President Bush Jr's Scorecard

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yet they called themselves socialist and held up Marxism-Leninism, and he never called them Social Democracies. Please read posts .

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ming
I always love how they try to make it sound that only 2 to 5% of the people win under Capitalism... Tell that to the middle class... you know, the ones with their beautiful homes... their SUV's... and send their kids to good schools... There are poor in every country... no matter what form of government.

So that's your excuse for not trying to fix the problem? Weak... classic conservative answer. "It's always going to be broke, so let's not try to innovate and fix it".

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yet they called themselves socialist and held up Marxism-Leninism, and he never called them Social Democracies. Please read posts .

I can call myself a pink-elephant, but that doesn't make me one. I originally said "Social Democracies". He was referring to one of my earlier posts. So take your own advice. It's really annoying when people comment on discussions when they don't read earlier posts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Did he quote your post? He was replying to Lars-E.

My, the ego on you.

And the 'communist' countries of USSR and China are really socialist states, which is why they refered to themselves as such. Communism is the Paris Commune and the communes in the Spanish Civil War. It is impossible for a state to perform that way. The USSR is socialism, just as Marx's idealised vision is socialism.

And you can ask che, but Social Democracies aren't truely socialism. They have market economies with heavy government interference, so they are mixed economies.

[Sava]

I never said I wanted a true socialism. You certainly pulled that out of your ass. Lars-E was only arguing the same thing as me . But then again, leave it to a conservative to dodge the issue and argue semantics.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Sava
So that's your excuse for not trying to fix the problem? Weak... classic conservative answer. "It's always going to be broke, so let's not try to innovate and fix it".

I've always said that a few minor changes would help. But I like Capitalism... it's a better system than any of the miserable liberal stuff that you sprout all the time

[Imran Siddiqui]

I never said I wanted a true socialism. You certainly pulled that out of your ass. Lars-E was only arguing the same thing as me

Bull****, bull****, bull****!

By saying the USSR was not socialism, you were talking about true socialism.

And Lars-E was saying the system was corrupt, which was responded by saying 'and other systems' are better.

You can keep fibbing to make yourself look better, but it won't help. Leave it to a liberal to make a stupid statement and then when confronted call it 'semantics', because we all know that liberals make up definitions for words.

[Sava]

Please, stop making up stuff... every time you make up stuff I need to correct you and that wastes forum space. I said the USSR was not a Social Democracy.... I never said anything about true socialism...


Ming... the system I want is one that provides free health care, education/job training, and enforces current business regulations. How would that be worse than what we have? Basically, I want to keep things the way they are, only decrease the amount of people in poverty. I fail to see how that is bad.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Sava
Ming... the system I want is one that provides free health care, education/job training

If it looks like socialism... If it smells like socialism... If it sounds like socialism... IT IS SOCIALISM.

Again... I like capitalism far better than any of the miserable liberal stuff that you sprout all the time

[Imran Siddiqui]

I said the USSR was not a Social Democracy.... I never said anything about true socialism...

You said, and I quote "PLEASE READ HISTORY". Go ahead, read history. USSR is socialism. Lord Merciless NEVER said anything about Social Democracy. If you truely want to read history, NOTHING is socialism except pure socialism.

Social Democracy can call itself socialism, but as you said it can call itself a pink elephant, doesn't make it one.

Please Read History.

Game. Set. Match.

Basically, I want to keep things the way they are, only decrease the amount of people in poverty. I fail to see how that is bad.

And who will pay for this, oh smart one?

[Ming]

The government already does a bad job spending the money I give them. Their welfare programs are all a joke... poorly managed, and provide little value for the money spent.

AND YOU WANT THESE BOZO'S RUNNING OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM TOO!

Before I would even consider giving them more of my money, I would like to see them try first to do a better job of what they already take. Maybe then, THEY WOULDN'T NEED TO TAKE MORE OF IT.

[Jac de Molay]

The success stories for welfare are few and far between because the support just isn't there. What about Day-care? Public transportation? I dont think we're spiralling into socialism by asking if the safety net is adequate enough, especially since congress passed the biggest piece of pork in American history.

Welfare to work was pushed upon onto a lot of people in the 90's without an adequate network of support. And when follow-ups were conducted, the number on the rolls decreased, but those same people also practically disappeared off the face of the earth. No one could gauge if their standard of living really improved or not.

[Ming]

It's really a matter of how big that safety net should be, how much will it cost, and who is going to pay for it.

I think everybody here (with few exceptions) sees the need for providing for the needy. The big difference is on how much, and how it is managed.

[Sava]

That's the thing about Democracy... if someone isn't doing a good job, you vote them out. No, I don't want any of the "bozos" in there right now running our health care system. It is possible to have a market economy AND provide free health care/education without government waste.

Plus, I don't see you complaining about the wasted government money when it comes to defense spending. Look at how much is being wasted today. One smart bomb runs about 5 million dollars. And how many of those were wasted in Afghanistan? After 9/11 we were spending about a billion dollars a day bombing some desert rats. And what did the Afghan campaign accomplish? Nothing... Yet I only see you ripping on the left when it comes to government waste. The fact is, welfare programs WORK! Only about 10% of the people who are below the poverty line are chronically poor. The other 90 percent are people who fall under tough times, receive welfare, and pull their lives together. And I don't see you complaining about wasting money on corporate welfare... look at the bailout the airline industry received. That was the biggest anti-capitalistic action you could possibly concauct (sp?). In capitalism, if a business fails, it fails, there is no bailout.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Sava
The fact is, welfare programs WORK!

And what fantasy land do you live in...
I guess we just have a different definition of the term "works"...

And you seem to forget that I have pretty much called most government spending wasteful and inefficient in other threads... and I probably mentioned it again in this one too