Hey Blown here is something we might agree on.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Carl Rove is overrated big time.
He has done nothing but get Bush votes in states where Democrats are about as popular as bad breath, while at the same time playing into the Dems' hands by helping them paint Republicians as the party of big dumb white guys.
This is something I noticed long ago (2001). Now the whole party should be able to see the results of his strategic limitations
It's time for him to go.

[Knotbad]

Carl Rove is overrated big time.
He has done nothing but get Bush votes in states where Democrats are about as popular as bad breath, while at the same time playing into the Dems' hands by helping them paint Republicians as the party of big dumb white guys.
This is something I noticed long ago (2001). Now the whole party should be able to see the results of his strategic limitations
It's time for him to go.
Word.

[eliminatedsprinter]

By supporting "moderate" Dem candidates in many "red" areas, Rahm Emanual managed to put the far left in charge of congress. It was a clever twist on the classic "bait and switch" con and he used it to outsmart Rove big time. The sad thing is, it was obvious and Rove should have seen it comming years ago, but his limited PR skills just couldn't adapt.

[QuickJet]

By supporting "moderate" Dem candidates in many "red" areas, Rahm Emanual managed to put the far left in charge of congress. It was a clever twist on the classic "bait and switch" con and he used it to outsmart Rove big time. The sad thing is, it was obvious and Rove should have seen it comming years ago, but his limited PR skills just couldn't adapt.
Well it could also be construde as geniouse on Rove's part as well. By "forfitting " the mid terms to the Dems, it gives a chance for everyone to see how radicalized the left is (especially with Palosi in at the helm). Upon seeing this, the Republicans have a far better chance of retaining the white house in '08. Of course the Dems are going to watch what they do and say for awhile, but it will only be temporary.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Well it could also be construde as geniouse on Rove's part as well. By "forfitting " the mid terms to the Dems, it gives a chance for everyone to see how radicalized the left is (especially with Palosi in at the helm). Upon seeing this, the Republicans have a far better chance of retaining the white house in '08. Of course the Dems are going to watch what they do and say for awhile, but it will only be temporary.
It's been said that the best way to defeat the dems is to let them lead.
However, if Rove had a clue how to direct PR to minorities, young people, working women, and others that are not already solidly Republician, such a destructive surrender tactic would not have to be hoped for.
It has been said that "when a Democrat sees a room full of black people, he sees a resource that can be exploited. When a Republician sees a room full of black people, he sees aliens he dosen't understand". Carl Rove is the living embodiment of this and it is true, with him, for young people, working women, city folks, latinos, etc, etc, as well.

[Poster X]

How "radicalized" is Pelosi?

[QuickJet]

How "radicalized" is Pelosi?
Very!!
Higher taxes for "ALL" to "pay our share" as she says. NO parental notification to parents of minors who seek abortions. I'm pro choice by the way but I find it funny that my kid can't go on a feild trip without my written consent but can have her guts sucked out of her like she was just getting her nails done. She' a Strong union supporter (although her winery in Napa hires only "illegal" non-union workers) Open boarder supporter. She feels we actually need our economy saturated with the worlds poorest and unskilled people.
You name it, she's on the left of it. She is NOT a moderate but a radical left nut. Dems don't like here either. They even say she is too far left and "radicalized'.
Watch how the Murtha thing plays out.

[eliminatedsprinter]

How "radicalized" is Pelosi?
That depends on how "radical" you consider socialism. She is a straight up socialist. She supports all forms of tax increases, and opposes all tax cuts. The only time she has oppsed a tax increase is when it was the smaller of 2 choices. She is 100% anti second amendment. She is in favor of all forms of increased government control of industry and commerce. In the americian political spectrum she is as far left as it gets and her voting record is basically identical to that of Bernie Sanders (the only self discribed socialist in congress), however she is actually to the left of him on gun issues.

