Let the hilarity ensue.
Printable View
Let the hilarity ensue.
Why is Obama even called that? Most progressives think Obama is too far right. He's closer to Regan than Clinton on policies. I don't know how they even call him a socialist to begin with.
Anyway, back to your question...
Because Stone Cold said so?
Conservatives intentionally conflate "socialist economic policies" with "socialism imposed on a country through a dictatorship" to cause confusion in people. No one really wants the latter, but many countries have had the former for quite some time, through democratic elections, and are quite happy with it. In fact, the US has some socialist economic policies. Social Security, Medicare, the graduated income tax, unemployment insurance, the minimum wage, workplace safety laws, product safety laws, worker's compensation, none of these things would be possible without socialism.
Every country is at least a little socialist. It's just a matter of degrees at this point. Some are more than others.
Lazy peeps like Socialism...Liberals.
Hard working peeps, who want to be rewarded for their hard work and entrepreneurship like capitalism.
So socialism takes money from hard working peeps and gives it to lazy peeps. It deinsentivizes any hard work or entrepreneurshipness.
lmao
I figure you can arrange countries in order of "most socialist" to "least socialist," and you'll also have a list of countries generally going from "peaceful and prosperous" to "hell on earth." You shall know them by their fruits.
Socialism absolutely devalues entrepreneurship, because it restricts/outlaws individual profit making.
The most slanted line is that "lazy people like it so others can do their work for them." And while that can be true, its true in the same sense that capitalism alienates anyone without capital from their own profits (subsistence wages, corporate greed, and exploitation of workers).
Ideally, socialism has everyone working for each other (the "profits" of labor go toward raising the standard of living for all rather than just for one). Everyone pitches in what they can and those who can't are taken care of by the excess from the rest.
Whether it's possible for socialism to exist anywhere close to that ideal is unproven (if not dis-proven by the governments who have attempted versions of it and faltered).
But Tahoe gives a good example of the stereotype that makes it "a bad word". That and the fact that our primary enemy subscribed to a version of it (communism).
Ideal socialism--labor strangles capital into stagnation and really requires some kind of iron fist at the top to perpetuate it. Ideal capitalism is equally unstable and bad.
I like capitalism in general (people that work hard get rewarded) but clearly some functions of our capitalistic society are run by crooks. As mentioned in the health care thread we don't have a truly consumer based health option. They can jack up rates all they want. Nobody wants a socialistic society, they just want to stop getting dicked over by corporations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
The way you get there is with rule of law and strong controls against fraud. We've been undermining both of those things for the last three decades and now we reap what we've sown... boom/bust cycles of looting.Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFchris