the S word

[mimzy]

since this word seems to be popping up on a few different threads, i thought it might be worthwhile to start it''s own thread. it has the power to strike fear

more than a few conservatives have thrown around the word socialism on threads when referring to obama/liberals/democrats/whoever, and since it''s obviously a serious concern of some it seems like it should be addressed a little more in depth. i''ll admit that i don''t know very much about socialism as an economic or political theory, but i know it has never been fully realized in the modern world, that it is often confused with communism, and that just the mere mention of the word has the power to scare the bajeezus out of people who don''t really understand why.

i''m really interested in finding out what those who believe that the country will turn socialist if obama is elected are worried about specifically. I feel like i''ve looked over obama''s current policies enough to have a decent grasp on them, but nothing screams extreme socialism to me. so fill me in!

what specific policies are you concerned about? economically, politically, or both? do you think the government is going to take over corporations and destroy capitalism (in economic terms only) or is it the high taxes and subsequent more government services that worries you? i want details!

 

[ladypirate]

Not a conservative, but I don't see why socialism is such a negative thing. Norway is one of the most socialist countries out there and they have the second highest GDP in the world and are ranked second place on the Human Development Index (barely beat out by Iceland--they'd been at first place since 2001). The US is 12th on that list (and 11th for GDP).

They are apparently doing something right. I don't see the problem with paying higher taxes if you are getting more back.

 

[mimzy]

LP: i agree - most of Europe has more social programs than the US and nobody is ripping on them. but i figured as people who are voting for obama we should be well-versed in exactly WHAT is being considered extreme socialism other than higher taxation rates for the rich

.

 

[beebrisk]

In a nutshell (and granted this is a complicated subject) Socialism is theory whereby the government decides on the distribution of the national wealth...and of your personal wealth.

A socialist government also controls the marketplace. There''s no such thing as a "free market" in Socialist countries.

In a Socialist society, the government can cap your wages. They can tell your employer that because you do X job, you must be paid Y salary. In most Socialist countries it is mandated that a supervisor must not earn more than a certain percentage more than someone working under them.

Socialism is the complete control of your money, and your earning potential---by the state.

This is not just about higher taxes. This is about the loss of a free market and ultimately in the loss of personal freedom--In a country that was built on an entrepreneurial, independent spirit.

And, if you look at the history of Socialist countries, you will see that when a country has this level of control, it doesn''t stop there. Freedoms are chipped away until you are living in a dictatorship. Until you are living under Communism.

As for Norway, yeah...they have a Socialist government and a high GDP, but that comes with a price. Freedom of speech has also been eradicated. Just Google this and read about what happens when Socialists get control of the government and get dizzy with power...All in the name of the "greater good". Indeed, Socialism is a decidedly UN-Democratic concept:

Two Christian missionaries, arrested by Norwegian police in May for spreading the gospel during an Oslo parade celebrating the birthday of the country’s constitution, have been found guilty by a Norway trial court.

There''s lots more to discuss on this subject with regards to Obama, but suffice to say there are plenty of people who are concerned that his policies point in this direction and that he will send us down a slow, but slippery slope.

 

[mimzy]

Date: 9/15/2008 8:58:17 PM
Author: beebrisk
There's lots more to discuss on this subject with regards to Obama, but suffice to say there are plenty of people who are concerned that his policies point in this direction and that he will send us down a slow, but slippery slope.

that's the thing...i want to know what about Obama's policies is going to lead to all the stuff you posted above this. (hence the "details please" remark

)

or is it nothing about his in particular and the same would be said about any democrat? if that's the case, then i think that there is a CLEAR difference between socialism and the democratic party's agenda. after all, we've had many democratic presidents before and as far as i can tell we are still capitalistic. democrat doesn't = socialist. it's fully possible to embrace some ASPECTS of socialism policy (i.e. valuing social welfare) to an extent without pushing communism. or do you/others not make that distinction?

 

[iheartscience]

My brother''s wife is Swedish and they currently live there with their two kids. Sweden is considered a socialist country and it seems pretty damn sweet if you ask me. There''s basically free childcare, free college, free health care, etc. They have a very high GDP and I''m sure everyone is well aware of the great design that comes out of Sweden, as well as the many companies that are based in Sweden (Ikea, Volvo, Cheap Monday, Nudie, Acne, H&M, Saab, Filippa K, WESC, etc.), so I disagree that socialism somehow kills a country''s entrepreneurial spirit.

I think calling Obama a socialist is typical fear-mongering.

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 9/15/2008 9:04:43 PM
Author: mimzy

Date: 9/15/2008 8:58:17 PM

Author: beebrisk

There''s lots more to discuss on this subject with regards to Obama, but suffice to say there are plenty of people who are concerned that his policies point in this direction and that he will send us down a slow, but slippery slope.

that''s the thing...i want to know what about Obama''s policies is going to lead to all the stuff you posted above this. (hence the ''details please'' remark

)


or is it nothing about his in particular and the same would be said about any democrat? if that''s the case, then i think that there is a CLEAR difference between socialism and the democratic party''s agenda. after all, we''ve had many democratic presidents before and as far as i can tell we are still capitalistic. democrat doesn''t = socialist. it''s fully possible to embrace some ASPECTS of socialism policy (i.e. valuing social welfare) to an extent without pushing communism. or do you/others not make that distinction?

Oy, here we are getting nasty already.

In no way was I implying that Dem=Socialist and yes, I can make that distinction.

My post was not a dig at the Dems, it was to help explain the concept.

Obama''s plan (as he has stated many times) is to increase taxes for ''the richest''. This is where it gets dicey.
Who decides who is ''rich''? What is the criteria?
Who decides that you have earned enough money this year, and that now you will give the rest to the government? Actually, you won''t be "giving" it...they will be "taking it".

Now, on the outside it might seem ''fair'' that the rich get a tax increase, but aren''t they entitled to keep their hard-earned money, too? It''s there''s. It''s not yours, it''s not mine and it''s not the state''s. Fair is fair, but upping someone''s tax bill to 50% is unconscionable. This is what Obama has planned. It''s no secret.

When he states over and over again that "95% of American''s taxes will go down", the implication is that he''s decided the remaining 5% must pay MORE than their fair share for public programs, entitlements and any other way the state decides to ''re-distribute'' their money.

I highly doubt that I would be considered ''rich'' by Obama''s standards (or anyone else''s!), but I believe in a democratic society...Not in a country that feels they have the authority to take from those they believe already have too much.

 

[movie zombie]

so now i''m really curious!

what is it called when corporations go to a government and ask to be bailed out with taxpayer money? and a government gives these corporations the money which is obtained by getting foreign loans for which the taxpayer is responsible for paying both the principal and interest? is it a free market system when a government gives tax advantages to some businesses but not others? is it socialism when a government redistributes taxpayer money to benefit one segment of society called corporations?

movie zombie

 

[mimzy]

Date: 9/15/2008 9:26:49 PM
Author: beebrisk
or is it nothing about his in particular and the same would be said about any democrat? if that's the case, then i think that there is a CLEAR difference between socialism and the democratic party's agenda. after all, we've had many democratic presidents before and as far as i can tell we are still capitalistic. democrat doesn't = socialist. it's fully possible to embrace some ASPECTS of socialism policy (i.e. valuing social welfare) to an extent without pushing communism. or do you/others not make that distinction?

Oy, here we are getting nasty already.


[/quote]

i'm not sure what tone you read my post with, but i wasn't being nasty at all. i started this thread because i was honestly interested - why would i be on the attack? asking if people don't make the distinction was an honest question.....and to be honest even though you say you do it doesn't appear to be the truth. disregarding everything else that is implicated with socialism, you are basing your claim that obama is a socialist on the tax raise for the rich. or am i wrong? i'm concluding that because that's the only thing that you identified in your post. and if that's the case than the rest of my post to you holds true, no? (about not being for ANYONE democrat that would raise taxes)

and i'm really not trying to be nasty, i'm just trying to understand the argument.

