That there is quite a number of Americans who truely believe in socialism.

I think I'm going to cry... :'(

Melissa wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 4:00pm:

That there is quite a number of Americans who truely believe in socialism. I think I'm going to cry... :'(

Yep............. They've been "conditioned" and even bred to think that way.

And the public schools just keep cranking out good little socialists . . . .

Is there anywhere else in the world where we can keep our guns, not be taxed beyond oblivion and a government that protects us from invaders while leaving us alone???

You know that website you put up a few threads back - it's really spooky when you read that stuff -- the REASONS we broke away from England.

Mel, maybe we're just not "smart" enough to understand what our "leaders" are trying to tell us is GOOD FOR US.

It just scares the devil out of me to think of the world our kids and grandkids are inheriting. Just wish this was one time we could have a "do over"....

Hugs BD

Damn government.  It's like the damn bailout.  I'm sorry, but I trust the collective mind of millions of Americans over a small handful of government officals & economists anyday.  

Also, I know what's good for me and my family.  I DO.  Not them.

Now about that island...

I have come to realise, :).
That the idea my brother and his wife had of giveing each ' American ' a million dollars, costing approx 300 million dollars.
Was a good one.
As opposed to bailing out the banks, costing..........Loads !
Letting the people drive the economy. andrew

andrewjb wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 5:53pm:

I have come to realise, :). That the idea my brother and his wife had of giveing each ' American ' a million dollars, costing approx 300 million dollars. Was a good one. As opposed to bailing out the banks, costing..........Loads ! Letting the people drive the economy. andrew

Andrew.  Give your brother and his wife a HUGE hug from me!!!!  (and I just KNOW that thought has gone through a lot of taxpayers minds...)

Quote:

Is there anywhere else in the world where we can keep our guns, not be taxed beyond oblivion and a government that protects us from invaders while leaving us alone???

Yep Mel. Come on down. We all have guns with hardly any restrictions. Our tax base is pretty good too, at least after hearing some of you talk about taxes in your state.

As far as the gov't protecting us from invaders, we don't need the gov't, we can handle that ourselves. ;)

PS.....our schools don't teach socialism either. >:(

Melissa wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 4:00pm:

... there is quite a number of Americans who truely believe in socialism.

In a lot of cases, there can be a temporary need for assistance through times.  

If, perhaps, a head of household had lost their job and couldn't find work for months, situations change.  
 In the very thin job market last fall after my employer outsourced, I found the job I have but the prospects looking now are even more dismal.

Whether socialistic or not, at this time, an extension of unemployment benefits is not unreasonable to me.  Finding good work within six months is more than challenging and highly stressful when that time is running out, some don't find jobs.  Thinking straight in desperate times can be a struggle.  





Quote:

I trust the collective mind of millions of Americans...

The collective mind of millions of struggling Americans may be looking for work, temporarily, for assistance.

Kevin, I'm all for helping those who help themselves, or helping those who honestly cannot due to being too elderly, injured or displaced, but why or why do I have to help those who take advantage of the system?  Where is the limit to that?  Is that fair to me and my family?  Why is it I do not have a say in where my money goes?  Why is it we have a Constitution??  What is the point?  

My husband works in the paper mill.  They are union.  He works twice as hard as 1/2 the people who work on the machines, and yet they all get the same treatment.  There have been people who have made life threatening choices due to their performance who were not fired due to it being Union!!  You could say it's his choice to work there, but why should he have to sacrifice his job and great work ethic and the one who is taking advantage of the situation, is not?

I don't see how the whole unemployment benefit fits into this topic, but I don't have a problem with extending it.  That is something that is valuable, as those people had jobs and lost them due to no fault of their own.  But what will be the celing on it all?  At what point do you say enough is enough?  Till we have no choices left?

Melissa wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 6:30pm:

Where is the limit... I don't see how the whole unemployment benefit fits into this topic...

