America's Socialist Programs

Lots of people like to play the "socialist" card in terms of the Obama administration. Where this is headed is anyone's guess, but let's take a look at what some people think is appropriate to be cut.

http://www.amarxica.com/pages/programs.html

Government Worker Programs
Civil Service Retirement Systems
Federal Employee Retirement Systems
Railroad Retirement System

Housing & Urban Development [[HUD) Programs
Public Housing
Rental Vouchers & Certificates
Section 8 Housing Vouchers
Shelter Plus Care
Single Room Occupancy
Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Social Security Programs
Social Security [[OASDI)
Unemployment Insurance
Temporary Disability Insurance
Medicare
Medicaid
Medicare Prescription Drug Plan
Welfare Programs
Supplemental Security Income
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Food Stamp Program
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children [[WIC)
National School Lunch Program
School Breakfast Program
United States Department of Agriculture [[USDA)
Programs That Threaten Liberties in General
Federal Communications Commission [[FCC)
Food and Drug Administration [[FDA)
Import Tariffs

Among others. I'd add aid and assistance to industry as well as subsidies to farmers too.

My question is, where do you draw the line in the sand? How can anyone support these cuts? Is THIS what you are signing up for under the potential Republican/Tea Party platform? You betcha.

With so many legitimate criticisms that can be leveled at Obama, this "socialist" criticism bugs me the most. Bottom line, it is impossible to have a society without some socialism, liberty without some liberalism, or a democracy without some Democrats.

Republicans beat their chest and proudly proclaim how we liberated Iraq, but in the very next breath complain how much they hate liberals. Let me get this straight, Iraq was quite conservative before we arrived.

Now if people want to debate the extent we go in a particular direction, that's a worthy debate. But to say we need to eliminate socialism is crazy talk that will usually end up with me ignoring anyone suggesting such a thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crumbled_pavement

With so many legitimate criticisms that can be leveled at Obama, this "socialist" criticism bugs me the most. Bottom line, it is impossible to have a society without some socialism, liberty without some liberalism, or a democracy without some Democrats.

Republicans beat their chest and proudly proclaim how we liberated Iraq, but in the very next breath complain how much they hate liberals. Let me get this straight, Iraq was quite conservative before we arrived.

Now if people want to debate the extent we go in a particular direction, that's a worthy debate. But to say we need to eliminate socialism is crazy talk that will usually end up with me ignoring anyone suggesting such a thing.

---

I agree completely with your sentiments. There are those that cry "socialism" with no basis for fact or reason. This list of programs potentially cut is just the tip of the iceberg, sadly. People in this country need to be aware of the potential for harm to the country and it's citizens by this brand of populist drivel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stosh

My question is, where do you draw the line in the sand?

---

Oh, btw, to get back to subject of this thread and to answer the question that was asked ... I don't know what should or should not be eliminated at this point, but the only thing I agree with Republicans on regarding this issue is that we for certainly shouldn't be adding anything [[i.e.: Health Care).

As I see it, at least part of the reason that our health care system has had spiralling out of control premiums while delivering fewer and fewer services has a lot to do with corporate greed. The health care moguls want to make a lot of quick cash so they deny services to their clients based on bogus arguments like someone didn't report a headache they had five years ago. At the same time they raise premiums on the people who are still healthy or who are paying off their medical bills. Fewer and fewer businesses are offering benefits to their employees again because they eat into profits. And lest anyone feel sorry for the moguls, the difference between the average worker's pay in the U.S. and the CEO's pay is about 350%. It's probably even greater in the third world. There has always been an element of greed in business, especially big businesses. I can still remember the gist of that line from the movie "Barbarians at the Gate".It went something like, "...
some corporate heads think that if they're not making a couple million a year, they should be collecting welfare." But since the Reagan admin., the greed flood gates have been open wide. We should have gotten the message from the S & L crisis back in the 1980s, but we didn't.
And you want to know why business is calling Obama a socialist/ communist/ nazi and any other dirty name they can think of that will scare the average voter?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/us...ics/05pay.html

Class warfare? Bring it on! The rich ARE different.
http://www.economist.com/node/16690659

http://www.moneybluebook.com/my-supe...xt-generation/

Healh care is socialist? Too funny, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stosh

Healh care is socialist? Too funny, really.

---

Of course the Health Care program that was passed was socialist, it requires us all to contribute to it. Like I said before, you can't have a society without some socialism. The debate shouldn't be about whether socialism is evil or not or whether we should have it or not, it should be about how far we go in that direction. Right now the country is broke and in a recession. Now was not the time for that Health Care bill.

I would add that the US Military has a huge socialistic streak.
I used to wonder why certain people that I knew who joined would suddenly reappear after their training with a strange urgency to marry at the ripe old age of 20 or so. An enlisted friend then explained to me that by marrying, she got her own apartment vs the barracks, and got a raise in salary+ health care for the spouse and children.

I guess it helps increase the birthrate, but it sure sounds like socialism to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crumbled_pavement

Of course the Health Care program that was passed was socialist, it requires us all to contribute to it. Like I said before, you can't have a society without some socialism. The debate shouldn't be about whether socialism is evil or not or whether we should have it or not, it should be about how far we go in that direction. Right now the country is broke and in a recession. Now was not the time for that Health Care bill.

---

Now is not the time to keep the tax cuts on the rich either, but they will.

Face it, we all are just pawns in this big ass chess game they are playing. Best you can hope for is a bit of the crumbs to fall to our feet so we can fight for what's left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barnesfoto

I would add that the US Military has a huge socialistic streak.
I used to wonder why certain people that I knew who joined would suddenly reappear after their training with a strange urgency to marry at the ripe old age of 20 or so. An enlisted friend then explained to me that by marrying, she got her own apartment vs the barracks, and got a raise in salary+ health care for the spouse and children.

I guess it helps increase the birthrate, but it sure sounds like socialism to me.

---

Yes another great welfare program, the military and it's attending leeches, the defense industry.

Where's the military retirement on the list? Why is that not fair game as well?

Crumbled_pavement, you said that very well.

I don't draw the line at health care at all, I look at that as a legitimate entitlement, basically another version of food stamps. That said, the bill that was passed will hopefully be adjusted and simplified. One thing worth looking at might be systemic changes that would reduce defensiveness on the part of the practitioners - defensive medicine being an oft-mentioned example.

I would be all in favor of doing things to streamline government programs, I can only imagine there is a ton of waste.

I would also be in favor of electing independents. You've gotta love Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders cause you know they're not shit-eating sell-outs, right?

Not Yet. Just sayin'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fryar

I would also be in favor of electing independents. You've gotta love Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders cause you know they're not shit-eating sell-outs, right?

---

What annoys the hell out of me is that the REAL liberals in the democratic party - Kucinich, Feingold, etc. - are marginalized by their party. Ron Paul I have no respect for, primarily because of those racist klan-esque articles in HIS newsletter. Either he agrees with them, or, if what he says is true, he allowed the crap to go out under his name and just didn't bother paying attention.

rp, You must have a better understanding of the issue than the head of the Austin Texas NAACP who has personally known Ron Paul for many years. Either that or you believe everything you read on the Daily Kos.

Ron Paul was working full time in his OB practice back in Texas when a ghostwriter wrote the offensive passages in a newsletter that was living a life of it's own after Ron Paul had quit his House seat and resumed full time medical practice. Ron Paul did, however, take responsibility and apologized for things written in his former newsletter even though he was not aware of them at the time.

The Austin NAACP President Supports Ron Paul Against Charges of Racism http://saintluke.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/naacp-supports-paul/ Lindner was speaking in a personal capacity. He was not saying the NAACP endorsed Ron Paul.

"Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he's a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform," he added.
Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded "No I don't," adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.
Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years.
"I've read Ron Paul's whole philosophy, I also understand what he's saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him," said Linder.
"If you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you and they're going to take it out of context," he added.
"What he's saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that's what they fear."

You better stick with Obama rp. At least he doesn't threaten the powers that be by conducting the wars, trade policies, and banking policies of their choice.

'Socialism' much like 'Free Market', has nothing to do with reality in modern day society. They are purely ideological, marketing, terms.

The United States is a mixed economy. It has elements of socialism and elements of capitalism. This was in my social studies textbook in the 1980s. Apparently, people have become very poorly informed if they worry about socialism being instituted in the United States. It has been a mixed economy for more than 70 years now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

rp, You must have a better understanding of the issue than the head of the Austin Texas NAACP who has personally known Ron Paul for many years. Either that or you believe everything you read on the Daily Kos.

Ron Paul was working full time in his OB practice back in Texas when a ghostwriter wrote the offensive passages in a newsletter that was living a life of it's own after Ron Paul had quit his House seat and resumed full time medical practice. Ron Paul did, however, take responsibility and apologized for things written in his former newsletter even though he was not aware of them at the time.

You better stick with Obama rp. At least he doesn't threaten the powers that be by conducting the wars, trade policies, and banking policies of their choice.

---

If he didn't have the time to monitor what went out under his name that, as I said, speaks poorly of him as well. if he couldn't monitor it, he should have shut it down. The ghost writer hired shows a further lack of judgement.

Quote:

---

"If you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you and they're going to take it out of context," he added.
"What he's saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that's what they fear."

---

I haven't seen much of ron paul's stuff. never said I did. I read some of the stuff on his web site. didn't see anything particularly threatening to the monied folks. also never said i thought he was a racist

Social policies can co-exist with individual freedom and liberty if done in moderation, and done at a level the population can afford based upon the amount of tax revenue paid by them.

The problem with America is the social programs exceed the tax revenue paid by the people.
Although most social policies are well intentioned and can better people's lives,
where do you stop? A nation should only go as far as what it can afford.

I have no problem with policies that can help the needy when they are within our means as a nation.

I am for social programs that work to help people..unfortunately we never really know what the tea party wants to do with these programs...all we get [[form their spokesperson) is cut taxes [[how do youthink that will effect the above programs) and get government out of our lives [[except when we need it)...really doesn't any one pay attention past the jingo,,,don't spend more than you have is ok..but sometimes it is called investments in the future of our societies....
'
what the tea baggers don't really understand that when a child suffers in Detroit we all suffer in the burbs..when schools fail society fails...and when social programs aren't in existence who pays..we all pay... you need boots before you pull yourself up from their straps.... we need real reform in the social services...but cutting programs is not the answer. We needed tehse programs for a legut reason..so reform them and invest in them ...all we get is less government no taxes...well it is not that simple..unless you want to institutionalize people again [[lot less costly)...lets get rid of the barriers and build bridges for the voiceless and underserved..then you will havemore tax payers...not less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

The United States is a mixed economy. It has elements of socialism and elements of capitalism. This was in my social studies textbook in the 1980s. Apparently, people have become very poorly informed if they worry about socialism being instituted in the United States. It has been a mixed economy for more than 70 years now.

---

well put... I would add that America has been dumbing down for awhile..no critical thinking being taught in NCLB...no one looking past the catch phrases...no one questioning the emergence of a tea partu [[only inviting the mad hatters/birthers)...

The OP list isn't very well thought out. The Constitution delegates all sorts of powers to the federal government, some of which require a lot of spending including the military and 'postal roads'. It specifies import taxes which somehow made this list of socialist programs.

Many of the programs on this list could, and probably should be handled by state governments, according to the limitations of the 10th Amendment. If a state wanted to have it's own single payer health care system and opt out of Obamacare, it would be consistent with the 10th Amendment whether anyone wanted to call it socialism or not. North Dakota has, for instance, opted out of the FDIC because it has its own state [[socialist) bank that insures state depositors.

What is totally missing from this list is corporate welfare. How about ending all subsidies to all businesses?

Also, there is no mention of all the government run services at the state level including police, fire, libraries, public schools, parks, roads, etc. that are also 'socialist'. Sometimes they work better than private services and sometimes not. My township made a decision to stop selling gravel to township residents. Private contractors could do it for about the same price.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

The OP list isn't very well thought out. The Constitution delegates all sorts of powers to the federal government, some of which require a lot of spending including the military and 'postal roads'. It specifies import taxes which somehow made this list of socialist programs.

Many of the programs on this list could, and probably should be handled by state governments, according to the limitations of the 10th Amendment. If a state wanted to have it's own single payer health care system and opt out of Obamacare, it would be consistent with the 10th Amendment whether anyone wanted to call it socialism or not. North Dakota has, for instance, opted out of the FDIC because it has its own state [[socialist) bank that insures state depositors.

