My simulation of Debate Numero Uno

    I believe that when it gets down to it, that this election is about the type of government we want to see in the future. At least that's how I see it, and considering the response to the previous posts that is apparently an issue for others.

    I don't believe that the democrats are socialists, as I stated before, but I do see a growing socialization of this country, that is largely because of the Democratic party. Hell Eisenhower said it in 1953, offcourse, he wasn't refering to the demies. I do know that their is a difference between Socialism and Communism, but I also believe that they have some simularities that cannot be ignored.

    Socialism does breed stagnation to the fact that, those in the lower classes are provided various necessities that they otherwise would not have. That means that, because they do not have to work for necessities, they will not work for them. Growing up on welfare, before the reforms, I can say that, at the time the vast majority of people I saw and lived around, did not need to be on welfare. A large minority were on drugs(I'm not talking pot either) and/or involved in the biz, and exept for a small number, the rest had no interests to improve their lot. Yeah, they would bitch and moan all the damn time that they, can't get work or should get more, but made no effort what so ever to do so.

    Also I believe that socialism is a sacrifice of indivisual liberties in favor of social engeneering, yeah, not to the point of communism, but the element is still their. Government is their to protect me from foriegn powers, exploitation from the rich, and exploitation from the poor, not to provide for my personal needs. Parents are supposed to provide my needs as a child, I am no longer a child.

    "Socialists propose to supplant the competitive planning of capitalism with a highly centralized planned economy. Our aim is frankly international and not narrowly patriotic, but I cannot here discuss socialism's international policies.

    If we gained control of the american government, we would probably begin with a complete revision of the national governmental system. We would do one of two things. We would wright an amendment to the Constitution giving the federal government the right to regulate all private business which it deemed proper, or we would abolish the the Constitution altogether ans give the national congress the power to interpret the peoples will subject only to curtain general principles of free speech and free assembage." - Paul Blanshard(1932).

    its pretty much proven that a president and his policies have almost no impact on the economy

    there was some shit in the times this morning that was talking about it....wish i had it now....it was op-ed

    i can only find the first paragraph of the article

    Quote

    Both sides in this campaign have engaged in the usual debate about how much the president can do about the economy, apart from taking credit in good times and denying responsibility in bad times. There is truth to the notion that presidents cannot repeal economic cycles, and that President Bush was not to blame for the recession in 200

    but ive heard this more then one time before....when i heard it before it was much more convincing

    im trying to say in my last post that the economy for the most part is autonomous from anything that a president can do about it.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login