I don't know the limit of what is considered socialistic or not.  Unemployment is state government assistance.  Times go in cycles when more is needed and less is needed.  This type of assistance is needed more now.  I didn't know if you meant that "at this time, under these conditions" people seem to truly believe in socialism, if the need for temporary assistance is presenting itself too obviously, or if people truly "want" socialism.  I was making a distinction using unemployment.  
 There are some who may enjoy collecting and some who feel very anxious at the thought.  Having been there, the latter is all too real, but being temporary, it's a small experiment in socialism perhaps.
 

Sorry, I should have elaborated.  What I was talking about is that there are groups of Americans who don't find anything wrong at all with socialism on a large scale that doesn't have anything to do with environmental causes.  (hope I termed that correctly)

I'm one of which Kevin speaks about right now.  There is little call for a sales professional with my experience and training in a market where people aren't buying anything.

The jobs I've been having to apply for...I'm far over qualified for, and the few phone interviews I've had have said as much (just in not so many words).

I hate spending all my time at home.  Watching every penny I spend, on what, and trying to make sure there is food on the table and the bills are paid.  Because I was let go at the looming of a new fiscal quarter, I delayed my benefits for a week because I would qualify for $52 more a week and that is ALOT to me.  That covers my truck payment and insurance.  It makes a world of difference in my budget.

But Kevin is right...the job market is very thin.  It's brutal out there, and I know what I need to make to get by.  

As much as many businesses hate (and I mean HATE) my former employer, my history there won't bode well for my future possibilities.

Melissa wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 6:59pm:

...groups of Americans who don't find anything wrong at all with socialism on a large scale that doesn't have anything to do with environmental causes.

Using hospital emergency as a health care plan can be common for low income jobs whose employers don't offer insurance.  Don't know if that's socialism.  

Mel,

Right on!

Several years ago, my husband who was the major bread winner lost his job.  He was 59 years old.  We had a mortgage, to car payments, two children in college, and had to live on my income, which was dismally low.  Yes, he collected unemployment, but only for a few weeks.  Yes, he applied for jobs, but as soon as he scored an interview, guess what?  Sorry, you're "overqualified", which is a secret term for "too old".  

It got to the point where we were two months behind on the mortgage and car payments.  Couldn't provide the girls with a living allowance at college so they got jobs.  

We applied to United Way for assistance.  Know what they offered us?  One month payment on our electric bill.  That was it.

I've always given to United Way thinking it was there to help people like us, but it's not.  

Government "handouts" have gone too far in welfare payments to families who have been on welfare for generations, to illegal aliens who have invaded our country to reap the "free" rewards of free education, free health care, all paid for by my tax dollars.  

NO MORE FREEBIES!

I'm sorry, I've worked hard all my life to get where I am today and I highly resent our government giving my hard earned dollars to people who have no intention of working, no desire to better themselves, and who are here illegally.

Off soapbox now.

Sandy

Quote:

That the idea my brother and his wife had of giveing each ' American ' a million dollars, costing approx 300 million dollars. Was a good one.

There's that fancy math again.  If you gave each American ONE dollar, that would be $300million.  If you gave a million, that would be 300 trillion.

Pegg- have you been applying to places outside your field, or just what your backround is in?  

Kevin- I'm not sure if I would call that socialism either since they are employed.

Sandy- I feel your pain!

Bob- math sucks

The fact they won't be giving me a million bucks sucks!!!

Bob P wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 7:16pm:

Quote: That the idea my brother and his wife had of giveing each ' American ' a million dollars, costing approx 300 million dollars. Was a good one. There's that fancy math again.  If you gave each American ONE dollar, that would be $300million.  If you gave a million, that would be 300 trillion.

Between the Bank bailout and the AIG bailout, I think that putting that money in the hands of the people would have been far more of a boost to the economy.  I'd only alter the plan to give that money to those only earming less than 2 million a year, and only to those who have filed a tax return.

Melissa wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 7:22pm:

I'm not sure... they are employed.

Employed without an affordable necessity provided.  Costs being spread elsewhere.  I'm not sure either, again, those limits.



Employment and healthcare are important issues to contend with.

Mel, there is very little in my field...

I've been applying to any position that my skill set could cross over for.  

There is just so  little out there.

I find it hard to debate with such black and white broad terms, when everyone has different shades of grey they apply to the labels being discussed.