What is totally missing from this list is corporate welfare. How about ending all subsidies to all businesses?

Also, there is no mention of all the government run services at the state level including police, fire, libraries, public schools, parks, roads, etc. that are also 'socialist'. Sometimes they work better than private services and sometimes not. My township made a decision to stop selling gravel to township residents. Private contractors could do it for about the same price.

---

Why isn't it well thought out? These are all things that are in question from those on the "tea bag" side. The guys you seem to support. It was a copy and paste job from one of the myriad websites availiable to read on the subject.

More chest thumping about the "limits of the 10th ammendment" which are ambiguous at best, and often exclude things that actually ARE explicitly given to the federal government [[and upheld as such since the first Supreme Court)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

Also, there is no mention of all the government run services at the state level including police, fire, libraries, public schools, parks, roads, etc. that are also 'socialist'. .

---

The differences between police and fire service and social programs like WIC/Bridge Cards are vast.....

Supposedly [[I know you can argue that the poor receive less service), police and fire service is provided equally to everyone, regardless of contribution into the system, a person living in Detroit in a $10,000 house can call the fire department and get service just as a person living in a $100,000 house in Detroit, similarly, public schools, despite what you are paying into the system, everyone is afforded equal access to public education [[I know, there will be the arguements that the poor recieve inferior services, but I'm giving this example on a base/theoretical level)

servicese such as WIC/Bridge, etc are qualification based, the people putting the most into the system at the time would never qualify to recieve the benefit of these services, thus they are excluded although they are paying in, thus the recipient is benefiting from the labor of the people paying into the system

there is no application or threshold of income that one must pass in order to receive police service, jobless people have the same access to public sidewalks as people making $500,000...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crumbled_pavement

With so many legitimate criticisms that can be leveled at Obama, this "socialist" criticism bugs me the most. Bottom line, it is impossible to have a society without some socialism, liberty without some liberalism, or a democracy without some Democrats.

Republicans beat their chest and proudly proclaim how we liberated Iraq, but in the very next breath complain how much they hate liberals. Let me get this straight, Iraq was quite conservative before we arrived.

Now if people want to debate the extent we go in a particular direction, that's a worthy debate. But to say we need to eliminate socialism is crazy talk that will usually end up with me ignoring anyone suggesting such a thing.

---

yeah, great example, you forgot one......

The National Socialist German Workers Party [[German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) better known as the NSDAP or the Nazi Party

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goose

yeah, great example, you forgot one......

The National Socialist German Workers Party [[German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) better known as the NSDAP or the Nazi Party

---

why is it that the wingnuts are so lacking in knowledge of history?

Since you cribbed that from Wiki, why didn't you just read a little further to find out that it was anti-liberal, anti-socialist, anti-organized labor [[they were the first group rounded up by the brownshirts, and the group from which they emerged was the german independent workers - the opposite of organized labor). They were against international capitalism [[which gave, in their mind, to much power to Jews), but the countries leading capitalists - from Deutsche Bank to Daimler - poured money into Nazi coffers, as did Ford, IBM, and other capitalist entities.

NO WAY! all of these socialist post-Soviet programs will be cut in the U.S. It would be the poor rising up, overthrowing the government all over again, creating a new socialist Sovietesque government all over again. We need these programs to keep American float and keep proletarians happy. The Republicans and Democrats can't cut these programs only regulate or deregulate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stosh

Why isn't it well thought out? These are all things that are in question from those on the "tea bag" side. The guys you seem to support. It was a copy and paste job from one of the myriad websites availiable to read on the subject.

---

I already explained why it wasn't well thought out. It attacks Constitutional mandates requiring spending by the federal government, catagorizes import taxes as socialism, and ignores corporate welfare. Is "you guys' a variation of "you people" or just mental laziness when stereotyping is required?

Quote:

---

rb chimes, "More chest thumping about the "limits of the 10th ammendment" which are ambiguous at best, and often exclude things that actually ARE explicitly given to the federal government [[and upheld as such since the first Supreme Court)

---

I understand your apprehension regarding enforcing the Tenth Amendment. There would be no point to the entire Democrat and much of the Republican Party if enforced at least at the national level. You are correct though that the Supreme Court also chooses to explain it away. If the Supreme Court similarly ruled that 2+2 could equal 5, unlike you, I would still be arguing it can only equal 4. I still don't understand your problem with having states run more of their own programs. I would think that a Canadian like single payer health care program run by a state would be superior to Obama's 'keep the insurance companies and attorneys rolling in money' health care program for instance.

Goose, I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. I'm fine with most local services. As you say, they tend to benefit everyone. While a rich person might have a better house requiring fire and police protection, he/she is also paying proportionally more property tax for those services. If rich enough, he/she probably sends the kids off to private schools while still providing taxes for public schools like th Obamas and Clintons. Everyone benefits from the roads, libraries, etc. which are shared and in common. I live in Wisconsin and am pretty sure that Wisconsin can do a better job of administrating WIC, education, and scores of other services than the federal government despite out spendthrift governor. Ghettopalmetto, down in South Carolina, might rather have the federal government handle his money. I guess we get what we vote for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

I already explained why it wasn't well thought out. It attacks Constitutional mandates requiring spending by the federal government, catagorizes import taxes as socialism, and ignores corporate welfare. Is "you guys' a variation of "you people" or just mental laziness when stereotyping is required?

---

You haven't a clue as to why I posted that, do you? Let's be blunt, shall we?

There are no constitutiinal mandates to a teabagger. There are no limits as to the programs that could be cut. 'You guys'? How lazy are you? You can't even read a quote correctly. I refer to the idiots that you are supporting for office. You know, the ones that want to cut taxes yet not telling what they have to cut to get to that point.

If I wasn't an Atheist I would thank god for socialist programs. Just knowing that if my wife isnt working when our baby is born, we will qualify for a bridge card [[ we recieve WIC now) and possibly obtain assistance paying for our electricity, has a very postive effect on peace of mind. When my son was born I was too proud to let my ex-girlfriend take any assistance, stubbornly trying to 'do what was right' until she could start working. If I could go back and do it over I would have insisted she apply for welfare[[my ex and I have more than contributed to the system since then) as it would have taken a huge strain of our relationship,getting temporary help from government programs.

