Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think I have finally figured out the difference between these.
When the government offers a product that everyone needs but few can afford, at a lower price. That Socialism
When government bails out an industry with loans and takes collateral to guarantee the loan. That's Communism
When the government subsidizes an industry with blood. That's Capitalism
1. Yes, that's Socialism (refers to a specific social program the government is undertaking, because "it" believes the private sector is not effective at delivering the service to all Americans, whether right or wrong)
2. Yes, this is a form of Communism on a extremely small scale. True Communism would be the government owns 100% of all banks in the Country with no private ownership. The government owns all the Car Manufactures in the Country without any private ownership. The government runs the majority of businesses or if they allow "some" private businesses government interferes to a level that does not promote individual business success. The individuals have particular no say in politics. There are no election held under the guise of a popular vote. There are no property rights, no rights to a trail, basically none of the rights listed in our constitution or bill of rights etc.
3. Um not sure what you mean by blood? Do you mean like African countries that go to war and fund these wars via diamonds?
I think I have finally figured out the difference between these.
When the government offers a product that everyone needs but few can afford, at a lower price. That Socialism
When government bails out an industry with loans and takes collateral to guarantee the loan. That's Communism
When the government subsidizes an industry with blood. That's Capitalism
What is it called when a company is taken over by the government, the original stockholders are shafted, and the sorry-assed unions are given an owner stake in the country?
1. Yes, that's Socialism (refers to a specific social program the government is undertaking, because "it" believes the private sector is not effective at delivering the service to all Americans, whether right or wrong)
2. Yes, this is a form of Communism on a extremely small scale. True Communism would be the government owns 100% of all banks in the Country with no private ownership. The government owns all the Car Manufactures in the Country without any private ownership. The government runs the majority of businesses or if they allow "some" private businesses government interferes to a level that does not promote individual business success. The individuals have particular no say in politics. There are no election held under the guise of a popular vote. There are no property rights, no rights to a trail, basically none of the rights listed in our constitution or bill of rights etc.
3. Um not sure what you mean by blood? Do you mean like African countries that go to war and fund these wars via diamonds?
No I mean like going to war in Iraq and then dividing up the spoils of war amongst the oil corporations. Even capitalist on these boards defended going to war for oil.
What is it called when a company is taken over by the government, the original stockholders are shafted, and the sorry-assed unions are given an owner stake in the country?
OBAMAMISM?
PAYBACKISM?
What is it called when nothing is done the company goes out of business and everybody loses.
Conservatism.
BTW those stockholders have doubled their money in the last 2 weeks.
No I mean like going to war in Iraq and then dividing up the spoils of war amongst the oil corporations. Even capitalist on these boards defended going to war for oil.
Thank is interesting considering nation building is really a socialist idea.
We use our money of which we dont have and or borrow it to support a war and build a nation for democracy. We give them new schools yet ours need replacing, we give them food, clothing and yet we have issues at home. We have had this form of welfare and socialist/capitialist hybrid economy for sometime now. Socialism does work and the more we remove a free market the worse it has gotten. I dont really see any real reason where capitialism was the driving factor in the Iraq war at all. Did companies benefit from the war? Sure and many do everytime we do bomb someone. I wonder if anyone complained when bill clinton did it to Iraq and then got us into wars in bosnia and somila <---- more nation building ideas. The socialist would have us believe that bailing out everyone and giving everyone free stuff works. I dont know about you but someone has to pay for it and the real world when it comes time to pay the bill.
What is it called when nothing is done the company goes out of business and everybody loses.
Conservatism.
BTW those stockholders have doubled their money in the last 2 weeks.
Screw GM and the unions. Let the free market prevail. If GM can't compete then let them sink. Many will never buy another GM product,...and I am among them.....
FORD seems to be doing well without government ownership/interference,...in spite of the union's drag on their product line.
Stockholders are doing well,...is that the government and the unions?
Thank is interesting considering nation building is really a socialist idea.
We use our money of which we dont have and or borrow it to support a war and build a nation for democracy. We give them new schools yet ours need replacing, we give them food, clothing and yet we have issues at home. We have had this form of welfare and socialist/capitialist hybrid economy for sometime now. Socialism does work and the more we remove a free market the worse it has gotten. I dont really see any real reason where capitialism was the driving factor in the Iraq war at all. Did companies benefit from the war? Sure and many do everytime we do bomb someone. I wonder if anyone complained when bill clinton did it to Iraq and then got us into wars in bosnia and somila <---- more nation building ideas. The socialist would have us believe that bailing out everyone and giving everyone free stuff works. I dont know about you but someone has to pay for it and the real world when it comes time to pay the bill.
Well first of all we never did turn Iraq into a democracy, maybe a theocracy at best. I don't believe that was ever a real concern of the Neocons.
Second war profiteering was a criminal offense before Republicans in their greed started refering to that as patiotism.
Third in Bosnia we never split up the assets of the country.
What is it called when a company is taken over by the government, the original stockholders are shafted, and the sorry-assed unions are given an owner stake in the country?
OBAMAMISM?
PAYBACKISM?
Of course never mind that the company asked for the government's assistance, begged in fact. As for the original stockholder, perhaps if they had taken their fiduciary responsibilities more to heart they would have found themselves facing such dire consequences. And, of course if you think they got screwed, then think about what their situation would have been had the company simply folded. As for the UAW, compared to what was owed, the company was damned glad for the cash infusion, since the shareholders weren't ponying up to save the company.
The facts ma'am just the facts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
