But Obama Is a Socialist

quote:

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.

quote:

Do either of you have a solid plan to replace these policies?

Any ideas?

Real ideas not just "go back to the way this country started"

We are not the same country we were in 1776. We have out grown a lot of what was thought to be the best plan for the US at that time. Where DO we go from here?

I am sincere in this. I am neither Dem or Rep. I am an American, and I want to see our country succeed on all fronts.

quote:

So EVERY president we have ever had must be a socialist.

quote:

Originally posted by Jankinonya:
Do either of you have a solid plan to replace these policies?

Any ideas?

Real ideas not just "go back to the way this country started"

We are not the same country we were in 1776. We have out grown a lot of what was thought to be the best plan for the US at that time. Where DO we go from here?

I am sincere in this. I am neither Dem or Rep. I am an American, and I want to see our country succeed on all fronts.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Nation:

quote:

Originally posted by Jankinonya:
Do either of you have a solid plan to replace these policies?

Any ideas?

Real ideas not just "go back to the way this country started"

We are not the same country we were in 1776. We have out grown a lot of what was thought to be the best plan for the US at that time. Where DO we go from here?

I am sincere in this. I am neither Dem or Rep. I am an American, and I want to see our country succeed on all fronts.

So I suppose constitutionally limited government is not a "real idea"?

dolemitejb has a good suggestion.

I would just add that almost everything on that list is outside the enumerated powers of the federal government. The thing that strict constructionist object to, is not necessarily anything on that list...but the usurping of power. The Constitution provides for a way to "change with the times"...it's an amendment. Not a court changing the plain meaning of the document.

7 & 10, the feds have a very limited role...and an arguement can be made that the feds have a constitutional role in #9.

The Constitution provides for is "Federalism". The revolution was fought for self-government...sharing of powers and duties, with most of those duties falling under state/local authority.

If the people of one state vote to implement everything on that list...well good for them...but that doesn't mean Missouri has to follow suit.

What's more effective? What's more conducive to liberty and freedom? A local authority and people deciding what's best for them, Self-Government...or 300 million plus people being ruled by 1 city?

quote:

So when children are dying from illnesses that could be easily treated, but their parents don't have enough money to pay the Dr, what do we do? Set back and watch?

How bout old people and children starving? Do we insist that granny take her walker and go get a job, or the toddler shouldn't be such a big eater?

quote:

Originally posted by Jankinonya:
So when children are dying from illnesses that could be easily treated, but their parents don't have enough money to pay the Dr, what do we do? Set back and watch?

How bout old people and children starving? Do we insist that granny take her walker and go get a job, or the toddler shouldn't be such a big eater?

Life is very complicated. I have been to 3rd world countries where the government does not help the poor in any way shape or form. I don't want to live there thank you. When you see 5 year olds living on the street and caring for their 2 year old sibling that extra tax dollar or two seems kinda petty to want to with hold.

Utopian ideal is that the people will actually do what is necessary to make it on their own. I don't give humans that much credit. I have seen what can and will be done with out government intervention.

I would love to see a better plan, but yes a plan is needed.

quote:

Originally posted by JuanHunt:
I love a good platitude as much as the next guy, but, in reality, we wont be returning to anything resembling the nation as it was in 1787, nor its qualities of governance. Next???

quote:

I love a good platitude as much as the next guy, but, in reality, we wont be returning to anything resembling the nation as it was in 1787, nor its qualities of governance. Next???

quote:

Originally posted by Jankinonya:
I would not be represented at all. I guess I could just move to the north west or some other more moderate state but I am truly a southern girl at heart.

quote:

I hate to sound trite..or what did Juan say?...use platitudes...but this is what federalism gives us...Competing societies. If what you say is true of Alabama...we wouldn't compete very well...and would have to adopt policies that would.

quote:

Here's a two-minute drill in soak-the-rich economics:

Maryland couldn't balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it."

One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates.

quote:

Originally posted by Jankinonya:
So when children are dying from illnesses that could be easily treated, but their parents don't have enough money to pay the Dr, what do we do? Set back and watch?

How bout old people and children starving? Do we insist that granny take her walker and go get a job, or the toddler shouldn't be such a big eater?

Life is very complicated. I have been to 3rd world countries where the government does not help the poor in any way shape or form. I don't want to live there thank you. When you see 5 year olds living on the street and caring for their 2 year old sibling that extra tax dollar or two seems kinda petty to want to with hold.

Utopian ideal is that the people will actually do what is necessary to make it on their own. I don't give humans that much credit. I have seen what can and will be done with out government intervention.

I would love to see a better plan, but yes a plan is needed.

quote:

Originally posted by JuanHunt:
I love a good platitude as much as the next guy, but, in reality, we wont be returning to anything resembling the nation as it was in 1787, nor its qualities of governance. Next???

quote:

Originally posted by ferrellj:

quote:

Originally posted by JuanHunt:
I love a good platitude as much as the next guy, but, in reality, we wont be returning to anything resembling the nation as it was in 1787, nor its qualities of governance. Next???

You're right. Can you believe some people even still think the Constitution is relevent?

quote:

Originally posted by O No!:
Except for 11 12 and 13, all of those have been US policies for many many decades. So EVERY president we have ever had must be a socialist.

And where did you get your information that Obama agrees with all of these "points"?

quote:

They at least spoke about small gov't

quote:

and put in tax cuts which help expand capitalism

quote:

Reagan wasn't horrible in the spending relm, and besides war spending, neither was Bush.

quote:

Originally posted by JuanHunt:

quote:

Originally posted by ferrellj:

quote:

Originally posted by JuanHunt:
I love a good platitude as much as the next guy, but, in reality, we wont be returning to anything resembling the nation as it was in 1787, nor its qualities of governance. Next???

You're right. Can you believe some people even still think the Constitution is relevent?

Yes, I do. They also want to make people travel by horse and buggy, and pray in school.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
You have talking heads on the right predicting socialist doom if republicans aren't elected in November. The say we must "act now"..."no time to delay" or we'll lose our country to socialism/fascism/communism...really?

And if you bring up the S word or C word in regards to Obama and the democrats, you get labeled as the "nutty fringe"...or "wing-nut" as one of our favorite forum brethen likes to label some people.

But truly and honestly, isn't Obama a socialist?

But Obama Is A Socialist

Consider the following four countries: Cuba, China, North Korea, and Vietnam.

Wouldn't everyone concede that all four of those countries have socialist systems?

Let's list some of the key programs and policies that are common to all four of those socialist countries:

1. Government provided retirement pay to senior citizens (i.e., Social Security).
2. Government provided health care (i.e., Medicare and Medicaid).
3. Government-provided, mandatory education to people’s children (i.e., public schooling).
4. Government-provided unemployment compensation.
5. Government-provided welfare payments.
6. Government central planning of monetary affairs (i.e., a Federal Reserve).
7. Government management of the economy.
8. Government-issued licenses for occupations and professions.
9. Government central planning over immigration affairs.
10. Government control over trade.
11. Government equalization of wealth among the citizenry.
12. Government-mandated wage rates.
13. Government control over prices.
14. Government-provided subsidies.

quote:

Originally posted by RAN:

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
You have talking heads on the right predicting socialist doom if republicans aren't elected in November. The say we must "act now"..."no time to delay" or we'll lose our country to socialism/fascism/communism...really?

And if you bring up the S word or C word in regards to Obama and the democrats, you get labeled as the "nutty fringe"...or "wing-nut" as one of our favorite forum brethen likes to label some people.

But truly and honestly, isn't Obama a socialist?

But Obama Is A Socialist

Consider the following four countries: Cuba, China, North Korea, and Vietnam.

Wouldn't everyone concede that all four of those countries have socialist systems?

Let's list some of the key programs and policies that are common to all four of those socialist countries:

1. Government provided retirement pay to senior citizens (i.e., Social Security).
2. Government provided health care (i.e., Medicare and Medicaid).
3. Government-provided, mandatory education to people’s children (i.e., public schooling).
4. Government-provided unemployment compensation.
5. Government-provided welfare payments.
6. Government central planning of monetary affairs (i.e., a Federal Reserve).
7. Government management of the economy.
8. Government-issued licenses for occupations and professions.
9. Government central planning over immigration affairs.
10. Government control over trade.
11. Government equalization of wealth among the citizenry.
12. Government-mandated wage rates.
13. Government control over prices.
14. Government-provided subsidies.

The classic definition of Socialism refers to theories of economic organization which advocate public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and the allocation of resources.

I do not see Social Security as Socialism using this definition.

Medicare/Medicaid - again, not Socialism but a policy that our forefathers thought was a humane thing to do.

Education is a function of State and local goverments. The Federal government does not mandate education ... again not Socialism

Unemployment compensation & Welfare - I can see why these could be considered socialist concepts and maybe they are. These practices could also be viewed as residuals of capitalism.

Central monetary planning - Our founding fathers were opposed to a central banking system but supported a central bank and thought it necessary to establish an economic footing in the world. The recent bailout of banks should suggest that there is no central planning activity in this system. Reporting and advisory functions.... yes

Management of the economy - I assume by this it is meant all economic activity must be approved by someone attached to the government. I hardly think anyone has to approve my sinful purchase of a Snickers bar or the production of this wicked product.

Occupational licenses are a function of the State not Federal.

Immigration and trade are constitutionally provided.

Equalization of wealth ... I must have missed mine.

Minimum wage rates - could be a by-product of Socialism and/or a residual of Capitalism.

Price controls - throughout recorded history, different governments have instituted price controls. In the U.S. only in times of declared national emergencies.....

Government subsidies ... I assume we are talking about corporations because they are the largest consumer of federal welfare dollars.... but aren't they also the capitalists

quote:

"Consider the following four countries: Cuba, China, North Korea, and Vietnam.

Wouldn't everyone concede that all four of those countries have socialist systems?"


You then do not concede that Cuba, China, North Korea, etc. have socialist systems?

quote:

Originally posted by RAN:

quote:

"Consider the following four countries: Cuba, China, North Korea, and Vietnam.

Wouldn't everyone concede that all four of those countries have socialist systems?"


You then do not concede that Cuba, China, North Korea, etc. have socialist systems?

No, I would not categorize the four states you listed as Socialist.
Cuba, Vietnam, and China are communist regimes or lean in that direction. Communism is a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single party holds power. Usaually state controls are imposed, private ownership and capital are eliminated. The goal is to progress to a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared (i.e., a classless society)

North Korea is ruled by one individual and his minions, not a collection of individuals as in communism, socialism, democracies, etc. Therefore, I would categorize North Korea as a totalitarian regime, not socialist.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Nation:

quote:

Originally posted by RAN:

quote:

"Consider the following four countries: Cuba, China, North Korea, and Vietnam.

Wouldn't everyone concede that all four of those countries have socialist systems?"


You then do not concede that Cuba, China, North Korea, etc. have socialist systems?

No, I would not categorize the four states you listed as Socialist.
Cuba, Vietnam, and China are communist regimes or lean in that direction. Communism is a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single party holds power. Usaually state controls are imposed, private ownership and capital are eliminated. The goal is to progress to a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared (i.e., a classless society)

North Korea is ruled by one individual and his minions, not a collection of individuals as in communism, socialism, democracies, etc. Therefore, I would categorize North Korea as a totalitarian regime, not socialist.

So once again, to reiterate your understanding of the general term of a "socialist" system...the system of those countries and certain policies of this country do not meet that criteria?

Generally a system of collective or government management of economic activity...that has a collective nature, that is at odds with private property rights...the establishment of central planning in place of competition...

These countries and certain policies of this country do not meet these requirements?

You are contending THAT is your understanding?

quote:

Originally posted by RAN:
What point in the previous post do you not understsand.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Nation:

quote:

Originally posted by RAN:
What point in the previous post do you not understsand.

I think it's you who don't understand that all these countries have the underlying socialist foundations.

And it's pretty widely accepted...