...That is completely sick of people their own age? I can't date anyone younger than me anymore it's just.. stupid.

The amount of people who cannot accurately define Capitalism and Socialism is absolutely astounding. Not only have politicians managed to fool those who don't know any better, some otherwise intelligent people cannot give an accurate definition of either, nor do they understand you can have both. I almost wish I could do a film documentary, going around asking people what they think Capitalism and Socialism mean. But since I don't have money for a camera, you'll have to read this instead.

Socialism and Capitalism (the technical term being Free Enterprise) are both very broad terms to describe an economic theory (I emphasize the word theory because many economic beliefs turn out to be fallacy, or are utilized at the wrong time; how often do you hear politicians say "seemed like a good idea at the time"?). Socialism, in short, favors state ownership over private ownership as a means of production and distribution (which includes trade), Capitalism being the opposite. So when you hear the terms "big government" and "socialism" in the same sentence, in a way, it's true, but what they don't understand is that there have been many great achievements in American Socialism. As one journalist put it, "Socialism is apparently what is created when a president you do not like spends money on things of which you do not approve".

Yes, if a country constantly pushes more and more toward Socialism, it becomes a dictatorship, but even the most Socialistic countries, like China, have elements of capitalism as well. It's called a Mixed Economy, and today, nearly every economy around the world is Mixed. For example, most economists blame the economic expansion of China on their deprivatization. In other words, they nationalized; embraced the global economy; became more open to trade. Their economy went through an expansionary phase (we'll talk expansionary and contractionary phases in just a moment). But without some elements of Socialism, greed begins to take over, and just as too much Socialism leads to a dictatorship, too much Capitalism leads to anarchy, and in many cases, poverty.

Here's a quick slideshow of some achievements in American Socialism: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/02/06/new_deal/slideshow. html Our taxpayers money at work, being redistributed for the better of America.

Now there are many who are outraged by our taxpayers money going toward "wasteful spending" and that somehow, the spending will lead to a dictatorship where wire tapping and the Patriot Act somehow didn't (which kind of proves that both parties favor Socialism, just in different forms. Like I said, it's a very broad term). They preach Reaganomics, shrinking government to the point where you could drown it in a bath tub, and no taxes. What they don't understand is A. In 1982, Reagan imposed the largest peacetime tax increase in history; B. Where do you think funding for recovery from national disasters comes from? Sure as hell ain't privately funded! And C. Reagonomics itself did not work. What worked was Reagan imposed a contractionary phase for the economy.

Quick history lesson: in the 1970's, there was a lethal economic phenomenon occurring in the U.S. and the U.K. known as Stagflation, a combination of unemployment and inflation. This was a time when Keynesian economics set the standard, the clearest example being Nixon's "War on Prices." Nixon wanted to lower prices without waiting for the economy to sort itself out. So he thought that you could throw money at producers so that government spending could make up for companies lowering their prices (keep in mind, they're lowering prices not as a result of supply or demand, just lowering for the sake of lowering, sounds nice right?).

But what happens when you force prices to change like that, you create massive surpluses that producers cannot get rid of as there are many other factors to take into account. A forced price change does not all of the sudden make people buy things if unemployment rates are still soaring; it was fallacious logic and a failure in American Socialism. All factors were not taken into account. So essentially, every president during the 70's was trying to spend to stop the economic downturn caused by inflation, which is directly caused by too much spending. So it was like trying to bleed on someone else's wound and hoping your blood clots faster so they won't need stitches. When Reagan took office, he tightened the money supply, which caused a recession (a necessary one at that in order to get back on track, it's just that no politician wanted to put their chance of getting reelected on the line by putting us through a recession), which ended the inflation, which allowed companies to hire more people as it didn't cost as much to produce and sell goods, and gradually, unemployment numbers reduced as a result. This massive spending reduction and tightening of the money supply was what as known as a Contractionary phase of the economy.

What is happening nowadays I don't believe has a specific term, but it is a combination of Deflation and unemployment as opposed to Inflation and unemployment. So when you hear Republicans talk about what worked when Reagan was president, that's the key thing you gotta look at: When Reagan was President. These are two completely different economic crises, and one cannot use the same techniques as were used in the early 80's.

The point of a stimulus is to have broad spending. Sure you have some categorization as to where you're putting what money, oversight is very important in that respect, but you give money to industries and corporations as a whole, which is like the trickle-down theory, only instead of trickling down it's a full irrigation system for the economy, for all industries and all companies. Tax cuts help to some extent, but if you're talking about fixing markets within the U.S., tax cuts don't put enough money back in the consumer's pocket on their own as all around tax cuts don't have as big of influence on the market as the consumer itself. If the market is no different, the consumers will spend no different, which is why the government needs to act as the consumer and spend instead of us right now. In other words, there is less demand for products, and the government needs to get demand up by spending where consumers cannot.

Tax cuts have to be a part of it once the stimulus gets the economy's demand rolling so that the consumers can continue to spend as opposed to the government coming up with more stimulus bills. However, the government needs to do the spending first, and they need to spend all-around. I know it almost sounds irresponsible to not have every dime focused in some specific manner, and in most cases that's common logic, but right now, everyone is suffering. Everyone needs some help. We need to make a stimulus that involves spending everywhere, and then later we can give the appropriate tax breaks to our citizens so that they can continue what the government jump-started because consumers spend everywhere. Consumers don't just spend so specifically, keeping in mind that they could spend money in a way that could help create jobs. They spend money on everything; things that are of personal benefit, and right now, nobody can spend on what benefits them the same way. The key is pumping money into everything, and allowing our citizens to continue that spending as opposed to the government continuously spending over and over again.

When government puts forth large amounts of money toward something, prices goes up, and if used too much, results in inflation (or even hyperinflation, Germany once experienced inflation upwards of 10,000%). However, the analogy I always use is this: If someone needs an injection of epinephrine (the fight or flight hormone; adrenaline essentially) because their blood pressure or pulse is significantly low, you give it to them. If you give them too much, they die. If you don't give them enough (or if you don't give them any at all), that will kill them as well. John McCain proposed a spending freeze, which would be the equivalent of not giving the patient any epinephrine, and would have continued this deflationary downward spiral. So what we need right now is lots of government spending.

In other words, spending, technically, is a form of Socialism. But enough using such a broad, empty word for the sake of fear. I know, the threat of Communism doesn't make people quiver with fear the same way it used to and ya gotta come up with something else to scare the pants off people to get reelected (which by the way, if you've looked at any poll known to man, it's not working), but this is just silly. And I hope you too realize just how silly it is now.