CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Pelachile

Reward Points:5
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
91%
Arguments:6
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
6 most recent arguments.
1 point

Obama is failing because Keynesian fails. Britain is failing because Keynesian along with socialism fails. Like Thatcher said,"the problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money". That is what is happening in Britain. Along those same lines, government doesn't produce anything it can trade for money. It has to take money out of the economy to put it into the economy. It always does this with a great amount of fraud, waste and abuse not to mention how extremely inefficient it is. Or it has to print money, which drives inflation and brings down the value of the dollar and wipes out capital which is integral in expanding economies. Government crowds out the private sector and the private sector is much more efficient in how it uses it's resources. Of course, having less to spend because of government confiscation doesn't help either.

1 point

Another bunch of baloney. The standard of living in Cuba is on par with the US? Really? Do you even know where Cuba is? Cuba's standard of living is about 1% of what it was prior to the revolution. The Soviet economy was not just marginally less productive it was spectacularly less productive and the standard of living was so low that is should have been renamed to the standard of barely surviving. You wanna to see the difference between capitalism and socialism, just look at the difference between 1975 USSR and 2010 Russia. There can be no Democracy in socialism, there can only be totalitarianism, it is the only way to control the resources. The standard of living in Venezuela has not increased since Chavez started confiscating private assets. Unemployment is up, productivity is down, there is no free speech, and is now one of the most corrupt countries in the world. http://en.mercopress.com/2011/03/17/gustavo-coronel-the-four-hotbeds-of-corruption-in-venezuela

1 point

There is no profit in socialism. There is no motive to innovate, or to better oneself. Why innovate or better yourself if you are just going to be compensated the same as if you hadn't bothered? Socialism doesn't equally distribute the wealth, it equally distributes the misery. The only we can all be the same is if we all are at the lowest common denominator. Socialism will never work because society doesn't want to be a bunch of automatons. Socialism can never provide the disparate goods and services that people desire, because we all don't desire the same thing. I might like my widget to be medium sized and blue, but somebody else might like their's to be small and red. Socialism does not allow for the different widgets, because the central planners (elites), which socialism depends on, can not take into account human desire and plan accordingly. Now if you can figure out a way to control our thoughts and desires, than socialism would be a spectacular success for those doing the controlling. If the choice is between fat cat robber baron capitalist pigs or mind controlling, individuality smashing, socialist elitists, I'll take my chances with the pigs.

1 point

Total Koolaid drinker and wrong on the facts to boot. The Soviet Union never had a living standard anywhere near the United States, and was never an agrarian kingdom. It was so inefficient that if you weren't murdered by Stalin, you died of starvation. Cuba became socialist after a civil war which was started by the murderous Che Guevara and Fidel Castro. Now they are stuck in the fifites and jail more political dissidents than the US ever has. Some paradise. To say that anybody anywhere has it better than the average American is such total BS! You mean tell me that, that some poor person living in the slums of Paris would not rather trade his circumstances with a poor person here with their SUV, Flat screen cable TV, car, air conditioning and opportunity? Really? There has never been a country in the world that has lifted more of it's own people along with people in countries out of poverty as the United States. Socialism fails everywhere and every time it has been tried. Because try as they might, central planners just can't plan for the human condition. Some people just don't want to be the same as everybody else.

2 points

I would say yes. While ThePYG is right about corporatism and how hard it would be to get rid of it, if Obama had his druthers I believe he would opt for socialism. His pedigree predicts it, from hanging out with avowed socialists like Bill Ayers to the political views of his parents, he was raised in the Fabian socialist tradition. We also have his statements on "spreading the wealth" ie, redistribution, the government takeover of GM in which primary creditors got screwed in favor of the worker, and Obamacare. He is definitely a central planner and just because he has not confiscated all private property yet doesn't mean he doesn't want to. So I would say there is move evidence of him being a socialist than there is for him being a capitalist or any other kind of ist.

3 points

Saying the parties are in the pockets of big corporations is juvenile. Everybody has lobbyists, the National Education Association is the most powerful and they are a corporation, are they evil? They are wrong, but I don't know about evil.

Of course, there were huge differences between Bush and Gore. Gore believed that government could solve your problems and Bush didn't. It is the typical difference between Democrats and Republicans in general. I always hear all this blather about big evil, money hungry corporations from people who always vote for candidates that want to expand the powers of one of the biggest money corporations of all time, the government.

I have heard nothing nor have I read anything on this so called transfer of public wealth into private coffers theory. What is public wealth anyway? Isn't it just money taken forcibly from private citizens? What has happened in the last 7 years is private wealth creation, not transfer. The standard of living has gone up, while taxes and inflation have gone down.

Another thing, KBR is Haliburton and it was Clinton/Gore that signed the current contract they are operating under now. In fact sole source contracts were Gore's idea. It was all part of his re-inviting government scheme. Delphi had the contract before Halliburton. The idea is a pretty solid one however, Clinton needed a service company that had security clearance so he could launch his war in Kosovo. The government didn't have time to put out the contracts for bid, and really didn't have the time for companies that might have been able to pull off what Halliburton does, to get security clearance.

Bush/Cheney is only under such unbridled assault because the media doesn't like them, and conservatives don't run NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, The New York Times, etc.

Nobody in government ever said that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Ever. Iraq was in violation of 17 UN resolutions. The UN gave the US the go ahead to invade Iraq, something they didn't do in Kosovo. Who cares about that? Bush bad, Clinton good.

You know, it you don't pay taxes, you don't a get a tax cut. Here is some more simple math, If I make a million dollars a year and you make one hundred thousand dollars and we both get a ten percent tax cut, my tax cut is bigger. However, I still pay more in taxes than you do. Are capital gains tax cuts considered tax cuts for the wealthy? My father would be interested to know that, seeing how capital gains tax cuts are good for his pension plan.

So yes there are huge differences between the parties. Democrats equate with socialism and have nominated a huge Fabian Socialist and Republicans equate with capitalists and have seemed to have lost their minds in the last couple of years.

Pelachile has not yet created any debates.

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here