[Rhodes22-list] March of the Wooden Soldiers - Political Reply -

Thu Mar 27 01:43:11 EDT 2008

I've looked but I'll look again.  Today employer health care costs are
growing at more than 20% a year and most of that is being passed on to
employees.  No fix in sight.  A tax or not a tax.

I agree that the comment from last December I believe on "i want to
take that" was a dumb comment.  Haven't heard it as a policy platform
since.  Still think the tax policies should be used to effect
investment in alternative energy technologies.

Dave

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:01 PM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:
> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>

-- 
David Bradley
+1.206.234.3977
dwbrad at gmail.com