[Poster X]

I'm all for taxation to pay down the debt. I consider taxation a patriotic duty equal to military service. The current debt is growing faster than current taxation can pay. In the end, we will either bankrupt the country or put our children in the position of blanket taxation that could literally destroy their opportunities to pursue the good life. Vis-a-vis boating, motorcycling, custom cars and the many other middle class perks we now enjoy.
I can find no evidence Pilosi supports an open border? I'm not sure I can find anyone who supports an open border sans an illegal alien.
Government control of industry AND commerce? lol..I can't find any evidence of that either. Wouldn't that fall under the guise of communism or totalinarianism?
Can it be possible you just don't like Pelosi? :cool:

[eliminatedsprinter]

I'm all for taxation to pay down the debt. I consider taxation a patriotic duty equal to military service. The current debt is growing faster than current taxation can pay. In the end, we will either bankrupt the country or put our children in the position of blanket taxation that could literally destroy their opportunities to pursue the good life. Vis-a-vis boating, motorcycling, custom cars and the many other middle class perks we now enjoy.
I can find no evidence Pilosi supports an open border? I'm not sure I can find anyone who supports an open border sans an illegal alien.
Government control of industry AND commerce? lol..I can't find any evidence of that either. Wouldn't that fall under the guise of communism or totalinarianism?
Can it be possible you just don't like Pelosi? :cool:
If you can't find any evidence of her wanting more government control of industry or commerce you simply are not looking. She supports all sorts of increased government controls and restrictions on a variety of businses and industry. I dosen't matter if it is for environmental or social reasons. The only freedoms she seems to support are sexual freedoms and some types of first amendment freedoms. Other than that, I actually would discribe her views as pretty totalitarian.

[Poster X]

You mean her wanting to repeal the subsidies for companies who send jobs overseas?
Or do you mean her tax incentives to companies that produce biofuels?
Perhaps it's the fact that large corporations are recording record profits yet the cost of living has increased faster than personal income and she wants balance by using taxation, minimum wage increases and profit sharing?
Yeah, I'll admit she's a little liberal. After all, she is from San Francisco. But overall, she's no loony toon left wing gorgoyle like you make her out to be either.

[eliminatedsprinter]

You mean her wanting to repeal the subsidies for companies who send jobs overseas?
Or do you mean her tax incentives to companies that produce biofuels?
Perhaps it's the fact that large corporations are recording record profits yet the cost of living has increased faster than personal income and she wants balance by using taxation, minimum wage increases and profit sharing?
Yeah, I'll admit she's a little liberal. After all, she is from San Francisco. But overall, she's no loony toon left wing gorgoyle like you make her out to be either.
Those are some of the tamer things she has supported and they still involve federal government intervention, control of buisness, and wealth redistribution by taking money by force from one group of citizens and giving it to others in mannors that are outside of the federal powers outlined in our constitution.
P.S. I have known about her for years now and I have heard her speak many times. She is not liberal at all. She is a leftist not a liberal (look up the words, there is a differance). Prior to her becoming house minority leader she was hanging with the Maxine Waters, Cynthia Mckinney types in congress and she was much more outspoken about her leftist views than she has been lately.

[Poster X]

We'll call it a draw. I'm only familiar with her since 9/11 and I've never heard her speak in public. I've heard Kinky though. Maybe he'll run for Congress? :cool:

[eliminatedsprinter]

We'll call it a draw. I'm only familiar with her since 9/11 and I've never heard her speak in public. I've heard Kinky though. Maybe he'll run for Congress? :cool:
God help us. :rolleyes: :messedup: :wink:

[Old Texan]

You mean her wanting to repeal the subsidies for companies who send jobs overseas?
Or do you mean her tax incentives to companies that produce biofuels?
Perhaps it's the fact that large corporations are recording record profits yet the cost of living has increased faster than personal income and she wants balance by using taxation, minimum wage increases and profit sharing?
Yeah, I'll admit she's a little liberal. After all, she is from San Francisco. But overall, she's no loony toon left wing gorgoyle like you make her out to be either.
Let's take one thing at a time. What is the benefit of and the end effect of raising the min. wage?

[Poster X]

Mimimum wage is where income begins. If you want to raise the standard of living you don't start in the middle.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Mimimum wage is where income begins. If you want to raise the standard of living you don't start in the middle.
You don't start with the govenment either. The bigger the government, the greater the burden it places on the economy and the quality of domestic life.

[Poster X]

Umm, I'm pretty sure the minimum wage has been around longer than either of us, or Nancy Pelosi.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Umm, I'm pretty sure the minimum wage has been around longer than either of us, or Nancy Pelosi.
Indeed it has.

