Guest BDC Posted February 1, 2003 Report Posted February 1, 2003 For instance, socialization of a school system would get the results that education reform acts are supposed to get (yet can't b/c the local school boards are idiots). What does that mean? People will cry that the government is brainwashing children...
Guest JMA Posted February 1, 2003 Report Posted February 1, 2003 People will cry that the government is brainwashing children... You mean it isn't?
Guest kkktookmybabyaway Posted February 1, 2003 Report Posted February 1, 2003 Last few posts remind me of a story I heard about some old person that voted for Stevenson (sp) over Eisenhower (sp) in '56 and thought Stevenson would win because all the people she voted with at the polling place were voting Democrat, too...
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted February 1, 2003 Report Posted February 1, 2003 We already partake in at least some socialism in the US. Socialism isn't communism; it simply allows for government control over some aspects of what we now call the 'private sector'. Communism is complete control. There's nothing wrong with the textbook version of socialism. Communism does have major problems, though. Imagine if Bush ran a communist state... think he'd be like Stalin?
Guest Mad Dog Posted February 1, 2003 Report Posted February 1, 2003 There are a lot of things wrong with text book socialism. 1. The high amount of taxes that it requires. 2. People will eventually stop trying their hardest when they release that while they work 16 hrs. a day as a doctor their neighbor that flips burgers makes the same amount of money.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted February 1, 2003 Report Posted February 1, 2003 That's communism, not socialism. Try again.
Guest kkktookmybabyaway Posted February 1, 2003 Report Posted February 1, 2003 I can understand the appeal of socalism, it's not my cup of tea. Nor is it America's -- that is except for the able-bodied losers out there that can't take care of themselves...
Guest JMA Posted February 1, 2003 Report Posted February 1, 2003 I can understand the appeal of socalism, it's not my cup of tea. Nor is it America's -- that is except for the able-bodied losers out there that can't take care of themselves... So, if it isn't your cup of tea why do you insult it so? And what America's "cup of tea" is isn't decided by one person, a group, or a belief. America's cup of tea is whatever people vote on. Heck, at least with socialism we don't have to spend our tax money on church building.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted February 1, 2003 Report Posted February 1, 2003 No, it's not, and stop arguing the point. Socialism is a fucking economic policy, not something where you have EVERY WORKER IN THE COUNTRY working for the 'good of the people'. An example of socialism is Britan, where the government controls some aspects of the public needs, including transportation, water, utilities, the news, etc. They also help with some aspects of the econony, making sure it's relatively stable. We do that too; gee, are we socialists? Yep, in part. Communism is complete control over all aspects of the economy and industry by the government. Socialism is acceptable and has worked in many places. Communism sucks in practice. There are huge, massive differences. Go back and read up on the information before you argue your points.
Guest Mad Dog Posted February 2, 2003 Report Posted February 2, 2003 Yeah and that's why most European economies are choking on their own policies right now. Yeah we have a few things socialized. But if you want to across the board socialize things in the government your going to have to hike the taxes up big time and punish the rice even more to make up for all those welfare people that don't pay anything. And I know what socialism is. Seriously if you think you can have a socialazed system of government without hiking the taxes and making the rich pay for most of it then your out of your mind.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted February 2, 2003 Report Posted February 2, 2003 Across the board socialism = communism. You're still not getting it.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted February 2, 2003 Report Posted February 2, 2003 Oh, and our economy is much better, right? Back up your statement that theirs isn't, though.
Guest kkktookmybabyaway Posted February 2, 2003 Report Posted February 2, 2003 "So, if it isn't your cup of tea why do you insult it so?" I never "insulted" it. "And what America's "cup of tea" is isn't decided by one person, a group, or a belief. America's cup of tea is whatever people vote on." Last time I checked, "socalism" wasn't supported by (not even close) a majority of Americans. Heck, look what happened in Oregon this past election with Measure 23. Here's the jist of what it was about: http://www.humaneventsonline.com/articles/...02/freddoso.htm "Oregon’s Measure 23 would abolish private health insurance in the state in favor of a statewide single-payer public health system, much like Hillary Clinton’s socialized health care plan defeated in 1994. Measure 23 is even more radical, though, because nearly every conceivable form of care—including marriage counseling—would be included under state-reimbursed coverage." It got defeated 80-20, and this was in a more liberal state. http://www.co.wallowa.or.us/election2002.htm And I do know that "socalism" isn't the same as communism. I'm a free-market whore. Sue me...
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted February 2, 2003 Report Posted February 2, 2003 kkk, I wasn't directing the "learn about socialism, idiot" comments towards you, don't worry It's a fundamental difference of opinion, I simply believe that those who cannot afford the more extensive procedures should still be allowed to recieve them... especially if it means the patient's life, then not have to be in permanent debt thereafter.
Guest kkktookmybabyaway Posted February 2, 2003 Report Posted February 2, 2003 "kkk, I wasn't directing the "learn about socialism, idiot" comments towards you, don't worry" Don't worry bud -- I wasn't exposing my talons in a defensive manner. I just wanted to get on the record as such "It's a fundamental difference of opinion, I simply believe that those who cannot afford the more extensive procedures should still be allowed to recieve them... especially if it means the patient's life, then not have to be in permanent debt thereafter." The whole socialized health care debate is a f'd up one, which makes me glad that I'm healthy...
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted February 2, 2003 Report Posted February 2, 2003 Agreed. Healthy and owning private healthcare.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted February 2, 2003 Report Posted February 2, 2003 Well, here's a case for socialized health care: My roommate's fiancee is going to die because her insurance will not allow her to undergo an operation to save her life. But, damn them commies, right?
Guest DrTom Posted February 3, 2003 Report Posted February 3, 2003 My roommate's fiancee is going to die because her insurance will not allow her to undergo an operation to save her life. That's ridiculous. I'm not a proponent of socialized medicine, but I think we definitely need some kind of health-care reform in this country. Bean counters, middle managers, and fucking bureaucrats should be taken out of the process entirely. Health organizations should be run by doctor's, with the life and health of the patients being the primary concern, not the bottom line or corporate image.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now