What is Socialism?, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 1-11-2008 @ 07:51 PM by grover
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


Well ya know there are different ways of doing everything including making something part of the federal government.

I don't know all of his plans but I have seen quite a few programs started on the federal level then passed down to the local level once they were up and running... the feds provided the seed money as it were.

TAP is a prime example of the... and in a lot of ways HUD is too... but perhaps that those are too large for my argument but I think that you might get my drift.


reply posted on 1-11-2008 @ 08:06 PM by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by grover


No, not really. Socialism's goal is to make everybody equal. When Social Security was implemented it was supposed to be made private when it got up and running.

I just edited my last post to include this.

The term "community organizer" was a term that was invented by Saul Alinsky. Saul Alinsky was a communist guru. In his book Rules For Radicals he compared himself to Satan.

Also why did Obama seek out Marxist professors and friends when he was in college? Him being a socialist would explain why went to Chicago to start a career in politics because Saul Alisnky was from and lived in Chicago. It also makes sense that he would gravitate to a more socialist/communist mentality since he grew up on food stamps, while he went to a private school, and his mother attended school to get a PH.d.

I mean he was the editor of Harvard Law Review, and could have gotten a job at any law firm in the country, he could have also been a clerk at the supreme court, in Washington.

So I guess what I'm having a hard time understanding is that everything in his background screams socialist even his policies. But people are saying that he isn't a socialist, and even getting down to the point of screaming at each other.

I don't think anybody is getting a straight answer. It almost seems like the word "socialism" is an enigma. It is like it's definition changes depending on who you are attempting to apply it too.


reply posted on 1-11-2008 @ 08:19 PM by TheRedneck
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
Well why does he believe in spreading the wealth around?

That is a single comment that is being used by his political opponents to vilify him. If poor people were to get better-paying jobs in a better economy, would that not be a way to 'spread wealth'? And yet it would be capitalism, not socialism.

Why does he believe increasing the amount of welfare support?

That one idea would have socialistic leanings, true. I hadn't heard it before, however, so can I get a source?

Why does he believe that everybody should volunteer their time regardless their walk of life?
Why does he believe in 'voluntary' community service for kids aged from 14-24?

The key word here is 'volunteer', as opposed to 'mandatory' which would be the case in a socialistic approach. Volunteer work cannot be mandated or it would no longer be voluntary. Therefore it cannot be socialism.

Why does he believe in extending public education to include zero-to-five education?

Another idea I have not heard of from him, but should it be true, I would assume it has something to do with the fact that our present educational system receives abysmal results compared to the rest of the civilized world.

Why does he believe in raising taxes on the rich just because it's 'fair'?

I could write a library on this one subject, but let me just point you to another post of mine that explains my position on taxes.

Why does he want to implement a whole lot of new social programs for volunteer work?

Again, volunteer work. Not mandatory, and therefore not socialism. Charity, perhaps?

This is a good example of how easily ideas can become ingrained. In the list above, you pointed out 2 or 3 points that could be attributable to socialistic views, and of those, all could be argued to actually be good for the economy and the country. Yet, the fact that they might be lumped together and called 'socialism' means they must somehow be evil or disastrous.

I'm sure to those who disagree with Obama's policies for any reason whatsoever, they are disastrous.

TheRedneck



reply posted on 1-11-2008 @ 08:31 PM by Lanimilbus
reply to post by kettlebellysmith


I think if the next president [insert name here] proposed a flat tax for everyone (people and businesses), it would be equal to "spreading the wealth". Seems like no one wants to face the fact, but the wealthy control the world. They control the congress with their lobbyist groups. They have tax loop-holes and shelters that mean they don't pay their share of the tax burden. A flat tax would at least make everyone whine in unison.


reply posted on 1-11-2008 @ 08:44 PM by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by TheRedneck


I got all those from his website. www.barackobama.com...

What I'm getting at is that to get his $4000 dollar tax credit for college you have to do community service. In order to graduate high school you have to do community service. It is no longer voluntary and it is no longer community service. So what would you classify that under?


reply posted on 1-11-2008 @ 09:10 PM by TheRedneck
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

I like the idea of being able to get a scholarship for college via volunteer community service, but I was unaware of the plan to require it to graduate from high school. The former I would agree with, as it will not only increase college availability (yes, that's a socialist attitude ) but will still require something form those who benefit (which is still socialist, but with traces of capitalism as well... work for what you get). The latter I don't like the sound of at first glance, as it is a requirement that all children attend high school (until age 16).

Methinks I need to search through the guy's website a bit more...