[Poster X]

So how is adjusting the minimum wage for inflation adding more government? :rolleyes:

[Rexone]

The current debt is growing faster than current taxation can pay. In the end, we will either bankrupt the country or put our children in the position of blanket taxation that could literally destroy their opportunities to pursue the good life.
I agree with that statement. But perhaps government should consider getting their spending under control rather that just keep spending more and increasing taxes to cover it. I know that's what I have to do in my business to stay in business. I can't just keep raising prices to cover increased spending for stupid shit. The government shouldn't be able to just increase taxes at will to cover their ass for spending on stupid shit either.
There are many many programs wasting our tax dollars. Billions going to countries overseas that would just as soon slit American's throats as not. More billions misguided into freebie welfare type programs here at home, missing the mark on those who "really" need the assistance. Billions more supporting illegal immigrants and all the programs they suck up. It would be far cheaper to enforce illegal immigration (existing law) than continue to support immigrants already here not to mention basically supporting policies that just invite more in.
This all in addition to the very real and dangerous national security situation the open border problem has created.
The government (not partisian because they're all guilty) need to get their spending under control, not tax the shit out of the people more than they already are to cover all of the above. So I'm not going with the increased taxes being a patriotic duty. The government already takes half my income at least through various form of taxation. Anything beyond that imo is just veiled socialism.

[QuickJet]

So how is adjusting the minimum wage for inflation adding more government? :rolleyes:
The government would be emplimating the law wouldn't they? Why can't the private sector take care of how much the "going wage" is? Why is it that the government thinks it needs it's hand in every little thing we do. They don't need to tell me how much I have to pay an employee. And it's not just the wages that go up, it's the social security tax and the insurance as well.
Pelosi is callijg for a 40% increase in minimum wage. A small buisiness with minimum wage employees' will be forced to lay off and fire people to stay afloat. That or increase it's prices which we will all feel.
Keep the government out. If someone doesnt' want to work for $5.50 an hour they can always got to In-n-Out burger where they start at $9.25 (Government didn't make them start people that high either)

[Rexone]

The government would be emplimating the law wouldn't they? Why can't the private sector take care of how much the "going wage" is? Why is it that the government thinks it needs it's hand in every little thing we do. They don't need to tell me how much I have to pay an employee. And it's not just the wages that go up, it's the social security tax and the insurance as well.
Pelosi is callijg for a 40% increase in minimum wage. A small buisiness with minimum wage employees' will be forced to lay off and fire people to stay afloat. That or increase it's prices which we will all feel.
Keep the government out. If someone doesnt' want to work for $5.50 an hour they can always got to In-n-Out burger where they start at $9.25 (Government didn't make them start people that high either)
I agree the government should butt out on min wage. Capitialism would control it just fine and dandy. People would be paid what they're "worth" in terms of skills and abilities and not what they're "told" based on what government thinks, basically giving losers and those who choose to not become skilled a free ride.
I don't know where the government thinks the money to pay more min wage is going to come from other than the end user of the product or service. No one wins there. Instead of a McDonalds burger costing $3 it will be $5. It's a never ending cycle when government sticks their head where it doesn't belong. Next the wage will need to increase again so people buying the $5 burger can afford to eat. No one wins or gains a thing.
Government should govern and protect, and butt out of business. Otherwise lets just convert to socialism and government can tell us when to wipe our ass and when not to too and how many squares of paper is acceptable.

[Poster X]

Actually socialism in it's true form IS the answer. It's one of those words that's been thrown around and misused for centuries. It's gotten to the point where the definition has changed due to misuse. Kind of like "moot" (which pisses me off and is a personal pet peeve). Anyway, true socialism by definition has never been tried. That's why it's denoted as utopian socialism or altruism. I guess we can blame the Soviets for really misusing the word and changing it's literal meaning? Socialism (by definition as originally scripted) allows for entrepeneurialism and capitalism. The government takes care of the lower classes and they can break free at will and pursue the American dream or they can stay in the system and just get by. The government isn't supported by taxation. It's supported by monopolized industry. This keeps checks and balances on both sides of the income scale. If our "Democracy" is to mature and grow strong into this millenium it has to evolve to protect the people, reduce taxation, and eliminate ultimate corporate greed (monopolization). That "next" logical step is indeed... Socialism.
There's a certain amount of justice in Wal-Mart and Exxon supporting the government eliminating taxation and allowing us the financial freedom to pursue the ultimate American Dream, entrepeneurism.
Take some oxygen and xanex before you respond. :)

[QuickJet]

