's simply a dictatorship... that serves the interests of American capital. Providing ultra cheap labor and cheap U.S. imports. (Actually, Donald Trump said let's slap a 25 percent tariff on Chinese imports. A good start.)
And President Obama isn't a socialist. There is nothing socialist about Obama. If people knew anything about socialism, well, they would know that socialism, at its core, is about democracy. It's about people controlling their own lives, their own labor.
Actually, fascism is a term that could be applied. Mussolini coined the term fascism. What it means is when state power and CORPORATE power merge and become one.
Here Noam Chomsky explicates socialism:

‪Chomsky on Socialism‬‏ - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ)

[russtafa]

Australia is a socialist state .we have medicare ,welfare for as long as you want,government sponsored injecting rooms,state housing for criminals,junkies, elderly,aboriginals,disabled,public schooling,and we are one of the highest taxed countries in the world and if we didn't have our rich natural resources we would be stuffed

[robertlouis]

For a socialist country, there sure is a lack of social services for the needy but plenty of support for the powerful and greedy.

Apart from the "socialist", that sounds like a pretty good description of the USA.

[Jackal]

Apart from the "socialist", that sounds like a pretty good description of the USA.

I was being facetious with the label of socialist, which the OP used

[robertlouis]

I was being facetious with the label of socialist, which the OP used


Thought you might be. It's funny how US politicians use labels like liberal and socialist as bogymen scaremongers when they have no idea of what they actually mean.

Calling Obama "socialist" is so stupid that it's actually offensive.

[natina]

Corporate Welfare: Corporate Welfare
How would you like to pay only a quarter of the real estate taxes you owe on your home? And buy everything for the next 10 years without spending a single penny in sales tax? Keep a chunk of your paycheck free of income taxes? Have the city in which you live lend you money at rates cheaper than any bank charges? Then have the same city install free water and sewer lines to your house, offer you a perpetual discount on utility bills--and top it all off by landscaping your front yard at no charge?
Fat chance. You can't get any of that, of course. But if you live almost anywhere in America, all around you are taxpayers getting deals like this. These taxpayers are called corporations, and their deals are usually trumpeted as "economic development" or "public-private partnerships." But a better name is corporate welfare. It's a game in which governments large and small subsidize corporations large and small, usually at the expense of another state or town and almost always at the expense of individual and other corporate taxpayers.
Two years after Congress reduced welfare for individuals and families, this other kind of welfare continues to expand, penetrating every corner of the American economy. It has turned politicians into bribery specialists, and smart business people into con artists. And most surprising of all, it has rarely created any new jobs.
While corporate welfare has attracted critics from both the left and the right, there is no uniform definition. By TIME's definition, it is this: any action by local, state or federal government that gives a corporation or an entire industry a benefit not offered to others. It can be an outright subsidy, a grant, real estate, a low-interest loan or a government service. It can also be a tax break--a credit, exemption, deferral or deduction, or a tax rate lower than the one others pay.
The rationale to curtail traditional welfare programs, such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children and food stamps, and to impose a lifetime limit on the amount of aid received, was compelling: the old system didn't work. It was unfair, destroyed incentive, perpetuated dependence and distorted the economy. An 18-month TIME investigation has found that the same indictment, almost to the word, applies to corporate welfare. In some ways, it represents pork-barrel legislation of the worst order. The difference, of course, is that instead of rewarding the poor, it rewards the powerful.
And it rewards them handsomely. The Federal Government alone shells out $125 billion a year in corporate welfare, this in the midst of one of the more robust economic periods in the nation's history. Indeed, thus far in the 1990s, corporate profits have totaled $4.5 trillion--a sum equal to the cumulative paychecks of 50 million working Americans who earned less than $25,000 a year, for those eight years.


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989508,00.html#ixzz1R6ujzwT7





http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/attachment.php?attachmentid=406214&stc=1&d=1309831214

[natina]

corporate WELFARE IS FAR MORE ADDICTIVE then individual welfare


government subsidizes
tax breaks
bailouts
grants
low interest loans
no interest loans


Corporate welfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare)


Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill)


NEOCons on Welfare than Liberals. You have to include Corporate Welfare, Pentegon Contracts,

Agriculture, and Oil industries when talking about Welfare. And the blood sucking Welfare winners are:

neocons .



ORANGE COUNTY WAS PRIMARILY WHITE MIDDLE CLASS

and now because of the BUSH ERA,

the housing market scam,the stock market scandal,the pyramid schemers has become a place where............

take note people are driving around with NO CAR INSURANCE because they have to choose between eating,shelter and other basic

OR
paying for insurance

MANY insurance company warned me about orange county and not having full coverage/gap coverage etc......yada yada yada

once middle class people or going to get free groceries and other items because they are financial in trouble/have hit a low ect.....


THE OC WAS HIT HARD BY THE REAL ESTATE BUBBLE I.E.
OVER EVALUATION OF PROPERTY VALUES,upside down mortgages,variable interest rate loans/high interest rate loans .


Bird and Fortune - Subprime Banking Mess
YouTube - ‪Bird and Fortune - Subprime Crisis‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g)


Bird and Fortune - Subprime Crisis
YouTube - ‪Bird and Fortune - Subprime Crisis‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g)


YouTube - ‪Subprime Banking Mess‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC31Oudc5Bg)


John Bird and John Fortune (the Long Johns) brilliantly, and accurately, describing the mindset of the investment banking community in this satirical interview.

[natina]

Amazon.com: Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill) (9781591841913): David Cay Johnston: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51lanA6RJSL.@@AMEPARAM@@51lanA6RJSL (http://www.amazon.com/Free-Lunch-Wealthiest-Themselves-Government/dp/1591841917#_)





http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51lanA6RJSL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg



More NEOCons on Welfare than Liberals. You have to


include Corporate Welfare, Pentegon Contracts, Agriculture, and Oil industries when talking about Welfare.

And the blood sucking Welfare winners are:


neocons

Amazon.com: Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill) (9781591841913): David Cay Johnston: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51lanA6RJSL.@@AMEPARAM@@51lanA6RJSL (http://www.amazon.com/Free-Lunch-Wealthiest-Themselves-Government/dp/1591841917#_)

http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?BoardID=39&SortBy=DateCreated%20desc&SearchType=1&Author=xfean&DayFrom=30&DayTo=0&MessageID=130426&frmSearch=1#130426


neocons do not have to do this!;they just get free money

http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?BoardID=39&SortBy=DateCreated%20desc&SearchType=1&Author=xfean&DayFrom=30&DayTo=0&MessageID=130833&frmSearch=1#130833


Amazon.com: Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill) (9781591841913): David Cay Johnston: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51lanA6RJSL.@@AMEPARAM@@51lanA6RJSL (http://www.amazon.com/Free-Lunch-Wealthiest-Themselves-Government/dp/1591841917#reader_1591841917)

[natina]

Capitalism for the middle class, socialism for the rich, indeed http://www.theeroticreview.com/library/style/i/emoticons/regular_smile.gif

The middle class and poor get crumbs from measly "bailouts" such as the lackluster sub-prime mortgage assistance program and a tax rebate check for $600; while the rich get more tangible bailouts to the tune of billions. Capitalism for the middle class, socialism for the rich, indeed! This is what you get when corrupt Republicans and the Corporate sociopathic personality rule the economy. One of the ways to change this dynamic is to remove corporation's status as a separate entity unbound by individual consequences and place more responsibility on the executives that direct corporate actions.

We need to end the the welfare era for the rich via tax cuts, Halliburton / war "no bid" handouts, oil company gouging and corporate bailouts. Instead, the American government needs to lift the middle class with investments in education, job training, energy independence (from domestic oil companies too!), health care and economic programs such as small business development and tangible mortgage assistance.

The only choice for fiscal conservatives in this election is Obama. By electing Obama POTUS and other fiscally sympathetic representatives, the middle class can then exercise its newfound power over insurance companies, corporations and bankers. You want us to bail you out? Here are some of our demands:

Will the tide finally turn during an Obama Presidency? After analyzing Obama's economic positions (including health care, tax policies and budgeting), most economists say "yes!"

After eight years of the Bush Presidency, McCain style deregulation and tax policy that favors the rich, the American middle class has been taken hostage and told they will lose everything (trickle down financial ruin) if they do not bailout the big banks, investment firms and insurance companies. Bush & Cheney have perfected the panic mode wealth transfer that Naomi Klein describes so well in "The Shock Doctrine." This multi-trillion-dollar parting gift is their payback to the upper class that helped orchestrate their election

The middle class and poor get crumbs from measly "bailouts" such as the lackluster sub-prime mortgage assistance program and a tax rebate check for $600; while the rich get more tangible bailouts to the tune of billions. Capitalism for the middle class, socialism for the rich, indeed! This is what you get when corrupt Republicans and the Corporate sociopathic personality rule the economy. One of the ways to change this dynamic is to remove corporation's status as a separate entity unbound by individual consequences and place more responsibility on the executives that direct corporate actions.

