All I can claim is what I read in their policies.

I don't know why you seem to think socialism is such a swear word.
You have many socialist programs working for you at this moment, things such as police departments, fire dept's, schools, insurance plans, water and sewer to name a few.

If you think that I'm going to be offended, you're crazier than Whiplash Willy.

PS: I truly wish Obama were a socialist...but he ain't.

The powers of our federal government are established in our constitution. Socialists would prefer to change our founding documents for their own personal agendas. Keep in mind most of the services you mention are not provided by Washington but instead by the states or local governments. Insurance plans on the other hand are sold by private companies.

It was never my intention to offend, I apologise if I have.

As far as Obama goes, he was asked if he was a socialist and was unable to give a straight answer. Go figure...

First, no apology necessary. Thank you for offering, that was very decent of you.

If you read Howard Zinn's book 'A People's History of the United States' you might be very surprised to learn some of the social and socialist history America really has.

Socialist programs don't have to originate federally. Anything that is funded communally in city and state legislation is social spending.
When public money is involved to fund a public utility, it is socialism.

Insurance, while provided by private means, spreads the risks over the entire base of customers, thereby socializing the risks.
Those not making claims against their insurer are covering the costs of those who do.

There's nothing frightening for regular citizens in the concept of socialism.
The pampered elites have spent decades creating fear of the word in the minds of working people because they know that when an industry or service is socialized, there is no longer a chance to profit from it.

I really can't think of anything that would be worse for us by socializing it.
Healthcare...how are your premiums at the present time? Too high for many people to afford in America.

How are your electric rates? In British Columbia, where power production was socialized almost 50 years ago, we have the second lowest rates in Canada if not all of North America.
The lowest rates are in Quebec. Guess what...state owned power production there too.

All socializing does is remove the massive profit motives and this allows the profits that do arise to be used for further public spending.
Why not take the earnings from the sales of electricity and put them toward road maintenance?

That's all that socialism is.

The main problem I see with gov't involvement in the US is that it is inherently slow and burdensome. Probably intentionally so. Social programs shouldn't be humiliating or humbling.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Amazing! As a half of a retired couple, we live very comfortabley on less than our pensions. And bank about a thousand a month in tax sheltered accounts. And one of us doesn't get a cent from Social security as he was a civilian employee of UNCLE SAM!.

We saved almost from day one. Never failed to pay plastic in full. If we didn't have a source of payment, we didn't spend the money. Simple.

We always saved money for car replacement (we wear them out first) before the need. Bad for the loan sharks, but good for out money balance.

None of this depends on who we vote for or desire in office.

Where does a minimum wage enter this? It doesn't! One can't survive and save at that wage level. And those who are without any jobs.... Welfare won't cut the mustard for even marginal survival.

That about forty million or so in US have no medical insurance is inexcusable. That is about the population of Canada where every one iw coverd! Including visitors. And drugs are much lower cost there too!

I suppose the question would be...what kind of society do you want to live in and pass on to your children?

You can have a dog eat dog society where a few get lucky and become wealthy.
These are the ones held up as the great example of the American dream, but the reality is that the majority of those with great wealth were born into it.

The rest are relegated to a life of insufficient healthcare, lack of union protections in the workplace and corporate control over basic services that we all need and use.

I prefer to live in a society where I am safe in the knowledge that my fellow citizens care enough about everyone to ensure that they all have healthcare, protections in the workplace and socialization of essential services.

The main problem I see with gov't involvement in the US is that it is inherently slow and burdensome. Probably intentionally so. Social programs shouldn't be humiliating or humbling.

You have all watched as a steady stream of republican neo-con corporatists have run for office saying government doesn't work for the people.
Then they get elected and work hard at running government into the ground.

Remember what that Grover Norquist (I think I got the spelling wrong) said:
"Our goal is to shrink government to the point where we can drown it in a bathtub."

This is the type of person who has been participating in government.
No wonder it seems that your government can't do anything right. It isn't being allowed to.
These people have an agenda and it doesn't include the interests of the citizens.

You are also dead wrong when it comes to libertarian deregulation.
Removing government regulation of industry and finance would make people like Madoff even more prone to attempt theft.

