Do as the US says, not as it does. [Archive]

Ugg

Oct 28, 2003, 10:19 PM

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1073126,00.html)

Joseph Stiglitz, professor of economics at Columbia University, is a Nobel prize winner and author of Globalisation and Its Discontents

He has been writing a series of articles for the Guardian about US economic policy both at home and abroad. This article is especially noteworthy. The IMF which is basically a tool of its largest donor has devastated many emerging economies through its "do as we say and not as we do policies".

It is a powerful reminder that we are not a capitalistic democracy rather a socialistic republic. Admittedly we are one of the most capitalistic of the contenders but our successes lie in our socialist endeavors, not our capitalistic ones.

Sayhey

Oct 28, 2003, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by Ugg
Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1073126,00.html)

He has been writing a series of articles for the Guardian about US economic policy both at home and abroad. This article is especially noteworthy. The IMF which is basically a tool of its largest donor has devastated many emerging economies through its "do as we say and not as we do policies".

It is a powerful reminder that we are not a capitalistic democracy rather a socialistic republic. Admittedly we are one of the most capitalistic of the contenders but our successes lie in our socialist endeavors, not our capitalistic ones.

I like the link. He points out the importance of Government regulation and social programs in the maintenance and growth of the economic system. In a time when Republican spin has convinced many that anything to do with government is evil it is good to see someone talk of the vital role it plays.

I would argue with you over your characterization of the US as a "socialistic republic." Last I knew socialism had to do with the social ownership of the means of production. I don't see much in the way of social ownership in any meaningful way in the US. What we do have is the legacy of some very successful social-democratic policies from the days of the New Deal and Great Society, but that is hardly the same thing.

mactastic

Oct 29, 2003, 09:32 AM

"Do as we say, not as we do" is the obvious implication when Bush says things like "peaceful nations don't pursue weapons of mass destruction" then asks congress for permission to develop nu-cu-lar bunker busters. Like the US doesn't have a WMD program or something.

Code101

Oct 29, 2003, 10:16 AM

No socialism! You guys scare me. There are many Americans that would say over my cold dead body before they would let socialism in.

This is why many Republicans such as myself and a majority of the rest of the nation are trying to cut education spending. It is going to support these thugs at our universitys that love the UN/EU way of life. The guy who wrote this can go over to Europe if he wants and practice socialism there. No one is keeping him here.

Here in Utah, there is a big push for private schools where kids are taught to love America again as well as taught what the founding fathers really had in mind for this nation. It sure wasn't socialism. This push is working. In my home town alone, there has been 4 private schools open up in the last 3 years. 18% of the kids now have left the public schools to go to them. I'll be glad when they refund the tax people pay for schools. I quit state college and went to BYU, the biggest school in Utah and best of all, it's private. I actually felt like I was in America again when I went there.

Capitalism is true freedom to have as much success and wealth as we want or be as poor as we want.

mactastic

Oct 29, 2003, 10:28 AM

Ah yes, the old (and very tired) love-it-or-leave-it argument.

Funny that Republicans like you didn't take your own advice when Clinton was prez.;)

Sayhey

Oct 29, 2003, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Code101
No socialism! You guys scare me. There are many Americans that would say over my cold dead body before they would let socialism in.

This is why many Republicans such as myself and a majority of the rest of the nation are trying to cut education spending. It is going to support these thugs at our universitys that love the UN/EU way of life. The guy who wrote this can go over to Europe if he wants and practice socialism there. No one is keeping him here.

Here in Utah, there is a big push for private schools where kids are taught to love America again as well as taught what the founding fathers really had in mind for this nation. It sure wasn't socialism. This push is working. In my home town alone, there has been 4 private schools open up in the last 3 years. 18% of the kids now have left the public schools to go to them. I'll be glad when they refund the tax people pay for schools. I quit state college and went to BYU, the biggest school in Utah and best of all, it's private. I actually felt like I was in America again when I went there.

Capitalism is true freedom to have as much success and wealth as we want or be as poor as we want.

All this shows, Code101, is that you have a knee jerk reaction to the word "socialism." No, the founding fathers did not have socialism in mind when they wrote the constitution. One good reason that is true is because there was no socialist movement to speak of at the time. Socialism as a movement starts in the 19th century and has its roots not only in European history but also in US history. So you see, Ugg, doesn't have to go to Europe if he wants to promote socialism (something I've never seen him propose.)

I'm glad you are having a wonderful time in BYU, but this topic has nothing to do with what public education is about. It is an amazing statement, by the way, to say that the majority of the people of the US are for cutting Public Education.

If you truly believe that Capitalism = Freedom then perhaps a little refresher course in history and economics is in order. I would not propose that Capitalism means the absence of freedom, but that has occurred in many capitalist countries.

zimv20

Oct 29, 2003, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by Sayhey
All this shows, Code101, is that you have a knee jerk reaction to the word "socialism." [excellent response snipped] I would not propose that Capitalism means the absence of freedom, but that has occurred in many capitalist countries.

you're using logic on a Factophobe.

Sayhey

Oct 29, 2003, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by zimv20
you're using logic on a Factophobe.

Sorry, couldn't help myself. I hope Ugg sees this stuff.

Code101

Oct 29, 2003, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by zimv20
you're using logic on a Factophobe.

And what are you? A Repubophobe

mactastic

Oct 29, 2003, 11:49 AM

Ok, lets not let this get petty now....

Sayhey

Oct 29, 2003, 11:57 AM

Code101, did you want to reply to any of the points I made?

Code101

Oct 29, 2003, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey

I'm glad you are having a wonderful time in BYU, but this topic has nothing to do with what public education is about.

Well it sure does! The public education system in America is the engine behind all this crap! Parents pay taxes, an arm, a leg, a fee here and a fee there and then some for their kids to go to public school only to have them brainwashed into believing that Socialism is the way to go and that god doesn't exist. Basically, the traditional values that have been in this country since the beginning are being wiped out buy none other than our own government funded institutions. Why, "because we need diversity." What a crock!

The person who wrote this little sad excuse of an article is from CU. I would say this is a good representation of our wonderful public universities and how they seek to destroy the American way. I love how all these ultra liberal thugs go overseas to spit their poison towards their country, in this case the UK. Kind of like the Ditsy Chicks.

The thing is, my business will always follow the principles of capitalism. I'm very much a capitalist and so is the God blessed USA!!! The more push to get government out of out of our private businesses and corporations, the better! The more deregulation, the better. The more private property and less public property the better. Time to get the liberal iron fist out of the private affairs of America’s Private Citizens.

mactastic

Oct 29, 2003, 01:04 PM

Lol... your parenting skills are sorely lacking if your kids are brainwashed into socialism and atheism by sending them off to school. If your kids can't deal with hearing an opposing viewpoint to yours, how do you expect them to survive in the real world?

Besides, you pay taxes to a school system whose actions you disagree with, and I pay taxes to a military whose actions I disagree with. How is that fundamentally any different? I long ago realized that I would never agree wholly how my tax dollars were spent.

Sayhey

Oct 29, 2003, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Code101
Well it sure does! The public education system in America is the engine behind all this crap! Parents pay taxes, an arm, a leg, a fee here and a fee there and then some for their kids to go to public school only to have them brainwashed into believing that Socialism is the way to go and that god doesn't exist. Basically, the traditional values that have been in this country since the beginning are being wiped out buy none other than our own government funded institutions. Why, "because we need diversity." What a crock!

The person who wrote this little sad excuse of an article is from CU. I would say this is a good representation of our wonderful public universities and how they seek to destroy the American way. I love how all these ultra liberal thugs go overseas to spit their poison towards their country, in this case the UK. Kind of like the Ditsy Chicks.

The thing is, my business will always follow the principles of capitalism. I'm very much a capitalist and so is the God blessed USA!!! The more push to get government out of out of our private businesses and corporations, the better! The more deregulation, the better. The more private property and less public property the better. Time to get the liberal iron fist out of the private affairs of America’s Private Citizens.

We obviously look to public education to accomplish different things. For instance, I don't want my money spent teaching others that God has ordained capitalism for the US. I would much rather it is spent teaching all the history of the US, not just the myths. I would like an educational system that teaches students about all religions, from the beliefs of ancient civilizations to those that are practiced now in every corner of the globe, with an eye to not trying to convert anyone to any of them. I would much rather that the ideas of capitalism be taught as ideas for critical review rather than holy doctrine that we must bow before or leave the country. In short, I want a educational system that teaches the critical thinking skills necessary to be a full fledged member of a democracy, not a mindless robot that parrots lines they do not understand. If you would rather have a different education in BYU that is, of course, up to you. But then, perhaps, I should not make the mistake of assuming your bias is the same as that university?

