Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Obama's service corps

Rugger

Rugger

Well-known member
The one I like best is how our tax money is going to pay college students $40 A ****ING HOUR to do community service. Given how that level of compensation will blow away almost any summer job or internship, almost all college students will sign up.

The list of Obama Corps, most of which are new, and the rest which he proposes to dramatically expand:

Green Job Corps
AmeriCorps VISTA
Experience Corps
Senior Corps
Classroom Corps
Health Corps
Clean Energy Corps
Veterans Corps
Homeland Security Corps
Peace Corps
Global Energy Corps
Social Investment Fund Network
Social Entrepreneurship Agency for Nonprofits
Corporation for National and Community Service

This is supposed to further Obama's stated goal of creating a "civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the US national security industry.

What people don't realize is that it's not the president's job to define values or community, it's his job to run the ****ing government. Society is supposed to be free of government interference except for absolute necessities. This, obviously, doesn't include the 'reforming of American morality and moral standing."

F-off Obama, you ****ing socialist.
 
"What people don't realize is that it's not the president's job to define values or community, it's his job to run the ****ing government."

Actually, it's his job to simply sign or veto legislation so it's not like he can make all those $40/hour Green Corps jobs happen without significant Congressional support.
 
He is responsible for the federal budget, so he can try to make all of these things happen. So you're technically right. But, it is foreseeable that the Democratic party will hold the majority in Congress no matter who wins the Presidential election. So, it's both right and wrong.

Beyond that, I still consider the President's job to be the running of the government. I mean, the federal budget is pretty expansive and encompassing. His signatures and vetoes are also usually pretty withstanding. With the obvious checks and balances the President is restrained in his action, but his capabilities within the government and the running of it are still far outreaching of the other pieces of the machine.
 
Since the Dems hold only a slim majority in the Senate, I don't foresee any runaway spending on gigantic social programs except for healthcare which now has a scary amount of bipartisan support. Nobody can F up the current healthcare situation like the govt can.
 
bioman said:
Since the Dems hold only a slim majority in the Senate, I don't foresee any runaway spending on gigantic social programs except for healthcare which now has a scary amount of bipartisan support. Nobody can F up the current healthcare situation like the govt can.
Click to expand...

I think it's 36 seats in the senate are up in the air this season. It could get very ugly. I will feel bad for people if universal healthcare does in fact take hold. If anyone knows about healthcare in Canada or England you know what I'm talking about. Luckily the HMOs will probably still stick around. Most people don't realize that the government already helps out a lot with healthcare!
 
I just finished a year in Americorps and I didn't get $40 dollars an hour.

I only got $150/wk and that was working like 70 hour weeks, its pretty much like selling your soul to do community service.
 
None of those Service Corps pay $40 and hour. I have friends in many of them.

Most of them give you a living stipend of $100-$400 a week, not actual pay, and money for college at the end which for a years service is about $4500.

The people who do these jobs are doing them because they want to help the community not because they want the money, because the money isn't good.

They earn every bit of the money they earn too, and probably deserve more. For my year of service I tutored and mentored about 40 under-privliged students through out the course of the year consistently, hosted an afterschool program with 3 other volunteers for about 70 children (whos parents didn't give a ****) everyday after school, and helped kids with there homework ect.

When I wasn't working in the schools I was in an office planning big community service projects with a team of other volunteers. We planned, mannaged, and executed about 50 community service projects over the course of the year. These included painting, cleaning up graffiti, and building a baseball field at 2 area youth centers. And painting 30 houses in a lower class neighborhood with about 50 people in one single day.

It would be nearly impossible for me to list all of the other things we did over the course of our year of service, but just letting everyone know that these programs aren't a waste.

The pay that we got over the course of the year came out to around $.75 an hour, thats right. We worked our asses off almost 70 hours every week for that! NOT BECAUSE WE WANTED THE PAY, BECAUSE WE WANTED TO HELP PEOPLE!
 
jonnyjames said:
None of those Service Corps pay $40 and hour. I have friends in many of them.

Most of them give you a living stipend of $100-$400 a week, not actual pay, and money for college at the end which for a years service is about $4500.

The people who do these jobs are doing them because they want to help the community not because they want the money, because the money isn't good.

They earn every bit of the money they earn too, and probably deserve more. For my year of service I tutored and mentored about 40 under-privliged students through out the course of the year consistently, hosted an afterschool program with 3 other volunteers for about 70 children (whos parents didn't give a ****) everyday after school, and helped kids with there homework ect.

When I wasn't working in the schools I was in an office planning big community service projects with a team of other volunteers. We planned, mannaged, and executed about 50 community service projects over the course of the year. These included painting, cleaning up graffiti, and building a baseball field at 2 area youth centers. And painting 30 houses in a lower class neighborhood with about 50 people in one single day.

It would be nearly impossible for me to list all of the other things we did over the course of our year of service, but just letting everyone know that these programs aren't a waste.

The pay that we got over the course of the year came out to around $.75 an hour, thats right. We worked our asses off almost 70 hours every week for that! NOT BECAUSE WE WANTED THE PAY, BECAUSE WE WANTED TO HELP PEOPLE!
Click to expand...


(the point).........................................................................................................................(you)

that's how far away your last two posts were.
 
Rugger said:
(the point).........................................................................................................................(you)

that's how far away your last two posts were.
Click to expand...

Just trying to show how hard these people work, and how little pay they get man.

Check your sources too, most of those are Clinton's programs.
 
Rugger said:
I think it's 36 seats in the senate are up in the air this season. It could get very ugly. I will feel bad for people if universal healthcare does in fact take hold. If anyone knows about healthcare in Canada or England you know what I'm talking about. Luckily the HMOs will probably still stick around. Most people don't realize that the government already helps out a lot with healthcare!
Click to expand...

I do; apparently you don't. Maybe you could explain the horrors, though? I know it was horrific being a part-time wage-worker in Canada, yet still knowing that the entirety of my fees from a severe accident (elongated hospital stay, casts, x-rays, extensive physiotherapy and so on) were covered by the government. As a 20 year-old laborer in America, my chances of having such coverage would have been slim-to-none. Those who paint such a broad brush of Universal Healthcare most often do not understand it in its entirety; however, you called a Liberal Democrat a Socialist, so that doesn't surprise me!

:trout:
 
Mulletsoldier said:
As a 20 year-old laborer in America, my chances of having such coverage would have been slim-to-none.
Click to expand...

Actually it would have been your choice and if you were under a certain income level the government does cover you.
 
your right I might not know as much about the canadian health care system. I know quite a bit about the british system and since the canadian system is similar I lumped them together.

Oh and about the Obama comment, yeah, he is a socialist. Fits the modern definition almost perfectly.
 
J. Peterman said:
Actually it would have been your choice and if you were under a certain income level the government does cover you.
Click to expand...

Choice is relative - defined by socioeconomic status. Given my income level at the time, the affordable options presented to me would not have covered the extensive nature of my care; nor would the government have subsidized my care. However B, feel free to elaborate more on my personal details which you know nothing about. :thumbsup:
 
Rugger said:
Oh and about the Obama comment, yeah, he is a socialist. Fits the modern definition almost perfectly.
Click to expand...

I suppose if you bend any definition enough it will fit. Neo-Socialism is a distinct political idiom, and does not fit within a bipartisan liberal democratic state.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
I do; apparently you don't. Maybe you could explain the horrors, though? I know it was horrific being a part-time wage-worker in Canada, yet still knowing that the entirety of my fees from a severe accident (elongated hospital stay, casts, x-rays, extensive physiotherapy and so on) were covered by the government. As a 20 year-old laborer in America, my chances of having such coverage would have been slim-to-none. Those who paint such a broad brush of Universal Healthcare most often do not understand it in its entirety; however, you called a Liberal Democrat a Socialist, so that doesn't surprise me!

:trout:
Click to expand...

As a 20 year old laborer in America you're looking at about $90 a month for substantial coverage. A fraction of that if you're just seeking coverage for catastrophic events.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
Choice is relative - defined by socioeconomic status. Given my income level at the time, the affordable options presented to me would not have covered the extensive nature of my care; nor would the government have subsidized my care. However B, feel free to elaborate more on my personal details which you know nothing about. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Who mentioned anything about your financial status? I said you would have had a choice (no care, some care, more care...the choice is yours) or IF you were under a certain level of income the government would have forked the bill. That's what Medicaid does.
 
Usf97j4x4 said:
As a 20 year old laborer in America you're looking at about $90 a month for substantial coverage. A fraction of that if you're just seeking coverage for catastrophic events.
Click to expand...

