Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: O'Donnel, Coons live debate thread

  1. #21
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: O'Donnel, Coons live debate thread

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    I'd like to ask Obama one question. Where in the Constitution does the United States guarantee a socialist form of government?
    Socialism and capitalism are not forms of government, they are economic systems and neither is specified in the Constitution.


  2. #22
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,759

    Re: O'Donnel, Coons live debate thread

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    I'd like to ask Obama one question. Where in the Constitution does the United States guarantee a socialist form of government?
    Quote Originally Posted by Patria Antiqua View Post
    Where does it rule it out?
    Patria makes a very good point. As has been successfully demonstrated in several other debates recently, there are facets of socialism within our government today that have existed for decades - the VA, Medicare, the Railroad Retirement system just to name a few. These are all programs run and operated by the federal government. True, none are run as effeciently as they could be, but then again when there is this...pull...between the responsibility towards those who stand to benefit most from these such programs and the efficiency and cost effectiveness of such programs where the argument continues to be "can private entities do the job better at a reduced cost where the mechanics of the free market should provail," my first question is "why don't we see more private-public cooperation" in that regard taking a more active role to fill the gaps where government falls short OR taking up this responsibility completely by the private sector to provide for the needy at every turn where the needs exsist? The answer is very simple: capitalism.

    Our free market system will only provide something for free or at a reduced cost if it gives them a competitive advantage, i.e., free samples at the grocery store in the hope of driving up sales and capturing a good segment of the market. Pharmaceutical companies give out free samples of new medicines to patients in the hopes to drive sales of their drugs. It's a step away from those so-called "blind" experiments we've all heard about from the days of the Tuskegee Airmen experiments. Socialism is considered acceptable in these areas because they only apply to a specific segment of the population and not society as a whole, but if you look back through history you'll find that these programs were also heavily debated against their enactment before one common factor was taken into consideration - human compassion and decency to care for your fellow man.

    Social programs do have a place in American society and our nation's government has tried to place much of the responsibility to manage such programs in the hands of the States. Medicare, Part D, for example, is tied into Medicaid which is a federal-state government partnership but even it is tied into Social Security which can be argued (successfully, IMO) is a federal-individual partnership. There are questions on all side as to who can run "it" (social programs) better but never the question invalidating the need for their existance.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 10-15-10 at 12:47 PM.

  3. #23
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: O'Donnel, Coons live debate thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Patria makes a very good point. As has been successfully demonstrated in several other debates recently, there are facets of socialism within our government today that have existed for decades - the VA, Medicare, the Railroad Retirement system just to name a few. These are all programs run and operated by the federal government. True, none are run as effeciently as they could be, but then again when there is this...pull...between the responsibility towards those who stand to benefit most from these such programs and the efficiency and cost effectiveness of such programs where the argument continues to be "can private entities do the job better at a reduced cost where the mechanics of the free market should provail," my first question is "why don't we see more private-public cooperation" in that regard taking a more active role to fill the gaps where government falls short OR taking up this responsibility completely by the private sector to provide for the needy at every turn where the needs exsist? The answer is very simple: capitalism.

    Our free market system will only provide something for free or at a reduced cost if it gives them a competitive advantage, i.e., free samples at the grocery store in the hope of driving up sales and capturing a good segment of the market. Pharmaceutical companies give out free samples of new medicines to patients in the hopes to drive sales of their drugs. It's a step away from those so-called "blind" experiments we've all heard about from the days of the Tuskegee Airmen experiments. Socialism is considered acceptable in these areas because they only apply to a specific segment of the population and not the whole, but if you look back through history you'll find that these programs were also heavily debated against their enactment before one common factor was taken into consideration - human compassion and decency to care for your fellow man.

    Social programs do have a place in American society and our nation's government has tried to place much of the responsibility to manage such programs in the hands of the States. Medicare, Part D, for example, is tied into Medicaid which is a federal-state government partnership, and even it is tied into Social Security. There are questions on all side as to who can run "it" better but never the question invalidating the need for their existance.
    Well stated. This country has not functioned as a fully capitalistic society for a long time, if ever. Government has regulated and provided social programs. The truth is, you'd be hard pressed to find many pruely capitalistic economic systems in the world. Most governments have found they have to have a bit more balance and variety than most prue systems provide.

    But this is largely why the fear mongering socialism claims, as old and unoriginal as they are, should not work today. If they do, shame on us for letting them.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #24
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,759

    Re: O'Donnel, Coons live debate thread

    Exactly!

    And for the record, I'm not saying capitalism is bad. Far from it. I am, however, saying that where the free market system falls short, government must step in to fill the void but it must do so properly. Part of "doing it right" means giving much of the responsibility to the States to manage such programs where practical. The States, in turn, must then manage these programs in ways that not only uplift their residences from poverty, turmoil and dispair, but also empowers them to move up to that next rung in the social-economic landscape. To do less is to hold an individual, a People, a disporportioned segment of society as a whole down and makes them co-dependent on "the system" - a system that reels "them" in on one side but condemns them on the other. Hence, "class warfare" is what we achieve instead of mitigating it as much as possible.

    Sidenote: Sorry for hihacking the thread. Didn't mean to turn this into another debate on the validity of government run social programs. But the question was asked and I felt compelled to try and answer fairly.
    Last edited by Thorgasm; 10-15-10 at 06:26 PM. Reason: User request

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Maryland
    Last Seen
    01-10-12 @ 12:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    906

    Re: O'Donnel, Coons live debate thread

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    If you don't have an answer, just say so.
    The correct response to my post was "Sorry, Patria, turns out that socialism isn't actually unconstitutional, I'm just foaming at the mouth about libruls again."

    Americans are free to have socialist policies if they like. Nobody is saying that it's "guaranteed."

    Of course, expecting a conservative to do anything but whine about Marxism like a McCarthyite drone is asking too much these days.

  6. #26
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,272
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: O'Donnel, Coons live debate thread

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Nothing at all socialist about govt run health insurance
    I'm sorry?

    Do you want to show me where the government bought out Private Health Insurers?

    Oh wait the government didn't do that... they just directed Health Insurers to do certain things. (some things you should be happy about btw)

    govt run auto industry,
    So Obama is telling GM what to build?

    govt run banks, .... Nope, nothing socialist going on there.
    Yep. The government had so much power over the banks, they managed to stop those lovely bonuses... oh wait

  7. #27
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: O'Donnel, Coons live debate thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Exactly!

    And for the record, I'm not saying capitalism is bad. Far from it. I am, however, saying that where the free market system falls short, government must step in to fill the void but it must do so properly. Part of "doing it right" means giving much of the responsibility to the States to manage such programs where practical. The States, in turn, must then manage these programs in ways that not only upfilt their residences from poverty, turmoil and dispair, but also empowers them to move up to that next rung in the social-economic landscape. To do less is to hold an individual, a People, a disporportioned segment of society as a whole down and makes them co-dependent on "the system" - a system that reels "them" in on one side but condemns them on the other. Hence, "class warfare" is what we achieve instead of mitigating it as much as possible.

    Sidenote: Sorry for hihacking the thread. Didn't mean to turn this into another debate on the validity of government run social programs. But the question was asked and I felt compelled to try and answer fairly.
    No problem with me. I think you answered it well.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #28
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: O'Donnel, Coons live debate thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    I'm sorry?

    Do you want to show me where the government bought out Private Health Insurers?

    Oh wait the government didn't do that... they just directed Health Insurers to do certain things. (some things you should be happy about btw)



    So Obama is telling GM what to build?



    Yep. The government had so much power over the banks, they managed to stop those lovely bonuses... oh wait
    As I keep saying, misinformation dies a hard, hard death, if at all. What you responded to shows this well. And the facts will mean little in the debate, sadly.
    Last edited by Boo Radley; 10-15-10 at 04:25 PM.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  9. #29
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,272
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: O'Donnel, Coons live debate thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    As I keep saying, misinformation deis a hard, hard death, if at all. What you responded to shows this well. And the facts will mean little in the debate, sadly.
    Well aware lol!

    I have some breath to waste today...

  10. #30
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,708

    Re: O'Donnel, Coons live debate thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    I'm sorry?

    Do you want to show me where the government bought out Private Health Insurers?

    Oh wait the government didn't do that... they just directed Health Insurers to do certain things. (some things you should be happy about btw)



    So Obama is telling GM what to build?



    Yep. The government had so much power over the banks, they managed to stop those lovely bonuses... oh wait
    Hannity et al told these people that regulation is socialism, so that is now their reality. There's a law that says I can't dump uranium waste from a nuke plant into rivers or elementary school playgrounds. Socialized electricity! There's a regulation that says I need to have a 30 minute fuel reserve when I fly a plane. The government runs my plane! Another law says I can't buy alcohol on a Sunday in this state. Government liquor stores!

    Attention, morons:
    1) Funneling tax dollars into the hands of private companies is not socialism. It is, in fact, pretty much the opposite of socialism.
    2) Regulation is not ownership. Every industry has regulations. Does the government run your business?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •