Rasmussen Report: Just 47% Oppose Nationalizing Oil Industry, do you oppose nationalizing the oil industry?
Just 47% Oppose Nationalizing Oil Industry
Monday, June 16, 2008
A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 29% of voters favor nationalizing the oil industry. Just 47% are op...
Just 47% Oppose Nationalizing Oil Industry
Monday, June 16, 2008
A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 29% of voters favor nationalizing the oil industry. Just 47% are opposed and 24% are not sure.
The survey found that a plurality of Democrats (37%) believe the oil industry should be nationalized. Just 32% of voters in Barack Obama’s party disagree with that approach. Republicans oppose nationalizing the oil industry by a 66% to 16% margin. Unaffiliated voters are opposed by a 47% to 33% margin.
Nationalization is the process by which the government assumes complete control of a private industry and its assets. It has been a common practice in totalitarian dictatorships, but as recently as 2001 following the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government nationalized the private airport security industry and moved it under the Transportation Security Administration.
Forty-seven percent (47%) of all voters say that private companies are more likely to solve the nation’s energy problems than a government research program. Thirty percent (30%) disagree and say the government research program is more likely to find the solution. Again, there is a huge partisan divide. Republicans, by a 71% to 15% margin, say private companies are likely to solve the problem. Democrats, by a 40% to 35% margin, say government research programs are the better bet. A modest plurality of unaffiliated voters place their trust the private company approach.
Ideologically, 43% of liberal voters say the government research program is more likely to solve the problem while 31% take the opposite view. Conservatives, by a 68% to 17% margin, say private companies will find the answer. Political moderates are evenly divided.
Just 52% of American voters believe that an oil company should be allowed to keep profits from any alternative energy source it discovers. Twenty-nine percent (29%) say the company should not be allowed to keep such profits while 19% are not sure. Democrats are evenly divided on the question. Republicans by a 4-to-1 margin, and unaffiliated voters by a 2-to-1 margin, say that the companies should be allowed to profit from discoveries that reduce the price of gas and other energy sources.
Thirty-six percent (36%) of voters say that passage of a windfall profits tax on oil companies would lead to higher gas prices. Thirty percent (30%) believe prices would remain about the same and 15% believe a windfall profits tax would lead to lower gas prices. Most liberal say that gas prices would be unchanged or drop.
Seventy-six percent (76%) say that development of new energy sources would do more than higher fuel efficiency standards to bring gas prices down--and keep them down. Just 14% believe higher fuel efficiency standards would be more effective.
Earlier surveys have found that higher gas prices have had a big lifestyle impact on half of all Americans. The number of Americans taking a summer vacation is down sharply this year. Seventy-one percent (71%) expect gas prices to reach $5 a gallon this summer. (more)
Monday, June 16, 2008
A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 29% of voters favor nationalizing the oil industry. Just 47% are opposed and 24% are not sure.
The survey found that a plurality of Democrats (37%) believe the oil industry should be nationalized. Just 32% of voters in Barack Obama’s party disagree with that approach. Republicans oppose nationalizing the oil industry by a 66% to 16% margin. Unaffiliated voters are opposed by a 47% to 33% margin.
Nationalization is the process by which the government assumes complete control of a private industry and its assets. It has been a common practice in totalitarian dictatorships, but as recently as 2001 following the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government nationalized the private airport security industry and moved it under the Transportation Security Administration.
Forty-seven percent (47%) of all voters say that private companies are more likely to solve the nation’s energy problems than a government research program. Thirty percent (30%) disagree and say the government research program is more likely to find the solution. Again, there is a huge partisan divide. Republicans, by a 71% to 15% margin, say private companies are likely to solve the problem. Democrats, by a 40% to 35% margin, say government research programs are the better bet. A modest plurality of unaffiliated voters place their trust the private company approach.
Ideologically, 43% of liberal voters say the government research program is more likely to solve the problem while 31% take the opposite view. Conservatives, by a 68% to 17% margin, say private companies will find the answer. Political moderates are evenly divided.
Just 52% of American voters believe that an oil company should be allowed to keep profits from any alternative energy source it discovers. Twenty-nine percent (29%) say the company should not be allowed to keep such profits while 19% are not sure. Democrats are evenly divided on the question. Republicans by a 4-to-1 margin, and unaffiliated voters by a 2-to-1 margin, say that the companies should be allowed to profit from discoveries that reduce the price of gas and other energy sources.
Thirty-six percent (36%) of voters say that passage of a windfall profits tax on oil companies would lead to higher gas prices. Thirty percent (30%) believe prices would remain about the same and 15% believe a windfall profits tax would lead to lower gas prices. Most liberal say that gas prices would be unchanged or drop.
Seventy-six percent (76%) say that development of new energy sources would do more than higher fuel efficiency standards to bring gas prices down--and keep them down. Just 14% believe higher fuel efficiency standards would be more effective.
Earlier surveys have found that higher gas prices have had a big lifestyle impact on half of all Americans. The number of Americans taking a summer vacation is down sharply this year. Seventy-one percent (71%) expect gas prices to reach $5 a gallon this summer. (more)
Top Comment
-
I oppose nationalizing private industry
Nationalizing? Nationalizing?
What has become of Americanism?
Have we all become European-styled thumb suckers aching for the maternal embrace of government like whimpering children?
Comments
I oppose nationalizing private industry
I don't think so...it must be the American chance taker in me...never know when you will hit the gravy train... :-)Nationalizing Oil should have great results, look how great Medicare is going!!!
the major oil companies all agreed to price fix. this is a monopoly. normally i'm against nationalizing. in this case, we can't rely on the oil companies to police themselves. their greed is slowly bleeding this nation.I do nto think nationalizing will have any positive results but to further corrupt our government....
Nationalizing Oil should have great results, look how great Medicare is going!!!
The goal of capitalism is to socialize costs and privatize profits. The oil industry has done this amazingly well with help from the boys in the White House. In other words, the cost and risk of maintaining access to oil has already been nationalized (eg. Iraq War) while the profits remain in private hands.Nationalizing Oil should have great results, look how great Medicare is going!!!
I do not really care to much about nationalizing oil but I do take issue with your pictures of socialists. Maybe you coudl put some of some hot Swedish women.some nationalized programs do quite well
post office is pretty damn good
medicare would be great if the government didn't keep taking money form it to hide the deficit
police and fire are government run programs
our highways
your scope is very biased
If you do not want nationalism then I am sure you also are not in favor of the myriad tax breaks that has been given to the energy industry
With all due respect...
Private postal companies are competitive with the federal program for better service, I know you only buy stamps, but tax dollars go towards the postal service, eliminate the tax dollars and see the price skyrocket past UPS and FED EX
You know what would be better than medicare, there being good samaritan laws protecting unimpaired honest physicians from malpractice suits and the government getting it's damned greedy hands out of it completely, then we might see our healthcare costs at the level that one does not require insurance, like it was PRIOR to government involvement...
Police and Fire are local to state and incorporated communities, not national...
Yeah lets take a LOOONG look at our highways...
I do not want SOCIALISM, that is what nationalising private industry is...
What I was getting at is the postal service is efficient.
Nixon and the health care industries are who threw us under the bus; this is clearly seen if you compare our system to most other countries with socialized medicine.
We have a lower life span and a higher infant mortality rate which are two metrics of a health care system
Police and fire are still government run; city and local government but social programs non the less
"compare our system to most other countries with socialized medicine"
Look at Canada's, they cannot get people to become Doctors in Canada because the social medicine has an earning cap on Doctors so they do their quota (leading to longer waiting lists) and no one wants to be in that dead end job....
Look at France's, with their illegal immigrant problem, JUST LIKE WHAT WE HAVE, their Socialized Medicine system is bankrupt...
Lets look at Sweden, the one everyone marks as a successful socialist nation, taxing thier citizens, compared our system, most other countries with socialized medicine tax up to 60%, having low business taxes so they can afford to hire all the people in the country...
Nationalizing and government responsibility are two different things...
Can you even name the actual jobs that are entrusted to the Federal government?
If you could and see how they fail to do what is their responsibility and instead they opt to do all sorts of other things and they are horrible at it, then people want to put more things in their hands....
Where does this end? We have a nation of infants ... What would be interesting is watching the government try to manipulate us into thinking none of our tax dollars go to postal services and that they need just as much money...
"compare our system to most other countries with socialized medicine"
Look at Canada's, they cannot get people to become Doctors in Canada because the social medicine has an earning cap on Doctors so they do their quota (leading to longer waiting lists) and no one wants to be in that dead end job....
Look at France's, with their illegal immigrant problem, JUST LIKE WHAT WE HAVE, their Socialized Medicine system is bankrupt...
Lets look at Sweden, the one everyone marks as a successful socialist nation, taxing thier citizens, compared our system, most other countries with socialized medicine tax up to 60%, having low business taxes so they can afford to hire all the people in the country...
Nationalizing and government responsibility are two different things...
Can you even name the actual jobs that are entrusted to the Federal government?
If you could and see how they fail to do what is their responsibility and instead they opt to do all sorts of other things and they are horrible at it, then people want to put more things in their hands....
