George W Bush layed down the foundation for Socialism

In this section, you can talk relaxedly about everyday matters, and also engage in more serious discussions. Please try to keep this place accessible to everyone and write your posts in English.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Baby_Kürsch
Posts: 477
Joined: 30 Nov 2002 03:16
Location: Texas

George W Bush layed down the foundation for Socialism

#1 Post by Baby_Kürsch » 31 Jul 2009 10:23

This is not something I found being passed around on myspace or facebook. This is not just some pre made letter. This is research brought to my attention by a good friend of mine. I looked these things up online for myself and was blown away. George W Bush layed the foundation for Socialism. Not Barack Obama.

This is taken directly from the Socialist Party USA website. What number 5 says happened in 2008 under George W Bush with the bank bailout package that happened while we were all sleeping. Obama is not turning this nation into a socialist nation. This isn't just some propaganda, this is real. Im simply posting this so people know whats going on and not just follow what the gentlemen on FOX News network says about Obama taking us in the wrong direction. Think for yourself.

Hope yall find this as interesting as I did.

http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/economics.html

"The Socialist Party stands for a fundamental transformation of the economy, focusing on production for need not profit. So-called fair trade is meaningless as long as the world economy is dominated by a few massive corporations. Only a global transformation from capitalism to democratic socialism will provide the conditions for international peace, justice, and economic cooperation based on the large-scale transfer of resources and technology from the developed to the developing countries.

1. We demand the immediate withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and oppose the creation of a widened Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

2. We call for worker and community ownership and control of corporations within the framework of a decentralized and democratically determined economic plan.

3. We call for a minimum wage of $15 per hour, indexed to the cost of living.

4. We call for a full employment policy. We support the provision of a livable guaranteed annual income.

5. We call for all financial and insurance institutions to be socially owned and operated by a democratically-controlled national banking authority, which should include credit unions, mutual insurance cooperatives, and cooperative state banks. In the meantime, we call for re-regulation of the banking and insurance industries.

6. We call for a steeply graduated income tax and a steeply graduated estate tax, and a maximum income of no more than ten times the minimum. We oppose regressive taxes such as payroll tax, sales tax, and property taxes.

7. We call for the restoration of the capital gains tax and luxury tax on a progressive, graduated scale.

8. We call for compensation to communities-- and compensation, re-training, and other support service for workers-- affected by plant and military base closings as stop-gap measures until we reach our goal of creating a socialist society totally separate from the global capitalist economy.

9. We oppose the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization as instruments of capitalist oppression throughout the world.

10. We demand cancellation of Third World debt.

11. We call for a National Pension Authority to hold the assets of private pension funds, and a levy against corporate assets for any pension fund deficits.

12. We call for increased and expanded welfare assistance and increased and expanded unemployment compensation at 100% of a worker's previous income or the minimum wage, whichever is higher, for the full period of unemployment or re-training, whichever is longer.

13. We support a program of massive federal investment in both urban and rural areas for infrastructure reconstruction and economic development.

14. We support tax benefits for renters equal to those for homeowners.

15. We call for the elimination of subsidies and tax breaks that benefit corporations and all other forms of corporate welfare."
wade-newb wrote:It was just me, Blind Guardian, and a whole lotta awkward D:

User avatar
Raistlin Majere
Posts: 2227
Joined: 08 Apr 2009 13:40
Location: GREECE, Athens

Re: George W Bush layed down the foundation for Socialism

#2 Post by Raistlin Majere » 31 Jul 2009 13:15

It is indeed an interesting view....
We call for all financial and insurance institutions to be socially owned and operated by a democratically-controlled national banking authority, which should include credit unions, mutual insurance cooperatives, and cooperative state banks. In the meantime, we call for re-regulation of the banking and insurance industries.
"We call for" doesn't mean they did it (and in my opinion neither that they actually want it)

Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Presidency
Education and health
President Bush undertook a number of educational priorities. He increased funding for the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health in his first years of office, and created education programs to strengthen the grounding in science and mathematics for American high school students. Funding for the NIH was cut in 2006, the first such cut in 36 years, due to rising inflation.
Bush signs the No Child Left Behind Act into law, January 2002. One of the administration's early major initiatives was the No Child Left Behind Act, which aimed to measure and close the gap between rich and poor student performance, provide options to parents with students in low-performing schools, and target more federal funding to low-income schools. This landmark education initiative was signed into law by President Bush in early 2002. Many contend that the initiative has been successful, as cited by the fact that students in the U.S. have performed significantly better on state reading and math tests since Bush signed "No Child Left Behind" into law. Critics argue that it is underfunded and that NCLBA's focus on "high stakes testing" and quantitative outcomes is counterproductive.

After being re-elected, Bush signed into law a Medicare drug benefit program that, according to Jan Crawford Greenburg, resulted in "the greatest expansion in America's welfare state in forty years;" the bill's costs approached $7 trillion. In 2007, Bush opposed and vetoed State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) legislation, which was added by the Democrats onto a war funding bill and passed by Congress. The SCHIP legislation would have significantly expanded federally funded health care benefits and plans to children of some low-income families from about six million to ten million children. It was to be funded by an increase in the cigarette tax. Bush viewed the legislation as a move toward the liberal platform of socialized health care, and claimed that the program could benefit families making as much as $83,000 per year who did not need the help.

Social services and Social Security

......Bush began his second term by outlining a major initiative to reform Social Security, which was facing record deficit projections beginning in 2005. Bush made it the centerpiece of his domestic agenda despite opposition from some in the U.S. Congress. In his 2005 State of the Union Address, Bush discussed the potential impending bankruptcy of the program and outlined his new program, which included partial privatization of the system, personal Social Security accounts, and options to permit Americans to divert a portion of their Social Security tax (FICA) into secured investments. Despite emphasizing safeguards and remaining open to other plans, Democrats opposed the proposal to partially privatize the system. Bush embarked on a 60-day national tour, campaigning vigorously for his initiative in media events, known as the "Conversations on Social Security", in an attempt to gain support from the general public. Despite the energetic campaign, public support for the proposal declined and the House Republican leadership decided not to put Social Security reform on the priority list for the remainder of their 2005 legislative agenda. The proposal's legislative prospects were further diminished by the political fallout from the Hurricane Katrina in the fall of 2005......
Do you remember what happened with Katrina? What did "socialist" government Bush do at that time for those people? Of course who could Bush care about those poor black people...
Surveillance
Following the events of September 11, Bush issued an executive order authorizing the President's Surveillance Program which included allowing the NSA to monitor communications between suspected terrorists outside the U.S and parties within the U.S. without obtaining a warrant as required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
--> They were spying american citizens, without any warrant! If that's not socialism, then what is?
----------------------------
If my post doesn't make sense, just consider that I post for postcount!

User avatar
Raistlin Majere
Posts: 2227
Joined: 08 Apr 2009 13:40
Location: GREECE, Athens

Re: George W Bush layed down the foundation for Socialism

#3 Post by Raistlin Majere » 31 Jul 2009 13:25

Why didn't he spend the money spent for wars, for social security and other provisions to the citizens instead?
(google search)

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

(I don't know how accurate this site is, but this is the result I got:
Taxpayers in Texas will pay $74.2 billion for total Iraq & Afghanistan war spending since 2001. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:
16,946,456 People with Health Care for One Year OR
56,514,024 Homes with Renewable Electricity for One Year OR
1,718,816 Public Safety Officers for One year OR
1,302,785 Music and Arts Teachers for One Year OR
9,726,066 Scholarships for University Students for One Year OR
13,871,007 Students receiving Pell Grants of $5350 OR
884,734 Affordable Housing Units OR
31,873,266 Children with Health Care for One Year OR
10,637,885 Head Start Places for Children for One Year OR
1,391,653 Elementary School Teachers for One Year OR
1,192,606 Port Container Inspectors for One year )

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 67,00.html

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article ... w/683/1/77
----------------------------
If my post doesn't make sense, just consider that I post for postcount!

Wicked Child
Posts: 321
Joined: 02 Mar 2004 06:13
Location: Brazil
Contact:

Re: George W Bush layed down the foundation for Socialism

#4 Post by Wicked Child » 31 Jul 2009 17:31

I didn't really get what Baby Kursch meant with saying that "It is not Obama who is socialist, it was Bush!" kind of statement.

Are you a anti-socialist democrat who hates Bush and FOX, and thinks Obama is neo liberal or are you a Obama hater republican who doesn't like FOX and thinks Bush is socialist? :roll:

Now, I see that you may want to say that because Bush did something that, for some reason, coincides with something on the socialist party of the USA, he is the guilty one for this so horrible thing like leading America to a socialist state, and not Obama.. because you probably dig Obama.

Now let me tell you something. You seem so afraid of the word socialism that you may be closing your eyes for what is better for everyone. What Obama is doing (SO FAR), in opposition to Bush, is to put some general nation's interests before oil and corporation's affairs. This is why he is called a leftist by some people. But what americans fear is to have the socialism word on it.

I can understand you, though. There was a pretty heavy capitalist propaganda during the 60's and along with all the URSS mistakes, the neocons managed to make americans believe that socialists = children eaters. And by that logic, wanting to attach the word socialist (evil) on Bush. "He is the evil one.. he is communist!". Haha. If Bush is socialist I want to kill myself.
You're going to hell. But not the cool one, that's where I'll go.
You go to the crappy hell.

User avatar
Joost
Posts: 3799
Joined: 16 Aug 2002 17:54
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Contact:

Re: George W Bush layed down the foundation for Socialism

#5 Post by Joost » 31 Jul 2009 17:35

What GWB did has nothing to do with socialism. It's desperate protectionism at its best. (And yes, of course 'desperate protectionism' is a limitation of laissez-faire capitalism, just like social democracy would be that. The underlying reasons, however, are totally different.) I suggest you to take a look through the other points in the list, and think for a second what GWB did to achieve to those things. Introducing a steeply graduated income tax? Opposition of IMF, World Bank, WTO, etc.? Cancellation of third world debt? Ehm, nevermind, but I don't think GWB did anything that can be called socialist on those areas.

Also, the agenda of the American Socialist Party really isn't that bad. Really. Some countries that have implemented many of those points, including both a bunch of European countries, Japan, and to a lesser degree Canada, have among the highest HDI's in the world.
You charge each other for the time and breath it takes to say 'good morning',
But the truth is slowly dawning -- things are getting out of hand,
We all pursue our shattered dreams along the roads to our own ruin --
Watch our empires sink and wash away like castles made of sand.
And so cast off the lies that are your lives and find the truth within.
-- Martin Walkyier

Also, Balrogs have wings.

::.: Homepage .::. last.fm .::. Facebook .::. Flickr :.::

User avatar
Joost
Posts: 3799
Joined: 16 Aug 2002 17:54
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Contact:

Re: George W Bush layed down the foundation for Socialism

#6 Post by Joost » 31 Jul 2009 17:39

Wicked Child wrote:There was a pretty heavy capitalist propaganda during the 60's and along with all the URSS mistakes, the neocons managed to make americans believe that socialists = children eaters.
I hereby propose that we should go feast on some yummy bourgeoisie children some day! :P In the name of the proletariat!
You charge each other for the time and breath it takes to say 'good morning',
But the truth is slowly dawning -- things are getting out of hand,
We all pursue our shattered dreams along the roads to our own ruin --
Watch our empires sink and wash away like castles made of sand.
And so cast off the lies that are your lives and find the truth within.
-- Martin Walkyier

Also, Balrogs have wings.

::.: Homepage .::. last.fm .::. Facebook .::. Flickr :.::

Wicked Child
Posts: 321
Joined: 02 Mar 2004 06:13
Location: Brazil
Contact:

Re: George W Bush layed down the foundation for Socialism

#7 Post by Wicked Child » 31 Jul 2009 19:10

Joost wrote:
Wicked Child wrote:There was a pretty heavy capitalist propaganda during the 60's and along with all the URSS mistakes, the neocons managed to make americans believe that socialists = children eaters.
I hereby propose that we should go feast on some yummy bourgeoisie children some day! :P In the name of the proletariat!
Let's do it, comrade! :P I just got mu lunch now, but I could have another one! :mrgreen:
You're going to hell. But not the cool one, that's where I'll go.
You go to the crappy hell.

User avatar
Baby_Kürsch
Posts: 477
Joined: 30 Nov 2002 03:16
Location: Texas

Re: George W Bush layed down the foundation for Socialism

#8 Post by Baby_Kürsch » 31 Jul 2009 21:57

Wicked Child wrote:I didn't really get what Baby Kursch meant with saying that "It is not Obama who is socialist, it was Bush!" kind of statement.

Are you a anti-socialist democrat who hates Bush and FOX, and thinks Obama is neo liberal or are you a Obama hater republican who doesn't like FOX and thinks Bush is socialist? :roll:

Now, I see that you may want to say that because Bush did something that, for some reason, coincides with something on the socialist party of the USA, he is the guilty one for this so horrible thing like leading America to a socialist state, and not Obama.. because you probably dig Obama.

Now let me tell you something. You seem so afraid of the word socialism that you may be closing your eyes for what is better for everyone. What Obama is doing (SO FAR), in opposition to Bush, is to put some general nation's interests before oil and corporation's affairs. This is why he is called a leftist by some people. But what americans fear is to have the socialism word on it.

I can understand you, though. There was a pretty heavy capitalist propaganda during the 60's and along with all the URSS mistakes, the neocons managed to make americans believe that socialists = children eaters. And by that logic, wanting to attach the word socialist (evil) on Bush. "He is the evil one.. he is communist!". Haha. If Bush is socialist I want to kill myself.
I should have explained that better. My point is. You have all these right wing Republicans crying socialism to scare people away from what Obama wants too do and their little golden boy (GWB) had already pushed the country in that direction with his bailout package. Then Obama comes into office and all of the sudden white rich men no longer run the country and everyone is scared. If the USA was turning into a socialist country, which wouldn't bother me, GWB was the one who started it and Obama is just the scapegoat. Socialism is a buzz word people are throwing around to scare everyone.

And Bush DID do something like that. People call Obama a socialist without hesitation and they don't even realize what GWB did in 2008 before he left office.
wade-newb wrote:It was just me, Blind Guardian, and a whole lotta awkward D:

User avatar
ThePKH
Posts: 1288
Joined: 16 Aug 2002 19:22
Location: Jyväskylä, Finland
Contact:

Re: George W Bush layed down the foundation for Socialism

#9 Post by ThePKH » 31 Jul 2009 23:08

Wicked Child wrote:
Joost wrote:
Wicked Child wrote:There was a pretty heavy capitalist propaganda during the 60's and along with all the URSS mistakes, the neocons managed to make americans believe that socialists = children eaters.
I hereby propose that we should go feast on some yummy bourgeoisie children some day! :P In the name of the proletariat!
Let's do it, comrade! :P I just got mu lunch now, but I could have another one! :mrgreen:
I'd join you guys if eating borgeois kids wasn't so unhealthy. Many are even fatter than I am. Maybe we should slaughter them, package the meat and send it to those starving kids in the third world countries. I'd be all for that because it would satisfy me deeply as an evil socialist. Slaughtering the capitalist swines and helping the people in developing countries. After slaughtering the pigs, we could take all their money and put them into healthcare, education and all those other miserable things we're fond of.
I still am the terror that flaps in the night!

User avatar
Metal Fan
Posts: 1854
Joined: 28 Mar 2008 07:49
Location: In Angband, chatting with Melkor and learning how to rule the world!

Re: George W Bush layed down the foundation for Socialism

#10 Post by Metal Fan » 01 Aug 2009 08:26

Raistlin Majere wrote:
Education and health
President Bush undertook a number of educational priorities. He increased funding for the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health in his first years of office, and created education programs to strengthen the grounding in science and mathematics for American high school students. Funding for the NIH was cut in 2006, the first such cut in 36 years, due to rising inflation.
Bush signs the No Child Left Behind Act into law, January 2002. One of the administration's early major initiatives was the No Child Left Behind Act, which aimed to measure and close the gap between rich and poor student performance, provide options to parents with students in low-performing schools, and target more federal funding to low-income schools. This landmark education initiative was signed into law by President Bush in early 2002. Many contend that the initiative has been successful, as cited by the fact that students in the U.S. have performed significantly better on state reading and math tests since Bush signed "No Child Left Behind" into law. Critics argue that it is underfunded and that NCLBA's focus on "high stakes testing" and quantitative outcomes is counterproductive.

I can prove the colored part (except turn 'high school' in to 'elementary') I have no clue how to spell. I almost only wright in cursive, are ahead of most people my age in math. Rock in science and geography.
⋨The Dagor Dagorath, the great final battle at which the forces of the brothers Manwë and Melkor will face one another, and Arda will be unmade.⋩
Is in with Bender on his plan
Blind Guardian wrote:A fairly small but absolutely bravehearted crowd in Tempe has made that a night remember. Marcus(on behalf of the band) says: Thank you:-)

Led Guardian
Posts: 2437
Joined: 26 Mar 2008 21:08
Location: Somewhere less cliché than far beyond

Re: George W Bush layed down the foundation for Socialism

#11 Post by Led Guardian » 01 Aug 2009 20:09

That's great! But the academic excellence of one student does not a policy prove.
'Nowhere has this renunciation of man's transience been more joyous or uplifting than in the medium of airport carpets.'

Wicked Child
Posts: 321
Joined: 02 Mar 2004 06:13
Location: Brazil
Contact:

Re: George W Bush layed down the foundation for Socialism

#12 Post by Wicked Child » 03 Aug 2009 05:52

Baby_Kürsch wrote:
Wicked Child wrote:I didn't really get what Baby Kursch meant with saying that "It is not Obama who is socialist, it was Bush!" kind of statement.

Are you a anti-socialist democrat who hates Bush and FOX, and thinks Obama is neo liberal or are you a Obama hater republican who doesn't like FOX and thinks Bush is socialist? :roll:

Now, I see that you may want to say that because Bush did something that, for some reason, coincides with something on the socialist party of the USA, he is the guilty one for this so horrible thing like leading America to a socialist state, and not Obama.. because you probably dig Obama.

