Is Fox "News" a news organization?

[bascule]

bascule; Using my opinions, how you would answer, you would have come off a left/liberal and I'll post their definition, which I'd bet you agree with.

 

Yep, that sounds fairly spot on. Also note this description doesn't really fit the Democrats, who are more totalitarian and often try to restrict civil liberties (e.g. gun ownership, free expression in music)

[jackson33]

Yep, that sounds fairly spot on. Also note this description doesn't really fit the Democrats, who are more totalitarian and often try to restrict civil liberties (e.g. gun ownership, free expression in music) [/Quote]

 

Isn't that the point of the recent conversation; bascule, obviously the current Administration is pursuing 'Socialist' programs and even 53% of Democrats believe themselves to be socialist. However they could not today, win elections if they called themselves 'Socialist' or could the republicans, claiming to be 'Progressive'. Even Bush and his 'Compassionate Conservative' was a joke, you can't be both. Even a Compassionate Republic, would mean a Moderate, which won't get you much of a vote, when 170 million eligible voters are involved. IMO...

[Pangloss]

Isn't that the point of the recent conversation; bascule, obviously the current Administration is pursuing 'Socialist' programs and even 53% of Democrats believe themselves to be socialist. However they could not today, win elections if they called themselves 'Socialist' or could the republicans, claiming to be 'Progressive'. Even Bush and his 'Compassionate Conservative' was a joke, you can't be both. Even a Compassionate Republic, would mean a Moderate, which won't get you much of a vote, when 170 million eligible voters are involved. IMO...

 

I think you can very much be both compassionate and conservative, but I understand your point -- yes, it is very difficult to hold a middle position in American politics, especially in the current climate. It's also a valid point that presidential candidates can't only appeal to moderates. They must also energize their base, or else they just lose because of a different group of lost voters (hatred of the opposition doesn't motivate the same number of voters, as we saw in this past election). It's a point I tend to forget myself, and you're welcome to remind me of it the next time I complain about candidates appealing too strongly to their base.

 

Scott Brown, the recently-elected Republican from Massachusetts, found out about this the other day when he voted for the $15 billion jobs bill (which included tax benefits for the middle class) and was immediately pounced-upon by the tea party movement.

[bascule]

Isn't that the point of the recent conversation; bascule, obviously the current Administration is pursuing 'Socialist' programs

 

Sure, although the Republicans implemented socialist programs too. Also: socialism isn't a bad thing.

 

However they could not today, win elections if they called themselves 'Socialist'

 

In America, yes, because 'the right' has been so vociferous about slandering socialism. Elsewhere in the world many political parties stick 'socialist' right into their party name.

[Mr Skeptic]

Didn't you know? It's only socialism if the Democrats are doing it.

[jackson33]

Sure, although the Republicans implemented socialist programs too. Also: socialism isn't a bad thing. In America, yes, because 'the right' has been so vociferous about slandering socialism. Elsewhere in the world many political parties stick 'socialist' right into their party name.[/Quote]

 

bascule; Maybe the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, had something to do with it and maybe the reason Europeans should read history. The European Union is fast becoming a Union of Socialist Republics and it won't work, think we have discussed Greece and Spain.

 

I just went through the Bush Compassionate Conservative idea and why these are not compatible philosophies. The only progressive/liberal/moderate movement, that I would agree with is 'Immigration Reform', then for practical or economical reasons, and by the way, a Congressional Responsibility.

 

IMO; For any Socialism to be implemented, personal responsibility must be lost. Once you reach a certain point, getting pretty close today, a majority could feel or BE totally dependent on Government, most seniors already are. I know you don't care for slipper slope arguments, but it's an inevitable result of accepting socialism. To reverse this is equally hard, possibly harder. Here is a "response" to an article and the article on former members of the Soviet Block, both interesting and relevant...

 

 

Maybe the problem is, that capitalism has nothing to do with democracy. This American misunderstanding of the words democracy and freedom and capitalism are frustrating.

 

For capitalism to work they need a republican form of government. Meaning that government is barred from tampering with the free market by means of constitution. In a "democracy" that is pure in form the majority can always oppress the minority by means of vote. That is why our republic is centered around a constitution that makes illegal for government to infringe upon certain unalienable rights. One of which is the right to trade goods, services, and ideas with one another freely.

