Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just as I thought, someone who doesn't have a clue what Socialism is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by conc1
What do you call taking over the GM and Chrysler?
There was no "takeover". GM and Chrysler came to the government for a bailout. It was provided to them in exchange for collateral that was to be returned as the loans were repaid.
Quote:
What do you call the "financial reform"?
Certainly not socialism. It effectively does little more than reinstate updated versions of regulations that have been slowly taken away over the years.
Quote:
The taking over of banks as they see fit?
First off, that's the job description of the FDIC, which has been in place since the 1930's.
Secondly, it's not "as they see fit". They take over failed or insolvent backs and then sell the assets and liabilities off to other banks who can take them.
Is that Socialism? You could argue that it's somewhat influenced by socialism, but then so is auto and home insurance when you get right down to it.
Quote:
The taking over of the health care?
Again, not "taken over". The HCR bill effectively shot right down the middle between completely socialized healthcare and completely free market healthcare.
Quote:
Unfortunately, I can not quote any of his school, or university paper... to show his thinking .....because they are not available.
He's got 13+ years in public office. Surely if he was the socialist you claim he is, you'd be able to find quotes to support that right?
Failing that, you could ask a self admitted Socialist if he considers Obama "one of them".
The poor can't afford anything. And the middle-class living in $200,000 brick homes is considered rich when compared to a tin-foil trailer home or a termite eaten shack. And you just proved my point. The poor don't live in gold plated trailer homes. The people at the top keep getting richer while everyone else gets poorer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK
Socialism is not taking it from the rich and giving it to the poor, but distributing the wealth by making all citizens (except for a few) poor and dependent of the government. For example, taking over the banking and automobile industry, having the news media on the side of government, by starting socialized medicine, Welfare, Medicate and the rest, and by squashing all industry in the private sector. Once all are equal, except for the government member in power, only these people will control the nation and the money, not the people. For en example, look at Fidel Castro, and Chavez. Both (and their friends in power) are quite wealthy while the people are poor. Look at Putin and the rest in Russia. Putin and his powerful friends have never been nor will he be poor.
It's not simply giving it to the poor. It making more people poor and depended upon the government for programs, help, food stamps, unemployment forever etc. That way you have people that are depended on a government for hand out, that will continue to vote for the guy that will give them the "fix".
If communism was just giving it to the poor then everyone in the former soviet union should have been happy and "well to do". They were not, as we all know.
As my piano tuner said "I escaped communist Russia, and communism is chasing me here".
Definition:
Billionaire - in 2010, someone who is assumed to be worth one billion Federal Reserve Notes.
Federal Reserve Note - no par value (worthless), non-redeemable for lawful money (dollars) at any bank or U.S. Treasury, since 1933. (See: Title 12 USC Sec. 411)
Social Security - a program whose participants are equally liable (contributors) on the public debt (over 13 trillions).
Therefore, any "billionaire" is still about 12.9 trillion short of zero worth.
(Worthless notes are "legal tender" because obligated parties (duly numbered) cannot object to the tender of "their" own notes.)
I think what you are looking for is a text book description of socialism being practiced exactly and no one will be able to find that.Reason being it does not work in that form because socialism is like a parasite and needs a host {free market} to sub stain living.So Marx's socialism had to evolve with no emphasis on state owned corporations and greater emphasis on regulation and progressive taxation to reach there goal of redistribution of wealth.
Like myself you could have a poor memory or you have choose to forget these quotes from Obama which were main stream news 2 short years ago :
Quote:
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.
Marx could not have said it better and Obama aknowledges that it has to be built from the ground up { the ignorant masses } and implemented through the political process. Before you have a chance to say he said that in 2001 and has changed you might recall this one :
Quote:
JOE WURZELBACHER, PLUMBER: Your new tax plan is going tax me more, isn't it? OBAMA: It's not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance to success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.
Definitions of socialism vary, but most socialists believe workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own or control them.
Not all socialists, though, want to confiscate personal property. Democratic Socialists are more interested in protecting ordinary people from unregulated capitalism through regulation and progressive taxation.
If you picked door number 2 you win the grand prize of seeing the truth.
The way I see it the U S runs on 3 different economic theory's socialism,fascism and free market capitalism.I describe fascism in the Mussolini form of co operation between corporations and the states.That is easy to see how the corporations and banks lobby our leaders for favorable legislation and when in trouble get bailed out or subsidy. Would you classify that as co operation? All three forms are alive and well and practiced in the U S.
I liked the story you posted because it did not let the {R}s off the hook and said this about there rock star Palin:
Quote:
"To be honest, the most socialist candidate in the 2008 election was Sarah Palin."
I do not know about the most socialist but she is not innocent, I heard her say how she shook down the oil companies and Alaskan's received more money in residual payments. So like Obama she is in full support of redistribution of wealth and needs to look in the mirror before calling anyone a socialist.
Johknip it didn't say the Professor is a liberal, if he was he would not have conducted that experiment.
Most professors are Liberal though.
The story didn't happen it was just illustrating how Communism does not work.
I know many people that have suffered through communism and can "smell" it from a distance, and they are very worried that America is going in that direction.
I recommend a movie called Refuseniks. It is about Jews that were trying to get a visa to get OUT of the former Soviet Union, and were refused Visa by the communist government. In many cases their life were destroyed the minute they were on the list. They were not able to work any longer, and at the same time they were not allowed to leave.
You have to ask yourself if communism is so great why are people fighting and risking their lives to change it or leave?
Socialism is taking from the rich and giving to the poor. And that clearly isn't happening. The poor are not living in kitsched up gold plated trailer parks.
Obama's & Progressives idea of redistribution of wealth, is not taking from the rich and giving to the poor..... OK, if you say so!
Robinhood was a thief. Or is that OK, too.
The end, justifies the means.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