Ugg

Oct 29, 2003, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by Code101
The guy who wrote this can go over to Europe if he wants and practice socialism there. No one is keeping him here.

Here in Utah, there is a big push for private schools where kids are taught to love America again as well as taught what the founding fathers really had in mind for this nation. It sure wasn't socialism. This push is working. In my home town alone, there has been 4 private schools open up in the last 3 years. 18% of the kids now have left the public schools to go to them. I'll be glad when they refund the tax people pay for schools. I quit state college and went to BYU, the biggest school in Utah and best of all, it's private. I actually felt like I was in America again when I went there.

Capitalism is true freedom to have as much success and wealth as we want or be as poor as we want.

Stiglitz, if you're referring to him not me, is a Nobel prize winning economist who has taken a much needed critical look at the US approach to economics. It's a very revealing one and I would highly recommend that you read what he has to say. I don't agree with a lot of what he has to say but it is very eye opening and not merely regurgitated Rep/Dem party platforms.

Many many countries have been founded throughout the centuries and no matter how great their founders were, the majority of them after a few hundred years rarely resemble what the founders envisioned. It's of course impossible to say what they would think of the US today but few of them were stupid and even fewer of them would expect the country to remain static for 200+ years. Is the US better today for its social welfare? IMO, emphatically yes. Only a hundred years ago we saw what rampant and uncontrolled capitalism would result in. It wasn't pretty and it shouldn't have to be repeated if we as a species are capable of learning from our mistakes.

How's that adage go? Those that forget history are bound to repeat it.

Sayhey

Oct 29, 2003, 06:22 PM

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana in
Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense, Scribner's, 1905, page 284

link (http://www.iupui.edu/~santedit/)

A good thought to remember.

pdham

Oct 31, 2003, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Code101

Capitalism is true freedom to have as much success and wealth as we want or be as poor as we want.

I cant believe someone who has an college education would even type something like that. Show me someone who excersied there "freedom" and then decided they wanted to be poor. If being poor must be an option for your definition of freedom, I dont know if I want part in that kind of freedom.

As a side note to your founding fathers comment; many other writtings by the authors of the constitution show that they never inded it to last for more than 1 generation, it was meant to be a dynamic document that changed with the times. However, the way we have painted it infaliable means anyone who suggests major changes is considered un-American.

Finally, I woud like to know what your major objection to socialism is (or Democratic-Welfarism as it is more properly called today). The main economic platform on which countries like
Sweden, Norway and to some extent Germany are built on is; the rich give up more so the poor can have more. As a result povery is almost non-existent in Norway and Sweden, and Sweden has had 0% unemployment numerous times in the past decade. (I dont have numbers for Germany so I will refrain from comenting on them). This sounds anything but restrictive of personnal freedoms.

The American system may seem to embody freedom for thsoe of us who can aford child-care, secondary education, health-care, etc, but rest assured, the people who cant afford to buy medication for their sick child that they have to leave home alone so they can go to work dont feel that free.

Ugg

Oct 31, 2003, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by pdham
Finally, I woud like to know what your major objection to socialism is (or Democratic-Welfarism as it is more properly called today). The main economic platform on which countries like
Sweden, Norway and to some extent Germany are built on is; the rich give up more so the poor can have more. As a result povery is almost non-existent in Norway and Sweden, and Sweden has had 0% unemployment numerous times in the past decade. (I dont have numbers for Germany so I will refrain from comenting on them). This sounds anything but restrictive of personnal freedoms.

The American system may seem to embody freedom for thsoe of us who can aford child-care, secondary education, health-care, etc, but rest assured, the people who cant afford to buy medication for their sick child that they have to leave home alone so they can go to work dont feel that free.

A report was issued this week that places Finland, a very democratic welfare oriented country in first place in regards to competitivenesss. Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3225223.stm) the other contenders:

1. Finland

2. USA

3. Sweden

4. Denmark

5. Taiwan

6. Singapore

7. Switzerland

8. Iceland

9. Norway

10. Australia

As you can clearly see, with the exception of the US the top ten include the 5 nordic countries, renowned for their generous and effective state-subsidized socail benefits.

