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.
That depends on what you define as rot. I would start with Congress and its liberal tendencies. From there I'd define rot as welfare, people living on the dole instead of doing some kind of work. If Mexicans can do it so can americans looking for a hand out. I would exclude the indigent and incapable from that group.
Yes, every american deserves good head care and schooling. Neither should be function of the federal government. Schools should be managed by the states with national guidelines established by a government supported board only. Health care should be standardized or allowed to cross state entities as McCain proposes. The federal government should only establish a board of requirements but not government instituted.
The government seeks to establish itself as a non-controlled agency. That is contrary to the very nature of the United States and its intent.
Good points. We already have a lot of social programs: Welfare, Medicare, Social Security, and so forth. Even schools are a form of socialistic, in some States more than others. For example, free school and medical to illegal Aliens in California.
In my view, schools should be ran much like a business. The ones that fail to deliver loses its customers. As it is now, public schools and community colleges have all sorts of requirements for students to attend classes that have nothing to do with preparing for a career. A lot of these requirements are social in nature.
Could you please tell me where ANY freedoms have been taken over by Govt. in the UK? Please tell me where anyone has been oppressed in the UK by socialism?
I don't know much about the UK, but a friend I correspond with in the UK tells me that in order for him to have and watch his TV at home, he has to have a permit he pays for. Is this true?
I don't watch much TV, but if I were, you bet that I would prefer the USA But seriously, when I watch documentaries about the UK, I can't relate to the sheeple sort of behavior expressed by the people. Even their humor lack emotions. Maybe I am wrong? I was watching a British comedian explaining the differences of having an orgasm by the Brits and the Americans. He said, "Americans moan and groan, while the brits may calmly say, oh dear." This guy was funny. He say that the Brits control their emotions to the point of being sort of cold.
It's interesting to note that many socialist government advocates claim that government intervention such as free health care and free education are proof positive that hands on state policies are effective. Well I'll play devil's advocate why stop there! Even more important than those two holy grails of the left would be the food supply. Well fortunately there is, or was a great land of of opportunity that offered that choice. The good ol U.S.S.R where the good hand of government was plentiful but the stores were bare. Ask any Ukrainian how they felt about collectivism when the forced hand of socialism led to the death of over ten million of their people during the period of 1931-34. A land known as the breadbasket of Europe, where the flag portrays fields of crop had to resort to cannibalism and the eating of vermin just to survive. The free market have always been the catalyst to productivity, a means for an individual to enjoy the fruits of his labour, and is why even China has been remove the choke of regulation.
No, It is insurance. Socialism is the distribution of assets of value to the entire population. Social Secur8ty and Medicare are insurance plans that working people pay into, and when they can no longer work, the benefits are paid. But they are not paid to the general populatin---they are paid in time of need to those who qualify for and need the benefits.
I am sorry but a lot of people here dont know what is socialism.
On other post said that welfare is not socialism(that should tell you a lot).
Socialism: Distribution of all goods, wealth(The first step by REdistribution),
Socialism: no private property
Socialism: No private companies(originally workers are the owners in UTOPIA in real world the goverment is the owner).
Socialism: every body makes the same money.
Social Security: Socialism
welfare: Socialism
WIC: Socialism
So yes we have some social programs.
Now Geeoro, you are wrong when you say capitalism destroyed our economy. When it was actually socialism from the democrats especially Clinton who destroyed and created the subprime lending.
Lets see, before Clinton
1. You didnt have credit, you dont get a loan,
2. Even if you had good credit, you have to pay 15-20% down(NEVER IN OUR HISTORY WAS 100% FINANCING UNTIL CLINTON).
3. When the subprime lending started the housing started to jump. Everybody could buy a house without anything, not even income. Banks didnt care, if they didnt pay, the Bank just resell the house and get the money back.
4. Also a lot of banks didnt care because Fannie and Freddy was buying all of this loans. Giving more money to the banks to lend and creating more loans. Pushing all of this money in the housing market,
5. Fannie and Freddie sold much of this loans in the stock markets, affecting wallstreet who thought they were save and backed by the federal gov.
6. Democrats pushed Fannie And Freddie to have a balanced 50-50, 50% good loans, and 50 subprime.
7. Republicans including Bush and McCain tryied to stop it.
9. The Housing market crashed.
10. Housing prices started going down, making all subprime loans in danger.
11. Payments on the loans went up.
12. People couldnt pay the payments.
13. Forecloser everywhere.
14. Most subprime loans where 100% to 95% of house value. Meaning if the house went down 5% of it value the banks would lose money.
15. Before, this wouldnt matter, unless a house lost 20% of value, Now by just losing 5% the banks are in trouble.
16. FINANCIAL CRISIS.
Before the intervention of the government forcing banks to loan this wouldnt happened. This is not capitalism fault, capitalism keeped the subprime to a minimun, and never 100% financing.
Actually, Smith, in "The Wealth of Nations", says that the state is responsible for building things that help commerce. (That includes roads.)
He also called for taxes to be collected to fund free public education for the children of the working classes and held an attitude of deep suspicion and mistrust toward capitalists left to their own devices. Nothing but a tax-and-regulate, public-works-favoring Socialist is what Smith was...
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Thousand
[Marx] deflects the question. He says 'you say this... but let's not talk about that...' That's an admission in my book... Particularly that he uses the same rhetorical tool time and again through the writing to avoid answering questions.
LOL. If this is the best you could do in terms of trying to pull your pants back up, you might as well have just skipped the effort entirely.
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.
But seriously, when I watch documentaries about the UK, I can't relate to the sheeple sort of behavior expressed by the people. Even their humor lack emotions. Maybe I am wrong? I was watching a British comedian explaining the differences of having an orgasm by the Brits and the Americans. He said, "Americans moan and groan, while the brits may calmly say, oh dear." This guy was funny. He say that the Brits control their emotions to the point of being sort of cold.
