Is America Ruled By A Socialist?

[NYcarbineer]

It's amazing how people can think our healthcare system is socialism in the face of thousands of private sector companies profiting from it.

And quite handsomely. There's a reason our healthcare costs about twice as much as most other industrialized nations...

...and it's not the socialism part. It's the capitalism part.

 

[dblack]

It's amazing how people can think our healthcare system is socialism in the face of thousands of private sector companies profiting from it.

And quite handsomely. There's a reason our healthcare costs about twice as much as most other industrialized nations...

...and it's not the socialism part. It's the capitalism part.

Try again. You got the first letter right.
And the last three.

 

[francoHFW]

Despite the many ignorant people who believe that socialism is communism, America is ruled by socialists. It's always democratic, is just fairly regulated capitalism with universal health care at this point.

"We're all socialists now!"- Finland P.M. when O-Care passed.

 

[dblack]

Despite the many ignorant people who believe that socialism is communism, America is ruled by socialists. It's always democratic, is just fairly regulated capitalism with universal health care at this point.

"We're all socialists now!"- Finland P.M. when O-Care passed.

You're getting colder.

 

[OnePercenter]

Obamacare!

Umm, do you know what 'Socialist' means?

Sure I do. It's when assholes like you get a free living from hard working people like me at the insistence of the giveaway government that promises you a free living just for voting them into the position that enables them to steal my shit and give it to you.

Someday, when/if you grow up, you'll realize that big business, wall street, and the Republicans have taken more from you than any person.

The Biggest "Takers" and Societal Parasites Are the Rich, Not the Working Class and Poor

 

[asaratis]

Umm, do you know what 'Socialist' means?

Sure I do. It's when assholes like you get a free living from hard working people like me at the insistence of the giveaway government that promises you a free living just for voting them into the position that enables them to steal my shit and give it to you.

Someday, when/if you grow up, you'll realize that big business, wall street, and the Republicans have taken more from you than any person.

The Biggest "Takers" and Societal Parasites Are the Rich, Not the Working Class and Poor

You should add to your signature that you also have nothing to offer.

 

[francoHFW]

Spoken like a perfect chump of the greedy idiot rich...

 

[OnePercenter]

Sure I do. It's when assholes like you get a free living from hard working people like me at the insistence of the giveaway government that promises you a free living just for voting them into the position that enables them to steal my shit and give it to you.

Someday, when/if you grow up, you'll realize that big business, wall street, and the Republicans have taken more from you than any person.

The Biggest "Takers" and Societal Parasites Are the Rich, Not the Working Class and Poor

You should add to your signature that you also have nothing to offer.

What I offer is truth and reality. If you can't handle truth and reality that makes you a perfect minion.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Someday, when/if you grow up, you'll realize that big business, wall street, and the Republicans have taken more from you than any person.

The Biggest "Takers" and Societal Parasites Are the Rich, Not the Working Class and Poor

You should add to your signature that you also have nothing to offer.

What I offer is truth and reality. If you can't handle truth and reality that makes you a perfect minion.

If by truth and reality, you mean lies and deception; you would be correct.

 

[bripat9643]

Socialist ideals help the middle class prosper.

Ah . . . . yeah, because the sub prime mortgage debacle did so much for the middle class!

 

[Darkwind]

If anyone is free to rewrite the definition of socialism, then anyone is capable of being defined as a socialist. The definition of socialism has always included government control over e means of production and distribution. When I see a president confiscate and nationalize the nation's farmland, I will think that the president is a socialist. Until then, calling Obama a socialist will continue to be the PC way of calling him a kenyan or an n-word... Just another valueless epithet.

Ignorance at its best.

There are many differing models of Socialism. When I say car, I am referring to any object that has the general characteristics of an automobile.

When people refer to Obama as a socialist, they are referring to any object that has the general characteristics of a Socialist.

Simply because he has not fully succeeded in turning our economic system and government into a full blown tyrannical socialist state does not mean that he himself is not a socialist.

It is nothing but a word game, with a fine line of semantics being played here.

Barack Obama would be a full blown Socialist if the politics of such would permit it. Instead, he works at the edges and creates transitions in our society that lead toward that final goal.

Want proof?

Affordable Healthcare Act or as it is affectionately referred to, "Obamacare, destroyer of freedom"

And the ACA is as far removed from socialism as it is removed from libertarianism. Neither bear any resemblance at all with the ACA. That piece of work is CLEARLY statist.

Then you clearly need to educate yourself on what Socialism is. When the government takes over 90% of the healthcare and a full 1/6th of the economy, to say that it is not socialism is flat out ignorance at its pinnacle.

 

[Darkwind]

I think Trojan Horse would be most accurate. In words, Obama proposes programs that would help the middle class thrive. In deeds, not so much.

really??? high unemployment helps the middle class? high taxes help the middle class? high fuel prices help the middle class? highest ever poverty rates help the middle class? highest ever numbers on food stamps help the middle class? a divided country helps the middle class? the war on coal helps the middle class? shipping jobs to china and mexico helps the middle class? open borders and amnesty helps the middle class?

damn, seems to me everything obama has done has hurt the middle class and helped his rich buddies.

