Obama State of the Union

[Bill 84 318i]

I know of Frances Collins (though I've yet to read that book) and I think it's a damn shame that he was appointed as the head of NIH. I'm sure he's a well-meaning man and that he'll do a fine job, but he's very vocal about his Christianity, and I don't think that someone agenda driven by religion should have such a scientifically significant job.

I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin': http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....-help-himself/

[joshh]

So what you're implying then is that there are no Socialist countries and never will be. What are you worried about then?

No, it's very simple. Just because the Govenment controls something doesn't make it Socialism.
It's when you start controling the population and tell people what's good for them that you enter into Socialism.
The fire department isn't Socialism. Universal Healthcare where people don't have a choice is Socialism. A standing army is not socialism. Penalizing people that are rich because they are rich is Socialism.

[Hallen]

No you fool, that is Communism. As I have said many times over and what you morons cannot seem to understand is that Socialism exists in different degrees. Even France, which is a Social Democracy, has a market economy and incentive still exists. Why can't you people grasp this concept?

No, it is the end result of socialism. Socialism is an economic system. Communism is an extreme form of Socialism that is formalized into a type of government.

Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Communism: A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

Other definitions of communism are essentially identical to socialism. Why do you think it was called the USSR? There's no "C" in there. The second S was for Socialist.

Anyway, the point remains that without free will and rational self interest, with some tangible reward for achievement, there is no real point in working hard. This college example is a perfect illustration of this.

[rwh11385]

That's a very good analogy. I like it.

Indeed. Also enjoy the story about 10 people who go out to beer every week.

[LBJefferies]

When are you going to realize you're splitting hairs.
Maybe if you got the whole "socialism is everywhere" thing our of your thick skill you'd be able to think clearly.
Just because something might be Government funded doesn't make it Socialism. That is where you lose it.

So what you're implying then is that there are no Socialist countries and never will be. What are you worried about then?

[Hallen]

"The class (students) insisted that socialism worked since no one would be
poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said,
"OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism."

"All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so
no one will fail and no one will receive an A."

After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The
students who had studied hard were upset while the students who had
studied very little were happy.

But, as the second test rolled around, the students who had studied little
studied even less and the ones who had studied hard decided that since
they couldn't make an A, they also studied less. The second Test average
was a D.

No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average grade was an
F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling, all resulted
in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else.

To their great surprise all failed. The professor told them that socialism
would ultimately fail because the harder people try to succeed the greater
their reward (capitalism) but when a government takes all the reward
away (socialism) no one will try or succeed. "


That is Socialism. While not a true story, it explains it perfectly.

That's a very good analogy. I like it.

[joshh]

No you fool, that is Communism. As I have said many times over and what you morons cannot seem to understand is that Socialism exists in different degrees. Even France, which is a Social Democracy, has a market economy and incentive still exists. Why can't you people grasp this concept?

When are you going to realize you're splitting hairs.
Maybe if you got the whole "socialism is everywhere" thing our of your thick skill you'd be able to think clearly.
Just because something might be Government funded doesn't make it Socialism. That is where you lose it.

[LBJefferies]

That is Socialism. While not a true story, it explains it perfectly.

No you fool, that is Communism. As I have said many times over and what you morons cannot seem to understand is that Socialism exists in different degrees. Even France, which is a Social Democracy, has a market economy and incentive still exists. Why can't you people grasp this concept?

[joshh]

"The class (students) insisted that socialism worked since no one would be
poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said,
"OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism."

"All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so
no one will fail and no one will receive an A."

After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The
students who had studied hard were upset while the students who had
studied very little were happy.

But, as the second test rolled around, the students who had studied little
studied even less and the ones who had studied hard decided that since
they couldn't make an A, they also studied less. The second Test average
was a D.

No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average grade was an
F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling, all resulted
in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else.

To their great surprise all failed. The professor told them that socialism
would ultimately fail because the harder people try to succeed the greater
their reward (capitalism) but when a government takes all the reward
away (socialism) no one will try or succeed. "


That is Socialism. While not a true story, it explains it perfectly.

