Author Topic: The trouble with Socialism  (Read 6810 times)

Offline rgpit

  • MAD Scientist
  • *
  • Posts: 512
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • My Music Collection
The trouble with Socialism
« on: February 03, 2010, 09:27:04 PM »

  Business persons in Government
     Here's some info' that illustrates the percentage of each
     past president's cabinet who had worked in the private
     business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet.
     You know what the private business sector is... a real life
     business and real life consequences, not a government job.
   
     Here are the percentages:
         
     T. Roosevelt..... 38%
   
     Taft......................40%
   
     Wilson .............. 52%
   
     Harding..............49%
   
     Coolidge........... 48%
   
     Hoover...............42%
   
     F. Roosevelt......50%
   
     Truman..............50%
   
     Eisenhower.........57%
   
     Kennedy............30%
   
     Johnson.............47%
   
     Nixon.................. 53%
   
     Ford................... 42%
   
     Carter................ 32%
   
     Reagan..............56%
   
     GH Bush........... 51%
   
     Clinton .............. 39%
   
     GW Bush.......... 55%
   
     Obama..... 8%

     Yep! That’s right! Only Eight Percent!.. the least
     by far of the last 19 presidents. And these people are
     trying to tell our corporations how to run their
     businesses? They know what's best for GM...Chrysler...
     Wall Street... and you and me?
   
     How can the president of a major nation and society...the
     one with the most successful economic system in world
     history... stand and talk about business when he's never
     worked for one?.. or about jobs when he has never really had
     one?
   
     And neither has 92% of his senior staff and closest
     advisers. They've spent most of their time in academia,
     government and/or non-profit jobs...or as "community
     organizers" ..when they should have been in an
     employment line.
   
     "The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you
     run out of other people's money."
Pioneer PLX-1000, Nagaoka MP-150, Tascam CD200, microRendu, Sonictransporter I5, Benchmark DAC2HGC & AHB2, Harbeth Compact 7ES-3s, Analog Research Velluto, minidsp 2X4HD, SB Acoustics DIY subs, Sony HDR-F1HD, Alesis ML9600

Offline YSRACER

  • FNG !!!
  • *
  • Posts: 46
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The trouble with Socialism
« Reply #1 on: February 03, 2010, 10:06:00 PM »
It would be helpful to all if you guys fact checked a bit before posting, albeit not nearly as effective as spreading misinformation.   8)

Energy Secretary Steven Chu worked at AT & T Bell Laboratories for nine years, ultimately as the head of their Quantum Electronics Research Department.

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan, was a managing director at Prudential Mortgage Capital, where he directed the corporation’s $1.5 billion of investments in affordable housing loans.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar was a partner in his family’s farm for over thirty years. Salazar and his wife have also owned and operated a number of small businesses, including a Dairy Queen and several radio stations.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Agriculture Secretary Thomas Vilsack and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke -- all spent part of their careers working as lawyers.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner worked as a consultant at Kissinger Associates, a firm that advises international companies on economic and political conditions abroad.

By this count, seven out of these nine Obama appointees (or 78 percent) do have private-sector experience.

BTW, Obama is certainly not pursuing a Socialist society.  He is scrambling to rescue and preserve capitalism.

Squeezebox w/Welborne Labs PS / Benchmark DAC1 / Emotive Audio Erato / Aspen Lifeforce / Speaker of the Month

NATOE

  • Guest
Re: The trouble with Socialism
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2010, 12:17:23 AM »
Then what do you call government run health care? And what about the back door golden pass to the unions? What about treason that queen pelosi and king harry had there fingers in.

You know what just go hug a tree. The muslim president, thats all he wants is socialism. Open your eyes and put down the KOOL-AID.



Offline MasterBlaster

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1100
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • Vintage HiFi of Pittsburgh
Re: The trouble with Socialism
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2010, 12:48:17 AM »
The numbers are accurate if you squint your eyes and stand on one foot.

The information that Ron posted is actually based upon a report that was created by Michael Cembalest of
J.P. Morgan where he worked as the chief investment officer. Technically the information may be accurate
when put in the context of that study.

Quote from: Michael Cembalest
"In a quest to see what frame of reference the administration might have on this issue, I looked back at the history of the presidential Cabinet. Starting with the creation of the secretary of commerce back in 1900, I compiled the prior private-sector experience of all 432 Cabinet members, focusing on those positions one would expect to participate in this discussion: secretaries of State; Commerce; Treasury; Agriculture; Interior; Labor; Transportation; Energy; and Housing & Urban Development."

