TheRealMafoo said:
I don't quite get your logic. Obana wants to move us to a European form of government on a scale never seen before. If in the end we are to be more like Europe, how are we now more of an American Dream? America used to be the land of opportunity, if Obama has his way, it won't be anymore. In a Communist country like China, you are allowed to own a business, and make a very good living. If your company gets to big, the government will feel that the profits of that company now should go to the people, and will nationalize it. That, is not the land of opportunity. In socialism, they kind of do the same thing. They don't take the business away from you, they just tax the living shit out of it and give it to the people. That, is not the land of opportunity. This is what Obama wants to do. Give tax relief to the poor (and for some of the poor actually give them money), and tax the hell out the anyone who starts getting to big. What phrase is the opposite of "land of opportunity"? That would be "spread the wealth"
|
I'll start this by saying i know very little of Obama or his policies as of yet, but voting him in certainly earned the US some favour in the eyes of the world and that, in these days of flagging American opinion, will do no harm.
China is communist in name and style of governance only to a degree. Even the government conceeds they are not truly communist. It would appear that they merely maintain the communist ideals that promote the continuation of the one party system and who can blaim them for that. Try living here. I and pretty much every American who has lived here with me has agreed that it's the most capitalist place we have every lived. The government gives you nothing, and if you want to make something of yourself you have to work hard, get a decent education or both. At least though you can see examples of this on a daily basis. One of the richest women i know in the city where i live started her working career with no education and selling fruit on the side of the road, and is now worth millions.
Is socialism such a bad thing? I don't mean fully fledged, equal distribution of wealth, i mean a series of checks and balances that make sure people have at least a minimum standard of living, and seeing as the world is getting wealthier all the time it's reasonable to assume that the minimum standard should be higher than 50 or a 100 years ago for example. The countries in the world with the highest standards of living, according to the human development index, are all countries with socialist policies but they still have democratic governments and their citizens have the opportunity to become wealthy if they have either the will or the way.
Finally, i have to say i disagree with the idea of health care not being a right in this day and age. In a time when a large proportion of morbidity and mortality in the developed world can be attributed to lifestyle factors which are directly affected by goverment policy, e.g. working hours, lack of sleep and exercise, price of fresh food, education about health and lifestyle, how can you say it's not a government's responsibility to at least maintain a basic health cover for it's citizens. Afterall it's America's citizens who gave America it's position in the world due to their work ethic, and it's this very factor which is now a huge contributor to disease burden.
rant over;)
