Obama, Socialism, & the Great Republican Lie

[NYBURBS]

Yea we all need bridges, roads, schools but the government has gone way way way beyond that. Further we don't need the federal government to provide those. My original point also still holds true, 250,000 a year is not the group running around exploiting people, neither is the 500,000 per year schmuck.

Do you really think Barack Obama is somehow going to make everything better because he cuts your taxes a little and jumps the 250,000 a year guy's up? People think this guy is the second coming of Christ. He's an intelligent, well spoken man, but he is also committed to keeping things as they are. He did not make it into the US Senate being an independent minded champion of change.

[PapaGrande]

You are right Obama is not a socialist, he is a fascist.

[Cuchulain]

Yea we all need bridges, roads, schools but the government has gone way way way beyond that. Further we don't need the federal government to provide those. My original point also still holds true, 250,000 a year is not the group running around exploiting people, neither is the 500,000 per year schmuck.

Do you really think Barack Obama is somehow going to make everything better because he cuts your taxes a little and jumps the 250,000 a year guy's up? People think this guy is the second coming of Christ. He's an intelligent, well spoken man, but he is also committed to keeping things as they are. He did not make it into the US Senate being an independent minded champion of change.

Re your second paragraph. I agree with you. I don't think Obama is the messiah. He's way too tame for me. He's sure as hell no FDR. Yes, I know - you think FDR was the worst president ever. Imo, he was the best. I'm voting for Obama simply because he's a wee bit closer to FDR than the Rethugnicans are.

As for your first paragraph, I think we need more than roads, bridges and schools and I think a central govt. is the best way to provide these things evenly. We need nationwide regulations and agencies to make sure they are enforced.

Let's say we shrink the federal government down to a nub, small enough to "drown it in a bathtub", as that evil prick Neal Boortz said. We'll throw all regulatory and protective responsibilities back to the individual states. What would happen? Well...

Every pollution-spewing, employee-exploiting corporation would congregate in those red states with the least amount of regulation. People would work 10 hours per day, 6 days per week for maybe $5/hour with no unions, safety protections, healthcare, pensions, vacations or job security and they'd be paid in 'company scrip'. They would rent their hovels from the company and buy their groceries at a company store. Their kids would go to voucher schools where they would learn 'creation science' and shop, until they were 12 or so, when they would have to quit school and go to work to add to their families' meager income. Food would not be safe to eat. Water would not be safe to drink. The air would not be safe to breathe.

Eventually, the 'better' states, the ones who kept some measure of environmental and worker protections, would have to ease these regs in order to attract jobs.

I can see it now - America marching backwards, backwards into the era of feudalism, with corporations as king and workers as serfs who would be afraid to dissent in fear of starvation.

[yodajazz]

Yea we all need bridges, roads, schools but the government has gone way way way beyond that. Further we don't need the federal government to provide those. My original point also still holds true, 250,000 a year is not the group running around exploiting people, neither is the 500,000 per year schmuck.

Do you really think Barack Obama is somehow going to make everything better because he cuts your taxes a little and jumps the 250,000 a year guy's up? People think this guy is the second coming of Christ. He's an intelligent, well spoken man, but he is also committed to keeping things as they are. He did not make it into the US Senate being an independent minded champion of change.

Okay, let’s talk about these $250, 000 to $500, 000 a year people. That’s not enough to be set for life. I would assume that they would have to do something to maintain that income. Any thing that they do would be helped, by having skilled and educated people to hold jobs and to be consumers of goods and services. Many people are helped by education grants. And what good is making a half million, if you are killed in an elevator accident, after your small government cuts back on safety inspections. I could think of dozen of examples like food, medicine, cars and others that the government helps to enforce safety. They are supposed to be providing oversight to your banks, and to insurance companies to carry reserves to cover payouts, etc. When you pay taxes, things that benefits the greater society usually help you also. Here’s an example, you own a company and you pay your employee so little they qualify for Medicaid. Those employees could then use government paid health care to provide you with a healthier and more stable work force. And think of it this way, Medicaid helps poorer people but the money goes directly to doctors, clinics and nurses.

