One of the most common responses I’ve seen from Republicans any time a Democrat calls for government action is that it amounts to socialism. And there is no mystery as to why they do this. The word socialism is identified most commonly with socialist regimes like the late Soviet Union, Communist China, and Cuba. But the fact is, these governments were hardly socialistic in any real way. They were and are actually more fascist than socialist. They claim to be communists, which is also false, but this has caused the words socialist and communist to become synonymous with one another. But what does socialism really mean and does the Liberal view of government really amount to socialism?
Webtser’s defines socialism as follows.
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Well, I don’t know any Democrats who advocate that the government should own our countries means of producing and distributing goods. And I don’t know any that think folks should not own property. So what are the Republicans talking about?
So the answer to the article title’s question is that it can only be assumed that folks on the Right believe any endeavor the government undertakes amounts to socialism. This must be a source for a lot of the motivation they have for trying to privatize everything the government does. Unfortunately, privatization too often has proven to be disastrous. The recent revelations regarding the contracting of private security companies ie., (mercenaries) for use in Iraq and right here at home has proven troublesome in the least for the Republicans.
And the use of the battle cry “socialism” in response to proposed government action by Liberals is nothing but a disingenuous smoke screen to try and paint anything Democrats propose as being as distasteful as possible. And it’s also disingenuous for Republicans to refer to services provided by the government as socialism like our Social Security program, or Medicare and Medicaid. These programs are vital to the quality of life for millions of Americans and could never be accomplished through privatized efforts. These ARE social programs, but they DO NOT amount to socialism, they amount to Liberalism.
Republicans have used this lie for too long in their efforts to undo these programs and it doesn’t stop there folks. The Rights war isn’t just against Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They also want to see an end to public education, food assistance, and any other programs they see as socialistic. And they want to privatize everything our government does, which would result in a completely corporate controlled government.
So when Republicans cry “socialism”, they are really crying “Liberalism.”
************************
Devin Barber, Politics Correspondent
Devin’s column, “Left Of The Right” published twice weekly or more to Gather Essentials: Politics is a Blue Collar Democrats take on current political news.
Devin was raised by proud Roosevelt Democrats. Being the son of parents counted among the throng of Americans displaced by the Great Depression has given Devin a deep rooted passion for causes dealing with the poor and the working class.
You can find all of Devin’s columns at http://gather.com/leftoftheright
You can keep up with Devin’s postings and his Gather activity by joining his Gather network. Just click here: http://kiwina58.gather.com and then select the orange “Connect” button on the left-hand side of the page.
You can find Devin and other Political Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other politics experts at Politics.gather.com.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 163
Everyone knows the fate of the Romanovs, but scarcely anyone knows of the thousands who starved to death while their Government heads enjoyed the finest foods.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Peace,
libramoon
Devin, may I suggest a future article? You would be shocked and amazed to see how the definition of "fascist" has changed since WWII - I'd bet you could mine old copies of dictionaries and compare then vs. now. The manipulation of language is a one of the most basic propaganda tools.
The occupation forces on Okinawa
Colonel (Paul Ford)- So hows this brewery you helped them set up pay out?
Captain (Glenn Ford)- Well, all the money from the sales is pooled then divided up equally among the workers
Colonel - That's communism! Why man, you've turned them into communists!
Captain - But I patterned it after my father's farmers co-op back in Iowa.
Colonel - Iowa? In Iowa? Good God, now they're in the heartland!
Good article.
Using flexible definitions allows one to reinvent reality; Republicans do it all the time. Hence the well-rehearsed sound bite; and the evolution of the "talking point".
Conservatives always react to any government program with "That's socialism", and never explain why they think that's bad. It's as if they think that by labeling something, they can somehow ridicule and/or defeat it.
And you are mixing your metaphores with this article.
Socialism is an economic system, where, you have correctly pointed out the government controls and/or outright owns the means of production across the economy. Under a socialist system, private property is allowed on a limited basis; individuals can own their own home or automobile -- when they can afford it. What private business property that is permitted is subject to government edict in terms of what they produce, how much and how much, if any profit they are allowed.
Self-described Liberals (or Progressives, the two are synonymous in the contemporary venacular) in the U.S. advocate a continued move to the system described above, with the new and "improved" Hillary-care a prime example. You can certainly have private insurance companies and private doctors, it's just that they can only pay/charge whatever the central government bureaucracy allows.
Similiar controls can be seen to varying degrees across the economy.
Conservatives see the most efficient way to allocate resources is through a market system that is self-regulating. The bad actors get theirs in the end, because their bad acts result in them being run out of business. In the creeping socialism we've seen in this country over the past 70+ years, those bad actors have simply been codified into the system and they have become entrenched.
Perhaps if those on the Left would lose their condescension and try to engage in some meaningful dialog some of these misperceptions I've read above could be addressed and corrected.
Great Article. 10
Dave B. - I don't think socialism is really an economic system. At its root is the simple care of the individuals and the society as a whole. It does not need to engage in any monetary system or assign and enforce comparative values to items in order to succeed at this. It could, or would, simply ensure production and distribution of food, water, shelter, clothing, medicines, education, etc. in quantities that cause the society, and all of its individual parts, to be healthy and vigorous enough to perpetually flourish.
So, socialism would be more about logistics than economics.
As far as Hillary-care goes; I'm not so sure what she's proposed so far is what you've described. The one thing I seem to have heard her clearly say was that she would mandate everyone to have health insurance. Those words are so slippery that they could be interpreted as meaning she will pass a law requiring every individual to carry insurance; regardless of if they can afford it (aka: unfunded mandate on the populous).
Something like that would make the insurance companies absolutely giddy with dollar signs, while only further crushing the under-incomed in our country.
Also, I'd like to point out that the "bad actors" ability to seep into and become entrenched in the system is not the fault of expanding socialist idealisms. It is wholly the fault of cronyism; an ideology where people band together, isolate themselves and wield their individual and collective powers for the sole purpose of bettering their own situations, without care or thought to the effect on those outside of their group.
Sadly, one of the cutting edges of capitalism and industrialism is that it fosters the accumulation of excessive wealth in the hands of individuals and small groups, regardless of the purity of their desires, and thus makes a handy tool for cronyists, structuralists, fascists and humanitarians, alike.
Ideologies are like guns; they can be life saving or life taking depending on the intent and handling of their wielders.
Maybe if we changed the word Left to Right it would speak the truth ... you people on the Right have a way of taking your own worst faults and blaming them on the Left ... really perverse of you ... but somehow it makes you believe it I guess ... just like all of the other lies you guys tell until you accept it for your own truth ... sadly so many on the Left are innocent enough to not even suspect what you are doing and begin to believe you only because they are Liberal enough (a common trait of this side) to give the benefit of the doubt.
But some of us are wise to your ways and you mostly only fool yourselves ... that's what fools do. You also have this warped idea of what the Left thinks and does which is your own worst fears showing how warped your minds really are ... your fears are nowhere near accurate, it is just your active imaginations fooling you again and again and again ... grow up !!!
Now, was that so hard? You framed a coherent, albiet mistaken, argument with several points of opinion in favor of your view, and without attacking me personally. It is only when folks come here believing that by impugning me personally, they can win the debate that I have no use for here. Your original and second comments here were removed for that reason. Stay on subject and I'll have no problem with you, resort to personal attackes and I will.
Bill's Spirit, Oct 5, 2007
And you would be incorrect, Bill. Perhaps you missed that day in economics class. You're entitled to your opinion. But you aren't entitled to your own definitions. Socialism, Captialism, Communism, Feudalism have been the primary economic constructs in the recorded history of man. Yes, there have been economies that are in essence hybrid mixtures, with some elements of each from time to time. But, all economies can be placed within those for catagories.
It could, or would, simply ensure production and distribution of food, water, shelter, clothing, medicines, education, etc. in quantities that cause the society, and all of its individual parts, to be healthy and vigorous enough to perpetually flourish.
The best entity for determining whether I, and my family, have a sufficient supply of food, water and shelter is me. And the same is true for you and every other human being on the face of this planet. As soon as you turn those decisions over to some central authority your individual sovereignty and freedom is diminished.
Sadly, one of the cutting edges of capitalism and industrialism is that it fosters the accumulation of excessive wealth in the hands of individuals and small groups, regardless of the purity of their desires, and thus makes a handy tool for cronyists, structuralists, fascists and humanitarians, alike.
Two points:
1. Who's is to determine how much wealth is "excessive"? Personally, I think the concept of "excessive wealth" to be a bit inane. Wealth is something to be strived for, the more you work and invest your resources, the more wealth you deserve.
2. You comment appears to assume that "socialists" have "purer" desires than the other groups you have enumerated. Gould it not be justifably argued that you're just advocating a different group of "elites", more acceptable you, i.e. the central government, as the accumulator of wealth to dispense with as it sees fit? So all you're really advocating is a different group controlling the money, only there's no hope for the "little guy" under your system to rise above his station based on his own merits and work. Under the current system, that opportunity still exists.
-------------------------------------------------
you people on the Right have a way of taking your own worst faults and blaming them on the Left."
Jerry Kays, Oct 5, 2007, 3:14am EDT
Elaborate for me, Jer, please. What might those faults be?
---------------------------------------------
Devin;
Stay on subject and I'll have no problem with you, resort to personal attackes and I will.
Devin Barber, Oct 5, 2007, 9:12am EDT
Hmmmm.
"But some of us are wise to your ways and you mostly only fool yourselves ... that's what fools do. You also have this warped idea of what the Left thinks and does which is your own worst fears showing how warped your minds really are ... your fears are nowhere near accurate, it is just your active imaginations fooling you again and again and again ... grow up !!!
Jerry Kays, Oct 5, 2007, 3:14am EDT
Nothing ad hominem about Jer's comment? Perhaps the above admonition only applies to those of the Conservative bent. How egalitarian.
I'll clear it up for you. Jerry's attack is on Republicans in general, not you personally. Go ahead and say what you feel about Democrats, or Liberals, or what ever. But make it personal and you'll be deleted.
And the wielders of the neocon ideology, and indeed, corporatism as a whole, have no consciences. National Socialism was the cry of the Nazis, a group that has much in common with neocons, when the truth is known, but most obviously fascism, the marrying of government and corpprate power. The idea of the market adjusting everything would be great, if those that control the market weren't such absolutely greedy little shits. Never mind the truth, though.
