Look over there on the left...it says RECENT POLLS. I just posted a new one for you to try.

A few more, perhaps?

Is there a diffrence between democracy and socialism?

Let's hope so.

Then, what would the diffrence be?

Democracy is a system of government where the enfranchised citizens (mostly anyone over 18 nowadays) are allowed equal participation in the decisions regarding their society.

Socialism is a system of government where the government decides what each citizen is entitled to.

Thus we have socialist democrats in many countries who claim to let the people have what they want and need in many countries. Works well in times of plenty and growth...not so well for Greece now (or Spain, or France, etc.)

In the US, we were founded as a representative republic. Each state was supposed to be free to decide issues related to the social well-being of their citizens and the federal government was supposed to provide for specific overarching requirements, like foreign trade and treaties, internal commerce and defense.

The US was also based on individual capitalism (instead of socialism), where the fruits of our labor belonged to the individual. Control of personal property, money, and means of production is the only way to gain personal freedom. Otherwise, your freedom is under control of those in positions of power.

The people had democratic control over their town, city, county, state, etc. and could vote with their feet (move) if they did not agree with the particular government in place. Now, we basically have a socialist oligarchy in the US. The small number of governing elite (from both parties and the media) tell us all what we need and what we can have and that our production belongs to them. They will allow us to keep some of the fruits of our labor because they are benevolent leaders/dictators. The 2000+ page healthcare law is the greatest inroad ever made to gain direct control over all American citizens by our government. They will have control over our very lives and those in power can decide to kill off their opposition at will.
Regards,
H.

Just so that you all know, fascism and communism to my knowledge are not the same ...
there's a form of fascism in our present economic system called corporate fascism:

" www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFlKJmE4gVE ";

" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism ".

rex

In the poll, I would have picked the top one (Representative Democracy/Republic/Parliamentary Monarchy) but did not vote because these are 3 different things. Given a choice between the 3, I would choose Representative Republic.

Best case scenarios:

In a democracy, you are governed by the whim of the majority.

In a monarchy, you are governed by the whim of the monarch.

In a parliamentary monarchy, the monarch is constrained by the parliament and vice versa.

In a representative republic, the government (and each individual representative) is constrained by the people directly, while the states and federal government constrain each other's power as well.

PS:
Here's an interesting documentary:
" www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqYc9v_toKI&feature=relmfu "

There's a total of 52 programs within the documentary and thusfar, I've watched 30 of them;
But my reason for presenting it here is because eventually you'll come to a program that gives one of the reasons for the fall of Rome as the fact that the landed aristocracy finally had it all to the extent where they strangled/stifled the populace and progress, that is, competition and the very desire and ability for the little man to succeed ...
Some say that our present state of affairs in the USA is very similar to that today.

Anyway, to find the next Youtube program, search:
"The Western Tradition # " inserting the number of the program after the #.

rex

Communism and fascism is not the same in theory. In practice all communist states have become fascistic though.

Socialism means all get a vote and equal rights. Just like if they held one share each in a company. It means all citizens share and share alike. They may vote for some to make decissions for them and thus create a board of directors. I see nothing undemocratic in that as long as the ones elected can be just as easily kicked from the board.

Capitalism is quite the opposite to democracy as it encourages people to enrichen themselves instead of sharing alike. Capitalism also inevitable creats ever larger debt as all money in the market are lended. To be able to pay the loan+interest you need to lend ever more money EI: debts can never be paid. This leads to that the value of money need to be inflated to keep the system in balance. That is stealing time from anyone who saves for a rainy day. An hr's work yesterday is not worth an hr's work today.

I did my best to make the choices equal, I agree that the first choice isn't exactly the same for all three but as close as I could get and still mention them all. I can only have six questions maximum for polls.

I think people get too caught up in the titles and not enough in the results. Capitalism is a way to get things done and is neutral morally. It is how it is run that makes it benevolent or dictatorial. It needs strict regulation when the money gets big. Socialism is another word fraught with emotion, but we have limited socialism in the USA and I doubt most people other than really rabid libertarians would like to do without public roads, schools, libraries, police and all other tax based services. In the US we need universal health care since we are abandoning people who are sick to die. It's a wealthy country and can certainly do as well for the citizens as the many countries around the world which have universal health care. We spend twice as much on health care and get pretty uneven care. If you're rich, no problem, if you're poor, forget getting vital health care in a timely manner if at all. it is inhumane.

People first. Corporations last.

As I see it you achive more working together than against eachother.

Universal healthcare??!!

NO...NO...NO

NO one in this entire country is left abandoned or dies because of a lack of insurance....NO ONE.

We already have MediCaid for the poor (even though the majority spent there goes to young unmarried mothers, but that's another debate)...and MediCare for those over 65 or disabled due to accident or health condition.

Don't believe the crap our President spouts about big bad insurance companies 'cutting off' coverage when someone is diagnosed with cancer or whatever, that's nothing but a lie...That is not permitted under state insurance laws...and has been that way for at least the 32 years I've been doing business in the industry.

NO insurance company can cut off or cancel a policy because of someone's conditions...can't happen...but if you listen to the dose of misinformation broadcast daily, you'd think Obama himself changed that...BS!!

Mog, forget the demoncratic talking points and actually learn the facts about healthcare. And don't think because the AARP stood up with the Pres, saying they 'endorse' ObamaCare as the greatest thing to help seniors...sure, the law cuts over approx 200billion from medicare advantage plans (which are provided (most at NO COST) by private insurance companies) with MORE benefits than the government Medicare plan provides....for example, dental, hearing aide and vision coverage...none of those are covered by Medicare.

AARP endorsed the plan because it does away with these companies and they (AARP) would stand to make over 10 billion over the next 10 years from their cut for advertising United Health Care Medicare Supplements.

Private industry can ALWAYS do a better job than the government, if they don't...they go out of business, no tax payer loss..but on the other hand, Medicare lost over 60 billion (tax) dollars in fraud and waste in just two years?!

How is it not a taxpayer loss if a company goes out of buissiness? Fewer at work means loss of income from taxes they should have paied. And probably some of them will need aid from welfare.

Sugarleo, I think you have a fish in the frying pan and it would mean you would lose your livelihood if there was reform, therefore your opinion is suspect in the debate. I have heard from MANY people how they can't get health care no matter what they do. I am poor and use a clinic for health maintenance, but if I need real medical care, like an operation, I am out of luck. I have no health insurance and can't afford it.

I feel that health care is a right in a decent society. That's my opinion. My opinion is not debatable, I will continue to hold it. I know it would mean a loss of jobs in the insurance industry but that I can live with, it is a parasitical agency in any case. Sorryto be blunt, but it is. In countries with universal health care people get treatment for their medical problems, it is a right and they are not stigmatized as leeches when they need help. The people who would deny care are those who can afford it themselves for whatever reasons.

I haven't ever met a poor libertarian, and it isn't because they are so smart they succeed, it is because once they have success they don't want to share any portion of their success with others. It's a totally greedy and selfish mindset. I despise it.

I want the US to have health care on a par with the rest of the industrialized world. We are far behind. Unless you're rich, that is!

First, Mog...don't take my statements as a personal attack on you...by no means is that my intentions....just what you 'believe' to be truth.

Even if the government 'takes over' ALL medicare/health coverage, I'd still have a 'job' enrolling and explaining the benefits (whatever they may be) to eligible persons. I'm on the front line every day, speaking/working with physicians/pa's/nurses, clinical people and that little old lady that doesn't have family to help her make the right decisions.

I'm stating facts...period...you can choose to ignore facts and follow political propaganda if you wish and 'hold your opinion'...but in doing so, you're blinding yourself to the truth and just being lied to and swallowing the lies as truth because they happen to be spoken by someone of your political preference.

Your 'MANY' people that "can't get healthcare no matter what they do", must not be able to get on a bus or use their feet to go to the state welfare/medicaid office and apply for help.
Better yet, go find a job that either offers healthcare coverage or use their earned paycheck to go and buy insurance if their employer doesn't offer coverage. There's plenty of companies across the entire US than offer individual plans for around 100$ a month.

There's even numerous programs offered by insurance/pharma companies for free...as in NO Cost...for prescription drugs.

IF someone is truly broke...no money...no job...or unable to work, there's a program already in place...not to mention all the community 'free' clinics....and it didn't 'just happen' under the new healthcare law.

And you describe the insurance industry as parasites...since when does a business not have the right to offer a product/service and make a profit? Who would you dictate to create trust funds to pay medical costs and work for free? Would that be fair? Who has the right to tell someone else that they must 'give' their effort to others...perhaps the government should just seize control of McDonalds and we can order all those employed by McD's to serve us free burgers and fries whenever we want.

When does anyone have the right to another's time or effort? So in your opinion, I owe the 19 year old girl that has three kids, never finished high school, didn't worry about becoming pregnant, doesn't try to improve her life, cause she knows every time she has another baby, she'll get an increase in her welfare check, not to mention 'free' healthcare and dental...and oh, don't forget, having the first baby and no husband, got her a government sponsored apartment...so she could move out from her mother's government apartment...forget about being responsible...be cool, have a 'live-in' man, that doesn't work...and why should he? I owe him...he can live with her, eat free, live rent free and then go out and buy those 60" TV's, spinners for his ride, and just hang out...no worries....he'll sling a few drugs....steal from time to time...maybe, just maybe actually work for some money...but not much need...cause good old Roger is working his butt off 60-70 hours a week...he owes us...

I'm going to try and keep this as impersonal and objective as I can here. As an adult I have had to take tests on the Constitution , taught classes on American Government , worked as a teacher in the public housing projects of Chicago for 10 years , and approximately another 20 years in various "deprived areas " of the Rust Belt and also San Bernardino California. If the name is familiar, it's one of the California cities that went bankrupt, and was the murder capital of the U.S.A. a number of years back. I'm not going to say I've seen it all, but I've seen enough. I'm not going to debate this, because a person can't debate another person when that other person has all the answers. I wish everyone would consider this point. There is historical precedent. In the U.S.A. , and in many other countries , government eventually takes over where the private sector fails. It has to , or else that society fails. That's why we have a fire department rather than neighbors w/ a bucket. That' why we have a standing army instead of a militia. That's why we have a police force and courts instead of an individual with a gun ( hopefully) . The financial sector is broken. The medical health care system is broken . There's a whole lot that isn't right . Now, to what level of government does it go ? , and none of that c*** about States Rights ( that was settled in 1865 - get over it ). That's where regulations and laws come in. Are we over regulated ? Sure ! Does our Congress work ? No ! Nothing is going to get better until we as a people quit going against our own interests to satisfy our prejudices and hatreds. And that's whats going on in the U.S.A. today. If a person is poor , that doesn't mean their character is flawed and should be punished. If a person is filthy rich , it doesn't mean that they're parasites and exploiters. The problem is exacerbated by the attempted control of this country by non-elected individuals such as Grover Norquist, the Koch Brothers, Rupert Murdock , the Catholic Church , Fundamentalist Christians , the NRA , and Professors who don't leave their ivory towers at the Universities so they can pass on a more realistic view of the world to their students . Instead they pass on some naive idealistic pablum . It's a betrayal of the students - our children. There. I've vented . Let me finish by saying that politics and religion really have no place in a forum such as this. It just ticks people off.

We used to have some great debates about almost everything,
but Trotsky, I'll honor your wishes not to try to debate with you even though you included an institution I've always tried to defend in the past in your attack.

There IS something I'm going to mention here though because Obama's just allowing Foxnews and the GOP to run rough shod all over a comment he made that went something like: *"you didn't make that"* ...
he was referring to the infrastructure, not to the business that the small businessman struggled to keep alive ...
he meant the roads, bridges and highways that allow customers to come to the businesses ...
he meant that our tax$s made that infrastructure possible.

rex

Last Edited : Wednesday, 22 August 2012 - 01:13

rex,
How do you know what he meant by his "you didn't build that!" comment? It is just as plausible and more likely that he was speaking from his heart based on his own experience and beliefs. He never built anything in his life. The presidency was handed to him by the media's failure to do their job, his books were written for him by others, the Nobel Prize he "won" is the biggest joke ever. It is much more likely that his comment was a rare moment of honesty revealing his belief that everyone gets the things they have the same way he does.
For most small business entrepreneurs, regardless of infrastructure that was put in during the 1950s and 60s, they did, in fact, build their business. it is an incredible insult to them for this president to claim otherwise. He surely didn't build it!!!
Cheers,
H.

Hwatta,
politically I consider myself to be a centrist and there are plenty of things about the left I don't like, but the deliberate effort by the republican House not to cooperate with Obama to help him get us out of this terrible recession is disgusting imho and I can't believe that we pay these *blankety blanks* for that effort,

As far as how I know Obama's meaning of:
*"you didn't build that"*, he was trying to lay the ground work for government spending on infrastructure;
So it's a matter of logic and I've become accustomed to his manner of speaking ...
again he was referring back to his previous statement about *"roads and bridges in this great American system of ours that helped you to thrive if you've got a business"* ...
you didn't build *"THAT"* (that refers to something over there (i.e. roads and bridges)).

If he meant you didn't build your business he would have said: *if you've got a business, you didn't build *IT*.
Also to his credit Obama did make one and only one (to my knowledge) attempt to clarify where he did explain as I've explained, but for some reason I didn't need his explanation, that is, I did understand his meaning when he said it.

Again, I think the republican House stinks for their lack of cooperation to help get us out of this recession and I hope the American people see it and cause some changes ...
Obama does support some things I don't like, but basically I think the man is quite intelligent and doing a great job while in the worst circumstances of any president since Hoover (even a drought for God's sake).

rex