Search This Blog

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Jobs is not a three letter word.

Update: Mark has Marked his Biden Words thoroughly here! As my astute Sophomore-in-high-school-but-very-savvy young friend told me tonight, "Joe Biden is the gift that keeps on giving!"


Part one is answering Chaos...


"Full-time firemen are paid to do their jobs, get promotions for years served effectively and get demoted or fired for not doing the job." (I said this in answer to a question. Chaos will be in blue and me in black.)

Chaos then replied as follows:

Well, yes, but the fire department is still run by the government. Isn't that socialism? Actually, I think the problem is that we're using different defintions of "socialism". I'd define a socialist program as one where:

(1) Most funding comes from the taxpayers.

(2) Services are provided to everyone who needs them, mostly regardless of ability to pay.

(3) High-level policy decisions are made by the people-as-a-whole, acting through their elected representatives.Examples of this kind of socialism in the US include the fire department, the police, the public school system, and the military. (I wouldn't mind adding health care to the list; I think that would be less flawed than the current system.)But after reading your reply, I *think* you're defining "socialism" as "a system where everyone gets paid the same salary regardless of how much work they do." If that's the case, then I've got good news for you: Sen. Obama isn't a socialist! Actually, I don't think there are any socialists around anymore. (There might have been some in the 1960's but I never got to meet one.)

Allow me to answer those points...

(1) Most funding comes from the taxpayers.

Answer: Government programs are necessarily mostly funded by the taxpayers, yes, good or bad. So far no problem specifically, there are some things that government does well, which is why we formed one back in the 18th century.

(2) Services are provided to everyone who needs them, mostly regardless of ability to pay.

Answer: Here is where socialism creeps in. Your key word here is "services." I can understand the military and the police and so on being services, and I can understand municipalities deciding to have wastewater services and provide a city water supply as a service and I can understand when they decide to charge for them.

But owning a home is not a service, even if ACORN or Barney Frank or Barack Obama think it is, nor is it a right. Getting a monthly check is not a service nor is it a right. Barack Obama is planning to give even more money for various reasons to people who don't even pay into the tax system and that is wealth redistribution, otherwise known as socialism.

I think one of the highest crimes of the 20th century was the "Great Society" programs begun on Lyndon Baines Johnson's watch that has created ghettos full of women having children outside of marriage and living off of welfare checks while men are incented NOT to marry these women lest the free money to take care of "baby momma" and kids be cut off. The welfare society is almost a reintroduction of slavery in another form. The Democrats count on the votes of the inner-city poor and keep them poor by giving them money enough to live on but taking away the incentive to do more and be more. Many of the young men turn to crime to enrich themselves and street gangs thrive in that climate. One reason major cities are "owned" by the Democrats is that the Dems have created a sub-class of welfare serfs who live to provide votes for their political masters. Hell is alive and well in South Chicago and in East Chicago and Gary and I have seen it up close and personal.

The sad truth of that particular matter is that the majority of this created sub-class are people of color or origin that are non-European. White elitists like Bill Ayers and Nancy Pelosi are all for this kind of program but Ayers lives high on the hog subverting our youth in large part at government expense and Nancy does, too, in large part from her plantations in central California. Funny how school voucher systems have proven to greatly aid the education process and Democrats are dead set against them, isn't it? You think maybe they prefer the electorate to come in two flavors: the indoctrinated rich and the uneducated poor.

Barack wants to expand the socialistic persona of government, it is who he is and what he believes.

(3) High-level policy decisions are made by the people-as-a-whole, acting through their elected representatives.

Answer: You would think so, but in recent decades the Judiciary has begun making laws by judicial fiat, frustrating the Constitution and the purpose for which the courts were created. It has now become common for the Supreme Court to make up laws based on nonexistent Constitutional language like "separation of church and state" or use privacy laws to make the killing of millions of unborn babies a reality.

Part Two is answering Creeper. Things creeper said in blue, me in black.

"That Obama is a socialist is too obvious to waste time on."

Now you've got me ROTFLMAO...!

"But the article on socialism I linked is a thorough look at what socialism is and what happens when it is applied to society."

Now tell us what it has to do with Obama's platform.Your shifty evasion above makes me suspect that you didn't really think this accusation through - once again you seem to have just taken on whatever talking points happened to be on the specials menu at Stop the ACLU or wherever and swallowed them hook, line and sinker.Chaos engineer makes very good points, especially re. how the two of you may have different definitions of socialism in mind. There are perfectly good dictionaries for this kind of thing, but since Radar is fond of making up his own definitions to suit his purposes, let's try it this way:

1. Radar, how would you define socialism?

Answer: That is why I linked that long article, that is how I define socialism. Wasn't it long and specific enough? But a simple answer would begin with forced wealth redistribution and common sharing (or government ownership) of property. It is a system that has never worked.

There is not one trace of evasion in that post, it was to the point and very thorough.

2. Radar, how is Obama's platform "socialist"?

Because he believes part of the job of government is wealth redistribution, simple as that. Barack Obama wants to make the government into Robin Hood. But if you keep robbing from the corporations and the jobs and the people who work hard to get ahead, they will move to a neighborhood where they don't get robbed! Once he raises taxes on businesses and large corporations, many of them will simply pack up and move. If he stifles the expansion and growth of small businesses, more and more people will be lining up with their hands out while fewer and fewer will have enough in their pockets to shell out. The end, as it was in the Soviet Union, is a failing economy, an underground economy and necessarily a growth in organized crime.

Joe Biden said " jobs" was a three-letter word last week, hahahaha! But maybe he meant it. Because they are going to be spelled "o-u-t."

3. And if we go by such an innocuous explanation of socialism as chaos engineer proposes here, then how is Obama's platform socialist in what you would consider a bad way?-- creeper

Wealth redistribution isn't anything innocuous, it is insidious. It is Marxist. It is not America. We are a federal republic, built on free trade and free enterprise. The right to be free to succeed if you can and will is going to be turned into Big Brother decides who gets what and when.

The frog is already in the pot. The heat has been on for awhile but not enough to make us TOO uncomfortable with the socialistic bent of our country in the last 80 years or so. But turn that heat up a few more notches and we'll all be cooked. Allow me to introduce to you...Chef Obama!

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

"That is why I linked that long article, that is how I define socialism. Wasn't it long and specific enough?"

It was long. It was specific. And it has nothing to do with Obama's platform.

"Because he believes part of the job of government is wealth redistribution, simple as that."

Well, part of the job of government is wealth redistribution, and will be for as long as we have any kind of taxation anywhere. That holds true for all administrations, Republican or Democratic.

You're trying to have it both ways here: on the one hand re-defining "socialism" as something as vague as "wealth redistribution" so that you can attach it to Obama while at the same time trying to make use of the negative connotations of actual socialism. And as Chaos Engineer observed, if you go by actual socialism, of course Obama isn't a socialist.

If you insist on re-defining socialism as "wealth re-distribution", well that's where you get a lot more people who fall under that banner, including the beloved Sarah Palin. And what exactly do you call tax cuts for the rich, but not the middle class? Isn't that a kind of wealth re-distribution?

Trickle-down economics hasn't exactly been a smash hit. Turns out that when someone has a lot of money, they don't necessarily invest it in, say, factories that create jobs (and if they do, it's not their first priority to do so in the US), and hoping that they will do otherwise if you just give them more money isn't really a plan.

"Obama wants to make the government into Robin Hood. But if you keep robbing from the corporations and the jobs and the people who work hard to get ahead, they will move to a neighborhood where they don't get robbed!"

A couple of points here:

1. We have to live within our means, and we have to contribute to the society that we, collectively, have shaped (much as you or I as an individual may disagree with the specifics, this is still something that was shaped through democratic means). The money for this has to come from somewhere, or the decision has to be made to reduce expenses (which apparently only gets us so far). Taxing corporations or citizens is not "robbing" from them. If corporations or citizens don't want to pay taxes, let them move somewhere where they don't receive the benefits of those taxes.

2. Exactly what makes you think that the middle class or the (gasp) working class doesn't work hard to get ahead? Is income a direct indicator of how hard you work? Not that I can see. Sure, if you have two people doing the same job, then I could see how you can say that the person making more money (due to overtime perhaps) is working harder. But does the average high-level exec work harder than, say, a waitress or a factory worker?

3. It's not a one-sided thing, and I don't think Obama sees it that way. Yes, corporations also need incentives etc., which is why one of his proposals is to target the tax structure in such a way as to reward corporations that keep jobs in the US. What's the point of offering the same tax breaks to a company that keeps jobs in the country and a company that ships them overseas?

"Once he raises taxes on businesses and large corporations, many of them will simply pack up and move. If he stifles the expansion and growth of small businesses, more and more people will be lining up with their hands out while fewer and fewer will have enough in their pockets to shell out."

As Obama pointed out, 98% of small businesses fall below the US$ 250,000 barrier, so the criticism that this is some kind of blow against small businesses and would have a disastrous effect on job creation is exaggerated at best. (And as for the large corporations, of course they've been moving jobs all over the globe for some time now.)

-- creeper

chaos_engineer said...

OK, I think I understand now. You're using "socialism" to describe I'd call "social welfare programs".

All stable societies have some sort of income redistribution. Otherwise, wealth gets concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. So you wind up with a lot of smart and ambitious people who are trapped in poverty because they simply don't have the opportunity to better themselves. If the situation isn't resolved peacefully, then the concentrations of wealth always get broken up by war or revolution.

Note that social welfare programs aren't just for the poor...some of them are intended to help the middle classes. (Student loans, social security, mortgage guarantees, etc.)

I guess we can argue about whether we've got too much social welfare or too little, but I don't think it's been a real issue in the presidential election. Are there some specific policy proposals you have in mind?

You mentioned LBJ's "Great Society" programs, but haven't the worst excesses been fixed? I know that President Clinton put limits on welfare to keep people from being permanently dependent. Is Sen. Obama talking about rolling back any of those changes?

radar said...

I think his socialist bent would cause us to expect that, yes.

Anonymous said...

chaos engineer: "Is Sen. Obama talking about rolling back any of those changes?"

radar: "I think his socialist bent would cause us to expect that, yes."

Was that a "no"?

-- creeper

radar said...

That was a yes. He has now renamed "wealth redistribution" as "Opportunity redistribution" but it works out the same.

Please tell me no more of you are really going to say anything as dumb as "Bush is a socialist" ever again? I bet you think Tawanna really got raped and Casey Anthony didn't kill her kid and Elvis is still making donuts in Montana, too.