Understanding Socialism

Yurt said:
the government owns the means and production of GM, that is factual....it is irrelevent how temporary it is, right now, it is socialist and the policy is socialist....they even forced out the last CEO...yeah, then guess who is calling the shots....the government, how you can claim it is not socialism is bizarre....seems you have this time factor which is absolutely irrelevent to whether it is socialist now

healthcare reform is a socialist policy...the government will own the means and production of its own healthcare insurance....you don't need a complete takeover of every single thing for some one policy or thing to be socialist
Click to expand...

It's not insignificant that the GM measures are temporary. When Dixie talks about Socialism, he's talking about the ends - he's talking about goals, and the ultimate outcome. A temporary bailout of GM w/ temporary strings attached doesn't even come close to rising to that level, and because it will pass, is meaningless in any serious argument about the country "moving toward Socialism."

As for healthcare reform, I have yet to see a plan where the gov't takes over the insurance or healthcare industry, and where private enterprises will be disallowed or unavailable. We have state & county hospitals now, but they are not indicitive of a Socialist country or policy.
 
One more thing on GM - as for their being strings attached, no one forced GM to take the money. It's rare that a loan or rescue effort will not have conditions.
 
Onceler said:
It's not insignificant that the GM measures are temporary. When Dixie talks about Socialism, he's talking about the ends - he's talking about goals, and the ultimate outcome. A temporary bailout of GM w/ temporary strings attached doesn't even come close to rising to that level, and because it will pass, is meaningless in any serious argument about the country "moving toward Socialism."

As for healthcare reform, I have yet to see a plan where the gov't takes over the insurance or healthcare industry, and where private enterprises will be disallowed or unavailable. We have state & county hospitals now, but they are not indicitive of a Socialist country or policy.
Click to expand...

i don't care about dixie's claim....it is socialist, no matter how temporary....or complete....just look at what hugo has done, he didn't take over the complete oil companies, just the majority and no one has ever argued that is not socialist....it doesn't matter if it is done voluntarily or not, that is not a requirement to whether it is socialist or not

h/c reform is a socialist policy, it doesn't have to be a complete take over of all the industry for this one policy to be socialist in nature
 
Yurt said:
i don't care about dixie's claim....it is socialist, no matter how temporary....or complete....just look at what hugo has done, he didn't take over the complete oil companies, just the majority and no one has ever argued that is not socialist....it doesn't matter if it is done voluntarily or not, that is not a requirement to whether it is socialist or not

h/c reform is a socialist policy, it doesn't have to be a complete take over of all the industry for this one policy to be socialist in nature
Click to expand...

You don't care about Dixie's claim now? It's his thread, and you took me to task for not "refuting" his argument that liberals want to make America a Socialist nation.

That's the crux of what this whole thread & all of the discussion on it has been about. If you're only argument is that a temporary measure has some elements that could be construed as "socialism," what's the point? It's a very disingenuous sort of argument to make.

The goal & the ends are not Socialism. That's all I care about, and that's all Dixie was arguing. Everything else is minutia & hair-splitting.
 
Onceler said:
You don't care about Dixie's claim now? It's his thread, and you took me to task for not "refuting" his argument that liberals want to make America a Socialist nation.

That's the crux of what this whole thread & all of the discussion on it has been about. If you're only argument is that a temporary measure has some elements that could be construed as "socialism," what's the point? It's a very disingenuous sort of argument to make.

The goal & the ends are not Socialism. That's all I care about, and that's all Dixie was arguing. Everything else is minutia & hair-splitting.
Click to expand...

Temporary my ass. WHy do you believe lies?
 
Onceler said:
You don't care about Dixie's claim now? It's his thread, and you took me to task for not "refuting" his argument that liberals want to make America a Socialist nation.

That's the crux of what this whole thread & all of the discussion on it has been about. If you're only argument is that a temporary measure has some elements that could be construed as "socialism," what's the point? It's a very disingenuous sort of argument to make.

The goal & the ends are not Socialism. That's all I care about, and that's all Dixie was arguing. Everything else is minutia & hair-splitting.
Click to expand...

Hey fucktard, why don't you tell us just ONE fucking thing the government has EVER taken over, which was "temporary" and eventually returned to the private sector..... just ONE fucking example of that, please????
 
Dixie said:
Hey fucktard, why don't you tell us just ONE fucking thing the government has EVER taken over, which was "temporary" and eventually returned to the private sector..... just ONE fucking example of that, please????
Click to expand...

Chrysler
 
Dixie said:
Hey fucktard, why don't you tell us just ONE fucking thing the government has EVER taken over, which was "temporary" and eventually returned to the private sector..... just ONE fucking example of that, please????
Click to expand...

You're probably not old enough to remember the S & L bailouts...
 
Onceler said:
You don't care about Dixie's claim now? It's his thread, and you took me to task for not "refuting" his argument that liberals want to make America a Socialist nation.

That's the crux of what this whole thread & all of the discussion on it has been about. If you're only argument is that a temporary measure has some elements that could be construed as "socialism," what's the point? It's a very disingenuous sort of argument to make.

The goal & the ends are not Socialism. That's all I care about, and that's all Dixie was arguing. Everything else is minutia & hair-splitting.
Click to expand...

i meant, i don't care about his claim as it relates to our discussion....this thread has taken many tangents since the OP and i find it disingenuous for you now to care about it....it really shows me that you can't actually debate the issues you and i were discussing, so you have deflect about how we are allegedly off topic and how its minutia and splitting hairs....it is absolutely naive of you to say that just because something is temporary socialist that i'm making a disingenuous argument....time is irrelevant to issue of whether it is socialist policy NOW, you arguing otherwise is outright dishonest

it is absolutely false that anything i've said is minutia or splitting hairs....this is really you just giving up on the debate....pity i was enjoying it
 
Onceler said:
Over 50% of American businesses surveyed in the past month plan to hire in the next quarter.

Does anyone here - who has any understanding of economics whatsoever - think there is any policy at all that would have seen positive job growth within a few months of losing jobs at a clip of 500,000+ per month?

This is not an overnight transition. It sounds so naive to try to argue that it is...
Click to expand...

The problem I have with that survey is that it doesn't (at least not that I have seen) provide details on how many jobs they plan to add. It also does not address those who said they were not planning to add jobs.... are they staying flat or cutting?

Did that survey include small businesses or was it strictly larger companies (which is typical of these surveys)?

I will believe the net hiring when I see it.
 
Superfreak said:
The problem I have with that survey is that it doesn't (at least not that I have seen) provide details on how many jobs they plan to add. It also does not address those who said they were not planning to add jobs.... are they staying flat or cutting?

Did that survey include small businesses or was it strictly larger companies (which is typical of these surveys)?

I will believe the net hiring when I see it.
Click to expand...

It was actually just small businesses.

Do you agree with the characterization that the economy is still in a "freefall"?
 
Yurt said:
they didn't take an ownership interest like gm :pke:
Click to expand...

they bailed their asses out, at least Obama/Bush got us some upside in have stock and not just debt.

This whole thing is a lame bullshit card by the right. Comical but lame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top