All In Favor Of Socialism

UNT90 · May 11, 2010

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/pew-poll-americans-may-be-warming-up-to-socialism/19472978

qoute:

"Socialism," two decades beyond the taint left by a collapsed Soviet Union, is still a negative for most Americans but far from all, the study showed. And some segments of the public -- younger Americans and Democrats among them -- favored or opposed "socialism" and "capitalism" in equal measure.

Well, looks like the liberalization of the education system has come home to roost.

So much for being your own man and making your own way.

Censored by Laurie · May 11, 2010

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/pew-poll-americans-may-be-warming-up-to-socialism/19472978

qoute:

"Socialism," two decades beyond the taint left by a collapsed Soviet Union, is still a negative for most Americans but far from all, the study showed. And some segments of the public -- younger Americans and Democrats among them -- favored or opposed "socialism" and "capitalism" in equal measure.

Well, looks like the liberalization of the education system has come home to roost.

So much for being your own man and making your own way.

Balance.

MDH · May 12, 2010

Canada, so hot right now, Canada.

UNT90 · May 12, 2010

Balance.

I don't want balance for socialism.

It just seems so... Un-American.

Censored by Laurie · May 12, 2010

I don't want balance for socialism.

It just seems so... Un-American.

Seems thought out.

...sigh

UNT90 · May 12, 2010

Seems thought out.

...sigh

Support for a form of government that has proven throughout history to be a failure is thought out?

...sigh

eulesseagle · May 12, 2010

We already have socialism in the USA. We have the richest poor, in all the world, on all our social financial programs...no wonder they don't want to work...no wonder we are flooded by illegals who see a financial gold mine. A banker friend of mine cashes Social Security checks up to $2500 - $2600 a piece for illegals who know no English and only present their Mexican Consulate I.D. Cards. On a side note...if the United States imposed the same restrictions and punishment for illegals as the Mexican governement there would, probably be less crossings and more out cries from American liberals.

We subsidize all our transportation, tell educators what and how to teach, pay the poor not to work but vote democratic (see paragraph 1), own the banking industry & getting ready to bail out Greece (yep, as I have been saying all along I knew the American people would come to the aid of Greece just like we did when this administration help bail out some of the other European banks on the first bailouts), getting ready to own insurance, agriculture...., foriegn aid up the yazoooooo.

Over the last year and a half or so months their has been an interesting shift in European politics. They, as a general group, have been shifting more to the right. I guess you might say conservative socialists but it has been a move to the right. I think Greece has been the final wake up call with Spain and Portugal not too far behind. England just elected a Conservative .... whatever a conservative is in a socailistic country......Germany has been riding a conservative government....Italy has been riding a small wave of conservatism, lately....but the Italians could swing totally the other way tomorrow and another way the day after that. I think it is in their genes. not to confused with jeans.

My point is that while this Admin like past administrations have been going socialist since Wilson, more so under FDR & LBJ the "European socailist model" is in meltdown. Too many people on their "government rolls" and negative population growth brought on by various factors. The only group, in Europe, that is growing are the Muslims. Europeans are at around 1.1 - 1.2 growth (as i remember) and you need something like 1.4 children per household just to maintain growth. The Muslims are at about 4-5.

Why are we headed toward socialism? A friend of mine son...who now is a British citizen and works for the government said...."we are still trying to find a model that works."

The United States is too far along to go back toward democracy. Everything that is being said, now, is toward "Global Governace." All you have to do is read what is being said by the various governments including ours. One world government.

Censored by Laurie · May 12, 2010

Support for a form of government that has proven throughout history to be a failure is thought out?

...sigh

The post office, VA hospital and the FDA are failures?

Any political/economic system is a failure in its absolute form, whether it be Capitalism, Socialism or Points for Sex.

Thus...balance.

We already have socialism in the USA. We have the richest poor, in all the world, on all our social financial programs...no wonder they don't want to work...no wonder we are flooded by illegals who see a financial gold mine. A banker friend of mine cashes Social Security checks up to $2500 - $2600 a piece for illegals who know no English and only present their Mexican Consulate I.D. Cards. On a side note...if the United States imposed the same restrictions and punishment for illegals as the Mexican governement there would, probably be less crossings and more out cries from American liberals.

We subsidize all our transportation, tell educators what and how to teach, pay the poor not to work but vote democratic (see paragraph 1), own the banking industry & getting ready to bail out Greece (yep, as I have been saying all along I knew the American people would come to the aid of Greece just like we did when this administration help bail out some of the other European banks on the first bailouts), getting ready to own insurance, agriculture...., foriegn aid up the yazoooooo.

