- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 26,879
- Reaction score
- 12,685
- Location
- Highlands Ranch, CO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I believe that socialist programs are still socialist programs.
No you don't. You are smarter than this. There is a very big difference between programs that reward contracts of service and programs that reward a person for being born. Some socialist programs help people who deserve it. Most Americans on unemployment would prefer a job and an opportunity to maintain a sense of pride and contribute to our society. Some socialist programs feed people who find themselves on the back end of a series of bad life decisions and need assistance. Certainly most of them don;t like the embarrasment of pulling food stamps out of their purse or announcing "free lunch" in front of their school friends.
But let's not pretend that 20 years of contracted service is the same as a handout just to justify the handout. Are people who retire from Time Warner Cable, Ford, or Merryl Lynch getting a handout from their companies when they retire? They are just like the 24 year old single Mom of four receiving food stamps? Military retirees worked for a company too.
Socialism/ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterised by social ownership and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy,[SUP][1][/SUP] and a political philosophy advocating such a system.
So basically you just make up definitions to words when they real one is inconvenient. Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Who will you vote for in the 2012 presidential elections?
Well, the definition doesn't address the topic, does it? A socialist government (China, Cuba, Soviet Union) and socialistic programs (found in the U.S. and Western Europe) are two seperate issues. Your definition focuses on governance. Or is a retiree of Time Warner Cable a product of "political philosophy" or a victim of "social ownership?" The food stamp receiver is owned by the government. The retiree is not.
You are trying to make a military retiree the same as a 24 year old food stamp case just to justify a socialistic government. The two are seperate and you know this.
Well, the definition doesn't address the topic, does it? A socialist government (China, Cuba, Soviet Union) and socialistic programs (found in the U.S. and Western Europe) are two seperate issues. Your definition focuses on governance. Or is a retiree of Time Warner Cable a product of "political philosophy" or a victim of "social ownership?" The food stamp receiver is owned by the government. The retiree is not. The notion of retiring is actually more capitalist than socialist because it deals with the reward of labor.
You are trying to make a military retiree the same as a 24 year old food stamp case just to justify a socialistic government. The two are seperate and you know this.
You are just making **** up........
But the food being bought by the people is not owned by the government. The military is actually much closer to socialism than food stamps are. The food the military receives is owned by the government.
The government is a company for the military. Secretaries for civilian firms use paper that is supplied by the company. A handout? After their contracted careers are over that company will pay them their agreed upon retirment pay. Just because my company is a government doesn't mean a socialistic event in the manner in which you wish it. What exactly does a single 24 year old mom of 4 do to earn a handout that comes from social programs? Where's the contract? Where's the earn?
Incidentally, Soviet soldiers, who received retirements for serving their government (or company) were very different from the civilian masses who merely lined up for government bread. The attempt to make it the same insults.
Retirement programs funded by your employer, including military, are DEFERRED COMPENSATION, or IOW, an EARNED entitlement.....
That is not socialism.
And neither is food stamps.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
agree, until we all get them.....
Basically.
Of course, I am for UHC and completely understand that it would be a socialist program. I just don't consider it a big deal because we need it and there isn't much of another alternative without actually allowing people to die just because they can't afford medical care/medicine.
This is socialism, if it doesn't fit this definition then it isn't socialism, end of discussion.
Socialism | Define Socialism at Dictionary.com
.......................................
It is a long tactic of Liberals (especially Leftists) to use our military to justify handouts to the rest and thereby an altered path from capitalism to socialism. In the end, retirees earn their benefits no matter what the company. Social programs offerred to people who make bad decisions in life are a seperate issue. Or did that teacher, who taught for thirty years earn her retirement the same way a welfare commando earned his?
And I don't buy into anything. I read. I didn't vote for Obama or Bush and I don't see Romney as any better. What did you buy into? You being "very liberal" means what....anything the Democrats sell?
I can sort of imagine NP sitting there, consumed in the idea that pot shots at Obama on the internet actually matter, thinking to himself, "Hmm, what can I post to beat on Obama, that I can actually win? I know! A vote aimed at military personnel!"
...And the roaring "GODDAMNIT!" when the votes started rolling in. :lol:
again, I agree...
My young granddaughter was in a bad situation (inoperable brain tumor), it took a lawyer to make her insurance company do the right thing....
I don't mind that insurance companies operate with a profit motive, but when the greed motive rears its ugly head, then there should be prosecutions at the corporate level.
Bull****. You are once again making **** up, trying to spin some wild asses conspiracy theory and make comparisons that do not follow from what has been said, playing to emotions instead of logic. The harder you try and avoid admitting the uncomfortable truth, that you will benefit from programs that are socialist, you just go further and further into insanity and inanity.
It is a long tactic of Liberals (especially Leftists) to use our military to justify handouts to the rest and thereby an altered path from capitalism to socialism.
And I agree with this...it would be nice if there was a little solidarity between public servants in general. When they cut the teachers pensions and the pensions for postal workers don't be suprised when they come after the soldiers. I'm just saying...it's the progression and ideology they peddle. That if you're are serving the government in anyway you're not a "producer"...that you're living high off the hog on tax payers.Or did that teacher, who taught for thirty years earn her retirement the same way a welfare commando earned his?
No, the military does nto fit classic definitions of socialism, but does behave much like what those who call Obama a socialist complain about. I think this is a valid point. When Bill Kyrstal of the Weekly Standard pronounces the military health care as the best in the world and sings its praises, but then calls any civilian system that would mimic it as substandard, you have to question his logic. And you ahve to question others who mirror that type of thinking.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?