WHY do you worry about Socialism?

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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?

[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.

[SPF2245]

Ex, I view socialism like this:
Model - Denmark
Modern Country where the people are afforded free medical coverage, college and many tech schools are paid for in part by the Gov't, the Gov't take great steps in making sure the minority doesn't get left in the cold...real feel good story.

So, what wrong with this type of Gov't intervention? My cousin moved from the US to Denmark for professional reasons. He started out loving the medical and educational plans provided by the Gov't. After spending a few years there, he ended up wanting to get "ahead" and started an electrical business. He bought a van for work, tax on the van...100%. He pays a corp. tax of 25% and then a payroll tax of 8%...add that up and then take his profit for his income and take out another 60% (Denmark has a 0-63% income tax...WOW, gots to pay for all those feel good programs). End result, he can't afford to stay in business and pay his own bills. So now, he lives off the Gov't doing minor jobs under the table to avoid the taxes and sold his business. Pretty cool eh?!

So, what's my point? Simple, socialism takes care of those who do nothing. It punishes initiative and hard work by taking from those who have earned and gives it to those who are lazy. Find me a country as diverse as the US (key) and put socialism into power the way Obummer is trying and you will kill the drive of the common man to get ahead. We need balance and I'm not saying turn off the programs to help the poor, but when you tax and regulate business the way Obama would like...it back fires. Think it's any surprise the companies are paying back the loans so fast?! They realize they can not function with Gov't influence (read Obama trying to tell the banks to loan to high risk groups...and do what, create another financial fall out like Clinton did to us?!). Nope, we don't need socialism, we need to leave things the way they are and work on improving business...'cause that is what pays the bills in the first place.

[Excaliber]

Tommy say's,

...politicians are willing to put the long term economic health of the nation at risk in order to stay in office

I hear that a lot around here, but I don't believe it! More votes is NOT the fundamental reasoning behind Health Care reform. Even the Republicans support some kind of reform. The primary reasoning is, as you put it, to provide a

very low guaranteed minimum standard of living for all citizens...

SPF2245 really nails the fundamental issue with this thread.

...put socialism into power the way Obummer is trying...

WHAT has Obama passed into law, in your opinion, that crosses the line into a BAD socialistic state? Or is it just a general feeling that some outside force is messing with you?

[Tommy]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

More votes is NOT the fundamental reasoning behind Health Care reform.

OK. In some cases, more money for the elected officials is the fundamental reason. But, IMHO, 535 of the 535 Congressmen are motivated by self interest above all else. In some cases, the self interest of an elected official will align with that of the majority of his constituents, but in all cases politicians are looking out for themselves first.

[Excaliber]

Eh eh, I'll give you that one Tommy! It's the American way, "me first". Underlying that fundamental, I believe, is a true desire by most Americans (politicians included) to do what is right for the "people". Provide at least minimum standards of health care, food, housing, the basics of life.

And no, Cable TV is not a basic.

We are currently NOT meeting the basics as it concerns Health Care. This new bill will help, to some degree, we could and should do more. Doing so will NOT put us on a path to "socialism".