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.
Are you claiming the national debt is the same as government spending? If so, it's you who need to walk through a few textbooks. Either that, or you're just trolling. Which is it?
interesting hard right position anybody that opposes wage slave exploitation, chinese forced labor, mexican illegal import, anybody that opposes it and starts talking union and fair wage, is a dirty commie. americans have no problem with slavery, as long as its not them.
left is okay with the socialism as most people know it.
however, many on the left believe that socialism has not been implemented in any country ever
It was implemented in the U.S. way before I came along. See, it's not an all or nothing deal. You make it sound like under socialism, no one gets a paycheck and "the goverment" decides what you need and takes care of you.
We've already decided that pooling our money via taxes for public roads, schools, police and fire protection, city planning, Social Security, Medicare/aid, unemployment beneifits, etc. is in our best interest as a society. That's socialism. Extending it to healthcare doesn't mean we're a 100% socialist country.
You anti-Obama nuts just seem to have caught onto Rush's "word of the week" and are trying to make something of nothing. Go ahead and scream, shout, and vote against your own self interest. Who cares?
It was implemented in the U.S. way before I came along. See, it's not an all or nothing deal. You make it sound like under socialism, no one gets a paycheck and "the goverment" decides what you need and takes care of you.
We've already decided that pooling our money via taxes for public roads, schools, police and fire protection, city planning, Social Security, Medicare/aid, unemployment beneifits, etc. is in our best interest as a society. That's socialism. Extending it to healthcare doesn't mean we're a 100% socialist country.
You anti-Obama nuts just seem to have caught onto Rush's "word of the week" and are trying to make something of nothing. Go ahead and scream, shout, and vote against your own self interest. Who cares?
25% of our economy should be gov spending.
within 4 years Obama will have us at 60% of economy
I encourage you to look at the numbers instead of just repeating old party line rhetoric.
go go usgovernmentspending.com
do research instead of making vague worthless claims
For the life of me I don't understand how you can state that government spending should be 25% of GDP (we are talking about GDP). Government's portion of GDP should be within the context of the needs of the country. It could be significantly lower depending on the robustness of the private sector or it could be much higher. It seems rather ludicrous, to say the least that some arbitrary figure works within all historical periods.
"From each according to their ability; to each according to their need."
Some people have the ability to produce many times what they need to survive while other people cannot even produce what they need to survive. So the question is what to do with the people who cannot produce enough to survive. Do we just let them languish and die off? We as a civilized society have decided that we cannot do this. Hence we siphon off (tax) some of what the high achievers produce and use it to support those who would not survive otherwise. To a large degree this is socialism.
So we already have socialism. The only question is do we want more socialism or less socialism. The hard part is trying to determine those who cannot achieve from those who will not achieve. There is a layer of society that could achieve at least what they need to survive but find it very difficult. For people on the lower half of the ability scale, life is an uphill battle. These people would be all for more socialism. They are all for taking more from the high achievers and spreading it out among those who would otherwise find if very difficult to survive.
There are also those of compassion who 'feel the pain' of those who find it very difficult to survive even though they themselves may be high achievers. On the other side are high achievers who want to hang on to what they have achieved. So there is the constant stuggle in a nut shell.
Check your history books. This country has gone through periods of heavier taxation and greater regulation, and here we are, still and always a capitalistic society.
The only thing being manipulated is you and your fear, because of your displeasure over a freely elected president whom you disagree with.
Answer to my argument without using fallacies and I might respond to you. Otherwise, run off and play little one.
Hint: Your straw man was not my position and making assumptions about my motives without any supporting premise is invalid.
"From each according to their ability; to each according to their need."
Some people have the ability to produce many times what they need to survive while other people cannot even produce what they need to survive. So the question is what to do with the people who cannot produce enough to survive. Do we just let them languish and die off? We as a civilized society have decided that we cannot do this. Hence we siphon off (tax) some of what the high achievers produce and use it to support those who would not survive otherwise. To a large degree this is socialism.
So we already have socialism. The only question is do we want more socialism or less socialism. The hard part is trying to determine those who cannot achieve from those who will not achieve. There is a layer of society that could achieve at least what they need to survive but find it very difficult. For people on the lower half of the ability scale, life is an uphill battle. These people would be all for more socialism. They are all for taking more from the high achievers and spreading it out among those who would otherwise find if very difficult to survive.
There are also those of compassion who 'feel the pain' of those who find it very difficult to survive even though they themselves may be high achievers. On the other side are high achievers who want to hang on to what they have achieved. So there is the constant stuggle in a nut shell.
- Reel
There is another argument for a social conscience, albeit a self interested one. People who have nothing to lose who are watching their children starve have been known to become dangerous to those who live in an environment of excess. Here is a favorite Karl Marx quote of mine.
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.