Actually socialism in it's true form IS the answer. It's one of those words that's been thrown around and misused for centuries. It's gotten to the point where the definition has changed due to misuse. Kind of like "moot" (which pisses me off and is a personal pet peeve). Anyway, true socialism by definition has never been tried. That's why it's denoted as utopian socialism or altruism. I guess we can blame the Soviets for really misusing the word and changing it's literal meaning? Socialism (by definition as originally scripted) allows for entrepeneurialism and capitalism. The government takes care of the lower classes and they can break free at will and pursue the American dream or they can stay in the system and just get by. The government isn't supported by taxation. It's supported by monopolized industry. This keeps checks and balances on both sides of the income scale. If our "Democracy" is to mature and grow strong into this millenium it has to evolve to protect the people, reduce taxation, and eliminate ultimate corporate greed (monopolization). That "next" logical step is indeed... Socialism.
There's a certain amount of justice in Wal-Mart and Exxon supporting the government eliminating taxation and allowing us the financial freedom to pursue the ultimate American Dream, entrepeneurism.
Take some oxygen and xanex before you respond. :)
Socialism has NEVER worked and it never will. A system that mearly allows capitalism and entrepeneurialism can also strip it away. Another problem is the lower classes will never break free. All it is is a redistribution of wealth under GOVERNMENT CONTROL. We need to eliminate government involvement all together. We also need to engage in the flat tax system. Doing so will eliminate the underground economy that plageus us all. And democracy doesn't protect us, we protect it.

[Poster X]

Flat taxes aren't going to do a thing about government corruption. It's still there like a moose head hanging on the wall. You don't know if socialism would work or not. It's never been tried. The soviets were totalianaryistic, not socialist. People use the name but the true concept has never been excercized beyond a few half hazard conversations in some obscure think tank. Don't think Orwellian. That's also totalianaristic and fascist. It is by design..less government.

[QuickJet]

Flat taxes aren't going to do a thing about government corruption. .
I'm not worried about government corruption. It's governemnt "involvement" that I have a problem with.

[eliminatedsprinter]

So how is adjusting the minimum wage for inflation adding more government? :rolleyes:
That is not what I was getting at.
My comment was not directed at your support of a minimum wage, but rather your overall naivete in regards to the inherent problems of too much government.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Actually socialism in it's true form IS the answer. It's one of those words that's been thrown around and misused for centuries. It's gotten to the point where the definition has changed due to misuse. Kind of like "moot" (which pisses me off and is a personal pet peeve). Anyway, true socialism by definition has never been tried. That's why it's denoted as utopian socialism or altruism. I guess we can blame the Soviets for really misusing the word and changing it's literal meaning? Socialism (by definition as originally scripted) allows for entrepeneurialism and capitalism. The government takes care of the lower classes and they can break free at will and pursue the American dream or they can stay in the system and just get by. The government isn't supported by taxation. It's supported by monopolized industry. This keeps checks and balances on both sides of the income scale. If our "Democracy" is to mature and grow strong into this millenium it has to evolve to protect the people, reduce taxation, and eliminate ultimate corporate greed (monopolization). That "next" logical step is indeed... Socialism.
There's a certain amount of justice in Wal-Mart and Exxon supporting the government eliminating taxation and allowing us the financial freedom to pursue the ultimate American Dream, entrepeneurism.
Take some oxygen and xanex before you respond. :)
You know it is funny, but I used to think like this too. :)
But that was over 50+ units of history and social studies coursework (I found the courses that the history and sociology majors had to take made easy and interesting electives while I was in college) and 24 years of government service ago. I don't have nearly enough time to explain why the above is misguided. But I will state that if you had a better working knowledge of history you would know better.
Come on, think it through.
Do you really think you and the people you read are the only ones who have had the above ideas on socialism? The ideas you have expressed above are hundreds of years old, do you really think good people and societies haven't made honest efforts at implementing them in the past???
P.S. The more history I learn and the longer I work in government, the less socialistic and the more libertarian my political views become. But hey, that's just me. Don't let me rain on your self indulgent utopian dream parade. :wink:

[cdog]

You know it is funny, but I used to think like this too. :)
But that was over 50+ units of history and social studies coursework (I found the courses that the history and sociology majors had to take made easy and interesting electives while I was in college) and 24 years of government service ago. I don't have nearly enough time to explain why the above is misguided. But I will state that if you had a better working knowledge of history you would know better.
Come on, think it through.
Do you really think you and the people you read are the only ones who have had the above ideas on socialism? The ideas you have expressed above are hundreds of years old, do you really think good people and societies haven't made honest efforts at implementing them in the past???
P.S. The more history I learn and the longer I work in government, the less socialistic and the more libertarian my political views become. But hey, that's just me. Don't let me rain on your self indulgent utopian dream parade. :wink:
+1000000000000000000000000000000
Excellent post

[Poster X]

