I have a legitimate question for all the liberals...

The only blather on this thread is from your nonsensical drivel about "forced communism" and whatever other garbage Rush Limbaugh fed you this morning.

 

I'm with you, socialism isn't a horrible thing. We (America) could learn a lot from other countries.

I don't understand why America cannot look at all of the universal healthcare systems, take the best parts of what they see, and then put together something that is good.

 

OddsOn, have you stopped beating your wife yet

 

Perhaps that's because your question makes no sense. If liberals loved socialism, they'd be socialists, not liberals. If liberals loved marxism, they'd be marxists, not liberals. Liberals, by definition, support liberalism.

It was a stupid question with a stupid premise written in a stupid way. You shouldn't be surprised you got stupid answers.

 

You need to learn what communism is. You realize you are calling everyone from George Washington to Lincoln to Reagan communists, right?

Probably because he's an idiot. If people not being able to stand someone is a sign that they are right, are you suggesting that you believe Adolf Hitler was right about most things he discussed? After all, liberals couldn't stand him. I assume you believe the same about the KKK?

 

You mean like the $700 billion taxpayer funded Wall Street bank bailout, which redistributes your tax dollars to help provide liquidity during the credit crisis? Maybe you should learn some basic macroeconomic theory then come back to the message board.

 

True, but none of the things you're talking about are socialism.

I am not a liberal, and I do not like socialism... but I don't like capitalism either. (note I use both of these terms with qualifications - but I'm pretty sure you haven't bothered reading anything I've typed, so nevermind).

I am not rationalizing an ideology of forced communism, and nothing you're talking about is forced communism.

I do not think "forced communism" (if it actually existed) would necessarily be any better than the system we have now (again ... I am using shorthand, because the system we have now is not actually capitalist)... but the system we have right now is so deeply flawed and is so insanely detrimental to genuine American ideals that there's no way it should continue on the course it's been taking over the past 60-odd years. Every time we trumpet our system, we're unwittingly playing our own funeral dirge.

And by the way - since I took the time to respond thoughtfully to your dishonest question, and since you completely ignored my contentions and failed to respond to even a single point I made that might disrupt your unquestioned and poorly-explained worldview, I feel it incumbent upon myself to point out that you're a total ****ing moron who does nothing but regurgitate tired bull****.

I'm gonna go eat my pizza and watch the Rockets destroy the Grizzlies now. Thank you, and good night.

 

thadeus,

I love you, in a non creepy perfectly straight way..

you start out with a highly sophisticated paragraph that's artistically crafted and very respective of the OP, then you go on a rant in the last sentence..

 

I am in no way being dismissive. Moreover, I concede that his collection of figures present a strong case. The more you listen to these debates, the more you learn that everyone has their own facts. I could spend hours scouring the web to try to refute his point of view, but I prefer to agree to disagree.

 

Well what you dont realize is we are already at a state of socialism if you beleive Oboma plan is Socialism because Bush has executed a redistribution of wealth by lowering taxes for the welathy and not cut spending which raises taxes for the poor and middle class. McCain wants to continue that idea.

 

This may be the most legitimate question ever posed to the liberals of Clutchfans -- OddsOn THANK-YOU for elevating the level of discussion in the D&D.

 

Something rings about OddSon and illegitimate...

 

if you ever read Karl Marx you will see every flaw of Capitalismn has happen or is happening because of the relliance on the market. When you deregularlate greedy people they can crush you with greed. The bankers can impropperly despence your funds. Instead of government control of your funds we have people in control of it that should not be trusted. Both ideas are bad this is not Marxismn.

 

Similarly, if my response to you was interpreted to be picking a fight, I apologize. Most of the discussion on here seems to ignore any merit in the actual arguments, but shouts past one another. The reason I also usually lurk (I think I've only posted actively here during the last two presidential cycles, when my politics cup runneth over) is because I like getting a feel for how others think about the popular topics of the day. For a basketball site (I don't write well about basketball, especially when Free Darko does it so much better), this BBS provides a reliably good snapshot of popular opinion.

I start from the Moynihan line: everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. I'd like to think that I'm capable of changing my opinion if I learn the facts that I base them on are incorrect. Reagonomics has largely been sold over the years on the theory that our current tax rates are on the right side of the Laffer curve, that reducing them will increase revenue. We've tried this, and that theory appears incorrect, based on empirical data. I replied to you, not because I'm trying to win an argument for theoretical brownie points, but because I think other thoughtful people, of which you obviously are one, no matter their political persuasion, would be convinced by the evidence.

I think the propagation of this disproved taxation theory by those in power is the number one reason our debt has soared, why our country's books are screwed, and why McCain's plan, even minus Obama's proposed social spending increases, would still leave us digging far further in that hole.

Brookings analysis

No harm intended, WB.

 

OH NO! SOCIALISM!!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

 

By this logic, the government can't build freeways or bridges or sidewalks because some people who've paid no taxes will be benefiting from these government programs and.. that's forced communism.

Thanks for explaining it to us in plain English.

 

None taken. I think the main point I was trying to make is that while fact cannot be disputed, cause and effect can be argued until the cows come home. Those figures you cited earlier obviously strengthen your point of view that it can't be argued the tax increases under the Clinton administration caused revenues to go down, but I don't believe that the case can be made that tax cuts cause larger deficits. As a matter of fact, if you look at the revenues brought in, the deficit problem is purely a spending issue, not a revenue problem.

One interesting theory I heard a liberal use as a reason not to cut taxes was that seemingly every time taxes are cut, the government seems to expand government spending at a higher rate than when taxes are higher. I don't think it should matter what the tax policy is. I think it is immoral and arrogant to spend more money than the government receives.

 

Oops!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-2ZGnM2oku8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-2ZGnM2oku8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

KING: You don't believe Barack Obama is a socialist, do you?

MCCAIN: No.