The theory is flawed in that in order for it to work something has to be taken from somebody that earned it and given to someone that didn't.

^ That and it just never works. If it did I'm sure we'd see alot more nations using it then there currently are. Its a too-good-to-be-true theory that crashes and burns over time.

And if the end result benefits everybody?

And exactly which nations do you think "use socialism?" You aren't allowed to look on Wikipedia.

Canada for one uses socialized medicine, which is why we get like half of their population buying perscriptions here in the US.


IF it worked. It doesn't work long enough for there to -be- and end result. Thats the problem.

Vote absentee! That's exactly the sort of situation that system was designed for. Sure, takes some of the fun out of it, but it gets your vote in.

I will definitely be voting for Obama. I've been waiting for him to run since I first saw him speak. Kerry I supported because he was the candidate most in line with my views, but Obama I actually like. I admit I was lax about reading up on the actual substance of his positions beyond just what I heard on TV and in the papers, but I have now and I have a hard time finding anything in there I disagree with. Sure, he could be more in line with my views by being more liberal on certain social issues, but I understand that not everyone agrees with me and Obama doesn't have to either. He also has to appeal to a broad range of voters.

TL;DR: Yes.

It's the other way around. US pharmaceutical companies **** everyone in the *** so hard people go North to get cheaper medicine.

Anyway, I don't know enough about socialism to properly support some of its aspects. But I'm sure someone like Mort-Hog will come along, put up a really good argument to which you all respond with "hurr kill dhem reds" like just about every other thread on socialism.

And half our population buys prescriptions there. Oh what a tangled web we weave.

I thought it was the opposite. That Americans go to Canada to buy cheap drugs and Canadians that can afford it come to America to get decent healthcare.

I guess it depends on who you talk to.

From what I understand its a mighty long wait to receive any kind of medical attention in Canada.



Thats what I mean. I'm not talking price of drugs, I'm talking about the whole healthcare system in general.

No, more like American consumers subsidize the rest of the worlds cheap drugs.

I've seen people taking advantage of the government, and milking their free ride for all it's worth. It disgusts me.

One thing I like about Obama's healthcare plan is that he supports a healthcare plan that covers the necessities - diabetic supplies for diabetics, enough to cover things for broken arms - stuff that people actually need, while avoiding being overambitious in trying to provide complete coverage for things like chemotherapy or nuerosurgery.

No, my mother is the most liberal person I know. She makes you look like Rush.

Now, an important detail; do not mistake non-support for Obama as support for McCain. I don't like having a choice between left and left.

Now, if you want an even more specific issue on why I don't like Obama - recall that he gave a speech about 'baby mommas'. He has elevated single motherhood on some sort of pedestal, like it's a situation to be desired. Our society already devalues fathers and reveres single mothers. We don't need our highest officer glamorizing the lack of the father in the home.

Also, he's pro-abortion.

I would say that things such as his speech about absent black fathers and how their absence weakens the family contradicts your impression, JM.

I'll admit there are some aspects of socialism that does indeed benefit a society. A purely capitalist society would probably end up eating it's own young if it meant either making a buck or getting ahead of the competitor.

However, I remain in large a capitalist. I believe in the competitive nature of a (mostly) unregulated market. Like it or not, the lure of profit does motivate to develop newer and better goods. Monopolies/oligopolies do nothing to the overall invention and better goods produced and those should be eliminated. No one likes the Yankees or Patriots continually winning (except fans of said teams) because it gets dull, boring, and predictable. Same thing about monopolistic companies. Dull, boring, and predictable.

However, I think the U.S. Government is much to bloated and inefficient to manage more of a socialistic society. If more accountability and efficiency were in place, perhaps we could pull it off, but right now as I see it. Congress just gives out the money and is squandered. If we're gonna increase the role of government, start at the local level. That way, I can literally walk to city hall and ***** at the mayor/council for being ****-heads and pissing my $$ away. Also, the government needs to compete with the private sector.

Yes.

That's like being the tallest midget. American mainstream politics are exclusively capitalist. In virtually any other Western democracy -- the ones where actual socialist parties have a voice in government -- Obama would be dead center or maybe center-left.



There are quite a few wealthy, industrialized nations that employ redistribution and social programs far more comprehensive than anything Obama intends to do. If we're going to insist on calling Obama a socialist, surely we have to admit that his brand of "socialism" hasn't exactly been crippling for anyone.

I absolutely don't understand why people call Obama a socialist.

That said, I'm not sure I'm voting for him. I was really excited about him in the beginning, but some of the things he's done recently leave me a little disappointed. Although, my vote won't really matter, because I live in Arizona, which is not only a republican state, but is the home to the republican candidate. So Obama has a very little chance at winning... I might just vote Green or for Nader, as should all of you who don't want to pick.

Soooooo..... seems like there's a few people who wants to elect someone who doesn't even know how to use a computer. GG.

I'm not voting for Obama and I'm sure as hell not voting for McSame.

i dint say equal, i said equitable. as in fair comparison. naturally a high school with 200 students doesn't need as much as a high school with 2000 students. but the funding they receive should be proportionate to the needs of the students.

if schools were funded to the needs of the students, they would be far along towards being equal. attitudes/philosophy of teachers is hard to control, but the resources available to them are not.

the no child left behind act gives more funding to the schools which perform best on standardized tests. to me this seems backwards, the schools which perform poorest on the tests are obviously lacking resources, so why should they be punished by revoking their funding?

Yes.

I'm gonna find a way too.

So, you don't like Obama... because he sympathizes with the hardships experienced by single mothers in America?

Which specific speech are you referring to?

Classy touch with the 'baby mommas' remark, by the way.

But as a police officer you see a disproportionate number of the worst kind of people. Yes, there are people who abuse the system, but it's nowhere near as many as use the system how it was intended to be used.

I was actually saying that I believe charisma is extremely important, by this I also include truly listening to opposing arguments and getting along with people who make big decisions. In a lot of ways, there's only so much Obama could mess up even if I thought his economic policies were bad. But if you had him as a president the rest of the world would suddenly respect the US a whole lot more, don't you wish you could feel the love even for just 4 years?

I went to a D rated school, and we had more than enough funding. During my four years in high school there was only one class in which I ever had books that were any older than a year or two. Every class room had some computers, and every department had a rolling cabinet full of 30 Toshiba laptops that a class could use.

Unrelated to funding from test scores, our high school and just about every other one in Florida received massive amounts of money to build stuff. My school constructed 3 huge, state of the art 2 story buildings, a new gym, and completely renovated the main building; effectively doubling the size of the school, reducing class sizes, and making every classroom completely modern. Its been a D school for at least the past 8 years, and is once again this year (I just graduated).

The best way to illustrate that fact that throwing money at problems doesn't always fix them is TASK. The state government decided that since this school had 2,000 students, a massive campus, and more than enough resources yet still doesn't make the grade, something should be done. In my sophomore year they instituted TASK, which is a bull-ogna acronym for something that would somewhere else be called 'home room'. Once a week we met with our TASK group of about 20 students, and did nothing besides make occasion arts and crafts, watch ridiculous videos on things like bus safety, and receive free high-lighters, folders, and lame school T-shirts.

TL;DR? Some schools are just mediocre, and some are situated in bad areas. Giving the school extra money usually doesn't help, especially if they waste it on things like newer computers that are rarely ever used and do the same thing as the computers before them, I.E. Word, Powerpoint, and the internet to copy things to appear on said powerpoint.

[I have no idea what Obama actually says about education.]

Maybe dealing with those actually benefiting from socialist policies have jaded us.

For the past three years I've been working in hospitals in The Bronx, NY and before that I worked in Santa Anna, CA, a similar low income area. Although I will admit that I see a small section of the population, the abuses I've seen infuriates me.

