Large Scale Central

Socialism?

General Discussion
#101
Ron Simpson said:
Of course, Obama IS a socialist. I STATED that clearly and without reservation. I DID say that. I DO mean it. I do NOT take that back.
Ron, earlier you defined Socialism thus:
Ron Simpson said:
SNIP And, once again, you and others choose to define socialism in terms that do not apply. In fact the definition is a little too nebulous and sloppy to be useful. Socialism is a political mechanism for creating economic equality among the citizens of a country with the overriding assumption that the state ultimately owns or has the final say in controlling all means of production. As a corollary, all the citizens owe their economic existence and well-being, such as it is, to the state. To the extent that private property exists, it is only subject to seizure at any time by the state, usually by means of overly-burdensome taxation. Also, typically the main means of taxation is a progressive income tax that punishes the productive and rewards the UNproductive (the main source of political support in that kind of political system are those who believe they cannot make it without the state to protect them from others who might be TOO competitive, among other things). Thus in pure socialism the state is the source of all economic security, which means in the end that NOBODY is secure. THAT is socialism.
Based on your pretty specific definition of Socialism, Obama would have to satisfy [b]ALL[/b] of those conditions before he would qualify as a Socialist. The onus is upon you to demonstrate proof that Obama meets [b]ALL[/b] of those conditions or, I submit he cannot possibly called a Socialist. Where for instance, has he said that he wants the State to be the source of all economic security? If Obama does not satisfy [b]ALL[/b] of the conditions and you still wish to address him thus, that means All Western Democratic Societies are governed by some form of Socialism if they tax and redsitribute the wealth to the less fortunate. Including the fair State of Alaska which does conform with at least one of those requirements. It does for example tax the rich (the oil companies) and redistribute the wealth to the less rich (the citizens of Alaska).

What you need to realise is that there are degrees of Socialism in the World.
If you can accept that you will be well on the way to understanding why many countries in the rest of the World have adopted mild Social Democracies.

#102

Ron

I guess that’s why the one statement made by Keynes in his book “The Economic Consequences of the Peace” published in 1919 has always stuck with me.

“Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”

Along with a speech attributed to Col. David Crockett, US Representative from Tennessee 1827 to 1831, in a biography written by Edward Sylvester Ellis and published in 1884. Commonly referred to as the “It’s not yours to give” story. Although, within my personal research of the Congressional Record and House Journal covering Crockett’s time in Congress I’ve yet to find any corroboration for it.

[i]"The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by tariff (Note: There were no income taxes in the 1800s when this was written, most government revenue came from tariffs), which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.

If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any thing and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose."[/i]

#103
Ron Simpson said:
Nope. I was referring to THIS: So now having spent billions of dollars to secure Alaska's economic prosperity, we are suppose to remove government, so Alaska's economic security can be maintained?

Where did I say anything about removing the federal government ?


Here ya go:

Ron Simpson said:
I would be quite pleased if you did NOT subsidize us at all.
November 2, 2008 17:18:03 MST

You want us to stop subsidizing you–i.e, federal government go away. Having spent billions for more than 50 years carrying Alaska, we are now supposed to stop taxing you, because it’s “socialism?”

And meanwhile you are still calling Obama a socialist and presenting ZERO evidence that he fits your wn definition of socialism!

#104
Steve Conkle said:
Ron

I guess that’s why the one statement made by Keynes in his book “The Economic Consequences of the Peace” published in 1919 has always stuck with me.

“Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”


Is Obama now accussed of “debauchng the currency?” Is this part of his plan that I missed?

Steve Conkle said:
Along with a speech attributed to Col. David Crockett, US Representative from Tennessee 1827 to 1831, in a biography written by Edward Sylvester Ellis and published in 1884. Commonly referred to as the [i]"It's not yours to give"[/i] story. Although, within my personal research of the Congressional Record and House Journal covering Crockett's time in Congress I've yet to find any corroboration for it.

[i]"The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by tariff (Note: There were no income taxes in the 1800s when this was written, most government revenue came from tariffs), which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.

If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any thing and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose."[/i]


It’s great that you are trying to authenticate this. Personally, I think this quote is a fake. Crockett was a Whig, and in the context of the times the Whigs were the Party more likely to favor using public money to run development projects. But also as you note the big issue of the day was tariffs, the main source of govt. revenue after sales of public land. It just does not sound right to me–people were not talking about taxes that way in 1830. I’m pretty sure the quote is a fake. But I could be wrong. I’d be interested to see if you find it.

I did a Google Books search for “crockett” and one of the phrases and found the speech in an 1867 article in Harper’s magazine, in a piece by someone name “J. Bethune.” It’s pretty suspect–it purports to be a very long quotation, from memory, of a speech made more than thirty years earlier. I suspect that’s where Ellis got it.

#105
mike omalley said:
Ron Simpson said:
Nope. I was referring to THIS: So now having spent billions of dollars to secure Alaska's economic prosperity, we are suppose to remove government, so Alaska's economic security can be maintained?

Where did I say anything about removing the federal government ?


Here ya go:

Ron Simpson said:
I would be quite pleased if you did NOT subsidize us at all.
November 2, 2008 17:18:03 MST

You want us to stop subsidizing you–i.e, federal government go away. Having spent billions for more than 50 years carrying Alaska, we are now supposed to stop taxing you, because it’s “socialism?”

And meanwhile you are still calling Obama a socialist and presenting ZERO evidence that he fits your wn definition of socialism!


There you go. You reached beyond what I wrote to INFER from my statement something I did not say. Did I say “stop taxing (us)”? I did not. And, let us say that I DID mean that. Would my reasoning be “because it’s 'socialism?” Did I say that? Now THAT is quite a reach. And it misses the point of where I was going.

HOWEVER, having said that, it MAY very well be time that we here in Alaska prepare to re-define our relationship with the federal government for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that our economy will be all but killed if Obama gets in–federal taxes or not. He is too much in bed with the radical environmentalists. We here in AK already KNOW what is coming IF Obama gets in WITH a filibuster-proof Senate and a Congress overwhelmed by Democrats. If you don’t understand the likelihood of that happening–us here in AK moving in SOME OTHER direction, you are living in fantasy-land.

Now, getting back to this matter of Obama the socialist. It appears to me that NOTHING I provide in the way of logic or evidence will convince those of you who insist I PROVE it that he is what I say he is. I know. You hate to see him revealed for what he really is. Understandable. The word frightens you. Somebody might actually get it. Then the game is up. Well, he is what he is. Now, is MY reach any greater than yours when it comes to you INFERRING what I wrote?

#106
TonyWalsham said:
Based on your pretty specific definition of Socialism, Obama would have to satisfy [b]ALL[/b] of those conditions before he would qualify as a Socialist. The onus is upon you to demonstrate proof that Obama meets [b]ALL[/b] of those conditions or, I submit he cannot possibly called a Socialist.

Where for instance, has he said that he wants the State to be the source of all economic security?
If Obama does not satisfy ALL of the conditions and you still wish to address him thus, that means All Western Democratic Societies are governed by some form of Socialism if they tax and redsitribute the wealth to the less fortunate.
Including the fair State of Alaska which does conform with at least one of those requirements.
It does for example tax the rich (the oil companies) and redistribute the wealth to the less rich (the citizens of Alaska).

What you need to realise is that there are degrees of Socialism in the World.
If you can accept that you will be well on the way to understanding why many countries in the rest of the World have adopted mild Social Democracies.


YOU are lecturing me? Who said otherwise? Did I? I did not. ALL existing societies ARE governed with some degree of socialism mixed into their political system. HOWEVER, when the leaders make it clear that they believe in the power of the government OVER the individuals who make up their country, what they are really acknowledging is their belief that the government RULES the people–the exact opposite of the original meaning of the United States. There is a reason why the constitution specified so many powers to the residents or their individual states. The principle is called “limited government.” The United States was the first modern nation to come into existence under that principle.

Although it is all a matter of degree, it is IMPORTANT to recognize that there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between nations set up as limited governments and those set up to RULE its citizens. As far as I am concerned anyone who seeks to obfuscate this distinction is probably interested in confusing people into believing that socialism is a legitimate concept as a ruling principle for the United States. It is not.

As for Obama-No. He does not need to meet ALL the criteria I have set forth to fall into the socialist camp. However, anyone who believes that redistribution of wealth is a prime function of government IS a socialist. But I don’t go just with his words, although they are enough to give a CLUE, I also go with his KNOWN associates, particularly Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dorn, and Rev. Wright. ALL of these associates have confirmed themselves time and again as enemies of the United States BECAUSE it is a capitalist-based country. They hate big business. They hate small business. They hate INDEPENDENT-thinking people–those who disagree with THEM. They all believe that society needs to be re-ordered in a way that suits them–very scary stuff. But Ayers & Dorn also believe in re-education camps–a communist invention–for those who disagree with them. No one, and I mean NO ONE who truly believes in the United States as it was originally formed, would EVER associate themselves so closely with people who are such clear enemies–not just in words but in actions–of the USA for what it is–a free country.

#107
Ron Simpson said:
As for Obama-No. He does not need to meet ALL the criteria I have set forth to fall into the socialist camp. However, anyone who believes that redistribution of wealth is a prime function of government IS a socialist. But I don't go just with his words, although they are enough to give a CLUE, I also go with his KNOWN associates, particularly Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dorn, and Rev. Wright. ALL of these associates have confirmed themselves time and again as enemies of the United States BECAUSE it is a capitalist-based country. They hate big business. They hate small business. They hate INDEPENDENT-thinking people--those who disagree with THEM. They all believe that society needs to be re-ordered in a way that suits them--very scary stuff. But Ayers & Dorn also believe in re-education camps--a communist invention--for those who disagree with them. No one, and I mean NO ONE who truly believes in the United States as it was originally formed, would EVER associate themselves so closely with people who are such clear enemies--not just in words but in actions--of the USA for what it is--a free country.
And now let the baseless generalizations begin!

Having made a bunch of assertions you cannot prove, you’re now digging a deeper hole by making even more.

#108
Ron Simpson said:
Now, getting back to this matter of Obama the socialist. It appears to me that NOTHING I provide in the way of logic or evidence will convince those of you who insist I PROVE it that he is what I say he is. I know. You hate to see him revealed for what he really is. Understandable. The word frightens you. Somebody might actually get it. Then the game is up. Well, he is what he is. Now, is MY reach any greater than yours when it comes to you INFERRING what I wrote?
What word? Understandable? That word doesn't frighten me at all. This paragraph makes no sense. Your reach is vast, your grasp...well, rather less so.
#109

Mike. I appreciate that you don’t, or won’t, get it. But the rest of us do.

Obama wants to dramatically reorganize the US, starting with the coal industry. Everything that relies on electricity and the railroads will follow, as will business in the United States.

Then, you will have created whatever you want to call it. You don’t want to call it Socialism, so what will you call it? It certainly won’t be Capitalism.

#110

I don’t suppose past associations count:

"In June sources released information that during his campaign for the State Senate in Illinois, Barack Obama was endorsed by an organization known as the Chicago “New Party”. The ‘New Party’ was a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to push forth the socialist principles of the DSA by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards. The admittedly Socialist Organization experienced a moderate rise in numbers between 1995 and 1999. By 1999, however, the Socialist ‘New Party’ was essentially defunct after losing a supreme court challenge that ruled the organizations “fusion” reform platform as unconstitutional.

“After allegations surfaced in early summer over the ‘New Party’s’ endorsement of Obama, the Obama campaign along with the remnants of the New Party and Democratic Socialists of America claimed that Obama was never a member of either organization. The DSA and ‘New Party’ then systematically attempted to cover up any ties between Obama and the Socialist Organizations. However, it now appears that Barack Obama was indeed a certified and acknowledged member of the DSA’s New Party.”

source

#111
Steve Featherkile said:
Mike. I appreciate that you don't, or won't, get it. But the rest of us do.

Obama wants to dramatically reorganize the US, starting with the coal industry. Everything that relies on electricity and the railroads will follow, as will business in the United States.

Then, you will have created whatever you want to call it. You don’t want to call it Socialism, so what will you call it? It certainly won’t be Capitalism.


It’s just that word “socialism” that seems to bother those on the left who are quite obviously in denial and would rather play word games than just deal with the obvious. But it is what it is.

#112
Ron Simpson said:
They hate INDEPENDENT-thinking people--those who disagree with THEM. They all believe that society needs to be re-ordered in a way that suits them--very scary stuff.
Sounds like an accurate description of the neoconservatives. Ralph
#113

What is a neoconservative? Is that like a neoliberal, only different?

#114

The radical fringe from BOTH sides are a bit too (long list of negative adjectives) for my taste. And neither holds the patent on arrogance, condescension or stupidity.

But I really gotta ask, “Do we REALLY have to (or want to) swing from the far right to the far left in a single election?” I hope not.

#115

The word socialism doesn’t bother me at all. Inaccuracy bothers me.

I asked you to demonstrate how Obama was an socialist, after you gave a point by point definition of socialist. And you responded with Ayers and Rev. Wright, neither of whom are Obama or are involved with Obama’s campaign.

That’s because you can’t prove he’s a socialist, because he’s not. The menace of the "New Party–which had, what, 10 members 20 years ago, none of which appear to me to have been Obama?–hardly seems relevant, when you have Obama’s stated platform, his policy proposals, right in front of you. Look at what he is proposing, and it bears zero relation to socialism by any known definition. His advisors are not socialists, his proposals are not socialist.

Speaking for myself, I wish we had a monarchist running, and a socialist, and a fascist and a communist. I wish we had a wider range of political options than we do. What we have is two guys who by any objective standard, are virtually identical. I mean, try actually reading what he proposes. And then read what McCain proposes. In the ful rnage of what people come up with to govern themselves, they are about an inch apart.

But conservatives have a rich fantasy life, I’ll give them that. It’s fun, I guess, to imagine that civilization is about to collapse so you can dig a bunker and stock up on caned food. Steve says “Obama wants to dramatically reorganize the US, starting with the coal industry. Everything that relies on electricity and the railroads will follow, as will business in the United States.” Wow! The revolution is at hand! Well Steve, go look at the website, and see if that’s what he’s proposing.

Or just continue to make stuff up based on hoax emails and conspiracy web sites. Why, you can imagine him to be anything you want! The antichrist, the next hitler, Rasputin, Saddam’s cousin–whatever you like.

Just don’t ask rational people to believe it

#116
Mik said:
The radical fringe from BOTH sides are a bit too (long list of negative adjectives) for my taste. And neither holds the patent on arrogance, condescension or stupidity.

But I really gotta ask, “Do we REALLY have to (or want to) swing from the far right to the far left in a single election?” I hope not.


Mik,

Luckily you guys haven’t hit the far right yet and it’s an awfully long way to the far left. Most of the time you guys are in “dead skunk” territory i.e. the middle of the road. Like the drunk trying to walk that straight line, but weaving back and forth! That is 'til the crap hits the economic fan and the splattering wakes up even those who sleep walk most of the time.
The scary part would be having a “Maverick” in charge when the economics are really dreadful! Crashing the whole country into the abyss isn’t on the same scale as crashing a few of those fighter jets. (Was it 5 or more?)

#117
mike said:
But conservatives have a rich fantasy life, I'll give them that. It's fun, I guess, to imagine that civilization is about to collapse so you can dig a bunker and stock up on caned food. Steve says "Obama wants to dramatically reorganize the US, starting with the coal industry.
That is what he said to the San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board!
#118

No, it’s not

http://mediamatters.org/items/200811030006

#119
mike omalley said:
The word socialism doesn't bother me at all. Inaccuracy bothers me.

I asked you to demonstrate how Obama was an socialist, after you gave a point by point definition of socialist. And you responded with Ayers and Rev. Wright, neither of whom are Obama or are involved with Obama’s campaign.

That’s because you can’t prove he’s a socialist, because he’s not.


Fine. Define socialism anyway you want. After all, we don’t want to unduly alarm anyone, do we? Define Obama anyway you want. He’s probably nothing more than a mainstream American politician in the same mold as Hubert Humphrey, right?

Close your eyes tight. Ride the fantasy train.
And drink the Koolaid.

#120
mike omalley said:
No, it's not

http://mediamatters.org/items/200811030006


Yes it is!