Reputation: 232
Originally Posted by Manic
Exactly. He talks about lowering taxes, yet wishes to submit to a global tax.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=s110-2433
Not to mention the possible restrictions on our 2nd amendment rights that probably come along with submitting to the goals of the U.N.
Reputation: 12
obama looked real choked up at the debate today,and he seemd to dance around that apology mccain asked for,"since mccain didnt condone his supporters that reffered to obama as a terrorist'.I dont know why but obama just seems to act like a jerk at the debates.probly obama's worst debate.
Defntly could be considered socialist.
Reputation: 58
Considering the semi-violent nature of his deeds it could probably be argued that he may have been a Communist, but then that's just splitting hairs.
Reputation: 154
That's awesome.
My immediate impression of it:
From left to right:
MarchoftheBlackLions, Cloud13, Str1der, Manic
Reputation: 232
Friggin' sweet.
I'm Brian.
Reputation: 39
on the solicism issue, what people really fail to understand is that we already live in a socialistic democracy. We have since the birth of this country. It's called taxes.
You pay taxes to the government. The government then takes that money and puts it toward various things.
The trick is that some arn't so upfront about it.
Lets take our current health care system that the government has set up with private insurance companies.
Since it was established, the system worked in such a way that the insurence companies were subsidized. What this means is that, while the companies are private, they are very much funded by our tax money.
That is not direct socilism, but it is still socilism. The thing is, we also then pay the company money our selves.
So, you've got part of our taxes, whether or not you actully have health care, going to health insurance companies. And then on top of that you need to pay an additional amount to benifit from the service.
And the amount that we pay out of our taxes averages about $30 per person. Plus add what ever the cost you pay yourself for health care.
In comparison, France's completely direct socialistic health care system costs them $2 per person. It is 100% tax funded, and everyone pays for it.
But they pay an average less because the system is simply more efficiant.
So yes, I am for a universial health care system. For one reason, everyone gets health care. But also because it will cost me, and you, less taxes than our current health care system.
People always associate socilism to Soviet Russia or China. Which is true, they are communist run countries. But they were also dictator-based. People forget that there are also socilistic democrocies. Places such as most of Europe and yes, even America.
But thanks to the magic of Mcarthyism, a lot of people have a "black and white" "communism is pure evil" look and refuse to actully take a step back and look at the whole picture.
I suggest you read this:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...843168,00.html
The main thing is, the policies of the current reprisentitives of the Repulican party are socialistic. But it's socialistic in the sense that the money ends up going to a private company and they decide what to do with it. In the end, your taxes go to them, and then if you want their service you need to pay extra.
The option that the democrats suggest is that instead of giving that money to private companies, to run the programs ourselves where it's more benifical.
Granted, I am not saying that everything should be run like that. Far from it. But basic social services should be because for a country to correctly function you need to have capable people. I mean, look at where these policies have gotten us so far. We used to be the world super power.
(I will add on my comment above about USSR+dictatorship. The system they had in place somewhat resembled democracy, but it was far from it. The general public themselves had no say it in, and I consider that a key part of a democracy)
Reputation: 232
Anarcho-Capitalism all the way!
AMIRITE? I'm just saying...
Reputation: 39
Anarchy will never work, ever.
The main reason being, it won't stay that way.
Anarchy is a complete ruleless "system"(and it's not a system, I just couldn't think of the right word to use).
In Anarchy, it's everyone for themselves. Thing is, those with more money will be the more powerful ones. And then, one way or another, someone is going to come in and fill the void. Maybe it's a nice person. But I would doubt that. It would most likely be someone that comes in with guns a-toting, and simply takes over things for their own personal benefit.
And you now have a dictatorship.
Yey...>_>
Reputation: 58
2 more and we're a team.
I killed a man...
Reputation: 177
Reputation: 39
I would like to hear what other people have to say about the subject at hand though. Lets keep this on topic guys.
We can still have fun here, but lets not forget what this topic is suppose to be on, k?
Reputation: 58
Sad but true. A corruption free government would be too much to ask for, I suppose.
Str1der, I think ate your chocolate squirrel.
Reputation: 58
I personally support Joe the Plumber for president.
Reputation: 232
Reputation: 26![TheHol[]yTape's Avatar](image.php?u=112823&dateline=1292709685 "TheHol[]yTape's Avatar")
Yes, and I like him because of that.
Posting Permissions
