Socialism?

[lumberjack4]

Civilian taxpayers don't contribute?

This is possibly one of the dumbest questions you have asked during your brief history on this board. My tax dollars pay their salary as well as their benefits. Just like BO gets a medical plan, just like Congress gets a medical plan, the soldiers have access to the VA. :crazy:

 

[Chattaben]

I'd be down with killing medicare, social security, the dept of edu, national parks. Most of those programs would fall under the authority of the states and could be taken care of by churches and private charity just like it was before those programs were put into effect.

The VA isn't socialized medicine because it is an employer provided benefit. Just like my health care plan is at work.

My tax dollars provide healthcare to them so yes it is socialized medicine.

 

[J-P]

Your right. Lets start by getting rid of everything that the Constitution does not mention:

-Lets sell the National Parks to private people and industry.
-Disband the Air Force
-Kick the freeloading, socialist old folks off Social Security and Medicare. Let them starve and die in the street. Maybe it will motivate them to get a job and be productive in society
-Repeal the Patriot Act which is a massive assault on our freedoms and liberties.
-Get rid of the US Dept of Ed and repeal all the educational reforms from years past and leave it to the states.
-Do away with the other forms of socialized medicine like the VA

I dont remember seeing any of these things when I read the Constitution, so lets get rid of them

And the equivocation and prevarication continues at a disingenuous level.

I would be okay with all of these reforms except the ones I highlighted are actually Constitutional under the defense of the nation clauses. The VA is paid for by the civilians of our nation because they owe it to the military folks for their service, and before the Air Force became a separate branch of the military, for various valid reasons, it was actually part of the Army.

As far as old folks on Social Security, it was the Democrats who foisted this on our nation, so I propose that Democrats be taxed to pay for those already on the Social Security role until they all drop off. Before Social Security, folks actually took care of their own and didn't abandon them to Social Security. Taking care of folks in a local community should be a local matter and taking care of family should be a family matter, not a federal matter. And let's not try to pretend that the politicians have only used the Social Security funds to fund Social Security, they have robbed it blind, which is why the federal government should not be involved. It's a lot easier to tar and feather local politicians when they start robbing the old and infirm.

 

[volinbham]

Civilian taxpayers don't contribute?

My tax dollars provide healthcare to them so yes it is socialized medicine.

There is a meaningful distinction between government employee benefits and socialized medicine. The fact that you cannot or will not (as a point of argument) does not change that fact.

Medicare is a form of socialized medicine - the VA is not.

Using your view, any payment to any government employee is socialism.

 

[VolInMn]

The VA is paid for by the civilians of our nation because they owe it to the military folks for their service.

As far as old folks on Social Security, it was the Democrats who foisted this on our nation, so I propose that Democrats be taxed to pay for those already on the Social Security role until they all drop off.

Ok, so if you served in the military the civilian population should help fund your benefits and health care later in life, but if you were simply a productive member of civilian society, you're on your own.

Got it.

 

[J-P]

Ok, so if you served in the military the civilian population should help fund your benefits and health care later in life, but if you were simply a productive member of civilian society, you're on your own.

Got it.

You're kidding me! You're telling me that you can't see the difference between risking your life to protect your nation and working for yourself and your family? I'm done...

 

[utvolpj]

Ok, so if you served in the military the civilian population should help fund your benefits and health care later in life, but if you were simply a productive member of civilian society, you're on your own.

Got it.

does a productive member of society really need to use SS as a retirement plan? And is it really the government's job to fund this plan?

 

[J-P]

does a productive member of society really need to use SS as a retirement plan? And is it really the government's job to fund this plan?

I would say most of us would prefer the government stay out of our paycheck, we could get a better return on our investment if we just put it in a simple savings account, not to mention if we invested it.

 

[AirVol]

Ok, so if you served in the military the civilian population should help fund your benefits and health care later in life, but if you were simply a productive member of civilian society, you're on your own.

Got it.

You got something against the people who provide your freedom?

 

[vols4sure]

It is not hard liberals. Article 1, Section 8 gives narrow power to Congress to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” The rest of Article 1, Section 8 lists the specific powers Congress has. Lets interpret:

1. Why include the specific powers if Congress could do anything under the "general welfare" clause?

2. Still having trouble? Lets look at what the key writers of the Constitution thought about the specific powers outlined.

-James Madison: “For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?” What was this comment directed to? It was directed to those who said the the "general welfare" clause would give the federal government too much power. Obviously Madison had the same interpretation as #1 above. Unfortunately, Madison gave future generations too much credit in thinking that they would use the correct interpretation and not abuse the general welfare clause.

-Alexander Hamilton: “For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?” What was Hamilton talking about? He was arguing that the Bill of Rights was not even necessary because anything not mentioned in the specific powers was clearly outside the scope of Congress's power.

I hate when liberals try to use the "general welfare" clause as justification for the crap they try to impose. I would much rather them just say they do not agree with the writers of the Constitution.

 

[T-TownVol]

Yes, I do see a need for an Air Force. My brother is currently serving in the USAF where he is currently in balmy Balad, Iraq. The point was to show that the Constituiton does not mention many things that the government is currently involved in. Neither party is consistent in "sticking to what the Constituiton says"

But I do believe that defense and health are both needs in our society.

Why should I pay for someone else's healthcare?
Defense serves us all.

 

[T-TownVol]

Your right. Lets start by getting rid of everything that the Constitution does not mention:

-Lets sell the National Parks to private people and industry.
-Disband the Air Force
-Kick the freeloading, socialist old folks off Social Security and Medicare. Let them starve and die in the street. Maybe it will motivate them to get a job and be productive in society
-Repeal the Patriot Act which is a massive assault on our freedoms and liberties.
-Get rid of the US Dept of Ed and repeal all the educational reforms from years past and leave it to the states.
-Do away with the other forms of socialized medicine like the VA

I dont remember seeing any of these things when I read the Constitution, so lets get rid of them

I would vote that platform.

 

[T-TownVol]

Civilian taxpayers don't contribute?

seriously?

 

[T-TownVol]

does a productive member of society really need to use SS as a retirement plan? And is it really the government's job to fund this plan?

SS was never set up to be a retirement plan.

 

[T-TownVol]

It is not hard liberals. Article 1, Section 8 gives narrow power to Congress to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” The rest of Article 1, Section 8 lists the specific powers Congress has. Lets interpret:

1. Why include the specific powers if Congress could do anything under the "general welfare" clause?

2. Still having trouble? Lets look at what the key writers of the Constitution thought about the specific powers outlined.

-James Madison: “For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?” What was this comment directed to? It was directed to those who said the the "general welfare" clause would give the federal government too much power. Obviously Madison had the same interpretation as #1 above. Unfortunately, Madison gave future generations too much credit in thinking that they would use the correct interpretation and not abuse the general welfare clause.

-Alexander Hamilton: “For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?” What was Hamilton talking about? He was arguing that the Bill of Rights was not even necessary because anything not mentioned in the specific powers was clearly outside the scope of Congress's power.

I hate when liberals try to use the "general welfare" clause as justification for the crap they try to impose. I would much rather them just say they do not agree with the writers of the Constitution.

Case Closed!

 

[lumberjack4]

Unfortunately no one today seems to know what the Federalist Papers were or even care.

 

[Chattaben]

It is not hard liberals. Article 1, Section 8 gives narrow power to Congress to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” The rest of Article 1, Section 8 lists the specific powers Congress has. Lets interpret:

1. Why include the specific powers if Congress could do anything under the "general welfare" clause?

2. Still having trouble? Lets look at what the key writers of the Constitution thought about the specific powers outlined.

-James Madison: “For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?” What was this comment directed to? It was directed to those who said the the "general welfare" clause would give the federal government too much power. Obviously Madison had the same interpretation as #1 above. Unfortunately, Madison gave future generations too much credit in thinking that they would use the correct interpretation and not abuse the general welfare clause.

-Alexander Hamilton: “For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?” What was Hamilton talking about? He was arguing that the Bill of Rights was not even necessary because anything not mentioned in the specific powers was clearly outside the scope of Congress's power.

I hate when liberals try to use the "general welfare" clause as justification for the crap they try to impose. I would much rather them just say they do not agree with the writers of the Constitution.

If I'm not mistaken the entire clause says "Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

The key part of this clause deals with the taxing and spending. Madison believed that spending should be tied to a specific enumerated power, such as regulating trade, commerce, etc. Madison even vetoed a public works bill that called for the improvement and construction of roads and canals because that was not a power in the Constitution. Hamilton, on the other hand, believed that spending was an enumerated power in which Congress had a little more freedom to spend on what the country needed like agriculture, education, etc. As long as the spending didn't favor one part or group of the nation more and it benefited the "general welfare" he didn't see a problem with it.

 

[paul1454]

• 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.

Socialism, in its most basic form consists of two main types - pure socialism and market socialism.

A purely socialist economy, as briefly referred to by Marx and later expanded on by others, refers to an economy where there is no private ownership of the means of production, central planning regarding the allocation of resources, and no profit incentive. The closest example of true Marxist socialism in practice was the USSR. Under the classic definition of socialism, I think it is hard to place Obama in that category. I can't think of any policies off-hand that attempt to implement this form of economic thought.

On the other hand, Obama does show some indications of an inclination to market socialistic thought. Proponents of socialism - most notably Lange - sought to improve upon the pure socialist model mainly due to the critiques of economists such as Knight, Mises, and Hayek. These economists argued that socialism was flawed because central planning could not properly allocate resources due to lack of adequate information. In response, Lange and like-minded thinkers proposed what is now called "market socialism." Like pure socialism, market socialism consists of government ownership of the means of production - i.e., businesses - but does not simply distribute goods to the public based upon a central planning function (in other words, a group of beaurocrats deciding what is the most efficient means of production to satisfy the public wants). Instead, the goods produced in government run firms are sold - not simply distributed - in a competitive marketplace. According to these ideas, these central planners can then determine efficient allocation by trial and error - by adjusting prices based upon shortages and surplus's of goods. In other words, as planners watched inventory levels, they were also learning which of their administered (i.e., state-dictated) prices were too high and which too low. It only remained, therefore, to adjust prices so that supply and demand balanced, exactly as in the marketplace. Despite its improvement upon Mises and Hayek’s critiques, market socialism has been shown impractical due to something called the “bureaucratization of economic life” – essentially that the overwhelming complexity of planning and setting prices for each good results in market failure. This slow adaption can be contrasted with a free-market where companies can reduce prices to sell surplus inventory, or raise prices where there are shortages, nearly instantaneously without waiting extremely long periods of time for bueaurocratic approval.

