- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 45,596
- Reaction score
- 22,536
- Location
- Everywhere and nowhere
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
But, the person who quoted him was not asked to quote someone else on the matter... they were asked to do the work to actually think about it themselves... Like, say, if you were a student, and your professor asked you to write a paper about the American Revolution... if your paper consisted of a brief introduction which said "Well Ben Franklin said" and then was a portion of Franklin's biography, you'd write and F for a letter grade...
They weren't asked to write a paper, they were asked to give an honest assessment of Obama. If they felt that Volker's words provided that honest assessment, it qualified as a legitimate response to your request.
At no point did you specify that there was a requirement where you must be allowed to have an interactive discussion with said person. Clearly the assignment-giver failed to adequately describe the assignment in this instance and, as such, any responses that did not fit with the assignment-giver's idealized response pattern is due to the incompetence of said assignment giver, not the incompetence of the responder.
That's not what socialism is defined by though...
Really?!?!?! Then why is it the primary component in the definition of socialism?
It is important to note here, when you speak of the government in the US, we are the government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" so anything the government does has all aspects of that involved.
We aren't that, though. Just because it has been called that doesn't mean it is that. Our government is not very representative of the people at all.
The people elect the representatives, who then inact and carry out the laws and other governmental actions, and in turn those actions are meant to benefit the people...
Why do you assume that the actions are actually meant to benefit the people? I see nothing in our current government which would lead to this assumption. I think they try to give that impression, but the rubber meets the road quite differently that what they claim.
In this occasion the companies that were bailed out were bailed out because they were deemed too big to fail... not because it benefited the corportation, but because it benefited those workers who were supposed to not lose their jobs, and the economy as a whole, which would benefit the rest of the people not involved in those companies. So the main goal was not assistance of the companies.
Well, that's the reasoning that was given, but what does that have to do with anything? The bailouts weren't collective or government ownership, nor were they Obama's idea or action.
When you look at the situation with the GM takeover, it is the PEOPLE who control the company. The US Govt bought a majority ownership share in GM. They then tried to cover it up by diluting the shares. They dictated restructure terms. They then worked out negotiations with the Unions (which are socialist in nature), and used US and Canadian Govt money to fund their benefits. So the Govt is providing benefits to the UAW employees... Then, now the UAW is buying out a majority ownership in GM. This is essentially akin to GM being a Government owned and run industry.
What does that have to do with Obama? That happened before he took office.
there's been a massive expansion of farming subsidies. That's moving essentially towards a government run agriculture system.
No, it's not. Subsidies are entirely a product of capitalism, pure and simple. In a socialist environment there would be no need to pay companies to do certain things because they would be controlled by the government. Subsidies can only exist in a capitalist economy. They are mad obsolete by socialism. You are actually providing evdience that shows the opposite of your position here.
Match that up with the massive expansion of welfare, the government run healthcare, etc.
First: Obamacare is not a single-payer system, so calling it "government run" is pure nonsense. Government regulated =/= government run. Obamacare simply expands the total amount of regulations exponentially. It's not even remotely close to socialism, though.
And welfare is not socialism. Where did you get the idea that it was?
You still fail to investigate his background motivation for the policies he uses.
I didn't fail to do it, I recognized it's irrelevancy to the issue. I can just look at his policies to see how they aren't socialist ones.
Last edited: