Yesterday in Kansas, President Obama has taken ownership of his socialism by declaring outright that he IS a socialist. Hold on to your pocketbooks, folks. In his declared effort to save the middle class, don't be suprised if you find yourself sinking even more. And don't make an effort to earn real money because you'll then be part of the problem.
Now those are the days I'd like to be a part of. Forget being part of the middle class.
But seriously, keeping you in the middle class is the objective of socialism and that doesn't mean you'll be better off. What it means is that you get to continue to share your earnings with everyone and support big government.
Paraphrased, Obama has said it's time for the government to take more control over the lives of the population.
Here we go again. That same circle where if you want to keep your money, you must be some kind of monster who doesn't want to help the poor.
A) The elderly put in just as much as the youth. The system is failing. It's not their fault. B) The poor get plenty. The system is failing. It's not their fault either. C) I pay plenty in taxes to support everything already. Government spending is the reason the systems are failing. It is their fault.
A. Wrong. This is so wrong its not even funny. Where do you get this claim from? If this was true it would exist when im old but it wont I don't want to link all the government statistical data. Not to mention how drastically different Connecticut contributions are per capita vs a state like say North Dakota or Missouri.
I agree it's not fault nor did I say that. But in the spirit of not helping people I say do all or nothing.
B. Wrong. Again, I don't feel like going into this. The favorite argument seems to be pointing out how some people take advantage of the system. It is flawed, I agree. I support reform for these programs to get them running better.
C. Government is the problem is a very broad statement. Rich people are experiencing historically low taxes. Have you looked at the spending on SS, Medicaid, and defense? have you ever looked at tax rates throughout ALL of American history compared to the last 20 years? And you can say with a straight face discretionary spending is the big problem?
"The favorite argument seems to be pointing out how some people take advantage of the system."
Very true. The Bankers, corporate CEOS, hedge fund operators, drug, oil, utility, coal and health insurance companies all take advantage of the system to screw the public and enrich themselves. Hasn't anybody noticed that for the past 30 years or so the "redistribution" of wealth and income has been FROM the poor and middle class to the ultra rich?? And they are the ones who are whining and calling Obama a socialist. Crapola. Obama isn't even a liberal democrat, let alone a socialist.
Walden - A - seniors put in (or had taken out) what was required of them just like we do. The reason it may not be there in the future is because our government has drawn from it for other uses. Nothing like a little senior bashing to liven things up. B - you're agreeing with me. why are you saying 'wrong'? C - history is history so let's not even go there. trying to correct the problem is now the problem. If it were discretionary spending we were talking about, there would likely not be a problem. Our government has no discretionary income. It's all borrowed or stolen. (This should be interesting)
Blue states are communist states. Everyone knows that! Including the red states that get government money from the red states. But the red states are not communist states. They are proudly independent, dammit!
Makes perfect sense ... to somebody (not me). Nor you, I suspect. LFW.
I know this is not my imagination but do you remember way back when Bush II was running and all the hate speech started coming from the Dems? He would never stoop to their level. Now, everytime we hear hate speech, the Dems say its the Reps that are doing it, they started it.
Actually, it's not intended to be partisan. I remember being rather shocked when it all started and even moreso when they claimed it was the other side. I was just mind boggling. Do my question was strictly that. Not intended to be provocative.
I'm actually not that much into politics as a participant and even less so in the forums. This one just caught me up.
There is nothing wrong with socialism infact most of the policies that make the U.S. what it is today started out as socialist policies and indeed still are. Things like free education, minimum wage, forty hour week, welfare for the disabled etc. and in the recent years we have seen socialist and communist governments thrive. For example Venezuela, Argentina and China.
psych - I already do. fortunately for me, you can't hurt me. he can.
Socialism doesn't work except in a completely ideal society. It's definately a noble idea but it just doesn't work given (some) human's inclination to greed and dishonesty. What you're really saying is that you're willing to give up everything you work for and split it evenly across the board until everyone has exactly the same thing. Eventually, there will be a good percentage that don't do anything for one of two reasons: They can get it free or they're tired of working to give away their earnings to those who want it for free.
Are you talking to me? I'm far from socialist. What I meant was if we could eliminate the thinking, reasoning brain, brainwash all the criminals into playing nice, get rid of politics and government, grow our own food and all get a house and a piece of land, we wouldn't need much more. The idealistic society or model of Utopia is unreasonable. Essentially, that's what socialism is about at the core. It just won't work. If it did, it would be in place today with a bunch of happy, peppy, people living the good life.
If you believe in any tax supported service for the citizens (courts, police, roads, fire fighting, disaster services, search and rescue, ambulance, medicare), you can't really say you are not at all socialist.
Socialism works fine. We already live in a socialist America that takes tax money and uses it to do stuff like provide a police force and army, build roads, educate kids and give health care to old people. The countries a bit more socialist that the US (e.g. Canada, NZ) oddly are not at all fearsome and levee tax at a rate at or below the US.
There is no "pure" socialism just like there no pure free market or democracy. It is just a principle that says some degree of shared services and some charity should be compulsory for ciitzens to pay for if they can afford it--and this money should be government co-ordinated. Every government I can think of is therefore partly socialist.
Being fully socialist is not even really the goal for a nation that wants a functioning economy--just as being fully free-market is not for a country that wants to protect some basic human rights and standards of living.
I believe your definition or view of socialism is wrong in the sense of shared services. Paying for the services we use is not a part of the socialism model. Spreading the wealth to the workers, the lower classes from the upper classes who allegedly control the wealth is closer to what socialism is about. As far as pure socialism or pure free market democracy goes, I can agree with you.
Unfortunately, the bit about compulsory charity goes to the head of those in power. They have the power to decide what I give but not the right. They have the power to take what they want but not the right. Socialists generally want to give what is not theirs to give. There is plenty of charitable wealth to support this nation's unfortunate. Government should back off in that regard.
Explain how Germany and Sweden are actually "socialist". Then realize, they aren't socialist and start bragging about Marxist nations like Cuba, Laos and Vietnam or other non-marxist socialist countries like Portugal, India, Angola, and Syria.
Sweden's recent economic success is because of free market capitalist reforms that encourage people to work.
I don't think you know what you are really talking about by making vague claims as if socialism is making those two countries successful.... it is preposterous.
I haven't followed Scandinavian society so can't effectively comment. I would guess they have a lot less people, they may not be politically divided, have fewer issues like immigration, foreign aid, military leadership, etc. I would also guess their form of socialism is just what others have mentioned, part socialism and part capitalism just like ours.
If you agree with paying any amount of tax to help any group of the needy (including yourself when you might be in need), you are just a little bit socialist. Thus it is just a matter over how socialist you think the country should be, not whether it should be socialist at all.
Just as with being democratic, did you vote for any of these people that are failing? Time to vote them out. None of them got there without us putting them there.
I guess today, definitions get watered down just like everything else. People can watch actual war live on tv and cheer for their side without their stomachs turning. So politics is just another episode of reality tv. History is lost although I realize that what is written as history may not be absolute truth either. That's why I say what is past is past. If we look at the now, we can see the difference in a capitalist society and a communist or socialist society. Capitalism may not be a perfect solution but the bottom line is getting elected officials to be honest, keep their integrity, and work within their means. If that means sacrificing on my part, fine. I don't expect ill and aging people to give up their benefits. They probably deserve them. But everything is taxed and there should be enough money if they'd stop giving it away. I could be wrong.
Why should we as Americans care about the textbook definitions of "socialist" or "fascist" or even care which countries in the world are or are not perfect models? They don't apply.
The USA is its own unique model. That has always been our "exceptionalism." We have always had a government. We will always have a government. We have always had free enterprise and always will have. We have always supported a man's right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I was going to say "all citizens' right to..." but that has not, in fact, been the case.
Right now our country needs a huge rebalancing. We are not doing right by OUR citizens. It's time to revisit what our national priorities are and allocate our collective resources to achieving what is important to the USA today. That is not socialism. It's pragmatism. And national survival.
This is the crux of the whole socialism issue. The haves assume the superior position and control their own lives with the trickle down effect of controling ours by virtue of their demands.
Elected officials appointed to be lawmakers have power often corrupted by the haves. They assume they are there because the masses need to be 'tended'. Once again, I'm not against social programs that are beneficial to the community but I don't want to be micro-managed. There is always the issue of ethics in any society. Who decides what is right?
Capitalist firefighters: "December 07, 2011 "Yahoo News" -- A Tennessee couple helplessly watched their home burn to the ground, along with all of their possessions, because they did not pay a $75 annual fee to the local fire department" ... "South Fulton Mayor David Crocker defended the fire department, saying that if firefighters responded to non-subscribers, no one would have an incentive to pay the fee."
I'm not sure why you all think I'm against beneficial social structures/endowments. I don't think anyone would argue that putting tax dollars into firefighters is wrong. I guess this is the crux of the matter. Liberals and Conservatives can't agree where the line is when it comes to what is humanitarian, civil, beneficial, and necessary and what is abusive of tax dollars. It doesn't make any of us bad people. (Though I suspect there are more liberals with personal agendas than conservatives) (Going for the popcorn)
I still don't see it. Some animals kill thier young, others eat the young/eggs of their neighbors. Heirarchies are set through battle and domination. Odd individuals are often ostracized from the group. Strong plant feeders kill out other plants. There is no equality and justice for all. It's survival of the fittest to the nth degree.
And it would be more pleasant if you used your intelligence (if you can find it again) to debate rationally rather than talking down to others.
Because admitting you're a socialist is viwed as such a demonic word in America; I seriously doubt the President of all people made such an announcement to the general public. Care to provide a link? I would be curious to see it.
Social security is socialist, medicare/medicaid is socialist, disability is socialist, and the list goes on. Where in the constitution does it say for the people via capitalism? Not not aware of it. Where in the constitution does it say the lives of those unable to purchase health insurance should not be helped? Where in the constitution does it state that folks with insurance, have the right to deny that health care to the poor and decide who lives or dies? Where in the bible does it state, those who have, should be the judge and jury of those with little or none? I could use some help here, if these references really do exist.
Marx would be proud. Yes all the social programs you mentioned are socialist and not. Those who receive SS only receive it if they've put into it.
I'm all for helping those who need medicare. I agree with this use of tax dollars.
I'm not a Constitutional scholar so I'm looking for Evan to jump in here.
I do know this. We already help all those who can't provide themselves with medical insurance and although hospitals and doctors have the right to deny care to ailing or injured persons, IMO they feel it is ethically wrong. This is why they DO provide care and to some degree at the expense of others in the form of higher medical costs.
I also know this. I have the right to choose for myself. Government is not in place to force me to protect myself with medical insurance. See, here's where it gets sticky. If I need care and I don't have insurance, I become one of the people who causes your medical costs to rise.
So you've (no doubt intentionally) slipped from government to the rich to the Bible. The 'haves' have always indirectly dictated to the 'have nots'. This was Marx's entire premise. The flaw is that once the 'have nots' become the 'haves', they will then dictate to the next crop of 'have nots'. There will likely always be 'have nots'. That's in your bible, too.
I don't believe human nature is basically nasty the way T.H. did but that's assuming an ideal society. For myself, I believe seeking higher states of consciousness is the way to gain that ideal society. It's not likely that we will all reach this at the same time or ever reach it at all but this is where I place my intention. When I recognize 'nasty' I try to look at the heart of the human being, past the 'nasty. IMO, Hobbes was a pessimist of the highest order. 'Having' or 'not having' doesn't mean one's life is necessarily in a bad place. And as you are likely aware, the 'psychological egoists' coined by Hobbes have been known to jump in a raging river to save a child. This brings us back to the fact that man is not inherently nasty.
