"Gee, yeah. What's so bad about Health Care for all, free college, and a system where we stand people with a ladder to get where they need to be."
Regarding the "free college" ... have you ever taken a glance at the number of people who actually get to attend college in one of these countries that provides it "free"?
Regarding people getting where they need to be .... do the people get to decide where they need to be? Or does their government?
I think the Republicans have effectively managed to convince many that socialism is terrible because the government will take people's "hard earned money" and give it to someone who doesn't work.
Certainly I can....though I doubt too many people under 45 can say the same, which is why this has always struck me as a rather odd line of primary attack for the McCain campaign to use against Obama: even if Obama were a stone-cold socialist (which he is most definitely not), if you're having to EXPLAIN what you just called your opponent, and also explain why it's bad....it's just not a very effective political attack.
And I know you asked us not to cut and paste, but I'm hoping you'll grant me a one-time exception in this case, since I see that a number of other people have already replied, and although I haven't read all of the replies yet, I'm betting that there is at least one quite-adequate definition in and amongst the replies. So I'd pretty much be gilding the lily here anyway, if I chipped in with my own definition which wasn't much different from the one I'm sure someone else has already written. The reason I'm asking for the one-time exemption from your "no cut-and-paste" rule is also because what I'm about to cut and paste isn't a DEFINITION, but rather, a perfect EXAMPLE of socialism in action, complete with the author's praise of it. It really gives a good feel for things. Here you go:
And Alaska—we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs. … It’s to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans.
-- Sarah Palin
Sooo....let's see here. Hang on - since I've already broken the "no outside definitions" rule here (and strictly for comparison's sake, of course), let's see what Webster's has to say about socialism, and compare it to Governor Palin's self-described Alaska:
"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."
Hmm....sure sounds a lot like Palin's "Alaska set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs."
Or is that just my imagination? ROFL. Sarah Palin: The Gift That Keeps On Giving™
Pages
Socialism is a form of forced/mandated redistrubtion of wealth or transfer of wealth.
Socialism is government ownership/control and/or administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
When a country is broke socialism is
"Gee, yeah. What's so bad about Health Care for all, free college, and a system where we stand people with a ladder to get where they need to be."
Regarding the "free college" ... have you ever taken a glance at the number of people who actually get to attend college in one of these countries that provides it "free"?
Regarding people getting where they need to be .... do the people get to decide where they need to be? Or does their government?
Great article.
I think the Republicans have effectively managed to convince many that socialism is terrible because the government will take people's "hard earned money" and give it to someone who doesn't work.
And I know you asked us not to cut and paste, but I'm hoping you'll grant me a one-time exception in this case, since I see that a number of other people have already replied, and although I haven't read all of the replies yet, I'm betting that there is at least one quite-adequate definition in and amongst the replies. So I'd pretty much be gilding the lily here anyway, if I chipped in with my own definition which wasn't much different from the one I'm sure someone else has already written. The reason I'm asking for the one-time exemption from your "no cut-and-paste" rule is also because what I'm about to cut and paste isn't a DEFINITION, but rather, a perfect EXAMPLE of socialism in action, complete with the author's praise of it. It really gives a good feel for things. Here you go:
Sooo....let's see here. Hang on - since I've already broken the "no outside definitions" rule here (and strictly for comparison's sake, of course), let's see what Webster's has to say about socialism, and compare it to Governor Palin's self-described Alaska:
"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."
Hmm....sure sounds a lot like Palin's "Alaska set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs."
Or is that just my imagination? ROFL. Sarah Palin: The Gift That Keeps On Giving™
McCain LOST???
Pages