Democrats: They're All Socialists Now

I'm trying to delve beneath the veneer of whatever kind of "socialism" that Obama has injected into our national bloodstream and see what the world's central bankers are thrusting on us. Does that surprise you? Obama and this bunch of halfwits who make up his regime are not the real enemy... they are all merely a gaggle of distracted hand puppets, playing their parts... while they shovel out the welfare and recite the politically-correct mantras....

Hint: Obama and American socialists (or whatever you call them) are nothing but "useful idiots" for these internationalist central banking cartels, foremost among which is the Federal Reserve System combine, which was given life by hyperliberal Democrat, Woodrow Wilson and his klatsch of, what, socialists in Congress (?).

George Orwell? Surely you read his masterpiece, "1984"... did you pay particular attention to the part entitled, "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism"...?

You seem to be an intelligent, educated person... how is it that you have such allegiance to a failed, discredited "ism" like Socialism...? Any system that depends on a relationship between Joe and John wherein Joe depends on John for his livelihood is bound to fail. It always has.... Sure, National Socialism under Adolf Hitler flourished amazingly for a while, but it was economically tied to massive government spending on a war machine. Tough to keep that up unless you have a successful war....

 

Obama isn't a socialist. Central Bankers are bourgeois scum and want to preserve capitalism.

I don't support Obama either. He's a liberal. He just acquiesces to Capitalism. He's also bourgeois scum.

Funfact: Lenin never said anything about useful idiots.

The people you're talking about are known as "The bourgeoisie"

They weren't socialists. They were capitalists. One who founds institutions that profoundly benefit capitalism of their own free will cannot be called socialists.

1984 was a fantastic book and a great critique of authoritarianism. Emmanuel Goldstein was clearly a metaphor for Trotsky. Orwell was criticizing Stalin's authoritarianism, not socialism. Trotsky, meanwhile, wanted a less authoritarian USSR and was exiled into Mexico and later murdered by an assassin after Stalin took power, but not before being painted as a counterrevolutionary.

Chapter I of the fictional book Oligarchical Collectivism is an analysis of class dynamics, and how Stalinism does not alleviate the conflict between the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat, only disguising it.

Ultimately, it's Orwell expressing the idea that the middle class cannot vanguard the revolution. It's the working class that must be in control, or else the pigs will only begin to walk like men.

Funny, this is how I feel about capitalism. Crisis is an inbuilt feature of capitalism. Capitalism requires constant, exponential growth just to sustain itself. Capitalism requires an underclass to sustain the upperclass.

You're so close to getting it. The thing you're describing here is capitalism, not socialism. Capitalism is a system in which the workers require the parasitic bourgeoisie to allow them to use the means of production just to carve out a livelihood. In socialism, people don't depend on an owner, but upon the community. Nobody is an expendable cog, and nobody is exploited.

Hitler wasn't a socialist. Hitler was a fascist, and radical leftists loathe fascists. The Nazis called themselves socialists as a political move. Their full name was full of vague words from all sides of the political spectrum in order to appeal to as many uninformed people as possible. A modern day equivalent to their name would be "Socialist Republican Libertarian Party"

 

Stop that, Common Sense is frowned upon in this establishment.

 

Norman Thomas ran for president on the socialist party 5 times I think. He finally quit running when he said he didnt have to since the democrat party has turned enough socialist he didnt need to.

 

There needs to be a balance between privatisation and nationalisation. I wouldn't like to see healthcare and education instituted solely for profit. Also, keep roads, national parks etc out of the hands of private investors and companies.

 

People actually believe democrats are socialists.. LOL.

 

So who is in control of late fees on my credit card?
Or the interest rate on my car loan
Or my credit limit
Who decides how my rewards card works
Who decides how much the ceo of citibank earns
Or what its stock is worth

 

One wonders which country is NOT socialist, or fascist
Btw, if you ever check out property ownership rules in Israel, you find THEY are socialist!,!!

 

Health care in Israel is universal and participation in a medical insurance plan is compulsory. All Israeli citizens are entitled to basic health care as a fundamental right. Based on legislation passed in the 1990s, citizens join one of four health care funds for basic treatment but can increase medical coverage by purchasing supplementary health care.[1] In a survey of 48 countries in 2013, Israel's health system was ranked fourth in the world in terms of efficiency, and in 2014 it ranked seventh out of 51.[2]

 

As at 2007, the Israel Land Administration (ILA), which was established in 1960, manages 93% of Israel's land comprising 19,508 km² under the following laws and land policy. The remaining 7% of land is either privately owned or under the protection of religious authorities.

Basic Law: Israel lands (1960) states that all the lands owned by the state of Israel will remain in state ownership, and will not be sold or given to anyone.

 

Israel tax rates
Plus corp tax, land tax vat tax, ssn tax, etc
Annual income level (NIS) 2014 tax rate[1]
0 – 63,360 10%
63,361 – 108,120 14%
108,121 – 168,000 21%
168,001 – 240,000 31%
240,001 – 501,960 34%
501,960 - 811,560 48%
over 811,560

 

Israel has a highly successful system of universal healthcare. Just like the US under “Obamacare,” they have a personal mandate requiring everyone to obtain insurance. Unlike the US, basic coverage is paid for through a tax surcharge collected through the authority that maintains the social safety net. Israel’s system costs of fraction of what we pay in the US, while delivering health care ranked among the best in the world.

Tax rates in Israel are very high, even in comparison to Western Europe. Those who earn more than the equivalent of about $200,000US annually pay the top marginal tax rate of 50%, in additional to social security and health insurance tax surcharges. When all of these charges are included, the top marginal rate is well over 60%. Israelis also pay a VAT of 18% on purchases. Capital gains rates can reach 50% for some transactions and corporate tax rates are 25%.

The social welfare system provides the poor with payments for food, transportation, housing and cash which are relatively generous compared to the US. About a quarter if Israeli households use the welfare system, about the same as in the US.

Abortion is legal in Israel, though a review committee must approve the procedure in each case. The review committee has historically approved 98% of requests. This year the government has further extended abortion rights by deciding to significantly expand state funding of abortions. That’s right, American fundamentalists whose religious freedom is supposedly destroyed because Obamacare provides contraception coverage are somehow untroubled that their aid money is indirectly underwriting Israeli abortions.

Though Israel’s abortion laws are among the most lenient in the world, Israel has very low abortion rates compared to the US and Europe.

Gay marriage in Israel is a practical reality through a sort of common-law marriage provision. The Israeli state does not provide any government-sanctioned marriage. Marriage law is a purely religious matter regulated by each religious community, but a civil union law grants same-sex couples equivalent rights.

 

Are you just listing loaded questions? Obviously all those things would require CAPITALISM to even exist, even though stocks are not even inherently required in a capitalist system. NM, I'm pretty sure you're being sarcastic or something.

 

I always found it odd that many on the Right call Dem's Socialists. I'm a Registered Democrat and I have never met a Socialist in my Life and I'm not young. But I understand the Conservative mindset, its all Black or White, no Grey. Its the same as calling all Muslims terrorists. I believe the true term for Democrats is that they are Federalists, preferring a Strong Central Government over a weak one. Its really about who controls the Power, elected Representatives, or un-elected Individuals which in our case could mean Powerful CEO's or Mafioso and in the Old times, it was the Landowners like Lords and Kings.

 

Amen!!

One problem with Conservatives, is that they think they have ALL of the best answers... when in reality they are but human beings; not perfect at all.

 

It is so much harder to vilify people when black and white are not the only descriptors
Otoh, it may be that conservatives are simply incapable of dealing with realitues more nuanced than black and white

 

A very interesting, and surprisingly circumspect post. Equally surprising, to me, is how much of your post I agree with fundamentally, but perhaps coming from a different paradigm-set. I suppose you could view me as a Libertarian Independent, for I loathe go-along-get-along RINO's as much, if not more than, the "useful idiots" (accurate description of so many on the Left no matter who said it first) who make up what we know today as "American Democrat Socialists".

My sense is that where we are most closely allied is in a mutual detestation of the international central banker cartels. You see them as enablers of abusive Capitalism, but, because I see Capitalism as the best of a number of admittedly flawed "ism's", I despise them instead for manipulating and exerting suffocating control over the very free-market capitalistic forces that make Capitalism such a dynamic system.

We also share a viewpoint that holds Obama as "bourgeois scum"! "Bourgeois" isn't the most descriptive adjective I might apply to a doctrinaire, self-righteous autocrat like Obama, but because I see him as little more than a hand puppet for the central bankers, the "bourgeois" label fits.

Heady stuff before a second cup of coffee. I want to read more of your posts. We may never be on the "same side", but in many ways, even on different "sides", I suspect that we may be two sides of the same coin....

 

Does anyone on here know what true Socialism is?
The US Constitution as set up by the founding fathers is/was the greatest experiment in true Socialisim there ever was. Government by the people for the people. So has that failed now.

Now we have government by the few rich for the few rich. Isn't that what the Declaration of Independance tried to get away from over 200 years ago.

 

I'm sure that it's only a coincidence that a multi-billionaire is running for President. I'm sure that any American could scrounge up millions of dollars to run against him.

 

You are reading too much into the Constitution, as so many people do. The idea was to provide citizens with the freedom to create their own destinies, work toward their own goals, enjoy their accomplishments, and keep an encroaching, tyrannical, all-powerful government from invading their lives with burdensome, destructive nonsense.

The Constitution itself carefully described exactly what each of the three branches of government was empowered to do, and EVERYTHING else was to be left to the individual states! Citizens were never to be ruled by the whims of an autocratic "president", or a king!

Where was there authorization for a "Central Bank" to run the entire macro-economy, like the Federal Reserve combine does? . Where was there authorization for a state-run handout system of welfare, which spends billions upon billions in government tax money on individuals who don't, or won't support themselves?! . The answer: there was none, and there is none to be found in our Constitution!

Moreover, nothing in our Constitution remotely suggests that one man should have his earnings taken away from him and have it given to anyone else for any reason! If you work hard, save your money, make smart investments, make good decisions, then why in hell should someone who lays around on his ass, pretending to be "disabled", be allowed to get on some government welfare-suck system and use your tax money to support him?! .

And THAT is what Socialism is -- a predatory system where a class of parasites and leeches sucks a subsistence existence off of a government that panders to them so that they will vote to keep a socialistic party in power -- endlessly! Like so much else we see practiced by today's liberal Democrats, you won't find this miserable state of affairs authorized in the Constitution, either....

One question, and I've never yet seen anyone of a liberal mindset even attempt to answer it... "What are parasites supposed to do when their host animal finally dies of weakness and despair?" Do they simply go find another host animal to suck on, if there is one? Do they start sucking on each other...?

 

Hmm...., are there any Democrats left?

 

Sure. They are also known as RINOs. John McCain today would have been a nearly perfect Democrat fifty years ago. John F. Kennedy would be hounded out of the Democratic Party today for being in their eyes . . . a conservative Republican.

 

I was a Republican 25 years ago. Then they became the Religious Right Party. No thanks.
We really need a fiscally conservative, socially progressive party.

 

Thank you, I guess that the basis of Progressives claiming Republicans are really Democrats. They all left the Progressive Socialists masquerading as Democrats.

 

Yes, that's why it was so bizarre in 2008 when leftists were talking about how much of a knuckle dragging EVIL conservative John McCain was when in reality he would have been pretty much the role model for the average Democratic Politician of the 1950s.