I highly recommend that code101 read the article, it is very revealing and explodes some of the myths about the US and its world ranking.

Code101

Nov 1, 2003, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by pdham

Finally, I woud like to know what your major objection to socialism is (or Democratic-Welfarism as it is more properly called today).

You can spin it any way you like. You call it Democratic-Welfarism, I call it Socialism. The word Socialism brings out what it really is, a wolf under a good mask.

Democrats and Liberals like to make people think they are so much for the little guy. It's really about control. Liberals like to spin the word Socialism and make it sound nice, or politically correct kind of like you "Democratic-Welfarism." Give me a break!

If it takes away money out of my pocket against my will just because I make more money, I don't have true freedom. Robinhood is stealing from the rich and the middle class. I feel bad for the poor but they have the freedom to live in a slum or get out and make some money. The sky is the limit in America. That's what America is all about. Keep the government out of private business and out of peoples pockets. There should be a flat tax on income only! That is the only way to make it fair.

Socialism is really just a striped down version of Communism. Democrats like to sugar it all up by saying how much it will help people out. What it will really do is make it so everyone weather they work and add their fair share or not gets the same amount of money. It will make the government which is allready too big, even bigger. It will make everything owned buy the public and not private. It will kill off our Military. In the end our great nation will fall and be taken over buy the UN or some other world government full of thugs.

Leave America alone and keep Socialism and all the other crazy ideas out!

pseudobrit

Nov 1, 2003, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by Code101
I feel bad for the poor but they have the freedom to live in a slum or get out and make some money.

I can't believe people can think this way. It just boggles my mind.

Socialism is really just a striped down version of Communism.

And American capitalism is just a stripped down version of fascism. What's your point? That a moderate approach to a radical idea must be radical?

Sayhey

Nov 1, 2003, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Code101
You can spin it any way you like. You call it Democratic-Welfarism, I call it Socialism. The word Socialism brings out what it really is, a wolf under a good mask.

Democrats and Liberals like to make people think they are so much for the little guy. It's really about control. Liberals like to spin the word Socialism and make it sound nice, or politically correct kind of like you "Democratic-Welfarism." Give me a break!

If it takes away money out of my pocket against my will just because I make more money, I don't have true freedom. Robinhood is stealing from the rich and the middle class. I feel bad for the poor but they have the freedom to live in a slum or get out and make some money. The sky is the limit in America. That's what America is all about. Keep the government out of private business and out of peoples pockets. There should be a flat tax on income only! That is the only way to make it fair.

Socialism is really just a striped down version of Communism. Democrats like to sugar it all up by saying how much it will help people out. What it will really do is make it so everyone weather they work and add their fair share or not gets the same amount of money. It will make the government which is allready too big, even bigger. It will make everything owned buy the public and not private. It will kill off our Military. In the end our great nation will fall and be taken over buy the UN or some other world government full of thugs.

Leave America alone and keep Socialism and all the other crazy ideas out!

Code101,

you really ought to try and read something other than recycled rants of conservative AM radio commentators. There is so much in your post that has no semblance to any objective understanding of Socialism or "Democratic Welfarism" (read as social democratic social policies) or, for that matter, Capitalism, that is hard to know where to start.

One thing you did get right is that it is all about "control." Unfortunately, you forget to apply your own standard to Capitalism. Under Capitalism the economic structures are controlled by those who own them. You can argue that is how it should be, but it is still about control. We have over the years made laws to limit that control through labor laws, health and safety regulation, antitrust laws, etc., but fundamentally the control still rests in the hands of those who own Capitalist enterprises. Much of what you despise is in reality not socialism, but social-democratic reforms that have enabled Capitalism to grow in the US into the most powerful economy in the world.

Socialism is a system under which private ownership is substituted by social ownership (the people who produce the goods or services own them.) If you have a problem with that ok, but it has nothing to do with what liberals or Democrats are proposing.

You also make a common mistake of ideologues to blur the distinctions between Capitalism and Democracy. They are not the same. Both Capitalist and Socialist societies can be democratic or they can both be authoritarian. It does little for an informed debate to perpetuate these kind of distortions.

Lastly, Code101, I find your last sentence, "Leave America alone and keep Socialism and all the other crazy ideas out! " perhaps the most disturbing of all in its distortion. In this country there has been a long tradition of not trying to build walls to keep ideas out. While I know that there is an equally long history of trying to do what you are advocating (from the Alien & Sedition Acts to McCarthyism and fools like Anne Coutler) it is the willingness to discuss and where useful to embrace new ideas that best serves democracy.

Desertrat

Nov 1, 2003, 06:49 PM

Word meanings change, just as societies. What most folks look upon as socialism is the idea of taking from those who can afford it ("from each, according to his means") and giving to those regarded as being in need (To each, according to his needs). This is exemplified by the progressive rate of taxes on incomes.

A natural emotional reaction to giving, according to needs, is that in today's world there are a number of people who appear to be able to work and earn their own way, but who manage--one way or another--to sponge off society.

With the numerous laws for protection against pollution or other dangers, we have gotten more toward a situation of "You own it, but we'll tell you what and how you are allowed to do with it." This is more similar to facism than socialism.

When one sees a general decline in the quality of governmental services (public education, border protection, etc.) at a time of rapidly increasing taxes at all levels of government (varying with time, of course), there is the loss of belief in the efficacy of "Big Gummint" that we're seeing.

'Rat

g5man

Nov 1, 2003, 08:00 PM

This is by far one of the most interesting threads I have discovered here.

The true measure of who is right or wrong is who the people vote for in the end. And the day that someone says that the public is too stupid to know who is right or wrong is the day that person will never advance his or her agenda.

Democrats these days are much more conservative while Republicans are much more liberal. Case and point. Most Democrats voted for the war while Bush signed the biggest governmental budgets in history.

I am not sure I agree with Code101 on all parts of the education debate. If you noticed I posted a thread some time ago regarding political leaning in colleges.http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43154

Even though most college campuses are liberal they do not necessarily turn out liberal students.

As far as Sweden I need to find the link but he standard of living there is fairly low compared to the rest of the world.

pseudobrit

Nov 1, 2003, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by g5man
As far as Sweden I need to find the link but he standard of living there is fairly low compared to the rest of the world.

That's funny. There was an article in this month's ESPN magazine about how all the Swedish hockey players are longing to go back to their homeland.

They'll pass on America and the millions of dollars in contracts they could get for finishing their careers out here to go back to their frozen homeland. I guess that standard is okay enough for them.

Ugg

Nov 1, 2003, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by g5man
As far as Sweden I need to find the link but he standard of living there is fairly low compared to the rest of the world.

Link (http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/harry/geo/world2003.htm)

The above is a comparison of GDP and other figures taken from the CIA's world factbook. Sweden ranks at #15 in GDP but fairly high in some of the other categories. This chart makes no subjective comparisons about living standards but is merely a bunch of regurgitated numbers.

One aspect of living standards is health care and according to the following:

"The United States spends more per person on health care than any other country, yet in overall quality its care ranks 37th in the world," says a World Health Organization analysis. It concluded that France provides the globe's best health care, with Italy ranked 2nd. Japan won the distinction as having the world's healthiest people. 'While good at expensive, heroic care, Americans are poor at the low-cost preventive care that keeps Europeans healthy,' said Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt. Measuring how long people live in good health - - not just how long they live - - the Japanese beat Americans by 4 ½ years - - yet Japan spends just $1,750 per person on health and France $2,100, compared to the stunning $3,724 spent by the U.S. The report said it doesn't endorse government-run insurance only, as countries with good mixes of private and public programs due well.

Link (http://mwhodges.home.att.net/healthcare.htm)

Your faith in our living standard supremacy is unfounded. Money is not the only # that determines quality of life.

Code101

Nov 2, 2003, 01:50 AM

Well you all can talk up Sweden here as much as you want. As an American, I will talk up America. Yes we have some problems, were not perfect but there is no better country in this world as far as I'm concerned.

P.S. Remember, the social and economic problems arn't up to the government to solve but up to the private citizens to solve on their own. It all comes back to freedom!

USA #1

zimv20

Nov 2, 2003, 02:07 AM

Originally posted by Code101
the social and economic problems arn't up to the government to solve but up to the private citizens to solve on their own.

so eric rudolph had the right idea, then?

Sayhey

Nov 2, 2003, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by Desertrat
Word meanings change, just as societies. What most folks look upon as socialism is the idea of taking from those who can afford it ("from each, according to his means") and giving to those regarded as being in need (To each, according to his needs). This is exemplified by the progressive rate of taxes on incomes.

A natural emotional reaction to giving, according to needs, is that in today's world there are a number of people who appear to be able to work and earn their own way, but who manage--one way or another--to sponge off society.

With the numerous laws for protection against pollution or other dangers, we have gotten more toward a situation of "You own it, but we'll tell you what and how you are allowed to do with it." This is more similar to facism than socialism.

When one sees a general decline in the quality of governmental services (public education, border protection, etc.) at a time of rapidly increasing taxes at all levels of government (varying with time, of course), there is the loss of belief in the efficacy of "Big Gummint" that we're seeing.

'Rat

'Rat,
I don't understand. First, you use a misquote of Marx to allude to the growing Socialist character of things, then you say government is moving more in the direction of fascism. All of this in an effort to disapprove of big government. Lastly, you curse the ineffectiveness of government for not providing the services you want. Sorry, 'Rat, to me your all over the place - give me some help here to understand your point.

Code101, your use of "patriotism" to avoid the issues is the oldest dodge in the book. Of course, no one who talks about Socialism in any terms other than with the ill-informed venom you do, must hate America and should leave. To use one of your own phrases, "Give me a break!"

Ugg

Nov 2, 2003, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Desertrat
A natural emotional reaction to giving, according to needs, is that in today's world there are a number of people who appear to be able to work and earn their own way, but who manage--one way or another--to sponge off society.

With the numerous laws for protection against pollution or other dangers, we have gotten more toward a situation of "You own it, but we'll tell you what and how you are allowed to do with it." This is more similar to facism than socialism.

When one sees a general decline in the quality of governmental services (public education, border protection, etc.) at a time of rapidly increasing taxes at all levels of government (varying with time, of course), there is the loss of belief in the efficacy of "Big Gummint" that we're seeing.

'Rat

I'll agree with your first statement. Just look at the Enrons, Global Crossings, Halliburtons, etc. If it weren't for federal subsidies and contracts those companies would have died a natural death a long time ago. Corporate social welfarism is just as damaging to the country as individual SW.

There are more and more people living on this planet. Until we are able to reduce the number of people or at least stabilize it, the need for environmental protection will only continue to increase. Water and air belong to all of us and need to be protected. to label this fascism is ignoring the issue. Just like global warming, even if we are only contributing on a small scale the reality is that it will have phenomenal consequences and needs to be taken into account.

Earlier 'Rat, you were advocating more control on flood plains, low lying coastal areas and incendiary SoCal. You can't have it both ways.

Desertrat

Nov 2, 2003, 09:14 AM

I'm not trying to be exact in the phrasing, but it does illustrate how we're doing our tax-thing. As far as a personal objection, mine is with the progressive rate of the income tax as one earns more money--but we've been over that before.

What many people call socialism, regardless of the dictionary definition, has to do with this "take from the rich, give to the poor" behavior. People will use words as they understand them, and the meanings change. "Well regulated" is an example, another thing I've addressed elsewhere. :)

We DO have the tax and the spending patterns, and we DO have governmental controls on the use of one's property. This latter is not out-and-out facism, but it does have its similarities.

As for government services, where did I say I didn't want them? I'm merely pointing out that there has been a decline in the quality, while costs have risen faster than the inflation rate. This has served to cause a distrust within the populace. That's purely and simply a fact.

To drift a bit from this last paragraph: One main gripe I have and that I see that others have is that those who have the responsibility for operating these systems seem to have only one solution: "We need more money!" They've been given more money, but the decline has continued.

For instance, a news article, today, refers to the numbers who have worried about an adequate amount of food; who have skipped meals for economic reasons. Yet, we've spent way beyond a trillion dollars in the War on Poverty. Why aren't we winning? I submit that something needs to change in how we administer these programs, rather than more spending, per se.

I have never called for ending all social welfare programs, but I darned sure have called for changing them. When something doesn't work as intended, something besides money is involved in the fix.

'Rat

Sayhey

Nov 2, 2003, 10:49 AM

'Rat,

we can change the meaning of "blue" to "red" if enough people begin to use it in that manner. It doesn't bring clarity to colors when you go to the paint store.

My point about "socialism" is that the word has indeed taken on meanings that have nothing to do with a concept that makes any sense. This is because so many, Code101 included, not only seem to make the equation "socialism = evil," but also they try to use this conjured association to smear any reform in our own very capitalist system which they don't like. If you want to have a discussion on what reforms are or are not working then these kind of false labels only get in the way.

