Do you believe....

[emmett]

That Barack Obama is actually intending make the United States the Socialist States of America?

[emmett]

Rules for my thread....This is a serious question. I'm curious what everyone really thinks so in order to hear from everyone I am going to ask that everyone give your opinion and that's it. 1 (One) Post only! Long or short, whatever you want to say. Please vote in the poll also. NO FLAMING on other members posts! For this thread no elasticity at all on this rule! You may make no mention of any member in your post. No links and no news stories just your honest opinions about what you feel about this question.

[PostmodernProphet]

I don't think he would put it under those words, but I believe he desires the nationalization of industry and commerce.....I also believe he is intentionally working to attain a 50% or greater percentage of the American voting public who relies on the federal government for all or substantially all of it's income or benefit.....

[sgtdmski]

Liberals in this country have long believed that we should be more like Europe, and become an even greater Social Democracy. For many of us that seems to mean socialism. Whether we get to that road through the vote of the people, or by the yoke of government, the end result is still the same.

As a conservative I believe that if social welfare programs continue to expand, and more and more people become reliant on government to provide their housing, medical care, monthly allowances and food, before long the electorate will continue to vote for those who continue to expand their benefits.

Liberals will argue that it is a social democracy and conservatives will counter with its socialism. In the end it is all the same, the government through the force of law takes money from one to give to another, wealth redistribution. Arguments will be made for us to look to Europe and how successful they have been. Yet many of us conservatives believe it is a myth. We watch the news and see what is occurring in Europe. Although we have a down economy, historically we have had the ability to maintain a single digit unemployment, in France we see a historic double digit unemployment. While we see shorter working weeks, longer vacations, and universal healthcare, we also so protests in the street because younger workers cannot gain employment.

One of the basic premises of socialism is the ideal from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs. Who determines ability, and who determines need? When what you receive for compensation is based upon need, before long you have people marrying for need, having children for need, and the list goes on. All the while those with ability are being punished for the fact that they have ability. Before long, why would anyone want ability, when it is need that pays.

Atlas will shrug, and when he does, what will be the result?

What has made this country great has been the people. The people that have always been willing to take a risk. Those that have explored and conquered new land, that have tamed the wilderness and created new towns, those that have invented new ideas and technologies that have made our lives better, and those that have took the risk of creating new businesses and hired more people. In the end it has been the people that have moved this country forward. Always the people.

dmk

[Kathianne]

Agree with those above, he thinks socialism is the best way to go. If he has his way, it will be. That is why it's imperative that the people who disagree make their representatives-starting locally, then upwards hear their opinions and recognize what their votes will be in the future.

[Immanuel]

I agree with PMP.

I don't think he wants a purely socialistic country, but he would like to have considerably more government control of industry and its profits. I think he would like to have Americans dependent (thus controlled) upon(by) the government. The bigger government the better for him. After all, the government is the answer to all problems, isn't it?

Immie

[Agnapostate]

Liberals in this country have long believed that we should be more like Europe, and become an even greater Social Democracy. For many of us that seems to mean socialism. Whether we get to that road through the vote of the people, or by the yoke of government, the end result is still the same.

Perhaps you consider social democracy to be a form of "socialism," but that's simply inaccurate and an abuse of political economy. Socialism necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production; social democracy thus constitutes a leftist form of "Rhine capitalism" rather than socialism.


As a conservative I believe that if social welfare programs continue to expand, and more and more people become reliant on government to provide their housing, medical care, monthly allowances and food, before long the electorate will continue to vote for those who continue to expand their benefits.

Social welfare programs are a necessary element in the continued survival of capitalism, since they maintain the physical efficiency of the workforce, thus upholding economic stability. As an actual socialist, I'm inclined to favor your conservatism, actually. Anglo-Saxon capitalism lacks the abilities that liberal democratic capitalism has to maintain efficiency, and would thus result in eventual economic collapse and the massive re-arrangement of property rights that a transition to socialism necessitates. Short-term inefficiency would thus result in the establishment of long-term efficiency.


Liberals will argue that it is a social democracy and conservatives will counter with its socialism.

And both will be wrong, since it's not even social democracy to begin with. Liberal democratic capitalism contains important distinctions from social democratic capitalism, and ironically, does more to sustain capitalism than the more rightist Anglo-Saxon form, as previously mentioned.


In the end it is all the same, the government through the force of law takes money from one to give to another, wealth redistribution.

It's ironic that you would condemn this whilst ignoring the extraction of surplus labor (and therefore surplus value), that is a typical facet of the wage labor utilized by the capitalist employer. Regardless, progressive taxation and welfare programs funded by them play a critical role in upholding capitalism, as was previously mentioned. They merely recognize that the diminishing rate of marginal utility warrants that an ultimately less burdensome form of taxation be imposed on upper classes and then funneled into welfare programs that play a critical part in upholding capitalism. If Obama wanted to destroy capitalism, he would eliminate these welfare programs.


Arguments will be made for us to look to Europe and how successful they have been. Yet many of us conservatives believe it is a myth. We watch the news and see what is occurring in Europe. Although we have a down economy, historically we have had the ability to maintain a single digit unemployment, in France we see a historic double digit unemployment. While we see shorter working weeks, longer vacations, and universal healthcare, we also so protests in the street because younger workers cannot gain employment.

I'd have to question whether your analysis is based on current conditions caused by global financial crisis outside of domestic control, or upon the actual failure of social democracy and similar forms of Rhine capitalism. For instance, a clearly converse view is contained in Headey et al.'s Is There a Trade-Off Between Economic Efficiency and a Generous Welfare State? A Comparison of Best Cases of `The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism’ (http://www.springerlink.com/content/pv7666770705n756/). Consider the abstract:


A crucial debate in policy-making as well as academic circles is whether there is a trade-off between economic efficiency and the size/generosity of the welfare state. One way to contribute to this debate is to compare the performance of best cases of different types of state. Arguably, in the decade 1985-94, the US, West Germany and the Netherlands were best cases - best economic performers - in what G. Esping-Andersen calls the three worlds of welfare capitalism. The US is a liberal welfare-capitalist state, West Germany a corporatist state, and the Netherlands is social democratic in its tax-transfer system, although not its labor market policies. These three countries had rates of economic growth per capita as high or higher than other rich countries of their type, and the lowest rates of unemployment. At a normative or ideological level the three types of state have the same goals but prioritise them differently. The liberal state prioritises economic growth and efficiency, avoids work disincentives, and targets welfare benefits only to those in greatest need. The corporatist state aims to give priority to social stability, especially household income stability, and social integration. The social democratic welfare state claims high priority for minimising poverty, inequality and unemployment. Using ten years of panel data for each country, we assess indicators of their short (one year), medium (five year) and longer term (ten year) performance in achieving economic and welfare goals. Overall, in this time period, the Netherlands achieved the best performance on the welfare goals to which it gave priority, and equalled the other two states on most of the goals to which they gave priority. This result supports the view that there is no necessary trade-off between economic efficiency and a generous welfare state.

I would thus have to question your own analysis, inasmuch as empirical evidence indicates that social democratic capitalism is more than capable of maintaining efficiency (and this was simply through a comparison with liberal democratic capitalism, not the Anglo-Saxon variety), as well as achieving beneficial social goals.


One of the basic premises of socialism is the ideal from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs.

That is a basic premise of a specific variety of socialism, namely, communism. Not all socialists are communists (though I am), and it's really more accurate to note that we simply want to adjust wage and compensation norms to accurately reflect labor input criteria. For instance, the participatory economic structure advocated by Albert and Hahnel measures effort.


Who determines ability, and who determines need? When what you receive for compensation is based upon need, before long you have people marrying for need, having children for need, and the list goes on. All the while those with ability are being punished for the fact that they have ability. Before long, why would anyone want ability, when it is need that pays.

This is based on a distortion of socialist political economy. Compensation differentials are maintained according to labor input differentials. Because you are under the misapprehension that socialism is an equality of outcome economic system, your analysis is therefore skewed.


What has made this country great has been the people. The people that have always been willing to take a risk. Those that have explored and conquered new land, that have tamed the wilderness and created new towns, those that have invented new ideas and technologies that have made our lives better, and those that have took the risk of creating new businesses and hired more people. In the end it has been the people that have moved this country forward. Always the people.

Certainly! And therefore, how could it not be appropriate to place ownership and control of the means of production in the hands of the people, as manifested through decentralized municipalities and such? After all, the means of production will necessarily impact the lives and conditions of all members of an industrialized society. As such, it's simply a matter of justice that such members be permitted to participate in direct democratic management of these means of production to the extent that they are personally affected or impacted by them, since the libertarian principle of sovereign control over one's person must necessarily involve some degree of control over external conditions or surroundings that impact one's person.


Agree with those above, he thinks socialism is the best way to go. If he has his way, it will be. That is why it's imperative that the people who disagree make their representatives-starting locally, then upwards hear their opinions and recognize what their votes will be in the future.

Since the definitions of "those above" were inaccurate, yours necessarily is also. If Obama had any desire to establish socialism, he would follow the advisories of the free market advocates and abandon all funding of welfare programs. As soon as capitalism lost its ability to maintain even basic efficiency and appease worker militancy, hordes would clamor for an economic restructuring.


I don't think he wants a purely socialistic country, but he would like to have considerably more government control of industry and its profits. I think he would like to have Americans dependent (thus controlled) upon(by) the government. The bigger government the better for him. After all, the government is the answer to all problems, isn't it?

That is not "socialism." In reality, government plays an integral role in the maintenance of capitalism inasmuch as the state is a necessary stabilizing agent in a capitalist economy.

[Insein]

What Obama seeks, whether deliberate or misguided idealism, is for the government to control the lives of the people as much as possible. In his mind and the minds of those in congress, the government is the answer to all that ailes.

The problem with this basic ideology is that it kills the human spirit. The founding fathers created a country where people could prosper based on their own merits and achieve great success through hard work and determination. By having the government provide all our needs by taking from those that do the hard work, it destroys the will to work. Soon those that do work hard will see all their efforts go to those that don't. So they will not work as hard and become one of the ones receiving the handouts. Before long no one will work hard and all will receive a handout. Where will the handout come from then? Who will pay for it?

This is exactly the reason why Socialism, Communism, etc fails. Once all the natural resources run out and the man power is demoralized, there is nothing being produced. The USSR had a good run because it kept expanding to encompass new lands to provide resources. Without the agressive expansion, their form of government would have collapsed under its own weight many decades sooner. Towards the end, there wasn't nearly enough being produced to maintain the handouts it needed to provide.

I feel Obama means well but his ideals are fundamentally flawed. He is a useful idiot like so many before him who think socialism works. Those in congress though are not so ignorant. They know full well what it is that they are perpetrating. Grabbing these large sums of money to confound and confuse the populous makes it so much easier when a couple $100 million or so goes mysteriously missing into a congressman's new yacht or vacation home. The enemy within is destroying the nation and Obama is an unwitting puppet for them.

[Psychoblues]

Why do you post a thread and then post rules for it later, emmie?!?!?!?!??!?!

Is the extrapolation of your thought train confusing you?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?! Don't feel so all alone, cowgirl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Otherwise, I think you and I are in relative agreement.


Psychoblues