Thank you Karl Marx.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stosh

You haven't a clue as to why I posted that, do you? Let's be blunt, shall we?

There are no constitutiinal mandates to a teabagger. There are no limits as to the programs that could be cut. 'You guys'? How lazy are you? You can't even read a quote correctly. I refer to the idiots that you are supporting for office. You know, the ones that want to cut taxes yet not telling what they have to cut to get to that point.

---

I think that you should use the word 'dull' instead of 'blunt' because it better describes your perception with regards to this issue.

"Teabaggers', I always have to remind liberals, refers to people particpating in sexual practices better understood among liberals. It's use, by liberals, is condescending in the way the use of the N word by klansmen is condescending. Same sort of approach anyway. Remember, too, that Ross Perot was rebuked when he addressed a NAACP gathering as 'you people'. That was the term you also used when you were stereotyping Tea Partiers earlier in the thread.

The recent Tea Party movement began as Ron Paul fundraisers in 2007. Ron Paul is as much of a Constitutionalist as there is. The Tea Party movement has since been largely taken over by the mainstream Republican party but still has antipathy for things like the Wall Street bailout. Which candidates are you imagining I am supporting for office by the way? You are missing the nuances of differences between the various players. Republicans who have voted for Bush's Wall Street bailout have been booed off of Tea Party stages. Ron Paul, for one, does say what has to be cut beginning with withdrawing all troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, Germany, Korea, Japan and other countries. He would also cut things not delegated by the Constitution to the federal government such as corporate welfare.

Attachment 7351
Don't deny who originated the verb in political context

Jimaz, You have shown that sign before. Again, some of those people, as stosh might say, are, or were, unaware of sexual connotations. I had never heard of that connotation myself until libs on the Daily Kos and Democrat Underground began all their snickering reflecting their hipness to this sexual practice. It follows that when liberals use the term, 'tea baggers', it is used in dirision much as klansmen use certain words to deride groups they dislike. You also assume, but do not know for sure, that the holder of the sign is indeed a tea partier rather than someone trying to make tea partiers look foolish.

Meanwhile I have supported single payer health care at the state level on this thread, a manifestation of socialism, and the concept sails over your collective corporatist heads.

That sign, signed by FreeRepubic.com, speaks and will continue to speak for itself. Let the reader beware of those who would deny FreeRepubic.com's intended meaning of their verb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rb336

More chest thumping about the "limits of the 10th ammendment" which are ambiguous at best, and often exclude things that actually ARE explicitly given to the federal government [[and upheld as such since the first Supreme Court)

---

Unfortunately, the 14th amendment, primarily through the use of equal protection clause, will eventually be used to totally eviscerate the 10th amendment. It's taken a while for those who want the Feds to regulate everything to discover it, but I expect the next 40-60 years will see the SupCt uphold the federal regulation of pretty much whatever those in power want the Feds to regulate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

I think that you should use the word 'dull' instead of 'blunt' because it better describes your perception with regards to this issue.

---

Funny. I guess that means that you are the happiest person on this board, since ignorance is bliss, as the adage goes.

Quote:

---

"Teabaggers', I always have to remind liberals, refers to people particpating in sexual practices better understood among liberals. It's use, by liberals, is condescending in the way the use of the N word by klansmen is condescending. Same sort of approach anyway. Remember, too, that Ross Perot was rebuked when he addressed a NAACP gathering as 'you people'. That was the term you also used when you were stereotyping Tea Partiers earlier in the thread.

---

I'd use dullards or knuckledraggers, but you've usurped those descriptors for your own pitiful description.

Quote:

---

The recent Tea Party movement began as Ron Paul fundraisers in 2007. Ron Paul is as much of a Constitutionalist as there is. The Tea Party movement has since been largely taken over by the mainstream Republican party but still has antipathy for things like the Wall Street bailout. Which candidates are you imagining I am supporting for office by the way? You are missing the nuances of differences between the various players. Republicans who have voted for Bush's Wall Street bailout have been booed off of Tea Party stages. Ron Paul, for one, does say what has to be cut beginning with withdrawing all troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, Germany, Korea, Japan and other countries. He would also cut things not delegated by the Constitution to the federal government such as corporate welfare.

---

Bullshit. The Tea Party has and always will be a republican construct. Ron Paul was duped. The backers of this shameless organization are Murdoch and the brothers Koch. Please don't post more of your lies without substantial proof otherwise, OK?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

Jimaz, You have shown that sign before. Again, some of those people, as stosh might say, are, or were, unaware of sexual connotations. I had never heard of that connotation myself until libs on the Daily Kos and Democrat Underground began all their snickering reflecting their hipness to this sexual practice. It follows that when liberals use the term, 'tea baggers', it is used in dirision much as klansmen use certain words to deride groups they dislike. You also assume, but do not know for sure, that the holder of the sign is indeed a tea partier rather than someone trying to make tea partiers look foolish.

Meanwhile I have supported single payer health care at the state level on this thread, a manifestation of socialism, and the concept sails over your collective corporatist heads.

---

Actually I won't ever use the descriptor 'people' again in regards to those cretins.

Maybe alleycats may be a better term? Perhaps dolts or imbiciles? Maybe I'll just call them by what they are. Oladubs. Nuff said.

Quote:

---

Stosh wrote, "Bullshit. The Tea Party has and always will be a republican construct. Ron Paul was duped. The backers of this shameless organization are Murdoch and the brothers Koch. Please don't post more of your lies without substantial proof otherwise, OK?"

---

Duped? How?

OK here's Proof: Some old campaign videos are still floating around dated 2007 including this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG_Ow...eature=related
Always? Then I've made it easy for you. All you have to do is show us some Republican use of the Tea Party theme preceeding 2007. Remember that Bush and the neo-cons were in charge prior to 2007 and that Republicans, for the most part, were supporting Bush's spending, annual debts, and wars like Democrats are today. So show us you stuff and bring out the pre-Ron Paul Republican Tea Party stuff.

"The Tea Party focuses on smaller government, fiscal responsibility, individual freedoms and upholding a conservative view of the Constitution."

"The libertarian theme of the "tea party" protest was previously used by Republican Congressman Ron Paul and his supporters as a fundraising event during the primaries of the 2008 presidential campaign to emphasize Paul's fiscal conservatism, which they later claimed laid the groundwork for the modern-day Tea Party movement, although many of them also claim their movement has been hijacked by neoconservatives." - lies from wikipedia

George Soros contributed the same amount to his causes last week as the Koch brothers, the liberals new bogeymen, but I don't see any point in whining about what George Soros chooses to do with his money or to blame Soros for all the Democrats who voted for war, high unemployment, and runaway federal debt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goose

yeah, great example, you forgot one......

The National Socialist German Workers Party [[German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) better known as the NSDAP or the Nazi Party

---

Blah blah blah.... having to dig into the dustbin of history to make your point.... :rolleyes:

Germany today is much more socialist than we are today... and how badly is their economy fairing in these hard times??? [[Sound of crickets....)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

Duped? How?

OK here's Proof: Some old campaign videos are still floating around dated 2007 including this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG_Ow...eature=related
Always? Then I've made it easy for you. All you have to do is show us some Republican use of the Tea Party theme preceeding 2007. Remember that Bush and the neo-cons were in charge prior to 2007 and that Republicans, for the most part, were supporting Bush's spending, annual debts, and wars like Democrats are today. So show us you stuff and bring out the pre-Ron Paul Republican Tea Party stuff.

---

Yes, always. At least to mainstream America, anyway. Paul's little shitfest in 07' basically amounted to nothing more than a fundraiser for his run for president. And don't you know that the unfortunate symbolism that Ron created got the attention of the republican party, and the Koch and Murdoch empires? They know a fucking bonanza when they see it.

Paul's fundraiser has nothing to do with the direction this "movement" [[as in bowel) has taken, take your head out of your ass, please.

Quote:

---

"The Tea Party focuses on smaller government, fiscal responsibility, individual freedoms and upholding a conservative view of the Constitution."

"The libertarian theme of the "tea party" protest was previously used by Republican Congressman Ron Paul and his supporters as a fundraising event during the primaries of the 2008 presidential campaign to emphasize Paul's fiscal conservatism, which they later claimed laid the groundwork for the modern-day Tea Party movement, although many of them also claim their movement has been hijacked by neoconservatives." - lies from wikipedia

George Soros contributed the same amount to his causes last week as the Koch brothers, the liberals new bogeymen, but I don't see any point in whining about what George Soros chooses to do with his money or to blame Soros for all the Democrats who voted for war, high unemployment, and runaway federal debt.

---

"Lies from wikipedia", inserted by you, tells me all I need to know about your character. The key phrase, last week, in relation to Soros and Koch, is quite the stretch of the point. The Koch brothers already planted the seed money long before last week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jiminnm

Unfortunately, the 14th amendment, primarily through the use of equal protection clause, will eventually be used to totally eviscerate the 10th amendment.

---

That is the most absurd thing I have heard here lately.

OK, here's a list of examples of the tea party being used before 2007. I'm sure that there are more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l-ViCwNMts


http://books.google.com/books?id=FiP...=0CC8Q6AEwADgy

http://books.google.com/books?id=7uc...0party&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=qsl...page&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=mmX...0party&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=lV8...0party&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=2PU...0party&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=_pt...page&q&f=false

Handbook of political science: Volume 2

Fred I. Greenstein, Nelson W. Polsby - 1975 - Snippet view
is an issue orientation: "a candidate who can handle not only the supermarket handshaking tour but also the neighborhood political tea party," a candidate who satisfies the increasing demand of the issue-oriented participants within the ...
books.google.com - More editions

Quote:

---

Stoch says, "Yes, always. At least to mainstream America, anyway. Paul's little shitfest in 07' basically amounted to nothing more than a fundraiser for his run for president. And don't you know that the unfortunate symbolism that Ron created got the attention of the republican party, and the Koch and Murdoch empires? They know a fucking bonanza when they see it."

Paul's fundraiser has nothing to do with the direction this "movement" [[as in bowel) has taken, take your head out of your ass, please.

---

Stosh you are very good in the anal name calling [[shitfest, bowel movement, head out of ass within four sentences) department but short of facts. When I previously claimed the modern tea party movement started as a Ron Paul fundraiser you replied, "Bullshit. The Tea Party has and always will be a republican construct." . When I posted a 2007 tea party video proving my point and challenged you to prove yours, you could only muster namecalling and a fuzzy concept about the Koch brothers.

Quote:

---

"Lies from wikipedia", inserted by you, tells me all I need to know about your character. The key phrase, last week, in relation to Soros and Koch, is quite the stretch of the point. The Koch brothers already planted the seed money long before last week.

---

The choice of the word 'lies' is a reference to your earlier comment," Please don't post more of your lies without substantial proof otherwise, OK?" The wikipedia article verifies what you had previously called 'lies.' But congratulations anyway for struggling through an entire sentence without anal references.

I was referring to George Soros as the person who wrote a check for $100M just last week. It was his latest contribution. More power to him. My point, which you misconstued, was that all your problems are not the fault of the Koch brothers and to be of good cheer because billionaires on your side like Buffet and Soros regularly make their political, economic, social contributions too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

Stosh you are very good in the anal name calling [[shitfest, bowel movement, head out of ass within four sentences) department but short of facts. When I previously claimed the modern tea party movement started as a Ron Paul fundraiser you replied, "Bullshit. The Tea Party has and always will be a republican construct." . When I posted a 2007 tea party video proving my point and challenged you to prove yours, you could only muster namecalling and a fuzzy concept about the Koch brothers.

---

Bullshit. fight shit with shit, that's my motto. Don't like it? Tough shit. I did prove it. Below the post. Your turn

Quote:

---

The choice of the word 'lies' is a reference to your earlier comment," Please don't post more of your lies without substantial proof otherwise, OK?" The wikipedia article verifies what you had previously called 'lies.' But congratulations anyway for struggling through an entire sentence without anal references.

---

Anal is as anal does.

Quote:

---

I was referring to George Soros as the person who wrote a check for $100M just last week. It was his latest contribution. More power to him. My point, which you misconstued, was that all your problems are not the fault of the Koch brothers and to be of good cheer because billionaires on your side like Buffet and Soros regularly make their political, economic, social contributions too.

---

Not my problem. At least he didn't get rich supporting Stalin.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...alin_20100418/

Also this example.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...7237051449970#

Oh right... my bad, you said Republican ties to the tea party before 2007 right?

The Shoemaker and the Tea Party: Memory and the American Revolution - Page 196

Alfred Fabian Young - 2000 - 262 pages - Preview
The contest for the symbolism of the tea party goes on. In April 1998, two Republican congressmen prepare to dump a copy of the federal tax code from the tea party ship as two protesters shout, "Your tax will sink the working family. ...
books.google.com - More editions

http://books.google.com/books?id=4__...rty%22&f=false

The Republican years: the Scranton-Shafer era of change and ...
No cover image
Paul B. Beers - 1971 - Snippet view
The Philadlephia Republican chairman, of all people, William J. Devin, said business should be paying 46 percent of the .... Out in Boston, Penna., near Pittsburgh, 250 rebellious taxpayers staged a second Boston Tea Party, paddling a ...
books.google.com - More editions

http://books.google.com/books?id=6Sp...rty%22&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=1rX...rty%22&f=false

-In reply Stosh post #42


Stosh, much better.


The first link is from 2006 and shows a sign saying Texas Tea Party but I couldn't hear anything linking the sign to the Republican Party naybe because the audio was bad


Links two, six, and nine reference feminists using the tea party theme, not the Republican Party unless you equate pre Republican party feminist concerns with Republicans.


The fourth link refers to the fifty third congress in the 1890's if you want to deem that the modern tea party movement.The seventh link refers to the anti-corn law tea party in 1842 before the Republican Party existed.


The only two links which make your point are the third and fifth links. The third link does make your point. A right wing disk Jockey in Detroit did suggest throwing tea bags at offending politicians. The fifth link also makes your point mentioning Howard Jarvis's mention of the tea party and another anti-big government reference. So, you are right in that there were at least two mentions of the tea party and tea bags in the last couple of decades before Ron Paul made it a major theme in his 2008 campaign and the rhetoric and symbolism flowed into post election tea party rallies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

-In reply Stosh post #42


Stosh, much better.


The first link is from 2006 and shows a sign saying Texas Tea Party but I couldn't hear anything linking the sign to the Republican Party naybe because the audio was bad


Links two, six, and nine reference feminists using the tea party theme, not the Republican Party unless you equate pre Republican party feminist concerns with Republicans.


The fourth link refers to the fifty third congress in the 1890's if you want to deem that the modern tea party movement.The seventh link refers to the anti-corn law tea party in 1842 before the Republican Party existed.


The only two links which make your point are the third and fifth links. The third link does make your point. A right wing disk Jockey in Detroit did suggest throwing tea bags at offending politicians. The fifth link also makes your point mentioning Howard Jarvis's mention of the tea party and another anti-big government reference. So, you are right in that there were at least two mentions of the tea party and tea bags in the last couple of decades before Ron Paul made it a major theme in his 2008 campaign and the rhetoric and symbolism flowed into post election tea party rallies.

---

What about the other ones?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stosh

... At least he didn't get rich supporting Stalin.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...alin_20100418/

---

Most interesting article I've read all week. Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

"Teabaggers', I always have to remind liberals, refers to people particpating in sexual practices better understood among liberals.

---

I'd like to see what study you used to come to this conclusion since known cons like Larry Craig, Tom Foley, and Ted Haggard, among others seem to know a thing or two about "tea-bagging".

[quote=Stosh;180382]Oh right... my bad, you said Republican ties to the tea party before 2007 right?

Sort of. My quote from post 31 was, "The recent Tea Party movement began as Ron Paul fundraisers in 2007." The subject of the sentence was "The recent Tea Party movement". In post 38 I added, "All you have to do is show us some Republican use of the Tea Party theme preceeding 2007. Remember that Bush and the neo-cons were in charge prior to 2007 and that Republicans, for the most part, were supporting Bush's spending, annual debts, and wars like Democrats are today. " You did provide instances of feminists and Republicans citing tea bags and tea parties prior to 2007, which is a good start, but you failed to show any significant tea party movement activity before 2007. As a 'movement', it didn't exist during the Bush years when neocons ruled the Republican party. The tea party movement was, in fact, partly a fiscally conservative rebellion against what Bush and Republicans had been doing.

Jimaz, I enjoyed your article. To just imagine that a businessman would have accepted money for his services from bad people like Stalin! shame! shame! Where was jimmy Carter when we needed him? Some US wheat farmers went bankrupt because of Carter's embargo grain embargo against the Soviet Union for conducting a war in Afghanistan. Lucky for those farmers too. Otherwise they would have had to accept Soviet money for their wheat.

Quote:

---

The tea party movement was, in fact, partly a fiscally conservative rebellion against what Bush and Republicans had been doing.

---

It was pushed along by McCain being the nominee, another spend spend spend Republican, compounded by a sitting President who sees no end to what the Government can control, borrow, spend or do. Where I see a lot of good points the Tea Party movement is trying to make, they don't really have a strong, unified voice with a clear, concise message given by reputable, electable, and respectable leadership.

[quote=oladub;180425]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stosh

Oh right... my bad, you said Republican ties to the tea party before 2007 right?

Sort of. My quote from post 31 was, "The recent Tea Party movement began as Ron Paul fundraisers in 2007." The subject of the sentence was "The recent Tea Party movement". In post 38 I added, "All you have to do is show us some Republican use of the Tea Party theme preceeding 2007. Remember that Bush and the neo-cons were in charge prior to 2007 and that Republicans, for the most part, were supporting Bush's spending, annual debts, and wars like Democrats are today. " You did provide instances of feminists and Republicans citing tea bags and tea parties prior to 2007, which is a good start, but you failed to show any significant tea party movement activity before 2007. As a 'movement', it didn't exist during the Bush years when neocons ruled the Republican party. The tea party movement was, in fact, partly a fiscally conservative rebellion against what Bush and Republicans had been doing.

Jimaz, I enjoyed your article. To just imagine that a businessman would have accepted money for his services from bad people like Stalin! shame! shame! Where was jimmy Carter when we needed him? Some US wheat farmers went bankrupt because of Carter's embargo grain embargo against the Soviet Union for conducting a war in Afghanistan. Lucky for those farmers too. Otherwise they would have had to accept Soviet money for their wheat.

---

To credit Ron Paul with the creation of anything original is just asshattish. My posts are to illustrate that the idea of wrapping yourself with the cache of the original tea party has always been tried, yet the results have been severly lacking. What we are witnessing today is not any relation to the original tea party.

What the other tea party bozos were lacking were FUNDING for their message. Which leads us back to Murdoch, and the Koch brothers. You can flail about all you want, and wave your arms and scream about Ron Paul, but the facts are facts. He's a nutjob, and so are the tea party fanatics.

Be careful what you wish for, oladub, you just may get it.

Quote:

---

Stosh: "To credit Ron Paul with the creation of anything original is just asshattish. My posts are to illustrate that the idea of wrapping yourself with the cache of the original tea party has always been tried, yet the results have been severly lacking. What we are witnessing today is not any relation to the original tea party.

What the other tea party bozos were lacking were FUNDING for their message. Which leads us back to Murdoch, and the Koch brothers. You can flail about all you want, and wave your arms and scream about Ron Paul, but the facts are facts. He's a nutjob, and so are the tea party fanatics."

---

Actually, the originality should go to his supporters whose 'moneybombs' commemorated the tea party and Guy Fawkes Day and had a campaign blimp. Other campaigns, including Democrats, have picked up on the moneybomb concept. The Tea Party concept was reformated into something you don't like. Still no takers on the campaign blimp concept though. But you must have had more fun chanting about undefined change. Pity. You wound up with more war, higher unemployment, greater federal debt, and what seems to be a listing ship.

Quote:

---

Be careful what you wish for, oladub, you just may get it.

---

I'll keep wishing. Thanks for the encouragement.

Yes, the 29000 + supporters that plopped down their hard earned cash to support a failed ideologue whose sole message is What? We can do it cheaper? We can illegally skirt campaign finance laws to buy a blimp?

I think it would be a better thing if I were to go back in time and send Ayn Rand's girlhood crush over to her house so he could kill her before she could write her tripe. Far more proactive and doable than arguing with someone like you.

if the tea party was just a fiscally Conservative movement it would be one thing...but they are the party of choice for little dixie and fearful older people that hang on every word people like Beck/Palin et al launch as fact... They have been co-opt then if all they were concerned w/fiscal responsibility...but now they are birthers, racists and anti-humanists... i would tend to listen if they were just Ron Pualites...some of the concepts he put forth are good...the rest is poppycock ...

you have to ask yourself what programs would these people keep? and how do they address inequalities in health-care, education and wealth? Aynn Rand should be replaced with Rawls...

Quote:

---

oladub: I would think that a Canadian like single payer health care program run by a state would be superior to Obama's 'keep the insurance companies and attorneys rolling in money' health care program for instance.

---

We all should know how well this worked for education in the past when there was no or very little federal involvement with what states did about education, i.e., segregated schools, poor quality education in many southern states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stosh

Yes, the 29000 + supporters that plopped down their hard earned cash to support a failed ideologue whose sole message is What? We can do it cheaper? We can illegally skirt campaign finance laws to buy a blimp?

I think it would be a better thing if I were to go back in time and send Ayn Rand's girlhood crush over to her house so he could kill her before she could write her tripe. Far more proactive and doable than arguing with someone like you.

---

Now we have a failing President who is managing to bring the country down lower than Bush. Congratulations on the change. If there was a sole message in the Paul campaign it would be to obey the Constitution. No blimp was purchase and a rented blimp did not break any taboo against free speech. Why mention Ayn Rand when it is far more trendy to mention the Koch brothers as the manifestation of all evil.

Quote:

---

Gibran wrote, "you have to ask yourself what programs would these people keep? and how do they address inequalities in health-care, education and wealth? Aynn Rand should be replaced with Rawls... "

---

The federal government is effectively bankrupt. You have to ask yourself which federal programs should be dropped to afford the remainder of programs and which programs could and should be operated at the state and local level to improve their efficiency. Want some equality in wealth? Then create a shortage of US labor by escaping NAFTA and GATT while imposing some import taxes to lower income taxes. Only when labor is in short supply can it start demanding a larger share of the national economic pie. Begging for scraps from Obama isn't going to cut it.

Quote:

---

Maxx, "We all should know how well this worked for education in the past when there was no or very little federal involvement with what states did about education, i.e., segregated schools, poor quality education in many southern states. "

---

That brought Mississippi education to the top of the heap, right? Lucky for Mississippi, California's blue state policies have driven California public education from near the best in the country to being a contender to challenge Mississippi, with all it's federal help, for the #50 spot.

The CA leg. should raise the number of signatures required for an initiative. And the voters should learn about the "people's veto".

http://exiledonline.com/americas-dea...re-bolsheviks/
"...the very same Wall Street bankers who conned $23 trillion out of America’s wealth is now going to use some of that play money to place bets on when we Americans will die—and the sooner we die, the more billions in E-Z profits Wall Street will earn..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

Now we have a failing President who is managing to bring the country down lower than Bush. Congratulations on the change. If there was a sole message in the Paul campaign it would be to obey the Constitution. No blimp was purchase and a rented blimp did not break any taboo against free speech. Why mention Ayn Rand when it is far more trendy to mention the Koch brothers as the manifestation of all evil.

---

The reason he is "failing" is the incessant drumbeat of the idealogues such as yourself that have a vested interest in his failure. I'll bet Ayn has just as much culpability in the retarded politics of the Libertarian and Republican party as Koch does. Which is plenty.

Quote:

---

The federal government is effectively bankrupt. You have to ask yourself which federal programs should be dropped to afford the remainder of programs and which programs could and should be operated at the state and local level to improve their efficiency. Want some equality in wealth? Then create a shortage of US labor by escaping NAFTA and GATT while imposing some import taxes to lower income taxes. Only when labor is in short supply can it start demanding a larger share of the national economic pie. Begging for scraps from Obama isn't going to cut it.

---

He can't pass the needed measures and you know it, due to obstructionism in the House and Senate. Quit playing games and acting stupid, please.

Quote:

---

That brought Mississippi education to the top of the heap, right? Lucky for Mississippi, California's blue state policies have driven California public education from near the best in the country to being a contender to challenge Mississippi, with all it's federal help, for the #50 spot.

---

You can't fix stupid, as some have said.

