The false left/right paradigm

beenthere

New Member
I got that statistic from a website, www.isidewith.com. It's a site that quizzes you on the issues and gives you results that show how you match up against all the candidates. They don't give you that statistic directly. You just have to answer all the questions as a libertarian it will tell you how many issues the socialists agree with you on.

I'm not sure what you and your friends call socialism, but you have socialism in this country now and it's been here since at least the thirties with the New Deal. Arguably, you could say that we've had a degree of socialism in this country since 1862 when we switched to a progressive income tax. The only way we could become more socialist is if we were to nationalize industries like health insurance. Some have argued that ending the FED is socialism because you're nationalizing the central bank. Tell that to those socialist Ron Paul supporting friends of yours.

The main point is this: if your biggest issue is ending social security, ending medicare and medicaid, then you might prefer a republican or a democrat to a socialist. Ron Paul certainly wouldn't feel that way because he has stated time and time again that cutting the military budget is far more important to him than ending the social programs. Moving away from the police state is more important to him then ending welfare. Socialists would agree with him 100% on that front.

If our congress was made up of libertarians and socialists, they would be debating social programs and regulations. Foreign Policy, Civil liberties, the Collusion of Industry and government would all be agreed upon. Trade is the one that's up in the air because some would want to return to tariffs (as our founders had), and other want to go free trade but there is not consistency from each side on that issue. Although, none are in favor of Nafta, Cafta, TPP, or any other "so called" free trade agreement.​
So how did you get to the percentage figure of 85%???
I'm also curious where you would get a chart depicting Barack Obama as right of center! LOL

I wouldn't call what we have in the US socialism, although I feel the left is wanting to push this country in that direction with Obamacare, over taxing the successful and replacing our safety nets and creating a dependency mentality. The fact we have social programs, does not make our government or being a Libertarian any where near what the democrat socialist party's vision is.
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
So how did you get to the percentage figure of 85%???
I'm also curious where you would get a chart depicting Barack Obama as right of center! LOL

I wouldn't call what we have in the US socialism, although I feel the left is wanting to push this country in that direction with Obamacare, over taxing the successful and replacing our safety nets and creating a dependency mentality. The fact we have social programs, does not make our government or being a Libertarian any where near what the democrat socialist party's vision is.
Republican Idea
 

bedspirit

Active Member
Why is it the right wing helped fund Ralph Nader in 2004?

Did it have anything to do with the results they got from him on 2000?
I didn't realize they did, but I'm sure they wanted to split up the liberal vote as much as they could. Had Kerry won, we would have been robbed of some of the clearest evidence that the parties are essentially the same with the first bailout of the banks. The ideology of the Bush administration is one of Friedmanesque free markets. When it came down to it, they weren't really free marketeers at all. They just socialize losses and privatize profits.
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
I didn't realize they did, but I'm sure they wanted to split up the liberal vote as much as they could. Had Kerry won, we would have been robbed of some of the clearest evidence that the parties are essentially the same with the first bailout of the banks. The ideology of the Bush administration is one of Friedmanesque free markets. When it came down to it, they weren't really free marketeers at all. They just socialize losses and privatize profits.
The USA cant afford to put regulations on bankers and wall street is that what you are saying?
Because Bush gave them our money with not strings attached
 

bedspirit

Active Member
So how did you get to the percentage figure of 85%???
I'm also curious where you would get a chart depicting Barack Obama as right of center! LOL

I wouldn't call what we have in the US socialism, although I feel the left is wanting to push this country in that direction with Obamacare, over taxing the successful and replacing our safety nets and creating a dependency mentality. The fact we have social programs, does not make our government or being a Libertarian any where near what the democrat socialist party's vision is.
Those social programs are absolutely socialism. Public schools is socialism. Most socialist countries take it a step further and have public colleges too, but we're half way there. What exactly do think socialism is if not massive social programs?