The USA is a hybred of socialism and capitolism, always has been. Under 100% true capitolism if you want the road paved in front of your house, you as the property owner would pay the road paving guy yourself. I do not know many people who would like to live in a 100% true capitolistic country.

Most places Americans consider "socialist"" that are civil, tax their citizens pretty much the same rate as the average American is taxed. And for it they get primary and secondary education and free health care. USA citizens do not get any of that for the same amount of money taxed. In fact it is really really hard to determine where my tax money goes. And of course they are not 100% socialist - there are very few places one cannot buy a Big Mac nowdays.

If the economy worses to levels below the Great Depression 80% of American families (including those on here, who have not saved a few years salary to pay all the bills with) will be unemployed and homeless. Will any of those people care what lable is attached to the free bread that they get to feed their kids?

Time and a place for everything and everything in moderation.  Except for paying no taxes at all, I am all for a flat-tax, which is extremely socialist concept. It would make it easier to tell where my money is going and give the system some transparency. I am sick of the loopholes and "find the ball" shell game each April. Lets pay for the stuff that needs to be paid for and quite paying for shit we don't need and the special interests. Kind of like that "What if firefighters ran the world ad on tv".

My 2cents

superhawk- There have always been checks and balances in our government.  I am wondering what will happen when that disappears??

Also, those that are taxed for universal health care and schools, do they have a choice where to go or who to see?  What if they want to be seen that day, can they do that?

During the great depression the unemployment rate was 25%.  I don't know where you get the 80% rate?

As for a flat tax, that would still bother me as you'd still be paying for those who play the system/ :-/

Kevin- what ever happened to charities?  If people want to donate to others, why can't they choose to do so through charities?  Why does it have to be through the government?  There are many efficient private charities out there that actually DO help.

If our taxes rise farther, due to a distribution of the wealth, we won't be able to afford to give to charities anymore ourselves, as we will need whatever we have just to survive right now. :-[

Pegg- what about factory work?

Quote:

Pegg- what about factory work?

With the arthritis in my neck and rest of my spine and the physical limits I'm under with that alone, I'd never make it threw the physical.  

Redd wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 7:33pm:

Bob P wrote on Oct 16th, 2008 at 7:16pm: Quote: That the idea my brother and his wife had of giveing each ' American ' a million dollars, costing approx 300 million dollars. Was a good one. There's that fancy math again.  If you gave each American ONE dollar, that would be $300million.  If you gave a million, that would be 300 trillion. Between the Bank bailout and the AIG bailout, I think that putting that money in the hands of the people would have been far more of a boost to the economy.  I'd only alter the plan to give that money to those only earming less than 2 million a year, and only to those who have filed a tax return.

300 trillion? :o

You bring up very good points Mel! I will try to make my responses worthy.


Quote:

superhawk- There have always been checks and balances in our government.  I am wondering what will happen when that disappears??

It is my opinon that the checks and balances are nothing like they were intended, or even were just a few administrations ago. In fact I would go as far to say they almost already do not exisit.


Quote:

Also, those that are taxed for universal health care and schools, do they have a choice where to go or who to see?  What if they want to be seen that day, can they do that?

My point here is that we are already being taxed for universal healthcare, in a way. Our overall tax rate is the same as in the example, but we do not have the option of "free" healthcare or education. Those socialists are getting more bang for their tax buck, period (since ours goes to so many special interests like big pharm co's). And in an aweful lot of privately purchased healthcare plans, plenty of Americans cannot chose where or when to be seen as well. So it seems American have the worst of both worlds in this regard. And nothing is stopping those socialist from shelling out their own money, like we do here in the states, for better than the gov supplid healthcare, and then they would be taxed the same as us, and have the same additional healthcare costs as us too. But if they cannot afford it, inconvient helathcare is better than none for the same amount of tax money spent.



Quote:

During the great depression the unemployment rate was 25%.  I don't know where you get the 80% rate?

If we fall below that level, which is now possible due to the economy being global, the deep end falls off rather quickly and the number of people unable to sustain their livelyhood will go up exponentually. How many people do you know with 2 or 3 years mortgage payments saved up?



