America's Socialist Programs

[Stosh]

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.

[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.

[Stosh]

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.

[Crumbled_pavement]

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).

[maxx]

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/

[Stosh]

Healh care is socialist? Too funny, really.

[Crumbled_pavement]

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.

[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.

[Stosh]

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.

[Stosh]

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?

[fryar]

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?

[Big Dog]

Not Yet. Just sayin'

[rb336]

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.

[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.

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.

[1KielsonDrive]

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

[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.

[rb336]

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.

"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

[Papasito]

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.

[gibran]

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.

[gibran]

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)...

[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.

[Stosh]

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.

[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)

[Goose]

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...

[Goose]

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