[Hallen]

I think this is a pretty balanced view. What's driving this in the USA as elsewhere, is that the majority of the population receives cash benefits from some level of government, for example Social Security, welfare, food stamps, military pay, federal employment, county employment, city employment, employment at a company contracted to the government, school district employment, farm subsidies, unemployment checks, college grants, etc.

Yep. And that's a problem. There is a difference between working a necessary government job, like military or police, and collecting food stamps though. But, it's a big problem that so many are directly beholden to a government dole.

When people call for "smaller government," they are only for it on an idealistic level. When that theoretical reduction in government intervention results in their own personal cash stream being cut off, then their tune changes real quick.

No, not really. Most of us calling for smaller government aren't sucking it up in the government trough. We are the ones filling the trough. Your assumption is that those of us who want smaller government are just whiners that want everybody else to suck it up while we still get our free stuff. That isn't the case. We want smaller government because it costs less, but also because we don't want government meddling in our lives and making decisions for us.

The other thing is that John Q Public, on average, sees some benefit to environmental regs, air travel safety laws, consumer protection, anti-trust laws, etc. The question is "how much is too much?"

That's always going to be a tough one. But there's a lot of very obvious ones out there to start with. And just because John Q public sees some benefit, does not mean there is a benefit. They've been told there's a benefit, but often times, there really isn't. It's really pretty simple though. Also, you are talking about some laws there, which tell you what is not allowed or illegal, and regulatory, which tells you what you have to do. There's a big difference between the two. Not always, but generally, laws are much better than regulatory. Yet, DC is always wanting to regulate everything where just a couple of rational laws would be enough.

An finally, the government's role in economics is becoming ever more focused on benefiting the elites who are the government, which is why so many Goldman Sachs alumni work for Uncle Sam in top positions. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely on election campaigns, the concept of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" has been relegated to the dust heap of quaint historical oddities.

No not really. Government has always gone where the money is, that's nothing new. It isn't right, but its not new. And I should remind you that many of those tit-for-tat setups are done by Democrats like Barny Frank and, not surprisingly, Barack Obama.

You also have to understand that government also buys votes from those that get all the free stuff. Welfare moms get to vote too. And, for all the guilt mongers out there, it makes them feel better to know they help to force those evil rich people to give money to the helpless poor people. It's a racket, nothing more. It's designed to get votes. It designed to insure that unnecessary government workers get big raises and get to keep their jobs when the real producers in this country have to keep laying off people.

And lastly, the SC said that you can't restrict one group of people from voicing their political opinions while allowing other groups or individuals unrestricted ability to voice their opinions. The ruling does not allow corporations to freely donate to a particular political campaign. What it does now allow is for people to donate freely to PAC which then can generate ads and other media for promoting a particular political viewpoint. It also specifically does not allow foreign entities to participate, even though that's what our liar of a President said in his SOTU address. There's lots of misinformation out there, and this SC decision is not nearly what the democrats and liberal media has made it out to be. It certainly isn't the end of democracy.

Government, by definition, is a necessary EVIL. It is a leach. It does not help us to become more prosperous. It does the opposite.

Here's a nice example. The idiot voters in Oregon just passed a new tax. That tax is purportedly only aimed at the "rich" but will affect the majority of Oregon small businesses and corporations. They passed the tax because the state employee unions bombarded the public with ads about how irresponsible it was to not fund our schools when corporations could get away with paying the minimum tax of only $10.

The $10 part is true, but only if the corporation made no money or lost money during the year (so in other words, they made no income). So, it was factually true, but the implication was that corporations could earn 100's of thousands in a year and not pay any real tax, which was an obvious lie. The rest was complete drama intended to scare the shit out of people.

Also, this new tax, passed retroactively this summer by our esteemed legislature, does not tax income. It taxes REVENUES. In other words, if I sell a widget for $10. It costs me $5 to buy the widget, $4 per widget I sell in salary costs for my employees, and $3 for my overhead. Yep, that's right, I lost $2 on the sale. But I get to pay tax on the $10 of revenue that I got. That's nice, isn't it?

The state government gets to double tax and tax not on what you earned, but what your gross revenue was. That's sick. It's so wrong that it should cause a revolt. But no, most 'Goners are to stupid or arrogant to realize they just screwed themselves. That's our government at work. They knew that the general population doesn't care how much tax the minority of rich people and businesses have to pay. And, because public employees were allowed to vote on this, in essence, approving their own pay raises and job continuation, it had no chance of being voted down.

