Socialism is Good

Yes Marxism good, capitalism bad, oh no, I lost no freedom, show me sources, non partisan. Talk about ignornance.

Oh I know, there has never been pure Marxism, yet everywhere its tried people die, people are murdered.

The problem with Marxists is they think the top 10% should give them stocks for free, the Marxists dont think they should work, all is bad, even though Capitalism gives all you whiners everything you have. From the computer you type on to the internet you connect it to. All developed by Capitalism, so you want more, go work, hell, quit taxing the rich so they can make more jobs.

You see, the rich were clever enough to get rich, mostly by making jobs for you guys. Soak the rich and watch them move than you can starve like they did in Marxist Russia.

Yep just like a radio dial, except when you start moving towards Marxism no one wants to here it, just like static and noise.

how is it ignorance? i'm asking how obama is making us more socialist then we already are.

and for the record i don't believe in Marxism, and i do believe in capitalism.
 
It makes no difference whether Obama is a socialist or a fascist. His policies are statist. You are no more free, ultimately, under either economic system. The question is only what type of bonds have you been constrained by? Does it really matter if your bonds are made of nylon or dacron?

The point is, you've lost your freedom.
Ya mean I lost the "freedom" to get laid off, lose my health insurance and go bankrupt paying inflated bills to hospitals and medical specialists? Oh no! Whatever shall I do without that precious "freedom"?

Conservatives equate "freedom" with exploitation. They equate health care reform with socialism.

Can any redefinition offered by Conservatives be seen as anything other than bullshit?

How about the freedom to not live in tax slavery to the state for the rest of our existence and have at least the opportunity to get your head and shoulders out of the drowning waters of that taxation.

You are willing to trade one kind elite for another. At least currently you have the ability to possibly join that elite if you have the skill and the gumption. But you will happily trade that off to get even with people you don't know in some sort of "eat the rich" fit. Doing your best to imitate "reign of terror" France for none of the reason.

Instead, you will have a political elite which will not be switched out or entered into by those not chosen. That means 99% of the people. You will get to equal with everyone else who will be just as low as you. You will not be raised up. Everyone will be dropped to the same level. Because the services that need the taxes will cost ever more. Your demand to "eat the rich" will never be sated, first the top 1% will be eaten, then there will be a new top 1%, you will eat each one in succession until no one dare be the top 1% lest they be eaten by the hunger mob with their enforcer, the government.

Then you will have a country that demands from its government more than it produces. The tax bill can never be paid. Where there once was wealth at the top there will be no top to store wealth. And America will have just what the other over the top welfare states have. Jack. Past its prime half life.

If that's what you want, I desperately hope you don't get it. If you do, I will not be here to enjoy it with you. Some places in this world still have freedom, I'll be there .....(incidentally, with the rich you were trying to eat cuz very few will stand still to be eaten).
 
The Conservative lexicon

"Freedom"~1) money as in campaign finance reform limits "freedom". 2) exploitation as in you have lost your freedom to go without health care due to its enormous costs. 3) marginalization of dissent as in "Free Speech Zones" as if the entirety of the United States of America isn't a "free speech zone"!

"Marxism"~ 1) Socialism (I know there are distinct and quantifiable differences between the two, but this is a Conservative lexicon!) 2) Fascism (see note above) 3) Communism (ibid)
 
explain where obama is being socialist again? non partisan sources please, not just claims and conspiracy theories
1. De facto nationalization of the Automobile Sector.

2. De facto nationalization of the Financial Sector.

3. Pending de jure nationalization of the Healthcare Sector.

Only socialists nationalize entire sectors.


Q.E.D.
 
Last edited:
Yes Marxism good, capitalism bad, oh no, I lost no freedom, show me sources, non partisan. Talk about ignornance.

Oh I know, there has never been pure Marxism, yet everywhere its tried people die, people are murdered.

The problem with Marxists is they think the top 10% should give them stocks for free, the Marxists dont think they should work, all is bad, even though Capitalism gives all you whiners everything you have. From the computer you type on to the internet you connect it to. All developed by Capitalism, so you want more, go work, hell, quit taxing the rich so they can make more jobs.

You see, the rich were clever enough to get rich, mostly by making jobs for you guys. Soak the rich and watch them move than you can starve like they did in Marxist Russia.

Yep just like a radio dial, except when you start moving towards Marxism no one wants to here it, just like static and noise.

how is it ignorance? i'm asking how obama is making us more socialist then we already are.

and for the record i don't believe in Marxism, and i do believe in capitalism.

The more social programs put forward where the non-contributor is 'entitled' to the same benefits as the contributor, put us in the direction of increased socialism... redistributing more tax monies or borrowed monies to distribute for more governmental power gain leads us in the direction of increased socialism... having the government mandate or administer an industry such as health care, advocating more government ownership or control over that industry leads us down a path towards more socialist behavior.... do you wish the list to go on?
 
The Conservative lexicon

"Freedom"~1) money as in campaign finance reform limits "freedom". 2) exploitation as in you have lost your freedom to go without health care due to its enormous costs. 3) marginalization of dissent as in "Free Speech Zones" as if the entirety of the United States of America isn't a "free speech zone"!

"Marxism"~ 1) Socialism (I know there are distinct and quantifiable differences between the two, but this is a Conservative lexicon!) 2) Fascism (see note above) 3) Communism (ibid)

Read Buckley v. Valeo and then come back to me on point 1. You should know by now that limitation on the expenditure of money for purpose of political speech is about as anti- First Amendment as you can get. To the extent that CFR limits political speech, it is unConstitutional and yes, limits freedom.

It is true that many conservatives use the terms Marxism, Socialism, Communism and Fascism to express the meaning of statism. OMFG.....you mean Americans are imprecise with their speech???? :eek::eek: Well tell me something else that shocks you like the Sears tower is a tall building. :cuckoo: nutter
 
It makes no difference whether Obama is a socialist or a fascist. His policies are statist. You are no more free, ultimately, under either economic system. The question is only what type of bonds have you been constrained by? Does it really matter if your bonds are made of nylon or dacron?

The point is, you've lost your freedom.
Ya mean I lost the "freedom" to get laid off, lose my health insurance and go bankrupt paying inflated bills to hospitals and medical specialists? Oh no! Whatever shall I do without that precious "freedom"?

Conservatives equate "freedom" with exploitation. They equate health care reform with socialism.

Can any redefinition offered by Conservatives be seen as anything other than bullshit?

How about the freedom to not live in tax slavery to the state for the rest of our existence and have at least the opportunity to get your head and shoulders out of the drowning waters of that taxation.

You are willing to trade one kind elite for another. At least currently you have the ability to possibly join that elite if you have the skill and the gumption. But you will happily trade that off to get even with people you don't know in some sort of "eat the rich" fit. Doing your best to imitate "reign of terror" France for none of the reason.

Instead, you will have a political elite which will not be switched out or entered into by those not chosen. That means 99% of the people. You will get to equal with everyone else who will be just as low as you. You will not be raised up. Everyone will be dropped to the same level. Because the services that need the taxes will cost ever more. Your demand to "eat the rich" will never be sated, first the top 1% will be eaten, then there will be a new top 1%, you will eat each one in succession until no one dare be the top 1% lest they be eaten by the hunger mob with their enforcer, the government.

Then you will have a country that demands from its government more than it produces. The tax bill can never be paid. Where there once was wealth at the top there will be no top to store wealth. And America will have just what the other over the top welfare states have. Jack. Past its prime half life.

If that's what you want, I desperately hope you don't get it. If you do, I will not be here to enjoy it with you. Some places in this world still have freedom, I'll be there .....(incidentally, with the rich you were trying to eat cuz very few will stand still to be eaten).
And here I've heard that only the rich pay taxes! What is it? Do we all pay taxes or just the wealthy? Because that is the justification for cutting the tax burden on the top wage earners!

And when we can no longer afford the premiums for health insurance, will we rejoice in our "freedom"? The rate of increase is unsustainable. Yet we must preserve the "Freedom" of the health insurance providers to rake us out with the trash.

And here I've been paying taxes that go to programs I wholeheartedly disagree with. Corporate welfare, a blotted military industrial complex, tax breaks for the rich. When I want some help to defer the high cost of health care, I'm called "Marxist".

But I've come to expect that from the Conservatives. Why? Because this variety of name calling is on the front of the Conservative playbook published in 1947 and not updated for better than 60 years!

I'm sure that Conservatives have the same concerns about losing, or acquiring health coverage. Why do they resist a government reform plan? Because the talking heads told them to! For every Conservative that shouts about a big media boogieman, there is a Glenn Beck or a Rush Limbaugh or a Fox News telling them it's all too true.