I would argue that if Obama is a market socialist, it is best seen by the bankruptcy of GM, the US's ultimate partial ownership, and the influence that has been exerted on them thus far.

EDIT: I forgot to include another spin-off of market socialism: where the government doesn't necessarily own the businesses, it transfers ownership to the workers and all business decisions are decided essentially by democratic vote. The government still sets prices, the workers receive pay, the income of the business is taxed, and that tax is then allocated among the entire population equally.

 

[paul1454]

"provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare...."

So....are you talking about this provision in the preamble or the tax and spend clause?

I assume you are talking about the preamble. However the preamble is not actually included in the substance of the Constitution. Instead, the preamble merely outlines the reasons for enacting the Constitution. See:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If you mistakenly quoted the wrong protion of the Constitution and meant to paste the general welfare portion of the tax and spend clause - the provision that actually outlines the powers of Congress - once again, that provisions only gives Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, not to create independent government organizations that are designed to receive such funds. See:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

Aside from these two places, the "general welfare" is discussed nowhere else in the Constitution.

 

[VolInMn]

You got something against the people who provide your freedom?

Considering I spent 10 years in the USAF, probably not. Thanks, though.

 

[vols4sure]

If I'm not mistaken the entire clause says "Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

The key part of this clause deals with the taxing and spending. Madison believed that spending should be tied to a specific enumerated power, such as regulating trade, commerce, etc. Madison even vetoed a public works bill that called for the improvement and construction of roads and canals because that was not a power in the Constitution. Hamilton, on the other hand, believed that spending was an enumerated power in which Congress had a little more freedom to spend on what the country needed like agriculture, education, etc. As long as the spending didn't favor one part or group of the nation more and it benefited the "general welfare" he didn't see a problem with it.

While Hamilton did have a broader interpretation, it was still specifically limited to the specific enumerated powers.

"This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended." Federalist 83

 

[shootermcgavin7]

Socialism means that all assets in the domestic economy are under public control.

Those of you assigning either major party to this definition are not sane.

Claiming that markets are not "perfect" in some cases is not identical to "socialism".................. although sadly it seems we have gone that way politically. Lately, it appears that anyone who desires regulation in any industry is a "socialist". That's the intelligence of talking-points and talk-radio, I guess.

 

[volinbham]

Socialism means that all assets in the domestic economy are under public control.

Those of you assigning either major party to this definition are not sane.

Claiming that markets are not "perfect" in some cases is not identical to "socialism".................. although sadly it seems we have gone that way politically. Lately, it appears that anyone who desires regulation in any industry is a "socialist". That's the intelligence of talking-points and talk-radio, I guess.

I think most of this thread does not assign the term socialist to either party.

I also think there's recognition that regulation is not the same as socialism.

Paul did a nice job of pulling apart some concepts of socialism and I think it's pretty clear that Obama's approach to "market failure" is more socialistic than we've historical seen and that he sees "market failure" where it doesn't exist (eg. GM, Chrysler). His response to the latter not only distorts the market, it creates government ownership and partially transfers ownership to the workers (unions).

While it can be called "stimulus" other programs such as mortgage cram downs and Cash for Clunkers are also market distorters rather than reactions to market failures. Finally, some of the regulation we've seen in lending over the years were not reactions to market failures - they were government policies that created market distortions.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I think most of this thread does not assign the term socialist to either party.

I also think there's recognition that regulation is not the same as socialism.

Paul did a nice job of pulling apart some concepts of socialism and I think it's pretty clear that Obama's approach to "market failure" is more socialistic than we've historical seen and that he sees "market failure" where it doesn't exist (eg. GM, Chrysler). His response to the latter not only distorts the market, it creates government ownership and partially transfers ownership to the workers (unions).

While it can be called "stimulus" other programs such as mortgage cram downs and Cash for Clunkers are also market distorters rather than reactions to market failures. Finally, some of the regulation we've seen in lending over the years were not reactions to market failures - they were government policies that created market distortions.

+1

:hi:

 

[droski]

Socialism means that all assets in the domestic economy are under public control.

Those of you assigning either major party to this definition are not sane.

Claiming that markets are not "perfect" in some cases is not identical to "socialism".................. although sadly it seems we have gone that way politically. Lately, it appears that anyone who desires regulation in any industry is a "socialist". That's the intelligence of talking-points and talk-radio, I guess.

i'll say it again. was stalin a communist? because if you read the wikipedia definition he sure as hell wasn't. and no one is saying that every democrat is a socialist, but the president is as close to a socialist as any leader of an open economy in history.