Best GOP Candidate

[kochman]

Hahaha, who do you think gives campaign donations to socialists? Rich people?

Yes, would you like me to name a few? George Soros... Warren Buffett... Bill Gates... etc.
Even the most average CEO understands you have to butter both sides of the political bread in the USA...

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/business_law/2008/12/gm-and-chrysler.html

And get this: GM paid its loan back early.

And Chrysler lost $14B...

To support American jobs? I thought you were some sort of American nationalist? Is the communist really defending American jobs more than you?

Protectionism is a very socialist thing to do, and doesn't help things get better, generally speaking.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yes, would you like me to name a few? George Soros... Warren Buffett... Bill Gates... etc.
Even the most average CEO understands you have to butter both sides of the political bread in the USA...

Allow me to be more direct then.

To which socialist parties did those named millionaires donate?

And Chrysler lost $14B...

Further still, Chrysler was sold. Again.

Protectionism is a very socialist thing to do,

Then I guess the United States and Europe were very socialist during the golden age of capitalism.

The protection of domestic industry from foreign competitors was a unviersal practice in the nineteenth century. It was what allowed the United States, Great Britain, and Germany to become world-class competitors. For example, the Corn Laws, and the massive tariffs on imported goods that continued in Britain up to 1906, and in the United States until 1950.

Some countries such as a Japan, that often-held-on-high paragon of the success of capitalism, continues to practice economic protectionism. Just try buying an American car in Tokyo!

Even in the United States today, there is the de facto economic protectionism practiced through agricultural subsidies (illegal via a multitude of international laws and treaties which the US has signed) and anti-dumping legislation.

Other protections, such as copyright and international patent systems can also be thought of as economic protectionism, as can the manipulation of currency exchange rates. But get this: all of these things help to increase the prosperity of individual nations, and neither the British Empire in its heyday, nor the US in the last hundred years, could have become what they did without extensive protectionism.

The only reason we support it today is because we want other nations to adopt free-trade policies, countries which don't have industrial sectors capable of competing with ours, so that we can dominate them and come to own them. If we were really interested in all that "comparative advantage" stuff, we would take the advice of renowned economist Joseph Stiglitz in Making Globalization Work and make our free-trade deals only with Europe and fully developed nations, providing generous terms towards lesser developed nations to help them rise to parity with us.

But we won't, because our interest is not in raising up the rest of the world to our level.

and doesn't help things get better, generally speaking.

Actually, it is what makes industrialization possible.

http://internationalecon.com/Trade/Tch100/T100-4.php

 

[kochman]

Allow me to be more direct then.

To which socialist parties did those named millionaires donate?

The one Obama and Pelosi are in.

Then I guess the United States and Europe were very socialist during the golden age of capitalism.

Europe has some pretty serious socialism going on...
The USA, not so much... you don't have to be 100% "socialist" to do some socialist things.

Even in the United States today, there is the de facto economic protectionism practiced through agricultural subsidies (illegal via a multitude of international laws and treaties which the US has signed) and anti-dumping legislation.

I know, and farm subsidizing is a REALLY big waste of money. The farmers could be providing a service that is actually needed, rather than getting paid by the government (read the tax payer) for providing a product that isn't needed. We don't subsidize horse drawn carriage drivers... why farmers?

Other protections, such as copyright and international patent systems can also be thought of as economic protectionism, as can the manipulation of currency exchange rates. But get this: all of these things help to increase the prosperity of individual nations, and neither the British Empire in its heyday, nor the US in the last hundred years, could have become what they did without extensive protectionism.

Ok, I will definitely grant that some regulation and protection is useful. I don't think it is good when we use it to prop up failing businesses.

But we won't, because our interest is not in raising up the rest of the world to our level.

Exactly, we would rather protect our citizens, which I can accept, when it doesn't hinder us in the long term.

Actually, it is what makes industrialization possible.

I disagree. I think in the long run it hurts, because it prevents better economic growth globally... which would benefit the USA in many ways (including making it so we aren't the biggest donors/fighters/etc in every "event" deemed worthy of intervening in.
I am generally against subsidies that prevent the growth of the economy into self-sustaining areas.

 

[Leoreth]

Socialism is no sliding scale.

And most European parties have "Socialist" only as an heritage title, and have long since arrived in social democratic territory.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The one Obama and Pelosi are in.

I had a feeling you would say something ridiculous like this.

You really need to read up on your political philosophy. Liberalism and socialism are diametrically opposed. The Democratic Party (and the Republican, for that matter, since both are grounded in classical liberalism) does not advocate workers owning the means of production. I really tire of explaining this to you.