Great! $90/month to run the risk of being automatically precluded from coverage, or face retroactively paying my premiums based on ridiculous prerequisites. I'll take the free option, de nada.
 
J. Peterman said:
Who mentioned anything about your financial status? I said you would have had a choice (no care, some care, more care...the choice is yours) or IF you were under a certain level of income the government would have forked the bill. That's what Medicaid does.
Click to expand...

And I told you that choice is relatively defined by socioeconomic status, as you alluded to. Your assumption was that I would have been 'fine and dandy', which I assure you I would not have been.
 
Rugger said:
Ever heard of Social Democracy?.........yeah.....
Click to expand...

To clarify:

Social democracy is a political ideology that emerged in the late 19th century out of the socialist movement.[1] Modern social democracy advocates the formation of a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices.[2] This is unlike socialism in the traditional sense, which aims to end the predominance of the capitalist system, or in the Marxist sense which aims to replace it entirely. Instead, social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs and organizations which work to ameliorate or remove injustices they see in the capitalist market system. "Social democracy" is also used to refer to the particular kind of society that social democrats advocate. While some consider social democracy a moderate type of socialism, others, defining socialism in the traditional or Marxist sense, reject that designation.
Click to expand...

I.e., it is not Socialism. Common mistake - or deliberate confusion.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
And I told you that choice is relatively defined by socioeconomic status, as you alluded to. Your assumption was that I would have been 'fine and dandy', which I assure you I would not have been.
Click to expand...

And you know this how?

(since my wife had 2 brothers covered form car accidents in the last 3 years)
 
J. Peterman said:
And you know this how?

(since my wife had 2 brothers covered form car accidents in the last 3 years)
Click to expand...

Apparently your wife is quite unlucky.

Given my economic status at the time, and the plans alluded to by US above, the medical expense limit would have been far surpassed by myself. With internal bleeding, several major bones broken and extensive therapy, my hospital stay was several weeks - several. Compounded by several months of adjacent physical therapy tied to the accident, these spiffy $90/month student plans would not have covered me. And, surprise surprise, my permanent part-time, easily disposable work would not have afforded for me to have comprehensive coverage.

On average (non-specific care, no surgeries, casts, x-rays, and so on) the cost of one night in the hospital is $2000. I spent about 95 days, seeing several specialists and undertaking physiotherapy.

I'm always taken aback at your surprise that the U.S. Healthcare system is broken; even Bill O'Reilly can admit as such.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
Apparently your wife is quite unlucky.
Click to expand...


She has 5 brothers, so its really not that bad :)

Given my economic status at the time, and the plans alluded to by US above, the medical expense limit would have been far surpassed by myself. With internal bleeding, several major bones broken and extensive therapy, my hospital stay was several weeks - several.
Click to expand...

Yes, they did as well with one suffering brain trauma in which he is still getting treatment for to this day.

I can send you pictures of the remnants of the car is you wish..whats left of it.

Compounded by several months of adjacent physical therapy tied to the accident, these spiffy $90/month student plans would not have covered me.
Click to expand...

$90/month is not a student plan. If you went with a standard personal plan you would have been covered. Now you can either pay more or less based on how much you want your deductible to be..if any.

[/quote]And, surprise surprise, my permanent part-time, easily disposable work would not have afforded for me to have comprehensive coverage.
[/quote]

You are not bound to that coverage. You simply have the choice to do as you please in terms of private coverage.



I'm always taken aback at your surprise that the U.S. Healthcare system is broken; even Bill O'Reilly can admit as such.
Click to expand...


I am always taken aback that you generalize about all coverage and what we actually pay for when you are not even here. TO say that the healthcare system could not improved would be rather foolish and I've never said its perfect. I manage my health care much more than you do so I know exactly how much I pay, exactly whats covered for 2 people. How on earth you can sit there and think you know what you would actually pay down here without ever going through any of it is pretty ridiculous.

You like you health care system. Fine, I have no problem with that but I would simply rather have a choice on my coverage and not be forced into a system run by the governemtn that has to manage 300 million people. I simply don't trust they can do it better than me.
 
J. Peterman said:
She has 5 brothers, so its really not that bad :)

Yes, they did as well with one suffering brain trauma in which he is still getting treatment for to this day.

I can send you pictures of the remnants of the car is you wish..whats left of it.
Click to expand...

