Socialism cannot compete!

Total Rating:
+92 / -38

329 Comments

    • Fri Nov 7th 17:18 PM | Rating: +1 0
      Commented on:
      Message to the President-Elect: Here's What You Should Do
      the financial boys? like warren buffett? the new left-hand man of Mr. O...who told us "it's time to buy"??


      On Nov 06 03:05 AM The hand wrote:

      > Jumbo, Jeff
      >
      > somehow i got the feeling the financial boys did not like me. somebody
      > told me they pumped up the market to make it seem things were okay
      > economically for the election. it was amazing to see it go up for
      > the week before the election even though every fundamental screamed
      > that rome was burning. i assume you suckered in a few empty headed
      > investors telling them the market bottomed so that you did not have
      > to waste their own money.
      View article »
    • Fri Nov 7th 16:42 PM | Rating: +2 -4
      Commented on:
      Free-Market Healthcare Falling Victim to Recession
      "Could it be possible that our free market healthcare system is rationing care just like the socialist systems?"

      Nice attempt to equate the two! Apples & oranges -- weren't you just talking of participants in the free market delaying ELECTIVE procedures such as joint replacements, weight loss surgeries, etc.?? How is that the same as the inability to get care in some places in Europe for NEEDED procedures???

      I've had it JUST ABOUT UP TO HERE with you damn socialists and your push to make the rest of us pay for YOUR healthcare!! Willing to twist the facts in this manner to get it, too.

      You want to know why healthcare is sooo expensive in this country? We now mandate health insurance coverage of contraceptives. We have regulations mandating other coverages as well. The result is less choice in plans, and therefore a higher minimum cost. We also have a LARGE dollar cost for things resulting from OUR OWN poor CHOICES -- do you even realize the percentage of ER patients who are their due to alcohol-related accidents, drug use, etc.? How about the costs of STDs, testing for them, and treatment? Adding up yet? Ok, then add on the costs from smoking and poor diet and exercise habits. Starting to get the picture??

      We don't need "Universal Health Care"...we need a return to old-fashioned, moral living, where people avoid these behaviors, take care of themselve, and accept personal responsibility for their lives.
      View article »
    • Fri Nov 7th 12:42 PM | Rating: +1 0
      Commented on:
      When Will the Recession End?
      @The Sentinel: No doubt there are always those among us who would repress and be tyrannical -- but let's not succumb to the notion that population control techniques are the answer!! It's quite ironic that the push for that not only is precisely what has led to part of the ills we currently have to deal with, but *also* is what Hitler, Mao, & Stalin attempted! Look into the history of Planned Parenthood -- its founders were population control theorists who were into eugenics and feared population growth. The results are that we now face the new tyranny of forced contraception in Asia and Africa, underpopulation in Europe and America...and political instability as a result -- large numbers of people in certain religions that do not allow birth control (ahem...Islam) have migrated into Europe, and the results are NOT going to bring political peace and prosperity! I think we have seen that clearly the last few decades?!

      It's actually time for Western nations to rethink their seeming distaste for conservative family values and rethink the possibility that having children and raising them with old-fashioned values, strong character, and a good work ethic is what built up the American nation and would serve us well again. Methinks it would bring much more satisfaction than placing so much value on our stock portfolio and having 2nd homes, but only 1, maybe 2 kids...or in some cases none (but always 2 dogs, of course....)

      We've had it wrong and its time to rethink.
      View article »
    • Fri Nov 7th 12:20 PM | Rating: +2 0
      Commented on:
      We Have a Debt to Discharge
      Right on, David!!! It's not just the financials that were a bubble -- they have "forced" the entire economy into credit-based living by the excessive taxation that we endure. Any unwinding has to be a return to living within our individual means...and we can't reach that ability and return to real growth based on non-credit spending until the government is radically downsized and spending within its means, and until We The People are allowed to retain most of what WE earn!! Anything else is fiscal insanity and we shouldn't wonder that bubbles continue to form -- the individual is continually faced with preemptive grabs of his earnings, and the use of the income tax and property taxes to fund things means that government readily fluctuates the amount taken -- generally to the up side...making it very difficult to have any semblance of stability or plannability in personal income. With a 66,000+ page federal tax code, is it any wonder that we can't model government revenue with any reliability?

