WHY do you worry about Socialism?

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Gasp! You mean some folks are abusing welfare and food stamps? How about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid? Should we end all these programs immediately because of this abuse of the system? Because were tired of supporting these "bottom feeders"? Should we cut them all off right now? Let them starve then, including any homeless Veterans! Let them freeze in their house during this blizzard, no more heat subsidies for you bottom feeders. No more homeless shelters, they made their bed, let them lay in their own filth.

* * *

Yes...except for the Vets. They should want for nuthin.

[Wes Tausend]

...

I watched the video, The American Form of Government. Some of it is actually true, but I believe much of it is seriously misleading to the unwary. Nice presentation, anyway.

I recently ran across this "ISM" video from 1948.

That year must have been about the time that Ike warned us about a large Capitalist group having gained the power to destroy us from within. The ISM video is a popular propoganda cartoon around the time of McCarthyism, ironically another ISM. The Eisenhower prediction is pretty much what recently brought the USA to its knees, runaway Capitalism. Like runaway Labor, only worse. Don't be swayed by high dollar propoganda from handwringing Capitalists hoarding the wealth that all of us contributed to. We are a long way from full Socialism. Balance is the key.

Originally Posted by Excaliber
Gasp! You mean some folks are abusing welfare and food stamps? How about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid? Should we end all these programs immediately because of this abuse of the system? Because were tired of supporting these "bottom feeders"? Should we cut them all off right now? Let them starve then, including any homeless Veterans! Let them freeze in their house during this blizzard, no more heat subsidies for you bottom feeders. No more homeless shelters, they made their bed, let them lay in their own filth.

Originally Posted by Jamo

Yes...except for the Vets. They should want for nuthin.

Jamo,

If a man were to visit the battlefield and ask said generic Veteran what he is fighting for, he is likely to pull out pictures of his family. Perhaps a cocky few would say "Old Glory", but they would soon admit that the flag doesn't mean much without family.

So should we provide "...want for nuthin" for the people the Vet is willing to die for? His wife, daughter, son? How about his sister and brother, his parents? And where would be the limit, 1st cousins only, no 2nd cousins?

Jeepers, that's about all of us that ever had a family member serve. And that is the problem.

Wes

...

[SP01715]

Originally Posted by Wes Tausend

...

I watched the video, The American Form of Government. Some of it is actually true, but I believe much of it is seriously misleading to the unwary. Nice presentation, anyway.

I recently ran across this "ISM" video from 1948.

That year must have been about the time that Ike warned us about a large Capitalist group having gained the power to destroy us from within. The ISM video is a popular propoganda cartoon around the time of McCarthyism, ironically another ISM. The Eisenhower prediction is pretty much what recently brought the USA to its knees, runaway Capitalism. Like runaway Labor, only worse. Don't be swayed by high dollar propoganda from handwringing Capitalists hoarding the wealth that all of us contributed to. We are a long way from full Socialism. Balance is the key.

Government interference in the lending system was the main cause of the current economic collapse. Banks forced to make loans to people that could not afford them. You can thank Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in large part for this mess.

The government taking control of more of the economy is an increase is socialist policy. The government should be limited by the constitution, but they have been trampling on it for a long time. If we let capatilism work we would be much better off in the long run. People that can't afford their loans should lose their houses. Companies that can't afford to stay in business should go out of business. Their needs to be failure for our system to survive. Inflation is coming, and the more money this government prints will only make it worse.


...

..............

[Ralphy]

So Ex you admit the checks and balances will not work?

[Ralphy]

Ex if you wish to take things out of context that's your issue and maybe a bit of media brain washing.

You went from wanting an honest answer to jumping on your soap box.

[Excaliber]

Oh they absolutely work Ralphy!!!

No system that I've seen is perfect, but the checks and balances built into our system of Government have served us well. Of course, I'm always open to new ideas. What would you propose to replace it?

Some commentators and pundits have said the on going Health Care debate is about as ugly as politics can get, for instance. Thats one way to look at it. I see it as checks and balances working it's way through our system. Kind of like the flu works it's way through your system, "stuff" happens along the way.

[Ralphy]

Gunner I used to be on the liberal side. So yes you both are wasting your time. How come so many Liberals become Conservative. But very few Conservatives become Liberals?
Hmmmmmm...........

[Excaliber]

I'd like to think it's a discussion, not a soap box. There is no single "answer" to these complex issues. Personally I don't particularly like the Health Care bill as it's currently being debated, for instance. I think they should wait until next year. But I understand why the Dem's are so anxious to get something passed NOW! Election year coming up, it will be more difficult than ever to come to an agreement after January.

[Stentor]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

I think they should wait until next year. But I understand why the Dem's are so anxious to get something passed NOW! Election year coming up, it will be more difficult than ever to come to an agreement after January.

Now why would the democrats find it more difficult to pass a health care bill next year due to the election? Is that because the bill is unpopular with voters and people in non-liberal districts will vote these jokers out of office for supporting such a bill?

[Ralphy]

SS is on the verge of total collapse. Milked dry and you say the words worked well?
WHAT!

Maybe you mean worked over well!

[Excaliber]

Well again, I would ask, what do you propose to replace it? Or is that "taking it out of context"?

[Ralphy]

Bush tried to introduce privatizing retirement but the Big Government types said no. Many groups already have it including guess who? Government workers, the Dems are about one thing. Controlling as much cash and squandering it as they can. I woke up and changed sides.

I'm ready for a new party.

[Excaliber]

Privatization instead of SS. Yeah, I recall that debate, didn't sound like a good plan for the country though. I don't think "most" folks will be able to manage a 401K or annuity or whatever "self help" program that might be offered to retire on. No, I think this is an issue where we need "Nationalism" to over see it. Otherwise, to many people will be on welfare come retirement.

Of course I disagree with your other point, the Dem's. They are not just about controlling and squandering resources. They have some good ideas, so do the Repubs. Two party system works for the most part. I'm an independant myself, but that's neither here nor there...

[Stentor]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

However, we need to hear opposing views to find that balance point. Because most of the Lounge is hard right, I feel compelled to offer that opposing view, hard left. But to tell you the truth, sometimes I have hard time believing some of what I post as well.

Wow, not sure if somebody gave Ernie sodium pentathol, or what....but he slipped up and blew his cover--even he has a hard time believing the liberal BS that he posts.

Jamo, could we add this quote to Ernie's signature (it's quite telling.)?

[Ralphy]

Teachers here have no control of where their money goes. The state dictates where, so self control is not an issue just an excuse. Not by you but the opposition.

[Excaliber]

Then perhaps a joint plan? Those wishing to opt out of SS and go independant. Hmmm, that's gonna be as hard to pass as Health Care reform.

[Ralphy]

That option was proposed.

[fastd]

OK; we do have a definition. With that definition in mind, it is hard to deny the following facts,

1. Government spending after healthcare goes from around 15% of GDP to more than 30%
2. Other programs like Social Security and Medicare will got broke over the next 20-30. Medicare deficit is expected to by $37 Trillion within 10 years.
3. Government did take over some banks, auto companies, and insurance companies.
4. Government is telling the private sector how much they can get paid; in some cases they are determining who gets hired!
5. For the first time in our history, our Government is telling us that we must buy a service that they provide, simply because we exist.
6. Government seeks completely change our energy consumption policy (cap and trade) based on unsettled science at huge costs to jobs, property.
7. The EPA, the FED, and unelected government agencies, are giving themselves lawmaking authority that is unprecedented in our republic.
8. Obama has spent Trillions and is committing Trillions more to these programs with very little to show for it. Our children will live in a country that has debts and policies that many consider to be unwise today.
9. The initial health care bill proposed that the Government would have direct access to our bank accounts and take money out of it without our approval to make sure they got their/own money.


Yet, in the face of all of the above, you suggest that people are crazy because they fear the increased power of the state, and disagree with these policies, be it defined as socialism or otherwise. If you disagree with this simple point, then I don't know what more can be said.

[Excaliber]

fstd, your post sounds like something right off the front page of "The Enguirer". Long on sensationalism, short on facts and designed to miss lead. Is there ONE point in there you could back up with reason and logic?

Stentor, I don't know if that's the case or not. For the most part, I think not, the dynamics are more complex than that. For instance, an NBC poll asks the question:

Do you think President Obama's healthcare plan is a good idea or a bad idea?

What "idea" are we talking about? The proposed bill is 2000 pages. Do the people taking the poll really have a clue what's in there? It's this kind of simplistic knee jerk reaction that I'm trying to wade through and get to some real facts.

[Tommy]

Excaliber,
I'm not joining the discussion in progress. Rather, I'm starting a new tangent to it.

From out earlier discussions, I concluded that you have a noble view of the human spirit. It is consistent with a point of view I first heard described during a seminar about thirty years ago. The speaker offered his opinion of a fundamental difference in the world views of Amercans born before and during the Baby Boom, and those born after. People born after the Baby Boom generation tend to believe each person is entitled to a government guaranteed minimum standard of living just because they are Americans. There can be some debate as to whether that minimum standard does or does not include premium cable channels and high speed Internet service, but it certainly includes housing, food, suitable clothing for children, etc. People born during and before the Baby Boom tend to believe each person is entitled only to what he earns.

People who share the entitled point of view and are also financially secure tend to feel obliged to help their less capable or less fortunate fellow citizens. As they think this noble point of view is the way everyone should feel, they would rather see the government tax everyone of means to provide this assistance. They tend to think of people who don't share this point of view as selfish and not enlightened.

People who think people deserve only what they earn would not allow the less capable and unfortunate to simply die of neglect. But they think the decision to help unfortunates should be made by individuals rather than the government. Their genuine concern is that providing a generous government guaranteed minimum standard of living will discourage many people from contributing anything of value to society. I happen to share this view.

In my mind, a system of government that provides a very low guaranteed minimum standard of living for all citizens is desirable. I want the standard to be high enough to preclude food riots but not so high it encourages people to be satisfied with the life style it affords. In my mind, the comments about trends toward socialism over the past year are shorthand for concerns that our government is tending to raise the minimum standard higher than it needs be solely so the politicians currently in power can increase the number of their constituents. In other words, politicians are willing to put the long term economic health of the nation at risk in order to stay in office and in power. Based on my personal experience, that is not an unreasonable way to expect politicians to act.