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.

Anonymous wrote:It is predicted that if obama is elected for a second term he will enact crazy measures via executive order because he won't fear reelection

If anything, Obama will move to the right because he won't fear reelection.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I understand that. But the OP wanted a definition of socialism from the people calling Obama a socialist ("those throwing the word socialist around") I provided how my mother defines it. She finds it to be synoymous to redistribution of wealth. I find this definition to be very common among those who hate Obama's economic policies.

By that definition, Reagan is a socialist. After all, he pioneered the use of the EITC to give money to the poor. But they aren't going to call him a socialist, are they?

Anonymous wrote:I never said he did these things - i said he favors them and believes they should exist. Just read his speeches. He's full of little statements that say as much (like the one I already pointed out about where he said "if you spread the wealth it benefits everyone (or is good for all)." Just because he couldn't get them passed in Congress doesn't mean he doesn't want to.

A specific example please?

Anonymous wrote:It is predicted that if obama is elected for a second term he will enact crazy measures via executive order because he won't fear reelection

"It is predicted" by whom?

It is predicted that if obama is elected for a second term he will enact crazy measures via executive order because he won't fear reelection

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.

I am sorry. This is a bunch of horse manure. I want to earn more money. And if I have to pay $300 a year to earn an additional $30,000, so be it. Only a fool would turn that down.

Agreed!

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. [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.

I don't think they are concerned about FACTS. It's not enough to just say that the Romney-Ryan and their ilk are telling lies. They're telling pure fiction. What is alarming is that there are people who seem to believe it for truth. It makes me think of the quick rise of Hitler and his Nazi party.

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.

I am sorry. This is a bunch of horse manure. I want to earn more money. And if I have to pay $300 a year to earn an additional $30,000, so be it. Only a fool would turn that down.

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.

Hmm, does dear mom receive Medicare or social security. Please don't say she paid into it because people always receive more than they put in. That is, unless they die early. Maybe we should get rid of dear mom's SS and Medicare.

pp here. Sorry we cross posted. I'm responding to poster 16:00

I never said he did these things - i said he favors them and believes they should exist. Just read his speeches. He's full of little statements that say as much (like the one I already pointed out about where he said "if you spread the wealth it benefits everyone (or is good for all)." Just because he couldn't get them passed in Congress doesn't mean he doesn't want to.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I understand that. But the OP wanted a definition of socialism from the people calling Obama a socialist ("those throwing the word socialist around") I provided how my mother defines it. She finds it to be synoymous to redistribution of wealth. I find this definition to be very common among those who hate Obama's economic policies.

Anonymous wrote:OP, I thought you were asking to be educated, not to start a fight. Clearly I was wrong. I'm not saying that the socialist governments are necessarily bad, or have bad goals, but knowing how similar they are to Obama, makes it clear to me. But, the idea that Obama is a socialist comes from similarities between Obama’s platform and the Party of European Socialists (based on Marxism). Obama falls within the mainstream of contemporary socialism. Not like Lenin or Castro, but like the German, French, or Spain’s Socialists.
If you are looking for some comparisons, you can probably find them yourself, but some fundamental similarities include the socialist goals is to provide universal access to education and health care. We all know what Obama's position is on this.

And no one is saying that paying taxes equals socialism. It's the redistribution of wealth belief that Obama has. Similar to Obama's position, the european socialists believe that wealth generated by all must be fairly shared - and how it is fairly shared is determined by the government. Similar to Obama who wants to redistribute income and wealth from the rich to the "middle class and poor." He even said in one of his speeches that if you spread the wealth it benefits everyone (or something like that).

You want another example? European socialists strive for everyone to live a dignified life, free of poverty and protected from social risks in life. It's called collective responsibility, which Obama favors through government programs, unemployment benefits, bail-outs, and mortgage programs.

What redistribution of wealth has occurred under Obama, other than the continuation of the Bush tax cuts which redistributes more to the top earners? The bank bailout that he signed? Nope that was socialist president Bush. TARP that he enacted? Nope, Bush again. Mortgage programs? Could you specify please? Unemployment benefits? You mean that program that was started in 1932 in Wisconsin, and then throughout the country in 1935? You have a lot of talking points, but no specifics and no actual evidence that Obama favors "socialist" programs any more than any other president in the past 75 years.

OP, I thought you were asking to be educated, not to start a fight. Clearly I was wrong. I'm not saying that the socialist governments are necessarily bad, or have bad goals, but knowing how similar they are to Obama, makes it clear to me. But, the idea that Obama is a socialist comes from similarities between Obama’s platform and the Party of European Socialists (based on Marxism). Obama falls within the mainstream of contemporary socialism. Not like Lenin or Castro, but like the German, French, or Spain’s Socialists.
If you are looking for some comparisons, you can probably find them yourself, but some fundamental similarities include the socialist goals is to provide universal access to education and health care. We all know what Obama's position is on this.

And no one is saying that paying taxes equals socialism. It's the redistribution of wealth belief that Obama has. Similar to Obama's position, the european socialists believe that wealth generated by all must be fairly shared - and how it is fairly shared is determined by the government. Similar to Obama who wants to redistribute income and wealth from the rich to the "middle class and poor." He even said in one of his speeches that if you spread the wealth it benefits everyone (or something like that).

You want another example? European socialists strive for everyone to live a dignified life, free of poverty and protected from social risks in life. It's called collective responsibility, which Obama favors through government programs, unemployment benefits, bail-outs, and mortgage programs.