|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events Point-Counterpoint The Socialization of America|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
-------------------  Proud Member Derelict Veterans Group -------------------  |
--snip-- Russian thinker and author Fyodor Dostoyevsky offered the following take on socialism: “The future kingdom of socialism will be a terrible tyranny of criminals and murderers. It will throw humanity into a true hell of spiritual suffering and poverty.”
--snip-- Socialist George Bernard Shaw added: “You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner.” An interesting read and perspective. *http://www.augustreview.com/news_commentary/general/the_socialization_of_america_20090701124/* |
||
|
|
Member |
 Well, I sure it covers some of you worst nightmares, but what does it have to to with the U.S. In less your going to start that tired old saw of "this is were we are going.  |
|||
|
veni, vidi, vici |
Tired or not, that is exactly where we are headed. If we want progress, we need to change direction, because we are progressing to where the government has way to much control in our private lives. I do not need the gov to tell me where to work, what healthcare to have, what items I need in my home, dictating my daily agenda, etc... Normal people have since enough to take care of those items themselves. |
|||
|
|
------------------- Proud Member Derelict Veterans Group ------------------- |
Well, I sure it covers some of you worst nightmares, but what does it have to to with the U.S. In less your going to start that tired old saw of "this is were we are going.
Gee, what is your background can't tell anything from your profile? Come into the light. |
|||
|
|
Member |
|
|||
|
|
Member |
Look to my words, they show my shape... |
|||
|
 "88M, CAUSE EVERYONE ELSE IS CARGO."  |
And today's reports of the Obama Administration controlling the media - this isn't a step in that direction?
|
|||
|
|
Member |
Geee,transport1, with all the rumors, and theory’s out there, could you point me out a link or something. I can't read your mind to see whats got you up in arms this time. |
|||
|
|
"88M, CAUSE EVERYONE ELSE IS CARGO." |
Try this one, Bubba, but there's lots more out there if you search. Funny it's not in the main stram media yet (no it's not) "http://scaredmonkeys.com/2009/10/19/obama-white-house-anita-dunn-admits-we-control-the-news-media/" |
|||
|
|
Member |
All modern President try to control the press.
Right wingers are only concerned when a Democrat does it. "Press Gazette - George Bush has copied tactics pioneered by Margaret Thatcher during the Falklands war to control the media. "Bush tactics learned from Thatcher according to Downie include: “to hand-pick and supervise British journalists allowed to accompany forces into a war-zone; the use of propaganda and purposeful misinformation about decision-making and strategy; and spoon-feeding so-called lobby journalists in daily secret briefings.”" |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
Ah, yes the BUSH WH never, ever tried to control the press. Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand By DAVID BARSTOW In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay. The detention center had just been branded “the gulag of our times” by Amnesty International, there were new allegations of abuse from United Nations human rights experts and calls were mounting for its closure. The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo. To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world. Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found. The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air. SNIP... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print IOIYAR  |
|||
|
|
veni, vidi, vici |
I had rather figure out where I'm going Before I get there. There may be no going back if we don't like it. |
|||
|
|
Member |
But if President Obama is doing what all modern Presidents have done (President Reagan was a master of controlling the press) why are you so scared now? |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
Maggie's policies did'nt always quite work out as planned - the Defence Minister (John Nott) walked off a live BBC interview during the Falklands War. The interviewer (Robin Day) was obviously asking awkward questions ? |
|||
|
|
---------------- Proud Member ----------------  |
Now go a-way or I shall taunt you a second time! |
|||
|
|
Member |
I'm certainly getting into this thread late so I may have missed some comments up the line. I'll try to deal with the original "socialization of America."
It started with Bush and that seriously bothers me as I think very highly of the man. Asking government to step in to bail out commerical enterprises has never worked. The current financial mess goes back decades and NOBODY has yet faced up to the basic false premise - that everybody DESERVES to own their own home!!!!!!! The truth is that, in our respresentative republic, everyone has the RIGHT to work and be able to earn enough to buy their own home. I know this is going to p**s off a lot of people but the first effort to get government involved in putting individuals into homes was the GI Bill. Now, don't get me wrong - the VA Home Loan is fantastic and I'm going to use mine as soon as the time is ripe. But, those who qualify for it EARNED that right by service to their country!!!!! But, when it came time to change the rules (Carter did it with his first efforts at having the government provide housing for low income people)there was no requirement for anybody to earn that right. It was another government handout and such handouts have NEVER helped anybody step up in society!  Then, government stepped in and MANDATED that financial institutions lend money to people to purchase homes who did not have the financial ability to pay it back. If anything, that's about as much socialism as anything. Our government's now stuck its nose into the economic industry, the gar making industry and wants to grab up energy and medicine. What else can you call that other  than socialism? |
|||
|
Member |
It is an interesting read, but mostly as a way of analyzing a particular mindset. I personally have a great deal of trouble respecting the opinion of someone who styles themselves "Doctor" without immediately acknowledging that they hold only an honorary doctorate. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Really? I spent about 4 months receiving some type of government assistance (including food stamps, medical assistance, and money) after I was laid off. Without that support I would have lost everything. WITH that support I WAS able to step up in society - I went back to school (more government assistance there - loans and grants), got a BS and an MS in engineering, got a professional job, and have since tripled my salary compared to my last job as a technician. The increase in my taxes more than pays off (already) the total of the assistance I received, and my work is now in a number of defense systems.
No, they mandated that banks had to lend money wherever they took deposits. This is a form of "butting in" but not as severe as you mentioned, especially since any bank could rectify the situation by closing branches in any areas which were overly populated by bad credit risks.
And yet every one of those industries was absolutely begging for that intervention (especially since the government was ridiculously lax in asking for certain things - like accountability), and the intervention was 100% voluntary on their part. As easily shown in the news, a large number in the banking sector have already paid off their "intervention" and are out from under government tyranny free and clear, not to mention a lot better off than they would have been under bankruptcy. As to the cost to the American people, keeping these companies out of bankruptcy saved a ton of jobs and wages, and the biggest problems is not that this intervention happened, but that it was done so poorly. We should have made much better money off of the deal.
I can call it lots of things, but I am less fond of hysteric hyperbole than you, so I will just call it government. |
|||
|
* |
I agree that the president shouldn't have called out Faux News, not because his comments aren't true--they are--but because he should stay above the fray. What he *should* be doing is reversing the decades of monopoly of the media by a few monied interests. There is no pure, unbiased news available from the major media. And the blogosphere is rife with opinion and nothing is added by way of fact by it.
|
|||
|
|
---------------- Proud Member ---------------- |
I don't think it was Dubya's premise that everyone deserved to own a home...more like he felt that it would be better for the country if everyone owned their own home... But we're missing a few premises here...let's visit them: Lending money without consideration of income and credit history is entirely voluntary and based on the premise of a very profitable short term---but that entitles a banker and his stakeholders to years of losses as the defaults pile up when the collateral obligations of homeownership--like taxes, insurance, upkeep and repairs--eat away that small amount left after mortgage and other expenses are paid. Lending money to finance second, third, and investment properties on the premise that the value can only go up is also profitable at closing, but entitles that banker and his stakeholders to years of losses as the defaults pile up when folks start 'walking away' from those notes the moment the balance on the note exceeds the value of the property. Rating tranches of collateralized debt obligations AAA without any sort of due diligence on the premise that the entity seeking the rating is also paying the freight is immensely profitable for the ratings agencies and the packagers and sellers of those CDOs...and entitle the ratings agencies to be absolutely discredited when the 'AAA' slices start showing their true colours as junk-bond-grade equity tranches without the return. Insuring those CDOs with credit default swaps, the value of which far exceed the net worth of the underwriters on the premise of huge short-term profits and an attitude of "What could possibly go wrong???"...well, think AIG. You do know that AIG didn't lend a dime to anyone in a ghetto, don't you? CitiBank will crash and burn next. Carl Icahn smells blood in the water. Now go a-way or I shall taunt you a second time! |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Well nice to see such arrogant ignorance. My mother ended up a single mother with 5 kids and not even a High School education who had not been in the work force for years. To feed us she was on welfare WHILE WORKING. She eventually ended up running the records department where she worked and ALL of her kids are doing well. Including me as a high tech red neck (Software Engineer). |
|||
|
|
------------------- Proud Member Derelict Veterans Group ------------------- |
Some were definitely helped and prospered. IMO most did not and stayed stagnant. Don't have the numbers, but my guess the handouts were not successful and a loss of taxpayer monies. Created generational social welfare at a loss of Billions. |
|||
|
|
---------------- Proud Member ---------------- |
Big part of what makes up a Liberal or a Conservative there, Phil. Liberals will invest a lot of money to turn things around for some who will pay enormous dividends in taxable value to the free market and in less tangible but still very important ways to society as a whole--even if some would misuse the aid/second chance. Conservatives will generally warn of the moral hazard of helping a few while others pizz away that opportunity. We use the same numbers to justify opposite positions. Truth be told, I don't think cold economics is the sole force in the decision for either of us...the body of life experience molds the conscience which very greatly influences fiscal behaviour. I could be wrong. Been wrong before...but I know where I came from, and what I had to go through to become what I am. It wasn't brainwashing, and it wasn't the business courses either. Now go a-way or I shall taunt you a second time! |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Cosmicfish the CRA isn't even this bad since all it requires is that the SAME criteria be used everywhere. If a person from a well off area gets a NINJ (No Income No Job required) loan then the bank had to offer NINJ loans in the poor areas but of course NINJ loans are a BAD ideal anywhere. If good loan qualification criteria are used then a loan in a poor area is no riskier than a loan in a well off area. The reason the banks had so many defaults on loans in the CRA areas is that they deliberately made high risk loans in the expectation house prices would keep going up. They did this because even if the bank had to take the house they could sell it for more than the loan. Once house prices started going down this tactic failed but this had NOTHING to do with any CRA requirement. |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Actually IMO what caused Welfare to fail was that it was a compromise program if you look at the original program proposals IMO either the conservative (real conservatives) or the liberal solutions would have worked but neither side was willing to give in so you got a mix that did not give enough help to really give most people a start like the liberals wanted but had so many restrictions put in by conservatives that people trying to get off welfare had to take a big hit once they got to a certain level, to big for many. If I remember correctly due to restrictions required by conservatives the programs spent several $ to prevent "cheating" for every $1 of cheating they prevented. Conservative restrictions were also the cause of breaking up families, etc. In many ways the Liberals were just as bad as the Conservatives with them opposing even common sense restrictions and requirements. This led to a program that was the worst of both with the advantages of neither. My personal preference was always for a workfare program where instead of a hard cut off level it reduced the assistance on a sliding scale so a person on assistance was always better off working. Assistance included health care and losing it was a big barrier to many people getting off assistance so this needed to also be reduced on a sliding scale. While I would prefer to have useful work done I did not care if they carried rocks from one pile to another as long as they had to work for the assistance they received. If they did not do a good job put them on piece rate work and if they refused to work take any kids and let them starve until they were willing to work. If they had kids while on assitance then offer them extra work not just extra money. If they want training / education they get it after work hours not instead of work. |
|||
|
|
---------------- Proud Member ---------------- |
The Yoopervision Dictionary
Now go a-way or I shall taunt you a second time! |
|||
|
|
* |
This seems to be what most people WANT to believe... without checking to see if it's actually true. I hope you never need it. |
|||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
The Nation: Welfare: Trying to End the Nightmare
Only a Few Can Be Helped There are enough who fit each aspect of the composite to unfairly tar all the needy, but the reality of poverty in the U.S. is not what myth would have it. A majority of the welfare recipients in the country are white (58%), and thousands of them—many from high-paying jobs, especially in engineering—are now discovering the shock of poverty for the first time. Forty-two percent are nonwhite, more than three times their proportion of the population—testimony to the dislocation and discrimination in American society. Hundreds of thousands of blacks left the Deep South in the two decades following World War II. But a number of studies indicate that by and large they went north (and still go, though in smaller numbers) looking for work, not welfare. Most do not seek public aid until several years after they arrive. Very few live better on welfare than they would with full-time jobs at adequate wages. Obviously, cheating does happen. Item: In California, a man combined a secret job and welfare for an annual income of $16,800. Item: a regulation-wise hippie commune in Berkeley reconstituted itself into eight paper "households" and collected $1,000 a month in aid. Item: a group of middle-class suburbanites in Piedmont, Calif., where county rules require only identification and a statement of need before aid is issued, dramatized their displeasure with the system by easily getting onto the rolls at several offices. But the fact is that chicanery accounts for a very small part of welfare's cost. The last HEW study estimates that only four out of every 1,000 of those on welfare actually cheat. Contrary to common belief, only a tiny number of people who may not really need it get aid. As HEW reports flatly: "Even with the best possible services, only about 5% at most [of welfare recipients] can be helped to self-sufficiency within a reasonable length of time." A more realistic figure is probably closer to 2%. The rest are children too young to work, the aged and hopelessly disabled who cannot work, and mothers who have nowhere to leave their children in order to take a job—if one exists. More at: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,909803-6,00.html |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Since the start of the programs the majority of people that got assitance only received it for a short time (months not years). What is sad is that the very people that yell about welfare are often the ones the make fun of things that help get people off of welfare. For example "it takes a village" was about community, about people helping each other and in my family's case if neighbors had not been willing to help my mother with her kids when she ended up a single mom she would never have been able to get the jobs that allowed us to get off welfare. This message has been edited. Last edited by: rayld2, |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events Point-Counterpoint The Socialization of America