ETA: i wasn't saying or implying that you took a 'dig' at democrats - not even sure where you got that from. it's obvious you were laying out some of what socialism is about.

 

[mimzy]

Date: 9/15/2008 9:34:45 PM
Author: movie zombie
so now i''m really curious!


what is it called when corporations go to a government and ask to be bailed out with taxpayer money? and a government gives these corporations the money which is obtained by getting foreign loans for which the taxpayer is responsible for paying both the principal and interest? is it a free market system when a government gives tax advantages to some businesses but not others? is it socialism when a government redistributes taxpayer money to benefit one segment of society called corporations?


movie zombie

i was hoping this would come up!

 

[Rank Amateur]

Comparing Sweden or Norway with the US is apples and bananas. The huge size and diversity of the US works at its disadvantage when asking everyone to get under the same big tent. It is much easier to get a uniform people to march all on one path. In the US we can''t even agree to march - much less agree in what direction we should be marching.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/15/2008 9:34:45 PM
Author: movie zombie
so now i''m really curious!


what is it called when corporations go to a government and ask to be bailed out with taxpayer money? and a government gives these corporations the money which is obtained by getting foreign loans for which the taxpayer is responsible for paying both the principal and interest? is it a free market system when a government gives tax advantages to some businesses but not others? is it socialism when a government redistributes taxpayer money to benefit one segment of society called corporations?


movie zombie

corporatism which is as bad as communism

"Historically, corporatism (Italian: corporativismo) refers to a political or economic system in which power is held by civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, social, cultural, and/or professional groups. These civic assemblies are known as corporations (not the same as the legally incorporated business entities known as corporations, though some are such). "

The problem is that both political parties are on the corporate bandwagon.
Most of the largest corporations give equally to both parties.

The money used to bail out the big companies could have been much better spent as small business and r&d loans.
It would create a lot more jobs and a lot more real wealth in the U.S.

The problem with the US economy is that it has become a paper economy and we are paying for that now. (actually bits on a computer, its not even paper anymore).
An economy that does not produce anything can not survive!
Mutual back scratching economies have been tried but they never survive because no real wealth is created.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 9/15/2008 10:12:37 PM
Author: strmrdr

The problem with the US economy is that it has become a paper economy and we are paying for that now. (actually bits on a computer, its not even paper anymore).

An economy that does not produce anything can not survive!

This has worried me for quite some time. I am especially upset that we no longer seem to produce anything.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Date: 9/15/2008 9:34:45 PM
Author: movie zombie
so now i''m really curious!


what is it called when corporations go to a government and ask to be bailed out with taxpayer money? and a government gives these corporations the money which is obtained by getting foreign loans for which the taxpayer is responsible for paying both the principal and interest? is it a free market system when a government gives tax advantages to some businesses but not others? is it socialism when a government redistributes taxpayer money to benefit one segment of society called corporations?


movie zombie

MZ - what is your point? Other than sniping I mean. Every bill that is passed has winners and losers. Sometimes the corporations make out, sometimes they get hosed. I don''t know the numbers, but a gigantic percentage of the workers in the US work for "corporations". Isn''t it in the the best interest of the US to maintain strong corporations? Should we squash the corporations?

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 9/15/2008 9:50:19 PM
Author: mimzy

Date: 9/15/2008 9:34:45 PM

Author: movie zombie

so now i''m really curious!



what is it called when corporations go to a government and ask to be bailed out with taxpayer money? and a government gives these corporations the money which is obtained by getting foreign loans for which the taxpayer is responsible for paying both the principal and interest? is it a free market system when a government gives tax advantages to some businesses but not others? is it socialism when a government redistributes taxpayer money to benefit one segment of society called corporations?



movie zombie

i was hoping this would come up!

Movie,
You make a valid point.
We have created our own monsters (like, say, China!) and now we must lie in bed with them for generations to come.
These policies have done us no good, which is why I fear more screwy governmental policies that will hit us all on an intimate and personal level.

Mimsy,
Please take a look at Obama''s history, to his association with the DSA in Chicago and take a look at what the Future of Freedom Foundation has to say about him.

Taxing the rich and giving to the poor is at the core of every Socialist society.

It creates welfare states where citizen''s must rely on the government for of their most basic needs: education, medical care, employment, etc...And, because you are no longer in control of your own fate or earning potential, you have no choice but to participate.

Personally, I don''t want to have to rely on the government. I do not want them making these decisions for me. They do not know what is best for me. I do. And I don''t believe it is in anyone else''s best interest to rely on the government either. After all, their track record ain''t so good. The less control they have of me and my children, the better.





“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." --Johann von Goethe

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/15/2008 10:20:16 PM
Author: Rank Amateur

MZ - what is your point? Other than sniping I mean. Every bill that is passed has winners and losers. Sometimes the corporations make out, sometimes they get hosed. I don''t know the numbers, but a gigantic percentage of the workers in the US work for ''corporations''. Isn''t it in the the best interest of the US to maintain strong corporations? Should we squash the corporations?

The government is one way for the people to put checks and balances on corporations.
The problem is that the government is being used by corporations to put checks on the people.
This country was founded on properties rights and now if a corporation wants your property all they have to do is ask the government to steal it for them.
Which the government will do with guns.
Which is one reason the people must remain armed to apply checks and balances to the government firepower.

Instead of letting the corporations take the punishment they deserve they stole money from the people at gun point and gave it to the corporations.
That is not right.

 

[strmrdr]

Which brings me to socialism.

Socialism always comes down to the taking of wealth from people at gun point and giving it to others.
Which is why the first thing they try and do is round up the guns.
Then you are no longer free you are a slave to the system.

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 9/15/2008 10:30:52 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 9/15/2008 10:20:16 PM


Which is one reason the people must remain armed to apply checks and balances to the government firepower.

Instead of letting the corporations take the punishment they deserve they stole money from the people at gun point and gave it to the corporations.

That is not right.

Wow Storm,
You just opened up a WHOLE other can o'' worms.
...And God bless ya!

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 9/15/2008 10:33:24 PM
Author: strmrdr
Which brings me to socialism.


Socialism always comes down to the taking of wealth from people at gun point and giving it to others.

Which is why the first thing they try and do is round up the guns.

Then you are no longer free you are a slave to the system.

AAAA to the Men, Karl. AAAA to the Men !!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/15/2008 10:34:16 PM
Author: beebrisk

Date: 9/15/2008 10:30:52 PM

Author: strmrdr

Date: 9/15/2008 10:20:16 PM



Which is one reason the people must remain armed to apply checks and balances to the government firepower.


Instead of letting the corporations take the punishment they deserve they stole money from the people at gun point and gave it to the corporations.


That is not right.

Wow Storm,

You just opened up a WHOLE other can o' worms.

...And God bless ya!

Thanks, God Bless you and yours.

It is all the same can of worms, all the rights we enjoy are connected to one another.
They have slowly been eroded one brick at a time.
Any brick being removed in any wall of freedom is an attack on all the freedoms we have.

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 9/15/2008 10:39:18 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 9/15/2008 10:34:16 PM

Author: beebrisk

Date: 9/15/2008 10:30:52 PM


Author: strmrdr

Date: 9/15/2008 10:20:16 PM




Which is one reason the people must remain armed to apply checks and balances to the government firepower.



Instead of letting the corporations take the punishment they deserve they stole money from the people at gun point and gave it to the corporations.



That is not right.

Wow Storm,


You just opened up a WHOLE other can o'' worms.


...And God bless ya!

Thanks, God Bless you and yours.


It is all the same can of worms, all the rights we enjoy are connected to one another.

They have slowly been eroded one brick at a time.

Any brick being removed in any wall of freedom is an attack on all the freedoms we have.

Would it be too forward of me to say I love you??

 

[miraclesrule]

Good thread Mimzy, and an interesting topic.

I know that many people have a problem with who is defined as "rich". I don''t have the answers, but I would hope that I have some good questions. Why is it that Warren Buffet is taxed on 40+ million at approx 17%, but his staff is taxed on 60K at approx 30% Hardly seems fair on it''s face. Seems like an inverted turtle.

Some have acted as though it is arbitrary. To some degree that is true. Is is not arbitrary to define an adult as 18 years of age? Or define a legal drinking age of 21? Or is it? Was it defined through a thorough analysis and adjusted over the years out of experience and a desire to create a social structure that could help sustain a civil society among large groups of people?

Through means and averages and number crunchers and data, I think defining and identifying the wealthiest and poorest individuals is probably one of the easiest definations to make in America. Except for the frauds and there will alwasy be that. And the drug money and laundered money and evil Enron companies. But aside from those anomalies, I think it''s easy to define wealthy.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/15/2008 10:42:15 PM
Author: beebrisk



Would it be too forward of me to say I love you??

Just hope my wifey2b don''t see it, she can get a little jealous! hehehe

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/15/2008 10:44:24 PM
Author: miraclesrule
Good thread Mimzy, and an interesting topic.


I know that many people have a problem with who is defined as ''rich''. I don''t have the answers, but I would hope that I have some good questions. Why is it that Warren Buffet is taxed on 40+ million at approx 17%, but his staff is taxed on 60K at approx 30% Hardly seems fair on it''s face. Seems like an inverted turtle.


Some have acted as though it is arbitrary. To some degree that is true. Is is not arbitrary to define an adult as 18 years of age? Or define a legal drinking age of 21? Or is it? Was it defined through a thorough analysis and adjusted over the years out of experience and a desire to create a social structure that could help sustain a civil society among large groups of people?

Good argument for a flat tax or better yet get rid of the IRS and go with a sales tax.
What is rich changes every year.
I remember when 100k a year was rich and now its not enough to raise a family on in some parts of the US.
Look at the mess that AMT caused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Minimum_Tax

 

[mimzy]

Date: 9/15/2008 10:26:44 PM
Author: beebrisk

Taxing the rich and giving to the poor is at the core of every Socialist society.

It creates welfare states where citizen''s must rely on the government for of their most basic needs: education, medical care, employment, etc...And, because you are no longer in control of your own fate or earning potential, you have no choice but to participate.

Personally, I don''t want to have to rely on the government. I do not want them making these decisions for me. They do not know what is best for me. I do. And I don''t believe it is in anyone else''s best interest to rely on the government either. After all, their track record ain''t so good. The less control they have of me and my children, the better.

but america has taxed the rich and given to the poor for generations and we are not currently socialist. is it right that richer people are taxed less than those not considered rich? aren''t those people entitled to it too? and decency tell us that they ''need'' to keep it more than those considered rich do. i understand your argument that people are entitled to their money; do you agree with taxation as a general policy at all?

i understand what ''welfare state'' that you describes consists of, but do you really believe that this fate will suddenly befall you as a citizen under obama? are you convinced that under obama you will eventually be taxed %50, or have to rely on the government for everything? or how does other people paying more money take the wind out of your own sails, so to speak? i''m not trying to be assy, i''m really interested in this perspective. do you not believe that there are enough checks and balances to prevent that from happening (not to mention the sheer feat of accomplishing that in a mere four years)??

i just don''t understand the jump from returning tax levels to a previous level to a welfare state that oppresses and controls all citizens.


and it''s no surprise that libertarians don''t like him and don''t have many nice things to say about him.....and it''s no surprise that an extreme left group would endorse him; any smart third party type group would push for a mainstream candidate that *most* aligns with their group. and yes, some people put stock in affiliations/upbringing, but i think obama is smart enough to think critically about whatever doctrine is overheard. personally i am more concerned with what obama himself says he will do than with what extreme groups opinions of him are.

