Windows·65,587 discussions

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

Locked

.
.
[i]The ?instant-on? protestations of Obama, his campaign, and his Obamabots, indicate one of three things:

1) They are angry that someone has finally had the nerve to call them out on the inequitable practice of wealth redistribution; rewarding the non-productive among us with other people?s hard earned wages.

2) They are arrogantly over-exposing their penchant for playing the race card whenever someone doesn?t immediately roll-over and give them exactly what they want, degrading the hardships, sacrifices and accomplishments of generations past.

3) They have absolutely no clue as to what Socialism is.

Socialism, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary is defined as:

?Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; A system of society or group living in which there is no private property; A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.?
[/i]

During a campaign stop in Richmond, Virginia, Obama scoffed at the charge that his economic policies were born of Socialist ideology and the Marxist influence predominant among the adults who surrounded him in his youth, calling the use of such “implausible” arguments an, “indication they have run out of ideas.”

A barrage of callers to conservatives talk radio programs ? not surprisingly the overwhelming majority of them Black, took an indignant tone calling any and all criticism of Barack Obama?s economic policies ? and for that matter any criticism of Barack Obama at all ? as an emanation of the underlying racism that exists in each and every Caucasian heart in the United States…not among other races, not among the Black population, just the Caucasian race.

One Kansas City Star editorialist, Lewis Diuguid, concurred with the talk radio program callers in declaring, albeit in that publication?s blog and at great homage to the art of ?spin,? that those noting the similarities between ?spreading the wealth around? and wealth redistribution are ?racist.? We are, of course, well within our purview in declaring that the mainstream media has become increasingly irrelevant in matters of fact and honesty, especially where the 2008 election is concerned.

Socialism promotes increased government control over the private sector, both socially and in business. It is achieved by instituting a system that redistributes wealth in an effort to artificially equalize wealth in society, regardless of productivity. 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.

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. This belief is championed and possessed by Barack Obama and is proven beyond doubt in his statement to Samuel Wurzelbacher:

[i]?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.? [/i](Emphasis mine).

The complete text of Karl Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Program statement is as follows:

[i]?In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly?only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!?[/i]

Some say that Barack Obama is a great orator. Other say he reads the teleprompter pretty well. And still others think that he is simply a political con-artist specializing in bovine feces. But after comparing Marx?s Critique of the Gotha Program statement and Obama?s ?Joe the Plumber? statement I think it is safe to say that Barack Obama is, simply put, a well-marketed Democratic Socialist peddling a pathetic and failed ideology under the guise of [i]?hope? and ?change,? just like Fidel Castro circa 1959.[/i]

And there?s nothing ?racist? about that.

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

Topic

Yours

In reply to 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.

One major flaw

In reply to Do Americans Understand What Socialism Is? Well; do they???

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.

Well said

In reply to One major flaw

🙂

Ill take a stab….

In reply to Do Americans Understand What Socialism Is? Well; do they???

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…

That is incorrect

In reply to Ill take a stab….

[i]America has always had socialistic fundamentals. [/i]

Socialism advocates that the ownership and control of businesses, money, and property be vested in the community as a whole. This has never been a fundamental American value and is quite the opposite of the quintessentially American statement “to each his own.”

Up until the creation of welfare, [u]temporary[/u] assistance was provided by private agencies and charities, most of which based this aid on the condition that you get [b]and hold[/b] a job. Welfare killed that by providing the assistance without strings or limitation, in some cases even rewarding fertility and longevity on the welfare rolls. In fact, by essentially limiting eligibility to single mothers, the only thing welfare discouraged was marriage.

[i]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.[/i]

If the increase in minimum payments resulting from maximum interest rates on all your accounts caused you to lose everything, you were going to lose it all anyway, you just didn’t know it yet. That you fight your way back onto your feet is a credit to you.

[i]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…[/i]

Did she make those choices or were they made for her? There’s a difference. The welfare system in the USA used to reward both longevity and procreation; it no longer does so. As I read this, your girlfriend was dumped on the foster care system when her mother could no longer get enough money to make keeping her worthwhile.

[i] …She has a Masters in Nursing, and makes more money then me… And helps every person she can… Redistributing her wealth… [/i]

But that’s [u]her choice[/u]. If the government takes that same money, even for the same purpose, she’s no longer being given a choice. My question for you is this: Who is most qualified to determine who receives that assistance and how much? Is it your girlfriend who knows the people she is helping or some desk jockey in some other city who can’t even find the neighborhood on a map? Who knows more about conditions in your area?

[i]She is a prime example a person who has made something from nothing![/i]

My congratulations to her for her success.

edit: splel

(parenthetical)

In reply to That is incorrect

Class act, Nick.

lol….

In reply to That is incorrect

It appears to me that you are arguing in Black and white, and fail to see the shades of gray.

Go from an APR of 2.5 to 29.99. Also I was making payments far above min.

Lots of gray out there

In reply to lol….

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

Im done….

In reply to Lots of gray out there

I’m dropping this, you are starting to piss me off.

Your assignment of responsibility

In reply to Im done….

Is what may have gotten you into your fix in the first place.

Ya think.

In reply to Your assignment of responsibility

.

responsibility…..

In reply to Your assignment of responsibility

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.

Infidelity

In reply to Your assignment of responsibility

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…

The first part

In reply to Your assignment of responsibility

Interesting inversion, or conversion, or reversion, there, as to trust and responsibility. You could be, or you are, rewriting reality.

Probably the best idea, TK

In reply to Im done….

When it starts to bug you, walking away is your best plan.

I think I understand what’s happening here. Even though you are describing the situation that you went through, there is no possible way for anyone not there at the time to really KNOW all of what was going on.

I know from whence I speak. I had to rebuild from zero after my identity was stolen. That was some seriously hard time. I may have posted the story once but what I knew when I did so was that no matter what response I got, no one would really know the whole story. Life is often too complicated to put into words.

I know a lot of good people who have found themselves in some unholy messes as a result of the recession, gas prices, Wall Street, the mortgage crisis, the credit crisis and unemployment. Toss on top that you went from a negligible APR to a very significant one, I can see easily how you found yourself in a mess. If you are like everyone else I know, you forecasted your budget based on what you knew and took risk accordingly. To have the rules change that dramatically with no warning would have a horrible impact.

I don’t think that Nick is trying to be nasty here. I think he was coming from a different perspective and said as much. I don’t think he was deliberately trying to bait you.

lol….

In reply to Probably the best idea, TK

to late…

The only greys that exist are in the color palette.

In reply to lol….

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

living BEYOND your means

In reply to Ill take a stab….

So, let’s get this straight. You are waa-waa-waaaaHING because you were living off your credit cards and rates got raised and so you ‘lost everything’??? tsk tsk! How come it seems like I am the only person living WELL BELOW my means? I can go without working for… probably 25 years and I don’t mean on ‘welfare’ or ‘on soc security’, but on my SAVINGS ALONE. How can that be??? Well, you see I make major big money (3 figures/hour) and yet I LIVE on 10/hr, max. actually a lot less. How is that POOOOOSIBLE???!! Here’s the tip: don’t buy anything unless you can pay CASH for it. Keep your vehicle (my gmc long-bed 4-door truck) till you have at least 200K on it. I’ve only owned FOUR vehicles since 1972. Dodge Dart 65, bought for 500 bucks with 62K on it, sold it 11 years later with 225K on it for 500 bucks, etc. So it is true that credit card companies can legally charge what used to be called ‘usury rates’, but you KNEW that when you took their card. If you are going to openly/blatantly deal with the devil, you should know the ultimate end of that contract! GROW UP.

LOL

In reply to living BEYOND your means

What a POS answer. May your house foreclose and your job get outsourced.

Whew!- I agree with you Devin!

In reply to LOL

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”.

You’re right, but it precedes Obama by decades, and why do you care?

In reply to Do Americans Understand What Socialism Is? Well; do they???

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?

Don’t kid yourself.

In reply to You’re right, but it precedes Obama by decades, and why do you care?

I have offices in Boston, Boulder and Reno that employ Americans. I also have offices in Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto. There are more American employees than Canadian mainly because 70% of our work is in the US but what with the current fiscal boondoggle going on in the US and the incompetence of the politicians to find any sort of viable solution for it, I wonder how much longer we are going to bother keeping open. I make more from my investments than my company.

I tolerate taxes both US and Canadian which is not to say I appreciate or like them, especially since my bracket is too damn high considering the return.
So far we haven’t laid anyone off but we do have a hiring freeze in place and are not replacing any departures unless totally necessary. However, I’m getting complaints because salaries and wages are not enough. Consider that we pay better than scale plus benefits; and yet Americans wonder why jobs are being outsourced.

BTW while we are debt free, we are still feeling the pinch. Too maintain corporate viability the partners are foregoing our dividends this year. We are all in an age bracket where the thought of retirement is becoming increasingly attractive. I seriously doubt we could find a buyer for the business currently and there is a strong temptation to just pull the plug and shut down.

Yeah they have socialized medicine in Canada; and when I consider my insurance bill for working in the US it’s too bad they don’t have it in the US as well. Contrary to all the horror stories you’ve heard about Canadian medicine; it actually works and fairly damn well. Costs of medications in Canada is about 2/3 less than what they are in the US, which explains the bus loads of Americans crossing the border to get their prescriptions filled. The buses come from as far away as the US/Mexican border states. There are pharmacies in Canada which cater to this phenomena. All I know is that when I’m working in the US for any prolonged period I make sure my prescriptions are topped up before I leave.

I and my partners started our business from scratch and built it up to what it is today through our own hard work, blood, sweat and tears. Yes we make a good living and we installed profit sharing to make sure our employees benefitted as well but in the 22 years of existence of the company, I have yet to see any employee expend any where near as much time, effort and thought as we did in building this business. So you’ll pardon me, just a little bit, if I resent anyone sticking their grubby mitts into my pockets to steal the money I worked so hard to earn. I was going to sell out my share to my partners because I’ve had enough but apparently so have my partners. If we can’t sell it, we’ll close it and sell off the assets. At least then I won’t have to listen to anymore employee whinings and complaints.
I do not evade my taxes but I do my level best to structure my activities to ameliorate as much of the tax bite as I possibly can.

For what it’s worth, the profile is up too date just not totally complete. Didn’t feel any need to tell more.

So let’s go back to my main question:

In reply to Don’t kid yourself.

Why are you unloading on Obama? You know the history of socialist policies in this country. You acknowledge the responsibility of incompetent politicians. You support the social medical policies in Canada (as do I, by the way). Obama isn’t in office yet; why complain about someone who hasn’t had a chance to do anything yet? Why not rant about the socialist bank bailout or caution against the auto industry’s latest round of begging?

I agree with most of your points. What I don’t get is why you posted a link complaining about U.S. socialist policies and try to tie them to someone who doesn’t yet have responsibility for them, instead of complaining about those who are already implementing them? Why single him out from all the existing offenders?

Maybe you listened to him but I don’t think you really heard him.

In reply to So let’s go back to my main question:

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] ]:)

Thats a very right wing definition of Socialism

In reply to Do Americans Understand What Socialism Is? Well; do they???

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…..

The “both parties do this” argument irks me….

In reply to Do Americans Understand What Socialism Is? Well; do they???

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.

Another member of the small government brigade

In reply to The “both parties do this” argument irks me….

Socialism vs capitalism window dressing. A way to tell the voters what they want to hear.
That’s the real political split.

Nanny stater’s want to put the goverment in everything.
‘Free market capitalists’ want to use the governent for everything.

Not all socialists are nanny staters and some capitalists are really free market ones.

Pigeon holing, is the big government types way of bulking up the numbers of their ‘supporters’.

Pigeon-holing isn’t limited to government

In reply to Another member of the small government brigade

[i]Pigeon holing, is the big government types way of bulking up the numbers of their ‘supporters’. [/i]

It’s also an easy way for the lazy and ignorant to differentiate between “us” and “them” and provides demagogues the means to incite those ignorant and lazy people.

“If you’re not with us, you’re against us” is the prime example of Presidential pigeon-holing.

Well we are all stupid in one way

In reply to Pigeon-holing isn’t limited to government

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

:p

Too right!

In reply to Well we are all stupid in one way

.

A better question might be:

In reply to Do Americans Understand What Socialism Is? Well; do they???

do they care?

how well does anyone understand

In reply to Do Americans Understand What Socialism Is? Well; do they???

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.

I found this interesting

In reply to Do Americans Understand What Socialism Is? Well; do they???

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

Agree Dawg

In reply to Do Americans Understand What Socialism Is? Well; do they???

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.

I want for myself what someone else earns . . . . . .

In reply to Do Americans Understand What Socialism Is? Well; do they???

…..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.)

The reverse bogeyman effect

In reply to I want for myself what someone else earns . . . . . .

The thing is, so many things have moved us ever further down the socialist path that now too many hands are dirty. To call all of it socialism overuses the term and sounds hysterical.

People don’t see incremental socialism. Use of the word evokes no response, like comparisons to Hitler. Our socialism isn’t the USSR, therefore it’s not socialism.

In other words, the word has become irrelevant through overuse. It’s a cuss word that has lost impact.

Someone once told me that the most effective lie Satan ever got away with is that he doesn’t exist.

We’re headed for Democratic Socialism . . . . .

In reply to The reverse bogeyman effect

…..although we’re a significant way down that path already. Sweden, Germany, France – those are our models, right? At least they’re honest about it; they actually call themselves Democratic Socialists.

What happen to the idea (and ideal) that we should be the model for the world? The model that placed individual liberty as the cornerstone for our society and political system?

In short, a rose by any other name is still a rose. And garbage by any other name still stinks.

No, plenty of euphemisms left

In reply to We’re headed for Democratic Socialism . . . . .

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.

More euphemisms

In reply to No, plenty of euphemisms left

People just want a [i]piece of the pie[/i], suggesting the pie is finite in size. But in reality, it’s infinite in size.

