Thread: Maybe there are different versions of socilism

What ambitions did Stalin Hitler and Mussolini have in common


some say obama is a socialist and some say he isnt

he wants no oil drilling in usa but is helping Brazil with drilling?

so is it socialism not for USA people, but for others?

Hitler helped only German "Aryans"

he was socialist though

Israel helps Israelis as a nation, and they should and stuff on the side if they have the funds

Obama seems to help the world but not the USA or he seems to want a global socialism and having the republicans pay for it all -47% now dont pay income tax

He's not really a socialist by any definition. He's also not against oil drilling, in fact we're doing more drilling now and renewing permits at a high level.

It is sometimes hard to define though...what it's called when the government controls the lions share of the money and doles out the work to private companies--that somewhat describes the trend we're on.

John Toland, one of Hitler's biographer's noted that if Hitler had died in 1936 he would be remembered today as one of the greatest of Germans.

As far as I can see Obama is very much in favour of oil and gas drilling, but he wishes to ensure it is done responsibly, with due care and attention to the environmental impact, both short and long term.

From what I understand of it, some companies' permits have been revoked because they didn't use them after a period of time. In the press, that can get spun into making it look like he's trying to prevent them from drilling. The more probable reality: they were sitting on those permits to keep their competitors from getting them, but had no intention of actually drilling any time soon.

It's like when a company buys the patent to a technology and sits on it to keep it off the market. Only in this case they were buying up permits to keep them off the market. Now they're mad about Obama stepping in and reassigning those permits (to people who actually intend to drill) and they feel the need to smear him.

Hitler helped only German "Aryans"

he was socialist though

Israel helps Israelis as a nation, and they should and stuff on the side if they have the funds

Obama seems to help the world but not the USA or he seems to want a global socialism and having the republicans pay for it all -47% now dont pay income tax

I don't understand the Hitler comments.

Hitler helped only German "Aryans"

On by the broadest loosely applied definition....by strict definition, he wasn't Aryan himself, nor were most of his staff.

and having the republicans pay for it all -47% now dont pay income tax

By a slight margin more republicans do not pay federal tax than democrats, and the republican states tend to get more federal money as well. And to be honest Obama had proposed little to no legislation of treaties that suggest government ownership of businesses either nationally or internationally--the entire argument about socialism seems mostly made up.

For some reason people seem to think that, since the Republicans talk a lot about wealth, and cater toward industry, that all the rich people in the nation must be republicans. Don't forget that Hollywood and the rest of our entertainment industry represent one of our biggest sources of GDP, including quite a lot of our exports.

When a famous movie star talks about "taxing the rich", they are essentially volunteering to pay higher taxes themselves.

Obama seems to help the world but not the USA

Really? He seems like a pretty standard issue US president to those of us outside when dealing with foreign affairs. He strongly promotes 'open and honest' trade deals between the USA and others. Then the 'others' read the fine print on the deal being offered. Obama's long ago moved on to the next thing leaving various happy populations smiling at the memory. The officials stick around to drag out every last $ of profit and every last remnant of national independence in everything from patent law to land tenure systems to government control of its own contracts.

As for US economics and internal affairs. Australians are quite used to the madness of people expecting European quality of government service delivery from USA levels of tax revenues ....... so I suppose it's not that hard to ratchet up the crazy until you get the repeated stalemates and futile posturings of the major parties in Washington being unable to deal with either revenue or service.

Obama is not a pure socialist- by any standard of measurement. Although I have similar economic views as some of the people who proclaim that, the statement is simply false. Socialism is the forceful taking of private property for government or public control. Some might argue that this has already been done (and is currently being done), it is definitely not to the extent that some self-proclaimed socialists have taken it ex. Mao and Stalin (inb4 they were communistic; communism as advocated by Marx is actually anarcho-communistic, instead of the pseudo-communistic ways of these infamous 20th century countries). Mao and Stalin nationalized whole industries, set ridiculous price controls, and pretty much controlled not only the means of productions but also the products of production. It was definitely ineffective and frankly, stupid, but any reasonable person can see the similarities- or lack thereof- between what is happening in the US and what has happened in these socialist countries.

Mao and Stalin had dictatorial powers, which Obama doesn't have. Obama is definitely trying to take the country in a more socialist direction, to the extent that he is able.

Socialism is necessary in all countries to the point that it ensures that people have somewhere to live, can afford any required medical treatment and can afford to eat, these are basic requirements that I feel all countries around the world should provide. To me acheiving that aim of providing those things should and would be a good socialist agenda, beyond this however I feel that to provide anything else would be pushing the socialist agenda to far.

People need a place to live, they need to be healthy and they need to be well fed, from here anything else they may want is upto them to get off their butts and go and work for. If they have these 3 basic things then they have a fair chance, and thats all anyone can or should ask for.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Mao and Stalin had dictatorial powers, which Obama doesn't have. Obama is definitely trying to take the country in a more socialist direction, to the extent that he is able.

where areyou?europe?he disolved our immigration law-he said under 30s can stay if illegal and commit nocrime-oh yeah just them

he rescinded Congresses welfare law of 1994-which maybe i agree with

he takes out tax money uses it for war /abortions even if we are opposed

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Socialism is necessary in all countries to the point that it ensures that people have somewhere to live, can afford any required medical treatment and can afford to eat, these are basic requirements that I feel all countries around the world should provide. To me acheiving that aim of providing those things should and would be a good socialist agenda, beyond this however I feel that to provide anything else would be pushing the socialist agenda to far.

People need a place to live, they need to be healthy and they need to be well fed, from here anything else they may want is upto them to get off their butts and go and work for. If they have these 3 basic things then they have a fair chance, and thats all anyone can or should ask for.

in usa if you are sick and go to a hospital by law they have to treat you-how are we so different?

in usa if you are sick and go to a hospital by law they have to treat you-how are we so different?

But that's not how it works is it? The general legal requirement in the USA is that emergency departments must give emergency treatment.

And when the immediate crisis is over - your diabetic coma / stroke / heart attack symptoms have been ameliorated through emergency procedures but you clearly need hospital admission or pharmacy supplies or specialist consultation for further non-emergency treatment? What happens then?

I'd check what the rules are in the state you happen to be in at the time - or maybe the particular hospital. In some states you may be transferred for some further services. In others you may be shown the door - with no follow-up of any kind, maybe a prescription for drugs you can't afford to buy.

(I'm not up-to-date with all of this stuff. But it does need checking.)

Originally Posted by Lordknukle

Mao and Stalin nationalized whole industries, set ridiculous price controls, and pretty much controlled not only the means of productions but also the products of production. It was definitely ineffective and frankly, stupid, but any reasonable person can see the similarities- or lack thereof- between what is happening in the US and what has happened in these socialist countries.

It's unfortunate that a lot of the heath care strategies on the table are just simple brute price controls. The government declares by fiat that the price of a given procedure will be a certain amount or less, and then the hospitals just wave their magic wand and somehow lower their costs to be less than that.

the government declares by fiat that the price of a given procedure will be a certain amount or less, and then the hospitals just wave their magic wand and somehow lower their costs to be less than that.

and unfortunately the response has been to make it up in places they could charge...$10 band aids, 2$ for a tissue etc.

Obama is definitely trying to take the country in a more socialist direction, to the extent that he is able.

Obama has not made a single socialist proposal in his entire tenure so far.

Originally Posted by kojax

It's unfortunate that a lot of the heath care strategies on the table are just simple brute price controls. The government declares by fiat that the price of a given procedure will be a certain amount or less, and then the hospitals just wave their magic wand and somehow lower their costs to be less than that

Whether fortunate or not, the government has mostly failed to do that even where it was capable of it. One result has been that none of the health care strategies on the table contain firm price controls - nothing like what United Health Care and the like can do, anyway.

Medical care is an area in which market competition cannot normally lower prices.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Medical care is an area in which market competition cannot normally lower prices.

That's true, and not dissimilar from the way utilities like electricity are price controlled. Except that for some reason with health care, the government doesn't appear to be able to figure out the right price to charge. They undershoot it, and then the hospital makes it up by overcharging in a non-price-controlled area. (Which could be why there hasn't been sufficient backward pressure to force the government to raise its price limit.)


Really I can't see any reason why hospitals shouldn't be seen exactly the same way utilities are seen. The system seems to work when its applied to them. The only difference is that electricity doesn't admit of varying degrees of quality, while in theory a hospital can. Or.... actually that's not even true. One power company could be more reliable than another, restoring power outages faster, or keeping its lines better maintained so they never happen to begin with.

So yeah....... see no good reason why hospitals can't be treated the same way. The government just needs to use the same realistic approach it uses for the one thing, and apply it to the other.

yeah i guess they wont help outside an emergency room and poeple on medicare even have to pay for meds

the poor in usa are pretty bad off and yet they seem to buy endless cigarets and junk too -so why not save?if youre on

ssi they only let you save over 2000 dollars-they dont want you to save for your health or dental care which is 50% of health equation
some will say if youre on medicaid the dentist cannnot even aacept your money to pay for a filling and yet most wont take medicaid-this is worse than a communoist country from 1940s

usa isnt socialist we are insane or mean i think

there are probably lots of doctors in the south etc that dont want ppoor patients because they think they might have aids or some disease so the goverment allows this by paying for medicaid like only giving doctor back15%-cheap bastards

and also the voters can be blamed-wa had a cookie tax or tax on bottled water -wa voted no on it -services were cut-yet 40% of food they buy is not eaten and thrown away