Ahh, good catch.
That's illogical. You're essentially saying that, because other Presidents took positions you feel are comparable to Obama's on a number of issues, my concerns are invalid.
But, that really doesn't work so well--this is the problem with Democracy, unfortunately. We have two parties that have played on the fears for the American people. Through fear tactics, entitlement, and media support, we've got a political class that essentially cemented into position.
Okay, so you take the position that our political "representatives" aren't abusing, and expanding, their power via fear tactics and entitlement? In the past few months the media used a photoshopped picture of a man, from the shoulders down, at an Arizona tea party gathering for an Obama speech toting a gun. They used this picture in order to declare the man a crazy racist. Well, they chopped his head out of the photo because he was a BLACK guy who was joining the tea party movement and was expressing his disdain for the outright disrespect the Obama administration has shown for our second amendment. The goverment-media complex has repeatedly used this farce as a means of painting genuinely pissed off Americans as nut-jobs to remove any credibility from their movement and influence the rest of the public to distance themselves from the tea party movement. Then, the congressional black caucus decides to waltz through the middle of a 15,000 strong tea party movement a couple weeks back... literally right through the middle, essentially doing everything they could to provoke an attack. They then "claim" that racial slurs and spit were repeatedly hurled at them as they walked through the crowd. However, despite the many video cameras and audio recording equipment in the 15,000 strong gathering, not one person caught any of the supposed incidents. The point was to claim that the gathering was just a bunch of crazy racists. Now, even if there was an isolated incident, it wouldn't matter because a single incident is hardly representative of an entire movement. But, not one single incident was recorded, and it appears that our government and media were, again, colluding to discredit American's who feel disenfranchised. The same sort of dishonest, despicable tactics were used at the town hall meetings. I can go on for ages... and these are just recent events, it's ridiculous.
But, they did cause socialism. America is already an increasingly socialist nation. They took steps, and so is Obama.
Well, that's why I also used words like statist, which does lend itself to authoritarian government, along with socialist.
That's a reasonable point to consider, but that essentially assumes that the people will love the reform they get. With that in mind, there is also the possibility that people may not be too pleased and that businesses will suffer, so by implementing the program in 2014, people won't be able to complain about it if it sucks. Either way, the end result is still the same: he just brought millions more people into the "government dependent" category. By creating dependence, politicians earn power.
It's not just the left. Neither side of the aisle cares to represent the people of this country unless it's politically expedient to do so.
You mention Occam's razor as if my argument makes too many assumptions, but that couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, I think you've got it completely backward. My single assumption is this: most politicians want the power to control our lives (for our own good, of course).
You want me to think that there was ANYTHING genuine in that entire debate when (a) many members of congress were voting on a bill they hadn't even seen (b) it was HUGELY partisan? That doesn't fly.
That was said with the fresh memory of England's tyrant in his mind. Things are much much more complicated now, and there are certain things that the government needs to step in and regulate... like insurance companies that have gone rabid with premium increases. Heck, ever AFTER this law was passed, they're STILL trying to reject children with pre-existing conditions. You think these kind of people should be left to their own devices? The free-market is in place, as is the employer based system, nothing radical has been done.
"Overall, the profit margin for health insurance companies was a modest 3.4 percent over the past year, according to data provided by Morningstar. That ranks 87th out of 215 industries and slightly above the median of 2.2 percent." - http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/08/25/why-health-insurers-make-lousy-villains.html
I don't really consider socialism a marginal viewpoint in the US. In varying intensities, it is pretty common.
I'm not sure why you're giving him the thumb-up and arguing with me. That's completely contradictory. His point is more inline with my position, which is that the government wants more and more control (read: authoritarian).
Why "wow"?
I didn't even say that "government" is bad, but the people who are in our right now are bad, and the people who tend to occupy their time with government matters tend to be bad--bad in the sense that they're always looking to control our lives.
If you can't see the socialism written on the wall, you're blind. Nobody needs to read their minds. Anytime they speak of socialists concepts such as redistribution of wealth, or "economic justice", and incite class warfare they are showing their socialist tendancies. Right now they refer to themselves as "progressives" because socialism is still a bad word in America. So, of course none of them are going to run around wearing socialist badges.
Yeah, I also explicitly stated that neither side of the aisle is interested in representing us. I agree with more of the republican talking points (note: I said talking points, not positions, because they lie), but that's irrelevant because neither side has my trust.
Government isn't good or bad, just necessary. It is the people in government who make it good or bad. And, people who tend toward government tend to be authoritarian. That is my major concern. Socialism (aka "progressivism") is a secondary concern because I feel it will break the state. Normally it wouldn't be a big deal, but under authoritarian government we can't really do too much to change things if the will of the people were to do so, which it is at this very moment!
Strictly speaking (using the definition of the words themselves) we are in fact a more "socialistic" country than we were in the past. Not sure how anyone (being serious and non-partisan) could ever argue that fact. So, it did come true back then, and very well could come true today. Your responding like its a switch that get flipped, in reality is a sliding scale and we are much further along than we were in the past. There is really no denying that. The extent to which we will go is the real debate.
We simply disagree. Your making things like intricate political systems "black and white" and its not just as simple as you say. Governments and "nations" can in fact have aspects of many "systems" as you even stated later in your post.
This is the problem, you apply your own definition to someone else's words. No one is trying to marginalize anyone by saying something is socialistic, they are simply describing the inter workings of said issue. Dont drink the flavor aid and start writing people's points off as marginalizing simply because you dont agree. I know you dont do that, and are much more intelligent than that, but your post is starting to sound that way.
Equivocation fallacy. You can't just say something is as ridiculous as something you find ridiculous and expect it to disprove them. You seem to do this quite a bit in your arguments here, its a way to sort of show you respect their point but understand they certainly dont mean something ridiculous. Problem is, your not the only one to define ridiculous in that debate.
