Inflation

[KristyHall]

Quote:
you realize public education, taxes paying for roads, and the FDA are all technically socialist programs

if you want we can go back to walking, having ignorant kids for those too sick or poor to educate their own, and having cocaine in our drinks

oh and don't forget child welfare, all those darn free loading socialist loving orphans sucking on the government teet.

oh and the police department and fire department, payed for by the government from tax payer money to protect the people and the common good. technically socialist.

not all "Socialist" style programs are bad and it is possible to be "a little bit socialist" in other words to like some aspects of a certain ideology and not like other aspects of it. It's called not being an extremist

that is unless you're against orphans having homes, children getting an education, having roads, and protection from criminals and fire.

 

[Wifezilla]

I am against the government trying to act like a charity. A GOOD charity uses 10-20% of the money it takes in for administration. The government sucks up most of the money if you can even account for it. The programs become riddled with fraud and corruption, and it never seems to actually help those it says it will.

When the gvnmt sucks up charity money, it takes money private citizens could use for private charity. Charities that operate transparently, are accountable to donors and recipients alike.

Liberals think that without gvnmt, nobody would receive help. Conservatives and libertarians KNOW more people could be helped more efficiently if the gvnmt was hogging all the cash and squeezing the charitable for more and more money.

Private charity also gives donors the option to pick and choose who they will help. Not sure why but this really enrages the lefties but it does. Don't believe in abortion? Don't donate to an organization that performs abortions. Think abortion is ok? You give your money to an abortion-focused charity. Don't want to reward bad behavior and pay for the housing of alcoholics and drug addicts? You shouldn't have to. Want to provide housing for drug addicts so they can clean up and dry out? GO FOR IT. In fact I am a big proponent of Step 13 in Denver.

The argument that people will die in the streets and children will die in gutters without these programs is tired, dishonest, and a way to try and bully people in to continuing to pay for programs that have not ended poverty, homelessness, alcoholism or anything else despite receiving billions of dollars.

 

[KristyHall]

Quote:
actually i am not a democrat, socialist or any such thing, and i was pointing out your sweeping generalization about socialism was inheritantlly incorrect since we do have socialist programs like public education and police departments, that are not "charities" nor strait out bad because they technically fall under the definition of a government system you disprove of.

Eugenics is a horrible thing but it gave birth to Genetics. so is all the progress made from genetics bad? noooo

extremes are usually bad, sweeping generalizations are generally bad, does that make you bad? no?

do schools make us bad even though they are socialist programs? nope, so does that mean someone can be partly socialist by agreeing with some of the socialist ideals but hating the bad parts of it? yup.

 

[Wifezilla]

You do not understand the definition of socialism.

"Socialism: A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole"

Police, fire, schools, etc... are tax funded. That doesn't make them socialist. Not all schools are even publicly funded. Neither are all fire departments. Ours are all volunteer.

 

[KristyHall]

Quote:
so then how would universal health care, which would be tax funded like public schools, be socialistic, and public schools not be?

 

[Wifezilla]

Because I have the choice to not fund a school (by not owning taxable property). I have a choice to put my kids in private school or home school if I don't like public school. Universal health care as it is proposed gives me NO CHOICE. It is coercive.

More on socialism...
""Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good."
- From The New Intellectual

"The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in 'society as a whole,' i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government. Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia - or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same."
- From "The Monument Builders"

"There is no difference between the principles, policies and practical results of socialism - and those of any historical or prehistorical tyranny. Socialism is merely democratic absolute monarchy - that is, a system of absolutism without a fixed head, open to seizure of power by all comers, by any ruthless climber, opportunist, adventurer, demagogue or thug. When you consider socialism, do not fool yourself about its nature. Remember that there is no such dichotomy as 'human rights' versus 'property rights.' No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the 'right' to 'redistribute' the wealth produced by others is claiming the 'right' to treat human beings as chattel."
- From "The Monument Builders"

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- From "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main Weapons"

