It's going to be really tough for people to be proud of the USA if we elect a Socialist as our next President....

 

Here we go with the new "buzz" word again .....ooohhhh, let's all be scared!!!!!! :scared:

Here we go with the new "buzz" word again .....ooohhhh, let's all be scared!!!!!! :scared:

 

You have such an issue with the term socialist then please expain exactly why you believe that it's inaccurate.

You have such an issue with the term socialist then please expain exactly why you believe that it's inaccurate.

 

They can't, because it's true...

EKUAlum05, are the people that you know living in generational poverty? I ask that because I think it has little to do with whether or not people are conservative or liberal - it has to do with the mindset of someone that is in generational poverty.

 

No sir... Middle Class America.... which is what you find in all the areas affected by Katrina aside from the City of New Orleans, and thus why I dispute his claim that what he says go for all areas and not just NOLA.

 

It is easy to generalize New Orleans as the posterchild for Hurricane Katrina because it is a major metropolitain area and all the media coverage it received, but the fact of the matter is the majority of Katrina's wrath was felt in So. Mississippi.

EKUAlum05, are the people that you know living in generational poverty? I ask that because I think it has little to do with whether or not people are conservative or liberal - it has to do with the mindset of someone that is in generational poverty.

 

This also brings up some interesting questions:

 

Are the expectations for government relief higher for those in poverty than those in the middle class? Are those who have lived off government assistance different than those who have not? Is it fair to invest more for those in poverty in order to "bring up" their standard of living, or should the focus be more on the people who contribute to society in a working setting and do not require the government to supplement their income?

You have such an issue with the term socialist then please expain exactly why you believe that it's inaccurate.

 

Because I'd rather focus on the issues rather than use words for the purpose of trying to make one fearful without knowing the issues.

This also brings up some interesting questions:

 

Are the expectations for government relief higher for those in poverty than those in the middle class? Are those who have lived off government assistance different than those who have not? Is it fair to invest more for those in poverty in order to "bring up" their standard of living, or should the focus be more on the people who contribute to society in a working setting and do not require the government to supplement their income?

 

I don't outright disagree with what you are saying here. If you view the government as a business, then that makes perfect sense. Help those that you get the most out of. However, most people do not understand the mindset of people that have grown up in generational poverty and simply look at them as lazy and greedy.

I don't outright disagree with what you are saying here. If you view the government as a business, then that makes perfect sense. Help those that you get the most out of. However, most people do not understand the mindset of people that have grown up in generational poverty and simply look at them as lazy and greedy.

 

You bring up a valid arguement, but imy issue comes in the post-Katrina return to ways of life. On one hand you have the working class who has not complained about their relief from day one, who have a higher cost to their standard of living, and who has returned to a working environment to regain their previous income. On the other hand, you find the impoverished who has denounced the government despite receiving relief, and now continue to rely on government assistance.

 

Poverty does form a type of Social Depression, but why should they be awarded more money whereas the working class has actively pursued contributing back into the economy? Why should their criticism of the government elicit such feelings of "Government turning their backs" when others have overcame while taking less?

Because I'd rather focus on the issues rather than use words for the purpose of trying to make one fearful without knowing the issues.

 

So then you agree the title fits you just don't want anyone to know it?

 

I think that describing Obama as a Socialist is a perfect way to describe the issues:

 

He want bigger government with even more control over everything.

 

He wants to redistribute wealth.

 

He wants to start even more government entitlement programs meant to make people even more dependent on government.

 

It's much easier and much more to the point to just say socialist. I could use Marxist if you prefer.

Because I'd rather focus on the issues rather than use words for the purpose of trying to make one fearful without knowing the issues.

 

I'm quoteing this twice because you addressed why you didn't like the use of the work do describe Obama but you didn't say anything that would lead me to believe that it was an inaccurate label.

 

Maybe you have such objections to the use of the word because you are fearful that if Americans learn what I believe to be his real leanings they won't vote for him.

Because I'd rather focus on the issues rather than use words for the purpose of trying to make one fearful without knowing the issues.

 

Then your views are socialistic. This country was founded on hard work with no government assistance. With recent times we have become a country that is willing to help out people, but not to the point were government is in charge of our lives to the point freedom is lost. That is the view of the left of the Democractic Party, that is socialism, control of the economy, your money through taxation and having people dependent on government instead of theirselves.

Just a hunch, but I think that the morale of the inhabitants of this country as the economy sank into what was to become the Great Depression was probably a bit lower than it is today. Morale had to be a little low after a big part of our Pacific fleet was destroyed in Pearl Harbor as well.

 

Speaking from personal experience, it was very difficult to be optimistic while Eeyore...er I mean Jimmy Carter was in office.

 

I think the bolded part is debatable, considering the reaction was mostly succesful (whereas after 9-11, where is Bin Laden?).

 

Though I totally agree, the moral couldn't possibly be as low as it was during the Great Depression.

Because I'd rather focus on the issues rather than use words for the purpose of trying to make one fearful without knowing the issues.

 

Then lets talk about the issues:

 

Obama wants healthcare centralized in the government.

 

Obama wants government-required retirement plans mandatory on all employers and government matching funds, presumably fueled by government taxation.

 

He has discussed federalizing education.

 

He has called for the redistribution of wealth.

 

He wants to penalize what he calls excessive profits with punitive taxation by the government, and presumably the government gets to determine what they consider excessive.

 

TB&G, the dude is a socialist. That's not a scare word, its a definition of the issues.

They can't, because it's true...

 

That's funny, where was your defense of that position in the "Obama - A Moderate?" thread.

That's funny, where was your defense of that position in the "Obama - A Moderate?" thread.

 

Please tell me why it's not accurate to call Obama a socialist.