Re: OT who said this ?


"Robert Allison" <rimshot27@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:u31Ii.4646$6o2.1643@xxxxxxxxxxx
Nate wrote:


What bothers me about socialism is what they end up doing with the tax money. Giving my money to the poor just so they can remain poor and be comfortable doing so seems a bit ridiculous to me. And this whole national healthcare crisis is a sham. People have been surviving for centuries without health insurance. It is a way of life for some people. But Hillary Clinton believes everyone should have what she has and she thinks it's OK to use my money to give them what I have worked my ass of for. Bull ***! Socialism only benefits the lazy *** poor class and the government that supports them. It doesn't benefit me in any way...therefore...I am against it.

A whole lot of points in that paragraph. I am not sure that you understand what socialism really is. Perhaps you could give YOUR definition of it.

Socialism refers to collective ownership of property and redistribution of wealth. All money and property are controlled by the community, not the individual. Have you heard Hillary say it takes a village to raise a child? While that is not an economic policy, it refers to the community taking control rather than the indivdual. When tax breaks are eliminated by her party, they are redistributing wealth so that the poor can rise. That is a socialist ideal.

Under socialism, there is no tax money. Everything belongs to the state.

No. Everything is controlled by the community. The problem with institutiing socialism is most people will not honor the system in it's purest sence. Therefore, a goivernment has to take control of the redistribution of the wealth. They have to give the common people direction. And that is why it does not work. The Government is made up of people...people have a tendancy to want. The greed corrputs the system. It no longer works.

You are right that there is no tax in a perfect solcialist state. But the perfect state doesn't exist. So we have bastardized versions of socialism. And a socialist ideal can be instituted in a democratic society using taxes as a way to redistribute the wealth. The fact that it is not a perfect socialism...that a tax exists...does not make it a non-socialist ideal.

You work and the state gives you what it thinks
you need. Tax free society.

Actually...the communioty uses the wealth to improve the entire community. The individual has no needs. Therefore...the state has no business giving you what you 'need'.


I am not sure who is running on the socialist ticket. There are alot of people that have a distinctly incorrect view of what socialism actually is.

Yourself included.

The term is thrown around like a
frisbee. See my other posts on this subject for more information.

More information on your view?


Although Hillary is called a socialist, she actually isn't. Unless she is calling for the abolition of private property and the abolition of the accumulation of wealth, she would be laughed out of the socialist party.

You don't see her moving that direction at all?


As far as health care goes, if a health care system existed which saved you money, would you be for that?

As long as the quality is not reduced...sure...I'd be inclined to save a buck. Problem is, I don't think you can reduce costs without losing some quality. So it's a falacy. If I knew I could spread my wings and fly with the eagles...I'd do that too. So what?


You're free to disagree with my assessment. But I own that assessment and it won't go away.

Nate

I can't disagree with it because I am not sure that I understand it.

What the hell is everyone so mad about?

I didn't see anyone mad. Are you sure you're reading it in the right context? ;o)


Isn't this just a discussion? I don't think anything is going to be written into law here. Settle down. We are just talking.

The fact that I disagree with you should not be interpreted as though I'm mad. Hell...I disagree with my wife on a regular basis and we still love each other.

Nate

.