“such violent, criminal activity” as McVeigh? I don't think so . . . I'm sure we would have heard about it. Ok, so just what kind of “violent criminal activity”? And what percentage of the military veterans is 200 over the past – um, how many years? How does that compare to the general population? It's all pretty vague, yet the message seems clear. If a person is a part of one of these mentioned groups, that person is MORE LIKELY than the average bear to be involved in the “emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.” And, if you react to these bogus charges, you are deranged. Add yourself to the list.

Nope, sorry, I'm not drinking the kool-ade.

Now, before you go off on me and say that these days EVERYONE is at risk of being able to afford healthcare, I get that argument. But just because the solution of a govt run program works for one segment of the population doesn't automatically mean that this should be the only solution we consider.

And this is my problem with the entire way that you frame these arguments. It's like “Well, if conservatives accept this degree of government social welfare, there's no reason they should object to a higher and higher degree of it.” That's illogical, and it's intellectually lazy.

I've agreed with you that the GOP is lazy in it's arguments to support its positions- but I'm now also trying to point out that yours too are 'preaching to the choir'.

You are also correct when you write about the continuum between capitalism and socialism or a social welfare state (and there too, I'll criticize the GOP for disingenuousness by often not admitting to that.) But accepting some level of these kinds of policies (whatever you want to call them- and I keep trying to stick to very narrow definitions of socialism simply because that term is too politically loaded) does not mean that one is a hypocrite if one feels there's a line to be drawn with how far we go with it. You obviously would probably disagree with those lines- but if you'll stop and think about it, there's nothing hypocritical about the idea of lines or limits.

Imagine a number line with pure free market capitalism at one end and pure socialism at the other. Although I reject the definition of 'socialism' for social welfare programs, they would certainly be placed a bit away from the pure capitalist end of the line. The level to which we've now made that move, and accepted those programs, does not in any way mean that further movements shouldn't be questioned. And part of the reason for questioning it is our belief that a certain degree of capitalism is necessary to support and sustain the social welfare safety net. Look at the problems that the European social democracies had in the 70's – 80's (and what I believe they're headed for now- unsustainability.)

So, anytime you want to argue for increasing the 'safety net', you still have to make your case all over again, for why and how it can be done successfully in your opinion. You can't just say that the need is there and so this is the solution to that need- because if we don't have a way to pay for that solution then you're creating more problems down the line.

And when you frame your arguments as you are doing, you're leaving yourself wide open for one of the main arguments conservatives have with liberals- namely, the 'creeping' or 'slippery slope' problem. If you're going to argue for expansion of all existing programs by saying “well, you accepted it at that level therefore there's no reason you shouldn't accept more of it, and you're a hypocrite if you don't” then we're going to continue to be highly suspicious anytime you introduce ANYTHING, because we'll see that it's always the start of something that you intend to keep expanding.

I did. Over, and over. My definitions for socialism and industry are the ones you produced from the dictionary, but not the twisted ones that you produced with your interpretation.

And I've said this repeatedly, but you keep saying that I have not explained what my definitions are. Who's arguing in bad faith?

Monopoly is no requirement for socialist program. Besides, “Monopoly” is a free enterprise term; You again wish to describe one system in terms of another. That kind of comparison is specious. The total dominance you require is just making stuff up.
I didn't use the term monopoly, you did.

I realize you introduce that term because the conditions that I wrote about would be like a monopoly in a free enterprise system, but in this case government having total ownership of a segment of the economy (an industry.) But the term monopoly applies to a situation in a capitalist economy when one private company controls an entire industry without competition. So, you're right in saying it's a free enterprise term, which is why I didn't use it. You brought it into the conversation- that's supposed to be my bad?

Your logic would require that we do not call China a Communist state because they allow free Enterprise.
Say what?? You do realize that Communism is a political term, not an economic one. Why would my logic then lead to that false conclusion?

But yes, according to my logic, China doesn't have a purely socialistic economy. In fact, it's more correctly termed a socialist market economy. which is gradually being transformed into a more capitalist one as nationalized companies are being privatized.

I mean really. By your logic then, another example of socialism would be the Declaration's 'promises' of right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Does that mean that the government controls the 'happiness' industry?

You have questioned every term, and still wish to do so.

OK, for about the fifth time…I AM NOT QUESTIONING A SINGLE TERM. I accept the dictionary definitions that you've provided for socialism and for industry- in fact, I'm trying to persuade YOU to follow those definitions instead of stretching them beyond belief.

Arguing in good faith doesn't mean I have to agree with your interpretations when they're quite obviously wrong. If you have to stretch a point to talk about promises as commodity, I'm sorry but it's not going to fly.

I’m sure you did not brush over intentionally the significance of TVA’s role in the federal government.

Not quibbling over definitions, it is my understanding and long held belief that a “socialistic society” is one totally controlled by government. Can it be partly socialistic?

In TVA’s case, I believe so. It is because TVA is a federal agency (TVA Act, 1933) with most unusual powers (‘flexibility of a corporation with the power of government – eminent domain’, said FDR) that operates beyond anything resembling our free-market system or of any other federal agency.

The fact that the TVA exists in a huge taking by the TVA, essentially by dictatorial power, that impinges on the lives of over 8 million people does not mean that the TVA “co-exists” with surrounding investor-owned electricity producers. TVA has an inviolable “fence” some 2500 miles long. No sneaking in and stealing power customers even though their rates may be cheaper.

The confusion planted by the TVA for 75 years claiming they’re just good old business people trying to get along with their neighbors is falsity personified. Stop. TVA is a federal government agency. Does that need further defining?

I hope some of you have the chance to read some of my articles about the TVA at http://norsworthyopinion.com

I believe the nationalization of the electric power industry in America has never been a closer reality, if I read some of Obama’s energy aims correctly.

Ernest Norsworthy
emnorsworthy@earthlink.net

Mistaken again.

SS “sells” the promise to pay their “customers” reaching retirement based upon the payments received for that customer's account number, aka their Social Security Number. That promise is the product that is sold.
Your reclassification of “thing” sounds Clintonesque.

” There's also the fact that there still is a private 'retirement industry'. If our government had socialized this INDUSTRY, then there would be no such thing as private retirement plans.”

Monopoly is no requirement for socialist program. Besides, “Monopoly” is a free enterprise term; You again wish to describe one system in terms of another. That kind of comparison is specious. The total dominance you require is just making stuff up.

The TVA, your favorite socialist program co-exists alongside private power companies. Your logic would require that we do not call China a Communist state because they allow free Enterprise. The totality you require is not required by anyone but you.

Christine

You have questioned every term, and still wish to do so. There's a simple enough answer to this, PRODUCE your definition of socialism. I've been doing the heavy lifting through all this, and you have merely issued edicts condemning my efforts. You've argued authoritative definitions of socialism, social security, industry, and your latest, “thing.” At the same time, you used a word that you define in some secret way that does not conflict with those definitions of terms I have cited.

If you can't produce this definition, I'm done with this. I'm done because you really are demonstrating a lack of good faith. If you're going to use a term, at least have the common courtesy to define it when asked.

Well, so is unemployment insurance. So is the food stamp program, and the school lunch program, and Head Start. So is welfare — not just cash assistance but related welfare programs like rental assistance (which I am getting as an alternative to being evicted and having to live in a homeless shelter). Republican leaders in Congress and conservative media pundits and bloggers all attack these programs as “socialism.”

In an economy that is run according to undiluted, unfettered capitalism, having a “safety net” for people who need assistance would not be regarded as either desirable or necessary.

I would agree (and it's plainly true) that programs like Medicare and Social Security — indeed, pretty much all programs in which the government subsidizes or pays for the human needs of Americans in specific areas of life — are socialistic in that they are examples of government controlling the distribution of a particular product or service, but I don't take that to mean that the U.S. government is trying to impose socialism on the country, or turn the U.S. into a “socialist state.” The fact is that most countries in the world that are not dictatorships or failed states have some elements of both socialism and capitalism. Most normal healthy countries (i.e., not dictatorships or failed states) are mixed economies — to greater or lesser extents. Sweden's political/economic system is democratic socialist; our system is capitalistic, but with elements of democratic socialism. Countries that are totally socialistic or totally capitalistic tend not to work very well.

I also thought that this was your position about Medicare- that the GOP is dishonest not to admit that it's a form of socialism.

No, that is not my position. My position is that the *GOP* — or large swaths of it, and certainly the current GOP leadership in Congress — consistently attack human needs programs and domestic spending in general because, they say, “it's socialism.” That being the case, I am quite certain that these same GOP leaders think that Medicare “is socialism.” And socialism in their view, by definition, is bad, always and forever and with no exceptions, ifs, ands, or buts. However, no Republican in Congress who wants to remain in Congress would ever attack Medicare on the basis that “it's socialism.” So they don't.

The mitigating factor is that Medicare is a program for a specific subset of the population that needs assistance. It's a safety net sort of program (though some conservative/libertarians would reject that as well, because it's a pretty big net.)

I understand your frustration since that point is not often made- the GOP who speak about creeping socialism are preaching to the choir and conservatives get their meaning but you are scratching your head (kind of like I've been in this whole thread, as I felt that I accidently wandered into a talking point of the left- you understood perfectly why Hemm brought up TVA and SS and asked why GOP never complain about them, and I had no idea what he was talking about.)

But that's why it would be nice if we could all stop talking past each other. Ignore what this party or that is saying, and talk to each other as normal human beings, explaining to one another why we believe X but not Y.

Anyway- I could say a lot more but have to run…working today so I'll not be online much.

It's not that the 'thing' is not allowed to be sold- it's that there's no THING. I'm glad you like those quaint statements you receive from SS about how much you've paid into the system, and how much you will receive, but you are kidding yourself if you believe that this represents a 'thing' which you have purchased.

And yes, that does mean that it no longer fits the definition of 'industry' (by the definition you quoted and agreed to.)

There's also the fact that there still is a private 'retirement industry'. If our government had socialized this INDUSTRY, then there would be no such thing as private retirement plans. And that of course is the facet of socialism that conservatives reject, and it hasn't happened. Ergo your complaint about how conservatives are hypocritical for accepting the SS program while fighting against other programs which they claim are socialistic in nature is bogus, because the nature of the complaint against socialism is not present in the current situation of social security. There are absolutely no restrictions on anyone from having private investment accounts for retirement- in fact that is encouraged under our current system. Mandatory participation in SS has nothing to do with that, because the government is not controlling the sale of the good or service of retirement accounts IN ANY WAY.

No. CS, you are still not understanding my point. It's not the inconsistency in and of itself that I object to. It's not being honest about why you are upholding a value in every instance but one. Republicans who conspicuously omit Medicare from their list of socialistic domestic programs that should be deep-sixed. Is there something about Medicare, some mitigating factor about that particular program, that makes it legitimate and important despite the fact that it's creeping socialism? What IS that factor?

You've outdone yourself. The fact that you can't sell a fund due to the fact that is part of a mandatory government program means its not socialism.

What's the going price of your 401k? Limited by law too? Your argument has made the perfect circle. SS can't be a socialist program because you can't apply free market principals to it.

Your absolutely right CS, socialism is not socialism if you can't sell parts of the socialist program in a free market. Catchy definition to use.

A retirement account is a good which can be sold (or brokered), but since there are no accounts being bought or sold under the social security program, that makes the definition of industry that you quoted inapplicable.

Yes, I realize they do things differently when it's a government program. That's why this isn't an example of the government running an industry though.

Any lightbulbs going on yet??

I suggest you merely Google “retirement industry.” Somebody's making money from this non-existent industry. I got 23 million responses. Do I need to demonstrate this too?

Accounts are how private business does this, so SS is not an industry because the government does hold separate accounts. I guess those reports I get that show what i will receive based upon what I contributed are not specific enough for you? If you put in more, you get more – just like an individual account.

Hemm, the problem is that you cut and paste a definition (which I accept) and then you interpret it in a way that I don't accept- yet you act as though your interpretation is the only possible one.

I should have been more clear in that comment I quickly jotted about 'agreeing to disagree', what I meant was disagreeing (again) on your interpretation. You quoted the definition of industry as sale of goods and services and did a hand wavy thing about the 'retirement industry'. What?? Retirement is a good or a service that can be sold? It might make some sense if there were actual retirement accounts set up within the social security system, but you know very well it doesn't operate that way. SS is strictly a transfer of funds from current workers to the government and then back to retirees.

Can you at least admit that two people can accept a dictionary definition but then one interprets it to say that a certain thing fits that description while the other person disagrees with that interpretation?

And then concede that what I'm doing here is simply disagreeing with you, not refusing to accept dictionary definitions??

Yes, sort of. I'm saying that according to the 'rules' you set for internal consistency, that would be the case. And I see you're following your own rules.

Those aren't exactly my rules though. I do think that there has to be a compelling explanation for why one conclusion was reached in one case and a different one in the other- and I'm not at all sure that Obama has made that case. However, as a general rule I do allow for the idea that there could be some such compelling reason- thus, flexibility even though I still expect some measure of internal consistency.

So there again- the tension between those two concepts. If one requires really strong internal consistency, as you apparently do, you sacrifice somewhat the flexibility part. I assume you aren't 100% rigid about this rule, but whenever you allow for some flexibility you have to then accept that there's the possible criticism of the disconnect between two situations being decided differently as a sign of internal inconsistency.

When or where did I insist that several existing government programs are examples of socialism?

If I have misunderstood, I apologize but I thought you had expressed agreement with Hemm and he has quoted a dictionary definition of socialism and then stated that he sees social security meeting that definition. I then disagreed with that interpretation.

I also thought that this was your position about Medicare- that the GOP is dishonest not to admit that it's a form of socialism. Again, I dispute that- I don't think any of that meets the strict definition of socialism- and just as the GOP is dishonest to try to portray all Dem domestic spending programs as socialism, I don't think it's any more honest to try to force the GOP to say that those existing programs that THEY support are socialism. Those are two arguments that are the different sides of the same coin.

Using mine, the two men just take the same sets of facts and see reasons to come to differing conclusions.

Are you trying to say that if *Obama* opposed the surge in Iraq he should not be authorizing a surge in Afghanistan? If that's what you're trying to say, I agree with you.