Comments, relating to the topic, are welcome, add a great deal to a blog, but must be in English, with no profanity, hate-filled insults, or links (unless pre-approved).




Saturday, October 18, 2008

Socialism

Despite the accusations that have been hurled and will be hurled in these last days of the election, Obama is not promoting socialism.He wouldn't dare as it's been a bad word to many people-- even if most probably don't even know what it is. The fear of it causes Republicans to vote in a knee-jerk reaction to prevent it.

Socialism is from American Heritage Dictionary: "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."

On that basis, the United States has had some of it already in a lot of different areas that Republicans generally promote, and it didn't begin with the recent vote to more or less take over the banks (only temporarily according to GW Bush).

What is our farming program? We pay people to not grow crops based on government subsidies. The government pays for certain crop practices but not others. Ranchers receive almost no subsidies while those who grow crops can receive many kinds accompanied by the myriad of rules that follow.

On Bill Maher last night Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont was on the panel. Sanders proudly calls himself a democratic socialist but runs as an Independent. He gets elected in Vermont because the independent folks there don't fear the word. Today all you have to do is say certain words and people get in a tizzy.

Here is what Sanders wrote about the recent bailout: [Billions for payouts! Who pays?]. I know, you who fear socialism right next to lack of godliness will be terrified by the very idea that who can pay should pay. That would be unfair and worse, leads to socialism.

For some, the fear of socialism is that it is a stage on the way to communism. If the government can control monopolies, if it can tell you what to grow and when, if it can balance out your banks, if it can buy up home mortgages to let people stay in their homes, how long before they say they own it all and you have communism? (but don't forget McCain and Bush just favored the socialist bailout of the banks)

Ronald Reagan didn't like Social Security, most extreme righties don't even today. Reagan saw Medicare as-- well here's what he said in 1961: “Write those letters now. Call your friends, and tell them to write them. If you don’t, this program I promise you will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow. And behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country, until, one day…we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don’t do this, and if I don’t do it, one of these days, you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.”

I am not sure how he figured the average person would afford to live out those sunset years, but it's clear that to him, true freedom means the ability to die of an illness because you don't have the money for a doctor.

(Reagan saw fear of socialism in anything the government did except maybe Iran-Contra which resulted in many Reagan administration members being indicted and may have been a factor in our increased drug trafficking in this country because the Contras dealt drugs to pay for their weapons. The same network to take them arms evidently also transported drugs-- or so some claim. It's not legally been proven, but we did have a flood of drugs from that time forward.)

If I understand this right, to Reagan having the government involved in supporting wars secretly is one of its purpose but programs for its own poor is not? It appears that when the government does something that benefits the ordinary people and the poor, that's socialism but if it benefits the rich, it's free enterprise. Free enterprise for banks on their way up and socialism as soon as they have milked out everything they can get.

Many countries in Europe have democratic socialism and they do have their problems with paying for it. There has to be a balance in what we ask one person to do in helping another. Any programs for large numbers of people are going to have problems. We don't live a frontier lifestyle anymore. We do have people, who through no fault of their own, need help. Is it socialism when the government has programs to help them?

To the far Right, Medicare and Social Security limit our freedom, Welfare and Medicaid are likewise bad. For some even public education is something to be destroyed. Pay for your own, you freeloading parents! True freedom means what exactly? The Bobbie McGee song-- nothing left to lose?

Or is government being involved in our lives okay when it blocks our right to decide to die on our own terms, which mood altering substances we can ingest, whether we carry to term a pregnancy, who we can marry, whether we pay to have sex or seduce someone into it, and which banks make out like bandits. Programs that help the elderly and poor are not good. They are socialism. I think I get it!

(This is the last bounty from our garden before we let the sheep in to eat it all down. Hard freezes are on their way.)

18 comments:

Sylvia K said...

Beautiful photo, love the colors! And, as always, you're right about this fear of socialism and it's so totally ridiculous. And you're right also about he fact that most Americans don't really ever know just what socialism is to begin with, it's just always equated with communism. Yeah, and what we have now is so much better?????

Diane Widler Wenzel said...

Thanks for the refresher course on Socialism and Reagan. My understanding is that the bigger the population the greater the need for socialism.

Darlene said...

Hypocrisy rules!

Ingineer66 said...

Yes Sylvia, what we have is much better. Never in my life have I had to stand in line to get toilet paper or shoes that were not even the correct size. And socialism is not always equated with communism by thinking Americans. Socialism is what has failed in many African and European nations and communism is what has failed in the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Romania, Poland, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea and China. I do not understand why so many people in this country want to try something that has failed all over the world and failed here in 1621.

Rain Trueax said...

