10
   

Democrats and socialism

 
 
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 01:19 am
From a Feb. 4 Gallup Poll:

PRINCETON, NJ -- More than one-third of Americans (36%) have a positive image of "socialism," while 58% have a negative image. Views differ by party and ideology, with a majority of Democrats and liberals saying they have a positive view of socialism, compared to a minority of Republicans and conservatives.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125645/Socialism-Viewed-Positively-Americans.aspx

And we're surprised, how?

 
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 01:32 am
@A Lone Voice,
One key point might be:

Gallup wrote:
Respondents were not given explanations or descriptions of the terms.
[...]
Exactly how Americans define "socialism" or what exactly they think of when they hear the word is not known.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 09:30 am
@A Lone Voice,
What's the problem (other than that the number is too low)? I have a positive image of socialism.

Now how do we get the positive number above 50%?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 09:36 am
We should care about the results of polls the terms of which are so vague as to be meaningless because . . . ?
0 Replies
 
Gargamel
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 09:53 am
@A Lone Voice,
And you yourself have proved your firm grasp of socialism when?
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 12:27 pm
Most people think of the Soviet Union of the 1950s as socialist. They were not.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 12:30 pm
I like firefighters! Those handsome socialist devils.

I guess you rely on a private fire-fighting service, Conservatives? When the service commonly provided and paid for out of common funds, owned by the people, comes to your burning house - you tell 'em you don' want any of that socialist bullshit. Right?

Cycloptichorn
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 01:26 pm
We have a lot of close elections in America.
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 01:29 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Most firefighters are volunteer...as are most fire departments.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 01:53 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
The people here rely on a private fire-fighting service, thats why we are a VOLUNTEER fire dept.
We dont get paid, nor do we recieve any federal money.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 02:03 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

The people here rely on a private fire-fighting service, thats why we are a VOLUNTEER fire dept.
We dont get paid, nor do we recieve any federal money.
does that mean there are no $ costs associated with volunteer fire departments?
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 02:06 pm
@dyslexia,
Sure there are costs.
If we get called to your house for a fire, your homeowners insurance pays the bill.
If we get called to a vehicle accident, your car insurance pays the bill.

Our operating expenses are paid by those fees and by donations.
The only thing that we get any govt money for is the county pays for the fuel we use in our trucks.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 02:22 pm
@mysteryman,
That is interesting - and quite different to the situation here.

Any town/city above 100,000 inhabitants must have a professional fire brigade (but has a volunteer force as well).
Towns above 25,000 inhabitants have at least some professionals - my town here has about 45 persons (three shifts a 12 plus reserve and leaders).

They (professionals as well as volunteers) are financed by the state and (that's most of the money) and a fund by all fire insurance companies.
We have the advantage here that a major employer has his own professional works fire brigade, thus disburding the costs for salaries for the professionals ... which are mainly by the town. (Volunteers are either paid by their employer [during working hours] or by the town with a small allowance.)
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 02:40 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
There arent 6000 people in this whole county.
There are 2 paid departments in the whole county, with a total of 7 paid firefighters.
Even those paid depts have volunteer firefighters on their departments.
There are 7 volunteer fire departments in the county, with a total of about 60 volunteer firefighters.
We are all (mostly) state certified firefighters, with the same training as the "professional" departments in the state.
The only difference is that we are volunteers, and paid for our own training or got it thru the departments we serve on.
Every volunteer dept in the county falls under the Union County Fire Dept umbrella, so that is how we get our fuel paid for.
But our training expenses come out of each departments own budget.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 02:57 pm
@mysteryman,
I know about the differences - we've certainly a different (perhaps 'cultural') approach to such. (We've got professional firemen [=persons paid exclusively as firefighters] in larger German towns since the 17th century. My small native town had a volunteer firebrigade (= company of the local [volunteer] town guard) since the 30-years-war.
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 04:07 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

I like firefighters! Those handsome socialist devils.

I guess you rely on a private fire-fighting service, Conservatives? When the service commonly provided and paid for out of common funds, owned by the people, comes to your burning house - you tell 'em you don' want any of that socialist bullshit. Right?

Cycloptichorn


And public safety is socialist how?

I know this is the go-to response for socialists trying to soften their message, (along with using roads, etc, as examples), but just about any civil society has a form of taxes that fund necessities. The U.S., for example, with our representative form of govt, allows for people to vote for those who will levy taxes for the common good. In our representative society, if we don't like the costs of some of these taxes or if we see extremism beginning to take place, a self-correction will occur. (As both parties have found over the years, and Dems will be reminded of in Nov.)

With true socialism basically unattainable due to the realities of human nature, socialist societies invariably revert to a form of capitalism or evolve into communist forms of govt, where they will take possession of their citizen's labor, property, and goods, and redistribute them as they see fit. And, of course, they usually have to do it at gun point, as history shows.

A socialist govt, like a fascist govt or any other repressive form of governing, is eventually totalitarian in nature.

Representative govts, not so much...

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 05:07 pm
@A Lone Voice,
Funny, there are several governments who today are actively Socialist AND representative. And their citizens are not only very happy with their systems, they have some of the highest wealth per capita and the longest lifespans.

This doesn't seem to be compatible with the Republican "Socialist=evil" formula.

Cycloptichorn
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 06:45 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Funny, there are several governments who today are actively Socialist AND representative. And their citizens are not only very happy with their systems, they have some of the highest wealth per capita and the longest lifespans.

This doesn't seem to be compatible with the Republican "Socialist=evil" formula.

Cycloptichorn


Example, please?

I will agree that many countries with a capitalist economy have strong, active, socialist parties, such as some of the Nordic countries.

I'm not aware, though, of any pure socialist countries. (Or those who have not eventually become totalitarian/fascist/communist; I'm sure you'll agree, there's a whole bunch of these such as Cuba, the Soviets, etc.)
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 06:48 pm
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:

I will agree that many countries with a capitalist economy have strong, active, socialist parties, such as some of the Nordic countries.


you don't even have to got hat far, you could cross the northern border
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 10:40 am
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Funny, there are several governments who today are actively Socialist AND representative. And their citizens are not only very happy with their systems, they have some of the highest wealth per capita and the longest lifespans.

This doesn't seem to be compatible with the Republican "Socialist=evil" formula.

Cycloptichorn


Example, please?

I will agree that many countries with a capitalist economy have strong, active, socialist parties, such as some of the Nordic countries.

I'm not aware, though, of any pure socialist countries. (Or those who have not eventually become totalitarian/fascist/communist; I'm sure you'll agree, there's a whole bunch of these such as Cuba, the Soviets, etc.)


Who said anything about 'pure' socialist? We are not 'pure' Capitalists. The best systems include a mixture of what works from both ideologies, not slavish adherence to one or the other.

Cycloptichorn
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Democrats and socialism
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/18/2017 at 02:52:47