61% of Liberals Favor Socialism

[NYcarbineer]

[
I LOVE THIS QUOTE: “The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money” –Margaret Thatcher.

Too bad she was full of shit.

Link?

Is the UK socialist? Is the EU socialist?

 

[Meister]

Too bad she was full of shit.

Link?

Is the UK socialist? Is the EU socialist?

Exactly....and who would know better than her?
Thank you for making my case, young man.

 

[rdean]

Wowie Zowie!!

Some large portion of Libs seem very very hypersensitive to being labeled Socialists.

That's because they don't believe they are. Nor do they see themselves as anything other than rational, sensible human beings far superior to the rest of us who they believe to be so very wrong and which they characterize in such distorted ways.

The observation didn't originate with me, but it has been noted that it is such people who most threaten the America that true patriots have come to know and love. The danger is not so much in the Prince of Fools they elect to office, but in the throng of fools who would elect such people to office.

Characterize in such "distorted" ways?

Like, "Communist/Socialist/Marxist/Facist"? Oh, no, sorry, that what Republicans call Democrats.

Because they are anti science? Oops, once again Republicans.

True patriots? And that's one of the main reasons wrong with secessionist Republicans. They believe it is THEY who are he patriots. Yet, it is they who talk secession.

Throng of fools? Sounds like Palin voting Teabaggers.

Republicans are NOT patriots. They are against human rights. Against women's rights. They want war. They are against science. Everything that makes this country great, they are against. The only thing they ARE good at is "breeding".

Hey, wasn't it a Republican who said, "If you feed 'em, they'll breed"?

 

[Father Time]

Wowie Zowie!!

Some large portion of Libs seem very very hypersensitive to being labeled Socialists.

Yeah you think that'd be proof to a normal person that they don't like socialism but strangely I don't think you'll interpret it that way.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Link?

Is the UK socialist? Is the EU socialist?

Exactly....and who would know better than her?
Thank you for making my case, young man.

Is the UK bankrupt? Is the EU?

No.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Link?

Is the UK socialist? Is the EU socialist?

Exactly....and who would know better than her?
Thank you for making my case, young man.

You didn't make any case.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I doubt 10% of Americans could define socialism as something other than "just like communism! Commie Bastards!"

SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour.
COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk.
FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk.
NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots you.
BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away...
TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
You sell them and retire on the income.
AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has dropped dead.
ENRON VENTURE CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States , leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public then buys your bull.
A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.
A JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create a clever cow cartoon image called 'Cowkimon' and market it worldwide.
A GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.
AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows, but you don't know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.
A RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
You count them again and learn you have 2 cows.
You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.
A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.
A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.
AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.
A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.
AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
No-one believes you, so they bomb the sh#t out of you and invade your country.
You still have no cows, but at least now you are part of a Democracy...
AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.
A WELSH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive...

 

[Meister]

Is the UK socialist? Is the EU socialist?

Exactly....and who would know better than her?
Thank you for making my case, young man.

Is the UK bankrupt? Is the EU?

No.

Take a look at the tax structure in Europe, please don't forget the VAT, or the gas tax.
Please stay on topic Okay?
Yes, Thatcher does know about socialism, and she still stated what she did. go figure....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Exactly....and who would know better than her?
Thank you for making my case, young man.

Is the UK bankrupt? Is the EU?

No.

Take a look at the tax structure in Europe, please don't forget the VAT, or the gas tax.
Please stay on topic Okay?
Yes, Thatcher does know about socialism, and she still stated what she did. go figure....

She was wrong. It was a stupid smart remark of the sort that conservatives enjoy. European socialism is working. In fact, the EU has a trade surplus with the U.S., so apparently their brand of socialism enables them to make more of what we want than we make of what they want.

 

[Meister]

Is the UK bankrupt? Is the EU?

No.

Take a look at the tax structure in Europe, please don't forget the VAT, or the gas tax.
Please stay on topic Okay?
Yes, Thatcher does know about socialism, and she still stated what she did. go figure....

She was wrong. It was a stupid smart remark of the sort that conservatives enjoy. European socialism is working. In fact, the EU has a trade surplus with the U.S., so apparently their brand of socialism enables them to make more of what we want than we make of what they want.

Your talking about socialism as a nation, and she was talking about socialism as to the citizen. As I stated, look at the fucking taxes that has been laid on them.....the rich are shrinking in those countries. I know you don't want to talk about it, and spin if you want. Like I said....stay on topic, and she wasn't wrong.

 

[rdean]

I doubt 10% of Americans could define socialism as something other than "just like communism! Commie Bastards!"

SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour.
COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk.
FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk.
NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots you.
BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away...
TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
You sell them and retire on the income.
AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has dropped dead.
ENRON VENTURE CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States , leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public then buys your bull.
A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.
A JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create a clever cow cartoon image called 'Cowkimon' and market it worldwide.
A GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.
AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows, but you don't know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.
A RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
You count them again and learn you have 2 cows.
You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.
A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.
A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.
AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.
A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.
AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
No-one believes you, so they bomb the sh#t out of you and invade your country.
You still have no cows, but at least now you are part of a Democracy...
AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.
A WELSH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive...

You forgot Republicans.
They have one cow (they cheated at cards to get) and 50 gallons of milk more than they could drink. A hungry baby cries. The Republicans says, "Beat it. That's not MY kid. I just wanted it born" then they shoot the mother for getting to close to the cow. Finally, they hoard the milk until it rots. They end up happy because they have ALL the milk.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Socialism/Communism:

You have a cow.

I have some chickens.

Someone down the road grows bell peppers and such.

We get together.

You give him your cow's shit to add to his fertilizer. I also let him take the chicken shit.

When you're at work, I check on your cow.

When I'm away, he feeds my chickens.

When he's away, you and I check to ensure no varmints get to the garden.

Ever morning we meet for breakfast. We have omlettes with fluffy eggs, milk, cheese.

We sell what surplus we have on the open market and we buy a bigger plot of land so we can keep more chickens and have a bigger garden. When we save up, we buy a bull with our pooled resources.

On special occasions, we eat a calf and a few chickens and enjoy the feast.

It worked for hundreds, if not thousands of years and it still works today in many places.

Eventually, you and I have kids, and the guy down the road adopts a few orphans. The clan continues to expand upon the farm and, like many Midwestern families who own land, many societies past, and a number of intentional communities that choose form form clans not necessarily bound by blood, we live communally, everyone labouring to produce what they can and everyone reaping the spoils of our combined effort. We know what belongs to each of us and we know what belongs to us all.

Eventually, our first son, Xotoxi refuses to work and is denied to spoils of our labour. He goes to the city and soon learns he must labour harder, for someone with no vested interest in his welfare (for he is but a squishy little cog that can be replaced), in order to get by. He joins the numerous people labouring under the capitalist system for mere survival, not benefiting directly from his labours, alienated, and exploited to line the pockets of a man who never worked a day in his life because he was born into money.

Eventually, he returns to the commune (farm) and rejoins our clan, bringing with him a wife who becomes a part of our community. We establish regular trade and mutual cooperation with surrounding families, clans, and communities, aiding eachother during hard times and pooling our resources to get better equipment and supplies. We share information, specialize what we grow, enrich our diets, and throw great feasts every few months. We then join the Federation of Egalitarian Communities and go about our lives as America's economy collapses and those labouring under the capitalist system struggle to get by. We send people to educate them and help them start small coops in and around their cities to help them improve their daily lives, growing their own food while establishing the strong communities lacking in much of life in the city. Xotoxi becomes a leader of several of these groups, is declared a communist by some idiot McCarthyite and imprisoned, and dies a martyr's death while the McCarthyite end us on the streets as the 21 financial bombshells explode one after an other.