You know it is funny, but I used to think like this too. :)
But that was over 50+ units of history and social studies coursework (I found the courses that the history and sociology majors had to take made easy and interesting electives while I was in college) and 24 years of government service ago. I don't have nearly enough time to explain why the above is misguided. But I will state that if you had a better working knowledge of history you would know better.
Come on, think it through.
Do you really think you and the people you read are the only ones who have had the above ideas on socialism? The ideas you have expressed above are hundreds of years old, do you really think good people and societies haven't made honest efforts at implementing them in the past???
P.S. The more history I learn and the longer I work in government, the less socialistic and the more libertarian my political views become. But hey, that's just me. Don't let me rain on your self indulgent utopian dream parade. :wink:
I guess you missed the part where I said the concept was hundreds of years old and had never been tried as authored. (That means aspects of it had been attempted.) All that government reading getting you in the habit of skipping to the end?

[deltaAce]

The system we had in place was working fairly well untill the extreem morals decline as brought about by liberal & progressive thinking & ever burgeoning growth of government.

[eliminatedsprinter]

I guess you missed the part where I said the concept was hundreds of years old and had never been tried as authored. (That means aspects of it had been attempted.) All that government reading getting you in the habit of skipping to the end?
Why do you make the silly assumption, that because I restate something you have posted it means I haven't read your post? :rolleyes:
Let me pose you some simple questions.
In your post you state, the tired old false cliche, that true socialism (I'm paraphrasing here) has never been tried. In one statement you add "by definition" . To this I ask whos' definitian? The French, Owen, Lassalle, Mill, Fourier, etc... or one of the many others who were attempting to shape it into a cogent philosophy in the 1820s?? Perhaps it would help it you gave us your definitian.
Later, in this last post, you added a different qualifier "as authored". Authored by who?? Any of those listed above or some of the older authors who contributed ideas that led to the formation of the ideology like Thomas Moore or Plato? :rolleyes:
In addition it would help if you specified which type of socialism you are referring to. Is it Democratic Socialism, Utopian Socialism, Christian Socialism, or Revolutionary Socialism etc?? Please Clarify, At least give us some key definitive elements in whatever definitian you feel is the one true definition of "Socialism". :)
P.S. Please note I didn't use Marx or Engels as examples, because you seem to have already rejected the form of "Scientific Socialism" that led to communism.

[Poster X]

You know, a lot of finger pointing goes on blaming the liberals and the tightie righties and this and that. In my opinion it is we..all of us that screwed just about every American liberty and right of passage right into the ground. The hippies, yippies, yuppies, rednecks, jocks and heads. Everyone thought they were so damn cool in the 70's but we (as a society) have nurtured political correctness, added more government to almost every aspect of our lives, and coddled our children to where they are totally unprepared for life without us. We (as a society) have alienated the world and reversed nearly every sacrifice made for the future of this country by our elders. The baby boomers suck. We should be skipped and just hand it over to Generation X. The whole kit and kaboodle. We had our chance and pretty much ruined everything. I don't expect anyone to agree. But in your hearts, you know it's true.

[Poster X]

Why do you make the silly assumption, that because I restate something you have posted it means I haven't read your post? :rolleyes:
Let me pose you some simple questions.
In your post you state, the tired old false cliche, that true socialism (I'm paraphrasing here) has never been tried. In one statement you add "by definition" . To this I ask whos' definitian? The French, Owen, Lassalle, Mill, Fourier, etc... or one of the many others who were attempting to shape it into a cogent philosophy in the 1820s?? Perhaps it would help it you gave us your definitian.
Later, in this last post, you added a different qualifier "as authored". Authored by who?? Any of those listed above or some of the older authors who contributed ideas that led to the formation of the ideology like Thomas Moore or Plato.. :rolleyes: ..
In addition it would help if you specified which type of socialism you are referring to. Is it Democratic Socialism, Utopian Socialism, Christian Socialism, or Revolutionary Socialism etc?? Please Clarify, At least give us some key definitive elements in whatever definitian you feel is the one true definition of "Socialism". :)
P.S. Please note I didn't use Marx or Engels as examples, because you seem to have already rejected the form of "Scientific Socialism" that led to communism.
Every attempt you are making to sound informed was pretty much covered except who authored the Utopian Socialism <-- I mentioned. I'll let you google a little more and try and look savvy before I post that, although, it doesn't matter one iota. Utopian Socialism has been authored and dissected by dozens of adept and notable citizens throughout history. What we know for sure, is it has never been practiced as a government. Go google that.

[eliminatedsprinter]

You know, a lot of finger pointing goes on blaming the liberals and the tightie righties and this and that. In my opinion it is we..all of us that screwed just about every American liberty and right of passage right into the ground. The hippies, yippies, yuppies, rednecks, jocks and heads. Everyone thought they were so damn cool in the 70's but we (as a society) have nurtured political correctness, added more government to almost every aspect of our lives, and coddled our children to where they are totally unprepared for life without us. We (as a society) have alienated the world and reversed nearly every sacrifice made for the future of this country by our elders. The baby boomers suck. We should be skipped and just hand it over to Generation X. The whole kit and kaboodle. We had our chance and pretty much ruined everything. I don't expect anyone to agree. But in your hearts, you know it's true.
I guess you figure Murphy was an optimist. :wink:
Our country has always faced social challenges. Why do you assume todays are worse than those of the past? What problems have baby boomers givin America that are worse than slavery or Jim Crow etc??? You might want to rethink the above statement, that you have put out here on the internet and with the computer, that has been provided to you by us awful baby boomers.. :rolleyes: .

[eliminatedsprinter]

Every attempt you are making to sound informed was pretty much covered except who authored the Utopian Socialism <-- I mentioned. I'll let you google a little more and try and look savvy before I post that, although, it doesn't matter one iota. Utopian Socialism has been authored and dissected by dozens of adept and notable citizens throughout history. What we know for sure, is it has never been practiced as a government. Go google that.
You sure are full of insults and assumptions. Of course those things are often the last grasping attepmts of those who don't have the facts on their side in a debate.
Why do you assume I'm googling to "try to look savvy" just because I happen to have taken the trouble in the past to inform myself on socialism and it's history.? Do you think you are the first person I have ever tried to have an intellegent conversation on the subject of socialism with before?????
Take that bag off your head and try to open your mind to the fact there there may be people out here who know at least as much about your beloved socialism as you do, that still reject it, because we can see it for the intellectually lazy idiology that it is.
P.S. I was hoping that you would clarify your somewhat scattered ideas a bit, so that I might be able to bring up some specific examples of how such ideas have been attempted either individually or comprehensively and we could have an interesting point by point. I'm not googling between posts, but rather doing mind numbing clinical paperwork in another window. I have been checking this window and reading your posts every so often and sending off quick posts in reply in the hope that it will offer a few moments of interesting discourse. I seem to have failed. Oh well, I tried.....

[Poster X]

Well, I wouldn't have taken a jab at you had your first two posts not been completely covered in the original post I wrote. It sounded then (and still does) rather than debate a valid topic you want to show your buddies online how slick you are. I don't care if you're smart or stupid. I don't care if you fancy yourself the intellectual Elliot Ness of internet bullshit. I'm just a character on the internet and really don't care what people think of me here, or in real life. I do know you are missing the subtleties of contrary opinions and instead of learning something from the experience the internet provides (such as jousting with suspect characters as myself) you are spending your time trying to find errors and misnomers in others posts in lieu of learning about what others think and why. That being said, every conversation ends in a circle jerk of accusations of intellectual superiority as opposed to mental reparte based on opposing opinions.
Back on topic, I agree America has overcome complicated social woes such as slavery and about everything else but the kitchen sink. My worry is by world standards we are still a relatively new country and instead of embracing our democracy we seem to spend the majority of our time finding loopholes in it and judicating the morals of our fellow compatriots. In other words, we are abusing the document (reference to the Constitution) rather than building our lives aroound it. With UTOPIC SOCIALISM ( <--- type of socialism ) we could still enjoy the spirit of the document while managing a government interested in our social maturity, and not what we have now, which is a government interested in moderating every aspect of our lives.. and the worlds. In retrospect, Utopian Socialism sounds much more democratic than what we have evolved to. Calling it a government by the people and for the people.. doesn't make it so.

[Old Texan]

Umm, I'm pretty sure the minimum wage has been around longer than either of us, or Nancy Pelosi.
1- Minimum wage was meant for entry level completely unskilled labor. It isn't meant as a living wage. If an employer wants to hire a kid living at home or other young person it sets a wage standard for this type of worker. Now what should the minimum wage be and why/how do we decide on that number? In a capitalist system the wages are dictated by supply and demand.
2- Union pay levels are based on the minimum wage. If the min. wage is $5.00 they raise their pay scale in accordance. Raising the minimum wage for no other reason than to say we are helping the poor is ridiculous. It will contribute to inflation, raise the cost of goods and services, and ultimately achieve nothing more positive than a feel good for the "working poor".
Workers want to make higher wages, get educated and skilled in order to have marketable talents earning higher wages.
The minimum wage is really smoke and mirrors. It accomplishes little in a job market that has a 4-5% unemployment rate.
You want to raise wages get rid of the illegals that are driving wages down.

