Socialism, Demorats and Obummer

Discussion in 'Politics' started by mosquitomountainman, Apr 8, 2010.

  1. mosquitomountainman

    mosquitomountainman I invented the internet. :rofl:

    3,698
    70
    Socialism
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    "...Modern social democrats also promote tax-funded welfare programs and regulation of markets; many, particularly in European welfare states, refer to themselves as socialists, despite holding pro-capitalist viewpoints, thus adding ambiguity to the meaning of the term 'socialist'. ..."

    Been reading the news a bit and there seems to be a lot of argument over whether the current ruling party are Socialists. So ... I went to Wikipedia to see their definition of socialism. The above quote is an excerpt of their article.

    While most of the article defines socialism as government or employee owned business there is an aspect of the socialistic desires of the current administration. With the stock holding conditions of some of the gov't. bailouts of private industry it would seem obvious that the term "socialist" would apply to the party in power.
     
  2. Asatrur

    Asatrur Well-Known Member

    444
    0
    While I am no fan of Obummer, please remember that government does not turn on a dime and we have been going down hill for a very long time not just since he took office. Our last administration started the bailouts, and clinton did nothing but promote living beyond your means, and the list could go on as we go back in history quite a ways.
     

  3. allen_idaho

    allen_idaho Well-Known Member

    348
    0
    Now that depends. Soviet Russia was a socialist nation. China currently is a socialist nation. Are we anything like them?
     
  4. mosquitomountainman

    mosquitomountainman I invented the internet. :rofl:

    3,698
    70
    I don't believe we are totally socialist as they were/are but I wonder at the direction we are going. When the gov't. owns shares in auto manufacturing and the emphasis upon equalizing/redistributing wealth through taxes, increased gov't control of private industry and add in the emphasis on social programs it would be difficult to deny that we are moving more toward socialism than away from it.

    Under socialism they strive for equal pay for equal hours of work. Here the administration and a large segment of the population will allow some to make more money but then want to take it away in the form of taxes.

    The sad thing is that Russia learned the pitfalls of socialism and attempted to correct it. The current administration and the demorat majority seem to be embracing socialism.
     
  5. kogneto

    kogneto The Skeptic

    280
    0
    As for the government owning portions of automakers, I had thought the original intent was to pay back the government the TARP money they owed. But GM just posted a 4.3 billion dollar loss in the second half of 09. It makes me wonder if they can't pay back the 57 billion, what exactly happens to that money?

    As for "equal pay for equal hours of work" do you mean 1 flat pay-rate or do you mean the distinction in pay between men and women?

    I think there are tenets of socialism that make sense but I think the theory is based on the idea that people aren't ruthless, bloodsucking, backstabbing, a-holes, which nature and evolution have gifted us so fully with.

    The ideas of communism and socialism are based on the idea that all things considered we'll work together, instead of against each other, and that usually isn't the case. Well that and the leaders of these movements tend to enjoy the bourgeoisie lifestyle while at the same time decrying it. Do I think something similar is happening in the DC? Yes. Do I blame Obama for it? No. And if anything, since passing healthcare Obama's teetered on both sides of the coin proving he's not beheld to one interest or mindset.
     
  6. Asatrur

    Asatrur Well-Known Member

    444
    0
    Not picking on you just the statement, but please remember the gubbernment does not own anything. In reality our kids and their kids do since they really paying for it!


     
  7. Vertigo

    Vertigo Member

    265
    0
    Exactly, in and of itself, communism or a similar dictatorship (where the welfare of the state is above everything else, not the individual) is the absolute best and most efficient government one can imagine... BUT only if one completely eliminates the human factor. Because this style of government goes against almost every natural drive a human being has.

    That is the main reason these types of government just do not work in the long run. Eventually they will fall.

    It is therefore better to take into account that some people will always do what people do and keep a maximum of freedom and attention on the individual, not the state.

    V.
     
  8. Bigdog57

    Bigdog57 Adventurer at large

    541
    0
    Please tell us you say this in jest - you simply cannot be serious. :eek:

    True pure Communism is merely a streamlined and organised form of Anarchy.

    Of course, true pure Democracy is as bad - simple Mob Rule.

    I pray we never have either.
     
  9. mosquitomountainman

    mosquitomountainman I invented the internet. :rofl:

    3,698
    70
    Communism and socialism were both doomed to failure because they are founded on a false premise: that the individual is inherently good and will therefore do/choose good when the opportunity presents itself. It was spawned by two things. First: the repressive abuse of power by the aristocracy. Second: new socialogical theories that "contradicted" the long held "religious" beliefs that man was inherently evil/self-centered and society must exert external control to keep order.

    Naturally, those in power wanted to keep that power and looked down on the uneducated masses as being too stupid to make their own decisions or to handle self-rule. Kind of like the current administration which believes they are doing the right thing and if we'd just listen to them we'd understand that THEY know what's best for us and just accept it.
     
  10. Vertigo

    Vertigo Member

    265
    0
    I hope you read the rest of that sentence....
     
  11. mosquitomountainman

    mosquitomountainman I invented the internet. :rofl:

    3,698
    70
    Perhaps you could explain what makes them the "best and most efficient government"?
     
  12. sailaway

    sailaway Well-Known Member

    1,922
    0
    The Best gubbermint is gubbermint from the top to the bottom in a give world instead of a get world. In America and other countries we have gubbermint from the bottom to the top back to the bottom in a get world instead of a give world.
    A pastor at church once told me our object to materialism is to get all we can, can all we get and then sit on the can so nobody can get it.
     
  13. pdx210

    pdx210 Well-Known Member

    320
    0
    you are given an option which is an illusion....

    Democrat or Republican

    this illusion works by fulfilling the emotional needs of disenfranchised citizens to blame the other thereby keeping citizens confused and two sides polarized.

    the only real difference is socially both are liberal spenders, create larger government, and work at odds with citizens
     
  14. kogneto

    kogneto The Skeptic

    280
    0
    But isn't that pastor's view of materialism expressing the very act of prepping?
     
  15. Bigdog57

    Bigdog57 Adventurer at large

    541
    0
    All forms of Government come down, at the end of the day, to pure naked force exerted against the Governed by the Government. All else is details...... ;)
     
  16. NORTH

    NORTH Active Member

    30
    0
    I really don't believe that our founding fathers envisioned the all consuming, ever regulating, self destructing, up our a$$ government that we have today. I think that if our F.F. were to see what the gov has become they would probably sound a call to arms!

    IMO, I don't think Congress should be a full time job! Let em work part time and maybe work full time at jiffy lube or something, maybe then they wouldn't think themselves above all others! Better yet, make congress seats to be filled by a lottery drawing, your social sec number pops up, your a congressman! serve a 5 or 6 year term and have a small pension and go back to your life. Who better to legislate and decide whats best for us than US!
    I know, but I can dream, right?
     
  17. Bigdog57

    Bigdog57 Adventurer at large

    541
    0
    Indeed, the founders all kept their "day jobs", and saw public service as a duty, not a profession. They came into session when the harvest was in, or at a time when the members could take the time to travel - remember in those days a hundred mile trip to the Capitol could take twor or three days! So they did it only when necessary. Sycophants like Madame Speaker Pelosi would hate that system....... ;)
     
  18. kogneto

    kogneto The Skeptic

    280
    0
    BigDog if you lived in the 1770's you'd hate that system too.

    Short lifespan, no readily available healthcare, no cars, it may have sounded like the good ol' days but even the most fervent of preppers still relies on todays technology to function

    As for government jobs, I'd say it's an issue of accountability. You may say they're all in the pocket of big corporations, but if they are employees of these big corporations it alot harder to hold them accountable if you have to worry about losing your job.

    Most of these people do have "jobs" outside the whitehouse, in the form of speaking engagements and the like, but I don't agree that they should be part-time representatives.
     
  19. faithmarie

    faithmarie mamoo

    2,746
    1
    I think all these government jobs should be volunteer and without pay. And you can't say .. then only the rich will get the jobs.... they do anyway.