This is a placeholder text
Group text
by SitasMom on 03 August 2009 - 03:08
Starting at the top
While very many people misuse the word socialism, it can still be used to describe our current president’s agenda. Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary describes socialism as
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Using any of these definitions in conjunction with what has thus far happened under the current presidency you can define President Obama’s policy as socialist.
For definition 1 consider the federal takeover of the banks and automotive companies. Those companies are now under governmental ownership and administration, whereas the government now controls the means of production and distribution of goods, the goods in this instance being automotive vehicles. While some may argue that the government only exercises control on some goods and not the whole economy, one must remember that this is still increasing governmental ownership and thereby this can still be a socialst act.
Continued...
by keepthefaith on 03 August 2009 - 03:08
With respect, RPK, the value and future benefits you receive from your 401K are the result of your contributions. You will not get any more or less than you/your employer contributed plus any return.
Those who receive SS benefits are being financed by the current generation of working Americans - it is not directly co-related to your own contribution. It is one of the reasons that SS is under-funded because the ratio of beneficiaries to contributors to SS is askew.
Medicare is financed with employee/employer contributions but the amount of the benefit that you will receive may be more or less than your total contributions. Medicaid, in most states, I believe is financed through a combination of state and federal government funding - which is from our taxes. You may not be aware of this but there is a group of patients suffering from kidney failure who receive End Stage Renal Dialysis (ESRD) which entails dialysis several times a week - and this benefit is given under Medicare without regard to age. So you could have a child who has never worked who will be treated under the Medicare program.
All these are socialist programs - you may or may not receive benefits lesser or greater than what you contributed to the programs.
More tomorrow if you wish to continue this discussion - including your subsequent post. Time to snooze.
Those who receive SS benefits are being financed by the current generation of working Americans - it is not directly co-related to your own contribution. It is one of the reasons that SS is under-funded because the ratio of beneficiaries to contributors to SS is askew.
Medicare is financed with employee/employer contributions but the amount of the benefit that you will receive may be more or less than your total contributions. Medicaid, in most states, I believe is financed through a combination of state and federal government funding - which is from our taxes. You may not be aware of this but there is a group of patients suffering from kidney failure who receive End Stage Renal Dialysis (ESRD) which entails dialysis several times a week - and this benefit is given under Medicare without regard to age. So you could have a child who has never worked who will be treated under the Medicare program.
All these are socialist programs - you may or may not receive benefits lesser or greater than what you contributed to the programs.
More tomorrow if you wish to continue this discussion - including your subsequent post. Time to snooze.
by SitasMom on 03 August 2009 - 04:08
...continuation
For definition 2, one must realize that President Obama is intending on following the current course, and is in no means planning to change his demeanour. While some may argue that his agenda does not state that he will continue to exercise governmental control, one must remember that most of his agenda is not currently, and will never be attempted under his name. A human can only be defined by his actions and not his plans. A man born in Austria had very ambitious plans to save the country that he resided in from an economic disaster. While his agenda sounded good, one must remember that the actions that this man, who many know as Adolf Hitler, are what caused the mass deaths of millions of non-Aryan people. This being settled, President Obama’s previous actions in the automotive and banking industries can only lead one to believe that he will continue to pursue governmental ownership of industries, eventually leading to a system of society or group living in which there is no property that is not owned by the government.
For definition 3, one must reassert the principle stated in my analysis of definition 2; a mans only merit is his actions. This being said, President Obama, and his band of merry democrats are pushing the United States of America away from the capitalist economy that it was founded upon, and towards a communist economy, thereby the current economy can be described as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
So, while very many people misuse the term socialist, there can be no doubt that the term can be used justly when referring to our current president, Barack Hussein Obama II
For definition 2, one must realize that President Obama is intending on following the current course, and is in no means planning to change his demeanour. While some may argue that his agenda does not state that he will continue to exercise governmental control, one must remember that most of his agenda is not currently, and will never be attempted under his name. A human can only be defined by his actions and not his plans. A man born in Austria had very ambitious plans to save the country that he resided in from an economic disaster. While his agenda sounded good, one must remember that the actions that this man, who many know as Adolf Hitler, are what caused the mass deaths of millions of non-Aryan people. This being settled, President Obama’s previous actions in the automotive and banking industries can only lead one to believe that he will continue to pursue governmental ownership of industries, eventually leading to a system of society or group living in which there is no property that is not owned by the government.
For definition 3, one must reassert the principle stated in my analysis of definition 2; a mans only merit is his actions. This being said, President Obama, and his band of merry democrats are pushing the United States of America away from the capitalist economy that it was founded upon, and towards a communist economy, thereby the current economy can be described as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
So, while very many people misuse the term socialist, there can be no doubt that the term can be used justly when referring to our current president, Barack Hussein Obama II
by SitasMom on 03 August 2009 - 04:08
Also, the above two comments and this comment were made by this user were actually written by her 15 year old son. who is currently going into 11th grade. the above two comments are made with only my analysis, and in no way shape or form cite the opinions of anyone else.
keep in mind that my mother suffers from Dyslexia, and there by has a hard time writing her thoughts down with proper grammer,
keep in mind that my mother suffers from Dyslexia, and there by has a hard time writing her thoughts down with proper grammer,
by keepthefaith on 03 August 2009 - 12:08
Also, the above two comments and this comment were made by this user were actually written by her 15 year old son. who is currently going into 11th grade
SM's son - very nicely articulated comments. I hope you keep up your interest in politics and economics.
Re: For definition 1 consider the federal takeover of the banks and automotive companies. Those companies are now under governmental ownership and administration, whereas the government now controls the means of production and distribution of goods, the goods in this instance being automotive vehicles. While some may argue that the government only exercises control on some goods and not the whole economy, one must remember that this is still increasing governmental ownership and thereby this can still be a socialst act.
Some things for you to consider:
The government bailed out the auto-makers and some banks - whether they should have done so is a legitimate issue, though keep in mind that the bail-out of these entities commenced under Bush. Yes, the government owns a majority stake in GM - but that is classic capitalism. It would be less capitalistic for the government to bail out GM without some kind of opportunity to make a profit on its investment. Also, the majority ownership of GM entitles a share-holder to have a say in the administration of the company - again, classic capitalism.
What percentage of the GDP does the government's interest in the above entities constitute? Does any equity or other interest equate to socialism? When Reagan loaned Chrysler money, in the 80s', to prevent bankruptcy with the option to make a healthy return on the investment, was he turning the US into a socialist economy?
If the US government's minimal ownership of corporate America means that it is "socialistic" or trending in that direction, does it follow that China's moves to privatize much of its economy mean that it is no longer communist?
Just food for thought ....................... in the meantime, good luck to you SM's son (and thanks for letting us about your mother's dyslexia)
SM's son - very nicely articulated comments. I hope you keep up your interest in politics and economics.
Re: For definition 1 consider the federal takeover of the banks and automotive companies. Those companies are now under governmental ownership and administration, whereas the government now controls the means of production and distribution of goods, the goods in this instance being automotive vehicles. While some may argue that the government only exercises control on some goods and not the whole economy, one must remember that this is still increasing governmental ownership and thereby this can still be a socialst act.
Some things for you to consider:
The government bailed out the auto-makers and some banks - whether they should have done so is a legitimate issue, though keep in mind that the bail-out of these entities commenced under Bush. Yes, the government owns a majority stake in GM - but that is classic capitalism. It would be less capitalistic for the government to bail out GM without some kind of opportunity to make a profit on its investment. Also, the majority ownership of GM entitles a share-holder to have a say in the administration of the company - again, classic capitalism.
What percentage of the GDP does the government's interest in the above entities constitute? Does any equity or other interest equate to socialism? When Reagan loaned Chrysler money, in the 80s', to prevent bankruptcy with the option to make a healthy return on the investment, was he turning the US into a socialist economy?
If the US government's minimal ownership of corporate America means that it is "socialistic" or trending in that direction, does it follow that China's moves to privatize much of its economy mean that it is no longer communist?
Just food for thought ....................... in the meantime, good luck to you SM's son (and thanks for letting us about your mother's dyslexia)
by MaggieMae on 03 August 2009 - 12:08
by raymond on 03 August 2009 - 13:08
MM please tell me why you apparantly HATE auto union members by posting a link to this article??? When the captain of the ship runs the ship aground why in hell do you want to hang the cook!!!!! The auto worker did not have one freakin thing to do with gm going under! Go get the captains of the ship!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The management of gm ran it into the ground!! not the stupid line worker who knows nothing of market conditions !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Gm was making a fortune off of suv's otherwise they would not have been making them! Gm was shutting down plants here and opening new state of the art plants in south america and china!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by SitasMom on 03 August 2009 - 13:08
keepthefaith - GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!
A loan is not a government takeover!
President Reagan was hampered by a democrat controlled house and senate. Through the bully pulpet he forced the democrats, who wanted to takeover Chrysler, to give them a loan on a fixed peroid of time with no ownership or take over of the company. He did the same with Harley Davidson...
He had enough blue dog democrats, and the voice of the people, make sure that it was a only loan and nothing more.
Chrylser paid the loan off early.
Raymond:
the auto workers forced the company into bankrupts, with things like "make a certain number of pieces and after that its considered overtime and the allotment could be completed in about 5 hours". the companies couldn't afford a strike so they had to submit.......
I wish I could get 40 hours pay for working 25!
A loan is not a government takeover!
President Reagan was hampered by a democrat controlled house and senate. Through the bully pulpet he forced the democrats, who wanted to takeover Chrysler, to give them a loan on a fixed peroid of time with no ownership or take over of the company. He did the same with Harley Davidson...
He had enough blue dog democrats, and the voice of the people, make sure that it was a only loan and nothing more.
Chrylser paid the loan off early.
Raymond:
the auto workers forced the company into bankrupts, with things like "make a certain number of pieces and after that its considered overtime and the allotment could be completed in about 5 hours". the companies couldn't afford a strike so they had to submit.......
I wish I could get 40 hours pay for working 25!
by MaggieMae on 03 August 2009 - 13:08
Raymond because they are Greedy! As I have said many times before, these are NOT the Unions of many years' ago. Below is typical of today's Unions.
www.narbosa.com/2009/08/californias-public-union-authorizes.html
by keepthefaith on 03 August 2009 - 14:08
keepthefaith - GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT! A loan is not a government takeover!
SM, it is your comprehension that is in need of improvement.
SM said: He (Reagan) had enough blue dog democrats, and the voice of the people, make sure that it was a only loan and nothing more.
First, let me say that I was wrong in stating that the Chrysler loan was during the Reagan administration - it was actually during the tail-end of the Carter administration. In your eagerness to defend Reagan, you missed the misstatement and defended Reagan who never was involved in the loan to Chrysler - "blue dog democrats" or not! LOL!!
Actually, FYI, during the Reagan administration, there were no "blue dog democrats" - there were a group of Democrats from the South called the "bol weevils"!
I never said that Chrysler's loan was a government take-over of the company. But the government intervened to save Chrysler - as opposed to allowing it to fail which is not the way capitalism is supposed to function. There were terms associated with the loan which imposed constraints on Chrysler's management and the federal government received a handsome return on its investment. Were you even aware that the government received over 14 million "warrants," which gave the government the right to purchase a share of Chrysler stock at $13 a share? You are right that Chrysler repaid the loan early - what you did not say was that the goverment/tax-payers made a handsome profit on the investment.
GM's situation was different. Once the decision was made to save the company, the magnitude of the bail-out warranted major changes in the way GM operated and it was deemed that the then CEO was incapable of effecting the necessary changes. So the government had the right to impose whatever conditions it deemed necessary to safeguard its investment. Any other lender would do the same thing - they don't loan/invest money if the lender does not have confidence in the management.
SM, it is your comprehension that is in need of improvement.
SM said: He (Reagan) had enough blue dog democrats, and the voice of the people, make sure that it was a only loan and nothing more.
First, let me say that I was wrong in stating that the Chrysler loan was during the Reagan administration - it was actually during the tail-end of the Carter administration. In your eagerness to defend Reagan, you missed the misstatement and defended Reagan who never was involved in the loan to Chrysler - "blue dog democrats" or not! LOL!!
Actually, FYI, during the Reagan administration, there were no "blue dog democrats" - there were a group of Democrats from the South called the "bol weevils"!
I never said that Chrysler's loan was a government take-over of the company. But the government intervened to save Chrysler - as opposed to allowing it to fail which is not the way capitalism is supposed to function. There were terms associated with the loan which imposed constraints on Chrysler's management and the federal government received a handsome return on its investment. Were you even aware that the government received over 14 million "warrants," which gave the government the right to purchase a share of Chrysler stock at $13 a share? You are right that Chrysler repaid the loan early - what you did not say was that the goverment/tax-payers made a handsome profit on the investment.
GM's situation was different. Once the decision was made to save the company, the magnitude of the bail-out warranted major changes in the way GM operated and it was deemed that the then CEO was incapable of effecting the necessary changes. So the government had the right to impose whatever conditions it deemed necessary to safeguard its investment. Any other lender would do the same thing - they don't loan/invest money if the lender does not have confidence in the management.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
