19 Jul 10
Originally posted by whodeyyour link is missing a dot.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4934917-503544html
According to one Congressman, there are around 17 socialists in Congress. However, only one of them proclaims himself a socialist. There is no doubt that the governemnt is turning hard left, it is just hard to tell who all is in involved at times.
To explain this a poll was taken regarding capitalism and socialism. About 53% say they favor capitalism and only 20% proclaim socialism.
---
April 10, 2009 12:05 PM
Congressman Says 17 House Members Are Socialists
Posted by Brent Lang
You have to go all the way back to 1929 to find a member of the Socialist Party in the U.S. House of Representatives, but U.S. Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) says the "workers' party" is alive and kicking on Capitol Hill.
While addressing elected officials yesterday in his Birmingham-area district, the conservative congressman told an audience at the Trussville Civic Center that socialists in Congress are pressuring President Obama to cater to the far left of the political spectrum, The Birmingham News reports.
"Some of these guys I work with, the men and women in Congress, are socialists," the congressman said.
When asked to name names following his remarks, Bachus could only cite one person – U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), a self-described "Democratic Socialist." But he demurred when pressed to name specific members of the House who subscribe to socialism.
He had a number though. Bachus was able to say that 17 house members are socialists.
If he's concerned about the rise of socialism, a new Rasmussen Reports polls shows that Bachus may have reason to worry. According to its findings, just 53 percent of those asked prefer capitalism to socialism. Twenty percent of respondents favored socialism to the free market system.
19 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by DrKFThe object of the left is to grow Big Brother at any and all costs. So as we see government expanding we see Big Business as a helping hand by promoting their policies by lavishing them with money and benefiting from legislation that will grow Big Brother and deminish the average Joe. Do we want to call it "communism" in the traditional sense? Probably not because the old communist model is a proven failure but we can call it another attempt at centralized control.
And the link with communists infiltrating government and big business is..?
19 Jul 10
Originally posted by whodeyThe actual object on the left is to increase the role of the state as and when that process is demonstrably in the interests of the electorate - who voted for them on that basis.
The object of the left is to grow Big Brother at any and all costs. So as we see government expanding we see Big Business as a helping hand. Do we want to call it "communism" in the traditional sense? Probably not because the old communist model is a proven failure but we can call it another attempt at centralized control.
Big business is demonstrably opposed to big government, as it is the government which has the power to obliged business to raise the minimum wage, improve minimum safety standards, etc. These are policies that are in the interest of employees (ie, the majority of voters) but not of employers (the minority). The employers, of course, have a vested interest in promoting paranoid fantasies about "Big Brother" in order to undermine the government's efforts to act in the interest of those who elected it.
19 Jul 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesAny move to centralize control and diminish the checks and balances put in the system to limit government is a move towards socialism/communism. I could care less whose face is promoting it but till this point I have not heard it from Beck, have you?
Perhaps the Communists ARE plotting to overthrow America's government and economy -- with Glenn Beck being their most prized agent, and the Tea Party Movement being the main means for furthering the revolution.
Do you think the Communists would try to portray themeselves as socialists? The American people would reject quickly such a thing. But many Ame ...[text shortened]... ng orders from Beck & Co without questioning them and the Grand Revolution will be underway
19 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThe object of the left is to write books or record hip folk songs, or perhaps get a job as a professor of women's studies.
The object of the left is to grow Big Brother at any and all costs. So as we see government expanding we see Big Business as a helping hand by promoting their policies by lavishing them with money and benefiting from legislation that will grow Big Brother and deminish the average Joe. Do we want to call it "communism" in the traditional sense? Probably not ...[text shortened]... communist model is a proven failure but we can call it another attempt at centralized control.
perhaps a better term than communism could be the "military-industrial complex"?
19 Jul 10
3 edits
Originally posted by whodeyyou think Beck's going to tell anyone what he's really plotting to do?
Any move to centralize control and diminish the checks and balances put in the system to limit government is a move towards socialism/communism. I could care less whose face is promoting it but till this point I have not heard it from Beck, have you?
Perhaps the idea is to get so many conservatives riled up that the militias will lead a massive coup to eliminate the entire existing government. Amidst all of the resulting chaos, the communists would then be able commandeer the American nuclear weapons stockpile and use it to take power.
19 Jul 10
4 edits
Originally posted by TeinosukeI will conceed that "good" things come from paying someone to make you "safe". However, when you do you begin to surrender control to another. Of course, this can turn ugly as well as I'm sure you are aware.
