theragingelephant_com: blog 
theragingelephant_com's blog
socialism for dummies- part 2: "government ownership of industry and companies"
Published Apr. 30, 2009Views: 795
** This is the second part of "Socialism for Dummies", to read the first part click here. **
Socialism: \sō-shə-li-zəm\, noun-
- Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
- A system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.
- A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
It’s pretty clear that socialism is defined as the overtaking of a business or industry by either the public or government. What is also clear is the fact that the current administration is trying their hardest to lead us down the path to becoming a socialist nation, which is evident by the Obama administration’s wish to take over any company they feel is too large or not being managed as well as they would like to see. It violates every rule of capitalism, and takes us down a path that can only lead to the demise of our country if it is not stopped. But wanting to control privately-owned American companies isn’t the only socialist ideology currently in place or being considered in this country.
One of the major topics in the past few years, especially during the 2008 presidential election, was the topic of nationalizing health care—or to put it simply, “socialized healthcare”. Many liberals believe that healthcare is a right, and that if we bring universal or free healthcare to this country, that those less fortunate will be able to afford healthcare that wasn’t available to them before. They forget, however, that healthcare is not right.
In fact, there is great irony in saying that everyone should have the right to free or universal healthcare—socialized healthcare, while providing health services to the needy, actually takes away the rights of others. The individual rights of taxpayers are violated, as they now have to use their own money to pay for others. Do you really want to pay for the medical costs for those who choose to smoke, are overly obese, ect? Or how about the loss of freedoms when the government chooses to restrict or raise taxes on fast food, cigarettes, alcohol, automobiles, or other activities and products that may cause negative health effects? They have to make up the money somewhere, don’t they?
Do we really want to see headlines in this country like those in Canada do?
“Kidney Patients Die as Costly Dialysis Machines Lie Idle” – The Times, July 26th, 1993
“Too Old to be Cured of Cancer”- The Times, August 16th, 1993
“Send Cancer Patients to U.S., Alberta MD’s Urge”- January 18th, 2003
“Ontario Government Report Calls For Up To 1,000 More MD’s”- Toronto Star, December 3rd, 1999
Or the best one, a headline from the Canadian Press on the 14th of June, 1991:
“For Dogs, A Scan Can Be Arranged Within 24 Hours. Humans Wait in Pain, Dogs Don’t”
Is that really something we want in this country? I don’t think so. It’s clearly an act of socialism, as the government is taking over a whole industry.
Now on to other forms of socialism. Several things, most that many people don’t notice, have socialist ideologies behind them in one way or another in this country. Lets quickly point out a few of those:
- Airports. While airlines are privately owned (at least for the time now, I’m sure Obama and his boys will get their hands on a few here soon), the airports they fly into aren’t—public airports in this country are government owned. The government then decides which airlines are allowed to fly into an airport and the frequency at which they will be allowed to do so.
- Certain tax credits. Buy a hybrid car? Line the roof of your house with solar panels? Chances are you got a tax credit from the government for this. It’s their way of saying what they want to see done in this country, by enticing Americans to buy certain items or do certain things in order to receive money. You do what they want to see done, you get money.
- Bailouts. I think this one is pretty clear; giving certain companies money from the government is their way of investing government (taxpayer) money in a company, which is a loose version of government ownership of a company, which is socialism. (And yes, Bush did this too, I don’t agree with it when it was done under him either.)
So there’s a brief look at “Socialism for Dummies”. People can deny that socialism exist in this country all they want, but the facts are there. Socialistic ideas have been planted in this country for years now, but the current administration up in Washington wants to take these ideals even further. Is Capitalism gone in this country for good? Well, that might be a stretch. Is it slowly dwindling away? Yes. The problem with socialist ideals is that even if they don’t work, they are near impossible to take away—after a while people will see them as being “rights” which they are owed from the government.
The truth is, Capitalism is the greatest wealth generating system known to man. Yes, not everyone's needs can be met through Capitalism, but no other system can either. The United States is known for being the greatest country in the world; with people willing to risk their lives to live here for a taste of the “American Dream”...why ruin that by drifting away from the economic fundamentals that we have built this country on for over the last two hundred years plus?
**You can find the full article here at The Raging Elephant website.**
Related Articles:
Obama: From Senator to President to Auto Owner
Why Obama's Tax Plan will Ruin America
Related Cartoons:
Filed under: Politics
close97 Comments
![[no avatar]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/presentation/v1/images/golo/noavatar.gif){kind=avatar}
(24 votes) raleigh man, 39, dies in mo-ped crash
(24 votes) poll: people don't trust politicians
(20 votes) holiday speed enforcement campaign under way
Welcome to GOLO, where WRAL.com visitors can comment on stories and create profile pages, blogs and photo galleries.
You must be a registered WRAL.com user to use these tools. Click here to register or log in.
That's not really what has happened in Europe. They essentially have 2 health care systems, one for those who can afford private care and one for those who can't. Doctors CHOOSE to work at government facilities and are paid a salary for doing so. Nobody forces them to either accept employment there or to remain employed if they seek employment elsewhere.
Many doctors accept state assistance in funding their education, and work in government facilities for an agreed upon period of time to repay the assistance, but again, nobody forces the assistance on them. They seek it out and agree to the conditions involved before receiving the help.
GOLO member since September 6, 2007
April 30, 2009 8:13 p.m.
Lets talk on your Airport note.
MOST airports have federal funding, if not state. That is where the governmental money comes in. If it is a main hub like RDU or CLT that has passenger traffic then you need TSA stations (employees) and baggage scanners.
Only way around this is if the airport does not provide commuter flights (that gets rid of TSA!) and or the airport was paid for WITHOUT federal funds. Most GA fields are either unmanned, or there is very few staff on site. One I was at had a phone that rang to the local Sheriff's office and he came and unlocked the fuel!
April 30, 2009 8:16 p.m.
LOL, that would have been something to see. :-D
GOLO member since September 6, 2007
April 30, 2009 8:19 p.m.
WE (as a country) now own 75% of AIG bank. We own part of GM auto.
Just stop and look at that people. WHY do we need, AS A COUNTRY, to be owning a bank and auto maker! That is NOT the was of a Republic. That is heading towards Mother Russia's way, China, and Korea. Government run companies!!!
Add in HitlaryCare and Serve America Act and the picture is getting scary.
You have a financial group, automotive, healthcare, a bill that (they say "encourages") makes people volunteer time, and has "camps" for those involved... START LOOKING AHEAD people!!
April 30, 2009 8:26 p.m.
GOLO member since January 17, 2008
April 30, 2009 8:27 p.m.
I assume, therefore, that you are also against HMO's and insurance companies dictating acceptable rates of compensation for procedures to doctors?
GOLO member since September 6, 2007
April 30, 2009 8:30 p.m.
You're exaggerating a bit. The last time I checked, the government was not running either AIG or GM.
Would you have preferred the financial chaos that would have resulted from allowing AIG to fail (and taking several large banks with it)?
Bottom line: no, the government bailing out these companies is not an ideal situation, and it needs to exit the ownership positions as soon as prudently possible. That said, the free market got itself into this mess, largely without government oversight.
GOLO member since September 6, 2007
April 30, 2009 8:34 p.m.
GOLO member since January 30, 2008
April 30, 2009 8:36 p.m.
Slightly erroneous. The Fed dropped rates through the floor and substituted one bubble for another one. What should have been the result of the first bubble bursting was largely mitigated and put off for a while ( until now, matter of fact ...)
Add in as well that when that bubble burst, the derivative markets had not ballooned (due to the removal by Congress of derivatives oversight). The interconnected situation that existed in the current mess a a result of those derivative positions did not exist back then. They're very different situations.
GOLO member since September 6, 2007
April 30, 2009 8:41 p.m.
yes
April 30, 2009 8:42 p.m.
GOLO member since July 11, 2007
April 30, 2009 8:42 p.m.
I don't understand what this has to do with what I said. Besides an HMO is an agreement for a set fee. Bedides regardless of what an insurance co pays , there still---and usually is an out of pocket co -pay. The supply side of health care is inelastic. And when you throw in lawyers well.. Having worked with a multitude of Docs from Europe, they fully acknowledge that the public health system is failing. The private stuff caters to oil money--arabs.
GOLO member since January 17, 2008
April 30, 2009 8:45 p.m.
I agree, that causes me some degree of concern, but in another sense it's doing what any large institutional investor would do - exerting influence to protect its investment. In that light, it's no different than CalPERS forcing Ken Lewis out as chairman at BoA. I'm watching from a distance to see how much further, if any, it ends up going, but thus far I haven't seen much that would keep me awake at night. Whether it stays that way or not remains to be seen.
GOLO member since September 6, 2007
April 30, 2009 8:46 p.m.
GOLO member since January 17, 2008
April 30, 2009 8:47 p.m.
The point is that the doctor is still being coerced into accepting a fee for a procedure that is not necessarily what he or she would choose to charge. It hasn't resulted in the health care system failing.
GOLO member since September 6, 2007
April 30, 2009 8:48 p.m.
yes"
As long as you remained employed, correct?
GOLO member since September 6, 2007
April 30, 2009 8:49 p.m.
And given we know how the UAW has several congressional critters in their pockets through lobbying, I don't feel there isn't a conflict of interest here just waiting to be exposed.
Too close.
GOLO member since July 11, 2007
April 30, 2009 8:49 p.m.
GOLO member since January 30, 2008
April 30, 2009 8:52 p.m.
There are basic needs which must be met in order for humans to live. Food, shelter, clothes on one's back, etc. Healthcare falls into that category. I'm amazed that you think taking care of our sick should be a "luxury item for those who can afford it."
It's not only unbelievable, it's sickening.
Tell a mother whose child is ill, but she can't afford medicine. Tell that to the elderly man who has to make the choice of buying medicine or food. Tell that to my family when my sister is now battling cancer because she couldn't afford to go for her regular check ups.
Little different when it's REAL people and not just opposition to a political ideology, huh? I bet you have insurance. Tomorrow, it could be gone with the toss of a pink slip on your desk. Maybe you can afford COBRA, but most can't. Wonder how "anti-healthcare" you'll be when your loved ones sit home with illnesses that COULD be treated.
GOLO member since November 20, 2007
April 30, 2009 8:55 p.m.
I never said it was failing, but still really confused as how this relates to my basic statement on what constitutes a right. I would not use the word coerced. No doubt the system has been abused by the 3 major players. But HMO's at some level is negotiated, and also is some what of a garantee of a steady flow of patients. The joke we had about managed care was, If you came to see us in the ER with an axe in your head, we wouldn't take the ax out, but we would give you a bigger hat to wear.
GOLO member since January 17, 2008
April 30, 2009 8:57 p.m.
And each of those is a personal responsibility. Taking care of oneself is what made this country great.
GOLO member since July 11, 2007
April 30, 2009 8:58 p.m.
GOLO member since January 16, 2009
April 30, 2009 8:59 p.m.
No one wants socialism here! NO ONE! The only ones who say that are consevative slags. What I do want and so do others, is health coverage for all Americans. Not just the rich.
When someone is ill, the last thing they should concentrate on is finding money to make them better. When my dear mother was dying, we had to find money for everything. It was deplorable. Instead of focusing on getting well, my beautiful sister has to beg this agency and that to HELP her. Fugh! I'm getting angrier by the minute.
Further, I bet you're one of those God fearin' christians who thinks you're leading a good life. Even Jesus took care of the sick. Shame on you and your kind for putting HEALTH care in the same category as high priced sneakers.
GOLO member since November 20, 2007
April 30, 2009 8:59 p.m.
GOLO member since January 30, 2008
April 30, 2009 9:00 p.m.
GOLO member since July 11, 2007
April 30, 2009 9:01 p.m.
If you have to impose on some else, then by defintion It Is Not A Right.
GOLO member since January 17, 2008
April 30, 2009 9:02 p.m.
Possibly. Given the position the UAW is being left in here though (responsible for all future retiree health care regardless of whether or not Chrysler survives,) it has a legitimate right to protect its interests as well.
I agree with you that it bears watching. I just think it's a little early in the game to be resurrecting Lenin from his grave.
GOLO member since September 6, 2007
April 30, 2009 9:03 p.m.
GOLO member since January 30, 2008
April 30, 2009 9:03 p.m.
Which begs the question of why the majority of the bad loans written had nothing to do with CRA. They were written by mortgage brokers and securitized by investment banks under no government pressure to do so.
They simply wanted a nice profit, and went a little (or a lot) too far in search of it.
GOLO member since September 6, 2007
April 30, 2009 9:04 p.m.
I do find it interesting that the vast vast majority of Americans don't even begin to pay the full cost of their health coverage. They pay a small fraction of it, with the bulk being paid by their employer.
Even more interestingly, those same employers then largely recoup the cost of health benefits from the government in the form of tax credits.
So we already have government subsidized health care here in the US. We just don't call it that ...
GOLO member since September 6, 2007
April 30, 2009 9:06 p.m.
GOLO member since January 30, 2008
April 30, 2009 9:08 p.m.
GOLO member since September 6, 2007
April 30, 2009 9:08 p.m.
And how irresponsible is it to inundate ERs with people that don't have emergencies but merely need medical treatment? Asinine
GOLO member since January 16, 2009
April 30, 2009 9:09 p.m.
yes"
As long as you remained employed, correct? elcid
no, I own my own business and '08 was the worse year we have had since 2000. I know that my needs will be met as long as I have the freedom and right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our government is too big and is spinning out of control as far as I am concerned.
April 30, 2009 9:09 p.m.
No, it didn't. Not in the case of private mortgage brokers and investment banks anyway, who wrote and securitized the bulk of the bad mortgages written. It has no authority over them, and CRA does not apply to them, at all. What they did was done entirely of their own free will.
GOLO member since September 6, 2007
April 30, 2009 9:09 p.m.
Which begs the question of why the majority of the bad loans written had nothing to do with CRA. They were written by mortgage brokers and securitized by investment banks under no government pressur
There was pressure to make risky loans to minorities, this is well documented, but alot of greed involved as well.
GOLO member since January 17, 2008
April 30, 2009 9:10 p.m.
Capitalizing off of illness is barbaric. If your loved one comes down with a fatal, but treatable ilness do you really stand by the fact that someone should profit from that?
GOLO member since January 16, 2009
April 30, 2009 9:11 p.m.
GOLO member since January 30, 2008
April 30, 2009 9:11 p.m.
GOLO member since January 30, 2008
April 30, 2009 9:13 p.m.
So I guess you are down on health insurance companys as well?
GOLO member since January 17, 2008
April 30, 2009 9:14 p.m.
Unless you are about to die on the spot, the ER is useless and you know it.
Further, you DO have insurance and all your talk of selling body parts is a lame argument. Hopefully you won't lose that insurance or you'll learn what it means to really suffer.
I'm not talking Constitutional rights. I'm talking HUMAN rights. We are supposed to be the greatest country in the world, but I suppose it's only good if you have money, huh?
GOLO member since November 20, 2007
April 30, 2009 9:15 p.m.
More than you can imagine
GOLO member since January 16, 2009
April 30, 2009 9:15 p.m.
That is a ridiculous argument.
GOLO member since January 16, 2009
April 30, 2009 9:16 p.m.
GOLO member since April 4, 2008
April 30, 2009 9:16 p.m.
The ER is overwhelemed by people who use it like a clinic with non emergent problems. IS WHY IT IS SLOW. I have worked in healthcare 28 years and my shift is up ..agave time bye, best of luck to you Canyon and your wife.
GOLO member since January 17, 2008
April 30, 2009 9:19 p.m.
GOLO member since November 20, 2007
April 30, 2009 9:20 p.m.
It's just not forwarding the conversation at all.
GOLO member since July 11, 2007
April 30, 2009 9:22 p.m.
Since you are so bright, how much should we get paid? And then I will come to your job to make sure you are not making to much money.
GOLO member since January 17, 2008
April 30, 2009 9:22 p.m.
But maybe you think the mom should just stay home with her suffering infant?
GOLO member since November 20, 2007
April 30, 2009 9:22 p.m.
But there is no shot to counter this new flu and they don't expect one for several months. The best they can do is Tamiflu.
GOLO member since July 11, 2007
April 30, 2009 9:24 p.m.
Please log in to add comment.