Socialism and communism

[Kasz216]

jv103 said:

Kasz216 said:

pastro243 said:

madskillz said:

As a mod on a newspaper site, it amazes me how folks are so quick to toss around the words and say Obama is both. Maybe I am not seeing it, but can someone explain to me how is Obama a commie and a socialist?

Discuss.

 

 I think its a problem in the US, people are too affraid of these words, it may have something to do with the cold war propaganda as someone said. They call socialist anyone who cares for the poor and makes measures that put them above the rich, I think its the way the rich people or the ones that represent them attack, and conservative poor people fall for these arguments of the guy being socialist and communist and inmidiatly dissaproove whatever they do.

Thats what I think.

The problem with that is that conservatives donate a higher percentage of their paycheck, more blood and more of their time to charity then liberals.

Ironic since liberals believe they aren't being taxed enough... and conservativse believe they are being taxed too much.

Conservatives believe money is better funneled from the citizens directly to machines in place to help the poor to cut out the middle man government and all the money wasted getting through all the levels of government.

While the Liberals believe that people aren't generous enough to help there fellow man and have to have the money removed via taxes.

Ironically while the Liberals blame the Conservatives for not caring about the poor... the Liberals seem to be the same people they're talking about in such situations. 

Kinda like when you see Bono talking about the poor starving people from africa when he has so many untapped resources he'll never use and could use to help africa.  Hell bono could probably buy an African country.

If Liberals actually spent time, money and blood like Conservatives did it's unknown if a difference would be made... but every dollar spend through a private charity for such works is more cost effective then every dollar spent for it through the government.

Healthcare and other socialist programs would be best run through the states if it was going to be government controlled.  Eh then again the State governments are emulating the National Governments lately... meh.  We really need some hardcore Libretarians to take control for 4-8 years and tear everything down and start over.

Two questions/comments

1. Do you have a source for the whole time spent conservative vs liberal info?

2. Local Non-profits are a good way to go for meeting certain things within local areas. At least in my experience in researching NGOs combatting HIV, Hunger, Child Welfare etc. In some respects these non-profits (As they are called in the US) spawn their own sort of industry and have a hierarchal/bureaucratic structure themselves.

Example: Global Fund gives to, Glazer pediatric foundation, gives to a local NGO on the ground who gives the resources to the people who need them (this is usually the only solution in countries without central governments who can reach their people)

I also just wanted to mention that the government typically has a consistent cash flow whereas donor reliant ngos have to make sure that they are going after the disease/issue de jour.

Although, a lot of these NGOs get government funding.

Nevermind I agree with you about the libertarian part. If anything it would be a fun experiment to see the behavioral shift society would have to make to deal with a changing state. I actually like this idea.  

 

Sure.  There's all sorts of links all over the place.  In google you can find them all over from studies.

This is the first one i found off hand though

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html