Forcing Socialism upon the American people

[Smyrna]

@SottoVoce

Improving and in some cases expanding social programs is not “kicking the can.” “Study with the intent to fix” without making real change sure sounds like kicking the can to me.

When I have an idea, I look ahead and decide what are roadmarks that confirm if I’m going in the right direction? I then begin implementing that idea. When the social programs were introduced in 1964, 24% of minority babies born were born to single parent families. By 1990 it was 64%. The number one predictor of living in poverty is being born into a single parent family. So tell me, was this program then modified or was the can just kicked down the road and “we” have a worse problem today?

[biggestal99]

The south tried the other way.

Ixnay…

Allan

[mobulis]

@Optrader

@Phaedrus

@Optrader

It is not the function of government to provide jobs, health care, and for that matter, education, though the education train left that station long ago.

That is literally just, like, your opinion, man.

The general welfare clause pretty much guarantees that the items you list are absolutely the function of government if the electorate decides that they are.

The phrase in the Constitution is " promote the general welfare" not generally promote welfare.

If what you believe is true, why start with health care? After all, there are more immediate things people need daily. Why are you not pushing for free food and housing? Aren’t they absolute necessities for the general welfare too? What good is free healthcare if you’re starving and homeless? Where does it stop?

Did you read the thread how 30% are unfit for the military, I would argue govt involvement in health care based on that.

[SottoVoce]

@Smyrna

@SottoVoce

Improving and in some cases expanding social programs is not “kicking the can.” “Study with the intent to fix” without making real change sure sounds like kicking the can to me.

When I have an idea, I look ahead and decide what are roadmarks that confirm if I’m going in the right direction? I then begin implementing that idea. When the social programs were introduced in 1964, 24% of minority babies born were born to single parent families. By 1990 it was 64%. The number one predictor of living in poverty is being born into a single parent family. So tell me, was this program then modified or was the can just kicked down the road and “we” have a worse problem today?

Confounders to “prove” a point. Logical fallacy 101, congrats.

How about looking at countries with consistent high quality of life and using their success as “roadmarks.”

[Smyrna]

@SottoVoce

Confounders to “prove” a point. Logical fallacy 101, congrats.

How about looking at countries with consistent high quality of life and using their success as “roadmarks.”

Let’s do it but it will be hard to find that successful example that has as much diversity as the US.

[Phaedrus]

@Optrader

The phrase in the Constitution is " promote the general welfare" not generally promote welfare.

That’s a cute play on words. You should stitch it into a sampler.

I stand by my assertion. So does Alexander Hamilton. So does the Supreme Court.

[SottoVoce]

Another confounder.

Here is your stance:
A is true of B
A cannot be true of C, because C is not identical to B

If a social program works in one country, you cannot equivocally say it will not work in another country simply because demographics are different. Should we list programs shared between demographically distinct nations?

[WuWei]

@SottoVoce
Is making some good points. Some of what you guys are pointing to as socialism isn’t.

There is a difference between pooling resources and owning/controlling the means of production.

[Optrader]

@mobulis

@Optrader

@Phaedrus

@Optrader

It is not the function of government to provide jobs, health care, and for that matter, education, though the education train left that station long ago.

That is literally just, like, your opinion, man.

The general welfare clause pretty much guarantees that the items you list are absolutely the function of government if the electorate decides that they are.

The phrase in the Constitution is " promote the general welfare" not generally promote welfare.

If what you believe is true, why start with health care? After all, there are more immediate things people need daily. Why are you not pushing for free food and housing? Aren’t they absolute necessities for the general welfare too? What good is free healthcare if you’re starving and homeless? Where does it stop?

Did you read the thread how 30% are unfit for the military, I would argue govt involvement in health care based on that.

I would argue that kids spending hours a day playing video games and watching SpongeBob, instead of being outside playing have more to do with than anything else. Then consider how little emphasis is placed on PE in schools anymore and top it off with how hard liberals are trying, and succeeding in turning our boys and men into girls and women…

[Optrader]

@Phaedrus

@Optrader

The phrase in the Constitution is " promote the general welfare" not generally promote welfare.

That’s a cute play on words. You should stitch it into a sampler.

I stand by my assertion. So does Alexander Hamilton. So does the Supreme Court.

Which is really meaningless since so many disagree with Hamilton. As far as the Supreme Court, that changes too depending on which ideology has the majority.

[Optrader]

@Jezcoe

@Optrader

@adroit

@Optrader

What wealth has the government created?

I find it fascinating that you don’t know the answer to such a simple question and then you go on a nonsensical rant.

The government creates wealth both directly and indirectly. When they create things like nuclear reactors, computers, rockets, satellites, the internet, etc. Or when they order new f-22s, air craft carriers, etc. Or by hiring people, putting money in their pocket which is spent in the economy. All of these things grow the economy.

Follow the bouncing ball here…

If the government, for example, orders 100 billion dollars for new F-22 airplanes, they are not using their own money to do so. In order to give 100 billion dollars to one company for air planes, they must TAKE 100 billion dollars from other companies to pay for it. That means the companies the money was taken from can not use that money to likewise create jobs and grow their own businesses.Thus this wonderful “creation of wealth” you are claiming for some, results in a loss of wealth for others. It is a zero sum game.

Redistribution of tax dollars is not the same as creating wealth. Your Big Brother has “educated” you well…

I don’t think that you understand how sovereign currency works.

I understand that government stimulus programs don’t work, as FDR and BHO proved by prolonging first the great depression, and second the great recession. But since I also know you guys cheer at GDP growth languishing under 3% for years, you’ll count their efforts as successes…

[Phaedrus]

@Optrader

Which is really meaningless since so many disagree with Hamilton.

