31 Oct 08
Originally posted by whodeyAnd socialism is only about financial equality.
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration over the means and production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly.
Although social security does not involve itself with production and distribution of goods, it does concern itself with creating an egalitarian society.
It says nothing about achievement in other areas.
And by creating financial equality, everyone has an even footing on which to build themselves into that which they want.
In financial inequality, a large mass of people are nothing but financial slaves, slogging through working weeks in the hope of being able to pay the bills.
31 Oct 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThe French revolution wasn't about worker's rights.
Conservative Americans don't subscribe to the French Revolution's notion of "Life, Liberty and Equality." Our American Revolution was premised on the idea of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
31 Oct 08
Originally posted by whodeyActually, per capita, Norway is richer. i.e. The amount of money per person is higher in Norway than in the US by a significant factor, hell even the UK is higher. The actual purchasing power of your average Norwegian is higher than your average US citizen too.
You see, money corrupts and there is a lot more of it in the US than in Norway. So tell me, if Norway had the government that the US has would you want to rely more on it? I just can't wait to see what they do with health care!!
31 Oct 08
Originally posted by shavixmirThere's no such thing as financial equality dolt, unless it's financial equality when we're all in the gutter.
And socialism is only about financial equality.
It says nothing about achievement in other areas.
And by creating financial equality, everyone has an even footing on which to build themselves into that which they want.
In financial inequality, a large mass of people are nothing but financial slaves, slogging through working weeks in the hope of being able to pay the bills.
Try this thought exercise shav: Say all the wealth in the world was put in a big pot then doled out evenly (I know your panties are getting moist now at the thought) Tell us what it would be like a week later. I know, you know, we all know that after a week some would be broke again others may have doubled or trebled their wealth. So we try shavs bright idea again, take all the wealth off everyone and dole it out evenly again, a week or two later things are the same again but with one exception there's a bit less wealth to dole out this time because why would anyone bother creating new wealth.
I think AC/DC have a song about socialism, it's called "Highway to Hell"
31 Oct 08
Originally posted by WheelyThat is not what I mean. What I mean is the size of the GDP. The US dwarfs the GDP of Norway. There is far more tax money to play with in the US than in Norway.
Actually, per capita, Norway is richer. i.e. The amount of money per person is higher in Norway than in the US by a significant factor, hell even the UK is higher. The actual purchasing power of your average Norwegian is higher than your average US citizen too.
31 Oct 08
Originally posted by WajomaHow would you fund your army and your police force without taxation?
Try this thought exercise shav: Say all the wealth in the world was put in a big pot then doled out evenly (I know your panties are getting moist now at the thought) Tell us what it would be like a week later.
Or do you plan to get rid of them too?
31 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirFinally, someone proud of socialism. It just begs the question as to why the Democrats continually dodge the "S" word even though their policies lean towards it. For example, when Obama met Joe the Plumber he was quoted as saying that the wealth needs to be spread around. This subsequently hit the news and he was dinged in the polls. The next thing you know Biden was asked by a reporter if Obama's policies favored socialism. He responded as though the person asking the question was a right winged nut and categorically denied this charge. These are conflicting messages to say the least.
And socialism is only about financial equality.
It says nothing about achievement in other areas.
And by creating financial equality, everyone has an even footing on which to build themselves into that which they want.
In financial inequality, a large mass of people are nothing but financial slaves, slogging through working weeks in the hope of being able to pay the bills.
31 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeySo the answer is "no", you don't know what socialism means.
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration over the means and production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly.
Although social security does not involve itself with production and distribution of goods, it does concern itself with creating an egalitarian society.
In socialism the means of production are owned by the State. The examples of "socialism" you gave are just plain wrong; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were privately owned entities and social security is, essentially, a pension plan having nothing to do with ownership of the means of production.
I really wish McCain and/or Palin would campaign in Florida, for example, saying that Social Security is "socialism" and should be abolished.
31 Oct 08
Originally posted by whodey🙄🙄
Finally, someone proud of socialism. It just begs the question as to why the Democrats continually dodge the "S" word even though their policies lean towards it. For example, when Obama met Joe the Plumber he was quoted as saying that the wealth needs to be spread around. This subsequently hit the news and he was dinged in the polls. The next thing you kn ...[text shortened]... d nut and categorically denied this charge. These are conflicting messages to say the least.
31 Oct 08
Originally posted by whodeyYour argument, if you still remember it, was that money corrupts. By all indicators I can find, Norway has more money per citizen than the US and therefore should be very corrupt and given it's socialist nature and your argument that this "money corrupts" thing is why socialism fails, you'd expect Norway to have failed a long time ago.
That is not what I mean. What I mean is the size of the GDP. The US dwarfs the GDP of Norway. There is far more tax money to play with in the US than in Norway.
It is true that the GDP of the US is second only to the EU as a whole but it's expenses dwarf those of Norway too.
31 Oct 08
Originally posted by minutiae70I have more freedom to speak my mind in America than I do here at RHP.
Trading economic rights is only a small fragment of liberty.
In case you arent aware, the US is not the land of liberty compared to others. There are about 20 other countries who are 'freer'.
The US has been trading away rights of speech and religion and search and seizure and due process... these things are eroding. The conservative american (especially those on the religious right) are all about sacrificing these things of late.