No thanks. I have my own collection of pictures with the grill of a semi-truck where my head was. :thumbsup:

$90/month is not a student plan. If you went with a standard personal plan you would have been covered. Now you can either pay more or less based on how much you want your deductible to be..if any.

You are not bound to that coverage. You simply have the choice to do as you please in terms of private coverage.
Click to expand...

Odd you say that, because most Standard Personal Plans offer only 50% coverage after deductible for non-emergency, outpatient visits; even then, only about 20 per coverage. Myself, I underwent months of physiotherapy, and chiropractic visits, and - as I mentioned initially - I would not have been able to afford this.

I am always taken aback that you generalize about all coverage and what we actually pay for when you are not even here. TO say that the healthcare system could not improved would be rather foolish and I've never said its perfect. I manage my health care much more than you do so I know exactly how much I pay, exactly whats covered for 2 people. How on earth you can sit there and think you know what you would actually pay down here without ever going through any of it is pretty ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I was actually contemplating a move to the U.S., for Law School, and given my unlucky accident history, did a fair amount of research. However, I suppose I do generalize - much in the same way you generalize about the quality of care of the Canadian system without knowing anything about it.

You like you health care system. Fine, I have no problem with that but I would simply rather have a choice on my coverage and not be forced into a system run by the governemtn that has to manage 300 million people. I simply don't trust they can do it better than me.
Click to expand...

And I would rather sacrifice some of my personal freedoms for the assurance that I will never be precluded from coverage, kicked out of a hospital, be denied transplants based on previous medical history, or my personal favorite, be bankrupted by my medical bills.

However, most of your points are fair though. We simply have an ideological disagreement at this point.
 
Liberty or security. The US chose Liberty and you can't have both as your primary ideal. You want a nanny state? Move to Canada. You want personal responsibility? Stay in the US. Sounds like a no brainer to me.
 
Rugger said:
yeah, he is a socialist. Fits the modern definition almost perfectly.
Click to expand...


I agree. He is a socialist- he is an advocate of socialism. He wants to raise the taxes on so many things- including people's inheritance! How is it right to take someones inheritance?- IMO that is screwed up.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
No thanks. I have my own collection of pictures with the grill of a semi-truck where my head was. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Pics!

j/k


Odd you say that, because most Standard Personal Plans offer only 50% coverage after deductible for non-emergency, outpatient visits; even then, only about 20 per coverage. Myself, I underwent months of physiotherapy, and chiropractic visits, and - as I mentioned initially - I would not have been able to afford this.
Click to expand...

Once again, I find it odd how you can state what most coverage plans are without actually searching for them actively like I did when I purchased mine. The above as you describe are options, not mandatory.

I know this ios tough for you to beleive, but there is affordable health care insurance out there that will cover everything you describe. It simply is a fact.

I was actually contemplating a move to the U.S., for Law School, and given my unlucky accident history, did a fair amount of research. However, I suppose I do generalize - much in the same way you generalize about the quality of care of the Canadian system without knowing anything about it.
Click to expand...

I havne't talked about Canadian helathcare in a while and would be the first to admit that I, as an AMerian citizen, would probably not understand it as much as you do. Its a reach, but bear with me! ;)


And I would rather sacrifice some of my personal freedoms for the assurance that I will never be precluded from coverage, kicked out of a hospital, be denied transplants based on previous medical history, or my personal favorite, be bankrupted by my medical bills.
Click to expand...

Once again, with the proper coverage and due diligence, the above simply can be avoided. I would rather have my freedom.


However, most of your points are fair though. We simply have an ideological disagreement at this point.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
 
babywifey said:
I agree. He is a socialist- he is an advocate of socialism. He wants to raise the taxes on so many things- including people's inheritance! How is it right to take someones inheritance?- IMO that is screwed up.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make him a socialist, but many other things bring him as close to being an outright socialist as any presidential candidate has ever been.

Mullet- First of all, I don't think wikipedia is quite the appropriate source for political theory, but I'll quote a line from the quote you posted, maybe you missed this part
While some consider social democracy a moderate type of socialism, others, defining socialism in the traditional or Marxist sense, reject that designation.
Click to expand...

So it is and it isn't. Obama fits social democracy like a glove, and since many consider social democracy modern socialism, he is therefore a socialist to many. Redistribution is pretty much the flagship of modern state socialism, also.
 
Rugger said:
That doesn't make him a socialist, but many other things bring him as close to being an outright socialist as any presidential candidate has ever been.

Mullet- First of all, I don't think wikipedia is quite the appropriate source for political theory, but I'll quote a line from the quote you posted, maybe you missed this part


So it is and it isn't. Obama fits social democracy like a glove, and since many consider social democracy modern socialism, he is therefore a socialist to many. Redistribution is pretty much the flagship of modern state socialism, also.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. But rather than delineate from Marx's major works - and limited therein in respects to specific political structures - on the subject of the politicization of public capital (Private Property and Communism, Capital [particularly the III edition] and Preface to a Contribution of the Critique of Political Capital) I chose Wikipedia - assuming your knowledge level.

However, if you want me to describe all the ways in which you are completely incorrect and misinterpreting Socialist Doctrine, I can! I'm not really afforded that opportunity too often on BB Forums.

Let me speak with brevity here: You are wrong. Obama is not a Socialist, not even close.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
No, it's not. But rather than delineate from Marx's major works - and limited therein in respects to specific political structures - on the subject of the politicization of public capital (Private Property and Communism, Capital [particularly the III edition] and Preface to a Contribution of the Critique of Political Capital) I chose Wikipedia - assuming your knowledge level.

However, if you want me to describe all the ways in which you are completely incorrect and misinterpreting Socialist Doctrine, I can! I'm not really afforded that opportunity too often on BB Forums.

Let me speak with brevity here: You are wrong. Obama is not a Socialist, not even close.
Click to expand...

Give me your address. I have a 45 page seminar paper on how Obama is a modern socialist and a poster child for social democracy.

I wouldn't mind you explaining to me, however, how Obama isn't a supporter of social democracy and therefore a socialist TO SOME PEOPLE. Always interesting hearing other angles. I can obviously see to myself what the major reasons are that he isn't a classical socialist so you don't need to go there.
 
Rugger said:
Give me your address. I have a 45 page seminar paper on how Obama is a modern socialist and a poster child for social democracy.

I wouldn't mind you explaining to me, however, how Obama isn't a supporter of social democracy and therefore a socialist TO SOME PEOPLE. Always interesting hearing other angles. I can obviously see to myself what the major reasons are that he isn't a classical socialist so you don't need to go there.
Click to expand...

Ooh, please do! After we compare E-Penises, I can send you several hundred, dry pages of Marxist dialogue I completed for my Honors Thesis and Degree! Please, one 45 page paper is not impressive nor intimidating; you could have written a book, but you are still missing the fundamental premise: Social Democracy is not Socialism. Further, the entire slant of the U.S., Political Spectrum is to the relative "right". Norway, Finland, Canada, these are 'Social Democracies'. Even the most 'leftist' American, major elected official is considered conservative by these rubrics.

However, after I read the 45 page paper, I can continuing explaining to you how Social Democracy and Socialism are independent, though interrelated political idioms; specifically, the privatization of capital within Social Democracy automatically precludes it from being considered "Socialist": And, therein, any practitioner identifying him and/or herself with that idiom is necessarily not Socialist, either.

If you cannot find it within yourself to separate Socialism from Social Democracy, so be it.
 
Where did I say they were the same? I might have forgotten that I wrote that somewhere. I didn't mean to mention a 45 page paper to be intimidating either, I was honestly offering it to you.

Ps- as a bonus, did you know Barack Obama was a marxist activist in college and that he has publicly campaigned for bernie sanders in recent years? Or maybe how he attended several DSA functions and fundraisers while he was living in Chicago?
 
Rugger said:
Where did I say they were the same? I might have forgotten that I wrote that somewhere. I didn't mean to mention a 45 page paper to be intimidating either, I was honestly offering it to you.

Ps- as a bonus, did you know Barack Obama was a marxist activist in college and that he has publicly campaigned for bernie sanders in recent years?
Click to expand...

Your exact words:

Oh and about the Obama comment, yeah, he is a socialist
Click to expand...

You then went on to delineate your position on his Social Democratic stance. Very ambiguous. So, do you think he is a Social Democrat or a Socialist?
 
I thought I said it here
I wouldn't mind you explaining to me, however, how Obama isn't a supporter of social democracy and therefore a socialist TO SOME PEOPLE.
Click to expand...

and

since many consider social democracy modern socialism, he is therefore a socialist to many
Click to expand...
 
Rugger said:
I thought I said it here


and
Click to expand...

Or, in other words - After I mentioned Social Democracy and Socialism are not one in the same, you changed your position. Your original statement was that Obama is/was a Socialist; with no mention, you then switched it. Got it.

Obama is a Social Democrat to certain degrees, though not in others; unequivocally however, he is not a Socialist.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
So, do you think he is a Social Democrat or a Socialist?
Click to expand...


I consider them to be the same thing on many levels. I have said I don't consider him to be a traditional socialist, but still a socialist.

and as I have said before, many people consider social democracy to be a form of socialism. Simply because you believe it isn't doesn't make it untrue. There are many out there who think it is. With that said there are obviously major differences between the two that make Obama far from a socialist in the classical/traditional/marxist view, and there are obviously plenty of people out there that don't believe social democracy has anything to do with socialism. But you must admit, as I see you have, that they do share some framework.

Mulletsoldier said:
Or, in other words - After I mentioned Social Democracy and Socialism are not one in the same, you changed your position. Your original statement was that Obama is/was a Socialist; with no mention, you then switched it. Got it.

Obama is a Social Democrat to certain degrees, though not in others; unequivocally however, he is not a Socialist.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't change my position. I still think he is a socialist as I explained, but since you were pointing out how social democracy is not the same as socialism I tried to explain how I and others believe it is, or at least closely related, and therefore he is a socialist.
 
Rugger said:
I consider them to be the same thing on many levels. I have said I don't consider him to be a traditional socialist, but still a socialist.

and as I have said before, many people consider social democracy to be a form of socialism. Simply because you believe it isn't doesn't make it untrue. There are many out there who think it is. With that said there are obviously major differences between the two that make Obama far from a socialist in the classical/traditional/marxist view, and there are obviously plenty of people out there that don't believe social democracy has anything to do with socialism. But you must admit, as I see you have, that they do share some framework.
Click to expand...

SD borrows from Marxism and later expounding of Socialist Doctrine certain characteristics, but to believe they are on in the same displays an inadequate understanding of one - or both - stances. 'Mixed market' economics are not Socialist tactics, nor is the fundamental goal of an SD party to obtain any form of Socialism. Most Academic Marxists I know resoundingly reject SD as a form of Socialism.

As well, you are mistakingly characterizing SD as 'modern Socialism', while it is not. Neo-Marxist dialogue has reinvented itself to encompass more ideologies than reversing the privatization of Capital, in order to remain socially relevant; Marx's biggest shortcoming was ironically his strength: Often attenuating the romantic and spontaneous nature of the individual-agent driven economy in order to differentiate himself from the Utopian Socialists of his time.

At any rate, to assume they are the same is a grave misunderstanding of both doctrines, IMO.

No, I didn't change my position. I still think he is a socialist as I explained, but since you were pointing out how social democracy is not the same as socialism I tried to explain how I and others believe it is, or at least closely related, and therefore he is a socialist.
Click to expand...

Closely related does not equal Socialism. As I said, if you believe Barack Obama is a Socialist, you are not fully reconciling your position with the definition of the term.
 
to believe they are on in the same displays an inadequate understanding of one - or both
Click to expand...

I don't believe I said they were one in the same. Maybe I did somewhere, though.

Most Academic Marxists I know resoundingly reject SD as a form of Socialism.
Click to expand...
I can't say I know more than 1 academic marxist so I'll believe you on this one.

If you want to send me your thesis I'd love to read it.
 
Rugger said:
I don't believe I said they were one in the same. Maybe I did somewhere, though.
Click to expand...

Please, please tell me you are kidding.

I consider them to be the same thing on many levels. I have said I don't consider him to be a traditional socialist, but still a socialist.

and as I have said before, many people consider social democracy to be a form of socialism. Simply because you believe it isn't doesn't make it untrue. There are many out there who think it is. With that said there are obviously major differences between the two that make Obama far from a socialist in the classical/traditional/marxist view, and there are obviously plenty of people out there that don't believe social democracy has anything to do with socialism. But you must admit, as I see you have, that they do share some framework.
Click to expand...

I am not trying to be rude, but do you read what you type? As I have said several times, they do not share the same conceptual framework; if you believe they do, you either do not understand Socialism or you do not understand SD.

I have also seen you make mention to SD as "Modern Socialism", which could not be further from the truth - on many levels. If we are speaking about Social Democracy in Britain and Canada circa 1890-1950, then your point is relevant; if we are speaking about present day Scandanavia, your point begins to fizzle but yet retains some strength; if you we are talking about SD relevant to modern-day America (which we are), your point is completely moot.

I can't say I know more than 1 academic marxist so I'll believe you on this one.
Click to expand...

And you are trying to debate the merits of SD in comparison to Socialism with me? I would suggest some further reading dude, and that is no disrespect intended. How much research and reading - in your honest and fair opinion - would you say you have completed on Socialism and/or Socialist Derivatives and/or Marxism?

If you want to send me your thesis I'd love to read it.
Click to expand...

Which one? I have done several on the subject.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
Please, please tell me you are kidding.



I am not trying to be rude, but do you read what you type? As I have said several times, they do not share the same conceptual framework; if you believe they do, you either do not understand Socialism or you do not understand SD.

I have also seen you make mention to SD as "Modern Socialism", which could not be further from the truth - on many levels. If we are speaking about Social Democracy in Britain and Canada circa 1890-1950, then your point is relevant; if we are speaking about present day Scandanavia, your point begins to fizzle but yet retains some strength; if you we are talking about SD relevant to modern-day America (which we are), your point is completely moot.



And you are trying to debate the merits of SD in comparison to Socialism with me? I would suggest some further reading dude, and that is no disrespect intended. How much research and reading - in your honest and fair opinion - would you say you have completed on Socialism and/or Socialist Derivatives and/or Marxism?



Which one? I have done several on the subject.
Click to expand...


consider them to be the same thing on many levels
Click to expand...
THat is not saying they are the same thing.

Dude, the original quote you posted about social democracy said that many consider it the be socialistic. It's not just me.

I'd like to read all of your major works. I'm sure I"ll have some questions later in the semester for you when I have to write this terms major paper. You seem to know your stuff.
 
Rugger said:
THat is not saying they are the same thing.

Dude, the original quote you posted about social democracy said that many consider it the be socialistic. It's not just me.

I'd like to read all of your major works. I'm sure I"ll have some questions later in the semester for you when I have to write this terms major paper. You seem to know your stuff.
Click to expand...

Snail mail address? I do not keep writing on computers, because of their notorious reputation for crashing!
 
I don't want in this but wouldn't it be easier on the both of you if u agrred he was a marxist, because his philosophical basis rests in the writings of Marx (notwithstanding its various incarnations and or more specific definitions), and not in the philosophical precepts of laissez-faire economics and representative republic governance with a ultimate regard for individual liberty as established by Jefferson, Madison and Jay? and.......


Mulletsoldier National Healthcare isn't free. A people must allow a government the authority to steal the capital of one minority group or another to pay for it. I for one don't think any governmental body should have the confiscatory authority to do that.


Have fun gents.
 
dave12 said:
Mulletsoldier National Healthcare isn't free. A people must allow a government the authority to steal the capital of one minority group or another to pay for it. I for one don't think any governmental body should have the confiscatory authority to do that.
Click to expand...

You're kidding? I had no idea a Social Welfare/Social Democratic/Socialist Governmental body's role was to expropriate privately generated capital in order to fund institutions of public interest.

As well, Obama's specific political and philosophical inclinations do not affect the interrelatedness of Social Democracy and Socialism; I was pointing out the characteristics of each overarching idiom, not Obama's stance. However, if we were to discuss his stance, labeling him a Marxist is incorrect; I often find this mislabeling more prevalent with Americans than any other nationality (no offense intended). As Marxist doctrine never gained a true foothold - so to speak - in American Academic Culture, its definition is often muddied and misunderstood. To be specific, Obama no doubt concerns himself with equalizing the productive and consumptive aspects of economy via governmental reform (class struggle), and obviously propagates a religion of liberation (all the change blah blah in his speeches), but such is not Marxism: Nor does studying under a class-struggle influenced theological community make one a Marxist.

Obama's incorrect labeling as a "Marxist" notwithstanding, that label itself has become to overarching, too politicized, and incorrectly used far too often.
 
What's scary is that if elected as POTUS, unless I'm missing something, as commander in chief, Obama may be able slyly restructure the military's budget to accommodate these SOCIALIST programs. So he may not even need to go through congress to make these programs happen. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

$40 an hour?! That is insane. That's way more than construction workers and skilled laborers could ever think about making, for students who have often no marketable skills. Government should not be in this business. If a non-profit wants to do these types of programs, no issues, but not government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top