Now, did I say everything had to be written in stone on the highest level? No, I did not make a single statement about how you idiots could implement a solution. I however seem to be forced to give some suggestions seeing as thinking for yourselves seems, very stereotypically, hard. Here's my suggestion that will address EVERYTHIGN. Not every damn thing needs to be decided on a national level (you have state governments, those are also governments!), on a national level you can decide upon minimums. For example, on a national level the decision can be made that every state needs to spend a minimum of x% of their budget on education. The states can then for themselves decide whether or not they want to spend more than x% or not. Of course there are also issues that would be stupid to let states decide for themselves. Same-sex marriage for example. Either disallow it on a national level, or allow it. I don't understand the stupidity of letting a topic like that be decided upon by the states. Then again, I also don't understand why there's this entire stupid circus to decide which person (singular) gets to sit in the White House. Especially since the trend seems to be that these elections are very close and thus pretty much half the country is pissed off because the other half+1 thought it was better to put a monkey on the chair.
So, now you're arguing for and against State's rights in the same paragraph? That's ridiculous. I mean, I know you're not from around here, but seriously, you're either for federalism or against it. We fought a whole war over that (and economics and slavery, mostly). And spending money does not equal fixing problems. Spending money wisely is more important than spending more money. And a state or local government can much more easily manage proper spending than a federal government can. At least, our federal government. With like 6 people in your country, the PM might have time to personally check your check book balance, but we've got more important stuff for our federal leaders to deal with.
And, why should social issues be forcibly decided on a federal level? If a social mandate is desired by the residents of a state, their representatives will bring it up and vote on it. Actually, many states give voters the ability to place referendums on ballots for just such occasions. Local example...our county has a continuing 1% sales tax to help fund the building of new schools. It must be reapproved by voters every 2 years. Other counties have other ways to pay for this work. If the voters decide - at some point - that the school board is spending this money poorly, or that it is no longer needed (property taxes have gone way up so it's too much money, whatever) they can vote it down. Done on a local level, this is managable.
One other mistake people are consistently making is the idea that the US is a democracy. We are not! We're a republic. We do not get to vote on every single issue that effects our country. We elect people to represent us in Congress, in state legislatures, etc. And when it comes to the Presidential election, at least our way of doing things has never ended in a headline reading "Government coalition collapses" or "PM disbands Parliment." Our system isn't perfect but it works for us. If you hippies over in Europe have systems that work for you, good on ya. I keep hearing how the US shouldn't impose itself on the rest of the world. Take your own advice.
Our system isn't perfect but it works for us. If you hippies over in Europe have systems that work for you, good on ya. I keep hearing how the US shouldn't impose itself on the rest of the world. Take your own advice.
But what if some of us feel like our system could be working better? Plus, there's a difference between forcing a system on someone, and copying an idea.
So, now you're arguing for and against State's rights in the same paragraph?
No, you just fail to comprehend what I say.
[Y]ou're either for federalism or against it.
Fixing...
[Y]ou're either black or white.
What about a shade of gray, sir?
Spending money wisely is more important than spending more money. And a state or local government can much more easily manage proper spending than a federal government can. At least, our federal government.
That is my point, that is what you are missing. Did I not say that you should stop voting to place a monkey for 4 years in the White House?
With like 6 people in your country, the PM might have time to personally check your check book balance, but we've got more important stuff for our federal leaders to deal with.
Like asking us how to build a proper dyke and live without worries for the possible natural disasters.
And, why should social issues be forcibly decided on a federal level?
Because that is my personal stance speaking in my SUGGESTION. The word 'example' comes to mind.
Our system isn't perfect but it works for us. If you hippies over in Europe have systems that work for you, good on ya. I keep hearing how the US shouldn't impose itself on the rest of the world. Take your own advice.
Clearly it is not working for you. Did you not hear the news? As for imposing, whahahaha, 1. I'm _one_ person, not an entire country, 2. I'm not imposing myself on anything, I'm suggesting, and hoping to make your sorry head start using its gray matter. My last advice to you is this:
Learn to comprehend the words you are supposed to speak natively.