Europe has some pretty serious socialism going on...
The USA, not so much... you don't have to be 100% "socialist" to do some socialist things.

"The Golden Age of Capitalism" refers to the Nineteenth Century. The age of colonial empires, robber barons, a complete lack of government regulations on industry*. But what did exist was trade barriers, and in plethoric amounts.

*In other words, what capitalist daydreamers think capitalism really is, or should be. Unbelievable to imagine that many of them think it still works this way today.

I know, and farm subsidizing is a REALLY big waste of money. The farmers could be providing a service that is actually needed, rather than getting paid by the government (read the tax payer) for providing a product that isn't needed. We don't subsidize horse drawn carriage drivers... why farmers?

Farmers don't produce a needed product?

Farm subsidies do actually play an important role and produce a net benefit for us (those taxpayer dollars used feed back into their base via reduced food prices) by providing farmers with a dependable income, but they are harmful overall in the world because countries like the US pay their corporate farmers incredible amounts to overproduce food, which then gets dumped into third world countries at below-market rates, driving their local farmers out of business. They become more dependent on us, which gives us more power over their government and their country, because we can push a pressure point by threatening "economic sanctions," which amounts to starving their people.

Ok, I will definitely grant that some regulation and protection is useful. I don't think it is good when we use it to prop up failing businesses.

Propping up a failing business and providing emergency funds which were then later repaid are two extremely different things.

Exactly, we would rather protect our citizens, which I can accept, when it doesn't hinder us in the long term.

So what, exactly, makes our citizens different from their citizens. Both are humans. And isn't capitalism, free trade, globalization, all that supposed to benefit all of mankind? That's certainly what Smith believed! So why is it okay to pursue policies which benefit our people at the direct expense of other people?

I disagree. I think in the long run it hurts, because it prevents better economic growth globally... which would benefit the USA in many ways (including making it so we aren't the biggest donors/fighters/etc in every "event" deemed worthy of intervening in.

Well many economists, as well as historians, think you're wrong.

I described already how it does precisely the opposite: by protecting industries during their vulnerable growth phases, they are allowed to mature into a size that allows them to compete with already established economies in other countries. You wouldn't let your seven year old sister's soccer team go up against DC United, so why should Peru be expected to compete with the United States, or the Philippines against Britain or Germany?

I am generally against subsidies that prevent the growth of the economy into self-sustaining areas.

I don't think you even understand what the words in this statement mean.

Socialism is no sliding scale.

And most European parties have "Socialist" only as an heritage title, and have long since arrived in social democratic territory.

This. Thank you.

 

[kochman]

I had a feeling you would say something ridiculous like this.

You really need to read up on your political philosophy. Liberalism and socialism are diametrically opposed. The Democratic Party (and the Republican, for that matter, since both are grounded in classical liberalism) does not advocate workers owning the means of production. I really tire of explaining this to you.

Oh boy, I am not into splitting hairs. Is the USA fully socialist? NO. Is there an element in the Dem party that wouldn't mind getting there? YES. I believe Obama and Pelosi are into that. There is a definite agenda. It isn't fully socialist by the text book definition, but it is way closer to that than free market philosophy.

Farmers don't produce a needed product?

We don't need nearly the amount of farmers that we have today, that we subsidize. We need food, obviously, but it isn't like 300 years ago. The amount of people that one farmer's output can support has changed hugely... but we're still paying other farmers that we don't need.

Propping up a failing business and providing emergency funds which were then later repaid are two extremely different things.

The loss of $14B is not "repaid".

Well many economists, as well as historians, think you're wrong.

Citation needed.

I described already how it does precisely the opposite: by protecting industries during their vulnerable growth phases, they are allowed to mature into a size that allows them to compete with already established economies in other countries. You wouldn't let your seven year old sister's soccer team go up against DC United, so why should Peru be expected to compete with the United States, or the Philippines against Britain or Germany?

Over protecting leads to things like huge farm subsidies, which in turn, acts as a drain on the economy. Every year, we pay sooooo much money, in the USA, for farmer subsidies. They could, instead, be doing a job that was needed, and be putting more into the system.
We have so much food that rots in silos, it's ridiculous... The extra farmers could be doing something more worthwhile that was more advantageous to the future growth of the nation.

I don't think you even understand what the words in this statement mean.

The above is what I meant by that statement.

 

[Cutlass]

Oh boy, I am not into splitting hairs. Is the USA fully socialist? NO. Is there an element in the Dem party that wouldn't mind getting there? YES. I believe Obama and Pelosi are into that. There is a definite agenda. It isn't fully socialist by the text book definition, but it is way closer to that than free market philosophy.