Ron (& stud Papilun fur reant chepe) W., Oct 5, 2007, 12:41am EDT
This is TOTALLY incorrect. The Neoconservative movement is the antithesis of the National Socialists (aka Nazis)
Perhaps you should do more extensive study before you make such a totally inaccurate characterization. I'd suggest the following primers:
An Introduction to Neoconservatism
It said "David" and "you", and "Republican" appears nowhere in his comment... but I'm a big boy and can defend myself. I was just pointing out a pretty obvious inconsistency. I believe I've effectively made that point. The moderating will speak for itself.
I mistakenly left off one of your primers.
The Neoconservative Persuasion
"Perhaps you missed that day in economics class."
Yup, I probably did; especially when you consider the fact that I have never attended a class in economics. I guess all the books I've read in my attempts to better myself failed to make it clear in my mind that an economic system does not have to have anything to do with money. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
The best entity for determining what I want, need or have may very well be myself (I'd certainly agree with that) but my determination of those things does not automatically lead to my being able to secure all those things. In our current American society, bosses and government leaders make a lot of decisions about what is most appropriate for individuals to have; and they do that without my having handed them my express consent.
"Wealth is something to be strived for, the more you work and invest your resources, the more wealth you deserve."
This kind of implies that those who work hardest gain the most; and that anyone who works hard enough can accumulate savings and expand their resources. Those realities do not exist for all peoples. Our country is filled with folks who work long hours and labor intensely while drawing the lowest amounts of compensation. Just as many of our homeless and struggling poor are, or once were, hard workers whose ability to accumulation of resources were crippled or destroyed by the actions of others or the vagarities of nature. It is one of the common fallacies in our capitalist industrial paradigm to believe or assume that equal opportunity is equally available to everyone.
My comment is not meant to imply that socialists have purer desires. I tried to make it clear that socialism, like every ideology, is but a tool. The pureness of desire varies from individual to individual. Socialism, as a theoretical ideal, does have a vary high minded purpose; the adequate care of every individual. For clarifications sake; I am not, nor would I ever, advocate a complete shift to socialism. As someone else pointed out, societies usually consist of a mix and interplay of varying ideologies. Socialism has its place, as does capitalism and industrialism.
What I DO advocate is this; that since our society has more that the necessary resources and means, it should provide the very basic essentials and necessities of living to every single citizen. I advocate that because it is best for the society, overall. When even one person stumbles, falls, goes without, lives below their potential the whole society suffers. When all people are fully actualized they each can contribute their very best to the society; and all benefit.
David: I really feel that perhaps we could all have an educated discussion if we would once and for all put aside the convenient little labels and the Us versus Them mentality and realize that nothing is black and white when it comes to social issues. Then perhaps we could speak to one another as individuals with dissenting opinions and try to find common ground.
It amazes me, for instance, that anyone would consider raising healthy and educated children to be anything but a boon to society. The more educated and the healthier they are the more productive they are. That's a given in any society.
One of the surest ways of reducing crime, for instance, is to increase the literacy rate. The percentage of those in prison who are either illiterate or functionally so is enormous when compared to the general population. Further, it is proven in study after study to reduce the recidivism rate. Universal education is perhaps the first "Socialist" program implemented in this country. One of the surest ways of raising GNP in a third world country is education. Surprisingly, the emancipation of women is a close second, as it tends to reduce the number of children they produce. Not very surprisingly, the two are linked.
My point is twofold: first, social programs that benefit the population in general, reduce the amount of illiteracy or raise the ability to get and hold a job are not bad things. Second: there is no "right", "left" or other convenient little boxes into which everyone can be stuffed and defined. It would be extremely difficult if not impossible to find two people on the far right who agree on anything totally and across the board. Why would anyone thing that isn't the same on the other side. Political and social opinion exists as a spectrum across the entire philosophy. Ironically, the closer you get to the extremes the more similar are their rhetoric, methodology, and goals. The very far extreme right and the very far extreme left are very similar in their aims. Both want absolute control of people, an uneducated populace, and an unequal distribution of power.
I know you used Social Security as an example but wouldn't that actually work against your premice in this article. Its close to bankrupt and what I have been hearing will be gone soon with the Influx of Baby Boomers Retiring its going to be even a bigger drain. Im not saying government programs couldn't work but when you use the Moneys as a Federal Slush Fund and dont manage the funds right its bound to loose. I just dont think putting the Government in charge of all the aspects of life (Security) should fall on them. JMO
Socialism does not necessarily seek to look after the needs of every individual, and neither does communism; which ties back to Devin's point in this article that labeling many of the socially progressive ideas currently being promoted as socialist or communist is a misnomer.
Hmm, I wonder what definition would fit... guess I'll have to do some more research.
You've actually assisted me in making my point, thank you.
"The best entity for determining what I want, need or have may very well be myself (I'd certainly agree with that) but my determination of those things does not automatically lead to my being able to secure all those things. In our current American society, bosses and government leaders make a lot of decisions about what is most appropriate for individuals to have; and they do that without my having handed them my express consent.
