How Close Is the USA to Socialism?

[CunningStunts]

The U.S. is moving towards Socialism at a rapid pace more and more every day.

Even countries like France are telling us we should not head down this road. We should be listening but we're not!

True. In fact, in the last round of EU elections, they swung right and we in the US are letting the government take over every facet of our lives without batting an eye.

Scares the shit out of me to be honest.

 

[CunningStunts]

The people who voted for George Bush twice are the only people who think we're headed to Socialism, not that they know what Socialism is. We've tried debating Socialism vs Capitalism vs Communism. The Dubya voters think Socialism is Communism and are too lazy to learn the difference. Hell, if Dubya voters bothered to actually travel beyond the farm/ranch/church to Europe, they might see how far behind in "quality of life" that America really is...

The pie graph is very interesting....

Dude, I respect your opinion, but disagree on every count. Bush was NOT a conservative and in fact started down this "bailout" road that Obama has continued on at 120MPH. He cut nothing and spent out the wazzu. Again, that is not what a conservative would have done.

And I travel to Europe all the time, I would not say their standard of living is any higher than in America.

The fact is that the US Constitution was based on the idea of liberty, for better or for worse. And the government has been taking away freedoms guaranteed buy that document for 60 years, down the road to a government controlled "socialist" economy. IMHO, that is NOT what the US is all about. Not at all.

 

[Hot Mega]

True. In fact, in the last round of EU elections, they swung right and we in the US are letting the government take over every facet of our lives without batting an eye.

Scares the shit out of me to be honest.

Europeans accept socialism conceptually far more readily than Americans..so to suggest a so called conservative in Europe is equivalent to a so called conservative in US politics is probably not accurate.

You may elect a so called conservative in Europe but that guy 9 out of 10 times believes in socialism too.

 

[Funkwerkz]

How close is the USA to Socialism?

Well, imagine Sun as Socialism (burning hot! ) and Pluto as the USA. You know what i mean.

USA will never ever be socialist. Even though current capitalist system falls, American nation can built a new one with their experience and willingness for capitalism. Socialism is good but can make the cancer impact in US society since it's incompatible to USA.

 

[Facetious]

Re: How Close Is the USA to Socialism?

Too ! That's how close.



Of course it's the strategy of those who would wish it (socialism) to come to fruition to deny it's existence. What, do you think that they'd tell you that they we're gaining on you ? :1orglaugh
Yeh, that's it, everything is cool, nobody is going to steal your rights, you paranoid right winged freaks !

Shuuuuut Uuuuuup ! Ya think we were all born yesterday ?

the author sure does

 

[titsrock]

Dude, I respect your opinion, but disagree on every count. Bush was NOT a conservative and in fact started down this "bailout" road that Obama has continued on at 120MPH. He cut nothing and spent out the wazzu. Again, that is not what a conservative would have done.

And I travel to Europe all the time, I would not say their standard of living is any higher than in America.

The fact is that the US Constitution was based on the idea of liberty, for better or for worse. And the government has been taking away freedoms guaranteed buy that document for 60 years, down the road to a government controlled "socialist" economy. IMHO, that is NOT what the US is all about. Not at all.

George Bush was a Republican and not just any ol' Republican but a 3 Generation Legacy Republican from Texas, perhaps the most *Conservative* state in the Union. :dunno: He is what he is, or, was what he was, I should say. He positioned the Gov't to serve his friends and friends' companies, basically.

George Bush's falsified warmongering exacted a higher tax price than the *bailouts* he started and Obama continued. At this point, can the U.S. afford to continue "free market" unchecked Capitalism? Let's not forget, either, that the "bailouts" prevented an unstoppable slide into a potential decades long Depression with 25% domestic unemployment.

Or do you think the economy would be better off cratering even further than it did? :dunno:

European style Socialism requires more than merely owning Big Auto or forcing bank mergers. So, it's ultimately laughable to suggest Obama and the Dems are "moving" the U.S. down that path.

I've been to Europe, too, and I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the quality of life point.:dunno:

 

[rabid_2250]

Just to throw a spanner in the works I'll pose another question.
How much worse would the impact of the current financial situation be if the govenment hadn't stepped in and supported the failing companies?
IMO the outcry for thousands more lost jobs would outweigh the socialist scare campaign greatly and raise the question of what the government is doing to help the situation.
Having said all that I'm not a fan of government bailouts but sometimes (as now) the benefits justify the methods.

 

[Facetious]

He positioned the Gov't to serve his friends and friends' companies, basically.

What administration doesn't serve the interests of their friends / cronies ?

George Bush's falsified warmongering

By now you must know the contempt I have for ''w'' but let's be fair here.

Yellow cake was found in Iraq (later shipped to Canada, IIRC) and that demonstrated Saddam's intent to mfgr WMD. If anything, the ba bushka admin. missed a golden public relations opportunity ! For why did his admin play this down ? What an imbecile, huh ?

Anyway, I don't find that "w" himself played a game of false warmongering given that -

Top Democrats Support Attacking Iraq
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and
consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to
take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air
and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to
end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From
a letter signed by Joe Lieberman (D), Dianne Feinstein
(D), Barbara A. Milulski (D), Tom Daschle (D), & John
Kerry (D) October 9, 1998.

"This December will mark three years since United
Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no
doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has
reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate
that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status.
In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery
systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit
missile program to develop longer- range missiles that
will threaten the United States and our allies." Bob
Graham (D), Joe Lieberman (D), Harold Ford (D), & Tom
Lantos (D) December 6, 2001.

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire
agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered
into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its
weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to
permit monitoring and verification by United Nations
inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of
mass destruction, including chemical and biological
capabilities, and has made positive progress toward
developing nuclear weapons capabilities" Tom Harkin
(D) and Arlen Specter (RINO) July 18, 2002.

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N.
sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not
and we will not let him succeed." Madeline Albright
(D), 1998.

"Saddam will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass
destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he
will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since
1983" National Security Adviser Sandy Berger (D), Feb
18, 1998.

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to
completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction,
and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its
agreement." Barbara Boxer (D), November 8, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October
of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained
some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons,
and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare
capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he
is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved
nuclear capability." Robert Byrd (D), October 2002.

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a
threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons.
He's had those for a long time. But the United States
right now is on a very much different defensive
posture than we were before September 11th of 2001...
He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear
capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads
yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think
our friends in the region would face greatly increased
risks as would we." Wesley Clark (D) on September 26,
2002.

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential
threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation
of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the
past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think
that, over the past four years, in the absence of
international inspectors, this country has continued
armament programs." Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002.

"The community of nations may see more and more of the
very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with
weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or
provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond
today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his
footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." Bill Clinton
(D) in 1998.

"In the four years since the inspectors left,
intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has
worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and
sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members,
though there is apparently no evidence of his
involvement in the terrible events of September 11,
2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity
to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep
trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed
in that endeavor, he could alter the political and
security landscape of the Middle East, which as we
know all too well affects American security." Hillary
Clinton (D) October 10, 2002.

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I
saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the
inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a
warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and
then moving those trucks out." Clinton's Secretary of
Defense William Cohen (D) in April of 2003.

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess
weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation
with a leader who has used them against his own
people." Tom Daschle (D) 1998.

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to
America and our allies, including our vital ally,
Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has
sought weapons of mass destruction through every
available means. We know that he has chemical and
biological weapons. He has already used them against
his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to
build more. We know that he is doing everything he can
to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he
gets closer to achieving that goal." John Edwards (D)
Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is
about national security. It should be clear that our
national security requires Congress to send a clear
message to Iraq and the world: America is united in
its determination to eliminate forever the threat of
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." John Edwards (D)
Oct 10, 2002.

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with
Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." Dick
Gephardt (D) in September of 2002.

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of
the Persian Gulf and we should organize an
international coalition to eliminate his access to
weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons
of mass destruction has proven impossible to
completely deter and we should assume that it will
continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore
(D) 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling
evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a
number of years, a developing capacity for the
production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction." Bob Graham (D) December 2002.

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who
is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire
weapons of mass destruction." Jim Jeffords (I) October
8, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is
seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Ted Kennedy (D) September 27, 2002.

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a
serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his
pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot
be tolerated. He must be disarmed." Ted Kennedy (D)
Sept 27, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the president of the United
States the authority to use force - if necessary - to
disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly
arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is
a real and grave threat to our security." John F.
Kerry (D) Oct 2002.

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It
has been with us since the end of that war, and
particularly in the last 4 years we know after
Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept
them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He
has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these
weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to
lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction
and the issue of proliferation." John F. Kerry (D)
October 9, 2002.

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We
all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is
miscalculating America’s response to his continued
deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction. That is why the world, through the United
Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice,
demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and
disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons
of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has
been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."
John F. Kerry (D) Jan 23, 2003.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein
is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of
the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United
Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the means of delivering them." Carl Levin (D) Sept
19, 2002.

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical
weapons, biological weapons, and the development of
nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United
States." Joe Lieberman (D) August, 2002.


"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994,
despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and
dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that
Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various
reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing
nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to
think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has
actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N.
inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about
biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable.
In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and
later, against its own Kurdish population. While
weapons inspections have been successful in the past,
there have been no inspections since the end of 1998.
There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to
pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass
destruction." Patty Murray (D) October 9, 2002.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am
keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and
biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to
all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the
development of weapons of mass destruction technology
which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Nancy Pelosi (D) December 16, 1998.

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on
highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons
inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological
agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium
perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several
dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as
the means to continue manufacturing these deadly
agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the
highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas
and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery
shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And
Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial
infrastructure that can be used to rapidly
reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production."
Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter (reg D) in 1998.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is
working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and
will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five
years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain
access to enriched uranium from foreign sources --
something that is not that difficult in the current
world. We also should remember we have always
underestimated the progress Saddam has made in
development of weapons of mass destruction." John
Rockefeller (D) Oct 10, 2002.

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons
capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now.
Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against
Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is
working to develop delivery systems like missiles and
unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly
weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the
Middle East." John Rockefeller (D) Oct 10, 2002.

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the
Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think
there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He
has systematically violated, over the course of the
past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that
has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical
and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This
he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the
mandate and authority of international weapons
inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying
time against enforcement of the just and legitimate
demands of the United Nations, the Security Council,
the United States and our allies. Those are simply the
facts." Henry Waxman (D) Oct 10, 2002.

 

[calpoon]

I would say that America is a feudal system.

Capitalism, socialism, communism, these are just quaint umbrella ideas that do little to reflect economic reality and basically just serve as rallying cries to unite people under a comprehensive ideology that states (for all and each): This (or that) system sucks, so give us all your money and you will be free!

A. Property is theft

B. Property is liberty

C. property is imaginary

 

[bodie54]

Yellow cake was found in Iraq (later shipped to Canada, IIRC) and that demonstrated Saddam's intent to mfgr WMD. If anything, the ba bushka admin. missed a golden public relations opportunity ! For why did his admin play this down ? What an imbecile, huh ?

I think I've linked you this article before.
The reason Bush didn't try to make hay with this issue is because the yellow cake didn't demonstate Saddam's intent to mfgr WMD.

The yellowcake removed from Iraq in 2008 was material that had long since been identified, document, and stored in sealed containers under the supervision of U.N. inspectors. It was not a secret cache that was recently discoverd by the U.S. and the yellowcake had not been purchased by Iraq in the years immediately preceding the 2003 invasion. The uranium was the remnants of decades old nuclear reactor projects that had been put out of commission many years earlier: One reactor at Tuwaitha was bombed by Israel in 1981, and another was bombed and disabled during Operation Desert Storm in 1991.

Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam's nuclear efforts. Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containders since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991.

The yellowcake removed from Iraq was not the same yellowcake that President Bush claimed, in a now discredited section of his 2003 State of the Union address, that Mr. Hussein was trying to purchase in Africa.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp

 

[busenbust]

...I wouldn't listen to France

 

[sproing99]

Why not on this particular occasion (as a Brit I'm naturally inclined against France, so I'm just wondering what they did this time)

 

[busenbust]

^Oh, it's nothing personal - Promise


:frenchman

 

[Mrs Jolly]

What is the best way to tackle this................carry on as normal? (It is a quote from an article in Forbes - here is the link.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/05/ret...debt.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009060912)


It can't go on forever, and it won't. What will shock America into action is the prospect of fiscal collapse, which will grow more vivid each year. In 2008 federal borrowing accounted for 41% of GDP, about the postwar average. By 2019 the burden will double to 82% by the CBO's reckoning, reaching $17.3 trillion, nearly triple last year's level. By that point $1 of every six the U.S. spends will go to interest, compared with one in 12 last year. The U.S. trajectory points to the area that medieval maps labeled "Here Lie Dragons." After 2019 the debt rises with no ceiling in sight, according to all major forecasts, driven by the growth of interest and entitlements. The Government Accountability Office estimates that if current policies continue, interest will absorb 30% of all revenues by 2040 and entitlements will consume the rest, leaving nothing for defense, education, or veterans' benefits.

To understand why a massive tax increase, probably a VAT, is the mostly likely outcome, it's crucial to look at what's driving the long-term, widening gap between revenues and spending.

 

[georges]

I agree.

If Americans think that Obama is socialist, then they'e deluded.

I do think that some genuine socialism would help the USA though.

It's been a while since I was over there, but when I visited, I was surprised at the diversity in wealth between the very very wealthy and the very poor
was very noticable (and I didn't even visit the very poor regions of the USA).

There is a lot I admire about the USA and it's people : but for supposedly the richest nation on earth, the level of poverty over there was shocking.

But he is a socialist, assisting people who don't have a revenue or who are unwilling to work is pure socialism. France has done it from 1975 till 2002-2004and what has it done? It has ruined France. Have the people who have been socially assisted really integrated to our society? No. Implementing healthcare and social helps for people who are parasites as well as social help leechers and who are not bringing back any revenue is useless.

 

[jasonk282]

What ever happened to American the land of opportunity. to make it on your own, not given a handout by the goverment.

Socialism refers to any one of various economic theories of economic organization advocating state or cooperative ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation based on the full product of the laborer.

Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled for profit rather than by the state

Economically, socialism denotes an economic system of state ownership and/or worker ownership of the means of production and distribution. In the economy of the Soviet Union, state ownership of the means of production was combined with central planning, in relation to which goods and services to make and provide, how they were to be produced, the quantities, and the sale prices. Soviet economic planning was an alternative to allowing the market (supply and demand) to determine prices and production. During the Great Depression, many socialists considered Soviet-style planned economies the remedy to capitalism's inherent flaws – monopoly, business cycles, unemployment, unequally distributed wealth, and the economic exploitation of workers.

 

[mrtrebus]

Not close enough!!

 

[busenbust]

^^ LOL. Could be an accident.

 

[titsrock]

What administration doesn't serve the interests of their friends / cronies ?

To the level of Blackwater/Halliburton? Reagan and IranContra comes a close second:dunno: Clinton had 18 or so "scandals" on the level of arranging sleepovers in the Lincoln bedroom for campaign donations, free flights on Air Force 1, "losing" certain property files which disclosed big real estate gains. Sorry, Faceman, Dubya trumps them all. Vietnam may have been the "precedent" to all of this, but I'm not interested in rehashing the Military Industrial Complex debate other than to say we can no longer sustain a Military-based economy.

Anyway, I don't find that "w" himself played a game of false warmongering given that -

Regarding all of these comments? Well, the pertinent ones made by Dems were based on "THE DUMMY INFO" that Cheney banged out on his laptop. That's the point. I do fault all Dems who voted along with Bush for not saying, "Saddam didn't have anything afterall. This war was a mistake. It's time to end it." I don't fault the Dems or any Repubs who also state on the record they were also misled, but my criticism has shifted to Post2006 elections when the Dems were given a NATIONAL MANDATE by the people to end the Iraq War.

 

[Mrs Jolly]

What ever happened to American the land of opportunity.

The world caught up with it. Indeed, you could crudely argue that the fall of the wall and the modernization of China were two of the worst things to happen to American capitalism as it opened up massive populations to market efficiencies. For the right people they became the lands of opportunity.

As was mentioned earlier people find it difficult to see that the future might require using new methods or resurrecting old methods that didn't work the last time around. I'm sorry for all the ideologues who want to argue for eternity about how the founding fathers/Adam Smith/Leon Trotsky would do it.

One thing that has been touched upon by others here, which is not going to go away is that defence spending as a percentage of GDP will fall. How and when the polity and the electorate face up to this is anyone's guess but it is like gangrene there will be no getting away from it.