TheRedneck


reply posted on 3-11-2008 @ 10:10 AM by PoliticalRevolutionUND
Originally posted by grover

There has been a huge amount of noise from the right as well as the McCain camp that Barack Obama is a socialist because he said that he wanted to "spread the wealth around" which has been grossly taken out of context.

His whole comment was:

It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."


And the only way the right and McCain has been able to get away with claiming that Obama is a socialist is because as is with so many things outside of our boundaries and ourselves, Americans as a rule are profoundly ignorant.

For example few if any know that Marx was not a communist... he was hired by the Communist party to write their platform aka "The Communist Manifesto" he seriously disagreed with them on many points but hey money is money.

Also Marx would not be you call a Marxist in that he was far less rigid than his later followers, in short he was not dogmatic as so many Marxists are.

There are many forms of socialism and most nations practice so aspect of it as a rule, nor is socialism inherently antithetical to capitalism... many if not most of the nations of the EU are socialist and capitalist at the same time.

Finally What Obama said in essence is that the more people benefit the better society in general is... in short its better for the wealth to be spread around as opposed to being concentrated in the hands of a few.

All taxation is spreading the wealth around, just as bushes tax cuts concentrated it into the hands of the few.

Which now is better for society in general?

en.wikipedia.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 1-11-2008 by grover]


First off, I am new here. Hi. Second, that is a damn good post. But I gotta say this:
To me, it does sound just a little socialistic. The government needs to downsize, not get bigger. And I will be damned if the government tells me how to spend my own damn cash. I worked hard for it and I will spend it as I see fit, not the government telling me to "spread it around" so that others can have a chance. It sounds good but its really not. Its just another way for the Big Government to take more control.



reply posted on 3-11-2008 @ 12:35 PM by grover
Originally posted by PoliticalRevolutionUND
First off, I am new here. Hi. Second, that is a damn good post. But I gotta say this:
To me, it does sound just a little socialistic. The government needs to downsize, not get bigger. And I will be damned if the government tells me how to spend my own damn cash. I worked hard for it and I will spend it as I see fit, not the government telling me to "spread it around" so that others can have a chance. It sounds good but its really not. Its just another way for the Big Government to take more control.


Thanks.

Let me try to answer you by saying this.

First off no one is going to try and tell you how to spend your money.

Second would it make more sense to you if he had said for example... expanding the middle class or increasing prosperity to more people? Because in essence that is exactly what he is saying... McCain has made it sound like he wants to take your money and give it to someone else (and by implication, someone less deserving) and that is not what he said or meant at all.

Third with all the problems facing us as a nation ranging from the Social Security/medicare fiasco looming to the financial crisis, to the environmental issues we must deal with, our crumbling infrastructure, the international political issues we face to have either candidate claim that they are going to cut taxes is irresponsible... we need more money to address these issues and more or we are up the creek without a paddle.

A cash starved government is a disfunctional and crumbling government, one that cannot do what it needs to adequately and so cannot properly serve the needs of the nation and if someone tells you otherwise they are lying.


reply posted on 3-11-2008 @ 12:55 PM by Rook1545
Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by TheRedneck


I got all those from his website. www.barackobama.com...

What I'm getting at is that to get his $4000 dollar tax credit for college you have to do community service. In order to graduate high school you have to do community service. It is no longer voluntary and it is no longer community service. So what would you classify that under?


I don't know...I kind of think that is a good idea. Maybe it would teach alot of the punk kids we have running around now a thing or two about humility. Maybe it would lead to people being alot more civil to each other. If nothing else it would break down isolationist attitude alot of kids have now a days and show them a bit more of their community and how other people live.


reply posted on 3-11-2008 @ 01:52 PM by PoliticalRevolutionUND
reply to post by grover


I don't know. Obama being socialist is my opinion. And spreading the wealth is no different from redistributing it in my book. Just recently Joe Biden and the NM govenor lowered the middle class income to those making $150,000...half of the original $250,000. How low is it gonna go before they can settle on what "middle class" really is?

Watch the video

Also, what about Obama and the socialist New Party?

Read Obama and the Socialist New Party

So I don't have a say as to where my cash is going? I will NEVER support abortion but I guess I won't have much of a choice...or anyone else. I am sorry but to me...Obama is a socialist.

And one more thing, about that medicare:

Obama's Health Care Plan covers Abortion and Would Require Tax Funding

[edit on 3-11-2008 by PoliticalRevolutionUND]

[edit on 3-11-2008 by PoliticalRevolutionUND]
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^