[Rhodes22-list] March of the Wooden Soldiers - Political Reply -
Herb Parsons
hparsons at parsonsys.com
Thu Mar 27 01:01:57 EDT 2008
Both of those are your interpretations, maybe even your policy dreams;
however, they are most definitely NOT the policies advocated by the
candidates. I think you need to go back and look closer at Hillary's
plans. When people are forced to give portions of their paychecks to a
system by the government, you might not call it a tax, but that's what
it is. That's what she's advocating.
This is what Hillary said about oil companies:
"The other day the oil companies recorded the highest profits in the
history of the world. *I want to take those profits.* And I want to put
them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative
smart energy, alternatives and technologies that will actually begin to
move us in the direction of independence."
The problem is those aren't her profits to take, they belong to the oil
companies. If they make a business decision to invest in "alternative
smart energy (isn't it ironic, a politician who lives off the taxes paid
by others tells the most successful business enterprises in existence
what is "smart"?), then that's their choice. If the government seizes
their assets at the point of a gun, and uses them for purposes other
than their business, that's a form of socialism. We're not talking about
simply taxing a company here, we're talking about taxing them an
additional amount because the politician in question doesn't like the
amount of money they are making.
David Bradley wrote:
> Herb,
>
> The oil companies have historically run a lower ROA business, it's
> built into their stock price. They have generated record profits in
> an era of increased cost of goods - an antigravity act that has many
> wondering by what means they pull that off. From CNN Money - ""The
> profits have led even some Republicans who are normally seen as
> friends of the oil industry, such as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
> and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, to call for hearings into the
> profits gushing from the nation's energy producers." If politicians
> call into question the windfall profits and talk openly about a
> windfall profit tax then so be it - it'll never happen but it's
> pressure well placed. I don't think it's socialism.
>
> Advocating a health care system with a safety net for the poor and an
> empahsis on prevention isn't socialized medicine - it's good public
> policy and I'd say good for the economy in macro terms. There would
> still be private medicine, plan choice, etc. That's my understanding
> of her proposal, which of course would go through more changes and
> compromises. Not socialism.
>
> Happy to hear more examples. Don't expect that I'll be converting you
> any time soon but that's ok. Funny thing is, I consider myself more
> middle of the road than staunch liberal. I only became a Democrat
> when the Repulican Party drifted away from the middle.
>
> Dave
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 8:20 PM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:
>
>> I gave a specific, you pooh-poohed it. The oil companies. It doesn't
>> matter HOW much money they make, it's THEIRS money. If you advocate
>> taking money away from someone not because they got it improperly (they
>> didn't), but simply because you feel it's excessive, then giving that
>> money to someone, or something, that you feel deserves it more, that's a
>> socialist policy.
>>
>> Again, the oil companies make less per $1.00 invested than many other
>> companies. It's only a "lot" because they sell a lot. You keep taking
>> money from them, guess what? Investors will look for other places to
>> invest.
>>
>> Now, as far as my characterization of those supporting them, I haven't
>> said they're socialists. I WILL say their supporting candidates with
>> largely socialist plans. I'm not even calling Hillary or Barak
>> socialists, but they DO have largely socialist plans. Hillary's most
>> talked about plans, redistribution of wealth and socialized medicine,
>> are socialist plans. Barak's are a lot harder to pin down, because his
>> plans are pretty vague.
>>
>>
>> David Bradley wrote:
>>
>>> Herb,
>>>
>>> Advocates of the current (democratic) candidates would include the
>>> 50+% that intend to vote for one of them, but I accept your point and
>>> apologize if I misrepresented your views. And no, my intent was not
>>> to bait but to make a point about my beliefs on the difference between
>>> being a liberal (good) and a socialist (bad). I would absolutely like
>>> to hear specific examples.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I beg your pardon David, I challenge you to find one post of mine ever
>>>> that is an example of "characterization of the liberal half of the
>>>> country as socialist". You can't.
>>>>
>>>> I believe; however, specifically that both Hillary and Barak have
>>>> socialist policies. Would you like specific examples, or was the intent
>>>> of your post merely to bait?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David Bradley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Herb and Ed,
>>>>>
>>>>> With all due respect to your thoughtful posts, your consistent
>>>>> characterization of the liberal half of the country as socialists is
>>>>> nonsense. Shifting the priorities and policies of the country, both
>>>>> domestically and internationally, is not a change in form of
>>>>> government. It's something that generally happens every 4 or 8 years.
>>>>>
>>>>> >From Merriam-Webster...
>>>>>
>>>>> so·cial·ism
>>>>>
>>>>> 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating
>>>>> collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means
>>>>> of production and distribution of goods
>>>>> 2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private
>>>>> property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of
>>>>> production are owned and controlled by the state
>>>>> 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between
>>>>> capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of
>>>>> goods and pay according to work done
>>>>>
>>>>> So the oil companies are an easy target. Wah. They've cleaned up for
>>>>> 8 years. They may have lower return on assets than less
>>>>> captial-intensive businesses, but it's about earnings growth. It's a
>>>>> strategic industry - maybe they can put their windfall profits to work
>>>>> on new technology.
>>>>>
>>>>> Health Care is another strategic industry that needs to be protected
>>>>> while the badly broken health care payments industry gets fixed.
>>>>> Providers are being squeezed and choked because the system is wrong.
>>>>> I'm not worried about socialized health care becoming the standard in
>>>>> the US - it'll never happen - just don't want some large percentage of
>>>>> health care dollars going into the bureacratic black hole that
>>>>> currently exists. A little regulation might be in order - will see
>>>>> what they actually come up with.
>>>>>
>>>>> None of these examples is anything close to socialism - they are the
>>>>> levers of democracy and are also spelled out in the Constitution
>>>>> (along with national security).
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, I think he was speaking specifically to the advocates of the
>>>>>> current candidates. But that's just me reading things in context.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And, the current Democratic candidates are most definitely advocating
>>>>>> socialism. When one candidate plays the populous song of taking money
>>>>>> from the oil companies and giving it to causes of her choice, that's
>>>>>> socialism, at its worst. The oil companies make less money per invested
>>>>>> dollar than most other companies, and less money per gallon than the
>>>>>> government. Of course, those facts are easy to ignore, when you want to
>>>>>> pound the drum agains the "evil big companies".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Bradley wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Herb, the statement, "the advocates of 'The focus is on change' should
>>>>>>> move to Cuba, Russia, etc." is broadly inclusive in my interpretation.
>>>>>>> I disagree with painting anyone who believes in somthing other than
>>>>>>> what he believes in as being part of an inferior philosophy and
>>>>>>> couching it in quasi-historical stereotypes. I also would like to
>>>>>>> defend the use of soundbites, as I don't have as much time as some
>>>>>>> others -)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think Ed actually said "anyone"... I think he was addressing
>>>>>>>> specifics of the candidates involved. With what part do you disagree
>>>>>>>> with him?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David Bradley wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, Ed, anyone who wants change from the current state of the union is
>>>>>>>>> an "ist" of some sort? Color me an optimist. I'll happily take
>>>>>>>>> Hillary or Barack and hope like hell we can get onto a sustainable
>>>>>>>>> path in the world in which we supposedly play a leadership role.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So the slogan is "The focus is on change", from Americanism to Socialism.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes play Robin Hood, albeit in a perverse way, that is steal from workers to
>>>>>>>>>> pay for your favorite charities. "The focus is on change" advocates espouse
>>>>>>>>>> their "Five year Plan" as envisioned in the Soviet Empire. Socialism,
>>>>>>>>>> Communism, or the current National Democratic Party want you. And the
>>>>>>>>>> wooden soldiers march to their drumbeat.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They blame Repulicans for racism, yet have espoused the welfare state to
>>>>>>>>>> enslave not only blacks, but all. Socialism is just individual enslavement
>>>>>>>>>> to beauracrats with the enventual destruction of a good standard of living
>>>>>>>>>> for all. Yes, support your Marxist advocates yelling "The focus is on
>>>>>>>>>> change".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As I have said before, the advocates of "The focus is on change" should move
>>>>>>>>>> to Cuba, Russia, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fifth column marches its wooden soldiers on... to the drumbeat of "The
>>>>>>>>>> focus is on change".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nabble.com/file/p16277595/judgement.gif judgement.gif
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Slim, will you post the rest of the lyrics and music for the song, "The
>>>>>>>>>> focus is on change". And do tell us the words to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th
>>>>>>>>>> stanzas... I want to compare it to, "L'Internationale"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Slim, listen here:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/gp/recsradio/radio/B000002H8C/ref=pd_krex_listen_dp_img?ie=UTF8&refTagSuffix=dp_img
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ed K
>>>>>>>>>> Greenville, SC, USA
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/March-of-the-Wooden-Soldiers---Political-Reply---tp16277595p16277595.html
>>>>>>>>>> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list