      The only sound answer is to abolish income taxes, and go to solely consumptive taxation. That along with a Balance Budget Amendment are *critical* to returning this nation to freedom, control of the government *by* the people, and fiscal sanity!!!
      View article »
    • Thu Nov 6th 18:30 PM | Rating: +1 0
      Commented on:
      Message to the President-Elect: Here's What You Should Do
      Main theme of strength and unification??? Class warfare is not unifying. As for "price discovery" -- no new mechanism is needed...affordability is the mechanism. When I can afford the home I want, I buy it. The solution: drastic tax cuts...since we are *all* excessively overtaxed (i.e. anyone who pays more than 10% in total taxation)!! More of OUR OWN money in our pockets means we can PAY OUR MORTGAGES and maybe do some DISCRETIONARY SPENDING to boot. Why is that so hard to understand??

      What is needed is to kill big government once and for all!! Why do I not have any reassuring feelings about Obama being able to get that one done? Democrats just don't understand basic principles of personal and economic freedom: their philosophy is that big government is the solution to all our problems. In that regard, Bush has succumbed to a very socialist, Democrat economic stance with his bailout fiasco! I give neither him nor any Repubs that went along with it any credit.
      View article »
    • Thu Nov 6th 18:05 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Negative Sentiment on Crude Oil Overdone - First Energy Analyst
      @Shaggieman:

      Where Bush went wrong on the economy was by not vetoing budgets that included money for Fannie & Freddie!! Those institutions were socialist tools of the Democrats and the direct cause of the mortgage crisis at the root of the economic collapse. 19 Republican Senators (including McCain) tried to bring a bill to the floor two years ago to do something about subprime lending, but it was not allowed to be brought up. Bush at that point should have dug in and said, ok, no reform of the GSEs = no budget passage...period.

      I suggest you read what really transpired. And read about the founding principles of this country -- what Jefferson and Madison had to say about taxation and how that revenue should be used!! It certainly was not meant to be used as bailouts for businesses!! So contrary to your problem with letting Lehman fail...we *ought* to let ALL involved banks fail!! And any other companies, such as automakers who can't get their own financial houses in order. Their problems are exorbitant union deals and humongous pension funding. We aren't socialists -- WE DON'T OWE UAW PENSIONERS a DIME OF RETIREMENT!! That's what is happening though -- we are going to be bailing out the Big Three next, due to their heavy cost structures. Businesses that can't turn a profit on their own, NEED TO FAIL!!

      [quote]
      IMO where Bush went wrong on the economy is letting Lehman fail. That alone touched off a panic that got us to where we are today. You ask why would Bush let that happen and looking at Lehman I can see George Soros as one of the major shareholders. Could it be possible that in an effort to screw Soros he'd risk bringing down the whole economy and did? Interesting question!
      [end quote]
      View article »
    • Thu Nov 6th 17:52 PM | Rating: +1 0
      Commented on:
      A $40 Bottom in Oil?
      "It did not result from new oil strikes outside of OPEC or the sudden availability of cheap ethanol or electric cars."

      Well...that's not entirely true!! While the economic slowdown and demand destruction are big factors, there WERE big strikes by Brazil...and the bubble burst pretty suddenly when Bush revoked the executive order against offshore drilling and called for Congress to do the same legislatively! So big new oil finds and the possibility of expanded drilling DID play a part.

      Also...hybrid vehicles like the Prius are selling like hotcakes -- Toyota could not keep up with demand during the $4/gallon months!! Quite a few people got rid of their SUV and went with a Prius -- think about it: if you go from 15 mpg to 45 mpg -- that means 1/3 the gas usage. And a whole lotta Priuses are driving around now.

      Last but not least: as we ponder the price per barrel and where it will go -- let's not forget those countries (including China!) who subsidize the cost of gas!!
      View article »
    • Thu Nov 6th 17:22 PM | Rating: +2 0
      Commented on:
      When Will the Recession End?
      @perceptions_now: Out of a very lengthy, rambling comment containing much speculation not backed by facts, I need to pick on one lie in particular:

      "Now, at over 6 Billion people, we are starting to exhaust the earth’s capacity to support human species."

      Absolutely false. The reason so many are malnourished in the world has MUCH more to do with the political regime they "live" under, not the lack of capability to produce enough food. Most people are not aware that the main reason for the population boom in the last century is simply that lifespans saw a big increase due to unprecedented advances in medicine -- vaccines, antibiotics, organ transplants, etc. Things unheard of before the 20th century. We are not likely to continue increasing life expectancies by the margin that we did so in the last century. The UN predicts increases to continue through about 2040 (with the pace of increase slowing), and then begin a population decline. Not because of food shortages or the inability of the Earth to support more people...but because citizens of industrialized countries are having fewer children. They are in school longer and marry later, delaying the start of family life.

