Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Soshalizm

  • 21-04-2010 08:08PM
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭


    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2010/tea_party_48_obama_44

    Apparently the Tea Party is garnering 4% more support than Obama at the moment.

    Is anyone else seriously worried about this? There's nothing Obama's done that would make people go over to the tea party as an alternative, really. Although I doubt most americans bothered to read his policies.

    Most of all though, it shows quite how Xenophobic americans are that they oppose a "Socialism" that's quite common in Europe. I fear for the safety of the earth if this is the state of our primary super power.


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,638 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    their fear of socialism isnt irrational but what is going on isnt socialism thats for sure

    the tea party movement has some very valid points though and its not suprising that they are getting support but they are not going to take over or anything they are just another wing of the republicans right now


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭Sandvich


    their fear of socialism isnt irrational

    Sorry, but it kind of is. Unless you believe Sweden is a scary place?

    Granted it's not proper "socialist", but it's significantly more socialist and less scary than the US.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Denerick


    I really hope to God these gun wielding nutjobs fill out every public space in the USA come November. Let ordinary voters see them for what they are. Let them ruin the Republican primaries by pushing them a few miles into the Republican Right, and lose contact forever with the moderate majority of America.

    I've no doubt the Dems will lose a couple dozen house seats and a couple of Senate seats, but not many more than that. Not if these crazies take up anymore of the nations political airwaves.

    Or maybe I over-estimate Americans.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Sandvich wrote: »
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2010/tea_party_48_obama_44

    Apparently the Tea Party is garnering 4% more support than Obama at the moment.

    Is anyone else seriously worried about this? There's nothing Obama's done that would make people go over to the tea party as an alternative, really. Although I doubt most americans bothered to read his policies.

    Most of all though, it shows quite how Xenophobic americans are that they oppose a "Socialism" that's quite common in Europe. I fear for the safety of the earth if this is the state of our primary super power.


    So this is the evolution of Tea Party bashing. It started out they were loons, then radicals, now it’s racists, and looks like tomorrow it will be anarchists as they will be causing “fear for the safety of the earth.” :pac: Maybe one day they will be tagged with the correct moniker: Concerned Citizens.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭Sandvich


    Amerika wrote: »
    So this is the evolution of Tea Party bashing. It started out they were loons, then radicals, now it’s racists, and looks like tomorrow it will be anarchists as they will be causing “fear for the safety of the earth.” :pac: Maybe one day they will be tagged with the correct moniker: Concerned Citizens.

    I'm sorry, but the fact that most of these people don't even understand what socialism is, is a fact and a dangerous one at that.

    Instead of dealing with the argument at hand, you look for a way to defame it. Again, this is intellectual dishonesty.

    Do you realise that to anyone else on this forum reading your posts, you don't sound like a real person? That makes the "Concerned citizen" thing hard to swallow.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Amerika wrote: »
    So this is the evolution of Tea Party bashing. It started out they were loons, then radicals, now it’s racists, and looks like tomorrow it will be anarchists as they will be causing “fear for the safety of the earth.” :pac: Maybe one day they will be tagged with the correct moniker: Concerned Citizens.

    They would be considered concerned citizens if they stopped listening to fire breathing morons like Rush Limbaugh. Face it, the far right has ruined American politics with its constant shower of sensationalism and prejudice. Its the equivilent of having Jackie Healy Rae roaring down a microphone every day, screaming about how ludicrous homosexuals are and that they should be burnt at the stake.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭Sandvich


    Denerick wrote: »
    They would be considered concerned citizens if they stopped listening to fire breathing morons like Rush Limbaugh. Face it, the far right has ruined American politics with its constant shower of sensationalism and prejudice. Its the equivilent of having Jackie Healy Rae roaring down a microphone every day, screaming about how ludicrous homosexuals are and that they should be burnt at the stake.

    Ireland is a conservative country by european standards, but we still generally don't take **** like that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Denerick wrote: »
    I've no doubt the Dems will lose a couple dozen house seats and a couple of Senate seats, but not many more than that. Not if these crazies take up anymore of the nations political airwaves.

    Or maybe I over-estimate Americans.