Bill, you honestly let others control you that way? You actually let a boss keep you from succeeding? I've had a few bad bosses in my life, and when I have had ones that were intolerable, I left for another place of employment. You are also free to do that if you have a "bad" boss. I'll leave aside a discussion on whether any boss would want his employee to be unsuccessful (that seems counter-intutitive to me because your success in the workplace would equate to his success also). If you stay working for a bad boss, you are making a decision to stay in that situation. You are not an indentured servant. I assume no one is holding a gun to your head, threatening you if you seek another way of earning an income. So, it really comes down to desire. If you want to succeed, you will. If you don't have that ambition, you'll be stuck where you are.
Government leaders can be replaced in our society. Those leaders who impede the success of the people don't last too long in a democratic system such as ours.
"This kind of implies that those who work hardest gain the most; and that anyone who works hard enough can accumulate savings and expand their resources. Those realities do not exist for all peoples. Our country is filled with folks who work long hours and labor intensely while drawing the lowest amounts of compensation. Just as many of our homeless and struggling poor are, or once were, hard workers whose ability to accumulation of resources were crippled or destroyed by the actions of others or the vagarities of nature. It is one of the common fallacies in our capitalist industrial paradigm to believe or assume that equal opportunity is equally available to everyone."
Every successful person has had setbacks and plain ol' "runs-of-bad-luck". Successful people pick themselves up, get "back in the game" and move on (and NOT that .org outfit). Losers whine about their bad luck and wait for a handout. The equal opportunity is here for everyone to take advantage of, Bill. But, so is the equal opportunity to fail and quit. Everyone had to choice which opportunity they will embrace and which one they will let pass by. Each and everyone of us is responsible for our own successes and failures.
"When even one person stumbles, falls, goes without, lives below their potential the whole society suffers. When all people are fully actualized they each can contribute their very best to the society; and all benefit. "
The society only suffers when it becomes a nanny state. Yes, compassion plays a part ... but only a part. If a person or family is hit with the misfortune of disaster, certainly decency would dictate that the rest of the community come to their immdeiate assistance. It is not compassionate to make them lifelong dependents on society well after the crisis has passed. They have to get up and "get back into the game". Successful people do that. Whiners and losers don't. Pander to whiners and losers, who leach off the rest of us, doesn't make us better. It weakens all of us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"David: I really feel that perhaps we could all have an educated discussion if we would once and for all put aside the convenient little labels and the Us versus Them mentality and realize that nothing is black and white when it comes to social issues. Then perhaps we could speak to one another as individuals with dissenting opinions and try to find common ground.
Carolyn G., Oct 5, 2007, 12:09pm EDT
I couldn't agree more, Carolyn.
Why Republicans Confuse Socialism With Liberalism
One of the most common responses I've seen from Republicans any time a Democrat calls for government action is that it amounts to socialism. And there is no mystery as to why they do this.
As you can see, that was the construct of this article. Devin framed this as an "Us vs. Them" discussion. I'm simply following along (lest I be censured again). Perhaps a better way to frame the discussion is ask, "Why to Conservatives believe ...", and then accept their honest answer for exactly that when they give it.
Just a suggestion.
Bill's Spirit, Oct 5, 2007, 12:18pm EDT
Liberalism, Bill
Not the modern-day concept of that word; redistribution of wealth, guarantee of equal outcomes, not equal opportuntities, etc.
No, the Classic Liberalism of Jefferson and Locke, et. al.. Those gentlemen would be appalled by what poses as Liberalism today. The Liberal ideology of the 20th (okay, early 21st) Century bears absolutely NO resemblence of the Liberalism those men advocated and the Liberalism that was the foundation of our nation.
Hopefully, you are right. It's about time for some changes in Washington. We will do better with the Democratic Party this time around.
Devin Barber, Oct 5, 2007, 12:49pm EDT
Actually, Devin, the Republicans I've heard and associate with would support the removal $97K income cap. And for those who don't, perhaps making a portion (let's say 10%, for the sake of argument) of the SSI contributions more like a 401K with more control and ownership for the individual would win them over.
It has been my experience that it is the most vocal far Right that has a long list of 'negatives' that they apply to the Left ... most all of which are much more applicable to their own thinking and actions ... and because they are too numerous to list and also being self evident to an 'honest' person, I will not debate the issues one by one as the Right loves to do so that when they find even one error, they feel they can throw the baby out with the bathwater and consider the entire matter a total 'win' on their 'side' ... all one has to do is look at it critically to see the truth in what I said and say.
But also in the case of the Right, there is often no critical inquiry when the findings may go against their own preferences, only when it goes against their 'opponents', the Left.
Carolyn earlier made a plea for more balance and common ground in discussions, a noble and wise goal that I also subscribe to. She also said that the extremes of both Left and Right had the same agendas, control of the people ... I do not agree with that though because in general the far Right and far Left are diametrically 'opposed' in that I have determined that it is the Right that is the most conservative, as in narrow minded (yes, a pejorative because of what it results in) and insular, as in selfishness ... the hell with others, especially those that get in their way of materialistic gain. That kind of thinking comes from FEAR ... fear of loss or the threat of it ... and naturally then, it is their 'opponents' that are labeled such by them, as being the threat ... when there is no such threat, except in the mind of the fearful who expands their concepts of that completely out of proportion and reason.
The Left who are just naturally more Liberal in nature (meaning forgiving and compassionate) have an interest in the well being of ALL peoples ... they are much less selfish in that regard and when accused of false negatives by the Right, they most often only defend themselves rather than being the instigators of the original attacks ... That is just the natural difference between Lions and Lambs, Hawks and Doves, the Predator and its victims.
Now of course the Right must admit, with critical thinking, that they are in general the militaristic, law and order people, loving and relying more on the hierarchical systems of top down 'leadership' and authority ... rule over ... and the 'subjects' then of course are only those that are unfit to be like them and thus NEED their ruling, those of us to the Left of them ...
Another key word they (the Right) loves to throw around is "ad hominem" ... of course it has two meanings, a positive that means passionate and the negative which means prejudicial ... naturally (it seems) the Right is always attracted to the 'negative' version, probably due to the fact they ARE more prejudicial about everything than would be the easier going live and let live thinking and forgiving Liberal 'Lefty' ...
When this is analysed critically, the mentioned truths I have pointed out become much more evident ... but the average 'Righty' that is so vocal here on Gather will NEVER admit to this ... even though it is the truth of the matter ... maybe it is because 'truth' to them only consists of the 'facts' that they prefer to use ... the old right VS wrong attitude of duality, where everything must be either black or white ... no shades of grey allowed ... everything is SIMPLE that way to them ... maybe having to do with simple-mindedness ?
Sorry IF anyone takes this TOO personal, it was only meant to be in general ... if the shoe fits ... ... .
There are no 100% socialist nations. Albania came the closest and we all know what a vacation hot spot that is. So when republicans are talking about this nation is becoming a socialist nation we are referring to the freedoms and choices liberals are willing to hand over to the government.
You did a good job of explaining the truth of the Republican's deliberate attempt to confuse the public about what a Democrat is. I don't care what anyone above tries to twist the truth, you are right on target.
Watch for an article I will publish in the next few days that will blow the doors off the Bush Administrations shadow government and the private army he has amassed.
Great work again, Devin! Thanks!
my point is that there is no such thing as socialism in the true sense of the word. There are varying levels of it. BUT as soon as you take something from the private sector and turn it over to the government then that is socialist. Don't blame me for it…blame the dictionary.
Some parts of government functions are best handled by them and some are not. I think creating the TSA is prime example which was handled by the private sector. Bush converted it to a government program with lets be kind, with mixed results. Overall I do not feel safer going through security now then I did before the TSA ran the program. Now does it streamline the dissemination of classified information, probably but I still think that was one of those incorrect knee jerk reactions after 911. By definition, he was socializing airport security and I think we all know what TSA stands for...Thousands Standing Around.
You are correct, I do not think that health care should be included. What liberals are ignoring is the fact that even countries that do offer socialized medicine you also have private insurance. More and more people are going to private insurance as their companies offer that as a benefit. What you are then creating is two classes of care. One class sits in the waiting rooms for hours and the private health people walk right in. Private health care people get a private room with 5 doctors, while the others are crammed in a room with 5 people and get one intern. You have no idea the amount of fighting you have to do in order to get procedures done. You can take a glimpse of this when you look at health care under VA. A friend of mine is a lawyer and represents vets who were denied treatment, received wrong treatment etc. Now multiply that to cover the entire population. Have you ever tried to sue to government? It's not easy and they can hold out longer then you can. I make no bones about it though. The current system is broken, I pay way too much for health care and it keeps getting more expensive. I am no friend of private insurance I just do not think that the government can do the job better or cheaper.
Most Americans live in a balancing act between what they desire and what is available. They have to do this because living requires an income flow, and income generally comes from doing work that someone else pays you to do.
Perhaps you, and all the people you know, live and work in situations where an employees personal desires override what bosses want, without imperiling their income, but most folks, especially the laboring populations, are required to meet their bosses expectations (daily) in order to keep their jobs and maintain their income.
The human spirit IS incredibly strong and resilient, but it is not omnipotent. It cannot manifest tangible objects from thin air. You may casually label those who have experienced strings of catastrophic losses as losers, and you may even point to those individuals that rose above or persevered through hard times to achieve success as inspirational, but there are more than as many similar folks who end up stuck on the rocks simply because they are not chosen by those with decision making powers to fill the spaces where opportunities are available.
Let us be clear, the majority of the homeless and working poor in our country are not in those situations because they don't want to work, or aren't willing to work. It is often a matter of not getting hired into jobs they are fully capable of doing because the hirers perceive or label them as losers and not worth giving the job to.
"The society only suffers when it becomes a nanny state."
Oh please!! Societies have quite often suffered mightily under the apathetic fists of totalitarian regimes and the uncaring grips of fascist dictators; who were definitely NOT nanny states. Perhaps you missed that day in history class.
We should call out the republibots more often about the social programs, they seem to enjoy. How can a business owner get his product to the market at a reasonable rate and time if there was no federal government support for our roads, rail and air. They don't mind spending tax payers money to benefit the corporations and the wealthy. The way I see things, they don't want anyone to have as much as they do. One big problem I have with this discussion, is the lack of mention, of the true neocon agenda, economic slavery.
1. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
2. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.
"Laissez-faire" is defined as meaning --
1. An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws.
2. Noninterference in the affairs of others.
You just described what a poor person goes through, when they get sick, in America. Why are you people on the right so against, making sure "everybody" is healthy or at least not suffering. How does it benefit "you" to have someone else sick and dependent on someone for help. That's the one thing I am confused about, the right has gotten the people in America to believe that "not" helping is in their best interest.
Republicans do NOT have a problem with helping poor people...thats the straw man liberals put up. Its like this SCHIP program. It was designed to help people just over poverty but that do not make enough to afford insurance. HELP THEM ABSOLUTLY. I just do not think that a familly that makes $80,000+ per year is CLOSE to poverty.
I do not think EVERYONE should be covered because not EVERYONE needs it. I have insurance...I do not NEED government insurance so why is the left trying to get me insured????
Bill you said "It is often a matter of not getting hired into jobs they are fully capable of doing because the hirers perceive or label them as losers and not worth giving the job to." I work in aviation, when I got laid off I took a job with a temp agency - actually 3 as one did not keep me busy enough. I did that until I found a job that I liked which took about a year. Now I could have gone on welfare, collected food stamps but I worked instead. We have exceptionally low unemployment rates. Seldom do I go into a place that does not have a HIRING sign in the window. Now there is a very small number of people that honestly can not work, too much time on the street, mental problems etc. Those are the ones that REALLY need our help and there is government and private help available.
I'm not in any way naive, culterally, socially or otherwise.
It's presumptuous of you to assume I know nothing of the everyday trial and tribulations faced by others in today's modern time. My wife and I face the same "balancing act"as other families. You have no idea what hardships she and I have had to cope with and overcome. So, kindly keep you generalizations and erroneous accusations to yourself.
Despite many hurdles; unfair and nasty bosses, job losses, tragic losses, and yes, even some just plain bone-headed decisions on our part, we have perservered and reached a modicum level of success and contentment. And, we did it without relying on the government to give it to us. Yes, we relied on assistance from family and friends on occasion. We have assisted family, friends and neighbors in need as well.
We know well the spirit on compassion and Christian charity ... from both sides of the equation. There's nothing I've said here that should lead you to think otherwise, unless, of course, you're allowing your own preconceived ideas of what Conservatives are all about.
I've never labeled anyone who has suffered catastrophic loss, or come upon hard times as a "loser". I've labeled those who use those losses and hard times as an excuse to become a perpetual leach on society as losers.
Now, before you try and twist that statement out of context, let me make my meaning unambigously clear.
I am NOT referring to individuals who are chronically ill or disabled. We have programs in place to help victims in that circumstance and I have no problem providing that assistance. I am talking about those who are perfectly capable of finding some gainful employment, but would rather be on the public dole rather than take responsibility for themselves.
You reference the "homeless". I'm familiar with that problem here locally, and generally on the national level. Contrary to your characterization, most of those "victims" are where they want to be, in that they have elected not to take advantage of the assistance available, going as far as to wlk away from when it is offered directly. That is not to say there aren't some out there who really do want help, but those folks don;t stay homeless for long.
No, Bill, I have a heart -- a caring heart. It's just not bleeding like yours. To paraphrase The Lord, I'd rather teach a man to fish than give him one over and over and over and ...
Among the terms listed, Socialism, Communism, Progressivism, Capitalism, Liberalism . . . which considers the impact of the Corporation. Time for a NEW -ism that addresses the Corporation.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Free market solutions use competition in order to find improved and cheaper methods over time and innovation to risk new methods; neither of which occurs in most government legislated one-size-fits-all solutions.
Lastly free market solutions incorporate the ability of the individual to rise above where they started while government solutions maintain them where they are.
What, exactly, in your opinion has the government "solved"?
Devin, since when is it bad to be profitable? Its generalized statements that make people tune out because you simply do not get it. Southwest airlines has been profitable for the last decade or more. They are also one of the best companies to work for. We had this discussion in the past...how many of the companies that have unions are in the top ten of best companies to work for?
Unions are supposed to help workers...make things better...but the bottom line is that good companies understand that employee satisfaction is one of the most important things to their success. Those that do not go under.
Seriously, how does government encourage innovation or efficiency? Where does it accomplish these things? Those are the two advantages where successful private companies excel. Just because there are occasional failures (usually temporary) of the free market system, take care not to throw out the baby with the bath water and say "See, ENRON! so government must do more things". For every free market misstep you name, an honest evaluation would uncover many government missteps. Consider the tax code, the inability of the social security system to deal with it's own demographic pressures, and the air traffic control systems' inability to improve with technology just to touch a few.
BTW, any government programs you want to kill off/cut back?
Second, you say- "And you would be incorrect, Bill. Perhaps you missed that day in economics class. You're entitled to your opinion. But you aren't entitled to your own definitions." - Jeannie said it well in response. - "Using flexible definitions allows one to reinvent reality; Republicans do it all the time. Hence the well-rehearsed sound bite; and the evolution of the "talking point".
