TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- My favorite socialist

My favorite socialist

Well domestically speaking that is. I for one am a staunch believer that individualism is one of the very things that makes the U.S. so great. I am actually quite pleased that Hillary is finally starting to show her true colors, though I deeply fear what could happen if she struts into the White House in '08.

quote:

Hillary Vs. the "On Your Own" Society By Rich Lowry Thursday, May 31, 2007 Hillary Clinton has identified a grievous flaw in the contemporary American economy: It leaves "it all up to the individual." This hateful individualism is allegedly driving income inequality and destroying the American Dream. Clinton calls it "the 'on your own' society," displaying a liberal Democrat's curious aversion to people doing things on their own. In contrast, she offers a collectivist vision of "shared responsibility for shared prosperity," making the case for it based on a farrago of mistruths about the state of the economy. She actually is not interested in sharing anything, but instead hogging all the credit for economic growth in the 1990s for her husband and, by extension, herself. Clinton cites figures to paint a picture of an immiserated middle class, but avoids the main event. As Democratic economist Stephen Rose notes in his new book, "Social Stratification in the United States," once people outside their prime working years are excluded -- the elderly and the young -- the median income for an American family is $63,000. Which, in the words of The Washington Post, "in most parts of the country buys a pretty comfortable middle-class lifestyle." She maintains that corporations are taking more and more of national income for themselves, leaving workers in the cold. But according to Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute, labor's share of national income was a nearly constant 64.9 percent from 1960 to 2006. She says "the percentage of taxes paid by corporations have fallen," when the percentage of taxes paid by corporations was 11.5 percent in 2006, higher than it was in 2000, at 8.2 percent. Clinton portrays the 1990s as a Paradise Lost that only she and her policies can rediscover. She wants "to hit the restart button on the 21st century and redo it the right way." Like not having a tech bubble burst after it grew to unsustainable proportions in the late 1990s? Like not suffering from corporate scandals that stemmed from loose practices in the same period? No one can deny that the 1990s were good, but they wouldn't hold up to the kind of demagogic critique of the economy Hillary makes now. She says we can't "get tough" on China because of our debt, but President Clinton too was "soft" on China -- all recent American presidents have had basically the same policy toward Beijing. She complains of CEO compensation increasing, but it grew right through the 1990s. In fact, former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich has made a Hillary-esque critique of the 1990s economy: "Most of the gains from the 1990s boom went to the people at the top." The real news from Clinton's speech is the way she, in keeping with the leftward shift of her party, turns her back on her husband's actual policies. It is too inconvenient for her to explain the sources of the deficit reduction in the 1990s besides his (relatively inconsequential) tax increase: first, Clinton's huge cut in defense spending; then a budget deal with Republicans that reduced the rate of growth of Medicare and cut taxes on capital gains; then, a wondrous flow of revenue into the federal treasury from capital gains and the "rich getting richer." She doesn't even mention welfare reform, although it is largely thanks to it that the bottom fifth of families had a 35 percent increase in income from 1991 to 2005. She talks of free trade as something to fear, when President Clinton courageously championed NAFTA and other free-trade initiatives, providing boosts to the U.S. and global economies. Of course, she leaves out all the deregulation and how important it was that President Clinton let Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan pursue his low-inflation policies without political interference. None of this fits into her narrative of an economy needing wide-ranging government intervention to escape the nefarious consequences of individuals left to act "on their own." One can only conclude that if you liked the 1990s boom, don't elect this woman.

zomg, what a disaster she will be..

I hope she wins though, and pushes through most of her agenda. The sooner this socialist monster in washington collapses, the sooner we can start over.

Thought you were being serious

If she gets elected, do you think she will pass universal heath care? I am curious to get everyones opinion on this.

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail Thought you were being serious

I am serious. The USA is simply too far gone. There is no way we can turn back the clock on this semi-socialist/semi-fascist system we have now. The state is just too big and powerful, and the momentum towards more government can't be stopped... We either need to have a complete grassroots revolution (not likely since so many people now depend on government), or the system needs to go bankrupt and collapse under it's own weight (the Atlas Shrugged scenario).

I think the 2nd path is most likely.

So let's get it over with.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I am serious. The USA is simply too far gone. There is no way we can turn back the clock on this semi-socialist/semi-fascist system we have now. The state is just too big and powerful, and the momentum towards more government can't be stopped... We either need to have a complete grassroots revolution (not likely since so many people now depend on government), or the system needs to go bankrupt and collapse under it's own weight (the Atlas Shrugged scenario). I think the 2nd path is most likely. So let's get it over with.

I do believe that it is the other way around. The US hasn't been catching up to other developed nations in terms of quality of life because of the rampant individualism. If you think any human society can be effective without central management you are terrible misguided. Look at all the 'socialist' countries in northern europe. Sure they have they're own problems, but the quality of life is better and the divide between rich and poor is smaller. Your libertarian and capitalist system, the one you so dearly want only benefits those that are already well established. It's easy to claim that government should be smaller, that people should be freer when you live comfortably and don't have to worry much about what you are going to eat for dinner. If you were to be born as a black person tomorrow, living in the ghetto, I'm sure you would be all for a more socialist regime. You liberterians and die hard capitalists are truly hypocritical.

Wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Wrong.

Very eloquently put. I'm amazed by the depth of your conclusion.

The best system is a mixed system of free market and minimal government regulation to protect the consumer/shareholder. All taxes except the sales tax should be abolished too. Imagine the economic benefits of the Fair Tax with a single 23% rate on all goods.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Very eloquently put. I'm amazed by the depth of your conclusion.

Yes...the solution to societies ills is always more taxes, more government and more regulation.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Yes...the solution to societies ills is always more taxes, more government and more regulation.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX The US hasn't been catching up to other developed nations in terms of quality of life because of the rampant individualism.

is that something you've come up with or is that generalization based on something? because i've got to tell you in no time in our short history has it been better for ANYONE to make life for themselves happier, easier, fuller, richer, wiser than anyone on the planet.

we, as Americans, invented the modern middle class.

thats not to say it couldn't be done in any other country, but i'll take my generalization over yours anyday of the week.

quote:

If you think any human society can be effective without central management you are terrible misguided.

another sweeping generalization. i don't think anyone thinks that.

quote:

Look at all the 'socialist' countries in northern europe. Sure they have they're own problems, but the quality of life is better and the divide between rich and poor is smaller.

per capita?
couldn't be because their economies are much smaller? or their populations are much smaller? or their economies and populations are much, much older?

quote:

Your libertarian and capitalist system, the one you so dearly want only benefits those that are already well established.

wrong. so wrong. in fact, it goes against the very definition of capitalism, especially here in America.

quote:

It's easy to claim that government should be smaller, that people should be freer when you live comfortably and don't have to worry much about what you are going to eat for dinner. If you were to be born as a black person tomorrow, living in the ghetto, I'm sure you would be all for a more socialist regime. You liberterians and die hard capitalists are truly hypocritical.

wtf? how juvenile is that argument?

i always knew if i had Brad Pitt's looks or Roger Federer's talent or Warren Buffet's brains or Bill Gates' vision my life would instantly un-suck but i didn't think that would make me a hypocrite. i guess youre right in some effed up marxist way.

if a black person from Inglewood, California ends up making something of himself/herself in this effed up country of mine and moves to Santa Monica and voted republican would you call him a hypocrite?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Yes...the solution to societies ills is always more taxes, more government and more regulation.

If you can point out where I said that. I do believe however that libertarianism and pure capitalism are failed enterprises.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX If you can point out where I said that.

you clearly implied it right here;

quote:

Originally posted by venomX I do believe that it is the other way around. The US hasn't been catching up to other developed nations in terms of quality of life because of the rampant individualism. If you think any human society can be effective without central management you are terrible misguided. Look at all the 'socialist' countries in northern europe. Sure they have they're own problems, but the quality of life is better and the divide between rich and poor is smaller. Your libertarian and capitalist system, the one you so dearly want only benefits those that are already well established. It's easy to claim that government should be smaller, that people should be freer when you live comfortably and don't have to worry much about what you are going to eat for dinner.

quote:

I do believe however that libertarianism and pure capitalism are failed enterprises.

that said, you'd have to agree that those particular ideals do not apply to my country, any country, as a whole.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.