I'm pointing to those who would brandy about such ridiculous contradictions. The "Christian Left" was already part of the picture. I am in no way connected to them or know their political affiliations.
Rick Perry, aside for his views concerning undocumented residents, is one of those ridiculous people.
I believe in a very strong central government. Hobbes said that left to our own devices we would eat each other. How do you pick and choose who needs guidance? Absolute authority is must. Just my opinion, but not with the goof-balls we currently have.
It's unfortunate that this is the case. I think Mill had the right idea about prioritizing cultural and spiritual kinds of happiness over coarser and more physical pleasures. But now we get back into morality and who's morality is the deciding factor. That's why big government can't really make all the little decisions for the people. They can't micro-manage us. I for one don't believe anyone can make my moral decisions for me.
I think its sad that american politics has become so polarized that socialism is a dirty word. Politics doesnt need to be black and white, most of teh worlds strongest countries have a mix of different political types.
Does all out socialism work? Rarely. Is socialism completely wrong? No.
Well put mighty mom. I don't have a problem with capitalism, but I do have a problem when large companies outsource our jobs at the expense of American workers for share holder profits. At some point, large companies have to say this is it to the share holders, because if they don't more jobs will be lost. Share holders need to realize sacrificing a portion of their profit, could bring jobs back. So it appears to me, greed is the problem. Not all Americans expect to be rich, but they do expect to hold a job, provide for their families, and live "their" American dream.
I think this is a great explanation of President Obamas' speech. The man is a great leader that shows us why we all have to do are part to be a better Nation. Cut it out with the Socialist and Maxist and Class Warfare talk! Are President is trying to remind us that we are all in the together. We need to listen to this man that is trying to lead us out of the "Ditch" that deregulation and tax cuts for the rich drove us into.
I like the headline of that. I have been waiting a long time for him to "grow a pair" and say what needs to be said.
I thought the speech was excellent. Of coure our resident hard liners will continue to find fault, but they are going to find themselves with fewer and fewer supporters - even the most blind are starting to see that this unbridled capitalism has to be curbed.
I just hope it is not too late and that he doesn't stop banging loudly on that drum.
Couldn't agree with you more about the unbridled capitalism. It's up to us, each individual to stop the madness. Stop buying frivolously, continue reusing, recycling, upcycling and entrepreneurship.
Obama is an excellent speaker. I've always maintained that Congress is actually the problem since they're the lawmakers. At first I was sorry I started this forum because it was intentionally intended as a joke. But it swiftly became hot and I found myself in territory I don't really care to be in due to the nature of political divisiveness. I'll see it through to its demise, though
As some fellow hubbers will know, I am involved in writing hubs for a Socialism 101 series.There are a few issues raised by the conservatives where I do not fully understand what they are saying. Before I address these...
Hans-Hermann Hoppe in A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism essentially argues that there are in fact only 2 possible economic ideologies: Socialism and Capitalism, and variations of. You either believe there should be...
I'm a Capitalist - what that means to me is that the closest thing to an ideal economy we can achieve is one where the government has almost no interference in the private business sector whatsoever. I think you can put...
Hello Everyone,Just thought I'd post this about Barack Obama's vistory. Election night was so emotional for some of everybody. Tears of joy for this man ran throught the world. Please to tell me what you were doing when...
One of the greatest criticisms leveled at socialist and perceived socialist nations is their high taxes, usually reinforced with the example of France and it's high tax rates under a newly elected socialist...
Recently there have been some long-tailed debates held in the comments section of certain Hubs. Particularly in the Hubs written by James Watkins and John Holden. I was wondering if it would be possible to have a...