Where does this end? We have a nation of infants that NEED their government for everything because god forbid they have to be responsible for themselves.... (more)
especially about the socialized medical countries.
quality of care; wait time; etc etc
I will give you some Americans have lower life expectancies and higher infant mortality rates then the countries who you say their system is failing
The CDC does a pretty good job as do the national laboratories at Los Alamos
I can count on one hand the people that are satisfied, but their experience is usually only involving pregnancy or child medicine...
The life expectancy bit has NOTHING to do with their healthcare system it has to do with HOW they live, how they eat, what they eat ect...
On the other hand I would need dozens of fingers to count the people that are unsatisfied...
Basically what you are saying is that you are a thumb sucker that wants to stay that way and wants everyone else to be as needy as you. You have the right to be that way, you have the right to your opinion based on slighted facts that do not consider the reality of situations, you do have the right to be wrong...
What you do not have the right to do is...
Require me to pay for your healthcare
Require me to pay for your children's higher education (I am actively working on the lower, but the higher is the only case right now)
Require me to be insured
Require me to go to University
This is the thing that scares the hell out of people that come to me with your arguments for giving the government more power...
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO FAIL, BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE PENNY ONE FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO HELP ... ou know what my metric is people that live in those systems that tell me they are crap....
I can count on one hand the people that are satisfied, but their experience is usually only involving pregnancy or child medicine...
The life expectancy bit has NOTHING to do with their healthcare system it has to do with HOW they live, how they eat, what they eat ect...
On the other hand I would need dozens of fingers to count the people that are unsatisfied...
Basically what you are saying is that you are a thumb sucker that wants to stay that way and wants everyone else to be as needy as you. You have the right to be that way, you have the right to your opinion based on slighted facts that do not consider the reality of situations, you do have the right to be wrong...
What you do not have the right to do is...
Require me to pay for your healthcare
Require me to pay for your children's higher education (I am actively working on the lower, but the higher is the only case right now)
Require me to be insured
Require me to go to University
This is the thing that scares the hell out of people that come to me with your arguments for giving the government more power...
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO FAIL, BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE PENNY ONE FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO HELP YOU!!!!!
Not to mention that apparently you are too busy to deal with the rest of my post up there...
Maybe I am too much for you...
Why don't you ask Marquise what it is like for her, She was born in Romania, while it was still a Soviet Block Nation, she has lived in France, A social democracy AND Canada as well...
Instead of accessing sites that are meant to sway opinion to the owners view, ask her, she lives it, and it is so damn great that she is actively looking to leave it behind for the US...
Why is it that if what we have is so damn bad that we are still the biggest immigrator in the WORLD, where being granted immigration status to the US is delegated to a lottery because of the sheer amount of applicants a year... (more)
As my family is form Canada I know lots of people in the health care system.
My coworker is from Spain and I know how he views his health care system. I have friends form Cuba etc etc.
Life expectancy does show something about the health care system as does infant mortality.
what other metrics are there?
I guess you failed to see that our government spends MORE per capita then most other socialized countries.
So think about it; what you spend already in taxes could be used to provide health care for everyone without more taxes.
If you have no actual data just say so
as for people coming here to live that has nothing to do with health care it has to do with the ability of someone to come here work a low level job and be able to send money to their family overseas.
I lived in a poor country for 3 years and I assure you the people wanted to go to America but only to work and provide for their families back home. They missed their family and country while they were working in America.
so lets just end this way;
look at how much our government spends on health care right now and look at what the socialized countries spend and then try and tell me what the problem would be?
it is really all that simple
I have the right to treat myself at home if I so choose, and never see a doctor my whole life...
Life expectancy is directly correlated with the way one lives not what kind of medicine the government provides, want "metrics", look at the fact that since our government got involved with medicine in the 70's price skyrocketed and we fell behind other nations....
Very counter intuitive to your point...
Furthermore when I work I loose 25% of my paycheck and just survive on that, increasing my taxes so that I can go to a doctor I never see at this point does what for me? Makes me homeless...
I have the right to treat myself at home if I so choose, and never see a doctor my whole life...
you could still do that in a socialized medical program no one forces you to get care
you still do not see what I keep saying " your taxes would NOT go up. we already spend more per capita then most countries.
the reason why prices went up is because of managed care not because of government involvement.
your prices might actually go down
A lot of money is spent on the uninsured going to emergence rooms
No but socialized medicine FORCES me to pay for it...
YOU ARE WRONG!!!!
Every plan out there has forced compliance through wage garnish, it is the only way to pay for it, and quite frankly to believe otherwise is foolish to the point of insanity...
