Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Budmantom
How is Obama a socialist?
Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.
That sounds like Obama doesn't it?
It also sounds like McCain.
It also sounds like AMerica.
It also sounds like the only sensible policy.
Are you in favor of the old societies where most live in impoverished serfdom?
I certainly hope you never procreate. America was founded around principles that are OPPOSITE socialism. I hate it when people want to turn our great country into crap like that. In socialism, it doesn't matter how hard you work or how smart you are, you will get the same as your neighbor even if he sits around all day jerking off.
I guess we know which one you are...
You're completely wrong, and only serve my point about the effective propagandizing that's happened.
That is *not* what socialism is, what you say, not at all.
Before we even talk about it, we have to note that there are no 'firm definitions' at the policy level on any ism. Capitalism, Socialism, Libertarianism all have disagreements.
But here's a typical proposal from a self-described socialist leader: a business owner can only make up to five times as much as the average worker.
If the average worker makes $50,000 and by offering more to be a good CEO, you can make $250K, are you saying that's not an incentive?
As I recall, even in periods of our peak 'capitalism', the ratio has tended to be maybe 20 or 25 times as much. In recent years, because of *corruption*, not 'earning it', CEO's in the US (not the rest of the world, where it's remained at similar levels) have turned that into hundreds of times as much, I recall seeing 400-1 ratios mentioned.
Socialism as I understand it understands and supports rewarding productivity - just not to the extreme that an unregulated corrupt system allows, and that is better for most people.
In our 'liberal era', say WWII-LBJ, we had a thriving middle class and a thriving economy - and no shortage of 'rich people', just with less concentration of wealth than now (or just preceding the great depression, when concentration of wealth was a factor in the economy's problems, and the last time the levels were at current rates).
You display that you are conditioned on the word socialism, not informed. You are armed only with a straw man argument, and you should learn a little about its definition and its flavors. Socialists led the fight in the US for the 40 hour work week, for example, the idea that the owners should not be able to pressure workers into 60 hour work weeks while unemployment was high, simply because it increased their profits to do so and keep a large supply of people ready to replace them. Was that such a bad idea?
Socialists were leaders in the fight for the woman's right to vote as well. Against that?
Edit: but then again your first insult shows you are an idiot, so this post is for others.