And how many people can the classification of "rich" hold? Historically, we know it's far too few to be a realistic goal. Most of us would settle for "comfortable". In this class, we can afford to buy a home (not a McMansion), put our kids through school, retire in comfort, put something away for a rainy day and pay our bills on time with a little left over each month for discretionary spending.
 
hes introducing the government into the field of healthcare, something never done before in the usa

That's not true. The government is already highly involved with healthcare. That's why there are so many problems with it.

Its also worth mentioning that Health Care isn't an industry that responds well to free Market ideas. In small communities Hosptials pretty much run with out competition, as do doctors. If a smaller community wants a hospital, it pretty much requires tax payer funding to start one. Add to that the fact that folks don't think with their pocket books when their own health, or the health of a family member is on the line.

Combine that with the cost of maintaining a sterile environment in order to guarantee that patients have the greatest possible chance of recovery, and its pretty easy to see why attempting to apply free market principles to health care is almost always a failure. Conservatives may not like it, but health care isn't naturally a capitalistic venture, its a socialist one.

Of course, the current debate is all about Health Insurance, not Health Care. Everyone can get at least life saving treatment under the law (and under the Hippocratic Oath) and access to prescription drugs for those that can't afford it is available. My Dad, until the day he died, qualified for free drugs to control his epilepsy through the drug companies, not the government.

Should everyone be guaranteed access to health insurance, and should everyone be required to have health insurance is the big question.

Actually the market would be the best supplier of healthcare. The natural tendency of the market is towards better service or goods and lower prices. There's no reason to believe the market couldn't supply healthcare other than we're led to believe that there are certain goods or services that only the government could provide, which is a fallacy.
 
No, we resist it because we know that it's wrong and the government has no business making medical decisions for us, or forcing us to accept government health care plans.
 
The Conservative lexicon

"Freedom"~1) money as in campaign finance reform limits "freedom". 2) exploitation as in you have lost your freedom to go without health care due to its enormous costs. 3) marginalization of dissent as in "Free Speech Zones" as if the entirety of the United States of America isn't a "free speech zone"!

"Marxism"~ 1) Socialism (I know there are distinct and quantifiable differences between the two, but this is a Conservative lexicon!) 2) Fascism (see note above) 3) Communism (ibid)

Read Buckley v. Valeo and then come back to me on point 1. You should know by now that limitation on the expenditure of money for purpose of political speech is about as anti- First Amendment as you can get. To the extent that CFR limits political speech, it is unConstitutional and yes, limits freedom.

It is true that many conservatives use the terms Marxism, Socialism, Communism and Fascism to express the meaning of statism. OMFG.....you mean Americans are imprecise with their speech???? :eek::eek: Well tell me something else that shocks you like the Sears tower is a tall building. :cuckoo: nutter
So all this imprecision is just what it appears to be: a smear campaign. Otherwise, the sage Conservative pols would use exact, precise terms.
 
Such as fascism?

Want to compare Obama's power grab and corruption with the rise of other fascist regimes?
 
That's not true. The government is already highly involved with healthcare. That's why there are so many problems with it.

Its also worth mentioning that Health Care isn't an industry that responds well to free Market ideas. In small communities Hosptials pretty much run with out competition, as do doctors. If a smaller community wants a hospital, it pretty much requires tax payer funding to start one. Add to that the fact that folks don't think with their pocket books when their own health, or the health of a family member is on the line.

Combine that with the cost of maintaining a sterile environment in order to guarantee that patients have the greatest possible chance of recovery, and its pretty easy to see why attempting to apply free market principles to health care is almost always a failure. Conservatives may not like it, but health care isn't naturally a capitalistic venture, its a socialist one.

Of course, the current debate is all about Health Insurance, not Health Care. Everyone can get at least life saving treatment under the law (and under the Hippocratic Oath) and access to prescription drugs for those that can't afford it is available. My Dad, until the day he died, qualified for free drugs to control his epilepsy through the drug companies, not the government.

Should everyone be guaranteed access to health insurance, and should everyone be required to have health insurance is the big question.

Actually the market would be the best supplier of healthcare. The natural tendency of the market is towards better service or goods and lower prices. There's no reason to believe the market couldn't supply healthcare other than we're led to believe that there are certain goods or services that only the government could provide, which is a fallacy.

Free market works in a lot of situations, unfortunately, health care isn't one of them.

Serious question: If you're having a heart attack, do you go to the cheapest emergency room you can find or the best? Do you take the time to haggle with the doctor about the cost of the procedure? If you're suffering from a malignant brain tumor, do you go for the treatment proven to work, or do you shop around based on cost?

While we're at it, from a financial angle how much is too much for you personally to pay for treatment that will save your life?

Money never enters the equation once a loved one's life is on the line.

Add to that the sheer cost associated with building and equipping a hospital and you can see that most communities are lucky to have one hospital within driving distance, much less two so you can start having an actual competition on price and service.

Health Care will never be a free market system. It just doesn't work that way. Health Insurance could be. Whether it should be or not is the debate.

EDIT IN: Of course there's the other reason that Free Market doesn't work with Health Care. Health Care is the one industry out there where a Health Care Provider is required by law and by oath to provide services regardless of cost. Could any industry work if the provider was required to provide services and goods first, and inquire about cost second?

That will only change if you discard the Hippocratic Oath and repeal laws requiring treatment in life threatening situations. However, do you really want to have to prove you can pay before a doctor will save your life?
 
Last edited:
No, we resist it because we know that it's wrong and the government has no business making medical decisions for us, or forcing us to accept government health care plans.
I've had insurance company bureaucrats making health decisions for me! What recourse do I have?

I'm diabetic. Have been since puberty and the hormones started raging. Seems the hormone insulin and the hormone testosterone do not work and play well with each other in my body.

My doctor has prescribed several insulin therapies for me, which then get denied by my health insurance company. Why? cost. Not that the insurance company is a physician. Not that the insurance company has conducted a through examination of me or is privy to the latest developments in insulin therapy. It's the health insurer's bottom line that must be maintained, not my health.

Don't come with government decisions as a bad thing when this truth is so utterly blatant in my own life!
 
Its also worth mentioning that Health Care isn't an industry that responds well to free Market ideas. In small communities Hosptials pretty much run with out competition, as do doctors. If a smaller community wants a hospital, it pretty much requires tax payer funding to start one. Add to that the fact that folks don't think with their pocket books when their own health, or the health of a family member is on the line.

Combine that with the cost of maintaining a sterile environment in order to guarantee that patients have the greatest possible chance of recovery, and its pretty easy to see why attempting to apply free market principles to health care is almost always a failure. Conservatives may not like it, but health care isn't naturally a capitalistic venture, its a socialist one.

Of course, the current debate is all about Health Insurance, not Health Care. Everyone can get at least life saving treatment under the law (and under the Hippocratic Oath) and access to prescription drugs for those that can't afford it is available. My Dad, until the day he died, qualified for free drugs to control his epilepsy through the drug companies, not the government.

Should everyone be guaranteed access to health insurance, and should everyone be required to have health insurance is the big question.

Actually the market would be the best supplier of healthcare. The natural tendency of the market is towards better service or goods and lower prices. There's no reason to believe the market couldn't supply healthcare other than we're led to believe that there are certain goods or services that only the government could provide, which is a fallacy.

Free market works in a lot of situations, unfortunately, health care isn't one of them.

Serious question: If you're having a heart attack, do you go to the cheapest emergency room you can find or the best? Do you take the time to haggle with the doctor about the cost of the procedure? If you're suffering from a malignant brain tumor, do you go for the treatment proven to work, or do you shop around based on cost?

While we're at it, from a financial angle how much is too much for you personally to pay for treatment that will save your life?

Money never enters the equation once a loved one's life is on the line.

Add to that the sheer cost associated with building and equipping a hospital and you can see that most communities are lucky to have one hospital within driving distance, much less two so you can start having an actual competition on price and service.

Health Care will never be a free market system. It just doesn't work that way. Health Insurance could be. Whether it should be or not is the debate.

Under a free market all the examples you gave would be cheaper than they are now with the government's involvement in healthcare. Health insurance costs would go down because more people would be able to afford to pay for their minor injuries, illnesses, or check ups without needing to tap into their insurance.
 
Such as fascism?

Want to compare Obama's power grab and corruption with the rise of other fascist regimes?
Compare the expansion of executive power during the Bush 43 regime!

How many CEO's did Bush I fire?
Bush wanted no strings on his financial system bailout! A trillion dollars with no control but Hank Paulson.

Deregulation strikes again! Take the cops off the beat and what happens? Crime! Well, what's true for Main Street is true for Wall Street. Bush never thought of it that way, did he? But then again, Bush and thinking were not compatible in the same sentence.
 

Forum List

Back
Top