Obama Rejects Attackers' Cries of 'Socialism'

[Obama 2012 1,714]

They may be foreign born, but are still american citizens and have demonstrated a far greater grasp of the American political environment than you, or a large number of native born Americans.

You still dont' deny that you copy and paste your posts. Whatever makes you sleep better at night. Keep posting, by all means, this is quite entertaining.

Actually I did. Of course you can't read....

"""You can accuse me of copy/pasting all you want and that's fine if you are that bloody ignorant. It just shows me you are more about assuming everything is a 'talking point' of someone else just because you might disagree with it."""

These are people that try and shape the American political enviroment....

And the 'political enviroment' isn't what America is about and that's what they don't get.

It's about the Constitution. Period.

Of course trying to find people who actually have read it and then actually understand it is another thing entirely... It's amazing how many people don't have a damned clue what it says/means. Sad part being, plenty of them are in office right now on both sides of the aisle.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Actually I did. Of course you can't read....

"""You can accuse me of copy/pasting all you want and that's fine if you are that bloody ignorant. It just shows me you are more about assuming everything is a 'talking point' of someone else just because you might disagree with it."""

These are people that try and shape the American political enviroment....

And the 'political enviroment' isn't what America is about and that's what they don't get.

It's about the Constitution. Period.

Of course trying to find people who actually have read it and then actually understand it is another thing entirely... It's amazing how many people don't have a damned clue what it says/means. Sad part being, plenty of them are in office right now on both sides of the aisle.

If you are completely dismissing politics into those who "get it" and those who don't, then you've completely missed the point of politics. I don't dismiss conservative points of view out of hand because I don't agree with it. I dismiss the ones that are unsubstantiated, just as I would a liberal one. I'm a libertarian, i'm just quirky like that...

Understanding the constitution a vast contention between conservatives and liberals. Whether or not it is a literal or a living document seems to be the cause celebre at this point in time.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

If you are completely dismissing politics into those who "get it" and those who don't, then you've completely missed the point of politics. I don't dismiss conservative points of view out of hand because I don't agree with it. I dismiss the ones that are unsubstantiated, just as I would a liberal one. I'm a libertarian, i'm just quirky like that...

Understanding the constitution a vast contention between conservatives and liberals. Whether or not it is a literal or a living document seems to be the cause celebre at this point in time.

I'm more libertarian than anything else as well, I just can't stand Government being too big, period.

The original intention and purpose of the constitution was to create a government that was small and one that would not trample on the people and their freedoms.

We have gotten away from that in so many ways.

It's the course of time really and the founders even warned against the future and how hard it would to be to maintain the document and it's principles.

We really are a bunch of cry babies today as a nation and feel that every little thing has to be legislated/fixed with government, and we don't look at the consequences of such legislation. It might 'appease' a few people, but tramples on many and that's always a problem.

[Fandango 1,440]

Paul/Vanessa....I don't know who you are, but I you. LOL

[The_Dude 1,142]

I'm more libertarian than anything else as well, I just can't stand Government being too big, period.

The original intention and purpose of the constitution was to create a government that was small and one that would not trample on the people and their freedoms.

We have gotten away from that in so many ways.

It's the course of time really and the founders even warned against the future and how hard it would to be to maintain the document and it's principles.

We really are a bunch of cry babies today as a nation and feel that every little thing has to be legislated/fixed with government, and we don't look at the consequences of such legislation. It might 'appease' a few people, but tramples on many and that's always a problem.

I'm more of a civil libertarian. I'm not a fan of an overbearing government, but I do think it serves a purpose. I think it is beholden to its citizenry, and not just those in the upper echelon of the tax brackets. As to what our founders intended our government to be, that is a matter of opinion. I don't see how we can apply today some of the principles of 235 years ago when we have so fundamentally changed as a nation.

With regards to healthcare, I am in support of a NHS. I know that this would undoubtedly decrease my level of care because my employer sponsored coverage is phenomenal. But it is for the greater good of the country. I'm lucky though, I don't have to pay upwards of 30% of my income on healthcare premiums. What I particularly despise about the insurance based system that we have is that it places the value of the stockholders above that of its customers. Profits should have no bearing on health decisions because they are mutually exclusive at a certain point. I'm not saying that a NHS system is without its flaws, and I freely admit that there is no model that you can simply adapt to our situation. But what we have now does not work, unless you are wealthy.

[jundp 191]

Man, anyone that thinks Obama is pursuing a socialist agenda should take a peek into European media. They'd pop a valve just reading what's going on over there. Seriously, there ain't no socialism anywhere on any agenda in this country. Not even close.

Because most people outside of socialist countries truly have no understanding of what socialism is at all.

[Sprailenes 47]

Paul/Vanessa....I don't know who you are, but I you. LOL

Good! Adopt them from the Canadian forum

We have ourselves a weener!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Good! Adopt them from the Canadian forum

We have ourselves a weener!

lol

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Actually I did. Of course you can't read....

"""You can accuse me of copy/pasting all you want and that's fine if you are that bloody ignorant. It just shows me you are more about assuming everything is a 'talking point' of someone else just because you might disagree with it."""

These are people that try and shape the American political enviroment....

And the 'political enviroment' isn't what America is about and that's what they don't get.

It's about the Constitution. Period.

Of course trying to find people who actually have read it and then actually understand it is another thing entirely... It's amazing how many people don't have a damned clue what it says/means. Sad part being, plenty of them are in office right now on both sides of the aisle.

So can you highlight please where the Constitution says the government can not help create jobs?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I'm more of a civil libertarian. I'm not a fan of an overbearing government, but I do think it serves a purpose. I think it is beholden to its citizenry, and not just those in the upper echelon of the tax brackets. As to what our founders intended our government to be, that is a matter of opinion. I don't see how we can apply today some of the principles of 235 years ago when we have so fundamentally changed as a nation.

With regards to healthcare, I am in support of a NHS. I know that this would undoubtedly decrease my level of care because my employer sponsored coverage is phenomenal. But it is for the greater good of the country. I'm lucky though, I don't have to pay upwards of 30% of my income on healthcare premiums. What I particularly despise about the insurance based system that we have is that it places the value of the stockholders above that of its customers. Profits should have no bearing on health decisions because they are mutually exclusive at a certain point. I'm not saying that a NHS system is without its flaws, and I freely admit that there is no model that you can simply adapt to our situation. But what we have now does not work, unless you are wealthy.

That's not entirely true. The only people our healthcare system 'hurts' is the anomoly known as the middle-class. The upper and lower class do just fine with health care for the most part.

Still, in a Nation of 310 million people I'm satisfied with a majority being covered.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there's a good reason why India and China don't have nationalized health care systems. It's just not feasible for the world's most populous countries to have.

The problem isn't the system itself, it's the costs associated. As I've said most of those costs are due to government intervention in the system already. Hell, the government gladly protects Big Pharma more than it does the inurance industry.... Loook at all the drugs that we could import cheaper from Canada than they cost to get in the United States, but noooo this government is insistant upon protecting the pharmaceutical companies through and through...

Just because you nationalize a system doesn't take away the cost factor. Quite frankly, we can't afford to nationalize the system without taxing the people into oblivion. The middle class is already overburdened with taxes and honestly the upper classes shouldn't have to pay more than they alredy pay (with the exception of getting rid of the exemptions used, though even that would have a backlash on the economy like no other).

It's not fair to force people to pay for and have health care if they don't want it. There should never be a 'tax' on ones citizenship. That's erroneous in itself as well.

There's no 'easy' solution to health care and no matter what is done, it's going to have a transition period. I'd much rather give an open-market, less-FDA-intervention health care system a chance.

No one's saying don' protect the people from harmful items, but atleast give people a chance/choice on things that might not be as harmful as they are made out to be. (it's that whole - why should we ban soemthing just because a couple of hundred out of hundreds of thousands of people got sick?).

[Obama 2012 1,714]

So can you highlight please where the Constitution says the government can not help create jobs?

Article I, Section 8 defines specifically what tax monies can be used for. Job creating is not one of them.

Granted, congress tends to ignore that in so many ways on plenty of things...... but yeah :/

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Article I, Section 8 defines specifically what tax monies can be used for. Job creating is not one of them.

Granted, congress tends to ignore that in so many ways on plenty of things...... but yeah :/

what about "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

Isn't a healthy economy tied to the welfare of the US?

You could also argue that high unemployment is a threat to national security..so on and so forth....

[Obama 2012 1,714]

what about "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

Has nothing to do with jobs.

Isn't a healthy economy tied to the welfare of the US?

A healthy economy, yes. Just because you have 'jobs' doesn't make for a healthy economy. Our economy is in the tank for a variety of reasons, mostly due to 'corporate greed' by the BANKS if you want to go there.

If the government wants to help jobs in the nation, then they should cut taxes on small businesses and also lower taxes on a manufacturing level as well. That would do much more than some 'jobs bill' would.

You could also argue that high unemployment is a threat to national security..so on and so forth....

Not necessarily. I mean this should give people a reason to join the military then if anything

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

It may have not been the cause but job growth is now probably the largest factor.

BTW. Does anyone know if the UI extensions were officially cut from the Senate Bill? I have a friend who was laid off last week and I know she's going to face a tough road ahead.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

BTW. you need only look at the Baltics to see that yes, in fact high unemployment is a threat to security.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Sousuke