McCain may be too old

[Plane]

socialism
Main

system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control rather than individual determination or market forces.
=========================================

Is this a definition or an explanation of why it is so evil?

[Xavier_Onassis]

system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control rather than individual determination or market forces.
=========================================


Is this a definition or an explanation of why it is so evil?

--------------------------------------------------------
No, it is a definition that does not correspond in any way to C4LG's description of the Democrats as "socialists"

Under Margaret Thatcher, the most troglodytic British leader in the past 30 years, the British has a national Health Care Plan.

Every industrial democracy in the developed world has some sort of government run or assisted plan for universal health care--except the USA.

[Plane]

system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control rather than individual determination or market forces.
=========================================


Is this a definition or an explanation of why it is so evil?

--------------------------------------------------------
No, it is a definition that does not correspond in any way to C4LG's description of the Democrats as "socialists"

Under Margaret Thatcher, the most troglodytic British leader in the past 30 years, the British has a national Health Care Plan.

Every industrial democracy in the developed world has some sort of government run or assisted plan for universal health care--except the USA.

On this subject (perhaps ) you are in agreement with Richard Nixon, not someone well known for his socailist agenda, but a strong president who favored greater federal controll of the economy and public welfare.

Education and health care being in the hands of the government produce a profound presence of the government in our everyday lives and a potential means of very powerfull controll over personal behavior , searching for reasonable alternative ideas that eschew such growth of Governmental power is worthy.

[Xavier_Onassis]

How am I in agreement with Richard F*cking Nixon, pray tell?

All I said was that the Democratic Party is NOT Socialist by any traditional definition, and that government health care plans are not really a   manifestation of socialism, either, since Thatcher, a major right winger, did not advocate wrecking the British health care plan.

And no, Nixon was not any sort of socialist, either.

Nixon was a lying manipulator and a terrible person. I agree on him in nothing other the need to breathe.

[Plane]

How am I in agreement with Richard F*cking Nixon, pray tell?

All I said was that the Democratic Party is NOT Socialist by any traditional definition, and that government health care plans are not really a   manifestation of socialism, either, since Thatcher, a major right winger, did not advocate wrecking the British health care plan.

And no, Nixon was not any sort of socialist, either.

Nixon was a lying manipulator and a terrible person. I agree on him in nothing other the need to breathe.

Nobody is perfect , Nixon tried to push for a Health care plan that would have resembled Englands , he didn't get far with it the AMA was a stronger influence on Congress tha the President.

Nixon attempted  a Wage and price freeze , and got some results from it , not all positive.

Several other things reveal that Nixon wanted the government to controll things .

Perhaps not to the extent that would make him fit your definition of a socialist , not that he would publicly admit anyway.

But we may someday have a very socailist system and then elect a person like Richard Nixon , or (fill in your least favoriate leader here) who will be able to exploit the firm grip the government will have on our lives .

[Xavier_Onassis]

But we may someday have a very socailist system and then elect a person like Richard Nixon , or (fill in your least favoriate leader here) who will be able to exploit the firm grip the government will have on our lives .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we had a Socialist system, then it would be because this is what the people wanted. It would make little sense for them to elect another Richard Nixon, who would try to disestablish it.

============================================
The threat at the moment is not from any socialists, but from Juniorbush, who wants to read your e-mail, listen to your phone calls, and harass you every time you want to get on a plane, or go to Canada or Mexico, which now requires you to buy an expensive passport. There was a Central American from somewhere in Miami who washed dishes for 20 years or so, and tried to take his $30,000 in savings in cash back to Guatemala with him. At the airport they searched him, found thre money, and confiscated it. All of it, his whole life savings. Even after they were sure he was not involved in drugs, they didn't return it to him.

You don;'t need a socialist to f*ck people over and take away their rights. Juniorbush is more than all that is required for this.
 

[Christians4LessGvt]

"No, it is a definition that does not correspond in any way to
C4LG's description of the Democrats as "socialists"

Again, I made the post, I "own" my post, you don't.
I was using a definition of my choosing, not yours.

Socialism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal
of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject
to control by the community[1]. This control may be either direct?exercised through
popular collectives such as workers' councils?or indirect?exercised on behalf of the people
by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker,
or community ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to,
and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

[Xavier_Onassis]

Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal
of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject
to control by the community[1]. This control may be either direct?exercised through
popular collectives such as workers' councils?or indirect?exercised on behalf of the people
by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker,
or community ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to,
and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history.

=======================================================
Now tell me why Hillary fits this definition more than Juniorbush.

[Christians4LessGvt]

unions, healthcare, ect x a million

[Xavier_Onassis]

unions, healthcare, ect x a million

==================================
Reagan started out as a union man. Without his serving as Pres, of the SAG, he would have never made any sort of political office at all.

Unions are a GOOD thing for the US.

I suppose you think our heathcare plan, the most expensive in the world, that still doesn't 30% of us, is just hunky-dory.

The abbreviation is et cetera, meaning and so forth. ETC, not ect.

Go play with Rush.

[Plane]

But we may someday have a very socailist system and then elect a person like Richard Nixon , or (fill in your least favoriate leader here) who will be able to exploit the firm grip the government will have on our lives .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we had a Socialist system, then it would be because this is what the people wanted. It would make little sense for them to elect another Richard Nixon, who would try to disestablish it.