Quote:

As for a flat tax, that would still bother me as you'd still be paying for those who play the system

You are correct, but isn't that a problem right now? At least if we can make things simpler we might be able to tell where the leaks are. All I know is the American people are taxed more than plenty to keep the country afloat.

Thanks for the great points!

cheers!


edit for stupidity

superhawk2300 wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 7:50pm:

Most places Americans consider "socialist"" that are civil, tax their citizens pretty much the same rate as the average American is taxed. And for it they get primary and secondary education and free health care. USA citizens do not get any of that for the same amount of money taxed. In fact it is really really hard to determine where my tax money goes. And of course they are not 100% socialist - there are very few places one cannot buy a Big Mac nowdays.

Yup and that 'free' health care will have you waiting up to 2 years for heart bypass surgery, up to 6 months waiting list for radiation therapy, and upwards of 2 years for diagnostic testing for cancer...

And if you're a doctor, your government has put a cap on your earnings essentially - saying you cannot bill the provincial health care system for anymore than $100,000 a year - so most people can't find a doctor, because the doctors all go where they aren't told how much they can earn.

There's a very good reason that most provinces in Canada are undergoing health care reform and welfare reform.  It hasn't worked out so well.

When I left Canada 10 years ago to move to the US to be with my husband who is in the US military, I left a province that if I had paid every penny of what I earned from Jan. to Sept to the government in taxes, then I would be able to keep the rest from Oct through Dec. There's not many places in the US with that kind of taxation, where a pack of smokes costs $10 because most of it is tax, a bottle of booze costs anywhere from $30 to $100 (depending on your tastes) because most of it is tax.  Where they have been paying over $4 a gallon for gas for a very long time now because of the taxation rate on it, where every single thing you pay for - be it a product or a service has a flat tax on it of (I believe it's been dropped to 5% now but it was 7% of the sale when I left) in a federal GST - goods and services tax - or what the population called the grab and steal tax.  On top of your income taxes, you pay an extraordinary amount of 'hidden' taxes in every thing you purchase in Canada.

We paid a very very high property tax in Omaha NE - just over $3k a year on a house worth $124k tax appraisal.  Here in Asheville NC a home worth nearly $500k pays that same amount in tax.  The difference was that in Omaha, we could actually *see* our property tax dollars being fed straight back into our community - in the school district we lived in, almost every single school is a national blue ribbon school and they all have every art and music program as well as computer programs and tons of 'specialized' programs for the trades as well as academia.  You pay high property taxes in Canada, but your county and school district is apportioned money out of a general pool, you don't see the money go back into your own local schools, it's given to all of them, quite unequally and they all have the same curriculum - they can't have anything different from the provincial curriculum unless they are a private school or a catholic school.

So I tend to disagree with you assessment of other 'civil countries' with social practices - not a socialist nation, but a social based nation.

JMHO

Cat

Melissa wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 8:06pm:

what ever happened to charities?

Charities in the U.S. are tops and are helping a lot.  And thrift is a busy road.  

also though


Sandy_C wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 7:13pm:

We applied to United Way for assistance.  Know what they offered us?  One month payment on our electric bill.  That was it. I've always given to United Way thinking it was there to help people like us, but it's not.

But I don't think these move the economy.

Well, there is a reason I did say "all" :)

And I still get my prescriptions from canada (legally) for about 1/5 of what they cost here in America (thanks to a law our gov passed).

Some cost less than just the co-pay on this side of the border! And I mean the same, exact stuff, in the same exact packaging, with the same exact lot numbers on it.

Quote:

And nothing is stopping those socialist from shelling out their own money, like we do here in the states, for better than the gov supplid healthcare, and then they would be taxed the same as us, and have the same additional healthcare costs as us too. But if they cannot afford it, inconvient helathcare is better than none for the same amount of tax money spent.

That statement isn't actually that accurate anymore.  When the waiting lists for health care started to really back up, those with money (the haves) would go to the US for medical tests etc. and then take the diagnostics back to their Canadian doctor and get the treatment needed or pay to be treated in the US.  Those who didn't have the money (the have nots) couldn't do the same thing.  So in Ontario at least (each province holds its' own health care plan) they made it so that the doctors can NOT accept diagnostics paid for outside the system, so as to equal things out between the haves and the have nots.

Elective treatments - such as my surgery to have my endometriosis fixed, fell into elective surgery because they had to remove a clip from my fallopian tubes which I had tied after my daughter was born.  Because that was part of the surgery, OHIP deemed it elective and I went onto a waiting list, where it would have been over a year to get the surgery done, and the list got backed up every time a necessary surgery came in (emergent surgery usually - something that without it you died...) At the time, you could actually pay a Canadian doctor and hospital out of your own pocket, and that's what we did, it cost $2600 - the same surgery cost close to $10k in the US - but now you can no longer pay outside the system for a surgery unless it is COMPLETELY elective, not required for you to remain alive or maintain your health - so you can pay to have a face lift done, but all the money in the country can't buy you that heart bypass or cancer diagnostic test (and I am referring to a specific situation with the cancer diagnostics - an MRI of the breast to be exact, it's determined by a committee which cases get in for the MRI's, and when, if you aren't already diagnosed, you won't get the MRI - at least it's been 2 years and my Mom still hasn't been called for her *needed* MRI).

Cat

Redd wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 7:39pm:

Mel, there is very little in my field... I've been applying to any position that my skill set could cross over for.   There is just so  little out there.

Pegg, check your PM's

The first thing to consider about the flat tax is to note which groups have been strongest in advocating the thing. Interesting. Try Steven Forbes.

Mel, those opposed to universal health care site Canada, Britain, and the rest of the democratic civilized western world as terrible places to live forcing their people into a horrible system that is inferior to ours. Not so. Ask those that don't have to go into bankruptcy to get medical care to go back to a system like ours. They may bitsch about it, as people love to do, but almost none of them would like going back; no matter what the GOP would have us to believe. There aren't that many...what I call....."conservative alturists" that would sacrifice such a simple and sane system in the name of fostering some kind of pure conservative utopia that costs them money. It's like the third rail of Social Security once it's adopted, it sticks. Good and even Britain as private health care if you want it.

Some forms of socialism or socialistic structures are probably necessary when societies become so large as ours. It's here now and works rather well. Pure libertarianism looks better on paper... and I have those strong tendencies as well, and asking people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps sounds good too but it assumes people have bootstraps. I like most of it but it's a baby with the bathwater problem. Modern society is complex, not black and white. Complexity is also more interesting and how people can stand each other. Pure capitalism isn't big enough on its own. Even capitalists know this. What has been called "creeping socailism" over the years has done more good than harm and the mix of both systems works just fine for even a lot of centrist Republicans.

Finally, I find it delightful that it's a Republican administration that has had to try to staunch the wounds of unregulated Wall Street by socializing so much of its systems. So far it's been kind of selective but then that's to be expected by them....although even John McCain has advocated more socialism when in comes to buying up mortages.

Charlie

Charlie wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 9:15pm:

Mel, those opposed to universal health care site Canada, Britain, and the rest of the democratic civilized western world as terrible places to live forcing their people into a horrible system that is inferior to ours. Not so. Ask those that don't have to go into bankruptcy to get medical care to go back to a system like ours. They may bitsch about it, as people love to do, but almost none of them would like going back

Charlie,............did you read Cats posts?

This is such a fabulous document, I just had to post it...


Quote:

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies Presented by the Indiana University School of Law—Bloomington The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows: New Hampshire Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton Massachusetts John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery Connecticut Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott New York William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris New Jersey Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark Pennsylvania Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross Delaware Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean Maryland Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton North Carolina William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn South Carolina Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton Georgia Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

btw, thanks for all the responses.  I've learned a lot today and it's nice no one got their panties in a bunch. :)

Sounds terrible and I'm wrong. OUCH

Nevertheless, most of the scare tactics about health care are from people tracked down by politcos for the purpose. I'll still take it in a minute. I would save a pile.

Bear in mind that I know I'm wrong about Cat here and I do know of other instances.

Charlie

OK, I am going to be a stinker............