If the subject is interpreting the US Constitution, agreement with Alexander Freaking Hamilton is not exactly “meaningless”.

@Optrader

As far as the Supreme Court, that changes too depending on which ideology has the majority.

My point, bolstered by SC precedent and the very existence of Medicare, is that national health care is not the unconstitutional shop of horrors the right makes it out to be. Whether to do it, and how to pay for it, are legitimate issues for discussion. Whether it’s constitutional? We’ve settled that.

[Optrader]

@Phaedrus

@Optrader

Which is really meaningless since so many disagree with Hamilton.

If the subject is interpreting the US Constitution, agreement with Alexander Freaking Hamilton is not exactly “meaningless”.

@Optrader

As far as the Supreme Court, that changes too depending on which ideology has the majority.

My point, bolstered by SC precedent and the very existence of Medicare, is that national health care is not the unconstitutional shop of horrors the right makes it out to be. Whether to do it, and how to pay for it, are legitimate issues for discussion. Whether it’s constitutional? We’ve settled that.

Government programs have a place and can be beneficial. Unfortunately, most of them have unintended consequences and turn into inefficient, boondoggle entitlements that become impossible to manage, reform or abolish once they become entrenched in society.

Many disagreed with Hamilton, both today and in his own day. Hardly the definitive opinion. The Supreme Court is also not infallible as some of their rulings have proven.

[mobulis]

@Optrader

@Jezcoe

@Optrader

@adroit

@Optrader

What wealth has the government created?

I find it fascinating that you don’t know the answer to such a simple question and then you go on a nonsensical rant.

The government creates wealth both directly and indirectly. When they create things like nuclear reactors, computers, rockets, satellites, the internet, etc. Or when they order new f-22s, air craft carriers, etc. Or by hiring people, putting money in their pocket which is spent in the economy. All of these things grow the economy.

Follow the bouncing ball here…

If the government, for example, orders 100 billion dollars for new F-22 airplanes, they are not using their own money to do so. In order to give 100 billion dollars to one company for air planes, they must TAKE 100 billion dollars from other companies to pay for it. That means the companies the money was taken from can not use that money to likewise create jobs and grow their own businesses.Thus this wonderful “creation of wealth” you are claiming for some, results in a loss of wealth for others. It is a zero sum game.

Redistribution of tax dollars is not the same as creating wealth. Your Big Brother has “educated” you well…

I don’t think that you understand how sovereign currency works.

I understand that government stimulus programs don’t work, as FDR and BHO proved by prolonging first the great depression, and second the great recession. But since I also know you guys cheer at GDP growth languishing under 3% for years, you’ll count their efforts as successes…

Which do you prefer growth or decline?

[Phaedrus]

@Optrader

Government programs have a place and can be beneficial. Unfortunately, most of them have unintended consequences and turn into inefficient, boondoggle entitlements that become impossible to manage, reform or abolish once they become entrenched in society.

Many disagreed with Hamilton, both today and in his own day. Hardly the definitive opinion. The Supreme Court is also not infallible as some of their rulings have proven.

I would agree with almost everything you say. My beef is with the oft-expressed here opinion that a national healthcare system in this country:
a. will turn us into “socialist” Venezuela;
b. is diametrically opposed to the Framers’ intent, and is not in accordance with the General Welfare clause;
c. absolutely will not work, despite ample evidence that it DOES in other countries with similar political/social/economic frameworks.

[Borgia_dude]

@carpe_diem

Democrats…the people who force Socialism,

Any examples?

[Jezcoe]

@Optrader

@Jezcoe

@Optrader

@adroit

@Optrader

What wealth has the government created?

I find it fascinating that you don’t know the answer to such a simple question and then you go on a nonsensical rant.

The government creates wealth both directly and indirectly. When they create things like nuclear reactors, computers, rockets, satellites, the internet, etc. Or when they order new f-22s, air craft carriers, etc. Or by hiring people, putting money in their pocket which is spent in the economy. All of these things grow the economy.

Follow the bouncing ball here…

If the government, for example, orders 100 billion dollars for new F-22 airplanes, they are not using their own money to do so. In order to give 100 billion dollars to one company for air planes, they must TAKE 100 billion dollars from other companies to pay for it. That means the companies the money was taken from can not use that money to likewise create jobs and grow their own businesses.Thus this wonderful “creation of wealth” you are claiming for some, results in a loss of wealth for others. It is a zero sum game.

Redistribution of tax dollars is not the same as creating wealth. Your Big Brother has “educated” you well…

I don’t think that you understand how sovereign currency works.

I understand that government stimulus programs don’t work, as FDR and BHO proved by prolonging first the great depression, and second the great recession. But since I also know you guys cheer at GDP growth languishing under 3% for years, you’ll count their efforts as successes…

Just curious… what do you think should have been the response to the 2008 crash?

[adroit]

@Optrader

I understand that government stimulus programs don’t work, as FDR and BHO proved by prolonging first the great depression, and second the great recession.

I would love for you to provide detailed evidence supporting the assertion that BHO’s actions prolonged the Great Recession. This should be good.

[SottoVoce]

@WuWei

@SottoVoce
Is making some good points. Some of what you guys are pointing to as socialism isn’t.

There is a difference between pooling resources and owning/controlling the means of production.

Thanks. I’m not advocating socialism as in government owning currently private industries. I don’t think many “libs” are advocating that either. What I do advocate are well run social programs to improve quality of life for everyone.

Social programs do not equal socialism.

[Jezcoe]

@adroit

@Optrader

I understand that government stimulus programs don’t work, as FDR and BHO proved by prolonging first the great depression, and second the great recession.

I would love for you to provide detailed evidence supporting the assertion that BHO’s actions prolonged the Great Recession. This should be good.

It’s not like we have examples of countries doing austerity at the same time or nothing.