'Rat, I too have concerns about the drift to fascism, but my concerns are not motivated by government regulation of private property. What I see is a move toward less accountability in the use of private property not more intrusion of government. Rather it is in the adoption of laws such as the "Patriot" Act and the election and appointment of politicians who have little interest in protecting the civil rights of opponents. We have, of course, had this discussion before.

Desertrat

Nov 2, 2003, 11:26 AM

Ugg, the average Joe Sixpack rarely seems to see "corporate welfare" gummint-gimmes. His concern is for what he sees as welfare at a local level for individuals or groups...

I don't like corporations getting undue tax breaks and all that, but at least if they're operating, there are jobs and paychecks. It does sorta put me off to drive through the "Projects" in Albany, Georgia duing the afternoon and see able-bodied guys sitting around their front porches and producing nothing but higher crime statistics that night. (Albany's homicide rate is in constant competition with D.C.'s.) Ah, well...

Sayhey, about all I'm trying to do is put forward what I see as common views about the U.S., in terms used by those commenting on what's happening. I don't profess to have the exact terminology down pat, but I have indeed spent a bunch of time either observing or engaging in BS sessions about others' views. Doesn't matter whether the views are correct or not; they exist.

I guess my analogy might be that while I know a helluva lot about environmental relationships, I don't know the latin names of the "bugs, bunnies and growies". :)

"What I see is a move toward less accountability in the use of private property..."

Now, that might be true for mega-corporations, but it's certainly not the case for small businesses or "just folks" in general. It's not true for farmers and many ranchers; it's not true for my wife's little wooden box business, and it's not true for homeowners...

'Rat

mactastic

Nov 2, 2003, 11:33 AM

The average Joe sees the connection between Saddam and bin Laden too. Should we all follow suit? Just 'cuz the Average Joe sees things a certain way doesn't mean we all should. Corporate welfare is at least as bad as social welfare.

Sayhey

Nov 2, 2003, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Desertrat
Sayhey, about all I'm trying to do is put forward what I see as common views about the U.S., in terms used by those commenting on what's happening. I don't profess to have the exact terminology down pat, but I have indeed spent a bunch of time either observing or engaging in BS sessions about others' views. Doesn't matter whether the views are correct or not; they exist.

I guess my analogy might be that while I know a helluva lot about environmental relationships, I don't know the latin names of the "bugs, bunnies and growies". :)

"What I see is a move toward less accountability in the use of private property..."

Now, that might be true for mega-corporations, but it's certainly not the case for small businesses or "just folks" in general. It's not true for farmers and many ranchers; it's not true for my wife's little wooden box business, and it's not true for homeowners...

'Rat

'Rat,

I guess we just have to disagree. I do think it matters "whether the views are correct or not" even while acknowledging that incorrect views exist. It is not the use of different terms that is at question, but the understanding of concepts. So in your example, I don't care if we call them "bugs, bunnies and growies" or by their latin names as long as we know when we are talking about bunnies and not rattlesnakes. What too often happens with the use of terms in political propaganda is that we confuse reality, just as we would if we tried to pet the cute bunny with the poisonous fangs.

As to your point on government regulation, you and I might agree on some specific examples. I'm all for a regular review of regulation and the streamlining of bureaucracy. I don't think that means that overall government regulation isn't a positive thing. I certainly don't think that it is the encroachment of regulation that leads to Fascism. That to me, among other things, signifies the willingness to use terror on your own population to maintain power. With all my worries about Ashcroft and Bush, we aren't there yet.

candan9019

Nov 2, 2003, 03:15 PM

I went to public school here and It was never implied that socialism was better. All I was taught was America this America that, and those evil communists. The teachers didn't even know about the rest of the world. All in the name of America the great. I don't know how many times have I been told that Canada sucks by people who have never been there. God forbid I correct them though because there better then me.

Conservatives live in an imaginary America. They use patriotism to mislead people. I seems most don't even know what the founding fathers wanted but they use it as an excuse all the time.

I am not personally attacking anyone or a country this is just what I think from 11 years of being belittled because Im a Canadian who grew up in America. When I move back Canadians will probably give me a hard time as well. A little off topic, but I just get so tired of this.