Notice not in one place in any of the documents that frame our country does is state the USA couldn't or shouldn't be socialist nor does it say it should be purely capitolistic either.

That aught to "bunch up some panties" as you put it Mel!  ;D

That's cause it's up to the people superhawk.  Like it's written in the Constitution.  But when the government doesn't listen to them (i.e. bailout bill), then it is time to do away with the ones who didn't. :)

JMHO

So you mean if the majority of tax-paying Americans wanted the USA to be socialist, then it is the duty of the government to make it so? Interesting........


Yeah, the bail out bill pretty much sums it up eh? :)

superhawk2300 wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 9:28am:

So you mean if the majority of tax-paying Americans wanted the USA to be socialist, then it is the duty of the government to make it so? Interesting........ Yeah, the bail out bill pretty much sums it up eh? :)

If it is the will of the people, and not of a handful, then yes.  As long as it's done through the system the way it was created to be.  Good luck figuring that one out.

Been doing more thinking this morning (please don't roll your eyes, lol).

I think what I am so pissed about, is what happened when they voted for that bailout.  How many of us, whatever political party, did not want the government to interject into the free marketplace?  

Here's a good definition of socialism:


Quote:

What is socialism? Socialism is an economic system characterized by public ownership and centralized planning of all major industries (manufacturing, services, and energy), banks and insurance companies, agribusiness, transportation, the media, and medical facilities. Under capitalism, these giant enterprises dominate the economy but are privately owned and operated for the purpose of generating wealth for their owners by extracting it from working people who are paid only a small fraction of what their labor produces. Socialism turns this around so that the class that produces the wealth can collectively decide how it will be used for the benefit of all. As African American poet and communist Langston Hughes wrote in "Good Morning, Revolution":       …Together,       We can take everything:       Factories, arsenals, houses, ships,       Railroads, forests, fields, orchards…       And turn 'em over to the people who work.       Rule 'em and run 'em for us people who work. Real socialism is, by definition, democratic. It is economic as well as political democracy. Many capitalist countries boast of their democratic institutions, but this is an illusion because all the political power is in the hands of those who hold the wealth. Socialism prioritizes human needs and eliminates the profit motive that drives war, ecological destruction, and inequalities based on gender, race, nationality and sexuality. Like capitalism, socialism must be international so that global resources can be shared. No country can be truly independent of the global economy because until capitalism is defeated internationally it will continue to sabotage efforts to build socialism. Achieving socialism in the United States, the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world, is necessary to any country being able to determine its own destiny.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

This is all great and everything, except the United States of America is a REPUBLIC!

Now, what is the difference between a Republic and a Democracy?


Quote:

It has become annoyingly commonplace for republics, whether they are the United States or the State of Nevada, to be referred to as democracies, without regard to the meaning of the word or the implications it brings with it. What is a republic? What is a democracy? And why am I so angered that people use the words interchangeably? I'll answer the last question first. It is illogical to use two words that mean two different things to mean the same thing. This would be like me using the words orange and apple to mean the same physical object. I would be derided as an idiot and rightly so. This situation is the same in principle to the republic/democracy problem, but the importance of the orange and apple comparison is infinitely smaller. A republic is a government in which a restricted group of citizens form a political unit, usually under the auspice of a charter, which directs them to elect representatives who will govern the state. Republics, by their very nature, tend to be free polities, not because they are elected by the citizens of the polity, but because they are bound by charters, which limit the responsibilities and powers of the state. The fact that people vote for representatives has nothing to do with making anything free. The logical consistency and rationality of the charter, as well as the willingness of the people to live by it, is what keeps people free. A democracy is government by the majority. There is still a restricted group of citizens in a democracy, but this group rules directly and personally runs the state. The group may delegate specific tasks to individuals, such as generalships and governorships, but there is no question that the ruling force in a democracy is not a charter (if there even is a charter), but the vote of the majority. Democracies are free only if the people know what freedom is and are consistent in their application of it. If they don't know this, or more appropriately, if a majority of the people don't know this, then a democracy could be just as tyrannical as the worst dictator (see Socrates' forced suicide by the Athenian democracy.)

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Now can some see why I have such issue with this??  

Mel, ya gotta quit all this thinking -- it's giving me a headache. Trouble is you're RIGHT. And we've let ourselves get in this mess. I think I've read more history in the last few weeks (that you've brought up) than I did back in school (or at least it's sinking in more).

I sorta remember something from back in college -- a prof said "there's no such thing as a 'true' democracy". Maybe he was right.

Had a letter from my Rep. to let me know that he DID vote AGAINST the bailout and that he had listened to me. That's something at least.

Hugs BD

.......I know nothing.

And Mel, here is some more to think about  ::)

Don't forget the Bill of Rights exists to prevent an oppresive majority from infringing the rights of a weaker minority. It is actually what America is all aboutm being a democratic republic.

The majority rules only goes so far in America.

superhawk2300 wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 3:17pm:

And Mel, here is some more to think about  ::) Don't forget the Bill of Rights exists to prevent an oppresive majority from infringing the rights of a weaker minority. It is actually what America is all aboutm being a democratic republic. The majority rules only goes so far in America.

I don't see where voting against the bailout would have oppressed the minority???  This is where your argument falters superhawk.  

Take heart Mel. Socialism doesn't last in countries like ours. Britain has some experience with this, I believe. It gets picked at successfully now and then.

There is the old theory too that if you took all the money in the country and spread it out evenly, in not too long a time, it would wind up back in the same hands.

Charlie

Barb- I'm glad you have a rep that listened!  Fortunately there were a couple in my state that did too, and I'll be voting for them this year. :)


Charlie- :-*

Charlie wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 7:41pm:

There is the old theory too that if you took all the money in the country and spread it out evenly, in not too long a time, it would wind up back in the same hands. Charlie

Dont tell me, let me guess.......your taking Joe Bidens place, right?......LMAO  ;D

wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 8:26pm:

Charlie wrote on Oct 17th, 2008 at 7:41pm: There is the old theory too that if you took all the money in the country and spread it out evenly, in not too long a time, it would wind up back in the same hands. Charlie Dont tell me, let me guess.......your taking Joe Bidens place, right?......LMAO  ;D

What? I don't follow.  :-?

My posting is an old old thing that was meant to explain why socialism doesn't work well.  8-)

Charlie

Charlie wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 8:47pm:

wrote on Oct 17th, 2008 at 8:26pm: Charlie wrote on Oct 17th, 2008 at 7:41pm: There is the old theory too that if you took all the money in the country and spread it out evenly, in not too long a time, it would wind up back in the same hands. Charlie Dont tell me, let me guess.......your taking Joe Bidens place, right?......LMAO  ;D What? I don't follow.  :-? My posting is an old old thing that was meant to explain why socialism doesn't work well.  8-) Charlie

...which is exactly why it is so frustrating to see it implemented time and time again.  People refuse to learn from history.

Yes socialism is only good when it's needed to bailout capitalists; as is being done now.  

Charlie

I was speaking in generals when I said that Mel, not directly on the bailout. Those people benefiting from the bailout while certainly in the minority probably have done more infringing of others rights than have had their rights infriged, if I had to bet!!!!!!!

The only difference between America and the rest of the world (predominantly in the 20th century) was that our standard of living eclipsed the rest of the world. Why? We weren't, as a nation, any brighter or more creative than those in other nations but in virtually
every aspect of human endeavor we lead.

The reason is there was an environment of free trade and relatively low interference from government in the way of regulation and taxation. Not so the case any more. People entered into contracts of mutually beneficial exchange unhampered by the need to tax them to death in order to pay for unConstitutional programs that are ubiquitous now.

Taking people's money is akin to stealing part of their lives. That which they decide to give or donate is a voluntary, choice based act. That which is stolen, embezzled even, is not the face of a free people in a free society but rather the end of freedom and free markets.

The end result is in sight: look around. How many politicians pander to the masses at the expense of the few? Easy to be generous with other people's money surreptitiously using the force of government, coercion, to steal the fruits of their labor for whatever the 'care' du jour might be. In the end, our freedom suffers individually and the nation we hand to offspring much less palatable than what we received.

Speak it notseinfeld! Great post!