A democratic Socialist agenda?

[MBuzzy]

Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.

Socialism refers to the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by collective ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history, due to this, socialism has been attributed to communism mainly because of the distribution of the wealth controlled as a whole and not individually.

The Democrats lean towards a socialist government. This reduces individual freedom and productivity by taxing the working people more to pay for social programs. Programs are fine, but the government has bankrupted social security and Medicare, and has a history of mismanaging other well meaning programs. In fact, only 21 cents of each dollar paid in to SS actually reaches a retired recipient. Government doesn't manage finances well as those $1,000 hammers clearly show. So, there are those people who look to their governments to become mom and dad (and offer complete control), and there are those who rather pull their own weight and keep government out of their personal lives.

I figured that I would break this topic out, since it has nothing to do with ACORN and I would like to see it discussed a bit more by out passionate and informed membership.

I agree that there are a lot of "socialist looking" ideas in some of Obama's plans. For example, the comment about "redistributing wealth." Now, I think that in that case, the phrase itself is what tends to bring about visions of socialism....but the ideas that Obama is touting are not socialist....they are just a step on that road. He is by no means proposing an egalitarian society. As for Health care, personnally....I don't WANT a $5000 credit. I want rates to go down and an opportunity for anyone to get it. The whole idea of "I'm paying for someone else's health care" IMO is not a good argument....you're paying for it anyway. When those people get sick, they end up in free clinics, or in hospitals who are forbidden by law to turn them away....and guess who ends up supporting those programs anyway, the government and the taxpayer. At least with the system that Obama is really talking about (not the one that everyone else seems to think), they are paying for their healthcare, just at lower rates. Basically people who couldn't afford it get the same coverage that me and every other member of the military and civil service gets - a version of TRICARE.

I personally feel that the Government should provide some social programs. I'm not talking about "give according to needs and provide according to abilities" but help for the needy, educational "nudges," research funding, agricultural subsidies. Every government has some level of social programs and I personally dont' believe that it is a very slippery slope. It isn't like if you give too many social programs to the people then *POOF* you're socialist! Honestly, there are just always going to be people who need the government to hold their hand and if that goes away, then they become the problem of the people anyway....as either homeless or low income or in the worst case scenario, criminal.

So last point here is that just by looking a little socialist, doesn't make you socialist. A few minor programs and policies are just that. A truly socialist government includes total control of manufacturing, egalitarian ideas, and a slew of other broad and far reaching ideas. I really think that we are safely far far away from ever becoming socialist.

And anyway......we still don't know what the best system of government is and what mix of capitalism/socialism/________ism might work.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Jefferson's views were pretty clear on the topic.

"The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the function he is competent to. Let the National Government be entrusted with the defence of the nation and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1816. ME 14:421

"Many are the exercises of power reserved to the States wherein a uniformity of proceeding would be advantageous to all. Such are quarantines, health laws, regulations of the press, banking institutions, training militia, etc., etc." --Thomas Jefferson to James Sullivan, 1807. ME 11:237

As is seen in the 2 quotes above, much of the current bloat and social programs currently operated by the federal government is not it's job.

A national health care program, retirement program, etc, are at opposites of what Jefferson believed in.

The same Thomas Jefferson who was a key founder the Democratic Party.


There is the European democratic socialism – a capitalist economy with a socialist social-services system.

Winston Churchill in an electoral broadcast prior to the British general election of 1945 stated:

. . . a socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.

Historically, socialism has been shown to be a failure, however the lesson is often fast forgotten it seems.


The role of the Federal government in the US however, by the Constitution is clear:
The powers of the federal government as a whole are limited by the Constitution, which, per the Tenth Amendment, gives all power not directed to the National government, to the State level.

- The Constitution grants numerous powers to Congress. These include the powers: to levy and collect taxes, provide for common defense and promote the pursuit of liberty; to coin money and regulate its value; provide for punishment for counterfeiting; establish post offices and roads, promote progress of science, create courts inferior to the Supreme Court, define and punish piracies and felonies, declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, make rules for the regulation of land and naval forces, provide for, arm, and discipline the militia, exercise exclusive legislation in the District of Columbia, and make laws necessary and proper to execute the powers of Congress.

- The Executive branch consists of the President and his delegates. The President is both the head of state and government, as well as the military commander-in-chief (only when called into actual military services), chief diplomat and chief of party. The President, according to the Constitution, must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The President presides over the executive branch of the federal government, a vast organization numbering about 4 million people, including 1 million active-duty military personnel.

The President may sign legislation passed by Congress into law, or may veto it, preventing it from becoming law unless two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to override his veto. The President may, with the consent of two-thirds of the Senate, make treaties with foreign nations. The President may be impeached by a majority in the House and removed from office by a two-thirds majority in the Senate for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." The President may not dissolve Congress or call special elections, but does have the power to pardon, or release, criminals convicted of offenses against the federal government (except in cases of impeachment), enact executive orders, and (with the consent of the Senate) appoint Supreme Court justices and federal judges with the Senate's aproval.