"Many of these individuals started a company or ran one, with first-hand experience in hiring and firing, domestic and international competition, red tape, recessions, wars and technological change. Their industries included agribusiness, chemicals, finance, construction, communications, energy, insurance, mining, publishing, pharmaceuticals, railroads and steel; a cross-section of the American experience. (I even gave [one-third] credit to attorneys focused on private-sector issues, although one could argue this is a completely different kettle of fish.) One thing is clear: The current administration, compared with past Democratic and Republican ones, marks a departure from the traditional reliance on a balance of public- and private-sector experiences."

When later asked about his findings, Cembalest admitted that the stats were highly subjective. Although many of Obama's
cabinet worked in private sector, their business roles did not meet the criteria of his study:

Quote from: Michael Cembalest
"What I was really trying to get at was some kind of completely, 100 percent subjective assessment of whether or not a person had had enough control of payroll, dealing with shareholders, hiring, firing and risk-taking that they'd be in a position to have had a meaningful seat at the table when the issue being discussed is job creation,"

Here's a link to politifact that breaks down the analysis and a link to the article written by Cembalest
which appears to have changed at some point. Gee, I wonder why :)

Politifact Analysis

Forbes Article Which appears to have been changed likely due to pressure.
HT: Audiocontrol Maestro M3, Sunfire 5*200,  Tannoy Mercury MX , SVS PB-12 Sub

Head-Fi: FUBAR IV Plus DAC, Grado SR225

Living Room: Dynaco ST-70 (R&R work done by NATOE), Dynaco PAS Preamp, Jamo C607 towers, MCS 6710 Turntable

Offline Falcon

  • Polk Killer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1131
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The trouble with Socialism
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2010, 01:12:46 AM »
To quote the brother Rodney King

??? ??? Can't we all just get along ??? ???

Offline F1nut

  • Ball Buster
  • *****
  • Posts: 544
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The trouble with Socialism
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2010, 04:21:01 AM »
Quote
BTW, Obama is certainly not pursuing a Socialist society.  He is scrambling to rescue and preserve capitalism.
 

He's got you fooled.
  'Political Correctness'.........defined

"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
 

Offline Lngbruno

  • FNG !!!
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction.
Re: The trouble with Socialism
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2010, 03:43:37 PM »
I don't agree with everything that President Obama has done in the past year, but what I do see is a leader who is trying to put forward items that will benefit the many instead of the most wealthies few.  Both houses of Congress are the ones who don't give a hoot about anyone except their own power seat and longevity in Congress. You Obama haters truely act like you have your when you blurt stuff without fact checking it.  OBTW, I do think Reed and Pelosi need to be replaced.

Where were you critics when Bush took us to war against Iraq?  This was the wrong war and it was based on a lie and deception.  Where were you critics when the financial crap hit the fan in the fall of 2008??  President Obama was handed a bucket of manure and there are many folks who want to blame him for not fixing it in 30 days or so.  The wealthy folks love it when the common folks fight their battles for them.  This way they don't have to get their hands dirty.  Futhermore, wake up and educate yourselves beyond Rush, Sarah, and Beck's reality fiction world.

Peace and later,
L
"We face a fork in the road - one leads to death and pestilence and the other leads to total destruction; may God grant us the wisdom to make the right choice."  - Woody Allen

BB3

  • Guest
Re: The trouble with Socialism
« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2010, 04:05:55 PM »
I don't agree with everything that President Obama has done in the past year, but what I do see is a leader who is trying to put forward items that will benefit the many instead of the most wealthies few.  Both houses of Congress are the ones who don't give a hoot about anyone except their own power seat and longevity in Congress. You Obama haters truely act like you have your when you blurt stuff without fact checking it.  OBTW, I do think Reed and Pelosi need to be replaced.

Where were you critics when Bush took us to war against Iraq?  This was the wrong war and it was based on a lie and deception.  Where were you critics when the financial crap hit the fan in the fall of 2008??  President Obama was handed a bucket of manure and there are many folks who want to blame him for not fixing it in 30 days or so.  The wealthy folks love it when the common folks fight their battles for them.  This way they don't have to get their hands dirty.  Futhermore, wake up and educate yourselves beyond Rush, Sarah, and Beck's reality fiction world.

Peace and later,
L
I'm with you on the whole Bush taking us to war in Iraq thing. But if you think that Obama and the rest of the Democrats for that matter, with their ideas of big government as being the solution, then you've got another thing coming.

That's not the solution and it's simply not what our country was founded on. Period.

Offline thuffman03

  • Zen Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1097
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • CarverFest Evictee
Re: The trouble with Socialism
« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2010, 04:45:32 PM »
I do not like either of our last two presidents.  Both have screwed up the country.  Here are some quick off the top of my head things that I did not like.

Issues I have with Bush 43:
Department of Homeland Security
Patriot Act
Prescription drug plan
he is the second highest spending president in US history
he expanded the size of the Fed Government faster than any previous presidents
Government bail outs

Issues I have with Obama
Spending more money than all of the presidents combined before him
Universal Health Care
Government bail outs
replacing the CEO of any company
Adding all of those Pay and Auto type Czars
Appointing socialists as his advisors
Raising taxes
Not withdrawing troups like he said he would

IMO, both Bush and Obama have moved this country away from it's founding fathers roots and their actions has continued to move us to Socialism.


Got Carver?

Offline Kingman

  • Southern Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 3127
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • OCCD...I GOT IT BADD!!!!!!!!!
Re: The trouble with Socialism
« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2010, 05:52:18 PM »
I wonder if either like Carver gear???? That would be a plus IMHO.  ;D
IN REALITY IT ONLY MATTERS WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE TO YOU!!!!!

Offline Falcon

  • Polk Killer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1131
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The trouble with Socialism
« Reply #10 on: February 04, 2010, 09:22:31 PM »
I wonder if either like Carver gear???? That would be a plus IMHO.  ;D

You crack me up kingman!!  very funny :D

NATOE

  • Guest
Re: The trouble with Socialism
« Reply #11 on: February 05, 2010, 10:18:51 PM »

    In honor of the 44th  President of the United States , Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream has  introduced a new flavor: " Ba rocky Road ."

Barocky Road is a blend  of half vanilla, half chocolate, and surrounded by nuts and  flakes. The vanilla portion of the mix is not openly  advertised and usually denied as an ingredient. The nuts and  flakes are all very bitter and hard to  swallow.

The cost is $100.00 per  scoop.

When purchased it will  be presented to you in a large beautiful cone, but after you  pay for it,  the ice cream is taken away and given to the  person in line behind you at no charge.

You are left with an  empty wallet and no change, holding an empty cone with no hope  of getting any ice cream..

Are you  stimulated?

Offline F1nut

  • Ball Buster
  • *****
  • Posts: 544
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The trouble with Socialism
« Reply #12 on: February 06, 2010, 12:13:01 AM »
  'Political Correctness'.........defined

"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
 

Offline ST-Rider

  • Double Secret Probation!
  • **
  • Posts: 149
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The trouble with Socialism
« Reply #13 on: May 14, 2010, 10:21:07 PM »
It's funny all the people that seem to think that we're now a Socialist country.

The percentage of business that have been nationalized (GM, etc.) is  0.21 %

Socialism, like farenheit, comes in degrees. Sure, a government that nationalizes GM is "more socialist" than one that does not, even if it doesn't mean we're living "under socialism." But differences of degree shouldn't obscure differences of kind, and it's clear that putting the government in charge of private production is not the Obama administration's guiding philosophy.

If it were, 99.79% of the American corporate assets that existed at the start of the Obama administration would not remain in private hands. The differences of degree are so small that they aren't worth mentioning. And yet, somehow, they keep getting mentioned.

Oh, and Sarah Palin never gets mentioned as a socialist. However, Alaska gets $13,950 per resident from the federal government, more than any other state in the nation. It ranks number one in taxes per resident and number one in spending per resident. It's also number one in pork-barrel spending. Each Alaska resident receives a check for $3,200 a year from state oil revenues, which Palin bumped up from $2,000 last year. Palin once justified this by saying that the state of Alaska was "set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs." (Sounds socialist to me!)
Carver C5
Carver TFM22
Paradigm Monitor 7 v.4

Offline Kingman

  • Southern Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 3127
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • OCCD...I GOT IT BADD!!!!!!!!!
Re: The trouble with Socialism
« Reply #14 on: May 23, 2010, 11:04:48 AM »
America has went from "The land of the free" to "The land of the freebies". I don't care if Americans benefit...I cannot see how letting people that are in our country that are illegal benefit as do the  American citizens that are here legally and pay taxes. Someone please explain to me how the h%#* this is what our policy should be. We are a country built upon immigration. LEGAL immigration. I believe if I gotta pay for the benefits, everyone should.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2010, 11:20:32 AM by Kingman »
IN REALITY IT ONLY MATTERS WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE TO YOU!!!!!