Ancient wisdom from the Bible, says; “As you give, so shall you receive.” The concept of money is that it circulates. Domestic government programs go straight into the economy. The progressive tax system has served the US well in the past 95 years. It certainly did not stop us from becoming the richest economy in the world.

P.S. while I was writing this Chuchulain made another post. I am trying to say the same thing he said in the post above.

[PapaGrande]

Yea we all need bridges, roads, schools but the government has gone way way way beyond that. Further we don't need the federal government to provide those. My original point also still holds true, 250,000 a year is not the group running around exploiting people, neither is the 500,000 per year schmuck.

Do you really think Barack Obama is somehow going to make everything better because he cuts your taxes a little and jumps the 250,000 a year guy's up? People think this guy is the second coming of Christ. He's an intelligent, well spoken man, but he is also committed to keeping things as they are. He did not make it into the US Senate being an independent minded champion of change.

Re your second paragraph. I agree with you. I don't think Obama is the messiah. He's way too tame for me. He's sure as hell no FDR. Yes, I know - you think FDR was the worst president ever. Imo, he was the best. I'm voting for Obama simply because he's a wee bit closer to FDR than the Rethugnicans are.

As for your first paragraph, I think we need more than roads, bridges and schools and I think a central govt. is the best way to provide these things evenly. We need nationwide regulations and agencies to make sure they are enforced.

Let's say we shrink the federal government down to a nub, small enough to "drown it in a bathtub", as that evil prick Neal Boortz said. We'll throw all regulatory and protective responsibilities back to the individual states. What would happen? Well...

Every pollution-spewing, employee-exploiting corporation would congregate in those red states with the least amount of regulation. People would work 10 hours per day, 6 days per week for maybe $5/hour with no unions, safety protections, healthcare, pensions, vacations or job security and they'd be paid in 'company scrip'. They would rent their hovels from the company and buy their groceries at a company store. Their kids would go to voucher schools where they would learn 'creation science' and shop, until they were 12 or so, when they would have to quit school and go to work to add to their families' meager income. Food would not be safe to eat. Water would not be safe to drink. The air would not be safe to breathe.

Eventually, the 'better' states, the ones who kept some measure of environmental and worker protections, would have to ease these regs in order to attract jobs.

I can see it now - America marching backwards, backwards into the era of feudalism, with corporations as king and workers as serfs who would be afraid to dissent in fear of starvation.

This is so full of economic fallacies it would probably take me a week just to reply.

A few questions that might get that squeaky wheel in your head turning. Why is it that any company in America exceeds any government regulation at all right now? Why don't we all make minimum wage? Why don't all companies meet the absolute minimum requirements for whatever their industry is and nothing more? For example, why do car companies put in safety features that are not required by law? Why would 72,542 companies pay Underwriters Laboratories Inc. a private (not government) if not specifically required by law? and OMG, how can we possible trust a non-government voluntary certification program!!!!!!!!

[NYBURBS]

Re your second paragraph. I agree with you. I don't think Obama is the messiah. He's way too tame for me. He's sure as hell no FDR. Yes, I know - you think FDR was the worst president ever. Imo, he was the best. I'm voting for Obama simply because he's a wee bit closer to FDR than the Rethugnicans are.

As for your first paragraph, I think we need more than roads, bridges and schools and I think a central govt. is the best way to provide these things evenly. We need nationwide regulations and agencies to make sure they are enforced.

Let's say we shrink the federal government down to a nub, small enough to "drown it in a bathtub", as that evil prick Neal Boortz said. We'll throw all regulatory and protective responsibilities back to the individual states. What would happen? Well...

Every pollution-spewing, employee-exploiting corporation would congregate in those red states with the least amount of regulation. People would work 10 hours per day, 6 days per week for maybe $5/hour with no unions, safety protections, healthcare, pensions, vacations or job security and they'd be paid in 'company scrip'. They would rent their hovels from the company and buy their groceries at a company store. Their kids would go to voucher schools where they would learn 'creation science' and shop, until they were 12 or so, when they would have to quit school and go to work to add to their families' meager income. Food would not be safe to eat. Water would not be safe to drink. The air would not be safe to breathe.

Eventually, the 'better' states, the ones who kept some measure of environmental and worker protections, would have to ease these regs in order to attract jobs.

I can see it now - America marching backwards, backwards into the era of feudalism, with corporations as king and workers as serfs who would be afraid to dissent in fear of starvation.

Well, we're all entitled to our own view points, but you and I are certainly at different ends of the spectrum. I firmly believe that what you advocate is guaranteed tyranny. I can see why you liked FDR, but of course you already know my feelings, that he lived about 12 years too long.

As for your other contentions, I again have to disagree. Government regulations do not magically make the situation better. For example minimum wage still isn't enough to live on, but when we artificially set one it simply raises the overall cost of goods and fucks those you were looking to help in the first place.

If you want the federal government to have additional powers (such as to regulate environmental concerns) then it should be done properly, through amendment. This policy of usurpation, starting with your boy FDR, only leads to hostility and political instability. What you have one court "grant" can and will eventually be taken back by another court.

PS- I'm no fan of corporatism, in fact if anything that is something far closer to your socialist ideology than my free market one.

[yodajazz]

Yea we all need bridges, roads, schools but the government has gone way way way beyond that. Further we don't need the federal government to provide those. My original point also still holds true, 250,000 a year is not the group running around exploiting people, neither is the 500,000 per year schmuck.

Do you really think Barack Obama is somehow going to make everything better because he cuts your taxes a little and jumps the 250,000 a year guy's up? People think this guy is the second coming of Christ. He's an intelligent, well spoken man, but he is also committed to keeping things as they are. He did not make it into the US Senate being an independent minded champion of change.

Re your second paragraph. I agree with you. I don't think Obama is the messiah. He's way too tame for me. He's sure as hell no FDR. Yes, I know - you think FDR was the worst president ever. Imo, he was the best. I'm voting for Obama simply because he's a wee bit closer to FDR than the Rethugnicans are.

As for your first paragraph, I think we need more than roads, bridges and schools and I think a central govt. is the best way to provide these things evenly. We need nationwide regulations and agencies to make sure they are enforced.

Let's say we shrink the federal government down to a nub, small enough to "drown it in a bathtub", as that evil prick Neal Boortz said. We'll throw all regulatory and protective responsibilities back to the individual states. What would happen? Well...

Every pollution-spewing, employee-exploiting corporation would congregate in those red states with the least amount of regulation. People would work 10 hours per day, 6 days per week for maybe $5/hour with no unions, safety protections, healthcare, pensions, vacations or job security and they'd be paid in 'company scrip'. They would rent their hovels from the company and buy their groceries at a company store. Their kids would go to voucher schools where they would learn 'creation science' and shop, until they were 12 or so, when they would have to quit school and go to work to add to their families' meager income. Food would not be safe to eat. Water would not be safe to drink. The air would not be safe to breathe.

Eventually, the 'better' states, the ones who kept some measure of environmental and worker protections, would have to ease these regs in order to attract jobs.

I can see it now - America marching backwards, backwards into the era of feudalism, with corporations as king and workers as serfs who would be afraid to dissent in fear of starvation.

This is so full of economic fallacies it would probably take me a week just to reply.

A few questions that might get that squeaky wheel in your head turning. Why is it that any company in America exceeds any government regulation at all right now? Why don't we all make minimum wage? Why don't all companies meet the absolute minimum requirements for whatever their industry is and nothing more? For example, why do car companies put in safety features that are not required by law? Why would 72,542 companies pay Underwriters Laboratories Inc. a private (not government) if not specifically required by law? and OMG, how can we possible trust a non-government voluntary certification program!!!!!!!!

Companies do put out products that exceed regulations because its good for business. But companies also cut corners because its also good for business in the short run. I read an article that said, over 4,000 people were killed in work related accidents in 2006. If that is true it is comparable to the amount of people killed in 9/11. If it justified to wage war for our safety for 9/11, is justifiable to spend money for our safety in the workplace? And a government workplace safety inspection, could actually help protect the company’s liability by certifying the workplace is safe.

As for economics I have heard numerous times that the wealthiest 10 have gotten a greater share of the total wealth over some years ago. I see this reflected in the job market, home foreclosures and car sales, among other things. I agree with Chuchulain’s economic view because I see it reflected in my own community.

And by the way, I credit labor and labor unions with raising the wages of workers.

[NYBURBS]

Labor unions are mobbed up rackets that have fucked many of the people they were developed to represent. I'm not telling you that no good has come from them, just that they aren't the end all and be all. Further people are free to associate with whom they want, but then business owners should be just as free to chose who they associate with.

A smart company does what is in its best interest. If they engage in bad safety practices then there is the civil suit that can be turned to. As for throwing around numbers of deaths, that can be so misleading. 4,000 people out of a country of over 300 million. Do you know what a minuscule fraction that is. Let's say in fact that the work force is only 150,000,000 people, well 4,000 accidental deaths is 0.0026666666% of that total. Whereas the number of vehicle deaths in 2006 was 2.79% of the overall population (yea so out of 300,000,000 people).

Further I am not saying that there isn't a need for basic regulations, like fire safety based ones for example. How many people can be in a room, how many exits there are, but you don't need the federal government for that. Our nation is far too large to have a central government dictate all of these provisions. As for the argument that this will convince businesses to locate to "red states", well nothing currently stops states from having stricter regulations. Some do have higher wage laws, environmental standards, etc, yet I don't see this massive rush to relocate from one state to another.

[Cuchulain]

This is so full of economic fallacies it would probably take me a week just to reply.

Surely not for a master of the arcane art of economics such as yourself. After all, you're smarter and better informed than Paul Krugman, right?

Why don't we all make minimum wage? Unions. When unions finally began to achieve some real power in the early to mid 20th century, wages, benefits and conditions improved for non-union workers as well. After much blood and hardship, laws were passed to protect workers' right to organize. Unions were able to get further legislation passed that protected everybody. 'Unions - the people who brought you weekends'

As for your other questions - a) fear of being sued and b) safety is a selling point

There was a bit of tongue-in-cheek in my Apocalyptic scenario. You chose to ignore that, so I'll try and answer it straight. Union rights, as well as wages, benefits and conditions for all workers have been chipped away at since that corporate stooge Reagan got elected. Likewise for enviro regs. The process accelerated when the Repubs got control of the WH and Congress., spurred on by lobbyists with visions of golden parachutes dancing in their heads. Watch the Congessional battles over OSHA's budget on CSPAN sometime. I remind you that lobbyists have actually been writing legislation for Bush and the repubs. Bush appointed industry insiders to run govt. agencies that were supposed to keep an eye on things, and edited reports from those agencies at the behest of business.

State govt doesn't have the financial resources or, frankly, the brainpower the fed govt does. State officials aren't under the same media glare as fed officials. It's a lot easier for corporations to 'buy' legislation (or legislators) on the state level than on the federal one.

So they get some legislation passed making it harder for them to be sued - less reason to worry about product safety, right? As wages deteriorate, will workers be able to afford to worry about product safety, or will they buy the cheapest goods they can get? It's happening right now with Chinese junk sold at Walmart. Same for worker and enviro protections. A slow, steady erosion and no place for workers to turn for help. 'United we bargain, divided we beg'. Companies will go to where they can make the most profit and lobby like hell to get the best deal they can when they get there. Businesses relocate to other countries with weaker regs all the time. Why wouldn't the same thing happen from state to state w/out federal regulations to prevent it?

Here's a question for your own squeaky wheel. Why did all the working conditions in my little scenario exist prior to the rise of unions and regulation?

[Cuchulain]

Labor unions are mobbed up rackets

I've been a member of one of the strongest construction industry unions for 30 years. When you dismiss them as 'mobbed up rackets' you do them a disservice and insult all my union brothers and sisters. When you say that "I'm not telling you that no good has come from them", you damn them with faint praise. I've worked in the gang and as a foreman, general foreman and supervisor. I've also spent time working directly for the Local Union in both an elected and an appointed position. If workers hadn't banded together to bargain as a unit, we would have NEVER had any say in our workplace. I'm not going to try to list all the great things unions have accomplished for American workers. I'm sure you're aware of them - or maybe not. That's what google is for .

150,000,000 people, well 4,000 accidental deaths is 0.0026666666%

Not bad odds, unless you're one of the 4000. Are you suggesting that there is an acceptable industrial deathrate?

I don't see this massive rush to relocate from one state to another.

It's been going on for years, as companies flee to 'right to work' states to escape unions.