Not when the government knows what to do with it better.

Our current socialist practices began last century with the New Deal. It began to lace a sense of entitlement into the American public and now, that sense of entitlement has gotten further out of hand.

The problem with our current socialist spending? Sustainability. The principle of socialism is based on that everyone puts in everything they can and everyone takes out what they need. In order for socialism to succeed, there has to be that balance that what is taken out does not exceed what is put in.

We are far exceeding what we put in. We have faced record deficits for the past 8 years and are facing even further record deficits that will make the last 8 years look like chump change. We cannot sustain this practice. It's that simple. We are already over 11 trillion dollars in debt and rising fast.

What is being put into place is partly infrastructure investment (which is not always socialism, capitalism is based on the most efficient entity performing any one good/service and sometimes, the government is it) but is largely is socialistic spending. Increasing jobless benefits, medical assistance, and other care programs will be the reason for the tax hikes that are to come. We are creating permanent programs with borrowed funds. Bush and his administration borrowed heavily to fund tax cuts and the wars (though both only totaled about 60% of their deficits IIRC). Nothing has changed in those budgets but we are now permanently increasing our social spending while our economy is falling. Even when it rises again, we will not be able to sustain our current spending practices because we could not even do that before.

What we need is responsibility, not giving handouts to the people. You may think my statements are heartless, but the facts are the facts: we are not fixing anything. We are placing a band-aid on a bullet wound that is our economy. We are failing to fix the problem at this point and all the administration is concerned with is the people that are going to help this economy the least. Until we fix the root, we are doomed to repeat.

so, let me get this right, I make a statement based on my own personal knowledge and research, and you reply with posting the exact same rhetoric a second time? How about arguing why I'm wrong.

here's to change. just like the last change, just like the next.

Um, I'm currently attending cal state for economics as my second bachelor degree, I'm pretty sure I can define socialism. if not, I'm pretty much just wasting my time here.

Socialism as a term was created by Karl Marx, however, much like how other things had no name until someone named it, there were civilizations that worked with the exact same methods and ideologies before it was named.

what you're arguing is like saying kids never hit thrown objects with a stick until the term baseball was coined or nobody ever kicked around a ball until football/soccer was named.

socialism was termed by Marx. As a practice, it is far older than capitalism.

As far as I remember about early civilization (and any ancient history buffs may freely correct me), it was common to have designated jobs for everyone in the tribe for the good of the whole. There was no personal ownership or property. That, in itself, is socialism. It may have not had a term, but it was socialism.

because transparency is a myth since day one. just like campaign promises from just about every other politician.

I must disagree, socialism is what comes about when a president, whether you like him or not, begins to promote policy that handles the same things as the free market.


must disagree here too, socialism is an economic model whereas a dictatorship (fascism) is a social model. While the two often go hand in hand, it is a fallacy to believe that one causes the other.


again, disagreement here as the patriot act was facism, not socialism.


I'd love to hear your full explanation on this section. My arguments are that A, Reagan's tax hikes that were so large were following one of the (if not the, I'm not positive) largest tax cuts in history. Also, care to explain how reaganomics failed? I mean, within the first term of his presidency, unemployment, interest rates, and inflation fell dramatically. How is that failure? The turning off the money spigot was part of the Reaganomics philosophy.


While I can understand the frustration you have in the term socialism being thrown around without the knowledge to back it up, There are many of us with full knowledge that still use it. What is it when the government owns over half a bank? What is it when the government wants to convert that preferred, non-voting stock into common, voting stock? What is it when the federal government asks the chairman of a major corporation to step down? What is it when the federal government places pay restrictions on a private entity?

It's all socialism. There's no other way to put it.

You argue that we must spend in order to escape this crisis but have no logical reason why. While stagflation in the 1970s is not the same as today, the cycle is. Economies rise and fall under capitalism. It can be traced back as far as records have been kept. Never in our history has government spending lifted us up from a downswing.

You use the analogy of hormone injection, I'll give you a couple too: If you touch a hot stove, you get burned. You learn not to do it, and you don't do it again. Right now, mommy government keeps stopping us from touching the stove and tells us it's hot. We are not allowed to make the mistake in order to learn from it. We need to let the dominoes fall and build back up from where the bottom is.

We are putting a band-aid on a bullet wound. Nothing has changed. There is no difference between now and 4 years ago. We are treating symptoms. We need to deal with the Fed and the control of the money supply but Obama's administration is doing nothing. We are spending our way into failure.

This spending will ultimately result in hyperinflation when the economy begins to recover and we are currently starting programs that are not sustainable in the long term. Obama says his administration will halve the deficit by 5 years. Unfortunately, he's talking about the record deficit year, it'll still be higher than any of the prior 7 years, each setting a new record.

Spending is not the answer. It never has been and it never will be. Until we control the money supply, we are doomed to repeat.

I have a few questions for everyone who supports redistribution of wealth in any form (even as we do now). What makes an American better than everyone else?

I constantly hear from the economically liberal folks that everyone deserves a piece of the American Pie. Personally, I believe that everyone has a chance at the American Pie, many just do not have the dedication to get as large a slice as they'd like, but that's my opinion. I hear how outsourcing is bad. How the rich should pay more taxes because they can afford it. How unions are oh so wonderful because they help the middle class. I call bullsh*t.

What makes an American so much more deserving than a foreigner? I mean, I constantly hear how so many of the wealthy have better opportunity and some are even handed wealth from their birth status, but how is birth social status any different from the nation of birth? I mean, we have no more control over the nation of our birth than we do our social status. Why should the wealthy in this situation be punished for something they have no control over? If they were not born into it, why punish their hard work and success?

Same with job outsourcing. Corporations make far more profit on the backs of foreign nations than they do of American workers because of reduced costs. These reduced costs are enjoyed by us here in the form of cheaper goods. The foreign nations receive revenues when their workers get paid and that helps their economies (also, what may only be $1.25 an hour here may be the equivalent of $10 and hour there. Convenient how people ignore the fact there is an exchange rate). Many do not realize it, but we all enjoy the benefits of outsourcing when we go to the store. If everything was American made, costs would be far higher than they are now because businesses pass on additional costs, and anyone who does not realize that is plain foolish. Why is another nation so less deserving of those jobs than America?

If it's to be fair for all, it should be fair for all. This is my primary argument against any form of socialism and my complete support for capitalism in its purest form. It cannot be fair for everyone because of the nature of the world. There are not unlimited resources and therefore, some must go without.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30588163#30588163

I mean, really? This is a special bulletin update where you have to cut from normal programming?

This is just getting ridiculous. MSNBC has their nose so far up Obama's ass, they're smelling his lungs

ok, then let me rephrase: If I pay in more, why should they receive more benefits than me?

Obviously, they cannot. On the other side of the coin, why should they get something for nothing?

CA's school system is a joke. We're, what, 47th? We pay the most in the entire nation and we are in the bottom 5. That's crap. We need accountability and need to rid ourselves of that god-awful union but that will never happen here.

"Its a blindfold kick back type of a game
Called the Kansas City Shuffle
Whereas you look left and they fall right
Into the Kansas City Shuffle
Its a they-think you-think you don't know
Type of Kansas City hustle
Where you take your time
Wait your turn
And hang them up, and out to dry"

ahhhh, Bennie Moten... it just fits so well with so much, you know?

Is it fair that the man who makes 10 million pays millions to the federali but the guy at the bottom receiving welfare pays none?

That is the difference here. I fully believe that is more fair than we have now. If you go to a restaurant to eat dinner, do you get fed even though you can only pay half the tab? Hell no. Same idea here. Why should someone reap all the benefits when they are not paying in themselves?

It's a fundamental difference in ideology. If privileges and opportunity are to be equal to all, should not the costs be as well?

That is the only way for making it fair. I never said it would work.

The only "fair" tax is to charge everyone a set amount. That is the closest to fair you are going to get, but even that is not fair because some use more government services than others. The poor get social programs and the rich have more property (and theoretically get more from the police/etc protecting it), for example.

There is never a fair tax. There never will be because the level required in order to get the required income is somewhere around the poverty line. some will owe more than they make.

however, what we have now is just total bullsh*t. Punishing success makes zero sense.

It is foolish to believe that nothing will change but the income to the government. The companies that oursource, while many ***** and moan about it, do so in order to keep prices lower (including those who ***** and moan).

If we increase taxes on companies that outsource, that changes the bottom line. There are three options to increase profits and three options only: increase sales (totally out of their control), decrease expenses (the opposite of which will happen with tax increases - expect job cuts to make this happen), and increase price. The third is the easiest, along with the second when you cut jobs and make everyone else work harder.

It's not as simple as our fearless leader wishes it to be. It's basic business and economics.

the strange part about this is the fact her handlers knew there was an openly (flamboyantly open) gay judge in the pageant. They had to know that this question was a very great possibility...

i personally felt she had a less than stellar intelligence level as she answered the question at the pageant. I can respect someone standing up for their beliefs, but at least educate yourself. Truthfully, you cannot stand up against something on your own beliefs unless you at least moderately understand what it is you are standing up against.