The point is communism is not socialism and socialism has not failed everywhere it is tried. There are no pure forms of anything but exactly which socialist practices that we currently have would you eliminate, ingineer? public education, SS, Medicare, regulating food supplies (like not letting meat that isn't inspected by the feds be sold in grocery stores), highway programs, farm subsidies, farm payments for improved agricultural methods?

We have a lot of socialism and McCain just voted for expanding it. So how would you go back to the pure form of capitalism? You ready to give up your government insurance programs? Your pension system? It's all social engineering when it's government doing it. How do you go to this pure system? Yes, it would reduce taxes but there'd be no help for the poor or the old except their families or charities. Do you really want that? Some right wingers would love it because all they care about is themselves, not their neighbor.

We are already into socialism on so many levels that it's not funny. So now it'd take going backward and I don't know how you'd deal with the problems that you'd find. No meat inspection means you better know the source from which you are buying. (Coincidentally, we market such beef *s*).

Rain Trueax said...

Obama has not said he will hand out money to people who have none from those who pay taxes from his plan. It is that the top earners (above $250,000 net income) would have a 3 or 4% increase back to what they paid before Bush cut all taxes. Okay, so you don't like them paying more. It's unfair; so everybody should have their taxes go up to pay down this deficit? How do you right wingers feel we will get our budget in order? I have said it and said but you support this Iraqi war. Why don't you want to pay for it? Why do you think that is someone else's responsibility, like your grandchildren's. There will come a time this country cannot keep borrowing especially as the rest of the world has problems. So you don't like taxes. Who does? But how do you get something from nothing? It drives me crazy that you would once again believe that voodoo economics which did NOT work for Reagan and will not work now.

Anonymous said...

Rain, this is a very good post. I've been reading on this subject the last few days.

I have such a problem with the super piety of the religious right and all their talk about being born again Christians and living by the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. I find it very hard to square the Republican party with the New Testament. Religion and the Republican party both crave power and control. Most self centered bunch of people I've ever known.

Brenda Pruitt said...

I get really tired of the people around my neck of the woods (East Texas) acting so afraid and aggrieved when they don't even have the facts. They sure don't want to lose their Social Security or Medicare though! Thanks for the information. I tried to talk to an elderly neighbor today about Socialism. You'd think I'd declared treason or said I was going to rob a bank!
Brenda

Ingineer66 said...

Rain I am not saying that I think we should eliminate all social programs. I really am for many more than probably a lot of Republicans. And I am not a true Libertarian. I don't believe that you should build the roads and bridges between your ranch and grocery store because it is your responsibility to get the goods to the market. And I do not think we should eliminate taxes to pay for services. What I am saying is that the US treasury takes tons of money and the Congress needs to learn to only spend what they take in. Here in California we are totally upside down on our spending vs. our tax receipts and the politicians keep introducing new programs to pander to various groups and there is no way to pay for them but by borrowing the money.
What scares me about Obama is when he says that taxes are not about bringing money in to the treasury they are about Fairness. He seems to be all about getting even or punishing people that work hard for some reason. I do not understand why someone that grew up in a broken home and got an ivy league education would want to drag people down and act like the United States is not the best nation on earth. Maybe he was handed his gifts because of his skin color so he does not appreciate them as much as someone that had to work hard to make their own luck.

Kay Dennison said...

I, as always, love what you've said here, Rain. Your thesis is sound and rational.

I've been reading in comments here and I'm a bit confused. There seems to be an implication that poor people don't work hard enjoy needing help.

Trust me -- most don't like the intrusion help involves.

When all the 401Ks are dead because of the failed economic policies, the tune will be different as they collect their food stamps.

Ugich Konitari said...

Speaking from a country which has been in the thick of socialism, has several states rules by communists and has opened up the economy in the last decade in a manner completely at odds with socialism, it seems to me that the folks who are frightened of socialism in the US have an obsession with labels. Certain politicians feed on that, and stoke the fires.

No one wants to take the time to think of how a particular policy would affect the common man. As you say in your post, certain types of socialism are good because they come from certain parties. Others are bad, because the other party is considered bad.

Here in India, religion sometimes decides people's loyalty, and lack of education is a big cause. But it is slowly changing.

I hope folks in the US actually see thru this "Socialism monster" and vote for the person most likely to benefit the common man...

Rain Trueax said...

Where have you heard Obama say anything like that, ingineer? From a McCain/Palin rally maybe? It is not his philosophy. What he said to Joe the Plumber was that when Joe needed help with tax breaks was when he was on his way up. Are you aware of how much money someone has to be making income to make that $250,000 net? Do you know how well you can live on that much money and you are worried that those poor folks will have to go back to the taxes they paid in 2000 before our deficit began to spiral out of control. You cannot do much about any programs if you are paying $.22 of every tax dollar on interest. That is not on the loans. It is on interest. Did you look at my charts earlier about where our tax money goes, where it comes from?

What I think is you are getting your information from the wrong sources as to what Obama is saying. But supposing he does raise your tax rate. If you make a quarter of a million after taxes, maybe he will, but what is the alternative? It's not just about more programs, maybe it's about better programs. If you read his actual speeches, listened to him, no where would you say he blames the rich. He is not John Edwards. He is not playing that game. He is saying we have to be responsible and he has plans.

What gets me is your alternative is John McCain who says one thing and does another. He says lack of experience is bad and ridicules Obama because he can draw big crowds; then he picks someone with far less experience so much less that she can't even hold a press conference or answer tough questions and has to be coddled with fox news and toadies like Rush Limbaugh. He says he doesn't believe in a socialism and votes for the biggest increase in socialism in my lifetime. He is someone you cannot trust because from day to day you don't know what he'll do. That's your alternative. Take a chance that Obama means what he says, that he has drawn to him people who know how to run things, and maybe he'll fix it or maybe he'll fail but the other is Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and from day to day you won't know what you will get from a new war to Paris Hilton on his cabinet-- and I am not joking!

Rain Trueax said...

And thank you to all who replied here. I especially liked hearing from you, Ugich because you are on the other side of this and can give a perspective Americans often don't hear or see.

Ingineer66 said...

I have only listened to Country Music radio and a little bit of sports radio the last two weeks. I heard the Fairness comment from Obama's mouth while being interviewed by that right wing conspiracy nut Charlie Gibson on ABC. They were discussing JFK's tax cuts and the fact that higher tax rates do not result in higher revenue to the treasury and Obama said that "it is not about revenue, it is about fairness". And that is socialism. You can put sprinkles on it, but it is not a doughnut.

Rain Trueax said...

We have a progressive tax rate now, ingineer. Did you hope that McCain would end that? I have heard no such proposal from him. A lot of people favor a flat tax rate. Some promote the idea of a consumption tax and no income tax but I have not heard any of that from any candidate running this year even in the primaries. There is nothing wrong with the word fairness and what Obama is talking about is trying to pay down our deficit. You disapprove of that? You think we can keep going as we are. But hey you vote for Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde with his Secessionist right religious fringe partner and you see what you get if you win. After all, voters who thought like you are thinking now is what gave us Bush! And that has worked so well

Ingineer66 said...

LOL. I spent 5 hours in the pickup yesterday with an Obama fan and another friend that is more conservative than me. I have heard it all. I am for paying down the deficit. And I am for a consumption tax. And that is one thing that we all agreed on yesterday. If you spend more money, you pay more taxes. And everyone pays, the illegals, the marijuana growers, everyone. Now finding enough support in Congress is the trick. The first thing that would go with a consumption tax would be the home mortgage interest deduction and people would be screaming over that.

On a more personal note have you looked at Obama's plan for the estate taxes? I do not know if your ranch is big enough but his rate of 45% percent would likely make it difficult for anyone in your family to retain the ranch and pay such a large tax bill.

Rain Trueax said...

Actually I would not vote purely on whether the tax policies suited me best or not. I care about a lot of things and yeah, who likes taxes, but I also want to see out deficit going down, our infrastructure worked on, military promises kept.

What Obama proposed for estate tax is a little more than what you mention.

Barack Obama Will Create a $7 Million Estate Tax Exemption for Couples and a 45 Percent Rate: According to Bloomberg News, “Both candidates [Obama and Clinton would allow President George W. Bush's tax cuts to expire for workers in the top two tax brackets and set the estate-tax rate at 45 percent with a $7 million exemption.” [Bloomberg.com, 03/13/08]

So our kids would be more able to keep the farm than under current laws. They might not want to though. A lot of big family operations incorporate and that changes the inheritance factor also. We have more concern for Farm Boss's business than we do the farm right now. We would like to see our son be able to take that over but he might do that a long time before Farm Boss passes on. It is a shame when big operations have to sell to allow the children to inherit it but $7 million protects the smaller operations.

Anonymous said...

If I understand this right, to Reagan having the government involved in supporting wars secretly is one of its purpose but programs for its own poor is not? It appears that when the government does something that benefits the ordinary people and the poor, that's socialism but if it benefits the rich, it's free enterprise.

BRAVO once again to you, Rain! What you said above.....SPOT-ON! You figured out their dirty little secret! It's all about THEM....certainly not US, the people. And calling much needed programs for people in need "socialism" is just another Republican tactic. Great job on this post.
Terri
http://www.islandwriter.net