Prove Your Point: Is our country moving toward Socialism?

Kelly

Who the heck is KELLY?
Staff member
Joined
Jul 23, 2004
Messages
70,181
Reaction score
215
Points
73
I would like to have some of these threads as we go along where we have had the same question asked in many different threads....discuss and PROVE YOUR POINT with facts...

If your opinion is YES, we are moving in this direction, prove it.....how, give examples, and back it up.

If your opinion is NO, we are still a strong mixed-MARKET economy, then prove it......give examples, and back it up.


Socialism
Main Entry: so·cial·ism http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?social02.wav=socialism' Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\ Function: noun Date: 1837
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
 
Last edited:
Plan for universal healthcare system {check}
Government subsidised banking {check}
Government legislated compensation {check}
Government controlled production (forcing automotive industry to provide financial plans etc) {check}

Hell Obama's even talking about which industry will get which type of college graduates, like the government has any business in that decision.

I'd say we're not only on it's way we're being carried over the threshold by the Government like an unwilling bride.
 
So the Government will rape us? That thing about shuffling graduates off to a predetermined industry...**** that.
 
The President FIRED the CEO of GM.
 
The President FIRED the CEO of GM.

Meanwhile the socialists who voted for the current administration remain silent. Why? Because the less the masses hear about it the better it is for them. I mean the Government blatantly interferes in private companies' running. Insisting they take money that the companies don't need and the people say nothing or see nothing wrong with it. The media's already in their control (which it has been for years) and the outlets for dissent or alternate views are ridiculed so that people just fall in line with what the Government tells them.


This is what happened in the UK. Socialism didn't happen overnight. It was gradual. A company here, an industry there. Next thing you know you're getting denied for life saving operations. The Govt. telling you where you can live, what products you can or can't purchase. How may children you can have.

I was glad to get away from it but I see it happening here also.:bh:
 
Plan for universal healthcare system {check}
Government subsidised banking {check}
Government legislated compensation {check}
Government controlled production (forcing automotive industry to provide financial plans etc) {check}

Hell Obama's even talking about which industry will get which type of college graduates, like the government has any business in that decision.

I'd say we're not only on it's way we're being carried over the threshold by the Government like an unwilling bride.
Plans for wealth redistribution {check}
 
Meanwhile the socialists who voted for the current administration remain silent. Why? Because the less the masses hear about it the better it is for them. I mean the Government blatantly interferes in private companies' running. Insisting they take money that the companies don't need and the people say nothing or see nothing wrong with it. The media's already in their control (which it has been for years) and the outlets for dissent or alternate views are ridiculed so that people just fall in line with what the Government tells them.


This is what happened in the UK. Socialism didn't happen overnight. It was gradual. A company here, an industry there. Next thing you know you're getting denied for life saving operations. The Govt. telling you where you can live, what products you can or can't purchase. How may children you can have.

I was glad to get away from it but I see it happening here also.:bh:

What are you gibbering about?

Some people get denied operations in any healthcare system, all governments restrict what you can and can't purchase and the last claim is just nonsense
 
I would like to see a government in the U.S. much like the ones in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. They have either free or low cost tuition, socialized medicine, and they're the least religious. Why is the latter important? Their governments are infiltrated with weirdos who would want to ban stem cell research, gay marriage, or science. We have politicians who want creationism taught in public schools and warning on textbooks that teach evolution.
 
Speaking of socialism...


GOP drops proposal to rename Dems 'Socialist'
Republican chairman had opposed the name-changing resolution


WASHINGTON - Republicans on Wednesday abandoned an effort to label their opponents the "Democrat Socialist Party," ending a fight within the GOP ranks that reflected the divide between those who want a more centrist message and those seeking a more aggressive, conservative voice.

Two Republican National Committee members who backed a resolution to ask the Democratic Party to change its name said supporters agreed to changing the measure's language to urge Americans to oppose what the GOP is calling the Democrats' "socialist" agenda.

The name-changing resolution supported by Jim Bopp of Indiana and David Norcross of New Jersey had drawn criticism from GOP Chairman Michael Steele. Other party leaders called the move "stupid" and "absurd," saying it made Republicans look petty during a troubling time for the nation.

The Democratic National Committee said the proposal reflected a political party so devoid of ideas that it was resorting to "name calling" and "petty politics."

Bopp and Norcross dismissed the criticism Wednesday and said the publicity generated by the proposal was good for the GOP.

"It has generated the debate we had hoped for," Bopp said. "It was an effort to educate the American people, and it was successful."

Norcross said it was a bid to raise awareness of the Democratic agenda so that Americans can be "properly fearful."

Republicans were slated to vote on the "socialist" resolution and other measures late Wednesday afternoon.

At one point during informal discussions of the name change, those attending the meeting of state party leaders and other party officials said the proposed name might be "Nationalist Socialist Democrat Party." However, including the word "Nationalist" was not formally proposed.

Republicans are trying to chart a new course after election losses in 2006 and 2008 that left them out of power in the White House, Congress and statehouses across the country.

