When will the US Become Completely Socialistic?

[Praxeas]

Just as 9/11 brought compromises in our freedoms this economic failure and the fear mongering over it will probably also lead to more compromises.

Half the reason the market falls is over fears. Terrorism is about fear. It is a powerful emotions and leaders and elitests have been using it for years to manipulate people to change....even into hating Jews and being ok with their persecution.

It creates the climate for people to look for a savior...an anti-christ and social, political and economic change

[clgustaveson]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Many equate Socialism to Communism and then look at Europe and other European Nations and say "They are not Socialists"...because they don't see communism

You can have a democracy and still be socialist

Wikipedia
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution, it being the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[3][4]
Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth into a small section of society who control capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]
Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs; Libertarian socialism (which includes Socialist Anarchism and Libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy.
In the 1970s and the 1980s, Yugoslavian, Hungarian, Polish and Chinese Communists instituted various forms of market socialism combining co-operative and State ownership models with the free market exchange.[5] This is unlike the earlier theoretical market socialist proposal put forth by Oskar Lange in that it allows market forces, rather than central planners to guide production and exchange.[6] Anarcho-syndicalists, Luxemburgists (such as those in the Socialist Party USA) and some elements of the United States New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils.

BTW Even though the ideal is that all are equal socially and economically that has never been true even in Communistic societies. Communisim creates a two caste system basically the elite and the have nots who are all equal.

it makes everyone equally poor except for a handful of elites who also control the government

I see your point now... note though that communism is not anything we have seen in a government what we have seen is a flawed form of a perfect system.

Anyway Also this thread is NOT about economic despair can people please stop talking about the bailout and what not. This thread is about the government, not economics.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by clgustaveson

Anyone know?

Never.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by clgustaveson

I see your point now... note though that communism is not anything we have seen in a government what we have seen is a flawed form of a perfect system.

Anyway Also this thread is NOT about economic despair can people please stop talking about the bailout and what not. This thread is about the government, not economics.

Well I think the reason they mention the economy is perhaps they see it leading to something closer to Socialism...and on that level there is talk of nationalizing our banking system

As the financial crisis continues, the Bush administration, led by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, is moving ahead to enact the unconstitutional and socialistic measures contained in the recently passed and misleadingly nicknamed "bailout bill" — misleading not because it's not a bailout, but because it's much more than that.
This bill — officially the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 — is, along with the Treasury Department's "Blueprint for a Modernized Financial Regulatory Structure," about nationalizing the entire United States financial system, a truly radical act that will hasten the United States of America along the road to total socialism.
It was Karl Marx who famously recommended, in the Communist Manifesto, the "centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly." (Emphasis added.) For almost a century we have had a national bank, the Federal Reserve, which has enjoyed a monopoly over the money supply but not over all credit. To the extent that both state and nationally chartered banks and other financial entities still enjoy some independence in the issuance of credit, the Fed's monopoly over financial activities is diluted.

Now, however, armed with supposed authority from the bailout bill, Treasury Secretary Paulson is preparing to partly nationalize a number of major U.S. banks by purchasing dodgy assets in exchange for government ownership of company stock. In this Paulson is swimming in the wake of the British government, which has already partly nationalized various troubled banks using such a procedure. Paulson himself, asked about his intentions and whether he planned to follow the British lead, was evasive. "We have a broad range of authorities and tools," he said. "We've emphasized the purchase of liquid assets, but we have a broad range of authorities. And I'm confident we have the authorities we need to work with going forward."


read the rest of what this guy says here
http://www.thenewamerican.com/econom...ainmenu-46/412

[clgustaveson]

True dat, but this thread has gone down hill with all this economics talk... I'm done.