Deseret News | Don't vote for socialism

Reader comments
Readers' forum: Don't vote for socialism

Page:
< Previous
1
2

RangerGordon | 3:30 p.m. Oct. 23, 2008

If the free-marketeers didn't want socialism, they shouldn't have been so greedy. The ruling class could have staved off this moment--it shouldn't have kept American workers at stagnant, subsistence wages for so long. They were the ones who chose to siphon our tax dollars into their wealthy friends' pockets.

Since they made their choice, now it's time for the working people to make our choice. I'm sorry, but we need our money back now. It's time to pay the piper.

If the free-marketeers really had wanted to stave off socialism, they'd have handled things more intelligently.

SteveD | 3:59 p.m. Oct. 23, 2008

Socialism = "Ask not what you can do for your country, But what your country can do for you!" Something about socialism seems backwards to me.
Social programs (not Socialism) can work and capitalism can work, but corruption ruins everything. In social programs you have greedy, corrupt politicians (Barney Frank and Chris Dodd). Capitalism has greedy, corrupt officials that don't want to give back to the people.
We need a plan to get past this partisan bickering so we can punish the corrupt! The problem is, all of the party insiders, shield their corrupt party members.

digum | 4:11 p.m. Oct. 23, 2008

The real problem with socialism is human nature. As Bastiat pointed out socialism ends up with a situation where everyone attempts to live at the expense of everyone else.

Without someway to exclude those who will not produce, socialism, in the long run, will never be economically feasible.

Comments continue below

I hope Obama wins! | 4:35 p.m. Oct. 23, 2008

I hope Obama wins. Then I can just kick back and drink vodka to keep me occupied while someone else works and 'shares the wealth' with me.

controlling the language | 4:45 p.m. Oct. 23, 2008

SOCIALISM -
any of the various theories or systems of the ownership and operation of the means of the production and distribution by society or the community rather than by private individuals with all members of society or the community sharing in the work and the products (sounds good to me).
This is the standard definition from Webster.
But by the way the neocons and Limbaughites have massacred the word LIBERAL, they might as well just say SOCIALISM: see: Of the devil. LOL!

Once again | 5:03 p.m. Oct. 23, 2008

We have Republican supporters calling Obama socialist even when the Republican president has socialized our economy. Is this just another example of the "projection syndrome" so popular with the Republicans these days, or they really just not get it?

Honesty | 5:15 p.m. Oct. 23, 2008

A funny thing:

I don't knoew one poor person who got richer from taxes on the rich.

The common people under lenin didn't get richer forall his talk, all that changed was management,

The common people under under hitler's socialism didn't get richer (and he didn't tell them the milk cheese were stolen from other countries, but he used wealth class ware against the jews to gain power, why tax the wealthy when you can just take it?)

The only thing that socialism increases is the sense of entitlement and a lose of freedom to a central government. (try and find true freedom of speech in europe canada or cuba)

Gus Talwynd | 5:28 p.m. Oct. 23, 2008

Continuing with my earlier post, most of the comments charging "socialism" do not appear to rely on the political definition of government owning the means of production and distribution of goods and services. The argument generally is centered about taxes and using taxes for socio-economic programs.

It seems to be a useful word for the anti-tax element in our society to don't like the idea of having to do something they don't like to do: giving up some of their money in order to support civil society. There is all this talk about "if it's voluntary, it's okay, but when forced to pay up, it's "socialism" of the worst kind!"

Because of the way the term is used, there is all types of confusion and attempts to demonize others. If there were a program to help poor, disabled children that was supported by tax revenues, it is certain that someone would claim that this is an example of "socialism" in the worst way. Particularly if that person can be described (inappropriately, perhaps)as a "greedy capitalist with the heart of a stone".

Let's understand the terminology here, people, and be honest with your displeasure in paying taxes in our society!

MK OK | 5:53 p.m. Oct. 23, 2008

Communism was the goal of the Soviet system. They never achieved that goal. The Soviet Union was a socialist state striving to establish Communism. USSR stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Yes, socialist. So what happened to the Soviet Union was the product of being socialist not communist. Having lived in the former Soviet Union for well over three years, I can attest to the damage that socialism did. Everyone had a job, but they did not really work (most of them, at least). The government had made it almost impossible for people to be fired. But heck, even if you were unemployed, you still got a check from the government. So why would you work hard? If you worked really hard, you still did not get a promotion or a raise. Where is the incentive to work hard? Socialism is bad because it takes away the incentive of hard work and takes away the consequences of laziness. If you really think that is a good system, you need to wake up. A society full of dependent people produces weak people. People who can not do anything for themselves.

SteveD | 5:53 p.m. Oct. 23, 2008

Who cares what the definition of Socialisim is?
The problems are being ignored while bickering and name calling prevail! It seems easy for me to see the problem with giving large numbers of people something for nothing. Sure we do it already, but it dosen't work very well. Here's an anaolgy: Lets make "Trick or treaters" that go out and collect candy have to give half of it to kids that won't or can't go out. Even children will tell you it isn't fair.
The answer lies in punishing the corrupt and we should start with the lawyers that sue, just to line their own pockets!

Anonymous | 6:13 p.m. Oct. 23, 2008

Can socialism be much worst the the free market that bankrupted Americans?

Webster | 6:19 p.m. Oct. 23, 2008

@controlling the language: That's not the definition of socialism in my Webster dictionary, you must have the new abridged (as opposed to unabridged) edition, by the revisionists, dear sir.

re: Webster - 6:19 | 7:36 p.m. Oct. 23, 2008

You know society is in freefall and/or the far-right Limbaughites have more power and influence than one could ever imagine when you people refusing the accept simple definitions.

This particular guy will most likey use words to fit his political agenda, but doubt the definition of the word SOCIALISM as taken from Webster's New World Dictionary, Second College Edition.

We are in deeper trouble than I first imagined, folks when one political group lays claim to the English language.

T | 10:17 p.m. Oct. 23, 2008

Eight years of Bush has brought the country closer to socialism than ever before. Imagine what four more years of the same would do. That is probably one of the reasons why the Republicans really don't want to win this election and brought in Palin to make sure it doesn't happen, this time.

Page:
< Previous
1
2

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.