Can those throwing the word socialist around please educate me?

[Anonymous]

what is a socialist first of all and second how does that definition apply to obama?

note that obama's thoughts/agenda are not what drives the definition of socialism because the term was around way before him. you cant answer "healthcare is socialism" without first providing me the definition that allows me to make the connection to your statement on obama.

thanks.

[Anonymous]

I believe socialism in this context means taking my hard-earned money away from me (through taxes) and giving it to people who love to live off the dole. At least that's how my mother defines it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe socialism in this context means taking my hard-earned money away from me (through taxes) and giving it to people who love to live off the dole. At least that's how my mother defines it.

That is not socialism - educate yourself. You can't change the meaning of a word because you want to use it to describe your political enemy and you want a scary, communist word to describe them even if it doesn't actually apply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe socialism in this context means taking my hard-earned money away from me (through taxes) and giving it to people who love to live off the dole. At least that's how my mother defines it.

Your mother doesn't know what she is talking about. Taxation is not socialism. Even if it were, your mother is very likely paying a lower tax rate right now under Obama than she has at any point in her life. I would give you a simple definition of socialism, but since you are online, and it is remarkable easy to find out a basic amount of information about an economic system that is several hundred years old, I will encourage you to learn something on your own. I will give you a hint though. Since Obamacare does not nationalize health insurance, but rather leaves it to the private, profit-making insurance companies to administer, it is as far from a socialist program as can be. I am wracking my brain to come up with even one Obama program that is socialist, but I cannot.

[Anonymous]

Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production (money-making) and the provision for the needs of all via the shared proceeds of labor.

Which has nothing to do with taxes (a levy on all to provide for the general needs of society and/or targeted assistance in certain situations) or Obama.

[Anonymous]

Someone in another thread defined socialism as

the collective ownership and management of the goods and services and the means of producing them. The services and goods are produced directly for use, not for profit.

As a way to say US (and Obama) were nowhere near that. But the connection to Obama is that when the government starts to take away the citizens' profits - basically determining what's a fair amount of earnings each individual can earn - and taking everything above and beyond that and giving it to the lower-earning citizens to essentially "even out" everyone's income, it's moving toward socialism. It's de-incentivising people from striving to do better, earn more, and get ahead.

In other words, if you know that anything you make over $250,000 (for example) will be turned over to the government, there is no incentive for you to strive to earn more than $250,000. The government, through its tax policy and government hand-outs, create a system where there is a certain "collective ownership" and goods start to be created for use - not profit - because your profit (over a certain amount) gets relinquished to the collective good.

Hope that helps you understand some people's positions.

[Anonymous]

Please don't ask them to educate anyone. They are political illiterates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone in another thread defined socialism as

the collective ownership and management of the goods and services and the means of producing them. The services and goods are produced directly for use, not for profit.

As a way to say US (and Obama) were nowhere near that. [b]But the connection to Obama is that when the government starts to take away the citizens' profits - basically determining what's a fair amount of earnings each individual can earn - and taking everything above and beyond that and giving it to the lower-earning citizens to essentially "even out" everyone's income, it's moving toward socialism. It's de-incentivising people from striving to do better, earn more, and get ahead. [/b]

In other words, if you know that anything you make over $250,000 (for example) will be turned over to the government, there is no incentive for you to strive to earn more than $250,000. The government, through its tax policy and government hand-outs, create a system where there is a certain "collective ownership" and goods start to be created for use - not profit - because your profit (over a certain amount) gets relinquished to the collective good.

Hope that helps you understand some people's positions.

When has Obama done this? When did Obama raise your taxes? You don't really understand marginal tax rates at all do you? The marginal tax rate for those earning over 400,000 was 92% under Eisenhower. Under Nixon, the rate over for earnings over 200,000 was 77%. Under Reagan ( god of the conservatives) the marginal rate was 69.125 % for earners over $ 215,400. Under Clinton, it was 39.6 % for earners over $250,000. Under Obama, it is the same as Bush; 35 % for earners over $388,000 since he renewed the Bush tax cuts. So by your definition, which presidents were socialists?

Hope that helps you understand some simple facts.

[Anonymous]

i never got the argument that people get "discouraged" from working harder and making more money because of taxes.

i want to earn as much as humanely possible. i get more money is taken away from me because, well i make more. this concept doesnt make me want to stay where i am now due to any fear that earning more will "pain me"

now if PP who described taking ALL money i make above a certain amount is truth, i see the point. at that point you have no incentive because everything is above income X goes to the feds. nobody in the democratic party has talked about taking everything so i still dont get it

[Anonymous]

1450/OP here.

and as the other PP noted obama has not raised taxes since he's been in office. as a dem a gripe i have with obama is that he's talked all this mess about "balanced" approach but has been suckered to continuing the bush cuts every single year.

we are operating under the bush tax cuts everyone and the economy is still "tanking" or not doing well to be more accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone in another thread defined socialism as

the collective ownership and management of the goods and services and the means of producing them. The services and goods are produced directly for use, not for profit.

As a way to say US (and Obama) were nowhere near that. But the connection to Obama is that when the government starts to take away the citizens' profits - basically determining what's a fair amount of earnings each individual can earn - and taking everything above and beyond that and giving it to the lower-earning citizens to essentially "even out" everyone's income, it's moving toward socialism. It's de-incentivising people from striving to do better, earn more, and get ahead.

In other words, if you know that anything you make over $250,000 (for example) will be turned over to the government, there is no incentive for you to strive to earn more than $250,000. The government, through its tax policy and government hand-outs, create a system where there is a certain "collective ownership" and goods start to be created for use - not profit - because your profit (over a certain amount) gets relinquished to the collective good.

Hope that helps you understand some people's positions.

So any politician who supports taxation of any kind is a socialist? Buzzz! You're wrong! That makes Romney and Ryan and Boehner and McConnell socialists because they have not campaigned against any taxes whatsoever. You really need to get a dictionary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe socialism in this context means taking my hard-earned money away from me (through taxes) and giving it to people who love to live off the dole. At least that's how my mother defines it.

Name a single capitalist country that doesn't collect some form of taxes. Please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe socialism in this context means taking my hard-earned money away from me (through taxes) and giving it to people who love to live off the dole. At least that's how my mother defines it.

Your mother is wrong. That's not socialism. That is welfare.

[Anonymous]

so as i thought. people just throw the word socialist around without even knowing whether they are using it in the proper context.

the hannity, limbaugh, fox news of the world say it so much you think it applies

[Anonymous]

It's an old habit for them. They used to call us Communists and get away with that. Name calling is a venerable Republican tradition.