Obama policies are 'technically' socialist.

D

Dixie - In Memoriam

New member
Wisey: Technically? I would have thought someone would TECHNICALLY be a socialist when they met the TECHNICAL dictionary definition, not the commonly misconstrued definition.
Click to expand...

The 'technical' dictionary definition:

Socialism
Socialism\, n.

Socialism of the chair [G. katheder socialismus], a term applied about 1872, at first in ridicule, to a group of German political economists who advocated state aid for the betterment of the working classes.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Since Socialism is also "technically" defined by American Heriatage ditionary as 'The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved,' let's also look at the "technical" definition of 'Communism.'

Communism
Com"mu*nism\, n. [F. communisme, fr. commun common.] A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------

So here are the 'technical' definitions to compare with Obama's ideology of 'spreading the wealth around' to make things 'fair.'

Clearly, his policies amount to pure unadulterated Socialism, and Communism. While the left will paint the characterization as 'extremist rhetoric' and insist the policies are not what they 'technically' are, any intelligent person can read these 'technical' definitions, and see that Obama's agenda is precisely as described, and appropriately labeled as "socialist" policy.

Liberals will argue that it's not 'socialism' because the state doesn't control production and distribution completely, however, the 'technical' definition given by American Heritage indicates 'socialism' is the phase between 'capitalism' and 'communism', where the state does not yet totally control these aspects.
 
Obama is a Socialist?

Why on earth didn't you say something sooner?

Permission to panic granted.
 
Socialism advocates state aid in that it wants the government to nationalize industry and give the means of production to the workers. Welfare was a policy designed to supplement the flaws naturally and obviously inherent in capitalism. Socialism was designed to replace capitalism. No one is a socialist any more. Not even socialists are socialist. The dictionary definition is extremely abridged, and it is nothing but pedantic of you to turn to it to boost your argument.
 
Watermark said:
Socialism advocates state aid in that it wants the government to nationalize industry and give the means of production to the workers. Welfare was a policy designed to supplement the flaws naturally and obviously inherent in capitalism. Socialism was designed to replace capitalism. No one is a socialist any more. Not even socialists are socialist. The dictionary definition is extremely abridged, and it is nothing but pedantic of you to turn to it to boost your argument.
Click to expand...

LMAO.... So what you are saying is, Obama's plans are not 'socialist' because the definition of 'socialism' is no longer valid? That's rich! I guess we can also maintain the definition of 'property' is no longer valid, as well as the definition of 'money'? Heck, why not just say, the definition of any word is no longer valid, nothing really means anything anymore. It's all subjective! What a 'brilliant' way to justify your belief system!

When government advocates taking a larger and larger chunk of corporate profits, and proposes redistributing these profits to the workers, how else can you define it, other than 'socialist'? When government advocates taking 'wealth' from some, and giving it to those who don't have 'wealth' in order to 'make it fair', or to fund programs to help them, how else can you define it, other than 'communism'?

The definitions are clear, Obama's policies are clear, and unless you can take the Waterhead approach of denying words mean what they are defined to mean, you must conclude Obama advocates socialist communist policy.
 
Dixie said:
LMAO.... So what you are saying is, Obama's plans are not 'socialist' because the definition of 'socialism' is no longer valid? That's rich! I guess we can also maintain the definition of 'property' is no longer valid, as well as the definition of 'money'? Heck, why not just say, the definition of any word is no longer valid, nothing really means anything anymore. It's all subjective! What a 'brilliant' way to justify your belief system!

When government advocates taking a larger and larger chunk of corporate profits, and proposes redistributing these profits to the workers, how else can you define it, other than 'socialist'? When government advocates taking 'wealth' from some, and giving it to those who don't have 'wealth' in order to 'make it fair', or to fund programs to help them, how else can you define it, other than 'communism'?

The definitions are clear, Obama's policies are clear, and unless you can take the Waterhead approach of denying words mean what they are defined to mean, you must conclude Obama advocates socialist communist policy.
Click to expand...


So according to you we were a socialist country from roughly 1931 until 2001 and then with the Bush tax cuts were no longer socialist but with letting the Bush tax cuts expire for folks making more than $250,000 we are again going to be a socialist country? And you expect people to buy this bullshit?
 