- Judicial Branch - The judicial power extends to cases arising under the Constitution, an Act of Congress, or a U.S. treaty; cases affecting ambassadors, ministers, and consuls of foreign countries in the U.S.; controversies in which the U.S. government is a party; controversies between states (or their citizens) and foreign nations (or their citizens or subjects); and bankruptcy cases. The Eleventh Amendment removed from federal jurisdiction cases in which citizens of one state were the plaintiffs and the government of another state was the defendant. It did not disturb federal jurisdiction in cases in which a state government is a plaintiff and a citizen of another state the defendant.

The power of the federal courts extends both to civil actions for damages and other redress, and to criminal cases arising under federal law. Article III has resulted in a complex set of relationships between state and federal courts. Ordinarily, federal courts do not hear cases arising under the laws of individual states. However, some cases over which federal courts have jurisdiction may also be heard and decided by state courts. Both court systems thus have exclusive jurisdiction in some areas and concurrent jurisdiction in others.

The Constitution safeguards judicial independence by providing that federal judges shall hold office "during good behaviour"; in practice, this usually means they serve until they die, retire, or resign. A judge who commits an offence whilst in office may be impeached in the same way as the President or other officials of the federal government. U.S. judges are appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the Senate. Another Constitutional provision prohibits Congress from reducing the pay of any judge. Congress is able to set a lower salary for all future judges that take office after the reduction, but may not decrease the rate of pay for judges already in office.

(All descriptions from Wikipedia)
​

Nothing in the powers granted to the Federal government by the Constitution cover things like national welfare, healthcare, or the great deal of social programs currently in effect or proposed by the democratic candidates for future implementation. Reading through the Obama-Biden platform, one sees dozens of new "programs" to be created, dozens of new requirements of employers that will force new obligations and restrictions on them, and further erode their profitability.

Historically, they are mismanaged, bloated, and inefficient systems that do little for the people, other than create layer upon layer of bureaucracy to wade through.

One only has to look at the mess that is the Canadian health system to see the failings in a Socialist medical program.

The Obama-Biden platform is rife with government intrusion into the lives of the people, a complete departure from Jefferson's idea of a minimalist federal presence.


In short, socialism is a key part of the democratic party platform, and a major departure from the parties routes.

 

[Archangel M]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...rticle4952909.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

During the encounter in Ohio, Mr Wurzelbacher had asked the Democrat:"Your new tax plan is going tax me more, isn't it?"

The Illinois senator answered: "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 to success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Two days later, invited on to Fox News to discuss the conversation, the plumber said:"His answer actually scared me even more.

"Robin Hood stole from greedy rich people and redistributed it to the peasants, so to speak, so if he's calling us peasants, I kind of resent that," he said.

"He said he wants to distribute wealth. And I mean, I'm not trying to make statements here, but, I mean, that's kind of a socialist viewpoint. You know, I work for that. You know, it's my discretion who I want to give my money to, it's not the government decide that I make a little too much and so I need to share it with other people. I just -- that's not the American Dream.

He added that the American Dream for him was "you work hard. You're going to get what you want eventually."

It would have been clearer to say "yes, Im gonna tax the hell out of you."

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I think the question "Who Stole The American Dream?" is a good one for a new thread.

 

[Archangel M]

And what has the media done?

Looked into "Joe the Plumber" instead of into that lame response.

Its pathetic.


It may just "be me", but Ive noticed that there has been a shift in a lot of Liberal Democrat statements from "we arent socialists" to "Socialism isnt so bad, we already have it and we just want to add a little bit more".

 

[MBuzzy]

I think that both parties are shifting gradually closer to their respective extremes.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Maybe it's time to close up shop, apply for welfare, wic, foodstamps, medicaid, heap, and that other thing where the government pays your rent for you. I'll sit here and watch Scooby Doo til I die then.

 

[Archangel M]

Eating gvt cheese i assume?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The finest my food stamps can buy!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Unfortunately, while you could probably balance the budget and create hundreds in billions in surplus funds by cutting all these social programs, we've now got several generations used to depending on them. Retraining the American people to stand on their own two feet is going to take years, require serious sacrifice on the part of our elected officials, and be a very difficult sell.

 

[Archangel M]

There does need to be some sort of emergency aid. The problem is the inevitable "mission creep".

 

[Bob Hubbard]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...rticle4952909.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2



It would have been clearer to say "yes, Im gonna tax the hell out of you."

[yt]owA2geM8OGg[/yt]

The follow up -

[yt]JDVM7ODUBn8[/yt]

The finest my food stamps can buy!

Hmm, someone isn't eating govm't cheese. I want some $150 caviar. (btw, this is about a teaspoons worth)

According to Michelle Obama, “The truth is, in order to get things like Universal Health Care and a revamped Education System, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of the pie so that someone else can have more.”

Oh, really? Who is the someone who gives up a piece of the pie?
On October, 15,2008, Michelle Obama spent $447.39 on room service (for 2) at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel for an afternoon snack of Lobster Hors D’Oeuvres ($50.00), Whole Steamed Lobsters (100.00), Iranian Osetra Caviar ($150.00), and Bollinger Champagne ($44.00)

See the Michelle Obama wealth redistribution quote below, and the enlarged receipt for the sumptuous snack, signed by Michelle Obama.

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/...elle-obama-spent-44739-on-an-afternoon-snack/

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The idea of redistribution of wealth:
You make $100.
I make $0.
Government takes $50 from you, gives to me, we both now have $50 each.

What the Obama plan is, is Income Redistribution through the tax plan. This is a Forced transfer of wealth. See also, Theft. A better system is one where wealth is moved not by requirement, but by will.

We can of course extend this to a Property Redistribution system. This is a system where those who have assets see them siezed, and distributed among those who lack them. Property redistribution can take various forms such as direct confiscation or taxation or regulations ordering owners to make their property available to others.

Regardless of what you call it, theft is theft, and it is not what this country was founded upon.

I work hard, save my money. It's not fair to see that taken and handed to those who did neither. If I were a farmer, sweating long hours in the field, storing, canning and freezing come harvest time, it should be my choice, not the governments to take part of that stored food and pass out to others. More bluntly, you have a healthy sex life. Should your partner be required to provide for your neighbor who hasn't had a date in years? I think not.

A socialistic policy is a divisive one, one that rewards lazyness and failure while punishing achievers and go getters. All for the "Glorious Good of the People".

 

[shesulsa]

Sidebar:

Bill O'Reilly appeared on the View today and just said:

Sometimes Socialism is good!

This speaks - throwing partisanship aside - to the fact that our government was designed to take some of the best serving parts of other governing structures to work together in this experiment that is the USA. One of those elements is the socialist nature of taxation and general welfare. These elements are part of what has made America strong in some ways yet also bratty in others.

More later.

 

[theletch1]

Maybe it's time to close up shop, apply for welfare, wic, foodstamps, medicaid, heap, and that other thing where the government pays your rent for you. I'll sit here and watch Scooby Doo til I die then.

I've had three people in the last few weeks respond to my comment that my or their job "Beats unemployment" with something along the lines of "Like hell it does. At least on unemployment I could sit home and watch tv and get a check." That mindset bothers me. It bothers me a great deal. I could not look my wife in the eyes knowing that I was capable of working but chose to sit on my *** and sponge off of the government (read taxpayers). If our social programs were truly used only by those that needed them then I'd have no problem with them. The trouble is that far too many people in this country have developed the "The gov't owes it to me" attitude that Bob has joked about here and are bleeding the system dry. Why is that? It's a serious question. Are people truly just lazy? What has happened to create this mentality that seems so foreign to me?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Maybe the answer to my question about "Who Stole The American Dream" is, the growth of lazy American's who prefer to sit on their asses and collect "free" money rather than go out and earn it. Don't believe me, go work the evening shift at McDonalds or BK with the high school crowd.

 

[MBuzzy]

Sidebar:

Bill O'Reilly appeared on the View today and just said:


This speaks - throwing partisanship aside - to the fact that our government was designed to take some of the best serving parts of other governing structures to work together in this experiment that is the USA. One of those elements is the socialist nature of taxation and general welfare. These elements are part of what has made America strong in some ways yet also bratty in others.

More later.

By extension....if the government is really "run by the people" (which I don't necessarily agree with) then maybe this is what the masses want. As Letch just said....people WANT to sit on their butts and collect a check....

 

[Bob Hubbard]

People forget, it's not the governments money, it's ours. They think it's "that other guy's".
"The spear in the Other's heart is the spear in your Own: You are He."

 

[Archangel M]

Going around the net. Havent checked it for accuracy, but...

Just thought you'd like to check Obama's report card!

OBAMA'S CHICAGO - report card.

Body count. In the last six months 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago, 221 killed in Iraq. Sens. Barack Obama & **** Durbin, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., Gov. Rod Blogojevich, House leader Mike Madigan, Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan , Mayor Richard Daley.....our leadership in Illinois.....all Democrats.

Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago. Of course they're all blaming each other. Can't blame Republicans, they're aren't any!

State pension fund $44 Billion in debt, worst in country. Cook County (Chicago) sales tax 10.25% highest in country. Chicago school system one of the worst in country.(Look'em up if you want). This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois. He's gonna 'fix' Washington politics?

 

[shesulsa]

Going around the net. Havent checked it for accuracy, but...

Yes! I know we have some posters from the Chicago area and would VERY much like for them post what they know! I've been told of GROSS corruption by the democrats there.