Again the GOP Deligates didnt nominate the right man

[Cruella]

Europe has never been socialist, and neither are we. There's another one of those "talking points" you accuse "lefties" of.

No, I am not wrong. You are the one with a simplified view of what socialism is. We are well on that path. Just look at what this Administration has accomplished in four years. You can start with Obamacare, the take over of one sixth of our economy, government takeover of GM, government take over of student loans, over regualation of all means of production, picking winners and losers through the stimulus money and regularity controls, open borders, demonizing the wealth creators, supporting occupy wall street, massive increases in the police state and on and on. Socialism is nothing more than the path to the eventual goal of communism. Read Marx, and read the backgrounds of those in charge.

 

[Valkyrie]

No, I am not wrong. You are the one with a simplified view of what socialism is. We are well on that path. Just look at what this Administration has accomplished in four years. You can start with Obamacare, the take over of one sixth of our economy, government takeover of GM, government take over of student loans, over regualation of all means of production, picking winners and losers through the stimulus money and regularity controls, open borders, demonizing the wealth creators, supporting occupy wall street, massive increases in the police state and on and on. Socialism is nothing more than the path to the eventual goal of communism. Read Marx, and read the backgrounds of those in charge.

It was a republican administration that necessitated the immediate rescue of our economy, Cruella. Republican ideas. During the years 2000-2008, the cost of health care rose 149% while worker pay rose 37%. http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A0PDoQ7AiT9QuwQAf1qJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBlMTQ4cGxyBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1n?back=http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=cost+of+health+care+history&fr=mcsaoffblock&fr2=piv-web&tab=organic&ri=29&w=879&h=508&imgurl=www.prudential.com/media/managed/wm/media/Health-Care-in-America.jpg&rurl=http://www.prudential.com/media/managed/wm/WM-coping-with-rising-health-care-costs.html&size=64.9 KB&name=Cumulative active employee health care costs vs. wage increases&p=cost of health care history&oid=31b3e274aca628c169cc5d8938f334bb&fr2=piv-web&fr=mcsaoffblock&tt=Cumulative+active+employee+health+care+costs+vs.+wage+increases&b=0&ni=96&no=29&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=12nnsl7ki&sigb=13o1ghgn2&sigi=124m5vjnn&.crumb=IQTT8T9AvFz

As for the bailout of the automakers, not doing this would have cost us about 1.5 million jobs (for those of us who actually do care about jobs). By the way, GM is repaying the loan ahead of schedule, and earlier this year boasted record profits.

"Demonizing the wealth creators?" I don't think this is quite true. The wealthiest among us does not really create wealth for anyone but himself and his immediate circle of associates. In fact, the argument could be made that the wealthiest among us has actually benefitted from the loss of the majority.

"Wealth Creators" is not a fitting term for the uber-rich.

 

[Texas_tea]

Soviet Premier Khrushchev said to the USA: "we'll keep feeding you socialism until..you have communism ...

 

[Cruella]

It was a republican administration that necessitated the immediate rescue of our economy, Cruella. Republican ideas. During the years 2000-2008, the cost of health care rose 149% while worker pay rose 37%.

According to the New York Times, all the TARP money had been paid back plus interest. Now what the government did with that money I don't know. Obama and the Democrats in charge of Congress may have had other uses for it.

As for health care increasing 149% (assuming that is correct) during the Bush Administration, what exactly did the Bush Administraton have to do with that? I have doctors in my family and I can assure you that they are not rich fat cats.

 

[Valkyrie]

According to the New York Times, all the TARP money had been paid back plus interest. Now what the government did with that money I don't know. Obama and the Democrats in charge of Congress may have had other uses for it.

As for health care increasing 149% (assuming that is correct) during the Bush Administration, what exactly did the Bush Administraton have to do with that? I have doctors in my family and I can assure you that they are not rich fat cats.

To my knowledge, GW did not have anything to do with the increase in the cost of health care. You see, I will not knowingly accuse a conservative of that which he is not guilty- any more than I would defend a liberal who is wrong. This is the measure of intellectual honesty that I would like to see from all of us.

I mentioned that the increase occurred during the years before President Obama in order to explain why it was required of President Obama, during his administration. I used the Bush administration as a chronological indicator, not as a source of responsibility.

Sorry that you misunderstood.

 

[Cruella]

Sorry that you misunderstood.

I didn't misunderstand your post at all. You said that insurance increased 149% under Bush and Republican ideas.

 

[Valkyrie]

I didn't misunderstand your post at all. You said that insurance increased 149% under Bush and Republican ideas.

Republican concepts, such as refusing to regulate anything, and refusing to protect consumers from price gouging did lead to the increase. And it happened during the Bush years.

But Bush was not personally responsible for the increase- even though republican ideas were.

NOW do you understand?

 

[Cruella]

Republican concepts, such as refusing to regulate anything, and refusing to protect consumers from price gouging did lead to the increase. And it happened during the Bush years.

But Bush was not personally responsible for the increase- even though republican ideas were.

NOW do you understand?

Why do keep asking everyone if they understand what you say?

If you blame insurance companies for gouging then just how much profit should the government allow them to make under your ideal system? According to a 2009 ranking in profits, the health care insurance industry ranked 89th at 3.3%.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/health-insurance-industry-ranks-86-by.html

 

[Texas_tea]

Why do keep asking everyone if they understand what you say?

If you blame insurance companies for gouging then just how much profit should the government allow them to make under your ideal system? According to a 2009 ranking in profits, the health care insurance industry ranked 89th at 3.3%.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/health-insurance-industry-ranks-86-by.html

Profit is bad ....
Those capitalist are evildoers ....
It's all the great withe devil GW Bush's fault!

 

[dogtowner]

Republican concepts, such as refusing to regulate anything, and refusing to protect consumers from price gouging did lead to the increase. And it happened during the Bush years.

But Bush was not personally responsible for the increase- even though republican ideas were.

NOW do you understand?

what exact actions occutred while Bush was in office thst csused what you suggest ?

 

[Dr.Who]

Since you seem confused, "socialism" is an economic system wherein there is no private ownership of property- where the means of production and distribution are controlled solely by the government.

By that definition Russia under Stalin was not socialist or communist either.

We clearly need a better definition. I suggest that socialism is a system in which the government controls more than 50% of the economic activities of a country regardless of what economic activities we are talking about or what means are used to exert that control.

 

[dogtowner]

By that definition Russia under Stalin was not socialist or communist either.

We clearly need a better definition. I suggest that socialism is a system in which the government controls more than 50% of the economic activities of a country regardless of what economic activities we are talking about or what means are used to exert that control.

could say 'directly or indirectly via onerous and political regulation. no need to take up the hard work of ownership (which government sucks at) as the old USSR tried for years to do when you can just force businesses down the narrow path you force them on. even Russia and Chna figured this out.

 

[Dr.Who]

could say 'directly or indirectly via onerous and political regulation. no need to take up the hard work of ownership (which government sucks at) as the old USSR tried for years to do when you can just force businesses down the narrow path you force them on. even Russia and Chna figured this out.

over 11 thousand new pages of regulation costing business trillions of dollars in regulatory expenses which are all passed on to us. Each family in America pays about 15K per year in regulatory expenses.

Do ya think that might hurt the economy?

Lets also remember that Bush also created a bunch of new regulations - about half as many as Obama and that before either of them there were already a bunch. Just how many pages total are there?

 

[dogtowner]

over 11 thousand new pages of regulation costing business trillions of dollars in regulatory expenses which are all passed on to us. Each family in America pays about 15K per year in regulatory expenses.

Do ya think that might hurt the economy?

Lets also remember that Bush also created a bunch of new regulations - about half as many as Obama and that before either of them there were already a bunch. Just how many pages total are there?

its not merely the volume b ut the nature that matters.

 

[Cruella]

Just how many pages total are there?

How many regulartory agencies are there?