To get that 85% result that I got was by taking their little quiz and answer every question the way a libertarian would. When the results come up at the end you should be in agreement with Gary Johnson or Ron Paul 100% of the time. The next closet candidate will likely be the Green Party candidate, Jil Stein or maybe the Democratic Socialist candidate (I forget his name). They should line up with you around 80-85%. It can vary a little depending on how you answered the questions and if you took the longer quiz or the shorter quiz, but you get the idea.

How on earth do you consider Obama a lefty? I know the talking heads and the brainless bloggers throw around labels like Marxist or Socialists, but what has he done that resembles those things? Obamacare is not a lefty idea. It was the Conservative plan for about a decade. The Heritage Foundation is the one that originally published it in the early nineties. Bob Dole ran on that plan against Clinton. When Mitt Romney did it in Massachusetts, it really wasn't such a strange thing for a Republican to do. Single Payer is the lefty alternative. This why people like Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich had such a hard time with Obamacare to begin with.

Other than Obamacare, how is Obama liberal? Is throwing a bunch of money at the banks liberal? No. A liberal would regulate the hell out them and maybe nationalize one or two. Would a liberal be working to pass free trade agreements with South Korea and other Asians countries? Fuck no! They'd be working to undo Nafta and Cafta. Free trade, though supported by centrists on both sides, originates from the economic philosophy of the right.

Most of what Obama does is neither left nor right. The wars, the increased police state in the name or security, prosecuting whistleblowers. That's Authoritarian. Allowing Monsanto to run the FDA and GE to advise us on energy, to allow Goldman Sachs to run the SEC. That's all crony capitalism.

I suppose he is slightly to the left because he wants to raise taxes on just the wealthy, which would be a little more progressive, but he's only talking 3% and he knows that most wealthy Americans won't pay that rate anyway because they don't receive their incomes through salaries, so it's really just smoke and mirrors to fool us anyway.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dude, it's getting to the point where your contributions are paltry at best, at least Bucky is right once in a while!
chesus is right here.

the individual mandate is straight from the heritage foundation, a conservative think tank.

republican idea.
 

bedspirit

Active Member
The USA cant afford to put regulations on bankers and wall street is that what you are saying?
Because Bush gave them our money with not strings attached
No, what I was saying was the action of bailing out banks would violate the principles of neoliberalism which is Bush's ideology. His plan was to privatize as much as he could, open up free trade, lower taxes and reduce regulations. In other words get Government completely out of the economic picture. According to Milton Friedman, this is suppose to increase prosperity. It also has the effect of increasing the gap between the wealthy and the poor. Before the bailout, you might wonder if he really believed in neoliberalism or was he just helping out his rich friends. After the bailout, we knew the answer because a real neoliberal would never bailout any business.
 

beenthere

New Member
Those social programs are absolutely socialism. Public schools is socialism. Most socialist countries take it a step further and have public colleges too, but we're half way there. What exactly do think socialism is if not massive social programs?

How on earth do you consider Obama a lefty? I know the talking heads and the brainless bloggers throw around labels like Marxist or Socialists, but what has he done that resembles those things? Obamacare is not a lefty idea. It was the Conservative plan for about a decade. The Heritage Foundation is the one that originally published it in the early nineties.
Sorry pal, social programs are not socialism, you can say it until you're blue in the face but the fact is, it is not.

Socialism is a society in which the means of production are owned by the government, advocating total state ownership and control.

As far as you denying the fact Barack Obama is far left, research his US senate voting records to confirm it, if there was ever a far leftie in the oval office, it is surely Barack Obama, get real.

If you can call Obamacare a conservative idea, you can admit the democrat congress under Bill Clinton was a bunch of supplysiders!
 

bedspirit

Active Member
Sorry pal, social programs are not socialism, you can say it until you're blue in the face but the fact is, it is not.

Socialism is a society in which the means of production are owned by the government, advocating total state ownership and control.

As far as you denying the fact Barack Obama is far left, research his US senate voting records to confirm it, if there was ever a far leftie in the oval office, it is surely Barack Obama, get real.

If you can call Obamacare a conservative idea, you can admit the democrat congress under Bill Clinton was a bunch of supplysiders!
A society where the means of production are owned by the government is not Socialism. That is called Communism. C'mon, man. You gotta know that. Think of Communist Russia, Communist Cuba, China (when they were actually Communists), and North Korea. Socialist countries are like Norway, Sweden, Iceland, most of the UK, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador (though to a lesser degree), even Canada (though they've been moving to the right for the last decade or so). They feature a mix of private and public enterprise. Usually healthcare is provided by the state, education is provided by the state, they usually have programs to help the poor, and sometimes they will have nationalized some industries. For instance Norway nationalized their oil industry. Everyone in Norway receives a check for the profits every year. Bolivia has nationalized their lithium deposits. Venezuela - oil. The United States is already socialist but to a much lesser degree than those other countries because the state doesn't provide healthcare (even with Obamacare), we don't have any nationalized industries (in fact we privatize more and more all the time), and the state only provides education up to high school. We make up for it by subsidizing costs, which is a really inefficient way to go. Those private industries end up taking advantage of the tax payers and everything ends up costing us twice what it should.

If we had a government made up of libertarians and socialists, the debate would be about whether we should just nationalize healthcare, and higher education or if we should just back off, cut off the subsidies, and let the free market take over. Instead, we have Dems and Republicans so we'll go ahead and continue subsidizing those institutions.

This isn't the first time I've heard this confusion over communism and socialism. I think the media does such a shit job throwing those labels around, especially Fox. Didn't any of those dumb motherfuckers ever take political science in college?
 

bedspirit

Active Member
Sorry pal, social programs are not socialism, you can say it until you're blue in the face but the fact is, it is not.
As far as you denying the fact Barack Obama is far left, research his US senate voting records to confirm it, if there was ever a far leftie in the oval office, it is surely Barack Obama, get real.
I'm not the only one who would place Obama firmly in the right of the political spectrum. Take a look at that graph I posted. I stole that from a website and that dude put him in the right category as well. If you took that quiz on that site I mentioned, they wouldn't label him left or right, but you would see that he's pretty close to Romney on the issues. Here's that graph again: View attachment 2286454
 

deprave

New Member
I'm not the only one who would place Obama firmly in the right of the political spectrum. Take a look at that graph I posted. I stole that from a website and that dude put him in the right category as well. If you took that quiz on that site I mentioned, they wouldn't label him left or right, but you would see that he's pretty close to Romney on the issues. Here's that graph again: View attachment 2286454
Worlds-Smallest-Political.gif

This is pretty much how I see it.....that little small red line...on one end is Hillary Clinton and on the other is Mitt Romney, Obama is toward the middle leaning right, Mitt Romney and Obama are so close they practically overlap. Overall I do think this red line I drew a bit too wide across, it should basically be just a dot which barely resembles a line. I also drew Ron Paul way too far up, he should be down 1.5 squares.

Very few politician are above the blue line with the people...Nader, Paul, etc..
 

bedspirit

Active Member
View attachment 2286544

This is pretty much how I see it.....that little small red line...on one end is Hillary Clinton and on the other is Mitt Romney, Obama is toward the middle leaning right, Mitt Romney and Obama are so close they practically overlap. Overall I do think this red line I drew a bit too wide across, it should basically be just a dot which barely resembles a line. I also drew Ron Paul way too far up, he should be down 1.5 squares.

Very few politician are above the blue line with the people...Nader, Paul, etc..
I think you nailed it. I'll never vote for another politician that's below that blue line again. I think we're far to caught up in the left/right part of that spectrum when we should be focused on the up/down part.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
That meme is gospel now? LMAO


I am curious Beenthere, you say that the original healht care plan being from the Heritage foundation is false? I have never read about it directly from the Heritage foundation. Is this a myth then? I don't want to be spouting myths.
 

bedspirit

Active Member
It's not too hard to verify the Heritage Foundation origins. You can actually still download the PDF from their website here: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1989/a-national-health-system-for-america

This is an article from the Wall Street Journal that describes how the Heritage Foundation sort of apologizes for it and also tries to paint it as an alternative to Clinton's plan. The article points out that the plan was published before Clinton ever got into office. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204369404577211161144786448.html
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
It's not too hard to verify the Heritage Foundation origins. You can actually still download the PDF from their website here: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1989/a-national-health-system-for-america

This is an article from the Wall Street Journal that describes how the Heritage Foundation sort of apologizes for it and also tries to paint it as an alternative to Clinton's plan. The article points out that the plan was published before Clinton ever got into office. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204369404577211161144786448.html

Thank you Bedspirit. I have an abject fear of repeating myth as I consider it my duty to point out GOP or conservative myths as I encounter them. The times I have blindly accepted something I truely wanted to be true without checking has made me look pretty foolish and I realized that I had been repeating this "it was the Heritage foundation first" without ever having checked.

Now that I skim your links I can point to Beenthere's subtle alteration of one of the instructions in the Big Playbook - "if you don't like a statement of fact, claim it has been debunked". If you are really sly, when you post a "fact" of your own, include that some factcheck organization has been consulted over it, that way the reader will feel he needn't do his own research.
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
It's not too hard to verify the Heritage Foundation origins. You can actually still download the PDF from their website here: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1989/a-national-health-system-for-america

This is an article from the Wall Street Journal that describes how the Heritage Foundation sort of apologizes for it and also tries to paint it as an alternative to Clinton's plan. The article points out that the plan was published before Clinton ever got into office. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204369404577211161144786448.html
December 2, 1993 - Leading conservative operative William Kristol
privately circulates a strategy document to Republicans in Congress. Kristol
writes that congressional Republicans should work to "kill" -- not amend -- the
Clinton plan because it presents a real danger to the Republican future: Its
passage will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and
revive the reputation of the party. Nearly a full year before Republicans will
unite behind the "Contract With America," Kristol has provided the rationale and
the steel for them to achieve their aims of winning control of Congress and
becoming America's majority party. Killing health care will serve both ends. The
timing of the memo dovetails with a growing private consensus among Republicans
that all-out opposition to the Clinton plan is in their best political interest.
Until the memo surfaces, most opponents prefer behind-the-scenes warfare largely
shielded from public view. The boldness of Kristol's strategy signals a new turn
in the battle. Not only is it politically acceptable to criticize the Clinton
plan on policy grounds, it is also politically advantageous. By the end of 1993,
blocking reform poses little risk as the public becomes increasingly fearful of
what it has heard about the Clinton plan.
 

bedspirit

Active Member
December 2, 1993 - Leading conservative operative William Kristol
privately circulates a strategy document to Republicans in Congress. Kristol
writes that congressional Republicans should work to "kill" -- not amend -- the
Clinton plan because it presents a real danger to the Republican future: Its
passage will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and
revive the reputation of the party. Nearly a full year before Republicans will
unite behind the "Contract With America," Kristol has provided the rationale and
the steel for them to achieve their aims of winning control of Congress and
becoming America's majority party. Killing health care will serve both ends. The
timing of the memo dovetails with a growing private consensus among Republicans
that all-out opposition to the Clinton plan is in their best political interest.
Until the memo surfaces, most opponents prefer behind-the-scenes warfare largely
shielded from public view. The boldness of Kristol's strategy signals a new turn
in the battle. Not only is it politically acceptable to criticize the Clinton
plan on policy grounds, it is also politically advantageous. By the end of 1993,
blocking reform poses little risk as the public becomes increasingly fearful of
what it has heard about the Clinton plan.
Doesn't it piss you off when a politician knows the public will like something and yet they still oppose it?
 
Top