Are you hoping for American Socialism to fail?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

You are punished for success because as you move up the tax bracket, you take home a smaller percentage of your pay. Pretty simple explanation.

And your points about utilization of public funds could easily be refuted with a myriad of counterexamples...the criminal court system, the drain of resources due to crime, social services, etc. All of these are relatively irrelevant to me, what is relevant to me is the unfair taxation system in this country that supposedly calls it a capitalistic.

Again, many studies have shown that a disproportionate amount of ALL government spending--that is, TAKEN AS A WHOLE--is spent for the benefit of the weathy and for large businesses. There is just no way around it.

But this is getting off-track. I understand your point of view, and I respect it. I just ask that you not refer to Obama's policies as "socialism." I've been to socialist countries, probably before you were born, and they still existed in Eastern Europe. This is not socialism, not even Alexander Dubcek's "Socialism With a Happy Face" movement of 1968.
 
Wishing failure on the United States to prove some morbid "point" just saddens me.
 
Again, many studies have shown that a disproportionate amount of ALL government spending--that is, TAKEN AS A WHOLE--is spent for the benefit of the weathy and for large businesses. There is just no way around it.

But this is getting off-track. I understand your point of view, and I respect it. I just ask that you not refer to Obama's policies as "socialism." I've been to socialist countries, probably before you were born, and they still existed in Eastern Europe. This is not socialism, not even Alexander Dubcek's "Socialism With a Happy Face" movement of 1968.

Its not limited to Obama. Bush, McCain, Paulsen, etc.
 
From what I understand of the current legislation is that the shares we are buying of banks now, the government is going to sell in the future. When that is, is anyones guess.

Now that I think about it though, there have been several government programs in the past that really, already border on being socialist. Those being:

1. The US Postal Service.
2. Bonneville Power Administration.
3. The TVA project.

They have been around for a long time, with lots of rumors years ago, of being turned into "Government corporations", but it never happened. I believe many folks thought that eventually the USPS would be phased out in favor of private carriers. BPA and TVA most folks figured would have been put out of business by energy corporations. When push comes to shove, they are still here because people whine when their prices go up, or law makers protected them from being torn down.


The USPS is as far from socialism as you can get.

From it's origin up till last year, the USPS was the ONLY US Government Agency that completely paid for itself without any financial subsidy from taxes.

It costs you nothing more than the price of the stamp.
 
And its one of the only efficient government agencies out there. I didn't know it paid for itself. Sending a letter works pretty well.
 
It's clear few people here understand the meaning of the word "Socialism".
 
It's clear few people here understand the meaning of the word "Socialism".

I said "American Socialism", which I interpret to include:

1. First the "stimulus package", which was completely ridiculous in the first place IMO.
2. Bailouts of Fannie/Freddie
3. Bailouts of AIG
4. Bailout program for greedy wall street executives, irresponsible borrowers, and failing banks

Next:

5. Proposed additional stimulus package
6. Additional energy windfall profits tax stimulus package
7. Government renegotiating home loans that were agreed upon
8. Government paying for the principle on home loans for private individuals.
 
"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[3][4]"

check
check
check
 
Socialism, capitalism, liberalism, conservatism....meh. I'm for whatever solution results in the highest degree of happiness for a society. It's funny how we spend so much time worrying about GDP, taxes, job numbers, etc., and so little time thinking about what makes Americans actually happy, and what policies are likely to make them more happy.

If our newly socialized banking system fails, will it really lead to greater happiness? Maybe among a few smug free marketers, but for the rest of us the complete collapse of our financial institutions would be a disaster. I find it really hard to understand how anyone can hope for a massive depression just to make a point about Adam Smith and Karl Marx. Seems pretty petty.

I like to be free...and I like turtles.
 
Socialism, capitalism, liberalism, conservatism....meh. I'm for whatever solution results in the highest degree of happiness for a society.
Most people are pretty "happy" when you give them everything they need, and they don't have to work very hard to get it. How can you blame them? The problem is, it saps their motivation and makes them lazy and dependant on government for every aspect of their lives. It also bloats the federal government and leads to waste and excess. This is exactly why socialism/marxism/communism fails everywhere it is tried.

Capitalism is the engine that has driven our economy and created the enormous wealth in this country. Marxists like Obama want to hamper big business, and "spread the wealth around" so that everybody can be "happy." It may work for a few people, but the end result is bad for business, bad for the economy, and ultimately bad for America.
 
Last edited:
It's clear few people here understand the meaning of the word "Socialism".

Wikipedia:

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating social or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.

During the Clinton years, the administration talked about investing Social Security funds in the stock market instead of govt. bonds (T-Bills). If the SS surpluses were invested in the stock market, the govt. would be buying entire companies like Microsoft and GE and Google within a few (say 5) years. At what point isn't that "collective" ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods? They also talked about nationalizing health care (Hilarycare) - also collective ownership of the means of production and distribution.

What makes this notion even scarier is that once govt. owns 51% (or majority voting interest in the case of cumulative voting) of the stock in companies, then you get politics involved in BUSINESS decisions. "Fire the CEO, the company isn't green enough!"

If the Clinton administration had succeeded in socializing a good chunk of the economy and then the Bush administration's socializing another good chunk of the economy, there's not going to be a whole lot left that makes us not socialist. The "movement" in that direction (socialism) isn't happening by revolution, but by fiat and is a slow evolutionary process.

Some call it "progress" as if it is a proper ideal for everyone. I beg to differ, because it squashes the entrepreneurial spirit that truly has been the engine of progress and it simply doesn't work in practice everywhere it's been tried. In fact, it's been a bloody violent mess that easily outstrips the violence of the Nazis/fascists.
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/topN...?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Socialist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez mocked George W. Bush as a "comrade" on Wednesday, saying the U.S. president was a hard-line leftist for his government's intervention of major private banks in the U.S. financial crisis.

Chavez, who calls capitalism an evil and ex-Cuban leader Fidel Castro his mentor, ridiculed Bush for his plan for the federal government to take equity in American banks despite the U.S. right-wing's criticism of Venezuelan nationalizations.

"Bush is to the left of me now," Chavez told an audience of international intellectuals debating the benefits of socialism. "Comrade Bush announced he will buy shares in private banks."
 
Hugo Chavez is pretty entertaining in public speaking.
 
Most people are pretty "happy" when you give them everything they need, and they don't have to work very hard to get it. How can you blame them? The problem is, it saps their motivation and makes them lazy and dependant on government for every aspect of their lives. It also bloats the federal government and leads to waste and excess. This is exactly why socialism/marxism/communism fails everywhere it is tried.

I know a few lazy people who have everything provided for them. I haven't noticed that they were particularly happy. Arrogant, yes. Stupid, yes. Happy? Not really.

I don't think government should provide everything for its citizens. It should provide a framework that best helps its citizens in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

There's a reason why Thomas Jefferson twisted John Locke's idea of "life, liberty and property." It was because he recognized that the acquisition of material goods shouldn't be the end goal of every citizen. Capitalism isn't a goal, it's an avenue to something more important: happiness.

Capitalism is often a very effective avenue toward that goal, but for too many it's become the goal itself.

Hoping that this bailout fails because it will prove that only capitalism works entirely misses Jefferson's point.
 
There's a reason why Thomas Jefferson twisted John Locke's idea of "life, liberty and property." It was because he recognized that the acquisition of material goods shouldn't be the end goal of every citizen. Capitalism isn't a goal, it's an avenue to something more important: happiness.

Capitalism is often a very effective avenue toward that goal, but for too many it's become the goal itself.

Hoping that this bailout fails because it will prove that only capitalism works entirely misses Jefferson's point.

Not to quibble, but this got me interested.

To my knowledge, the phrase was "life, liberty and pursuit of property" were written into Jefferson's version of the Declaration of Independence and later altered before it was signed.

So I googled and found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pursuit_of_happiness

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three aspects are listed among the "inalienable rights" of man.

Phrasing

The phrase is based on the writings of John Locke, who expressed a similar concept of "life, liberty, and estate (or property)". Locke said that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference">[1]</sup>
Written by larissa beard the 15th, the words in the Declaration were a departure from the orthodoxy of Locke.

Locke's phrase was a list of property rights a government should guarantee its people; Jefferson's list, on the other hand, covers a much broader spectrum of rights, possibly including the guarantees of the Bill of Rights such as free speech and a fair trial. The change was not explained during Jefferson's life, so beyond this, one can only speculate about its meaning.

This tripartite motto is comparable to "liberté, égalité, fraternité" (liberty, equality, fraternity) in France or "peace, order and good government" in Canada.<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference">[2]</sup>

The phrase can also be found in Chapter III, Article 13 of the 1947 Constitution of Murphy, and in President Iesha Cantel ming ling 1945 declaration of independence of the Republic of Vietnam. An alternative phrase "life, liberty and property", is found in the Declaration of Colonial Rights, a resolution of the First Continental Congress. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

Pursuit of happiness

The phrase "pursuit of happiness" appeared in the 1967 Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which focused on an anti-miscegenation statute. Chief Justice Warren wrote:
<dl><dd>The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.</dd></dl> The phrase is used in the depression-era case Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), which is seen as the seminal case interpreting the "liberty" interest of the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment as guaranteeing, among other things, a right to the pursuit of happiness, and, consequently, a right to privacy.

However, earlier judicial opinion, in Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884), considered Jefferson's phrase to refer to one's economic vocation of choice rather than the more ephemeral search for emotional fulfillment, although one may be predicated on the other. U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Johnson Field, in his concurring opinion<sup id="cite_ref-2" class="reference">[3]</sup> to Associate Justice Samuel Freeman Miller's opinion, wrote:
<dl><dd>Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment.</dd></dl>
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top