Obama is a socialist.

[dorminWS]

http://personalliberty.com/2013/01/03/b ... socialist/

[SpanishInquisition]

...and this conclusion took over 4 years to reach? Shoulda conferred with Joe the plumber.

[FiremanBob]

Good morning, Mr. van Winkle.

[dorminWS]

I don't think the guy intended it as news - just a recap and bitch session.

[Kreutz]

Out of curiosity how would everyone here define "socialism"?

I did find this one amusing:

If you think George W. Bush adding $4 trillion to the National debt in eight years was an embarrassment, a travesty and a disgrace but you have no problem adding $6 trillion to the National debt in only four years, you might be a socialist — and a world-class hypocrite, too.

I was pissed when Dubya did it and apathetic when Obama did it because it struck me it was only logical for the new guy to see the last guy got away it, so why not take even more?

Can't wait for Presidentess Clinton to reack up 12T in 2016-2018, just to show Obama her balls are bigger than his.

[bobingersoll]

From my perspective there is quite a bit of hand-wringing and accusations hurled, such as "Obama is a socialist". But that in no way gives any indication as to there being anything "wrong" with "socialism". It's as if it can safely be assumed that everyone already agrees that socialism is a bad thing. I am far from convinced.

[Machias]

Out of curiosity how would everyone here define "socialism"?

I did find this one amusing:

If you think George W. Bush adding $4 trillion to the National debt in eight years was an embarrassment, a travesty and a disgrace but you have no problem adding $6 trillion to the National debt in only four years, you might be a socialist — and a world-class hypocrite, too.

I was pissed when Dubya did it and apathetic when Obama did it because it struck me it was only logical for the new guy to see the last guy got away it, so why not take even more?

Can't wait for Presidentess Clinton to reack up 12T in 2016-2018, just to show Obama her balls are bigger than his.

[dorminWS]

From my perspective there is quite a bit of hand-wringing and accusations hurled, such as "Obama is a socialist". But that in no way gives any indication as to there being anything "wrong" with "socialism". It's as if it can safely be assumed that everyone already agrees that socialism is a bad thing. I am far from convinced.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

First, as Kreutz asked: what IS socialism? Here's a genrally accepted answer:
................................................................................
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
....................................................................................

Second, what's "wrong" with socialism? Well, if you haven't already figured it out, I scarcely know where to begin.

If there is no private property, then you own nothing. You have nothing the state doesn't decide you can have because the state owns the means of production which are the source of all wealth, income and property. You are a serf; not a citizen. Since the state owns the means of production, they run everything. So you can expect Fed Ex and UPS to look just like the US Postal Service, and your health insurance to work as well as medicare and the old age insurance scam...er... I mean scheme... run by our own government bureaucracy (Social Security); which is to say actuarily insolvent and handing out promises they can't fund.

I could go on and on and on, but if you've really thought about this and still don't see what's "wrong" with socialism, I won't waste any more of either my time or yours.

[bobingersoll]

First, as Kreutz asked: what IS socialism? Here's a genrally accepted answer:
................................................................................
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
....................................................................................

Second, what's "wrong" with socialism? Well, if you haven't already figured it out, I scarcely know where to begin.

If there is no private property, then you own nothing. You have nothing the state doesn't decide you can have because the state owns the means of production which are the source of all wealth, income and property. You are a serf; not a citizen. Since the state owns the means of production, they run everything. So you can expect Fed Ex and UPS to look just like the US Postal Service, and your health insurance to work as well as medicare and the old age insurance scam...er... I mean scheme... run by our own government bureaucracy (Social Security); which is to say actuarily insolvent and handing out promises they can't fund.

I could go on and on and on, but if you've really thought about this and still don't see what's "wrong" with socialism, I won't waste any more of either my time or yours.

Obviously you are passionate about the subject. That's OK, for there are subjects I am likewise passionate about.

Since we here in the US are a...what...capitalist democratic republic, can you look around you and find any problems in our society?

For instance, speaking of "private property" - is it fair (good) that as I drive down the road and look at all the trees and fields along the roadways where I live here in southern Virginia, that just about every wooded location I pass has NO TRESPASSING signs posted every 40-50 feet? Is it "good" that those who can afford to purchasece (or inherit) very, very large tracts of land can simply keep the rest of us out? I can offer a more fair alternative to private property (with regard to land) but I get the impression that you would not be the slightest bit interested.

Is it "good" that the Walmart heirs posses more wealth amongst the 6 of them than the bottom 40% of the country? (That's 6 people having more combined wealth than the bottom 124,000,000).

As to health care...I am in my mid 50's and have lived with out health insurance for the past 9 years because I simply can not afford it. If it wasn't for the fact that I am a vet, and my income has now dropped low enough that I qualify for assistance through the VA (can you say "socialized health care"?) I would still now not be able to afford treatment.

And for what it's worth, just by saying "US Postal Service", saying "Social Security", and saying "Medicare", you have not in any way pointed out your perceived faults in those organizations / programs. You have simply done what the OP did, which is assume that everyone will agree with you that those organizationszations / programs are "bad". Ask most senior citizen who are on S.S. and Medicare what they think of them.

As for the US Postal Service...I have been using them for many, many years with little complaint. You?

[VACoastie]

I invite yall to check out the movie "I want your money." Interesting documentary on the gov't.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[dorminWS]

@bobingersoll:

That's what "private" means. belonging and subject to the use of one person or group. And yes; I think that's good. In a world where you can take what I have just because you want it, you are less safe than in one with private property - unless you are the strongest actor. How is THAT good?

