At what point do you become a "socialist"

• jhay78

  

  ts1227 wrote: You become a socialist when those who oppose you need a new, kickass buzz word to arbitrarily throw in their repertoire.
  
  You have to have those sharp words thrown in there to perk people's ears up.

  On the flip side, you will never, ever be a socialist no matter how left-leaning your policies are (unless you're Bernie Sanders and you admit it) as long those who support you want you to appear "moderate".
• HitsRus

  

  ^^^^...and that is another way of saying the point I was trying to make. Nobody wants to own a socialist tag.....so much nicer to say you are a moderate but you think this socialistic program is 'good'. It's kinda of funny that today's moderates own what would have been yesterday's socialism.....and that tomorrow's moderates will own today's socialism.
• BoatShoes

  HitsRus wrote: ^^^^...and that is another way of saying the point I was trying to make. Nobody wants to own a socialist tag.....so much nicer to say you are a moderate but you think this socialistic program is 'good'. It's kinda of funny that today's moderates own what would have been yesterday's socialism.....and that tomorrow's moderates will own today's socialism.

  I see it the opposite...what was considered mainstream only 15 years ago by conservatives in regards to health care for instance and supported by high ranking republicans such as Bob Dole and Tom Daschle is now considered the near certain deluge into European style socialism. That is just one example. As I said in another thread....John Paul Stevens was appointed by a Conservative and claims to hold the same beliefs as he always had, is now considered the cornerstone of the liberal side of the Court.
  
  Yesterday's moderate and reasonable federal government policy is today's socialism.
• believer

  

  BoatShoes wrote:Yesterday's moderate and reasonable federal government policy is today's socialism.

  Today's federal government is hardly moderate and is taking yesterday's moves toward socialism to more unreasonable levels.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  If you want the government to own a company that you do business with, then you are socialist to some degree. The degree depends on how many companies you want the government to own. Being called a socialist isn't a bad thing either. Some people believe that sort of thing is best, that it is better for everyone to have the same even if it isn't that much. Whatever floats your boat I guess. Whether we want to be completely socialist, or completely fascist, or in between like we are now, we will never be able to pay for it, so you guys can argue the details and semantics all you want.
• majorspark

  

  Cleveland Buck wrote: If you want the government to own a company that you do business with, then you are socialist to some degree. The degree depends on how many companies you want the government to own. Being called a socialist isn't a bad thing either. Some people believe that sort of thing is best, that it is better for everyone to have the same even if it isn't that much. Whatever floats your boat I guess. Whether we want to be completely socialist, or completely fascist, or in between like we are now, we will never be able to pay for it, so you guys can argue the details and semantics all you want.

  This was my point in saying socialism as a political ideology is not inherently evil. It works best when is localized, limited, and its rule is consented by like minded individuals. If it is instituted on the federal level it will rule over 300+ million people. It is likely that between 30% and 50% will oppose it. In our union that would equate to between 100 and 150 million people. No nation can sustain that level of opposition without resorting to some type of force to suppress it.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Socialism isn't economically sustainable unless everyone maintains a very low standard of living, because businesses that aren't driven by profit are not efficient. Some people feel that is fair and the way it should be. Good for them.
• majorspark

  

  Cleveland Buck wrote: Socialism isn't economically sustainable unless everyone maintains a very low standard of living, because businesses that aren't driven by profit are not efficient. Some people feel that is fair and the way it should be. Good for them.

  Not quite everyone. The elite who possess the vast wisdom to guide the masses with their infinite knowledge, cannot not be expected to make wise and knowledgeable decisions for good of the masses, if they are distracted by such things as a low standard of living.
• Apple

  

  There are exact and certain things that the federal government is responsible for doing as outlined in the Constitution. Though the fed has imposed laws that don't reflect the true nature of the Constitution, the Constitution can, and has been, amended (see slavery, voting rights, prohibition etc.).
  
  In my mind, it is not the responsibility of the fed to provide social security, healthcare, income tax, (list any other socialistic program) because the Constitution does not mandate it. The Constitution is all about limited federal government and personal rights.
  
  If it is not in the Constitution, it is the responsibility of the individual States to handle the issue. If Indiana wants socialized programs, I say let Indiana have at it. Just don't get your panties in a wad if Ohio doesn't want socialism.
• I Wear Pants

  Cleveland Buck wrote: Socialism isn't economically sustainable unless everyone maintains a very low standard of living, because businesses that aren't driven by profit are not efficient. Some people feel that is fair and the way it should be. Good for them.

  State owned industries can still be for profit ventures.
• Sonofanump

  I Wear Pants wrote: State owned industries can still be for profit ventures.

  Could I get a list of these? The government is the most inefficient entity.
• jhay78

  

  Apple wrote: There are exact and certain things that the federal government is responsible for doing as outlined in the Constitution. Though the fed has imposed laws that don't reflect the true nature of the Constitution, the Constitution can, and has been, amended (see slavery, voting rights, prohibition etc.).
  
  In my mind, it is not the responsibility of the fed to provide social security, healthcare, income tax, (list any other socialistic program) because the Constitution does not mandate it. The Constitution is all about limited federal government and personal rights.
  
  If it is not in the Constitution, it is the responsibility of the individual States to handle the issue. If Indiana wants socialized programs, I say let Indiana have at it. Just don't get your panties in a wad if Ohio doesn't want socialism.

  Great post- the further away you get from the Constitution, the closer you get to socialism.
• believer

  

  Apple wrote: There are exact and certain things that the federal government is responsible for doing as outlined in the Constitution. Though the fed has imposed laws that don't reflect the true nature of the Constitution, the Constitution can, and has been, amended (see slavery, voting rights, prohibition etc.).
  
  In my mind, it is not the responsibility of the fed to provide social security, healthcare, income tax, (list any other socialistic program) because the Constitution does not mandate it. The Constitution is all about limited federal government and personal rights.
  
  If it is not in the Constitution, it is the responsibility of the individual States to handle the issue. If Indiana wants socialized programs, I say let Indiana have at it. Just don't get your panties in a wad if Ohio doesn't want socialism.

  This and a half.
• Justin

  BoatShoes wrote: Recently on here the conclusion has been arrived to that Barack Obama is some kind of "socialist" although he doesn't follow the picture perfect text book definition (complete state ownership of means of production, etc.).
  
  But I began to wonder, at what point does one who holds certain beliefs about certain safety net programs does one become a "socialist"
  
  For instance, it seems like most people believe it's ok to pay some kind of tax (whether it be consumption, property or income, etc. isn't the point here) in exchange for protection from a local police department.
  
  In essence, we agree that it's ok to give up some element of our liberty/freedom in order for some kind of civilization, societal well-being, collective "good" or what have you...in this case delegating the responsibility of defending my personal property (most of that responsibility, not all per se), to a local public police force.
  
  
  Then on the other extreme end of the spectrum...it seems like most of us would not be ok with paying a federal tax in order to have a federal nanny tuck us in bed at night and feed us baby food.
  
  In there, there is a line somewhere...and where might it be? Any ideas?
  
  During the healthcare debate, the bill was often called "socialist" and "government healthcare"...but why not the same sentiments toward Medicare? Am I a socialist if I support "social security"
  
  What's the difference between a "contemporary liberal" and a "socialist"?
  
  Why does it seem like a large, paternal, overpowering dominant military force isn't lumped in with "nanny-like" notions?
  
  Am I a socialist if support unemployment insurance?
  
  What about if I support the high speed rail ideas?
  
  When does regulation become too much regulation to the point where there's no longer a "regulated capitalistic system" but a "socialist" one?
  
  What say you? What are the criterion?

  
  "During the healthcare debate, the bill was often called "socialist" and "government healthcare"...but why not the same sentiments toward Medicare? Am I a socialist if I support "social security"
  
  I understand what you are saying but the reality if u look up history The republicans called nazi and socialist with the passing of Social Security
  and Medicare and ran under the same thing they are now witch is repeal and replace but the funny thing is the bill isnt government health care like people think. The public option (one payer system) failed and there is still going to be PRIVET INSURANCE. The heath bill is more of just mandates for the insurance companies and like car insurance we will be mandated to have health insurance when all done, so the reality the health bill isn't socialist far from it.
  
  Now if we in act paper laws letting any cop for any reason to check your status and search u just on how you look. When people cant own privet property when you have no choice on schooling or jobs and the government tells you you have to serve mandatory military time. That is REAL SOCIALIST IDEAS.
• dwccrew

  

  BoatShoes wrote: Recently on here the conclusion has been arrived to that Barack Obama is some kind of "socialist" although he doesn't follow the picture perfect text book definition (complete state ownership of means of production, etc.).
  
  But I began to wonder, at what point does one who holds certain beliefs about certain safety net programs does one become a "socialist"

  I think it is more complex than just labeling someone a socialist. Someone may have socialist ideas (such as many of the Obama ideas), but it will be a gradual change, not something that someone can do overnight.
  
  

  BoatShoes wrote: For instance, it seems like most people believe it's ok to pay some kind of tax (whether it be consumption, property or income, etc. isn't the point here) in exchange for protection from a local police department.

  I think what kind of tax we pay relates to the point you are making.
  

  BoatShoes wrote: In essence, we agree that it's ok to give up some element of our liberty/freedom in order for some kind of civilization, societal well-being, collective "good" or what have you...in this case delegating the responsibility of defending my personal property (most of that responsibility, not all per se), to a local public police force.

  I disagree. We don't give our liberty up at all. The police's job is not to defend your or my personal property, it is to serve the public good. We are included in that public, but we haven't given up any rights or liberty to do so.
  
  

  BoatShoes wrote: Then on the other extreme end of the spectrum...it seems like most of us would not be ok with paying a federal tax in order to have a federal nanny tuck us in bed at night and feed us baby food.
  
  
  
  In there, there is a line somewhere...and where might it be? Any ideas?

  The line is that the federal government should only have the power that is outlined in the Constitution. They have overstepped their bounds for a long time IMO.
  

  BoatShoes wrote: During the healthcare debate, the bill was often called "socialist" and "government healthcare"...but why not the same sentiments toward Medicare? Am I a socialist if I support "social security"

  I think many people have had the same comments about Medicare as they have the new healthcare bill. I know I have.
  

  BoatShoes wrote:
  Why does it seem like a large, paternal, overpowering dominant military force isn't lumped in with "nanny-like" notions?

  I think many people look passed this because the federal government is supposed to be in charge of the military and national security. One of the few powers they should have. Although I don't agree with many of their military policy decisions they have made within the last decade or so.
  
  

  BoatShoes wrote: Am I a socialist if support unemployment insurance?

  Again, it is more complex than one issue. I don't have an issue with unemployment if it is temporary, but the federal government continues to pass extensions on benefits which allows people to be dependant on the fed. gov. This is not good and causes more bad than good IMO.
  

  BoatShoes wrote: What about if I support the high speed rail ideas?

  I support high speed rail as long as it is the private sector controlling and building it. The government should do nothing and have no hand in it.
  

  BoatShoes wrote: When does regulation become too much regulation to the point where there's no longer a "regulated capitalistic system" but a "socialist" one?
  
  What say you? What are the criterion?

  IMO, when the government starts getting involved in every industry (as they seem to be starting: auto, health, financial, etc.) it is going to far. When the government becomes an active participant, it is not good. The governing and legislating body has an unfair advantage when they become a competitor of the private sector.
  
  I think you have brought up some good points and I have been very brief with my summarizations.
  
  Do I believe the US is socialist? No. Do I think we are getting closer to it than we were 100 years ago? Yes.
• Justin

  dwccrew wrote: IMO, when the government starts getting involved in every industry (as they seem to be starting: auto, health, financial, etc.) it is going to far. When the government becomes an active participant, it is not good. The governing and legislating body has an unfair advantage when they become a competitor of the private sector.

  What is really UNFAIR is when I got my diploma I also was black listed and uninsurable because of pre-existing medical conditions so I am glad I will be able to get insurance other then the pre-existing conditions I was a healthy 18 year old now and 24 still denied but will all change and I know there is people in office who REALLY CARE ABOUT THE LITTLE MAN LIKE ME.
  
  
  Now when you talk about the government getting involved in every industry doesn't mean they own it. Gm payed everything back so the government DON'T!! own it any more. The health bill still is not the government owning our heath care that would have been "THE PUBLIC OPTION" or "ONE PAYER SYSTEM" that DIDN'T!! pass. Then when it comes to the financial system a lot of people forget American history and why we have the Federal Reserve Gold Volt at Fort Knox ky. And when the regulation that brought us back was taking away look what happened again banks doing immoral irresponsible practices because there was no law against what they where doing and no consequences for their actions. They knew what it would do to the American people and the whole world market but they all so knew they could get a lot of money so they did it anyway. In a perfect world banks wouldn't need rules and laws to keep them honest but history shows us that is not the case and the banks do need rules and laws and need to be held responsible for the scams they pull.
• Sonofanump

  Use of a comma and spell check would help. That was hard to read.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Justin wrote: Now when you talk about the government getting involved in every industry doesn't mean they own it. Gm payed everything back so the government DON'T!! own it any more.

  Do you know HOW they paid that money back?
  By other federal monies.
  

  The health bill still is not the government owning our heath care that would have been "THE PUBLIC OPTION" or "ONE PAYER SYSTEM" that DIDN'T!! pass.

  Do you realize that this bill can be repeatedly amended in such a way that the final installment can lead to those very things?
  Do you realize that there is an agenda in certain parties of our federal government that believe that this bill is their "foot in the door" ?
  

  And when the regulation that brought us back was taking away look what happened again banks doing immoral irresponsible practices because there was no law against what they where doing and no consequences for their actions. They knew what it would do to the American people and the whole world market but they all so knew they could get a lot of money so they did it anyway. In a perfect world banks wouldn't need rules and laws to keep them honest but history shows us that is not the case and the banks do need rules and laws and need to be held responsible for the scams they pull.

  
  
  1. There were people who tried to stop the practices that were being utilized in order to prevent where we are today.
  Who shot down those suggestions every single time?
  People who are involved within the federal government.
  
  2. It doesn't matter if you have enough rules and regulations, implemented by the federal government, to cover the United States 10 times over with sheets of paper - if the federal government is so bloated, inept, inefficient that they cannot enforce what they've already established as rules and regulations.
  
  3. In a perfect world, our federal government would heed useful and preventative warnings when they are handed to them on a silver platter.
  
  Your post is just a round-robin.
• Con_Alma

  Justin wrote: ...
  
  
  Gm payed everything back so the government DON'T!!...

  The U.S. Government is still a shareholder of General Motors Corporation....making them a part owner.
  
  ...but I guess it's good that GM used some tarp money to pay back the loan they took from the U.S. Government.
• dwccrew

  

  Justin wrote:
  What is really UNFAIR is when I got my diploma I also was black listed and uninsurable because of pre-existing medical conditions so I am glad I will be able to get insurance other then the pre-existing conditions I was a healthy 18 year old now and 24 still denied but will all change and I know there is people in office who REALLY CARE ABOUT THE LITTLE MAN LIKE ME.

  Are you talking high school diploma, because that was damn hard to read. I'm hoping you are not a college grad.
  

  Justin wrote: Now when you talk about the government getting involved in every industry doesn't mean they own it. Gm payed everything back so the government DON'T!! own it any more. The health bill still is not the government owning our heath care that would have been "THE PUBLIC OPTION" or "ONE PAYER SYSTEM" that DIDN'T!! pass.

  They don't have to own it to control it, that's my point. By the way, you are dead wrong about the government owning GM, they are still a shareholder of much of GM stock. Maybe know what you are talking about before you try to debate or discuss an issue.
  
  Yeah, they paid back the loan with TARP money. Laughable that you fell for the commercials they are airing.
  

  Justin wrote: Then when it comes to the financial system a lot of people forget American history and why we have the Federal Reserve Gold Volt at Fort Knox ky. And when the regulation that brought us back was taking away look what happened again banks doing immoral irresponsible practices because there was no law against what they where doing and no consequences for their actions. They knew what it would do to the American people and the whole world market but they all so knew they could get a lot of money so they did it anyway. In a perfect world banks wouldn't need rules and laws to keep them honest but history shows us that is not the case and the banks do need rules and laws and need to be held responsible for the scams they pull.

  Wow, I think I deciphered through that and understood what point you were trying to make. My beef with how the federal government got involved with the banking industry is when they bailed them out. They should have allowed certain banks to fail and allowed other banks to take over and emerge.
  
  

  CenterBHSFan wrote:

  Justin wrote: Now when you talk about the government getting involved in every industry doesn't mean they own it. Gm payed everything back so the government DON'T!! own it any more.

  Do you know HOW they paid that money back?
  By other federal monies.
  

  The health bill still is not the government owning our heath care that would have been "THE PUBLIC OPTION" or "ONE PAYER SYSTEM" that DIDN'T!! pass.

  Do you realize that this bill can be repeatedly amended in such a way that the final installment can lead to those very things?
  Do you realize that there is an agenda in certain parties of our federal government that believe that this bill is their "foot in the door" ?
  

  And when the regulation that brought us back was taking away look what happened again banks doing immoral irresponsible practices because there was no law against what they where doing and no consequences for their actions. They knew what it would do to the American people and the whole world market but they all so knew they could get a lot of money so they did it anyway. In a perfect world banks wouldn't need rules and laws to keep them honest but history shows us that is not the case and the banks do need rules and laws and need to be held responsible for the scams they pull.

  
  
  1. There were people who tried to stop the practices that were being utilized in order to prevent where we are today.
  Who shot down those suggestions every single time?
  People who are involved within the federal government.
  
  2. It doesn't matter if you have enough rules and regulations, implemented by the federal government, to cover the United States 10 times over with sheets of paper - if the federal government is so bloated, inept, inefficient that they cannot enforce what they've already established as rules and regulations.
  
  3. In a perfect world, our federal government would heed useful and preventative warnings when they are handed to them on a silver platter.
  
  Your post is just a round-robin.

  Bingo!
• WebFire

  When government starts making laws about how many calories a kid's meal must have before you can add a toy to it.