Now let me tell you something. You seem so afraid of the word socialism that you may be closing your eyes for what is better for everyone. What Obama is doing (SO FAR), in opposition to Bush, is to put some general nation's interests before oil and corporation's affairs. This is why he is called a leftist by some people. But what americans fear is to have the socialism word on it.

I can understand you, though. There was a pretty heavy capitalist propaganda during the 60's and along with all the URSS mistakes, the neocons managed to make americans believe that socialists = children eaters. And by that logic, wanting to attach the word socialist (evil) on Bush. "He is the evil one.. he is communist!". Haha. If Bush is socialist I want to kill myself.
I should have explained that better. My point is. You have all these right wing Republicans crying socialism to scare people away from what Obama wants too do and their little golden boy (GWB) had already pushed the country in that direction with his bailout package. Then Obama comes into office and all of the sudden white rich men no longer run the country and everyone is scared. If the USA was turning into a socialist country, which wouldn't bother me, GWB was the one who started it and Obama is just the scapegoat. Socialism is a buzz word people are throwing around to scare everyone.

And Bush DID do something like that. People call Obama a socialist without hesitation and they don't even realize what GWB did in 2008 before he left office.
Still... there's nothing socialist behind Bush's motivations on any act.. they're barely cheap republican populism.. :wink:
You're going to hell. But not the cool one, that's where I'll go.
You go to the crappy hell.

User avatar
Raistlin Majere
Posts: 2227
Joined: 08 Apr 2009 13:40
Location: GREECE, Athens

Re: George W Bush layed down the foundation for Socialism

#13 Post by Raistlin Majere » 03 Aug 2009 15:08

Baby_Kürsch wrote:
You have all these right wing Republicans crying socialism to scare people away from what Obama wants too do and their little golden boy (GWB) had already pushed the country in that direction with his bailout package. Then Obama comes into office and all of the sudden white rich men no longer run the country and everyone is scared. If the USA was turning into a socialist country, which wouldn't bother me, GWB was the one who started it and Obama is just the scapegoat. Socialism is a buzz word people are throwing around to scare everyone. And Bush DID do something like that. People call Obama a socialist without hesitation and they don't even realize what GWB did in 2008 before he left office.
Although I still disagree that Bush did anything at all that would seem as a socialist move, I still don't get your point.

Is socialism good or bad? Or it doesn't matter?

Is it just that Obama takes the credit for socialism, while Bush is the one who is to blame/thank for :?:

PS1. Can I come for lunch too?? Please??? :roll:
PS2. Am I the only one who doesn't know how to put Baby_Kürsch wrote: instead of Quote?? How do you do that? :oops:
----------------------------
If my post doesn't make sense, just consider that I post for postcount!

User avatar
Joost
Posts: 3799
Joined: 16 Aug 2002 17:54
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Contact:

Re: George W Bush layed down the foundation for Socialism

#14 Post by Joost » 03 Aug 2009 16:53

Raistlin Majere wrote:Is socialism good or bad? Or it doesn't matter?
That's ultimately a matter of opinion. And I'm 100% sure the opinions on this board would vary a lot.

In my opinion, social democracy is far, far better than unadulterated capitalism. If it's 'the best'? Not sure, and sometimes I'm really left wondering whether there can be any good system at all on a planet that's populated with 6 billion or more humans.

Still, I'm not seeing the US move towards socialism, or social democracy for that matter. What I am seeing happen, is a step away from the hard-boiled capitalism that country is known for, towards a more humane mixed economy. And that's not the holy grail - far from it - but it's better than nothing.
You charge each other for the time and breath it takes to say 'good morning',
But the truth is slowly dawning -- things are getting out of hand,
We all pursue our shattered dreams along the roads to our own ruin --
Watch our empires sink and wash away like castles made of sand.
And so cast off the lies that are your lives and find the truth within.
-- Martin Walkyier

Also, Balrogs have wings.

::.: Homepage .::. last.fm .::. Facebook .::. Flickr :.::

Wicked Child
Posts: 321
Joined: 02 Mar 2004 06:13
Location: Brazil
Contact:

Re: George W Bush layed down the foundation for Socialism

#15 Post by Wicked Child » 03 Aug 2009 17:24

Raistlin Majere wrote:Baby_Kürsch wrote:
You have all these right wing Republicans crying socialism to scare people away from what Obama wants too do and their little golden boy (GWB) had already pushed the country in that direction with his bailout package. Then Obama comes into office and all of the sudden white rich men no longer run the country and everyone is scared. If the USA was turning into a socialist country, which wouldn't bother me, GWB was the one who started it and Obama is just the scapegoat. Socialism is a buzz word people are throwing around to scare everyone. And Bush DID do something like that. People call Obama a socialist without hesitation and they don't even realize what GWB did in 2008 before he left office.
Although I still disagree that Bush did anything at all that would seem as a socialist move, I still don't get your point.

Is socialism good or bad? Or it doesn't matter?

Is it just that Obama takes the credit for socialism, while Bush is the one who is to blame/thank for :?:

PS1. Can I come for lunch too?? Please??? :roll:

Join us, fellow. :twisted:
Raistlin Majere wrote:PS2. Am I the only one who doesn't know how to put Baby_Kürsch wrote: instead of Quote?? How do you do that? :oops:
Just click on the button quote, or you can put this tag: quote="nickname" between [ and ] and close it with [/quote] (without spacing).

Got it?
You're going to hell. But not the cool one, that's where I'll go.
You go to the crappy hell.

Wicked Child
Posts: 321
Joined: 02 Mar 2004 06:13
Location: Brazil
Contact:

Re: George W Bush layed down the foundation for Socialism

#16 Post by Wicked Child » 03 Aug 2009 17:27

Joost wrote:
Raistlin Majere wrote:Is socialism good or bad? Or it doesn't matter?
That's ultimately a matter of opinion. And I'm 100% sure the opinions on this board would vary a lot.
I think that his point was to question what was Baby Kursch's opinion, which was pretty unclear through her logic.
You're going to hell. But not the cool one, that's where I'll go.
You go to the crappy hell.

