The United Socialist States of America

dWhite · Share | #1 (**permalink**) 11-05-2008, 11:50 AM

So with Barack Obama winning presidency, and being sworn in officially in the next months, what do you think will happen with the current economic situation in the USA and across the world?

Obama has some serious socialist views on economic plans, which I don't think will ever work. I think he stepped into something he can't handle.

Could we possibly see a new age of socialism overtaking America with our new president?

FocalPoint · #2 (**permalink**) 11-05-2008, 01:17 PM

America has already vetted Obama..what he intends to do is in each speech he has made and in the debates. The country is now either radically to the left, as you suggest, or has shifted away from Bush/Cheney Republicanism.
and is now Center-left...as I suggest...

ranter · #3 (**permalink**) 11-05-2008, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dWhite

Could we possibly see a new age of socialism overtaking America with our new president?

1. Define Socialism
2. Connect dots between Obama and Socialism

**ScriptMan** · #4 (**permalink**) 11-05-2008, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ranter

1. Define Socialism
2. Connect dots between Obama and Socialism

If you need it explained you aren't going to listen anyway.

FocalPoint · #5 (**permalink**) 11-05-2008, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScriptMan

If you need it explained you aren't going to listen anyway.

Saith the great teacher....'why should I explain it....you won't pay attention anyway....'

Sounds like you can't.....

slick99 · #6 (**permalink**) 11-05-2008, 03:39 PM

Obama is just one man with a vision. But there is no doubt that the country is in a mess. Some changes will be positive. I doubt socialism will EVER happen here and I find that hard to believe. Although I can understand the fear. It won't get that far. Too much capitalism at work!! And happily so.

ranter · #7 (**permalink**) 11-05-2008, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScriptMan

If you need it explained you aren't going to listen anyway.

Hey, try me...
that is of cause if you have any idea yourself

I tell you what. You can cheat.
Go to Wiki, encyclopedia or where even you get your smartz and give it a shot

**ScriptMan** · #8 (**permalink**) 11-05-2008, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ranter

Hey, try me...
that is of cause if you have any idea yourself

Redistribution of income or wealth is a socialistic concept.

I have worked 42 years from age 16 for what I have and I am not willing to share it with anyone able and unwilling to work at least as hard as I have.

I do not buy into the BS that some people do not have the opportunity. I don't think that flies at all anymore. We just saw a "black" man elected to the highest office in the land. No dis-respect intented to him or his parents but I think that was an un-wed mother situation. He may have been born to lose but it sure seems like he made the most of it and won!

The unwilling are going to have to come up with some new excuses.

Atom · #9 (**permalink**) 11-05-2008, 04:38 PM

Well, I just came from Wikipedia looking at the definition for Socialism and I must say, my head is spinning from clicking links. I haven't the foggiest idea what kind of ism I am.

**Zap** · #10 (**permalink**) 11-05-2008, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScriptMan

Redistribution of income or wealth is a socialistic concept.

I have worked 42 years from age 16 for what I have and I am not willing to share it with anyone able and unwilling to work at least as hard as I have.

I do not buy into the BS that some people do not have the opportunity. I don't think that flies at all anymore. We just saw a "black" man elected to the highest office in the land. No dis-respect intented to him or his parents but I think that was an un-wed mother situation. He may have been born to lose but it sure seems like he made the most of it and won!

The unwilling are going to have to come up with some new excuses.

...And people like you are going to have to come up with some new fallacies to spew forth.
Why is that so many believe that socialism brings laziness with it?
The idea that laziness MUST accompany (and prevail, from the rhetoric bandied about in here) a socialist system?
That's just dumb.

Any people I've met that were brought up in the USSR under the communist system are a lot harder working than most of us blessed people in the West.
They truly know the meaning of a hard day's work.

And, just in case you were confused, you DO realize that if you follow the capitalist system to its logical conclusion, you end up with a socialist system. Right?
I mean, you have to understand that. Obama or not, that's where the US is headed and there isn't much you can do about it, short of dumbing down your population.
You see, that's the trouble with people... Once you educate them, all bets are off.
They tend to want more out of life than to toil away for large corporations that don't give a **** about them.

Obama might be hastening that process but you were headed in that direction anyway.

ranter · #11 (**permalink**) 11-05-2008, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScriptMan

Redistribution of income or wealth is a socialistic concept.

Ok, you know your talking points... gooooood fooooor yooooooou

Now give me Political and Economic definishing e.g. who owns resources, production, businesses, factories etc. and governmental structure.

You think you can do that?

FocalPoint · #12 (**permalink**) 11-05-2008, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Redistribution of income or wealth is a socialistic concept.

I have worked 42 years from age 16 for what I have and I am not willing to share it with anyone able and unwilling to work at least as hard as I have.

OK...then don't pay your taxes...see how far you get...

Ferre · #13 (**permalink**) 11-05-2008, 08:11 PM

Harveyj · #14 (**permalink**) 11-05-2008, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScriptMan

Redistribution of income or wealth is a socialistic concept.

By this logic, ALL forms of taxation are socialist.

Good luck paying for roads, critical infrastructure and emergency services, let alone all those other things.

Oh, and stop using the internet too. That was initially paid for with tax money.

falsealarm · #15 (**permalink**) 11-05-2008, 10:22 PM

Where do you get the idea that he is redistributing wealth? Is pushing the tax burden upwards rather than down really redistribution of wealth? Or was Bush himself redistributing wealth when he gave the rich and wealthy more breaks in corporate taxes? Maybe you should take it as Obama correcting that mistake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScriptMan

Redistribution of income or wealth is a socialistic concept.

I have worked 42 years from age 16 for what I have and I am not willing to share it with anyone able and unwilling to work at least as hard as I have.

I do not buy into the BS that some people do not have the opportunity. I don't think that flies at all anymore. We just saw a "black" man elected to the highest office in the land. No dis-respect intented to him or his parents but I think that was an un-wed mother situation. He may have been born to lose but it sure seems like he made the most of it and won!

The unwilling are going to have to come up with some new excuses.

**ScriptMan** · #16 (**permalink**) 11-06-2008, 12:46 PM

Quote:

By this logic, ALL forms of taxation are socialist.

Taxing for necessary services and the broad common good is necessary in any society.

Redistribution refers to the practice of taking money from 60% of taxpayers and refunding money to the lower income portion of the 40% who pay no taxes. The most onerous of all IMO is the Estate taxes that apply if some one manages to hold on to a bit of money or property until they die.

Quote:

...And people like you are going to have to come up with some new fallacies to spew forth.
Why is that so many believe that socialism brings laziness with it?

In the case of the United States the laziness is already here. The Great Society program was a driving force behind the laziness factor. Why work when you can set at home, get a check and pick up a little beer or pot money on the side.

Quote:

Where do you get the idea that he is redistributing wealth? Is pushing the tax burden upwards rather than down really redistribution of wealth?

A failure to renew the Bush tax cuts is going to affect the income tax payable by just about everyone who earns over 40K. That is a tax on the middle class. Get back to me in 2010 after you pay your taxes and we will compare notes.

The tax base at the top of the charts is not wide enough to support the taxes needed. No matter what any politician says it is the middle income people who will pay the stupid taxes. The corporations are going to pass along the taxes in the form of higher prices. Corporations do not pay taxes their customers do.

ranter · #17 (**permalink**) 11-06-2008, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScriptMan

Redistribution refers to the practice of taking money from 60% of taxpayers and refunding money to the lower income portion of the 40% who pay no taxes.

Don't you people ever get tired of being wrong?
When did Obama said that he will tax Americans in the way you have it in your talking point above?

I heard him saying that he will tax everything above $250,000 which in US only 5% of taxpaying population,
which BTW what Clinton did and we all know how America has been prospers then.

Why do you want people who get paid $20M in bonuses get even more money?
You should be happy Obama will take away from them another $10M in on top of 20 and give it back to American people.

But then again, you need to have something in between your ears and to:
a. stop listen to talking points
b. try to understand simple principals of economics

and to define for me "socialism"

intech · #18 (**permalink**) 11-06-2008, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zap

Any people I've met that were brought up in the USSR under the communist system are a lot harder working than most of us blessed people in the West.
They truly know the meaning of a hard day's work.

All of the people I know from the former Soviet Union say it was extremely bureaucratic and corrupt, and that's why it collapsed. I don't think people there were lazy, but they were not rewarded for their work. Living conditions were comparable to what poor people in United States complain about, possibly worse.

intech · #19 (**permalink**) 11-06-2008, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ranter

1. Define Socialism
2. Connect dots between Obama and Socialism

A classic definition of socialism is an economic system in which the state owns or controls industrial production. I don't know if Obama actually believes in outright socialism, but he does seem to believe in state involvement in a lot of areas that many of us think the state shouldn't be involved in, such as health care. Also, he has never defined what he means by his campaign slogan of "fundamental change." Not just "change" as in changing Presidents because everybody wanted to get rid of Bush. No - fundamental change. Think about it. That has some meaning.

FocalPoint · #20 (**permalink**) 11-06-2008, 08:02 PM

Quote:

that many of us think the state shouldn't be involved in, such as health care.

Believe me, you are not as many as you think. The majority want something better out of the Health Care system....a Government program that works. we already have Medicare and SS. The people no longer are ignorant about it...that is part of the "change you can believe in" and why Obama is now the next president. Wake up and smell the coffee....

You are part of the "angry right" that is fed daily by Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter ad nauseum...a dying breed if ever there was one....