What about the 20 million people that will be able to take advantage without ever paying taxes? This is why France's system is bankrupt, they have a similar issue with illegal immigration as we, on a MUCH smaller scale, with middle eastern people instead of south and central americans...
Nothing the government has touched has ever gone down in anything but quality since the turn of the last century, that is a fact...
Your reply to Marquise shows that you have no mind about this just parrotting the insanity of others over and over....
SHE LIVED IN THE SYSTEM, AND SHE IS HERE TO TELL YOU ABOUT IT...
many reasons but one is since we do not have universal care people wait till they are very very sick then go to the emergency room which is so much more expensive than having preventative care.
don't trust me but look at the data yourself;
and I work with people from all over the world and have lived overseas I see how other health care systems work.
I lived in a poor poor country and they had universal health care.
50 million people uninsured; that is a black mark on any society
your taxes dont have to go up at all so relax
I don't know about Spain....but I know about France....the healthcare system, a very good socialist one, has a 10 milliardz euro deficit...
as I have posted above we spend more per capita then almost every other country and also have 50 million uninsured people
reminds me of the story of the blind men trying to explain what kind of a creature an elephant was based on the small area that they felt
true, any results can be biased in any field but looking at broad populations and taking accurate samples minimizes both type 1 and type 2 error
where personal experience is just that personal and not able to be used for any metric
If I say the average height of americans is 5'10 what manipulation can be done?
I need to find the poll I did with the interview with a professional poller, this would be someone who does "statistics" or "metrics" for a living. He managed to get people to contradict everything they said they believed in, and said "I can get any result I want"...
The problem is not in the foundation of statistics but the person doing the statistics, their questions can direct a poll of the popular sentiment in any direction they so choose....
My point was if done correctly then they are a very meaningful way of showing data.
I am the first to agree that politicians and other can and do use them improperly for their own gain and it makes me ill.
I may not agree with you or others on the list but I would not intentionally misrepresent data for my own views.
I find that one of the worst actions of any person
I will give you an example....
The company that did the happiest country to live in statistics, is run by a BHO supporter (now that HRC is out) that was for a time a member of SWP, that is the Socialist Workers Party, based in the United States. How unbiased do you think their statistics are, especially when a majority ofthe "happiest places to live" are socialist nations???
I work for Disney Corp., in a resort, with about 100 foreign nationals, and that is a lowball estimate, predominantly the kids (early 20's) are very happy with their socialist government, but there are many things about these kids you do nto see without being at the job with them. They do not like to work, they abhor earning their keep and most, not all, have had no idea what it was to work for a living prior to coming to the states. Many of these people cry that helping guests order food and wiping tables is too hard, or worse beneath them, and quit after a short time. The older people, the ones that have had to work in the socialist democracies of europe, are pleased as punch to be here, they work hard, as many extra days as they choose, and reap a healthy benefit from working extr... The problem is not "you" perse steve, I cannot "show statistics" like you cannot, that guarantee an unbiased poller...
I will give you an example....
The company that did the happiest country to live in statistics, is run by a BHO supporter (now that HRC is out) that was for a time a member of SWP, that is the Socialist Workers Party, based in the United States. How unbiased do you think their statistics are, especially when a majority ofthe "happiest places to live" are socialist nations???
I work for Disney Corp., in a resort, with about 100 foreign nationals, and that is a lowball estimate, predominantly the kids (early 20's) are very happy with their socialist government, but there are many things about these kids you do nto see without being at the job with them. They do not like to work, they abhor earning their keep and most, not all, have had no idea what it was to work for a living prior to coming to the states. Many of these people cry that helping guests order food and wiping tables is too hard, or worse beneath them, and quit after a short time. The older people, the ones that have had to work in the socialist democracies of europe, are pleased as punch to be here, they work hard, as many extra days as they choose, and reap a healthy benefit from working extra, these people miss their homeland, but enjoy the trappings of capitalism.
With socialism you increase the tax burden, in increasing the tax burden logically those with less money have less liberty. I know the calling card is to increase the taxes of the wealthy, but the wealthy is less than 10% of the population here in the United States. We would need to tax them to the point of making their effort worth $50,000 a year to reap the benefit necessary for what we see in Europe. Look at Europe's people, how many independently wealthy people have arisen out of socialist systems, the majority of the wealthy in Europe have ALWAYS BEEN WEALTHY, back to the middle ages, and in some cases further. Socialism does not produce wealthy people from the poor, that is, without crime, at the hands of corrupt government or organized crime... (more)
I spent 3.5 years in a country that was very heavily family oriented and had huge extended families living under one roof.
The people were happier then any other people I have ever met and certainly by in large happier then most Americans I talk to.
