QE hurts the elderly

Hello · Apr 27, 2011

Quote from CaptainObvious:

I agree completely, but confused none the less. If Obama and his crew are socialists, wouldn't they be transferring money from the banks/corporations to the people instead of stealing money from the people to give to the banks/corporations? I've said it before and I'll pose the question again. I don't know what the hell we have at work in this country, but it ain't socialism, and it sure as hell isn't capitalism, so what is it?

Opportunism:(definition) Opportunism Is the conscious policy and practice of taking selfish advantage of circumstances, with little regard for principles. (this sums up the current system in america)

The current form of government should be called "opportunism" this is really the only way to describe what is going on in america.

It is a system of fucking the tax payer for votes at any cost.

RCG Trader · Apr 27, 2011

Quote from CaptainObvious:

I agree completely, but confused none the less. If Obama and his crew are socialists, wouldn't they be transferring money from the banks/corporations to the people instead of stealing money from the people to give to the banks/corporations? I've said it before and I'll pose the question again. I don't know what the hell we have at work in this country, but it ain't socialism, and it sure as hell isn't capitalism, so what is it?

Fascism.

Maverick74 · Apr 27, 2011

Quote from CaptainObvious:

I agree completely, but confused none the less. If Obama and his crew are socialists, wouldn't they be transferring money from the banks/corporations to the people instead of stealing money from the people to give to the banks/corporations? I've said it before and I'll pose the question again. I don't know what the hell we have at work in this country, but it ain't socialism, and it sure as hell isn't capitalism, so what is it?

It can still be called socialism. Instead of taking from the rich to give to the poor, this administration is smart. They are taking from the middle and giving to both the very top and bottom of society. The surest way to stay in power is to get campaigns funded by the rich and to get your votes from the poor. F*ck the middle. Kudos to you Obama. Well played sir.

Ricter · Apr 27, 2011

Quote from Maverick74:

It can still be called socialism. Instead of taking from the rich to give to the poor, this administration is smart. They are taking from the middle and giving to both the very top and bottom of society. The surest way to stay in power is to get campaigns funded by the rich and to get your votes from the poor. F*ck the middle. Kudos to you Obama. Well played sir.

Fails Occam's Razor. A simpler explanation is that it is capitalism, the lesser-regulated form, and it's morphing into plutocracy. Socialism requires a far broader ownership of the means of production, so what we have today is nowhere near it by any kind of convoluted, tortured reasoning.

Maverick74 · Apr 27, 2011

Quote from Ricter:

Fails Occam's Razor. A simpler explanation is that it is capitalism, the lesser-regulated form, and it's morphing into plutocracy. Socialism requires a far broader ownership of the means of production, so what we have today is nowhere near it by any kind of convoluted, tortured reasoning.

No dude, you are talking about the socialism of the 20th century. This is a new form of hybrid socialism where the government distributes to both the very top and bottom. All the money at the top is tied to the government in one form or another. We don't have a manufacturing or agriculture economy anymore so the government is not going to control the means of production. This is socialism 2.0.

Ricter · Apr 27, 2011

Quote from Maverick74:

No dude, you are talking about the socialism of the 20th century. This is a new form of hybrid socialism where the government distributes to both the very top and bottom. All the money at the top is tied to the government in one form or another. We don't have a manufacturing or agriculture economy anymore so the government is not going to control the means of production. This is socialism 2.0.

By the same argument you could call it capitalism 2.0.

Maverick74 · Apr 27, 2011

Quote from Ricter:

By the same argument you could call it capitalism 2.0.

I can't because we do not have a free market.

Ricter · Apr 27, 2011

Quote from Maverick74:

I can't because we do not have a free market.

That's why it would be called 2.0.

Hello · Apr 27, 2011

Quote from Ricter:

By the same argument you could call it capitalism 2.0.

This might work, if not for the fact that in real capitalism businesses dont get handouts...

Maverick74 · Apr 27, 2011

Quote from Ricter:

That's why it would be called 2.0.

Huh? That makes no sense. The whole essence of capitalism is the free flow of capital. What we have now is the very opposite of that. Why not just call it communism 2.0 then? I mean seriously, you can't just make stuff up.