• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What is socialism?

the past is past, if we had the FDA back in 1900, i don't think it would have mattered.


Nowadays we have tons and tons of independant organizations that would gladly do the task of reviewing these medicines.
 
No your takeing what i said wrong, im not saying that there aren't people who need welfare. I'm saying that there are people who could do without it but are unwilling to work instead of just leaching. I;m saying that if we just got rid of it we would be leaveing those people who need it out in the cold
 
128shot said:
the past is past, if we had the FDA back in 1900, i don't think it would have mattered.


Nowadays we have tons and tons of independant organizations that would gladly do the task of reviewing these medicines.
Click to expand...

And what? They'd do it for free? No they'd have to be payed.
 
128shot said:
the past is past, if we had the FDA back in 1900, i don't think it would have mattered.


Nowadays we have tons and tons of independant organizations that would gladly do the task of reviewing these medicines.
Click to expand...

Yes but private organizations aren't going to cut it. We cant have five different groups contridicting eachother we need one federaly regulated group.
 
TJS0110 said:
No your takeing what i said wrong, im not saying that there aren't people who need welfare. I'm saying that there are people who could do without it but are unwilling to work instead of just leaching. I;m saying that if we just got rid of it we would be leaveing those people who need it out in the cold
Click to expand...

I realize you weren't saying that. But a lot of people think that welfare is corrupt and taking care of a bunch of lazy people, and I have never seen any numbers that support it.
 
because the FDA says we can't get drugs from Canada right?


If all this was more effective and less costly i wouldn't be so grouchy about it, but the government has always been terribly ineffcient, and it steals from our pockets.
 
Kelzie said:
I realize you weren't saying that. But a lot of people think that welfare is corrupt and taking care of a bunch of lazy people, and I have never seen any numbers that support it.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen enough numbers that says Welfare is the solution, either.


I'm all for helping people, its the means in which we do it that can be very bothersome.
 
128shot said:
because the FDA says we can't get drugs from Canada right?


If all this was more effective and less costly i wouldn't be so grouchy about it, but the government has always been terribly ineffcient, and it steals from our pockets.
Click to expand...

The solution is to fix the system, not destroy it.
 
128shot said:
because the FDA says we can't get drugs from Canada right?


If all this was more effective and less costly i wouldn't be so grouchy about it, but the government has always been terribly ineffcient, and it steals from our pockets.
Click to expand...

Whenever someone is backed into a corner they just start spyewing propaganda. O the government is inaficient but private companies would be as or more inaficient.
 
128shot said:
I haven't seen enough numbers that says Welfare is the solution, either.


I'm all for helping people, its the means in which we do it that can be very bothersome.
Click to expand...

And how exactly do you propose helping people without taxes.
 
TJS0110 said:
Whenever someone is backed into a corner they just start spyewing propaganda. O the government is inaficient but private companies would be as or more inaficient.
Click to expand...


just because its common to say doesn't mean its not true.

I don't say this about the military, its a very effective system IMO, welfare's cost is 80% overhead. 80 freakin percent.


Don't you think thats alot?
 
128shot said:
just because its common to say doesn't mean its not true.

I don't say this about the military, its a very effective system IMO, welfare's cost is 80% overhead. 80 freakin percent.


Don't you think thats alot?
Click to expand...

No. It's welfare! It's not supposed to be a business.

And the military might be effective. But we don't need it as big as it is, nor do we need to spend that much money on it.
 
Ya it is but your not takeing into acount are the problems that would arise with starting private companies.
 
"hand it like a government, run it like a business"

Is that such a bad philosphy? Effciency is critical. If it was more effective, it could help more people with less money...


Private hospitals have been winners in the UK.....

Private charitys help more people every day than i could name through a welfare system.

There are several ways to help people, taxation is the most direct method, its also proven to be more expensive..
 
128shot said:
"hand it like a government, run it like a business"

Is that such a bad philosphy? Effciency is critical. If it was more effective, it could help more people with less money...
Click to expand...

How are we supposed to run welfare like a business? It has no income.
 
It would be far to hard to be able to run a business in a government style, becuase a business has to make money.
 
Taxation is income for the government.


They're getting money, i say they're not using it effectivily.


Whats wrong with having a large military?...

We wouldn't have to spend so much actually, if we would stop protecting other countrys that no longer need us to protect them..
 
than we should fix it not make a completely new system
 
be my guest....

Then maybe we can finally lower taxes without diminishing help to others.

Now thats a win win situation.
 
128shot said:
Taxation is income for the government.


They're getting money, i say they're not using it effectivily.


Whats wrong with having a large military?...

We wouldn't have to spend so much actually, if we would stop protecting other countrys that no longer need us to protect them..
Click to expand...

Why do we need a large military? Honestly, what country is going to attack us?
 
128shot said:
be my guest....

Then maybe we can finally lower taxes without diminishing help to others.

Now thats a win win situation.
Click to expand...

I am proud to pay taxes. I consider it part of living in a society. In fact, I wouldn't mind paying more taxes.
 
Nothing wrong with having one for "just in case" situations. Being completely defenseless is a crappy idea.


Now, withdrawing all our troops out of Europe would lower the military bill plenty......


Taxes are evil, the only thing i hate more than the IRS is genocide...


you haven't heard that income tax is illegal ?
 
We could keep a larger reserve army and then if we need we could call it up and it would cost us less money.
 
128shot said:
Nothing wrong with having one for "just in case" situations. Being completely defenseless is a crappy idea.


Now, withdrawing all our troops out of Europe would lower the military bill plenty......


Taxes are evil, the only thing i hate more than the IRS is genocide...


you haven't heard that income tax is illegal ?
Click to expand...

Of course not leaving us completely defenseless. But our military could easily be cut in half with nobody attacking us.

Taxes aren't evil. If people would freely give up their income to help the society, we wouldn't need taxes. But it'll never happen, so we have to tax them
 
128shot said:
If anything, we need taxes for 3 things.

roads

Protection


Military


Do we really need welfare ?


SS?

NASA?


FDA?


I could go on....
Click to expand...


Well, we really don't even need roads. For thousands of years there have been non government funded paths that people took. So really, there's not actual NEED for roads. It's just for convinence to get to the store and back in the comfort of our cars. If everyone drove trucks, eventually large dirt paths would be created and would support all travel (at the expense of the environment tho).

As for the domestic protection and international relations/protection. Spoken like a true libertarian :)

What the rest of these people don't want to admit (presumably) because it makes your case look better is that no, none of those things are actually needed. Enough government to protect the people from themselves and to guide the state in the international community as well as protect iteself from foreign forces is really all any society needs.

Now, with that said. There are many reasons why this form of government actually supplies LESS freedom to its people than one with more government and taxation. The liberties conceded to government having an FDA, both thru taxation and limiting the market, are worth it and much more to not have to worry about if the pill you're will 1) do what it claims and 2) is safe to take. As such, when a society becomes larger (50+ people) certain liberties are restricted in order to expand/retain others. Thus the overall freedom is greater.

SS... is it necessary? Nope. But I personally think that it's good. But I hate the idea of privatization (not relevant). Bad bad bad...

NASA... is it necessary? Nope. But I personally think it's cool (but NOT worth the money, as not all Americans feel the same way). It's cool, but does not supply enough to justify all the tax dollars (exception would be national pride, but that's hard to quantify).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom