yeah, socialism is bad

Pepe Silvia · July 2009

although it can be argued many of these things could be ran better for those who are against a more socialized approach to health care would you also be willing to give up the rest of these socialistic ideas?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF-W9zcw ... r_embedded

Cosmo · July 2009

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

although it can be argued many of these things could be ran better for those who are against a more socialized approach to health care would you also be willing to give up the rest of these socialistic ideas?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF-W9zcw ... r_embedded

...
I have been saying this for years...
Why is it that Americans truely believe the government is fully capable of waging a war to protect us... but, completely inept at providing health care?

Smellyman · July 2009

Cosmo wrote:

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

although it can be argued many of these things could be ran better for those who are against a more socialized approach to health care would you also be willing to give up the rest of these socialistic ideas?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF-W9zcw ... r_embedded

...
I have been saying this for years...
Why is it that Americans truely believe the government is fully capable of waging a war to protect us... but, completely inept at providing health care?

bcuz wars kick a$$

America fuck yeah!!

jlew24asu · July 2009

Cosmo wrote:

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

although it can be argued many of these things could be ran better for those who are against a more socialized approach to health care would you also be willing to give up the rest of these socialistic ideas?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF-W9zcw ... r_embedded

...
I have been saying this for years...
Why is it that Americans truely believe the government is fully capable of waging a war to protect us... but, completely inept at providing health care?

1. its the government's constitutional responsibility to protect its citizens.

2. healthcare is much more complicated that maintaining a military force.

3. healthcare is much more expensive.

are you another UHC truther too?

WaveCameCrashin · July 2009

how do those organizations have to do with socialism? Am I missing something ? :?

Pepe Silvia · July 2009

prfctlefts wrote:

how do those organizations have to do with socialism? Am I missing something ? :?

they are things provided to everyone.

you don't need approval or a special plan to have the fire dept save your burning house, it's available to anyone and everyone

WaveCameCrashin · July 2009

That has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism is a form of gov. :roll:

Cosmo · July 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

although it can be argued many of these things could be ran better for those who are against a more socialized approach to health care would you also be willing to give up the rest of these socialistic ideas?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF-W9zcw ... r_embedded

...
I have been saying this for years...
Why is it that Americans truely believe the government is fully capable of waging a war to protect us... but, completely inept at providing health care?

1. its the government's constitutional responsibility to protect its citizens.

2. healthcare is much more complicated that maintaining a military force.

3. healthcare is much more expensive.

are you another UHC truther too?

...
I'm trying to figure out the logic, here...
So, does this mean that if Health Care was written into the Constitution, it would be run effectively?
...
And maintaining the military is pretty complex... especially the procurement process of weapons systems and trainning... not to mention follow-on maintenance of systems, such as B-2 Bombers.
As for costs... those B-2 Bombers cost a lot of money... not just to build... but, research and development and documenting the processes as well as operations and maintenance.
And that trillion dollars we've spent on Iraq... it ain't coming back. But, you are right on one thing... the price Americans are currently paying for pills rivals the price of building and shooting off laser guided bombs.
...
As for that last comment... come on, was that really necessary?

OffHeGoes29 · July 2009

Cosmo wrote:

...
I'm trying to figure out the logic, here...
So, does this mean that if Health Care was written into the Constitution, it would be run effectively?
...
And maintaining the military is pretty complex... especially the procurement process of weapons systems and trainning... not to mention follow-on maintenance of systems, such as B-2 Bombers.
As for costs... those B-2 Bombers cost a lot of money... not just to build... but, research and development and documenting the processes as well as operations and maintenance.
And that trillion dollars we've spent on Iraq... it ain't coming back. But, you are right on one thing... the price Americans are currently paying for pills rivals the price of building and shooting off laser guided bombs.
...
As for that last comment... come on, was that really necessary?

Remind us what you do for a living again Cosmo...

Cosmo · July 2009

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
I'm trying to figure out the logic, here...
So, does this mean that if Health Care was written into the Constitution, it would be run effectively?
...
And maintaining the military is pretty complex... especially the procurement process of weapons systems and trainning... not to mention follow-on maintenance of systems, such as B-2 Bombers.
As for costs... those B-2 Bombers cost a lot of money... not just to build... but, research and development and documenting the processes as well as operations and maintenance.
And that trillion dollars we've spent on Iraq... it ain't coming back. But, you are right on one thing... the price Americans are currently paying for pills rivals the price of building and shooting off laser guided bombs.
...
As for that last comment... come on, was that really necessary?

Remind us what you do for a living again Cosmo...

...
I work in the machinery of the Military/Industrial Complex.
And yeah... that shit is expensive... but, it is run pretty effectively. I have faith in our military... which is run by... **GULP**... THE GOVERNMENT!!! Therefore, i believe the Government can handle Health Care.
...
Which is why I ask people... how do they reconcile their belief that the Government is this inept entity that cannot handle Health Care... yet, they can loiter an unmanned aircraft over the Swat Valley in Pakistan for 72 hours straight by air crews taking 8 hour shifts in the deserts of Palmdale, California and have it unload a laser guided munition on the head of a Taliban leader? is the Government fucking 'Rainman', or what?

thefin190 · July 2009

It's just sad how polarized and uninformed are public is on politics. We cannot even have a friendly debate over politics anymore without getting enraged and hating each others guts, hence the continuation of the cycle of ignoring politics and keeping the public uninformed.

The word socialism has successfully been demonized by conservative politicians, and both democrats and republicans alike are scared to even use the word, just because the general public is educated to believe that capitalism = good, socialism = bad, private sector = good, government = bad, when this isn't the case at all. Capitalism's main objective is profit, and while the competition gives us a more comfortable style of living, if it isn't kept in check by government, businesses will cut corners and keep consumers uninformed, and we become more vertical of a society, where we have a very successful top 1% with a suffering lower and middle class. There is a balancing act between government and the private sector, socialism and capitalism. While the US has had a pretty good balancing act, lately (both democrats and republicans are to blame for this) we are becoming more vertical, where we focus too much on the economy and measure of human welfare by the GDP, while ignoring the increasing problems that our society presents to us.

thefin190 · July 2009

Cosmo wrote:

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
I'm trying to figure out the logic, here...
So, does this mean that if Health Care was written into the Constitution, it would be run effectively?
...
And maintaining the military is pretty complex... especially the procurement process of weapons systems and trainning... not to mention follow-on maintenance of systems, such as B-2 Bombers.
As for costs... those B-2 Bombers cost a lot of money... not just to build... but, research and development and documenting the processes as well as operations and maintenance.
And that trillion dollars we've spent on Iraq... it ain't coming back. But, you are right on one thing... the price Americans are currently paying for pills rivals the price of building and shooting off laser guided bombs.
...
As for that last comment... come on, was that really necessary?

Remind us what you do for a living again Cosmo...

...
I work in the machinery of the Military/Industrial Complex.
And yeah... that shit is expensive... but, it is run pretty effectively. I have faith in our military... which is run by... **GULP**... THE GOVERNMENT!!! Therefore, i believe the Government can handle Health Care.
...
Which is why I ask people... how do they reconcile their belief that the Government is this inept entity that cannot handle Health Care... yet, they can loiter an unmanned aircraft over the Swat Valley in Pakistan for 72 hours straight by air crews taking 8 hour shifts in the deserts of Palmdale, California and have it unload a laser guided munition on the head of a Taliban leader? is the Government fucking 'Rainman', or what?

You know what is ironic too, is that the two leading talking points contradict each other. On one side, the government run health care will be inefficient, cost too much, and make people wait in line, etc., but on the other side, it has an unfair advantage and put the private insurers out of business. Come on now, pick a side, and you can take you $800 million dollar quarterly profits with you.

