Who are American politicians beholden to? The People? The Constitution?

[MichaeltheGreat]

He's serving his purpose.

[DinoDoc]

He's serving his purpose.

By being a foil for the crafty Jews?

[MichaeltheGreat]

That too. Hagel is really a Mossad agent. And making Republicans spinnable as obstructionists.

[DinoDoc]

Because that worked out so badly for the DNC during the Bush years?

[DaShi]

I do hope that republicans keep thinking like they are in the Bush years.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Because that worked out so badly for the DNC during the Bush years?

It ain't the Bush years no mo'.

[DinoDoc]

It ain't the Bush years no mo'.

I've seen no evidence even from recent history that voters are likely to reward an opposition party for making compromises and avoiding confrontation.

[Straybow]

That's some pretty stupid **** right there.

Why do I get the impression you were either in diapers or an unfertilized ovum in 1988? Yes, in 1988 the voters thought a centrist who was continuing Reagan's conservative governance was greatly preferable to a wimpy socialist. Yes, in 1992 GWHB thought the only way to get around the "no new taxes" debacle was to come out as a moderate who was done with Reagan's conservatism.

You don't think that might have had anything to do with the mass propoganda program that spent 40 years indoctrinating Americans into hating anything connected to Communism?

You mean the 40 years during which people in the West tried to educate leftist-infatuated morons about the tens of millions Stalin starved to death, and the 50+ million Mao casually executed? The violent repressions of the Prague Spring, the Polish protests, etc? The dissidents sent to gulags? The bread lines going around the block? The quaint barbed-wire fencing required to keep their people in their countries?

Hell, you can ask Americans whether they like/dislike a whole range of socialist ideas and they'll say they love them, but then ask them if they like the same things but describe them as socialized or socialist ideas and they'll say they hate the same damn things. Look what happened when they polled about individual parts of Obamacare for goodness sake.

You mean when polls tell them they'd be "free" they liked them, but now that the IRS has revealed Obamacare will cost the average family $4000/capita they realize they've been had?

Americans arent any different to any other nationality, you still want a home, family, medical care for your kids etc etc. Pure capitalism is never going to provide that for everyone, and as the fear of reds under the bed starts to fade socialism will continue to grow in the US. You might need to give it a new name, but it won't be any different than anywhere else. Survival of the fittest just isn't going to cut it.

Nothing in the US has been "pure capitalism" since the 19th century. Socialism still only grows by lies, promising everything will be "free" and then reality bites the suckers in the arse when the real cost comes out and grandma can't get her broken ankle set because it's considered "elective surgery" that isn't in the health care budget. (That referring to one of our Kanuck polytubbies, can't remember which.)

[kentonio]

If you'd ever lived in a vaguely socialist country you'd realize how stupid that sounds. Socialism isn't about 'free' stuff, it's about a society making a contract to agree to pay a certain amount in tax to ensure that ALL citizens have a guaranteed standard of living. The payoff to taxpayers is low crime, security if life kicks you in the ass and above all a sense that you live in a decent, humanist country.

[Straybow]

I do live in a vaguely socialist country, it's called the USofA. It has been vaguely socialist since FDR. Socialism is all about "free" stuff, just ask the people who voted for Obama. Conservatism does sound stupid to that portion of the population. They still think the Dems are going to give them health care by making the "rich" pay their "fair share" (i.e., "free" for the poor and middle class).

[PLATO]

Socialism isn't about 'free' stuff, it's about a society making a contract to agree to pay a certain amount in tax to ensure that ALL citizens have a guaranteed standard of living.

I don't think the debate is really about the end result as much as it is about the path. I, like many conservatives, believe that an OPPORTUNITY is more important than a social GUARANTEE. There can be argument about which one works better certainly, but that is as much a personal preference as anything.

My personal feeling is that I would rather see government invest in things like education, opening markets, providing low interest loans for new business ventures, and subsidizing research than in social contracts. If a person has a good job, then they don't need the social contract. That being said, I recognize that there are those that will occassionally need a hand up and those that through things like disabilities will need a way to live a decent life...a role that I believe government should take.

My problem is that when you have these social contracts that a certain segment of the population begins to rely on them instead of relying on themselves...certainly a recipe for disaster in the long run.

[Jon Miller]

A 'guaranteed' standing of living is just another aspect of 'equality of opportunity'.

Basically, certain people (wealthy/etc) are more able to take risk because if they do, and things go bad, they don't starve/etc. This allows them to take opportunities with some risk in them, which are pretty much all good ones.

Other people are not able to take that risk. I and my friends know of brilliant people who end up working a 'ho-hum' job because that is what they need to do to provide the necessities for their family (health/food/housing). They don't have the opportunity to take a risk and be an entrepreneur. They don't have the opportunity to take a risk and spend extra time in education. They don't have the opportunity to take a risk and apply for a job in different areas than where they live.

This is why I am against a pure transfer of wealth. Because for this equality of opportunity only certain things are needed (healthy food, education, safe housing, adequent health care). Doing a straight up transfer means that a person who could be a great entrepreneur/engineer/doctor/etc might sometimes have that opportunity removed from them due to the 'foolishness' of their siblings/parents/etc.

A final issue is that we don't need all of the people we have in the world right now for manufactory or engineering, and capital tends towards just a few people (so most people can't be capitalists)... leaving services. And most things service wise are also concentrated, and if wealth is concentrated then services like caregiver/etc won't have strong demand either.

JM

[Jon Miller]

You can think of 'socialism' such as that which exists in the US (and most other places) and is the subject of debate here as a mandated insurance...

JM

[kentonio]

@Plato, you Americans talk endlessly about the 'inevitable' end result of socialist, yet the European countries have done this for decades without any disaster scenarios. Guaranteeing that losing your job doesn't mean you're going to end up homeless and starving doesnt make people not want to work, it just means they don't need to treat their employers like feudal lords.

[PLATO]

@Plato, you Americans talk endlessly about the 'inevitable' end result of socialist, yet the European countries have done this for decades without any disaster scenarios. Guaranteeing that losing your job doesn't mean you're going to end up homeless and starving doesnt make people not want to work, it just means they don't need to treat their employers like feudal lords.

I believe, sadly, that there are more Americans that actually would not want to work if they were guaranteed a place to live, something to eat, and a little something to "get by" on as a percentage than there would be Europeans from what I know. I can't really speak to that authoritatively though because even though I have met a lot of Europeans, I have never been there.

Secondly, it seems to me that Europe's relative economic importance has declined since these social contracts became the norm. Am I wrong in assuming that the problems in Greece, Italy, and Spain are derived from "overpromising and underdelivering"?