They all wanted to come here to earn money to send it back to their family but while they were gone they were very lonely because the society here is not very communal and very individualistic.
So yes happiness is a subjective metric.
Things like infant mortality and life expectancy though are fairly straight forward.
I would be fine with more capitalism in our society if we took away the corporations ability to have similar constitutional rights as citizens. It is not capitalism perse I am against it is our now oligarchy that we live in.
Maybe i have just not been clear on what bothers me about the system
Let me try to get this straight, you think because corporations have the same rights as citizens that capitalism is failing? What rights exactly are you troubled with, and I am not looking to be a pain in the ass, I really want to know?
You do realize that in our system as it is now you are a corporation steve? Anyone with a SS number is, it is the loophole that the government used to justify taxation on citizen's wages. The very same taxation that affords socialist programs...
At this point Steve, you are running in a circle, and I think the issue is that you are unaware that the issue you have with capitalism is stemmed from the socialist movement in the policies of this nation...
The seven characteristics of a totalitarian government are 1) Dictator 2) One-Party Rule 3) Primacy of the State 4) Economic Control 5) Secret Police 6) Censorship and 7) Propaganda.
I am a supporter of social democracy which is defined as:
Modern social democracy advocates the formation of a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices.[2] This is unlike socialism in the traditional sense, which aims to end the predominance of the capitalist system, or in the Marxist sense which aims to replace it entirely. Instead, social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs and organizations which work to ameliorate or remove injustices they see in the capitalist market system
so hopefully now you can see the differences.
The problems I have with corporations are many;
Here is a sobering quote by Abe Lincoln:
"We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end.
It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. . . .
It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but
I see in the near future a crisis ... OK I will try and flesh things out; you may call Hitler and Mussolini socialists but their governments were clearly totalitarian based on the criteria of that form of governance:
The seven characteristics of a totalitarian government are 1) Dictator 2) One-Party Rule 3) Primacy of the State 4) Economic Control 5) Secret Police 6) Censorship and 7) Propaganda.
I am a supporter of social democracy which is defined as:
Modern social democracy advocates the formation of a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices.[2] This is unlike socialism in the traditional sense, which aims to end the predominance of the capitalist system, or in the Marxist sense which aims to replace it entirely. Instead, social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs and organizations which work to ameliorate or remove injustices they see in the capitalist market system
so hopefully now you can see the differences.
The problems I have with corporations are many;
Here is a sobering quote by Abe Lincoln:
"We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end.
It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. . . .
It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes
me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war,
corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places
will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong
its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth
is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety
of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war.
God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."
This stems from what I see as the problem; wealth has been accumulation more and more into a smaller and smaller group of individuals and corporations.
Look at wealth distribution over the last 30 years and you will see only one group increasing and that is the very top.
So back to corporations, as I am sure you know the founding fathers, and the colonists in general, disliked corporations to an extreme as most of those currently in the states were chartered in England and had enormous power granted by the king.
The constitution did not deal with corporations specifically and they fell under state rule by the 10th amendment.
Early corporations were severely restricted in their charter and what they could do; it usually had to be shown that they were doing something for the public good in order to remain solvent; roads, canals etc.
After the civil war the rich in America needed a way to maintain their wealth so more and more corporations sprang up, all of these were still under the control of the government and therefore responsible to the people.
a side note here, I think it is interesting to notice as voting rights opened up that corporations also became stronger, the ruling elite, male property owners, shifted their influence from being the voting privileged to corporate owners.
Corporations wanted to stop being on the government side of the law so with the passage of the 14th amendment they fought to be considered persons under the law, when this finally happened they could claim discrimination under the law and fight state democratic laws which impeded their growth or business.
then they fought to get protection under the 5th amendment and this gave them a strong hold to fight federal and state laws.
This led to what I see as the main problem, corporations got 1st amendment rights. This means they could contribute money to political parties and effectively sway policies and the electorate.
I personally do not feel that either major party is interested at all in helping the people of this nation.
We have lost a lot of our freedoms by virtue of the fact that most people would never dare speak out against their company for fear of losing their job and health care.
The fact that the FCC pretty much says fuck off to all the citizens who show up to the public meetings to discuss mergers etc is a good indication of how much power corporations have in making laws.
Corporations should not be granted citizenship as they do not die they can not be directly prosecuted nor go to jail.
Without these protections they couldn't give money to political parties nor hire lobbyists nor turn OSHA away from surprise inspections etc. (more)
Abe is basically a tool of propaganda, dirving a war while crying abolition, when in fact the war had nothing to do with that, it was a side issue....
I will get back to that...