Thanks very much.

[funcrew]

Czarist Russia was an agrarian pre-industrial monarchy. These things directly contributed to the revolution and the associated political, social and economic conditions there after.

The US is neither pre-industrial nor a monarchy. We are an advanced industrial liberal democracy.

A Soviet style totalitarian communist dictatorship is very, very unlikely to happen. If you want to compare the direction in which we are headed to a country, look to France or Germany.

I think this is a pretty balanced view. What's driving this in the USA as elsewhere, is that the majority of the population receives cash benefits from some level of government, for example Social Security, welfare, food stamps, military pay, federal employment, county employment, city employment, employment at a company contracted to the government, school district employment, farm subsidies, unemployment checks, college grants, etc.

When people call for "smaller government," they are only for it on an idealistic level. When that theoretical reduction in government intervention results in their own personal cash stream being cut off, then their tune changes real quick.

The other thing is that John Q Public, on average, sees some benefit to environmental regs, air travel safety laws, consumer protection, anti-trust laws, etc. The question is "how much is too much?"

An finally, the government's role in economics is becoming ever more focused on benefiting the elites who are the government, which is why so many Goldman Sachs alumni work for Uncle Sam in top positions. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely on election campaigns, the concept of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" has been relegated to the dust heap of quaint historical oddities.

Wow, that was my first semi-political rant on R3V. Now back to finding where that gasoline smell is coming from.

There is no such thing as a communist country (even if China likes to call itself one)

This is a great comment.

[LBJefferies]

That's the stupidest comment I've ever read.

"The Soviet Union, at least in the early years was so radically different than the way things are here that it is not even remotely possible that something like that could happen here."

I quoted twice so that everyone can really soak in the enormous retardation it must take to make that radical, illogical, stupid, moronic, short sighted, head in the sand assumption. While I don't think YOU are stupid, I believe this philosophy/life view/perspective is extremely dangerous and would advise you to revisit this a bit in your own life as it's so naive it hurts.

Czarist Russia was an agrarian pre-industrial monarchy. These things directly contributed to the revolution and the associated political, social and economic conditions there after.

The US is neither pre-industrial nor a monarchy. We are an advanced industrial liberal democracy.

A Soviet style totalitarian communist dictatorship is very, very unlikely to happen. If you want to compare the direction in which we are headed to a country, look to France or Germany.

[rwh11385]

Correct in that nobody has free market. But just because it is, doesn't make it right. In order to understand, you have to accept one simple principle. The economy IS society and society is the economy. It's one thing. Government should have no role in either. Government is like the dikes and levies in New Orleans. It tries to unnaturally channel the water all the while telling people it's a safe place to be. In the end, the dikes always fail causing mass damage and death. It's only dangerous if you make the assumption that it's safe to live in a flood zone. Government is the leach on our neck sucking us dry. It doesn't produce anything, it can only take. That's OK, as long as they stay within the bounds that we and the constitution set for it. Long, long ago, but no time more than FDR's time, the government started reaching past it's barriers and we let it. It's time to rein it back in.

A complete free market is not evil. A free market doesn't mean you can't have laws making it illegal to do certain things, but it does mean that the economy is free to work naturally. It's those unnatural dikes that you think are protecting you that ARE the problem.

You are a fool who thinks that a free economy guarantees that big corporations will take over the world because MSNBC tells you so. It simply isn't the case. Government has manipulated the economy for so long, people think it is required when really, the massive problems, monopolies, and much of larceny happened because of the government, not in spite of it.

Socialism is inherently evil because it takes from those who earn it to give to others who don't deserve it.

And do you think the Germans really thought they were getting an evil dictator when they first elected Hitler? Nope. Did they ever think he would take them into a massive war that would cost millions of lives? Nope. Yet it happened. It CAN happen here. All it takes is a fanatic, good intentioned or otherwise, to set it all up. Socializing large hunks of our country is the first step to doing that. Don't be so trusting, or maybe I should say gullible.

Thank you!

I agree.

[E30 Cabrio]

We're all fucked as long as Boy Blunder keeps spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave.