-_-

_________________

That just makes me chuckle. People are dumb!

SOCIALISM

Socialism / Nationalize are the new dirty words now that liberal isn't.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

There should have been a follow up along the lines of "Do you think you are easily manipulated by sound bytes and propaganda pieces in the media?"

they also should have asked if they favor the government nationalizing the coast guard, to ensure that people don't understand the word

_________________

Nationalizing has connotations that reach further than simple "taking over."

We should give Gallup a pat on the bank for showing the difference in these polls based on the language used.

Here's a question: what if all of this "socialism!" works. I mean, what if the economy turns around before the 2012 elections? Won't that provide an object lesson in the bankruptcy of GOP-esque conservative ideology?

I ask this because, really, I consider myself much more of a classical liberal in the free-but-regulated-markets, pro-individual liberties, anti-authoritarian, nations should self-determine sense, than a socialist. But I do see the value in the social safety net. Maybe that makes me a Euro-style social democrat.

I guess it just seems kind of dumb to me, because I think that in the end, things like universal healthcare are going to prove to very popular once implemented, and screaming 'socialist' about every liberal policy is only to reinforce in peoples' minds that socialism is good. And then what happens after that? Does the political will then exist to increase marginal rates from 39% to 50%, or higher? Maybe I'm offbase, but that's how it appears to me.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Two things:

1) What if it doesn't? The forecast for our deficit and the ramifications of failure are probably more significant than if we had done nothing.

2) How do we know? I posted a graph a few weeks ago that showed that government stimulus / interventions often went into affect AFTER a recovery had already started. The question is, really: Can the economy recover without socialization, or is socialization the only solution?

Every "expert" I've read has said that the turnaround will happen well before 2012, even if we do nothing. Is our barometer for success really that the recession ends before 5 years? 2012 will be around the 5th year depending on where you see the recession having started. It seems almost inevitable that the turnaround will happen before then, so I'd rather see a more aggressive goal than 2012.

The government agrees with me, I think. you wouldn't see these quarterly bailouts of companies like AIG, which took 30 billion and lost 70 billion, happening over and over. That can't and won't last until 2012.

I think nationalization, as repugnant as it is to me, has to happen. That, or let them bleed and collapse naturally. The half measures don't cut it, it's all or nothing from my standpoint. That's one thing I like about the budget that was submitted, it's definitely not shy. The ramifications, if he's wrong, though... much worse with a high-risk solution, obviously. But hey, better bold than timid, so I support a lot of what's in the budget. I just really hate the outlook on the deficit.

But Obama isn't, and has never, promised universal health care, just reform. That was the key, and probably only, differentiator between him and Clinton during the election. Clinton promised universal, Obama did not. Do you really think we'll have universal healthcare after the reforms are put in place? Serious question... I don't see it moving in that direction.

should say BY 5 years, not before 5 years.

Actually, it should be "within 5 years."

_________________

I figured that there would be universal coverage, but not universal healthcare (i.e. a situation where 'ordinary' people can opt in to Medicaid, and then providers have the option of either taking the gov't contract in bulk, or not, much as it works now but on a larger economy of scale). Not specifically based on campaign promises, per se, but just a general sense of it being the logical end result of an ongoing trend.

I would think that such a plan would be quite popular with the Chamber of Commerce / Fortune 500 sectors, given that health coverage is one of the most onerous expenses most of them face. I've read (don't have a citation) that GM now employs more assembly plant workers in Canada than in the US because of the lack of costs for current and retired associated with health care. It's included in their annual tax bill to the Canada gov't, they can budget for the projected expense in the current year, and they're done. No admin costs, no legacy costs.

Anway, that's what I *expected.* Now, I don't know, given the $685 billion or so blank check for 'health care' tossed into the budget and punted to Congress.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

It is funny because I am reading that the European Economic Crisis is trending to be worse than in the US. There are calls for the end of the Euro and removal of State Services.

The overriding issue with the government takeover of services is what happens when the money runs out? What happens when there are more people getting services than there are people that are working to provide funds for those services? The services will be cut back or eliminated then you are in a worse situation than we are now. Why would a person WANT to make over $250,000.00 a year if their income is taxed at 100% of all earnings above that mark? (not saying that they are planning on doing that now, but where it could go) Then the government realizing that the projected income is not being realized would have to lower the barrier again killing a person's incentive to be a success. Why would someone want to invest in a company when a very large percentage of their earnings would be eaten up by taxes? Why would companies want to create new solutions to problems when the government will tax all their profits and then take over their I.P.?

There is not enough tax revenue now to pay for what the most recent "stimulus bill" is spending. There will either be massive governmental cutbacks or major tax increases, in addition to what have already been spelled out.

You have it right krby.

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

That's like most people not understanding the difference between deficit and debt.

Deficit surrplus in no way means that debt is decreasing.

This whole thread could essentially be summed up with the wizard's first rule.

There's a whole book by Frank Luntz that talks about how you can get people to agree to something they don't like just by changing the wording.

It's funny stuff.

fixt

You can see it on the internet too. In fact, kinda OT, but Xian the moderator used to bitch about it, as she could say something and be villified, and I could say essentially the same thing and people would be cheering. It wasn't what was being said, so much as how it was being said. And in a medium which lacks verbal inflections, and body language...word choice and phrasing is king.

But even as people are laughing at it (me too!) don't think you guys don't do it too with stuff. I'm sure I do too.

_________________

Xian was a whiner, there's a surprise.

Self centered cunt.

Leo is right. Those are actually two different questions. The second one should really give you a little cognitive dissonance if you think about it for a moment: what the heck is "temporary" nationalization? Nationalized systems are characterized by deliberate, permanent policy choices, not temporary exigencies. So to say we would "temporarily nationalize" the banks sounds essentially like "all your bank are belong to us". It might not make 100% syntactic sense, but it's still scary. "Temporarily take over", on the other hand, is a lot less loaded with intent to stay. Substantively, it could also implicate a different kind of supervision. To nationalize the banks would mean the bank employees would be replaced with government ones (or at the very least, existing bank employees would be switched over to government payrolls, significantly changing their motivations), whereas to "take over" may simply impose a government veto into the operations or some lesser, albeit still uncomfortable, level of intrusion. Believe it or not, the words do count. In a language full of synonyms, one similar word does not wholly substitute for another, otherwise the dictionary would be a lot shorter.

_________________
Knowledge without reason is useless.

http://boxrockssocks.blogspot.com/

ok

huffington post dot com

_________________

Being villified by people on a message board. I mean, I know we're special and all, but there's got to be a point where you think to yourself 'you know, not too concerned about that.'

villified... is that a word? fuck it, is now.

Thinking back that far into the past about these boards (yes, I was around, just didn't post much) made me think about how much of my early twenties I threw away sitting in front of a computer screen doing absolutely nothing... and then how I'm spending my mid twenties studying tirelessly for a profession that is sure to not reward me in any way and how I will spend my late twenties and all of my thirties paying that shit off, at a minimum. Thanks a lot.

_________________
Knowledge without reason is useless.

http://boxrockssocks.blogspot.com/