    Wanna make a bet? I say they lose the senate proper. And it will be close in the house, which I also think will move to (R) if this administration keeps putting forth imbecilic ideas like cap-and-trade, amnesty and more nanny-state initiatives .


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Amerika wrote: »
    Wanna make a bet? I say they lose the senate proper. And it will be close in the house, which I also think will move to (R) if this administration keeps putting forth imbecilic ideas like cap-and-trade, amnesty and more nanny-state initiatives .

    The country may not like the Democrats but they certainly don't like the kind of insane rhetoric of the tea party movement. What I find most amusing is their insistence of getting the government out of their health system, even though the pre-Obama reforms had the government spending more per person on healthcare than many European countries. Yet these people, when they're pensioners, will be more than happy to accept that awfully socialist institution - medicare...

    Also, I honestly think that the more moderate Americans who see the tea partiers screaming in public spaces the better. America is a crazy place but most people really don't have the stomach for that kind of radical crap. Its the anti war demonstrators and the Democrats all over again (The left wing of the Democrat party ruined McGovern in 1972)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭Sandvich


    Denerick; unfortunately it appears they may prefer it to Obama from the results in the thread.

    Thus my worry.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Sandvich wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but the fact that most of these people don't even understand what socialism is, is a fact and a dangerous one at that.

    Instead of dealing with the argument at hand, you look for a way to defame it. Again, this is intellectual dishonesty.

    Do you realise that to anyone else on this forum reading your posts, you don't sound like a real person? That makes the "Concerned citizen" thing hard to swallow.

    Okay, since you claim to be so knowledgable, please explain to us here in the states what an American form of socialism would be, not European socialism. Then explain why we are NOT moving in that path. Please enlighten us poor unfortunate souls.

    America became the greatest nation by consistently remaining a center right country. I prefer to keep it that way, unless you can prove to me otherwise. And don't be afraid to use history. I sure will.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭Sandvich


    Amerika wrote: »
    Okay, since you claim to be so knowledgable, please explain to us here in the states what an American form of socialism would be, not European socialism.

    What? This doesn't make any sense. Europe is not one country, so obviously, has different forms of economic systems, many of which are considerably more "socialist" than the US.
    Then explain why we are NOT moving in that path. Please enlighten us poor unfortunate souls.

    Because of people like you, who are quite frankly, ignorant or dishonest when it comes to this subject.
    America became the greatest nation by consistently remaining a center right country. I prefer to keep it that way, unless you can prove to me otherwise. And don't be afraid to use history. I sure will.

    You're still veering away from the subject at hand. It seems you put any mental faculties you happen to have into making the argument difficult(not the same as asking "hard questions").

    What is about Sweden that's so bad in the way it's run? Or Denmark? And is there nothing the US could learn from them? Can you explain why Socialism is so bad without answering in a typical right wing 1 or 2 line slogan?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    So how could Sweden or Denmark's form of socialism benefit America? Or is it too hard of a question?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭Sandvich


    Amerika wrote: »
    So how could Sweden or Denmark's form of socialism benefit America? Or is it too hard of a question?

    You're the person rallying against socialism in general - how about you tell me what's wrong with it?

    Obviously, Denmark and Sweden work as countries. So what is the issue with socialism?

    Sweden has universal coverage with it's healthcare and costs less on average than the US system(and by a significant amount). How is that not beneficial?

    Sweden's unemployment level is consistantly not terribly different than the US's(often less in fact), so obviously the "Welfare state" doesn't have the kind of negative effects you'd like to claim. Sweden has excellent services overall and very high broadband penetration. Since the mentality in sweden doesn't place as much emphasis on work for the sake of putting hairs on your chest, people seem to work better. Swedish design and engineering is something positive. American design and engineering? Not quite as much.

    Is there something in American culture that makes it incompatible with this? If so; then that needs to be corrected instead of socialist hybrid systems being shunned.

    And it STILL doesn't change the fact that Tea Partiers are calling something socialism that isn't - you still haven't addressed this.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    Sandvich wrote: »
    Sorry, but it kind of is. Unless you believe Sweden is a scary place?

    Granted it's not proper "socialist", but it's significantly more socialist and less scary than the US.

    This might be slightly off topic but in reality Sweden is a tax haven for very wealthy people who in reality pay very little taxes. Through an investment vehicle called "kapitalförsäkring" you can pay very little taxes on profits and dividends from equities. Sweden a tax haven for investors http://www.thelocal.se/25756/20100326/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    Sandvich wrote: »
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2010/tea_party_48_obama_44

    Apparently the Tea Party is garnering 4% more support than Obama at the moment.

    Is anyone else seriously worried about this? There's nothing Obama's done that would make people go over to the tea party as an alternative, really. Although I doubt most americans bothered to read his policies.

    Most of all though, it shows quite how Xenophobic americans are that they oppose a "Socialism" that's quite common in Europe. I fear for the safety of the earth if this is the state of our primary super power.

    The Tea Party movement is the voice for real change in America. The Democrats and Republican only serve their corporate masters.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭Sandvich


    SLUSK wrote: »
    This might be slightly off topic but in reality Sweden is a tax haven for very wealthy people who in reality pay very little taxes. Through an investment vehicle called "kapitalförsäkring" you can pay very little taxes on profits and dividends from equities. Sweden a tax haven for investors http://www.thelocal.se/25756/20100326/

    That's a shame, but that's an evidence of a lack of socialist policy, not the opposite. Currently the "right" are in the power in Sweden(still more left leaning than the dems) so I suppose things like this might happen.

    Also, most Swedes don't complain about taxes. They get their moneys worth.

    You shouild probably read the whole article too.
    “In the States this type of thing would be totally exploited. Not in Sweden. I think it has to do with the Swede’s introverted nature or even a sense of guilt,” says Quentin Helgren.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭Sandvich


    SLUSK wrote: »
    The Tea Party movement is the voice for real change in America. The Democrats and Republican only serve their corporate masters.

    Another slogan.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Exactly. Most of their posts seems to be recycled from radical blogs. They could probably set up a bot and it would be just as convincing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Sandvich wrote: »
    You're the person rallying against socialism in general - how about you tell me what's wrong with it?

    Obviously, Denmark and Sweden work as countries. So what is the issue with socialism?

    Sweden has universal coverage with it's healthcare and costs less on average than the US system(and by a significant amount). How is that not beneficial?

    Sweden's unemployment level is consistantly not terribly different than the US's(often less in fact), so obviously the "Welfare state" doesn't have the kind of negative effects you'd like to claim. Sweden has excellent services overall and very high broadband penetration. Since the mentality in sweden doesn't place as much emphasis on work for the sake of putting hairs on your chest, people seem to work better. Swedish design and engineering is something positive. American design and engineering? Not quite as much.

    Is there something in American culture that makes it incompatible with this? If so; then that needs to be corrected instead of socialist hybrid systems being shunned.

    And it STILL doesn't change the fact that Tea Partiers are calling something socialism that isn't - you still haven't addressed this.

    We are moving towards socialism. We already have components of it in social security and medicare/medicaid. Many Americans equate socialism with a redistribution of wealth. This also is already happening as 47% of families here do not pay income taxes. The people of America, a center right country, have always believed in having a chance for success through hard work. We have a culture of not having guaranteed success nor do most of us want to be taken care of. We have a culture that feels people that work hard should not have to pay for those who don’t want to work as hard. The disadvantaged are another story. If you don't work hard, then too bad (sounds tough, but that is the culture here). We equate much of the undesirability of wealth distribution with socialism. It may not be socialism proper, but this is the perception here. The only thing most of want is the equality of opportunity, not wealth. Unfortunately this is changing, and part of what the Tea Party is all about.

    I often hear of Sweden’s form of socialism touted as if it were heaven on earth. So I'll ask you the question, why is Cuba, North Korea, much of Africa, Latin and Central America’s form of socialism more like hell on earth?


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Its dishonest to imply that the Democratic Party want America to evolve into a North Korea/Cuba type system.

    Strawmen are a lot easier to knock over I'll grant you.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Sandvich wrote: »
    Sorry, but it kind of is. Unless you believe Sweden is a scary place?

    Granted it's not proper "socialist", but it's significantly more socialist and less scary than the US.
    Well then you look at Ireland and you have basically the American Antithesis. We don't really want that. Your neighbour's on a 2 year wait list to have his cataract removed; nobody can even bother to get out and politically protest; all self defense items have been outlawed; the gross levels of taxation; etc.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Amerika wrote: »
    I often hear of Sweden’s form of socialism touted as if it were heaven on earth. So I'll ask you the question, why is Cuba, North Korea, much of Africa, Latin and Central America’s form of socialism more like hell on earth?
    Sweden is not Socialist.
    Cuba, North Korea, much of Africa, Latin and Central America are not Socialist.
    The Soviet Union was not Socialist.

    Socialism is a form of state in which resources are paid "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution"

    Please do not try to pass off a dictatorship as Socialism. That won't wash here.

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭Sandvich


    Amerika wrote: »
    We are moving towards socialism. We already have components of it in social security and medicare/medicaid. Many Americans equate socialism with a redistribution of wealth. This also is already happening as 47% of families here do not pay income taxes. The people of America, a center right country, have always believed in having a chance for success through hard work.

    So all people who have loads of money worked honestly for it? Someone earning a thousand times as much as a toilet scrubber works a thousand times as hard?

    Yeah, right. And they're rarely a thousand times as valuable either.
    We have a culture of not having guaranteed success nor do most of us want to be taken care of.

    Um, sorry, but this is a stupid statement. You do not have "guaranteed success" in Scandanavia. Not everyone is the CEO of Nokia or the invetor of Linux.

    At the end of the day - it's not about whether YOU want to be taken care of. It's about the fact that you do not want OTHERS to be taken care of. People who would die under a more libertarian system are seen as "necessary sacrifices" - but you shy away from outright admitting this.

    Nobody has notable less value of life in Scandanavia because of their economic system.

    In fact, I'd suggest your system, which only values money and "Hard work"(which is in theory mindless repetitive labour, and in practice lucking out on the stock markets) decreases "soulfulness" since it encourages selfish values.

    Again, you're just throwing a bunch of slogans together. You're not explaining to me WHY this is good, WHY this is bad.

    "We don't want to be taken care of" - you don't want to be taken care of, obviously, others do. A system like left leaning european states have does not prevent you from succeeding or failing in your endeavours.

    It only prevents you from failing so hard you end up in a dumpster.

    Why is this such a valuable feature of capitalism?

    I think you've been sold too many "American dream" stories about Hobos running baseball teams.
    We have a culture that feels people that work hard should not have to pay for those who don’t want to work as hard.

    Except it doesn't work out like that, on a number of levels.

    People who work (with some exceptions due to a screwed up system in Ireland) will make more money than those that don't. This is a fact.

    Also, how do you know it's "don't want"? What if some people just aren't built for 9 to 5 jobs as readily as others? What about people with disabilities that make it difficult to work?

    The amount of money you pay towards people who "Don't want" to work is small compared to other money sinks, and no large amount out of your pocket personally.

    When you get into justification between work and earning; that's when redistribution of wealth REALLY comes in. After all; how hard do you work? If people who work less or not at all deserve little or no money; how much do you deserve? Wages do not generally directly reflect someone's worth or how hard they work.

    So, the logical extent of this system is that we tax everyone in such a way that they earn money according to their as closely as possible. Because overpaid positions will always exist, as well as underpaid.

    Libertarianism is a load of old bollocks primarily for the reason that you're CONSTANTLY using things the government provides for you. Regulations and standards in building and food safety, for example. The same government that protects you in this manner is the same one that protects people from ending up in a dumpster. This is a fair cop.
    The disadvantaged are another story. If you don't work hard, then too bad (sounds tough, but that is the culture here). We equate much of the undesirability of wealth distribution with socialism. It may not be socialism proper, but this is the perception here. The only thing most of want is the equality of opportunity, not wealth. Unfortunately this is changing, and part of what the Tea Party is all about.

    "Unfortunately"? Then why are countries like Sweden overall better to live in?

    Equality of opportunity is a load of **** too, since people are not put on a level playing field. Your background, upbringing, race, sex, physical capabilities, attention span, whatever, all have a huge effect on how successful you are in western capitalism.

    To ensure real equality of opportunity; you have to protect it. And being a "Conservative libertarian" you like to believe everything sorts itself out. But obviously, it doesn't.
    I often hear of Sweden’s form of socialism touted as if it were heaven on earth. So I'll ask you the question, why is Cuba, North Korea, much of Africa, Latin and Central America’s form of socialism more like hell on earth?

    Are you really this thick? Socialism is an economic model. Countries that are dictatorships obviously are going to have issues, and many of those examples aren't even socialist. Also, Cuba was a third world country before it was "socialist", essentially. It was never a paradise in modern times.

    Why are you even asking this question? Right wingers only ask these kind of questions if they're rhetorical. So what's your answer for it? Why is Sweden different to North Korea?

    I think it's pretty immature that instead of having a real argument against Scandanavia, you try to bring up North Korea. How ridiculous. This is the exactly the kind of nonsense tactics people hate american right wingers for.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭Sandvich


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Sweden is not Socialist.
    Cuba, North Korea, much of Africa, Latin and Central America are not Socialist.
    The Soviet Union was not Socialist.

    Socialism is a form of state in which resources are paid "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution"

    Please do not try to pass off a dictatorship as Socialism. That won't wash here.

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

    Sweden is a socialist hybrid state, officially and in practice. There are no true "Socialist" states in existence to my knowledge - but socialism has many different meanings. Otherwise you're stuck with one that probably doesn't work that well since nobody ever evolves it.

    What the Scandanavian states have works pretty well for a most part. There are flaws, things are quite expensive there(depending on the country), but overall it's a better system.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Sandvich wrote: »
    This is the exactly the kind of nonsense tactics people hate american right wingers for.
    You seem to be filled with a lot of hate.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭Sandvich


    Amerika wrote: »
    You seem to be filled with a lot of hate.

    But this is one of those tactics too! You may as well be a spambot.

    Are you going to ignore the rest of my post due to that comment, which is a statement of fact?

    Yes; I am filled with a lot of hate. I hate bad debating and writing off poltical slogans as meaty ideologies. I fail to say how this compares with the negative connotations "Hate" normally has.

    Nearly every tactic you use would get thrown out in a real debate.

    Also; need I remind you -

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055396904

    You're tippytoeing very close to this line; if not already over it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Sandvich wrote: »
    Sweden is a socialist hybrid state, officially and in practice. There are no true "Socialist" states in existence to my knowledge - but socialism has many different meanings. Otherwise you're stuck with one that probably doesn't work that well since nobody ever evolves it.
    Marx had laid out what Socialism is and Sweden is not Socialist. They may call themselves so but they aren't.

    Here's a quote from wikipedia:
    wikipedia wrote:
    The Marxist conception of socialism is that of a specific historical phase that will displace capitalism and precede communism. The major characteristics of socialism (particularly as conceived by Marx and Engels after the Paris Commune of 1871), are that the proletariat will control the means of production through a workers' state erected by the workers in their interests. Economic activity is still organised through the use of incentive systems and social classes would still exist but to a lesser and diminishing extent than under capitalism.
    This does not tie in with what Sweden is or ever was.

    Instead Sweden is a Social Democratic country. Big difference.
    Sandvich wrote: »
    What the Scandanavian states have works pretty well for a most part. There are flaws, things are quite expensive there(depending on the country), but overall it's a better system.
    Agree with this, but I can't help thinking Norway was helped along a lot by its Oil.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Amerika wrote: »
    You seem to be filled with a lot of hate.
    And teabaggers aren't ?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭Sandvich


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Marx had laid out what Socialism is and Sweden is not Socialist. They may call themselves so but they aren't.

    Here's a quote from wikipedia:

    This does not tie in with what Sweden is or ever was.

    Instead Sweden is a Social Democratic country. Big difference.


    Agree with this, but I can't help thinking Norway was helped along a lot by its Oil.

    But "Worker's state" links to Social Democracy :|


Advertisement