 

Truth is the US has not seen capitalism for a very long time. Too many people vote for spineless worms who promise things that can not be delivered without usurping the constitution. No country in the history of the world has ever been destroyed through free and voluntary trade. Only when governments intervene and levy insane taxes do we see economic hardship. Look into the sub-prime mortgage crisis and you will see. Democracy is the opposite of liberty.[/Quote]

 

http://www.classesandcareers.com/education/2009/11/04/growing-dissatisfaction-with-capitalism-in-former-soviet-bloc/

 

 

 

 

 

We have many Political Parties in the US, with socialist wording, that have launched Candidates for President/VP. Maybe it's just easier to take over a party, than beat them.

 

Party for Socialism and Liberation (2004)

Peace and Freedom Party (1967)

Socialist Equality Party (2008)

Socialist Party USA (1973)

Socialist Workers Party (1938)

Workers World Party (1959)

Working Families Party (1998)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

 

 

Didn't you know? It's only socialism if the Democrats are doing it. [/Quote]

Skeptic; Would you like to compare list, say from 1936???

[toastywombel]

bascule; Maybe the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, had something to do with it and maybe the reason Europeans should read history. The European Union is fast becoming a Union of Socialist Republics and it won't work, think we have discussed Greece and Spain.

 

I just went through the Bush Compassionate Conservative idea and why these are not compatible philosophies. The only progressive/liberal/moderate movement, that I would agree with is 'Immigration Reform', then for practical or economical reasons, and by the way, a Congressional Responsibility.

 

IMO; For any Socialism to be implemented, personal responsibility must be lost. Once you reach a certain point, getting pretty close today, a majority could feel or BE totally dependent on Government, most seniors already are. I know you don't care for slipper slope arguments, but it's an inevitable result of accepting socialism.

 

Yeah, an inevitable result of accepting socialism is that seniors get health care and benefits from the government? Yeah that sounds like a terrible idea, I think an 74 year old grandma who's family is all passed away should have to work for her money like everyone else. (sarcasm).

 

Personal responsibility is lost, but replaced with social responsibility (taxes and regulations). Really when it comes to single payer healthcare, public transportation, and other social programs, there become people who hate paying these taxes or accepting financial regulations. These people can be split up into two categories.

 

They are either economically elite, they are wealthy and worked hard for their money and feel that people shouldn't get free-handouts, however it is often hard for these elite to care for the common man because they have enough money for healthcare, cars, airplane tickets for public transportation.

 

The second group of people who hate taxes and regulations are people who are not economically elite, but are deceived by some of the economic elite, through propaganda. One example of this was the early tea party movement.

 

Even though individuals lose individual economic freedom, the idea is that the majority gain some social, economic freedom. For example, it would be nice if all American's could walk into a hospital when they need medical assistance and not worry about the outrageous bills. There are many other programs that fall along the lines of helping the whole society.

 

Sure their are people scamming the system, as there always will be, but because people are scamming the system, doesn't mean the whole system is bad.

 

Furthermore, with people who need foodstamps or housing, what would you have of them to do without government assistance?

 

Starve, sleep on the street, abandon them until they either die or feel compelled to commit crimes to survive.

 

Then guess what, they end up going to prison, in prison they are then housed and fed by government dollars, and now it is most likely more expensive.

 

One last thing, I notice that many far right capitalists are against nearly all socialist programs, with the exception of the military (atleast not usually openly). Are you a supporter of a socialist military as we have today? Or do you prefer that we leave that to corporations?

[pioneer]

I think the efforts of the various news organizations, both the liberal mainstream media and the conservative media, should be considered campaign contributions. This would limit how much bias they could pump out returning the media to objective news. It would be interesting to compare the dollar value of these contributions, using each media outlet's advertising rates, to see which party's propaganda machine contributes more.

[swansont]

Sure, although the Republicans implemented socialist programs too. Also: socialism isn't a bad thing.

 

They (in congress, at least) certainly weren't complaining about the existence of a socialized snow plowing program earlier this month. If anything, the complaints were that it wasn't expansive enough.

[jackson33]

Pioneer; Do you believe it's possible to judge what's news or biased reporting, or maybe do you feel it would come from your own bias. Keep in mind also, the political system uses all media to their own advantage. Think Obama for instance speaks on average 2 times per day, always on several stations and most always pursuing his own agenda, seven hours alone with the HC Summit, over an hour of prime time for the 'State of the Union Speech'.

 

In fairness, when a politician speaks, especially the President, it is news and should be aired free of cost, no less when certain leaders or pundits of both his followers and those opposing his views. IMO. If it appears that most news comes across as opposed or in favor to the reader/listener, then it's likely the source used for news, to fit their perspectives, not necessarily what's truly news.

 

 

 

toasty; I'm sorry you have such a view of American Individualism, their ability to cope with daily problems or adverse conditions, but worse yet is your opinions of the American natural compassion for their family, neighborhood, town, city or State, not to mention the billions donated to charity or their church benevolent funds, each year, used around the World. They don't really need a Federal Government for these things, and did very well for hundreds of years, before Government got involved.

 

One last thing, I notice that many far right capitalists are against nearly all socialist programs, with the exception of the military (at least not usually openly). Are you a supporter of a socialist military as we have today? Or do you prefer that we leave that to corporations? [/Quote]

 

Haven't you heard, we no longer have a draft, people choose to join, some actually making a career out of it. Would you like some figures on the tendency of Military People and their families in political affiliations...

[bascule]

IMO; For any Socialism to be implemented, personal responsibility must be lost.

 

Well, you're certainly sounding like Fox News at this point.

 

A bunch of Wall Street fat cats took unnecessary risks and trashed the entire economy. There are many people who, through no fault of their own, lost their jobs because of this. This is the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression. You think having a safety net in place to support people through it is a bad thing? Does it diminish "personal responsibility"? Even if you think it does, is that necessarily a bad thing? I think "personal responsibility" is little more than a euphemism for "every man for himself," and I think that's a terrible philosophy.

 

I wonder how many conservatives are watching Glenn Beck rant against socialism and argue for "personal responsibility" as they collect unemployment checks from the government.

[Mr Skeptic]

Haven't you heard, we no longer have a draft, people choose to join, some actually making a career out of it. Would you like some figures on the tendency of Military People and their families in political affiliations...

 

No, the military is indeed socialist. They're taking our money, without our consent, to support this community project. For the greater good, of course. Or did you think that the military lives on donations and volunteer work?

[pioneer]

If you look at the traditional family unit, it is loosely based on socialism. One or two parents may do all work, but they will share with the family. Not everyone has to pull the same weight, but all share. It was also sort of a totalitarian state, where the parents set the laws and allocated resources to the family group.

 

The liberals helped to break up the basic socialist family unit. It changed family more toward free enterprise. If the husband or wife thought they were not getting their fair share and/or they could do better elsewhere, they break the socialized arrangement in favor of free enterprise. In many cases, the once dependent citizens (children) are more on their own in this free enterprise system.

 

When the traditional family was closer to socialism, there was less need for a socialist form of government, since the family took care of many of these things. With the liberal breakup of the traditional socialist family unit, in favor of the free enterprise family, now there is more need for government socialism.

[bascule]

No, the military is indeed socialist. They're taking our money, without our consent, to support this community project. For the greater good, of course. Or did you think that the military lives on donations and volunteer work?

 

A better example is the fire department. Why can't people take "personal responsibility" and put out their own fires, or pay someone else to do so? Instead we use socialist fire departments that are funded with TAXES!

[jackson33]

Well, you're certainly sounding like Fox News at this point.[/Quote]

 

bascule; I'm sure it's coincidental, but I've been wondering if their reading our post. More than once what's been emphasized one day are their next days topic. Once, when emailing some show on Fox, they aired and used my real name and location, while I had used my user name on Science Forums.

 

A bunch of Wall Street fat cats took unnecessary risks and trashed the entire economy. There are many people who, through no fault of their own, lost their jobs because of this. This is the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression. [/Quote]

 

No its not really a depression and this is not worth arguing, with Conservatives or others. It is bad, believe has been made much worse by both Paulson/Bush and whoever is advising Obama policy, but the real problems are going nowhere. More stimulus, more bail outs and more government.

 

I wonder how many conservatives are watching Glenn Beck rant against socialism and argue for "personal responsibility" as they collect unemployment checks from the government. [/Quote]

 

Suppose I was just lucky, but I never lost a job or a business during hard times. In fact I road out Carter's days while trying to keep paying on notes for a half million dollars, basically rental property. We got to be the cheapest rentals in town and had to go interest only on a couple, but made it through. Of course, I had to take a job on the side, 14% unemployment at the time. There are way's to make out, even if it's by accepting charity, taking a lessor job than qualified for or heading off for to a better location to find work. In my world this is called taking responsibility. During the Great Depression, during the 30's, rural life was the norm, bartering for needs much easier and guess what, very little, if any Federal influence, urban areas doing much the same.

 

No, the military is indeed socialist. They're taking our money, without our consent, to support this community project. For the greater good, of course. Or did you think that the military lives on donations and volunteer work? [/Quote]

 

Skeptic; Not in my opinion. When it was done by the Draft, we called it a patriotic duty, part of living in a free country, same as those that serve today and I'll throw in those that serve in Politics. It's by choice.

 

Aside from that; Defense of the 50 States, the Union, has long been agreed should be part of the operation of our Federal Government. Think they call the President 'Commander in Chief' or something and mentioned a few times in the Constitution. Health Care, Benevolence or many other things felt the Federal Responsibility are not mentioned or for the needs of all today's 50 States.

 

When the traditional family was closer to socialism, there was less need for a socialist form of government, since the family took care of many of these things. With the liberal breakup of the traditional socialist family unit, in favor of the free enterprise family, now there is more need for government socialism.[/Quote]

 

pioneer; I'm not really sure where your heading here; Families are formed by commitments made, to and by adults. If they want more, than one provider can afford, then yes both might work, or if the commitment was dissolved or never made (single parent) then they have obligated themselves to a responsibility. Are you suggesting others should be responsible for all other peoples decisions?

 

A better example is the fire department. Why can't people take "personal responsibility" and put out their own fires, or pay someone else to do so? Instead we use socialist fire departments that are funded with TAXES! [/Quote]

 

bascule/skeptic; If your calling the Federal Government to put out a house fire, I'd like that phone number. Your local Fire Department, operates under State Law or in most cases according to local ordinances. Many smaller towns in fact contract the service from other nearby towns, some have volunteer fire department and each have limitations on there available resources. A small town department, won't be called to assist in some high rise fire, for instance. Most my arguments are toward the Federal Government and their responsibilities, not City/County or States, which are assumed to be paid for by the people, at their request.

[swansont]

Aside from that; Defense of the 50 States, the Union, has long been agreed should be part of the operation of our Federal Government. Think they call the President 'Commander in Chief' or something and mentioned a few times in the Constitution. Health Care, Benevolence or many other things felt the Federal Responsibility are not mentioned or for the needs of all today's 50 States.

 

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States

 

A lot of things can arguably fall under "general welfare"

[bascule]

jackson33, I never claimed:

 

its not really a depression

 

...that we're in a depression, only that this is the worst shape our economy's been since the Great Depression.

 

Also, I never claimed:

 

If your calling the Federal Government to put out a house fire, I'd like that phone number. Your local Fire Department, operates under State Law or in most cases according to local ordinances.

 

...that the fire department is a federal service, only a socialist one.

 

So basically you're saying socialism is okay, except at the federal level, and socialism is okay at the federal level...

 

Defense of the 50 States, the Union, has long been agreed should be part of the operation of our Federal Government

 

...in the case of the military?

 

Sounds like there's something to this whole socialism thing.

[Mr Skeptic]

jackson33, I suppose then you wouldn't have a problem with the government paying doctors to take care of people, so long as the doctors volunteer to take part in this arrangement (just like the current military)? The only aspect of personal freedom necessarily affected by socialism is a tax -- I can't choose to pay only 2/3 my taxes and tell them that I'm not donating to the military.

 

I'd have to say, the Republicans with socialism are like someone who says they hate all black people and then saying they like MLK, their black neighbor, and Oprah.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

"I'm not antisocialist! Some of my best friends are government welfare programs! But healthcare, you know..."

[bascule]

Glenn Beck sez:

 

Progressives are Fascists! They're trying to destroy the country piece by piece! This is your wakeup call! It's the disease! It's anti-constitutional! It's anti-American! SOCIALISM is the disease that is feeding on the flesh of America! Marxist revolutionaries that follow Mao!

 

http://crooksandliars.com/medialoader/12007/08f24/mov/Beck-Eliminationism_2-26-10.mov

 

Seriously, this is just name-calling. It isn't logical debate. It's debate more akin to the intellectual level of pre-schoolers. Somehow certain individuals in this country, such as Glenn Beck, manage to convince their followers that "progressives" are bad because they are "socialist"/"Marxist"/etc. Never mind that those who listen to and believe this stuff really have no frame of reference for what these concepts actually are, other than they should universally be identified as "bad".

 

The people Glenn Beck gets riled up with this stuff don't even know what exactly it is they're opposing

[toastywombel]

Pioneer; Do you believe it's possible to judge what's news or biased reporting, or maybe do you feel it would come from your own bias. Keep in mind also, the political system uses all media to their own advantage. Think Obama for instance speaks on average 2 times per day, always on several stations and most always pursuing his own agenda, seven hours alone with the HC Summit, over an hour of prime time for the 'State of the Union Speech'.

 

In fairness, when a politician speaks, especially the President, it is news and should be aired free of cost, no less when certain leaders or pundits of both his followers and those opposing his views. IMO. If it appears that most news comes across as opposed or in favor to the reader/listener, then it's likely the source used for news, to fit their perspectives, not necessarily what's truly news.

 

 

 

toasty; I'm sorry you have such a view of American Individualism, their ability to cope with daily problems or adverse conditions, but worse yet is your opinions of the American natural compassion for their family, neighborhood, town, city or State, not to mention the billions donated to charity or their church benevolent funds, each year, used around the World. They don't really need a Federal Government for these things, and did very well for hundreds of years, before Government got involved.

 

 

 

Haven't you heard, we no longer have a draft, people choose to join, some actually making a career out of it. Would you like some figures on the tendency of Military People and their families in political affiliations...

 

Its not that I have such a view of American Individualism, its that I would love to believe we don't need restrictions and that charity will help the poor, really I would, but that is simply not the truth. Sure there is a lot of donations businesses and wealthy individuals make to charity, but that is often because of tax incentives. If the government didn't offer tax incentives do you really think the more 'well off' citizens would give as much to charity?

 

And who did well for hundreds of years without anyone getting involved?

 

The people who had to endure work camps during the great depression? The Fascist Capitalists in Germany?

 

You do realise before the progressive movement Corporations and businesses that forced individuals to work ridiculously long hours and gave them barely enough money to survive? In fact many did die. Many got injured and then were laid off. Haven't you ever read Oliver Twist? Or the Grapes of Wrath? Have you ever read your history?

 

I think the difference is I don't believe everyone should have the freedom to do what they want. I don't think that mega-billionaire Joe should be able to buy a 60 mile strip of beach and say, no one can go to the beach unless they give me $30 dollars per day.

 

A capitalist system without regulation is just not practical.

 

For one we live in an ever changing world with finite resources

Capitalism is not a system that can be guided or influenced quickly without government influence.

 

Also it is good to keep in mind, we are a social creature, naturally we have always had social laws and governments. This is because we are weak individually, but we are strong as a collective. The truth is a human is nothing without his society.

 

We need a system that can lawfully enforce regulations to protect the whole of society, while using the production of the society to offer services that the society can share.

 

You, I assume, are taking the opposing argument, let a few people benefit from the needs of society, and just safely assume that they give a fair share to charity.

 

Don't get me wrong their are many things that business/ corporations can do effectively. It has to be acknowledged though, that the government has a role in protecting consumers and employees and offering services that can better the society.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

And no, I don't want need any information on the political affiliation of military families, what I am asking is do you support our socialist military?

 

You do realise it is a social service offered to the people, by a portion of all of our tax dollars.

 

The military seems to be the most popular socialist program on the "right". I know it may be because wars offer jobs and help stimulate economic growth. My question is, if we never had the wars and just hired are military to practice all the time: shoot, fly, drive, war games why wouldn't that stimulate the economy just as much? The only difference is the bullets/ explosives would be harming targets and not people, interesting thought.

Edited March 1, 2010 by toastywombel
Consecutive posts merged.

[Phi for All]

Defense of the 50 States, the Union, has long been agreed should be part of the operation of our Federal Government.

But before it was agreed, the argument about it started somewhere, and the decision to make it a socialist, federally funded program was at least partially based on not wanting our military in the hands of private interests. This is the biggest part of my argument for socialized medicine; the insurance companies have a private profit interest that's in direct opposition to the reason I pay them for my healthcare. They also use part of my money to find ways to deny my claims for many reasons.

 

Would you want the military in the hands of private corporations, to have our security decided by how good our contract was? I guess we'd need some lawyers as part of a socialist, federally funded task force designed to make sure our contacts with a private military could stand up to *their* lawyers (and we'd be paying tax dollars for our lawyers AND theirs). These are the arguments those like Glenn Beck fail to acknowledge in their cherry-picking of what constitutes socialism.

[jackson33]

Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization advocating either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.[1][2][3] A more comprehensive definition of socialism is an economic system that has transcended commodity production and wage labor, where economic activity is carried out to maximize use-value as opposed to exchange-value and thus a corresponding change in social and economic relations, including the organization of economic institutions and resource allocation;[4] often implying advocacy for a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.[5]

 

Most socialists share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential,[6] and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.[7][/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

 

"What's the meaning of is???"; The US Military, not unlike any other Military in the world today or probably throughout history, is for the protection of their people and their interest. Sometimes those interest were in fact that of a Government or to attain resources/property or control over others, but I fail to see any association to Socialism/Capitalism, other than the Country or Government they represent.

