Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) puts the number of socialists in the House at 17.
"Some of the men and women I work with in Congress are socialists," Bachus told local government leaders on Thursday, according to the Birmingham News.
Bachus gave the specific number of House socialists when pressed later by a reporter.
Post by nitetimeritetime on Apr 11, 2009 2:15:08 GMT -5
I'll have to look Baldwin up. I'd probably like her.
Other than that, from Bachus' informed perspective:
Nancy Pelosi (obviously, since she wanted a jet, or something) Jesse Jackson, Jr. (named after prominent socialist and dad-type figure, also from same geographical area as That One) Patrck Kennedy (all the Kennedys are socialists -- that's why they're so rich) Kucinich -- duh, how else could an elf get such a hot wife? Socialism is the only answer.
Tammy Baldwin is a big supporter of universal health care, co-sponsored Kucinich's impeachment resolution, appeared in Fahrenheit 9/11, and is the only out lesbian in Congress.
Post by suspendedzen on Apr 11, 2009 12:49:17 GMT -5
Using the actual definition of socialism, rather than the "whatever I dont like is socialism" one, there are zero in the US House. In the Senate, only Bernie Sanders can conceivably labeled as a socialist, and that is still tenous.
Bernie Sanders describes himself as a "democratic socialist," and even that is different than pure socialism.
I'm more amused than anything by this neo-McCarthyist BS. BTW, as a Wisconsinite I still feel compelled to apologize for that jerk, despite the fact my parents hadn't even been born at the time.
It's hilarious, in part, because it's so very very hypocritical.
The way I see it, everyone's a socialist and the difference is simply to what extent one is a socialist.
Using the actual definition of socialism, rather than the "whatever I dont like is socialism" one, there are zero in the US House.
Sewers. Street lights. Streets. Highways. Parks. Public education. National defense.
All socialist.
That's why I'm saying everyone's a socialist to some degree. I think we'd be hard-pressed to find a member of Congress who has voted against each and every one of these things over the course of an entire career.
Bernie Sanders describes himself as a "democratic socialist," and even that is different than pure socialism.
I'm more amused than anything by this neo-McCarthyist BS. BTW, as a Wisconsinite I still feel compelled to apologize for that jerk, despite the fact my parents hadn't even been born at the time.
It's hilarious, in part, because it's so very very hypocritical.
The way I see it, everyone's a socialist and the difference is simply to what extent one is a socialist.
Just apologize for tommy thompson and we will call it even.
Socialism: The government controls a nation's production industry.
This is the economic definition according to Marx 200 years ago. Most socialists agree that capitalisma and socialism can co-exist, as long as capitalism is benefiting the society as a whole. American economic policy from the New Deal on has been socialist. Welfare, that is taking money from the people who work, and giving it to the people that don't work, is socialism. As are all the reasons mentioned above. That doesn't make it wrong. it is what it is. socialism.
Welfare, that is taking money from the people who work, and giving it to the people that don't work, is socialism.
It's not accurate to characterize Welfare as "taking money from the people who work, and giving it to the people that don't work." Many people on welfare have jobs that keep them below state and federal poverty lines.
And it's wildly inaccurate to characterize socialism as "taking money from the people who work, and giving it to the people that don't work." I guess technically this applies to public education, since those lazy elementary school kids are getting free education when they don't have to get jobs OR pay taxes, but how does this accurately describe the police department, the military, or Social Security?
Post by nitetimeritetime on Apr 11, 2009 23:10:38 GMT -5
I'd say it depends on the issue. Police and Fire Departments seem to be better run locally than federally. The military, conversely, seems to be better run on a national scale. Different programs have different requirements and different limitations.
Post by candyflippedaround on Apr 11, 2009 23:17:38 GMT -5
schools should be federal i think. as of right now, the rich towns have all the new books and tools in the classroom while more urban areas have to spread funds thinner and end up with old books and equipment. there needs to be standard of schools uniform throughout the country. it sucks that certain kids have an advantage because they go to the school with brand new books and microscopes where some other kids have old books and not enough materials for everyone in the class.
Post by nitetimeritetime on Apr 11, 2009 23:27:54 GMT -5
I dunno, research suggests that schools are better run locally. Fire and police depts receive federal funds, but they are held accountable locally, and schools seem to work better this way too (see the failure of NCLB). But I agree that federal funds should be allocated differently to schools than they are now. Right now, the fed matches local money, which ensures that the richest districts get the most fed money -- bass ackwards.
Socialism: The government controls a nation's production industry.
This is the economic definition according to Marx 200 years ago. Most socialists agree that capitalisma and socialism can co-exist, as long as capitalism is benefiting the society as a whole. American economic policy from the New Deal on has been socialist. Welfare, that is taking money from the people who work, and giving it to the people that don't work, is socialism. As are all the reasons mentioned above. That doesn't make it wrong. it is what it is. socialism.
That's exactly what I'm talking about when I use the phrase "democratic socialism" - a private economy serves to further benefits for the entire society. Scandinavian countries are probably the best example of this in action.
Welfare, that is taking money from the people who work, and giving it to the people that don't work, is socialism.
It's not accurate to characterize Welfare as "taking money from the people who work, and giving it to the people that don't work." Many people on welfare have jobs that keep them below state and federal poverty lines.
And it's wildly inaccurate to characterize socialism as "taking money from the people who work, and giving it to the people that don't work." I guess technically this applies to public education, since those lazy elementary school kids are getting free education when they don't have to get jobs OR pay taxes, but how does this accurately describe the police department, the military, or Social Security?
don't take my words out of context. i didn't say socialism was taking money from the people who work and giving it to people who don't. that's welfare. and welfare is a socialist ideal. ya some people have part time jobs and stil receive benefits, but the vast majority of people on welfare are not working full time. and the vast majorty of people working full time are not on welfare. i made it a point to say that it doesn't make it wrong. it's redistributing wealth. it's socialism. it is what it is.
Post by nitetimeritetime on Apr 12, 2009 12:42:40 GMT -5
Yes, welfare is a socialist concept. Your statement that "welfare is socialism" left open the implication that socialism is welfare. EDIT: the reason this implication is left open is that the context of your post was all about definitions of socialism.
Glad to hear you didn't mean to imply that.
Nonetheless, your characterization of welfare is wrong.
Wal-Mart, for example (I use them as an example because they are the largest employer in the US), purposely keeps employees' hours at just under 40/week so they aren't classified as full time. Many many Wal-Mart employees are on welfare as a result of "lost" benefits they could claim if their managers would let them work 5 more hours each week.
That does not mean those people don't work.
And Wal Mart is not special in this regard -- it happens regularly across the US. People with part time jobs (many have more than one part time job) often need welfare assistance. Characterizing welfare as "taking money from the people who work, and giving it to the people that don't work," is just plain wrong.