So, now you're arguing for and against State's rights in the same paragraph?
No, you just fail to comprehend what I say.
No, you offered the suggestion of Federal mandates and state control in the same paragraph.
With like 6 people in your country, the PM might have time to personally check your check book balance, but we've got more important stuff for our federal leaders to deal with.
Like asking us how to build a proper dyke and live without worries for the possible natural disasters.
Which was the responsibility of the city of New Orleans, the state of Louisiana and the Army Corps of Engineers. The Feds are pretty far down the list of people responsible for the initial problems in New Orleans. But, yes, zing. Good for you. Regardless of the fact the Cat 5 hurricanes are not prevalent in Northern Europe, continue to mock.
And, why should social issues be forcibly decided on a federal level?
Because that is my personal stance speaking in mySUGGESTION. The word 'example' comes to mind.
That's not an answer to the question. You have an obviously strong opinion on how someone else's government should be run. I'm thrilled you have an opinion. Good for you. My question was why social issues should be federally mandated. If you don't have an answer besides "that is my personal stance" then don't bother talking about it.
Our system isn't perfect but it works for us. If you hippies over in Europe have systems that work for you, good on ya. I keep hearing how the US shouldn't impose itself on the rest of the world. Take your own advice.
Clearly it is not working for you. Did you not hear the news? As for imposing, whahahaha, 1. I'm _one_ person, not an entire country, 2. I'm not imposing myself on anything, I'm suggesting, and hoping to make your sorry head start using its gray matter. My last advice to you is this:Learn to comprehend the words you are supposed to speak natively.
(/sarcasm)Clearly our entire system of government and finance doesn't work because of the last few months. Your economic views are astounding. (/sarcasm)Does the fact that the dollar has made great gains against the Euro ($1 - E1.37 as of today) mean that Europe is doing poorly too? Let's see how capitalism has done over the last century, shall we? Great Depression? Worked our way through that. Oil shortage in the 70s? Worked through that. Crash of 1987? Yup. Current crisis? Economy still working, unemployment not up too far. Yeah, the stock market fell Monday. Then it mostly recoveredTuesday and has been stable the last two days. Is it bad? Yeah. Is it the end of capitalism? Don't be an idiot. You're telling me to think? And, insisting that things should change in a country in which you do not live is an imposition. And, since your English vocab lessons didn't include the word hyperbole I include the definition here:
–noun Rhetoric. 1. obvious and intentional exaggeration. 2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.â€Â
Lemme go ahead and sum up the real answer to the thread's question: American's aren't afraid of socialism. We're a mostly stubborn people who won't generally accept the metric system. What makes you think we'll fundamentally change our entire financial and governmental system when the current one has served us? This current crisis, too, shall pass and we will continue to be one of the wealthiest countries in the world from top to bottom.
Last, Yosho, have you heard the thing about finishing first at the Special Olympics? If LSM did win, he's still retarded.
American's aren't afraid of socialism. We're a mostly stubborn people who won't generally accept the metric system.
I would say that over the years, I have found that people in general are very adverse to any change or shake up in their learned routine. If they weren't, there wouldn't be such a thing as a "conservative." lit. "Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change." Animals get unsettled when confronted with a sudden shift in their time schedule, most humans are basically the same. Other than the fact that switching over the road signs to Kilometers would take money, the refusal to use metric is a perfect example of the needless digging-in-of-the-heels typical of the American populace. Call it afraid, call it stubborn, the fact remains that people like to stick with what they know.
Last, Yosho, have you heard the thing about finishing first at the Special Olympics? If LSM did win, he's still retarded.
I hope you realize that this is a very, very sad attempt at insulting anyone, anywhere. Not only are you comparing this forum to the Special Olympics and insulting Rym and Scott, but you are also insulting every other person that took part in this discussion. And the worst part is the lack of complete perception. Sure, the person who came in first is still retarded, that's still a fact. However, those who did not come in first are also still retarded, but now they are also losers. I thought you would've had a problem with me, personally, but it seems that I was wrong. The rest of that post is just more of the same, so I shall not bother wasting more of my time repeating myself since it appears to be completely fruitless.
American's aren't afraid of socialism. We're a mostly stubborn people who won't generally accept the metric system.
That's not something that should make anyone feel proud. The failure to adopt the metric system is a prime example of how stupid Americans are. Comparing the failure to adopt the metric system to the failure to adopt socialism just makes it seem as though Americans are making another stupid choice by not adopting socialism.
I think we need to individually work to adopt the metric system, if we want to change it. If enough people apply social pressure to non-adopters, we'll eventually change over. I mean, it's taught it schools already, so people should know it.
My guess? Many Americans would prefer for the central government to be shrunk. Socialism seems to require a fairly large central government to keep operating smoothly. As such, some might think that socialism would be a step in the wrong direction.
My guess? Many Americans would prefer for the central government to be shrunk. Socialism seems to require a fairly large central government to keep operating smoothly. As such, some might think that socialism would be a step in the wrong direction.
This is an empty Republican talking point used to couch taking money away from social programs like the Department of Education in pleasant language. We do not need to "shrink" the government, we need to make it efficient. If you look at the trend since the 1980's many on the right have worked diligently to bloat the government with poorly laid out, poorly funded programs that bog down and drain from efficient programs. They have also consistently worked at keeping government wages low when compared with the private sector, thus many quality employees leave and many that may not have the skills to be competitive in the private sector are allowed to stay and even move up.
The reason that many Americans don't want a greater amount of socialism (as we already have a mix of capitalism and socialism) is that they think that it is less cost efficient for them, when in reality, many countries with a greater amount of socialism pay less in taxes, and because many wallet drainers like higher education, health care and child care are already taken care of by those taxes it leaves them with more money to use in any way they see fit. The problem is the existing lack of efficiency at the federal level and the fact that the individual states, counties, cities, town and villages have their own organization, taxes, and government structures create vast inequities and contribute to greater inefficiency of the government overall.
American's aren't afraid of socialism. We're a mostly stubborn people who won't generally accept the metric system.
That's not something that should make anyone feel proud. The failure to adopt the metric system is a prime example of how stupid Americans are. Comparing the failure to adopt the metric system to the failure to adopt socialism just makes it seem as though Americans are making another stupid choice by not adopting socialism.
While I think we should be going to the metric system, part of the problem is that current Americans don't think in metric. It'd almost be like switching all the signs in the US to be a completely different language.
On socialism: having some degree of social programs run by the overarching government is a good thing, but I think the problem most Americans have is that, generally speaking, we've used socialist policies more as a patch to fix problems than as an actual viable system. We've just historically tried to plug up problems by throwing money at them, and that's created the idea that social programs will always wind up costing us a bunch of money.
I am paying for my own senior activities and with all I'm doing I'm going to be spending $5000 before Prom (going to Japan on a school trip). It's expensive to live in California and I agree that everyone has the right to enough money to survive off, but I don’t want to be told how I have to spend my money.
The US government can’t even run a decent school and now people want them to take over healthcare as well. The healthcare the government already runs a system and it's a piece of shit. I can't fathom how bad a socialized government healthcare system could be.
I truly believe that given the chance anyone could raise himself or herself out of any form of poverty. People come to America everyday to try and get that chance. We can institute any and every socialized institution and it won't get people out of poverty unless they want to be. I make $160 a week before taxes, and that’s enough for me to help my parents pay bills and still have money for me. No social program can do that. It always comes down to how badly they want it.
@ Chaosof99: Yes, I was born and raised as a Christian, but now I think for my self and am more of an agnostic
The US government can’t even run a decent school
Lots of public schools in the US are fantastic.
The healthcare the government already runs a system and it's a piece of shit.
Before I address this, could you clarify what health care system(s) the US government runs?
I truly believe that given the chance anyone could raise himself or herself out of any form of poverty.
The key there is given the chance. Social welfare programs are designed to do just that.
I make $160 a week before taxes, and that’s enough for me to help my parents pay bills and still have money for me.