As an answer to [i]pulling yourself up by your bootstraps[/i], Jesse Jackson replied that some people don’t have any [i]bootstraps[/i]. I guess he doesn’t realize that [i]bootstraps[/i] is a euphemism for suggesting people DO have the wherewithal, the gumption, the courage, the ability, etc. to overcome obstacles and better themselves. To suggest otherwise (as Jesse Jackson did) is actually the real insult.

P.S. I also support the Fair Tax plan.

Oh yeah, and “Winners of life’s lottery”

In reply to No, plenty of euphemisms left

I cringe when I hear this. The assumption that people who enjoy success somehow just “won”. No account for effort, sacrifice, deferred gratification.

Marginalize the effort and that legitimatizes theft. Yes, you read me right, theft. We need to start calling things what they are. Words mean things.

Yeah, that “piece of the pie” thing grates me, like my piece of the pie somehow came at the expense of yours, the classic zero sum.

I like that…

In reply to The reverse bogeyman effect

…term. “Incremental Socialism”. Good way of describing what is going on in our country today. Then, before you know it, everything will be run by the Federal Government, and soon after we’ll be espousing the virtues of the great and loving Emperor. (:->)

I want for myself waht someone else earns ……

In reply to I want for myself what someone else earns . . . . . .

and I pay the government to serve as broker to get it for me, but no, that’s not capitalism. Captalism is the USA thing, ya know.

To the guy on the street the guvmint taking money off him, to fund some welfare cheat, is no different to them taking it off him because of a tax cheat.

They are all dishonest gits.

On cheating

In reply to I want for myself waht someone else earns ……

Cheating (yourself and society) to gain what someone else earns, and supporting such policies, is almost seen as noble and compassionate. Cheating (those who cheat themselves and society) to keep what one earns himself is almost seen as sinister and mean. Why can’t the latter be seen as a form of [i]noble[/i] civil disobedience?

Personally speaking, I don’t disagree that there’s economic inequality, and that it’s something that ails society. But is seeking government solutions the best way to cure it? I think not. In fact, government’s cure is worse than the disease.

Rant Warning:

What makes people think that elected government representatives – mostly lawyers, by profession – are best suited to solve society’s problems? People want them to literally run our health care system? And now our auto industry? Our retirement accounts? Name one thing they’ve laid their grubby little hands on that they haven’t totally screwed up? And people want them to get their hands on more? Geesh! Wake up, people!

End of rant.

Keep talking like that

In reply to On cheating

And you’ll be underfoot alongside RoadDog.

One thing the government of the US has done right

In reply to On cheating

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.

Ah!

In reply to One thing the government of the US has done right

An optimist.

Uh, don’t recall anyone bashing them for that.

In reply to One thing the government of the US has done right

OK, I have to grant the fedgov kudos on smallpox and polio. I think Darpanet turned out pretty well too.

I have a serious problem with politicians of both parties. Greedy, self-serving, megalomaniacs, busybodies who are more than willing to use the constitution as toilet paper while buying another term at the trough with my money. Those con-artists that are ready to sell out 49.9 % of the population to buy the votes of the other 50.1%.

The Constitution expressly limited federal power and politicians have repeatedly played voting blocs against each other to selectively negate it.

The federal government is not the problem, the people we have elected in the last 90 years or so are.

Is that a fair distinction?

Can’t agree

In reply to One thing the government of the US has done right

You are looking at them as a man in street, who thinks something should be done and living in a democracy could give me the power to do it.

They aren’t. They are vetted, groomed, brain washed, and fitted into the machine as a nice gleaming cog. No matter how high their ideals were, and that’s a major point of contention, they won’t get to act on them unless they toe the party line.

What convinces them ?

In reply to On cheating

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.

They DO understand

In reply to Do Americans Understand What Socialism Is? Well; do they???

But they’re afraid to admit.

Isn’t giving $800 BILLION DOLLARS to BANKS

In reply to Do Americans Understand What Socialism Is? Well; do they???

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!

Aye and we are talking about those political

In reply to Isn’t giving $800 BILLION DOLLARS to BANKS

bedfellows, Putin, Bush, Brown, Sarchozy, Obama….

Makes you wonder who’s actually running things doesn’t it?

Wealth and labor are already inequitable

In reply to Do Americans Understand What Socialism Is? Well; do they???

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.

OOOoooRRRaaaa!

In reply to Wealth and labor are already inequitable

Good point Dr.

Unfortunatly, too many Americans in today’s day and age run around with their heads buried in the sand and not caring what is going on in our government. Nor do they really bother to learn the essentials for understanding what is going on in the government or why.

Too many of them are now of the “me” generation. If someone promises something to them, they’re all for it- no matter the consequences. And they all miss the “foot in the door” syndrome.

[Author]

Replies