Third, David, you can't seem to get over the fact that Devin made a good argument.
What is so disingenious about this:
Republicans have used this lie for too long in their efforts to undo these programs and it doesn't stop there folks. The Rights war isn't just against Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They also want to see an end to public education, food assistance, and any other programs they see as socialistic. And they want to privatize everything our government does, which would result in a completely corporate controlled government.
This comment is not meant to smear (or as Hannity would say, besmearch) Republicans. This is an OPINION. Devin isn't WRONG. You aren't RIGHT.
HUMILITY!
Devin, thank you for your article. It was well written.
Again
Absolutely! The role of the government is in thoughtful effective regulation and oversight. If it prepares regulations that are so complex that no one understands them, isn't it obvious that that is a bad thing? If the average small business startup is guilty of multiple violations of OSHA, labor board, and/or other government regs even when the owners are trying to do things right, how effective is that? Where is the accountability for a poorly writen regulation?
Yeah, corporate welfare...
If business is bad (large and small) , unions aren't effective, then just what do you want and who owns what? By the way , I have worked in nuclear power, nuclear medicine and dealt with the NRC, FDA, Federal railroad admin, and others. Regulation is alive and well!
If your sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, cousins were struggling through hard times, would you give them assistance?
Would you offer them money? Food? Clothing? Shelter?
Would you give them HELP?
It is the basic principle of welfare. The United States offers welfare and assistance to not only its own citizens, but citizens of any country humble enough to accept it.
Yes, it is taken advantage of all the time, Does that mean we take it away?
Stop talking in numbers!
Stop talking in political speak!
Stop thinking because you read an article about Immigration devouring our welfare system, that means there can only be one solution.
Is there one solution to raising your kids? Is there one solution to weening your brother off your assistance? Is there one solution to terrorism?
-"I've never labeled anyone who has suffered catastrophic loss, or come upon hard times as a "loser". I've labeled those who use those losses and hard times as an excuse to become a perpetual leach on society as losers."
Who would those "losers" be. Would that be my sister who contracted AIDS and made a mess of her life. I question her motivation too. Is she a loser because she takes advantage of long term disability?
Maybe we should have our legislators pass another ambiguous law that would require a board to determine who is a "loser".
You should (in my opinion) stop patting yourself on the back so much and realize that you live in the greatest, wealthiest, and most diverse country on earth, and with the spoils should come the realization that it wasn't always at the expense of our brave soldiers, but at the humbling confrontation of our own brutalities towards our own people throughout history.
First, the definition of Socialism is well established, and really isn't good fodder for the debate you and Bill and Devin are attempting to engage in. I'd suggest you get with Bill, acquire an economics textbook and the TWO of you can have a study session on comparative economics.
Second, I have humility. And, I humbly suggest that an honest look at economic theory and comparative economic systems will bear that out. If you and Bill and Devin choose to remain economically ignorant ... and display it publically ... that is certainly your right and I won't interfere. But, what had been proffered you three, and others, here about what is and isn't socialism is demonstrably false. Technical discussions and facts don't lend themselves to the vagueries of opinion. Belive what you want, Just don't delude yourself into believing what is false is really true just because you want and believe it to be.
First, Douglas, I KNEW someone would try to take my explanation out of context, that why I said immediately after the experpt you posted above, the following:
"Now, before you try and twist that statement out of context, let me make my meaning unambigously clear.
"I am NOT referring to individuals who are chronically ill or disabled. We have programs in place to help victims in that circumstance and I have no problem providing that assistance. I am talking about those who are perfectly capable of finding some gainful employment, but would rather be on the public dole rather than take responsibility for themselves."
I believe from what you've said your sister would fall into that catagory. As for who I consider to be losers, I think I was quite clear.
Contrary to your assessment, Douglas. I'm not patting myself on the back. If you believe otherwise, perhaps you would be so kind as to point out what I've said that makes you think that.
The right wants a choice and not be forced into something the majority thinks is ok. When you are talking about the fact that we want an end to public education you are probably talking about vouchers right? What is wrong with having school choice? How is that ending public education? For all this talk about individual freedoms you think it is ok that I am told where my daughter goes to school based on a lottery system? Now first grade she has a great teacher but second great is horrible. Third and fourth are ok but middle school here in town is horrible. Why should I be required to put my daughter there? Its just a protectionist attitude which will not make things better. If I had school choice then I can put her in better schools (private or public). How is that wanting to end public education? I want what is best for my daughter and should not have to support a failing school only because government tells me I have to put her there.
"The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a live birth as any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, voluntary muscle movement, or heartbeat. Many countries, however, including certain European states and Japan, only count as live births cases where an infant breathes at birth, which makes their reported IMR numbers somewhat lower and raises their rates of perinatal mortality."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality_rate
The World average infent mortality rate is 49.4 (deaths/1,000 live births). We are at 6.3. Is that great should we pat ourselves on the back no but the sky is not falling especially if you consider how we calculate it. It really is getting old how democrats always think we are so horrible and how everyone is so much better... Travel more...read more and try to keep an open mind... You will soon find out that every system has some quirks and problems but we have by far the best country around.
