Nice to see that you would not call a country socialsit, even if members of the cabinet and even the President were members of the Socialst Party. --- call a spade a spade
On Mar 7, 5:24 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > KIT, > > Just keeping you honest lad, practically a full time job when > conservatives are involved. :-) > > Nice to see that you would not call a country socialsit, even if > members of the cabinet and even the President were members of the > Socialst Party. Oh, unless it served your political agenda to do so. > > On Mar 7, 2:22 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 10:17 PM, studio took issue with this statement by > > me: > > > *"It is very, "black and white". There is no socialistic program that > > has worked in this Nation, period." * > > > Stu-Stu-Studio went on to pontificate: > > > *"Does that include the military? > > Do you get your mail delivered regularly? > > Belong to any groups? > > Ever had to call for an ambulance, firemen, police? > > Ever take a loan out? > > Ever go to school? > > Belong to a political party? > > Ever drove on a road? > > Ever used the Internet?" > > > "You can spin your wheels all you want, but the fact is; these are are all > > social programs in one way or another. > > > But let me add... > > > Social Security > > Medicare > > MedicAide > > * > > *You're living in a fantasy land of flawed ideology." > > > * > > > ** > > ** > > *=========================* > > ** > > Let's review: > > > First, let's take a look at what the definition of "Socialism" really is: > > > "Date: 1837. From Latin socialis for "friend" or "companion" or > > "associate". Any of various economic and political theories advocating > > collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of > > production and distribution of goods; usually there is no private property; > > in Marxist theory this is also considered just a transitional stage between > > capitalism and communism and it is distinguished by unequal distribution of > > goods and pay according to work done." > > > The above definition is by Mr. John Spargo, from his work titled: > > "Socialism, A Summary And Interpretation Of Socialist Principles" (McMillan > > & Co. 1913). Below is the Wiki definition, which is quite similar. > > > "Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or > > governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and > > distribution of goods. A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional > > between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution > > of goods and pay according to work done" > > > ============ > > > So. How does the definition of "Socialism" apply to Stu's posts? Well, > > let's take a look. > > > Take a loan out?? Join a political party? Drive on a road? Mail > > delivery? The internet?? Obviously, Stu doesn't understand the concept > > of, nor the definition of "Socialism". This isn't surprising, most > > liberal/progressives don't know what they speak of when they start > > attempting to define and describe political ideologies. > > > With regard to the military, I will grant you that Stu is correct in a > > small sense. The United States military does in fact practice a sense of > > skewed socialsim. > > > By example, soldiers, sailors and airmen are subsidized, by giving them a > > housing allowance. By example, here in Tampa, all of the airmen from > > McDill Air Force Base get a housing allowance from the Air Force. As a > > result, local landlords are able to jack up the prices to otherwise > > untenable levels. Only the non-military folks are affected. Here is but one > > example where socialism in our society is a dismal failure. > > > In this and other ways, people who join the United States Armed Forces are > > taken care of. They are fed, provided for by cheap or free transportation > > and accommodations, and given discounts on groceries and other goods. All > > this, thanks to collectivized production with taxpayer dollars. > > If you're dropping off the bottom rung of the social ladder in America, the > > safety net of the military is there to catch you, and provide an attractive > > alternative to the hell of split shifts of minimum wage work. Just a few > > caveats: you have to be willing to kill others and die for your country. > > So, in general, the military practices not only a hybrid kind of socialism, > > that views a relative increase in economic well-being as a means to an end > > (ensuring a supply of cannon fodder, for example), rather than an end in > > itself. > > > To suggest that Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security are working well, is > > laughable, and a typical Moonbat response. I had thought Stu was a little > > more perceptive than that. We'll address these government boondoggles in a > > future post, but I wanted to get something up to address Stu's post, before > > Holly wet his pants in anticipation. > > > *===============* > > ** > > Stu apparently disagrees with these statements that I wrote: > > > *"There is no socialistic form of government, that has been successful, > > anywhere, period".* > > ** > > *"Show me any socialist Nation-State, or communist Nation-State that > > is working successfully. Show me one successful socialistic program in > > this Nation that is working well. Just one, pick any one that you think you > > can defend."* > > ** > > As Stu went on to say:* > > * > > > *"Sure there is, the world is full of them by your own measures, you > > complain about them all the time."* > > ** > > ====== > > > In another post, contained within this thread, I am assuming that Stu > > references these Nation-States, as being huge successes with their > > socialistic programs: > > > ** > > *Stu said:* > > > *"Well much like any labels you try to use, it doesn't much matter. Chile > > (although it's a Republic...I know you love the sound of that)...Frei > > Ruiz-Tagle was succeeded in 2000 by *Socialist* Ricardo Lagos, who won the > > presidency in an unprecedented runoff election against Joaquín Lavín of the > > rightist Alliance for Chile. In January 2006, Chileans elected their first > > female president, Michelle Bachelet Jeria, of the *Socialist* Party."* > > > Stu?? Uhm.....Are you suggesting that Chile has just now become > > "socialist"?? Remember Salvador Allende, followed by the Dictator > > Pinochet? How'd that work out? Are you here to suggest that Chile has been > > this model of socialist ingenuity, and that their economy is something that > > we should aspire to? That any other third world, or fourth world > > Nation-State should attempt to emulate Chile's economy or political > > structure? Both are dismal failures!! > > > The new Chilean Socialist-led government's economy minister is a > > conservative, MIT-trained economist. Its finance minister is a > > Harvard-trained former International Monetary Fund bureaucrat. So the heavy > > dose of "free market" orthodoxy in its economic program is hardly > > surprising. The Lagos administration has worked to accelerate Chile's > > integration into the world capitalist economy, seeking a NAFTA-like "free > > trade" agreement with the United States. It has pledged to step up the > > privatization of state assets. The government's plans for the state copper > > company, which accounts for nearly 20% of Chile's export earnings, include > > joint ventures with multinational corporations and investment by private > > mutual funds. Meanwhile, one of Lagos's key economic advisors has called for > > the privatization of the state oil company. The government has also made it > > a top priority to balance the budget, whose 1999 deficit was equal to 1.5% > > of Chile's gross domestic product (GDP), in order to keep inflation and > > interest rates down - in other words, to make Chile a profitable place to > > invest. > > > I'll address the rest of your missive(s) in an additional post, maybe > > tonight, or maybe tomorrow, but as stated, I wanted to get something written > > before Holly has a hissy fit... -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