[Poster X]

I agree with your perspective on minimum wage and didn't really think out the repurcussions on the economy in whole. There, I can be wrong. :wink:
I found a fascinating essay on (of all things) Utopian Socialism that at first seems to support both arguments but in conclusion actually sides with eliminatedsprinter and articulates his points rather concisely. Even though I disagree with the conclusion I'm posting the link in the interest of fair play. Actually, it gives me even an unfairer advantage than I usually enjoy which is sizeable to say the least. Anyway, I found the author to be intelligent, steeped in research and unwittingly fair. What he didn't see, is the unity between our existing democracy and utopic socialism juxtaposed as one government which I pose. He surmises there can never be a marriage of both ideologies. Very much worth the read.
http://www.policyreview.org/dec02/harris.html

[eliminatedsprinter]

Back on topic, I agree America has overcome complicated social woes such as slavery and about everything else but the kitchen sink. My worry is by world standards we are still a relatively new country and instead of embracing our democracy we seem to spend the majority of our time finding loopholes in it and judicating the morals of our fellow compatriots. In other words, we are abusing the document (reference to the Constitution) rather than building our lives aroound it. With UTOPIC SOCIALISM ( <--- type of socialism ) we could still enjoy the spirit of the document while managing a government interested in our social maturity, and not what we have now, which is a government interested in moderating every aspect of our lives.. and the worlds. In retrospect, Utopian Socialism sounds much more democratic than what we have evolved to. Calling it a government by the people and for the people.. doesn't make it so.
By the origional post I'll assume you mean the post I quoted, in which you stated "socialism in it's true form is the answer". It may have seemed like a complete definition to you. But from my perspective of not being able to read your mind the way you seem to think you can mine, I see no definition at all. Just a bunch of idealized empty rhetoric. Saying things like it "allows for entrepeneurialism and capitolism" or that it takes care of the lower classes, tells me nothing. Hell, the proponents of Fascism made those same claims.
In order to have an itellegent conversation we need for you to give a much more specific definition of what you consider to be the key elements of "Utopic Socialism" as a starting point. Otherwise we will just continue to butt heads here arguing over each others semantics. In short, I'm asking you for specifcs, not empty euphemisms, like "social maturity" which mean different things to different people.
P.S. I'm sorry to hear you are just a character on the internet. Please forgive me if I have or if I continue to talk to you as if you are a real person. :wink:

[eliminatedsprinter]

1- Minimum wage was meant for entry level completely unskilled labor. It isn't meant as a living wage. If an employer wants to hire a kid living at home or other young person it sets a wage standard for this type of worker. Now what should the minimum wage be and why/how do we decide on that number? In a capitalist system the wages are dictated by supply and demand.
2- Union pay levels are based on the minimum wage. If the min. wage is $5.00 they raise their pay scale in accordance. Raising the minimum wage for no other reason than to say we are helping the poor is ridiculous. It will contribute to inflation, raise the cost of goods and services, and ultimately achieve nothing more positive than a feel good for the "working poor".
Workers want to make higher wages, get educated and skilled in order to have marketable talents earning higher wages.
The minimum wage is really smoke and mirrors. It accomplishes little in a job market that has a 4-5% unemployment rate.
You want to raise wages get rid of the illegals that are driving wages down.
Very well said. :)
It also (of course) reduces the number and availability of entry level jobs for those who need the work experience etc.... :)

[Poster X]

You're forgiven.
In my first post (regarding socialism) I specified Utopian Socialism. I can't be any clearer than that. I also said that in it's pure form it satisfies both your need for entrepeneurialism and basic capitalism..which it does. I can't (or won't) teach a class on the interpretism of the branches of socialism 101 here, or anywhere else. But, anyone (such as yourself) that has studied the different aspects and interpretations of socialism would know that Utopian Socialism was a moderate government supported by monopolized industry with an infrastructure that allowed for the capitalist spirit. It is also a form of government that is departmentalized and staffed much like a modern corporation but without a CEO (as it were.) Each branch is independantly operated and has it's individual president and that arm of the government must produce evidence of it's management standards and expenditures to us, the shareholders. It is also a form of government that calls for a mass vote (democratic by anyones standards) of any decision that affects the citizenry in whole. For example: statehood of Puerto Rico or a heavy financial investment in something like a nuclear powerplant. You get the idea. The military is also ran the same way. It is authorized to protect us without delay but at the same time a non emergency such as invading Iraq would take a concensus. That, is Utopian Socialism. It's never been practiced. Many aspects of Socialism HAVE been practiced but Utopian Socialism..never has. As you can read, it offers the best of both worlds and from an intellectual standpoint is the obvious metamorphosis of our current "Democracy."

[eliminatedsprinter]

You're forgiven.
In my first post (regarding socialism) I specified Utopian Socialism. I can't be any clearer than that. I also said that in it's pure form it satisfies both your need for entrepeneurialism and basic capitalism..which it does. I can't (or won't) teach a class on the interpretism of the branches of socialism 101 here, or anywhere else. But, anyone (such as yourself) that has studied the different aspects and interpretations of socialism would know that Utopian Socialism was a moderate government supported by monopolized industry with an infrastructure that allowed for the capitalist spirit. It is also a form of government that is departmentalized and staffed much like a modern corporation but without a CEO (as it were.) Each branch is independantly operated and has it's individual president and that arm of the government must produce evidence of it's management standards and expenditures to us, the shareholders. It is also a form of government that calls for a mass vote (democratic by anyones standards) of any decision that affects the citizenry in whole. For example: statehood of Puerto Rico or a heavy financial investment in something like a nuclear powerplant. You get the idea. The military is also ran the same way. It is authorized to protect us without delay but at the same time a non emergency such as invading Iraq would take a concensus. That, is Utopian Socialism. It's never been practiced. Many aspects of Socialism HAVE been practiced but Utopian Socialism..never has. As you can read, it offers the best of both worlds and from an intellectual standpoint is the obvious metamorphosis of our current "Democracy."
You did mention Utopian Socialism, but you also said it was denoted as "altruism" and that last use of a vague non-sequitur made me think you were providing examples of semantic terms, rather than supporting the specific style "Utopian Socialism"
The above is a little better.
What I wanted was your take on defining it.
My take is that this is way to cumbersom and there is far too much oppertunity for abuse. Who decides what industries get monopolized etc...The people?? By vote? Or government departments staffed like corperations?? I'm sorry I'll take the free market. It has been said that (forgive me if I paraphrase Churchill here) that capitolism often produces unequal distribution of wealth, while socialism produces equal suffering. I know this is not literally true (the established wealthy often do very, very well under various forms of socialism). But it is still a general truism for most of us who would like rise up the economic ladder with as little government "help" as possible.
To me the system you discribed above seems like one that would produce an incredible amount of mediocrity (at best) and would be a pretty bleak system to have to live under. I have not yet read the essay you posted (printed it to read later) but I suspect, you are correct, that I will agree with the author that the 2 idiologies would not mix well. I have seen first hand what happens when government attempts to ape the corperate model and the results are pretty ugly to me.
I am going to take your suggestion and read the essay you posted.
I have a suggestion for you. Read the document that (in it's era) was heralded around the world as being the first real attempt at creating a truely modern socialistic republic. I know it is not a true "Utopian" socialistic work, but it is interesting to see the difference between what is on the paper and what is it's result. The document is, of course, The Mexician Constitution of 1917. Sorry I don't have a link but I'm pretty sure you can google it. :rolleyes: :wink:

[eliminatedsprinter]

Actually, it gives me even an unfairer advantage than I usually enjoy which is sizeable to say the least.
http://www.policyreview.org/dec02/harris.html
Please use the :wink: smilie when you are joking. Otherwise you may confuse those of us who don't have multiple PHDs. :rolleyes: :wink:

[Poster X]

I'll look at it later. But still, I think the marriage of the two is the answer. When I'm Dictator <insert dick joke here> we'll see how it plays out.
What gives you the impression I'm an educated man? I still have my paper route. :wink: <-- joking icon

[eliminatedsprinter]

I read the essay last night.
It was clearly not intended to be a scholarly work (due to its' lack of proper referencing).
However, I did find it to be a kind of interesting editorial style opinion essay. It was a bit dry :wink: and esoteric. But I like esoteric. I'm still not sure why Mr. Harris feels a theory as outdated and dubious as Baran's reformation of Marxist docterine is worth mooting in this post cold war age of islamic threat, but hey, it was a kind of interesting hypothetical piece. :cool: