So, liberals want universal health care (free speech, layman, school, compare)

[LINCOLNSHIRE]

[quote=Greatday;5756475]Many in the United States are not salaried - no source to deduct from[/quote
I`ve been self employed for over 30yrs. I got into a little NI trouble around 25+ years ago. My NI was due at the end of the year and it was around £1,100...They gave me 14days to pay or the bailiffs were in to square it..I can assure you they meant it then, and mean it now. So they should!!!
It is not free...It is free at the point of access. Myself, and my family, have been saved. I don`t say that lightly, by the NHS. My step daughters life was saved as recently as 2wks ago by an NHS doctor who realised she had Addisons [rushed to hospital in a coma 12.30am] ..Addison's disease

Yes..Very rare and 1 in 100,000. An NHS doctor spotted it..How dare he!!! He should surely have been working in the private sector???

I`ve had private health insurance for years, mainly dental..How often have I used it??? Never,,,Wife in hospital x4 [asthma]..myself [heart]..kids, see above...
I would never move my kids from NHS to private care. Even though it has been paid for..I think far too much of them to chance them with people who are there for the money...FACT...

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by LINCOLNSHIRE

I`ve been self employed for over 30yrs. I got into a little NI trouble around 25+ years ago. My NI was due at the end of the year and it was around £1,100...They gave me 14days to pay or the bailiffs were in to square it..I can assure you they meant it then, and mean it now.

Are you saying (as I think you are) that if you don't pay your NI, they will come and arrest you?

[cjma79]

Originally Posted by fancofu

Then McCain is also a socialist because he supports social security.

In this idea, no, McCain want to privatize Social Security making it capitlism.

You presented a false dichotomy of capitalism or socialism. The link provided has 49 economic systems that are neither.

The four most basic and general economic systems are:

• Market
• Mixed
• Planned
• Traditional

This is not systems, but part of economy,
2 types of economy with subdivisions, each has market, mixed planned and traditional.

All of the systems in the list I provided will fall under one of those, but they are not confined to being either socialist, communist, or capitalist. Are you seriously trying to argue that a mixed market economy is the same as a socialist economy?

No mixed market is not socialist, is both.

You're going to try an argumentum ad populum?

The polls just show how people think.

I don't remember seeing a link to a university.

Please look again,
Ok, and for the 3rd time,, and this would be the last time...
Socialism and The Welfare State
The politics of welfare

If you say so.

is you that are saying the universities are wrong.

I'll read the conclusion. I don't care enough to read it all.

so what was the conclusion?

You said earlier that there are 2 choices: socialism or capitalism. This is where you contradict yourself. Also, to take ideas from something doesn't necessarily make you that something. I get ideas from musicians but that doesn't make me a musician. I like some of the ideas of republicans but that doesn't make me a republican. I like some democrat ideas but that doesn't make me a democrat.

The problem is that most of Obamas ideas are socialist.
And his tax plan would be the most socialist tax plan in US history.

I have no idea of where the idea of welfare originated. Regardless, thinking that welfare is a good idea does not make someone a socialist like you claim Obama to be.

Is not only that, but in almost every issue. He wants big government, like McCain said he wants the government fix everything, and that is socialism

This sentence doesn't make much sense to me. Are you asking a question, asking for evidence, or making a statement?

I am asking for evidence from your part and making a question.

Don't forget health, something AIDs research would fall under.

What AIDS has to do with it??

I don't have a HS diploma. The ad hominem attacks are getting old though.

Really? So why are you debating something that you dont know? Got to college and study economics, in most universities is required.

I disagree that the welfare state and socialism are the same thing. They share things in common but are not the same.
The main difference between the welfare state and socialism concerns the scope of legitimate government intervention in the lives of its citizens. In the welfare state, government is restricted in its efforts to direct people's lives toward the pursuit of certain goals, such as economic progress and the security of the people in their health. Not so in a socialist state. In the welfare state even if some wish to use their liberty frivolously, they have a right to do so, but again, not in a socialist state. Moreover, even if some do not earn any wealth by productive effort, thereby failing to express their (Marxian) human nature or neglecting themselves due to incapacity of unwillingness, they are entitled simply as members of the community to some wealth - that is their positive right - although they are not entitled to as much as they may claim is needed for them to live very well. A socialist state would have little patience with such appeals to "positive rights."-Private Rights and Public Illusions
By Tibor R. Machan
Certain studies indicate there is no association between economic performance and welfare expenditure in developed countries (see A. B. Atkinson, Incomes and the Welfare State, Cambridge University Press, 1995) and that there is no evidence for the contention that welfare states impede progressive social development. R. E. Goodin et al, in The Real Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (Cambridge University Press, 1999), show that on some economic and social indicators the United States performs worse than the Netherlands, which has a high commitment to welfare provision.-Welfare State Criticisms

have you read mine??

Are you trying to argue that the left-wing is bad? It goes on to say:
The positions people hold are not, however, straightforward. There is an individualistic left wing, and a collectivist right wing. Left-wingers favour social security (which enable people to buy food in the private market) rather than soup kitchens (which can be publicly provided). Many right-wingers accept the principle of institutional welfare, and many left wingers are uncomfortable about institutional measures, like earnings-related pensions or student grants, which favour richer people over poorer ones.

left wing is not bad, just like right win is not bad. BOTH EXTREMES ARE BAD.

And.
From the perspective of welfare, the main political positions are:

* Marxism
* Conservatism
* Liberal individualism
* Socialism
* Social democracy
* Fascism

Your link shows that welfare is not exclusive to socialism.

where please??
Marxism and socialism are almost the same thing.
Fascism is not actually economics, Fascism can be communism or capitalism.

It then goes on to explain the difference between socialism and a social democracy. You made the claim that these are the same thing.
First, many social democrats are individualists rather than collectivists; even if they accept arguments for mutual aid or the reduction of disadvantage, they think it important to stress the liberty of the individual, to develop individual rights (as liberals do), and often to restrict the role of the state. Second, some social democrats are not concerned to remove inequality, but only to mitigate its effects through social arrangements which protect people from the worst consequences of a market society.

No i havent, you are mixing economics and politics.

What are you trying to argue? Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember saying that a socialist country would not have welfare. My point is that welfare is not exclusive to socialist countries.

Again is like you dont read. I am not saying the US is socialist.
But that welfare is 100% socialist idea. making the US less capitalist.
Is a balance. No country is 100% capitalist.

We need to get some stuff sorted out. The original post I objected to was this:

Your claims.
1) Socialism entails any government intervention.
2) Obama is a socialist ... his tax plan.
3) Once you tax the rich and give it to the poor that is socialism.

Yes, and is all true..

My response:
1) If you are talking about economic interventionism then I have no objection. In a socialist system there would be complete economic interventionism. I seem to have misinterpreted the post in haste. However, economic interventionism alone does not make a society socialist. There are other things required to make a society socialist.

True, but makes a society more towards socialism, not 100% socialism.

2) Obama is not a socialist. Socialism is broad. You cannot say, "This is an idea socialist believe in therefor if you believe in it you are a socialist." It's a non sequitur argument. Let's look at the logic presented.

Ok, if it makes you feel better, Obama is the most socialist candidate in our history. But he is not 100% socialist. that makes you happy?

Socialists support tax distribution.

1. Obama supports tax distribution.
2. Therefor Obama is a socialist.

This this subject, yes, he is a socialist in this point.

Now let's apply the same logic to something else.

1. Monkeys have hands.
2. George Bush has hands.
3. Therefor George Bush is a monkey.

No because the difference is the big step that you are not trying to understand. A BIG PART OF SOCIALISM IS TAX DISTRIBUTION.
And once Obama pass the plan, the US will shift, more towards socialism in a big way. Why??
The poor would love this, getting a free check in the mail. Who doesnt love this? This plan will always be in effect, because after Obama no body would dare to take it off, it would be political suicide. Obama is actually buying votes, and the next election it would be the same thing but with bigger taxes and more welfare.

Once again.

1. Socialists support social security.
2. McCain supports social security.
3. Therefor McCain is a socialist.

McCain want to make social security private..

And again.

1. Members of Code Pink are against torture.
2. McCain is against torture.
3. Therefor McCain is a member of Code Pink.

Ok, what ever.

I think you get the point. It would be wrong for me to go around telling people that McCain is a member of Code Pink because they agree on one issue.

No I hope you got mine, code pink is not and IDEA is an organization, Socialism is and idea, IDEAS MAKES YOU WHAT YOU ARE. you are socialist or capitalist(in this subject) the more socialist idea you have the more socialist you are...

You have to look at everything that a person advocates before you make the claim that they are socialist. Socialists don't agree on everything but there are a few things they do agree on. Socialists want to end capitalism. Obama has no such plans. Both Obama and McCain will use taxes as a form of wealth distribution but to a much lesser extent than a socialist would.

Yes that is why, Obama is the most liberal socialist in our politics

[fancofu]

In this idea, no, McCain want to privatize Social Security making it capitlism.

On June 12, 08 McCain said, "But I'm not for quote privatizing Social Security, I never have been, I never will be." In response to a question at a town hall meeting. Source. I could replace Social Security with the bail-out to make the same point.

This is not systems, but part of economy,
2 types of economy with subdivisions, each has market, mixed planned and traditional.

You have it backwards. Read this.

No mixed market is not socialist, is both.

That's not what you said here.

The polls just show how people think.

It's irrelevant. If we took a poll 700 years ago most people would think the world is flat. It has no bearing on reality.

Please look again,
Ok, and for the 3rd time,, and this would be the last time...
Socialism and The Welfare State
The politics of welfare

What am I supposed to get out of that? Socialism is bad, I get it. The second link you provided explains the difference between Socialists and Social Democrats, something you laughed at here. The sites offer nothing on whether or not welfare is exclusive to socialism.

is you that are saying the universities are wrong.

I never said they were wrong. They are irrelevant to what we are talking about.

so what was the conclusion?

That Socialism and Welfare States are bad ideas. Something completely irrelevant to what we are talking about.

The problem is that most of Obamas ideas are socialist.
And his tax plan would be the most socialist tax plan in US history.

Give me a list so I can go through them.

Is not only that, but in almost every issue. He wants big government, like McCain said he wants the government fix everything, and that is socialism

McCain is running against Obama, of course he is going to make outlandish claims against him. If are these other issues? Could you give me a list so I can go through them?

I am asking for evidence from your part and making a question.

Could you repeat the question in a more clear manner?

What AIDS has to do with it??

Let me make it very simple. Good health is a human need. AIDs causes people to have bad health. AIDs research could lead to a cure for AIDs. Therefor AIDs research would be a way to promote human needs.

Really? So why are you debating something that you dont know? Got to college and study economics, in most universities is required.

Having a high school diploma has nothing to do with what someone knows. It's irrelevant. I haven't gone to college either but I know that attacks against a person show desperation on one's part.

have you read mine??

Yes and I responded to them. It is now your turn to respond to mine.

left wing is not bad, just like right win is not bad. BOTH EXTREMES ARE BAD.

I agree.

where please??
Marxism and socialism are almost the same thing.
Fascism is not actually economics, Fascism can be communism or capitalism.

I took that directly from your link. Are you saying the links are invalid?

No i havent, you are mixing economics and politics.

Yes you did. Here's the link. I took that directly from the link you posted. Either the link is valid or not. You can't cherry pick from it.

Again is like you dont read. I am not saying the US is socialist.
But that welfare is 100% socialist idea. making the US less capitalist.
Is a balance. No country is 100% capitalist.

"is like I don't read"? I asked what you are trying to argue. I claimed that we have a mixed economy. You said, here, that a mixed economy is a Socialist economy; thereby saying that the United States is Socialist.

Yes, and is all true..
True, but makes a society more towards socialism, not 100% socialism.

But you made the claim that Obama is a Socialist. You didn't say that he is 5% Socialist. You said he "is" a Socialist. In this post you stated that you are either "Socialist or Capitalist". Now you are saying there is a middle ground. You can't have it both ways.

Ok, if it makes you feel better, Obama is the most socialist candidate in our history. But he is not 100% socialist. that makes you happy?

If it were true then yes, but I'm quite certain that Eugene Debs would have something to say about that.

This this subject, yes, he is a socialist in this point.

He is not a Socialist in this point. He agrees (to a much, much, much lesser extent) with Socialists on this idea but it doesn't make him one of them.

No because the difference is the big step that you are not trying to understand. A BIG PART OF SOCIALISM IS TAX DISTRIBUTION.
And once Obama pass the plan, the US will shift, more towards socialism in a big way. Why??
The poor would love this, getting a free check in the mail. Who doesnt love this? This plan will always be in effect, because after Obama no body would dare to take it off, it would be political suicide. Obama is actually buying votes, and the next election it would be the same thing but with bigger taxes and more welfare.

A big part of being a monkey is having sweat glands. George Bush has sweat glands therefor he is also a monkey. Is the fallacy of your argument apparent now? Obama's intentions are irrelevant.

McCain want to make social security private..

On June 12, 08 McCain said, "But I'm not for quote privatizing Social Security, I never have been, I never will be." In response to a question at a town hall meeting. Source. I could replace Social Security with the bail-out to make the same point.

Ok, what ever.

I'm glad we agree. The point was to show how your logic is flawed.

No I hope you got mine, code pink is not and IDEA is an organization, Socialism is and idea, IDEAS MAKES YOU WHAT YOU ARE. you are socialist or capitalist(in this subject) the more socialist idea you have the more socialist you are...

Torture is the idea, Code Pink is the organization. You should make up your mind. You have posted before saying that you can be a mixture between the two and have also posted that you are one or the other.

Yes that is why, Obama is the most liberal socialist in our politics

More of a Socialist than say, Bernie Sanders?



Since you are so caught up on welfare being a Socialist idea, could you please recite the Preamble of the United States Constitution?

[cjma79]

Originally Posted by fancofu

On June 12, 08 McCain said, "But I'm not for quote privatizing Social Security, I never have been, I never will be." In response to a question at a town hall meeting. Source. I could replace Social Security with the bail-out to make the same point.

If you say so.

You have it backwards. Read this.

Market economy is capitalism
Mixed Economy is mixed, EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY IS HERE, WELL EXCECPT CUBA
Planned economy is socialism
Command Economy is socialism
Traditional economy we dont have to worry about it because it doesnt exist
Participatory economics is another that we dont have to worry about.
So at the end, like I said, we only have capitalism and socialism.
economics 101, it just depends where in the spectrum you are.

That's not what you said here.

That is right, that is not what I said, ,

It's irrelevant. If we took a poll 700 years ago most people would think the world is flat. It has no bearing on reality.

OK,

What am I supposed to get out of that? Socialism is bad, I get it. The second link you provided explains the difference between Socialists and Social Democrats, something you laughed at here. The sites offer nothing on whether or not welfare is exclusive to socialism.

No, you see, you are not getting it, I have never said that socialism is bad. Is a way of thinking and idea. In my opinion is bad choice, but that doesnt make it bad or evil, is just and opinion.
The second link explain the meaning of everything and explains the difference between left and right not socialist and social democrats. Is a handout from the class, where it gives the definition and what is key importances from each one.
Again once you start thinking of simple left and right you will get it, and that is why it start that way.
Left wing(socialism): for welfare, for pulic provision, collectivist, for institutional welfare
Right wings(capitalism): Against welfare, against public provision, individualist, for residual welfare.
Oh and another thing, right wing and left wings can also be used like social, Left wing social is more liberal
and right wing social is more conservative. And it has nothing to do with economics.

I never said they were wrong. They are irrelevant to what we are talking about.

How, you are saying that welfare is not socialism, I am saying welfare is one of the most important key of socialism. I mean without distribution of good, capital their is not socialism, meaning without welfare we dont have socialism.

That Socialism and Welfare States are bad ideas. Something completely irrelevant to what we are talking about.

Again, bad or good is a different subject, and yes they are bad(in my opinion).

Give me a list so I can go through them.

His health care system is a small step in that direction.
And his whole idea of his tax plan is socialism.
And he wants to increase government.

McCain is running against Obama, of course he is going to make outlandish claims against him. If are these other issues? Could you give me a list so I can go through them?

I cant go on start writing all the debates, just go and see them, for every question Obama had a government plan, more spending, more socialism.

Could you repeat the question in a more clear manner?

forget about it..

Let me make it very simple. Good health is a human need.

No is not a human need, I am doctor, you cant give good health to everybody is not a right.

AIDs causes people to have bad health.

yes,

AIDs research could lead to a cure for AIDs. Therefor AIDs research would be a way to promote human needs.

What that has to do with socialism? And almost every single private pharmacy is trying to find the cure.

Having a high school diploma has nothing to do with what someone knows. It's irrelevant. I haven't gone to college either but I know that attacks against a person show desperation on one's part.

Yes I am desperate, I just cant understand how is it so hard to understand a simple fact, welfare= socialism

Yes and I responded to them. It is now your turn to respond to mine.

??

I agree.

Thank God,

I took that directly from your link. Are you saying the links are invalid?

No, but they say the same thing. Both are extreme left

Yes you did. Here's the link. I took that directly from the link you posted. Either the link is valid or not. You can't cherry pick from it.

now I am lost, are you talking about mixed economics? because i am talking about mixing economics and politics.

"is like I don't read"? I asked what you are trying to argue. I claimed that we have a mixed economy. You said, here, that a mixed economy is a Socialist economy; thereby saying that the United States is Socialist.

And you continue with the mixed economy, OK i get it.
That has nothing to do with welfare.
and US is one of the most capitalist country in the world, and the least socialist, meaning mixed maybe but way far right. And most americans dont even like the little left wing we have.

But you made the claim that Obama is a Socialist. You didn't say that he is 5% Socialist. You said he "is" a Socialist. In this post you stated that you are either "Socialist or Capitalist". Now you are saying there is a middle ground. You can't have it both ways.

He is not 5% socialist, he wants to tax 5% and give it the 32% of the people that is a strong, socialist idea. The strongest in our history.
So in many people eyes(including me) he is a socialist. Maybe he is not a socialist in Cuba, but here in the US being tha far left is socialism.
I always said their is a middle ground, but in each idea you can only be left or right. I am going to give you an example.
this doesnt represent my values(just in case).
X candidate:
1. I like social security: socialist idea
2. I really dont want WIC, capitalist
3. I dont want the projects or section 8: Capitalist
4. I dont want medicaid: Capitalist
5. But I dont mind medicare: socialist
6. I dont want any form of welfare: strong socialist
7. I dont want the government involved in any business: capitalist

This person is and extreme right wing capitalist. A hardcore capitalist. But he has 2 ideas that are socialist. That doesnt mean he is a socialist because in the spectrum he is far right. But each idea can be only one side, capitalist or socialist. Only the whole picture can tell you if the PERSON IS socialist.
I hope you are getting this.

If it were true then yes, but I'm quite certain that Eugene Debs would have something to say about that.

Maybe.

He is not a Socialist in this point. He agrees (to a much, much, much lesser extent) with Socialists on this idea but it doesn't make him one of them.

In this idea he is a socialist. But the problem is that is a big idea and a big step.

A big part of being a monkey is having sweat glands. George Bush has sweat glands therefor he is also a monkey. Is the fallacy of your argument apparent now? Obama's intentions are irrelevant.

Again, since his idea of distribution is a big step.
No Obama intentions are relevant, if his intentions are to socialize everything, to "regulate wallstreet", to increase welfare, and not only increase welfare, but to tax the rich and then giving it in cash to the poor are big left wing ideas.

On June 12, 08 McCain said, "But I'm not for quote privatizing Social Security, I never have been, I never will be." In response to a question at a town hall meeting. Source. I could replace Social Security with the bail-out to make the same point.

Yes you could, but SS is not very left wing idea. While spreading the wealth is extremely hardcore left wing.
And again Obama wants to increase government, McCain wants to decrease government.

I'm glad we agree. The point was to show how your logic is flawed.

Again, my logic is flawed. I just dont want to continue, and getting tired.
Is really simple I have giving you samples of McCain being capitalist in some subjects, can you get any Obama plan that is capitalist??

Torture is the idea, Code Pink is the organization. You should make up your mind. You have posted before saying that you can be a mixture between the two and have also posted that you are one or the other.

Again, each idea is not mixed. No individual idea can say if you are or arent socialist but each idea is one or the other.
Well their is one idea that can make you full socialist.
If you think that everybody should make the same amount of money, that would make you a socialist no matter what others idea you have.
More of a Socialist than say, Bernie Sanders?

Since you are so caught up on welfare being a Socialist idea, could you please recite the Preamble of the United States Constitution?

yes it say "promote the general welfare"
you do know what welfare meant back then, when welfare didnt exist? right?
Welfare in economics is not the same os welfare in plain old english.
Just like theory, theory in plain old english means unproven
Theory in science means PROVEN, law is the same thing to theory in science.
Like the theory of gravity, is a proven law theory.

[fancofu]

If you say so.

Concession?

Market economy is capitalism
Mixed Economy is mixed, EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY IS HERE, WELL EXCECPT CUBA
Planned economy is socialism
Command Economy is socialism
Traditional economy we dont have to worry about it because it doesnt exist
Participatory economics is another that we dont have to worry about.
So at the end, like I said, we only have capitalism and socialism.
economics 101, it just depends where in the spectrum you are.

Once again you have it backwards. Read this.

That is right, that is not what I said, ,

You said, "mixed economy is pure socialism". Now you are saying something else. You can't have it both ways.

OK,

I'm glad we agree.

No, you see, you are not getting it, I have never said that socialism is bad. Is a way of thinking and idea. In my opinion is bad choice, but that doesnt make it bad or evil, is just and opinion.

I never claimed to know your feelings on it. I don't care because they are irrelevant. One of the links you provided came to the conclusion that Socialism is a bad idea.

The second link explain the meaning of everything and explains the difference between left and right not socialist and social democrats. Is a handout from the class, where it gives the definition and what is key importances from each one.

I shall quote directly from the link.
"The differences between social democrats and socialists are hazy, because their ideals may coincide in some aspects and not in others, but two are particularly important. First, many social democrats are individualists rather than collectivists; even if they accept arguments for mutual aid or the reduction of disadvantage, they think it important to stress the liberty of the individual, to develop individual rights (as liberals do), and often to restrict the role of the state. Second, some social democrats are not concerned to remove inequality, but only to mitigate its effects through social arrangements which protect people from the worst consequences of a market society."

In a previous post you laughed at the idea of them being different. Are they the same or different?

Again once you start thinking of simple left and right you will get it, and that is why it start that way.
Left wing(socialism): for welfare, for pulic provision, collectivist, for institutional welfare
Right wings(capitalism): Against welfare, against public provision, individualist, for residual welfare.
Oh and another thing, right wing and left wings can also be used like social, Left wing social is more liberal
and right wing social is more conservative. And it has nothing to do with economics.

Irrelevant.

How, you are saying that welfare is not socialism, I am saying welfare is one of the most important key of socialism. I mean without distribution of good, capital their is not socialism, meaning without welfare we dont have socialism.

Welfare occurs in Socialism but it is not exclusive.

Again, bad or good is a different subject, and yes they are bad(in my opinion).

Then why give the link if it's a different subject?

His health care system is a small step in that direction.
And his whole idea of his tax plan is socialism.
And he wants to increase government.

I can take a step north but it does not mean that I will be going to the North Pole. How is his tax system Socialist? With any form of taxes you will have a distribution of money whether it be in infrastructure improvement, research grants, financial aid, etc. The whole point of a tax system is to take money and redistribute it. At what point does it go from Capitalism to Socialism? Increasing government does not imply Socialism.

I cant go on start writing all the debates, just go and see them, for every question Obama had a government plan, more spending, more socialism.

You don't have to give me the full transcript of the debates, pertinent issues would suffice. I expect that when someone makes a claim they back it up, that's all.

forget about it..

Right on.

No is not a human need, I am doctor, you cant give good health to everybody is not a right.

Good health is not something that everyone needs?

yes,

Of course, I'm glad you took time to respond to this important issue.

What that has to do with socialism? And almost every single private pharmacy is trying to find the cure.

Go back to where I brought this up if you don't understand what this has to do with the discussion.

Yes I am desperate, I just cant understand how is it so hard to understand a simple fact, welfare= socialism

Welfare is welfare. Socialism is Socialism. Welfare is not exclusive to Socialism. Would you consider corporate welfare to be Socialism even though it goes against everything that Socialists advocate?

??

You didn't make any attempt to refute or discuss the quotes I presented.

Thank God,

No, but they say the same thing. Both are extreme left

The spectrum of politics they reside on is irrelevant.

now I am lost, are you talking about mixed economics? because i am talking about mixing economics and politics.

I've been talking about economics the entire time.

And you continue with the mixed economy, OK i get it.
That has nothing to do with welfare.
and US is one of the most capitalist country in the world, and the least socialist, meaning mixed maybe but way far right. And most americans dont even like the little left wing we have.

Are you taking back your original claim that mixed economies are pure Socialism? If you believe that a mixed economy is pure Socialism, like you claim here, then you would also have to believe that the United States is a pure Socialist country. I'm trying to figure out what it is you believe because you keep changing your position.

He is not 5% socialist, he wants to tax 5% and give it the 32% of the people that is a strong, socialist idea. The strongest in our history.
So in many people eyes(including me) he is a socialist. Maybe he is not a socialist in Cuba, but here in the US being tha far left is socialism.
I always said their is a middle ground, but in each idea you can only be left or right. I am going to give you an example.

5%, 10%, 73%. The actual amount doesn't matter. All that matters is that you don't present the amount when you make the claim against him. In a Socialist country would they tax 5% and give it to 32% or would they make it completely equal. Remember, you just said that there is no middle ground. He is either a Socialist or a Capitalist on this issue.

this doesnt represent my values(just in case).
X candidate:
1. I like social security: socialist idea
2. I really dont want WIC, capitalist
3. I dont want the projects or section 8: Capitalist
4. I dont want medicaid: Capitalist
5. But I dont mind medicare: socialist
6. I dont want any form of welfare: strong socialist
7. I dont want the government involved in any business: capitalist

You have presented a false dichotomy. I want government to oversee certain businesses but stay out of others. This is not Socialist because Socialism advocates that the government controls all business and it is not Capitalism because Capitalists advocate a free market. I can apply the same general idea to all of the issues.

This person is and extreme right wing capitalist. A hardcore capitalist. But he has 2 ideas that are socialist. That doesnt mean he is a socialist because in the spectrum he is far right. But each idea can be only one side, capitalist or socialist. Only the whole picture can tell you if the PERSON IS socialist.
I hope you are getting this.

How many issues are required for a person to be considered a Socialist? What would it take for this person to be considered a mercantilist, mutualist, or a syndicalist.

Maybe.

He was a Socialist that ran for President so your claim is wrong.

In this idea he is a socialist. But the problem is that is a big idea and a big step.

Socialists advocate the equal distribution of capital. Obama does not advocate equal distribution therefor he does not adhere to the Socialist ideology.

Again, since his idea of distribution is a big step.
No Obama intentions are relevant, if his intentions are to socialize everything, to "regulate wallstreet", to increase welfare, and not only inc..rease welfare, but to tax the rich and then giving it in cash to the poor are big left wing ideas.

You said his intentions are to buy votes and that is irrelevant. Obama really intends to socialize everything? This is the first time I've heard this. Could you provide a link? Regulation is not necessarily Socialism. Complete regulation is, some regulation isn't. Welfare is not exclusive to Socialism. Being a left wing idea is irrelevant.

Yes you could, but SS is not very left wing idea. While spreading the wealth is extremely hardcore left wing.
And again Obama wants to increase government, McCain wants to decrease government.

Left wing right wing - it's irrelevant. Spreading the wealth does not imply Socialism. Socialism does, however, imply spreading the wealth. Does Obama want to increase the size of the government that is necessary for Socialism?

Again, my logic is flawed. I just dont want to continue, and getting tired.
Is really simple I have giving you samples of McCain being capitalist in some subjects, can you get any Obama plan that is capitalist??

Obama voted in favor of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which provided incentives to companies that seek out alternative energy sources; incentives that promote Capitalism. He isn't going to pull out of NAFTA or the WTO. He isn't going to repeal the Taft-Hartley Act. There's 3. The main reason he isn't Socialist is because he doesn't adhere to Socialist ideas. He isn't going to nationalize private business, he isn't going to make private land public, he isn't going to outlaw profit, he isn't going to mandate production quotas, etc. If you want to see what a real Socialist would do read this.

Again, each idea is not mixed. No individual idea can say if you are or arent socialist but each idea is one or the other.
Well their is one idea that can make you full socialist.
If you think that everybody should make the same amount of money, that would make you a socialist no matter what others idea you have.

What would I be if I said that I want everyone to make the same amount and that I want all businesses to be private? You are doing to Obama what you say cannot be done. You have said that he is a Socialist because he is in favor of welfare. He isn't advocating that everyone makes the same amount, only that people on the bottom get help.

What am I if I believe in the following and nothing else:
I support HUD.
I do not support WIC.

You didn't answer this question:
More of a Socialist than say, Bernie Sanders?

yes it say "promote the general welfare"
you do know what welfare meant back then, when welfare didnt exist? right?

Welfare has been around since at least the 8th century. Much earlier than when the Constitution was written.

Welfare in economics is not the same os welfare in plain old english.

How do you promote welfare to those unable to do so themselves without distribution of wealth?

Just like theory, theory in plain old english means unproven
Theory in science means PROVEN, law is the same thing to theory in science.
Like the theory of gravity, is a proven law theory.

I find it strange that you say this; it makes me think that you aren't really a doctor. Science, especially biology and astronomy, is one of my favorite topics. This isn't relevant to the issue at hand but it does bring in to question your credibility. You couldn't be more wrong (well I suppose you could).

Here's a simple explanation of the differences between laws and theories.

• Laws are generalizations about what has happened, from which we can generalize about what we expect to happen. They pertain to observational data. The ability of the ancients to predict eclipses had nothing to do with whether they knew just how they happened; they had a law but not a theory.

• Theories are explanations of observations (or of laws). The fact that we have a pretty good understanding of how stars explode doesn't necessarily mean we could predict the next supernova; we have a theory but not a law.

Proof only exists in mathematics and logic. You should know, if you are actually a doctor, that Science never proves anything, ever. Science is based on inductive reasoning. This means that it comes to a conclusion based on finite observations. Here's an example:

• Proportion Q of observed members of group G have had attribute A.

With inductive reasoning you come to the conclusion that:

• There is a probability corresponding to Q that other members of group G will have attribute A when next observed.

This conclusion is valid in inductive reasoning so long as all observations support it. As soon as an observation contradicts the conclusion, the conclusion is proved false. The only way to prove this is to observe all members of group G. It is impossible to make every possible observation to prove the theory.

Gravity is not a "proven law theory" (whatever that is supposed to mean) for the reasons I gave above. The only way to prove it is to test every object in the universe against one another. You would have to make an infinite amount of observations to prove it, which is impossible. All you have to do is compare Newton's theory of gravitation, Einsteins general theory of relativity, and quantum field theory to see how gravity is not a "proven law theory". Both Newton's and Einstein's theories are invalid at the Planck length.

Karl Popper and Einstein explain this better than I can:

"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."

Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953

"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven."

Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.

That was fun.

[cjma79]

Originally Posted by fancofu

Concession?

No, he just changed his mind.

Once again you have it backwards. Read this.

I dont have it backwards, in every single text book I have is that way. And in your own link it saying the same thing, Just click on each one.

You said, "mixed economy is pure socialism". Now you are saying something else. You can't have it both ways.

How many times I have to say it, mixed economy is socialism, mixed economy is capitalism. It depends where the country is in the SPECTRUM. Now I was wrong by calling it socialism without specifying what I was talking about.

I'm glad we agree.

700 years ago people were uneducated, a big difference,(we still have uneducated but less)

I never claimed to know your feelings on it. I don't care because they are irrelevant. One of the links you provided came to the conclusion that Socialism is a bad idea.

I didnt give you the link for the conclusion but to prove that welfare is socialism.

I shall quote directly from the link.

What social democrat has to do with welfare?

"The differences between social democrats and socialists are hazy, because their ideals may coincide in some aspects and not in others, but two are particularly important. First, many social democrats are individualists rather than collectivists; even if they accept arguments for mutual aid or the reduction of disadvantage, they think it important to stress the liberty of the individual, to develop individual rights (as liberals do), and often to restrict the role of the state. Second, some social democrats are not concerned to remove inequality, but only to mitigate its effects through social arrangements which protect people from the worst consequences of a market society."

HMMM let me see, ARE HAZY, can you please tell me what that means?? Social democrats are socialist because in the spectrum they are on the left and not on the right is thats simple.

In a previous post you laughed at the idea of them being different. Are they the same or different?

I cant believe you still dont understand. Social democrats are hmmm little hazzy in that area... Your quote just helps me... Some of their ideas are and not others, like I said not everybody or everything is 100% but each idea and where you are in the spectrum.

Irrelevant.

What do you mean Irrelevant, is the whole key.

Welfare occurs in Socialism but it is not exclusive.

Yes EXCLUSIVE. The idea is 100% socialist.
Meaning the welfare program is a socialist program. That doesnt mean a country that has it is socialist it just means it not less 100% capitalist.

Then why give the link if it's a different subject?

What are you talking about, the original subject was:
Welfare=SOCIALISM
All of my links say it true. And one of the links start by teaching you that their is a left and a right, that is the first thing they teach you in any economy 101 class. usually the second or first chapter in any text book.

I can take a step north but it does not mean that I will be going to the North Pole. How is his tax system Socialist?

Ok, because if north is colds and cold is socialism,(it would be easier if you used left and right) then each step north makes you colder. Meaning making you more socialist. Each step south makes you hotter(hot is capitalism). So Now draw a line in the MIDDLE. Where you are is what you are. Again NO COUNTRY IS 100% CAPITLIST AND NO COUNTRY IS 100 SOCIALIST(AGAIN CUBA IS). His tax system is 100% socialism, his idea of the tax system is socialism, that doesnt mean the US IS SOCIALIST. But is a BIG STEP. And remember, you dont need to get to North Pole to be cold or be socialist.

With any form of taxes you will have a distribution of money whether it be in infrastructure improvement, research grants, financial aid, etc. The whole point of a tax system is to take money and redistribute it. At what point does it go from Capitalism to Socialism? Increasing government does not imply Socialism.

Yes, but not to the PEOPLE(SOCIALISM). If you take my money and pay for infrastructure that I USE. Is not socialism.
Yes is to take money and redistribute it on government things. Not to the poor. Any increase in government is socialism.

You don't have to give me the full transcript of the debates, pertinent issues would suffice. I expect that when someone makes a claim they back it up, that's all.

Ok, in everysingle question his answer is the government, the government and the government, that is bigger government. I just cant do it, it would take me to much time, the only thing you have to see is the debates.

Good health is not something that everyone needs?

No, is not, is what everyone WANTS.

Of course, I'm glad you took time to respond to this important issue

.AIDS has nothing to do with socialism.

Go back to where I brought this up if you don't understand what this has to do with the discussion.

AIDS has nothing to do with socialism.

Welfare is welfare. Socialism is Socialism. Welfare is not exclusive to Socialism. Would you consider corporate welfare to be Socialism even though it goes against everything that Socialists advocate?

Welfare is exclusive to socialism not exclusive to capitalist countries with socialist programs. I dont consider any type of welfare. Any type of welfare is one step to socialism. Oh and just in case corporate welfare is a type of socialism. THE GOVERNMENT IS GETTING IN THE ECONOMY, EVERY TIME THAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES THAT IS SOCIALISM. If you know the meaning of capitalism you would understand this. Capitalism means the separation of government and economy. 100%. Meaning in a 100% capitalist country the government would never get involved in the economy.

You didn't make any attempt to refute or discuss the quotes I presented.

because I didnt understand it. that what it means ??

The spectrum of politics they reside on is irrelevant.

WHAT??? what are you talking about. If Obama is on the left of the spectrum that is not important, Ok Fidel Castro in on the left of the spectrum, but that doesnt matter is irrelevant he is not a socialist.

I've been talking about economics the entire time.

AIDS is economy?? No, you are mixing economy with politics especially when you mix social democrats and socialism...

Are you taking back your original claim that mixed economies are pure Socialism?

Again, mixed economy is not a type of economy, is where every single country is, but where in the spectrum that they are.

If you believe that a mixed economy is pure Socialism, like you claim here, then you would also have to believe that the United States is a pure Socialist country.

No I wasnt clear, mixed economy is not pure socialism and it was a mistake to not clarify.

I'm trying to figure out what it is you believe because you keep changing your position.

I havent change my position in any, just a mistake in mixed that has nothing to do with the subject. Is obama tax plan socialist or capitalist. is a simple question.

5%, 10%, 73%. The actual amount doesn't matter. All that matters is that you don't present the amount when you make the claim against him.

Is imposible to make and amount, not even Obama. Do you think I read minds or something. But Obama is the most liberal from the senate.
If you want a number I would say he is 70% socialist.(Is a fake number but if that makes you happy, I am glad to help)

In a Socialist country would they tax 5% and give it to 32% or would they make it completely equal.

NO, making equal tax is CAPITALISM. a FLAT TAX RATE is capitalism. A bracket based tax is socialism.

Remember, you just said that there is no middle ground. He is either a Socialist or a Capitalist on this issue.

I am sorry but I have to explain it to you again for the 4th time, now i am going to do it for a 7 YO.
A lot of people are in the middle ground, and they are there because EACH IDEA OF THEM ARE SOCIALIST OR CAPITALIST, if you are 100% in the middle means that your IDEAS(GET THIS IN YOUR DNA IDEA, IDEA, IDEA, IDEA) are 50% capitalist and 50% socialist, making you in the middle.
If 75% of your IDEAS are capitalist, then you are a capitalist, but that doesnt mean you dont have socialist IDEAS, you still have 25% of socialism but you are not in the middle and you are a capitalist.\

You have presented a false dichotomy. I want government to oversee certain businesses but stay out of others.

this is a big step toward the left.

This is not Socialist because Socialism advocates that the government controls all business and it is not Capitalism because Capitalists advocate a free market. I can apply the same general idea to all of the issues.

Again no place is 100%, is where in the spectrum you are, and you are for welfare and for obama plans and wants government to oversee businesses then you are pretty far left.

How many issues are required for a person to be considered a Socialist? What would it take for this person to be considered a mercantilist, mutualist, or a syndicalist.

Dont change subject, you are like a Obama now, changing subject every single time.
It depends on the person and who is judging. If Fidel Castro is judging Obama he would say he is a capitlist. But you can go online and take many political test to see where you are in the spectrum.
Go here and take the test and you will know where you are.
The Political Compass - Test
Image taken from politicalcompass.org
the link to the image is
US Presidential Election 2008

He was a Socialist that ran for President so your claim is wrong.

And who said Obama is not a socialist. Why just dont know what he is.

Socialists advocate the equal distribution of capital. Obama does not advocate equal distribution therefor he does not adhere to the Socialist ideology.

yes he does, THE FIRST STEP TO EQUAL DISTRIBUTION IS TO TAX THE RICH AND GIVE IT TO THE POOR. And even he said to spread the wealth. What do you think that means?
100% pure socialist country(like cuba) have that, but other socialist country that are not 100% have some sort of welfare that are socialist.

You said his intentions are to buy votes and that is irrelevant. Obama really intends to socialize everything? This is the first time I've heard this.

ok,, I guess in a debate for every dificult question your answer is: is irrelevant.

Could you provide a link? Regulation is not necessarily Socialism.

Any form of regulation is socialism, I am sorry but you just dont know what you are talking about again. please stop is every can tell you havent taking political science or economy. I am sorry, but ANY INTERVENTION OF THE ECONOMY IS SOCIALISM. ANY, ANY WHAT SO EVER,..... AGAIN ANY INTERVENTION ANY REGULATION ANYTHING IS SOCIALISM.

Complete regulation is, some regulation isn't. Welfare is not exclusive to Socialism. Being a left wing idea is irrelevant.

You cant divide it,, WELFARE IS EXCLUSIVE TO SOCIALISM. not exclusive to socialist countries.
Everytime welfare increase, we are less capitalist more socialist.
Everytime the government get in the economy(in any form or shape, regulations, etc.) is less capitalist and more socialist.
Any increase in government is less capitalism and more socialism

Left wing right wing - it's irrelevant.

Do you even know what it means, Left wing is socialism
Right wing is capitalism how could this be irrelevant??

Spreading the wealth does not imply Socialism. Socialism does, however, imply spreading the wealth. Does Obama want to increase the size of the government that is necessary for Socialism?

Please you just dont know what you are talking about.
Spreading the wealth DOES IMPLY socialism. Is one of the most important key of socialism.

Obama voted in favor of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which provided incentives to companies that seek out alternative energy sources; incentives that promote Capitalism.

You see you dont know what you are talking about any type of incentive is socialism and not capitalism.

He isn't going to pull out of NAFTA or the WTO. He isn't going to repeal the Taft-Hartley Act. There's 3. The main reason he isn't Socialist is because he doesn't adhere to Socialist ideas. He isn't going to nationalize private business, he isn't going to make private land public, he isn't going to outlaw profit, he isn't going to mandate production quotas, etc. If you want to see what a real Socialist would do read this.

But he is going to spread the wealth around, wont he? making him more socialist compared to McCain.

What would I be if I said that I want everyone to make the same amount and that I want all businesses to be private?

Socialist. Becuase even if the business are private, the government have 100% control over them, telling the owner how much he can make and his earnings.

You are doing to Obama what you say cannot be done.

Again is where he is in the spectrum.

You have said that he is a Socialist because he is in favor of welfare. He isn't advocating that everyone makes the same amount, only that people on the bottom get help.

making the US one step closer to socialism.

What am I if I believe in the following and nothing else:
I support HUD.
I do not support WIC.

You need more information, and HUD and WIC are small programs not big enough, Pick something big like THE WHOLE TAX BRACKET.

You didn't answer this question:
More of a Socialist than say, Bernie Sanders?

???

Welfare has been around since at least the 8th century. Much earlier than when the Constitution was written.

Welfare means the wellbeing, not welfare like we call it today.

How do you promote welfare to those unable to do so themselves without distribution of wealth?

U dont, every person has to opportunity, what you make of it is their problem.

I find it strange that you say this; it makes me think that you aren't really a doctor.

Well you check all of my post date backs a while..

Science, especially biology and astronomy, is one of my favorite topics.

Without a degree, great.

This isn't relevant to the issue at hand but it does bring in to question your credibility. You couldn't be more wrong (well I suppose you could).

About theory, no I cant be wrong.

Here's a simple explanation of the differences between laws and theories.

Link please.

Laws are generalizations about what has happened, from which we can generalize about what we expect to happen. They pertain to observational data. The ability of the ancients to predict eclipses had nothing to do with whether they knew just how they happened; they had a law but not a theory.

we dont use laws any more.. it shows how much you know about science.

Theories are explanations of observations (or of laws). The fact that we have a pretty good understanding of how stars explode doesn't necessarily mean we could predict the next supernova; we have a theory but not a law.

WRONG

Proof only exists in mathematics and logic. You should know, if you are actually a doctor, that Science never proves anything, ever. Science is based on inductive reasoning. This means that it comes to a conclusion based on finite observations. Here's an example:

AGAIN WRONG.

Gravity is not a "proven law theory" (whatever that is supposed to mean) for the reasons I gave above.

You see, how can you talk about something that you dont know what the hell you are talking about.

This is simple...
What is the difference between Hypothesis and Theory???

A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις) consists either of a suggested explanation for a phenomenon (an event that is observable) or of a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena.

The word theory has many distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

Like I said, theory in plain old english vs science is different.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis.

COMMON USAGE OF THEORY IS THE MEANING OF HYPOTHESIS.

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.

[fancofu]

No, he just changed his mind.

How many people am I talking with?

I dont have it backwards, in every single text book I have is that way. And in your own link it saying the same thing, Just click on each one.

Let's have a look.

"The term market economy is not identical to capitalism where a corporation hires workers as a labour commodity to produce material wealth and boost shareholder profits."

"A planned economy may consist of state-owned enterprises, private enterprises directed by the state, or a combination of both. Though "planned economy" and "command economy" are often used as synonyms, some make the distinction that under a command economy, the means of production are publicly owned."

How many times I have to say it, mixed economy is socialism, mixed economy is capitalism. It depends where the country is in the SPECTRUM. Now I was wrong by calling it socialism without specifying what I was talking about.

I'd like to see this spectrum you speak of. To say that an economy is Capitalist because it has one more Capitalist idea than Socialist is a hasty generalization, especially when the intent is an appeal to emotion. What do you consider Corporatism? It's as far right as you can get but controlled by civic assemblies.

700 years ago people were uneducated, a big difference,(we still have uneducated but less)

It's irrelevant either way.

I didnt give you the link for the conclusion but to prove that welfare is socialism.

It doesn't prove that welfare is exclusive to Socialism. If it does copy and paste exactly where it is said.

What social democrat has to do with welfare?

Social democrats also favor welfare.

HMMM let me see, ARE HAZY, can you please tell me what that means?? Social democrats are socialist because in the spectrum they are on the left and not on the right is thats simple.

Hazy means that the distinctions are not clear. It doesn't mean that they don't exist.

I cant believe you still dont understand. Social democrats are hmmm little hazzy in that area... Your quote just helps me... Some of their ideas are and not others, like.. I said not everybody or everything is 100% but each idea and where you are in the spectrum.

Hazy means unclear, not absent. I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble comprehending what you are trying to say.

What do you mean Irrelevant, is the whole key.

I misinterpreted what you said. However, as I've said before, it's a hasty generalization to claim someone a Socialist because they agree with a Socialist on more occasions than they do with a Capitalist.

Yes EXCLUSIVE. The idea is 100% socialist.
Meaning the welfare program is a socialist program. That doesnt mean a country that has it is socialist it just means it not less 100% capitalist.

Prove to me that welfare is 100% exclusive to Socialism. Welfare predates Socialism. Welfare was mentioned in the Bible and in the Five Pillars of Islam much earlier than it was ever introduced as a Socialist goal.

What are you talking about, the original subject was:
Welfare=SOCIALISM
All of my links say it true. And one of the links start by teaching you that their is a left and a right, that is the first thing they teach you in any economy 101 class. usually the second or first chapter in any text book.

The link does not say that welfare is exclusive to Socialism. If they do give me a quote.

Ok, because if north is colds and cold is socialism,(it would be easier if you used left and right) then each step north makes you colder. Meaning making you more socialist. Each step south makes you hotter(hot is capitalism). So Now draw a line in the MIDDLE. Where you are is what you are. Again NO COUNTRY IS 100% CAPITLIST AND NO COUNTRY IS 100 SOCIALIST(AGAIN CUBA IS). His tax system is 100% socialism, his idea of the tax system is socialism, that doesnt mean the US IS SOCIALIST. But is a BIG STEP. And remember, you dont need to get to North Pole to be cold or be socialist.

His tax system is 100% Socialist? Compare it to the tax system in a Socialist country. Are there differences?

Yes, but not to the PEOPLE(SOCIALISM). If you take my money and pay for infrastructure that I USE. Is not socialism.
Yes is to take money and redistribute it on government things. Not to the poor. Any increase in government is socialism.

Do you realize that you are contradicting yourself here. Increasing government is Socialism and you have to increase government in order to take and redistribute money. Using tax money to create roads is not for the common good? Using tax money to build schools is not for the common good? Using tax money to create a fire department is not for the common good? Give me proof that an increase in government is exclusive to Socialism.

Ok, in everysingle question his answer is the government, the government and the government, that is bigger government. I just cant do it, it would take me to much time, the only thing you have to see is the debates.

You bear the burden of proof.

No, is not, is what everyone WANTS.

Are you sure?

.AIDS has nothing to do with socialism.

In the context it does.

AIDS has nothing to do with socialism.

In the context it does.

Welfare is exclusive to socialism not exclusive to capitalist countries with socialist programs. I dont consider any type of welfare. Any type of welfare is one step to socialism. Oh and just in case corporate welfare is a type of socialism. THE GOVERNMENT IS GETTING IN THE ECONOMY, EVERY TIME THAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES THAT IS SOCIALISM. If you know the meaning of capitalism you would understand this. Capitalism means the separation of government and economy. 100%. Meaning in a 100% capitalist country the government would never get involved in the economy.

Prove that welfare is exclusive to Socialism. I already explained that welfare predates Socialism.

because I didnt understand it. that what it means ??

Fine, I'll post the important one again.

The main difference between the welfare state and socialism concerns the scope of legitimate government intervention in the lives of its citizens. In the welfare state, government is restricted in its efforts to direct people's lives toward the pursuit of certain goals, such as economic progress and the security of the people in their health. Not so in a socialist state. In the welfare state even if some wish to use their liberty frivolously, they have a right to do so, but again, not in a socialist state. Moreover, even if some do not earn any wealth by productive effort, thereby failing to express their (Marxian) human nature or neglecting themselves due to incapacity of unwillingness, they are entitled simply as members of the community to some wealth - that is their positive right - although they are not entitled to as much as they may claim is needed for them to live very well. A socialist state would have little patience with such appeals to "positive rights."

WHAT??? what are you talking about. If Obama is on the left of the spectrum that is not important, Ok Fidel Castro in on the left of the spectrum, but that doesnt matter is irrelevant he is not a socialist.

Their political affiliation is irrelevant if we are talking about their economic viewpoint. Bush is a republican, he made the government larger (which would make him a Socialist according to you) yet he is far right wing (which would make him a Capitalist according to you).

AIDS is economy?? No, you are mixing economy with politics especially when you mix social democrats and socialism...

AIDs in and of itself is not economy. When we talk about AIDs research grants then we are talking about economics.

Again, mixed economy is not a type of economy, is where every single country is, but where in the spectrum that they are.

I'm sorry but Wikipedia, MSN Encarta, Britannica, Dictionary.com, Businessdictionary.com, etc all disagree with you. A mixed economy IS an economic system. How could the US be considered a mixed economy if the system doesn't exist?

No I wasnt clear, mixed economy is not pure socialism and it was a mistake to not clarify.

Right on.

I havent change my position in any, just a mistake in mixed that has nothing to do with the subject. Is obama tax plan socialist or capitalist. is a simple question.

It is neither.

Is imposible to make and amount, not even Obama. Do you think I read minds or something. But Obama is the most liberal from the senate.
If you want a number I would say he is 70% socialist.(Is a fake number but if that makes you happy, I am glad to help)

The important part is how you come to the %.

NO, making equal tax is CAPITALISM. a FLAT TAX RATE is capitalism. A bracket based tax is socialism.

Any form of taxation is "spreading the wealth" and "for the common good" things you claimed are Socialism.

I am sorry but I have to explain it to you again for the 4th time, now i am going to do it for a 7 YO.
A lot of people are in the middle ground, and they are there because EACH IDEA OF THEM ARE SOCIALIST OR CAPITALIST, if you are 100% in the middle means that your IDEAS(GET THIS IN YOUR DNA IDEA, IDEA, IDEA, IDEA) are 50% capitalist and 50% socialist, making you in the middle.
If 75% of your IDEAS are capitalist, then you are a capitalist, but that doesnt mean you dont have socialist IDEAS, you still have 25% of socialism but you are not in the middle and you are a capitalist.\

It's a hasty generalization intended to appeal to emotions. A two-fer on the logical fallacy chart.

this is a big step toward the left.

And a step to the right because I want others to be completely private.

Again no place is 100%, is where in the spectrum you are, and you are for welfare and for obama plans and wants government to oversee businesses then you are pretty far left.

And he doesn't plan to repeal the Taft-Hartley act or leave the WTO and NAFTA, far right ideas.

Dont change subject, you are like a Obama now, changing subject every single time.
It depends on the person and who is judging. If Fidel Castro is judging Obama he would say he is a capitlist. But you can go online and take many political test to see where you are in the spectrum.
Go here and take the test and you will know where you are.
The Political Compass - Test
Image taken from politicalcompass.org
the link to the image is
US Presidential Election 2008

I thought we were talking about economics. Anyway, your chart has Obama on the right. That would make him a capitalist, correct?

And who said Obama is not a socialist. Why just dont know what he is.

What? You said Obama is a Socialist. Debs is irrelevant other than to prove your claim that Obama is not the first Socialist candidate.

yes he does, THE FIRST STEP TO EQUAL DISTRIBUTION IS TO TAX THE RICH AND GIVE IT TO THE POOR. And even he said to spread the wealth. What do you think that means?
100% pure socialist country(like cuba) have that, but other socialist country that are not 100% have some sort of welfare that are socialist.

He does? Give me a quote where he says he is in favor of the equal distribution of wealth.

ok,, I guess in a debate for every dificult question your answer is: is irrelevant.

His intentions are irrelevant. If his intentions are to gain the support of dairy men across America they would be irrelevant. If his intentions are to invade Canada they would be irrelevant. Your claim that he is doing it to get votes is irrelevant. I don't care either way.

Any form of regulation is socialism, I am sorry but you just dont know what you are talking about again. please stop is every can tell you havent taking political science or economy. I am sorry, but ANY INTERVENTION OF THE ECONOMY IS SOCIALISM. ANY, ANY WHAT SO EVER,..... AGAIN ANY INTERVENTION ANY REGULATION ANYTHING IS SOCIALISM.

Would you consider laws against murder to be Socialist?

You cant divide it,, WELFARE IS EXCLUSIVE TO SOCIALISM. not exclusive to socialist countries.
Everytime welfare increase, we are less capitalist more socialist.
Everytime the government get in the economy(in any form or shape, regulations, etc.) is less capitalist and more socialist.
Any increase in government is less capitalism and more socialism

Prove that welfare is exclusive to Socialism. If welfare predates Socialism how can it be exclusive.

Do you even know what it means, Left wing is socialism
Right wing is capitalism how could this be irrelevant??

Spreading the wealth does not imply Socialism. Socialism does, however, imply spreading the wealth. Does Obama want to increase the size of the government that is necessary for Socialism?

Please you just dont know what you are talking about.
Spreading the wealth DOES IMPLY socialism. Is one of the most important key of socialism.

Only if you confuse cause and effect.

You see you dont know what you are talking about any type of incentive is socialism and not capitalism.

Rewarding business is Socialism? There aren't any regulations being made, only rewards.

But he is going to spread the wealth around, wont he? making him more socialist compared to McCain.

He's 1 for 6 or 16.6% Socialist, eh? He may be closer to a Socialist to McCain but in the same breath you can say McCain is closer to being a Socialist than Adam Smith. You wouldn't call McCain a Socialist for that reason so why would you call Obama one?

Socialist. Becuase even if the business are private, the government have 100% control over them, telling the owner how much he can make and his earnings.

The government does not have 100% control over them. They are private, meaning they are not owned by the government.

Again is where he is in the spectrum.

The chart you posted has him on the right.

making the US one step closer to socialism.

Yet so far away.

You need more information, and HUD and WIC are small programs not big enough, Pick something big like THE WHOLE TAX BRACKET.

You brought them up to begin with..

???

You said Obama is the most Socialist person in politics today. My response: More of a Socialist than Bernie Sanders?

Welfare means the wellbeing, not welfare like we call it today.

So it is, in essence, saying to promote the general quality of life. How would a government do something like that without creating programs and distributing tax money?

U dont, every person has to opportunity, what you make of it is their problem.

Orphaned infants have the opportunity to take care of themselves? Disabled people have the opportunity to take care of themselves?

Well you check all of my post date backs a while..

Saying something doesn't make it true.

Without a degree, great.

Again, with the ad hominem attacks.

About theory, no I cant be wrong.

About a theory, yes you are wrong. I explained in very much detail how you are wrong.

Link please.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method
http://www.holycross.edu/departments...Meth&Philo.pdf
Scientific evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories - The Scientific Method
Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions
Scientific Laws and Theories

Want more? Ok.

theory
How to Explain the Difference Between Theory, Law, and a Fact - wikiHow
Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Laws of science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific laws
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_explanation

YouTube - Scientific Law vs Scientific Theory

we dont use laws any more.. it shows how much you know about science.

I don't know what to say to this. I'm going to go ahead and say that you aren't a doctor if you believe this. This is the strangest thing I've heard on these forums.

Here are a few examples:
The Basic Laws of Algebra

• The Commutative Law of Addition
• The Commutative Law of Multiplication
• The Associative Law of Addition
• The Associative Law of Multiplication
• The Distributive Law
• The Zero Property
• The Multiplicative Identity Property
• The Additive Inverse
• The Multiplicative Inverse
• The Reflexive Property
• The Symmetric Property
• The Transitive Property
• Laws of Inequality

Some more.

• Charles's law
• Ideal gas law
• Lorentz transformation
• Mass–energy equivalence
• Einstein field equations
• Inertia
• Fourier's law
• Heat conduction
• Gravitation (don't confuse the law of gravite with the theory of gravity)
• Chemical law
• Coulomb's law
• Lorentz Force Law
• Biot–Savart law
• Ohm's law
• Kirchhoff's circuit laws
• Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation
• Gauss' law
• Gauss' law for magnetism
• Ampère's law with Maxwell's correction
• Faraday's law of induction
• Ampère's circuital law
• Zeroth law of thermodynamics
• First law of thermodynamics
• Second law of thermodynamics
• Third law of thermodynamics
• Onsager reciprocal relations
• Heisenberg uncertainty principle
• The de Broglie relations
• Schrödinger equation
• Navier–Stokes equations
• Hagen-Poiseuille equation
• Planck's law
• Wien's law
• Stefan–Boltzmann law
• Kepler's laws of planetary motion
• Beer-Lambert law
• Dulong–Petit law
• Buys Ballot's law
• Conservation of linear momentum
• Conservation of angular momentum
• Conservation of charge
• Color charge
• Baryon number
• Lepton number
• parity transformation
• CP symmetry
• Charles's law
• Gay-Lussac's law
• Graham's law
• Dalton's law
• Law of multiple proportions
• Avogadro's law
• Newton's laws of motion

There are many, many more. How are they used?
Kepler's laws of planetary motion are used every time space craft is sent into outer space. Ampère's circuital law and Ohm's law come into play every time you turn your lights on. Without the second law of thermodynamics you wouldn't be able to use your refrigerator. The engine in your car, that was made possible with the first law of thermodynamics. It's a good thing we have Kirchhoff's circuit laws, otherwise there wouldn't be any computers.

WRONG

How constructive. How am I wrong?

From Wiki:
A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena.

From the dictionary:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Same thing I said using different words.

AGAIN WRONG.

Which part am I wrong about? The use of inductive logic?

Stephen Hawking:
"The 'unprovable but falsifiable' nature of theories is a consequence of the necessity of using inductive logic."

That science cannot prove anything? Read this.

You see, how can you talk about something that you dont know what the hell you are talking about.

This is the first time I have ever heard anyone use the term "proven law theory". If I'm wrong then tell me how, don't just say it. That offers nothing to the discussion.

From Google:
"No results found for 'proven law theory'."

This is simple...
What is the difference between Hypothesis and Theory???






Like I said, theory in plain old english vs science is different.


COMMON USAGE OF THEORY IS THE MEANING OF HYPOTHESIS.

I never said that a scientific theory and a hypothesis are the same thing. I never even alluded to thinking that.

Don't forget what Popper and Einstein have to say:

"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."

Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953

"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven."

Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.



I have much more fun discussing science than politics. Anyway, the political discussion boils down to 2 questions.

• Is Obama a Socialist?
• Is welfare exclusive to Socialism?

I say that because Obama does not adhere to the principles of Socialism he cannot be considered a Socialist. Obama, like Socialists, agree that welfare is a good idea but correlation does not imply causation, better known as *** hoc ergo propter hoc.

I don't believe welfare is exclusive to Socialism for 2 reasons. One is that welfare predates Socialism. The other is based on Welfare Capitalism or the practice of businesses providing welfare-like services to employees. No government involvement at all and Capitalism at it's finest.

To prove that Obama is a Socialist you have to be able to prove that he believes in the means to achieve and goals of Socialism, not that there is a correlation between the two. To say that welfare occurs in Socialist countries does not mean it is exclusive.

[Greatday]

I have to say - I'm not going to read such a bunch of donkey dung as has been recenly posted -

None of the above has anything to do with UHC/UHI.

Moderator: Any chance of getting us back on topic?

[cjma79]

Originally Posted by Greatday

I have to say - I'm not going to read such a bunch of donkey dung as has been recenly posted -

None of the above has anything to do with UHC/UHI.

Moderator: Any chance of getting us back on topic?

Yes please because i cant continue with ignorance.