Who is for eliminating ALL socialist programs in the U.S.?
- Thread starter Rey C.
- Start date
Check the etymologies
SOCIETY
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/society
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/societe
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/socius
SOCIAL
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/social
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/socius
Check the related terms...
SOCIALISM
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/socialism
So the OP isn't just asking for the elimination of the things you mentioned, but of society itself...
I guess it's obvious that I do not wish the US to fall in a state of uncontrolable anarchy, so I voted no. BTW, I'm from outside of the US.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Killing "people like me"? I'm simply asking a question. I haven't offered an opinion on this topic, amigo.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
I say keep government out of health, businesses, and our homes!
They simply do not need to have control over everything! The automobile industries were doing very well until government had to step in and tell them what to do. Now look where they are, and that abhorrent cash for clunkers program.
Housing was simple until government came in and told banks to make sure poor people can buy homes way out of their price range. So if someone came in wanting a loan for a house, they had to give it, because it was only faaaairrr they should have a house like the people who could actually afford them! Now look at it: foreclosures.
Government getting into schools. Well, take a look at public (government) schools now. They are shitty as can be! Not to mention government indoctrinate classes; rather truly educational.
All these hiked up taxes, taking more and more money out of the pockets of working citizens; mainly for programs for people who do not work and/or government or their government funded programs that aren't worth a damn!
And people actually want them involved in our health care system!? Yeah, they really have a good track record of succeeding.
American people [at least the working Americans] are being screwed royally by all these stupid government handouts, helpings, and programs!
They up minimum wage, which involves having to lay off a couple of employees to meet the increase wage payouts for the rest. Thus that puts people out of work. Ups the price of the merchandise to make sure can meet the higher pay.
Most programs the government put into action just hikes up taxes to either keep it continuing or make up for loss after it failed.
Homeowners pay for it dearly in many areas due to increase of the taxes to fund most of these dumb government programs they develop for bums, junkies, and breeders. Oh, and illegals.
Government needs to take a few steps back and leave things alone! Let the people who know what they are doing run it; we been doing well all this time, don't need help from big brother.
They simply do not need to have control over everything! The automobile industries were doing very well until government had to step in and tell them what to do. Now look where they are, and that abhorrent cash for clunkers program.
Housing was simple until government came in and told banks to make sure poor people can buy homes way out of their price range. So if someone came in wanting a loan for a house, they had to give it, because it was only faaaairrr they should have a house like the people who could actually afford them! Now look at it: foreclosures.
Government getting into schools. Well, take a look at public (government) schools now. They are shitty as can be! Not to mention government indoctrinate classes; rather truly educational.
All these hiked up taxes, taking more and more money out of the pockets of working citizens; mainly for programs for people who do not work and/or government or their government funded programs that aren't worth a damn!
And people actually want them involved in our health care system!? Yeah, they really have a good track record of succeeding.
American people [at least the working Americans] are being screwed royally by all these stupid government handouts, helpings, and programs!
They up minimum wage, which involves having to lay off a couple of employees to meet the increase wage payouts for the rest. Thus that puts people out of work. Ups the price of the merchandise to make sure can meet the higher pay.
Most programs the government put into action just hikes up taxes to either keep it continuing or make up for loss after it failed.
Homeowners pay for it dearly in many areas due to increase of the taxes to fund most of these dumb government programs they develop for bums, junkies, and breeders. Oh, and illegals.
Government needs to take a few steps back and leave things alone! Let the people who know what they are doing run it; we been doing well all this time, don't need help from big brother.
Could you expand on this a little? The only way this statement makes sense to me is that it is a sentence you have had hanging round since 1968 or something and you've spotted a chance to get rid of it by slipping it into this reply, hoping that the readers are half comatose from looking arguing about dwarf porn or some such to notice.
get rid of medicare and social security programs because it is a trap, france paid during 30 years healthcare and social security for immigrants of the magreb and former french african colonies thanks to the taxes of the honest hard working citizens, now the system in France is better because less money is spent on some unwilling to work or lazy ass parasites. France went bankrupt due to its too generous healthcare and social security system with immigrants.
Even Sweden is starting slowly to stop social helps because a lot of immigrants abused the hell of the social security and healthcare system.
Even Sweden is starting slowly to stop social helps because a lot of immigrants abused the hell of the social security and healthcare system.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
I just saw some more Medicare and Social Security (age) recipients screaming about "socialism" on TV. I always get a kick out of that.