Without a successor to former President George W. Bush, the party is in the midst of an intense debate over its identity and facing an emboldened Democratic Party that's grown larger and stronger under President Barack Obama's leadership.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30846926/



I posted this in the Republican thread but I thought it would go with this thread too.:yay:
 
Despite all of the labels that have been stuck on Obama---socialist, communist, marxist, and fascist, I find him to be quite moderate--much more that I wanted in a president. I was a delegate for Dennis Kucinich if that tells you anything. If you know anything about Kucinich, you'd be hard pressed to find many similarities between the two. Obama's healthcare plan only scratches the surface compared to Kucinich's (single-payer healthcare).
 
Obama being a rational and intelligent human being makes him very dissimilar to Dennis Kucinich.
 
Feds to inject $7.5B more into GMAC

Washington -- The Treasury Department is preparing to announce as early as today that it will invest an additional $7.5 billion in GMAC LLC in a deal that could allow the U.S. government to hold a majority stake in the Detroit-based auto finance company.
GMAC, whose financial good health is key to providing loans for consumers to buy General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC vehicles, has been in talks for several weeks to secure additional capital. It had hoped to close the deal last week.
In December, the U.S. Treasury invested $5 billion in GMAC by buying preferred stock in the finance company. That stock carries a 9 percent dividend, but has no voting rights. Treasury also loaned GM nearly $900 million to buy GMAC stock.

If the Treasury exercised its options from those investments, which would give it voting rights, it could own about 35 percent of GMAC, a person familiar with the matter said Tuesday.
The person said the additional $7.5 billion could allow the Treasury Department to claim a majority stake in GMAC, if it chose to do so. The percentage of that potential ownership stake is unclear.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said this month that the government was preparing to provide "substantial support" to GMAC. The Treasury Department has said it will infuse more capital into GMAC to allow it to assume lending operations for Chrysler dealers and consumers from Chrysler Financial. GMAC was supposed to take over lending for Chrysler Financial on May 15, but that is on hold until it obtains government aid.
The Treasury and Federal Reserve Board this month announced GMAC needs $11.5 billion in additional capital reserves as the result of government stress tests. The additional assistance to be announced this week is likely not the end of government support for GMAC.
GMAC spokeswoman Gina Proia said Tuesday the company was still in talks with Treasury about the amount of the financial support -- both for its capital requirements and to take over lending for Chrysler.
"Clearly, those are two areas where we are focusing on and we are having dialogue about support," Proia said.
By Thursday, GMAC is set to complete reconstituting its board of directors. Its major shareholders -- including GM -- are also working to divest their holdings to no more than 9.9 percent of GMAC's stock as part of the agreement that allowed GMAC to become a bank holding company, and thus eligible for federal bailout funds. GM no longer has any representation on GMAC's board, even though it temporarily holds 60 percent of GMAC.
GMAC said earlier this month that it was working to shore up its capital.
"Ensuring the availability of credit to consumers and businesses is a key component in stabilizing the economy and a top priority at GMAC," said GMAC chief executive officer Alvaro G. de Molina. "We support the government's efforts to shore up the banking system and expect that the additional capital raised will further strengthen GMAC and aid in achieving our strategic objectives."
GMAC seeks to obtain the additional capital by Nov. 9, and said it would file a plan with the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago on how it will do so by June 8.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090520/AUTO01/905200376/Feds-to-inject-$7.5B-more-into-GMAC
 
Obama being a rational and intelligent human being makes him very dissimilar to Dennis Kucinich.

At least Kucinich is honest. And one thing you're forgetting, the far left is just as angry as your run of the mill conservative about the bank bailouts. It's not a liberal or conservative issue, it's a "why should the banking criminals get a free handout of American tax dollars?" issue. Obama has been bought off by the banksters just like Bush was. Hell, the alleged "leaders" of both parties in Congress have been bought off. You have more in common with Kucinich than Obama I'm guessing. Obama looks out for special interests whereas Kucinich is completely against that kind of behavior, which is an admirable approach to governing. Too bad the mainstream figures in both parties don't look at it the way Kucinich does.
 
At least Kucinich is honest.

And doesn't an honest politician imply he is an irrational politician? :hehe:

And one thing you're forgetting, the far left is just as angry as your run of the mill conservative about the bank bailouts. It's not a liberal or conservative issue, it's a "why should the banking criminals get a free handout of American tax dollars?" issue. Obama has been bought off by the banksters just like Bush was. Hell, the alleged "leaders" of both parties in Congress have been bought off. You have more in common with Kucinich than Obama I'm guessing. Obama looks out for special interests whereas Kucinich is completely against that kind of behavior, which is an admirable approach to governing. Too bad the mainstream figures in both parties don't look at it the way Kucinich does.

You know what, you have convinced me. I was going to write about how Kucinich may be honest, but he is also just completely crazy on policy - but as I read the words to myself I realized just how wrong I was. I don't fear politicians that are wrong, I fear politicians that are dishonest. I believe in America and Americans. I believe in Common Sense and Intelligence. I believe that the issues I find outrageous would be proved as such in any fair discussion - but the key is fair discussion.