Dixie said:
LMAO.... So what you are saying is, Obama's plans are not 'socialist' because the definition of 'socialism' is no longer valid? That's rich! I guess we can also maintain the definition of 'property' is no longer valid, as well as the definition of 'money'? Heck, why not just say, the definition of any word is no longer valid, nothing really means anything anymore. It's all subjective! What a 'brilliant' way to justify your belief system!
Click to expand...

It is perfectly valid. Socialism does advocate state aid. But the state aid it advocates is a little more specific than "anything the government does". Fire departments, for instance, help the working class out immensely. They are not socialist policies. The specific, rather the general, definition of socialism, that you would find if you looked in an encyclopedia, is that it advocates taking control of the means of production.
 
Dungheap said:
So according to you we were a socialist country from roughly 1931 until 2001 and then with the Bush tax cuts were no longer socialist but with letting the Bush tax cuts expire for folks making more than $250,000 we are again going to be a socialist country? And you expect people to buy this bullshit?
Click to expand...


No, according to the dictionary, and the 'technical' definition of 'socialism' we will be a socialist nation in January of 2009, under the Obama Administration.
 
Bush has presided over the largest expansion of Government since FDR and Mccain voted to basically Socialize the Banks in this country.

I see Obama as Clinton Part 2 ... the 90's werent so bad....

95% of the people in this Country will see a Tax break.., the other 5% will see their Taxes go back to the levels in the 1990's...
 
Watermark said:
It is perfectly valid. Socialism does advocate state aid. But the state aid it advocates is a little more specific than "anything the government does". Fire departments, for instance, help the working class out immensely. They are not socialist policies. The specific, rather the general, definition of socialism, that you would find if you looked in an encyclopedia, is that it advocates taking control of the means of production.
Click to expand...


...And through excessive taxation, windfall profits taxes, price caps, etc... the government is indeed 'taking control' of the means of production in an otherwise 'capitalist' society. Remember, socialism is a transitional phase between capitalism and communism. The 'state' has not completely taken control of means of production and distribution in a socialist model, this is complete when communism fulfills the purpose of socialism. Communism requires a transition, you don't just wake up one day and decide you're going to be communist instead of capitalist. Socialism is that transition into communism. As defined, it is precisely what Obama and Biden are advocating.

Now, Dungheap wants to argue that we have effectively been a 'socialist' nation since the days of FDR's New Deal. I won't argue that his policies were indeed a form of measured socialism, but they did not seek to undermine capitalism as Obama and Biden plan to do. Keep in mind, the FDR policies have been maintained for the past 70 years, for the express purpose of eliminating poverty. Have they succeeded in this? I think it's clear, they have not succeeded in eliminating poverty in this country. Each year, we pour more and more resources into the programs of FDR, trying with futility to eliminate poverty... we are now trillions of dollars in debt, with no end to poverty in sight. While FDR programs may have once served a purpose, and helped to remedy some adverse social conditions in America, they have outlived their usefulness, and serve to push us into deeper poverty and socialism.
 
The other thing about Obama I like ... he wants to rebuild America's infrastructure (roads and bridges) instead of rebuilding Iraqs.. I kinda like that thinking. I dont think thats Socialism.. I think thats American.
 
klaatu said:
Bush has presided over the largest expansion of Government since FDR and Mccain voted to basically Socialize the Banks in this country.

I see Obama as Clinton Part 2 ... the 90's werent so bad....

95% of the people in this Country will see a Tax break.., the other 5% will see their Taxes go back to the levels in the 1990's...
Click to expand...

How can 95% see a tax break, when 40% do not pay tax? I'll tell you how... 40% of that 95% are going to get a government hand out. This money will come from the ones who DO pay taxes. The top 5% will bear the brunt of the majority of this, and they are largely the people who create economic growth and jobs in America.

Increasing the tax rates will have one confirmed and consistent effect, it will REDUCE the amount of revenue generated in taxes paid to the government. This can be substantiated by simply looking at the results, every time we have increased the tax rate the past century. Increase the rates... produce less revenues! When Obama was asked about this, his response was... regardless of this fact, it was more 'fair' to do it this way. It's not about increasing the dollars to the government, it is about redistribution of wealth, or to put it more accurately, SOCIALISM!
 
Dixie.. with the amount of hand outs and bail outs that have been given to Corp America ...how can we quibble about returning to the tax rates of the 90's... which by the way experienced the largest expansion of economy in the entire Century!

i dont agree that you should get a tax break if you dont pay taxes... but I do believe in providing a ladder out to people who are stuck in a hole.
 
Also... I beleive the new energy era ..is going to provide job growth like weve never seen before... it will rival the PC growth of the 90's.
 
klaatu said:
The other thing about Obama I like ... he wants to rebuild America's infrastructure (roads and bridges) instead of rebuilding Iraqs.. I kinda like that thinking. I dont think thats Socialism.. I think thats American.
Click to expand...


Well I want to rebuild America's infrastructure too! I want to give every American a house, a car, medical care, college tuition, a credit card, and a fucking endless pot of gold! I want every homeless person to live in a million-dollar mansion, and eat caviar for dinner! I want every American to not have to work anymore, and just be able to enjoy life to the fullest, tanning on the beach, drinking margarita's and watching beautiful sunsets every day! I want all the sick to be cured, so they can sit on the beach and enjoy the sunsets too! I want there to be no wars, and the entire world to love us and send us flowers daily! I want unicorns to fly over rainbows and bring us cotton candy and angels to feed it to us!

I honestly don't know how we get there with Obama implementing Socialism and Communism, though. From what I know of history, those policies and that form of government, always lead to oppression and despair, and destroys freedom and liberty, as well as capitalism. Just the tax increases alone, are going to generate less revenues, we already know that, it has been proven. So, how do you 'rebuild the infrastructure' when you don't have any money? ...maybe the magical unicorn will have the answers?
 
klaatu said:
Dixie.. with the amount of hand outs and bail outs that have been given to Corp America ...how can we quibble about returning to the tax rates of the 90's... which by the way experienced the largest expansion of economy in the entire Century!

i dont agree that you should get a tax break if you dont pay taxes... but I do believe in providing a ladder out to people who are stuck in a hole.
Click to expand...

Increase taxes... Decrease revenues! Do you not comprehend this? Go look it up, the GAO has the figures, they are easy to find. We have NEVER increased revenues by increasing tax rates! It simply does not work! Subsequently, when we have reduced taxes, we have ALWAYS increased revenues! Why? Because reduced taxes (and 'corporate hand outs') encourage investment and growth in the economy! These corporations take the gained resources and invest them into expansion, creating more jobs and wealth, thereby generating MORE tax revenues!

Like I said, that "95% are getting a tax break" line, is bullshit... 40% of them don't pay ANY taxes! They are not going to "get a tax break" they are going to get a check from the government! If you pay taxes, YOU are going to pay for it!
 
Dixie said:
Increase taxes... Decrease revenues! Do you not comprehend this? Go look it up, the GAO has the figures, they are easy to find. We have NEVER increased revenues by increasing tax rates! It simply does not work! Subsequently, when we have reduced taxes, we have ALWAYS increased revenues! Why? Because reduced taxes (and 'corporate hand outs') encourage investment and growth in the economy! These corporations take the gained resources and invest them into expansion, creating more jobs and wealth, thereby generating MORE tax revenues!

Like I said, that "95% are getting a tax break" line, is bullshit... 40% of them don't pay ANY taxes! They are not going to "get a tax break" they are going to get a check from the government! If you pay taxes, YOU are going to pay for it!
Click to expand...


Hilarious.

Revenues increased the last time taxes were increased (1993) and revenues decreased the last time taxes were decreased (2001).

Oh, and while there are many people that don't pay income taxes, those same people pay social security and medicaid taxes just like you and you (me, I'm a free loader).
 
Words of wisdom.....

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship."

--Alexander Fraser Tyler, "The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic"
 
Dungheap said:
Hilarious.

Revenues increased the last time taxes were increased (1993) and revenues decreased the last time taxes were decreased (2001).

Oh, and while there are many people that don't pay income taxes, those same people pay social security and medicaid taxes just like you and you (me, I'm a free loader).
Click to expand...

Sorry Dung, not true according to the GAO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top