Anything a citizen is "entitled" to, is commie pink-0 crapola. They FORCE the citizen to participate, they offer NO OPTIONS, as they steal your money directly from your pacheck. Healthcare is in effect, owned by the government, and has only a single payer, the USA Treasury. EVERYONE is FORCED into this NATIONAL HEALTHCARE program that is bleeding this country dry.
These programs are vital to the quality of life for millions of Americans and could never be accomplished through privatized efforts.
The "quality of life" part MIGHT be true, but you have no idea about privatization, it might work, it might not, but you certainly don't know, and IF-- if you are in fact correct that privatization COULDN'T do it, that's just one more GREAT argument for ending a program that can't pay for itself, and is BLEEDING OUR COUNTRY DRY.
Our country has existed over 200 years, and we've had Social security a mere 70 years or so, Medicare, only 40 years or so. Is it really up to the government to expand our lifespans ???
These ARE social programs, but they DO NOT amount to socialism, they amount to Liberalism.
Modern liberalism, as practicee in the USA today, by the fringe left, represented by the kooks at DailyKOS and moveon.org and such IS IN FACT, socialism run amok. They want the government to control everything, if not outright own it.
And they want to privatize everything our government does, which would result in a completely corporate controlled government
Wrong, we wouldn't privatize, we'd just GET RID OF IT ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Before it's too late.
In response to your comment:
-"I am NOT referring to individuals who are chronically ill or disabled. We have programs in place to help victims in that circumstance and I have no problem providing that assistance.
I wasn't taking it out of context. I was doing exactly what everyone does. I took one example to show the exceptions.
The difference is that I am NOT using that as a reason to CHANGE law. I actually agree that their are problems with the system and that we need to make sure that federal aid goes to the right people.
The problem is, YOU can't make those decisions. YOU can't go around blaming the system everytime ONE example is thrown all over the media. The same holds true for the Iraq war and Blackwater. I can't go around spouting off about how the war is not working and there are a bunch of crazy untrained contracted killers in the Middle East.
It always comes across as self-righteous and condemning.
There is a reason you enjoy the fruits of your labor now. It is BECAUSE we have liberals and conservatives butting heads on policy.
Just stop telling me that you, Victor and stuttering Jack have the answers and that liberals don't have the best interests of our country.
Let me know when you want me to list all of the wonderful things liberals have done throughout the history of this great nation. And yes, conservatives too.
Both parties are involved in it.
Devin is merely showing Republican spin. Are you really going to say that Republicans do not try to SPIN a democrat's position to make them look disingenious?
Of course they do. This blog is only to show how that spin affects the perception of the American people and what we as liberals can do to recognize and defend against it.
The proof is in the puddin' sprout.
Really...
Lets take a look at what Democrats have contributed and what Republicans have contributed.
Democrats;
WPA
CCC
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Headstart
Afirmative action
Civil Rights Legislation
Champions minority issues
Champions womens issues
Champions childrens issues
Advocates the ACLU
Champions workers issues
Republicans;
Tax cuts
Tax cuts
and more tax cuts
So you see jJack, you don't know what youe talking about my friend. Democrats are for the "people." Republicans are for themselves.... period!
I wasn't taking it out of context. I was doing exactly what everyone does. I took one example to show the exceptions.
How is ignoring the qualifier in intentionally put to my comment, and then calling me out for the compment, not taking it out of context? By doing so you are engaging in the very spin you and Devin are decrying.
It's a common thing ... "You're against Program A .... you hate Group A."
To the contrary, I'm opposed to Program A because Program A; 1) Isn't permitted by the Constitution to be performed by the Federal government, or 2) Program A will not effectively address the problem you want to correct for Group A, or 3) Group A, through their own decisions and actions, not any unfortunate natural disaster or other event outside their control, got themselves into a box they can get themselves out.
I left that explanation generic because the line of reasoning can be applies to a myriad of different issues and circumstances. The point is it is not the place of the Federal government to ameliorate every problem of every individual in the country. That's not possible, and in my opinion, it isn't even desirable that we try.
"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
If that isn't the Neocon ideology in practice, no matter what they say they profess to believe, I'll eat your hat. I only own one, and it says Impeach Cheney, so I don't want to part with that, and besides, eating just the name Cheney should be enough to poison anyone. All the Neocons do is give to corporate coffers so they'll give back to them at election time. Not fascist, my ass.
Civil Rights Legislation
Champions minority issues
Champions womens issues
Champions childrens issues
Advocates the ACLU
Champions workers issues
Championing is not the same as contributing. I champion the cause of the Colts every year, but I contribute nothing to their victories.
Also, none of the above stated programs are the sole work of Democrats alone, and I'm sure you never intended to imply that it was ... or did you? If so, I'll be more than happy to provide you reams of evidence to the contrary.
Your statement that it is "not the place of the Federal government to ameliorate every problem of every individual in the country" is disengenuous. No one said such a thing and you know it. What we on the left are advocating is that it IS the governments place to level the playing field for those who are being exploited by "bad" businesses. And we're not talking about give a way programs as the Right insists. I think it should be done by incouraging companies to pay higher wages through tax incentives, or being favored for government contracts etc. I think the biggest rift between the Right and Left is that those on the Right