These are the byproducts of corporatism. You just reinforced my point.

They are not. Being a bourgeoisie apologist is one thing. To rewrite history to protect you own at the expense of the lower caste is rather crass.

 

[FA_Q2]

Ignorance at its best.

There are many differing models of Socialism. When I say car, I am referring to any object that has the general characteristics of an automobile.

When people refer to Obama as a socialist, they are referring to any object that has the general characteristics of a Socialist.

Simply because he has not fully succeeded in turning our economic system and government into a full blown tyrannical socialist state does not mean that he himself is not a socialist.

It is nothing but a word game, with a fine line of semantics being played here.

Barack Obama would be a full blown Socialist if the politics of such would permit it. Instead, he works at the edges and creates transitions in our society that lead toward that final goal.

Want proof?

Affordable Healthcare Act or as it is affectionately referred to, "Obamacare, destroyer of freedom"

And the ACA is as far removed from socialism as it is removed from libertarianism. Neither bear any resemblance at all with the ACA. That piece of work is CLEARLY statist.

Then you clearly need to educate yourself on what Socialism is. When the government takes over 90% of the healthcare and a full 1/6th of the economy, to say that it is not socialism is flat out ignorance at its pinnacle.

No, claiming that it is would totally ignorant of what socialism is. Of course, you could have stated your arguments without resulting to ad hominem attacks and claiming that others are ‘ignorant.’ I expect more from you dark.

Look, socialism boiled down really is simply the people should own or control the means of production and its results. It is a far more wide term than, say, communist but that is the basics. Now, tell me how the ACA fits into that?

Your problem here is that you see something that is not on the right, against freedom and for big government and then label that socialism. That is NOT socialism though socialism would fall under that. Political ideologies are not black and white things. It is not always a choice between right/left. There are more nuances than that.

What the ACA did was not make healthcare communal, did not pass that on to the ‘people’ nor did it even take it over by the government (which would have been socialism). Instead, it handed it over to big corporations, bonded the ‘customers’ (and I have to use that term broadly here, we are no longer customers) to the companies legally and gave them no options. That is not socialism. As others have noted, it is statist.

 

[PoliticalChic]

When was America greater than it is now, and why?

That's far too simple....
What year were you born?

In other words you have no idea what you're talking about.

Can you even name one socialist program in this country you would eliminate altogether?

Wonderful how you played straight man for that one.....!

Oh, man....


"When was America greater than it is now....
...what year were you born???"

OH....I'm still laughing every time I read it!!!


So funny.....
...I wish I could give myself a rep for that one!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

PoliticalChic needs some help. She can't name any government programs/institutions in the US that fit the definition of socialism (despite her repeated rants about socialism).

Can any of you anti-socialism types name them?

Give us a list.

 

[Mac1958]

.

The biggest weakness of the usage of relatively simplistic terms like "socialism" and "Marxism" is that they are vague and essentially impossible to prove on the margins. A society doesn't click one day from "not socialist" to "socialist", so its very existence is easy to deny for most countries.

Now, are we moving to a more centralized, authoritarian federal government? I think that answer is a pretty easy "yes". And are many people happy about that and promoting more of it? Another easy "yes".

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's far too simple....
What year were you born?

In other words you have no idea what you're talking about.

Can you even name one socialist program in this country you would eliminate altogether?

Wonderful how you played straight man for that one.....!

Oh, man....


"When was America greater than it is now....
...what year were you born???"

OH....I'm still laughing every time I read it!!!


So funny.....
...I wish I could give myself a rep for that one!!!

Too bad you've ruined what was a pretty good joke with an embarassing display of self-congratulation.

As a wise football coach once said in dismissing the ridiculous practice of endzone celebrations:

"When you get to the endzone, try to act like you've been there before."

 

[NYcarbineer]

.

The biggest weakness of the usage of relatively simplistic terms like "socialism" and "Marxism" is that they are vague and essentially impossible to prove on the margins. A society doesn't click one day from "not socialist" to "socialist", so its very existence is easy to deny for most countries.

Now, are we moving to a more centralized, authoritarian federal government? I think that answer is a pretty easy "yes". And are many people happy about that and promoting more of it? Another easy "yes".

.

"Conservatives don't want less government; they want less of the other guys' government."

 

[editec]

Is America Ruled By A Socialist?

No.

 

[Redfish]

.

The biggest weakness of the usage of relatively simplistic terms like "socialism" and "Marxism" is that they are vague and essentially impossible to prove on the margins. A society doesn't click one day from "not socialist" to "socialist", so its very existence is easy to deny for most countries.

Now, are we moving to a more centralized, authoritarian federal government? I think that answer is a pretty easy "yes". And are many people happy about that and promoting more of it? Another easy "yes".

.

"Conservatives don't want less government; they want less of the other guys' government."

you just don't get it. more freedom and less government is good for everyone----that is unless you feel that you need the government to act as your nanny and tell you when to wipe your ass and how many sheets to TP to use.

The danger to you libs with less government and more freedom is that real freedom includes the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail, and you fools think that the govt exists to keep anyone from ever failing.