Kucinich represents fair discussion: a willingness to cling to his principals, stay true to those principals and talk about those principals. He doesn't try to hide his real agenda, he doesn't try to package his agenda in a marketable shroud of half truths.

I should respect that. I do respect that.
 
Kucinich represents fair discussion: a willingness to cling to his principals, stay true to those principals and talk about those principals. He doesn't try to hide his real agenda, he doesn't try to package his agenda in a marketable shroud of half truths.

I should respect that. I do respect that.

Exactly. And it's amusing that the Dems and Reps have marginalized the likes of Ron Paul and Kucinich when both of those guys have more integrity in their pinkie finger than the other 99% of their colleagues in Congress.

The old "say one thing and do another" crowd currently controls both parties and it's a dangerous thing, especially when they can get someone like Obama with a lot of charm. Pull the wool right over the eyes of many people in the general public, especially folks who aren't able to keep up with the daily flip-flop's and 180's that his administration is constantly engaged in.
 
You have more in common with Kucinich than Obama I'm guessing. Obama looks out for special interests whereas Kucinich is completely against that kind of behavior, which is an admirable approach to governing. Too bad the mainstream figures in both parties don't look at it the way Kucinich does.

Yep, and I agree with his stance on the issue of the bailouts. No one likes their tax dollars bailing out criminals.
 
Despite Obama's words, treaties and bills are being hustled along that will outright destroy the 2nd Amendment.

They can't come for us as long as we have weapons...
 
The House voted Wednesday to join the Senate in approving sweeping restrictions on the credit card industry, as well as an unrelated measure, which the House passed separately, to allow loaded guns in parks.

congress allows guns in state parks

I don't think the government is going to take everyone's guns away anytime soon.
 
congress allows guns in state parks

I don't think the government is going to take everyone's guns away anytime soon.

That is one bill among many. Did you happen to see the one currently making the rounds giving the AG the right to ban whatever gun they decided should be off the street? Our current AG believes ALL guns should be banned...

I notice you didnt seem to notice all of the bills restricted the sale and ownership of guns...or the treaty with Mexico which restricts the reloading and cleaning of guns. Oh, we're not restricting guns...we're just banning ammo.
 
This is a laughable topic. It would be WRONG to say Obama hasnt done some acts that could be considered Socialist in nature (fireing a c.e.o., ect.) HOWEVER...there is 1 big thing everybody seems to be forgetting.

These laws are TEMPORARY. They EXPIRE. Aside from the fact that anybody who thinks were really moving toward socialism, where they tell you what kind of job you have, where you can and cannot live, ect. than you honestly just dont have a clue. The U.S. government wont be owning banks or cars companies forever; rather they are stepping in to get them back on their feet so they can THAN BECOME A PRIVATE COMPANUY AGAIN WITHOUT ****ING OVER ALL OF ITS WORKERS AND INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE rather than just letting them fail.

What the Obama Administration has done is taken the nessecary steps to prevent another great depression. You can disagree with it in principle all you want because I would argue that even Obama himself doesnt like what they did, but the reality is they HAD to do.

Republicans sit around *****ing about this and that and yet have never offered a single alternative that had any real chance of success. They cry about how the debt or defecit has spiked, yeah, that sucks. I am sure Obama is not happy about that. However, it was spiked to solve an obnoxiously long list of messes that HAD to be solved, and in order to solve them, it was going to point blank take MONEY. Until a conservative offers an alternate sort of plan to what Obama has done that would actually solve our problenms instead of just crying about the possible negatives, I dont see how anybody can say what Obama is doing is wrong.

Facts are facts. Obama was FORCED to make the choices he had to clean up the problems W made. Nobody gives a rats ass if its playing the blame game because its the bloody truth; if the conservatives and Republicans were able to view things realistically and not only as conservatives they might be able to figure that out and therefore have a prayer in upcoming elections; however as Mike Steele has been showing us for the past few months, theyd rather just continue embarassing themselves in the eyes of the every democrat, most independents, some conservatives, and mos tof the world overseas.

All I see is "Spending isnt wrong, but spending stupidly is". Ok Einstein, what would you guys consider to be "spending smartly" and I dont want the answer to start with a "not" i.e. "Not giving banks 500 billion" or whatever it was. Its the same way ONLY focusing on the negatives of these plans rather than any positives isnt a very accurate or realistic way to look at things, but yet thats what most do just to make Obama look bad.

My opinion is and will be for a while that is far too early to success or failure on the Obama adminstartion; if your gonna call failure early it would make sense to have an alternative to what hes done to solve our problems. Anybody who calls failure early without those
aka most of the conservatives on this board :cwink:
is doing 2 things. 1, proving Obamas point that people are indeed bitter about the government...and 2, exposing yourself as nothing more than a biased Obama hater, which basically makes the post worthless.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"