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?

I've already given you examples. SSI and UEI are socialist welfare programs.

You also need to realize there are multiple forms of socialism.

No, we laugh at his failed attempts to sound intelligent by throwing out concepts.

0 failed attempts. Again, SSI and UEI are socialist programs - that's uncontentious.

What's he is confusing are the likes of Eastern Socialism and Nordic Socialism whilst combining them with the Progressive Era which is completely backasswards.

So are police, fire, road, vaccination services. Would you like them privatised as well?

You should not group social essentials with socialism.

Not socialism, but solidarity, but there was something on the news this evening that was heart warming....

A guy had a young son that was dying of cancer and he was determined to spend his son's last days at his bedside. He had already used his XX days of vacation to be at his bedside, yet his son hadn't died.

All his co-workers asked the union then management to back them in "cashing in" their holidays to give to the guy so he could be with his son. Union didn't even have to intervene because the company agreed (Badoit, a major international company, like Evian).

He used their holidays and his son died on 31st Dec last year.

The guy was management and was taking vacation handouts from the workers (and being accepted by even more senior management) that were beneath him.

I know this has got absolutely sod all to do with a socialist government, but it's got everything to do with 100% solidarity amongst workers, which a left wing mind tends to flourish.

lol ... the document that fueled that rumor spread across the conservative blogs :

http://republicans.waysandmeans.hous...wer_Report.pdf

Just an opinion ... :1orglaugh

why is everybody so scared of socialism? I agree that it s*cks but it beats the daylights out of Nazism and I don't see anybody going nuts about all the new xenophobia in the world and the US.

Actually it's a form of Corporatism....

Half of those are not essentials, and yes, they are socialist programs.
I never gave an opinion on how I feel about a socialist state, stop jumping the gun.

yes, competition = lower prices and better quality.

thanks captain obvious. If you go back and read more than the first 3 words of my sentence you would understand what what I was saying. yes, i know taxing people is a common practice by governments through out history, now try reading the rest of the sentence.

thanks but I will stick with capitalism opposed to socialism. Last I checked we weren't killing jewish people here in the US, so I don't think we have anything to worry about becoming Nazis any time soon.

I disagree and here is a very valid reason -
about 20 years the British govt privatised the rail service (and all public transport soon thereafter). Since then,

• the railway network infrastructure was owned by Railtrack that went into administration sometime in the early 2000s and is now owned by Network Rail which is part private, part Govt owned.

• Franchising the 20 odd so new train operators was given to some pathetic deadhead (can't remember name) that was handed over to the (un)"Strategic Rail Authority" that couldn't distribute candie to kids so that was given (back) to the Dept for Transport at the govt (and sub-handed to the welsh and scottish govts for their train operators)

• I've no idea how many times train operators have changed hands, especially for specific routes, but many are still using old rolling stock that pre-date privatisation

Has service improved? Ask any Brit if they are happy with their rail service and prices? I doubt you'll find many saying it's great value for money and reliable and clean.

On the other side of the coin, and channel, there is a public rail service that is extremely efficient, runs to schedule (try a 800km train ride that arrives at the station to the exact minute it is supposed to), is clean, and very fairly priced. The rail network there is extremely well connected to all places in France and the rest of Europe and is an infrastructure that the French are (rightly) proud of.

In a true free-market system, competition will always deliver lower prices and better quality. The neoliberal privatizations (like the one you mentioned) of the last +- 50 years failed to create and weren't even designed to create true free-market conditions. A mix of corruption, government subsidies, selling infrastructure built with 'government funds' at non-market prices and a kind of entrepreneurial short-sidedness that wouldn't even be possible in a free-market system, are responsible for the problems you described.