They people that do this stuff don't care about your precious regulations. They do it ANYWAY. The regulations do not prevent them from doing so because they just ignore the regulations. They just evade your precious regulations because it really is just that simple. No one goes, "Well, I was going to commit fraud and theft and embezzle 50 billion dollars and I know there are already endless laws and pages of regulation, but Congress just rammed one more at us, and therefore, I will not do it. Wow, it's a really good thing they passed that more regulation!"

It's kinda like those weak little simpletons that shot up Columbine High School, at no point did they think, "Wow, if there were just a few more laws, beyond the 30 or so we're going to break, we wouldn't do this."

As any farmer knows, you've got to keep the pigs tightly penned or they'll wander around eating everything in sight while digging up the entire farm, ruining it for all others.

The problem here is that the farmer owns those pigs and he can control those pigs. They are property.

In the real world, the gov't doesn't own the market, never had/has control over the market, and does not have control over the people in the market, who will do as they wish regardless of what you and the gov't do or think.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Insurance, while provided by private means, spreads the risks over the entire base of customers, thereby socializing the risks.
Those not making claims against their insurer are covering the costs of those who do.

Except that generally you do not have to buy insurance. If you decide that you want it, you can choose from any number of providers that best serve your needs at the price you like the best.

Your so-called "socializing the risks," does not involve the choice to participate at all. In fact, the choice to participate is generally a really really bad idea. So bad, in fact, that the gov't has to use force to make people comply.

That's the difference.

There's nothing frightening for regular citizens in the concept of socialism.
The pampered elites have spent decades creating fear of the word in the minds of working people because they know that when an industry or service is socialized, there is no longer a chance to profit from it.

I think "regular citizens" know full well what is frightening about socialism--the fact that their life, choice, and livelihood will be taken away from them, by force, at the end of a gov't gun. They will have to pay to bail out EXTRAORDINARILY RICH people at AIG and pay them their bonuses. They will have to fund the CIA and War in Iraq and corporate welfare and the DoD and an endless array of gov't boondoggles that takes away from their standard of living and gives them little return.

I really can't think of anything that would be worse for us by socializing it.

That's because you really don't put much thought into these things. There are plenty of examples of that.

Healthcare...how are your premiums at the present time? Too high for many people to afford in America.

And yet, in such a miserable place, the whole world wants to try to move here, where there is no socialized medicine. You would think that everyone here is just going die, right? Because they don't pay for health care in their taxes?

How are your electric rates? In British Columbia, where power production was socialized almost 50 years ago, we have the second lowest rates in Canada if not all of North America.
The lowest rates are in Quebec. Guess what...state owned power production there too.

All socializing does is remove the massive profit motives and this allows the profits that do arise to be used for further public spending.

Heh. Wouldn't it just be better for people to keep what they earned instead of forcing the choice on them? Because that's your dilemma: your ideas suck so bad that you have to force people to pay for them.

Nike, even with it's "massive profit motives" has never once had to stick a gov't gun in someone face and make them do something they didn't want to do--yet everything you advocate you have to force people to do. And I'll bet they blow that utility out of the water.

Why not take the earnings from the sales of electricity and put them toward road maintenance?
That's all that socialism is.

Except that it's not all that socialism is because you have to FORCE people to play along. That's the main difference between your system and mine. I wouldn't initiate force against anyone, and if they wanted to create and maintain socialist things in their lives, the would be free to. Nothing would stand in their way. No one would stop them. They could form communes, use socialized power if they so wished. Anything they wanted, AS LONG AS they did not use force to make anyone else participate.

I mean, why not let people choose to spend what they want to spend on freely without sticking a gun in their face or using the threat of prison to force them to do what you want them to do??

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

You can rationalize your greed all day long buddy...in the end it's still greed.

The greed of the wealthy, the greed of the corporatists, the greed of the wanna-be's...none of it matters.
The fact is that people have had enough of the invisible hand of the marketplace and are seeking change.

What we are facing right now is the last ditch scramble by the fascist right to break the country so there is less chance of success in trying to right the wrongs of the market profiteers.

You just keep on supporting those pigs in their efforts while I'll look forward to a pig roast.

Michael Moore says it so much better than I can...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/why-im-not-now-and-have-n_b_172410.html

You are also dead wrong when it comes to libertarian deregulation.
Removing government regulation of industry and finance would make people like Madoff even more prone to attempt theft.

They people that do this stuff don't care about your precious regulations. They do it ANYWAY. The regulations do not prevent them from doing so because they just ignore the regulations. They just evade your precious regulations because it really is just that simple. No one goes, "Well, I was going to commit fraud and theft and embezzle 50 billion dollars and I know there are already endless laws and pages of regulation, but Congress just rammed one more at us, and therefore, I will not do it. Wow, it's a really good thing they passed that more regulation!"

It's kinda like those weak little simpletons that shot up Columbine High School, at no point did they think, "Wow, if there were just a few more laws, beyond the 30 or so we're going to break, we wouldn't do this."

As any farmer knows, you've got to keep the pigs tightly penned or they'll wander around eating everything in sight while digging up the entire farm, ruining it for all others.

The problem here is that the farmer owns those pigs and he can control those pigs. They are property.

In the real world, the gov't doesn't own the market, never had/has control over the market, and does not have control over the people in the market, who will do as they wish regardless of what you and the gov't do or think.

and you want more of this by taking away regulations, that is clever, bullet proof plan, then they don´t cheat and rob. yes, that is stupid plan if any.

I love the bit about free to join a union.
Which employers, under this guy's system, would accept such a move by working people?

We'd all be free to starve to death in the dark under libertarian rule.
LOL Rush. You slay me.

Libertarians claim we'd be free to do as we wish but never mention that corporations would also be free to do as they wish.
Who wins under such a silly system? The one's with the deep pockets, that's who.

It's the party of the wealthy, for the wealthy and everything will go to the wealthy.
The lifeform spouting this must have a very low opinion of everyone's intelligence.

Even a dumbass common Joe like me can see through the garbage he promotes as freedom.

I love the bit about free to join a union.
Which employers, under this guy's system, would accept such a move by working people?

Of course, why? Because they wouldn't have any choice. You are free to associate with who you wish. As much as you wish. Or as little as you wish. Or not at all.

We'd all be free to starve to death in the dark under libertarian rule.
LOL Rush. You slay me.

Why, 'cuz yew sez so? You proclaimed it so it must be true? Though, I can see how you probably would. No one else would, any more than they do now because food is created and sold, generally very cheaply.

Libertarians claim we'd be free to do as we wish but never mention that corporations would also be free to do as they wish.

Depends on what you mean by this. They would not be free to make you buy their shoes, or sign a contract, or buy their cars, or anything else for that matter.

In actuality, the libertarians note EXPLICITLY that corporations would generally be free to do as they wish also, because a corporation is just a group of people who agree to invest in the corporation. But that doesn't mean they can initiate force against you. It just means you can choose to deal with them or not. And if they happen to go out of business, it won't cost you one dime.

Who wins under such a silly system? The one's with the deep pockets, that's who.

Why exactly is that, 'cuz yew sez so?

It's the party of the wealthy, for the wealthy and everything will go to the wealthy.
The lifeform spouting this must have a very low opinion of everyone's intelligence.

Yay, yew sezed so again!

Even a dumbass common Joe like me can see through the garbage he promotes as freedom.

Hey, look at this! You got one part of this statement correct, that's better than usual! Here, I'll repeat myself. Maybe this time you'll actually address the points being made instead of just spouting things you really really really really wish were true. Maybe this time you'll address why, if your ideas are soooo great, you won't give anyone the opportunity to opt out of your lil' plan:

Every single thing you would like to do (except initiate force against others), you could do under the system I propose. Freely. Without interference. Form all the unions you want. Join all the computer-making communes you wish. And the only gov't force you would encounter is when that force was used to protect your rights and liberties to do so. To live as you wish. You wouldn't have to support anything you didn't want to. No AIG bailouts. No LTCM bailouts. No War in Iraq. No annex the 51st State (Canada) efforts. None of it.

Conversely, under your system, you have to stick a gov't gun into nearly EVERYONE'S face to make them play along. Why? Because your system sucks so bad that no one in their right mind would go along voluntarily. And we're all gonna have to pay for war, and corporate welfare, and bailouts and nukes and all the rest of it. Yay us.

