Socialism = the government becoming a nanny state taking care of everyone's needs and they become dependent on such needs (aka welfare is a good example).

Technically, by the constitution, Highways and Schools are really the states job, but the Fed gov't usurped the State's rights. Good thing that now a handful of states are asserting their 10th amendment rights.

By the consitution, the federal gov't is only suppose to provide the navy. All other armed services are supposed to be provided by the states.

Also, I found out that Russia gives all new employees a type of credit card so that the gov't there can control how much someone makes. The people can't even check the balance and can't use it anywhere but in the country.

How can Socialism=Nanny State? The only thing that leads toa nanny state is a lack of democracy and socialism. Where the people do not decide to stay active in their own affairs to just hand things over to the State when Socialism in nature is about participation of the people.

Should we paint the Navy Red then? Since so many people seem ardent about getting rid of Socialism should we toss out the Navy and all those things I listed?

So no more Federal Funded Student Loans-Grants-Scholarships and Public Schools in your opinion?

Well Russia is the perfect example of Capitalism now a days don't you know, very Gilded Age America-nesque.

Though your getting away from my point here abit.

Why is it bad to be Socialist?

I think it is fine people will become dependent on the government. Isn't the government suppose to take
care of its people. In most 1st world countries their governments give everyone health care as if it is one
of their birth rights. While many people in America deal with not being able to pay high health insurances
claims, losing their insurance right as the accident happens because the insurance company pulled out declaring
they had a condition before they signed up making them pay the full medical bill, or the few that don't even have
insurance having to pay the full bill causing them to lose their homes or go in to massive debt.

What is wrong with the government giving out these benefits?
The government does so many more socialistic programs that benefit the community as a whole. Veteren benefits,
helping handicapped people, giving college students the means to go to school, and so much more I can't list.
Is it wrong of the government to interfere with the states if it means to help them out?

What do you mean by asserting their 10th amendment rights?
By turning down this great program will only bring further shame to America really. I cannot think of a reason
any state would not want this.

Why does Russia matter in this agruement also?
I agree they are socialist, but they are really only a dictatorship over there and are not anyting like america or
America is heading. We have a true form of democracy that will allow us, the poeple to be the final decision makers
in America. That would not allow the government to control the way we spend our money like that.

For example, this "credit card" does not have any major credit card company symbol on it, so you can't use it online at places like PayPal.

Well whats the limit? Depending on the level one of those Russian Cronies is on it must be in the hundreds of thousands, millions if your Mendeav or Putin. How much does Putin make a year?

Socialism just mean state control of resources, production, and distribution, and Marx considered it the transitional stage between capitalism and communism. Personally, I can understand why you want to take the responsibility out of someone naturally corrupt like a capitalist, but why would you turn right around and put it in the hands of someone as stupid and as corrupt as a politician? Sure, capitalism may be flawed, but people want to replace it with something that simply doesn't work.

As for the demonetization, that is the habit of people who have undeserved opinions (a socialized opinion, if you will, :P) feeling compelled to debate, but have not bothered to learn about the subject they wish to debate on.

Here here, succinctly put.

Don't we already put Capitalism and Power in the hands of Politicians? That is the fundemental of a Republic. That is the nature of any government besides a direct democracy. Besides even before Obama we are in terms "Socialist" in the principle sense and the literal sense of government ownership and services.
Does not the Government run the Post Office?

Both systems are not perfect, if they were then we WOULD be living a Utopia but we aren't. I'm just pointing out that you can not deamonize socialism and your thinking its worse then it is or not in your daily life already.

The Post Office? You mean the office that increases the cost of its stamps at a much higher rate than national inflation? The Office that complains that people use it less and less since the invention of email?

And while we do put a little power in the hands of a government, since what is the point of a government if it can't do anything, but we, until recently, have been very stingy with it, and what little we gave was given in the good faith that power would not be abused. In recent years, we have forgotten Benjamen Franklin's stern warning that "Those who give up a little liberty for a little security deserves neither, and will lose them both," and we are now paying the price of our amnesia.

You also seem to be operating on the mistaken idea that capitalism and socialism are on a sliding scale of the same spectrum. There are other kinds of economic theories out there (you might be interested in Distributism, for one.) But, even if there was a capitalist-socialist spectrum, and if you are right that we should be avoiding the extremes, then we would still end up avoiding Socialism because it is an extreme doctrine, and so isn't good for us.

You mean the parts of Socialism that you live with on a daily life but not the parts you don't like?

I hold the two on the same level, as both are good when their mild but both SUCK ASS when they are used as govermental types in the extreme. Take the Communist Tolitarian Dictatorship and the Corprate Tolitarian Dictatorship.

You've yet to ask me if I wanted those relics of a failed gamble by a president half a century ago around. The answer is no.

Neither are perfect, though I much prefer Socialism to the Social Darwinism of Capitalism for SSocialism is much much more humane then the greed of capitalism when you get down to the core of things in my view.

Is it that their radical forms are the best or not the best?

In what would be the Radicals of Socialism (Marx, Maoism, Communism, your whole idea of the state controlling all) it seems its worst but in the form of Capitalism at its most radical we have the Laizze-Faire capitalism as exemplified during the Gilded Age of America untill it was beaten back by the Socialist Progressivism of Teddy Roosevelt. Both are at their best when moderated to curb the excesses of both.

Yes, but I have a counterpoint. Consider how capitalism can go wrong. Consider monopolies, for instance. Given no governmental checks business could take over in similar fashion. And who really elects a CEO? I think there needs to be some semblance of balance here.

I present an example: the shipping industry. The government has run the post office all in all mediocre, But consider if they weren't around. How hard would it be for UPS and FedEx to artificaially raise prices on their services to help their bottom lines? Knowing neither could gain a larger market share in America, how else to boost their bottom lines? It's paranoid to think, but if they worked in tandem, may it as well be run by one entity? Or worse yet, have a small number of parent companies control multiple industries?

Would that make you feel better?

Fair point.

Actually your thinking of Communism, Socialism is more like Democracy where EVERYONE gets a share and vote while Communism emphasized by Lenin has the "Vanguard" which supposedly sets a group to run things to se things up to bring about the dissolvation of the state then true socialism (which we know with most violent communists never happens :P ).

The best guide to a principled socialist is George Orwell (especially the essays)

For a brilliant exposition of the sad reality of twentieth-century collectivist governments, Archie Brown's "The Rise and Fall of Communism" is on the spot

I miss William F Buckley Jr more than ever
(i didn't agree with him, but he knew what he was talking about)

Again, Communism not Socialism. The Dictatorship of the Few over the Rule of All. Again we have Socialism in our society and government (Socialized Medicine, Pledge of Allegiance, etc etc) and everyone LOVES those things yet hate the Socialism name.

sounds like name-calling to me (sad)
at least they're using their foul mouths as weapons
(we've seen worse - "Nixonland" Rick Perlstein)

Socialism is not a bad thing at all. It is a way to run your government and in fact most of our government
all ready works this way. The taxes we pay are a way of socialism. It is money being distributed around to
benefit everyone. We have fire departments, police, libraries, and schools from it, but if you take in to
consideration what i have just said the money that handicapped people get from the government, the way
Obama sent money to all of the states to boost our economy through the means of creating jobs by the government.
In my local county we have gotten all of our old decrepit roads repaved thanks to Obama stimulus money.

Our government all ready fully uses socialism and has proven that it works. Now many people are worried about
socialism leading to corrupt power. That will never happen due to our government being democratic unlike
every other corrupted communist party. We have the option to vote out corrupt officials and choose who gets to
go in. the government cannot control your pay through the means of socialism. They can onlly do that in a dictatorship.
I believe that our county is heading down the path of socialism but it will end up benefiting everyone and our
county will end up being a socialistic/democratic/capitalistic country that will benefit everyone by giving everyone
the benefit of having even ground.

There will be no way for you to fall through the seams and make you want to give up. There will be a net to catch
everyone so you can't fall down to the absolute bottom. Socialism comes from social community and we are all ready
a social community on our own. Churches have their people gather together to help take care one another on a number
of occasions. In truth this may sound very hippy, but caring for one another is socialism. In Canada they cannot
imagine a system with out universal health care. They do not mind paying more taxes if it is for the benefit of another
person. I do not paying taxes as an American citizen and that is because I love supporting my government and more
importantly all the people who receive the benefits of my taxes. That is a socialistic aspect of our government, the number
of federal and state ran programs that help everyone. It may not appear to be socialism but that is it.

Okay that is my opinion ^^;