America's Socialist Programs

[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)

[jiminnm]

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.

[rb336]

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.

[Stosh]

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

[oladub]

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?

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.

[Stosh]

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.

[oladub]

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.

[Stosh]

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.

"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.

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?

[Detroitej72]

"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".

[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...