Can those throwing the word socialist around please educate me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And this is a misrepresentation. The current marginal tax rate is 35%. If Obama/Congress allow the Bush tax cuts to end, even if only for those making over $250K (net), then the marginal tax rate would return to 39.6%. We're talking about 4.6%, not all. This is significantly far from socialism. Anyone who is really comparing the two is ignorant and doesn't know what they are talking about. If someone compares Obama's proposal to Socialism, you know they don't know what Socialism is.

Unfortunately, most people are intellectually lazy. It is easier to listen to Limbaugh and Fox News tell you what to think, than it is to actually educate yourself on the reality of the issues.

[Anonymous]

Ugh. Even Adam Smith believed in progressive taxation. The wealthy contributing according to their ability? That's not communism of socialism. It's civilization.
Noone is saying everyone has to be economically equal. We are not going to reduce the Romneys to having to live like you or I do. We are talking about marginal tax increases.
Talk of "Socialism" is just more scare mongering.

[Anonymous]

I like the pp's point about Reagan being a socialist. I am now going to use that in every argument about Obama being a socialist.

I also like how any language about helping others who have fewer advantages climb the ladder of success is the sign of a socialist. Wow, that means we have *millions* of socialists in this country. Giving free meals to poor hungry kids at schools is now socialist. Giving Pell grants to needy college students is socialist. Raising the elderly out of poverty by providing Social Security and Medicare - socialist!

[Anonymous]

It drives me nuts when my mom, FIL and MIL refer to Obama as a socialist. Um, you know you old coots get Medicare and Social Security, right? Bet they wouldn't call that socialist, or give it up "on principle".

[Anonymous]

There is a word for far right politicians who systematically repeat lies believing that if we hear them often enough, we will eventually believe them. That word is fascist. If we have to use words from another era, let's be even handed about it.

[Anonymous]

Socialism is a more equal society, like public schools that are all equally good,
From each according to their ability and to each according to their need.
Like the sick getting medicines to get bette. Government is for the people, must provide roads and railways and schools and hospitals.
Tax money spent on children and schools and services for the elderly. No tax havens.

[Anonymous]

OP here

Im not trying to start a fight. I do however want to demonstrate that the word is so common that people just use it as the first word to describe obama.

I get if you dont like him or want to vote for him but your argument dies with me the second you bark socialism because most of you dont know what you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a word for far right politicians who systematically repeat lies believing that if we hear them often enough, we will eventually believe them. That word is fascist. If we have to use words from another era, let's be even handed about it.

+1(million)

This is taking me back to the Stewart/Colbert rally and my favorite sign about the meanings of Socialist, Communist and Fascist and not using them interchangably. As a student of Politics and Sociology, it drives me friggin' nuts that people don't have a damn clue what they are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here

Im not trying to start a fight. I do however want to demonstrate that the word is so common that people just use it as the first word to describe obama.

I get if you dont like him or want to vote for him but your argument dies with me the second you bark socialism because most of you dont know what you are talking about.

OP is right. It makes you look ignorant and therefore easy to dismiss as a wacko.

[jsteele]

It turns out the wingers were right about Obama:

[Anonymous]

Facism is italians dressed in black chanting mussolini
Communists arerussian children with huge red bows in their hair
Socialists are americans with obama memorabilia
Republicans are hillbillies memorizing bible verses

[Anonymous]

The people who misuse "socialist" in this way have no business educating anyone, much less holding elected office. Just sayin'.