You can call that rationalization all that you wish. Call it whatever you like. But don't think many of the readers here can't see your evasiveness.

Hey, why don't you let loose on another tirade against that damn hell ass libertarian compound interest and time value of money again.

That seemed to work out really well for you last time.

Oh, wait...

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

You are also dead wrong when it comes to libertarian deregulation.
Removing government regulation of industry and finance would make people like Madoff even more prone to attempt theft.

They people that do this stuff don't care about your precious regulations. They do it ANYWAY. The regulations do not prevent them from doing so because they just ignore the regulations. They just evade your precious regulations because it really is just that simple. No one goes, "Well, I was going to commit fraud and theft and embezzle 50 billion dollars and I know there are already endless laws and pages of regulation, but Congress just rammed one more at us, and therefore, I will not do it. Wow, it's a really good thing they passed that more regulation!"

It's kinda like those weak little simpletons that shot up Columbine High School, at no point did they think, "Wow, if there were just a few more laws, beyond the 30 or so we're going to break, we wouldn't do this."

As any farmer knows, you've got to keep the pigs tightly penned or they'll wander around eating everything in sight while digging up the entire farm, ruining it for all others.

The problem here is that the farmer owns those pigs and he can control those pigs. They are property.

In the real world, the gov't doesn't own the market, never had/has control over the market, and does not have control over the people in the market, who will do as they wish regardless of what you and the gov't do or think.

and you want more of this by taking away regulations, that is clever, bullet proof plan, then they don´t cheat and rob. yes, that is stupid plan if any.

i don´t see you answering

You can rationalize your greed all day long buddy...in the end it's still greed.

The greed of the wealthy, the greed of the corporatists, the greed of the wanna-be's...none of it matters.
The fact is that people have had enough of the invisible hand of the marketplace and are seeking change.

What we are facing right now is the last ditch scramble by the fascist right to break the country so there is less chance of success in trying to right the wrongs of the market profiteers.

You just keep on supporting those pigs in their efforts while I'll look forward to a pig roast.

I think I said to the other guy (skildude?) that I love what he posts, and rest assured, I simply love what you post as well.

Not because of your weak writing, spelling, and grammar skills, but because your evasiveness highlights the weakness of your position.

Every single thing you would like to do (except initiate force against others), you could do under the system I propose. Freely. Without interference. Form all the unions you want. Join all the computer-making communes you wish. And the only gov't force you would encounter is when that force was used to protect your rights and liberties to do so. To live as you wish. You wouldn't have to support anything you didn't want to. No AIG bailouts. No LTCM bailouts. No War in Iraq. No annex the 51st State (Canada) efforts. None of it.

Conversely, under your system, you have to stick a gov't gun into nearly EVERYONE'S face to make them play along. Why? Because your system sucks so bad that no one in their right mind would go along voluntarily. And we're all gonna have to pay for war, and corporate welfare, and bailouts and nukes and all the rest of it. Yay us.

You can call that rationalization all that you wish. Call it whatever you like. But don't think many of the readers here can't see your evasiveness.

Hey, why don't you let loose on another tirade against that damn hell ass libertarian compound interest and time value of money again.

That seemed to work out really well for you last time.

Oh, wait...

would you tell us how people won´t do any fraud on your system?

still no answer, funny, don´t you have any?

I love the bit about free to join a union.
Which employers, under this guy's system, would accept such a move by working people?

Yes. The corporation would have the right to fire anyone that joined a union since there would be no regulation forcing them to abide by a union vote. There would also be no regulation forcing the corporation to abide by any contract negotian with the union either.

Medhof got caught by a regulation. In a completely Laisez Faire system, there would be no regulation that he would have broken. He would have stolen a huge amount of money by fraud, and gotten away with it.

Many of the regulations and laws we have were put there for good reason - to make the society a better place that is less amenable to crooks, frauds, and the delusional. Much of the banking regulation structure was put into place after the banks crashed at the beginning of the great depression for example. They are there for a good reason.

The law that you have to yield to a ergency vehicle is there to allow the emergency vehicle to get to an emergency of some kind faster, and so increase the likely hood of saving a life.

