WHY do you worry about Socialism?

[Excaliber]

Laws, regulations, HOA fee's, social security taxes, medicare taxes, property taxes, the list is endless as to what we are "forced" to comply with. Is this what leads some to insist America is a Socialistic country?

To many programs? Maybe, which ones would you throw out? Food stamps? Medical? Social Security? Federally funded health clinics for the poor? NIH grants to study the sex life of shrimp? I propose some programs need to be eliminated. Others need better oversight, enforcement of regulations in some cases, additional regulation in others.

American citizens ABSOLUTELY HAVE A RIGHT to minimum living standards, that includes reasonable health care. You will be "forced" to comply with the laws of the land (resistance is futile).

The American people's voice has been heard as it regards Health Care Reform. The debate continues! No matter what the outcome some will not be happy, others will love it. That is Democracy at work, not socialism.

MY voice on one issue is this:
We need a public option for Health Care. I will use my voice to rally those who support my position. Annoy those who do not. I will vote to FORCE you to pay for this public option, the American people deserve it, they have a RIGHT to it. We can't afford it? OK, that's a reasonable argument... Then let's figure out a way to fund it that is fair and reasonable. I have a couple of ideas on how we can do that.

By the way, as GM is the basic topic at this point, I'd like to hear more on what folks think on that issue. Should have left them alone, let them fail on their own?

[lnfletcher]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

To many programs? Maybe, which ones would you throw out? Food stamps? Medical? Social Security? Federally funded health clinics for the poor? NIH grants to study the sex life of shrimp? I propose some programs need to be eliminated. Others need better oversight, enforcement of regulations in some cases, additional regulation in others.

American citizens ABSOLUTELY HAVE A RIGHT to minimum living standards, that includes reasonable health care. You will be "forced" to comply with the laws of the land (resistance is futile).


MY voice on one issue is this:
We need a public option for Health Care. I will use my voice to rally those who support my position. Annoy those who do not. I will vote to FORCE you to pay for this public option, the American people deserve it, they have a RIGHT to it. We can't afford it? OK, that's a reasonable argument... Then let's figure out a way to fund it that is fair and reasonable. I have a couple of ideas on how we can do that.

By the way, as GM is the basic topic at this point, I'd like to hear more on what folks think on that issue. Should have left them alone, let them fail on their own?

Why do they have a right?
Yes, let them fail. I remember AMC pacers, it didn't bring down the country to let them fail.
The majority of the people do not want the public option. If the politicians had put this forward during their election, they would not have been elected and they most likely will be thrown out after the damage is done.

[bomelia]

I promise I will concede the point Earnie if you can point to the location in the bill of rights that calls this out:

"American citizens ABSOLUTELY HAVE A RIGHT to minimum living standards"

Now, you have to show me since you claimed it. Is that not a fair request?

Mike

Blykins, you should be aware of the baiting technique used in liberal circles. It is done in such a way with feigned kindness, feigned reason, and feigned "smilies". Liberals like nothing better than to get you to blow your top and get all emotional. Trust me, no where in our bill of rights is the one Earnie called out. And as such, he will (a) not answer this, (b) respond with a question, (c) publicly explode, (d) send me a nasty email/pm.

[RAZOR]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

I still maintain the various "ism's" are not bad or good in and of themselves. It's how they are applied. This thread insists that the term, socialism, be defined strictly in a bad way. There seems to be no exact definition here, it's just "bad". I don't have a problem with that. I reserve the right to apply socialism within the confines of my own home, dictator that I am.

GM bailout:


I understand the frustration, but these bail out's arent anything like socialism, or a "take over". Jamo is correct, I tend to be to dismissive of the right's pain in these matters, I'll try to do better. In my opinion to use these term's so lightly, flippantly if you would, diminishe's the definition. As used here it is designed to denigrate the Government, Obama in particular, startle the people and instill fear. It is, therefore, "sensationalistic". But OK, being mostly Type A kinda guys around here, that's to be expected to some degree.

Onto GM:
Now as I recall GM had a window of time to proceed with a normal or expediated bankruptcy filing. They could not get-r-done within that time frame. The administration was left with few choices. Let GM continue to fail, which would compound the immediate economic crisis, or take action to stabilize the company.

Did they make the rignt call? Maybe... Or, should GM simply have been allowed to go through a lengthy and ugly bankruptcy? The same question could be posed for the Chrysler, the various banks, AIG, stock market, etc.

Should the Government simply left ALL of them to the ravages of "natural selection"?

Originally Posted by bomelia

I promise I will concede the point Earnie if you can point to the location in the bill of rights that calls this out:

"American citizens ABSOLUTELY HAVE A RIGHT to minimum living standards"

Now, you have to show me since you claimed it. Is that not a fair request?

Mike

Blykins, you should be aware of the baiting technique used in liberal circles. It is done in such a way with feigned kindness, feigned reason, and feigned "smilies". Liberals like nothing better than to get you to blow your top and get all emotional. Trust me, no where in our bill of rights is the one Earnie called out. And as such, he will (a) not answer this, (b) respond with a question, (c) publicly explode, (d) send me a nasty email/pm.

The problem is they use Obamas twisted interpretation of the Constitution. That the powers of the Federal Government is expressed in the negative, so that it tells the Feds what they can't do, but does not limit what they can
do. It's an argument of silence and leaves no limits on their left wing agenda. WE ARE DOOMED