Has anyone seen these polls?

[Vampyr]

Well I'm all for regulation.

Since Obama has taken office I have also seen a lot of people throwing around the words "socialist" and "fascist" without really stopping to consider what they really mean, or if Obama is really behaving that way. They just hear people on the news using those words and regurgitate them.

I don't think one man can flip the style of our economy, but some aspects of socialism are not bad, and in my opinion are needed.

[Vampyr]

An article on what we mean by 'America is stupid'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-m..._b_253996.html

Yes, it's Bill Maher, but it's a fun read.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Since Obama has taken office I have also seen a lot of people throwing around the words "socialist" and "fascist" without really stopping to consider what they really mean, or if Obama is really behaving that way. They just hear people on the news using those words and regurgitate them.

Fascism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Specifically

Fascists explicitly promoted their ideology as a "Third Position" between capitalism and communism.[124] Italian Fascism involved corporatism, a political system in which economy is collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at national level.[125] Fascists advocated a new national multi-class economic system that is labeled as either national corporatism, national socialism or national syndicalism.[24] The common aim of all fascist movements was elimination of the autonomy or, in some cases, the existence of large-scale capitalism.[126]

Socialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Specifically

Economically, socialism denotes an economic system of state ownership and/or worker ownership of the means of production and distribution. In the economy of the Soviet Union, state ownership of the means of production was combined with central planning, in relation to which goods and services to make and provide, how they were to be produced, the quantities, and the sale prices. Soviet economic planning was an alternative to allowing the market (supply and demand) to determine prices and production. During the Great Depression, many socialists considered Soviet-style planned economies the remedy to capitalism's inherent flaws – monopoly, business cycles, unemployment, unequally distributed wealth, and the economic exploitation of workers.

I think we can agree that President Obama isn't what you would call a capitalist. So, looking at these two models, which of these seems more appropriate?

Hmmmm... maybe Obama isn't a socialist after all...

[Vampyr]

Haha, yes, but sighting one example where we have done this in extreme circumstances doesn't make us socialist or fascist. It just means we did something that was socialist or fascist in nature. We could argue all day if it was the right thing to do.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Haha, yes, but sighting one example

I cited 5 examples. It's only been 6 months or 1/8 of his first term.

...where we have done this in extreme circumstances doesn't make us socialist or fascist. It just means we did something that was socialist or fascist in nature. We could argue all day if it was the right thing to do.

I never said he was a socialist or fascist. I said he has enacted policies that are. There is no argument about this because the definitions are pretty by the book. It's pointless to argue people's thoughts or feelings, you can only argue what they do. And so far...

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Haha, yes, but sighting one example where we have done this in extreme circumstances doesn't make us socialist or fascist. It just means we did something that was socialist or fascist in nature. We could argue all day if it was the right thing to do.

There are a lot of programs in america that are very sucsessful that are socialist in nature. But people don't fight them because they feel that its something that's needed for society to function better. (i.e. Public schooling and Fire dept.s) Apparently giving people an affordable health insurance option is just a luxury and won't work towards the greater good of the country.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

There are a lot of programs in america that are very sucsessful that are socialist in nature. But people don't fight them because they feel that its something that's needed for society to function better. (i.e. Public schooling and Fire dept.s)

Actually a lot of people are against public schooling. I'm not one of them, but I certainly see their point. Americans schools are 20 years behind the curve right now.

Apparently giving people an affordable health insurance option is just a luxury and won't work towards the greater good of the country.

Well I'm glad we're finally starting to see some really detailed, comprehensive answers and ideas and not just borderline retarded accusations...

And Vampyr, I'm not saying there aren't problems with healthcare (if you'd care to research anything we've said to this point you'd see that and most of your points are directly addressed in our previous posts), all we're saying is that complete government control is NOT the answer. 70% of Americans polled like their healthcare, but everyone seems willing to throw out 70% to try and make the 30% happier. Can't there be a better solution that works with the private sector to improve healthcare for everyone and bring the 30% up closer to the 70% instead of lowering the level of care to one common denominator?

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Professor S

And Vampyr, I'm not saying there aren't problems with healthcare (if you'd care to research anything we've said to this point you'd see that and most of your points are directly addressed in our previous posts), all we're saying is that complete government control is NOT the answer. 70% of Americans polled like their healthcare, but everyone seems willing to throw out 70% to try and make the 30% happier. Can't there be a better solution that works with the private sector to improve healthcare for everyone and bring the 30% up closer to the 70% instead of lowering the level of care to one common denominator?

Heh, polls I was looking at actually show those numbers almost flipped.

Also, most Western European nations that have universal health care also have private health care that is available for those who want it.

Also, like I said, it wouldn't be "complete government control".

The government doesn't control it, the government pays for care which is delivered in the -private- sector, like how Medicare works now. Doctors are paid on in a fee-for-service model.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Actually a lot of people are against public schooling. I'm not one of them, but I certainly see their point. Americans schools are 20 years behind the curve right now.

People, or politicians? I don't remember anyone having any speeches about how they need to shut down all the public schools or stop building them.

Well I'm glad we're finally starting to see some really detailed, comprehensive answers and ideas and not just borderline retarded accusations...

lol?

70% of Americans polled like their healthcare, but everyone seems willing to throw out 70% to try and make the 30% happier.

Where did you get those poll numbers?