Say NO to Socialism

[Keith P]

http://i28.tinypic.com/mtnofd.jpg

[zymote]

Lol, nicely put.

[randyc]

Somebody needs to go back to Poli Sci 101. Building roads and fielding an army isn't "socialist".

This isn't even an original blurb.

[Keith P]

Originally Posted by randyc

Somebody needs to go back to Poli Sci 101. Building roads and fielding an army isn't "socialist".

This isn't even an original blurb.

You're right. Non of it is payed for by tax dollars.

[Hustle Wimmins]

Wow randyb. Notice the /b layout and the strong sense of irony buddy? Of course that's not socialism. <pats head>

[randyc]

<pats head back> Uh, those things still wouldn't be considered "socialist".

[PETA]

Originally Posted by randyc

<pats head back> Uh, those things still wouldn't be considered "socialist".

Indeed.

I don't think anyone advocates pure capitalism... I don't and I'm pretty hard core free market capitalist. We need government. We need government regulation. We need it in industry, finance, publiuc works etrc etc etc. But acknowledging that we need government to step in under certain situations doesn't therefore lead to the conclusion that permitting in case one demands it in case two.

Originally Posted by Keith P

You're right. Non of it is payed for by tax dollars.

Tax expenditure doesn't = socialist.

I think in common american parlance it means social spending... entitlements, social welfare etc. We don't really use it in its true economic/politcal sense anymore do we? its what conservative don't like? Kinda like lefties abused the term fascist to mean that which they abhore?

The greater the taxation and the more programs the gov't tries to provide in order to achieve the heroin hero dragon of equality the closer you get to socialism. It has noble goals. Its had mixed success. Keep the good, shed the bad and take on new with caution.

[Keith P]

Originally Posted by PETA

We don't really use it in its true economic/politcal sense anymore do we?

I think the was the juxt of the joke here.

[Keith P]

Social Welfare definitely isn't a practice that was championed by a free market before the rise of "socialist" or left driven ideas. A departure in political thinking had to bring that about.

Were we to remain the America of yester-year we'd still be working 14 hr. days and coughing up black masses of shit everyday. Advocating staunch libertarianism is just silly when a society has exploded to what we are today. Universal healthcare is almost going to be a given for every developing and leading nation. We can definitely scrutinize it and go about it cautiously but denying it as an inevitable outcome is like trying to fight back the tides.

[randyc]

Agreed.

I think that health care, like education should be a right.

It will happen. I'm not so up on this current iteration of it, but it will happen eventually.

We have some more serious problems to deal with before we fix medicine, though.

Too many big bills are being shoved down the pipe. The crew in office needs to slow their roll a bit and maybe they'll get things passed.

I've got to say, though, that the vitriol coming from the supporters of this bill has turned me off of it almost as much as the way it's being pushed through.

It's interesting to see that the Democrats, now having power, are just as jingoistic and vicious as the Republicans were that they so hate. I'm more of a centrist. The president is about on the level of the manager of McDonalds on the grand scale. If you want to swap out brands of president, that's fine. The people in control still will get what they want.

[Keith P]

Originally Posted by randyc

Agreed.

I think that health care, like education should be a right.

It will happen. I'm not so up on this current iteration of it, but it will happen eventually.

We have some more serious problems to deal with before we fix medicine, though.

Too many big bills are being shoved down the pipe. The crew in office needs to slow their roll a bit and maybe they'll get things passed.

I've got to say, though, that the vitriol coming from the supporters of this bill has turned me off of it almost as much as the way it's being pushed through.

It's interesting to see that the Democrats, now having power, are just as jingoistic and vicious as the Republicans were that they so hate. I'm more of a centrist. The president is about on the level of the manager of McDonalds on the grand scale. If you want to swap out brands of president, that's fine. The people in control still will get what they want.

I can understand that. I would be perfectly fine if we were to ease into it a bit more. With this debate as it has been with countless previous ones, this is a clash of ideologies and not so much a debate on how to cure our ills.

[KING SIZE]

people grunt and mumble to themselves when billions are tossed at banks.. but talk of helpin out people to get basic healthcare and they flip out. most of the people bitching won't be fronting the money anyway because they don't make enough money to begin with.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Keith P

We can definitely scrutinize it and go about it cautiously but denying it as an inevitable outcome is like trying to fight back the tides.

Could be. But when you consider the costs its worth thinking about baby steps.

Also, read an artice that said as the bill stands, no changes until 2013? A year after the next election? If so, an I'm not saying that that date is gospel, why the rush to pass the current bill?

[Keith P]

Originally Posted by PETA

Could be. But when you consider the costs its worth thinking about baby steps.

Also, read an artice that said as the bill stands, no changes until 2013? A year after the next election? If so, an I'm not saying that that date is gospel, why the rush to pass the current bill?

I think that's self explanatory.

[J. Fees]

the quicker its done the more likely it will be passed. when reps are the majority, it would never get passed or never be introduced.