 

[E B]

Date: 9/15/2008 10:26:44 PM
Author: beebrisk

Personally, I don''t want to have to rely on the government. I do not want them making these decisions for me. They do not know what is best for me. I do.

Do you feel this way about social issues as well?

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 9/15/2008 10:57:04 PM
Author: mimzy

Date: 9/15/2008 10:26:44 PM

Author: beebrisk


Taxing the rich and giving to the poor is at the core of every Socialist society.


It creates welfare states where citizen''s must rely on the government for of their most basic needs: education, medical care, employment, etc...And, because you are no longer in control of your own fate or earning potential, you have no choice but to participate.


Personally, I don''t want to have to rely on the government. I do not want them making these decisions for me. They do not know what is best for me. I do. And I don''t believe it is in anyone else''s best interest to rely on the government either. After all, their track record ain''t so good. The less control they have of me and my children, the better.

but america has taxed the rich and given to the poor for generations and we are not currently socialist. is it right that richer people are taxed less than those not considered rich? aren''t those people entitled to it too? and decency tell us that they ''need'' to keep it more than those considered rich do. i understand your argument that people are entitled to their money; do you agree with taxation as a general policy at all?


i understand what ''welfare state'' that you describes consists of, but do you really believe that this fate will suddenly befall you as a citizen under obama? are you convinced that under obama you will eventually be taxed %50, or have to rely on the government for everything? or how does other people paying more money take the wind out of your own sails, so to speak? i''m not trying to be assy, i''m really interested in this perspective. do you not believe that there are enough checks and balances to prevent that from happening (not to mention the sheer feat of accomplishing that in a mere four years)??


i just don''t understand the jump from returning tax levels to a previous level to a welfare state that oppresses and controls all citizens.



and it''s no surprise that libertarians don''t like him and don''t have many nice things to say about him.....and it''s no surprise that an extreme left group would endorse him; any smart third party type group would push for a mainstream candidate that *most* aligns with their group. and yes, some people put stock in affiliations/upbringing, but i think obama is smart enough to think critically about whatever doctrine is overheard. personally i am more concerned with what obama himself says he will do than with what extreme groups opinions of him are.

Wow Mimzy.
Those are good questions. And they require careful consideration and reasonable answers.
Unfortunately it''s late but I am eager for the discourse.
I promise to give this serious thought and formulate a response when I am actually awake.
Tomorrow...

Beeb.

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 9/15/2008 10:59:07 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 9/15/2008 10:26:44 PM

Author: beebrisk


Personally, I don''t want to have to rely on the government. I do not want them making these decisions for me. They do not know what is best for me. I do.

Do you feel this way about social issues as well?

Not sure what exactly you mean by ''social issues'', but yes...the less government intrusion in my life, the better.
Government is FOR the people, and BY the people, not the other way around.

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 9/15/2008 10:59:07 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 9/15/2008 10:26:44 PM
Author: beebrisk

Personally, I don''t want to have to rely on the government. I do not want them making these decisions for me. They do not know what is best for me. I do.

Do you feel this way about social issues as well?

I know this question wasn''t for me - but I''m going to answer (for myself) anyway and say yes. I''m a fiscally conservative Republican - I don''t want the government telling me how to spend my money or spending my money for me. I know what is best for me. Regarding social issues - I don''t feel it is any of the government''s business if I choose to have an abortion (I never have, and never plan to), it isn''t any of the government''s business if I choose to marry someone of the same sex (I''m already married - to a man), and it isn''t any of the government''s business (as a law abiding citizen) how many or what types of guns I choose to own (I don''t own any).

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 9/15/2008 11:15:21 PM
Author: beebrisk

Date: 9/15/2008 10:59:07 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 9/15/2008 10:26:44 PM

Author: beebrisk


Personally, I don''t want to have to rely on the government. I do not want them making these decisions for me. They do not know what is best for me. I do.

Do you feel this way about social issues as well?

Not sure what exactly you mean by ''social issues'', but yes...the less government intrusion in my life, the better.
Government is FOR the people, and BY the people, not the other way around.

Ditto.