Could a Republican say this

[nsafun05]

Anyone who advocates that the government should control any portion of production and distribution of goods or services is at a minimum a socialist and at worst a communist.

Socialism is a social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition...

Often times in these types of arguments, people confuse the economic behavior of a government with the type of government. A democracy is a political government either carried out directly by the people (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people (Representative democracy).

Capitalism, socialism and communism are economic in nature, not a type of government. So kcbigpapa, although Great Britain, Japan, Germany, Switzerland and Taiwan are democratic, the type of economy that they run is socialist.

So when people say that obama is not a socialist, they are either refusing to see that he is advocating the government takeover of a private industry (much like hugo chavez is doing) for the purpose of public distribution of goods/services, or they just don't know what socialism is.

Food for thought: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, saw socialism as a transition state between capitalism and communism.

[kcbigpapa]

Originally Posted by nsafun05

So kcbigpapa, although Great Britain, Japan, Germany, Switzerland and Taiwan are democratic, the type of economy that they run is socialist.

What is your example of a capitalist country then if all of these are socialist countries?

[Guest052813-01]

Originally Posted by kcbigpapa

What is your example of a capitalist country then if all of these are socialist countries?

China comes to mind...

[john_galt]

Longermonger I was a tea party member at the beginning and we never called ourselves tea baggers. Yes, there were tea bags (tea party? get it?) but tea bagging refers to something specific and is patently insulting.

[kcbigpapa]

Originally Posted by john_galt

Longermonger I was a tea party member at the beginning and we never called ourselves tea baggers. Yes, there were tea bags (tea party? get it?) but tea bagging refers to something specific and is patently insulting.

I googled it yesterday and found out that LM is right. There were references to being teabaggers in the beginning. I should have posted the links yesterday, but you'll have to look it up. This is not something that tea party members will readily admit to as it is embarrassing that some did not realize the sexual connotation.

[dirty dog]

Well Papa you are almost right. The term originated out of this quote from a member of the tea party movement "take a teabag, put it in an envelope, and mail it to the White House." From that someone on reteaparty.com had the headline "Teabag the Fools in D.C. on tax day." At no time did they say hey call us teabaggers. The media (known for their unbiased view points..... yeah right) then took this quote and began calling them teabaggers as a reference to the sexual act, which I am sure LM could give us more information on. Hey LM just because ultra liberal Keith Olbermann says it does not make it true.

[BigMikeinKC]

Okay, but explain to me - even though it now probably dead in the water - how the health care bill was going to be socialism, if the coverage was going to remain in the hands of private insurance companies.

If you want examples of true socialism - Medicare and Social Security. But you try telling granny she can't have that any more.

[Starry69]

how the health care bill was going to be socialism, if the coverage was going to remain in the hands of private insurance companies.

Health care itself was/is going to remain a private, for profit industry also.

[dirty dog]

"Okay, but explain to me - even though it now probably dead in the water - how the health care bill was going to be socialism, if the coverage was going to remain in the hands of private insurance companies."

Big Mike maybe I can shed some light on this for you. The fear among many who oppose the health care plan with the public opition is this.

Because the public option is a government run entity that is not require to make a profit it can undercut price wise medical services. Because private medical operations have to make a profit to satisfy the shareholders they will not be able to compete with the public option and will go out of business. Eventually the only option left will be the public option. When the government then controls the means of production then it become socialist. It did not help the cause when President Obama's comments of several years ago were brought to the general public, where he stated that with government health care he can see 10 or 15 years down the road private health care being gone. This is not a quote but it conveyed the meaning.

So it was not so much that the enacting of this health care bill was going to be socialist, rather it is the perceived changes that it will bring that are socialist.

I am not one to say the President is a socialist, as a liberal Democrat he believes in a large federal government and federal controls. Many on the other side of the fence prefer more state control. Of course there are those who feel any expansion of the fedral government is a move toward a socialist state. I am not one of those. With the elimination of the public option from the health care program the calls that it's socialized medicine should have stopped.

[nsafun05]

To add to what you said DD, there was a provision to tax "cadillac plans" 40%. These plans were not just union plans, but any plan that was over $8,000 per year if I remember correctly. Now if I'm a private employer I do not want to pay 40% on top of what I'm already paying for health insurance so my next logical step is to drop health insurance for my employees. This action would then force those employees into the government run insurance program whether they wanted to go or not.