The government already provides all needed services for basically a nigh-useless class of people who do nothing but eat, sleep, and breed. They use their government checks to buy "bling" and the newest cell phones yet they can't afford multivitamins, so we give them prescriptions for them. Yes, I hand out "prescriptions" for tylenol and centrum because they "can't afford it".

People have five to seven kids, of which they don't pay attention to. The goverment doting over them (giving shelter, food, utilities, complete child and healthcare) lets them not really care about anything, other than the instant gratification of drugs and sex (of which we then pay for their methadone and therapy). Meanwhile, their kids don't have any guidance or any reason to not follow their parents and go down the same damned path. It's like a cycle. This is not me speaking from an armchair. This is me right there, each and every day with these people.

The thing is they aren't stupid. They aren't bad people. They just have no reason to care, and I can't blame them. If you take basic motivation away from people, they become god damned lazy. Unless I'm mistaken, socialism is a-ok with all of this. It certainly doesn't seem conservative.

I'm a cashier at Publix, and its not uncommon for folks to buy lobster tails and king crab legs with food stamps.

Or to have a family with 5 or six kids on WIC. The real kicker though is when none of them speak English and the parents aren't married, because that way if I do manage to read their bull**** handwriting, I have no way to tell if the check actually belongs to them since more often than not the person with the check has a different last name than the name on their WIC card.

Canada doesn't have private healthcare?

Obama is no where near being a socialist.

I'm not because I'm british (and all 3 of our parties are crap)

Monster Raving Looney?

Try to never expect the world of any political candidate.

Extremism is bad. A balance between capitalism and socialism is possible, (and really was part of a number of the capitalist formers' original goal. Please read the original papers on French capitalism and their discussion of the poor, monopolies, and the dangers involved with capitalism. You people constantly talk as if socialism is a pure evil while our capitalist system ****s us in the ******* daily. A middle ground between the two ensures the most healthy standard of living while ensuring the most successful economy.

Have you been living under a rock?

I'm not from your country/continent.

Also everywhere that has national healthcare still has a private system.

I know I'm picking on you =P

I'll be voting for Obama because he has far and away the best and most forward thinking technology and science policies, and won't further the ridiculous fundie bullsh*t that keeps us from getting anywhere. These grandiose ideas of "He'll turn america into stalinist Russia" are just absurd, he just doesn't have that kind of power. However, through appointments in Commerce, Trade and, to a lesser extent, Homeland Security, he can push forward effective science / technology grants and keep stuff like net neutrality the way most of us interweb users would like.

Or maybe it is simply a system being run by people with no idea of how a socialist system actually should work (or without the support to fully implement it). In a capitalist system, poverty creates poverty and the only way to break that cycle is to level the playing field, redistribute wealth and give everyone the same opportunities at success (rather than having 80% of the wealth controlled by 10% of the population).
The argument that 'the poor are poor because they're lazy!!' is itself an incredibly lazy, simple (and very 19th century, how conservative do you want to be o borgeious tophat-wearing factory owner?!) perspective that is simply ludicruous. Maybe for a tiny minority, but poverty is the best deterrant for 'laziness'. When you have to work three minimum-wage jobs just to pay rent, you'll certainly appreciate the socialist concept of a 'minimum wage'.

Laissez-faire capitalism is simply an incredibly unstable system, and anyone with a basic knowledge of economics will appreciate this; the economy is kept stable by taxation and it is necessary for the government to provide essential services. Even the most conservative politician will never dismantle most of the socialist principles we already have in place, and are in place in pretty much every economy in the world.

I am very glad that I live in a country where I have the right to free healthcare. It isn't a privelidge for those with insurance, I don't have to worry about how much it will cost when I'm nearly dying, it is a right that I have. And you don't. A socialist system gives me rights I could not have under a fully privatised system (as I still have the right to fund my own healthcare privately, if I so wish). And everyone has this right.

Is it conservative? Hell no. It certainly isn't trying to be. Socialism is trying to be progressive, to extend more rights to everyone and to move society upwards.