Whip Out Your Checkbooks (Lincoln, Freedom: appointed, DMV, subsidized)

[Shizzles]

Originally Posted by Oerdin

With that attitude I suspect you're a terrible police officer. If you don't care then you're not doing your not doing your job.

In all fairness, I think there's simply so much BS people generate that your natural human empthay recepters dull. Working customer service, while no where near as dramatic as being a cop, I can say that you come to sympathize with such attitudes.

[jazznblues]

Those super-happy countries with long-lving people are not socialist countries. They have rich government services, but in general the government does not own the means of production. Venezuela is a socialist country.

They have people highly dependent on the government for many basic needs. The way this country was founded by and large was to give us the freedom to take care of ourselves. I will vote every time to resist the trend underway to increase dependency on government. A few more of our population will be miserable. That's OK with me.

[.highnlite]

Nonsense, you made up your definition of socialism, very Glenn Beckian of you.
Others, probably products of America's finer Universities, differ;

How Socialist Europe Is Crushing the United States
MAY 20 2009, 8:29 AM ET5
It was no doubt painful for the Economist when it half-conceded, a couple of issues ago, that maybe the French economy is doing something right. The French! Somewhere between the socialized medicine and the runaway state planning, they managed to create a series of automatic stabilizers that kept unemployment from shooting through the roof and demand from the falling through the floor. This led to a hearty round of round of soul-searching about various European models waxing as the Anglo-Saxon model wanes.

Somewhat along those lines, I see via the Center for Economic and Policy Research that new comparative unemployment data is available, and America now has higher unemployment than the EU-15. Fancy graph:



My first thought after looking at this graph was that it couldn't be population adjusted. (The average unemployment rate among 15 European countries would look very different from the unemployment rate in Europe.) But it is.

My second thought was that this would look different if you took all 27 EU countries into consideration, and not just the 15. But I went back to the source data and found that I was pretty much wrong about that too. The unemployment rate across the EU is 8.3%.

[Reason42]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

Nonsense, you made up your definition of socialism, very Glenn Beckian of you.
Others, probably products of America's finer Universities, differ;

...

Tiresome and irrelevant.


Unemployment level has NOTHING to do with the argument. If we are to follow your line of thought, a communistic nation would be best, as ALL ARE EMPLOYED.

As to definitions, from more simplistic, yet commonly accepted sources:

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.[1][2][3]

1. ^ a b c Newman, Michael. (2005) Socialism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-280431-6
2. ^ "Socialism". Oxford English Dictionary. "1. A theory or policy of social organisation which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all people 2. A state of society in which things are held or used in common."
3. ^ "Socialism".Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary

–noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism



System of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control; also, the political movements aimed at putting that system into practice.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...1569/socialism


n.

• Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
• The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

http://www.answers.com/topic/socialism











EMPLOYMENT LEVEL? Really? That is an indication as to the depth of your analysis?

[Oerdin]

Originally Posted by jazznblues

Those super-happy countries with long-lving people are not socialist countries. They have rich government services, but in general the government does not own the means of production.

I agree but you and I seem to know what the definition of socialism is while 99.99%+ of the people who post things like "Obama is a socialist" most certainly do not.

[.highnlite]

Actually, from personal experience, I know I have more freedom here than a Norwegian in Norway and a Frenchman in France.

I also have more responsibility to care for myself... here...

Nonsense

...something you do not want.

How in the world would you have the faintest idea what I want?
Because I am rational about socialism, you think I derive some personal philosophy from that?
That, my friend is a thin strain of logic.




Which truly is the core of the philosophical argument.






By the way, you picked "life span" first.

As to socialism, it advocates public (read GOVERNMENT) ownership and management of production and allocation of resources. By it's definition, it restricts individual freedom of participation in commerce, thereby impairing and restricting achievement of personal wealth...

Freedom is a easy concept, but it is also scary, for in it's pure form there is no safety net. The potential gains are all yours, as are the potential failures. Oddly, history proves you wrong... Far more individuals have done anything possible, including die, to attempt to get to the freedom provided in the United States of America.



They wanted freedom, as do I.

Here is an example of your "freedom". In America, if you go out into our wild lands during a storm and get hurt, you can call for help on your cellphone, or your spot, and the government, at government expense will come and get you (curious socialism there, eh?). Our government will save you from yourself, so much for your, "I also have more responsibility to care for myself... here..."

In France, that socialist hellhole, if the government declares a "condition orange" due to rain and or snow storms in the mountains, and you decide to go into those wildlands, you will pay for your rescue, and here is the kicker, your health insurance won't cover you. In other words, France, that socialist hellhole, requires you to be personally responsible for your actions. Back to that Freedom thing.

If you really want to argue for a particular philosophy, be honest and open... and defend your beliefs.

Again, you have strained logic, I am not arguing for a particular philosophy, I am just explaining to the "know nothing" Americans the actual realities of socialism.

Now, it is true that I simplified my statement abit, (a requirement for that particular 20% of Americans who prefer belief to fact)

In truth, there are no capitalist countries and no socialist countries, all modern industrial nations are a mix of socialism. Now, if you truly find socialism repugnant, please stop using the US mail, do not use a government road, and for gawd's sake, if, you house catches fire, do not call the fire department, and do not ever, ever, dial 911.

I imagine you are not a Veteran, if you were, you would probably be quite pleased with your socialist VA healthcare, as am I.

....

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by Oerdin

I agree but you and I seem to know what the definition of socialism is while 99.99%+ of the people who post things like "Obama is a socialist" most certainly do not.

I am no Obama fan but I do not call him a socialist. I agree that the majority who do call him a socialist do not understand what it means.

But neither does .highnlite.

[.highnlite]

But neither does .highnlite.

More nonsense from the right, a place where beliefs trump facts.

[Reason42]

The truth is .highnlite you are not worth the time for further discussion.

You may know some of what socialism is, but your lines of argument use both socialistic and non-socialistic qualities to try to call republicans idiots (neither of which I am).

You have not illustrated why Socialistic governance, or governments with socialistic tendencies are, in your view, superior.

The point of the thread was that life in California is about to get much more costly... ...for all.

This will occur because of a natural tendency of Democracies to degenerate into Socialistic forms of government.

This path is well worn over the last 1000 years. It results in a less mature, less independent, less functional individual, which is why I will always oppose it.

[mquest123]

Originally Posted by Phil306

In 1989, I was working for United Airlines in SFO as a Rampserviceman. Union job, good pay, great benefits, etc. However, I just couldn't see myself working until age 62, loading containers full of freight.

My then brother in law, became a deputy with Alameda County Sheriff's Department. I, being a former Marine, really liked this idea. I looked at EVERYTHING, including retirement, etc. I found, AT THAT TIME, I could retire at age 55. If I stayed at UAL, I would have to retire at 62; so, I started applying to be a police officer. I DID NOT get hired at Alameda County, however, I did get hired at a police department in Alameda County.

I was quite happy over the fact I could retire, with full benefits at 55. Then, about 15 years after working, they (read the liberals in California), changed the laws to make it so I could retire at 50. WOW. Life is good and great.

I'll be 47 this month and, with only 3 years to go, until I can retire (I'll probably stay longer, due to the state of the economy) I am quite happy with whomever made the laws the way they are. I didn't do it, I didn't even ask for it. However, for whomever (thank you Governor Moonbeam and the liberals of this state) I thank you.

I have a high school education and nothing more. Except a large, 4" scar on my stomach, from being shot in Beruit, Lebanon in 1983. Other then that, I have nothing. But, thanks to the people of this state, I have alot.

California will need money to pay your pension.