Tasine Loc: Southwest US

~~~~~~~~~~~
despicaable, exactly WHO is the "who" to whom you refer when you comment? If you want interaction, one needs to know WHO you are referring to. Me? Lady Liberty? Some else? We don't know. YOu comments sits in the middle of other comment, not necessarily connected to the one you are addressing. Just an attempt to help. This site CAN be confusing.

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OMG!!!

:roll:

Bick

Years ago I was a registered Democrat (conservative, but a democrat). Pres. Johnson came to be and I said OMG that plan (Great Society) is nothing more than socialism. I left that party. I find now with my life experiences Law Enforcement 22 plus yrs, member Town budget committee three yrs as chairman, member NH House 4 yrs and now elected to BOD at MIHS in AZ I am more in my way of thinking Libertarian then Republican. I believe in the original interpretation of our Constitution (words have meanings) and am at present sick and tired of having to v**e for someone running for any position in State or Federal e******ns, having to v**e for the lesser of two evils. We must put in CONSERVATIVES or we will lose our Republican form of government. BHO is moving us closer and faster toward socialism then even Teddy, Wilson, FDR and Carter ever thought to do.

The Progressive Patriot

Really? I don't think so? President Obama is not as Socialist by any stretch of the imagination. The free market is alive and well in America.

The roots of Socialism in America can be traced to the arrival of German immigrants, who came to America in the 1850’s. The Socialist Party of America was born in 1901 as part of the progressive movement, and grew dramatically during the early years of the century. Also in 1901, Teddy Roosevelt became president of the U.S after McKinley was assassinated. While disavowing socialism, he too was clearly part of the progressive movement and no doubt would have been decried as a socialist in today’s political environment. He was in fact the first US president in history to use the power of government to improve the lives of Americans. Roosevelt was a Republican who believed in government action to mitigate social evils, and as president denounced “the representatives of predatory wealth” as guilty of “all forms of iniquity. Thus, he initiated his domestic program known as “The Square Deal” formed upon three basic ideas: conservation of natural resources, control of corporations, and consumer protection.

In 1912 The Socialist Party of America’s candidate for president and founder Eugene Debs garnered 6% of the popular v**e, and hundreds of local candidates nationwide, and one congressman were elected as Socialists. In that same year Teddy Roosevelt, the former president and Republican, formed the Progressive Party and mounted a third party bid to return to the presidency, in which he was not successful. . The platform stated that “To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.” However, from then on, Socialism as a political force was steadily declining. During the purge of the McCarthy era, the Socialist Party virtually disappeared. However, its influence and philosophy lived on and there remains two little known Socialist Parties in the US. today The Socialist Party USA and the Democratic Socialists of America makes it clear that in their view, socialism can and should coexist with democracy as opposed to a means of t***sition to C*******m as in Marxist thinking.


The Socialist Party USA states in part that: “THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish a radical democracy”…..”; where full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work; where workers have the right to form unions freely, and to strike and engage in other forms of job actions; and where the production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. We believe socialism and democracy are one and indivisible... “From Socialist Party USA Statement of Principles


The Democratic Socialists of America states “We believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically t***sformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.”



It should also be noted that, the nature of Socialism varies greatly depending on the political context. Three major divisions of socialism, all antagonistic to each other, can be conceptualized. One is democratic socialism, that places the emphasis on democratic means, with government as tool for improving welfare and e******y. A second division is Marxist-Leninism, which, based on a “scientific theory,” sees the necessity of a dictatorship (“of the proletariat”) to create a classless society and universal e******y. Then, there is the third division, or state socialism. This was Hitler’s and Mussolini’s form of socialism, a non-Marxist or anti-Marxist dictatorship that aims at near absolute economic control for the purpose of economic development and national power, all construed to benefit the people.


Some elements of socialism can clearly be seen in the American economic system, and have been present for some time. These would include regulation of business, a progressive tax structure, social welfare programs and protection of worker rights. At the same time, the more radical Marxist elements are nowhere on the radar in America. However, the issue of class and class struggle, (now more often called class warfare) often an element in current political discourse in America , permeates the concept of socialism.

Throughout much of the 20th Century since Teddy Roosevelt’s administration, many other US presidents have supported programs and promoted policies that are arguably “socialist.” Woodrow Wilson (March 1913 to March 1921) persuaded a Democratic Congress during his first term to pass major progressive reforms. Wilson successfully pushed a legislative agenda that few presidents have equaled, and remained unmatched up until the New Deal of FDR. During his presidency he was responsible for The Federal Reserve Act, setting up the Federal Reserve System, The Federal Trade Commission Act, and The Clayton Anti Trust Act aimed at curbing unfair trade practices, Presiding over the passage of the 13th Amendment which made the income tax permanent and supported labor reforms to help workers. However, Wilson’s legacy as a progressive is overshadowed by the fact that he was a r****t and pursued policies of segregation.
The third president who can be said to have promoted Socialism in America Franklin Delano Roosevelt (March 1933 to April 1945) definitely made the US more socialist than perhaps other president had. In 1933 ,Roosevelt enacted a series of economic programs through legislation and executive orders, known as the New Deal, to speed recovery after the great depression. The New Deal forged a coalition of labor unions, liberals religious, ethnic and racial minorities (Catholics, Jews and B****s), Southern w****s, poor people and those on relief. He was responsible for Passage of the Social Security Act, creating The Federal Emergency Relief Administration, passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act, promoting labor unions and much more.
Dwight Eisenhower (January 1953 to January 1961) increased government spending nearly as much as FDR. IKE would be considered the most socialist president ever at the time. At the same time, he took a hard line stand against C*******m and the USSR. His record shows that he kept everything FDR enacted. and added additional cabinet level agencies like the departments of Health, Education, and expanded welfare. During his administration, the top income tax rate was 91%. Perhaps his presidency is best remembered by the creation of the interstate highway system. He also championed civil rights.
John Fitzgerald Kennedy(1960 to 1963) In his short time as president expanded unemployment benefits .provided aid to cities to improve housing and t***sportation, enacted a significant amount of anti-poverty legislation, addressed environmental concerns, affordable housing issues and civil rights.
JFKs successor, , Lyndon Baines Johnson ( November 1963 to Jan 1969) was responsible for designing the "Great Society" legislation , the war on poverty and pursuing environmental protection goals. Among his accomplishments were, The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the passage of Medicare, the Food Stamp Act of 1964, the Economic Opportunity Act and more.

With this history of taxing, spending, entitlements and government controls one would think that the United States would have long ago succumbed to the evils of Socialism in its most extreme form…the demise of free enterprise and the establishment of a c*******t state. Yet that has not been the case. No one can deny that Capitalism is alive and well in America. The fact is that we have not become more Socialistic at all, just more fearful and ignorant of it. One has to wonder how many of these programs, many of which define who we are as a nation- would have made it into law in today’s political environment.

Other presidents, even those who generally escaped the epithet of “Socialist” did in fact promote policies and programs that could be defined as such.

Harry Truman (April 1945 to January 1953) submitted a civil rights agenda to Congress that proposed creating several federal offices dev**ed to issues such as v****g rights and fair employment practices. He also signed an executive Order, in July 1948, desegregating and requiring equal opportunity in the Armed Forces and another made it illegal by executive order to discriminate against persons applying for civil service positions based on race. Additionally he supported the U.S. effort to create and to join the United Nations, a move that many conservatives today would oppose. Perhaps most significantly and little known, he tried to put together a Health Care plan that was far more Socialist than Obama or Hillary Clinton can imagine, but it failed to make inroads.

Even Richard Nixon’s ( 1969 to 1974) with his checkered legacy and the memory of resigning in disgrace, did some things that can be considered progressive. He didn't grow government at the rate that LBJ, JFK, IKE, and FDR did, but he enacted OSHA, and created the EPA . He also engaged in a rapprochement with C*******t China forging ties on many fronts.

That brings us to Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) the hero of the Republican party and normally not thought of as having a socialist bone in his body. However, by today’s standards, he could be accused of that heresy. Reagan raised the corporate capital gains tax from 28% to 34% He also raised various other taxes twelve times and the income tax at 50 % for the highest earners was considered high by today’s conservative standards, and grew the Federal Government by more than 300,000 workers.

Given this history, it’s a wonder that we have any freedom or semblance of a free market economy left in America. Even more puzzling is the unending chorus of hysterical voices howling about how Obama is going to bring ruin upon us with his socialist policies and programs when so many of his predecessors were as much, or more Socialistic than he is. For that matter, is he really a Socialist at all?

 

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Welcome to our little den, Bick. It's always good to see a new face in the crowd. Mostly the place has some really nice people, people you'd enjoy having visit in your home. Unfortunately, we also have our share of collectivists, most of whom are mere irritants in a good conversation.

Bick, I have divided the world into two very distinct groups, neither of which can possibly overlap into the other: The first group is those who cherish individual freedoms. The second group is those who cherish the right to control everyone else.

What we must start putting into office are those in the first group, and the ones we must winnow out are those who belong to the second group - the group that FAR outnumbers the first group. Everybody SAYS they favor individual freedoms UNTIL they recognize that that goes for EVERYONE.

A group of freedom lovers will not tolerate a leviathan government such as we now have. A group of freedom lovers will not constantly be writing oppressive laws, will not approve oppressive regulations by agencies, bureaus, etc. A group of freedom lovers would put us MUCH closer to what we are supposed to be than would the best control group in the world. Think about it...... Again, welcome! ;)

The Progressive Patriot

Then I take it that the "freedom lover" would agreed that DOMA should be repealed or overturned, and that the states should stop passing ever restrictive laws against a******n?

Bick

The Chardo Lee:
I think you miss the whole point of the word "Socialism" One meaning and there are plenty. But, the one I am referring to is this: "a stage of society in Marxist theory t***sitional between capitalism and c*******m and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done."
A System of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control;
also, the political movements aimed at putting that system into practice. Because “social control” may be interpreted in widely diverging ways, socialism ranges from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. The term was first used to describe the doctrines of CHARLES FOURIER, HENRI DE SAINT-SIMON, and ROBERT OWEN, who emphasized no coercive communities of people working noncompetitively for the spiritual and physical well-being of all.
KARL MARX and FRIEDRICH ENGELS, seeing socialism as a t***sition state between CAPITALISM and C*******M, appropriated what they found useful in socialist movements to develop their “scientific socialism.”
In the 20th century, the Soviet Union was the principal model of strictly centralized socialism, while Sweden and Denmark were well-known for their non c*******t socialism.
And do I believe BHO is attempting to put us into a true democratic socialist type government? Yes I do in fact as you have pointed out several Presidents have pushed us in that direction all with the assistance of Congress and in fact both parties have done so with very few exceptions.The old saying "we get the government we deserve." is very true.
Just look at our sixteenth President and BS he did to us. Suspend Habeas Corpus which is the Congress's powers not the Executives. Mussolini during ww2 had his generals jail over 2K people who did not agree with his stance on entering WW@. Our President Lincoln and his generals did that to over 10K US Citizens and more but I digress here but to close this part of my rantings I close by saying after the fact Congress agreed with what he did but 2 yrs later the US Supreme Court in three decisions said he was wrong and Congress was wrong and both were in violation of the Constitution.
Sorry to rant so, but I also would say nice post reference your stance on who and what the past Presidents have done to bring us toward socialism some good facts there.

Bick

Again to Chardo:
To repeal DOMA? NO that in essence would be doing nothing more then changing the meaning of a word (Marriage) that has been in existence for ?? how long?? how many hundreds of years??

So no change not the word or law.

As to the States rights issue? again it is where the issue belongs in the States not with the Federal Government.

The Progressive Patriot

The Progressive Patriot

Sorry, I think that you're over the top here. There's alot of daylight between Marxists and liberals. Better look under your bed to make sure there are no c****es there. Good night sleep tight.

despicable

The STRUGGLE continues "CONSTITUTIONAL PROGRESSIVE!" It is good to have you aboard so we can do battle against those that no longer are relevant and would like to return to the so called "GOOD OL' DAYS!

Augustus Greatorex Loc: NE

Welcome, thank you for introducing yourself, Richard, and Despicable.

I cannot introduce myself as I don't know where I stand. I don't disagree with you, except for your personal choices, which I think are illogical and highly emotional. I do wonder have you personally ever failed in your political career?

Bick

Tho this was not posted to me in particular, May I send my comments? Anyway: their choice as U refer to them, I assume meaning that they have given up so to speak on the Reb party and the Dems as they are almost both the same and have as has been pointed out both parties have moved us toward socialism the Dems more so but the Reb have as ell especially under Bush 2. So they now look toward the Libertarian party for something more concrete? something more in line with their politics at present?
I too have moved from D to R and now am saying my own thinking, being more a Constitutionalist is more Libetain then the other two. Not emotional but a thinking process.

Augustus Greatorex Loc: NE

It is my personal conviction that change starts with me. The Libertarian party is in my, arrogant, opinion filled with duplicitous people who want to tell others what to do while being outraged at anyone who would tell them that their behavior is wrong. Take for instance Gary Johnson the Libertarian p**********l candidate told people "waste your v**e on me." This insinuates, falsely, that your v**e does not count and you are too stupid make decisions based on merit.

I have not encountered many Constitutional Party members, and have no formed opinion.

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not so much daylight that people who are awake can see daylight between them. Both are collectivists, both put the state before the individual, both deny individual freedoms that people are born with until MAN TAKES THEM AWAY. Both are tyrannies once established. Are any other differences worth talking about?