Jobs is not a three letter word.
Update: Mark has Marked his Biden Words thoroughly here! As my astute Sophomore-in-high-school-but-very-savvy young friend told me tonight, "Joe Biden is the gift that keeps on giving!"
Part one is answering Chaos...
"Full-time firemen are paid to do their jobs, get promotions for years served effectively and get demoted or fired for not doing the job." (I said this in answer to a question. Chaos will be in blue and me in black.)
Chaos then replied as follows:
Well, yes, but the fire department is still run by the government. Isn't that socialism? Actually, I think the problem is that we're using different defintions of "socialism". I'd define a socialist program as one where:
(1) Most funding comes from the taxpayers.
(2) Services are provided to everyone who needs them, mostly regardless of ability to pay.
(3) High-level policy decisions are made by the people-as-a-whole, acting through their elected representatives.Examples of this kind of socialism in the US include the fire department, the police, the public school system, and the military. (I wouldn't mind adding health care to the list; I think that would be less flawed than the current system.)But after reading your reply, I *think* you're defining "socialism" as "a system where everyone gets paid the same salary regardless of how much work they do." If that's the case, then I've got good news for you: Sen. Obama isn't a socialist! Actually, I don't think there are any socialists around anymore. (There might have been some in the 1960's but I never got to meet one.)
Allow me to answer those points...
(1) Most funding comes from the taxpayers.
Answer: Government programs are necessarily mostly funded by the taxpayers, yes, good or bad. So far no problem specifically, there are some things that government does well, which is why we formed one back in the 18th century.
(2) Services are provided to everyone who needs them, mostly regardless of ability to pay.
Answer: Here is where socialism creeps in. Your key word here is "services." I can understand the military and the police and so on being services, and I can understand municipalities deciding to have wastewater services and provide a city water supply as a service and I can understand when they decide to charge for them.
But owning a home is not a service, even if ACORN or Barney Frank or Barack Obama think it is, nor is it a right. Getting a monthly check is not a service nor is it a right. Barack Obama is planning to give even more money for various reasons to people who don't even pay into the tax system and that is wealth redistribution, otherwise known as socialism.
I think one of the highest crimes of the 20th century was the "Great Society" programs begun on Lyndon Baines Johnson's watch that has created ghettos full of women having children outside of marriage and living off of welfare checks while men are incented NOT to marry these women lest the free money to take care of "baby momma" and kids be cut off. The welfare society is almost a reintroduction of slavery in another form. The Democrats count on the votes of the inner-city poor and keep them poor by giving them money enough to live on but taking away the incentive to do more and be more. Many of the young men turn to crime to enrich themselves and street gangs thrive in that climate. One reason major cities are "owned" by the Democrats is that the Dems have created a sub-class of welfare serfs who live to provide votes for their political masters. Hell is alive and well in South Chicago and in East Chicago and Gary and I have seen it up close and personal.
The sad truth of that particular matter is that the majority of this created sub-class are people of color or origin that are non-European. White elitists like Bill Ayers and Nancy Pelosi are all for this kind of program but Ayers lives high on the hog subverting our youth in large part at government expense and Nancy does, too, in large part from her plantations in central California. Funny how school voucher systems have proven to greatly aid the education process and Democrats are dead set against them, isn't it? You think maybe they prefer the electorate to come in two flavors: the indoctrinated rich and the uneducated poor.
Barack wants to expand the socialistic persona of government, it is who he is and what he believes.
(3) High-level policy decisions are made by the people-as-a-whole, acting through their elected representatives.
Answer: You would think so, but in recent decades the Judiciary has begun making laws by judicial fiat, frustrating the Constitution and the purpose for which the courts were created. It has now become common for the Supreme Court to make up laws based on nonexistent Constitutional language like "separation of church and state" or use privacy laws to make the killing of millions of unborn babies a reality.
Part Two is answering Creeper. Things creeper said in blue, me in black.
"That Obama is a socialist is too obvious to waste time on."
Now you've got me ROTFLMAO...!
"But the article on socialism I linked is a thorough look at what socialism is and what happens when it is applied to society."
