<p>RON PAUL ftw...we already knew that ;)</p>
<p>Dr. Horse - </p>
<p>This thread has fallen way off the mark. </p>
<p>Perhaps when this nation was young we could afford to live without government interference, but populations grew the actions of individuals planting rows of corn became massive corporations pumping our food full of pesticides. There's a reason people living in cities tend to vote liberal - they understand the value of collective investment and the need to control the self-serving pursuits of others so that they do not infringe upon one's pursuit of happiness.</p>
<p>Again. When people are ready to truly regulate themselves, they will make choices that take into account the well being of all humans. When that happens, we will have already collectively moved beyond any need for competition (and, therefore, capitalism) because we will understand its profound limitations (as well as the limitations of government control).</p>
<p>To steal a line from Yoda, "There is another". </p>
<p>No need to respond - I get your view. I'd recommend not getting too attached to capitalism. It worked well for a young, growing nation. Not so much anymore.</p>
<p>The reason people on Cities vote Left, is because they are usually poor and lazy and want govt handouts. The reason why Blue states are Blue states is simple because there are a lot more poor people then there are rich. Lets simply look at a state like NY. If we look here</p>
<p>CNN.com</a> Election 2004</p>
<p>from the 2004 election, we can simply see, that red states follow in places with higher wealthy populations. And even though county's like New York and Westchester are where the richest people in NY state live, they sheer number of poor people easily outweighs the rich.</p>
<p>If understanding collectivity, is leeching, then sure. Like I have said, I live in the Bronx, I know the my neighbors. My family doesn't make much, just over 30k a year for 3 people and things are very expensive and things used to be a lot worse. But in no way would we ever choose to take a hand from somebody else. </p>
<p>Regulating ones self, does nothing but hinders ones self and society itself. Its not any body's job to support another person for not doing there job in society. In the Animal Kingdom, if ya don't hunt you don't eat. Its foolish to put you and your family in jeopardy for the need of others, because all lechers do is multiply. Feed a stray cat and it will never stop coming back, and eventually will loose its passion, ability and need to hunt and be self sufficient.</p>
<p>Want to know what happens when we have no competition and full collectivity. We loose all possibilities of economic growth in the global world. Our citizens get less intelligent and less creative, they work less, they get lazy, obesity rises, as does disease, our education suffers as does our health care, we turn into a endless cycle, and we can see it today in American society, as we become more collectivist. We slowly fall backwards on the economic stage, as Competition is the sole inspiration for Invention. Americans can no longer export goods and the economy starts to suffer at home, as we were one the world leader in innovation, but now there is no need for people to work hard, as the reason is not there. Why work if you will be rewarded for not doing so.</p>
<p>Karl Marx even stated this, in a few of his books including the communist manifesto. The reason for the desperate and needed spread of communism and the defeat of capitalism, was that communism would never work on a global scale if there was a competing force against it, which then was Capitalism. This is the reason for Communisms fast expansion. Marx has been quoted, as saying that for Communism and even socialism to really work, society would need to fully get rid of currency and monies in general. If the world were not full communist, the rest of the communist world would remain static and stagnant, While the other parts of the world, that were lets say Capitalistic, would continue to grow and advance and in time, the communist state would be so far behind in all sectors, they would fall defenseless and would eventually be overtaken. The only way to advance sectors under communism or worse, is to force people, as they do in China and did in Cuba and the Soviet Union. </p>
<p>I really want you to read of the "Economic Calculation problem" of the Austrian School of Economics and read Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. </p>
<p>As to your last point. Saying that capitalism is not working, is foolish, just look at society today. Right now under a collectivist government which it has been since before FDR, excluding Barry Goldwater and parties don't really matter. We have </p>
<p>Failing Health care,
Failing Education
Failing Advances in Science
A Obese and Diseased society
A Broken Economy
and Many Many More.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The reason people on Cities vote Left, is because they are usually poor and lazy and want govt handouts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm sure you've earned every penny spent on your food, clothing, and education.</p>
<p>Most defiantly, I don't evben accept federal financial aid.</p>
<p>Here's something relevant to the topic:</p>
<p>Id just like to add something to this topic or debate.</p>
<p>You guys do know that all of our tax dollars are not spent on social programs such as welfare, no all of those are paid for by government made money and not federal taxes. All of the Federal Taxes mostly go to pay for Interest on money loaned to use from the Federal Reserve. Read IRS section 861.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most defiantly, I don't evben accept federal financial aid.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So do you have rich parents then? Or have you been working in a boot-blacking factory since you were 3 years old, saving every cent?</p>
<p>Yes the amount of the budget that goes to social programs is very small, but that is only bc the budget is so large (what like 2 trillion?) I mean 1% of that is still 20 billion dollars and that is alot. So though the proportion may be small the dollar amount is still large. But also the main reason that ppl are against social programs is bc as they are they reward ppl for not seeking to elevate from thier situation. Not to say that these ppl don't try, but that the system breeds a leech-like situtation that is perpetuated potentially throughout a person's life.</p>
<p>One social program that i would be for, it to more federal money to subsidize student education, that would be a program that would invigorate the economy by placing more ppl in careers that are not dependent on volatile production, therefore insulating our economy. Oh and then those ppl would become tax payers, which would further fund the gov. which could then use a larger amount of money to educate and then the cycle continues to benefit America.
But then ultimately we would lose our low income workers which we really need. So eh...every system has a problem, our politicians should spend more time trying to fix them, then by drawing ideological lines to boost votes and then do nothing.</p>
<p>Oh and btw McCain '08</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes the amount of the budget that goes to social programs is very small, but that is only bc the budget is so large (what like 2 trillion?) I mean 1% of that is still 20 billion dollars and that is alot. So though the proportion may be small the dollar amount is still large. But also the main reason that ppl are against social programs is bc as they are they reward ppl for not seeking to elevate from thier situation. Not to say that these ppl don't try, but that the system breeds a leech-like situtation that is perpetuated potentially throughout a person's life.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your argument is self-defeating. If anti-poverty programs do indeed constitute a comparatively negligible amount of tax spending especially when compared to the budget for social security and the Pentagon, then scrapping said programs will do very little to alleviate the average American's tax burden. So what, in the end, are you fighting for? To save a few pennies?</p>
<p>Wright, Pfleger, Rezko, Johnson...</p>
<p>Not to mention Michelle Obama's thesis: Michelle</a> Obama’s Princeton Thesis - Four PDFs Political Night Train</p>
<p>Birds of a feather flock together.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>Ah Liist, the guilt by association approach.</p>
<p>How about accusations of guilt (on the charge of sullied character) by people who actually know you talking not about your associates but about you:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ted Sampley, who fought with US Special Forces in Vietnam and is now a leading campaigner for veterans’ rights, said: ‘I have been following John McCain’s career for nearly 20 years. I know him personally. There is something wrong with this guy and let me tell you what it is – deceit.</p>
<p>‘When he came home and saw that Carol was not the beauty he left behind, he started running around on her almost right away. Everybody around him knew it.</p>
<p>‘Eventually he met Cindy and she was young and beautiful and very wealthy. At that point McCain just dumped Carol for something he thought was better.</p>
<p>‘This is a guy who makes such a big deal about his character. He has no character. He is a fake. If there was any character in that first marriage, it all belonged to Carol.’
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm having trouble understanding where McCain stands on issues. I used to respect him a great deal, but he's flip flopped so many times over the past year he just seems to be grasping for some sort of identity - first he's against tax cuts, then for them; then he's against torture, then for it. I just don't get him anymore. His speeches are less than emphatic. I really like the guy, he just seems like he's in over his head a little.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>LOL!</p>
<p>Yep, the McCain of 2000 (whom I supported) is totally unrecognizable today.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Bedhead, no you are wrong. Capitalism does not fail, it only fails when government thinks it has a midas touch and intervenes. It was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act which was pushed solely by private banking cartels, that caused the GD. Anytime government intervenes other than to protect life and property, it will go sour. Always.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Horse - </p>
<p>Uhh, unbridled capitalism (onw w/ weak or no regulations) leads to bubbles and economic disaster (see the Panic of 1837, the Depression, the dot.com bubble, etc.).</p>
<p>The present mortgage/credit mess and sky-high oil prices can both be partially attributed to the weakening of regulations btwn the financial markets and the mortgage industry and the opening of the commodities market to hedge funds, etc. (Both btw, were pushed by Phil Gramm, McCain's economic "guru").</p>
<p>What's most disturbing about McCain tho is his insistence that military might will win the war against insurgents and terrorists (this is in no small part to his being stuck in his "Vietnam" way of thinking).</p>
<p>And what's just about troubling was his thinking that the Iraq War would be "quick and easy" (not surprisingly, he has totally flip-flopped on his previous position) - even tho anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of invasions in the Muslim world know that insurgencies are inevitable w/ fighting going on for years, if not decades (didn't he learn anything from Vietnam?).</p>
<p>NbaChris, 20 billion dollars is not a few pennies. What that represents is money that can be used more effectively. McCain repeatedly states that the way to fix the budget is not to raise taxes but to reduce governement spending. By not having that 20 billion going to uselesss programs it could go to a variety of things, not least of which is paying off our debts, 20 billion over the potential eight years McCain has is 160 billion dollars added to other reductions in government waste could only bolster the American economy all the while leaving americans more money to spend (on gas :)).</p>
<p>BedHead, with every person there is going to be another that says something bad about them. I am sure there are ppl who may not like you and would readily say something bad about you or even me. So would they be right? No. But the ppl we choose to associate with means that we want to be around these ppl and therefore have some connection even if it is just liking the same movies.</p>
<p>DBate. I am a hardcore capitalists as you guys have read. But to be honest if we are going to go broke, id rather go broke helping other Americans rather then spending many times more on policing the world and making the bankers and the federal reserve richer.</p>
<p>^ So that should make you against Bush and McCain.</p>
<p>
[quote]
NbaChris, 20 billion dollars is not a few pennies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You know what else is not a few pennies? How about 200 billion dollars, which is what you'd save if you slashed useless military spending. But for people like you, giving Lockheed-Martin endless contracts to make ICBMs that can also play MP3s before delivering their payload is not quite bad as giving a few hundred bucks to the mythical African-American societal leech. </p>
<p>If you want to cut spending, TARGET EVERYTHING instead of zeroing in on the tiny pie slice that uncoincidentally affects the impoverished and the minorities because that kind of makes you sound like a racist aristocrat. Now that's not what you want, right?</p>