"Both 'socialism' and 'fascism' involve the issue of property rights. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Observe the difference in those two theories: socialism negates private property rights altogether, and advocates the 'vesting of ownership and control' in the community as a whole, i.e., in the state; fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government. Ownership without control is a contradiction in terms: it means 'property,' without the right to use it or to dispose of it. It means that the citizens retain the responsibility of holding property, without any of its advantages, while the government acquires all the advantages without any of the responsibility. In this respect, socialism is the more honest of the two theories. I say 'more honest,' not better - because, in practice, there is no difference between them: both come from the same collectivist-statist principle, both negate individual rights and subordinate the individual to the collective, both deliver the livelihood and the lives of the citizens into the power of an omnipotent government - and the differences between them are only a matter of time, degree, and superficial detail, such as the choice of slogans by which the rulers delude their enslaved subjects."
- From "The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus"

 

[KristyHall]

Quote:
I would like the authors of these quotes, not just the titles of the books/articles they were pulled form. also some seem largely a opinion based

btw you did make a good point on the schools verses the health care as it is proposed

 

[country lady]

"The programs become riddled with fraud and corruption, ...."

Timely comment since tonight on our local station there will be a segment on "welfare vacations." The list includes hot spots such as Honolulu. Debit cards were mentioned. I won't be watching; no need to get myself upset.

 

[Dunkopf]

That's the problem with the health care as it currently stands. It's half you know what and doesn't really accomplish much. It's a start though and will help ease people into what is inevitable.

There are no pure socialist governments in the world. Some just have more socialistic attributes than others. It is very possible to agree with some facets of socialism and not others. It is also possible to be a registered democrat and not agree with everything the party does. Not possible to be sort of pregnant though. Sorry Wife.

The notion of charitable organizations taking care of those in need does amuse me though. Take away tax breaks for charitable contributions and see how much help charities are. Sure there's people that will volunteer their time in exchange for heaven points. There's even people that will do it just because they are good at heart. The food has to come from somewhere though and there aren't a whole lot of organizations that are able to provide housing for families that have fallen on hard times. Not too many slum lords that will let people live in their dumps for free. How many people on here are willing to take a family they have never met into their home and feed them until the parents can find a job that will pay the rent, heat and food. i wouldn't do it. I don't mind my tax dollars being spent on it though. I do mind my tax dollars being spent to subsidize big oil and pay for 1000 dollar toilet seats and engines for aircraft that the Sec of Defense says aren't needed. Don't forget the bridges to nowhere.

 

[Q9]

Quote:
you realize public education, taxes paying for roads, and the FDA are all technically socialist programs

if you want we can go back to walking, having ignorant kids for those too sick or poor to educate their own, and having cocaine in our drinks

oh and don't forget child welfare, all those darn free loading socialist loving orphans sucking on the government teet.

oh and the police department and fire department, payed for by the government from tax payer money to protect the people and the common good. technically socialist.

not all "Socialist" style programs are bad and it is possible to be "a little bit socialist" in other words to like some aspects of a certain ideology and not like other aspects of it. It's called not being an extremist

that is unless you're against orphans having homes, children getting an education, having roads, and protection from criminals and fire.

Psst... Most of that stuff can be privatized with relative ease. Public education is, was, and always will be ineffecient, and abused by the government to make mindless drones who support a massive omnipotent state. Private and home schools do better across the board.

Roads - highways, at least - can be privatized. There are numerous examples of successful private highways, and they're ALWAYS more effecient.

FDA? Don't get me started. Unconstitutional waste of money that can't even do its job.

Welfare generally is NOT the domain of the government, least of all the feds. Charity should always be taken care of by churches, individuals, and charitable organizations. Not the government. And don't even try to give me a guilt trip by using children - if private organizations and individuals were the sole source of charity, everyone dependant on charity would be better off, including the children.

Police and fire services are technically the legitimate domain of local governments.

Also, the FDA is technically not socialist, just an unconstitutional piece of ****. Socialism is the forcible transfer of wealth from those who earn it to those who do not or cannot. The FDA is (in theory) a government service for our "protection." As are police and fire services, which are significantly more legitimate.

In short, if the government didn't provide most of these things, we'd still have 'em - and they'd be more effecient as well! I think the problem is that most people (sorry if this sounds insulting, but it's true) only think one step ahead. Make a conscious effort to think two or three steps ahead when looking at economic issues, and you'll be well on your way to a much better understanding of the way an economy functions.