Our president, not many threads about him.

[Mighty Mouse]

Although I agree with your stance Hoplite, I must say that you should use better factual support. Some of your "facts" are too broad and over-generalized.

For example, drug companies use patent and evergreening in effort to maintain a monopoly on profitable drugs. Typically, patents last 12 years, but can be extended by re-formulating the compounds to keep the compound away from generic market. That means that the profits recouped by selling the drug after research is not going straight back to innovate. It goes to lobbying, lawsuits, and other less than attractive costs of doing business. So let's not put them in a high light.

I looked at a sample of fourteen of the largest pharmaceutical companies.

Between them they made an average gross profit margin of 77%. Having heard the pharmaceutical companies and other advocates of patents, you might imagine that most of this 77% would go to fund research. In fact only 16% of revenues goes into research. 33% goes into sales, general and administrative costs. A look at the few companies (Novartis and Roche) that separate sales and marketing from administrative and general costs shows that the bulk of this does go into sales and marketing.

Also, student loans were already governmental. It's just that the bank middle men were eliminated under the latest bill. Health care already had hefty dose of governmental management, eg Medicare, Medicaid, . . .

I'm not fan of Obama's politics, but let's not put everything at his feet.

[Hoplite]

Here's a quote from a CBS News Document entitled "Tea Party Supporters: Who they are and what they believe"

"Ninety-two percent of Tea Party supporters believe President Obama's policies are moving the country toward socialism. Fifty-two percent of Americans overall share that belief.

Asked what socialism means, roughly half of Tea Party supporters volunteered government ownership or control, far more than any other answer. Eleven percent cited taking away rights or limiting freedom, and eight percent said it means the redistribution of wealth."

Seem to have a passing understanding of what Socialism entails. Factual enough?

Complete story here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... ?tag=stack

[PGG]

Hoplite- I'm not entirely sure what point you were trying to prove. While socialism does put more power into the hand of the government, the primary point is that EVERYONE in the country becomes the government. From wikipedia:

Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.

As for the taking away of rights, that probably refers to wealthy people not being able to continue the business practices that they have grown accustomed to. Remember, everything that comes from both sides individually will be slanted. Find the happy medium.

[Mighty Mouse]

@Hoplite . . . those are facts yes, but I think you miss my point. How does relating evidence of Tea Party membership and their beliefs relate to Obama? They represent a minority and in no way are they experts on the matter of socialism or obama. I meant relevant facts to support your assertions. You use snippets of facts and blow it to over-generalizations which weaken your argument. Anyways, good luck.

[Hoplite]

simply responding to 44 who said:

"For the life of me I am trying to find an example of a teaparty activist who understands Marxism and can make a cogent argument as to why Obama should be considered a socialist."

i demonstrated that Tea part activists do understand what marxism/ socialism is about.

Furthermore...above that...gave some evidence about socialistic tendencies of obama

Here are some statements which are factual and have been vetted of my personal animus:

•Obama signed state run medicine into law in this country

•Most countries that have established state-run medicine have done so under the influence of socialism in one way or another.

•Fidel Castro approves of the US on this one point

•Fidel Castro rarely approves of the United States.

•Fidel Castro decides to speak up at the moment our country adopts health care which is similar in philosophy to his.

•United States now owns 60% of General Motors.

•In 1979, Chrysler was bailed out. The United States never owned the majority. This makes General Motors buy out unprecedented

•Student Loans are now completely federal.

•Student loans were formerly brokered by independent banks

Just facts.

What do these facts suggest? Can any trends be discerned?

[Rogue]

"What do these facts suggest? Can any trends be discerned?"

Talk about servin' up a softball. I'm gonna take a swing.

The facts suggest that you're one dumb son of a...

[PGG]

Ok hoplite, first off, your fact about the tea party people prove nothing. It would have proven more if roughly *half* (keep in mind roughly half of the US thinks obama is not moving us towards a socialistic state) of the tea party peeps stated that socialism means pushing the government to involve more communities. Saying "giving the government more control", without the modifier of increasing the transparency and stretches of the government, means we'd be moving more towards a totalitarian fascist regime. There IS a difference, and I'd have far less problems with the Tea Sharty peeps if they understood this basic fact. Besides, the new healthcare bill isn't even entirely socialized, from what I've read of it. Half of the proposed changes sound more like the government challenging the insurance companies to compete with their plan, which is, in fact, capitalism.

It looks like only 1 out of 10 people in the tea party actually have a clue what socialism really means, and only 6% grasp what it fundamentally stands for. You call that proving they understand?

Now, onto your "points". The only thing that remotely makes a point is the fact that the US now own 60% of GM. Yes, that's kind of ridic. I can't say much else to that. However, the rest of your vetted points are more of like, "duh". Yes, Obama pushed the healthcare bill. Glad you heard that. The fact that socialized healthcare being implemented by the ideologies of socialism simply blows my mind. Also, the fact that someone agrees with something they agree with is simply groundbreaking. If Obama already got the Nobel, then you're a sure-win next year. Also, I'm really sad that all those banks who have been scoffed at by all sides for predatory lending practices aren't allowed to lend me money during what will probably be one of the most fiscally complicated portions of my life.

[get some]

socialism |ˈsō sh əˌlizəm|
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
• policy or practice based on this theory.
• (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.
The term “socialism” has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammeled workings of the economic market.The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended toward social democracy.

a truly socialistic society has never existed. nor has a truly democratic society. most people bend the philosophy of political and sociological ideals to service their own agendas, and in the process of doing so often divorce themselves from the true meaning of the philosophy. in reality, societies exist as a mixture of different philosophical views, with leanings towards any particular system of beliefs dependent upon the current climate of that society.

capitalism, while being a great service to the development of this nation over the past 100+ years, has some really twisted aspects to it if it were to be practiced in its purist form. its greatest weakness in my mind is the assumption that the "haves" will use their wealth to invest in the "have nots" in order to propagate the system. this doesnt always happen and you end up with a cannibalistic system that funnels all wealth to a small minority at the top. as much as we love to profess our love of capitalism in this country, we have in the past used socialistic practices to prop it up...farm subsidies, corporate tax breaks, and the recent bank bailouts come to mind immediately.

any person who has a healthy respect for caution and is wary of blind faith in any ideal when it comes to its application to a diverse society will recognize the inherent pitfalls in any political or sociological philosophy taken in its purest form. in my mind socialism and capitalism are sociological philosophies which naturally counterbalance each other when used in tandem to create the greatest benefit to a society as a whole. democracy is a political philosophy in which its practitioners inevitably will have to deal with capitalist and socialist notions towards solving societal problems. its a ying and yang thing. neither one is good on its own.

this notion is what is often missed in these arguments, in which emotion regularly trumps reasonable thought. whats so great about a "fact" when its true impact isnt understood. take the above stated "facts" and tell me the real impact each one has on our society. you cant do it cause you dont know yet....or i'll go one further and suggest that most of those "facts" have zero impact at all.

so what good are they?

[Hoplite]

@rogue....Sorry you use no facts, only vindictive rhetoric reminiscent of a boys high school locker room. You must have been so very clever in that situation! Good for you!

@ppg...your fascist argument bears some weight. Fascism...has been kind of a slippery term, harder to define then socialsm. But I wouldn't mind applying that to Obama as well. Good point. ..... Agreed we are more totalitarian now than we were before. The transparency he promised has not happened. This should concern us. If that's how they behave publicly, it makes one wonder what they are doing behind the scenes.

Fidel castro cheering for us is not something that raises flags? Our enemy applauding our president does not signal something?

Complete Federalization of student loans does not concern you? If they control money, Will they not be tempted to also control who get's to use it? Are they not already doing this in our local public schools with lame national programs?

With regard to the insurance companies being challenged to compete with the government plan..... The Government regulates and is a player at the same time? Who do you think will win this competition? Excuse me for using an analogy, but that's like the ump playing for one side in a baseball game.

The rest of what you say is not factual but rather an expression of opinion and feeling. I have been told repeatedly that we are not to do that in this forum... only facts. So I cannot hear nor understand the rest of what your wrote.

@Get some

The most decent reply. Thanks...thoughtful.

I Agree no socialistic or democratic society has existed. I agree that most societies are a mixture of different philosophical views. And what I'm most concerned about is the change of "climate" as you call it. The world saw a similar climate change in UK in the 50's and 60's....with the nationalization of much industry. It was not good for them.

I also agree that pure capitalism is perhaps as twisted pure socialism. I've seen it's abuse. I've seen the big box Lowes cause my favorite little hardware store to go under.....that would be just one example. Other's abound. Thank you for your clarifying thoughts on this. We need to strike a balance and the issue is where is the balance. Agreed.

Where I differ with you is that the facts (not in quotes) do have some impact, or at least they should. Of course I cannot read the future, but I can read history. We've seen Socialism applied to a greater extent in many different countries. It always means much more taxes. This bothers me because it means less freedom. Applied Socialism also means turning more things over to the Government. Why would we do that? Has the Government demonstrated an expertise in anything besides making war? They do not have the same motivation to care about the individual as a private sector business might.

Thanks for your post

[get some]

Fidel castro cheering for us is not something that raises flags? Our enemy applauding our president does not signal something?

anything Fidel Castro does or says does not concern me at all. he is a relic...a dying relic at that. the misguided sentiments of the Cold War are 20 years in the rear view mirror and Fidel's ego maniacal world view cant let it go. we should not lend credence to him by entertaining him every time he pops up to say "look at me everyone!"

Complete Federalization of student loans does not concern you? If they control money, Will they not be tempted to also control who get's to use it? Are they not already doing this in our local public schools with lame national programs?

i understand your fear of the abuse of power by government but to disregard why they ended up in the hands of the government in the first place is somewhat short sighted. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's involvement in the housing crisis necessitated intervention. the fact that a bunch of student loans came with the package is unfortunate. you can disagree with how we intervened but without an alternative solution the argument isn't very useful. what else should have been done in regards to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? allow them to fail? what then would be the consequences of all those student loans and any future loans for higher education? do you have the same reservations about Pell Grants?

of greater concern to me is the growing cost of higher education and the growing necessity for a larger portion of students requiring loans which put them in debt to the tune of 100K or more before they have even entered the workforce. with jobs harder to find and wages either dropping or at a stand still, a 100K or more debt for an average student creates a scenario that could be characterized as a form of indentured servitude. there is a greater problem, which in my opinion stems from the general attitude and philosophy of the financial institutions, in which mechanisms are created to funnel wealth to a select few. students loans have become just another one of those mechanisms. like it or not the only entity capable of stepping in to effect change to a financial institution is the government...hopefully on our behalf but again, that is yet to be seen.

With regard to the insurance companies being challenged to compete with the government plan..... The Government regulates and is a player at the same time? Who do you think will win this competition? Excuse me for using an analogy, but that's like the ump playing for one side in a baseball game.

your characterization of the government being a player and regulating at the same time can also be applied to how the insurance industry (and more so Wall Street) has operated for the last 20 years at least...if not more. many millions of dollars are spent by these industries through lobbying and campaign contributions. both parties benefit in a lucritive manner through this system. what effect do you imagine it has on legislature of these industries when our elected officials appear beholden to an industry that has funnelled millions into their elections?

now in a capitalist system, its fair to expect an economic organization to spend money in whatever fashion it deems will help it to gain an advantage in the marketplace. but do you want to be governed by the tenets of capitolism? or would you rather be governed by the tenets of democracy?

again...i understand your fears but to not be equally afraid of the way things were merely a year or two ago makes it difficult to seriously consider your points. industries like Insurance, Energy, Auto, Banking, and Drug Companies have been wheelin and dealing in Washington for decades to improve situations for themselves. the hope is that they then in turn improve our society and its people as a whole, but in many peoples view they all have reached a level of greed in which they seem more interested in enriching their top management at the cost of the middle class.

what is the best way an individual can respond to the problems we are seeing with all the industries above? capitalism suggests that the consumer has the right of choice and that if we dont like the product we dont have to buy. thats great in theory but if i see that insurance is too expensive and medical care without insurance is even more prohibitive then is it reasonable to expect me to just not purchase these services? if higher education costs are beyond my means then is it reasonable to suggest i just not educate myself beyond high school? if the banks require high interest rates, hidden fees, and unclear payment schedules that come with stiff penalties (all of which that can balloon at their whim) is it reasonable to expect me to just not ever try to buy a home? maybe...but i really dont think many people would be very prosperous or happy with the prospect of poor health, no education, and no hopes of having their own place to live. do we really want to live in a society that allows these practices to become pervasive? the fact of the matter is, that our democratic system of government exists to protect our way of life for the citizens of this country. emphasis on citizens. the government, which is meant to represent us, is our best means at confronting these situations as individuals. now you can certainly argue that it hasnt done a good job in the past and that your hopes that it will do a good job in the future are slim but the government gives us the most direct means of effecting change. we still carry the power of the vote. to suggest government should not intervene in cases of such abuses, to me, is to suggest we castrate ourselves of any real power to effect change.

anyway...i feel a surge of tangents coming on and i must get back to work. these are complicated problems that need thorough thought to be seriously dealt with. what Castro says or thinks doesnt need to enter the equation.