Do Americans Understand What Socialism Is? Well; do they???

Is not an offhand question needful of a flip answer.

Or is it?

We elderly pause at such things.

Had this been said then perhaps your argument would have some merit.

"When a politician says ? in no uncertain terms ? that he believes it is a good thing to excessively taxing the productive only to redistribute those extracted taxes to the non-productive, exclusively for the sake of altering the social status of individuals, he possesses a Socialist ideology."

Now contrast it to what has been said.

"It?s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they?ve got a chance at success too. I think that when you spread the wealth around it?s good for everybody"

That does not indicate that the "Non-productive" will benefit at all, only that the opportunity will be there to succeed should the neccessary effort be put forth.

The disparity is also contrasted in the uneven rewards for hard work and the pay scale between upper management and the laborer. Often in todays society the workers life force is sucked out of them by the need to work long hours or a second job in order to provide for their basic needs. (Which ironically is pushed higher due to those large salaries). This leaves little to no quality time for growth or family developement. A point often glossed over by those with no concept of having to struggle.

You are just now figuring this out...? America has always had socialistic fundamentals. This is nothing new...

"Socialism promotes increased government control over the private sector, both socially and in business." Sometime parts of the private sector needs to be put in their place.

Look at our economy right now. I believe one (of the many) reasons we are in this situation was when Bush lifted the restrictions of the credit companies. The companies then raped the citizens.... And I would be one of them... One check got lost in the mail, and every single company raise my APR to the max. I LOST EVERYTHING because of that. Now if those restrictions were still in place I would have been fine. I am now just getting back off my feet.

"The belief that government has the authority to take a citizen?s earnings, no matter what the amount, to bestow it upon another citizen in a quest to socially engineer a more equitable society is squarely rooted in Socialist dogma." Now I do believe that there needs to be a limit on what % the Gov. should be able to TAX. But what do you think welfare is? Thats the Gov. giving/helping those that need help (from taxes), unfortunately its often abused, and that aspect def. needs to be monitored. But how bout you tell my girlfriend this! That people shouldn't get welfare. FYI she lived off Welfare for many years, then placed into foster care... So if it wasn't for the socialistic part of this country, she would be still living off the streets.... O BTY She has a Masters in Nursing, and makes more money then me... And helps every person she can... Redistributing her wealth... She is a prime example a person who has made something from nothing!

So you ask, Do we know what it is? Yes most of us do. Anything in moderation is ok, You just have to keep a close eye things...

First, you sound like this is the first time you've heard of a U.S. administration 'redistributing the wealth'. Every administration has done it to some extent, regardless of political party, since well before. Social Security, previous auto industry bail-outs, agricultural subsidies, using 'eminent domain' to run railroad tracks, etc. There's absolutely nothing new about this, so I'd like to know why you single out Obama like he invented this.

Second, unless your profile is out of date, it's not your tax money he's redistributing. What's the problem? Don't you still live in the last of socialized medicine?

My definition, a society where being anti-social isn't necessarily a good thing.

I'm a socialist though certainly not by that definition, and in my considered opinion Karl Marx was some sort of t**t.

To say all socialists are marxists is to say all authoritarians as nazis, or all capitalists Robert Maxwell's

Just convenient pigeon holes for politicians to score points with straw man argumements.

Mr Obama, who knows. He's promised a lot, so did Mr Bush.....

As far as I'm concerned all politicians are liars. You can determine this by watching their lips. If their lips are moving; they're lying.

Considering the current lame duck incumbent, he'll really have to extend himself to become a bigger screwup but we thought the same about Carter after Ford.

Obama may or may not be the greatest thing to come along since sliced bread but I won't be holding my breath waiting for him to do something, anything, competent. At least the clowns on your side of the border have somewhat the appearance of competency, unlike the crop of clowns we have here in Canada. I doubt our guys could organize a decent drunk in a brewery. They make Bob and Doug McKenzie look like geniuses in comparison.

Somebody once said that there was nothing wrong with politicians that a length of rope and a lamp post couldn't fix.

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

My response is, sooooo?

Both parties have made their fortunes by promising to utilize the power of government to enrich one voting block at the expense of another. It stinks whether it is "public assistance" or corporate welfare.

It isn't government's job to relieve anyone on their due suffering for poor judgment, Particularly since that money to pay for it is taken from those who are doing things right.

From the welfare state to the corporate bailout mania going on, this government seems hell bent on rewarding stupidity and sloth at the expense of industriousness and sagacity.

Arguments over the definition of socialism are simply distractions from the real issue, that we have moved this nation on a course toward disaster.

Every dollar given to one constituency is taken from another. It just needs to stop. All of it.

Socialism, or capitalism, or for that matter any other theoretical political system. First off, in the real world, perception, of the ins and outs of any political system and the real world application of any such system is always coloured by the non perfect appliction of the theory.

It is possible to create a perfect world for all, in theory, where everyone is content, happy, treated well and able to have all the opportinties that life can offer. You can create this perfect world with "perfect" capitilism, socialism, a dictatorship, fascist state, or any other system you may dream up, all you have to ignore is all of our human charicturistics such as greed, aggression, lazyiness, bigotry, predudice, stuborness, stupidity and other "human" failings.

For a government, in my opinion to do the best for the population, in the main, is required to take the middle path. Taking an extreme left, or right view benifits the smallest section of the general population. this means that the more affluent in a society may carry a bigger load proportionatley than others, but if you have much more than you need the effect will be hardly noticed. Those of us, the average citizen, as we make up the largest part of the productive part of society do notice the burden of paying fo most of it. We as a socitety need to look after those who are not able to completely look after themselves, we can do this solely from kindness and compassion or for those of a harder nature, the benifit of looking after the less equiped, is backed into a corner with no hope encourages voilence and crime. I is a lot more expensive to deal with serious crime than help out those that are being left behind.

Obama, is just annother politician how he goes in the job has nothing to with any attempt to a "socialist " pigeon hole just in looking for a reason for him to fail to make the USA you want. His success or failure in the job will be the same as those who have come before him. Partly determined by what happens in the rest of the world, partly by his own integrity and characture, partly by the integrity and characture of those he has in his team, his intelligence (he's defininatly ahead Bush in this area), he does not ge shot by some half wit who can't accept the majority of voters choice and also an element of blind luck. Wait and see how he goes. Judge him on what he does not some obscure BS you seem to be trying to pull out of nothing.

The politicians say vote for me, and you'll get what I want, and we keep mishearing them.

:p

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html?_r=1

The general thesis is that Obama's economic policies will generally piss off both the left and the right. He certainly gives a nod to capitalism and acknowledges Reagan's tax changes as a good thing.

James

James

Obviously, considering a lot of the replies here- the answer to the question is either "no", "don't care", or "Yes, but I want it anyway".

And BTW- people can spin Obama's words any way they want to. What he describes is, in fact, a tendency toward Socialism. As for "wanting to open opportunities" as someone quoted him- the fact of the matter is that he espoused "redistribution of wealth" on more than one occasion...in those exact words.

Don't know about the rest of you, but I want the government to stay out of my business, and out of my pocket. I have no heartburn helping those who need and deserve it, but I most certainly do not believe in redistribution of wealth to those who do not.

Do I think you were screwed by the credit card companies? Yes. Was that the point of my reply? No. My point was that you were not managing your debt properly in the first place. You don't say it, but I suspect at that time you were credit-shopping for the lowest rates. 2.5% is usually an introductory rate with a limited time length; after the introductory period, rates usually increase to prime plus some percentage. In all the credit offers I got, the minimum rate after the introductory period was usually 13.99%-17.99%.

I'll say it again: if your balance was such that an increase in interest rate from 2.5% to 29.99% resulted in your inability to make the new minimum payments, you were going to lose it anyway and just didn't know it yet. I've been there, done that, and learned that as long as I have everything I need I can live without everything I want.

And when it comes to somebody else deciding to do something with my money, there is no gray area. My money, my decision. There have been stupid decisions in the past, but they were still my decisions.

edit: clarify

A is not non-A. As far as I can tell, it hasn't ever been, suggesting that it won't ever be.
That oak tree out front doesn't ever drop whirlygigs or hazelnuts. Just acorns. Tangible reality, of which you are part, is an absolute matter. This thing, or that thing. No maybes.

Perception is what provides relativity (your shades of grey).

etu

You say responsibility, I say trust. I trusted another person would be there, I trusted some one when they they said they would help pay for it all, I trusted someone's word.

When you plan a wedding and pay for it all, you don't plan on catching the other person banging some other guy 2 months before the day.

falls under an accepted risk. You plan a wedding on the grounds of your expectations.

If you have a credit line you cannot expect that the terms are binding forever. You plan, you risk, you expect results. Sometimes it doesn't work out.

Life 101...

.....and I want the government to serve as the broker to get it for me; but no, that's not [i]socialism[/i]. Socialism is that USSR thing, ya' know.

(Dripping with sarcasm for those who can't see it.)

Like "spreading the wealth", "some can pay a little more" and the like.

Individual liberty is secondary to security these days it seems. People want guaranteed success, if they don't get it, somebody else is at fault somehow.

I'm big on the fair tax. Everybody pays. Then, let's see if the tide turns. It's easy to vote away somebody else's money. Socialism in favor of somebody else is seriously objectionable when one pays part of the tab.

Distribution of polio and smallpox vaccines eliminating that disease from the population is one thing the government has done right.

I don't think the government makes the best decisions for me on the majority of my life, but I don't think they are the active force of evil they are made out to be by the party that isn't in power at the moment either.

I see them more as a bumbling, but well-meaning person that just is damned convinced they know what they are doing, even when they don't.

with no supervision or control, socialism for the rich? Why or why not?

Heck, the bankers didn't even have to fly down in their personal plane or produce a plan!

Are you ready for this?

It's a startling conclusion after years of thought!

Politicians. :(

So called socialists, and so called capitalists.

I'm far from believing elected government repesentatives can run anything very well, I'm also vastly unconvinced ones 'elected' by a board of shareholders can do so either.

I remain firmly convinced that both will do it for their benefit, not mine and not their party/corporation, not their members/employess and certainly not their societies/countries

Every time we choose a representative based on their self proclaimed dogma, we buy into their model, they should run things, we should STFU. Which dogma? irrelevant.

I don't believe Max, never have. You just pigeon holed me, which means you let the big government capitalists do a number on you.

Manipulated by your own prejudices, and ones they've instilled in you, as to be honest I am. We argue over the colour of the string they use to puppet us.

I'm a small government socialist. The guys who are running the show want us to argue socialist versus capitalist, so we don't realise we agree on the small government bit.

If our way of thinking took over, they'd all be screwed. They know that.

Mr Obama isn't unique about his proposals for redistribution. Our government, for many different administrations, both democrat and republican, have been rewarding the non-productive among us with other people?s hard earned wages.

Obama can not act on his own. There are still checks and balances in the american government. However, the citizens of the country need to be united in forcing those checks and balances to be used. And Congress needs to honestly represent the wishes of the citizens who elected them. A hundred years ago, there would have been no problem getting either Clinton, or Bush, impeached for their malfeasance in office.

When you're more worried about how things look than you are about doing the right thing, then democracy is already lost.

Some people think that because they managed to make it, everyone should have. Sometimes life events DO 'cause dire financial problems that are really hard to get through. Most especially if they happen at a point in life where you don't yet have the "backup" funds" to carry you through.

For Violtw to post an answer like that is just downright mean spirited and shows an unwillingness to even empathize in case the person's situation was truley beyond his/her control.

And I can't stand people who want to brag about the amount of money they make. I've seen people make a lot of money and still end up bankrupt as a result of life events. Of course, try to say that to people like Violtw and they'll get self rightious. You'll hear "well, I didn't always make this kind of money- I worked my way up".