Steve Rattner explains to Colbert how the evil gov. saved the car industry and the consequences of not doing so.The interview starts around 15.
http://www.colbertnation.com/full-ep...steven-rattner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

That brought Mississippi education to the top of the heap, right? Lucky for Mississippi, California's blue state policies have driven California public education from near the best in the country to being a contender to challenge Mississippi, with all it's federal help, for the #50 spot.

---

So how do you account for Connecticut perennially having the best educaton system in the nation? Must be the low taxes, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

So how do you account for Connecticut perennially having the best educaton system in the nation? Must be the low taxes, eh?

---

Connecticut and California both have high taxes as is their right under the 10th Amendment. Maybe Connecticut has better educational results because 83% of Connecticut families earn more than the national average income. Still, California has higher average income and taxes than most red states but almost all red states eclipse California's educational outcomes despite having lower taxes.

I agree with Oladub on all he is saying. Most of the stuff on the first list shouldn't be eliminated altogether, but they should be moved to the states to satisfy the Tenth Amendment. Better efficiency and less buying of lawmakers. Sure, some of it like bank welfare can be eliminated altogether. The real question of the list is what are you willing to pay more in taxes to keep. We're spending more than we make. At some point, we need to either spend less or make more and the longer we try to ignore the question, the more it harms us and the harder it is to fix.

It makes me shake my head to see how the Dems are handling this whole mess. What moron came up with the finger pointing cry-baby "they ran the bus into the ditch" bit? Put Carville back in charge you idiots. Put your egos in check and make broad use of Bill Clinton's silver tongue.

Message Dems should be selling to hold their base and pick-up independants including tea-partiers is one of fiscal responsibility with humility and blunt honesty: We all got caught up in the irrational exuberance, but unlike republicans who got the seats in this game of musical chairs, dems are willing to help those that got hurt the most by our joint mistakes. We're keeping the programs Americans need to get through hard times such as this and we're willing to raise taxes to do it. We won't be raising taxes until the economy is in its inevitable recovery, but we must act to ensure the programs America needs today will be there tomorrow by doing the responsible action of funding them fully.

Take on tax and spend as a badge of honor and say it sure beats the conservative's cut and spend model.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

Connecticut and California both have high taxes as is their right under the 10th Amendment. Maybe Connecticut has better educational results because 83% of Connecticut families earn more than the national average income. Still, California has higher average income and taxes than most red states but almost all red states eclipse California's educational outcomes despite having lower taxes.

---

You've never lived in the South, have you?

The number of nonEnglish-speaking children in CA schools may have something to do with the ed. outcomes.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=106657563
"..."Three-hundred thousand illegal immigrant children in public schools, and they keep coming. The cost: $1.5 billion a year," the announcer says..."

So what's Detroit's excuse?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

You've never lived in the South, have you?

---

Is someone forcing you ro live in the South? I realize that some people have family and other obligations but to the extent that people can move ftom states that don't work to states that work and businesses refuse to move to backward places [[executives wives' willingness to relocate often makes it impossisble to move businesses to some places). However, those who move open up jobs for those left behind by creating more of a demand for their labor. Also, local and state leaders need only look around to see what works in other places if they too want to profit. Move to NW North Dakota, if your are able, if South Carolina isn't working out. The work ethic and opportunities there, I hear, is tonic.

maxx writes

Quote:

---

"..."Three-hundred thousand illegal immigrant children in public schools, and they keep coming. The cost: $1.5 billion a year," the announcer says..."
So what's Detroit's excuse?"

---

I had left illegal hiring and immigration out of my answer to prevent the thread from going off track. It is part of California's price for having sanctuary cities and otherwise subsidizing illegal aliens. It is how Californians have chosen to manage their resources with predictable results. Private employers, on the other hand, profit from this system. Why would they care about how school resources have to be used as long as the system profits them?

Detroit's excuse? Too long of a topic on a Detroit board but international trade policies, fatherless families, crime, and union overreach given international trade policies are pretty good reasons.

Quote:

---

oladub: It is part of California's price for having sanctuary cities and otherwise subsidizing illegal aliens.

---

And what state doesn't have "sanctuary cities"? CA 's location on the border with Mexico has a lot to do with it as well as its reputation as a rich state, the home of Hollywood stars.

If you want to talk about socialism in the U.S., it certainly hasn't been our healthcare system. We pay more per capita in healthcare than any other developed country.
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm

And our infant mortality rate is embarrassing, right down there with Croatia and Lithuania.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mortality_rate

Our death rate is also appalling. Compare it to S. Arabia's.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2066rank.html

http://www.hziegler.com/locations/mi...di-arabia.html

Socialism is when the government owns the means of production.

We have a "socialistic" highway system, socialistic fire and police protection, a socialistic library and recreation system, a socialistic park system and a socialistic court and prison system, but our health care system [[other than in the military) is provided by private doctors, clinics and hospitals. Medicare doesn't own a single hospital.

By contrast, Canada, Great Britain, France, Taiwan, Australia and virtually every other advanced democracy has a government-owned "socialistic" health care system which provides superior results for roughly half the price. Much of that savings comes from eliminating the middle-man, the insurance companies, which drive up the administrative cost [[up to 31%!) and provide zero health care. If we want to control medical costs, there are many proven models we could adopt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gyro

By contrast, Canada, Great Britain, France, Taiwan, Australia and virtually every other advanced democracy has a government-owned "socialistic" health care system which provides superior results for roughly half the price. Much of that savings comes from eliminating the middle-man, the insurance companies, which drive up the administrative cost [[up to 31%!) and provide zero health care. If we want to control medical costs, there are many proven models we could adopt.

---

Gyro, It might be a technicality but Canada does not have a single payer plan. Each of it's provinces, however, do have such a plan. I think the cost is 60% of what we pay. The US, state, and local governments in the US already spend more on the average American's health care than Canadian provinces do on Canadians. It could be said that we are already more socialist than Canada in that our governments already spend more. Don't forget to to include in your list of savings that Canadians cannot sue doctors for nearly as much thereby reducing insurance paid by both medical providers and patients for huge cost savings. Massachusetts does have a State health care plan similar to those of Canadian provinces. However, lawyers are included in the MA plan so costs are much higher than provincial plans.

I, from time to time, suggest allowing more choices into our heath system to make it more affordable but there isn't much enthusiasm here for affordability.