Catchup

[hkellick]

This was going to be a snarky post about the RNC. When I last looked, the RNC was gearing up to vote on a resolution to rename the Democratic Party the Democratic Socialist Party. Which is, frankly, stupid and also factually wrong.

But they didn't pass that resolution.

Instead, they passed a resolution to call on Dems to stop pushing us towards Socialism.. which at least has a little more basis in fact, though I don't think is going to make an awful lot of difference in the political battle.

It also doesn't, as far as I can tell, help the Republican party make money or win elections. There's undoubtedly a core of far right republicans who buy that the Democrats are Socialists/Communists, etc.. but the bulk of the country, from what I saw, didn't buy it when the RNC said that a year ago, so I'm not sure what makes the RNC think they'll buy it now.

I get it for what it is, an attempt to brand the Democratic Party. Just as the Dems have branded the RNC 'the party of No' recently. But I'm not sure how effective this will be. Time will tell..

-----------------------

Sims 3 is coming up in 12 days. My excitement, already on high, has gone to LUDICROUS (Spaceballs Reference). Seriously! I've been reading alot of articles, looking at a Sims 3 Board and, I am so freakin' excited, man.

... not much else to say. See some of you in Vegas, soon!

Comments

[zaph]

but the bulk of the country, from what I saw, didn't buy it when the RNC said that a year ago

it doesn't matter if they bought it or not, the bigger point is so what if they did? why is it such a horrible thing if we're becoming more socialist? after all, we did spend the last 8 years becoming more fascist.

The Republicans are all about names and labels. Whether it's called socialism or not, the policies are the same. And they're policies that people like. Calling them socialist shouldn't make people think any differently about them.

I wish we actually were becoming more socialist, because socialism is a good thing.

[hkellick]

I would agree, but only to a point.

I think the direction of the country, as a whole, went far right over 8 years. We removed needed government oversight over some sectors and this financial mess, for one, is a direct result of those decisions.

And I agree, the Republicans seem to be about... stories. They tell themselves Stories, about who their candidates are, what they will do, why they're the best, and haven't quite caught on that not all of us are paying attention to these stories.

I would say that I don't think that the RNC has GOTTEN yet that the world has changed and that they need to change with it. It isn't that the RNC HAS no ideas, it's that the RNC has no NEW ideas.. that everything dates back to Reagan and there's some serious doubts that Reagan's policies would help us out of the mess we're in now.

I'm not sure I'd say Socialism is a good thing. Too much is, I think, a bad thing. I think, for America, our line is somewhere between socialism and capitalism. This country has been a capitalist nation for a long time. I don't think that'll change and I don't think that America, as a whole, wants that to change. What we need are controls. What we need is to walk the line between giving the government the control they need to effectively help us grow, as a nation, and to keep the playing field level so EVERYONE has a CHANCE to be what they want to be, and capitalism which DOES, in fact, offer a reason to be innovative and imaginative and try to come up with great ideas and technologies that make our life a better one.

[zaph]

Well, yeah, I wouldn't propose full government control of everything, but in my system, everything you would need could be provided or subsidised (if you chose to take the provided version), and any extensions of that, upgrades, or luxury items would be subject to the regular free market.

But the idea of things like health care and transportation being for profit enterprises offends me.

Reagan's policies would help us out of the mess we're in now.

Reagan's policies helped get us into this mess in the first place.

[hkellick]

I think I'd walk a slightly different line than you, re: the line between capitalism and socialism, but it's all good.

I'm not sure I'm for socialized healthcare. I had an intriguing conversation with a friend of mine, who's a nurse in Buffalo about Canada's healthcare system and there ARE advantages.. and disadvantages. I'm definitely for universal healthcare, however. And I agree that transportation should be government-owned, not privately owned.

And I also agree Reagan's Policies, and W. interpretation of said policies helped put us where we are right now.

[zaph]

See, I'm for socialised everything, being, you know, a socialist. :)

I don't think the government should necessarily own anything, but should subsidise a LOT. The fact of the matter is, we're better off when the government does nothing more than provide the funds for better educated and better trained people to do their jobs well.

So subsidise transportation, but still let private construction companies build the roads; subsidise health care, but don't tell the doctors who to treat or how to treat them; subsidise education, but let the teachers design the curriculum. And so on.