As far as establishing what is "good" and what is not, you say I just assume things are good and will not prove it. From where I sit, these things are obviouly, inherently good and you will not see it. That's why I said at the outset that I shouldn't be wasting either your time or mine discussing it. SEE? I was right!.

[Reverenddel]

"Since we here in the US are a...what...capitalist democratic republic, can you look around you and find any problems in our society?"

A bastardization of a republic, steeped in Socialism by FDR, Woodrow Wilson, and LBJ with their expansion of Federalist powers, endorsed by Lincoln (spits). Most of the problems I see in society started with "The New Deal", and "The Great Society". Before that? You succeed on your OWN MERIT! Not off others hard work.

"For instance, speaking of "private property" - is it fair (good) that as I drive down the road and look at all the trees and fields along the roadways where I live here in southern Virginia, that just about every wooded location I pass has NO TRESPASSING signs posted every 40-50 feet? Is it "good" that those who can afford to purchasece (or inherit) very, very large tracts of land can simply keep the rest of us out? I can offer a more fair alternative to private property (with regard to land) but I get the impression that you would not be the slightest bit interested."

Yes, it IS good, because YOU don't pay the taxes, the upkeep, or have a vested interest in that property. Ownership exhibits pride, and a sense of belonging. What happens to that property MATTERS to the OWNER! You don't own it, you don't care if they want to put a powerline through it, or if someone started to put a water treatment plant next to it. The OWNER does!

"Is it "good" that the Walmart heirs posses more wealth amongst the 6 of them than the bottom 40% of the country? (That's 6 people having more combined wealth than the bottom 124,000,000)."

Again, YES IT IS! Their father worked his ASS off to start a business that is a success! They worked WITH him, and thereby should enjoy the REWARDS of hard work! Punishing success is the current DOWNFALL of this nation. "Spread the wealth" is an insult to the American way!

"As to health care...I am in my mid 50's and have lived with out health insurance for the past 9 years because I simply can not afford it. If it wasn't for the fact that I am a vet, and my income has now dropped low enough that I qualify for assistance through the VA (can you say "socialized health care"?) I would still now not be able to afford treatment."

Whose fault is that? Ours? Nope! YOURS! You didn't prepare, or realize, you needed health insurance, so you expect us to pick up the tab because of your poor planning. Nice going! Way to do it right!

"And for what it's worth, just by saying "US Postal Service", saying "Social Security", and saying "Medicare", you have not in any way pointed out your perceived faults in those organizations / programs. You have simply done what the OP did, which is assume that everyone will agree with you that those organizationszations / programs are "bad". Ask most senior citizen who are on S.S. and Medicare what they think of them. "

Social Security was originally called "Widows, and orphans", and was used to support them because the man was the primary breadwinner. Suddenly, this pyramid/Ponzi scheme is getting a lil' rich for the "bottom payers" because there are FEWER of them! So the government, as opposed to starting a "retirement savings account for each individual, comes to the youth to pay again, and again for those who failed to prepare. One should PLAN on retirement, not EXPECT it! I'm on the "Redneck Retirement" plan of "working till I Die." And I am okay with that. You're NOT that much older than me, and I have been told since youth to plan for my retirement! Aseops "ANT AND GRASSHOPPER" I suppose!

"As for the US Postal Service...I have been using them for many, many years with little complaint. You?"

Plenty! The U.S. Postal Service has been a JOKE with my delivery of mail with constantly sending it to the WRONG addresses, and LOSING it. They only started to IMPROVE with the competition of United Parcel Service, and Federal Express. Otherwise? They would still have a level of "SUCK" that you wouldn't believe!

Sorry you like socialism "Comrade". Russia has flights daily. They serve Borshcht. ENJOY!

[bobingersoll]

Oh well, I tried. I know that trying to have a dialog concerning the social advantages or disadvantages of...pretty much any subject is a daunting task. But trying that at a gun forum is darn near (if not completely) impossible. It has been years since I attempted it. Perhaps in a few more years I'll try it again.

[dorminWS]

Oh well, I tried. I know that trying to have a dialog concerning the social advantages or disadvantages of...pretty much any subject is a daunting task. But trying that at a gun forum is darn near (if not completely) impossible. It has been years since I attempted it. Perhaps in a few more years I'll try it again.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That's OK. This is a GUN forum, after all. You're as entitled to your political opinions as anybody else. If you can't bring any of us over to the dark side....So what? We can always talk about guns.

[bobingersoll]

...and I do love me guns

[arab1302]

I would love to weigh in with my two cents, but I am reticent to reignite something when it appears that you guys are copacetic.

I definitely fall on the "socialism is bad" side of the argument, but I have always thought I was a pretty persuasive guy.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[thekinetic]

...yeah and the ocean is damp!

[gunderwood]

...and I do love me guns

Oh, you mean private property?

[GeneFrenkle]

I tought the general consensus was him being anticolonialist. As for socialism, are there any truly socialist countries? Meaning, any sizable ones in terms of population. I thought it was demonstrated to not scale well.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[ShotgunBlast]

I tought the general consensus was him being anticolonialist. As for socialism, are there any truly socialist countries? Meaning, any sizable ones in terms of population. I thought it was demonstrated to not scale well.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

They definitely don't last long, that's for sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Socia ... ration.png