Led Guardian
Posts: 2437
Joined: 26 Mar 2008 21:08
Location: Somewhere less cliché than far beyond

Re: George W Bush layed down the foundation for Socialism

#17 Post by Led Guardian » 03 Aug 2009 18:35

Joost wrote:
Raistlin Majere wrote:Is socialism good or bad? Or it doesn't matter?
That's ultimately a matter of opinion. And I'm 100% sure the opinions on this board would vary a lot.

In my opinion, social democracy is far, far better than unadulterated capitalism. If it's 'the best'? Not sure, and sometimes I'm really left wondering whether there can be any good system at all on a planet that's populated with 6 billion or more humans.

Still, I'm not seeing the US move towards socialism, or social democracy for that matter. What I am seeing happen, is a step away from the hard-boiled capitalism that country is known for, towards a more humane mixed economy. And that's not the holy grail - far from it - but it's better than nothing.
Despite what everyone things, we are not a pure capitalist country, and haven't been for a long time, if ever. If we had pure free market capitalism, we wouldn't have any government regulations on products or corporations, monopolies would be allowed, no consumer protection, etc. Also, the country has been partially socialist since the creation of Social Security. All that is is socialism for the old people, the government paying money to those who can't work or support themselves. So while we certainly aren't near Europe-level socialism, we are partially socialist and not a purely capitalistic society. Already our economy is mixed, but what I am hoping for soon is that it will become a better mix, and the corporations will be robbed of much of their power over the country. I'm also hoping that product quality will improve to what it was a few decades ago, but I'm not getting my hopes up. :P
'Nowhere has this renunciation of man's transience been more joyous or uplifting than in the medium of airport carpets.'

User avatar
Joost
Posts: 3799
Joined: 16 Aug 2002 17:54
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Contact:

Re: George W Bush layed down the foundation for Socialism

#18 Post by Joost » 03 Aug 2009 18:48

Well, personally I wouldn't call Europe 'socialist', either. ;) It varies from country to country though. A country like Sweden has more-or-less implemented the complete agenda of the social democrats during the last 50 years, but for other countries, such as the UK or Ireland, this is much less true.

In the end, I guess you can say that almost every country in the world (maybe barring bizarre exceptions such as North Korea) has a mixed economy, and is based upon both socialist and capitalist elements. Even China has a lot of capitalist elements in their society these days... The main difference, however, is a matter of degrees, rather than any 'absolute' kind of difference.
You charge each other for the time and breath it takes to say 'good morning',
But the truth is slowly dawning -- things are getting out of hand,
We all pursue our shattered dreams along the roads to our own ruin --
Watch our empires sink and wash away like castles made of sand.
And so cast off the lies that are your lives and find the truth within.
-- Martin Walkyier

Also, Balrogs have wings.

::.: Homepage .::. last.fm .::. Facebook .::. Flickr :.::

Wicked Child
Posts: 321
Joined: 02 Mar 2004 06:13
Location: Brazil
Contact:

Re: George W Bush layed down the foundation for Socialism

#19 Post by Wicked Child » 03 Aug 2009 19:18

Led Guardian wrote:
Joost wrote:
Raistlin Majere wrote:Is socialism good or bad? Or it doesn't matter?
That's ultimately a matter of opinion. And I'm 100% sure the opinions on this board would vary a lot.

In my opinion, social democracy is far, far better than unadulterated capitalism. If it's 'the best'? Not sure, and sometimes I'm really left wondering whether there can be any good system at all on a planet that's populated with 6 billion or more humans.

Still, I'm not seeing the US move towards socialism, or social democracy for that matter. What I am seeing happen, is a step away from the hard-boiled capitalism that country is known for, towards a more humane mixed economy. And that's not the holy grail - far from it - but it's better than nothing.
Despite what everyone things, we are not a pure capitalist country, and haven't been for a long time, if ever. If we had pure free market capitalism, we wouldn't have any government regulations on products or corporations, monopolies would be allowed, no consumer protection, etc. Also, the country has been partially socialist since the creation of Social Security. All that is is socialism for the old people, the government paying money to those who can't work or support themselves. So while we certainly aren't near Europe-level socialism, we are partially socialist and not a purely capitalistic society. Already our economy is mixed, but what I am hoping for soon is that it will become a better mix, and the corporations will be robbed of much of their power over the country. I'm also hoping that product quality will improve to what it was a few decades ago, but I'm not getting my hopes up. :P
Like Joost said, there is no "pure" capitalism nor pure socialism, nor pure anything. There's always a mixture.
What prevails on USA history though, is the imperialist trace. The international agreements, international interventions, the political, social and economic programs for the developing coutries, the environmental issue, the political allies, the wars, the Washington consensus and billions of other factors make your country far from even a little bit socialist.

People always tend to think that socialism is all about economics, which is wrong. It has its foundations on economic studies, but it has developed over the years an agenda of ensuring basic human rights and to diminish the unequalities between people. Bottomline is, you won't recognize the USA for any of these.

Then you get all the gay rights, black people rights, women rights... which are really backwards in some parts of your country.
You're going to hell. But not the cool one, that's where I'll go.
You go to the crappy hell.

Led Guardian
Posts: 2437
Joined: 26 Mar 2008 21:08
Location: Somewhere less cliché than far beyond

Re: George W Bush layed down the foundation for Socialism

#20 Post by Led Guardian » 03 Aug 2009 20:12

First you say that every country is a mixture, and then you say the US isn't in the least bit socialist? That's rather contradictory. The US definitely has minor socialist traits. Also, here's the "Cultural Definition" of Socialism from dictionary.com:

socialism

An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.

