Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

While we celebrate the 4th of July this weekend, and sing cheers to the red, white and blue, any honest person, of whatever political stripe, does so confident in the knowledge that we absolutely do not have our first "red" president of the United States.
...
The socialist canard is an intellectually lazy criticism of Obama and his policies. What's more interesting, really, is to look at what Obama is doing and consider the political and economic risks he is taking in the way he is transforming the role of government within the economy, while working at all times from a capitalist frame of reference.

Obama is taking risks. If cap-and-trade merely becomes a tax on polluters, passed on to customers, as its critics contend, and if there is no migration toward cleaner power such as wind and solar, then he will have fallen short. If the government insurance program puts a large swath of the private industry out of business or, more likely, if it winds up inefficient, costly and corrupt -- as big government tends to do -- then he will have betrayed a naivete about government.

Obama says he wants out of GM and Chrysler as soon as they can compete. In contrast to the way a socialist would think, Obama knows the measure of his success will come in how soon he can exit that investment, not how long he maintains control.

Cleets Part 2 wrote:The last 3 Presidents have been very close (I'm making a pinching gesture) to being Socialists...

CID1990 wrote:

Cleets Part 2 wrote:The last 3 Presidents have been very close (I'm making a pinching gesture) to being Socialists...

Agreed. The third stage of self destruction in democratic societies is when the electorate realizes that it can vote itself largesse. You have to be a social spender to get elected these days, and the Republican Party is as bad as the Democratic. In fact, all this talk of the Republican Party collapsing is off the mark. It's just folding into the Democratic Party.

Cleets Part 2 wrote:

CID1990 wrote: Agreed. The third stage of self destruction in democratic societies is when the electorate realizes that it can vote itself largesse. You have to be a social spender to get elected these days, and the Republican Party is as bad as the Democratic. In fact, all this talk of the Republican Party collapsing is off the mark. It's just folding into the Democratic Party.

It's actually sad...
We need (at the very least) two (ideally three) distinctly different parties - fully functional - fully differentiated in order to keep progressing properly towards a Republic par excellence...

It works similarly with three branches balancing power (Checks & Balance)

If we become a nation of rhetoric without substance electing a single party with two names that might be bad... I'm not sure but it seems bad... (is that bad..? ) help me out here

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

Cleets Part 2 wrote:
It's actually sad...
We need (at the very least) two (ideally three) distinctly different parties - fully functional - fully differentiated in order to keep progressing properly towards a Republic par excellence...

It works similarly with three branches balancing power (Checks & Balance)

If we become a nation of rhetoric without substance electing a single party with two names that might be bad... I'm not sure but it seems bad... (is that bad..? ) help me out here

ideally three???

you seem bereft of understanding how our system works. our elections are winner-take-all... and at the presidential level, if no candidate reaches 270 EV's... the election is thrown in to the House... if you think "back room deals" are bad now... (which, historically, they aren't) they would be out of control in such a system.

the structure of our government necessitates a two-party dynamic.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Maybe we all need to pare back some of rugged, boostrap individualism (fvck, all it's got us is fat and dangerous - freedom to eat Cheez Wiz at every meal and the right to have 132 guns in one's house) and get into more of an "overall community" frame of mind.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

Cleets Part 2 wrote:
It's actually sad...
We need (at the very least) two (ideally three) distinctly different parties - fully functional - fully differentiated in order to keep progressing properly towards a Republic par excellence...

It works similarly with three branches balancing power (Checks & Balance)

If we become a nation of rhetoric without substance electing a single party with two names that might be bad... I'm not sure but it seems bad... (is that bad..? ) help me out here

ideally three???

you seem bereft of understanding how our system works. our elections are winner-take-all... and at the presidential level, if no candidate reaches 270 EV's... the election is thrown in to the House... if you think "back room deals" are bad now... (which, historically, they aren't) they would be out of control in such a system.

the structure of our government necessitates a two-party dynamic.

Appaholic wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Maybe we all need to pare back some of rugged, boostrap individualism (fvck, all it's got us is fat and dangerous - freedom to eat Cheez Wiz at every meal and the right to have 132 guns in one's house) and get into more of an "overall community" frame of mind.

You're serious? What a load of crap. True "rugged, boostrap individualism" isn't what has denigrated this society to it's current state of selfishness and "me-first" mentality. The sense of entitlement that is residually associated with mandated "fairness" and bumper sticker politics is a more likely culprit. What has gotten us "fat and dangerous" is this mentality that, no matter my choices, there is a safety net complete with a non-judgemental society waiting regardless of the irresponsibility or lack of planning used in making those choices.....and this applies to both sides....using some stewardship in dealing with one's neighbors and environs is a responsible decision...having it mandated we have to take care of people or bailout organizations who refuse to learn from poor decisions (since there are no repercussions of those poor choices) is no way to run a society either....

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

Cleets Part 2 wrote:
It's actually sad...
We need (at the very least) two (ideally three) distinctly different parties - fully functional - fully differentiated in order to keep progressing properly towards a Republic par excellence...

It works similarly with three branches balancing power (Checks & Balance)

If we become a nation of rhetoric without substance electing a single party with two names that might be bad... I'm not sure but it seems bad... (is that bad..? ) help me out here

ideally three???

you seem bereft of understanding how our system works. our elections are winner-take-all... and at the presidential level, if no candidate reaches 270 EV's... the election is thrown in to the House... if you think "back room deals" are bad now... (which, historically, they aren't) they would be out of control in such a system.

the structure of our government necessitates a two-party dynamic.

UNI88 wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
You're serious? What a load of crap. True "rugged, boostrap individualism" isn't what has denigrated this society to it's current state of selfishness and "me-first" mentality. The sense of entitlement that is residually associated with mandated "fairness" and bumper sticker politics is a more likely culprit. What has gotten us "fat and dangerous" is this mentality that, no matter my choices, there is a safety net complete with a non-judgemental society waiting regardless of the irresponsibility or lack of planning used in making those choices.....and this applies to both sides....using some stewardship in dealing with one's neighbors and environs is a responsible decision...having it mandated we have to take care of people or bailout organizations who refuse to learn from poor decisions (since there are no repercussions of those poor choices) is no way to run a society either....

Couldn't have said it better!

Cap'n Cat wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
Couldn't have said it better!

Yeah, I am fvcking serious and I stand by what I said. If you don't break your back extrapolating like a montherfvcker (dare I say, as a Conk), than you can appreciate it.

At no time did I talk about mandating taking care of people, etc. YOU introduced that.

E x t r a p o l a t i o n.

Col Hogan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
ideally three???

you seem bereft of understanding how our system works. our elections are winner-take-all... and at the presidential level, if no candidate reaches 270 EV's... the election is thrown in to the House... if you think "back room deals" are bad now... (which, historically, they aren't) they would be out of control in such a system.

the structure of our government necessitates a two-party dynamic.

You missed Cid's key point...there is not a two-party dynamic any more...the republicans and the democrats are merging...both big spenders...both big government...it's just the flavor of those two things that sets them apart...

Not very dynamic a difference IMHO...

What this country needs is a party that can truely differentiate itself from the demo-repug conglomerate that has run this country since the late 1980's when the merger became obvious with the coming out of the Neo-cons, who claim to be conservatives but really are just a bunch of big-spending democrats who broke away over social issues and took over the republican party...

Appaholic wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Yeah, I am fvcking serious and I stand by what I said. If you don't break your back extrapolating like a montherfvcker (dare I say, as a Conk), than you can appreciate it.

At no time did I talk about mandating taking care of people, etc. YOU introduced that.

E x t r a p o l a t i o n.

So, your statement..."and get into more of an "overall community" frame of mind" is not suggesting mandating an "overall community" frame of mind for the good of the community? If not, my apologies as that concept is what I meant about stewardship. But how to get eveyone on board without mandates and enforcement? I mean, a doctor can suggest eating healthy is the responsible decision for avoiding obesity. But, unless you mandate no more transfats, you'll always have an obesity problem......

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
So, your statement..."and get into more of an "overall community" frame of mind" is not suggesting mandating an "overall community" frame of mind for the good of the community? If not, my apologies as that concept is what I meant about stewardship. But how to get eveyone on board without mandates and enforcement? I mean, a doctor can suggest eating healthy is the responsible decision for avoiding obesity. But, unless you mandate no more transfats, you'll always have an obesity problem......

My overall community verbiage is not a veiled (or even overt) plug for socialism, rather a call for togetherness, that which will never happen, regrettably.

That I am a fan of government (and I am, truly), does not mean, as well, that we need an overbearing one of the negative connotation-bearing "socialist" some here envision. We are already a laissez-faire socialist nation.

Capitalism and socialism coexist in and among us and experience, as individuals do, the ebb and flow of economic and social conditions. Capitalism was hot during Bush's reign, it fell on its face, now socialism will help clean up the mess, then captialism will return to favor and fall on its face again, then.................

Cap'n Cat wrote:My overall community verbiage is not a veiled (or even overt) plug for socialism, rather a call for togetherness.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
So, your statement..."and get into more of an "overall community" frame of mind" is not suggesting mandating an "overall community" frame of mind for the good of the community? If not, my apologies as that concept is what I meant about stewardship. But how to get eveyone on board without mandates and enforcement? I mean, a doctor can suggest eating healthy is the responsible decision for avoiding obesity. But, unless you mandate no more transfats, you'll always have an obesity problem......

My overall community verbiage is not a veiled (or even overt) plug for socialism, rather a call for togetherness, that which will never happen, regrettably.

That I am a fan of government (and I am, truly), does not mean, as well, that we need an overbearing one of the negative connotation-bearing "socialist" some here envision. We are already a laissez-faire socialist nation.

Capitalism and socialism coexist in and among us and experience, as individuals do, the ebb and flow of economic and social conditions. Capitalism was hot during Bush's reign, it fell on its face, now socialism will help clean up the mess and then create a mess of it's own, then captialism will return to favor and fall on its face again, then.................

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
You missed Cid's key point...there is not a two-party dynamic any more...the republicans and the democrats are merging...both big spenders...both big government...it's just the flavor of those two things that sets them apart...

Not very dynamic a difference IMHO...

What this country needs is a party that can truely differentiate itself from the demo-repug conglomerate that has run this country since the late 1980's when the merger became obvious with the coming out of the Neo-cons, who claim to be conservatives but really are just a bunch of big-spending democrats who broke away over social issues and took over the republican party...

you guys sound like the Naderites of 2000... "there's no difference between the parties, they are corporatists and in favor of big business... etc, etc..." just as they were full of pants... so is this.

there's something a lot of you guys on this board are missing, which is that most American's aren't for some pre-new deal american economy wherein we exist in some social-darwinistic state. you guys seem to be convinced that voters will get behind this idea... they won't. that entire ideology will likely never get the support of more than 15-20% of the voting public.

is our current dynamic a problem? probably... but IMO it's got more to do with a need to raise revenues. something tells me the greedy and selfish boomers are going to have to die before we'll be able to do that, sadly.

UNI88 wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
you guys sound like the Naderites of 2000... "there's no difference between the parties, they are corporatists and in favor of big business... etc, etc..." just as they were full of pants... so is this.

there's something a lot of you guys on this board are missing, which is that most American's aren't for some pre-new deal american economy wherein we exist in some social-darwinistic state. you guys seem to be convinced that voters will get behind this idea... they won't. that entire ideology will likely never get the support of more than 15-20% of the voting public.

is our current dynamic a problem? probably... but IMO it's got more to do with a need to raise revenues. something tells me the greedy and selfish boomers are going to have to die before we'll be able to do that, sadly.

TTBF, there is something that you are missing ... The government does not have an unlimited ability to raise revenues. The higher the tax rate the lower the incentive to achieve and advance one's self. Unchecked greed can be a bad thing but greed by itself is not necessarily bad. Greed along with pride can push people to accomplish things and these accomplishments create companies/jobs and advancements (medicine, clean energy).

I've preached this before but where would we be without Reagan's tax cuts? Would Bill Gates and Paul Allen have taken the risks to create Microsoft and all of the jobs, millionaires and technological advancements? Or would Bill have mentally decided that it wasn't worth it and taken a job at IBM where he would work and retire as a Director after making $150K/year? What about Michael Dell? Larry Ellison? You can't assume that raising taxes will have no impact on risk-taking and innovation.

It might seem like smoke and mirrors or voodoo economics but raising taxes can actually reduce government revenue and hurt the economy. There is a hidden cost to higher taxes that should be recognized and accounted for.

UNI88 wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
you guys sound like the Naderites of 2000... "there's no difference between the parties, they are corporatists and in favor of big business... etc, etc..." just as they were full of pants... so is this.

there's something a lot of you guys on this board are missing, which is that most American's aren't for some pre-new deal american economy wherein we exist in some social-darwinistic state. you guys seem to be convinced that voters will get behind this idea... they won't. that entire ideology will likely never get the support of more than 15-20% of the voting public.

is our current dynamic a problem? probably... but IMO it's got more to do with a need to raise revenues. something tells me the greedy and selfish boomers are going to have to die before we'll be able to do that, sadly.

TTBF, there is something that you are missing ... The government does not have an unlimited ability to raise revenues. The higher the tax rate the lower the incentive to achieve and advance one's self. Unchecked greed can be a bad thing but greed by itself is not necessarily bad. Greed along with pride can push people to accomplish things and these accomplishments create companies/jobs and advancements (medicine, clean energy).

I've preached this before but where would we be without Reagan's tax cuts? Would Bill Gates and Paul Allen have taken the risks to create Microsoft and all of the jobs, millionaires and technological advancements? Or would Bill have mentally decided that it wasn't worth it and taken a job at IBM where he would work and retire as a Director after making $150K/year? What about Michael Dell? Larry Ellison? You can't assume that raising taxes will have no impact on risk-taking and innovation.

It might seem like smoke and mirrors or voodoo economics but raising taxes can actually reduce government revenue and hurt the economy. There is a hidden cost to higher taxes that should be recognized and accounted for.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
TTBF, there is something that you are missing ... The government does not have an unlimited ability to raise revenues. The higher the tax rate the lower the incentive to achieve and advance one's self. Unchecked greed can be a bad thing but greed by itself is not necessarily bad. Greed along with pride can push people to accomplish things and these accomplishments create companies/jobs and advancements (medicine, clean energy).

I've preached this before but where would we be without Reagan's tax cuts? Would Bill Gates and Paul Allen have taken the risks to create Microsoft and all of the jobs, millionaires and technological advancements? Or would Bill have mentally decided that it wasn't worth it and taken a job at IBM where he would work and retire as a Director after making $150K/year? What about Michael Dell? Larry Ellison? You can't assume that raising taxes will have no impact on risk-taking and innovation.

It might seem like smoke and mirrors or voodoo economics but raising taxes can actually reduce government revenue and hurt the economy. There is a hidden cost to higher taxes that should be recognized and accounted for.

The great conservative misnomer that increased taxation will reduce the incentive to achieve...

Yes, Gates and Allen would have... because they developed their programs for their own egoes as much as for money... i seriously doubt someone like Gates would say to himself "well, I would develop a superior operating system to revolutionize the role of the computer in daily life... but marginal tax rates will limit my wealth to only 30 billion dollars..."