Sociailsm is the most prevalent and preferred form of government we see. I think you know what it is.

 

I know what I read as the definition of it. I don't see that manifested in policy. You?

I know what I read as the definition of it. I don't see that manifested in policy. You?

 

All over Europe.

 

Here in the US: Centralized banking or central planning, Social Security, welfare, extended unemployment, government regulations in the market, subsidies, The New Deal, medicare and medicaid, student aid.

 

Any form of the government taking money from taxpayers and putting in place where they deem it proper is socialism. When they take freedoms, restrict choice of an individual and regulate the market for the sake of the masses is socialism.

Marvel told me that you judge a person off of his policy and his votes.

 

 

And by the policies he tries to enact or put in place.

Sounds to me like both parties have read the book. Think swift boats in 2004. Think about the Iraq war justification. Think about Medicare fromm either side. Think about the discussion of the ACA.

 

And are you going to condemn it? Or just go along and say if they do it, he can do it?

 

Well no, I can't prove his "leanings". I can only judge him on the policies he has enacted. Those look pretty centrist.

 

Can you give me some examples of his centrist policies?

If you haven't read Alinskys books then you can't possibly make a comparision because you don't know what you are tallking about.......

 

I've read both Alinsky and Rand. What does that make me?

And are you going to condemn it? Or just go along and say if they do it, he can do it?

 

 

 

Can you give me some examples of his centrist policies?

 

I don't like it from either side. I just don't accept what I see in 30 second ads as fact.

 

As far as an example of centrist policies, the ACA is the best example. Socialized medicine is the VA. Leftist medicine is single payer like Medicare. Center left is ACA with a public option. Center right is the ACA. Far right is you're on your own baby.

All over Europe.

 

Here in the US: Centralized banking or central planning, Social Security, welfare, extended unemployment, government regulations in the market, subsidies, The New Deal, medicare and medicaid, student aid.

 

Any form of the government taking money from taxpayers and putting in place where they deem it proper is socialism. When they take freedoms, restrict choice of an individual and regulate the market for the sake of the masses is socialism.

 

 

Cammando claimed THIS president was socialist. The items you list are staples of American history.

^ - During this administration 1/6 of the economy was taken over or put under strict, heavy regulation. The same law forces people to buy something - an unprecedented action in the history of the US. This administration took over 2 major car companies and then gave ownership to the UAW. Essentially nationalizing the companies and then rewarding the entity that claims to represent the workers. This is similar to the action of Venezuelan strong man Hugo Chavez and very Marxist in its nature. These actions are unprecedented in US history. This adminstration has used the power of executive order to bypass Congress in unprecedented manners. This administration appointed czars to run parts of the government. By using czars instead of cabinet members, Congressional review was bypassed. This is unprecedented in US history. This administration committed US armed forces in Libya without emergency order or any Congressional approval or oversight. This is unprecedented and shows contempt for the separation of powers as defined by the Constitution.

 

These are real 'socialist' policies and actions taken during this administration. This administration has shown its outright contempt for the Constitution. That is never good for a Constitutional Republic.

^ - During this administration 1/6 of the economy was taken over or put under strict, heavy regulation. The same law forces people to buy something - an unprecedented action in the history of the US. This administration took over 2 major car companies and then gave ownership to the UAW. Essentially nationalizing the companies and then rewarding the entity that claims to represent the workers. This is similar to the action of Venezuelan strong man Hugo Chavez and very Marxist in its nature. These actions are unprecedented in US history. This adminstration has used the power of executive order to bypass Congress in unprecedented manners. This administration appointed czars to run parts of the government. By using czars instead of cabinet members, Congressional review was bypassed. This is unprecedented in US history. This administration committed US armed forces in Libya without emergency order or any Congressional approval or oversight. This is unprecedented and shows contempt for the separation of powers as defined by the Constitution.

 

These are real 'socialist' policies and actions taken during this administration. This administration has shown its outright contempt for the Constitution. That is never good for a Constitutional Republic.

 

It forces them to buy something. Correct. It does not force them to buy from the govt. That seems to be a key point.

 

Car companies: If the govt says the companies can never be owned as a true corporation then I'm 100% with you.

 

The rest(czars, exec order, etc) has no resemblance to "socialism."

It forces them to buy something. Correct. It does not force them to buy from the govt. That seems to be a key point.

 

Car companies: If the govt says the companies can never be owned as a true corporation then I'm 100% with you.

 

The rest(czars, exec order, etc) has no resemblance to "socialism."

 

"Socialism" is just a nice word for totalitarianism. The Soviets, The German National Socialists, Hugo Chavez, etc. go under different names but they are totalitarian rule with highly centralized power. The Germans allowed companies to remain 'private' but who thumb were the German companies under in the 1930s?

 

Dismanteling of the Constitution is a required funtion to implement 'socialism'. So the czars, the committing of armed forces without required Congressional approval, the use of EOs to bypass Congress are definitely 'socialism'. Actually they are worse the are attacks on the only thing that keeps the government somewhat under control of the People.

All over Europe.

 

Here in the US: Centralized banking or central planning, Social Security, welfare, extended unemployment, government regulations in the market, subsidies, The New Deal, medicare and medicaid, student aid.

 

Any form of the government taking money from taxpayers and putting in place where they deem it proper is socialism. When they take freedoms, restrict choice of an individual and regulate the market for the sake of the masses is socialism.

 

Have you not heard of a 'Mixed Market" Economy?

 

Plus, where in the Constitution or Declaration does it talk about Capitalism?

 

We the PEOPLE

in order to form a more perfect UNION

establish JUSTICE

ensure domestic tranquility (PEACE)

provide for the COMMON defense

promote the general welfare

secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves AND our posterity.

 

Really think about those words and think about the East India Tea Company and how it was in bed with the british government and how that government was passing laws to benefit a company as opposed to taking care of the people and the rebellion that ensued.

 

You want pure capitalism, but you want government protection for certain companies as well. We don't want pure capitalism because we end up with monopolies like Ma Bell and imagine if one Airline controlled the skies. Pure capitalism allows wealth to be concentrated, what our founding fathers envisioned was for WEALTH to be shared by all.

I've read both Alinsky and Rand. What does that make me?

 

The victim of two people taking HOURS UPON HOURS of your life that you'll never get back.

"Socialism" is just a nice word for totalitarianism. The Soviets, The German National Socialists, Hugo Chavez, etc. go under different names but they are totalitarian rule with highly centralized power. The Germans allowed companies to remain 'private' but who thumb were the German companies under in the 1930s?

 

Dismanteling of the Constitution is a required funtion to implement 'socialism'. So the czars, the committing of armed forces without required Congressional approval, the use of EOs to bypass Congress are definitely 'socialism'. Actually they are worse the are attacks on the only thing that keeps the government somewhat under control of the People.

 

40 years of unchecked executive power. One party gets in and his supporters don't mind the particular things he's doing over the objections of his opponents. Then the other party gets in power and his supporters don't mind the particular things he's doing over the objections of his opponents. In the end, all that has resulted is that the office of the president has spent two presidential terms taking more and more power.

 

There's only one way to stop it and that's for Congress to wake up and take back its birthright. Both parties can chew on that one.

Have you not heard of a 'Mixed Market" Economy?

 

Plus, where in the Constitution or Declaration does it talk about Capitalism?

 

We the PEOPLE

in order to form a more perfect UNION

establish JUSTICE

ensure domestic tranquility (PEACE)

provide for the COMMON defense

promote the general welfare

secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves AND our posterity.

 

Really think about those words and think about the East India Tea Company and how it was in bed with the british government and how that government was passing laws to benefit a company as opposed to taking care of the people and the rebellion that ensued.

 

You want pure capitalism, but you want government protection for certain companies as well. We don't want pure capitalism because we end up with monopolies like Ma Bell and imagine if one Airline controlled the skies. Pure capitalism allows wealth to be concentrated, what our founding fathers envisioned was for WEALTH to be shared by all.

 

Not true. There was no federal income taxes to redistribute the wealth at our founding. Federal income was obtained by usage taxes, excise taxes and tariffs, and the selling of government bonds, until the Civil War.

 

"Promote the general welfare" does not mean provide the general welfare.

Not true. There was no federal income taxes to redistribute the wealth at our founding. Federal income was obtained by usage taxes, excise taxes and tariffs, and the selling of government bonds, until the Civil War.

 

"Promote the general welfare" does not mean provide the general welfare.

:thumb: