Socialists in Congress

The Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of extreme engineering of private business; the Democrats with their over taxation and regulation of free enterprise and Republicans for their bedroom follies that amount to a near oligarchic family. Either way .. both practices amount to “what is in it for me”, back pocket politics. We know it exists, but like a spouse ignoring the infidelities of their partner, as a whole we tend to turn a blind eye towards it.
I believe there must be a well balanced relationship between the Free Enterprise and Government. Government must do what we expect, that is protect the interests of its citizenship, and the Free Enterprise must be free to do what it does, produce reliable goods and services for the consumer in exchange for monetary gain.
This amounts to the Government having the right to act as a watch dog and the free Enterprise respecting the peoples establishment by way of honoring the rules that are in place. It is not the Governments job to change the rules by way of taxation or over regulation.. whenever there is a need for a monetary fix or to exploit political gain.
And it is not a Corporate right to exploit our elected and/or appointed officials and stuff their pockets so they will vote to give unfair advantage over the citizenship.
The only way to hold this in check is by way of a divided Government, which I am convinced works best.
 
what about my retort of Beefy do YOU disagree with?

The limited and undescriptive definition of Socialism that was presented from the dictionary.
 
I used it to show beefy that my description of the word was not without precedence. I didn't pull the definition out of my ass and object to his characterization of my perfectly acceptable definition - from straight out of the dictionary - as being false.
 
I used it to show beefy that my description of the word was not without precedence. I didn't pull the definition out of my ass and object to his characterization of my perfectly acceptable definition - from straight out of the dictionary - as being false.

I'd agree that the definition you gave is a common one, the soundbite type of definition that frequently found in dictionaries.

My point was just that the definition is weak and poorly describes the true notion of Socialism.
 
and I used it to counter the typical bullshit from the right (bravo, in this case) that tends to demonize liberal democrats as "socialists".
 
Socialism is alive an well in the USA and most republicans would not want to give up several socialist programs either.
Ie Schools, roads, police and fire protection, medicare, medicaid, etc....
 
so...what you are saying is that every country on the planet that has a police force or a fire department that is run by the government and not private industry is a socialist nation? Therefore, we have been a socialist nation since the days of Ben Franklin?
 
then every politician on earth who uses tax dollars to fund his military or his police force or fire departments is a socialist? then why are republicans using that word as something bad when every republican since the dawn of their party has been a socialist as well?
 
and I used it to counter the typical bullshit from the right (bravo, in this case) that tends to demonize liberal democrats as "socialists".

American Liberal Democrats aren't socialist...
 
maineman said:
so...what you are saying is that every country on the planet that has a police force or a fire department that is run by the government and not private industry is a socialist nation? Therefore, we have been a socialist nation since the days of Ben Franklin?
Click to expand...


Of course not. I believe the debate is the degrees of Socialism instituted into Society.
The bottom line; the United States Government was designed to serve and protect... therefore under that concept.. the Police and Fire Depts. fit. Its when Government is expanded with the types of services she provides, thats when the degrees of Socialism come into play and are debatable..
The more you use Government as a tool to expand services and programs into Society .. the more you are leaning towards a Socialism ...
 
AnyOldIron said:
and I used it to counter the typical bullshit from the right (bravo, in this case) that tends to demonize liberal democrats as "socialists".

American Liberal Democrats aren't socialist...
Click to expand...

Socialism is defined as the the centralized (i.e, government) controlling the means of production and distribution.

Any attempt to link the Environmental Protection Agency, or medicaid to "socialism" is just flatulence, and rhetorically incorrect.
 
Medicare/pill bill is socialism even by your definition cypress.
Perhaps we need the difinition cops on thissubject :)

Is medical care a product ? Is education a product ?
 
Drugs, are a socialized product. their manufacutre and distribution is strictly controlled by our gummit. esp the war on drugs.....
 
uscitizen said:
Drugs, are a socialized product. their manufacutre and distribution is strictly controlled by our gummit. esp the war on drugs.....
Click to expand...


the dictionary is quiet clear. "Regulating" an industry is not socialism.

When the government controls and OWNS the means of production and distribution, that is socialism.
 
Socialism, noun: "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. "
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top