See, here is where you make no sense whatsoever. There is so blatantly obviously no socialist elements in the Democratic party that it just discredits all your points to pretend that there is.

All the Democrats are doing is trying to protect capitalism and market economics from the conservatives.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Oh boy, I am not into splitting hairs.

Good, because this is not hair-spitting. The differences are huge. One believes in private property rights, the other does not. One believes in natural law, one does not. One supports the dictatorship of the proletariat and the abolition of political classes, one does not. They are two distinctly different things, as different as night and day.

Is the USA fully socialist? NO. Is there an element in the Dem party that wouldn't mind getting there? YES. I believe Obama and Pelosi are into that. There is a definite agenda.

No there isn't. I challenge you to prove this. And I don't mean some conservative hack throwing the S word around.

It isn't fully socialist by the text book definition, but it is way closer to that than free market philosophy.

You seem to be thoroughly confused as to what socialism even is. Why not consult the thread in my signature?

Ask a Red

We don't need nearly the amount of farmers that we have today,

Why is that so obvious?

that we subsidize. We need food, obviously, but it isn't like 300 years ago. The amount of people that one farmer's output can support has changed hugely...

The USDA currently subsidizes around 3 million farmers. The vast majority (2.5 m) are small farmers, with an income of less than $100,000 per year, and they generally receive less than $10,000 in subsidies a year. Only a few thousand constitute the vast majority of food production, the great corporate farmers, who receive together around $16 Billion a year in subsidies. The amount of farmers isn't the problem, its the amount of food, but like I said, our country does better because of the subsidies. Now if only we didn't ship their excess overseas...

but we're still paying other farmers that we don't need.

How do you know that?

The loss of $14B is not "repaid".

$14B isn't exactly a lot of money. Anyway, that wasn't lost because of the bailout, was it?

Citation needed.

See relevant links in the previous post.

Over protecting leads to things like huge farm subsidies, which in turn, acts as a drain on the economy.

Actually is gives significant boost to our economy, because it is dependable income.

Every year, we pay sooooo much money, in the USA, for farmer subsidies.

$16B, actually, A drop in the bucket of the budget.

They could, instead, be doing a job that was needed, and be putting more into the system.

We have so much food that rots in silos, it's ridiculous...

Link?

The extra farmers could be doing something more worthwhile that was more advantageous to the future growth of the nation.

A surplus of food, combined with their ensured income, creates incredibly low food prices. The consumer benefits from that, and so does the economy. I don't see why you want to undo that, especially in such a vulnerable time as now.

 

[kochman]

See, here is where you make no sense whatsoever. There is so blatantly obviously no socialist elements in the Democratic party that it just discredits all your points to pretend that there is.

All the Democrats are doing is trying to protect capitalism and market economics from the conservatives.

I consider a single payer national health care, which is a goal, to be socialist. That's one right there.

 

[Cutlass]

I consider a single payer national health care, which is a goal, to be socialist. That's one right there.

Well, first, there really aren't much of any Democrats that want that. Second, it isn't really socialist if they did want it, because that still would not be government ownership of the means of production. Third, it's one segment of the economy, and one that the private sector has proven that it cannot handle. So at most the government would be covering an abject failure of the market. And finally, the rest of the free market would be far freer and more prosperous if that weight was removed from its back.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I

I

I

I

I

It doesn't matter what you think. We are talking facts, not opinions. Things have definitions which are not subject to interpretation. What you think something is or isn't has zero bearing on whether it meets the criteria necessary to be called that.

consider a single payer national health care, which is a goal, to be socialist.

It was mentioned as a possibility or something in which interest was shown at one point by a few people very early on in the health care debate. It was never, I repeat, never, a goal by the Democratic Party.

Incidentally, you know who the very person to propose universal health care in the US was? A Republican. TR himself.

And no one would call Nazi Germany socialist, with its state health care for all ethnic Germans.

That's one right there.

As you said yourself, one thing does not a socialist make.

 

[kochman]

No there isn't. I challenge you to prove this. And I don't mean some conservative hack throwing the S word around.

The push for a single payer national healthcare.

The USDA currently subsidizes around 3 million farmers. The vast majority (2.5 m) are small farmers, with an income of less than $100,000 per year, and they generally receive less than $10,000 in subsidies a year. Only a few thousand constitute the vast majority of food production, the great corporate farmers, who receive together around $16 Billion a year in subsidies. The amount of farmers isn't the problem, its the amount of food, but like I said, our country does better because of the subsidies. Now if only we didn't ship their excess overseas...[/QUOTE]
No, we don't do better because of it. Food that the tax payer is paying for is rotting in silos. It would certainly be better if the people making that food were doing something else that wasn't an economic drain on the economy.

$14B isn't exactly a lot of money.

Well, if I had a dollar for every time I have heard this comment from lefties, I would be rich! If I added up the amount of money that lefties have dismissed, from one program or another, that is being wasted... we probably wouldn't have a budget deficit.
Why do some companies get interest free loans... and don't even have to pay it back in full?

Actually is gives significant boost to our economy, because it is dependable income.

If we are spending money on it, it isn't a boost. It is a drain. The internet was a boost, the invention of mass production of automobiles was a boost... paying farmers to grow crops that will never be sold is not a boost.

$16B, actually, A drop in the bucket of the budget.

See above where you talked about $14B isn't much.

A surplus of food, combined with their ensured income, creates incredibly low food prices. The consumer benefits from that, and so does the economy. I don't see why you want to undo that, especially in such a vulnerable time as now.

BECAUSE WE ARE PAYING FOR IT. You can farm without subsidies, we have the technology. How many people can one farmer support now?
Why do we have so many more than we need then?
This isn't a hard concept to grasp.

Your argument is so unprogressive it amazes me. Why not subsidies horse drawn carraige drivers? You could apply almost all the same arguments to this idea...

I suppose the subsidies may be lower in the UK... but it is pretty outrageous how much we are spending to keep people in agricultural jobs that could be providing more needed services and not needing to be paid to stay afloat.

 

[CaptainF]

It's looking like Rick "Man On Dog" Santorum is running!

Man, just once I wish the GOP would nominate someone who values the secularism this country was founded on.

On the other hand, they just keep getting nuttier! Keep nominating the nutters and panderers, it will make for lulz come election time.

 

[kochman]

It doesn't matter what you think. We are talking facts, not opinions.

Actually, we are discussing opinion. We are using facts to support our ideas, but we are clearly having a philosophical debate here. This is obvious.

It was mentioned as a possibility or something in which interest was shown at one point by a few people very early on in the health care debate. It was never, I repeat, never, a goal by the Democratic Party.

Ummmm... do you not remember when Hillary Clinton tried to do it? Barack Obama has stated many times that he wants, in the end, a single payer system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk (this shows Obama, Barney Franks, and some other official member of the Democratic Party talking about it).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vLJ6xObc_o (this is Bernie Sanders, who is, I believe, the only official socialist to have a seat in our congress... the Dems gladly let him caucus with them. Soros is a supporter of this gentleman).
I could definitely spend more time to find more clips, but I think the Obama one is the only one that is needed.

Incidentally, you know who the very person to propose universal health care in the US was? A Republican. TR himself.

So what? The Republican party, like the Democrat party, has gone through some changes since the 1900s. Jeez. He was also not liked for that opinion, and was trounced in that election.

And no one would call Nazi Germany socialist, with its state health care for all ethnic Germans.

I call the Nazis socialist! Just because they were racists doesn't mean they weren't socialist... That's why they were called NATIONAL socialists... They were quite socialist.

As you said yourself, one thing does not a socialist make.

Generally true, but when that one thing makes up such a huge percentage of the economy... it does.

 

[Butterball]

I'm a Democrat for Palin ... she's a babe.

 

[Ajidica]

Is there an element in the Dem party that wouldn't mind getting there? YES. I believe Obama and Pelosi are into that.

What 'socialist' actions have Obama and Pelosi taken?
Just for starters, don't even bothering mentioning the ACA. It was far less comprehensive then the plan introduced by Otto von Bismark. If you call Otto von Bismark a socialist, then this entire discussion, if it can be called that, is meaningless.

I call the Nazis socialist! Just because they were racists doesn't mean they weren't socialist... That's why they were called NATIONAL socialists... They were quite socialist.

Any claims to honoring a socialist tradition was ended after the purge of the Strasserites and Rhom in the Night of the Long Knives by Hitler and the Brownshirts.

 

[kochman]

You will acknowledge that the plan that was passed was not the plan that Obama wanted... right?
It was what he could get.
Intent should be considered.

 

[Ajidica]

Even the intent was far less comprehensive then the plan passed by Bismark to fight against the Socialists taking power despite the Karlsbad Decree and his banning of the party.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Just use the term "pinkism" and "pinko". Nice, vague terms, which can mean many things.

 

[kochman]

Just use the term "pinkism" and "pinko". Nice, vague terms, which can mean many things.

Moderator Action: please don't add some subsance to your posts. Smiley-only posts are not encouraged