So a government that uses 4 out of 7 of your marks for a totalitarian state is ok? And that has little to do with corporatism and more to do with laziness of the people's minds when you equate that through capitalism...
In any type of social government has primacy of the state, as the state has the rights and grants them to the individual, and unfortunately can take them away.
Socialism is 100% about economic control, any degree is based on this fact...
The last real seat of socialist thought, where the idea of socialism was worked on to spread it throughout the world was the Frankfurt School in Germany. These people were seen as, correctly mind you, as Marxists, one of their major focuses was the development of a PC culture. One that uses censorship of everyday speech to control public opinion, in order to divide the people and ostracize those who desire liberty.
Propaganda is not a tool of totalitarians, it is a tool of polititians, it is precisely the kind of people we need NOT running our government here. We need statesmen that will live by... First of all do not talk to me about abe....
Abe is basically a tool of propaganda, dirving a war while crying abolition, when in fact the war had nothing to do with that, it was a side issue....
I will get back to that...
So a government that uses 4 out of 7 of your marks for a totalitarian state is ok? And that has little to do with corporatism and more to do with laziness of the people's minds when you equate that through capitalism...
In any type of social government has primacy of the state, as the state has the rights and grants them to the individual, and unfortunately can take them away.
Socialism is 100% about economic control, any degree is based on this fact...
The last real seat of socialist thought, where the idea of socialism was worked on to spread it throughout the world was the Frankfurt School in Germany. These people were seen as, correctly mind you, as Marxists, one of their major focuses was the development of a PC culture. One that uses censorship of everyday speech to control public opinion, in order to divide the people and ostracize those who desire liberty.
Propaganda is not a tool of totalitarians, it is a tool of polititians, it is precisely the kind of people we need NOT running our government here. We need statesmen that will live by what they say and have the character to step down when they fail...
The reason land-ownwers were the only voters at the onset was because they were the only individuals taxed by the federal government. Opening up the vote basically opened up the justification to tax the individual, which honest Abe did to reconstrruct the south until shortly after when the Supreme Court ruled against him. It took some 70ish years for the politicians, for our own good they said, to develop the socialist programs and then turn all the citizens into corporations, legally opening the right to tax wages.
"This led to what I see as the main problem, corporations got 1st amendment rights. This means they could contribute money to political parties and effectively sway policies and the electorate."
Please understand, that the issue is really the people we elect not the corporations...
Blaming the snake for biting you, even though you care for it, is idiocy, it is foolish to think that the corporation will not work in it's best intrests. If it did not, people would be out of jobs, the economy would go to crap, I can go on... (more)
also remeber a capitalist society can also have 5 of those 7 metrics for totalitarianism.
It is sad to think that people think that if a person is poor then they are lazy, in any capitalistic society you have to have some unemployed workers or you have serious problems, unemployment helps have a pool of potential workers.
Pure capitalism fails just as pure socialism fails. when we have unfettered capitalism the majority of the true wreath of the country gets moved to a very select group in that society. Even now about 10% of the people control 80% of the wealth.
Corporations are not blameless bystanders to the politicians, especially since most of them are one in the same.
Would you recommend that they are allowed to promote their agendas with no laws controlling them?
marketing alcohol and cigarettes to minors; polluting, depressing workers wages, there is a good reason why the union movement started in this country.
I agree we need to clean out the goverment with new people but allowing corporations to have so much power to influence our electorate is just asking for trouble.
we made the separation of powers specifically because they knew that men were power hungry and each branch would balance out the others because no on... again you seem to think of me as a pure socialist, I am not.
also remeber a capitalist society can also have 5 of those 7 metrics for totalitarianism.
It is sad to think that people think that if a person is poor then they are lazy, in any capitalistic society you have to have some unemployed workers or you have serious problems, unemployment helps have a pool of potential workers.
Pure capitalism fails just as pure socialism fails. when we have unfettered capitalism the majority of the true wreath of the country gets moved to a very select group in that society. Even now about 10% of the people control 80% of the wealth.
Corporations are not blameless bystanders to the politicians, especially since most of them are one in the same.
Would you recommend that they are allowed to promote their agendas with no laws controlling them?
marketing alcohol and cigarettes to minors; polluting, depressing workers wages, there is a good reason why the union movement started in this country.
I agree we need to clean out the goverment with new people but allowing corporations to have so much power to influence our electorate is just asking for trouble.
we made the separation of powers specifically because they knew that men were power hungry and each branch would balance out the others because no one wanted to give up their slice of power.
I guess my question to you would be this; if you are completely against social programs then would you be fine with people starving and living in squalor because they could not find work? (more)
The problem is that you completely disregard the history proven fact of life that was theorized by the father of communism...
Democracy leads to socialism, socialism leads to communism...
"I guess my question to you would be this; if you are completely against social programs then would you be fine with people starving and living in squalor because they could not find work?"
My answer would be yes, I was out of work for over a year and a half before July, I went to my family for help, I would go to a church for food before I came to Florida to be with them. I NEVER, NEVER EVER EVER considered leaning on the public arm, I never accepted a penny of welfare, and I never will. I would go so far as to say if there was no option for me to live with society, I would be in the swamps of Louisiana, living off what I could forage from nature and hunt...
Of course I would have to deal with the tax man coming to get his piece despite I am living without the service of government....
What is funny is that people think this is a democracy, granted we use a democratic process for electing our government officials, but in no way are we actually a democracy....
I find it fascinating that you mention the church in your above post.
surely the church is a HUGE socially entitled entity.
It taxes its members, it does not pay taxes on its land
and if I am not mistaken isnt its message "give all you own to the poor and follow me?"
I find it always fascinating that Christians advocate capitalism since that is in direct conflict with everything Jesus talked about.
How do you explain this paradox?
are you christian or capitalist?
Funny, historical precedent says otherwise, pure democracies have all become socialist, and as we became "more democratic and less republican" here in the states, we too are becoming more socialist....
I am not a christian, the dirty little secret is, in church you are not demanded to give penny one....
I can tell you to pay my bills... that does not make one a socialist, me having the government do it with your tax dollars, that does.
I give to charities all the times that I can, I could do more if I did not have a 25% cut in my wages to pay for cumpulsory charity...
The silly part of your argument is that you probably believe that you have to be a christian to recieve anything from churches. This is not the case, most of the recipients of christian charities are not christians themselves, even in this country where the population is 80% christian. My mother is a christian, and when I could afford time I would give my time helping her church feed the homeless or distribute clothing in the winter as the nights can be cold even here in Florida. The entire church knows I am not a christian, not a problem for any of them, when I was going to a local church to get some foo... "I think the founders of communism were a little bit out of touch with the complexities of society."
Funny, historical precedent says otherwise, pure democracies have all become socialist, and as we became "more democratic and less republican" here in the states, we too are becoming more socialist....
I am not a christian, the dirty little secret is, in church you are not demanded to give penny one....
I can tell you to pay my bills... that does not make one a socialist, me having the government do it with your tax dollars, that does.
I give to charities all the times that I can, I could do more if I did not have a 25% cut in my wages to pay for cumpulsory charity...
The silly part of your argument is that you probably believe that you have to be a christian to recieve anything from churches. This is not the case, most of the recipients of christian charities are not christians themselves, even in this country where the population is 80% christian. My mother is a christian, and when I could afford time I would give my time helping her church feed the homeless or distribute clothing in the winter as the nights can be cold even here in Florida. The entire church knows I am not a christian, not a problem for any of them, when I was going to a local church to get some food because I was becoming malnurished, this was not a problem, mind you this may be different now as it was 2 weeks since I have seen a christian church give food to non christians, with a heathen's hand at that...
Steve, you are not "dumb"....
I understand that you may have a big chip on your shoulder about humans....
I will break this to you softly
Humans are in majority good people, there are always going to be some bad ones, but most are good people... (more)
I have no chip I assure you.
Living overseas I have gotten to see the other side of church that you might not have seen; missionaries,
I have seen indigenous cultures ruined and people being led to believe that they should give almost all of their income to the church.
In Tonga it was called Misionale, and the churches would read off each members name and how much money they gave.
I also got to witness them teaching the polynesians that Jews were evil etc etc.
Unless things have changed, at least for the catholics, donating to the church was part of the religion.
It has been a while for me but I distinctly remeber learning about how you had to support the upkeep of the church.
I know that Americans are genuinely charitable people, what I find sad is it is usually the poorer people who give the most money and time.
here is one way of looking at this;
almost every human trait can be measured on a bell curve, height weight, intelligence etc etc
wealth is one of the only human characteristic that is not normally dis... Before my response I think you misunderstand me; I have no chip on my shoulder about humans, I have met good and bad ones, personally I just returned last year from 3.5 years of volunteer work overseas with the peace corps. now I spend my time helping 3 charities in the DC area.
I have no chip I assure you.
Living overseas I have gotten to see the other side of church that you might not have seen; missionaries,
I have seen indigenous cultures ruined and people being led to believe that they should give almost all of their income to the church.
In Tonga it was called Misionale, and the churches would read off each members name and how much money they gave.
I also got to witness them teaching the polynesians that Jews were evil etc etc.