That's because you don't have any real expenses. That job also doesn't likely provide health care. One minor doctor's visit would kill a week's wages and then some.
No social program can do that.
Do what, exactly?
I think for my self and am more of an agnostic
If you say you're "agnostic," then you're actually atheist. Agnostic has very specific meaning, and it really doesn't apply to that argument. The vast majority of people who say they are "agnostic" are atheists who don't want to use that word or don't understand what agnosticism is.
You are a high school kid? For crying out loud, come back to the discussion table when you are paying for rent and bread. PROM, he says. Yeah, you really need your money dude.
it won't get people out of poverty unless they want to be.
Look, who doesn't want to be? The problem is that people make poor decisions due to being ill informed as to how to manage their money. I'm not going to say that people (and our faulty government) always take the best advantages of what chances they might have to better themselves, but seriously, you think rising in the economic ranks is that easy? That's kind of like saying - Emily, you middle class apartment-living bohemian, why aren't you a millionaire by now? Don't you want it enough?
I agree that everyone has the right to enough money to survive off, but I don’t want to be told how Ihaveto spendmymoney.
I hate being told what to do! Damn those laws saying I can't punch people! Okay, that was an exaggeration, but you don't want economic anarchy either. If you think everybody has a right to the basic necessities of survival (such as food and shelter) it's your responsibility to help them have them. Who else will provide these things? Even now, the government is like the great, big, somewhat inept kindergarten teacher that makes everyone share.
I think some of the fear of Socialism comes from religious roots.
I know that my grandpa, who is very religious, is very outspoken against the evils of Socialism, and he has noted why profusely.
I think the argument goes something like this: Socialism takes the fate and care of man and puts it in secular hands, out of the grace and providence of God. This is a betrayel to God. All bounty that man receives comes from God, and it is an afront to God to create a system where man creates this for himself.
Again, this is not my argument. This is a right wing religious argument. I don't think this is the explanation, but it may well be a part of it.
I think most americans are afraid of socialism because of the Cold War. But then again I am no expert.
But then again, I think you are right. Bias due to the cold war is a big part of it.
Let me clarify my stance. Communism obviously doesn't work. People should not want Communism, as it is a system that inevitably ends up corrupt and full of fail. Our current government is inefficient and bureaucratic and our country large, two things that make a socialist system likely to be difficult to maintain. However, the concept of providing anyone who needs it with the bare essentials of a progressive, modern society (basic education, basic shelter, basic food, basic medical care) while still providing the possibility for betterment and enhancement of one's situation (capitalist competition) is appealing to me. People are kinda greedy with their money. I'm not saying "Yes, take all your money and give it to the government," I'm saying, wouldn't our society be better if everyone started out at common base line of economic stability? So, instead of starting out from 0, they start out from 1. Unfortunately, that means the wealthy start off from 999999 instead of 1000000.
Anyone who believes that the christian religion is against socialism rather than for it is a profound moron. And now I am actually going to quote the bible (simply because someone posted this in a different forum in a discussion about religion and I was eager to use it):
25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
26"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
27He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'[c]; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[d]"
28"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
29But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
30In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. 35The next day he took out two silver coins[e] and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'
36"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"
37The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."
I think gramps was a product of Cold War, one-country-under-God politics. Communist countries eschew religion, so of course the churches would be against it.
All bounty that man receives comes from God, and it is anaffrontto God to create a system where man creates this for himself.
By that logic, farming is a sin, as is charity.
Well, there are a lot of ways to spin that. Farming is technically God's bounty, since God made the seeds; you're just doing his work for him. The same would then go for charity; since the bounty came from God in the first place, redistributing is just you participating in God's system.
No, it doesn't really make sense, but do you really expect rationality out of the bible?
Comments
And, why should social issues be forcibly decided on a federal level? If a social mandate is desired by the residents of a state, their representatives will bring it up and vote on it. Actually, many states give voters the ability to place referendums on ballots for just such occasions. Local example...our county has a continuing 1% sales tax to help fund the building of new schools. It must be reapproved by voters every 2 years. Other counties have other ways to pay for this work. If the voters decide - at some point - that the school board is spending this money poorly, or that it is no longer needed (property taxes have gone way up so it's too much money, whatever) they can vote it down. Done on a local level, this is managable.
One other mistake people are consistently making is the idea that the US is a democracy. We are not! We're a republic. We do not get to vote on every single issue that effects our country. We elect people to represent us in Congress, in state legislatures, etc. And when it comes to the Presidential election, at least our way of doing things has never ended in a headline reading "Government coalition collapses" or "PM disbands Parliment." Our system isn't perfect but it works for us. If you hippies over in Europe have systems that work for you, good on ya. I keep hearing how the US shouldn't impose itself on the rest of the world. Take your own advice.
Learn to comprehend the words you are supposed to speak natively.
Last, Yosho, have you heard the thing about finishing first at the Special Olympics? If LSM did win, he's still retarded.
The reason that many Americans don't want a greater amount of socialism (as we already have a mix of capitalism and socialism) is that they think that it is less cost efficient for them, when in reality, many countries with a greater amount of socialism pay less in taxes, and because many wallet drainers like higher education, health care and child care are already taken care of by those taxes it leaves them with more money to use in any way they see fit. The problem is the existing lack of efficiency at the federal level and the fact that the individual states, counties, cities, town and villages have their own organization, taxes, and government structures create vast inequities and contribute to greater inefficiency of the government overall.
On socialism: having some degree of social programs run by the overarching government is a good thing, but I think the problem most Americans have is that, generally speaking, we've used socialist policies more as a patch to fix problems than as an actual viable system. We've just historically tried to plug up problems by throwing money at them, and that's created the idea that social programs will always wind up costing us a bunch of money.
Socialism: It's FANtastic!
Socialism: It's what's for dinner.
All the cool kids are socilaists.
This is your brain. This is your brain after a capitalist foreclose on it. Any questions?
Mikey won't like Marx. He hates all political science. He likes it! Hey Mikey!
Socialism: You're soaking in it.
Is she a socialist? Only her central planner knows for sure . . .
How many licks does it take to get to the dessicated black heart of a capitalist?
Silly rabbit, health care should be for everyone!
Jesus was a socialist!
The US government can’t even run a decent school and now people want them to take over healthcare as well. The healthcare the government already runs a system and it's a piece of shit. I can't fathom how bad a socialized government healthcare system could be.
I truly believe that given the chance anyone could raise himself or herself out of any form of poverty. People come to America everyday to try and get that chance. We can institute any and every socialized institution and it won't get people out of poverty unless they want to be. I make $160 a week before taxes, and that’s enough for me to help my parents pay bills and still have money for me. No social program can do that. It always comes down to how badly they want it.
@ Chaosof99: Yes, I was born and raised as a Christian, but now I think for my self and am more of an agnostic
I know that my grandpa, who is very religious, is very outspoken against the evils of Socialism, and he has noted why profusely.
I think the argument goes something like this:
Socialism takes the fate and care of man and puts it in secular hands, out of the grace and providence of God. This is a betrayel to God. All bounty that man receives comes from God, and it is an afront to God to create a system where man creates this for himself.
Again, this is not my argument. This is a right wing religious argument. I don't think this is the explanation, but it may well be a part of it.
Let me clarify my stance. Communism obviously doesn't work. People should not want Communism, as it is a system that inevitably ends up corrupt and full of fail. Our current government is inefficient and bureaucratic and our country large, two things that make a socialist system likely to be difficult to maintain. However, the concept of providing anyone who needs it with the bare essentials of a progressive, modern society (basic education, basic shelter, basic food, basic medical care) while still providing the possibility for betterment and enhancement of one's situation (capitalist competition) is appealing to me. People are kinda greedy with their money. I'm not saying "Yes, take all your money and give it to the government," I'm saying, wouldn't our society be better if everyone started out at common base line of economic stability? So, instead of starting out from 0, they start out from 1. Unfortunately, that means the wealthy start off from 999999 instead of 1000000.
No, it doesn't really make sense, but do you really expect rationality out of the bible?