Kerry has lost my vote.

Since we already 'redistribute wealth', what would a Socialist America look like? How would the 'redistribution' differ from taxation and in representation?

0 Replies

In a Green world, capitalism exists. It is integrated with the greater social need rather than like a John Wayne movie.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Comparing the Greens to the Soviets is like comparing the Republicans to the Nazi's.

This comparison may win points with the blindly partisan, but it is inappropriate, extreme and completely devoid of any intellectual merit.

EBrown, I can point to lots of commonality between Greens and Reds. Where do you see this mythical similarity between Republicans and Nazis? The fact is that the two ideologies couldn't be more different. That's a comparison made by people who know little, and think less. The Green/Red comparison is made because it is valid, by people who've done their homework.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Since we already 'redistribute wealth', what would a Socialist America look like? How would the 'redistribution' differ from taxation and in representation?

Since we are already halfway socialist as you point out, a socialist america will mean that more people would be poor, or barely subsistent. the wealthy people and organizations would remain wealthy because it would be impossible to seize what they already have. The middle class will disappear because people won't start businesses. They wouldn't start businesses because there is no reward for the hard work operating a business demands. The now non existent business will now employ nobody. Large corporations will move out of the country, and as america gets poorer, they will completely stop doing business with america. more people will have no job. The proportion of poor people will grow. The wealthy will remain, for all intents and purposes, unaffected.

0 Replies

Many people mistakenly think of communism and socialism as being interchangeable - one and the same, in short. They don't see that there are various breeds of socialism just as there are various breeds of capitalism. Communism is totalitarian. It preys upon the workers, keeping them down. Democratic socialism is designed to draw its strength from the people. The system dreamt of by the Greens is an integration of capitalism and socialism.

0 Replies

Oh, Edgar... You have an awful view of capitalists. There is no disdain for the "cogs". Said disdain is reserved for the looters that want a share without making a contribution. I have exchanged value for value as both an employee and employer in every working relationship I've ever had. And no, it isn't the needy folks on welfare that are looked down upon either. It is the pompous prick that works for the government that gets my goat The bureaucrat who shares in the wealth while contributing nothing, but disdain for me as I pay his bills. That is where the problem lies. Any platform that promotes the creation of more of that kind of job is going to get a big thumbs down from me.

0 Replies

I stand by my statement.

0 Replies

Fair enough, me too.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Many people mistakenly think of communism and socialism as being interchangeable - one and the same, in short. They don't see that there are various breeds of socialism just as there are various breeds of capitalism. Communism is totalitarian. It preys upon the workers, keeping them down. Democratic socialism is designed to draw its strength from the people. The system dreamt of by the Greens is an integration of capitalism and socialism.

I can accept that definition, but only if you agree that a case of Ebola involves the integration of the virus with the cells of a human host.

My point is that in both cases, the integration destroys the healthy thing upon which the new whole is supposed to feed to survive. The virus kills the cells as it replicates itself, and Green-brand socialism would destroy the golden egg-laying goose of capitalism by removing the incentives which led men and women to create wealth in the first place.

( don't doubt for a second that you've accurately described their intentions, but I'm equally sure I'm just as accurately assessing the consequences thereof.)

0 Replies

I think it is naive to believe that we will in any way benefit by giving government more power over us than it already has.

0 Replies

scrat and fry, that about sums it up.

0 Replies

Conservatives always cry: "Less government" until liberals decry certain government actions. Then it's "Spriggin' disloyal liberals, not backing my government."

0 Replies

I may have a naive view of the moves toward Socialism, and that is why I began with a question.

It does seem that the same liberals that decry increased governmental control (ie Patriot Act), are wanting to move toward much more personal control by a more Socialist govt.

IMV, the bureaocracy gets thicker and more entangled, and less accountable. Individuals lose power, and the avenues of corruption are completely out of control. A good redistribution and bureacratic model of this type is the Oil For Food program.

I do see the incentives for the entreprenurial spirit that made us so strong and innovative shrivelling up, despite claims that Socialism can work with Capitalism. As Scrat alluded, I don't think so.

0 Replies

Conservatives want a strong government where it supports their positions, weak other than that. So do liberals.

0 Replies

I am not anti-government, but I am pretty Libertarian in what I believe good government should be. I think the federal government should do only those things specified as its role in the Constitution and those things which cannot be done more effectively and efficiently by the states, which isn't much. And I think the state governments should do only what cannot be done more efficiently and effectively by the private sector.

Already the government bureaucracy siphons off the lion's share of our tax dollars just to feed itself. I won't vote for anybody who wants to make it bigger.

0 Replies

Andrew Hacker, professor at Queens College and the author of the famous- "Two Nations" has proposed in a 1997 book- "Money" that no one really needs more than $100,000 a year to get along and that the government should tax any income above that figure and re-distribute it to the families who rank below the median income level.
A little reflection will lead to the understanding of how just, peaceful and amicable a society our country would become. Basic familial needs, not now being met, would be filled. Those who make much more than they need would know that they are contributing to the welfare of their fellow man.
I am afraid that the greed and rapacity of many in power in our country would never allow for a consideration of such a basically humanitarian proposal.

0 Replies

foxfire "won't vote for anybody who wants to make it bigger." In that case you better not vote for the likes of GW Bush or Ronald Reagan. The govt. grew more under them than under liberal presidents.

0 Replies

Sometimes the one we want doesn't get nominated, and nobody is going to do everything exactly as we think they should. But why vote for somebody committed to having government be the solution for all problems?

0 Replies

The government growth situation is why I'm not voting for Bush again. I'm not voting for Kerry either though... most likely it will be the Libertarian.

0 Replies

foxfire
Republicans want to control you as much as the Democrats do. They just have a different agenda.

0 Replies

Kerry has lost my vote.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know