You have to take things in perspective. Is the left more towards socialism than the right, yes, absolutely. But for American politics thats like saying a Escalade gets great gas mileage...when compared to a Hummer. The US when compared to almost all western democracies leans much more to the right. A moderate in France would be considered a ultra liberal here. It's just the way we roll. So to say that a democratic candidate leans more towards socialism, than say a republican may be technically true its not really meaningful.
Especially when you get articles with titles like Too Fit to Be President? coming from places like The Wall Street Journal. Down here we mainly get the political parties attacking each other based on their policies, not how fit the mps are.
thats just stupid, no matter what.. that article is stoopid, just like how i just spelled stupid. Not saying ur stupid at all meemo, so dont take it that way =) /EDIT WTB a forum place just for issues/politics...cuz srsly, it comes up in every other post if we like it or not/forum rules or not..
When I read that I think he is trying to pull the whole Robin Hood scenario. The rich are rich for one reason, they worked their asses off to become rich. When you talk about sharing the benefits of open trade more equitably, what does that mean? The free trade is fair and equal, there isn't a bias in what people buy because of the person that made the item. If the product is good, people will buy it. Wealth is accumulated through making a company that people like and making products that people want to buy (in the simplest sense). Those who do not have a great deal of money are either content with what they have now, don't have the education to make more money, or just want money handed to them. The few are the few because the many have made them the many. A company is not successful without the major populous making it successful. As people buy more products from the company, the company expands. As the company expands, yes the CEOs make more money, but new jobs open up in the work force and provide a way for people to make more money if they want to work for it. Equally distributing wealth means the free market is taken out of the equation. The government decides where the money goes and who get's the money. When you equally distribute the wealth you lose the work forces drive to perform better and make more money. New companies do not appear to challenge a company and their product, competition disappears. So now you have equal wealth and shitty products. Maybe Socialism isn't the correct term.
In related news, Obama just flipflopped again on offshore drilling. Expect him to deny it sometime next week to further the continuous flipflopping.
who defines it as respective? thats what i hate...also it mainly a money journal, and from that post, it should stay that way. /EDIT EF2, he does it everyweek - its quite fun to watch, also I just read an article that was pretty cool outta the Spokane Review saying how he is usuing nothing but race to "get ahead", ill try to find it later since i read it in an actual paper =)
I think you are reading way too much into this and seeing things that aren't there. What I think Obama is talking about is free trade between nations, without tariffs, subsidies, or other factors that make equal trade not really equal. When I read this: i not do get that Robin Hood vibe. I get more of the, "It isn't free trade when labor costs in one country dwarf another.".
you beat me to posting it. shall we discuss mccains "flip-flop" on martin luther king day.....we can each spin this all day.
You are 100% correct. Personally, I could care less about the drilling thing. To me, he decision to support the FISA bill is more, frustrating. But, it is, what it is.
2 things, one off shore drilling effects everyone and everything atm, MLK day effects nothing. That was a irrelevant statement or comparisson.