 

[WillowTree]

You people don't have any idea what you're talking about. None whatsoever. You are the atypical uneducated American. No wonder your FF's established the Electoral College. You are really too stupid to decide on your own who should be in charge.

This sentence doesn't even make walking around sense!

 

[☭proletarian☭]

You people don't have any idea what you're talking about. None whatsoever. You are the atypical uneducated American. No wonder your FF's established the Electoral College. You are really too stupid to decide on your own who should be in charge.

This sentence doesn't even make walking around sense!

That was five sentences... Five very poorly written sentences...Five sentences that shall forever stand as a monument to the stupidity we all knew- as Yukon. Although I'll thank him for granting that most Americans are educated, as the uneducated American was atypical in its nature. Not that he was smart enough to see the irony, but it did provide the rest of us a moments of amusement.


And no, you sentence didn't make sense, either- unless we accept 'walking around' as an interjection with no functional impact on the nature and construction of the sentence. In that scenario, we see that there is nothing grammatically wrong with the sentence, although the thinking evident behind it would indicate that the writer (you) is, potentially, retarded.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Take a look at the tax structure in Europe, please don't forget the VAT, or the gas tax.
Please stay on topic Okay?
Yes, Thatcher does know about socialism, and she still stated what she did. go figure....

She was wrong. It was a stupid smart remark of the sort that conservatives enjoy. European socialism is working. In fact, the EU has a trade surplus with the U.S., so apparently their brand of socialism enables them to make more of what we want than we make of what they want.

Your talking about socialism as a nation, and she was talking about socialism as to the citizen. As I stated, look at the fucking taxes that has been laid on them.....the rich are shrinking in those countries. I know you don't want to talk about it, and spin if you want. Like I said....stay on topic, and she wasn't wrong.

She introduced Thatcher's idiotic statement into the mix not me.

 

[editec]

Exactly how Americans define "socialism" or what exactly they think of when they hear the word is not known. The research simply measures Americans' reactions when a survey interviewer reads the word to them -- an exercise that helps shed light on connotations associated with this frequently used term.

And there's the rub with the title of this thread

61% of Liberals Favor Socialism

It's misleading since the people claiming to be in favor of "socialism" aren't all in favor of the the same thing.

Welfare is not socialism.

Having law enforcement and courts and prisons is not socialism.

Social Security is not socialism, either.

Gun control? Not socialism

Outlawing abortions or drugs? Not socialism

I could go on but I suspect you're getting my point about what socialism is NOT.


Bailing out AIG (by the FEDs wildly overpaying for 80% of its common stock) now THAT was socialism.

 

[logical4u]

Maybe they should have given examples of socialism in order to clarify what it means...

Like,
-do you want to keep social security retirement as a program or eliminate it?
-Do you think unemployment insurance is a good measure for those losing their jobs?
-do you want to keep Medicare for the seniors or do you want to let them all try to fend for themselves when it comes to their own health?
-Do you want your government to keep up the roads and highways in your area?
-Do you want to eliminate school lunches for the poorest children among us?

Then maybe these idiots would have their answer to what socialism means to them...

guaranteed, there would be A LOT MORE republicans saying yes to 'socialism'.

From a specific issue standpoint defining whether this thing or that thing is "socialist" is highly subjective and always subject to a lot of debate. There is no purity of socialist ideology in practice today and there never really has been therefor the practical definition is going to vary widely depending on the circumstances and the point of view of the person being asked.

The fact of the matter is that any centralized government of scale has a tendency to become more authoritarian in terms of central economic planning (socialism is after all an ECONOMIC philosophy not a political one) as time goes by since those in power are after all human beings and as such gravitate toward that which secures and increases their power. Nothing works better toward the securing and consolidation of power than economic control and wealth redistribution (buying votes), this tendency was something the founding fathers anticipated and thus designed the Federal Government in the best way that they knew how to stifle it (Republican form of government, checks & balances, limited Federal Authority, etc..,).

That being said , your examples are all red herrings since each of your questions is prefaced by something that would make it appear that anybody answering in the affirmative is some sort of "scrooge" , when the fact of the matter is you do not appear to take into account that GOVERNMENT is not the only solution to the problems that the "programs" you point to attempt to solve, in fact history has shown that GOVERNMENT is more than likely the least efficient solution to them, or have you not caught on to the fact that thanks to all these half assed federal attempts at problem solving the country is now broke and on the verge of a banana republic AND the "problems" remained unresolved?

Let me remind you...the one social program that has put this country on the brink since it has passed is the Medicare Pill Bill...the Conservative/Republican....medicare pill bill passed by President Bush during his term....

the conservatives or republicans were in power for 12 years straight....WHAT did they do to eliminate these social programs that I mentioned above....

I have NEVER used the term "socialist" NOR DID THE ARTICLE....it used the term socialism, and all I did is show you guys what Democrats consider socialism, or "social" programs, and these are the things I mentioned, or at least some of them....thus trying to explain why the percentage is higher on Democrats than republicans.... The repubs have used an all out propaganda war on the term "socialism" for well over a decade....while never telling their constituents the definition of the term and what programs they are against.....

All I was doing is suggest to the op, that maybe they need to list the things I mentioned and even add the things Meister mentioned to a list and have the people vote yeah or nay to each of them, and we would have MORE republicans and democrats agreeing with eachother on each one of the measures than one would think, than with the half assed non descriptive pole that was done to divide us instead of unite us.

Care

Just wanted to point out, when Bush went into office and tried to reduce social security by allowing "public investments", the dems did an all out war to stop it and accused the repubs of trying to "kill" grandparents. Now the dems are in office and social security, medicare, and medicaid (along with the additional burden of that "pill" program, which the dems happily signed at the time) are dragging down the economy, the dems answer is to take over the healthcare. It will give them the power to "eliminate" anyone that is using dollars to prolong their lives (especially those that are collecting social security, medicare and medicaid).

I know, you are going to call me a kook, but please, before you do, show me where ANY form of protection is offered for patients. Show me where it says if the IRS claims there is a mistake on "your taxes" that health care will be continued. If you want to believe in socialism, understand, you believe the gov has the "power" to kill the weakest of society and steal from anyone they choose by abusing the laws for their advantage. It is exactly the type of thing the Bible councils against: joining the "legion" in hopes the combined forces will give you power over anyone that stands in your way (if it is for justice OR NOT). Socialism denies individuality and free will (we call that liberty).

 

[logical4u]

You write as though you live in an echo chamber, happily accepting the slaps on the back from like minded folks.

Make the leap to a more adult venue: specifiy examples, use data, documentation, etc.

Don't be afraid of a more spirited debate.


For example, would you include the PIGS, Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain as "examples of healthy Socialist Democracies"?


And try to avoid such blather as "...pro-corporate oligarchy propaganda though, which frustrates them to no end." unless you can provide examples, as it is a waste of good electrons.

Your post could be more interesting for both sides- and for you as well.

Well, that would involve a definition of how "Socialist" you have to be to be a "Socialist Democracy".

As was my point, folks on the right try to paint socialism with a broad brush, like there's some black and white line that separates socialist states from capitalist states. This is simply not true.

In fact, most modern industrialized countries are more socialist than we are.

Since most right-wingers tend to call any left-leaning policies to be "Socialist" than one must assume that any nation that is more socialist than the US qualifies as being "Socialist".

So, based on that definition, I'd say that, for starters, a good portion of Europe is made up of "socialist democracies".

Point: most socialist nations that are doing "well" (for now), are leaving their protection to the USA (our dime, meaning that we, the taxpayers indirectly subsidize their lifestyle). Watch closely, those gov (that are following the socialist ways), are starting to have major problems. They will either have to take control over the citizens or turn more towards conservative ideals. History is in motion.