Pepe Silvia · July 2009

prfctlefts wrote:

That has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism is a form of gov. :roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism refers to any one of various theories of economic organization advocating governmental or whole community ownership, and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation.

OffHeGoes29 · July 2009

Cosmo wrote:

...
I work in the machinery of the Military/Industrial Complex.
And yeah... that shit is expensive... but, it is run pretty effectively. I have faith in our military... which is run by... **GULP**... THE GOVERNMENT!!! Therefore, i believe the Government can handle Health Care.
...
Which is why I ask people... how do they reconcile their belief that the Government is this inept entity that cannot handle Health Care... yet, they can loiter an unmanned aircraft over the Swat Valley in Pakistan for 72 hours straight by air crews taking 8 hour shifts in the deserts of Palmdale, California and have it unload a laser guided munition on the head of a Taliban leader? is the Government fucking 'Rainman', or what?

And tell us if you think the government pays too much for your companies services?

VINNY GOOMBA · July 2009

Cosmo wrote:

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
I'm trying to figure out the logic, here...
So, does this mean that if Health Care was written into the Constitution, it would be run effectively?
...
And maintaining the military is pretty complex... especially the procurement process of weapons systems and trainning... not to mention follow-on maintenance of systems, such as B-2 Bombers.
As for costs... those B-2 Bombers cost a lot of money... not just to build... but, research and development and documenting the processes as well as operations and maintenance.
And that trillion dollars we've spent on Iraq... it ain't coming back. But, you are right on one thing... the price Americans are currently paying for pills rivals the price of building and shooting off laser guided bombs.
...
As for that last comment... come on, was that really necessary?

Remind us what you do for a living again Cosmo...

...
I work in the machinery of the Military/Industrial Complex.
And yeah... that shit is expensive... but, it is run pretty effectively. I have faith in our military... which is run by... **GULP**... THE GOVERNMENT!!! Therefore, i believe the Government can handle Health Care.
...
Which is why I ask people... how do they reconcile their belief that the Government is this inept entity that cannot handle Health Care... yet, they can loiter an unmanned aircraft over the Swat Valley in Pakistan for 72 hours straight by air crews taking 8 hour shifts in the deserts of Palmdale, California and have it unload a laser guided munition on the head of a Taliban leader? is the Government fucking 'Rainman', or what?

In my opinion, the government is like a virus. It has no conscience, it only aims to grow and therefore benefit those who help it grow. It operates on a giant slush fund with monopoly money, and basically the squeakiest wheels get the grease.

It truly IS a paradox in a lot of ways. You speak of this unmanned aircraft that operates with this incredible precision, yet we still have thousands of human lives on the ground, putting themselves in jeopardy. I do believe it IS CURRENTLY INEPT in handling defense, as would definitely be the same in handling health care. How much money is unnecessarily spent in the defense industry? How much of it is completely unaccounted for? Some changes in our foreign policy would ultimately facilitate more streamlined military spending, but it appears that is off the table for at least another four years.

The only thing that makes the (federal) government an attractive option in doing anything is its sheer size, power, and authority, and for some reason, people equate that with efficiency. I do not.

decides2dream · July 2009

thefin190 wrote:

It's just sad how polarized and uninformed are public is on politics. We cannot even have a friendly debate over politics anymore without getting enraged and hating each others guts, hence the continuation of the cycle of ignoring politics and keeping the public uninformed.