The human rights issues are just things that have been adopted by the Socialist Movement, but are not exclusive to it, and not a part of the system itself. You don't have to be a socialist to support human rights. I also have to take issue with saying the US has problems with black and women's rights. Gay rights, yes, but that's definitely on its way to being fixed, whether certain elements of the country want to admit it or not. Other than a minority of the population (which can be vocal at times), the US is far more advanced in racial and gender tolerance than most nation's in the world, and on par with many others. For instance, if a woman says she's been raped in the UK, she has a far lower chance of winning her case than in the US. Race is still a touchy issue, and the US is still white dominated, but blacks have come a long way with equal rights, and are only discriminated against by a minority of the country, and let's face it, you can't stop everyone from being ignorant. It's just not possible. Europe can't claim it doesn't have it's racial bugaboos either. Go watch some folk metal videos on YouTube, and read all the anti-Muslim/Middle Eastern comments. There are groups that are convinced that Muslims are trying to take over their countries, and are set on kicking them all out. Say what you may about the US, but as a whole, it is not some backwards, atavistic, laissez faire, anti-humanitarian sinkhole of horrors. If you examine other nations closely, I think you'll find they are not a bunch of enlightened utopias upholding all the principles of righteousness. The same types of people are in every country, the good and the bad, the educated and the ignorant, and down at the bottom, people will be people no matter where you go. You can find a basic effort towards, and in many areas the achievement of, humanitarian principles in the US, despite your assertion to the contrary. Despite this, in many parts of the world, the US is being demonized out of the same ignorance that we are accused of. We aren't perfect, but in most areas of ensuring the rights of our people, we are a damn sight better than much of the world.
'Nowhere has this renunciation of man's transience been more joyous or uplifting than in the medium of airport carpets.'

Wicked Child
Posts: 321
Joined: 02 Mar 2004 06:13
Location: Brazil
Contact:

Re: George W Bush layed down the foundation for Socialism

#21 Post by Wicked Child » 04 Aug 2009 02:01

Led Guardian wrote:First you say that every country is a mixture, and then you say the US isn't in the least bit socialist? That's rather contradictory. The US definitely has minor socialist traits. Also, here's the "Cultural Definition" of Socialism from dictionary.com:

socialism

An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.
I don't think a dictionary definition will be the best place to explain it. :?

Led Guardian wrote:The human rights issues are just things that have been adopted by the Socialist Movement, but are not exclusive to it, and not a part of the system itself. You don't have to be a socialist to support human rights.
I didn't say it was exclusive, but an essential part of a so called socialist agenda. Therefore, your country has showed, through its actions, that this is not something they give a damn about. And, how come human rights aren't within a system? You guarantee these rights through laws, through politics. I don't believe that there can be any basic rights guaranteed when the State is still using violence against the poor and while death penalty is ruling in a nation where you don't have equal access to education, health and work. And don't take it personally. I'm talking of 90% of our beautiful planet Earth.
Led Guardian wrote:I also have to take issue with saying the US has problems with black and women's rights. Gay rights, yes, but that's definitely on its way to being fixed, whether certain elements of the country want to admit it or not. Other than a minority of the population (which can be vocal at times), the US is far more advanced in racial and gender tolerance than most nation's in the world , and on par with many others.
Again, you may be taking it personally. I can say that I live in a subdemocracy and I feel ashamed of how corruption goes on the three powers of my country with the support of the corporative media. Despite of the improvements our current president have made. I think you should look that way. I believe in Obama and in what he's been doing for the historical mistakes of the USA. But, you can't say that a country that, 50 years ago (or so), didn't have ensured ANY of the black people rights, consequently having an unoficial racist political system, is advanced in racial and gender issues. (That also includes most part of the western world).
Led Guardian wrote:For instance, if a woman says she's been raped in the UK, she has a far lower chance of winning her case than in the US.
Don't where did you get this from. I'm afraid I can't say much.
Led Guardian wrote:Race is still a touchy issue, and the US is still white dominated, but blacks have come a long way with equal rights, and are only discriminated against by a minority of the country, and let's face it, you can't stop everyone from being ignorant. It's just not possible. Europe can't claim it doesn't have it's racial bugaboos either. Go watch some folk metal videos on YouTube, and read all the anti-Muslim/Middle Eastern comments. There are groups that are convinced that Muslims are trying to take over their countries, and are set on kicking them all out.
I don't want the USA to turn into a black people. That's not the point. The point is to make sure, minorities will have their right to live in harmony. Black is a minority and a historical oppressed people. Of course times have changed and there were deep changes on racial issues, for the good and for the bad. But still, racism isn't only perceived on radical white power groups or direct aggressions motivated by race differences. It can be noticed on how many black people occupy important positions comparison to white people, how many black people you have on universities, how many black people have access to culture, health, education etc.
When you look at those numbers, you can pretty much assume that in most part of the world, their laws are wether not being accomplished or are pure demagogy.
Led Guardian wrote:Say what you may about the US, but as a whole, it is not some backwards, atavistic, laissez faire, anti-humanitarian sinkhole of horrors. If you examine other nations closely, I think you'll find they are not a bunch of enlightened utopias upholding all the principles of righteousness.
Now you've completely missed it. Your country is just an example of the so many around the world. My point was to show out that the US, more than some others, are far from socialism in any sense of the word. Even Canada has more social programs that can be called 'socialist' and USA doesn't.
Led Guardian wrote:The same types of people are in every country, the good and the bad, the educated and the ignorant, and down at the bottom, people will be people no matter where you go.
You're talking like if I was putting the american people below the others. It's not that. I don't believe that ignorance, good, bad or whatever are innate conditions. Who provides the options for your life is your country. Of ocurse that there won't be a place without crimes or whatever. But there can be no crimes, ignorance or whatever based on social pre-conditions. I don't know if I make myself clear, but 'm just trying to say that you need to separate whats due to social flaws rather than single or isolated problems.
Led Guardian wrote:You can find a basic effort towards, and in many areas the achievement of, humanitarian principles in the US, despite your assertion to the contrary. Despite this, in many parts of the world, the US is being demonized out of the same ignorance that we are accused of. We aren't perfect, but in most areas of ensuring the rights of our people, we are a damn sight better than much of the world.
You can say you're demonized by talebans, not by me. :P Serious, I don't believe your country is hell. I was only saying that if you put in a balance, it will weight more on imperialist aspects than on social ones.
There is no perfect countries and I agree that your people (mostly the medium-class) is being treated well way better than most part of the world, but I was talking globally. :wink:
You're going to hell. But not the cool one, that's where I'll go.
You go to the crappy hell.