Now tell us what it has to do with Obama's platform.Your shifty evasion above makes me suspect that you didn't really think this accusation through - once again you seem to have just taken on whatever talking points happened to be on the specials menu at Stop the ACLU or wherever and swallowed them hook, line and sinker.Chaos engineer makes very good points, especially re. how the two of you may have different definitions of socialism in mind. There are perfectly good dictionaries for this kind of thing, but since Radar is fond of making up his own definitions to suit his purposes, let's try it this way:
1. Radar, how would you define socialism?
Answer: That is why I linked that long article, that is how I define socialism. Wasn't it long and specific enough? But a simple answer would begin with forced wealth redistribution and common sharing (or government ownership) of property. It is a system that has never worked.
There is not one trace of evasion in that post, it was to the point and very thorough.
2. Radar, how is Obama's platform "socialist"?
Because he believes part of the job of government is wealth redistribution, simple as that. Barack Obama wants to make the government into Robin Hood. But if you keep robbing from the corporations and the jobs and the people who work hard to get ahead, they will move to a neighborhood where they don't get robbed! Once he raises taxes on businesses and large corporations, many of them will simply pack up and move. If he stifles the expansion and growth of small businesses, more and more people will be lining up with their hands out while fewer and fewer will have enough in their pockets to shell out. The end, as it was in the Soviet Union, is a failing economy, an underground economy and necessarily a growth in organized crime.
Joe Biden said " jobs" was a three-letter word last week, hahahaha! But maybe he meant it. Because they are going to be spelled "o-u-t."
3. And if we go by such an innocuous explanation of socialism as chaos engineer proposes here, then how is Obama's platform socialist in what you would consider a bad way?-- creeper
Wealth redistribution isn't anything innocuous, it is insidious. It is Marxist. It is not America. We are a federal republic, built on free trade and free enterprise. The right to be free to succeed if you can and will is going to be turned into Big Brother decides who gets what and when.
The frog is already in the pot. The heat has been on for awhile but not enough to make us TOO uncomfortable with the socialistic bent of our country in the last 80 years or so. But turn that heat up a few more notches and we'll all be cooked. Allow me to introduce to you...Chef Obama!
Part one is answering Chaos...
"Full-time firemen are paid to do their jobs, get promotions for years served effectively and get demoted or fired for not doing the job." (I said this in answer to a question. Chaos will be in blue and me in black.)
Chaos then replied as follows:
Well, yes, but the fire department is still run by the government. Isn't that socialism? Actually, I think the problem is that we're using different defintions of "socialism". I'd define a socialist program as one where:
(1) Most funding comes from the taxpayers.
(2) Services are provided to everyone who needs them, mostly regardless of ability to pay.
(3) High-level policy decisions are made by the people-as-a-whole, acting through their elected representatives.Examples of this kind of socialism in the US include the fire department, the police, the public school system, and the military. (I wouldn't mind adding health care to the list; I think that would be less flawed than the current system.)But after reading your reply, I *think* you're defining "socialism" as "a system where everyone gets paid the same salary regardless of how much work they do." If that's the case, then I've got good news for you: Sen. Obama isn't a socialist! Actually, I don't think there are any socialists around anymore. (There might have been some in the 1960's but I never got to meet one.)
Allow me to answer those points...
(1) Most funding comes from the taxpayers.
Answer: Government programs are necessarily mostly funded by the taxpayers, yes, good or bad. So far no problem specifically, there are some things that government does well, which is why we formed one back in the 18th century.
(2) Services are provided to everyone who needs them, mostly regardless of ability to pay.
Answer: Here is where socialism creeps in. Your key word here is "services." I can understand the military and the police and so on being services, and I can understand municipalities deciding to have wastewater services and provide a city water supply as a service and I can understand when they decide to charge for them.
But owning a home is not a service, even if ACORN or Barney Frank or Barack Obama think it is, nor is it a right. Getting a monthly check is not a service nor is it a right. Barack Obama is planning to give even more money for various reasons to people who don't even pay into the tax system and that is wealth redistribution, otherwise known as socialism.
I think one of the highest crimes of the 20th century was the "Great Society" programs begun on Lyndon Baines Johnson's watch that has created ghettos full of women having children outside of marriage and living off of welfare checks while men are incented NOT to marry these women lest the free money to take care of "baby momma" and kids be cut off. The welfare society is almost a reintroduction of slavery in another form. The Democrats count on the votes of the inner-city poor and keep them poor by giving them money enough to live on but taking away the incentive to do more and be more. Many of the young men turn to crime to enrich themselves and street gangs thrive in that climate. One reason major cities are "owned" by the Democrats is that the Dems have created a sub-class of welfare serfs who live to provide votes for their political masters. Hell is alive and well in South Chicago and in East Chicago and Gary and I have seen it up close and personal.
The sad truth of that particular matter is that the majority of this created sub-class are people of color or origin that are non-European. White elitists like Bill Ayers and Nancy Pelosi are all for this kind of program but Ayers lives high on the hog subverting our youth in large part at government expense and Nancy does, too, in large part from her plantations in central California. Funny how school voucher systems have proven to greatly aid the education process and Democrats are dead set against them, isn't it? You think maybe they prefer the electorate to come in two flavors: the indoctrinated rich and the uneducated poor.
Barack wants to expand the socialistic persona of government, it is who he is and what he believes.
(3) High-level policy decisions are made by the people-as-a-whole, acting through their elected representatives.
Answer: You would think so, but in recent decades the Judiciary has begun making laws by judicial fiat, frustrating the Constitution and the purpose for which the courts were created. It has now become common for the Supreme Court to make up laws based on nonexistent Constitutional language like "separation of church and state" or use privacy laws to make the killing of millions of unborn babies a reality.
Part Two is answering Creeper. Things creeper said in blue, me in black.
"That Obama is a socialist is too obvious to waste time on."
Now you've got me ROTFLMAO...!
"But the article on socialism I linked is a thorough look at what socialism is and what happens when it is applied to society."
Now tell us what it has to do with Obama's platform.Your shifty evasion above makes me suspect that you didn't really think this accusation through - once again you seem to have just taken on whatever talking points happened to be on the specials menu at Stop the ACLU or wherever and swallowed them hook, line and sinker.Chaos engineer makes very good points, especially re. how the two of you may have different definitions of socialism in mind. There are perfectly good dictionaries for this kind of thing, but since Radar is fond of making up his own definitions to suit his purposes, let's try it this way:
1. Radar, how would you define socialism?
Answer: That is why I linked that long article, that is how I define socialism. Wasn't it long and specific enough? But a simple answer would begin with forced wealth redistribution and common sharing (or government ownership) of property. It is a system that has never worked.
There is not one trace of evasion in that post, it was to the point and very thorough.
2. Radar, how is Obama's platform "socialist"?
Because he believes part of the job of government is wealth redistribution, simple as that. Barack Obama wants to make the government into Robin Hood. But if you keep robbing from the corporations and the jobs and the people who work hard to get ahead, they will move to a neighborhood where they don't get robbed! Once he raises taxes on businesses and large corporations, many of them will simply pack up and move. If he stifles the expansion and growth of small businesses, more and more people will be lining up with their hands out while fewer and fewer will have enough in their pockets to shell out. The end, as it was in the Soviet Union, is a failing economy, an underground economy and necessarily a growth in organized crime.
Joe Biden said " jobs" was a three-letter word last week, hahahaha! But maybe he meant it. Because they are going to be spelled "o-u-t."
3. And if we go by such an innocuous explanation of socialism as chaos engineer proposes here, then how is Obama's platform socialist in what you would consider a bad way?-- creeper
Wealth redistribution isn't anything innocuous, it is insidious. It is Marxist. It is not America. We are a federal republic, built on free trade and free enterprise. The right to be free to succeed if you can and will is going to be turned into Big Brother decides who gets what and when.
The frog is already in the pot. The heat has been on for awhile but not enough to make us TOO uncomfortable with the socialistic bent of our country in the last 80 years or so. But turn that heat up a few more notches and we'll all be cooked. Allow me to introduce to you...Chef Obama!