I do. What do you think?

 

On the road? We already have so many social programs that it is hard to fathom. I work in mental health and can see the benefits of some social programs. But I have also worked in human sevice jobs for the better part of my career.

We are the richest and strongest country in the world. There is no reason we should not help others in need. The sad part is that most programs end up being made into long term welfare programs, keeping people in the program rather than helping them and getting them back on their own, which is the way any good social program should be run.

As for total socialism... I am against that completely. But I think that somehow, something needs to be done to help lower medical costs and care for the aged who were working class folks and never found a way or income enough to retire in comfort and with the necessary insurance to help defray costs.

As for other health programs, like mental health for instance, there are just some programs we cannot do without..in terms of public safety and also the rights of those who have a mental illness.

I guess it's just too easy to label good programs as socialist and pretty danged hard to decide which programs should get canned. It isn't an easy decision for anyone who has any knowledge of how complicated our way of life really is.

Well, enough of this rant. Im against total socialism, but I also know that we need some types of programs to help people who are unable to help themselves. I remember that Hitler had a social program.... designed to get rid of those who were mentally retarded or mentally ill.... but I think he was a tad off track and I'd hate to think that any party would want to follow in those footsteps.

 

Quote from Arthur Schlesinger: "The chief liberal gains in the past generally remain on the statue books when the conservatives recover power...liberalism grows constantly more liberal, and by the same token conservatism grows constantly less conservative..."

 

Thats true, and as you saw on 9/11 most Americans were VERY charitable. But its not governments role to be charitable for me. Put another way, if you dont think its right to demand money from me so you can help someone in need, with the threat of deadly force, how can you think its ok to ask the government to do it for you? And that is exactly what the government does, if you dont think so, dont pay your taxes for awhile and see if people with guns dont show up at your front door.

 

psdwanabe, it has been many years but if my recollection of a tax is correct, it went something like this: a tax is a non punitive but compulsory transfer of resources from the private to the public section levied in order to achieve certain social, economic and monetary objectives and levied without regard for specific benefit received". The point is this: Taxes are complex and benefit many and are levied in many complex ways. They benefit everyone in America. Absent Criminal or other way serious events, you wont see an IRS gun at door.

 

Yes if the dems get there way !!


twinbulls

 

scary ::sheds a tear::

 

yes

 

Yes, well on the road.

 

Socialism as an economic philosophy/system is much different than a paternalistic government.

Here is the defintion from Websters.

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

I don't think we are anywhere near this type of system. Essential to become a true socialist state, we would need a completely radical change in economic structure. If you think that is going to happen...

Instead I see the government using its powers and tax money, not to control production and distribution of goods, but to subsidize the life experiences of people. That is, 'you have a personal problem, the government will fix it for you'.

I see our country becoming increasingly involved in efforts like that. These types of programs have been going on since shortly after the Civil War, but have seemed to accelerate over the last 50-80 years or so.

This may not be a good trend, but it is not socialism.


Whistler

 

I think we are definately headed towards socialism as a country. The liberal politicians have created an entire voting base that is dependent on government. The liberals pass legislation that creates social programs to "help" the masses. The great unwashed take these handouts in exchange for their vote thus benefiting both the politician and the voter. Unless the voters of tis great nation wake up and speak up with their vote, it wont be very long until this government is totally controlled by the liberals. Once that goal is reached, we will begin to see the changeover to a true socialist nation.

 

#3 looks applicable, as does military spending when it exceeds a reasonable percentage of GNP without a declared war.

It may be paternalistic, but the way my local taxes are accelerating to avoid an increase in federal tax rates in an election year certainly reeks of redistribution of wealth from the private sector to the public coffers to be distributed as they see fit. And our government regulation compliance along with federally blessed union contracts certainly take a lot of the independence from certain industries. OSHA compliance alone takes a 40' trailer to haul the printed regulations.

I like to call it quasi-socialism.

 

I think we are on a combination of socialism, communism, with a blend of robber baron and aristocracy. The part I dislike is the mentality that I'm to stupid to make my own choices and the government at all levels has to make them for me. I also note we are in a very dark period in our history to wit: There are so many 'Americans' who are willing to hand over their freedoms and your's and mine. They do this by begging and demanding new laws be enacted against select minorities, smokers, drinkers, bikers, gun owners, parents, people who dislike the homosexual lifestyle and so on. We used to have freedom of speech, now we have a select amount of freedom of speech, let alone all the other freedoms that are being eroded.

As the saying goes: 'To cook a live frog, turn up the heat slowly, the frog won't know he is cooked until he is sitting on your plate looking up'

 

68torino, you've got that right. Everytime I hear some ego driven politician or supporter say 'For the good of the country' I know my freedom is again being chopped down and it'll cost me even more money. I complain about that and somebody tries to give me the spin that I should be proud of paying big saleries to Bechtel and Halliburton, proud to take my shoes off at the airport, proud to watch my treasury be drained, proud to not lead the life with freedoms I've enjoyed for many years because freedom comes at a price with lots of responsibility. A lot of people certainly have bizarre definitions of freedom and responsibility. Freedom of speech has deteriorated to a point where if I'm not in full agreement with whatever money/political scheme is currently being promoted by network media in the form of government press releases, I'm considered un-American.

 

Yes, we are on the road to socialism. In theory, socialism sounds great. Everyone living a happy, equally paid, no worry life. There seems to be one catch however. We must depend on a single human or very small group of humans to administer fairly the combined assets of the state. The fact is, when this type of power is given to or seized by the aforementioned person or persons, it brings out the worst in them. V. I. Lenin said he believed in power without limit resting solely on force. Can someone name me a leader or dictator with absolute power that can truely be called a good person? If you can, this person is in a small minority. After our War for Independance, many people wanted to make George Washington our king. He understood the principles of absolute power and human nature. America had just fought a war against a domineering king. Therefore George Washington and others like him who understood this principle drafted our Constitution, which defines a LIMITED federal government with the powers not granted to the federal government given to the people.
Our type of government was called a Republic (NOT A DEMOCRACY). In a republic, a person has rights that cannot be voted away. Our rights do not come from any government anyway. In a democracy, a persons rights or freedoms are subject to the whims of the majority. I believe a democracy is a transitional form of government with absolute socialism its culmination. This point can be argued, I know. In a democracy people will begin to vote themselves more social programs that must be funded by taxation. To oversee these programs and try to prevent fraud, abuse, underfunding, etc.. A stonger and stronger government must established. Since most social programs only get larger and take more funding, so in turn the government administering these programs grows until it becomes all powerful. Oops, I got a little carried away. I love America and the freedoms that I have left.
Anyway, I think the common-sense-country-boy definition (not Webster) of socialism is: A bunch of pretty-sounding bull crap used to convince people that a life of slavery is better than freedom.
Is the government getting larger?
Are our freedoms getting smaller?
Is the number of laws governing us growing?
Are social programs growing?
The answer to these questions is the same as the answer to the first question in this thread.