Led Guardian
Posts: 2437
Joined: 26 Mar 2008 21:08
Location: Somewhere less cliché than far beyond

Re: George W Bush layed down the foundation for Socialism

#22 Post by Led Guardian » 04 Aug 2009 02:49

Ah, well then you should make your point more clearly. Your most never mentioned other countries, so naturally I though you were only talking about the US. I was more taking offense to what I saw as an argumentative absurdity (talking about the United States having enormous issues with what's being discussed, but not other countries), than to specific attacks, if you get my meaning. I would have been fine if you'd specifically mentioned other countries as well. My biggest beef, though was with this line (in reference to Socialism): "It has its foundations on economic studies, but it has developed over the years an agenda of ensuring basic human rights and to diminish the unequalities between people. Bottomline is, you won't recognize the USA for any of these." Saying that the US can't be recognized for diminishing inequalities is absurd. All you need to do is look at women's and black's rights in 1900 as compared to now.

And by saying human rights aren't a part of it, I'm simply saying it's Socialism regardless of the presence of advanced human rights, as it is an economic system. Socialists might have them on their agenda, but it's not a specific part of socialism. China is socialist, and look at their humanitarian credentials.
'Nowhere has this renunciation of man's transience been more joyous or uplifting than in the medium of airport carpets.'

Wicked Child
Posts: 321
Joined: 02 Mar 2004 06:13
Location: Brazil
Contact:

Re: George W Bush layed down the foundation for Socialism

#23 Post by Wicked Child » 04 Aug 2009 03:31

Led Guardian wrote:Ah, well then you should make your point more clearly. Your most never mentioned other countries, so naturally I though you were only talking about the US. I was more taking offense to what I saw as an argumentative absurdity (talking about the United States having enormous issues with what's being discussed, but not other countries), than to specific attacks, if you get my meaning. I would have been fine if you'd specifically mentioned other countries as well. My biggest beef, though was with this line (in reference to Socialism): "It has its foundations on economic studies, but it has developed over the years an agenda of ensuring basic human rights and to diminish the unequalities between people. Bottomline is, you won't recognize the USA for any of these." Saying that the US can't be recognized for diminishing inequalities is absurd. All you need to do is look at women's and black's rights in 1900 as compared to now.
Ok, sorry for the not so clear posts then. :P It's hard to keep a train of thought in a forum. And about comparing 109 years until today you will notice differences even in the most conservative place on the planet. That's not a show of big changes. But I can see where you're going. I agree with you. I just don't agree that US could be known as THE remarkable place of progressivism, if you know what I mean. <-- include others too
Led Guardian wrote:China is socialist, and look at their humanitarian credentials.
I'm afraid that there isn't one unique socialist State today. China has only the red banner and nothing more. Others have a socialized state (Sweden), with high HDI ratings but don't carry any political-socialist foundations on it's ideologies (as far as I'm concerned).


Maybe Bolivia and Venezuela may be the closest examples. Although it's quite early, in terms of history, for saying that.
You're going to hell. But not the cool one, that's where I'll go.
You go to the crappy hell.

User avatar
Raistlin Majere
Posts: 2227
Joined: 08 Apr 2009 13:40
Location: GREECE, Athens

Re: George W Bush layed down the foundation for Socialism

#24 Post by Raistlin Majere » 04 Aug 2009 10:47

Wicked Child wrote:I think that his point was to question what was Baby Kursch's opinion, which was pretty unclear through her logic.
Yep. That's what I meant. But I liked the conversation that went because of the misinterpretation. :lol:

The difference between socialism and capitalism is the part of the society being supported by the laws that are put forward, and applied with that system. As capitalism has as a target the increase of the "money" of the country, it is natural consequense that businesses will be more valuable to the system than workers, or less wealthy people. In a socialist country, you have provisions for the less wealthy people, more laws that allow for example workerks not to be exploited by their employers, better healthcare for the people etc. Of course, that doesn't mean that in a capitalist country there are no laws that preserve human rights for the citizens, but that is not socialism, it's just democracy. Many laws are also established to get votes--> you cannot win elections without any temptation to the people. If a government votes a so called "socialist" law that wouldn't mean it's necessarily a "socialist" governmet, if it had also voted for another 100 laws to enhance the rights of businesses.It is also a matter of priorities.
(It's not a dictionary term, but it's how I would describe the difference)
In my opinion socialism is better than capitalism, but it's not necessarily bad to have a succession between the two systems. If capitalism is for too many years in a country it is probable that the law will lean towards the rich people, and the poor of the system will probably end up in a worse situation than what they are...
Led Guardian wrote:Despite what everyone things, we are not a pure capitalist country, and haven't been for a long time, if ever.
Despite what american people may think, america is used as an example of the capitalism. Other countries that want to apply capitalism "copy" your system and laws.
Led Guardian wrote: If we had pure free market capitalism, we wouldn't have any government regulations on products or corporations, monopolies would be allowed, no consumer protection, etc.
Consumer protection and no monopolies do apply to capitalism too. They enhance the competition in the market.

Of course noone would say that your country is worse than others, and I would certainly wouldn't say that in Greek politicians are better that yours (NO way!! that's for sure). Greeks know what's happening in Greece, but everyone knows what's happening in the US. USA is the most wealthy/powerful country in the world, and even if someone does not live there he has enough info to know many things about the status of this country.
USA is not a socialist country because equal opportunities is not a target of the political system, not only equal opportunities for black people, but also for poor people in general. There is no effort towards that.
Racism is almost in every country, but usually against immigrants and not people of your own country. Black people are in my opinion part of USA and have reached by this point many generations in the US. While greeks are very racists (I try not to be :oops: ) with immigrants, noone is racist with greeks. Black americans are americans.
And it's not only racism that doesn't make US a social country. Your education system for example. Does everyone have access to university education? As far as I know, no money no education.

Of course it's hard to find an entirely socialist state, but at least you can find non-socialist states...

I kind of mixed up everything here... just read too many posts.. too many thoughts... ooohhh... :shock:
----------------------------
If my post doesn't make sense, just consider that I post for postcount!

Led Guardian
Posts: 2437
Joined: 26 Mar 2008 21:08
Location: Somewhere less cliché than far beyond

Re: George W Bush layed down the foundation for Socialism

#25 Post by Led Guardian » 04 Aug 2009 18:53

Raistlin Majere wrote:
Led Guardian wrote:Despite what everyone things, we are not a pure capitalist country, and haven't been for a long time, if ever.
Despite what american people may think, america is used as an example of the capitalism. Other countries that want to apply capitalism "copy" your system and laws.
Led Guardian wrote: If we had pure free market capitalism, we wouldn't have any government regulations on products or corporations, monopolies would be allowed, no consumer protection, etc.
Consumer protection and no monopolies do apply to capitalism too. They enhance the competition in the market.

Of course noone would say that your country is worse than others, and I would certainly wouldn't say that in Greek politicians are better that yours (NO way!! that's for sure). Greeks know what's happening in Greece, but everyone knows what's happening in the US. USA is the most wealthy/powerful country in the world, and even if someone does not live there he has enough info to know many things about the status of this country.
USA is not a socialist country because equal opportunities is not a target of the political system, not only equal opportunities for black people, but also for poor people in general. There is no effort towards that.
Racism is almost in every country, but usually against immigrants and not people of your own country. Black people are in my opinion part of USA and have reached by this point many generations in the US. While greeks are very racists (I try not to be :oops: ) with immigrants, noone is racist with greeks. Black americans are americans.
And it's not only racism that doesn't make US a social country. Your education system for example. Does everyone have access to university education? As far as I know, no money no education.

Of course it's hard to find an entirely socialist state, but at least you can find non-socialist states...

I kind of mixed up everything here... just read too many posts.. too many thoughts... ooohhh... :shock:
Be that as it may, but America is still not purely capitalist. Pure laissez faire capitalism is an economic system in which the government does nothing to get involved in economic matters, and the business world is free to do what it will. The only ways that businesses are regulated, in theory, is through competition with other businesses. Thus the only measures against a monopoly is other businesses competing strongly with a corporation, and consumer protection is merely businesses making safe products so that people will want to buy them over the products of other businesses. So in pure free-market capitalism, there are no regulations or anti-trust laws.

About racism, don't forget that America is a unique case. We have a huge mixture of nationalities and types of people unlike any other country I know of. In Greece, other Greeks basically look like you, correct? No startling racial differences? In America, your fellow American can look completely different, and things that are different scare the ignorant; so for some people, a black American looks just as foreign as an immigrant to your country. It's the same basis as for the racism against immigrants in other countries.
'Nowhere has this renunciation of man's transience been more joyous or uplifting than in the medium of airport carpets.'

Wicked Child
Posts: 321
Joined: 02 Mar 2004 06:13
Location: Brazil
Contact:

Re: George W Bush layed down the foundation for Socialism

#26 Post by Wicked Child » 05 Aug 2009 03:15

Led Guardian wrote:About racism, don't forget that America is a unique case. We have a huge mixture of nationalities and types of people unlike any other country I know of.
Actually, Brazil has a much more bigger ethnical mixture.
We have native brazilians (more than a thousand tribes with differnt cultures), we were then colonized by portuguese, spanish and dutch. We had slavery, bringing people from entire Africa, we had then italian immigration, japanese immigration, chinese immigration, korean immigration etc. Basically, what you see in New York (in terms of diversity) works same way in most part of the major capitals in Brazil.
Led Guardian wrote:In Greece, other Greeks basically look like you, correct? No startling racial differences? In America, your fellow American can look completely different, and things that are different scare the ignorant; so for some people, a black American looks just as foreign as an immigrant to your country. It's the same basis as for the racism against immigrants in other countries.
That I completely agree.
You're going to hell. But not the cool one, that's where I'll go.
You go to the crappy hell.

User avatar
t.a.j.
Posts: 1459
Joined: 18 Aug 2002 23:29
Location: where ignorant armies clash by night
Contact:

Re: George W Bush layed down the foundation for Socialism

#27 Post by t.a.j. » 07 Aug 2009 08:38

There can be no laissez faire capitalism that isn't brought about by a strong govermental hand. Because, what economists often fail to see - or purposefully ignore - is that economical power is on one dimension with military, political and media power. The economy is not a distinct system and corporations are not merely economical actors, but also seek and execute power in many other areas.

Thus, monopolies are only one side of the problem of powerful private entities. Consider a corporation providing most of the jobs in a certain area. That gives it political power there, e.g. to circumvent environmental protection legislation or taxes. Instead it might privately invest in charities, thereby increasing its support among the working populace, who are already dependent on it for their livelihoods and further securing its power base against the local democratic authorities.

Thus, we cannot separate the economical from the political sphere even in analysis and every political entity must engage in power struggle on the field of economy. Thus perfectly free economic competition can only occur where the government is willing ad able to prevent e.g. the kind of political power described above from being employed by the economic competitors.
http://www.gedichtblog.de
They say that there's a broken light for every heart on Broadway.
They say that life's a game, then they take the board away.
They give you masks and costumes and an outline of the story
Then leave you all to improvise their vicious cabaret...


Still the goddamn Batman.

User avatar
Catanduva
Posts: 317
Joined: 19 Aug 2002 21:36
Location: Brazil

Why cancel the 3º world debt?

#28 Post by Catanduva » 19 Oct 2018 04:07

Baby_Kürsch wrote:
31 Jul 2009 10:23
10. We demand cancellation of Third World debt.
It took me some years to discover why this happened. I've always thaught it was weird that Bush did this, but I finally understood why. The explanation is that polititians are put in power by dominant classes. So, when they take office, they have to do what they promissed to these dominant classes.

The world is dominated by militar-industrial companies, but sometimes dissident dominant classes unite and elect presidents.

The militar-industrial companies are not interested in creating consumer market on the peripherical third world. But the other normal industries, the dissidents in this case, are. So, since they were able to put the president in power, Bush, they made him cancel the debt. This eradicated the big inflation in the poor countires, so the purchasing power in these peripherical regions increased, and these non-militar industries of the center (USA) started to earn more money.

Nothing to do with socialism, so.
#@╣#¢%ç @#°#▓®▒▓

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests