Obama Won!

[Berserker]

Oh they were socialists. The problem with socialism is that nations just don't work the way socialism (or anarchy) demands. As a leader, you can't expect to run a nation purely on socialist idealism without eventually resorting to tactics that ensure enforcement, which must logically include borrowing concepts from areas like police politic, military hierarchy, and feudalism: i.e. fascism. The earliest socialist ideals presumed a nationless environment for implementation.

[Anubis]

OK, I admit when I said that I would like to see Obama assassinated, I've crossed the line there. I've been bashed other places for supporting McCain, and it kinda boiled over. I'm sorry for that and the flame, I took it out on you and I apologize. I will rectify this by not continue flaming but calmly explain why I feel the way I feel.

I still not a fan of Obama. The guy is pretty sensier about what he think he is doing is right (I'll give him that much) but is the man's judgement scares the living daylights out of me! The people he associated with in the past and his extremest past gives me concerns about his judgement. Judgement that could may or may not have dire consequences to the country.

The reason why I said that Obama's socialist agenda was gonna ruin the nation's already fragile economy. When you tax businesses, they're gonna have to make up the loses some where. I mean hire prices, fewer jobs, and it will also encourage them to outsource to other countries. It doesn't take a genius to know that is a bad thing. This is especially true to me since my mother's business will be affected by that. It isn't just big business, that will be affected. Small businesses as well, but they will get hit the hardest, because they don't have the same amount of resources, and options to choose from.

I believe it's down right immoral to take money away from somebody who actually earned it. On the soul reason because he makes more than most people. People call this the "fairness doctrine" the ironic thing about that it's not fair at all!

Imagine if you are a farmer(this is just and example to help you get your head around this) If you worked hard to grow some kind of crop to help feed your self and/or your family during the winter. Then imagine somebody from the government coming over to your farm, and tell you that you have to give it to somebody who has less than you do. You give it because it's the law and you have to, because somebody has taken a good portion of your crop. You either have to work twice as hard, or go hungry. The who person who has less got what he needs, but what about the person who put his blood, sweat, and tears into it? It came at a great cost and he might go hungry in the winter.

The problem with socialism that it is not fair, and it doesn't work. What you are doing is punishing the people who worked for their means, their hopes for a better life, and rewarding people who don't contribute. This is where it starts to break down, when people are given what they needed rather than work for it and contributing the pool that is gonna get passed out. They will start to work less, then people who contribute the most, pay the price when more is taken from them to compensate for the loss. Eventually the contributors can't stay afloat, and then whole thing comes crashing down, and everybody suffers. It's a good idea on paper, but the human condition is it's major and fatal flaw.

But why is there such a stigma, and hatred for capitalism?

I have several thoughts on that, but first a little history lesson...

Capitalism first began in the middle ages, when peasants who started exchange goods or services, for goods, services, and currency to support them selves. This practice grew in time but it didn't grow into the capitalism as we know it untill the industrial revolution, but the growth spurt did have some negative consequences. Back then governments didn't think that this new breed of capitalism needed any kind of regulation. As a result the owners of these big companies started to screw over their employees, and their consumers. Like people would be forced to work long hours, with little pay, and with no breaks. Customers get stuck with spotty and some times harmful merchandise, for high prices, with misleading advertising. It took a while but the government to see the need and started to correct the problems.

However the years when people are getting screwed by people who had more than them destroyed any chance of trust between capitalism and the populace. It caused some hateful feelings that deeply rooted into the every man. This hatred is the motivation that drove Marx into writing the communist manifesto, and the birth of unions.

Also I believe people are naturally jealous at people who have more than them. Also the social classes between the blue collar workers, and the white collar management has an impersonal element that cause people not relate as well. Also propitiates the evil %5 stereotype that the Democratic party loves to demonise.

What makes the US economy work so well that it is self balancing and is natural to the human condition. People want more of something, (IE usually money). Capitalism forces people to contribute to get what they want, if people want a better life (you might call it the American dream). They either work to get a better job or start a venture them selves. In the fight to get more, businesses are watched by the government. They are forced to follow guidelines to protect their employees, and their customers.

Also the consumer has power over businesses, if you don't like them... you don't have to buy from them, thanks to anti-trust laws there is no monopolies and there is always another place to go to. Which brings us an other benefit, corporate competition! When businesses compete the consumer reaps the rewards! Like lower prices and better quality products. They are willing to do what ever it takes to make you do business with them. It's like when two divorced parents fight for the love of their child(ren)as a result the kid(s) gets two Christmases, or two romantic rivals fight for the affections of a lady. This element also help drives growth of technology. People just don't realize how much power they have over a conglomerate like... lets say Microsoft.

Also the American economy is not a capitalistic state. The American economy is what is called a 'Mixed' economy. Yes, the United States is majorly capitalistic, however the government does have some traits that resembles socialism. Somethings like Post Office is apart of the government. Also things we have in place to take care of the sick, the old, and people who just cannot take care of them selves, like; social security, welfare, and food stamps.

If you want a strong but fair economy. What we need is not a radical change such as this, but rather some improvements on what we already have.

What we really should be asking of our leaders is a higher minimum wage. People used to be able support a modest middle class life style on minimum wage, what we have now is too low people can barely support them selves by the skins of their teeth. Some people even support families on that. Not just that it greatly reduces a person's spending power.

Lower taxes, not just for the lower and middle classes but for every one! That's double for businesses. When businesses have less taxes and doing well everybody benefits. They can hire more people, prices will go down, and they will be able to invest more into technologies that will benefit everybody! It will strenghten people's spending power and people will make money, so the government will gain more in taxes with out actually raising them.

Demand proper and responsible regulation. What caused the recent crash in stock market because banks where allowed to make risky loan offers in attempt to make more money on the recent housing boom. People went bankrupt and loosed their homes because of it. As a result the banks couldn't regain that money, and they went bankrupt them selves. This could have been avoided if the government put responsible regulations into place.

[Grey]

I'm not going to say Yay, or Nay until I see the man in action in office. Hopefully he can bring about the right kind of change, and not the popularist kind of change.

[Anubis]

I'm not going to say Yay, or Nay until I see the man in action in office. Hopefully he can bring about the right kind of change, and not the popularist kind of change.

Amen to that!

But some how I doubt that will happen.

[Grey]

We'll leave it at " I don't agree with some of his purposed policies."

[vrikasatma]

I fail to see where any of Obama's policies are Socialist. That was a smear-meme that the assholes running McCain's campaign (note that I didn't call McCain himself an asshole) told Fox News to circulate as a talking point.

McCain himself went on record saying Obama isn't a Socialist. It's only circulating now because a bunch of moronic people didn't listen and keep running their mouths.

Are we referring to his health care stance? Look out the window and breathe the fresh air, the health insurance industry is so corrupt it makes Enron look like fine, upstanding citizens! They can kick you to the curb because you had an ear infection a year ago! And assuming you buck the odds and stay completely healthy your entire life — not so much as an allergy, gastrointestinal complaint or stubbed toe — then you get to pay anywhere from $500 to $1200 a month to these bloated ticks. Who has that kind of money anymore? And they can (and do) still sorrygoodluck you if you ever do get sick or injured and need to go to the hospital.

Barack Obama will open up the Federal Employee health plan that everyone in Congress, your mail carrier, sheriff, DMV officers, the rangers and wildlife wardens that protect our deer, salmon and wolves, enjoy. The premiums are $175 a month, within anyone's reach, and by law no-one can be turned away. My own outgoing Senator, Gordon Smith (a Bush Republican) favoured and actively worked towards that goal. Using that pool of people paying into the system, he'll negotiate with the medical industry to lower costs and premiums for everyone.

The way the market runs, the more units sold, the lower the price everyone has to pay. This isn't Socialism anymore than Costco is.

[Terastas]

Oh they were socialists. The problem with socialism is that nations just don't work the way socialism (or anarchy) demands. As a leader, you can't expect to run a nation purely on socialist idealism without eventually resorting to tactics that ensure enforcement, which must logically include borrowing concepts from areas like police politic, military hierarchy, and feudalism: i.e. fascism.

Not necessarily. Socialism is a system by which the government owns and provides everything, but the socialist theory says nothing concerning the actual structure of the government itself.

Using NationStates as an example, for this and future reference, a government may fall into one of twenty-seven categories depending on three things: personal freedom, economic freedom, and political freedom. If you look at the graph, socialism is the opposite of capitalism, not democracy. A system of socialism could therefore just as easily be democratic as totalitarian.

That aside, neither capitalism nor socialism is solid. The U.S.S.R. tried absolute socialism and provided everything, and what basically happened is that the hard workers realized that they were getting payed exactly the same as the slackers, stopped trying so hard and production in the U.S.S.R. dwindled down to nothing.

Deregulated capitalism, on the other hand, is no better, as our current situation would demonstrate. Capitalism takes on a sort of "survival of the fittest" doctrine where companies who make bad decisions are allowed to die, not taking into account all the related markets that would be dragged down with it.

The best alternative would be a blend of the two: for the government to control (or at least be allowed to compete in) markets vital to the country's stability, and to be able to provide via welfare the basic necessities of survival (food, shelter and medical care), but leave all else to the private sect.

That's the way the government in the book I'm writing works. I remember summing it up in another thread something like this:

"Need a roof over your head, some hot soup, some bus tokens and a flu shot? Here you go."

"Want a big home in the hills, lobster with truffles, a shiny new Ferrari and some pectoral implants?" *shrugs* "Good luck with that."

[Zombie]

Happy birthday to the USSA. (United Socialist Sates of America)


-Z

[Spongy]

Oh for f***'s sake.

You cannot possibly even say how this will turn out BEFORE he is even inaugurated!

Socialism can be combined with democracy and capitalism. Up until a few years ago, Sweden was just that! Hell, it's not even socialism, but a well-researched plan to sustain the integrity of the country's economy.

In time, what the government gained by acquiring what assets it did will be returned to the people when the economy takes a natural turn towards investment.

Before you start saying anything, I suggest you stop listening to republican propaganda, and actually look at his policies.

This is my only comment on this topic.

[vrikasatma]

Apologies to the mods if they think this is thread-drifting too much...

My personal feeling about health care is that it's basic infrastructure, not a luxury. When everyone is operating up to their highest physical capacity, everyone benefits: this is where "My brother's keeper" — a big Obama campaign meme — comes into play. We're a social animal (wolves are, too: they pay the "babysitters" and elders back for keeping the cubs safe by bringing them food).

Right now, people are getting turned away from life-saving surgeries because some health insurance fat cat's bottom line would be affected. Knee replacement? Mmmmm, maybe not, you can function with a trick knee, with a brace, glucosamine-chondroitin-MSM, and massage. No need to lean on everyone else to get that taken care of. But cancer? There's no question there. You gotta have that surgery, full stop! And yet, some...okay, many health insurance execs would stiff you, or double your premiums afterwards. That's how I lost my coverage, I had a detached retina and they jacked my premium through the roof so I couldn't afford it. And now I'm dealing with another cataract growing in my other eye, and no health insurance...

Anyway, good points, and thank you Anubis for apologizing. Just let the guy work. I think we'll be singing a happier song next April when our tax bills are lower, and our first responders are well-paid and well-equipped.

[Zombie]

I dont WANT the government`s help with ANYTHING. The problem with BO is I HAVE read his policies. That is not the America that I fought for. If the American Dream ends at $249,999.99, almost all small buisnesses will fold. I for sure know that if I want pulling at least that, I wouldnt be able to hire any employees, give them health care plans, pay them liveable wages, etc. Punishing the successfull people who work very hard for their money is no way to run anything, save for a socialist/marxist/communist society.

And besides, Im bitter. Im clinging to my guns.

-Z

[Anubis]

The reason I said that Obama was a socialist, because he wants to and I quote 'redistribute the wealth'. At the core this is socialism. All it does is punish the most productive members of society, and rewards the lazy. I would be able to live with Obama as president if weren't for this.

I'm pretty sure the reason why McCain didn't call him a socialist because he was trying to run for president, and there was a good chance that if he did call him that, it would have turned ugly for him.

Yeah, my taxes would probably be lower, but when businesses try to make up for the loss, good luck finding a job. My mother's business is going to take hit when he decides to enact his new tax policy. Also, I'm scared for a REAL possibility of another depression.

Going to either extreme is a bad Idea, that's why The US is a mixed economy state. I feel Obama is trying to fix something that is not broken and might indeed break it as a result. When what it really needs is to be better maintained.

[Set]

All it does is punish the most productive members of society, and rewards the lazy.

Like who, Paris Hilton? A b**** BORN into wealth who never worked a day in her life?

[outwarddoodles]

To Anubis:

I believe it's down right immoral to take money away from somebody who actually earned it. On the soul reason because he makes more than most people. People call this the "fairness doctrine" the ironic thing about that it's not fair at all!

I think it's down right immoral to keep all my earnings inspite of those that have less. I absolutely think it's fair to give to those that need. But that's my moral opinion.

The reason I said that Obama was a socialist, because he wants to and I quote 'redistribute the wealth'. At the core this is socialism. All it does is punish the most productive members of society, and rewards the lazy. I would be able to live with Obama as president if weren't for this.

What we really should be asking of our leaders is a higher minimum wage. People used to be able support a modest middle class life style on minimum wage, what we have now is too low people can barely support them selves by the skins of their teeth. Some people even support families on that. Not just that it greatly reduces a person's spending power.

Lower taxes, not just for the lower and middle classes but for every one! That's double for businesses. When businesses have less taxes and doing well everybody benefits. They can hire more people, prices will go down, and they will be able to invest more into technologies that will benefit everybody! It will strenghten people's spending power and people will make money, so the government will gain more in taxes with out actually raising them.

Demand proper and responsible regulation. What caused the recent crash in stock market because banks where allowed to make risky loan offers in attempt to make more money on the recent housing boom. People went bankrupt and loosed their homes because of it. As a result the banks couldn't regain that money, and they went bankrupt them selves. This could have been avoided if the government put responsible regulations into place.

You realize that all of these propositions, save for lowering taxes on the rich, are supported by Obama? He's not asking to redistribute all the money in the United States, but he is, and so are most Democrats, supportive of putting "safety nets" and restrictions on the economy to give everyone in the United States equal opportunities and the basic necessities to live a dignified life.

You realize your viewpoint on the minimum wage is downright Liberal, right?

Yeah, my taxes would probably be lower, but when businesses try to make up for the loss, good luck finding a job. My mother's business is going to take hit when he decides to enact his new tax policy. Also, I'm scared for a REAL possibility of another depression.

Democrats gained a significant amount of support during the last depression. The only reason we've headed into a recession in the first place is because the government did not interject when it should have -- something that a Democratic president would have done, instead of turning to look the other way.

I feel Obama is trying to fix something that is not broken and might indeed break it as a result.

Are you sure we're talking about America here?

Going to either extreme is a bad Idea... When what it really needs is to be better maintained.

Precisely. Obama is NOT Socialist, and McCain is NOT Capitalist -- both Canidates are a mixture of both idealologies, but leaning towards different sides of the spectrum. Obama is NOT looking to redistribute the wealth or seek government control over businesses. Obama is doing exactly what you want -- he's maintaining it.

Obama, and most liberals, do not want wealth distribution, they want the government to safegaurd them from curropt business practices, and to regulate the economy only enough so that we don't run the risk of suffering through a depression.

Now that I'm done nit-picking, I'd like to say this: I TOTALLY RESPECT YOU ANUBIS. You're standing up to a forum full of rather brutal liberals and you're doing it with grace. You posted a thought-out and well written response to why you disagree with Obama, and not once did you resort to satire and snide comments. I wish I could say the same for myself. So if I'm sounding harsh or as though I'm teaming up on you, jut know that I can't help but respect you.

[Wselfwulf]

Man, that was some bomb you dropped there Anubis. It certainly got the ball rolling. So right into it:

I believe it's down right immoral to take money away from somebody who actually earned it.

People often ask of corporations how they come up with their figures. I mean, and can empathize with something being given a value for the labour that was put into it. But, as many might say, when they increase the price to make a profit, where did that extra value come from? Some call this thievery while others call it necessary.
And if you worry about what is earnt, well, does the manager, CEO type deserve his six figures signing mergers, waivers, aquisitions, deciding who stays and who goes (which all of these he can delegate to others that he pays), when we have the employees crunching numbers slaving all their lives for a sports come or some other silly dream. What I'm saying is perhaps one could argue that certain people didn't earn the money they have, not that you are wrong.

Also propitiates the evil %5 stereotype that the Democratic party loves to demonise.

Most parties, by default, must include some policy on the financially destitude and unemplyment. It remains ironic due to their frequent waste of revenue (worst of all on slander campaigns and such)

there is no monopolies

definately rethink that

When businesses compete the consumer reaps the rewards!

But not with price gauging, predatory pricing or collusion. I mean, a select few hopefuls actually put quality on the markets. Most don't because it is not cost effective. If I really had power over microsoft I would not have ended up with bloody Vista.

What we really should be asking of our leaders is a higher minimum wage.

In such a way that does not incite inflation and thus re-alignment of your new wages middle-class lifestyle value?

[Berserker]

The American Dream is one of many illusions in our society, a secular interpretation of 500-year-old Protestant dogma whereby material prosperity accompanies divine salvation. Money worship: a pleasant fiction evolved to divorce the neurotic members of our civilization from the reality of its decay. Much as a drunk man in the cold is immune to his own failings, and sees only the warm glow from within, even as he dies to the accumulating ice: in the end, no one remembered whether he was a Republican or Democrat.

[Anubis]

I think it's down right immoral to keep all my earnings inspite of those that have less. I absolutely think it's fair to give to those that need. But that's my moral opinion.

Yeah, but that is YOUR choice. You can donate to people who actually need it. But it needs to stay that way... A donation. Don't get me wrong you should give to the needy.

Personally, I think it's unethical to force such a thing. When your forcing some one to donate, then it's not really a donation.

Are you sure we're talking about America here?

I was talking about the US economic system.

Like who, Paris Hilton? A b**** BORN into wealth who never worked a day in her life?

When I said that, I was talking about people who actually went and set out to make living. You know those people who start up businesses, and worked their fingers to the bone so it can be successful. Like my mother when she started her business, she worked 12-14 hour days for a year, with no vacation just so it wont fall in it's first year, even now she works past full time, and not a lot of time to her self. Obama's plan hurts people like her.

Paris is just a rich girl that is sponging her parent's success. You shouldn't put every 'wealthy' person in the same basket.

People often ask of corporations how they come up with their figures. I mean, and can empathize with something being given a value for the labour that was put into it. But, as many might say, when they increase the price to make a profit, where did that extra value come from? Some call this thievery while others call it necessary.
And if you worry about what is earnt, well, does the manager, CEO type deserve his six figures signing mergers, waivers, aquisitions, deciding who stays and who goes (which all of these he can delegate to others that he pays), when we have the employees crunching numbers slaving all their lives for a sports come or some other silly dream. What I'm saying is perhaps one could argue that certain people didn't earn the money they have, not that you are wrong.

Yeah, capitalism is not perfect, and I never said it was. However in comparision it's better than the alternatives.

That value you mention was to regain from a loss. Like supply/demmand, taxes, resources, etc.

Also to the CEO's deffence. Those people probably went through years of collage, and to get even higher years in the company. Yet, I do agree to an extent they are over paid.

You realize that all of these propositions, save for lowering taxes on the rich, are supported by Obama? He's not asking to redistribute all the money in the United States, but he is, and so are most Democrats, supportive of putting "safety nets" and restrictions on the economy to give everyone in the United States equal opportunities and the basic necessities to live a dignified life.

You realize your viewpoint on the minimum wage is downright Liberal, right?

The reason I said I was a republican, is because they are closest thing to what I believe in politically. I guess You can say I'm an independent leaning towards the right.

Also I didn't say the rich, I was saying lower taxes to businesses. Like I said before, when business is good, people are better off.

I know the minimum wage thing was left, but I believe it's nessary when people have way too hard of a time supporting them selves.

The American Dream is one of many illusions in our society, a secular interpretation of 500-year-old Protestant dogma whereby material prosperity accompanies divine salvation. Money worship: a pleasant fiction evolved to divorce the neurotic members of our civilization from the reality of its decay. Much as a drunk man in the cold is immune to his own failings, and sees only the warm glow from within, even as he dies to the accumulating ice: in the end, no one remembered whether he was a Republican or Democrat.
The American Dream is one of many illusions in our society, a secular interpretation of 500-year-old Protestant dogma whereby material prosperity accompanies divine salvation. Money worship: a pleasant fiction evolved to divorce the neurotic members of our civilization from the reality of its decay. Much as a drunk man in the cold is immune to his own failings, and sees only the warm glow from within, even as he dies to the accumulating ice: in the end, no one remembered whether he was a Republican or Democrat.

What's bad about something that drives people to achieve better thing?

Also

wow, no offence dude but the was beyond depressing.

Now that I'm done nit-picking, I'd like to say this: I TOTALLY RESPECT YOU ANUBIS. You're standing up to a forum full of rather brutal liberals and you're doing it with grace. You posted a thought-out and well written response to why you disagree with Obama, and not once did you resort to satire and snide comments. I wish I could say the same for myself. So if I'm sounding harsh or as though I'm teaming up on you, jut know that I can't help but respect you.

Wow,

I'm glad to see that not every one thinks I'm still the immature twat I was when I first joined.

Thank you

[vrikasatma]

One thing I'd like to point out about President-elect Obama...

Lots of people think he's a far-Left politician. PoliticalCompass.org (don't click on it, the page has been taken down) positioned him as Centrist, leaning towards the Right and Economic Authoritarian. As were most of the candidates on both sides of the race including, interestingly enough, Ron Paul. Though he scored closer to Populist than anyone else. The two Left Wing exceptions to the 2008 candidate slate were Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich, who were far Left Populist.

Yes, it's true that Barack has a very Liberal voting record. This is because he's a Centrist, and that will be his governing style: from the centre out. Obama himself doesn't personally approve of abortion's existence, but he (very rightly) acknowledges that it's not the government's place to make that decision for every woman seeking one. That would be, to borrow a term heavily used by the Libertarian Party, the ultimate in "nanny" government.

McCain said that he has the most Liberal voting record in the Senate. That's true but that doesn't necessarily make him Liberal. He isn't. Liberalism tends to be a little more predominant in the House but the Senate is strongly Conservative, whichever side of the aisle you're talking about.

[Midnight]

His socialist agenda is gonna destroy our already fragile economy!

Yeah, because capitalism is so wonderful. How are "Fannie Mae" and "Freddie Mac" doing these days? (Incidentally, at least one of my family thinks that those two should go bust just for having such phenomenally stupid names).

I just hope the man gets assassinated

Say g'day to the Secret Service, kid.

[Silent Hunter]

Well it seems someone has been drinking Republican Kool Aid. Lets get the gloves on:

The reason why I said that Obama's socialist agenda was gonna ruin the nation's already fragile economy.

Ok, for one, if you are going to use the word socialism as a smear word or a policy that automatically equals bad then you are misguided. Its a system like any other and is flawed. Another thing it does not simply equal communism. A very real example of this is Europe with national healthcare which creaties a NET GAIN. Europe is hit hard as the US and its still virtually keeping alfoat so its not budget breaking.

When you tax businesses, they're gonna have to make up the loses some where. I mean hire prices, fewer jobs, and it will also encourage them to outsource to other countries. It doesn't take a genius to know that is a bad thing. This is especially true to me since my mother's business will be affected by that. It isn't just big business

For a start you assume the tax is going to be a crippiling one and later you use a very flawed sconario which I will get to later on. $250,000 sounds well off. Sorry but meduim-big buisness is going to be big and doing well for itself in a country that is struggling in debt, espcially in the middle class areas. Many are poor and go poorer and there is no reason why taxation can't be raised if you are doing well. Its called progressive taxation and it already exists. Futher more they wont outsource that much due to the tax break going. There will not be that much of a benefit. Oh and how much does your mothers buisness own? Figures, now.

I believe it's down right immoral to take money away from somebody who actually earned it. On the soul reason because he makes more than most people. People call this the "fairness doctrine" the ironic thing about that it's not fair at all!

So we should abolish any progressive tax system? I mean we can't have those who earned it pay some pack into the goverment system that pays for services now can we? How dare they also try and help the poor! You earnt it!

Snipped out fllawed farm sconario

For a start this is for people earning over $250,000 which is well off! Also raise the point that the goverment asks for your money anyway to pay for lesser off people and services so unless this magical farm is in the middle of nowhere or not part of society then its still paying. I also doubt that many farms that earn over $250k will struggle to pay a bit more tax. Finally you make it look like the Sheriff of Nottinghan will come at their door and take all their money away.

The problem with socialism that it is not fair, and it doesn't work.

Again you make it seem like socialsim=communism and even that worked, if poorly for 74 years but thats not the point. I could also say the same to capitalsim. Plus again, progressive taxing has been implimented beforehand.

What you are doing is punishing the people who worked for their means, their hopes for a better life, and rewarding people who don't contribute. This is where it starts to break down, when people are given what they needed rather than work for it and contributing the pool that is gonna get passed out. They will start to work less, then people who contribute the most, pay the price when more is taken from them to compensate for the loss. Eventually the contributors can't stay afloat, and then whole thing comes crashing down, and everybody suffers. It's a good idea on paper, but the human condition is it's major and fatal flaw.

Ahahaahaahaa

Sorry I needed to get that out. Have you seen the wave of news about poor quality products recently? Do you realise that people may desperatly need a tax releif who are not well off and that benefit scroungers can just be rooted out right? Or are you going to say that those people who struggle don't deserve your "hard earned money?" Do you even realise some people are trapped in a certain job or are suffering medically so as not to get a better job?

But why is there such a stigma, and hatred for capitalism?

Becuase it has done a lot of damage to society, people and lives over its long history.

Also the consumer has power over businesses, if you don't like them... you don't have to buy from them, thanks to anti-trust laws there is no monopolies and there is always another place to go to.

Only in large groups does the consumer have any real power against them. Plus, no monopolies? Does Microsoft ring a bell to you?

Which brings us an other benefit, corporate competition! When businesses compete the consumer reaps the rewards! Like lower prices and better quality products. They are willing to do what ever it takes to make you do business with them. It's like when two divorced parents fight for the love of their child(ren)as a result the kid(s) gets two Christmases, or two romantic rivals fight for the affections of a lady. This element also help drives growth of technology. People just don't realize how much power they have over a conglomerate like... lets say Microsoft.

Companies can be influenced. For example it did not stop blacks not being employed in the 70's. Two coperatations can easily cut quailty, f*** up prices and mislead if it suits them over their rivals. Coperate influence for example of it hitting policy would be the Yes on Prop 8 campain. You seem to assume yet again that socialsm is communism and its not. Also you would want vital services like healthcare companies competing? Because if so that is mad. Treatment could vary and cost in vastly different amounts.

Also the American economy is not a capitalistic state. The American economy is what is called a 'Mixed' economy. Yes, the United States is majorly capitalistic, however the government does have some traits that resembles socialism. Somethings like Post Office is apart of the government. Also things we have in place to take care of the sick, the old, and people who just cannot take care of them selves, like; social security, welfare, and food stamps.

Obama's "socialst" policies so far seem to be giving people a chance at better healthcare to help fix the universally broken US insurance system and to do some more proggressive tax breaks/increases. Thats hardly a call to a socialst state

If you want a strong but fair economy. What we need is not a radical change such as this, but rather some improvements on what we already have.

Some systems are broken and can't be improved on and some need change. Simple as that. Obama wants to do both.

Lower taxes, not just for the lower and middle classes but for every one! That's double for businesses. When businesses have less taxes and doing well everybody benefits. They can hire more people, prices will go down, and they will be able to invest more into technologies that will benefit everybody! It will strenghten people's spending power and people will make money, so the government will gain more in taxes with out actually raising them.

Which we did the last 8 years and it worked fine, right?

The reason I said that Obama was a socialist, because he wants to and I quote 'redistribute the wealth'. At the core this is socialism. All it does is punish the most productive members of society, and rewards the lazy. I would be able to live with Obama as president if weren't for this.

Thats Communist at heart and Commiunsim does not EQUAL socialism. Oh and how is helping the poor and weak, rewarding the lazy.

Yeah, my taxes would probably be lower, but when businesses try to make up for the loss, good luck finding a job. My mother's business is going to take hit when he decides to enact his new tax policy. Also, I'm scared for a REAL possibility of another depression.

AGAIN, GIVE ME HER INCOME AND WE ARE ALREADY IN A RECCESION/DEPRESSION. WE NEED MEASURES TO GET OUT OF IT. Again, prove to me that it will cause her buisness to collapse.

Going to either extreme is a bad Idea, that's why The US is a mixed economy state. I feel Obama is trying to fix something that is not broken and might indeed break it as a result. When what it really needs is to be better maintained.

He is not going to another extreme and he is fixing something thats already been horribly broken. That will help maintain it.

Yeah, but that is YOUR choice. You can donate to people who actually need it. But it needs to stay that way... A donation. Don't get me wrong you should give to the needy.

Personally, I think it's unethical to force such a thing. When your forcing some one to donate, then it's not really a donation

By that logic lets get rid of all benefits, services paid by taxes, the full monty. You know why its "forced on you"/ Because people are selfish. If universal healthcare existed in the US then more people would be able to get jobs, there would be less sick and injured and there would be far far less poor due to not having to pay for their own medical bills. Therefore a more productive workforce. You are just a selfish little person who does not consider other people.

When I said that, I was talking about people who actually went and set out to make living. You know those people who start up businesses, and worked their fingers to the bone so it can be successful. Like my mother when she started her business, she worked 12-14 hour days for a year, with no vacation just so it wont fall in it's first year, even now she works past full time, and not a lot of time to her self. Obama's plan hurts people like her.

Give me her income and prove that she will go out of buissness due to it. If she is earing over 250k then she is pretty well off.

Yeah, capitalism is not perfect, and I never said it was. However in comparision it's better than the alternatives.

That value you mention was to regain from a loss. Like supply/demmand, taxes, resources, etc.

Also to the CEO's deffence. Those people probably went through years of collage, and to get even higher years in the company. Yet, I do agree to an extent they are over paid.

What, more policies that would probably help capitalism in the long term and society at the same time? Oh and CEO's may be qualified but are just so selfish as well just focusing on money money money. Oh glorious capitalsm. Also, again, no one wants to get rid of it!

Also I didn't say the rich, I was saying lower taxes to businesses. Like I said before, when business is good, people are better off.

I know the minimum wage thing was left, but I believe it's nessary when people have way too hard of a time supporting them selves.

Wait, what? $250,000 is not rich? I want to know what you are smoking.

Oh and if people were not having to pay for their own HEALTH. A considered right here (Europe and for reference I am in the UK), maybe they would not NEED a wage increase. Same with a tax break.

What's bad about something that drives people to achieve better thing?

When the system you so gloriously defend hampers that and hurts others.

I'm glad to see that not every one thinks I'm still the immature twat I was when I first joined.

NO, your are not but you portray yourself here as a selfish deluded person who needs a reality check.

Oh and Zombie, you really do not know what you are talking about.

[Terastas]

You do all know that Obama's plan will tax individuals who will make a quarter million or over, not small businesses, right?

That's the snag Joe the Plumber fell for when he tried to attack Obama. The nonexistent company he claimed he was going to buy made a quarter million, but that's the value of the small business, not the individual. If Joe payed himself a salary $250,000 a year, then his taxes would have gone up, but divide that revenue up among the staff and company expenses and, more realistically, Joe would be below the line in the five-figure range with the rest of us.

John McCain didn't have very much to offer, however, so it was his campaign's intent to make sure that misconception lingered for as long as possible. He couldn't provide any reasons for people to believe he would be a good president, so instead he and his propaganda team did everything possible to warp you into believing Obama would be worse.

Now even with his posts blocked, I'm just as sick of hearing about Anubis's mom as I am Joe the Plumber. Her taxes won't go up unless she's paying herself $250,000, and the only way she could possibly pay herself that much through a small business would be by doing something illegal on the side.

The only way someone could hypothetically cheat Obama's system would be by paying themselves a salary just under the cutoff line; outsourcing or downsizing won't make any difference. In fact, the only companies Obama promised he would tax are the ones that do outsource their jobs, so trying to cheat on one's personal income tax by outsourcing the company would not only be ineffective, it would actually make things worse for them.

Besides, are you trying to tell me we didn't wind up giving taxpayer money to people that didn't deserve it under Bush? Which would you rather do:
1) Pay tax dollars to feed the hungry.
2) Pay tax dollars to a corporate CEO whose company is going under?

The only thing conservatives are interested in conserving anymore is the Status Quo; to make the rich richer and everyone else poorer. I would understand your sentiments if the richest Americans really were the hardest working and most deserving, but how often is that the case?

[MoonKit]

I'd like to say this: I TOTALLY RESPECT YOU ANUBIS. You're standing up to a forum full of rather brutal liberals and you're doing it with grace. You posted a thought-out and well written response to why you disagree with Obama, and not once did you resort to satire and snide comments.

Well, except for the whole hotheaded "I dont like him/he scares me so someone should kill him" comment.

Personally, Im glad Obama won. I voted for him. He was the best choice and I'm cofident he'll do a lot better then the past few presidents. His speech was really touching.

But I'd like to add also that McCain lost very very gracefully. And his speech was just as impressive.

[vrikasatma]

More about the tax plan, and then I have to cut out and go to my credit union...

I'm planning on being a small business owner next year. I'm starting up a horse-drawn carriage service. My projected yearly earnings — when it's up and running full speed — is $60,000 a year. My personal pay will be about $10/hr., or $800 a week (working sole proprietor, driver position). $26,400 a year before taxes.

Federal income tax is 19%, which means I'll pay Uncle Sam around $1300 a year, or $100 a month. I have a bad stock (Marvel) in my portfolio so that will take it down to $1000. ObamaTaxCut.com calculates that my tax cut under President Obama would be -$502, so that'll round it down to income tax of $498 a year.

I take advantage of the biofuel and arts/education tax credits my state offers, so I'll estimate I'll pay around $100 to Salem. I also plan to take advantage of the EnerGMizer and SuperGoodCents carbon efficiency plan once I buy a house, and install solar panels and a wind turbine. The state offers tax credits for home improvements like that; I don't have the numbers to hand, but all in all, I'll probably come out paying $1000 a year in taxes, all things considered.

The even better news is that my 79-year-old mother, being on a fixed income, won't pay income taxes at all.

If you have your Mom's business numbers, go to this site to calculate what her tax cut would be during the Obama Administration:

http://www.obamataxcut.com

[Scott Gardener]

I'm also rejoicing! I've also noticed that the rest of the free world is happy. Too bad the U.K., France, Australia, or the rest of you outside the U.S. don't get electoral votes, or we'd have had a landslide big enough to trigger cataclysmic earthquakes.

The "Socialist" thing:
Theory is one thing, action quite another. Comparing Obama's plans with Socialism, and then implying with it Communism, and in turn inferring a similarity to totalitarian regimes that have used the name of "communism" to justify their power is no more fair and accurate than the radicals who compared Bush to Hitler. Obama's "socialist" proposals have already been instituted in other parts of the free world without ill effect; his "taxing the rich" is rolling back tax breaks Bush put in place; the rich seemed to be doing just fine with those taxes ten years ago, back in 1998, when there was more of them. Furthermore, how many among you are actually rich enough to have to worry about a tax increase, when his plan involves tax breaks for people making less than $250,000? I'm a frigging doctor, and based on my present accounting and business practices, I'm not even going to be affected. I welcome with open arms Obama's "socialism." In particular, I welcome his proposal to offer to the rest of the U.S. the same health care program offered to government employees. For years, the idea of "socialized medicine" has been poo-pooed as if it would single-handedly destroy everything great about American health care. The problem is, as an ER physician, I am swamped with people who have nowhere else to go, who show up to the ER because we're the only ones who can't refuse service to them based on the ability to pay. Shamefully, our current health care system is essentially inaccessable to perhaps one fifth of all our citizens--that's maybe 20 to 30 million people. That's more than the entire population of most other countries, who have NOTHING in the way of health care. I see every day people doubled over in chronic pain or silently dying of diabetes, heart disease, and other treatable illnesses. Earlier today, I also learned that Obama will help push for a modernization of medical records. I routinely can't get access to records from patients who just left the hospital a day or two ago, because those records are on paper, in a folder, locked up after five pm. Unless you're that guy on Life On Mars, it's not the frigging seventies any more.

I also celebrate a return to American respectability in the eyes of the rest of the world in terms of being civil and decent. I'm confident that we can soon put behind us the nightmare of Guantanamo Bay, or the PATRIOT Act, a name that seems pulled almost directly out of Orwell's 1984. Perhaps we can finally participate in the next version of the Kyoto Accord, working towards ensuring that we still have a future past the end of this century.

I don't expect miracles, and I know it'll be slow going. But, at long bloody last, we have a leader, an honest to God leader, who can open his mouth without sounding like a retard in front of the whole fracking planet; we've got someone who can point us in the right direction. I can hear Obama speak, and his words have elegance enough that I can actually enjoy listening. For the past eight years, I've listened to our leaders flub along, until I feel like a zombie, strolling the countryside, moaning "BRAINS! I WANT BRAINS!!!"

[outwarddoodles]

I'd like to say this: I TOTALLY RESPECT YOU ANUBIS. You're standing up to a forum full of rather brutal liberals and you're doing it with grace. You posted a thought-out and well written response to why you disagree with Obama, and not once did you resort to satire and snide comments.

Well, except for the whole hotheaded "I dont like him/he scares me so someone should kill him" comment.

Which he apologized for and then proceeded to write a thorough explaination as to why he disagrees....

Besides, Anubis wasn't the only one who had thrown hot-headed comments around.

(Hell, if McCain made it into office, I'd be bitchin' up a storm too.)