Say it again?
Are you trying to employ a double negative?
I will come out and say…yes i agree. Socialism is bad for America. Nuff said
Typical inane liberal drivel. Your flailing is as intense as any Trump fan’s, and just as misguided. Instead of assuming, you could just ask. I was addressing social security specifically, after all. That I detest social security means I want all government burned to the ground in your book? And to think Trump fans get accused of thinking in binary.
Who pays taxes? It’s the American people.
The American people pay for things like the Police, and the military.
So using tax money from the American people to fund things like police, fire departments, roads, etc on the local level and things like the military, federal prisons, federal law enforcement, etc is all fine and good.
However, using tax money on something like health care is socialism.
Got it.
The new deal’s purpose was to continue capitalism. Socialists would have scrapped the system entirely.
Except that none of those are socialist programs. Non sequitur.
Horse hockey, it was incremental socialism.
Truman attempted to follow it up with his “Fair Deal” in 49 and fortunately most of it failed.
You missed the point … the current new deal Democrats are pushing a NEW new deal … Socialism.
If it’s a service operated by a government owned entity, then it’s a form of socialism.
Not by any definition that’s been used for the last century.
If you’re anti socialism, then you should also be anti all the things I listed. Textbook socialism.
Derp derp. That’s my point. We pool our money for collective benefits such as keeping communities safe. It’s cheaper and more effficient. My house has never burned down, yet I gladly pay for firefighters. Why wouldn’t we do the same for healthcare? Cheaper and more efficient and benefits the public as a whole.
Nope. It’s still a stupid argument no matter how many times you try to make it. That one may argue against government over reach in some instances doesn’t make them an abolitionist anarchist. Also, liberals use this argument to equate government “programs” such as police, firefighters and military to whatever “for the greater good” wealth redistribution plans they desire.
Perhaps the sticking point is the word socialism itself. Is a police department a social program? Okay, sure, why not? But that because one social program is necessary doesn’t mean all social programs are necessary.
Hope this clears that up.
So we’re just arguing about the level of socialism that should exist?
Why are you equating these two things? Is there some federal fire department I’m not aware of? One that front, why aren’t you addressing your local government about health care, that way you can leave me out of it, assuming you don’t live in my same town/city?
Isn’t that politics, then? Call it whatever you like, we’re arguing about how much government is enough or too much, yes?
When I was talking about Health Care I never mentioned anything
about tax money.
Obama care is Socialism.
Using money for things like roads, and the Police department, fired departments,
and the military, come from taxes from the American people.
That’s not Socialism. That’s Capitalism.
Both talking points are against Socialism, but one talks about taxes,
and the other one I am not.