I have met people that claim to be Libertarians that could not see the reason for either banking laws, taxes to pay for roads (you are responsible for the road in front of your house, the farmer is responsible for the interstate at the back of his property ...), or the right of way for emergency vehicles, or traffic laws for that matter. (basically anarchists with a different name).

---

BOINC WIKI

I've been listening to the Air America and NovaM talk shows and the situation with the AIG bonuses is becoming quite a scandal.

Can you imagine having the gnads to come to the people for financial help to keep your company above water, then after receiving the handout from the people turning around and giving 165 million dollars in bonuses to the same goofs that ran the company into the ground causing the need to ask for help?

Where do the corporate pigs get the idea that the people's money is their personal property?
Where does the notion that they can do what they want come from?

Could there be a direct link between this selfish attitude and the lack of oversight during republican administrations?

Anyone who would wish for a system of government that is going to do away with regulations, oversight and responsible watchdog agencies needs to look at what happens when the foxes are permitted to guard the chicken coupe.

Only years of non-interference from government agencies could possibly create an environment where these pigs feel safe enough to attempt such a robbery.
They've been doing business with a wink and a nod from the regulatory agencies for so long that it seems quite normal to them.
These guys see nothing wrong in their actions.
It's business as usual for them.

Here's hoping that the American people get every penny of that money back and that the pigs are publicly humiliated.
Maybe even facing criminal charges.

Deregulation does nothing but encourage more of this type of behaviour.

the main problem that I see is the Chief at AIG says the bonuses are vital retaining individuals that will keeps clients happy and in reality 11 of these vital people no longer work there and are still getting bonus money.

I just don't see how corporate execs can live like this they need their bonuses!!! Especially after losing a multimillion dollar job it takes time to get into another position of responsibility where they can once again show their insight and prowess at financial technologies.

Reality- Obviously this is where a great deal of profit lands in these types of corporations instead of their people that actually do the work. and BTW do you really need to retain the captains of this shipe thats run aground?

I find it reprehensible that companies do not include clauses that indicate infractions that cause the company to collapse are cause for dismissal without pay or bonuses.

and furthermore... these so called bonuses are expected. so regardless of the quality of work or condition of the company the individuals get bonuses. This sounds like additional salary and not a bonus. Bonuses are rewards, generally for good work and behavior, not for hanging around as the ship sinks!!!

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I've been listening to the Air America and NovaM talk shows and the situation with the AIG bonuses is becoming quite a scandal.

I do not think you will get the whole story listening to progressive (liberal) radio. Just like you will not get the whole story listening to conservative radio (Rush L.).

Can you imagine having the gnads to come to the people for financial help to keep your company above water, then after receiving the handout from the people turning around and giving 165 million dollars in bonuses to the same goofs that ran the company into the ground causing the need to ask for help?

You are correct, paying those bonuses sends the wrong message and shows poor judgement. Talk about a public relations nightmare as well!

However, the mortgage meltdown owns most of the responsibility for the mess AIG is in. When the mortage backed securities became worthless, AIG was hit hard because it insures many of these assets. This does not mean AIG was not at fault, just there were other contributing factors other than the ones you mention.

Where do the corporate pigs get the idea that the people's money is their personal property?
Where does the notion that they can do what they want come from?

Where does government get the idea that the people's money should be given to corporate pigs?

Could there be a direct link between this selfish attitude and the lack of oversight during republican administrations?

And the Obama administration? It was under Obama that these funds were given to AIG without oversight as to what AIG could do with the money.

Speaking of money, how is business up there in Canada? Do people have hope for a recovery yet?

Speaking of money, how is business up there in Canada? Do people have hope for a recovery yet?

Many of the financial problems in this region of Canada are due to causes other than the melt down.
While logging has been the backbone of the local economy for decades, there have been many problems faced by the industry.
The two worst are the Pine Beetle infestation which has killed off tens of millions of trees along with the provincial government's forestry decisions which are forcing the closures of mills all around the province.

The decision to allow raw log exports has devastated communities.

We haven't had a collapse of housing as seen in the states, but prices are going down.

Being a nation that exports most of it's resources to the states, there's naturally a downturn and many people are losing their jobs.

A large segment of Canada's manufacturing base died off with the free trade agreement, so eastern provinces (mostly Ontario and Quebec) have been hurting even longer than us.