Over the last year and a half or so months their has been an interesting shift in European politics. They, as a general group, have been shifting more to the right. I guess you might say conservative socialists but it has been a move to the right. I think Greece has been the final wake up call with Spain and Portugal not too far behind. England just elected a Conservative .... whatever a conservative is in a socailistic country......Germany has been riding a conservative government....Italy has been riding a small wave of conservatism, lately....but the Italians could swing totally the other way tomorrow and another way the day after that. I think it is in their genes. not to confused with jeans.

My point is that while this Admin like past administrations have been going socialist since Wilson, more so under FDR & LBJ the "European socailist model" is in meltdown. Too many people on their "government rolls" and negative population growth brought on by various factors. The only group, in Europe, that is growing are the Muslims. Europeans are at around 1.1 - 1.2 growth (as i remember) and you need something like 1.4 children per household just to maintain growth. The Muslims are at about 4-5.

Why are we headed toward socialism? A friend of mine son...who now is a British citizen and works for the government said...."we are still trying to find a model that works."

The United States is too far along to go back toward democracy. Everything that is being said, now, is toward "Global Governace." All you have to do is read what is being said by the various governments including ours. One world government.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · May 12, 2010

We already have socialism in the USA. We have the richest poor, in all the world, on all our social financial programs...no wonder they don't want to work...no wonder we are flooded by illegals who see a financial gold mine. A banker friend of mine cashes Social Security checks up to $2500 - $2600 a piece for illegals who know no English and only present their Mexican Consulate I.D. Cards. On a side note...if the United States imposed the same restrictions and punishment for illegals as the Mexican governement there would, probably be less crossings and more out cries from American liberals.

We subsidize all our transportation, tell educators what and how to teach, pay the poor not to work but vote democratic (see paragraph 1), own the banking industry & getting ready to bail out Greece (yep, as I have been saying all along I knew the American people would come to the aid of Greece just like we did when this administration help bail out some of the other European banks on the first bailouts), getting ready to own insurance, agriculture...., foriegn aid up the yazoooooo.

Over the last year and a half or so months their has been an interesting shift in European politics. They, as a general group, have been shifting more to the right. I guess you might say conservative socialists but it has been a move to the right. I think Greece has been the final wake up call with Spain and Portugal not too far behind. England just elected a Conservative .... whatever a conservative is in a socailistic country......Germany has been riding a conservative government....Italy has been riding a small wave of conservatism, lately....but the Italians could swing totally the other way tomorrow and another way the day after that. I think it is in their genes. not to confused with jeans.

My point is that while this Admin like past administrations have been going socialist since Wilson, more so under FDR & LBJ the "European socailist model" is in meltdown. Too many people on their "government rolls" and negative population growth brought on by various factors. The only group, in Europe, that is growing are the Muslims. Europeans are at around 1.1 - 1.2 growth (as i remember) and you need something like 1.4 children per household just to maintain growth. The Muslims are at about 4-5.

Why are we headed toward socialism? A friend of mine son...who now is a British citizen and works for the government said...."we are still trying to find a model that works."

The United States is too far along to go back toward democracy. Everything that is being said, now, is toward "Global Governace." All you have to do is read what is being said by the various governments including ours. One world government.

In other words, you're saying we already prop up the lawbreakers and the lazy. Unfortunately, they are reproducing at a faster rates than those of us who work and play by the rules.

Here's the most disgusting part of the whole thing - Democrats campaign against "the rich." Fine. They run around now putting even more regulations on the banking industry as whole due to the sins of a few. Then, they go out and say that they are working for "the ordinary American."

Really? Who is hurt most by the credit crunch created by government interference in banking? "The rich"? Hardly. They already have theirs. Oh, so they may make a few million this year instead of 10 or 20 million.

Meanwhile, small business people, entreprenuers, and families who formerly relied on credit are losing businesses, jobs, and homes.

As a commercial insurance agent, I've seen it personally. I've watched a customer who owned 10 restaurants shut down five of them over the past two years because he couldn't get credit lines the way he used to.

I've seen a doctor who aided cancer patients close two of his three offices due to his inability to get more credit. I've seen a developer have two office buildings foreclose because he couldn't get lines of credit to continue.

These guys were, in ObamaWorld "rich" because they took home more than $250k per year. But, none of them made more than about a million. They own small businesses and provided good paying jobs at one time.

But, because the Democrats were so eager to punish bankers and "the rich" because of the mortgage crisis (which was fueled in the first place by government forcing banks to take on bad loans from people who had poor credit histories), they now have closed operations - thereby putting people in the unemployment line.

The problem with socialism is always the same - there is no equality of result. You can't force it. The industrious and risk-takers will always gain; the lazy will always fail and be poor.

Caught in the political crossfire is the middle class - and, they always foot the bill as they are driven, by their government "saviours," to the poorer side of the ledger.

Edited May 12, 2010 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

UNTFan23 · May 12, 2010

The post office, VA hospital and the FDA are failures?

Any political/economic system is a failure in its absolute form, whether it be Capitalism, Socialism or Points for Sex.

Thus...balance.

How long has the USPS been operating in the red? In order to right the ship, they are considering the elimination of Saturday operations. They have even gone so far as to consider dropping deliveries on a weekday -- Tuesday or Wednesday is what I have heard.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · May 12, 2010

How long has the USPS been operating in the red? In order to right the ship, they are considering the elimination of Saturday operations. They have even gone so far as to consider dropping deliveries on a weekday -- Tuesday or Wednesday is what I have heard.

Exactly. And, ever visit a VA hospital? They are awful. My dad thought he'd go down there because he's a vet. He went once and never went back. Thankfully, he's been successful enough to not have to use these government run atrocities.

The FDA? You must be kidding. It is the apex of political hackery and backroom machinations.

Censored by Laurie · May 12, 2010

Exactly. And, ever visit a VA hospital? They are awful. My dad thought he'd go down there because he's a vet. He went once and never went back. Thankfully, he's been successful enough to not have to use these government run atrocities.

The FDA? You must be kidding. It is the apex of political hackery and backroom machinations.

So f those lazy veterans who don't have the resources of your father? I mean they served their country, but then they probably all turned to drugs, had children out of wedlock and are already nursing at the teat of the government like the rest of the poor, right?

And certainly why should we establish any regulations on what we put into our body? Ground chuck for $.10 a pound? Hell ya. Who cares if it actually came from horse that died 3 weeks ago and has been rotting in a 90 degree chop-house? And we can just let the pharm companies test their latest break-through out on all of those lazy poor...if it turns out to be successful or carcinogenic its win-win!

LongJim · May 12, 2010

Hey, didn't you guys notice that the word "taint" was used in this thread???

For Pete's sake, there are rules here...

Shuke-D · May 12, 2010

Hey, didn't you guys notice that the word "taint" was used in this thread???

For Pete's sake, there are rules here...

This is a politics thread, so keep it serious. And speak 'Merkin!

MeanGreenTexan · May 12, 2010

This is a politics thread, so keep it serious. And speak 'Merkin!

"taint" is "'Merikin". For example:

Taint right fer them to repo my trailer!

Shuke-D · May 12, 2010

"taint" is "'Merikin". For example:

Taint right fer them to repo my trailer!

Words that sound like one thing but are spelled another are fun. For example:

Artificial rugs aint 'Merkin.

Or are they?

UNTFan23 · May 12, 2010

And certainly why should we establish any regulations on what we put into our body? Ground chuck for $.10 a pound? Hell ya. Who cares if it actually came from horse that died 3 weeks ago and has been rotting in a 90 degree chop-house? And we can just let the pharm companies test their latest break-through out on all of those lazy poor...if it turns out to be successful or carcinogenic its win-win!

I'd totally be behind your FDA argument if it weren't for the fact we've had many food recalls the past couple years. I think the FDA has fallen behind in policing food manufactures if you compare the number of food borne illnesses in the 80s and 90s compared to 2000 through 2010. Part of that is due to the importing of produce and meat from countries such as Mexico and perhaps rather lax testing that takes place when product crosses the border into the US.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · May 12, 2010

So f those lazy veterans who don't have the resources of your father? I mean they served their country, but then they probably all turned to drugs, had children out of wedlock and are already nursing at the teat of the government like the rest of the poor, right?

And certainly why should we establish any regulations on what we put into our body? Ground chuck for $.10 a pound? Hell ya. Who cares if it actually came from horse that died 3 weeks ago and has been rotting in a 90 degree chop-house? And we can just let the pharm companies test their latest break-through out on all of those lazy poor...if it turns out to be successful or carcinogenic its win-win!

What are you talking about? We're talking about well run entities versus government run entities.

If my dad is successful enough to not have to go to the poorly run government hospital, he shouldn't have to. But, that's what we'll all evetually be shepherded into - except the rich, who can always buy out - if we are in the middle class.

You miss the point. This point is all of this government regulation supposedly aimed at bringing down the rich never affects them. It's the middle class that is screwed as a result. That's what happened with the credit card reform, and that's what is happening now with banking reform.

And, it is going to happen with the health care bill is fully implemented. The rich will go elsewhere and the middle class will be stuck with the bill...and stuck with fewer services than they could chose on their own before the bill. All in the name of 32 million people (which is another lie...they'll dump 50 million on the system), the majority of whom either don't want to buy it for themselves or who refuse to make the sacrifices necessary to budget for it.

Also, I pity anyone who thinks that the FDA and pharmaceutical companies are at odds. Those companies have been buying off the FDA for years. Same with the big agricultural outfits that are subsidized to the hilt with out tax dollars.

As for any type of further regulation, go hit a law library. There are already over 75,000 pages of regulation on the book federally and more coming every year! And, we need more?

At some point, you let the winners win and the losers lose. We already have safety nets for the losers from cradle to grave. Why pull the middle class down with them? Let the failures fail on their own. But, they sure shouldn't dictate how the people in the middle pay taxes - and mostly for services they don't need - and choose services, such are where to get their own health care.

You cannot equalize society. It cannot be done because there are too many lazy people. What I'm saying is quit punishing the middle class under the guise of "sticking it to the rich." Anyone who believe "the rich" are getting stuck or having things taken away are completely blind to any basic notion of economics.

The rich will stay rich, the poor will stay poor - and the middle class will get screwed along the way every time a bill is passed that foolishly tries to close the "gap" between them. The only way to close the gap is to get off your butt, quit crying to the government, and work!

CaribbeanGreen · May 12, 2010

What are you talking about? We're talking about well run entities versus government run entities.

Not taking either side here, but a quick word about the bashing of all things "government run"..... statistically speaking, government agencies perform at incredibly high levels and have customer satisfaction indices as high or higher than many private sector counterparts. The work that agencies like the USPS do on the scale they do it on is astounding. Their performance rates are generally very high. This is not to say that the public sector > the private sector - governments use more contracting out/privatization now than ever before, and it's been an often successful hybrid. The line between completely public and private is blurrier now than ever, and in most cases the public sector is better for it. Both sides are necessary, and can utilize the other to maximize performance and best serve the public good. That said, the myth that the government can't effectively run anything isn't borne out by statistics.

Are there problems? Absolutely yes... but given the scope of the operation, cost-per-customer breakdown, and overall satisfaction and performance metrics, most American government agencies that directly serve citizens are very effective and arguably among the best in the world.

A good read on the subject can be found here: http://www.cqpress.c...t/Case-for.html ... Goodsell is a interesting dude, and the book is jammed full of surveys, statistics, and other empirical data collected by a number of respected individuals and institutions. It never advocates for any sort of expansion of the public sector or even any sort of superiority of the private sector - it's essentially apolitical, so don't worry. It's simply an analysis of the important work that the bureaucracy does and a more accurate representation of government performance, removed from personal bias and familiar jokes and insults.

But I agree w/ LongJim for the most part... we're burying the lead here. TAINT! TAINT! TAINT HAPPENS HERE!

Edited May 12, 2010 by CaribbeanGreen

UNT90 · May 13, 2010

Not taking either side here, but a quick word about the bashing of all things "government run"..... statistically speaking, government agencies perform at incredibly high levels and have customer satisfaction indices as high or higher than many private sector counterparts. The work that agencies like the USPS do on the scale they do it on is astounding. Their performance rates are generally very high. This is not to say that the public sector > the private sector - governments use more contracting out/privatization now than ever before, and it's been an often successful hybrid. The line between completely public and private is blurrier now than ever, and in most cases the public sector is better for it. Both sides are necessary, and can utilize the other to maximize performance and best serve the public good. That said, the myth that the government can't effectively run anything isn't borne out by statistics.

Are there problems? Absolutely yes... but given the scope of the operation, cost-per-customer breakdown, and overall satisfaction and performance metrics, most American government agencies that directly serve citizens are very effective and arguably among the best in the world.

A good read on the subject can be found here: http://www.cqpress.c...t/Case-for.html ... Goodsell is a interesting dude, and the book is jammed full of surveys, statistics, and other empirical data collected by a number of respected individuals and institutions. It never advocates for any sort of expansion of the public sector or even any sort of superiority of the private sector - it's essentially apolitical, so don't worry. It's simply an analysis of the important work that the bureaucracy does and a more accurate representation of government performance, removed from personal bias and familiar jokes and insults.

But I agree w/ LongJim for the most part... we're burying the lead here. TAINT! TAINT! TAINT HAPPENS HERE!

Not really surprised that a Professor of Public Administration would be in favor of... Public Administration.

Just sayin...

CaribbeanGreen · May 13, 2010

Not really surprised that a Professor of Public Administration would be in favor of... Public Administration.

Just sayin...

Oh, he acknowledges plenty of issues along the way as well, make no mistake about it. But it's a very well done book with legitimate academic surveys, studies, and research from multiple sources. There would have had to be a SERIOUS effort to commit massive academic fraud by a number of people to invalidate the whole point of the book, in which the primary variable is customer satisfaction in service provision.

And I'm not particularly comfortable with the argument that a PA or Poly Sci (Goodsell is both) professor can not be critical of PA.... some of the most direct and pointed criticisms of PA in general have come from PA professors... in fact, I'd venture to say few in the field speak glowingly about it (not so much as Goodsell to be sure). That's a massive question of the credibility of an academic professional to assume such... and that goes for professors in any field, not just PA. I'd venture to say most experts or academics feel as though their field could undergo countless changes (and you can find contrarian academic journal articles to almost any idea) - in fact, they're just the profession that often engineers such change.

eulesseagle · May 13, 2010

Finch, good post.

eulessismore · May 13, 2010

Not taking either side here, but a quick word about the bashing of all things "government run"..... statistically speaking, government agencies perform at incredibly high levels and have customer satisfaction indices as high or higher than many private sector counterparts. The work that agencies like the USPS do on the scale they do it on is astounding. Their performance rates are generally very high. This is not to say that the public sector > the private sector - governments use more contracting out/privatization now than ever before, and it's been an often successful hybrid. The line between completely public and private is blurrier now than ever, and in most cases the public sector is better for it. Both sides are necessary, and can utilize the other to maximize performance and best serve the public good. That said, the myth that the government can't effectively run anything isn't borne out by statistics.

Are there problems? Absolutely yes... but given the scope of the operation, cost-per-customer breakdown, and overall satisfaction and performance metrics, most American government agencies that directly serve citizens are very effective and arguably among the best in the world.

A good read on the subject can be found here: http://www.cqpress.c...t/Case-for.html ... Goodsell is a interesting dude, and the book is jammed full of surveys, statistics, and other empirical data collected by a number of respected individuals and institutions. It never advocates for any sort of expansion of the public sector or even any sort of superiority of the private sector - it's essentially apolitical, so don't worry. It's simply an analysis of the important work that the bureaucracy does and a more accurate representation of government performance, removed from personal bias and familiar jokes and insults.

But I agree w/ LongJim for the most part... we're burying the lead here. TAINT! TAINT! TAINT HAPPENS HERE!

I would guess that a blow could be struck against socialism by the next Republican candidate by proposing, Like Barry Goldwater, that the Tennessee Valley Authority be sold. Once during his campaign, after he stated that position, his campaign manager famously said something like "every time he makes a speech, he loses a state". It didn't seem to hurt Ronald Reagan though, although Reagan never succeeded in privatizing it. I don't know if anyone in Congress authored any such legislation during the Reagan years. Here's one link:

TVA

But, as for the real story here, the only place I have heard the taint discussed on broadcast media was some guys on the Ticket (the Hard Line?) discussing it. One of of the guys on the discussion panel claimed that another guy there had "North Texas" tattooed on his taint (and there was no denial). I concluded at the time that there is something peculiarly North Texas about the taint. I can't figure this out, and anyone here is welcome to tell me I'm wrong.

CaribbeanGreen · May 13, 2010

I would guess that a blow could be struck against socialism by the next Republican candidate by proposing, Like Barry Goldwater, that the Tennessee Valley Authority be sold. Once during his campaign, after he stated that position, his campaign manager famously said something like "every time he makes a speech, he loses a state". It didn't seem to hurt Ronald Reagan though, although Reagan never succeeded in privatizing it. I don't know if anyone in Congress authored any such legislation during the Reagan years. Here's one link:

TVA

But, as for the real story here, the only place I have heard the taint discussed on broadcast media was some guys on the Ticket (the Hard Line?) discussing it. One of of the guys on the discussion panel claimed that another guy there had "North Texas" tattooed on his taint (and there was no denial). I concluded at the time that there is something peculiarly North Texas about the taint. I can't figure this out, and anyone here is welcome to tell me I'm wrong.

Clearly, you've never looked for love in post-apocalyptic Detroit.