Socialism (in the U.S.A)
 

All the conservatives and retarded tea party protesters complaining that the U.S. is headed towards Socialism, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...ks-like/18675/

How close? This is what socialism looks like:

http://assets.theatlantic.com/static...sm%20chart.png


For those who are slow to learn, lets make it super clear:
Socialism would require the government to control whole industries, if not the entire economy.



But Conor Clarke (who is no liberal) did expose the closest thing to Socialism in the United States in this article.

Misinformation or plain stupidity?
 

RNC officially condemns Dems' 'march toward socialism'

Link


Don't call it 'socialism'!

Link


Sen.: U.S. Stake In GM Akin To Socialism

Link


Obama Is Remaking America Into Socialism

Link

Conservatives Should Speak Out

Link

To control whole industries? I guess you need to define the word "control". Do laws and regulations not "control" industries? And the more laws and regulations you add add more "control"? But I guess they should be saying we are moving towards Fascism

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Catchy tune.

This one is much better:

Read the ARTICLE

Actually they should quit running their mouths and spreading ignorance.

Im not disagreeing with the article. But you did not answer the question about "control". Obama now has the government in total control over 7% of the economy and they have always controlled 100% of the money through the IRS (minus fractions of black market/tax cheats).

It does not matter what you name it, it matters what people think it means. They think it means the government is gaining more control over your everyday lives and that is true. Because the government does regulate and control 100% of the private sector to one degree or another.

Same could be said about progressives. :2 cents:

I don't know what to label it as, but they are definately tightening their grip.

qft

When people say we're headed towards socialism they aren't saying we are a socialist state, it rarely happens overnight :P What they are saying is that this new legislation, healthcare and purchasing of GM (among other things), are socialist and fascist ideals respectively. When we start making "exceptions" to the rules we create a very tricky gray area where everything is subjective.

Forcing Healthcare is ok but forcing everyone to have homeowners insurance is not ok? Maybe for some of you and not others? If your homeowner's insurance rates shot up because there was a government program put in place to rebuild destroyed homes would you feel everyone is entitled to cheap, affordable homeowner's insurance? After all, is shelter not greater than medical coverage in terms of ongoing needs?

Banks are usually pretty strict about it.

The BANK is not forcing you to take a loan... If you own your house you don't need homeowner's insurance... However if I were going to loan you $XXX,XXX+ for a house you can be damn well fucking sure I'd make you carry homeowner's insurance... in writing... in a contract... signed! No one's forcing you to get a loan... that's your decision.

There's a big difference here.

If your definition of moving towards socialism is the Fed government taking control of private assets, then Bush is more a socialist since TARP took control of more private assets with buying bank shares at cut rate prices than any other President in US history.

So you are talking about a very small minority of people. I believe the "purpose" of this forced insurance is to ease the burden on the federal coffers. You think this is as big a problem?

I agree this practice is socialist in nature but as you point out yourself it's a long standing practice. That does not excuse it AT ALL and it's a serious problem but... it's not breaking new ground. What Obama is doing is pushing harder towards socialism with new legislation that he's very proud of and wins the hearts of many. Socialist ideals have always appealed to the hearts/emotions... Save GM, it's a part of American History!

I'm simplifying the issue here of course but you get what I'm saying... That pie graph up there would have been 100% previously, now it's not... that means until the pie chart starts to make it's way back towards 100% again we're moving TOWARDS socialism...

And obviously a pie chart doesn't reflect every other aspect of legislation it only shows the holdings...

Are you referring to healthcare easing the federal coffers? or homeowner's insurance?

Neither one "eases the coffers" it just pushes the burden onto the tax payers... it's the same thing the money just exchanges different hands...

In fact healthcare "forced insurance" actually INCREASES the cost of healthcare. You have to have new czars, governing bodies, people to collect the money, 16k IRS agents... These are expenses not present currently.

There is no forced homeowner's insurance... the requirement to have it when you get a loan is for the underwriter to ensure his investment is safe against "acts of god"... or whatever else may befall your home.

Except that there's been no moves towards eliminating private ownership or property. So there is really no "move" towards socialism.

Contrary to what some believe, taxation and spending aren't part of socialism. Socialism would be congress taking full control of an economic sector and not privatizing it.

That's exactly what you're doing with this thread.

You really need to learn what "socialism" means.

Please enlighten us.

I have made it very clear what it means. Why don't you tell me where I was wrong?

Everyone should just ignore mgtarheel. His posts usually contain a variation of "you should learn" or "you have no idea", but he hasn't ever proven any understandimg of even the basic political concepts.

Once Obama reveals his true identity, socialism will be the least of your worries.

You've been warned...

http://riverdaughter.files.wordpress...lien-obama.jpg

View Post
Except that there's been no moves towards eliminating private ownership or property. So there is really no "move" towards socialism.



This. Wrong.

For starters, two of the oldest examples are SSI and UEI.

Are we 100% socialist? Absolutely not. Are we 100% capitalist? Absolutely not.

Increased taxes to provide services for citizens, the new healthcare reform, etc.

There are TONS.

Let me know when you realize the current Constitution has Articles.

Let me know when you stop fumbling around various subjects when all your points get destroyed with relative ease:)

You just desputed that the US is not close to being a socialist country. Those people said the US is "heading towards socialism" . Perhaps .21% is more than some like and they don't like that the number is getting bigger.

The concept of socialism isn't just about the govt owning everything, its also about there being no rich and no poor, redistributing the wealth from the top to the bottom to even things out.

" Socialists generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. This in turn creates an unequal society, that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential, and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public."

Taxing the hell out of people more because they make more sure gives them a lot of control. They might not "run" the company, but they sure do "control" the money made from it. :2 cents:

Unless if you are some big fortune 500 company and then they give you billions of dollars of bail out money lol. But if you are a med to small size business owner and you are doing bad, you are fucked.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columni...aspx?id=171993

get ready for VAT taxes
this is gonna be awesome
everyone is gonna get taxed to shit

You haven't "destroyed" anything except for your own image. The earlier threads about you are case in point :)

Sure thing bro.I already have one bitch (Gambinus). I think it's too early to call you my 2nd one seeing as how you've only been destroyed once. Btw, I wonder if anyone here knows who you are, other than someone who throws out terms and pretends to have taken a pol sci class... :) :)

I've taken more than a poli sci class. I've the degree that comes with multiple poli sci classes.

That's why I call you on your right-wing ignorant bullshit you spew in the political threads.
I'm a reg'd Rep, and I think you're a damned moron who doesn't know shit about what he speaks.

This coming from someone that got his ass kicked, proved to know nothing about anything, and utterly embarrassed himself everytime he tried to divert to another topic? HAHAHAHA.. University of Phoenix isn't a real school, sorry tool:thumbsup

Last I checked, UCLA wasn't U of PHX. I didn't try to divert to anything. I just bounced you around on multiple subjects, including your ignorance of the Articles in the Constitution, what Amendments are, and more.

Simple. Besides, don't you notice you only ever say how moronic someone is, how you make them look stupid, and how you school them in every subject under the sun, but never throw out facts?

Oh, wait, you did cite Wikipedia, twice. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Yes, your bouncing around included me shutting you up, and you pretending like you were talking about something else, followed by a 3rd topic, 4th, etc. It was way too easy.

Yea... Kinda funny, when someone gets their ass kicked, apparently no facts are introduced. ROFLROFL

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rLV-ZuNPwJ...Delusional.jpg

You assumed I was referring to the first Constitution because I referenced Articles. Not my issue you didn't know the second Constitution also had articles that differed from the first ;)

Not my issue you couldn't get your facts straight, so you had to jump from point to point. Rest assured, I could have been doing lines all night and still made you look ridiculous:)

No, see, those are your delusions again.

There was no jumping between points. It was that you were too simplistic to understand how the Articles were changed between Constitutions, how Amendments mean to change, etc.

Again, your deluded narcissism is shining. Humorous. :1orglaugh

Gotta love it. I call him delusional, and he repeats it back to me. Oh that was too easy. Thanks for getting spanked again Mgtarheel, we'll play again later. Goodnight:)

You need to check the timestamps, Champ.

Few pages too late, Turbo.

According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property are eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights.



I already stated, taxation and spending aren't part of socialism. Congress has the constitutional power to tax American citizens and use the taxation on spending(even on social programs). Thats not socialism. Socialism would be congress taking full control of an economic sector and not privatizing it.

I think it is you who needs to get an idea what the word means.

Feel free to email any legitimate economist for a definition of the word socialism.

So? I don't get the point, because I was strongly against all that too.

Thats progressivism, not socialism.

While Bush is undoubtedly guilty of this, I'm almost positive Obama has expanded government control by more than Bush, after only 2 years. You have 18,000 more IRS agents and government intervention in health care. You also have a rapid expansion of the public sector, especially government jobs in D.C.

It's fun how I searched and regged SocialismCountry.com and then I found the most
searched for terms are: "Democratic socialism"....soon to become as "socialism."

WHY?

I just had a speech with my mom. When you live in a socialist country, 80% of people are affected by the socialism. The rift between classes are just more absurd but nobody talks about it, instead they are down. The differences we have, is that people do not speak their minds. They do not dare to be proud for anything more than the air every other human being is breathing. I live in Sweden, the biggest socialism experiement to date. My bet is that the US bought out Sweden after world war 2, as a socialism experiement. We get all our information from US. Tv, news and our culture is strongly insynch with the US. But what we lack a ton of, is patriotism and the freedom to believe in "big things" without people trying to put your dreams down. We have 10x times the US muslims in our country "per capita". And I feel that this country is sinking slowly. Happiness here, is set low. Even if we are a "wealthy" country, for the most part, people have to do a job for their money.

I'm sold, gimme some tea.

If taxation/spending was a hallmark of socialism, then every single government since the dawn of time has been socialistic.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Socialism.html

so this is going to be another one of those gfy political threads...

See, this is exactly why you need to learn what "socialism" is.

Since you've posted absolutely nothing factual, I guess we'll just have to take your word for it, right?