Democrats in Congress really want to redistribute wealth. That is called socialism.

[Anonymous]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/13/AR2010101305004.html?sub=AR

[Anonymous]

"Socialism" seems to be hurled about like an insult on these shores. I come from Western Europe, where the word is not loaded, anymore than "Conservative", or any other descriptive of the political spectrum.

But then why discuss the issues with respect and intelligence when it is so much more entertaining to tar and feather the other side

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Socialism" seems to be hurled about like an insult on these shores. I come from Western Europe, where the word is not loaded, anymore than "Conservative", or any other descriptive of the political spectrum.

But then why discuss the issues with respect and intelligence when it is so much more entertaining to tar and feather the other side

Same here - I'm from Scandinavia, where socialism is practically the way of life. And based on what I have seen there, it seems to be working pretty darn well. Not sure why everyone here is so afraid of the term. Worse things could happen. We could have a lot of people without healthcare. Or a lot of people not being able to afford an education. Or the elderly not being cared for. Or families living in poverty. Oh, wait. Nevermind.

[Anonymous]

Great. In America we do things a little differently. The government doesn't control our lives and it doesn't tell us how to live and take away our incomes to give to other people because they feel they can do so. Please take that back to Europe where you riot because of having to work until age 62.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great. In America we do things a little differently. The government doesn't control our lives and it doesn't tell us how to live and take away our incomes to give to other people because they feel they can do so. Please take that back to Europe where you riot because of having to work until age 62.

Neh. I think I'm just going to stay here and vote for socialism - just to piss you off!

[Anonymous]

Putting aside the fait accompli assumption in your statement that socialism is so automatically bad that once you've conclusively asserted it you've proved something, what you're describing is democratic government (taxing and spending). Socialism requires shared ownership and control over the means of production (wealth generation), which we don't have, as our society's means of production are all privately owned. Communism requires state-controlled shared means of production, which we also don't have, as the government is not involved in independently generating wealth or profiting from manufacturing.

Social welfare programs and government policies to minimize the impacts of wealth inequality rely on some principles of equity that socialism also relies on (everyone in society should have access to similar public resource and opportunities, there should be a baseline of general welfare below which nobody is allowed to fall, those systems upon which we all rely like roads, bridges, schools, and fire departments [doh!] should be well-maintained), but they are not the same.

It's ignorant to attempt to describe our democratic capitalist society as socialist, and small-minded to attempt to move from shared principles to a structural label that by definition doesn't apply. Which is totally separate from the facile judgment that even if we did move to a socialist democratic state, that would always and automatically be a terrible thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Putting aside the fait accompli assumption in your statement that socialism is so automatically bad that once you've conclusively asserted it you've proved something, what you're describing is democratic government (taxing and spending). Socialism requires shared ownership and control over the means of production (wealth generation), which we don't have, as our society's means of production are all privately owned. Communism requires state-controlled shared means of production, which we also don't have, as the government is not involved in independently generating wealth or profiting from manufacturing.

Social welfare programs and government policies to minimize the impacts of wealth inequality rely on some principles of equity that socialism also relies on (everyone in society should have access to similar public resource and opportunities, there should be a baseline of general welfare below which nobody is allowed to fall, those systems upon which we all rely like roads, bridges, schools, and fire departments [doh!] should be well-maintained), but they are not the same.

It's ignorant to attempt to describe our democratic capitalist society as socialist, and small-minded to attempt to move from shared principles to a structural label that by definition doesn't apply. Which is totally separate from the facile judgment that even if we did move to a socialist democratic state, that would always and automatically be a terrible thing.

You must be one of those darn educated liberal "elitists" that I've heard so much about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great. In America we do things a little differently. The government doesn't control our lives and it doesn't tell us how to live and take away our incomes to give to other people because they feel they can do so. Please take that back to Europe where you riot because of having to work until age 62.

You know what? If the Republican party really agreed with this, but they don't. That's why you are out of power half the time. You have to tell people who they can sleep with and what to do with their bodies. You are all for states rights until it is a moral issue that you think you have to intervene on, like medical marijuana or right to die. Then you are all up in everyone's business. And when you want to be compassionate conservatives, you spend just like the dems. That prescription drug benefit plan is all cost and no benefit. You could have negotiated for lower drug prices for seniors, but that just wouldn't be American. However you felt perfectly happy doling out my money so that you could buy your votes. Do you know how much that plan is costing us. $1 Trillion. With a T. Hypocrites.

This newfound "limited government" conservatism exists only in your mind. If you want a party that represents what you describe, join the libertarians.

[Anonymous]

Yes, OP, you don't have a clue as to what socialism really is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, OP, you don't have a clue as to what socialism really is.

Really? A policy of taking people's incomes and redistributing it to people who make less because you think we should have income parity is not socialism? Then what is?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, OP, you don't have a clue as to what socialism really is.

Really? A policy of taking people's incomes and redistributing it to people who make less because you think we should have income parity is not socialism? Then what is?

That's a policy that only exists in your imagination. Nobody is seeking income parity. To the contrary, income disparity has been growing in the US as the rich get richer and everyone else gets poorer. Democrats might be trying to slow down the growth of that disparity, but that's about it. Meanwhile, you can go on supporting a party that doesn't want government to control our lives but does want to tell women what they can do with their bodies, tell all of us who we can and cannot marry, wants to read our email and listen to our phone calls, and wants corporations to have more rights than people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, OP, you don't have a clue as to what socialism really is.

Really? A policy of taking people's incomes and redistributing it to people who make less because you think we should have income parity is not socialism? Then what is?

Progressive taxation? Hey look! The mortgage deduction is taking money from renters and giving it to homebuyers! SOCIALISM! The defense budget is entirely about taking money from non-defense workers and giving it to folks in the defense industry! SOCIALISM!

A government redistributes wealth. That's what it does. Occasionally it writes laws proscribing certain behaviors.

I swear, pinheads get outraged over the oddest of things.

[Anonymous]

Why does the GOP back insurance companies? The basic idea of insurance is shared risk -- the healthy pay for the sick on grounds that they may end up being sick someday. Why do they like the idea when it's done by a private company and a bunch of execs get rich in the process, and those who actually get sick are likely to get kicked out if the company can find an excuse? But if the government tries to accomplish the same thing, fairly and without lining someone's pockets, then it's "socialism"!

[Anonymous]

Oh dear, OP. This hasn't really gone the way you had planned, has it?

Maybe you need to go away and think about these issues a little more deeply.

Good luck!

[Anonymous]

Let's see TRICARE involves govt doctors caring for our soldiers at govt expense. MEDICARE involves private doctors caring for our seniors at govt expense. AGRICULTURE SUBSIDIES involves urban folks subsidizing rural folks. USPS involves urban rolks subsidizing rural folks on postage. Our TELECOMM policies involve urban folks subsidizing rural folks through federal taxes that fund rural telephone service. I wonder how many Republicans would stand up and VOTE AGAINST ALL OF THE FOREGOING. None. What hypocrites!! OBAMACARE involves private doctors caring for our children and uninsured at private expense with some public subsidies. Now, Republicans are against that on principle, of course.