It's like the holy roller that I used to work with, who would quote the Bible and talk about how he was against homosexuality. But then he'd write down websites he wanted me to check out that had teen girl/girl action. Hypocrisy... it's what's for breakfast in America today. :helpme:
It's like the holy roller that I used to work with, who would quote the Bible and talk about how he was against homosexuality. But then he'd write down websites he wanted me to check out that had teen girl/girl action. Hypocrisy... it's what's for breakfast in America today. :helpme:
Facetious
Moderated
whimsy said:
megahott said:
Helloooo ! Hello Again. MrsHottmegajolli
Are you wearing woman's attire at the time of this most antagonistic posting ?
:1orglaugh sure you are :rofl:.I must say, your underhanded unsolicited attacks really stand out dude... orrr tranny .. whatever :dunno:!
For why can you not disagree with some civility ? Rx run out so soon ?
What evidence do you have to support the notion that the post is a "sentence" from 1968 ?
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
ugh.
elimate no.
Reduce immensely yes.
Not for seniors who mostly contributed all their lives, or to handiicapped people.
but to able bodied people.
I think perhaps some of you don't realize the percentage of the adult population
living off the system. I'd say its about 25%. and about 35% pay no federal tax.
But theres a catch.
They live off the system by having more and more kids,and most of their kids grow up and do the same
while the people paying for them
have less and less kids....... and the system is beginning to collapse..
Its the camels back theory.
We are experienced the early stages of it now.
But hey, its for the children right?
just keep working people and say nothing.......until its too late.
elimate no.
Reduce immensely yes.
Not for seniors who mostly contributed all their lives, or to handiicapped people.
but to able bodied people.
I think perhaps some of you don't realize the percentage of the adult population
living off the system. I'd say its about 25%. and about 35% pay no federal tax.
But theres a catch.
They live off the system by having more and more kids,and most of their kids grow up and do the same
while the people paying for them
have less and less kids....... and the system is beginning to collapse..
Its the camels back theory.
We are experienced the early stages of it now.
But hey, its for the children right?
just keep working people and say nothing.......until its too late.
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
no man, they paid into that all their lives. those things are not handouts.
the gov robbed them for 50 years and is giving them back peanuts.
fuck i gotta be 72 before i can even collect. its in the b4est interest of the gov for you to die
right before retirement age.
yeah, let's cut all the corporate tax breaks, use a flat tax on everything. Let's start at the top instead of the bottom and see how much money we can save. the bailouts are socialism for the elite and it's capitalism for the rest of us. think wal-mart gave a shit about all the mom and pop stores it drove out of business? think Wal-Mart will have its hand out for government assistance if it ever needs it?
While we're at it, no public transportation system should be operating in the red. Raise the prices or cut back. if it affects people negatively, oh well.
Sure the poor are sucking the system for all its worth, but so are the corporations. It isn't an easy "if we cut off the poor, we will all be ok" decision.
While we're at it, no public transportation system should be operating in the red. Raise the prices or cut back. if it affects people negatively, oh well.
Sure the poor are sucking the system for all its worth, but so are the corporations. It isn't an easy "if we cut off the poor, we will all be ok" decision.
I agree with most of this. My plan would be to give free everything,for 2 years. After that, all welfare ends . Welfare is a self perpetuating system. If, you just end it, you'd be surprised how many people go back to work honestly when faced with starvation. Welfare and illegal immigrants who offer nothing in return is quickly killing this country's economic system.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Surely we're not going to pretend that Social Security isn't a socialist program (by the definition, not by emotions)? Come on now.
Let's say that I get married tomorrow. Me and Mrs. C stay married for exactly 10 years, then we get divorced. My wife never works a day in her life, and she does NOT get remarried - but I do (to a woman who also doesn't work). Let's say that I retire and then die some years later. My widow will get Social Security Survivors benefits. Also, my ex-wife can get Social Security Survivors benefits. So, until I died, I was getting S.S. Then after I died, there are two more people getting S.S. The sum of what they'll get is more than what I collected on my own. So... how do you figure these two people have paid anything into the system, (when they've never worked), and how do you figure that what I paid in is enough to support two checks that'll be nearly twice what my one check was? Now, if I've had kids with these women and they're all under 16: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.Look, I'm not saying that the S.S system is right, wrong, good, bad, fair or unfair. I'm just pointing out what it in fact is: it is a socialist program, designed to provide supplemental retirement income, survivors benefits and burial insurance, among other things. And no, you don't have to pay in, in order to be eligible to collect benefits.
I posted this thread originally to point out that it's the word "socialist" that tears people up so much. It's that word... that evil word that we've been taught to despise. Just like my old pal with "homosexuality". Call it lesbo or girl/girl and all of a sudden, he didn't have such a problem with it. :dunno:
We have never had pure (laissez faire) capitalism in the United States... and I doubt we ever will. And by the same token, we will never have pure socialism either. Instead of people getting so wound up by a word (which they often times cannot define), IMO, they should try to understand what works and what doesn't work about various economic systems and programs. I am not in favor of socialism, in a general sense. But clearly, most Americans do want to keep certain socialist programs in place, as they feel it benefits them, or the nation on whole.
My problem is so many people can't articulate their opposition to other programs without using something that describes exactly what they're already in favor of. That's
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
ok, i understand.
its only 2 different spouses can't collect off of one decesed.
and if the deceased paid in and is now dead, shouldn't his next of kin get it? or uncle sam just pocket it?
ss is socialistic i suppose, but it was intended as an insurance, a forced insurance. way back when almost everybody had dignity and wanted to work.
when the republicans tried to make a law saying you can choose to invest your ss in private investments instead, the dems killed it.
why? because it would collapse because too many people who never paid in (not spouses) collect it in one form or another. one might say the democratic base.
but its gonna collaspe anyway so might as well suck as much as possible from the working until then.
I was at a ss office in florida, the senior capital of the world, expecting to see a bunch of old folks it was instead filled with young chics with kids.
its had and still has me baffled.
I'm saying there is a difference betwen ss where most who collect paid in throughout their lives and general welfare where people who contribute nothing sit on their asses and get paid.
and if socialism is taking from one who earned it and giving it to another who didn't then to me that is evil.
its only 2 different spouses can't collect off of one decesed.
and if the deceased paid in and is now dead, shouldn't his next of kin get it? or uncle sam just pocket it?
ss is socialistic i suppose, but it was intended as an insurance, a forced insurance. way back when almost everybody had dignity and wanted to work.
when the republicans tried to make a law saying you can choose to invest your ss in private investments instead, the dems killed it.
why? because it would collapse because too many people who never paid in (not spouses) collect it in one form or another. one might say the democratic base.
but its gonna collaspe anyway so might as well suck as much as possible from the working until then.
I was at a ss office in florida, the senior capital of the world, expecting to see a bunch of old folks it was instead filled with young chics with kids.
its had and still has me baffled.
I'm saying there is a difference betwen ss where most who collect paid in throughout their lives and general welfare where people who contribute nothing sit on their asses and get paid.
and if socialism is taking from one who earned it and giving it to another who didn't then to me that is evil.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Social Security, SSI, Medicare, Medicaid and all similar programs are, by definition, socialist.
I actually agree with what you're saying about reforming these socialist programs, so that there is less abuse, waste and propping up of drunks, drug addicts, female baby factories, the shiftless and lazy, etc. Unlike some on the right (who are for Medicare and Social Security, but against socialism
), I think that significant savings could be gained from real reforms. Like you, I think there are people on some of these programs who really should not be. But purging the system would lead to a fight that I doubt Democrats or Republicans will take on in my lifetime.So that takes us back to the reason I posted this thread. From what you've posted here, it's not really socialism or socialist programs that you have a problem with, as much as how certain programs are implemented.
In my example above, would you be in favor of limiting the survivor benefits to just one former spouse or widow? Should we allow an ex spouse, who has contributed nothing to the system, to collect as much as the widow? When talking about disabled people... should those people who have (legitimately) never been able to work be allowed to collect Social Security Disability or SSI benefits?
I wasn't trying to bait anyone (or maybe I was
), but I've posed this question on several message boards over the past few months. And I always find the same thing: the overwhelming majority of those who initially say they are against "socialism" are actually against the fraud, waste and abuse within certain socialist programs. I watched Newt Gingrich on TV this weekend, singing the praises of Medicare. But next week, he may be holding hands with Sarah Palin complaining about the evils of socialism. That word has become soooo bastardized that it's virtually lost its meaning in modern day America.really? i thought it was magnanimous, and altruistic.
you just can't completely eliminate all socialism.
full-blown socialist policy will not work in this country for a long time because of unfounded fears and misunderstandings about the term.
option 3. and i wish people would read more and form their own opinions so the wankers at cnn and fox would lose some of their power over issues of this sort.
Bump (I'm just listenin')
Similar threads
