Has a great potential to create a more dependent society. I'm ok with giving people a hand, but I don't like the idea of a handout. That can further the entitlement mentality.

ding ding ding! Bang on the money.

They never have been able to manage them so what makes you think we should suddenly have faith in their ability to do so now? No, I see it as a further step towards a socialist european model.

Just because a society develops more of a social conciousness doesn't mean they're going to turn into socialists over night...or at all.

I don't think our society has been without a social consciousness. Our government has just not considered throwing money at social issues until recently.

I didn't say it had. In fact, my exact wording was 'more of a social conciousness'. (pardon the spelling error)

I know this argument has been had here many many times, but the level of assistance the govt provides citizens in Australia and the UK is much higher on average than that of the US and yet we're no closer to communism than you are. We still have massive social issues though, and some people think the govt should give more here...others think less.

Personally I think the balance is about right atm for us although it sux that our family benefits nothing at all from government assistance at all. Being what's considered high middle income earners, we dip out from both sides. We don't get the tax breaks high earners manage, but we get none of the assistance from various schemes the government offers. I don't think we suffer because of it, but it annoys me that Dazza works so hard and financially we're really not much better off than people who earn $30k less.

True. You are more a more taxed burdened society and society is more dependent on government handouts. Which creates an environment of dependence. No?

Not exactly. It means if you need help it's there. Most people are not dependant on the government, but there are programs available for those who need help.

We are in no way dependant on the govt ourselves as i mentioned. Nor is my father who happens to be pretty annoyed with the govt atm. He's recently retired, owns property, has never had to accept help from the govt and is self funded as a retiree (not through superannuation which is like your 401k accounts from what I can tell), and yet he just wanted a public transport card so he can get half price fares and do some train trips, but he's not eligible because he is 'too wealthy'. You should hear him grumbling about it! lol I don't think he should care so much though. He doesn't need it, but there are plenty who do. I get his point, but seriously, he's created exactly the life he wanted for himself and no one can take it away from him now. That's better than needing to rely on the govt in my view.

Dick Morris, humph.

First of all, we have not had "free-enterprise, market-dominated, laissez-faire" capitalism for a long time. What we have is socialist corporatism. We have been bailing out rich corporations for decades. About every 10 years or so, some big catastrophe happens, and they get bailed out.

Many rich corporations are completely subsidized by the government. They get government funding to build things (like sports stadiums), they get it for their employees health care (WalMart), they get it for R&D (pharmaceuticals). But, WE do not share in their profits, even though WE subsidized them. That is not capitalism, so please, stop insulting people by claiming it is.

In addition, all those really smart CEOs and Wall Street people artificially manipulate the market to make money. Then we the people pay when their houses built of cards come falling down. If you or I did that, we would be thrown in prison for fraud. That is what happened with the housing market, that is what with energy prices and blackouts caused by Enron, that is what happened with gas prices last year, and who knows what else all those so called "smart people" have done that will ultimately cause damage to the rest of us, while they luxuriate under their golden parachutes, and tell us we are too dumb to understand what happened. (Frankly, I am wondering if THEY know what the hell they are doing. and we have left these people in charge? *scratches head*)

Wall Street and deregulation caused all this mess. But conservatives answer to everything is to lower taxes on rich corporations and the very top wealthy elite. Hmmmm, they fucked up royally, so let's give them even more money and allow them to keep running things. But... it doesn't work. We have tried it. Some big corporations actually pay no taxes. And they hide their profits offshore, so they don't pay taxes on that. Conservatives like to complain about "tax and spend" democrats, but republicans are addicted now to "lower taxes and spend" philosophy. They spend more, but tax less. So where are we supposed to get the money to pay for all that spending? At least democrats want to tax people who can afford it so people who can barely scrape by might be able to have a few more dollars in their pocket.

Another thing, rich people (you know, really rich people) are not going to spend any more than they do otherwise if you let them keep more of their money. They just won't. The middle class drives the economy. We have been doing trickle down economics for 40 years, and it doesn't work. Do you realize that now, the top 300 people in this country have more wealth than the rest put together? It's insane. Why does any one person need to have 60 billion dollars? That money would be better spent if it was in circulation. Our country is strongest when we have a large middle class, but our middle class is shrinking, because so many good jobs have gone bye bye. Now we are losing high paying engineering jobs as well. I have an idea, maybe we should outsource all those CEO and executive jobs instead, and keep the workforce jobs. Imagine how much money we could save, and how many people we could employ, if we did that.

