Was Bush a socialist?

Originally posted by joe beyser
Obama wants mandatory national service for crying out loud! I served my country in the military, but I sure don't think any less of those that haven't. If you are a productive citezen, they are taking more than their fair share of taxes.

If you can show me one, single unedited quote from Obama advocating conscription I would love to see it.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_congress_creating_a_mandatory_public_service.html

Q: Is Congress creating a mandatory public service system? Are participants not allowed to go to church?

A: The national service bill does not mandate that youth must participate nor does it forbid anyone who does participate from going to church.

Click the link and you'll see much more detail.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
If you can show me one, single unedited quote from Obama advocating conscription I would love to see it.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_congress_creating_a_mandatory_public_service.html

Q: Is Congress creating a mandatory public service system? Are participants not allowed to go to church?

A: The national service bill does not ...[text shortened]... who does participate from going to church.

Click the link and you'll see much more detail.

Obama talked around it plenty but Rahm Emanuel pretty much spelled it out. Will that do? There is a good video of that.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes of course, that's why I don't think taxes should be "equally spread".

We agree on that, which is why I wrote that "however"-part. Here's an interesting, age-old rhetorical
question: "Is it possible to allow individual wealth in a completely equalised; socialised society?"

But this would raise a completely different debate, I suppose. I think we both agree that Bush can't be
honoured with the title socialist, or even socialist tendencies. He's anathema to a socialist, representing
inequality, colonialist thinking and personal capitalist interests. Everything he's done has served him
and/or his family very well from a monetary point of view, but done little to equalise the opportunities
and conditions among the USA:an people at large.

Originally posted by joe beyser
I am not totaly against socialistic aspects of society. In this country a whole bunch of people would live off of welfare if given the chance. Families stuck together about 3 generations ago for survival.

A purely socialist society can't maintain itself if you can live off welfare that easily. Every work
enabled citizen simply must do their part to keep society going, or everything falls apart at the
seams. Social security is supposed to be a last resort, only available to you if you're not work
enabled or if you show that you're looking for a job and really haven't gotten any reasonable work
offers. It's there to make sure that no one can fall all the way through to living on the street, eating
crap in garbage cans or living on the good will of charity organisations/friends/family with no real
hope of ever getting back up on the horse.

It's a small part of socialist models often criticised for fear of lazy bums parasiting (is that a word
even?) the system. Whether or not that's possible depends entirely on the model used to ensure
social security.

Originally posted by whodey
There are other aspect of his socialist tendencies. For example, Bush began entitlements that surpassed those of LBJ.

I'm sorry you've got me there. I have no idea what LBJ is. 😳

I'd appreciate a short explanation though.

Is this it?
http://blog.mises.org/archives/006284.asp

Originally posted by whodey
I prefer the word "statist" over "socialist". A statist seeks to empower the government to improve perceived injustices within a given society. Since there are an abundant and never ending injustices within any given society, statists are never satiated as government becomes bigger and bigger and bigger.....

Why is that you think a socialist wants a completely dominating state? Also, what exactly do you mean
"government becomes bigger and bigger and bigger"?

Originally posted by whodey
I prefer the word "statist" over "socialist". A statist seeks to empower the government to improve perceived injustices within a given society. Since there are an abundant and never ending injustices within any given society, statists are never satiated as government becomes bigger and bigger and bigger.....

"Statist" is a less precise word than "socialist". Statism simply refers to the belief in strong government controls over both the economy and private behaviour, and these could be initiated by a conservative in order, say, to prevent the working class from taking action to better its lot, or to impose a particular ideology which the ruler happens to favour. Franco and Salazar, surely, were conservative statists. So, today, are some Middle Eastern rulers - for example, the Saudi royal family.

Socialism, on the other hand, is a specific form of economic organisation, characterised by nationalisation of the means of production and redistribution of wealth. Socialism does not necessarily seek to regulate private behaviour: some socialist regimes have done so, but democratic socialists are usually, in the Political Compass' terms, left-libertarian. Conversely, statists can be socialist or non-socialist; a powerful government might initiate controls over business in order to monopolise wealth for its members and its friends.

Come to think of it, that's kind of what Bush did! So yes, Bush was a statist. No, he wasn't a socialist.

Originally posted by joe beyser
Obama talked around it plenty but Rahm Emanuel pretty much spelled it out. Will that do? There is a good video of that.

No, that will not do. You accused Obama of being for conscription, which is absurd. Such an outlandish charge requires ample backing and you've provided none. All you've said is he's "talked around it plenty"

Originally posted by Teinosuke
"Statist" is a less precise word than "socialist". Statism simply refers to the belief in strong government controls over both the economy and private behaviour, and these could be initiated by a conservative in order, say, to prevent the working class from taking action to better its lot, or to impose a particular ideology which the ruler happens to favou ...[text shortened]... it, that's kind of what Bush did! So yes, Bush was a statist. No, he wasn't a socialist.

Socialism specifically refers to a system of governance where the state owns the means of production and distribution.

Neither Obama nor Bush were socialist, and it's absolutely rediculous to suggest otherwise. A graduated tax system is NOT socialism. That two parties disagree with the scale of that progression does not make one Socialist and the other not.

Obama IS a collectivist, but unfortunately that doesn't sound scarey enough for the right so they use the absurd buzz word, "Socialism"

Republicans are also collectivist in many aspects.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Socialism specifically refers to a system of governance where the state owns the means of production and distribution.

That's one dictionary definition of the word. Yet, the original spokesmen for socialism talked more
about the goal being even distribution of labour and property among the people. They advocated
socialism as a transition where capital would be government controlled, but the government would work
in the interest of the people, not in the interest of themselves. That's why I think the definition you
use is incomplete and misleading (if still correct in an academic sense). If it's all about state ownership
of capital, a military dictatorship could claim to be socialist in nature even if the people at large never
reap any rewards from their hard, back braking labour, which is of course ridiculous.

Originally posted by Jigtie
I'm sorry you've got me there. I have no idea what LBJ is. 😳

I'd appreciate a short explanation though.

Is this it?
http://blog.mises.org/archives/006284.asp

LBJ means Lyndon B Johnson and his "Great Society" programs. Some great society it turned out to be, eh?

Originally posted by whodey
LBJ means Lyndon B Johnson and his "Great Society" programs. Some great society it turned out to be, eh?

Strangely enough I find very few people here who are unhappy with the state of society.

Originally posted by Jigtie
That's one dictionary definition of the word. Yet, the original spokesmen for socialism talked more
about the goal being even distribution of labour and property among the people. They advocated
socialism as a transition where capital would be government controlled, but the government would work
in the interest of the people, not in the interest of them ...[text shortened]... never
reap any rewards from their hard, back braking labour, which is of course ridiculous.

There are two problems with what you are saying.

1: You cannot say that one thing equates to another simply because their stated goal is the same. Using a football analogy - that's like saying an offense based around the running game is a "west coast offense" because both have the goal of obtaining touchdowns.

2: I disagree with the notion that Democratic ideals are based on the goal of financial equalibrium.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
There are two problems with what you are saying.

1: You cannot say that one thing equates to another simply because their stated goal is the same. Using a football analogy - that's like saying an offense based around the running game is a "west coast offense" because both have the goal of obtaining touchdowns.

2: I disagree with the notion that Democratic ideals are based on the goal of financial equalibrium.

1. A good point. To clarify, socialists advocate that capital should not be controlled mainly by a
relatively small group of private owners as that leads to inequality (capitalists exploiting workers). To
have the state "own" and distribute capital is one solution that has been labelled socialist, but the
socialism lies in the idea that in order to ensure equality and a fair distribution of labour and
property, no small group should be able to control all the capital. Hence, a state that for certain
owns all capital but never distributes it* among it's citizens to allow everyone the same opportunities
can not justifiably be labelled socialist, even though it fits your narrow dictionary definition.

2. Democratic ideals is too lofty a phrase to be used in any meaningful sense, if you ask me. Why
would you even make that comment in response to my post?

* Or in my own view: that isn't forced by its very constitution to distribute it...

Originally posted by whodey
LBJ means Lyndon B Johnson and his "Great Society" programs. Some great society it turned out to be, eh?

I remember vaguely reading about Johnson and his socialist-inspired reforms back in school, but he
kinda fell away between Kennedy and Nixon (assuming I'm thinking about the correct president here).
I would have to read up on this to respond in any meaningful sense.