|
Author
|
Topic: Palin proves an empty intellect once again
|
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 49479
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 07, 2011 03:19 PM
  
Socialists don't understand economics. Why should they? They live in utopia in their own minds. Canada is a good example. If I had a family member who needed a catscan, I would not want to wait on a list for six months to be able to get one. How the government spends my tax money is different from requiring me to pay for something I don't want. The difference is in the ideology. And the negative impact is Economics 101. ------------------
"Cooking is like love. It should be entered into with abandon or not at all." Harriet Van Horne IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 8688
From: Dublin, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 07, 2011 04:26 PM
quote:
Negative, AG. There's a big difference between an emergency measure and a philosophy. May I ask--are you a Socialist? You don't have to answer, but it would explain some of your posts.
Boy, you are really trying. If you want to get over on me, all you have to do is present a compelling argument. I'm someone who knows what Socialism actually is.
I'm a registered Democrat, and in that I'm on the conservative side, particularly where money is concerned. Being a Socialist wouldn't explain my posts whatsoever. That's ridiculous.
Regarding the economy, I don't know if you've noticed, but it's improving. Both Reagan and Obama came into office on the back of an economic crisis, and it looks as if both will have been successful at mitigating them. IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 49479
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 07, 2011 05:03 PM
Jwhop has given you compelling arguments for quite some time. ------------------
"Cooking is like love. It should be entered into with abandon or not at all." Harriet Van Horne IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 8688
From: Dublin, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 07, 2011 05:08 PM
I guess that's a matter of opinion.IP: Logged |
katatonic
unregistered
|
posted February 07, 2011 05:41 PM
and i repeat, this speech palin refers to did not BRING REAGAN to the ATTENTION of the conservatives. YOU DON"T GET ASKED TO SPEAK AT THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION unless you have ALREADY GOT the attention of the party, and in the case of BARRY GOLDWATER's year, that would be ... tadada....the conservatives! IP: Logged |
Node
Knowflake Posts: 2670
From: 2,021 mi East of Truth or Consequences NM
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 07, 2011 06:55 PM
Next on my hot listed outings..is for Sarah-the-Grifter to be PAC-cilated. You know, outed for PAC abuse s'onlyamatteroftime...  to his credit it is doubtful that during Mr Reagan's tenure / and unfortunate mental decline that he wrote cribs on his hand. That whole TelePrompTer bit is still hilarious though, the mock outrage and supposed belittlement. Always good for a laugh. Scratches head- JW issued 'compelling' arguments??? Yikes Now Katatonic has laid down a very comprehensive reply to the whole mandate / socialism / Ronnie issue which was perfunctorily walked over / glossed over / ignored by both Randal and JW. I have yet to hear a compelling reply to this-> quote:
Kat...so you think because reagan is defined as a capitalist that the MANDATE that everyone who seeks medical treatment will receive it whether they can pay or not...is NOT a MANDATE? or that it is not a SOCIALIST MANDATE?
i have never seen jwhop explain why this is not socialism, nor why everyone in the country having to pay the cost for the "freeloaders" is not socialist either. nor why it is constitutional to FORCE medical personnel to work on people who can't pay, or their hospitals or offices to do so either?there is after all nothing more socialist about the new healthcare act than this. why is it so digestible because a grade B actor who uses notes instead of a teleprompter created it? after all how many of us will NEVER seek medical treatment? and why should i pay for YOU to use those services free (hypothetical you of course) just because reagan said so and he was a "capitalist"? why shouldn't we all be forced to PAY for our medical treatment? (unless the DOCTOR decides to waive his fees, or the hospital, for charitable reasons.. THAT would be capitalism.
and I don't expect one.
For starters you have to understand the differences between socialism/marxism/commy-nism, huh? No, really you do, or not. on with the show..  "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
— Neil deGrasse Tyson IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 49479
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 08, 2011 12:57 PM
We both gave responses; you just aren't listening.------------------
"Cooking is like love. It should be entered into with abandon or not at all." Harriet Van Horne IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 49479
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 09, 2011 12:10 PM
No one is paying for anyone's health care because of Reagan, Stalin, or even the Tooth Fairy. We pay taxes. The government spends that money. Transfer payments are social programs, but the US is a Republic (or a Democratic Republic), not a socialist state (but we have plenty of socialists in this country). Requiring us to directly pay (not a transfer payment) is a whole different ballgame. There is a huge difference in the two. To clarify this for those who refuse to see, I will gladly ask one of my political science professors (head of the dept.) to allow me to use his explanation and post it here. And I think he's a Democrat. ------------------
"Cooking is like love. It should be entered into with abandon or not at all." Harriet Van Horne IP: Logged |
katatonic
unregistered
|
posted February 09, 2011 07:17 PM
the conservative hue and cry over obama "trying to run business" and telling businesses what they can and can't do, is no different than reagan telling the medicine business (doctors and hospitals) how to do THEIR work. yet no one on the conservative couch objects.and if you don't think you pay for universal ELIGIBILITY for care independent of means, you are playing ostrich. i don't know if you go to doctors or pay for insurance, but many hospitals are partially funded by govt funds...your taxes. and if you look at what it cost to go to a doctor in 1980 and what it cost even in 1995 the difference is gobsmacking...then look at today's prices. used to be most doctors would waive their fees when the patient couldn't manage them, but now they are REQUIRED to do so. you also pay, yes through taxes, for the "war on drugs" which is a patently failed program which basically tells people what they can't spend money on, grow, trade or carry without dire consequences. at least the healthcare plan gives you the choice of insurance plan, or even a get out at $50 bucks a month. and now INSURANCE companies are ALSO required to cover people. but they get the direct payback of having more customers. and MOST of the conservative freakouts about the plan are fabrications of the sloganeers and actors on fox news and on the rally circuit. and they get picked up and repeated ad nauseam by people who don't have the wit to put it in their own words. IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 49479
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 09, 2011 08:15 PM
DUH! I said we pay for it with taxes. Did you even read my post before you attempted to answer it?  IP: Logged |
Glaucus
Knowflake Posts: 5819
From: Sacramento,California
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 09, 2011 08:55 PM
Sarah Palin said that America is out of touch with Reagan's values.so the hell what I am very glad.
I don't want America to share the same values as a president who opposed the Civil Rights Act and the Civil Right Voting Act and opposed gay rights
I am Democrat, and I am a liberal (social liberal, fiscal moderate)
To me, my being liberal stems from the belief of tolerance and acceptance of diversity and equality which was strongly lacking when USA was created. There is still significant lack of it even today
My liberalism means
I believe in rights for all Americans
not just for whites - all other races,ethnicities
not just for males - females too
not just for heterosexuals - homosexuals,bisexuals too
not just for Christians - all other religions,spiritual practices
not for just neurotypicals - neurodivergents too I support gay marriage just like I support interracial marriage and interfaith marriage. People friggen complain about government intruding in people's lives, but they want the friggen government to intrude in people's lives when it comes to who they should marry and abortion. What a bunch of friggen hypocrites. Even back in the 1960's, they wanted to intrude in others lives in regards to only white people should be treated as citizens and non-whites treated as 2nd class citizens. They argue about states rights and activist judges. The worst of all, they use religion and force their beliefs to keep others from having rights and freedoms.
As a liberal, I do believe in separation of church and state. I thank God that June 12 1967 Loving vs. Virgina Supreme Court ruling happened. It struck down all anti-race mixing laws.
When USA was created, it wasn't made for all people. It was made for only the white people. It was built from theft and slavery. Without theft and slavery, USA wouldn't be where it is today.
The founding fathers didn't believe in equality , and they didn't believe that all men were created equal either. Some of them even had slaves. There were slaves in the white house.
Why the hell should I care about what the founding fathers think or did?
I think much of this isn't relevant.
Times change. It's the 2000's. We're not in the 1700's. I wouldn't want to be in the 1700's because those were days of inequality. We're not into the 1980's either. We should be progressing period.
We shouldn't be regressing in any kind of way.
What good was 4th of July to other people that were not White.
Frederick Douglass questioned that.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. did too.
This is all coming from a Black,Portuguese,English,German, French,Italian,Puerto Rican, and Native American born to an interracial couple, one of only 2.4 percent of US Census takers that identified as multiracial, neurodivergent that formed Developmental Neurodiversity Association , member of an interfaith Unity Church Spiritual Life Center, and a member of National Organization for Women (NOW), voted against the proposition that took away gay marriage rights in California
I don't support NAACP because they don't care about the rights of multiracial people.
The hell with the on drop rule. I don't go with the racial status nor any other type of status quo.
I don't support affirmative action nor any other type of racial,gender quotas as it contradicts equal rights in my opinion.
That means, I don't support any types of reparations for people of any background.
I don't trust the government regardless of who is in charge.
------------------
A different mind is NOT a deficient mind.
Developmental Neurodiversity Association facebook group. http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=131944976821905&ref=ts IP: Logged |
katatonic
unregistered
|
posted February 10, 2011 12:10 PM
yes randall, that is why i said "yes, through taxes"...i'll refrain from asking if you read MY post. by the way, the british healthcare system was paid for by taxes also. it is the american allergy to the word "tax" that created this reform in the form it now takes. but mandating that an entire business perform in a certain way FOR THE GOOD OF ALL as seen by reagan is no different than when it has obama's name on it. the point i am trying to make is not that ronnie was a commie, or that obama is not using some socialist measures, but that the continued attempt to call one black and one white (capitalism and socialism that is) is futile. no administration has been all one or all the other including THIS PRESENT one. it is so reminiscent of the 50s' constant harping on the RED MENACE, this mindless repetition of SOCIALIST! - especially when it is also applied to measures the republicans took credit for but cry wolf at when the dems or obama suggest the same and similar. most of us admit that capitalism mixed with socialism is not only the norm but necessary. without anti-trust acts (regulation of business) there would soon be no competition...and so forth. i just wonder when critical thinking will be mobilized against all this sloganeering propaganda. IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 49479
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 10, 2011 12:26 PM
Why are socialists so afraid of being labeled for what they are?------------------
"Cooking is like love. It should be entered into with abandon or not at all." Harriet Van Horne IP: Logged |
katatonic
unregistered
|
posted February 10, 2011 04:25 PM
because socialist is being used as a blanket term with a meaning akin to murderer, thug, communist dictator, and so on? which is nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with FEARMONGERING and corruption which goes on in EVERY type of government. socialist, monarchist, republican, tell me one form of govt that is not corrupted when money becomes everything... as i said, sloganeering has gotten out of hand and labels appear to be everything to some people these days. that doesn't mean they describe anyone or anything correctly. IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 49479
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 10, 2011 05:16 PM
Socialism is the antithesis to capitalism, so yeah, it should be viewed in that light in this country, seeing as the US is built on capitalism.------------------
"Cooking is like love. It should be entered into with abandon or not at all." Harriet Van Horne IP: Logged |
katatonic
unregistered
|
posted February 10, 2011 06:00 PM
take a look at norway, randall, or even the UK - plenty of capitalism alongside social programs. these are not "gulags" as jwhop likes to characterize them. richard branson a socialist? or even a citizen of a socialist country? let's be honest.pure capitalism without any regulation ends up in the wealth being consolidated in a few huge companies and competition being killed. at which point, capitalism becomes a ghost and a few very rich people lord it over the poor, ie the rest of the country. so every time our government tries to put some regulations in place and the conservatives cry "socialist takeover" they are actually hastening the END of a capitalist society. and don't forget that the original united states were largely agrarian, which is not truly capitalist either. in a truly socialist society the PEOPLE OWN EVERYTHING jointly. that doesn't stop them playing with capital! nor is it what we saw in the USSR with a select few bureaucrats creaming off the top and keeping everyone else down. when the soviet BROKE UP for awhile true socialism was in place. the govt which had OWNED all housing and business was no more, so the people "inherited" their homes and businesses and managed to keep going without money for awhile ... imagine that happening in a country where "every man for himself" is the byline..? i'm not a socialist. i think private property is fine. however MOST people do not OWN their property these days, the bank does. you're in that line, you know what i mean...that is capitalism gone haywire, whichi is AT LEAST as big a problem as "too much" government. yes, reagan thought "govt was the problem" ie, when congress didn't give him what he wanted he went around them, and when it tried to prevent huge monopolies forming he deregulated business even more, making it EASIER for those with the dosh to consolidate power and eliminate competition. the first public housing and "welfare" in this country began with george washington's presidency. so how is this country completley capitalist? IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 8688
From: Dublin, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 10, 2011 07:10 PM
Socialism, by any American Republican definition is overly simplistic. The people Republicans try to label as Socialists are no such thing. No so-called "Socialist" who is an American is an advocate for government or people to control all business and commerce. This is why Americans wouldn't like to be labelled as Socialists, Randall. They simply aren't. They aren't advocating a whole new economic system.Socialism as a concept, or an economic theory is quite varied in ideas about application. "Socialized" medicine isn't Socialist. IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 49479
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 10, 2011 07:52 PM
Wrong again, Kat. The banks don't own the property. The property is deeded to the owner. Houses are not like cars (where the bank retains ownership or title). You can sell a house to anyone you like, because you own the house. The lender places a lien secured by the property. You can still sell the house subject to the lien, which will remain on the property. ------------------
"Cooking is like love. It should be entered into with abandon or not at all." Harriet Van Horne IP: Logged |
katatonic
unregistered
|
posted February 11, 2011 01:19 PM
until you have paid the mortgage down the bank will take whatever you owe though. so many people right now who have little to no equity in their houses will get little to nothing if they do manage to sell their property. and if you miss a couple of payments TO THE BANK not the previous owner, you will lose it altogether unless you are very savvy and very tenacious! am i wrong?IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 49479
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 11, 2011 02:03 PM
The bank has the right to take back the collateral, yes. Lenders are flexible in working something out also, as they don't want the house. They are in the lending business, not the real estate business. By foreclosing houses, it gives them nonperforming asets, which is something the bank wants to avoid. But the bank doesn't own the house as you said. Sellers can sell houses with little or no equity by using owner-financing, so options are available in those situations. What is your point? You said banks own houses, people don't. That is patently untrue. ------------------
"Cooking is like love. It should be entered into with abandon or not at all." Harriet Van Horne IP: Logged |
katatonic
unregistered
|
posted February 11, 2011 02:16 PM
the facts seem to point elsewhere, ie banks foreclosing even when they DON"T have to, and refusing to resell to owners who offer them more than they are asking on the market? plenty of people have had this experience, and then there are those who are hanging on by a thread with little to no equity and high interest on the extra loans they felt they needed to keep the house going...i'm not saying these are geniuses or anything, but it is a pretty common story these days. many people would disagree with you that they "own" their home...they"own" the debt on it though. even people who DO own their homes can lose them by defaulting on a small equity loan which is nowhere near the value of the property itself. aren't you in the business of forestalling foreclosures? you must meet quite a few people in dire straits and owing the bank a fortune ..? their ownership is kind of a technicality in those conditions isn't it? IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 49479
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 11, 2011 03:33 PM
Every lender I have dealt with wants to bend over backwards to help the homewoner. If they have too many nonperforming assets, the Fed will close their doors. Kat, I don't know where you get your information or how your thinking process works, but it does no good to present facts to you. If you borrow money to buy a home, and if you default, you have put up the home as collateral, so the lender has the right to preserve its investment. That's the way it is in any country with a free economy and private property rights. But in practice, the lender just wants the payments. You can "think" they don't own the house, but that doesn't make it factual. The fact that they do own it is why in some states a foreclosure is a very lengthy court process. ------------------
"Cooking is like love. It should be entered into with abandon or not at all." Harriet Van Horne IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 49479
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 11, 2011 03:35 PM
Jwhop, do you ever feel like you are just banging your head against a brick wall?  ------------------
"Cooking is like love. It should be entered into with abandon or not at all." Harriet Van Horne IP: Logged |
katatonic
unregistered
|
posted February 11, 2011 04:08 PM
edit...on second thought there seems no point in a brick wall trying to get through to you...i thought we were just conversing for a minute there!IP: Logged |
emitres
Knowflake Posts: 491
From:
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted February 11, 2011 06:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Randall:
Socialists don't understand economics. Why should they? They live in utopia in their own minds. Canada is a good example. If I had a family member who needed a catscan, I would not want to wait on a list for six months to be able to get one.
why oh why do Americans insist on bringing Canada into the discussion?? just a small reminder - from one of the few Canadians here - that Canada is a vastly large country whose health care policies differ from province to province... as for waiting six months for a cat-scan - does not generally happen unless you live in one of the larger cities and you can usually choose to travel to a different facility to have "stuff" done...or in those instances where it isn't deemed a medical emergency then yes, you will be put on a waiting list...
and once more let me also remind you folks that Canada is far far far from being a socialist country... we are very much a democratic capitalist country just like the US... we just have better health care  ------------------
“Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see.” B.Franklin IP: Logged |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