 

[logical4u]

"...that general well-being of a nation's populace is the measure of a "beneficial" system,..."

Absolutely!

That is why I champion capitalism, and eschew socialism.

"In its modern beginnings, socialism was optimistic and well intentioned, without the overlay of its contemporary varieties that tend to bemoan prosperity, romanticize poverty, and promote a view that place individual rights are a secondary concern. This is to say that the earliest socialists sought the fullest possible flourishing of humanity, “the common good.”

Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.

These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society."

From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=05

But again, this assumes the radical extreme case of Socialism, and also wrongly assumes that a partially socialist society, like those of modern day Europe will eventually devolve into complete Socialism. This is a fault of modern conservative American thinking, that every policy modification is black and white.

You guys have an "all or nothing" way of going about things. There are many shades of grey on issues like this.

Oh, and: "Euroideology"? LOL.

Love it. Nice word.

I believe the point is....once you get in bed with socialism, eventually you are covered in socialism. It is something that is introduced slowly and takes over completely. Are you watching Venuzuela? It started by doing the gov "for the people", now the energy blackouts and taking over the media, currently working on taking over the stores. Next it will be empty store shelves and people standing in line for things they would have grown themselves a few years ago (before the gov was monitoring production).

Those for socialism cannot point out ANY socialist economy that ended, well. It leads to failure. If you can prove that it doesn't, please, by all means, show us the examples.

 

[logical4u]

Dan Rather, Katie Couric, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Edward R. Murrow, Ted Koppel, Andy Rooney, Leslie Stahl, George Stephanopoulos, Mike Wallace, Barbara Walters, Ed Bradley, Campbell Brown, Jack Cafferty, Walter Cronkite, Jim Lehrer, Roger Grimsby, Soledad O’Brien, Keith Olbermann, Cokie Roberts, Diane Sawyer, Bob Schieffer, Paula Zahn, Sam Donaldson, Brian Williams, Judy Woodruff, David Shuster, Bernard Shaw, Jessica Savitch, Harry Reasoner, Sally Quinn, Gwen Ifill, Douglas Kiker, Charles Kuralt, Roger Mudd, Robert MacNeil, Charles Osgood, Douglas Edwards, John Chancellor, Charles Gibson, Christiane Amanpour, Anderson Cooper, Ann Curry, Marvin Kalb, Bryant Gimbel, Andrea Mitchell, Jeanne Moos, Bill Schneider, Daniel Schoor, Richard Threlkeld, Jake Tapper, Ann Compton, Lester Holt, Michael Beschloss

All card-carrying liberals. So, which of them spread nasty notions about Democrats?

The left-wing media types gush over Leftist Pols, such as this one, where Beschloss tells all how smart President Obama is...but can't document any of it.
Here is Beschloss making a fool of himself of Imus show:
FREEDOM EDEN: Mike Beschloss, Don Imus, and Barack Obama's IQ


Here is Linda Douglas shilling for the Obama healthplan, and nailed by Howard Kurtz, CNN, as she lies about Obama and single payer, and supports snitching on Americans:

Chris Matthews expressed his latest over the top admiration for Obama's speaking skills as the MSNBC anchor admitted that Obama's speech created a "thrill" in his leg:

Read more:

And which of the following tow the right wing line:
NYTimes, LATime, Boston Globe, Washington Post.

Enough?

No, certainly not. The above are your opinion and there is no scientific basis in fact.

Which of the following tow the Right-wing line:
FoxNews, ALL OF TALK RADIO, The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Post.

I find most actual network anchors, like many of the ones you mentioned to in fact be cautiously moderate. It's all about perception.

I could give you a nice long list of right-wing media personalities too, but I think you know who they are.

Oh pleease, pleease give us the "nice long list of right-wing media personalities".