Unless things have changed, at least for the catholics, donating to the church was part of the religion.
It has been a while for me but I distinctly remeber learning about how you had to support the upkeep of the church.
I know that Americans are genuinely charitable people, what I find sad is it is usually the poorer people who give the most money and time.
here is one way of looking at this;
almost every human trait can be measured on a bell curve, height weight, intelligence etc etc
wealth is one of the only human characteristic that is not normally distributed.
I am not sure of your knowledge of statistics but this means that there is nothing inate about huamns that cause them to be wealthy; if there was then it should also be normalized.
Wealth accumulates to the top and does not filter back down.
That is my concern.
To jump back to another topic; democracies or republics can just as easily turn to dictatorships or totalitarian regimes as well.
all is dependent on circumstances;
you can also have a capitalist -> socialist -> totalitarian as well if conditions are right.
I know pure socialism doesn't work because it gives no incentive but I also know pure capitalism doesnt work because even if the majority of the people are charitable wealth accumulation will end up in the hands of a few who are less then charitable.
I do not know if you follow and social evolution theory but one thing I found interesting in a paper published not to long ago was this theory about the evolution of altruism and also how people who were most likely going to break the rules were also the ones most likely to punish others for breaking the same rules.
so they theorized that this was a symbiotic relationship.
it would take too much energy for the altruistic group to continuously police their society and get rid of the people breaking the rules but they could afford to have a small number of those people in the society if those people also took care of others like them
so what I am getting at is people in general may be good or evil which gives them a genetic advantage in different situations but I think the altruistic people can band together using government to help those on the lower end of the economic scale. (more)
I have seen indigenous cultures ruined and people being led to believe that they should give almost all of their income to the church."
Again I refer to personal responsibility, I am led to believe that if I crack open a Bud Light in my back yard three bisexual co-eds will magically appear and want ot have group sex that is all about me.
"Unless things have changed, at least for the catholics, donating to the church was part of the religion."
Find me a catholic church that has kicked someone out for not donating, hang out at a catholic church and watch the plate go around, see how many people actually give...
"almost every human trait can be measured on a bell curve, height weight, intelligence etc etc
wealth is one of the only human characteristic that is not normally distributed."
Here is another way of looking at this, Wealth, ambition, aspiration are not normally distributed...
Wealth should not be "evenly distributed" the moment you do you punish those that sacrifice to succeed, I know you do not probably look at it as punishment, but if I bust my ass for 80 hours a week to show I will do what I have to do to get ahead, would not my paycheck be bigger tha... "Living overseas I have gotten to see the other side of church that you might not have seen; missionaries,
I have seen indigenous cultures ruined and people being led to believe that they should give almost all of their income to the church."
Again I refer to personal responsibility, I am led to believe that if I crack open a Bud Light in my back yard three bisexual co-eds will magically appear and want ot have group sex that is all about me.
"Unless things have changed, at least for the catholics, donating to the church was part of the religion."
Find me a catholic church that has kicked someone out for not donating, hang out at a catholic church and watch the plate go around, see how many people actually give...
"almost every human trait can be measured on a bell curve, height weight, intelligence etc etc
wealth is one of the only human characteristic that is not normally distributed."
Here is another way of looking at this, Wealth, ambition, aspiration are not normally distributed...
Wealth should not be "evenly distributed" the moment you do you punish those that sacrifice to succeed, I know you do not probably look at it as punishment, but if I bust my ass for 80 hours a week to show I will do what I have to do to get ahead, would not my paycheck be bigger than my co-workers, if I were salaried, would I not recieve a better bonus for all the time and effort I put in?
The prize in a capitalist system is that a poor man can become a rich man, everyone has the opportunity, but you have to work at it...
In your perfect socialist/capitalist ideal, as out of touch as you claim Marx was, there is no point in doing anything beyond the minimum necessary, no effort reaps a greater reward...
Humanity cannot be measured on a bell curve, this is part of what makes our nation great, the recognition of the individual, tell me as you wrote this did you remember how you claimed capitalism treated people like machines, I find the way you discuss human nature a bit machine like. Achievement is not so evenly distributed because a very few and far between have the traits necessary to stand out among the crowd. I can explain it like this;
Invention is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration, Ambition is 100% aspiration 99% aspiration and 1% inspiration...
An ambitious person is very special indeed...
"I do not know if you follow and social evolution theory"
If you follow the social evolution theory the people you are so concerned about being made to feel that their money should all go to the church should not bother you. If you follow the social evolution theory then socialism should not be the way to go, as it promotes the socially deliterious remaining as such...
Good and evil is not a genetic trait.... (more)