We need to support small business. Yes, ther are big corporations that employee lots of people, but the bigger they get, the harder they fall. We have allowed some industries to become so big that they really control us. Like media. Congress keeps raising the limits on how many newspapers, radio stations, and TV stations any one person can own. That is dangerous. Seriously. Do you honestly think it is healthy for only a few voices to have control over what we hear and see? I don't. It limits us. And in the same vein, allowing one company to diversify to where it limits competition, that isn't healthy either. They get too much power. And, in the process, not only does it limit competition, it also lowers standards (look at Microsoft).

Regarding health care. Republicans have been on TV whining that we need to cut taxes for corporations so they can compete globally, because other countries have lower corporate taxes. Well, other countries also have government-sponsored health care, and that is huge cost to corporations here. But, republicans don't want to give government-sponsored health care to our people either. So, give us the health care, and maybe we would be more ammenable to lowering corporate taxes. But only when corporations are taxed properly. (you know, that offshore thing again, and other ways corporations get away with not paying taxes, and being subsidized in almost every way imaginable. I mean really, if taxpayer dollars are paying for that sports complex, they should share in the profits.)

Health care costs are out of control. I notice the costs have gone up astronomically, because of ADVERTISING. How is it not drug pushing if a pharmaceutical company advertises its drugs on tv? Maybe we really DO need to take control of everything, from banks to pharmaceutical cos, because honestly, in the long run, it would probably be more beneficial to society.

About Obama, he actually wants to go through the budget and cut waste. If it doesn't work, he has pledged to get rid of it, or make it more efficient. The spending he wants to do will create jobs in the short term, and are investments for the future in the long term. Our infrastructure is crumbling, and weak regulation of certain industries is costing us money, and damaging the environment. Not to mention our addiction to oil. Pumping money into infrastucture and green technology will create jobs now and is long term investment for our country. And putting reasonable regulations on business is a good thing.

Let's at least give the man a chance. He has been in office for a week. Let's give him some time. I don't like everything he's doing either, and I'm skeptical of some of it. But I also have hope. He's intelligent, and thoughtful, and he LISTENS. He has already taken some HUGE steps that seem very promising. It took 8 years of Bush to get here. It will take time and thought to get out of it.

And ftr, why is "socialism" such a bad thing? People in Europe and other countries seem to like it pretty well.

One last thought (I know this is long, I'm not usually this loquacious. :D), I reeeally think we need repeal most of the drug laws. Espeically with regard to plants, like weed and mushrooms. I read the other day that pot is now the most profitable drug in the US. If we repealed the laws, and taxed it, imagine all the money we could bring in. Plus, it would start a whole new industry, and combat crime at the same time. If people could grow their own, or become a grower for profit, there would be no more drug wars, or illegal gangs to worry about. Of course, I also think prostitution should be legal, for many of the same reasons, and more, but that is another thread. ;)

I had to scroll up and doublecheck who the poster was on that one.

heehee, I am worshipping sugarpop right now!

She is one of my best friends and I love her to death. If I get divorced I am going to marry her. But we could never discuss politics before we had sex. :D

You forgot the walking on water part but I'm sure it was an innocent mistake

oh, well, I didn't want to brag, but I do possess that talent...

Hollow victory: Republicans deliver slap in the face to Barack Obama
By: Toby Harnden at Jan 29, 2009

President Barack Obama got the $825 (or $1.2 trillion over a decade) stimulus package through the House of Representatives but the 244 to 188 vote is a hollow victory indeed. Without a single Republican voting for the bill, his high-profile visit to Capitol Hill on Tuesday came to exactly naught - at least on the House side.

Obama vowed to change Washington and usher in a new post-partisan era. The the mood music and optics were pitch perfect as he trekked up to the Hill. Republicans praised his gesture, welcomed his sincere demeanour and appreciated his willingness to listen.

Problem was, he wanted only to listen and did not want to act on what Republicans said. When he was asked if he would re-structure the package to include more tax cuts, he reportedly responded: "Feel free to whack me over the head because I probably will not compromise on that part."

He apparently added: " I understand that and I will watch you on Fox News and feel bad about myself."

That's fine. No doubt Obama will indeed get beaten up on Fox News. But his failure to get even the squishiest moderate Republican - including the 11 entertained in the White House by Rahm Emanuel last night - to back him is not merely a big score for Rep Eric Cantor, Republican Whip, and the rest of the GOP leadership.

It also shows that it is not just Fox, the loony Right or Rush Limbaugh - or however else you might want to characterise the opposition in order to marginalise it - who had grave misgivings about the content of the bill.

The Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill badly miscalculated by treating the bill as a victor's charter. Not that it seemed to bother Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, who grinned from ear to ear as she announced the result of the vote.

Obama said yesterday he did not feel he had ownership of the bill. Be that as it may, if it goes through the Senate in similar fashion and is signed into law then - the efforts of Pelosio and Senator Harry Reid notwithstanding - it will be his and his alone.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_ha...o_barack_obama