=====================

  Oh no ! Nixon would not disestablish a system in place that would give him controll , he would use it. So would (fill in your least favoriate leader here) because it is a commonality in bad government , that it perpetuates itself .

=======================
The threat at the moment is not from any socialists, but from Juniorbush, who wants to read your e-mail, listen to your phone calls, and harass you every time you want to get on a plane, or go to Canada or Mexico, which now requires you to buy an expensive passport. There was a Central American from somewhere in Miami who washed dishes for 20 years or so, and tried to take his $30,000 in savings in cash back to Guatemala with him. At the airport they searched him, found thre money, and confiscated it. All of it, his whole life savings. Even after they were sure he was not involved in drugs, they didn't return it to him.

You don;'t need a socialist to f*ck people over and take away their rights. Juniorbush is more than all that is required for this.
 

This law has been a pain in the neck for Jewlers since the Carter administration , if you have a big wad of cash on you , you will have to produce poof that you have come by it honestly or the police will keep it. You didn't notice this when Junior Bubba was Commander in Cheif?

[Amianthus]

I suppose you think our heathcare plan, the most expensive in the world, that still doesn't 30% of us, is just hunky-dory.

The abbreviation is et cetera, meaning and so forth. ETC, not ect.

It's "health care" not "healthcare" and how do you "30% of" someone?

Language Nazis should make sure their posts have no language errors.

[Christians4LessGvt]

REPUBLICANS, WE CAN DO BETTER!

http://www.wjno.com/pages/spotlight.html?feed=244038&article=3180167

[The_Professor]

<and he waxes philosophic...must be something he ate>

The older I get, I notice the more I move the "the left" politically. If I were not such a staunch conservative Christian, I probably would never vote Republican again. Why? The older I get, the more I see managements' shenanigans toward employees, so that moves me toward more allegiance to unions. The older I get, the more crap I see coming out of "managed" healthcare, so the more "national healthcare" I endorse. The more I see Government spending much more money than it has and doesn't do anything but continue this practice, the more I move smallish government and leaving it to the states, whatever "it" may mean.

I have somewhat analyzed these and other similar trends, and my initial conclusion is that experience allows you the rarity of seeing more of Life and vagrancies, illogical acts and just plain viciousness of "the haves" toward the "have nots". So, I will be one of the few votes to yearn for a true conservative of old, ala William Buckley, or a right ("Heaven's forbid" Democrat. However, I fear that the Democrats only see those to the far Left and the Republicans only see privilege and station and power, surely those three were the ones in the robe of the Ghost of Children Present.

Let me propose this. Let's get the Federal Budget as it stood at the end of Bill Clinton's term. Why there? Because it was closer to reality, financially, than others recently. (Or, go ahead, pick another time if it pleases you).

Then, let's freeze it for a longish and fixed period of time (10 years?) five years. No increases. If you want to move monies around, then fine, but the total outlay cannot be more. Then after the five years, you analyze it again with a bipartisan committee and set another budget for another long timeframe and you do it again. Oh, and you have to not play games. SS and Medicare have to be part of the budget.

<heavy sigh>

[Plane]

<and he waxes philosophic...must be something he ate>

The older I get, I notice the more I move the "the left" politically. If I were not such a staunch conservative Christian, I probably would never vote Republican again. Why? The older I get, the more I see managements' shenanigans toward employees, so that moves me toward more allegiance to unions. The older I get, the more crap I see coming out of "managed" healthcare, so the more "national healthcare" I endorse. The more I see Government spending much more money than it has and doesn't do anything but continue this practice, the more I move smallish government and leaving it to the states, whatever "it" may mean.

I have somewhat analyzed these and other similar trends, and my initial conclusion is that experience allows you the rarity of seeing more of Life and vagrancies, illogical acts and just plain viciousness of "the haves" toward the "have nots". So, I will be one of the few votes to yearn for a true conservative of old, ala William Buckley, or a right ("Heaven's forbid" Democrat. However, I fear that the Democrats only see those to the far Left and the Republicans only see privilege and station and power, surely those three were the ones in the robe of the Ghost of Children Present.

Let me propose this. Let's get the Federal Budget as it stood at the end of Bill Clinton's term. Why there? Because it was closer to reality, financially, than others recently. (Or, go ahead, pick another time if it pleases you).

Then, let's freeze it for a longish and fixed period of time (10 years?) five years. No increases. If you want to move monies around, then fine, but the total outlay cannot be more. Then after the five years, you analyze it again with a bipartisan committee and set another budget for another long timeframe and you do it again. Oh, and you have to not play games. SS and Medicare have to be part of the budget.

<heavy sigh>

The budget could be frozen at any time and as long as the economy continues to grow this would have good results.

The Governments share of the economy would diminish without diminishing the amount that the government spent.

The growth of the economy at normal rates would produce increases in tax revenue with no changes in tax law.
With spending frozen the excess would retire some debt.

What makes this so hard to do? It has been proposed before.

Well, looseig a war is more expensive than winning one , so it requires a few consecutive years of peace , this alone makes the idea hard to use because it is false economy to save money by scrimping on victorys needs and a few consecutive year of peace are hard to come by.

Peple who need more demand more and the don't stop when they get more , every kind of person that draws from the government till spends the time it takes to make his case to get the more he thinks he needs , no is never politicly popular.