TexasCHLforum.com

The idea of redistribution of the wealth is not a new idea. While we do not view our income tax as such, from the beginning it was designed for the wealthy to pay more than the poor. Each man paying according to his means, an unpopular concept lately. No body likes to pay taxes. At least no one I know. But it is a necessary evil if we want a strong military and the other things outlined in the Constitution.

The first income tax law passed by Congress was to pay for the WWI war debt. It was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. That is why we have the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.

Back in the Great Depression era, a very popular politician rose to power in Louisiana. His name was Huey P. Long. He sounded like a big dope, but he was very intelligent and corrupt. He was elected governor of Louisiana. He was elected to the US Senate from Louisiana. And he was assassinated in 1935 in the Louisiana State Capitol building. He ran Louisiana with a iron fist and he was the closest this country came to having a dictator. He collected 10% of the state employee's wages and put it in his "deduct box." He started the "Share The Wealth" programs around the US and he was considered a possible running mate for FDR.

Here is a little video of Huey and his wooing the people.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=VIMi7fBA6e4[/youtube]

and explaining the different between Republicans and Democrats.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=bwdqeeuGc6g[/youtube]

LaUser wrote:He sounded like a big dope, but he was very intelligent and corrupt.

"plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose"

A conservative socialist???

That is oxy-moronic...Are we supposed to watch the video clip and go, "Oh yeah, that makes sense now?"

Nope, I think I'd love to hear you 'splain dis one...

Conservative is a political term. Socialism is an economic term.

Conservatism is a political and social term from the Latin verb conservare meaning to save or preserve. As the name suggests it usually indicates support for tradition and traditional values though the meaning has changed in different countries and time periods.

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.

Huey P Long was for traditional values but he got votes advocating more for the poor. He wanted to guarantee $5,000 a year to every family. That was in the late 20's and early 30's.

Stalin was a conservative as was all the the Soviet leaders that followed him.

Family values is a conservative idea. Gay marriage is a liberal idea.

LaUser wrote:Stalin was a conservative as was all the the Soviet leaders that followed him.

Good example. Stalin was a "conservative socialist" and supported the unearned redistribution of weath.

LaUser wrote:Conservative is a political term. Socialism is an economic term.

Conservatism is a political and social term from the Latin verb conservare meaning to save or preserve. As the name suggests it usually indicates support for tradition and traditional values though the meaning has changed in different countries and time periods.

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.

Huey P Long was for traditional values but he got votes advocating more for the poor. He wanted to guarantee $5,000 a year to every family. That was in the late 20's and early 30's.

Stalin was a conservative as was all the the Soviet leaders that followed him.

Family values is a conservative idea. Gay marriage is a liberal idea.

Politics and economics aren't easily separated. Socialism is certainly a political system where the wealthy must be torn down in an attempt to raise the standards of the poor. Any Conservative worthy of the title believes in the free market. A true conservative can have no tolerance for socialism. There is no room for both. while libertarians may find some shared commonality with conservatives. The totalitarian nature of socialism makes the basic principles intolerable to us.

Having the government get out of the marriage business is a libertarian idea

You cannot hide behind a psuedo-facade of conservatism, and believe that that will somehow legitimize a "part" of your political character if you support and vote for any socialist legislation or entitlement style agenda...

Conservatism and Socialism do not mix...Anyone who thinks they can mix (combine) the terms (and get away with it) is full of it! No matter what they try to explain (or excuse) to you with videos or other manipulated diatribe...

Bad, bad Conservative. Go away. Shoo!

Conservative is a political term. Socialism is an economic term.

Conservative can be used in a political context. It can also be used to describe a degree of an economic term. I wish I could explain that in a grammatical context.

stevie_d_64 wrote:You cannot hide behind a psuedo-facade of conservatism, and believe that that will somehow legitimize a "part" of your political character if you support and vote for any socialist legislation or entitlement style agenda...

Conservatism and Socialism do not mix...Anyone who thinks they can mix (combine) the terms (and get away with it) is full of it! No matter what they try to explain (or excuse) to you with videos or other manipulated diatribe...

I agree...and very well said!!
How do you know a politician is lying...his mouth is moving!

-geo

Capitalism is a system of wealth redistribution also. For example, in the 1960's Sears was the number 1 department store and had a considerable amount of the wealth at its disposal. In 2000, Walmart was the number 1 department store, and had even more wealth at its disposal.

Who redistributed the wealth? The free market did. Why was the wealth redistributed? Because Walmart was more effective and efficient in providing what the people wanted. And if the market is left to work, someone with a better idea will come along and the wealth will again be redistributed to them.

The difference between capitalism and socialism is that in a capitalist system, the wealth is redistributed by the market...that's me and you, voting with our wallet to support those who do the best job in providing for our wants and needs. In socialism, a small collection of individuals makes the decision on who gets the redistribution. It has nothing to do with effectiveness, efficiency, or meeting the needs of society as a whole.

Both systems are availalble for exploitation and abuse, but the free market is better capable of dealing with the problems quickly and efficiently, while socialism is more institutionalized.

Capitalism allows for more risk-taking, and greater reward, while socialism discourages risk-taking, and therefore discourages creativity.

Capitalism promotes individuality, while socialism requires that everyone pretty much moves in lock-step. For example, in order for socialized medicine to have a chance to work, EVERYONE has to be in the system. If the wealthy, or healthy, are allowed to opt out, the system collapses.

Tom Bombadil wrote:Capitalism is a system of wealth redistribution also. For example, in the 1960's Sears was the number 1 department store and had a considerable amount of the wealth at its disposal. In 2000, Walmart was the number 1 department store, and had even more wealth at its disposal.

Who redistributed the wealth? The free market did. Why was the wealth redistributed? Because Walmart was more effective and efficient in providing what the people wanted. And if the market is left to work, someone with a better idea will come along and the wealth will again be redistributed to them.

The difference between capitalism and socialism is that in a capitalist system, the wealth is redistributed by the market...that's me and you, voting with our wallet to support those who do the best job in providing for our wants and needs. In socialism, a small collection of individuals makes the decision on who gets the redistribution. It has nothing to do with effectiveness, efficiency, or meeting the needs of society as a whole.

Both systems are availalble for exploitation and abuse, but the free market is better capable of dealing with the problems quickly and efficiently, while socialism is more institutionalized.

Capitalism allows for more risk-taking, and greater reward, while socialism discourages risk-taking, and therefore discourages creativity.

Capitalism promotes individuality, while socialism requires that everyone pretty much moves in lock-step. For example, in order for socialized medicine to have a chance to work, EVERYONE has to be in the system. If the wealthy, or healthy, are allowed to opt out, the system collapses.

Are we sure that you were coherent when you posted this, Tom? With a handle like that I might suspect you were using Mushrooms for recreational purposes.

P.S. Welcome to the forum.

You disagree?

Tom Bombadil wrote:You disagree?

You accuse me of actually reading a post?