This is silly. When the government takes money from one group of people to specifically give it to another group of people that is socialism whether it's done by a Republican or a Democrat. In other words the wealth of Americans is a collective and the government takes ownership of parts of that wealth to redistribute. Classic definition of socialism.
And when the government takes ownership stakes in American auto manufacturers that is socialism writ large.
Hey, it's America. You can support socialism if you prefer. Hell almost 53% of Americans just did. Time to come out of the closet with the big S stamped on it Travis. :-}
But what you’re describing here has such a broad definition that it means the U.S, has been, in one way or another, socialist since the inception of an income tax.
Do I need to back up my assumption of what you guys are talking about and realize that Freerepublic favors a full abolishing of the income tax? Or taxes of any kind?
Because pretty much since the 20th century, the government has been taking money from one group of people and giving it to another group of people in one way or another.
If you pay taxes in Maine, and the government builds a highway that runs across the Southern part of the country - that’s socialist?
Is using taxpayer money to fund the space program - which primarily benefits those living in and around Cape Canaveral and other space centers socialism?
An argument could be made that money spent on every weapons system ever, was socialist - because it benefits one sector of the population and not others. You can make a broader argument that the weapon system will contribute to the national security - but you can, and many economists have, make the argument that middle class tax cut benefits the economy as a whole because the driving engine of the economy is the sale and purchase of consumer goods and without a tax cut - the consumer index goes down which - matched with the credit crunch and mortgage meltdown - leads to a seizing up of our economy’s gears and then...I dunno. Maybe Thunderdome.
I think we’re all just trying to avoid Thunderdome.
And the government is not coming in to take over industry in a hostile manner. They’re not even taking over, they’re buying up bad debt and keeping them solvent. These industries were asking for help. The way the airline industry was when it basically collapsed after 9/11. I don’t think anyone is looking for a scenario in which the government owns everything - these were drastic measures that a Republican president took to - hopefully - prevent a massive, and likely global, financial meltdown.
So if that’s supporting socialism - then fine. Give me the big S. I think what is happening now was necessary - and there are guys with Nobel prizes, decades of experience and very high placed jobs in corporations who agree with that. There’s lots of disagreement over the specifics and the balance being struck between “The Big S” and maintaining the integrity of our private markets - but there was a near consensus all over the financial world that without intervention - we were facing an economic calamity of unspeakable proportions.
There are some who say that is still coming, and we maybe only softened the blow a bit. I hope they’re wrong.
But I don’t think just because something fits the definition of socialism, it is evil. I mean...isn’t the post office, technically, a “socialist” program? I think the Union has done okay since its inception.
Do I think that American democracy is so fragile that adopting any kind of socialist policy will somehow lead us down the path to communism or autocracy? No, I don’t.
The Left believed that The Patriot Act was going to do this, and that the Bush administration was power grabbing or overstepping - and in some cases, they were. The courts stepped in, we had an election, things have come to light - it was never as bad as some feared - and the country came through okay.