The next great entitlement

Originally posted by Melanerpes
socialism is such an icky word

It would be socialism "in the icky sense" if the govt's objective was to control the auto industry, and was forcibly taking over private enterprises in order to do so.

But in this case, the objective is to prevent the collapse of a company that is "too big too fail". The government didn't take GM over "by force" - the ...[text shortened]... se corporations and thus preventing the "natural failure of capitalism" to play out.

Agreed. It is socialism, but not necessarily bad (because of the circumstances). However, like I said before, this should be a temporary measure, the govt. should go back to its normal size as the situation improves.

Originally posted by generalissimo
Between Obama and McCain, the majority voted for Obama, its called democracy.

No, its called a Republiic and as such it has a party method for electing candidates rather than a democratic one.

Originally posted by whodey
No, its called a Republiic and as such it has a party method for electing candidates rather than a democratic one.

Would you have voted for Hillary?

Originally posted by Melanerpes
[b]socialism is such an icky word

Kinda like the words "dung" or "Hanky the Christmas poo". I wonder why that is...... 😛

Maybe Obama can find another name for socialism. For example, when your at the dinner table a child often says he has to go #2 instead of saying they have to go sh$$, so perhaps Obama can say he wants to go #2 on the economy.

Originally posted by whodey
No, its called a Republiic and as such it has a party method for electing candidates rather than a democratic one.

which is why Bush became president in 2000 even though he lost the popular vote to Gore

Originally posted by generalissimo
Would you have voted for Hillary?

No, but in a "true" democracy, the majority vote wins so the question is irrelavent.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
which is why Bush became president in 2000 even though he lost the popular vote to Gore

Just another case in point.

Originally posted by whodey
No, its called a Republiic and as such it has a party method for electing candidates rather than a democratic one.

The Netherlands is not a republic, yet it has a party method for electing candidates.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The Netherlands is not a republic, yet it has a party method for electing candidates.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in china other than the fact the taxes on the tea is too high in China?

Originally posted by whodey
No, its called a Republiic and as such it has a party method for electing candidates rather than a democratic one.

Anyone ever wonder where the REPUBLICans and the DEMOCRATs get their names from?

Originally posted by whodey
...Welfare dollars from which only about 9 cents on the dollar goes to the poor and the rest goes to government over head.....

bet you 5 welfare dollars you can not back that claim with a credible source

Originally posted by whodey
...Welfare dollars from which only about 9 cents on the dollar goes to the poor and the rest goes to government over head.....

Originally posted by Scheel
bet you 5 welfare dollars you can not back that claim with a credible source

It's one of those freeper "factoids" that lubricates public discourse in the U.S.

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/*/index

Originally posted by Scheel
bet you 5 welfare dollars you can not back that claim with a credible source

If you were reading along I cleared this up earlier, "So, for every one of your tax dollars to the Federal Governemnt, about 7.5 cents goes to these programs." The web site was also provided earlier.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
which is why Bush became president in 2000 even though he lost the popular vote to Gore

You know, I got to thinking once again. Both the policies of Bush and Obama seem to be very similar in that Bush began bail outs and printing money like it was going out of style. Perhaps the powers that be simply are placing these two in to carry out the same policies?

Originally posted by whodey
You know, I got to thinking once again. Both the policies of Bush and Obama seem to be very similar in that Bush began bail outs and printing money like it was going out of style. Perhaps the powers that be simply are placing these two in to carry out the same policies?

Ignore the man behind the curtain. 😠

Seriously though, I think you're watched "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" one too many times.