Still you maintain that the word "socialism" is so terrible and marginalizing that its ridiculous to use, and thus equivalent of extremism. Problem is, its a perfectly valid word to use when discussing economic/political ideals. There is actually a lot in socialism that is based on very good ideals. If anything, your marginalizing the aspects of socialism by using it as an extremist red flag.
I just believe we shouldn't "take our best guess" when it comes to the future of our country and our citizens lives. When it comes to 1/6 of our economy.
Hope I didn't come off as harsh or anything in this, just trying to be straightforward.
What are you talking about?
You mean like being a "Democratic-Republic", like the good 'ol USA was founded where we're not actually a true democracy because our representatives have the votes that count? I guess we should just pretend we don't have a democratic form of government because it's not 100% democracy (something that, in your estimation, doesn't exist).
No it's not a scare-you term. It's a system of re-distribution that many American's are averse to because we've got 500 years of self-determinism, self-reliance, and personal responsibility ingrained into our culture. The advocates of an extremely socialist system (read: massive redistribution of wealth) are everything our predecessors were not. As our country has become more wealthy, the socialist programs have become more and more common, which is fine as long as we're assisting "needy" people.
I like you, man. Ha, ha. Andybody who can look at somethign they said that didn't make much sense and say, "wtf was I thinking" has my respect
haha
I was simply posting a historical quote that I thought matched the posters sentiments. Interesting though that you would use that particular phrase to describe someone who is against government involvement.
Your absolutely correct, but no one was saying it did. I think we simply view the word "socialist" as very different. You view it as a naughty word and I think its a descriptive term.
Well, I wasn't attempting to describe any "movement" or group of people. In reality I was simply interjecting in someone else's conversation, lol. But, dont be so quick to jump to conclusions about my words, I certainly wasn't trying to make a generalized statement, but a more precise description of the philosophy behind some actions. I hadn't been made aware that "progressivism" was an accepted term by everyone in the "movement". I mean, aren't we playing semantical games now? There are ideas and actions (even in this bill) that are in fact socialistic in nature. Of or relating to socialism. Its true, social security is socialistic in its ideology. Dont immediately assume me using the term is meant as an insult. I'm simply describing what I feel is the philosophy behind it. I mean, lets be serious, Obama said he thinks we should spread the wealth around. Thats "socialistic" in ideology, the term "progressive" doesn't really describe that statement in any accepted terms. Is that a bad thing? I guess that depends on your politics, but to be honest about it is the start to real conversation, understanding, acceptance, and moving forward in our country. (yeah I went big with it! lol) Our current society demands a bit of socialism, thats a fact. Its not to cause fear, but to actually discuss coherently. I mean there is a reason we say "distal to the elbow" and not "a pinge down thata way". Its accepted terminology that allows us to ocmmunicate....well maybe I'm mistaken because apparently it hasn't allowed us to communicate, but I blame you for that!
Just kidding, I just think you assume everyone is going to have a visceral reaction to certain words and I just dont fit that bill I guess. However, I will agree your probably right about the majority of people in these discussions. I can respect that. Smart idea actually.
I actually agree, I just think they are making a caricature of a basically true point. While they are playing it up to get ratings and such, we should be able to honestly discuss it (logically) without said visceral reactions. Sadly, thats probably not going to happen in which case your absolutely right to react to it the way you did.
I can concede this, your probably absolutely right. This is easier done over beers in person or something.
Well, I wasn't attempting to describe any "movement" or group of people. In reality I was simply interjecting in someone else's conversation, lol. But, dont be so quick to jump to conclusions about my words, I certainly wasn't trying to make a generalized statement, but a more precise description of the philosophy behind some actions. I hadn't been made aware that "progressivism" was an accepted term by everyone in the "movement". I mean, aren't we playing semantical games now? There are ideas and actions (even in this bill) that are in fact socialistic in nature. Of or relating to socialism. Its true, social security is socialistic in its ideology. Dont immediately assume me using the term is meant as an insult. I'm simply describing what I feel is the philosophy behind it. I mean, lets be serious, Obama said he thinks we should spread the wealth around. Thats "socialistic" in ideology, the term "progressive" doesn't really describe that statement in any accepted terms. Is that a bad thing? I guess that depends on your politics, but to be honest about it is the start to real conversation, understanding, acceptance, and moving forward in our country. (yeah I went big with it! lol) Our current society demands a bit of socialism, thats a fact. Its not to cause fear, but to actually discuss coherently. I mean there is a reason we say "distal to the elbow" and not "a pinge down thata way". Its accepted terminology that allows us to ocmmunicate....well maybe I'm mistaken because apparently it hasn't allowed us to communicate, but I blame you for that!
. However, you did address it, I just wanted to point out that I hadn't been visiting your intentions.
I like you, man. Ha, ha. Andybody who can look at somethign they said that didn't make much sense and say, "wtf was I thinking" has my respect
Bingo.
I think you're misinterpreting the term "for-profit". Of course people get paid.
I think you're misinterpreting the term "for-profit". Of course people get paid.
My hospital is not-for-profit. Everyone is paid well and gets yearly raises. The "profit" is referring to what the company makes above operating costs, after all salaries and needs are paid. A not-for-profit company has to reinvest that money into the hospital/organization, rather than the "profit" going to elevating the CEO and managements insane salaries and "bonuses" and stuffing $$$ into the pockets of stockholders and what not.
FOR-PROFIT INSURANCE COMPANIES take $$$ out of the healthcare system and pour it out into the business world and stock markets.
So many people are complaining that doctors are going to be earning less and less $, but don't see that this $$$ being siphoned out of the health care system is a problem?
