Socialism?

#1
D

dave956

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
162
Likes
0
#1
• 63% think Obama is a socialist.

What is socialism? Here, from Wikipedia:

Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.

In no way can President Obama intelligently be labeled as a socialist, except maybe the part about people being paid commensurate with the work they do. Period.
(That would be really cool if it happened, but that's for another post, I think).

However, let's assume for fun that the president was a socialist. He would be in very good company. Please open your Bible to Acts 4:32 - Acts 5:11. KJV will do fine if you wish.

If you don't want look it up, the gist of the passage is that members of the apostolic community contributed all they had to the community, taking back only what they needed. The passage continues with a story about a couple who sold some land they owned, but did not give the entire proceeds to the community. When the man went to Peter, Peter knew exactly what had happened and then the man was struck dead by the Lord. The same happened later to his wife.

I know that doesn't really sound like socialism, communism is closer.

Go figure!

If you can make it through Leviticus past the anti-gay stuff and the no football parts, you'll find that a very large proportion of the book is devoted to telling the children of Israel the proper way to treat thew poor, widows, orphans, illegal aliens etc. All I'll say is that no one running on the Levitical platform could be nominated, much less elected in this country.

Pity, I think.
 
#2
#2
giving freely to others and having the government steal your money to give to others are two completely different things.
 
#4
#4
dave956 said:


you'll find that a very large proportion of the book is devoted to telling the children of Israel the proper way to treat thew poor, widows, orphans, illegal aliens etc. All I'll say is that no one running on the Levitical platform could be nominated, much less elected in this country.
Click to expand...


Telling is one thing - using the power of law and government to enact is another.

BTW, I'm not calling Obama socialist per se - just suggesting that Bible verses advocating that those with help out those without is not the same as a system of government that enforces those actions.
 
#6
#6
volinbham said:
Telling is one thing - using the power of law and government to enact is another.

BTW, I'm not calling Obama socialist per se - just suggesting that Bible verses advocating that those with help out those without is not the same as a system of government that enforces those actions.
Click to expand...

Actually in the Acts story, it is Peter who questions the "evildoer" and God who punishes him directly. I think God is about as central government as it gets.

It may be fun to put up, point by point pro/con on socialism. What is it? What isn't it? Do we need more of it or less of it.

Please no drivebys that spout some nonsense and are gone.

I would like to see if we can actually do something enlightening here.

How cool is that? (One point per post, please).

Let the fun begin!:clapping::clapping::clapping:
 
#7
#7
He'd be more of a communist if they let him do what he wants. Saying he is a socialist is letting him off too easy.
 
#9
#9
It appears that some of you define socialism to include taking some share of an earner's money to pay for government programs. Many people refer to things like food stamps or social security or Medicare as "socialism" because of the fact that money is taken from them in the form of taxes to pay for those programs.

Those same people, however, do not seem willing to acknowledge that the exact same thing can be said of a national defense, building highways or sewers, paying for police and fire services, etc.

Now, they will say that the latter are necessary and the former are not. But if they were receiving those services, or living off of social security, they would probably say that such programs are as necessary to them as any other.

Sadly, many people are deluded into thinking that the label of "socialism" is always bad.
 
#10
#10
Government programs that exist for the sole purpose to redistribute wealth is socialism. Paying for a service is different then throwing money down a black hole of "social programs" that takes from the producers and gives to the moochers.
 
#11
#11
as RR said, gov't isn't the solution, its the problem. hmmm...what happened? lets see he cut taxes and reduced govt, and magically the economy started booming. wow
 
#12
#12
dave956 said:
Actually in the Acts story, it is Peter who questions the "evildoer" and God who punishes him directly. I think God is about as central government as it gets.
Click to expand...

Disagree - God is in no way the same as government. There is a clear distinction between a governmental system that actively redistributes wealth on a large scale and takes ownership of many industries.
 
#13
#13
lawgator1 said:
It appears that some of you define socialism to include taking some share of an earner's money to pay for government programs. Many people refer to things like food stamps or social security or Medicare as "socialism" because of the fact that money is taken from them in the form of taxes to pay for those programs.

Those same people, however, do not seem willing to acknowledge that the exact same thing can be said of a national defense, building highways or sewers, paying for police and fire services, etc.

Now, they will say that the latter are necessary and the former are not. But if they were receiving those services, or living off of social security, they would probably say that such programs are as necessary to them as any other.

Sadly, many people are deluded into thinking that the label of "socialism" is always bad.
Click to expand...

There is a distinct between these examples. Some of these entitlements are direct wealth transfers from one individual to another (e.g. welfare). Others are public contributions to public assets (e.g. Interstate system). In the latter, as payer to the asset I can also be user of the asset. In the former if I pay towards welfare I don't receive welfare. If I receive welfare, I don't pay towards welfare.

Entitlements are certainly more socialistic than national defense or public infrastructure spending.
 
#14
#14
We don't have pure capitalism and it's difficult to find pure socialism.

We have socialistic programs in place and those have grown steadily over the last century.

I think it's fair to say Obama is more socialistic than other recent presidents. He views government programs as more of a solution and driving force in an economic system relative to the private sector than other recent presidents.

Does that make him a socialist? Probably not. Does he embrace some socialistic ideals? Absolutely. If he is successful in pushing his preferred agenda will we be more socialistic or have more socialistic programs than ever? Absolutely.
 
#16
#16
VolInMn said:
Do you consider unemployment benefits as entitlements?
Click to expand...

Yes. I haven't said all entitlements are bad or that we shouldn't have any entitlements. Given my druthers, I'd opt for temporary entitlements over permanent entitlements any time.

I do think we are getting a little out of control with unemployment benefits. I have 2 friends receiving them an they both can receive them for over 1 year! I can tell you that it has reduced their motivation some to go get just any job and made them very selective. Both of these people are motivated workers too.
 
#17
#17
Vol Mania 21 said:
as RR said, gov't isn't the solution, its the problem. hmmm...what happened? lets see he cut taxes and reduced govt, and magically the economy started booming. wow
Click to expand...


Sorry, but Reagan had to institute what was then the largest tax increase in history in order to make up for his original tax cuts. Interengly, the cuts for the superrich stayed in place. This along with insane defense spending reulted in tripling of the national debt.

Smaller government? Please...
 
#18
#18
lumberjack4 said:
Government programs that exist for the sole purpose to redistribute wealth is socialism. Paying for a service is different then throwing money down a black hole of "social programs" that takes from the producers and gives to the moochers.
Click to expand...


In the sense that we depend on others to provide a national defense for us, we are all moochers.

Now, I agree with you that there is tremendous waste in the social programs. I agree with you that there is fraud in them. I even agree with you that there are valid philosophical and policy objections to those programs.

What I do not agree with is the practice of many -- consciously or not -- to segment those programs off as "socialism" based on a taxation system when, in reality, if that were the definition of socialism then so much more falls into it.




volinbham said:
There is a distinct between these examples. Some of these entitlements are direct wealth transfers from one individual to another (e.g. welfare). Others are public contributions to public assets (e.g. Interstate system). In the latter, as payer to the asset I can also be user of the asset. In the former if I pay towards welfare I don't receive welfare. If I receive welfare, I don't pay towards welfare.

Entitlements are certainly more socialistic than national defense or public infrastructure spending.
Click to expand...


The use of the word "entitlement" is where you lose the argument. No one has an "entitlement" to any program. Our policymakers have simply enacted laws that create an expectation in them.

They could change that law tomorrow.

But "entitlement" sounds good to the far right as a way to demean the programs. It has found its way into the lexicon of the discussion, even though it is not technically correct.

Again, I do recognize the validity of the arguments mentioned above. I just resent the oversimplification of that debate by use of labels that are really incorrect.


volinbham said:
We don't have pure capitalism and it's difficult to find pure socialism.

We have socialistic programs in place and those have grown steadily over the last century.

I think it's fair to say Obama is more socialistic than other recent presidents. He views government programs as more of a solution and driving force in an economic system relative to the private sector than other recent presidents.

Does that make him a socialist? Probably not. Does he embrace some socialistic ideals? Absolutely. If he is successful in pushing his preferred agenda will we be more socialistic or have more socialistic programs
than ever? Absolutely.
Click to expand...


I don't really disagree with any of that. Its a matter of degree and where you spend the loot. Even George Bush, Reagan, etc., are socialists in some sense.




volinbham said:
Yes. I haven't said all entitlements are bad or that we shouldn't have any entitlements. Given my druthers, I'd opt for temporary entitlements over permanent entitlements any time.

I do think we are getting a little out of control with unemployment benefits. I have 2 friends receiving them an they both can receive them for over 1 year! I can tell you that it has reduced their motivation some to go get just any job and made them very selective. Both of these people are motivated workers too.
Click to expand...


I have that same experience with a friend of mine, although $250 a week or whatever it is wouldn't affect my motivation, that's for sure.
 
#19
#19
lawgator1 said:
The use of the word "entitlement" is where you lose the argument. No one has an "entitlement" to any program. Our policymakers have simply enacted laws that create an expectation in them.

People are entitled to these programs based on the laws enacted. They are government programs designed to move tax payer dollars to specific individuals.

They could change that law tomorrow.

Of course they can but that does not change the fact that:

1) they are distinct from public asset use of tax funds (including military spending)

2) they are more socialistic since they are direct wealth transfers from individual to individual


But "entitlement" sounds good to the far right as a way to demean the programs. It has found its way into the lexicon of the discussion, even though it is not technically correct.

Again, I do recognize the validity of the arguments mentioned above. I just resent the oversimplification of that debate by use of labels that are really incorrect.

Look at any Federal Budget - it is the word used! Obama uses it regularly. Is he a righty trying to demonize the programs? Sheesh.







I don't really disagree with any of that. Its a matter of degree and where you spend the loot. Even George Bush, Reagan, etc., are socialists in some sense.

Not socialists - I don't think Obama is a socialist per se. I do believe he is considerably more socialistic than either of these based on the programs he pushes.


I have that same experience with a friend of mine, although $250 a week or whatever it is wouldn't affect my motivation, that's for sure.
Click to expand...

Probably wouldn't affect motivation in the short term but they are "learning to live" on the new income level. The longer they are out of work, the more selective they are becoming. Interesting phenomena but not surprising. Hooray for unintended consequences!
 
#20
#20
lawgator1 said:
In the sense that we depend on others to provide a national defense for us, we are all moochers.
Click to expand...

I would argue that national defense is no difference from police and fire protection. I pay taxes to be protected by these entities just the same as I pay taxes to be protected from terrorists and foreign armies. I have no problems paying taxes to pay for things that makes sense (things I benefit from, things I get some form of a return on), but the social programs generally go to people that get something for nothing while I get nothing for something.
 
#22
#22
droski said:
thank god we have wikipedia to tell us the truth.
Click to expand...

I was also thinking that definition from Wikipedia seemed weak, but I don't have time right now to do the research and compare it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top