Cal Thomas, KSFO's Rodgers and Morgan left out part of Clinton speech that directly refutes their accusation of socialism
In his May 31 nationally syndicated column, "It Takes a Socialist Village," Cal Thomas selectively cited a May 29 speech by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) to claim that Clinton "prefers" a "socialist" society where "the only equality is that all are equally poor." He added that Clinton's vision of "a 'we're all in it together' society" is reminiscent of "the old and discredited ... Karl Marx saying: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Similarly, during the May 30 broadcast of KSFO's The Lee Rodgers and Melanie Morgan Program, co-host Melanie Morgan cropped Clinton's speech to assert that her idea "[s]ounds like communism to me" while colleague Lee Rodgers claimed that the "Hildabeast" agrees with Marx that socialism is "the ideal economic structure for this country." However, Thomas, Rodgers, and Morgan all omitted Clinton's statement during the speech that "there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets."
As the Associated Press reported on May 29, Clinton "outlined a broad economic vision" in her speech "saying it's time to replace an 'on your own' society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity":
The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.
"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."
But in highlighting Clinton's comments to accuse her of embracing socialism or communism, Thomas, Rodgers, and Morgan ignored Clinton's praise of the value of a "free market" system. As the AP reported, Clinton's vision of a " 'we're all in it together' society" includes "pairing growth with fairness ... to ensure that the middle-class succeeds in the global economy, not just corporate CEOs." Clinton continued:
CLINTON: [T]here is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed.
When we get our priorities in order and make the smart investments we need, the markets work well.
From Thomas' syndicated column:
Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has unveiled her economic vision. Should she be given the power to implement it, we can say goodbye to the prosperity and opportunity we have enjoyed since the Reagan years.
In a speech at Manchester School of Technology in New Hampshire, Clinton said it's time to replace President Bush's "ownership society," which she called an "on your own" society, with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.
Clinton said she prefers a "we're all in it together" society: "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."
Doesn't such a society already exist elsewhere? It's called socialism, where government has sought to make all things economically equal and the only equality is that all are equally poor. Wasn't defeating such a society precisely why we fought and won the Cold War? Why does Senator Clinton wish to embrace the principles of the losing side?
Clinton has merely updated the old and discredited (except among socialist dictators) Karl Marx saying: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
From the May 30 edition of KSFO's The Lee Rodgers and Melanie Morgan Program:
RODGERS: By the way, if anybody has any doubts about what Hillary Clinton stands for, here it is in one quote from her. She was making a speech in Manchester, New Hampshire on Monday [sic: Tuesday] -- one of those political Memorial Day things -- in which she said, quote, now try to absorb this, she said, "It's time to replace an 'on your own' society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity."
MORGAN: Sounds like communism to me.
RODGERS: If you have -- if you have any difficulty interpreting that, I can help you with it.
TOM BENNER (staff member, known on-air as "Officer Vic"): Yeah.
RODGERS: It means: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," and the original author was an old dude named Karl Marx in 1875. That's what the Hildabeast believes is the ideal economic structure for this country. So, don't say you weren't warned.
Replacing our current society with a shared prosperity one is what Mrs. Clinton said. Her subsequent comments about the free markets doesn't change the context of that........electing her as President just got a little scarier for me.
Expect this little comment of hers to get plenty of airtime should she become the nominee.
The idea of everybody in the country doing well is scary to you, Tommy?
Why do you hate America?
No, it is not my job to make sure you do "well", sorry. That would be your responsibility.
I didn't say it was your job. I just gathered from your comment that the idea of a society where everybody is doing well is "scary" to you.
I don't mind helping you to do well.
A society where everyone lives up to their potential and works hard for the benefit of themselves, their families, and their communities is the ideal society for me.
Well, if it doesn't work out for you Tommy, some of us are willing to help.
I have always been for a safety net, and have said so many times here.......however that is already in place in our current society, so that was not what Mrs. Clinton was obviously referring to.
She wants a far broader shared prosperity, according to her exact words.
There is nothing wrong with a more "Shared Prosperity" in this country. There are too many poor people in the wealthiest nation on earth. Look at how the Katrina Victims were treated.
Exactly, and we are a very giving and charitable society. When we are faced with a tragedy such as Katrina or 9/11, for example, our citizens step up and contribute and help those in need like nobody else on earth. The government needn't be involved.
Well the government was incapable of being involved because of Bush and Brownie.
Doris, The Katrina response just illustrated how ineffective and inept the government is at the local, state and federal levels. Their inefficiency only gives those opposed to more government intervention further evidence as to why relying on them for much more than an IRS audit on occasion, is foolish.
No, it shows that The Bush Administration is inept. FEMA before Bush was one of the best run government agencies.
And Tommy, please don't come crying to the Federal Government after California falls into the sea. We know it's only a matter of time before it does.
We will be sending someone out to pick up HBL though.
Worrier, If you don't think the first responders, the local and state authorities, don't share in Katrina's blame, then you are mistaken. Bush's ineptness is widely known here and abroad.
Government's inefficiencies have been widely known for years.
And if California falls into the ocean I already have a room in Jeter's house, so nananana!!
You really are rather offensive in your rhetoric and condescending comments Tommy.
Offensive? If you're referring to the comment about Jeter's house, it was joke for crying out loud........you can't have missed that?
I was referring to your abrasive style and unwillingness to see another's point of view, or at least acknowledge it. It's difficult to have a conversation with someone who is as hard headed as you are. Instead of delivering your opinion you state them as some kind of hard truth that can't be challenged.
The local and state governments did a pretty good job, considering.
It was the Fed's who fell down on their part of the job, Tommy.
There were lots of rightwingers who wanted to shift responsibility from Bush to the mayor and the governor, but almost all of those arguments were 100% bogus. The mayor couldn't use those buses, the governor did ask for help, the lower parishes did need to evacuate first, and since we don't know exactly when and how severe hurricanes will be, we can't make people leave too early, and in any storm like this, you're going to have people who can't or won't leave.
It was FEMA's job to step up, and they took too long to do it. If they had been there on Tuesday and Wednesday, people wouldn't have died and suffered like they did in the SuperDome. If they had responded promptly, and been prepared, much of the story wouldn't be about how bad it was, but about how good the Fed's handled this catastrophe.
Why are you still covering up for Bush? This is an example of carrying water!
Wait, you're blaming the first responders for Katrina?
Are you high, or do you not know what that term means?
Yes Val, I know what that means........I wasn't speaking in the literal sense of firefighters and police, I was speaking of local and state.....I should have put it in quotes or italicized it.
Well, you might have been speaking of state and local officials, but you are wrong in your condemnation of their actions. It's a rightwing talking point that's been thoroughly discredited that the local and state government fell down on their portion of the job.
The fault lies squarely on the Bush administration's shoulders.
We will be sending someone out to pick up HBL though.- worrierking
Don't bother, King. Tommy has inspired me to start developing some jet-propelled, amphibious bootstraps with which I can pull myself out of the Pacific.Screw everybody else! ;0)
Worrier - based on Tommy's logic, he wouldn't want or need your help anyway (if CA fell into the ocean). Remember, he's for personal responsibility, not responsibility for others. According to Tommy, he should only help himself and shouldn't expect or accept help from anyone else, including the government.
So, if CA does fall into the ocean (what? seriously now...) we'll leave him and other conservatives to fend for themselves. The liberals can most definitely help themselves and each other.
The government most obviously did need to be involved on 9/11 and during Katrina.
"There is nothing wrong with a more "Shared Prosperity" in this country"~DorisRussell~
What exactly does that mean, and how do we go about achieving that? Taxes? Redistribution of wealth?
Everyone should have the opportunity to better themselves. But what on earth does Hillary mean by sharing prosperity? I'm sorry but that does sound as if she's leaning towards a form of socialism.
We already redistribute income in this country upward. What do you call it when my tax dollars are used to develop the cancer drug Taxol that is then GIVEN to Bristol-Squibb-Meyers for free to charge whatever they want for. When my tax dollars are used to develop a satellite system that is then used by telecommunications corporations to make billions? When my tax dollars are used to build a highway system and the railroads that are then used by private corporations to make billions? When a company that is GAURANTEED a profit plus like Bell was, which is the same as being taxpayer subsidized, creates the silicon chip that is the BASIS for the electronics industry. When my tax dollars are giving to billion dollar industries like Pillsbury to advertise overseas. When my tax dollars are given as foriegn aid with the proviso that the money be used to buy Bell Helicopers, when my tax money is given as a below prime loan to countries to countries IF they use the money to buy Caterpillar tractors? A whole lot of this countries economy is public cost turned into private profit. None of the conservatives seem to care about redistributing income UPWARD.
Not true, corporate welfare is an atrocity. I am against the bailouts we hand out, for the record.
OK, I did overgeneralize, though I dont really think of you as a conservative as much as a right leaning libertarian which isnt the same to me. So you DONT. Still we DO redistribute income upward and as long as we do and as long as there is ZERO political will to stop redistributing income upward, how isnt it just a bit hypocritical to complain about redistribution the other way? Those corporations and wealthy individuals HAVE the political power to protect THIER advantages. The poor and working class DONT have the same political power chips in the game. ONLY public opinion can be a chip in the game for them.
That sounds anti-capitalist Tommy. Which must mean you are a socialist.
I've never seen that argument advanced before the way you made it look. Simple and clear. Thanks!
I appreciate that Snoopy.
July Mom,
Do a little research on who benefitted from the Bush tax cuts--and how much debt has been piled on the backs of ordinary Americans by this greedy bunch of Cons.
That's their strategy: pile on the debt, and then tear down the government. This way, even more can be passed into the hands of the wealthy.
How about allowing the formation of unions? How about enforcing existing antitrust laws, and additional antitrust legislation (think mega-huge media corporations)? How about labor laws? How about fair and evenly distributed bankruptcy laws? How about taking away the legal status that treats a corporation the same as an individual?
Now, was that so hard? Surely I don't need to continue to point out all the ways to keep this country from becoming a two-tiered society without taxation or "wealth redistribution", do I?
"........in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, Promote the General Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity....."
Does that sound socialist to you? It's the Preamble to the Constitution. Our founding Fathers had a concept of individual liberty AND the common good. If you want to call it socialist, so be it, but don't say it like it's a bad thing. It's the American way. All Hillary is suggesting is "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" ala JFK. Of course his detractors claimed he was a commie pinko too. Some things never change.Here we go again, back to putting Band Aids on severed limbs.
Safety nets can only do so much and last so long. How long have you been on unemployment while tirelessly looking for work that will sustain you and your family?
It's time to stop the policies that drive people to the unemployment lines!
It's time to stop promoting the tired rightwing ideal of a two-class society. Mexico, among others, has already proven that it doesn't work.
It's time to stop rewarding American companies that export good middle-class jobs and start rewarding companies that make sacrifices to keep jobs in the U.S.
It's time to stop subsidizing big oil with tax money when they are insanely profitable.
It's time to enact a healthcare system where the families are not one accident or illness away from financial ruin.
What else is it time for? I'm sure there's a lot of things that are long overdue that conservatives refuse to do.
Sounds to me as though you espouse Marxism, Tommy...
"from each according to ability, for each according to need"....
Just kidding. I know you're not a Marxist. But doesn't your statement of being responsible for only yourself go against your Christian beliefs? Remember, we are our brothers' keepers....
When we get our priorities in order and make the smart investments we need, the markets work well. The problem here is the markets are the most efficient way to decide the allocation of scares resources not Hillary or the government.
Sure it is, tell that to the Enron, worldcom investors where the top guys made tens of millions and millions lost all their money. It wasnt MARKETS that brought you rural electrification it wasnt profitable enough for private companies to bring electric service to rural areas and if it hadnt been for government those rural republicans would STILL be reading by candlelight. Sometimes the market does a good job and other times the profit motive dictates things NOT in the countries best interest. It isnt that hard to understand that a corporations sole purpose is to maximize profits and sometimes that means doing things NOT in the countries best interest. Its not that hard to understand that since they have different priorities and goals the interests of corporations and governments are NOT always the same. IN fact it takes real comittment to ideology to say otherwise. Lets talk about the Pinto. It was in Fords best interest to let a few thousand people DIE after buying their product rather than spend the money to change the design once they found the design flaw. We KNOW this since the bean counter who did the math for upper management TESTIFIED TO IT IN COURT. He told his bosses how many people would die, how many be maimed and about how much that would cost in lawsuits. That number was lower than the number it would cost to change the design after production had begun. Ford made a MARKET DESICION to go ahead with distribution KILLING THOSE PEOPLE. Markets are not religious dogma. They are not always the best arbiter of what SHOULD be done.
Solon
I have a Pinto I would like you to buy.
I have a much better idea where you can put your Pinto Duncan.
So you result to insults when unable to comprehend a well made point. Typical conservative.
No, just want him to take my Pinto off my hands. I guess liberals have no sense of humor is true.
Sure tell that to Bill Mahar, Robin Williams, George Carlin, the late Richard Pryor, Chris Rock and all the other great Liberal comedians. Guess its true that conservatives are MORONS
You left out the greatest liberal comedian of them all.... Bill Hicks. We can never forget him.
What are you talking about? I'm hilarious.
You made a stupid off-hand comment and got a thoughtful response to it. Then you responded with a stupid, off-hand joke, and whined "humorless liberals" when nobody patted you on the head.
I think you should go back to random "Obama is magical" comments, Duncan. Any more than one post a thread, and you kind of fall apart.
I was wondering the same thing Huntington...
This has been developing over time: It appears Tommy does indeed hate America.
He hates our values,
Tommy does not hate America, he just hates you.
I am America Jack, and so are you.
Ring: do we at least get to pick which parts of America we each are?
I don't really want to be Florida, sort of peeing in the Atlantic. I could stand being the left hand (lower Michigan), but definitely do not want to be one of the "box States" - besides, those are all pretty red, and I'm a blue kind of fellow.
Hey, if we get to choose, I want to be a frankfort michigan kinda guy. Living near sleeping bear dunes, a desert in the middle of a nor-easter, the true conundrum of conundrums...
She did not say that. Only if you twist what she said can you claim that she said that.
"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."
There's a big difference between a capitalist society that is a "we're all in this together" and a communist economy.
With your black-n-white thinking, you might not be able to grasp such a basic concept, but that's one of your problems, not ours. We understand that one can still have a free-market economy and do a good job of providing opportunities to all Americans to improve their stature above what their natural pathways might be. If we recognize that we're all in this together, we provide for universal education, for example, even if we have never had and never will have kids, because it benefits the community to have a better educated workforce! That's not communism or socialism. It's good government.
What does improving their stature above what their natural pathways might be mean?
And please, specifics - not packaged liberal ideology.
He gave an example. Education taken in its LARGER meaning government could provide subsidies for smart but poor students to go to college or if that isnt their natural gift specialized training for skilled mechanic, machinist or construction work. A more skilled workforce pays for itself. For instance Canada to help their healthcare system puts very intelligent but poor students in schools like Johns Hopkins and pays for the very BEST medical schools for them to become highly skilled specialized physicians then mandates the spend so much time in the national healthcare system. We could do something like that paying for training in return for a committment to national service. Society gets something and the citizen gets training beyond what his resources would allow him to BUY and everyone is better served.
Solon,
I don't disagree with anything you've said, it's very smart. I have always said that no child should be denied education because they can't afford it, in that vein I am for "affirmative action" based on economic need.
Good ideas.
Thank you tommy. That is one reason I say that to me you seem like a right leaning libertarian more than a classic conservative.
Actually, on education, Tommy would appear to be well left of Libertarian. If so, I applaud him. I don't believe children should have to essentially pay their entire lives for the sins of their fathers.
You say that as if it's a bad thing. But this liberal ideology you direct such animosity at is what built the middle class in this country and made it great. We are watching the decline of our middle class because of the conservative idea of free markets. Free markets don't provide a middle class without government regulation and yes, to some degree a re-distribution of wealth. Like profit sharing in the NFL or Title IX. The wealthiest among us donate a little more and it lifts the rest up to make money and buy the products of the wealthy. The Constitution for which our country is based does not say "every man for themselves" it says "To Promote the General Welfare." In the freaking first line of the Preamble. You cons should really read the thing some time. By the way Reagan is dead but his economic legacy is killing us.
The wealthiest among us to donate a little more - Now that is the perfect example of the liberal ideology I was referring to. You mean raise taxes, is that right? Is that what you call a donation?
If not, what do you mean?
Uh, yeah. Rich people should be taxed more. What's the big whoop? The Dallas Cowboys sell a ton of merchandise. Instead of keeping all their profits they share it with the rest of the league, and everyone benefits. Market share increases, so do profits. It's called spending a little, or sacrificing a little, to wreap better rewards. Rewards not possible without that sacrifice. Corporations should have to give back to the community also. That is a liberal ideology. I'm glad you agree. There is nothing wrong with it. It's a system that built a strong middle class that was in our national interests. Free markets didn't save capitalism, FDR did. History shows this again and again. Free markets are simply not in our public's interests. Illegal immigration to national security is all in the state it's in because of voodoo economics. Time to go back to the liberal view of capitalism.
But that being said, if we could shift our focus on what we pay taxes on to put more money in the pockets of Joe Average without raising them, I'm all for it! See Socialism is a whole different level of taxation. There are elements of it that are good, and elements that are bad. Just like free market capitilasm. Hell, let's bring back tarrifs and kill the Federal income tax! I'd love to see it. It worked for years. But free marketeers and Ayn Rand neo con capitalists won't hear of it. If anyone even suggests it they scream "socialist!" It's a shame really.
Headstart, for example. My kids didn't need it. Their mom stayed home, and my kids ate well, but our society is better off if we give some kids some extra help. Some of those kids whose parents aren't going to be able to maximize their capabilities, will do much better with a nourishing breakfast as well as some academic stimulation before regular schooling.
If we give welfare to families who are temporarily out of work, we help them keep a household, which helps the kids. They don't steal to support their families. They don't choose to sell drugs to finance their household budget. They don't have such poor healthcare options that when they have a minor problem, they wait until they are really sick to visit the emergency room, which is a problem for us all!
There are lots of ways where government can raise peopla above their natural pathways.
yeah a shared prosperity is such a horrible thing.
Don't worry, Tommy. Hillary has yet to meet a corporation she hasn't put above the prosperity of the masses. She's as socialist as Ayn Rand on the game.
THOMAS "...socialism, where government has sought to make all things economically equal and the only equality is that all are equally poor."
I wonder how the same people who are constantly bellowing that we're the richest nation on earth, and everybody is doing great, reconciles this thinking; That in some imagined "communist" scenario where everything was distributed equally, we would all be poor.
THOMAS "...socialism, where government has sought to make all things economically equal and the only equality is that all are equally poor."
I would suggest to anyone who believes this to check out the quality of life in countries like Sweden who have an actual socialist economy. Not saying theirs would work here. But it's a myth that socialism is only in the soviet vein. Theirs was a bastardization and government as religion. That's not what real socialism is about.
BingVG, I heard the government of communist Russia called Thugism. It's worked for me. There's a few proponets of thugism in our own country, its just not been one of those labels a mover and shaker is usually happy with.
SOLON, on a roll today!
Think of all the help you could give if you had the cash mORGAN puts on in lipstick.
Not that it matters or anything but the saying: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is originally from Act of the Apostles.
And all this time I thought it was Spock who said that.
That would require a chapter & verse reference. If it's true, I love it. Old Karl (Jewish atheist, wasn't he?) taking wisdom from the New Testament while right-wing Christian hornblowers trash it. Since, according to their lights, every word is the inspired word of God, aren't they committing blasphemy?
Here's where Uncle Karl picked it up.
Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. (Acts 4:34-35)
32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults2.php?passage1=Acts+4&book_id=51&version1=31&tp=28&c=4
Holy crap...Jesus was a Commie!
No, Nerzog, he was the figment of someone's imagination.
Yup, the early Christian communities in the Lebanon/Palestine region were essentially communes.
I'm not a big bible person but it doesn't sound like things were taken from them and redistributed. Sounds like it was out of compassion.
Hillary wants to take.
So does George W. Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger. I got taxed up the ass last year, as I will this year.
Sure, Val, but at least they lied and told you they'd lower taxes.
And isn't that what really matters?
Hmm...yes and no. Most members of the community gave freely. But the price for cheating was severe. See Acts 5:1-11.
Not so "original," Wookie. Try Deuteronomy 15:7, or Josephus Against Apion at ii.27, or Tobit 4:8-10 for a start -- all are pre-New Testament.
Live long and fester? Maybe thats live long with (uncle)Fester.
Take a good look at the Canadian example without the anecdotal bull s--- and I think if you look honestly you will see a population that is very happy with their social saftey net. Sure taxes are higher but factor in the cost of health care, day care ect and you will find it can be done right with all the safe guards against abuse intact at a very reasonable cost to society. What is wrong with taking care of those less fortunate? The live and let die idea is not what your supposive "country founded on JudeoChristian values" stands for. As a person who lives out side the USA I used to view your country with envy but not so much any more. After a trip to Chicago and seeing all the Vietnam Vets that were homeless I left shocked and depressed that your country does not take care of those having a hard time.Take care folks.
"What is wrong with taking care of those less fortunate? The live and let die idea is not what your supposive "country founded on JudeoChristian values" stands for. "
Couldn't agree more. Most on the right would say that it's not the governments job to help out the less fortunate, it should be up to the individual. But it is interesting that this is the only moral issue they feel should not be legislated. See, we need laws against abortion, gay marriage, and teaching evolution in schools. Government has no place in that "other" moral issue.
I think the most compelling reason our society should help those in need is because WE CAN.
"There could be nothing more paradoxical in historical terms than this change: man, at the beginning of the industrial age, when in reality he did not possess the means for a world in which the table was set for all who wanted to eat, when he lived in a world in which there were economic reasons for slavery, war, and exploitation, in which man only sensed the possibilities of his new science and of its application to technique and to production -- nevertheless man at the beginning of modern development was full of hope. Four hundred years later, when all these hopes are realizable, when man can produce enough for everybody, when war has become unnecessary because technical progress can give any country more wealth than can territorial conquest, when this globe is in the process of becoming as unified as a continent was four hundred years ago, at the very moment when man is on the verge of realizing his hope, he begins to lose it. "
Erich Fromm - afterword to "1984"
And I think in a lot of cases, we do, by being activily involved in our communities, participating in Food drives, volunteering with local charitable agencies, schools, etc. Offering a hand up to those that need it and a handout to those who are truly in need of it. This is not true across the country, I know. But I know it is a big part of the local community. There are those who are bent on accumulating possessions just to accumulate, but there are also those who accumulate in order to share. I fortunately know more people in the latter category than in the former.
So how does it make sense to give health care to everyone when only a few need it. Or to give college to people who can already afford it.
Social programs does not equal socialism. What Hillary proposes is far more socialistic than most people want. Hence the last time she tried to socialize medicine she was shot down.
did it ever occur to you that if you don't need it, you won't use it? It's no different from insurance.
Hillary never tried to Socialize medicine you walking rightwing talking point. The privat health insurance industry was a big part of her health plan. Man do you EVER know what you are talking about?
Let's see....redistribution of wealth. I believe you could use that to describe our healthcare system...the one these very Conservatives claim is the best in the world. Premiums are collected, then redistributed to the overpaid Insurance CEOs, the stockholders, the Doctors, and the Drowning-in-Cash pharmaceutical companies. Then, what's left over is used to treat the sick. This is all paid for by the healthy policy holders. Yes, it's "voluntary", but the principle is the same.
I'd say Morgan and her ilk were being intellectually dishonest in their interpretation of "socialism" but they are far from being intellectuals. Their just fear mongers. Maybe they should actually read Karl Marx and the history of the Soviet Union to understand that communism meant entirely different things to them. Socialism, as I have said before, are what paved the way for workers rights including child labor laws. Jack London, Emma Goldman, Stephen Bellamy who wrote the pledge of allegiance, all socialists and all benifited our country.
"It's time to replace an 'on your own' society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity."
sounds more like the preamble of the Constitution than anything else. But the simple minded hear the "s" word and just freak out. Are they aware that Sweden and much of Scandinavia is socialist? I'm always hearing about how dangerous and horrible it is to live there. Not.
Socialism, practiced perfectly, would advance the common good. However as it is practiced around the world, it is not perfect as there are still the "elites" and the "common folk". As it is practiced on a small scale like the Amish and Mennonites and like societies, it seems to work as it should. But there is "good" and there is "evil" (and various shades of grey) and there are those, in a socialist society, that would take advantage of the system (on both ends of the spectrum). In North Korea, the army and the rulers get fed, the majority of the population just barely gets by (at best). In the old USSR, your destiny was pretty much determined in your early years as to whether you would be educated beyond the minimum (and hence, part of the "elites") or whether you would be "common folk" (farmers, factory workers, etc), so what is/was practiced in those societies is/was not socialism as has been outlined above. If it takes a village, it takes the contributions of the whole village population to make the concept work as it should, not just those with the "most" supporting those with the "least".
North Korea and the USSR were not socialist or even remotely communist. They were called that. But if you read Marx or look at countires with socialist types of government today they are not close. North Korea isn't anything but a dictatorship. There's nothing socialist about it really. The layman might think of socialism as re-distribution of wealth, that's hardly what happens there.
The versions of history that I have read (and history can be rewritten as we know) taught the Russian Revolution was brought about by the excesses of the "elites" and was supposed to bring about class equality. However, over the 70+ year "reign" of the "masses" (if you will), we found that a new breed of "elites" rose to the top (the ruling class) and subjugated (sp?) the "masses" much as the prior elites had done. Would an attempt at socialism fare any better under our form of government where the governing power, and therefore the rules, could conceivable change every 2 years or so? I think it will work in small/isolated communities (again the Amish, the Mennonites, etc) but would not work nationwide without a strong central government, which I don't think we are willing to set up in this country. This is the fear of many of us, that as a central government becomes more powerful, we will lose some of the rights, priveleges, responsibilities we have as citizens. We are seeing some of that in the reaction to 9/11 (the Patriot Act for example, which has affected a few of us). I believe we are seeing an eroding of responsibilities even now, as we rely on government more and more to "bail us out" (from the personal to the corporate level) when we make bad decisions or are unwilling to prepare for bad times on our own, either as individuals or communities, the "Let Uncle Sam Take Care of It" Syndrome.
I think, as with most things, that it's a balance of rights and responsibilities.
It seems to me, though, that you inhabit a very different world than I do, with a government so beneficent that people just kick back and get lazy. My fiancee and I are both busting ass to put her through school without a dime's bit of help from Uncle Sam or the People's Republic of Ka-lee-fornia.
There are those that "work the system" and there are those such as yourself and your fiancee that realize that there are responsibilities that go with the rights we have. We (my wife and I) went through College without the benefit of government aid (loans or grants) and three of our five children did also. Only with the last two have receiveed loans and grants, basically because the cost of education has risen so dramatically in the past few years. I applaud you and yours for being able to do it the right way, even though it is a big sacrifice. Do I partake of government services? Yes, I enjoy riding the roads, using the postal department, having police and fire protection, etc. But I have worked hard during my life to take care of myselt and my family (except for the above education thing).
Would those rights you are afraid of losing include Habeus Corpus? Or freedom from having Federal troops applied to "law enforcement" in States far from their own (posse comitatus)? Or freedom in your person, from unwarranted surveillance? Or even just the freedom to vote while brown-skinned, even though you are away from your place of registration due to military service? Freedom from torture, administered at the whim of the "elected" regent?
If your answer to any of the above is "yes", I suspect we have uncovered another ameriKa-hating librul, hiding 'neath the cloak of a Grouch. And I suspect that a reasonable person, answering "yes" to any of the above, would vow to oppose henceforth the Repugnant / Corporate Media cabal. If "yes" to more than one, perhaps 'tis time to move to Venezuela, to be closer to Chavez?
Am I currently afraid of losing the rights you have enumerated? No. But I don't want a Central Government that is stronger than at current, in fact, I could do with a little less central control of our lives, putting more of the control back into state and local hands. Does that make me an "American hating librul?" Perhaps in your mind, hey but that's ok.
Well, well . . . you have already lost those "rights" listed, all within the past six years . . . yet you know no fear? Or do you deny the final stroke, the destruction of posse by the John Warner Defense Authorization act of 2006? Is it the difficulty the Dems are encountering in getting reinstatement of Habeus through the Lie-berman Senate? The "vote-caging" strategy effected by our newest "expired - interim" US Atty, to send registered letters to service-persons residing in minority voters, as an excuse to purge them from the voter rolls, leaving them unaware that their absentee ballot would consequently be discarded? The numerous documented instances of "inadvertent" unwarranted surveillance of thousands (at least) of innocent citizens by the NSA - never even mind the blatant violation of FISA - in a program that remains mostly covert, mostly illegal, and totally unjustifiable by results - you know, actually identifying or thwarting terrorists. The so-called "compromise" on torture by the Administration? (The one that leaves the Administration as sole arbiter of what constitutes torture, and what constitutes cause, despite 70+ legally binding treaty agreements blessed by the Senate, that define and restrict those techniques?)
You are certainly made of sterner stuff than I, for if those are gone in a mere six years, I cannot bear the fear of what will appear in the next 20 months - or longer if that Federalization of the State guards is carried to its logical conclusion.
So true, so true. The inevitable march towards complete fascism continues.
Funny these pundits didn't attribute Hillary's notion of a society where people share with one another to the old dude named God - "And all who believed were together and had all things in common." Acts 2:44
I think the framers of the constitution did us right in terms of specifically limiting the power of government. Unfortunately, in the opinion of many on the right at least, the government has grown to have powers over us that go far beyond what the constitution sets forth, particularly in the area of commerce. Moreover, those powers continue to grow in spite of the efforts of state law makers and, in some cases, the congress to correct the abuses. A rose by any other name… This is a trend toward socialism: the leveling of the playing field by income redistribution etc.
One of the greatest concerns of some of the founding fathers (from “The Libertarian Reader”) was the provisions set forth for the courts. There was fear of the Supreme Court in that the members are not elected and hold office for life. Much of what is legislated nowadays by the people through their elected representatives is turned aside by the courts. Sometimes the reverse is true by way of the court upholding laws which encroach on the governmental power limitations set forth in the constitution: IMHO one of the more egregious acts of the Supreme Court recently was turning down the challenge to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. In today’s society, after all, money IS the coin of free speech especially at the national level. Congress has effectively silenced us 30 days prior to the national elections.
Right! Hillary is NOT a socialist! How dare they accuse a DLC right-winger who loves corporatism as a socialist?!?! She's a FASCIST through and through! Get 'em, MMFA! Make sure they know the Dems are 100% behind the Corporate State!
Cal and cronies prove that screeching fear and hate does work.
"The Dems want everybody in America to live in cardboard boxes"
How goofey does a person have to be to believe something like that?
These people need a new gag writer. "The commies are coming!" has gotten tiresome after 50 years.
Since this gang has described exactly what Sen. Clinton really stands for, their show must now shift in another direction. They said. It must be true. no further discussion. Vote for Sen. Clinto or vote for someone esle...Thanks Melanie and gang. Nowtaht you did your job. Get off the air.
Really you have to get a big chuckle when you think that people go to the trouble to label Hillary Clinton as socialist merely because of the title of her book. Oh well, they must be very insular not to realize that that concept comes from Africa and it has to do with all of the village sharing responsibility for the well- being of children in the village. Having lived in an Alaskan village, I understand the idea perfectly. In those villages, everyone takes an interest in seeing that all children are treated well, that not only do families commit to making certain all of THEIR children are loved and cared for, they commit to making certain all children in the village get that same care. Strange that these guys are so illiterate that they have no knowledge of that concept. Actually, it is a concept put forth by Jesus himself when he stated "I am my brother's keeper". Hmmm, they probably do know about it but they are so insanely jealous of Mrs. Clinton, they distort that idea even when espousing the distortion makes readers less clued-in on how to carry out the commands of Jesus. So much for the Christian Right!!!!
You have to remember that we're dealing with sociopathic personalities here. The sociopath is an extreme egoist. All that matters is their own personal gratification, all others are merely objects to be used and abused for the sociopaths own profit or pleasure. As long as you approach these people with this in mind, all they do and say becomes quite clear, they're just expressing their sociopathy, showing their mental illness. Unfortunately, the corporate world favours the sociopath and these people are agressive enough to make their way and succeed in it.
Recently I tuned in Melanie Morgan and Lee Rodgers of San Francisco KSFO Radio. I heard them say two things that morning,one homophobic, the other derogatory re: people with physical disabilities. I wrote an email of complaint, then Googled KSFO and found 13 years of San Francisco KSFO Hate Radio.. What I have heard more recently is so seriously abusive that it amounts to inciting to riot. They both need to be fired. Since the Management tolerates if not requires this hate, they need to be fired too. And perhaps this is enough to pull their license. In a few hours I will have posted on my MySpace and BlogSpot Blogs a Letter to KSFO and an initial list of 30 others. KSFO Hate Radio is violating Human Rights. They need to meet with Oprah Winfrey, The Center for NonViolent Communication and Vision Force. I am Art Bell's (CoastToCoast AM, also a KSFO show) sister. Art and I need to be a part of this too. Dialogue and healing, not diatribe and violence. Sakanta Running Wolf,MS,Metis