Liberal here with a question for conservatives....

[RZZZA]

This post goes out to conservatives, Republicans, Tea Partiers...whatever you self identify as.

First of all, Hello. I come from the Huffington Post but unfortunately, there is no civil or intelligent discourse to be found there between the two sides, only petty sniping and name-calling. I really want to ask my friends on the other side of the aisle about something that has been bothering me lately, and that is this co-opting of the term "socialist" as a dirty word in reference to our president and to Democrats in general. I am bothered in large part by the Tea Partiers seemingly misusing history to suit their agenda. They dress up like the founding fathers, they call themselves the Tea Party, but it seems to me most of them do not really understand our early American history, for if they did, they would realize that these arguments about bigger government/smaller government have been going on since the earliest foundation of our country.

What is now called "Conservatives vs Progressives" used to be called "Federalists vs Anti-Federalists", but the arguments were largely the same. The Tea Partiers seem unaware of this however, as they dress up in founding father costumes, they seem to believe every single founding father was for less government. This simply is not true.

I'm a big fan of history and it bothers me to see Americans perverting it to suit their own agendas. Another issue that bothers me is this sudden popularity of calling our president and his party "socialists" or "marxists" or even "communists". I don't understand this sudden need to make the word "socialist" a dirty word.  This country has been practicing socialism since Alexander Hamilton. We've never really had a purely free-market capitalist system. It has always been a mixed economy, with both capitalistic and socialistic elements. Socialist programs have also been enacted with much success. Are these programs perfect? no, of course not, but to pretend like it's some new and evil thing to champion social programs is strange and just seems flat out wrong to me. George Washington, though not a member of any political party, identified with the Federalist party and identified with big-government policies.

It's completely fine to me to disagree with a big-government approach to this issue or that issue, I'm not one of these liberal democrats who thinks every conservative is evil and wrong about everything, but when I see right-wingers calling left-wingers socialists, marxists or communists, I have a tough time taking them very seriously.

Thoughts? Opinions? Flames?

[Carl]

A couple of points...

You will find no group of folks that know and understand history then folks here so playing the "I am more educated then you" meme won`t get you far.

Second is that political terminoligy has shifted over the years and socialism as we consider it is the concept of an all powerfull central government that controls all measures of the economy.
It is probably more accurately regarded as Marxisim half way to the way of Communisim.
That is where history has shown leftisim always leads to be used as a system...enforced at the point of a sword.

Last as a staff member here I can see the email you registered and one that suggests former President Bush engages in a homosexual act doesn`t indicate a person looking for peaceful discource.

You can stay as long as you obey the rules but you are fair game so hope you packed a lunch.
You will run away crying in no time when you realize how far in over your head you are.

[Attero Dominatus]

Calling the left socialist is accurate because the left wants to tax the producers and redistribute the wealth, mostly to the 'poor,' who are filthy rich compared to the real poverty that is found in third world countries. Taxing the producers is a strong dis-incentive to hiring more people, or even trying to be successful. Why make a lot of money, if most of it is going to be stolen for the 'common good?'

Venezeula is on food rations because Hugo Chavez nationalized the economy and drove the producers out.

In addition to creating mutual poverty for all, wealth redistribution requires a powerful government by necessity, with a strong enforcement arm. The result is a ready made dictatorship that always ends up becoming a dictatorship.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Socialist is short-hand for government coopting private economic properties.

Short hand though it may be I have no qualms with using it.

If left to his own devises Obama would take away ever-increasing swathes of our economic and political freedoms.

If that taints him with the reek of such people as the Central and South America tin pots that he can shake hands with while reserving terms like "enemies" for (fellow) Americans then that is how he smells.

Don't like it?

Then tell YOUR president to stop stealing our property and our rights.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

BTW - if you're so wound-up about this term please explain his glowing accounts of such people as Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, Bernadine Dohrn, Van Jones, etc etc etc

These are not casual acquaintances, these are people who chosen to work with or have work for him.

If Obama/you are so nervous about the reek of socialism stop working with commie shit bags.

[RZZZA]

just ignore the email I used to register with, it's inconsequential to the discourse in this thread.

You guys say things like "redistribute the wealth" and "co-opting private economic properties" but in reality, all obama is proposing to do is rework the tax on the wealthiest members of our society. If that's socialism then you may as well call taxes in general socialism.

Just speaking in general terms, it seems like right wingers are against taxes but yet somehow want the budget to be balanced and social works projects like public education and paved roads to be done. How do you balance those two opposing thoughts? If it's generally accepted fact that the middle class has been shrinking for decades, that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, there really is no disagreement about the need to address that problem, only the means by which we should address it. Obama thinks trickle down economics hasn't worked out for the middle and lower economic class, he wants to raise taxes on the rich while keeping taxes for the poor and middle class the same. If we've tried trickle down economics for the past 30+ years and its resulted in what we saw happen to the economy in 2008, then why should we continue with what hasn't worked?

Raising taxes on the rich isn't unprecedented, FDR raised it the highest it's ever been in our countries history and those were hardly the end of days. Under Clinton, they were higher than they are now and you must agree that the economy was decent. Why should raising taxes on the rich be demagogue'd as some form of socialism, when that is clearly a scare-mongering tactic that's both disingenuous and irreconcilable with responsible & civil debate?

[TheSarge]

I'm a big fan of history and it bothers me to see Americans perverting it to suit their own agendas.

So then you must be pretty mad with your fellow Liberals these days then huh?

Another issue that bothers me is this sudden popularity of calling our president and his party "socialists" or "marxists" or even "communists".

Perhaps the bank takeovers...trying to limit what CEO's can make...placing restrictive regulations on Wall Street and the fact that under this President and his merry band of Socialists...that's right I said Socialists...they muscled their way into majority owner of two car companies.

Then theres universal (socialized) healthcare that punishes people and employers for not bowing to the will of the Federal Government and forcing them to carry insurance or get fined.

I don't understand this sudden need to make the word "socialist" a dirty word.

 

Then you aren't quite the student of history that you claim to be.

This country has been practicing socialism since Alexander Hamilton

Proof?

We've never really had a purely free-market capitalist system. It has always been a mixed economy, with both capitalistic and socialistic elements

I suppose you plan to back this up and not just expect us to swallow that BS whole.  This isn't HuffPo where shit gets shoveled and we just say thank you and ask for more.

Socialist programs have also been enacted with much success.

Name one.

Are these programs perfect? no, of course not, but to pretend like it's some new and evil thing to champion social programs is strange and just seems flat out wrong to me.

Why?  It's not new to anyone that has followed politics.  But people who champion trying to turn us into the mirror image of what Russia used to be and what China is today will always be evil and will ALWAYS be wrong.

George Washington, though not a member of any political party, identified with the Federalist party and identified with big-government policies.

*cough* bullshit *cough*

One thing to learn here n00b.  You can't just waltz in here and spout Liberal platitudes and talking points and get away with it.  This is an educated bunch and you beeter have solid proof to back up this line of BS you've started.

[dandi]

Oh, this is going to be fun...

[Attero Dominatus]

You guys say things like "redistribute the wealth" and "co-opting private economic properties" but in reality, all obama is proposing to do is rework the tax on the wealthiest members of our society. If that's socialism then you may as well call taxes in general socialism.

He and his party want to raise taxes on everyone making more than 250,000 dollars a year.

Just speaking in general terms, it seems like right wingers are against taxes but yet somehow want the budget to be balanced and social works projects like public education and paved roads to be done. How do you balance those two opposing thoughts? If it's generally accepted fact that the middle class has been shrinking for decades, that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, there really is no disagreement about the need to address that problem, only the means by which we should address it. Obama thinks trickle down economics hasn't worked out for the middle and lower economic class, he wants to raise taxes on the rich while keeping taxes for the poor and middle class the same. If we've tried trickle down economics for the past 30+ years and its resulted in what we saw happen to the economy in 2008, then why should we continue with what hasn't worked?

The housing bubble burst was the result of the Community Reinvestment Act, enacted by the Clinton administration, forcing lenders to loan to people who could not pay back the loans.

Raising taxes on the rich isn't unprecedented, FDR raised it the highest it's ever been in our countries history and those were hardly the end of days. Under Clinton, they were higher than they are now and you must agree that the economy was decent. Why should raising taxes on the rich be demagogue'd as some form of socialism, when that is clearly a scare-mongering tactic that's both disingenuous and irreconcilable with responsible & civil debate?

Please see my earlier post.

[thundley4]

Oh, this is going to be fun...

[TheSarge]

You guys say things like "redistribute the wealth" and "co-opting private economic properties" but in reality, all obama is proposing to do is rework the tax on the wealthiest members of our society.

That is class warfare rhetoric pure and simple. It's no different than what Lenin did in the early 20th Century to start a Revolution and turn a country towards 70+ years of disaster.

Those "wealthiest members of our society' pay 95% of the taxes in the country already.  Yet that's not enough for you Libs...there always has to be more taken to pay for your failed and bloated social welfare programs...gotta buy more votes and scare more people into voting for your crap with MY money.  

We have almost half of the country that doesn't pay taxes as it is.  We fought against England over confiscatory tax rates.  For someone who studies history...your research doesn't go very far back.  If it did you'd understand why people are angry over this blatant power grab and unprescedented expansion of the reach and scope of the Federal Government over the last two years.

If that's socialism then you may as well call taxes in general socialism.

More Liberal pabulum.

Just speaking in general terms, it seems like right wingers are against taxes but yet somehow want the budget to be balanced and social works projects like public education and paved roads to be done.

Give it back to the states where it was originally.

How do you balance those two opposing thoughts?

How are they opposing thoughts?  It's been proven throughout history...there's that word again...that when the taxes are cut...the revenue to the Federal Government goes up.

If it's generally accepted fact that the middle class has been shrinking for decades, that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, there really is no disagreement about the need to address that problem, only the means by which we should address it. Obama thinks trickle down economics hasn't worked out for the middle and lower economic class, he wants to raise taxes on the rich while keeping taxes for the poor and middle class the same. If we've tried trickle down economics for the past 30+ years and its resulted in what we saw happen to the economy in 2008, then why should we continue with what hasn't worked?

More Liberal boilerplate.  Are you reading from a teleprompter?

Raising taxes on the rich isn't unprecedented, FDR raised it the highest it's ever been in our countries history and those were hardly the end of days. Under Clinton, they were higher than they are now and you must agree that the economy was decent. Why should raising taxes on the rich be demagogue'd as some form of socialism, when that is clearly a scare-mongering tactic that's both disingenuous and irreconcilable with responsible & civil debate?

Obama has been only second to FDR in trying to lurch this country hard to the left and give us Socialism.  His policies...like Obamas actually delayed recovery from prolonged economic downturn.  The ONLY thing that saved this country from a continued depression under FDR was WW II.

Why should we be told that people who are successful should be punished for their hard work and effort by having their money confiscated by the Government and given to someone who didn't do anything to earn it?

[Odin's Hand]

Bitchslapped for not having the sack to carry your communist banner before you. Mao would've personally put one in your brain stem if he saw that kind attitude in Jiangxi Soviet.

[TheSarge]

just ignore the email I used to register with, it's inconsequential to the discourse in this thread.

Oh I think it has EVERYTHING to do with how the discourse of this thread will go.

This isn't our first rodeo with a Liberal that decides to come here and bombard us with lengthy posts of pure 100% talking points.

Eventually your script ends and you've got nothing left...especially when we take your argument apart point by point...which will happen BTW.

That's when the meltdown will begin and that moronic email addy you signed up with will prove once again that it was all we needed to know about where you were coming from in the first place.

[RZZZA]

oh please, I'm not embarrassed to be proven wrong and I'm not worried about looking stupid. If I was worried about looking stupid, I would never have the guts to say anything.

I also don't claim to be smarter than you all or more right about anything, I simply stated that it seems wrong for Tea Partiers to claim the imagery and spirit of the founding fathers in the name of smaller government when many of the founding fathers were supportive of larger government.

I'd like to continue this eventually but unfortunately, for now, I have real life things to attend to. Thanks to everyone for replying and being civil thus far. We obviously disagree bu the relative civility of our Republic always swells my heart with pride for my country.

[Attero Dominatus]

oh please, I'm not embarrassed to be proven wrong and I'm not worried about looking stupid. If I was worried about looking stupid, I would never have the guts to say anything.

I also don't claim to be smarter than you all or more right about anything, I simply stated that it seems wrong for Tea Partiers to claim the imagery and spirit of the founding fathers in the name of smaller government when many of the founding fathers were supportive of larger government.

I'd like to continue this eventually but unfortunately, for now, I have real life things to attend to. Thanks to everyone for replying and being civil thus far. We obviously disagree bu the relative civility of our Republic always swells my heart with pride for my country.

The constitution was written to limit the government's power, and by extension, its size.

[ExGeeEye]

Socialism is a dirty word, at least to us.  It has previously appeared in such contexts as "the National Socialist German Workers' Party" and "the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."

I can understand to point of view of someone who would pint out that the use of the word "Republic" is not necessarily tarnished by being a part of the name of the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"; however, it should be noticeable that North Korea makes no pretense of actually being either "Democratic" or a "Republic" in any meaningful way.

Socialism, as I understand it, is neither more nor less than a Command State, with a Command Economy, where the State has either supreme regulatory control (Fascism), operational control (a form of "democratic" Socialism) or outright ownership (Soviet Communism) of industry, agriculture, the works.

In this country we have had severe regulatory controls for decades.  Only in the last couple of years have we seen the State take operational control and de facto ownership of a company (GM) (ownership meaning that the Head of State had the authority to order the firing of the CEO!).

Operational Control of banks and lending institutions is also a new fact of life.  Industry, under the Cap and Trade rules, is in for the same fate.  Don't get me started on State meddling with agriculture, please...

We conservatives and Tea Party people want a lot of different things, and there are things some of us want that others of us don't.  For me the bottom line is The Constitution (COTUS), as amended.  Go back to that, and everything else I'm after will fall into place.

There are four adjustments I would like to make to COTUS: outright repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments (income tax, and popular election of Senators), adjustment to the 14th (so that only children of citizens or legal aliens are themselves birthright citizens) and adjustment to the 2nd (making all firearms regulation impermissible).

[Carl]

just ignore the email I used to register with, it's inconsequential to the discourse in this thread.

You guys say things like "redistribute the wealth" and "co-opting private economic properties" but in reality, all obama is proposing to do is rework the tax on the wealthiest members of our society. If that's socialism then you may as well call taxes in general socialism.

Just speaking in general terms, it seems like right wingers are against taxes but yet somehow want the budget to be balanced and social works projects like public education and paved roads to be done. How do you balance those two opposing thoughts? If it's generally accepted fact that the middle class has been shrinking for decades, that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, there really is no disagreement about the need to address that problem, only the means by which we should address it. Obama thinks trickle down economics hasn't worked out for the middle and lower economic class, he wants to raise taxes on the rich while keeping taxes for the poor and middle class the same. If we've tried trickle down economics for the past 30+ years and its resulted in what we saw happen to the economy in 2008, then why should we continue with what hasn't worked?

