No, and that's why there is a level of uprising that hasn't been seen in a long time. Both parties are to blame here.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Anybody still think the economy has turned the corner?
- Thread starter Bevo16
- Start date
Great column on this subject by Victor Hanson:
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-long-march-from-california-to-copenhagen/
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-long-march-from-california-to-copenhagen/
You're right. Maybe if the government started taking over things like banks, auto companies or health care industries, we could compare it to socialism. Until then, let's blame Fox news for fear mongering...
You bet dude. We are on the road to socialism. *rolls eyes*
Attachments
Random8145
Registered User
None of these are the means of production. Otherwise, you could say that military, police, firefighters, etc....are "socialist," but that they are things best left to the government.
We could have private police and firefighters, but local governments tend to run them pretty fine.
The private sector can handle healthcare fine, so there is no need for the government to handle it. Letting government run healthcare also allows them to control 1/6 of the economy, and to control our lives through new taxes, laws, regulations, etc...because "otherwise it will increase healthcare costs."
Things like Medicare, for the elderly, I think are okay, but even with that, Medicare, being a single-payer, government-run, health insurance company (socialist) is on the verge of insolvency.
So what is really needed is another program that accomplishes what Medicare does, but run differently. Same for Medicaid.
The public education system is socialist, and does everything it can to limit competition, which truly does allow better schools, whether this be through voucher programs or the creation of charter schools. The teacher's union and the public school system have a monopoly and do everything they can to keep it.
The Republican part right now isa big-government party, it just argues with the Democrats over HOW to run that big-government. For example, when President Bush enacted his $400 billion Medicare Prescription Drug Program, it included measures to increase competition between the drug companies so that drug costs would lower and it would pay for itself (and I believe it is the only government healthcare program that has managed to end up costing less than projected, I may be mistaken though).
The police are not there to protect you per se, they are there to enforce the law.
People are willing to pay for fire services with their tax dollars because if one person's home catches fire, if allowed to brun, it could burn down the whole neighborhood.
Again, the government is to provide for the national defense, we don't want to defend on a corporate military.
Enforcing contracts is not socialist.
I don't mind taxpayer-funded schools, but as it is, competition is too limited.
Nice find!
Random8145
Registered User
I would not say we are on the road to socialism in terms of one day we will be the Union of American Socialist States or something, but we ARE on the road to European-style social democracy or maybe Argentina if we don't get smart. Government is getting TOO big and spending WAY too much.
The route the Democrats want to take us down will mean massive new taxes and far more government control over the economy, and hence our lives, along with reduced economic prosperity.
It will mean a population that becomes far more dependent on the government, and thus more adolescent because the government will become a form of parent to it, and hence more willing to hand over more freedoms and power to said government.
It will mean a gutted defense budget as the budget goes mostly to social welfare systems and paying the interest on the high national debt (most European countries have higher debt-to-GDP ratios than the United States).
It will mean we lose having the world's best research institutions, the most charitable giving, etc...as economic growth slows due to high taxes, regulations, and so forth. Our universities can rely on a lot more private giving than universities in other nations because we produce so much wealth here in America. Unversities in other nations lack this benefit. It is what helps make our university system the envy of the world.
Considering the Left bankrupted New York City, then took California, the greatest state in the nation, the model state, once reknowned for having the best infrastructure, schools, economy, etc...and have ruined it, now they are trying to apply the same policies on the national level.
The United States of America has the most dynamic, innovative, creative, and productive people and economy in the world, all based on a simple formula:
1) Low taxes
2) Limited government
3) Fiscal conservatism
4) Free-market capitalism
5) Individualism
Total government spending should be only around 35% of GDP, but right now, total government spending (local, state, and federal) is getting close to 50% I believe.
The route the Democrats want to take us down will mean massive new taxes and far more government control over the economy, and hence our lives, along with reduced economic prosperity.
It will mean a population that becomes far more dependent on the government, and thus more adolescent because the government will become a form of parent to it, and hence more willing to hand over more freedoms and power to said government.
It will mean a gutted defense budget as the budget goes mostly to social welfare systems and paying the interest on the high national debt (most European countries have higher debt-to-GDP ratios than the United States).
It will mean we lose having the world's best research institutions, the most charitable giving, etc...as economic growth slows due to high taxes, regulations, and so forth. Our universities can rely on a lot more private giving than universities in other nations because we produce so much wealth here in America. Unversities in other nations lack this benefit. It is what helps make our university system the envy of the world.
Considering the Left bankrupted New York City, then took California, the greatest state in the nation, the model state, once reknowned for having the best infrastructure, schools, economy, etc...and have ruined it, now they are trying to apply the same policies on the national level.
The United States of America has the most dynamic, innovative, creative, and productive people and economy in the world, all based on a simple formula:
1) Low taxes
2) Limited government
3) Fiscal conservatism
4) Free-market capitalism
5) Individualism
Total government spending should be only around 35% of GDP, but right now, total government spending (local, state, and federal) is getting close to 50% I believe.
I pretty much agree with everything you've said. I'm just curious where you got the 35% rule. Do you have an article or anything I can read?
Yea, that chart was a good find, wasn't it? Now, let's put it into context. For those that missed it, this is what we're talking about. And HercDriver, next time at least post a link to it or attribute its source.
The chart is very clean and pretty. It does a fine job of visually showing the percentage of corporate assets nationalized by the government. But what does that mean in regards to socialism? Well, pretty much nothing.
First, even I, who does happen to believe we are on the road to socialism and have been to a great extent since FDR, think it's safe to say that the likelihood of government nationalizing small business is probably very very low. Given that small business constitutes about 43% of total business wealth and 50% of our non farming GDP, the chart that is shown is very misleading. If people think the entire economy needs to be nationalized in order to be deemed socialist, then they need to educate themselves. Socialism is not just about the government controlling the means or amount of production. That is just one component. But, because part of socialism IS controlling the means or amount of production, then a chart showing percentages of GDP is more appropriate. Let's take a look at the following chart, from the same source as the one shown above.
So here, we see that government spending as a percentage of GDP is pretty close to 42%. This plus the percentage of GDP contributed by small business comes out to about 90-92%. So we're left with really only 8-10% for the government to get their meat hooks in. That's not a lot of wiggle room and doesn't exactly give me a warm fuzzy, especially with efforts to nationalize health care.
Second, and as alluded to above, socialism consists of various components, or political objectives. According to Marx and Engels, the following measures (or planks) are used to move a country forward in attaining complete socialism.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.Check
Examples of this include zoning and land use laws via the Bureau of Land Management, property taxes, and a plethora of environmental causes. The Supreme Court as well as lower courts have interpreted the 14th Amendment to give the government far reaching eminent domain powers.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.Check
Federal income tax was finally instituted permanently via the 16th Amendment in 1913. Republicans agreed to approve the income tax only if a Constitutional amendment was passed. Although a bluff on the side of the Republicans, the fact remains that we now have a graduated income tax. There is some debate whether this amendment was properly ratified, but that is another argument altogether.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.Check
Estate an other inheritance taxes
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.Check
Government tax liens, seizures, and IRS confiscation of private property without due process
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.Check
Federal Reserve is such a national bank and controls interest rates
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.Check
FCC, DOT, ICC, FAA, AMTRAK
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.Check
Significant government involvement in agriculture by way of subsidies, acreage alotments, and land-use controls. Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, Evironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equal distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c. Check
Department of Education established, government control of schools.
Based on these principles and what the U.S. has done thus far to fullfill them, how can anyone deny that we are not at least on the path to socialism? You are either in denial (which I can understand), or you're not paying attention.
Are you really trying to compare military/fire/police to public education?
@ Steve: Interesting analysis. I'm not inclined to debate any of the "benchmarks" of socialism in your post, but I am wondering what the alternative is. I don't want to make it an argument of absolutes, but I think you can make a pretty good argument against radical laissez faire capitalism. I'm curious as to where you think the sweet spot might be for our society between that extreme and the status quo?
Brett
Brett
So regulation of shared airspace and radio spectrums is socialism?
Clux4
Banned
Republicans are emphatically against government take over but when you ask them about the Fire, Police, or even the FDA the conversation drastically changes to taxes. It is all about the taxes. It is not really government take over that they are worried about, it is the taxes. So how else do we fund the Fire, Police, FAA, FDA and the many other function the government provides without taxes.
These same Republicans share the notion that we should look our for the little man because no one else will. So then you ask them how exactly one would go about looking out for the little man. They are usually short of words. For one they will not offer up the status quo as a desirable option and they know that they cannot offer up a government intervention as a solution because that is against the core of their believe.
These same Republicans share the notion that we should look our for the little man because no one else will. So then you ask them how exactly one would go about looking out for the little man. They are usually short of words. For one they will not offer up the status quo as a desirable option and they know that they cannot offer up a government intervention as a solution because that is against the core of their believe.
And the Democrat solution is to tax the shit out of the upper class in order to create and fund welfare style programs that are incredibly wasteful. What's your point?
Clux4
Banned
Wasteful programs did not reduce or cease during Republican administrations. So this notion that Republican like to portray - "Waste Police" is nothing but hypocrisy.