Originally Posted by djplong

Umm.. Can you explain "socialist corporatist" - those two words have mutually exclusive meanings. A socialist believes in government control. Corporatist is the same but for corporations. What am I missing here?

Using "new word" of the day?

Originally Posted by djplong

Umm.. Can you explain "socialist corporatist" - those two words have mutually exclusive meanings. A socialist believes in government control. Corporatist is the same but for corporations. What am I missing here?

Most people don't understand what a corporatist is and do understand socialist. Obama is a blending of both and so my combining of the term has validity. Maybe I'll start a trend.

I would only add that just because RL "says it is so", doesn't mean it is a fact, it's ONLY an opinion, an opinion that I respect BUT most of the time, I DO NOT agree!....Which is also an OPINION that I know RL respects....lol

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Richie, I'll begin by saying, as I have several times before, that personally I'm a fiscal conservative with left leanings on social issues. I guess that puts me somewhere in the middle of the spectrum of political idealogy.

But if you so vehemently disagree with what the current POTUS stands for, do you think it's reasonable that there might be others who might feel similarly about what some of the GOP candidates are saying they stand for? Would you be offended if I said that people like Michelle Bachmann, Jim deMint, Rick Perry and even Sarah Palin scare and offend me as much as President Obama does you? Would you take offense if I said I believe that any of them, if elected to POTUS, would likely try to take the country to a place I don't want to go either?

At the end of the day, Richie, I think what's best for the country very likely lies somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum. In a place where the distance between idealogical beliefs is close enough that maybe some agreement can be reached by those elected to represent us which will benefit all Americans. Maybe we can all get close enough to the middle that all of us who elect those representatives might agree on the direction that America needs to go, giving and taking in the legislative process in a way we'd all like our democracy to work.

Originally Posted by jebartle

I would only add that just because RL "says it is so", doesn't mean it is a fact, it's ONLY an opinion, an opinion that I respect BUT most of the time, I DO NOT agree!....Which is also an OPINION that I know RL respects....lol

Of course I respect your opinion, even if I believe differently. Most people, I hope can distinguish facts from opinions.

Interesting that you think the other posters on this forum are maybe not smart enough to distinguish my reporting of facts from my opinion about them.

You top it off with your trite little "lol" at the end. Very grown-up

Have you not taken your medication today.....lighten up!....Cheeeeez!

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Of course I respect your opinion, even if I believe differently. Most people, I hope can distinguish facts from opinions.

Interesting that you think the other posters on this forum are maybe not smart enough to distinguish my reporting of facts from my opinion about them.

You top it off with your trite little "lol" at the end. Very grown-up

Originally Posted by djplong

Umm.. Can you explain "socialist corporatist" - those two words have mutually exclusive meanings. A socialist believes in government control. Corporatist is the same but for corporations. What am I missing here?

I do not know if this is how Richie mean them, but I would use the term to describe the situation when government maintains control of the corporation and all its activities while the corporation participates in the private market while conforming to government dictates. In this country I think immediately of GM, Chrysler, AIG, the major Banks, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, etc.

Government control of these corporations is unquestioned.

The report citied by Richie was objective and informative. Whether we like it or not, Medicare as we know it today, is unsustainable. If you cannot accept this, then I suggest you move immediately to the nearest ostrich farm. You can feel at home there.

The basic underlying cause is demographics. Not only are we living longer, the population make-up is changing. Total fertility rate for the United States in 1964 when Medicare became law was 3.7 live babies per female. (Sorry guys, we don’t count here). Today, TFR is 2.07 lives babies per female during the course of her life. The long unspoken truth is that you do not put your money into Social Security and Medicare – you put in your children, they are the ones that will be paying the bills.

There are many models of providing care and VK cited the one I believe the best we have at this time – the Mayo Clinic. Having been to and had relatives treated at the clinics in Rochester and Jacksonville, I know that there is a way to deliver better care than we are now receiving in this nation. Unfortunately, Mayo has suspended its acceptance at its Arizona facility and may soon do the same at its Jacksonville and Minnesota facilities.

This nation needs to relook at its entire medical delivery system, including the tort system. For example, does HIPPA help or hurt the individual? I believe it hurts more than it helps. The gain in privacy may not be worth the cost of having your treating physician be unable to access your latest health records.

What I am sure of is that the existing plan, frequently referred to as Obamacare, must go and be replaced by one that can accept open and public scrutiny from the time of its inception and through the entire political process. It must also be able to stand without ‘sweetheart’ exceptions or deals of any kind.

Originally Posted by BBQMan

I do not know if this is how Richie mean them, but I would use the term to describe the situation when government maintains control of the corporation and all its activities while the corporation participates in the private market while conforming to government dictates. In this country I think immediately of GM, Chrysler, AIG, the major Banks, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, etc.

Government control of these corporations is unquestioned.

That's exactly what I'm referring to and he's not done. He's already pressuring the drug firm, Forest Laboratories, to dump their CEO as they won't do business with their company if their CEO, Howard Solomon, is at the helm. This was reported by the Wall Street Journal. I don't have an online subscription to the WSJ, so I post this link.

http://balancedgovernment.org/2011/0...nts-a-new-ceo/

But I also believe where it comes to the citizens there is plenty in Obama's redistribute the wealth policies that can be construed as socialist, by nature.

That's why I referred to him as corporatist socialist.