      If anything, we will find ourselves in a situation where we do not have ENOUGH people in younger generations. This is *already* the case in many European countries, which are giving tax credits...and even one-time lump sum payments to couples when they have a child!! We are currently in a situation in the U.S. where Social Security and Medicare are increasingly underfunded due to the swell of retirees (with the boomers just starting!) vs. the smaller base of workers paying in!!

      Paul Ehrlich and his radical anti-birth associates have long since been discredited. Move along.
      View article »
    • Thu Nov 6th 16:36 PM | Rating: +1 -1
      Commented on:
      Out of the Election and into the Frying Pan
      You mean Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, etc.?? Yeah. They are the ones!!


      On Nov 06 01:07 PM RiskAverseAlert wrote:

      "...The aristocratic scum who led the world into its present vulnerability..."
      View article »
    • Thu Nov 6th 13:25 PM | Rating: +1 0
      Commented on:
      A Capitalist Reformation
      eddy, you are forgetting that the *only* reason we have had the medical advances that we have had, is because the individuals & companies involved were able to turn a profit! altruism is fine, but you can't do the advanced type of research required for advanced medical technology without lots of capital -- private investment is the only way.


      On Nov 06 11:57 AM eddyshore wrote:

      > the real question is do we want a for profit healthcare system? our
      > healthcare system is the laughing stock of the western world. profit
      > is the sole motivation. once we give up on making $ on other peoples
      > misfortune and eliminate the abyss of absurd lawsuits we can reduce
      > costs in a big way. but nooooo that would be socialism. ooohhhhh.
      > scary! you can raise my taxes and my healthcare is basically paid
      > for or i can spend a quarter of my after tax income on healthcare.
      > what the hell is the difference? personally i dont want any entity
      > making $ off of my families health.
      View article »
    • Thu Nov 6th 11:51 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      A Capitalist Reformation
      RandyH -- capitalism is *NOT* changing -- our government is injecting socialism into it! Capitalism by definition is based on personal property rights and personal freedom, and the ability to use those in free markets to make money. Socialism is based on the "collective good"...a denial of personal property rights and the belief that individuals are to be cogs in the wheel, producing for others' sake. The fact that capitalism sometimes goes astray due to greed does not mean it is changing, simply that some abuse their freedom -- that is a thwarting of capitalism, not an extension or evolution of it.



      On Nov 06 11:26 AM Randy_H wrote:

      > What I missed in this articles is the contribution of innovation
      > and non-linear growth. That Capitalism is changing is a truism.
      > Capitalism is always changing. It is, at the core, Darwinistic.
      > Species within the Capitalist system universe that fail to adapt,
      > die. Eventually. Some are kept on preserves for a while. Some
      > are kept in zoos for study and for spectacle. But only adaptive,
      > progressive species survive and thrive.
      >
      > The government has a role in the Capitalist universe also. That's
      > the failure of the free market fundamentalists and neolibertarians.
      > Without the government as an arbitrator and referee, the Capitalist
      > game of life degrades rapidly into a kleptocratic thugism.
      >
      > But the magic is that Capitalism is an emergent system. It is not
      > a deterministic system, nor is it served well by negative utilitarianism
      > (doing the least harm equals doing the greatest good). Capitalism
      > instead is positively utilitarian. The least harm is not always
      > the best outcome. At times, the greater good is indeed served by
      > taking the path of the greater harm for a period. If that is the
      > point of the author, then I agree wholly.
      >
      > But what's unstated in this article is that the fruits of a positively
      > utilitarian, emergent Capitalist universe is explosive, revolutionary
      > growth. One could have said the same things stated in this article
      > during the periods prior to every "revolution"... The Industrial,
      > the Information, the Communication... Odds are, using historical
      > time series, we're approaching another seismic revolution. But,
      > like a big earthquake, exactly when cannot be predicted.
      >
      > We know the odds are rising. Capitalism ensures that the ground
      > will shake. And when it does, all the linear extrapolations about
      > which services cost what and what opportunity lies where, give way
      > to a new reality for which new equations must be formulated and old
      > ones recalibrated.
      View article »
    • Thu Nov 6th 11:46 AM | Rating: +1 0
      Commented on:
      A Capitalist Reformation
      I disagree in some measure: I do not believe "over-investment&... is responsible for our problems...rather, large injections of socialism have perverted the economic base upon which we attempt to operate as "capitalists"... In truth, the socialistic first hurdle is increasing in height, as we are continually taxed more heavily to fund social entitlement programs -- and that has radically skewed individual economics. When consumer spending is 70% of GDP and you mess with those income levels to fund entitlements, bad things are bound to happen.

      SS & Medicare are devoid of ties to reality -- they are "warm fuzzy" ideas that are given a "morally correct" spin, when in fact they are morally repugnant because they cause disproportionate pain to the payer, who has no duty to fund the recipient!! Examine the results "on the ground", and one becomes even more incensed at the goings-on: I see all the retired regulars at the local KC hall for weekly bingo, blowing $30 to $40 for bingo cards on a *single* night. Many of them go play elsewhere on other weeknights. One local retiree friend who works with local service organizations as a volunteer has told the story of a particular senior woman she knows of who regularly gets massages paid for to "help with depression"!! That same woman once was bused with others to a casino nearby...and given $50 "spending money" -- at taxpayer expense!!! No, my friends, this is NOT JUST!! It is WELL PAST TIME to END this entitlement FARCE!!!

      It is NOT so much capitalism gone awry that is our problem -- it is entitlements, social programs, and Big Government!! We need to ABOLISH the income tax and fund the government solely on sales taxes -- so that the worker can decide when to spend and how much...and retain what is needed. It would be proposed that food & certain essentials not be subject to the sales tax, only discretionary purchases. That way, the truly poor need not pay any tax, until they have reached an ability to buy discretionary items. THIS represents a return to government BY the people and a restoration of personal property rights!! It is the ONLY foundation for a sound capitalist system: one where individuals are not paying for others' lifestyles -- because that is what is crippling our economy at present.


      On Nov 06 09:24 AM RLXDOC wrote:

      > I believe there is a change, but the change isn't capitalism, it
      > is our view of capitalism's underpinnings, the fiscal and monetary
      > policy of our government. In the 1930's Keynes upset the prevailing
      > understanding of capitalist economies, which until then had focused
      > only on monetary policy to the exclusion of unemployment. The last
      > big shakeup in economic thought was the early 70s when we realized
      > that Keynes didn't have all the answers and that both fiscal and
      > monetary policy were important.
      >
      > A large cause of the problems you cite are related to over investment.
      > This over investment was driven by low interest rates. The process
      > of over investment and shake-out, or that every boom is followed
      > by a bust, appears to be as relevant as the "full employment, low
      > inflation, GDP growth" targets of our Federal Reserve. The austrian
      > school of economics and the boom/bust of business cycles seems to
      > explain what is going on.
      >
      > Capitalism didn't create low interest rates. It took advantage of
      > them.
      View article »
    • Thu Nov 6th 11:10 AM | Rating: +1 -1
      Commented on:
      10 Points About the Markets
      @waf & leh: don't try to pin the big-spending of late on Bush alone! The last two budgets have been done by a Democrat-controlled Congress. Furthermore, this mortgage crisis was DIRECTLY caused by Democrat's socialist housing policies!! I *am* extremely disappointed that the Bush admin joined up with them to do the bailout...but the root problem is Dem's interference in housing!!

      Regarding the 250K tax thing -- Pent Up Demand is right on: that number is a lie, for a couple reasons. First, I doubt he'll be able to stick to it, given the economy and what he has to pay for, Universal Health Care and all that rubbish; Secondly, the *income* tax is only the beginning!! Did you not read about the proposals to seize 401Ks??? You ought to be VERY afraid for any asset you have -- this government believes anything you have "belongs to the people". It will be taken and shared. Marxist in the White House = end of personal property. Period.
      View article »
    • Thu Nov 6th 11:04 AM | Rating: +1 0
      Commented on:
      The Day After: Is the Honeymoon Already Over?
      @kebu77: Obama's idea of "making energy his top priority" apparently means to price carbon so high that anything non-solar or non-wind will become unaffordable. That's not such a great thing for his entitlement voting class! Oh...did you see about his campaign workers who are now complaining they didn't get their full pay amounts? Seems he's off to a great start already with disappointing his base. Watch for more of that.
      View article »
    • Thu Nov 6th 11:01 AM | Rating: +1 0
      Commented on:
      The Biggest Bubble of Them All
      @Kunst: Saddam and Bin Laden enemies?? Hah!!! I think you just lost *all* credibility with those words! Even Iraq war skeptics who doubt they had any working alliance would not call those two enemies! They were very much aligned in their ideas and goals. And we *do* know of at least one in-person meeting between the two. Not to mention it stands to reason most communication would be indirect. You have a very weak case given what we know.

      As for WMDs, you're ignoring what his former lead physicist said -- just read the article I linked to. I swear...some people see what they wanna see and ignore the rest deliberately!!
      View article »
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»