Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Damn those "socialists", actually caring about those less fortunate than themselves, ride those commie mothers out of town, tar and feather the degenerates. Wrap them in the flag of free marketdom and burn them to a crisp.
The problem isn't the intent of socialism, but the outcome-- Socialism is a short-sighted philosophy despite it's good intentions.
We all know, now and again, bad politicians will gain power. That's nothing that anyone challenges-- In fact, as a socialist, you might very well consider our current ruler one of those bad politicians. The problem with socialism is that you give a massive level of responsibility to one ruler. Then when a bad ruler rises to power, the country has to suffer while the position is abused. A recent example of what happens when people rely on an irresponsible ruler is Katrina. (Although I disagree with Bush's level of responsibility for that, he definitely carries responsibility.) Another example is Social Security. The bad power holders that have been entrusted with our retirement have been spending it for years and year and now it's on it's way to bankruptcy.
You say that you socialists care for others, but what compassion is shown when dependence on the government leads to Katrina? Is it compassionate to them? What compassion is shown when we pay 17% of our income to Social Security and Medicare for our care in old age, but it'll not be there for us when we get old? What compassion is that? That your income is crippled by a socialist program and you may very well suffer in old age?
Please explain.
(FYI: Capitalism calls for care to the poor and is about bettering the human condition.)
As long as the government is making $85,000,000 "loans" to private companies which have screwed up and made bad business decisions, I don't think it's out of place to expect a little help when facing a catastrophic illness.
OTOH, if people are not entitled to health care, something has to be done to curb the cost of medical care. My elderly mother recently had minor surgery and spent 24 hours in the hospital. The cost? $10,000. My daughter had an accident on her scooter and we spent 3 hours in the emergency room. The cost? $2,700. We all have insurance, so it's not a big deal on a personal level. But for the uninsured it's devastating. And contrary to what you think, many people cannot just "tighten their belts" to afford the insurance. Often there simply is not enough money to cover the expense.
1. When you drop $85b for a 80% stake in a company with a trillion dollars in assets, it is more than just a loan. Likewise, Uncle Sam drives a hard bargain, charging Libor + 8%. This will turn out to be a great deal for the taxpayer. You read it here first.
2. Be honest. How old is your daughter? Was she wearing a helmet, and other safety equipment?
If the socialists care more about those less fortunate than themselves, why is it that they don't donate as much time or money to charities than conservatives? This is the one that has always puzzled me.
Do you have any reliable stats on that. Thought not! I prepare and serve meals at a homeless shelter, what do you do?
The problem isn't the intent of socialism, but the outcome-- Socialism is a short-sighted philosophy despite it's good intentions.
We all know, now and again, bad politicians will gain power. That's nothing that anyone challenges-- In fact, as a socialist, you might very well consider our current ruler one of those bad politicians. The problem with socialism is that you give a massive level of responsibility to one ruler. Then when a bad ruler rises to power, the country has to suffer while the position is abused. A recent example of what happens when people rely on an irresponsible ruler is Katrina. (Although I disagree with Bush's level of responsibility for that, he definitely carries responsibility.) Another example is Social Security. The bad power holders that have been entrusted with our retirement have been spending it for years and year and now it's on it's way to bankruptcy.
You say that you socialists care for others, but what compassion is shown when dependence on the government leads to Katrina? Is it compassionate to them? What compassion is shown when we pay 17% of our income to Social Security and Medicare for our care in old age, but it'll not be there for us when we get old? What compassion is that? That your income is crippled by a socialist program and you may very well suffer in old age?
Please explain.
(FYI: Capitalism calls for care to the poor and is about bettering the human condition.)
In the country I live in, Canada, we don't have rulers we have leaders. I guess that is the difference. Here we see the government as us. In the US you seem to see the government as them,
I don't see the government as an enemy, but as an organization that represents us the people.
Right now the person heading our government is S. Harper. I don't agree with many of his views, I think he is a puppy of Bush, but I don't think he is a dishonourable man. He has his ideas, I have mine. But I believe he thinks what he is doing is best for Canada.
I've paid my taxes and I've been happy and satisfied with the outcome of that sacrifice. The fact that part of the taxes I have paid goes to help those less fortunate than myself makes it even more rewarding.
"(FYI: Capitalism calls for care to the poor and is about bettering the human condition.)"
You are kidding right, Capitalism is interested in the bottem line it doesn't give a damn about the poor. In fact it is the primary cause of there being poor. Without the poor Capitalism would be dead in the water.
"Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227). "
"But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states in the last presidential election. "
In the country I live in, Canada, we don't have rulers we have leaders. I guess that is the difference.
Not all Canadians feel that way. I grew up in Detroit, MI. I've had a lot of friends across the river. Some liked it, some didn't.
They're leaders when you're relatively happy with what they're doing. However, when you feel like your life is being obstructed by their policies and your only motivation to follow is the threat of force, they become rulers. (Also, I read a lot of classic stuff. "Leaders" is pretty new to the lexicon whereas "rulers" is always used in what I read.)
Quote:
Here we see the government as us. In the US you seem to see the government as them,
Government is a necessary evil, but we allow private organizations to operate. We like our independence so if we want something done, we do it privately with others who also want it. In that way, it's really an "us" situation whereas if the government handles it, it's "us" for those who approve of the policy but for those who don't approve, there's oppression... Tyranny of the majority.
Quote:
But I believe he thinks what he is doing is best for Canada.
Let me know how you feel if he doubles your taxes and halves your government services. I bet you start to care a little less about what he thinks is best and more about wanting to be free.
Quote:
I've paid my taxes and I've been happy and satisfied with the outcome of that sacrifice.
What I'd like to know is do you feel satisfied knowing that you've oppressed those who wish not to participate in the socialist legislation?
Lastly, when the day comes that Canada has bad leadership-- they come now and again-- and your people (future generations) suffer under the systems you've implemented, do you feel a sense of responsibility for passing the burden of an oppressive government?
You are kidding right, Capitalism is interested in the bottem line it doesn't give a damn about the poor. In fact it is the primary cause of there being poor. Without the poor Capitalism would be dead in the water.
You should probably read Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" before you speak on a subject which you're obviously ignorant.
Socialism is also concerned about the bottom line. You think Canada doesn't keep track of how much is being spent? You don't think your countrymen are aware of the cost of the service they're receiving? The difference between socialism and capitalism, as far as this conversation is concerned, is that in socialism everyone runs the risk of getting the least beneficial service whereas in capitalism-- capitalism proper-- the poorest have access to the least beneficial service, but you have opportunities to improve your condition... and your value to the community is rewarded.
If you disagree with any of this, please quote Smith's clear claim that the poor aren't entitled do decent treatment. Please cite a passage where Smith claims that being cautious of corporations or other monopolistic organizations is a good trait. Until then, you should ask someone.
"Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227). "
"But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states in the last presidential election. "
And as I asked "What do you do" I see people giving their time to help those in need. And our taxes help those in need, I read continuously how we Canadians pay so much more in taxes that those south of the boarder. And the result is we have a safty net that takes care of the less fortunate, we have universal healthcare so that even those without means can get proper care.
The health of our citizens is a primary priority of our government. Our government works for us, not against us, as I hear so many from the US complain of their government.
You should probably read Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" before you speak on a subject which you're obviously ignorant.
Socialism is also concerned about the bottom line. You think Canada doesn't keep track of how much is being spent? You don't think your countrymen are aware of the cost of the service they're receiving? The difference between socialism and capitalism, as far as this conversation is concerned, is that in socialism everyone runs the risk of getting the least beneficial service whereas in capitalism-- capitalism proper-- the poorest have access to the least beneficial service, but you have opportunities to improve your condition... and your value to the community is rewarded.
If you disagree with any of this, please quote Smith's clear claim that the poor aren't entitled do decent treatment. Please cite a passage where Smith claims that being cautious of corporations or other monopolistic organizations is a good trait. Until then, you should ask someone.
Well, read Marx on the benefits of communism, of course, philosophers are only going to see the bright side of their philosphy.
"capitalism proper" yes and "communism proper" and "socialist proper" and the "easter bunny proper" utopia here we come.
The fact is my country is working fine, hows your's doing.
Well, read Marx on the benefits of communism, of course, philosophers are only going to see the bright side of their philosphy.
So did I. I figured I should read him before forming an opinion. Go figure...
Quote:
The fact is my country is working fine, hows your's doing.
Excellent. The dollar and economy is on the verge of collapse. The consequence will be immense pain for the poor and middle-class. They'll resent taxes more than ever and demand the constraint of Social Security be lifted.
Pretty, isn't it? My ruler ran up the debt-- let the country have a free for all-- and now, the country is forced to clean up or suffer. It's a plan that started thirty years ago and it's finally come to fruition.
Happy days.
By the way, I notice you pull the typical intellectually dishonest move of not responding to my questions. What's up with that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