The actual object on the left is to increase the role of the state as and when that process is demonstrably in the interests of the electorate - who voted for them on that basis.
Big business is demonstrably opposed to big government, as it is the government which has the power to obliged business to raise the minimum wage, improve minimum safety standa n order to undermine the government's efforts to act in the interest of those who elected it.
If government had nothing "good" to offer society whatsoever they would be illegitimate. Of course, the less "good" they bring the less legitimate they become. For example, social security comes to mind. When it was implemented it sounded like a great idea. People could depend upon an income when they retire, however, the age at which they could begin to collect was the average age that people typically died. In addition, while the pot of money was being collected those in government stole from it and left trillions of IOU's. So although some benefit from the system, by in large future generations will have to clean up their mess and no one is accountable for the theft from the system. Its like a legal ponzi scheme.
So why does the social security system work? It works because the statists get paid as they get their hands on the loot in social security and the citizens also get a cut assuming they live to see it. So everyones happy right? Whose going to blow the whistle when everyone is getting a cut? Its like the credit crisis. Average citizens were happy because they were getting houses they could not afford. Morgtage companies were happy because of the increased mortgages they were acquiring. Government was happy because they could point to the increased home ownership to their constituents. Wall Street was making a killing off the toxic assets. So who was going to blow the whistle when everyone is getting a cut of the action? It is my prediction that the credit crisis will look like a walk in the park compared to the looming entitlement crisis envolving health care and social security.
19 Jul 10
Originally posted by DrKFCould you not just have said 'yes' to this and saved the last couple of pages, whodey? Did you know, when I first put that to you, that you believed Goldman Sachs to be controlled by communists (or some wholly interchangeable word that means pretty much the same thing)? Because I'm sure you knew then that I, at least, would consider that to be bending the word communist at least a little out of shape. You should have replied - "Maybe you will think I am using the word communist incorrectly; for example, I believe Goldman Sachs to be a communist organisation and if queried on this will throw around terms like 'centralized control' and 'Big Brother' in lieu of any serious discussion. What say you?" And then I'd have known where we stood.
Unless, oh dear, unless you're going to try to bend the word 'communist' so out of shape it will end up contorted like a balloon at a kid's party.
If, like Humpty-Dumpty, words mean only what you say they mean, it makes rational discourse ever so difficult.
19 Jul 10
Originally posted by DrKFI should probably rely on the term statist. 😉
Could you not just have said 'yes' to this and saved the last couple of pages, whodey? Did you know, when I first put that to you, that you believed Goldman Sachs to be controlled by communists (or some wholly interchangeable word that means pretty much the same thing)? Because I'm sure you knew then that I, at least, would consider that to be bending the word ...[text shortened]... words mean only what you say they mean, it makes rational discourse ever so difficult.
19 Jul 10
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyof course, if we were to proceed with a plan to immediately eliminate Social Security and Medicare right now, it would create a looming "whodey crisis" that would make most Americans wish they'd have waited 30 years for some entitlement crisis that was may or may not have come at that time. (Probably arriving at the same time that global warming destroys all life on the planet).
I will conceed that "good" things come from paying someone to make you "safe". However, when you do you begin to surrender control to another. Of course, this can turn ugly as well as I'm sure you are aware.
If government had nothing "good" to offer society whatsoever they would be illegitimate. Of course, the less "good" they bring the less legitimate compared to the looming entitlement crisis envolving health care and social security.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28919
20 Jul 10
Originally posted by whodeyDon't you get the point? 'Big Business' is not footing the bill for Lifestyles of the Rich Famous to every politician they can out of the kindness of their plump and tender hearts. They are expecting to take their profit not from some mythical unit of wealth like greenbacks but from the actual sweat and suffering of each person on the planet not free to live without constant attention to base survival. As they gaze down at the 'little' people they occasionally amuse themselves by tossing little tidbit of confusion into their grazing herds. Life is good while they watch the few strong devour each other before becoming any threat to peace.
The object of the left is to grow Big Brother at any and all costs. So as we see government expanding we see Big Business as a helping hand by promoting their policies by lavishing them with money and benefiting from legislation that will grow Big Brother and deminish the average Joe. Do we want to call it "communism" in the traditional sense? Probably not ...[text shortened]... communist model is a proven failure but we can call it another attempt at centralized control.