The word socialism has successfully been demonized by conservative politicians, and both democrats and republicans alike are scared to even use the word, just because the general public is educated to believe that capitalism = good, socialism = bad, private sector = good, government = bad, when this isn't the case at all. Capitalism's main objective is profit, and while the competition gives us a more comfortable style of living, if it isn't kept in check by government, businesses will cut corners and keep consumers uninformed, and we become more vertical of a society, where we have a very successful top 1% with a suffering lower and middle class. There is a balancing act between government and the private sector, socialism and capitalism. While the US has had a pretty good balancing act, lately (both democrats and republicans are to blame for this) we are becoming more vertical, where we focus too much on the economy and measure of human welfare by the GDP, while ignoring the increasing problems that our society presents to us.

well stated...it's all a balance between the two.
and hey, can't one be a true believer in captialism ANd see the value of social programs as well? again, balance...it doesn't have to be all or none.

and i do have to agree with cosmo to the point that yea, we all know the government fucks things up, but they also do a helluva lot of things 'right' too.....it's complex running anything as large as our country, our government, our programs...no matter what they are. and holy shit, there is plenty of waste in private corporations as well, i am amazed at times. only when things aren't going right do the issues get addressed, whether public or private.

_ · July 2009

decides2dream wrote:

thefin190 wrote:

It's just sad how polarized and uninformed are public is on politics. We cannot even have a friendly debate over politics anymore without getting enraged and hating each others guts, hence the continuation of the cycle of ignoring politics and keeping the public uninformed.

The word socialism has successfully been demonized by conservative politicians, and both democrats and republicans alike are scared to even use the word, just because the general public is educated to believe that capitalism = good, socialism = bad, private sector = good, government = bad, when this isn't the case at all. Capitalism's main objective is profit, and while the competition gives us a more comfortable style of living, if it isn't kept in check by government, businesses will cut corners and keep consumers uninformed, and we become more vertical of a society, where we have a very successful top 1% with a suffering lower and middle class. There is a balancing act between government and the private sector, socialism and capitalism. While the US has had a pretty good balancing act, lately (both democrats and republicans are to blame for this) we are becoming more vertical, where we focus too much on the economy and measure of human welfare by the GDP, while ignoring the increasing problems that our society presents to us.

well stated...it's all a balance between the two.
and hey, can't one be a true believer in captialism ANd see the value of social programs as well? again, balance...it doesn't have to be all or none.

and i do have to agree with cosmo to the point that yea, we all know the government fucks things up, but they also do a helluva lot of things 'right' too.....it's complex running anything as large as our country, our government, our programs...no matter what they are. and holy shit, there is plenty of waste in private corporations as well, i am amazed at times. only when things aren't going right do the issues get addressed, whether public or private.

Exactly. Only we don't care about all the private waste because private corporations aren't accountable to us like our government is. I'd rather give my money to an organization that's at least accountable to me in theory than to one which legally isn't.

JR8805 · July 2009

Cosmo wrote:

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

although it can be argued many of these things could be ran better for those who are against a more socialized approach to health care would you also be willing to give up the rest of these socialistic ideas?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF-W9zcw ... r_embedded

...
I have been saying this for years...
Why is it that Americans truely believe the government is fully capable of waging a war to protect us... but, completely inept at providing health care?

We have a lot of socialized everything here. I checked out a book from my library--yes, I make use of socialist institutions in this country. The book was a cozy murder mystery. Whoever had checked out the book before me had underlined or highlighted in yellow every reference to socialized medicine in Britain. And then had written his or her own commentary in the margins to bolster claims, totally defacing the book. I thought it was rich that here was someone who obviously frequents/benefits from public libraries complaining about socialism through the medium of a socialistic institution that enriches our daily lives. People are funny, belief-driven creatures. I'm pretty sure the underliner had no clue that without socialism in the US, she would be paying through the nose for every book that crossed her hands, or at least something to rent them from someone else who owned them.

I say down with libraries and fire departments!!! Nothing but socialist claptrap designed to RUIN this country! :twisted:

VINNY GOOMBA · July 2009

decides2dream wrote:

thefin190 wrote:

It's just sad how polarized and uninformed are public is on politics. We cannot even have a friendly debate over politics anymore without getting enraged and hating each others guts, hence the continuation of the cycle of ignoring politics and keeping the public uninformed.

The word socialism has successfully been demonized by conservative politicians, and both democrats and republicans alike are scared to even use the word, just because the general public is educated to believe that capitalism = good, socialism = bad, private sector = good, government = bad, when this isn't the case at all. Capitalism's main objective is profit, and while the competition gives us a more comfortable style of living, if it isn't kept in check by government, businesses will cut corners and keep consumers uninformed, and we become more vertical of a society, where we have a very successful top 1% with a suffering lower and middle class. There is a balancing act between government and the private sector, socialism and capitalism. While the US has had a pretty good balancing act, lately (both democrats and republicans are to blame for this) we are becoming more vertical, where we focus too much on the economy and measure of human welfare by the GDP, while ignoring the increasing problems that our society presents to us.

well stated...it's all a balance between the two.
and hey, can't one be a true believer in captialism ANd see the value of social programs as well? again, balance...it doesn't have to be all or none.

and i do have to agree with cosmo to the point that yea, we all know the government fucks things up, but they also do a helluva lot of things 'right' too.....it's complex running anything as large as our country, our government, our programs...no matter what they are. and holy shit, there is plenty of waste in private corporations as well, i am amazed at times. only when things aren't going right do the issues get addressed, whether public or private.

Under a real free-market capitalist system, waste in private corporations would ultimately lead to their demise. Poor business practice would not be protected, bailed out, or rewarded in anyway for poor decision making. The market would stand to keep companies far more "regulated" and on an even playing field than any man-made laws (excluding fraud, theft, collusion, etc..) and competition would be much fiercer.

Cosmo · July 2009

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

thefin190 wrote:

It's just sad how polarized and uninformed are public is on politics. We cannot even have a friendly debate over politics anymore without getting enraged and hating each others guts, hence the continuation of the cycle of ignoring politics and keeping the public uninformed.

The word socialism has successfully been demonized by conservative politicians, and both democrats and republicans alike are scared to even use the word, just because the general public is educated to believe that capitalism = good, socialism = bad, private sector = good, government = bad, when this isn't the case at all. Capitalism's main objective is profit, and while the competition gives us a more comfortable style of living, if it isn't kept in check by government, businesses will cut corners and keep consumers uninformed, and we become more vertical of a society, where we have a very successful top 1% with a suffering lower and middle class. There is a balancing act between government and the private sector, socialism and capitalism. While the US has had a pretty good balancing act, lately (both democrats and republicans are to blame for this) we are becoming more vertical, where we focus too much on the economy and measure of human welfare by the GDP, while ignoring the increasing problems that our society presents to us.

well stated...it's all a balance between the two.
and hey, can't one be a true believer in captialism ANd see the value of social programs as well? again, balance...it doesn't have to be all or none.

and i do have to agree with cosmo to the point that yea, we all know the government fucks things up, but they also do a helluva lot of things 'right' too.....it's complex running anything as large as our country, our government, our programs...no matter what they are. and holy shit, there is plenty of waste in private corporations as well, i am amazed at times. only when things aren't going right do the issues get addressed, whether public or private.

Under a real free-market capitalist system, waste in private corporations would ultimately lead to their demise. Poor business practice would not be protected, bailed out, or rewarded in anyway for poor decision making. The market would stand to keep companies far more "regulated" and on an even playing field than any man-made laws (excluding fraud, theft, collusion, etc..) and competition would be much fiercer.

...
Fierce to the point of actually murdering the competition? That's if the market is allowed to regulate itself. Because the market would NOT regulate itself and competition would rule. The best way to corner the market in your business... make it so you are the only business, right?
And Fraud, Theft and Collusion are man-made laws... if it weren't against the law... because there were no laws... it wouldn't be a crime.
Bottom line... there NEEDS to be an outside governing body that posts regulations... otherwise, we end up with the people making the money... and the rules.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun · July 2009

the correct answer is 75% capitalism, 25% socialism. give or take 5%. problem solved!

yeah, socialism is bad

Comments

Categories