Raising taxes on the rich isn't unprecedented, FDR raised it the highest it's ever been in our countries history and those were hardly the end of days. Under Clinton, they were higher than they are now and you must agree that the economy was decent. Why should raising taxes on the rich be demagogue'd as some form of socialism, when that is clearly a scare-mongering tactic that's both disingenuous and irreconcilable with responsible & civil debate?

You can say ignore your email but it is at polar opposites to what you claim to be here fore...civil discourse.
That in my book makes you a liar.

Now as to your talking points,there is no one here that is an anarchist and says that there should be no government.
We all understand the Constitutional mandate for a limited federal government and the need for a state one.
Taxes or other means is of course needed to fund that mandate but no where is there a Constitutional "social contract",the founders never once envisioned that.

We have a republic so it is fair for items to be put on the table regarding governmental activities and how they are funded,if the public wants some form of welfare safety net and is willing to vote the means of funding it at their own sacrifice then fine.
When a party declares it has the right to confiscate money to provide a welfare state with no strings attached then it is no longer government by Constitutional constraints.

That is what we oppose in all forms.

Is that clear enough for you?

[Carl]

He has left already,that didn`t take long.

[RZZZA]

I'll be back, I just don't have time right now to devote to this. I have to eat, then I have to do my work, then I have to leave the house.  I didn't anticipate this forum to be so active.

Look, guys, I'm just going to admit right now that I'm not that smart. I'm a fan of history, true, but I'm not a history professor. I'm a young student with questions, that's why I wanted to seek out a conservative forum, to ask questions.

[TVDOC]

He has left already,that didn`t take long.

And you were just getting warmed up.......

doc

[Thor]

I'll admit that the new chew toy poster is right in one instance. We HAVE been practicing some form of "Socialism" for a long while. If I recall, it started under Teddy Roosevelt, a Progressive in his day, escalated under Wilson and further escalated under FDR. Harry Truman didn't do much to escalate Socialism, but LBJ did, especially when he started with affirmative action and welfare programs. Obama has attempted to bring it to an entire NEW level. What else do you call it when one takes from one person (by coercion) and gives it to another?? I'm sorry, but the Dems or Liberals are NOT "Robin Hood". Furthermore, Robin Hood stole from the GOVERNMENT of the day, who WERE the "Rich", and gave it back to the peasants who worked hard for what little they DID have. Pretty much, he stole BACK from the Government what they forcefully stole from the poor.

[TheSarge]

oh please, I'm not embarrassed to be proven wrong and I'm not worried about looking stupid. If I was worried about looking stupid, I would never have the guts to say anything.

Well yeah it does take something akin to guts to say that a woman deserved to get punched. (Snooki ring a bell genius?)

I also don't claim to be smarter than you all or more right about anything, I simply stated that it seems wrong for Tea Partiers to claim the imagery and spirit of the founding fathers in the name of smaller government when many of the founding fathers were supportive of larger government.

Name one.  You keep spouting off this stuff without anything to back it up.

Quick...now run back to HuffPo and ask for help on this one.

I'd like to continue this eventually but unfortunately, for now, I have real life things to attend to. Thanks to everyone for replying and being civil thus far. We obviously disagree bu the relative civility of our Republic always swells my heart with pride for my country.

Nah didn't see this coming.

[TheSarge]

n00b you claim that it's not fair that the "rich" aren't paying "their fair share".

Ok...explain this then:





The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%). The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%). The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%). The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%). The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.

Source: IRS  www.irs.gov

[JohnnyReb]

Y'all are doing a good job on the socialist.

I just wanted to add that the first Tea Party was in Charleston, S.C. and they didn't throw the tea in the sea. They put it in a warehouse and then sold it to buy weapons for the Revolution. ...rich, evil, tightwad conservatives that they were.

[RZZZA]

Well yeah it does take something akin to guts to say that a woman deserved to get punched. (Snooki ring a bell genius?)

huh?