Who to vote for?

[GuardianShua]

If you believe Obama is not bought and paid for as much as any President, you are fooling yourself. How else do you think a nobody from the corrupt Chicago political machine beat the Clintons at their own game?

Oprah Winfrey gave Obama a huge sum of money to run for president.

 

[visionary]

Oprah Winfrey gave Obama a huge sum of money to run for president.

Not this time

 

[Avodat]

Sooooooooooooooooo looking forward to reading about the UK elections in a couple of years. I might even enjoy what I am reading safe in the knowledge that they will not cut down as many trees as have been needed to keep the American election afloat! EcoUK!

 

[GuardianShua]

Sooooooooooooooooo looking forward to reading about the UK elections in a couple of years. I might even enjoy what I am reading safe in the knowledge that they will not cut down as many trees as have been needed to keep the American election afloat! EcoUK!

We have so many trees in America, that we have to let forest fires burn to keep the forest healthy. Shame huh! What they need to do is select cut, so what if it drives the price of wood down.

 

[GuardianShua]

Not this time

That is what helped him get his start. Relax Vis, he can only be president for four more years; then we will elect someone else.

 

[visionary]

That is what helped him get his start. Relax Vis, he can only be president for four more years; then we will elect someone else.

Ever look up the the amount of executive orders Obama put in place in the first four years...http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/obama-subjects.html ... he will probably complete his object in the next four and we will not have any elections any more. The most any other president has done in the history of the USA is 16.

And he is probably just warming up..

 

[sevengreenbeans]

I mentioned this awhile back in the thread, but don't know if anyone realized who I was talking about. I saw this recent article written by Javier Solana, former High Representative of the European Union. Thought I would share it with everyone.
The World After November — Social Europe Journal
The last line in the article is interesting. He says, "The main question now is whether the leaders who emerge in November will be firefighters or fire starters."
This stuck out at me like a red flag, and apparently I wasn't the only one, look at comment #2 - my sentiments exactly.
This man has his hand in politics across the globe. Even though he is no longer HRofEU, while he was holding that office, he set up a lot of initiatives - much like the amount of executive orders Barack Obama has signed. The thing is, while Mr. Solana was HRofEU, Mr. Obama was submissive to Mr. Solana, as if his orders were coming from him. Strange. Or, not so strange, considering global politics. Also noted in the article are the permanent 5 members of the Security Council... United States, China, Russia, Britain, and France. Now think on that for a moment. How does that work?


About Javier Solana
Javier Solana formerly the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, and a former Secretary General of NATO, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution and President of the ESADE Center for Global Economy and Geopolitics.



This is a man to watch. The above listed is just a portion of his credentials.

 

[visionary]

About Javier Solana
Javier Solana formerly the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, and a former Secretary General of NATO, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution and President of the ESADE Center for Global Economy and Geopolitics.



This is a man to watch. The above listed is just a portion of his credentials. [/SIZE]

And being a socialist, doesn't give much hope for the common man to lift himself out of any present state he finds himself when our global world becomes our world.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Ever look up the the amount of executive orders Obama put in place in the first four years...Barack Obama Executive Orders Subjects ... he will probably complete his object in the next four and we will not have any elections any more. The most any other president has done in the history of the USA is 16.

And he is probably just warming up..

Then he's probably going to pass a law that you guys can't meet for religious services, then he'll probably take away the tax-exempt status for religious organizations, then he'll probably start lining up non-Muslims to be shot in the head, and he'll probably crown himself Messiah and King and set up his own imagine in the White House lawn, replete with speech and artificial intelligence.

I'm just saying... probably....

P.S. Your post reminds me of Sue Sylvester on Glee claiming that her opponent in the race for a congressional seat had an operation and probably received a baboon heart - which she later just used as a fact in her smear campaign. Politics is dirty, especially when the opponent has an imagination and fear to drive it (as in your case).

 

[yonah_mishael]

And being a socialist, doesn't give much hope for the common man to lift himself out of any present state he finds himself when our global world becomes our world.

(1) He isn't a socialist. Canadians are far more socialist and think that Obama is essentially a conservative. By your rhetoric, one would wonder if you would be for cutting all social support programs? Throw the poor out on their butts and let them struggle in the ideal capitalism, either succeeding and thriving or just dying in the streets.

(2) And, yes, Capitalism has always had the poor at heart, hasn't it? What are the alternatives to social programs? Will you feed the poor? Will you give them a home and see that their children get an education so that they can "lift themselves out of any present state they find themselves in"? Will you be the one to shoulder the financial burden of those who cannot afford medical care and are forced to use the Emergency Room to receive any kind of medical attention at all, even for the common Flu?

Pure Capitalism is heartless - a system built on "survival of the fittest." Well, there truly are some "fittest" among the poor of the world who simply have no chance unless we help them as a society. Call it extreme. Call it Socialism. Call it whatever you want, but it is BUILT IN in the American psyche that heartless and callous financial policy is immoral, that we need to be aware of the less fortunate, and that social policies are the bedrock for a morally healthy civilization.

 

[visionary]

(1) He isn't a socialist. Canadians are far more socialist and think that Obama is essentially a conservative. By your rhetoric, one would wonder if you would be for cutting all social support programs? Throw the poor out on their butts and let them struggle in the ideal capitalism, either succeeding and thriving or just dying in the streets.

(2) And, yes, Capitalism has always had the poor at heart, hasn't it? What are the alternatives to social programs? Will you feed the poor? Will you give them a home and see that their children get an education so that they can "lift themselves out of any present state they find themselves in"? Will you be the one to shoulder the financial burden of those who cannot afford medical care and are forced to use the Emergency Room to receive any kind of medical attention at all, even for the common Flu?

Pure Capitalism is heartless - a system built on "survival of the fittest." Well, there truly are some "fittest" among the poor of the world who simply have no chance unless we help them as a society. Call it extreme. Call it Socialism. Call it whatever you want, but it is BUILT IN in the American psyche that heartless and callous financial policy is immoral, that we need to be aware of the less fortunate, and that social policies are the bedrock for a morally healthy civilization.

There is a difference between social programs and a socialist government. Social programs have their place in society. Socialist governments only help those in power... everyone else is starving and slaves.

 

[yonah_mishael]

There is a difference between social programs and a socialist government. Social programs have their place in society. Socialist governments only help those in power... everyone else is starving and slaves.

Your definition of "Socialist government" is itself Capitalism.

 

[visionary]

Your definition of "Socialist government" is itself Capitalism.

IT might be a better question to ask you is which would you prefer to be under.. socialist government like Russian, Cuba?? or capitalist government like USA, Canada, UK, Australia.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

IT might be a better question to ask you is which would you prefer to be under.. socialist government like Russian, Cuba?? or capitalist government like USA, Canada, UK, Australia.

None of those governments are socialists, as it concerns Russia and Cuba. Facts and facts and they need to be addressed properly. If one wants a socialist government, one can look to Germany or Sweden since they have a socialist market economy...and are doing quite well. Russia was a Communist (Stalinist, to be accurate) government and Cuba is for State Capitalism like China is (which is doing well).

Austraila has universal health care and socialized medicine as well.

There's no such thing as a 100% capitalist government. You may have regulated capitalism...but that's as far as it goes.

 

[visionary]

None of those governments are socialists, as it concerns Russia and Cuba. Facts and facts and they need to be addressed properly. If one wants a socialist government, one can look to Germany or Sweden since they have a socialist market economy...and are doing quite well. Russia was a Communist (Stalinist, to be accurate) government and Cuba is for State Capitalism like China is (which is doing well).

Austraila has universal health care and socialized medicine as well.

There's no such thing as a 100% capitalist government. You may have regulated capitalism...but that's as far as it goes.

A complete socialist government is communism at its finest. Yeah, there is no capitalist 100%, .. but there is socialist at 100% when it goes communism.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

A complete socialist government is communism at its finest. Yeah, there is no capitalist 100%, .. but there is socialist at 100% when it goes communism.

Again, communism isn't necessarily socialism at 100%..and that has been discussed by numerous economists multiple times before....as the Byzantine Empire was communist and yet had excellent welfare systems to look out for the poor. For there are differing levels of socialism and types of socialists governments...just as there are differing levels of communism and capitalism. The ones who practice socialism from the bottom up as it concerns collective ownership of property amongst the people and others practicing it from the top down where the government centralizes everything - and the same with communism practiced amongst communities when it comes to communes/jobs ascribed to others and all having things in common and communism as practiced by Stalin being radically different (more shared earlier/in other discussions, as seen in #67 #68 #417 and #419 ).


Again, no need making up facts where there's no support for such. There is, nor has there ever been, such a thing as socialism at 100% and it'd academically dishonest to say otherwise.


I'm always surprised whenever people discuss the need for government to allow capitalism and yet still ask for the government to favor their buisnesses in specifc/whatever their interests are....and thus, what often happens is that they don't realize that what they support is socialism that supports those in power, while those who have little are told to "compete" with one another.

For me, seeing this isn't to say that socialism in/of itself is inferior to capitalism. Most people are already fearful of socialism in any/all forms because they think of the U.S.S.R and assume that communism began with socialism. But that's not necessary, IMHO, when considering the many variation of socialism just as there are variations of capitalism One form of socialism that's often not discussed is the Bottoms-Up kind where people take action themselves, from the bottom up instead of being directed by small elites, top down. It can be seen as a forn of communalism.....and technically (again), as much as many capitalists say socialists want the government to have more control, it's always interesting how much the government is used to look out for/enforce the interests of the big buisnesses---especially when certain people in government will favor (via lobbying) some buisnesses more so than others and effectively have a socialism for the rich. ..and a capitalism for the poor where resources are taken and people are still told to compete with each other/do their best.

Indeed, without government there is anarchy---but too much government and its oppressive. The people self-governing themselves without any kind of restraint is JUST as damaging as only a select group of people in power determining the shots...or a governement so big it cannot do anything in time. Nonetheless, limited governement with checks and balances did not mean the government held the states accountable when it came to rules/regulations federally that affected ALL of them.​

It is because of this that intervention is often necessary...and socialism often seems to be a good means of seeking to accomplish that. More specifically, Bottoms Up Socialism sems to be something many don't want to consider----for rather than waiting for things to come from the top down, it may be better for others to organize from the bottom, do their own thing and start something. This is the reality behind the ongoing struggle in socialism between those who would create a socialist society by handing it down from on high and those who want to arrive at a socialist society from the bottom up, by the actions of the common people.​

Its really amazing, seeing that most advocate a socialism where they look to the government to provide for them/do something......even though that can be flawed since you can have "socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor" where those in charge of government are the elites....and whichever lobby gives funding/places money in the pockets of others in power determines where funding may go. Thus, like it was in the days of Jim Crow/Reconstruction, you had the government looking out for others who were poor....except it was only those that elites in government cared about, whereas poor blacks were told to make it work with their resources even when they were set behind.​

Seeing that its not always the case that those in government really care for what's happening below, many feel that they should organize with those who do---and make those on top respect it. It's the struggle between what Draper calls Socialism-from-Above and Socialism-from-Below​

For more info:​

• Socialism
• --Organizing from the bottom up

One of the most brilliant characterizations I have yet heard of the American economic system was given by Stephen Bannon (director of the recent documentary “Generation Zero&#8221, on Sean Hannity’s show: “we have socialism for the very poor, and we have socialism for the wealthy; we have capitalism for the middle class.” The unsustainable nature of the economic system, even accounting for the incomplete state of the socialist programs for the lower class, is clear in more ways than one...and I say that in light of doing a lot of street ministry/working in government funded programs where this was seen often. Banks continue to lavish bonuses on their star performers even as they suck life out of the public, while through corruption, waste or fraud, many able-bodied, self-sufficient individuals take advantage of public monies intended for those truly in need.​

As another said best:

In many general respects, the socioeconomic story of the US over the last 30 or 40 years has been one of the ascendance of right wing, laissez-faire policy regimes. However, at a less general level conservatives, beginning with and including Reagan, have consistently failed to significantly roll back key socialist-inspired programs like medicare or social security. In addition, important parts of the state interventionist welfare regime have remained solidly in place, enjoying broad support, to say nothing of such thorns in the libertarian side as the Department of Education. Left-wing success

Nonetheless, with the aforementioned rightist ascendance, public handouts aren’t just for liberals anymore. One of the main ideas independents like myself believe is that both parties favor wasteful big spending, just on different things. Sure enough, Republicans and conservatives have spent liberally (pun intended) on Big Business, the rich and foreign entanglements during their time in power.
And so we have socialism for the rich and the poor, and capitalism for the middle class. That is, while the rich have enjoyed a free lunch at the public trough, and the poor have gotten by with ill-managed, but still significant, programs of their own, the middle class has been stuck with the bill on both sides.

In a normal universe, progressive taxation-and-redistribution systems would mean, by definition, that it is mostly the rich that pay for the benefits of the less well-off. But with the oligarchic character of so much of American politics (on both the Democratic (think Wall Street) and the Republican sides), we have a system in which the most productive component of society—and, many argue, the most important component of a democracy—is also the least represented when it comes to policy. And as political wisdom will tell us, if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.


​

IMHO, socialist systems can't (and never have, to my knowledge) create as much wealth as capitalists ones, and for very good reasons that any decent economist can explain. Therefore, if the "good" of the people is the aim, and all of the programs that help the people and make them more equal are the more specific goals, then socialists should favor a system that gives the most economic power to accomplish these goals to the government. In other words, the system that creates the most wealth is the system from which the most wealth can be extracted for welfare and other socialist plans. In the United States, for example, welfare spending per recipient is certainly greater than any per-person redistribution of goods in Cuba or other socialist countries. Why? Because the money is there...

The pros and cons of socialism and capitalism​

There are good concepts in capitalism as there are in other socio-economic systems such as socialism, and most people realize it takes a blend of tools and techniques from each to form an efficient, productive society.

That said, there needs to be consistency in examining what has happened when capitalism without restraint has been allowed to prosper. I’m reminded of the work of Eric Williams in his book entitled “Capitalism & slavery“….an amazing read discussing how “slavery was not born of racism: rather racism was the consequence of slavery.” Williams outlined the shifts from enslavement of the local Indian populations, to the use of white convict or indentured labour to black slavery. In Williams’ words, the origin of black slavery lay with economic, not racial motives…believing that “It had to do not with the colour of the labourer, but the cheapness of the labour.”



For other good reads on the issue,

• --"Review of Eric Williams' "Capitalism and Slavery" ()
• --"Slavery and the rise of capitalism" ( )
• --"History Provides the Blueprint - Full Documentary" ( )
• Reinventing Revolution: REConstructing Eric Williams & Capitalism and Slavery" ( )
• Reinventing Revolution: Historiographical Analysis of Slavery and Politics in the United States

​

According to Williams, Slavery helped finance the Industrial Revolution in England. Plantation owners, shipbuilders, and merchants connected with the slave trade accumulated vast fortunes that established banks and heavy industry in Europe and expanded the reach of capitalism worldwide. Binding an economic view of history with strong moral argument, Williams’s study of the role of slavery in financing the Industrial Revolution was to many a refutation of traditional ideas of economic and moral progress and firmly established the centrality of the African slave trade in European economic development. He demonstrated in rather convincing ways that mature industrial capitalism in turn helped destroy the slave system. And many other scholars have adopted the same mentality.

For more on Williams’ work, one can go here or here.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I wonder if in the next election the Republicans will again have the same game plan. You can not fool all of the public all of the time. That is why Democrats and Independents turned out in record numbers. Someone had to save the country from the wealthy.

A lot of the mantra given by people in opposition to the president is done in the name of him somehow supporting "socialism" - far from accurate and noted by many conservatives who point out there's no need for people making up false accusations that aren't historically accurate. And as much as others keep trying to say that no government regulation is needed for the market and 100% capitalism is necessary to aid the people, it's a pipedream to keep advocating that.

As another noted best:

The truth is that a "free market" *needs* some regulation and limitations in order to remain free, because without it the huge corporations could do whatever they wanted to crush competition, shaft consumers and send employees into serfdom. The paradox is that a theoretical "free market" that is 100% free of regulation and government intervention is likely to produce an extreme plutocracy where a few dominant, monopolistic corporations call all the shots.

Capitalism and free markets sound great in theory, and for the *most* part they are... but they degenerate into something horrible if not "reined in" where appropriate and necessary.

For more information, there was an excellent book I was able to investigate on the issue entitled "The Myth of the Free Market"

​

The Myth of the Free Market - Mark Martinez - YouTube​

As said best in THE DARK SIDE OF OUR FREE MARKET MYTHS, for an excerpt on how often the "truths self-evident" were often used to defend things done that were horrible when the government was in the wrong hands:

As you can imagine, when the stock market crash hit in 1929 a majority of Americans could no longer feast off of nature's bounty, like early pioneers, because they lived in the cities. Capturing and feeding off of rats and other street vermin is not the same as hunting down and feasting on the deer and fish caught in the countryside.

This new reality posed serious problems during the Great Depression. Astute politicians and policy makers understood quickly that economic depression created entirely new problems when people live on top one another in urban settings. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

The real story is what made industrial America tick.

What Made the Great Transformation Possible
During the Great Transformation of America individual achievements and spectacular events were made possible and driven by the liberties granted by the Constitution, the gift of natural resources, protective tariffs (the highest in the industrializing world), and a very aggressive foreign policy, which we called Manifest Destiny.

​

While we like to believe that Americans achieved greatness because of hard work and the spirit of entrepreneurialism alone, the reality is the very visible hand of the state and nature's bounty were critical for setting the table for Americans to work hard and get ahead. The moral justification of capitalism draws it's lifeblood from this dynamic mix.

Along the way, there were many problems and issues that had to be dealt with which, as we shall see, required much more than a mythical "invisible hand" to solve.

As the demographic shift in America was occurring, old customs and habits were slowly swept away. A culture that valued familiarity and a handshake was gradually giving way to a world of increasingly distant and impersonal relations. The allure of the West - made possible by an aggressive foreign policy - and a string of economic booms and busts, pushed people across the continent in droves.

​

In the process, loyalties dissolved, while old forms of control, like familiarity, family bonds, and a sense of community were turned upside down. Practically, this meant that the familiarities of custom and tradition had to be replaced by state mandates and law enforcement as forms of social control.

In this way - and in spite of what contemporary politicians might argue - while we like to say that we want the state off our back, we definitely wanted them on our neighbors back. This was all part of the magic that was America.

Because people on the move were no longer held in check by local customs, traditions, or old family histories, self-starters understood that they could get a fresh start if they were willing to leave their comfort zones. Going to a new town, where no one knew your story, was a blessing for many. Perhaps more importantly, for those that had failed before, it gave life to the notion of redemption that was captured in the Constitution (see especially debtors and bankruptcy).

In the process many Americans took advantage of the opportunities available to make money and get fabulously rich.

​

From Sam Colt to Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, people with great ideas and an organized mind found the right environment to create business empires that became the envy of the world. Along the way, the state made things easier for great wealth accumulation with a living Constitution that breathed life into vibrant public policies that favored industry and wealth creation.

Whether it was clearing Indians off the land, granting homesteaders property rights, building infrastructures, creating public education, subsidizing the railroads, embracing land grant colleges, and providing the legal infrastructures for businesses to become corporate behemoths (the Santa Clara decision in 1886 was particularly important), public policy promoted industrialization. There were no invisible hands here.

But there was a flip - and even dark - side to these developments.

How the Other Half Lived
As many began to point out in the late 1800s, Americans were leaving rural communities in droves. This forced them into cities and crowded conditions that were entirely unfamiliar. Customs and folk wisdom that came from the slower pace of the countryside were quickly lost. Neighbors didn't necessarily look after one another in an urban setting as easily as they did in the countryside.

Worse, as personal bonds disappeared, or never developed, in the cities an impersonal gap emerged between those who worked in America's emerging industrial palaces and those who owned them. Workers were often viewed as cogs in a machine, whose only utility lied in keeping the wheels of commerce going strong. The losers in our rapidly industrializing society were considered more as throwaways than they were viewed as wasted opportunities, a sentiment which photo-journalist Jacob Riis captured in the late 19th century

​

Driven by a ruthless laissez-faire, government-out-of-the-market, approach to production industrialists believed that the best worker was one who did what they were told, and was left alone to do their job. It didn't matter what they did, or how they lived once they left the job. What mattered was that they showed up and worked.

Those that didn't like their job - the argument went - could always leave. America was a free country after all. America's "survival of the fittest" mantra mandated that you suck it up, or fail trying.

​

For many at the top of America's economic food chain, if you couldn't hack it you were a loser, plain and simple. Society had no responsibility for your station in life, especially since your station in life was determined by talent, hard work, and individual initiative alone.

Or was it?

What people often ignore or downplay is that at the time it didn't matter that social mores cast women in a light that gave them one role in society, which robbed them of any real opportunity to compete or live on their own, without being socially stigmatized ...

​

It didn't matter that children weren't real free agents, and weren't competent to negotiate salaries and fend for themselves in the mines or on the shop floors of America ...

​

​

Finally, it also didn't matter that Jim Crow and outright racism robbed an entire segment of American society of their opportunity to compete on a level playing field ...

​

According to the economic winners of the day, the losers of life deserved their station in life because they were either genetically or racially inferior. And they knew this because, as we shall see, science proved it.

The Junk Scholars of the 19th Century
Among the many intellectuals who helped breathe life into the notion that your position in life was determined by hard work and initiative alone were popular academics, like William Graham Sumner and Herbert Spencer. In fact, while many believe that Charles Darwin coined the term "survival of the fittest" it was actually Herbert Spencer who gave life to the phrase.

​

It would help him win praise and monetary support from America's wealthiest tycoons.

For his part, William Graham Sumner helped convince America's richest that they not only deserved their place in society because of the hard work that they did, but that "a drunkard in the gutter is just where he ought to be, according to the fitness and tendency of things ..."

​

For other excellent reads on the issue:

• Martinez: WHAT MAKES THE MAGIC OF THE MARKET WORK
• FROM WAR TO MERCANTILISM & MARKET CAPITALISM ... EXAM POST

 

[sevengreenbeans]

(1) He isn't a socialist. Canadians are far more socialist and think that Obama is essentially a conservative.

Visionary was speaking about Javier Solana, not Obama. Compare post #527 and #528.

 

[sevengreenbeans]

More Background on credentials of Mr. Solana...

Javier Solana has been a Trustee at The International Crisis Group since July 2010. Mr. Solana joined the Spanish Socialist Party in 1964 and has been a member of the Spanish parliament since 1977. He held a number of cabinet posts in the four governments headed by Spanish Socialist President Felipe Gonzales between 1982 and 1996. In 1992 he became Minister of Foreign Affairs, a position that he left in December 1995 when he became NATO Secretary-General. His tenure ... as head of the Alliance spanned a period of intense NATO involvement in the Balkans. In October 1999, Mr. Solana left NATO to become Secretary-General of the Council of the EU and its first “high representative“ for Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), tasked with presenting ideas and analysing policy options to help EU leaders agree on foreign and security policy issues, thereby giving the Union more political clout in international affairs. He held this position until December 2009. He was the head of the European Defence Agency, which was established in July 2004 in a bid to boost European defence capabilities in the field of crisis management and to sustain the European Security and Defence Policy. He also represented the EU in the Middle East Quartet, the four-member group involved in mediating the peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and comprising also the UN, the United States and Russia. Mr. Solana earned a doctorate in physics and was a Fulbright scholar at several U.S. universities. He taught solid-state physics at Madrid Complutense University before entering politics.

http://investing.businessweek.com/r...15192&privcapId=6659326&previousCapId=4212820

 

[pat34lee]

(1) He isn't a socialist. Canadians are far more socialist and think that Obama is essentially a conservative. By your rhetoric, one would wonder if you would be for cutting all social support programs? Throw the poor out on their butts and let them struggle in the ideal capitalism, either succeeding and thriving or just dying in the streets.

Finally, somebody gets it. It isn't the government's job to deal with the poor or the rich or anyone else here. The government is required to protect us from other nations and to deal with other governments for us. Charity, welfare, etc. (IE. anything that touches our citizens directly) are local or state functions.