We need to end the the welfare era for the rich via tax cuts, Halliburton / war "no bid" handouts, oil company gouging and corporate bailouts. Instead, the American government needs to lift the middle class with investments in education, job training, energy independence (from domestic oil companies too!), health care and economic programs such as small business development and tangible mortgage assistance.

The only choice for fiscal conservatives in this election is Obama. By electing Obama POTUS and other fiscally sympathetic representatives, the middle class can then exercise its newfound power over insurance companies, corporations and bankers. You want us to bail you out? Here are some of our demands:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-garibaldi-frick/upper-class-pillaging_b_135892.html

[Jackal]

Thought you might be. It's funny how US politicians use labels like liberal and socialist as bogymen scaremongers when they have no idea of what they actually mean.

Calling Obama "socialist" is so stupid that it's actually offensive.

The sad thing is that many European countries have such better systems of dealing with the kind of societal problems (education, healthcare, jobs, housing, prisons/rehabilitation) that every day Americans worry about that most would want it if they learned of it and it did not have labels like socialist or social democracy which most Americans do not understand because the media uses propaganda to make it look scary. Most Americans are so concerned about what if their kids get hurt or can't get a scholarship for college or how to pay off their student loans...well, in places like Sweden, Norway, even American countries like Brazil, public higher education is free. Heck, most Americans will never live as well as Norwegian inmates. :( Oh but it is better because there are more gadgets and Warren Buffet pays a low tax rate.

[Silcc69]

We have a fucked up political system my foreign friends.

[robertlouis]

We have a fucked up political system my foreign friends.

I reckon (from the outside), that apart from freeing up the stasis caused by some of your checks and balances, the infrastructure of your political system is actually pretty good. It also promotes local participation and debate in a way that's sadly now mostly lost or discredited over here.

The core issue is with your politicians and the chicanery they will adopt to subvert those mechanisms for their own purposes.

[Silcc69]

I reckon (from the outside), that apart from freeing up the stasis caused by some of your checks and balances, the infrastructure of your political system is actually pretty good. It also promotes local participation and debate in a way that's sadly now mostly lost or discredited over here.

The core issue is with your politicians and the chicanery they will adopt to subvert those mechanisms for their own purposes.

We have a 2 part system that dominates over here. So you have swing either democrat or republican to really do something. 3rd parties don't even have much of a presence here. Most of the time they simply take votes away from one part so the other one will win. If we could take all of the money and corporate influence out of politics it would be a much better system.

[robertlouis]

We have a 2 part system that dominates over here. So you have swing either democrat or republican to really do something. 3rd parties don't even have much of a presence here. Most of the time they simply take votes away from one part so the other one will win. If we could take all of the money and corporate influence out of politics it would be a much better system.

You'll never achieve that, but a strict limit on the size of donations that corporations and private individuals can make would be a start.

[russtafa]

there are pro's and con's to a strong welfare society. it's great that old people that have pay'd taxes all their lives have a right to a pension.the same with disability pensions for people that are incapable of working or a great public hospital system.but housing for junkies and criminals or aboriginals or immigrants? the welfare system just seems to snowball

[scroller]

wow i never thought i would see the day when a Communist country would scold our Socialist president. Ya gotta love it! is this how bad our economy is ??

Definitely. Let's get back to the 1930-1980 era when the top income tax bracket was around 90%. These socialists today have ruined everything.

[Ben]

Definitely. Let's get back to the 1930-1980 era when the top income tax bracket was around 90%. These socialists today have ruined everything.

Under Republican -- that is: Republican -- President Dwight Eisenhower the top marginal tax rate was 91 percent.
Both parties have shifted to the right [especially true under Clinton] to placate big business. I mean, political parties need money. And who has the money? The big ol' corporations.
And what do corporate executives want? Less taxes. And when you reduce the marginal tax rates then executives pull the money out of the corporation and declare it as income.
High marginal tax rates mean executives keep the money in the company so the company grows.
There is a scene in Wall Street (1987) where Gordon Gekko is talking about how all these managers of all these corporations do, well, nothing -- ha ha ha!

[CORVETTEDUDE]

You'll never achieve that, but a strict limit on the size of donations that corporations and private individuals can make would be a start.


Yeah, and who's gonna pass that legislation, the fuckin' Democrats and Republicans???

[Stavros]

You'll never achieve that, but a strict limit on the size of donations that corporations and private individuals can make would be a start.

But this has been law in the US for years....

Campaign finance in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States)