 

In the US, most folks get up everyday, go to a job, receive compensation, but from some point, by choice, including any job in any of the various law enforcement or Military Branches. They are all required certain sacrifices (time/their skills, some their lifestyle) knowing this in advance and under agreement, whether implied or under contract. If you wish to think, the Military was Socialistic in the early forties, when people were forced into jobs, with no agreed time limit (duration of the war), I could understand the sentiment, but not today.

 

I agree, Military forces are controlled by the Federal Government and should be to allowed a central control over the total effort, what ever that effort may be, maintaining peace, enforcing or establishing peace. It's arguable whether and I would disagree that the these forces should be used for Nation Building, but those involved can by an agreed arrangement for time can quit....

 

This is the biggest part of my argument for socialized medicine; the insurance companies have a private profit interest that's in direct opposition to the reason I pay them for my healthcare. They also use part of my money to find ways to deny my claims for many reasons. [/Quote]

 

Phil; Technically, when you join the Service, you join from a State and were (not sure about today), would be obligated to additional years in that States National Guard. I'm sure you can still voluntarily maintain this relationship.

 

Your insurance Company, whether your insuring you family home, car/truck, life or Health or anything else are personal choices you make, those choices having nothing to do with anybody else or the concern of a Federal Government. If you actually have a legitimate compliant with one Company, many do with every provider including Government, there are available means to argue your case and possibly receive compensation. If the Federal Government denies you a service, for any reason Medical in nature (Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIPS/Disability) you have no recourse to that decision, it happens everyday.

 

I think the difference is I don't believe everyone should have the freedom to do what they want. I don't think that mega-billionaire Joe should be able to buy a 60 mile strip of beach and say, no one can go to the beach unless they give me $30 dollars per day. [/Quote]

 

toasty; You really have a distorted view of America, but it is quite interesting. The largest mega-billionaire Joe, under that scenario is yourself, Federal Government. You bring up Progressive and the original progressive Theodore Roosevelt started the ball rolling. That 30 Bucks is going to your Federal Government.

 

After he became President in 1901, Roosevelt used his authority to protect wildlife and public lands by creating the U.S. Forest Service and establishing 51 Federal Bird Reservations, 4 National Game Preserves, 150 National Forests, 5 National Parks, and enabling the 1906 American Antiquities Act which he used to proclaim 18 National Monuments. During his presidency,Theodore Roosevelt protected approximately 230,000,000 acres of public land.[/Quote]

 

http://www.nps.gov/thro/historyculture/theodore-roosevelt-and-conservation.htm

 

Operation of a good many of both State and Federal Parks have been privatized, but those involved pay Government a percentage of the income, yet maintain a profit. Just another example of government inefficiency.

 

If the government didn't offer tax incentives do you really think the more 'well off' citizens would give as much to charity? [/Quote]

 

Yes!!!!....and most people, are NOT involved with those deductions, in the first place. To even get the deduction, you need to file a long form, pay taxes or have donated -X- amount. What you may be talking about are "Charitable Trusts" which is a means to avoiding taxes. Many of the truly wealthy, will set these up, donating a portion of their incomes, then avoiding some income and/or death taxes. However these are some of the most efficient Charitable organizations in the world. Gates/Buffett recently combined, totaling 160B$ or so into just one. Charitable Trust are required to give away 5% of there net year, to either other charity or projects of their own. Do you have a problem with this...

 

A capitalist system without regulation is just not practical.[/Quote]

 

Of course, you know I disagree. I'll use the GM example, which is for all practical purposes is being run by Government and has cost taxpayers up to 80B$ (GM/GMAC), more than the combined value of the combination ever. Can you then justify any public display by Government toward a competitor of GM???

 

Have you ever read your history? [/Quote]

 

I would hope that answer is obvious, but when ever I've ever read anything historic, I've taken the author, the time period of him/her and the events, into consideration. It can make an enormous amount of difference in any conclusion.

 

 

Progressives are Fascists! They're trying to destroy the country piece by piece! This is your wakeup call! It's the disease! It's anti-constitutional! It's anti-American! SOCIALISM is the disease that is feeding on the flesh of America! Marxist revolutionaries that follow Mao! [/Quote]

 

bascule; I'm not here to explain/protect Mr. Beck, he is entitled to his opinions and state them by any means he can. However I do agree, that socialism is a disease, as dependency grows on people and it is opposed to everything American or at least the Country I was born into. I couldn't begin to tell you the things that are different today than during my earlier days or in my studies of American History (some good, most not), especially in the growth of a Federal Government, in many cases subverting the rights of States or individuals to make even the simplest of decisions. He also is NOT calling for a military revolution, but politically and at the voting booth....

 

A lot of things can arguably fall under "general welfare" [/Quote]

 

swansont; But a lot less "falls under" when you add the word PROMOTE (implied by "general" and stated in the preamble). I'll go back to my "Food" analogy and the one thing all humans require, well above HC. According to the arguments I'm seeing, the Federal should be taking over all grocery outlets, allowing people to pick and choose what they eat, if they agree with that choice...

[Mr Skeptic]

jackson33, it seems you are confusing socialism with totalitarian dictatorship. In a totalitarian dictatorship anyone can be told they must do a given job, such as being a soldier. In socialism, the people own and pay for a given resource, such as the military. You can have both, either, or neither. For example, if a given private entity forced people to join his military, and paid for it himself, that would be a capitalistic totalitarian military. If the people as a whole pay to support the military, and the military's job is to protect the people, and joining the military is optional, then you have a socialist volunteer military. Which is what we have.

[toastywombel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

 

"What's the meaning of is???"; The US Military, not unlike any other Military in the world today or probably throughout history, is for the protection of their people and their interest. Sometimes those interest were in fact that of a Government or to attain resources/property or control over others, but I fail to see any association to Socialism/Capitalism, other than the Country or Government they represent.

 

In the US, most folks get up everyday, go to a job, receive compensation, but from some point, by choice, including any job in any of the various law enforcement or Military Branches. They are all required certain sacrifices (time/their skills, some their lifestyle) knowing this in advance and under agreement, whether implied or under contract. If you wish to think, the Military was Socialistic in the early forties, when people were forced into jobs, with no agreed time limit (duration of the war), I could understand the sentiment, but not today.

 

I agree, Military forces are controlled by the Federal Government and should be to allowed a central control over the total effort, what ever that effort may be, maintaining peace, enforcing or establishing peace. It's arguable whether and I would disagree that the these forces should be used for Nation Building, but those involved can by an agreed arrangement for time can quit....

 

 

 

Phil; Technically, when you join the Service, you join from a State and were (not sure about today), would be obligated to additional years in that States National Guard. I'm sure you can still voluntarily maintain this relationship.

 

Your insurance Company, whether your insuring you family home, car/truck, life or Health or anything else are personal choices you make, those choices having nothing to do with anybody else or the concern of a Federal Government. If you actually have a legitimate compliant with one Company, many do with every provider including Government, there are available means to argue your case and possibly receive compensation. If the Federal Government denies you a service, for any reason Medical in nature (Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIPS/Disability) you have no recourse to that decision, it happens everyday.

 

 

 

toasty; You really have a distorted view of America, but it is quite interesting. The largest mega-billionaire Joe, under that scenario is yourself, Federal Government. You bring up Progressive and the original progressive Theodore Roosevelt started the ball rolling. That 30 Bucks is going to your Federal Government.

 

 

 

http://www.nps.gov/thro/historyculture/theodore-roosevelt-and-conservation.htm

 

Operation of a good many of both State and Federal Parks have been privatized, but those involved pay Government a percentage of the income, yet maintain a profit. Just another example of government inefficiency.

 

 

 

Yes!!!!....and most people, are NOT involved with those deductions, in the first place. To even get the deduction, you need to file a long form, pay taxes or have donated -X- amount. What you may be talking about are "Charitable Trusts" which is a means to avoiding taxes. Many of the truly wealthy, will set these up, donating a portion of their incomes, then avoiding some income and/or death taxes. However these are some of the most efficient Charitable organizations in the world. Gates/Buffett recently combined, totaling 160B$ or so into just one. Charitable Trust are required to give away 5% of there net year, to either other charity or projects of their own. Do you have a problem with this...

 

 

 

Of course, you know I disagree. I'll use the GM example, which is for all practical purposes is being run by Government and has cost taxpayers up to 80B$ (GM/GMAC), more than the combined value of the combination ever. Can you then justify any public display by Government toward a competitor of GM???

 

 

 

I would hope that answer is obvious, but when ever I've ever read anything historic, I've taken the author, the time period of him/her and the events, into consideration. It can make an enormous amount of difference in any conclusion.

 

 

 

 

bascule; I'm not here to explain/protect Mr. Beck, he is entitled to his opinions and state them by any means he can. However I do agree, that socialism is a disease, as dependency grows on people and it is opposed to everything American or at least the Country I was born into. I couldn't begin to tell you the things that are different today than during my earlier days or in my studies of American History (some good, most not), especially in the growth of a Federal Government, in many cases subverting the rights of States or individuals to make even the simplest of decisions. He also is NOT calling for a military revolution, but politically and at the voting booth....

 

 

 

swansont; But a lot less "falls under" when you add the word PROMOTE (implied by "general" and stated in the preamble). I'll go back to my "Food" analogy and the one thing all humans require, well above HC. According to the arguments I'm seeing, the Federal should be taking over all grocery outlets, allowing people to pick and choose what they eat, if they agree with that choice...

 

You really think that we could have the following programs simply through donations.

FCC?

FDA?

National Guard?

Military?

Airport Security?

Parks and Recreation?

Zoning laws?

FTC?

 

You know before the regulations put in place after during the 40's, 50's, and 60's we were much like a third world nation. If you went on strike back in the twenties you were thrown in jail, if you owed debt you got thrown in debter's prison. There were hardly any worker rights, no women's rights, no african american rights, no latino rights. If business were always responsible, fair, and charitable we would have not needed worker's rights laws and discrimination rights laws.

 

It appears as if you have no ability to differentiate socialism from communism, as I think Skeptic is referring to. There is a difference. You can have a socialist/ capitalist mixed economy (the United States for example). It is not simply one or the other.

 

Furthermore, I don't think the food analogy is a good one. The government taking over food would be difficult. There are regional differences and a good many different kinds of foods. Business does this well, by bringing diversity. For example a Walmart in Connecticut probably doesn't sell as much Green Chili as a Walmart in the southwest. Healthcare on the other hand is not as diverse. If someone has AIDS there are only so many ways to treat them as opposed to if someone is hungry, there is a plethora of food they might want.

 

If you set up food like a single payer system for food, and it was run correctly, it would make it possible for consumers to not only go to any store and get food, also the cost of the food per person would be cheaper because the population is paying the farmers, store chains, and other business involved in bringing the food to the store as a whole. As a whole the society has more collective bargaining power. Of course there would have to be some rationing, but at least it would be fair rationing and not rationing by "if you have money you get the rations".

 

It is funny that you can't consider the military as a socialist program. It is offered by a portion of the collected wealth from society. Yes it offers protection from other people, but why shouldn't the government offer protection from disease?

 

I just don't get your reasoning. How is it worth the taxpayers money to sustain enough Nuclear Warheads to destroy the world, bunker busters that blow up stuff and are only good for one use, bullets. Yet when it comes to giving poor people food and healthcare, you act as if it is so sacreligous to the foundations of the United States. I mean really think about that, you have no problem with government money going blowing up other human beings, but when it comes to feeding other human beings or giving them healthcare you are opposed? That is a rather Fascist argument.

 

It seems your primary argument against socialism is that citizens will become too dependent on the system. We are all dependent on the system though. That is the point, we all depend on each other for survival, that is how humanity works, together. Whether it is the government or corporations or both who control the basic staples of our society we are dependent on them. It seems that you think we should have essentially an capitalist state that is protected by a huge military. Sure everyone has a responsibility to provide somewhat for themselves, but you do realise that not everyone can work their way up to the top in a total free-market capitalism right? Not everyone can be rich. Someone has to pick up the trash, someone has to do the dirty work.

 

One more thing, "Yes!!!!....and most people, are NOT involved with those deductions, in the first place. To even get the deduction, you need to file a long form, pay taxes or have donated -X- amount."

 

Your argument is that "most" people are not involved with those deductions. And you expand your argument by saying that they don't want to get the tax breaks because they have to fill out a long form. Don't you think that wealthy people who can afford charity are persons somehwat use to filling out long forms, CEO's for example, managers? Actually I think most people have realised long forms are simply a part of life. Any smart person would not turn down a tax-cut because the form was too long.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

And finally, as far a GM is concerned, I would not call that socialism as much as I would consider that corporate welfare, and I don't necessarily support corporate welfare. But just because there is corporate welfare doesn't mean that a total capitalist system is practical or that a mixed economy (socialist/capitalist) is impractical.

Edited March 1, 2010 by toastywombel
Consecutive posts merged.