A few Social Programs vs. "Socialism"

What is it about having some understanding and support for a few simple social programs, and the GIANT leap to accusing somebody of being a "socialist"???

And make no mistake, what I'm talking about is the use of the word "socialist" in an insulting and derogatory fashion.

Police, fire, emergency response, and education are social programs that benefit everybody.

Welfare and unemployment, food stamps and public housing, (when not being abused), and social security serve a purpose.

While these programs have their faults and imperfections, they serve a purpose that benefits all of society on some level.

There are plenty of "free", "western influenced" countries that have social programs that far and away out socialize many of the things we have going in USofA.

Some of those countries have higher rates of education, better health statistics, longer life expectancy, higher happiness ratings, lower crime rates, and less people in prison than USofA does.

I find the "blanket" insult of "socialist" to be highly aggravating and in many ways just outright childish.

If for nothing else, there has to be an educational system in place that provides some basic level of service to every living person doesn't there?

And fire, police, and emergency response are the same way.

If my neighbors house is burning down I don't want the fire company to wait to be paid by the owners before they put it out.
Or refuse to put out the fire because the owners can't afford to pay to have it extinguished.

Are not our national parks social programs on some level? We all pay for them even if there's also an admission fee at the entrance.


Do those that despise the very idea of social programs think everything would be better if it was strictly run for profit?

Should all elementary schools be run like colleges? For profit?

BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Yes, Dwight Eisenhower would be so far outside of the radical beliefs
of the modern Republican party that he would be somewhere between the
progressive wing of the Democratic Party and President Obama. This
quotation is
from a personal letter to his brother, Edgar Newton Eisenhower.
The letter is dated November 8, 1954:



"It is quite clear that the Federal
government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the
people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political
processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not
applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible
and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my
constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any
political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment
insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not
hear of that party again in our political history. There is a
tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things.
Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few
other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business
man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

motokid wrote:

What is it about having some understanding and support for a few simple social programs, and the GIANT leap to accusing somebody of being a "socialist"???

Because "redistributing the wealth" IS socialism. Disproportionately taxing some to use that money for entitlement programs they probably don't even use IS socialism. What's the difference between Marx saying "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", and somebody saying "The rich (that 1% making about $250,000, apparently) can afford to pay more taxes"? Can you explain the difference?

Let's also note that "a few simple social programs" is actually anything but. The US is currently bloated with entitlement programs - most of them ineffective and inefficient as hell.

Quote :

And make no mistake, what I'm talking about is the use of the word "socialist" in an insulting and derogatory fashion.

What you're talking about is those uncomfortable with being identified with what they are. If you're into "redistribute the wealth", "the rich can afford to pay more", sacrificing individual rights, and taxing and spending to guarantee some sort of financial outcome for all to the detriment of individual rights and freedoms, why kid yourself that you're not a socialist? I don't get offended when somebody calls me a capitalist - yes, I am.

Quote :

Police, fire, emergency response, and education are social programs that benefit everybody.

I don't think you'll find any conservatives/constitutionalists complaining about that. Where can we read where somebody has posted here that those are intrusive socialist programs?

The idea that the federal government is properly involved in education is an issue as that is NOT a power granted by the states to the federal government in the Constitution. Like Obamacare, the federal government's involvement in education is something that only the states should be involved in - if they so choose. The Founders were reluctant to grant power to the federal government, and ever since the central government has been taking more and more power for itself. That reality has a lot to do with issues about "a few simple social programs" - usually inflicted by the federal government without the delegated powers to do that.

Quote :

Welfare and unemployment, food stamps and public housing, (when not being abused), and social security serve a purpose.

Putting aside the issue of where the power to properly tax and provide for that lies, when are they not abused, either by individuals themselves or in general outcome? What percentage of recipients live most of their lives in this manner?

Do we do these people or the country favours by institutionalizing generation after generation into seeing welfare, food stamps, and public housing as an acceptable way of life, rather than motivating them to do what their country has given them: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? When has anything other than token efforts been made to change these programs so they AREN'T abused? Is it really so impossible for the millions who live their entire lives in this manner to better themselves when a refugee that can't even speak English can wind up here with just the shirt on their back, no family, and work their ass off into becoming an independent, successful citizen in just a few short years? Are Americans really so flawed genetically at this point that they can't achieve what a refugee does? Kind of makes you ask what the purpose of those programs is in practice.

Quote :

While these programs have their faults and imperfections, they serve a purpose that benefits all of society on some level.

I don't argue the general concept that we won't allow people to starve, but mostly right now these programs merely warehouse the vast majority of their long term recipients. And then we kid ourselves we are somehow or other helping them by socializing them into accepting this as the way to live their lives out.

Quote :

There are plenty of "free", "western influenced" countries that have social programs that far and away out socialize many of the things we have going in USofA.

Some of those countries have higher rates of education, better health statistics, longer life expectancy, higher happiness ratings, lower crime rates, and less people in prison than USofA does.

Name one of those countries that also provides the same level of individual rights and freedom from government intrusion in how you live your life that the US provides, as badly degraded as it is today.

When you're looking at those statistics, how do you propose to equate a country like... oh Switzerland or Australia for example... with the US? How many illegal immigrants does Switzerland have coming across their borders every year? How many violent illegal immigrant gangs with tens of thousands of members do they have operating in their borders? Illegal immigration and illegal immigrants have a significant impact on the US - when we're comparing the US to those countries and their social programs, how do we pretend it is an equal comparison because they have the same level of issues due to illegal immigration and immigrants?

Do they have the same rich diversity of lifestyle that the US does? What sort of social programs with their accompanying government intrusion in our lifestyle will it take to make people in Louisiana live the same healthy eating and exercise lifestyle that Australians have in order to reduce their obesity and cardiovascular mortality rates to the same as Australians in order to improve those health statistics and longer life expectancy?

Crime rates. Montana's murder rate is well below that of many of the country's you might go looking at. What sort of "social programs" should be inflicted on Montanans and their chosen lifestyle to improve it further. For that matter, why is it that states like Montana have the crime rates they do, while places like Washington DC and other states are immensely worse if it's all about our national social programs? What power given to the federal government to apply blanket social policies to the country is going to address that?

Quote :

I find the "blanket" insult of "socialist" to be highly aggravating and in many ways just outright childish.

When you argue that "the rich can afford to pay more" (aka "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs"), and "sacrifices must be made" with reference to The Bill of Rights, that's socialism. It's a description of a mindset and a political belief, not some sort of curse. And people need to be reminded that if they subscribe to those proposing such philosophies, socialism is exactly what they're choosing. If having it pointed out that such beliefs are socialism aggravates your self image, there's not much that can be done about that.

Quote :

If for nothing else, there has to be an educational system in place that provides some basic level of service to every living person doesn't there?

Yep. But the powers given to the federal government were intended to be limited and narrow, with the remainder reserved to the States. The federal government has no business increasingly assuming authority, power, and taxing and spending in relation to issues that should be the business of the states and the citizens of those states alone.

Quote :

If my neighbors house is burning down I don't want the fire company to wait to be paid by the owners before they put it out.
Or refuse to put out the fire because the owners can't afford to pay to have it extinguished.

That's pretty dramatic. But I don't recall seeing any conservative/constitutionalist here arguing that fire services should be on a user pay basis. Unless this is a strawman you've set up to take a swing at, just where did you find any references to such a proposal in Off Topic?

Quote :

Do those that despise the very idea of social programs think everything would be better if it was strictly run for profit?

That looks like another strawman being set up for an attempt at a home run swing. I don't believe anything like that has ever been suggested in any thread here - if so, I sure would like to have that pointed out to me. What people despise is overreaching government, taking to itself powers that are not constitutional, creating taxation and bureaucracy to push those powers, and intruding in the lives of Americans where they have no business being in the first place. The latest example being the President deciding the government should have the power to control what is sold at bake sales in schools on weekends. The US is about individual liberty and freedom, not "Peace, order, and good government" statism like Canada where individual freedom to live as you wish is sacrificed for order and good government.

If Americans really do want to change the fundamental focus on individual liberty and freedom, narrowly limiting the federal powers, with the states left to determine how they conduct themselves, then it shouldn't be too hard to get such an Amendment passed. But we won't see those working at changing America ever try the Amendment route anytime soon. It's backdoor all the way, baby.

Quote :

Should all elementary schools be run like colleges? For profit?

Seems to me that, while I've never seen that suggested here, it's a matter left to individual states to decide. Not the federal government.

I don't have time to fully answer the book you've written, but a few bullet points pop out.

The "redistribution of wealth" is a buzz word that's just about useless.

When all of society benefits from a social program then all of society benefits.

Education is a perfect example. Everybody benefits from having a smarter society.
That's not redistribution of wealth. That's providing a valuable service to all.

To compare Montana's crime to anything is ridiculous.
The USofA has an enormous percentage of it's overall population in prison.

Canada.
Denmark.
Finland.
England.
Germany.

Just to name a few.

Of course I'm sure you biggest sticking point is going to be gun ownership rights.
Fine.

What else you got besides guns?

Back to the rich paying more. How about the rich pay their fair share?
A flat tax, or a consumer tax would be fair wouldn't it?
Who would pay more money if a consumer tax was initiated?
Who pays more if the flat tax rate of 30% is the rate for any income over $50,000 a year?

Take away the loopholes and fancy accounting crap that the uber-rich can afford but the average guy can't and make it "fair".

Why are the wealthiest 400 American's paying 18% tax rates now when they were paying 30% twenty years ago?

Forget the last 10 years. There were social programs twenty years ago.

There are many countries with social programs that are doing just fine and people are very VERY happy living there.

Canada is one for sure. Same with countries in Europe.

In many cases those same people are smarter, safer, healthier, and live longer than we do in the USofA.

The whole states' rights issue ignores the fact that slavery, women's rights, and civil rights would not have been solved by "letting the states decide." We have a nation government for a reason. Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Morris, and most of the founders were worried about exactly these kind of problems when they created a powerful federal government. How powerful they intended that government to be is obvious when you read the Federalist Papers or, more recently, Plain, Honest Men.

The middle class has been losing ground, steadily, since Reagan turned the federal government into a welfare system for corporations and the rich. The poor are worse off than any time since the end of the Depression. Our education system has been dumbed-down to make all of this happen more easily and the media was co-opted with Reagan's ignoring the requirements of the Fairness Doctrine and the later elimination of that important rule altogether. Personally, I think if public media isn't required to serve public interests, the public should stop enforcing FCC rules and allow the real market to sort it out. See how long Fox stays in business if every kid with a 5W transmitter can override their local signal with home-made news (the kind Fox broadcasts) and crayon animation.

There is plenty of socialism in the US. It just benefits the rich and powerful and screws over working people. That's got to be the dumbest, least democratic system in history.

Most 'social programs' you mention are local services provided by the local govt. Whenever a town got enough people, they built a school, hired a school marm, sheriff, or whatever else they needed. The federal govt had little to do with those functions. A federal marshall might come to town, or a territorial judge, but these were for federal offenses.. this was mostly law enforcement. Too bad the fed govt doesn't just concentrate on that..

But our federal govt has been increasing it's role in every aspect of ourlives.. not content to wage war with foreign powers, they meddle in everything. And they do it so inefficiently, there is nothing else to call it but socialism.

If you are for big govt.. cradle to grave involvement.. big brother watching everything & managing our money, then you should be content with a socialist identity.. it's not a slur, it is a description. Granted, it's not a description that capitalists like, so they may hurl it as a slur, just as the socialists hurl 'capitalist pig!' at them. But if you have a well thought out world view, & it is in the socialist camp, embrace it & be proud. But if you just have a bunch of liberal friends who like to bash conservatives, & have not thought through all the ramifications of your philosophy, you need to return to the thinker's chair.

..kind of like the old joke: What do you call a liberal after they are mugged? A conservative!

Regarding local services.. Here in the sedona fire district, there is a big debate over taxes, fire services, & costs. Ever since 9/11, the fire & police depts have been treated like heroes (rightfully so), & have been given a blank check for their services. Many of those in charge took advantage of public good will & abused their trust. Their salaries have grown dis proportionally to the rest of the public sector, & costs have skyrocketed. Now with taxes in decline & public moneys being tighter, they are having to cut back, & some don't like it. We are very near to a Grecian riot with some of our firemen! But with the average pay in excess of 92k/yr, they don't get much public sympathy, with people struggling to get $10/hr jobs & the housing market in the tank. So our debate is how much service can we afford? It is not firemen or no firemen, it is how many & how much stuff for them. They bought a $1m ladder truck a few years back.. the highest building in this county are 2-3 story.. hard to justify a ladder truck.. but they got it. But now that some in the public are wanting more accountability, & are taking away the blank check, some are howling.

I'm all for local govts to do whatever their citizenry wants & can afford. If they want to buy every homeless person a condo, great! But the federal govt should not be involved in those local issues. Yes, they can pass civil rights amendments, same sex marriage amendments, & any other 'right' they deem to be universal, but they should not be making spending policies & building social programs of their own, to compete with the state & local govts.

ok, there's more.. a liberal is a conservative who's been indicted.. or received a govt grant!

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”
-Winston Churchill

I don't think we need big government and I certainly think that there are some social programs that benefit us all.

So if we take a big step back a bit is it that small, local social programs are fine, it's just the much larger national programs that people have issues with?

On some level isn't the military a social program?

Everybody pays for it. Some pay more than others. Some pay nothing.
Everybody gets some benefits from it. Some sacrifice much more than most.

Isn't the military one of the largest social programs we have?

twday wrote:

The whole states' rights issue ignores the fact that slavery, women's rights, and civil rights would not have been solved by "letting the states decide." We have a nation government for a reason. Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Morris, and most of the founders were worried about exactly these kind of problems when they created a powerful federal government. How powerful they intended that government to be is obvious when you read the Federalist Papers or, more recently, Plain, Honest Men.

Of course you know that when an amendment is passed, it requires the states to approve it. But what has been happening for many years now is not an amendment granting more power to the federal govt. It has been the federal govt *seizing* power & spending the taxpayers' money.. or wasting it, more accurately. Socialistic programs (we should define that) are not part of the federal govt's responsibility.

Amendments have been passed that have protected people from individual states' prejudicial laws. They supersede the states' laws. But there is a huge leap from protecting the rights of individuals & the kind of power grab that the fed has done, & they have actually restricted individual's rights in the process. If the people want the kind of comprehensive govt from the feds, why not pass an amendment granting them the power to do so? Let all the liberals & socialists present their case honestly, debate it's merits, & put it to the states for a vote. Health care, welfare, education, police, fire, & whatever else they want to be controlled by the federal govt can be removed from the states' responsibility, & put to the federal govt. An amendment would make it clear, & spell out what they can & cannot do.

twday wrote:

The middle class has been losing ground, steadily, since Reagan turned the federal government into a welfare system for corporations and the rich. The poor are worse off than any time since the end of the Depression. Our education system has been dumbed-down to make all of this happen more easily and the media was co-opted with Reagan's ignoring the requirements of the Fairness Doctrine and the later elimination of that important rule altogether. Personally, I think if public media isn't required to serve public interests, the public should stop enforcing FCC rules and allow the real market to sort it out. See how long Fox stays in business if every kid with a 5W transmitter can override their local signal with home-made news (the kind Fox broadcasts) and crayon animation.

There is plenty of socialism in the US. It just benefits the rich and powerful and screws over working people. That's got to be the dumbest, least democratic system in history.

I'm not sure i agree with your assessment.. but i don't have any statistics to tweak to prove any point i might make. So you feel it is reagan's policies that have brought the decline in manufacturing jobs in the us? That is the prime reason for our decline.. i don't doubt many corporations are getting rich.. as many others are going out of business. That seems to happen all the time, & even more so in economically troubled times. Corporations just take their jobs elsewhere.. & their profits.

Education? You do know that we've spent more money per child than any other country, & education spending has exploded with the govt. boom. But of course, it has not improved our citizenry.. in fact, i agree with your assessment that it is worse. The socialistic educational programs have failed. The poor are still poor & have increased.. with generations being trapped in the ghettos. The education of the poor has no meaning to them in the concentration camp atmosphere that pervades in the ghettos. Crime, drugs, & corruption are the main constants there. Social engineering has not worked. The war to 'stamp out poverty' is lost. Give people freedom to fail or succeed & there will be many more who will succeed. Lock them down in racially defined socialist camps & they will only perpetuate themselves.

The only 'rich' who have benefited from the current govt explosion are the favored few in the financial sectors.. the 'too big to fail' guys, big unions, govt employees who have increased their wealth by jumping on the obama gravy train, & some academians who have gotten juicy grants. Manufacturing corporations have moved. Oil companies drill elsewhere. But even our war machine isn't cranking out enough bombs to make up for the losses.. probably that will be outsourced to china as well..

I think it is time to stop the govt growth madness, & reduce the federal responsibility. Let's elect fiscally responsible people who will cut up the credit cards. I don't care who they sleep with, or what god they worship. If they can count & do basic math, they can do the job.

motokid wrote:

I don't have time to fully answer the book you've written, but a few bullet points pop out.

The "redistribution of wealth" is a buzz word that's just about useless.

Let's keep it really, really, really simple then.

What's the difference between Karl Marx saying "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs" and you saying "The rich can afford to pay more taxes"?

Quote :

When all of society benefits from a social program then all of society benefits.

Those of us who suffer a little of your "sacrifices must be made" in the area of individual rights for "all of society benefits" may disagree with your version of a benefit.

motokid wrote:

To compare Montana's crime to anything is ridiculous.

Really?

And yet at the same time you think your comparing the US to other countries as you wish to do with different demographics, justice systems, cultural mores, etc while nattering about health care, morbidity, etc is the height of wisdom? When you compare Montana to other states, at the very least you're keeping it in the same country. Why don't you think back to those college statistics courses of yours and what they said about cross cultural comparisons and eliminating confounding factors.

Quote :

The USofA has an enormous percentage of it's overall population in prison.

Canada.
Denmark.
Finland.
England.
Germany.

Just to name a few.

Here, I'll name just a few as well.

Just two gangs alone, the 18th Street Gang and MS-13 gang, have approximately 50,000 illegal alien members alone, heavily involved in a wide spectrum of crime, much of it violent. Most have spent time in jail. Please tell us which one of the countries you named above has a problem of similar magnitude with violent illegal immigrant gangs. It would be ridiculous to make comparisons to the US's rate of incarceration if those foreign countries didn't have similar criminal problems (ignoring, of course, that they have very different legal systems to begin with).

Quote :

Of course I'm sure you biggest sticking point is going to be gun ownership rights.
Fine.

What else you got besides guns?

When you don't have the right to the means to defend yourself, that's a pretty big issue.

A country that also specifically rejects the right to property is also a pretty big deal with me.

And I'm not too crazy about a Constitution where civil rights can be suspended by a simple majority vote in government for up to five years. Particularly in a country which did suspend most civil rights for a period in my lifetime, and put armed soldiers in the streets to enforce that suspension, complete with curfews, knocks on doors in the middle of the night, and people hauled off to jail without explanation or access to lawyers. I find that... troublesome.

I'm not too crazy about countries where CCTV monitoring by police is everywhere and police have the right to stop you and demand you account for yourself, just because.

And I really didn't enjoy very much watching my mother wait ten months to get a bed in the regional cancer treatment center six hours drive and half a province away under a wonderful socialized health care system, which allowed the cancer to become terminal while she patiently waited. No, I didn't think much of that at all. Fortunately, the provincial premiers and federal politicians who are usually cheerleading socialized medicine just get a bed down at the Mayo or Johns Hopkins when they have a life threatening condition or disease. Or they fasttrack into the Canadian Forces hospitals instead of standing in line with the rest of the unwashed public for public care. But it works out a lot better for them.

Quote :

Back to the rich paying more. How about the rich pay their fair share?

That 1% making just over $250,000, "the rich", already pay a higher tax rate than you. They already pay more than their fair share. Maybe the answer to making it fair is to tax you at the same rate they are. You and the 47% of Americans who pay no taxes at all.

After all, they get the exact same policing, fire services, etc that you do. They don't wear out the roads faster than you do. The fire truck doesn't drive twice as fast to their house.

Quote :

A flat tax, or a consumer tax would be fair wouldn't it?

Sure, why not? Just make sure a flat tax includes everybody, particularly the 47% who pay no taxes at all, and the people who have a couple of young kids and get enough credits at tax time to skip most of their taxes. A flat tax means just that - flat. Send in x percent of your gross income, no deductions and loopholes.

You want a fair consumer tax? Yeah: you consume, you pay. "The poor" ain't gonna like you though, because while a loaf of bread or a gallon of gas costs "the poor" exactly as much as "the rich", the taxes are more significant to them. Of course, you can tell "the poor" that you're really sticking it to "the rich" when the folks that own that Mom & Pop Yamaha dealership buy an RV, they're getting taxed for something "the poor" didn't buy and so escaped taxes on.

Quote :

Who pays more if the flat tax rate of 30% is the rate for any income over $50,000 a year?

Let's just keep it simple and tax EVERYBODY 30% or whatever turns your crank, shall we? After all, you want to be "fair" right?

Quote :

Take away the loopholes and fancy accounting crap that the uber-rich can afford but the average guy can't and make it "fair".

Oh of course. But make sure you get rid of that mortgage deduction loophole as well. Wouldn't want to be unfair to the "uber-rich" by leaving all those other little loopholes that others seem to enjoy.

Don't forget to get rid of those tax credit loopholes for those popping out kids. Gotta get rid of those loopholes, and besides, those without kids are already paying taxes for a service they don't use. To have the people popping out the kids then use the kids to get out of paying the taxes that provide services for those kids... well, it wouldn't be "fair".

Quote :

Why are the wealthiest 400 American's paying 18% tax rates now when they were paying 30% twenty years ago?

Why are 47% of Americans paying no taxes whatsoever? Why do you keep forgetting that part?

You're obsessing with a claim that a whole 400 people are paying 12% less tax, while about 150 MILLION Americans pay absolutely no income tax at all. Which isn't even counting the millions who pay almost nothing once they've got all their tax credits lined up. Not too hard to figure out which group's tax rates have a greater impact on the treasury, is it?

Quote :

There are many countries with social programs that are doing just fine and people are very VERY happy living there.

Canada is one for sure.

I gather that's why Gallup found that prospective immigrants named the US as their first choice for immigration over Canada by nearly a 4:1 margin?

I saw happy people in Cuba when we vacationed there. They have lots of social programs - why didn't you add Cuba to your list?

Quote :

In many cases those same people are smarter, safer, healthier, and live longer than we do in the USofA.

Aside from a moment of amusement at having you lecture me on living in Canada, I'm not aware of anyone who has done national intelligence testing to determine if the median Canadian is any more or less intelligent than the median American. So how the "they're smarter" thing comes about, I have no idea.

Wouldn't it be interesting to just dump about 5,000 violent MS-13 gang members into Canada - just to make it slightly more similar to the demographics of the US - and see if that had any effect on the crime rate and the schools?

twday wrote:

The whole states' rights issue ignores the fact that slavery, women's rights, and civil rights would not have been solved by "letting the states decide."

Wrong. What Amendment exists that was NOT passed by the states?

Quote :

The middle class has been losing ground, steadily, since Reagan turned the federal government into a welfare system for corporations and the rich.

Here we go again. Apparently Tip "Dead On Arrival" O'Neal as Speaker and the rest of the Democrats were again nowhere near Washington. Reagan's "welfare for the rich" included overhauling of the income tax code and exempting millions of people with low incomes from paying any tax at all. And under this "welfare system for the rich", by the end of his presidency America was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression. If we're really worried about "the poor", one would logically have to conclude that a president whose term is the longest without recession or depression, that's got to be kind of good for "the poor".

Quote :

Our education system has been dumbed-down to make all of this happen more easily and the media was co-opted with Reagan's ignoring the requirements of the Fairness Doctrine and the later elimination of that important rule altogether.

Right! An important tool to suppress freedom of speech, lost, right there! Dammit all, how else can we muzzle conservatives on radio and TV without that legislation! There aren't enough people interested in Regressive Progressive Leftists to attract enough listeners/viewers to make left wing liberal radio and TV profitable enough to survive. Therefore, because we can't compete in the market of consumer interest in our product, the only solution would be to muzzle FOX and others.

If we could but do that, then we'd have nothing but leg-humping, left wing, impartial "journalists" talking about how they feel a quiver go up their leg every time Obama speaks.

The Fairness Doctrine was at a time when public access to broadcasts was limited due to the fact those broadcasts were very few in number at the time - often, there being only one broadcaster in an area. The concept was to prevent a broadcaster from suppressing discussion from both sides of an issue. We now live in an era where there are literally thousands of channels available to anyone who wants access to media: by radio, TV, Internet, etc. The problem for the barking mad leftists is that, despite all these avenues of communication open to them, they still can't survive and compete for the public's attention against conservative programming. And because the public largely rejects them, they want the Fairness Doctrine to beat up on conservative programming with. Consistent with the center of their mindset: if I can't achieve it by myself, then the government should do it for me.

If their socialism and statism was as popular with Americans as they delude themselves into believing, public opinion and support would swing to broadcasters who served up that tripe, and the advertising that supports that sort of political commentary would switch to left wing radio. But it hasn't, and that says something itself.

Quote :

See how long Fox stays in business if every kid with a 5W transmitter can override their local signal with home-made news (the kind Fox broadcasts) and crayon animation.

Wow! Marxism to anarchy in one seamless step!

Quote :

There is plenty of socialism in the US. It just benefits the rich and powerful and screws over working people. That's got to be the dumbest, least democratic system in history.

It's kinda like a Che Guevera speech, all over again!

Source

Quote :

Recent research contradicts the fundamental tenet of American exceptionalism. A Brookings Institution report comparing economic mobility in the United States and other countries concludes, “…“Starting at the bottom of the earnings ladder is more of a handicap in the United States than it is in other countries.”

Quote :

the belief that America “is inherently superior to the world’s other nations”. It is a widely held belief. Indeed, most Americans believe our superiority is not only inherent but divinely ordained. A survey by the Public Religious Research Institute and the Brookings Institution found that 58 percent of Americans agree with the statement, “God has granted America a special role in human history.”

Quote :

The central tenet of that culture is a celebration of the “me” and an aversion to the “we”. When Harris pollsters asked US citizens aged 18 and older what it means to be an American the answers surprised no one. Nearly 60 percent used the word freedom. The second most common word was patriotism. Only 4 percent mentioned the word community.

To American exceptionalists freedom means being able to do what you want unencumbered by obligations to your fellow citizens. It is a definition of freedom the rest of the world finds bewildering. Can it be, they ask, that the quintessential expression of American freedom is low or no taxes and the right to carry a loaded gun into a bar? To which a growing number of Americans, if recent elections were any indication, would respond, “You’re damn right it is.”

Can it be, they ask, that the quintessential expression of American freedom is low or no taxes and the right to carry a loaded gun into a bar? To which a growing number of Americans, if recent elections were any indication, would respond, “You’re damn right it is."

Christ almighty - who does that define I wonder?????

Quote :

The United States is also exceptional among industrialized nations not only in having by far the world’s most unequal income distribution but in believing that this inequality benefits us all, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

The data is crystal clear. Since 1980, the income share of the upper 1 percent of Americans has doubled. The share going to the top 0.1 percent, those earning more than $1.2 million a year, has quadrupled. Meanwhile the average worker’s wages have declined. In 2004 a full-time worker’s wage was 11 percent lower than in 1973, adjusting for inflation, even though productivity had risen 78 percent between 1973 and 2004

In the last decade, while the top 1 percent of Americans saw their incomes rise, on average, by more than a quarter of a million dollars each, the average income of the bottom 90 percent of all working Americans actually declined.

Quote :

Another hobbling fundamental tenet of American exceptionalism is that we have nothing to learn from other countries. Why mess with God’s perfection?

Quote :

This sense of uniqueness has most clearly been reflected in our debates on national health care reform. In 1994 both the United States and Taiwan engaged in national debates about how their health care systems might be improved. To come up with the answers, Taiwan’s leaders visited about a dozen other countries to gain insights about the wide variety of existing national health system structures and used these insights to tailor a system adapted to their own needs. US leaders visited no other countries. The debate rarely even mentioned other countries except dismissively and usually inaccurately (e.g. Canadians cannot choose their own doctors). This occurred despite the overwhelming evidence that the US medical system is the most expensive, the least accessible and by many measures, one of the least well-performing of any in the industrialized world.

Quote :

More and more Americans are desperately trying to hold on. In an astonishing reversal of the first 200 years of American history when we were seen as perhaps the most optimistic of all peoples, we have become one of the most personally insecure.

To make up for the decline in wages, Americans are working longer hours and taking on more debt just to make ends meet. Today Americans are at work 4-10 weeks longer than their counterparts in Europe. Forty million Americans lack health insurance and tens of millions more have health insurance with limited coverage.

There are charts in the source link that show a correlation between social spending and some other alarming statistics.

USofA has lowest social spending percentage-wise than other industrialized nations yet things like the most children living in poverty, highest infant mortality rates, highest number of people in prisons, highest homeless per capita, highest health care costs, and such......

And let's not overlook why so many are in sinking rather than swimming:

Quote :

A study by Steffie Woolhandler and colleagues at the Harvard Medical School done in 2007 revealed a remarkable statistic: 62 percent of US bankruptcies were a result of medical expenses. Equally damning, 75 percent of the people with a medically related bankruptcy had health insurance.

All the "talk" about the high percentage of people that pay no taxes at all....shit - many can't pay taxes because they have no money.

I think this is the thing that stands out the most to me:

the belief that America “is inherently superior to the world’s other nations"

That line of thinking will doom us to be sure.

The other thing that stands out to me is the idea that, a society that has a philosophy of "me" rather than "we" is a society that's not going to progress very far at all.

sheesh, kid.. do you read (and believe) all the stuff from that site? It is obviously left biased.. no problem with that, but where & how do they come up with their 'facts'? Look at some of the great headlines in this place:

Christian Jihad? Why We Should Worry About Right-Wing Terror Attacks Like Norway's in the US

The Liberated Keith Olbermann Is Making Powerful TV

Glenn Greenwald: Why Do We Harass Muslims But Not White, Nordic Males?

9 Kids in 2 Years Killed Themselves In Michele Bachmann's District -- Did Bachmann's Anti-Gay Allies Contribute to a Mental Health Crisis?

Why Do Conservatives Hate High-Speed Rail? 5 Reasons Right-Wingers Are Sabotaging Public Transportation Projects

Opposing Free Contraceptives? Does the Christian Right Want to Lower the Abortion Rate or Not?

Rebuilding the American Dream: Why Starting a Liberal Antidote to the Tea Party Movement Isn't Going to be Easy

How Rupert Murdoch Could Get His Hands On Your Kid's Information--And It's Legal

Why the Wealthiest Americans Are the Real 'Job-Killers'

What a great bunch of headlines! There are lots more, too.. amazing stuff you'll never read anywhere else!

Keith Olbermann? The guy who was too liberal & extreme for msnbc? He's one of their heroes? You must be getting desperate for debating fodder if you have to get your 'facts' from places like this..

rydnseek wrote:

sheesh, kid.. do you read (and believe) all the stuff from that site? It is obviously left biased.. no problem with that, but where & how do they come up with their 'facts'? Look at some of the great headlines in this place:


What a great bunch of headlines! There are lots more, too.. amazing stuff you'll never read anywhere else!

Keith Olbermann? The guy who was too liberal & extreme for msnbc? He's one of their heroes? You must be getting desperate for debating fodder if you have to get your 'facts' from places like this..

Scotty,

I've been playing the debate game long enough to know one thing....when you can't refute the things in the article always attack the source.

I could easily say the same thing about everything jager links to as well. His crap is just biased to the "other side".

Will you deny that the income gap is increasing between the rich and the poor?
Will you deny that more people are "becoming" poor than are gaining wealth?
Will you deny that our country's health costs are higher than others?
Will you deny that we get less for that higher cost?
Will you deny our rates of people in prison compared to other modern western civilizations?
Will you deny that we as American's tend to think we're better than everybody else?
Will you deny that we ignore how others in the world do things even if they have proven results?

I'm not saying America doesn't have plenty of great things going for it, but I also refuse to think we are perfect in any way.
In fact, I can see huge problems and hope we can fix them.

being a country of people who are only focused on what "I can get" rather than what "we" can do is a rather scary proposition isn't it?

rydnseek wrote:

What a great bunch of headlines! There are lots more, too.. amazing stuff you'll never read anywhere else!

Keith Olbermann? The guy who was too liberal & extreme for msnbc? He's one of their heroes? You must be getting desperate for debating fodder if you have to get your 'facts' from places like this..

Yeah, MSNBC is "liberal" and Fox is "fair and balanced." The US media is corporate owned and grossly corporate right wing, including wimpy MSNBC. You have to look outside the mainstream to get anything that isn't corporate drivel. Reading is good, too. You should try it. I'm curious. Which one of those headlines do you disagree with? If you can honestly say "all of them," you're clearly part of the problem and none of the solution.

The Fairness Doctrine: "An important tool to suppress freedom of speech, lost, right there! Dammit all, how else can we muzzle conservatives on radio and TV without that legislation! There aren't enough people interested in Regressive Progressive Leftists to attract enough listeners/viewers to make left wing liberal radio and TV profitable enough to survive. Therefore, because we can't compete in the market of consumer interest in our product, the only solution would be to muzzle FOX and others."

You are clearly chanting "four legs better than two.," dude. Why would corporate America sponsor information that works against its propaganda? Damn you're thick! The Fairness Doctrin "muzzled" the squacking heads by forcing stations to provide equal time for opposing opinions. If your opinons won't stand debate, they're not opinions; they're propaganda. Eliminating the Fairness Doctrine created the money-for-votes we suffer today, also. Now, stations compete for propaganda money and we're constantly stuck with the lessor of two evils instead of a democratic decision. The logic behind the Fairness Doctrine was that "muzzling" liars is a good thing. The logic behind eliminating it was to create an corporatocracy where free speech was laughable, for no other reason than speech became damned expensive.

As for Reagan's reign creating the "longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression," you clearly missed the "It's the economy, stupid" Clinton campaign that was successful because we never got out of the 1970's recession all through the Reagan years. Especially the Midwest states that lost thousands of manufacturing jobs, the 400,000 vanished small farms, the people who went on permanent unemployed state as their skills became unwanted by a failed economy that didn't produce jobs. Don't forget Reagan's creaking the national debt into the stratosphere (http://zfacts.com/p/318.html), which ensured our economy would never fully recover.

Call it socialism. Call it anarchism. Repeat whatever Fox tells you to chant. The only way you can imagine the media is in any way liberal is, as Stephen Cobert joked, "Reality has a liberal bias." There is a reason Fox viewers are consistently among the most mis-informed citizens in the country.

Jäger wrote:

And while we're waiting for those examples of all my links to right wing spin, and because this topic is about socialism:

What's the difference between Karl Marx saying "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs" and Motokid saying "The rich can afford to pay more taxes"?

Right wing spin is putting it mildly. "Propaganda" is what it's called in academia and other places where people get further than skin-deep into issues and ideas. Orwell called it "newspeak" and the ability to manage "doublethinking" is absolutely necessary to say thses nutty things without breaking into laughter or cowering in humiliation.

As for Marx and Motokid there is, of course, a world of difference. In your black and white, simple-solutions-that-don't-work world it might seem the same, but "the rich" in the US get their money from government protection and, directly, through government programs. They have a larger obligation than working people because they receive dramatically greater benefit. Obviously, they don't want to pay for their benefits, but who does that surprise? In the US, the rich pay dramatically lower taxes on gross income because they have their lawyers (legislators) write laws for their benefit. The idle, inherited rich have even greater advantages since Reagan/Clinton eliminated most of the taxes on “unearned income” so they can contaminate the economy without effort or penalty. Their war on the working class has been going on since before the American Revolution and they are kicking our asses because we’re so easily distracted by drivel like abortion, gun laws, lotteries, television, gay marriage, religion, sports, trinkets and baubles, and anything but public affairs, democracy, and “the economy, stupid.”

twday wrote:

You have to look outside the mainstream to get anything that isn't corporate drivel. Reading is good, too. You should try it. I'm curious. Which one of those headlines do you disagree with? If you can honestly say "all of them," you're clearly part of the problem and none of the solution.

Hmmm... reading is good... you have to look outside the mainstream to find the truth, etc and so forth.

Oh, and then of course there's this:

Quote :

Right wing spin is putting it mildly. "Propaganda" is what it's called in academia and other places where people get further than skin-deep into issues and ideas.

Propaganda and spin? Interestingly enough, you wrote this just four weeks ago:

As for the Teabaggers and wingnut hate mongers who inspired the shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, I hope there is a hell because that's where you'll be spending eternity.

Let's put aside for a moment your inability to separate your fondness for engaging in that aberrant sexual act from the Taxed Enough Already Party philosophy. Let's talk about what you're claiming happened, six months and a considerable amount of media coverage after the fact. I think it's safe to say the world's coverage of Loughner has gone beyond the "skin-deep" stage.

Here's what the rest of the world knows about Loughner to this point:

• He didn't listen to political radio of any stripe or watch TV, which means he wasn't listening to "wingnut hate mongers" or Tea Party supporters.
  
• He hated George Bush - just like you and your Truthout guru do.
  
• He believed voters were stupid and brainwashed - just like you do.
  
• He lived with Mom, on government handouts for the unemployed - not exactly the Tea Party way of life.
  
• His friends described him as an atheist - hard to reconcile with the left's screams that Tea Party philosophy is fundamentalist Christian.
  
• He was registered as an Independent - odd for anyone supposedly being a Tea Partier trying to put Republicans in office.
  
• He was uninterested in political issues - not exactly Tea Party material
  
• His reading material and viewing pleasure was stuff like The Communist Manifesto and the Zeitgeist Project - not exactly Tea Party philosophy.

And yet here you are, six months later, telling the world (or at least those reading your stuff) that the Tea Party is to blame and talking about hate mongers while posting something that is obviously, patently, false in claiming the Tea Party and the right/conservatives inspired the shooting of Giffords.

You seem to claim you spend a lot of time searching for the truth. You talk about "acadamia". Impressive.

So wtih the above in mind, could you point us to where you found evidence as late as a month ago that Loughner actually WAS inspired by Tea Party philosphy and the right to shoot Giffords? You can't have missed all the coverage on Loughner in the six months since that shooting, while searching for truth. And after all, without your accusation being backed up by some evidence, your claims wouldn't be much more than... oh... left wing hate mongering. And propaganda. And of course, maliciously false.

And it certainly wouldn't say a lot for you attempting to lecture others to read in seeking the truth when you so obviously aren't much interested in the truth.

Anyways, I will wait with interest to see what you found linking Laughner with the Tea Party or right wing/conservative philosophy. Would it be fair to assume it might be a long wait?

Quote :

There is a reason Fox viewers are consistently among the most mis-informed citizens in the country.

Well apparently, you won't be able to use that for an excuse, will you?

twday wrote:

Yeah, MSNBC is "liberal" and Fox is "fair and balanced." The US media is corporate owned and grossly corporate right wing, including wimpy MSNBC. You have to look outside the mainstream to get anything that isn't corporate drivel. Reading is good, too. You should try it. I'm curious. Which one of those headlines do you disagree with? If you can honestly say "all of them," you're clearly part of the problem and none of the solution.

Mr. Day.

I enjoy your wit & many of your pithy comments, both here & on your blog.. you have a real talent for writing. But if you read the articles i posted the titles to, you will see very biased left wing rants, with very little basis in facts. That is a common political tactic & is used in propaganda dissemination. Any possible points that might be made are lost in the muddle of lies, distortions, & spin. The articles have no credibility for me at all.

But i guess i am part of the problem, according to you, & should be restricted from speaking or typing any opinions. I also suppose if a person is far enough to the extreme left, msnbc might seem 'corporate right wing'.

I should stick with ride reports & bike talk.. this forum is getting pretty bizarre.

Now a days...
If you make $100,000 , you can afford to pay 50% taxes.
If you make $10,000 , you cannot afford 50% taxes.
(In North America that is... )
Just a math thing...nothing to do with fair...


Socialism, in theory, benefits society.
Capitalism, in theory, benefits capitalists.

They are, by no means, the only philosophical views available to mankind.


...Though some will try to bully you into making a choice of those...

Some people feel a global community sense of it all...
And some feel like its people like us, against people like them...

And now a days, how do you debate it, when a good lawyer can make the words "good" or "bad" suit any circumstance...

Without mankind (in general), prospering on the earth (in specific), what is it that you wish for?

mucker wrote:

Socialism, in theory, benefits society.
Capitalism, in theory, benefits capitalists.

Socialism ensures even the lazy, unmotivated, and underachievers get a guaranteed economic outcome - paid for by the industrious, motivated, and success driven. A quick read of the Constitution will show that there was never any discussion or intent to set up a republic with a guaranteed winner's ribbon even for the underachievers and the outright lazy. What we were given was life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. And like many things, you get what you put into it.

Capitalism rewards those who risk and work. It's not a far stretch to also appreciate the jobs and economic activity those engaged in capitalism spin off also benefits society. The idea that capitalism rewards only capitalists just does not work - or at least it won't until the day that we can all depend on government to provide our jobs. While, on the other hand, somebody living out their life on the government dole benefits nobody. Worst of all, they don't even benefit themselves. What a waste of a life.

Quote :

Without mankind (in general), prospering on the earth (in specific), what is it that you wish for?

The short form of John Locke - the freedom to engage in the pursuit of happiness.

mucker wrote:

Some people feel a global community sense of it all...
And some feel like its people like us, against people like them...

Without mankind (in general), prospering on the earth (in specific), what is it that you wish for?

Exactly, just principles even if the results don't support the principles. No learning from real life, only the craving to own more and more. And again who benefits from it ? Who are the winners in real life ? How many are they vs the loosers.

Since the ressources are limited, can we have unlimited winners ?

Dancamp wrote:

Exactly, just principles even if the results don't support the principles. No learning from real life, only the craving to own more and more.

So... dabbling in socialism and straying from constitutional government leads us to where we are today.

We then turn around and say "See, capitalism and constitutional government doesn't work - we need MORE socialism and bigger and more intrusive government". Let's not admit that dabbling with socialism and statism has failed - let's instead say we simply haven't gone far enough with it yet.

So, this much is correct: we have not learned anything from real life and where statism/socialism/big government has led us. At least some of us haven't learned.

The "Pursuit of happiness" and individualism is not defined as "the craving to own more and more". That's just the socialists' screed in justifying their theft of the labour of others - they're bad; they and their belief system are greedy.

It has nothing to do with greed. It has to do with recognizing the freedom for each and every individual, as an individual, to decide what constitutes happiness for them rather than to have it defined for them by government and meddlers, and to have the liberty to pursue that happiness, without government telling them how to live their lives and demanding they pay to guarantee others various outcomes in life.

For some that means exchanging ten years of your life working full time in a succession of shitty drilling camps up north to make big bucks so they can retire at 28. Others instead opt for 35 years of banker's hours at a mediocre much lower paying job, but Monday to Friday, sleeping at home each night. And that's fine too: trading income and early retirement for comfort and a regular life. For some it means a concerted effort to put aside income for investments and retirement planning out of each paycheque, while others choose to spend every extra dime they have on toys and recreation. But a recognition of individualism, capitalism, and the pursuit of happiness says you shouldn't be taxed out the ass for choosing that sacrifice to support the lifestyles and provide a guaranteed economic result to those who choose not to make that same sacrifice and/or effort.

And if somebody finds their pursuit of happiness is living in small rudimentary cabin out in the sticks, subsisting on making crafts and bartering their goods at New Age fairs so they don't have to show up at 7:00 AM each day to work for "the man", that's is consistent with liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No problem with that at all as a chosen pursuit of happiness and liberty in how they spend their days on this earth. What they don't have, however, is a socialism-inspired right to expect that the guy working long hours and months on a drill rig, living in a bunkhouse, should have to pay to provide all the services and support mechanisms that they can't pay for themselves on what they earn as a result of their chosen path living their idyllic lifestyle. Particularly when the chances are that their simple little lifestyle probably means they're one of the 47% who pay NO income tax whatsoever - meaning they don't even pay for the unarguably constitutional duties of government, much less the entitlement programs.