|
|
#151
10-10-2007, 05:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] pvn, you do realize that you're using the word "socialist" in a very unusual manner, yes? And that every time you use it in that way, you're going to have to stop and explain what you mean if you want be understood? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, I'm using it in a way that clearly doesn't fit with the distorted "US propaganda lexicon" that ymu accused me of using. [/ QUOTE ] Right, you're fitting it into your distorted anarchist propoganda lexicon. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] ymu was wrong to implicate the whole U.S. in that bizarre usage; it's just you, I think. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, it's a sad state of affairs here (and everywhere). Using the definition in the dictionary is "bizzare" and "propaganda". [/ QUOTE ] Your use of the word seems pretty accurate to me, but what do I know? 
|
|
#152
10-10-2007, 08:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
pvn,
This: [ QUOTE ] You're supporting centrally-planned, coercively funded activities. That makes you a socialist. [/ QUOTE ] . . . does not equal this: [ QUOTE ] 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. [/ QUOTE ] The operative part of that definition is: "the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government." That is very different than supporting one or more tax-funded government activities. But that really, really doesn't matter. Even if you could find a dictionary somewhere with a definition closer to yours (and you may well be able to), it wouldn't mean anything. Dictionaries are not arbiters of meaning. By your definition, every American Republican or Democrat is a socialist. Again, you can use the word that way if you like, but nearly everyone would object to being labeled a socialist just because they're in favor of, say, publicly financed roads. Instead of arguing about whether it's right for the state to build highways, you may tend to fall into arguments about definitions and semantics, which is pointless. Your specific usage of the word will tend to be a hindrance to discourse. Assuming the first quote here accurately reflects your understanding of "socialism": do you really not see that yours is an exceptional definition of the word? That it's almost never used that way by other people?
|
|
#153
10-10-2007, 09:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
Which dictionary are you using? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods [/ QUOTE ] Apparently, I'm using YOUR dictionary. Wow, that fits perfectly. Are you not advocating governmental adminsistration of the production and distribution of health care?
|
|
#154
10-10-2007, 09:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
By your definition, every American Republican or Democrat is a socialist. [/ QUOTE ] Yes. Like I said, it's just a matter of which things they think are most important to socialize. [ QUOTE ] Assuming the first quote here accurately reflects your understanding of "socialism": do you really not see that yours is an exceptional definition of the word? That it's almost never used that way by other people? [/ QUOTE ] It basically lines up with two different dictionary definitions. WE're not talking about capital-S Socialist party members.
|
|
#155
10-10-2007, 10:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
The operative part of that definition is: "the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government." That is very different than supporting one or more tax-funded government activities. [/ QUOTE ] Depending on the nature of and extent of the "tax-funded government activities" and the state's commitment to enjoin the compliance of the public in the participation of those activities, coupled with the coerciveness of the "tax funding" mechanism, it would make little difference if the state was not technically the 'owner' of record of the thing being 'acted upon', by its actions the state has become the de facto 'owner'. The distinction between technical 'ownership' by the state, or not, is meaningless in practice. I see little seriousness in the argument that one who advocates the 'Nationalization" of the heath care system is not, in this instance, a 'socialist' (small "s").
|
|
#156
10-11-2007, 06:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
There's a huge difference between state ownership and collective purchasing via local or national government. Banks and airlines get bailed out all the time, especially by rightwing governments, using taxpayers money. Taxes spent on roads are "investment" but if it's public transport it's "subsidy". Pure propaganda, surely?
How does state subsidy of private ventures like these make any more sense than state purchasing of universal healthcare and education. They're no less critical to a stable economic infrastructure. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
|
|
#157
10-11-2007, 06:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
There's a huge difference between state ownership and collective purchasing via local or national government. Banks and airlines get bailed out all the time, especially by rightwing governments, using taxpayers money. Taxes spent on roads are "investment" but if it's public transport it's "subsidy". Pure propaganda, surely? How does state subsidy of private ventures like these make any more sense than state purchasing of universal healthcare and education. [/ QUOTE ] Neither of them make any sense.
|
|
#158
10-11-2007, 10:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] There's a huge difference between state ownership and collective purchasing via local or national government. Banks and airlines get bailed out all the time, especially by rightwing governments, using taxpayers money. Taxes spent on roads are "investment" but if it's public transport it's "subsidy". Pure propaganda, surely? How does state subsidy of private ventures like these make any more sense than state purchasing of universal healthcare and education. [/ QUOTE ] Neither of them make any sense. [/ QUOTE ]Investment in economic infrastructure makes no sense? Why aren't you living in some tinpot dictatorship in Africa or Asia if you feel that way? Regardless, the point is that rightwing governments are happy to pump tax dollars into private industries that pay their CEOs millions for being failures, but balk at investing in education, healthcare and affordable public transport. Elected politicians favouring private business over voters' interests. Why would that be? Well, US voter turnout is abysmally low. There isn't any point when there's noone standing who will do anything to change it. The average combined income of a US couple today is less than the average income of the husband alone in the early 1970s and the gap between rich and poor is getting wider. But there's still no alternative offered to the US electorate so they mostly stay at home. I can't see how any sane person could argue that it makes more sense to pay $4,500/year on average for healthcare instead of $1,500/year on average extra tax. You like the idea of being sold expensive snake oil by largely unregulated salesmen? The first bank run for decades - something previously thought impossible in today's economic system - has just happened because of irresponsible lending to US consumers, and US consumers still want less regulation? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Like it or not, the US is heading for a huge fall due to decades of economic management. And they haven't even spent the money on improving lives for the US people - they've forced US consumers into massive debt (which is contributing to the economic crisis) so it'll really hurt when interest rates have to respond. Why aren't you all absolutely furious about it?  [ QUOTE ] http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/indic...lpict_20070917 A substantial and controlled reduction in the dollar, of perhaps 40% or more, would be the best and most effective way to bring about an orderly reduction in U.S. trade and current account deficits and lower the risks of a financial crisis. It would expand U.S. exports by making exports cheaper, and import growth would decline due to rising prices. China has prevented this adjustment from taking place by intervening in foreign exchange markets. The risks of an international financial crisis appear to be growing. China must be persuaded to stop manipulating its currency to promote trade adjustment and prevent a financial crisis and recession in the United States and world economies. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#159
10-11-2007, 10:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
I am furious about it, and I do think investment is important. I am just furious at the people who have the power and abuse it rather than the people who buy access to that power. Get rid of the first lot and the second lot won't be able to operate.
|
|
#160
10-11-2007, 11:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] There's a huge difference between state ownership and collective purchasing via local or national government. Banks and airlines get bailed out all the time, especially by rightwing governments, using taxpayers money. Taxes spent on roads are "investment" but if it's public transport it's "subsidy". Pure propaganda, surely? How does state subsidy of private ventures like these make any more sense than state purchasing of universal healthcare and education. [/ QUOTE ] Neither of them make any sense. [/ QUOTE ]Investment in economic infrastructure makes no sense? Why aren't you living in some tinpot dictatorship in Africa or Asia if you feel that way? [/ QUOTE ] So thinking that a particular type of investment is a bad idea means he thinks all investment is a bad idea? This is the standard "if you disagree with my chosen tactics, then you must disagree with my goal" argument, which is indicative of incredibly poor thought processes. If I said "investing in perpetual motion machines doesn't make any sense" would you think that I was arguing that investing in general is a bad idea?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
