Socialism equals less freedom. How?

[Diuretic]

I like the pictures!

 

[KittenKoder]

Perfect example:

In my area, all the resources to get schooling were privately funded. The rich funded them. However due to increased taxes to pay for, of all things, drug programs and shelters, those education programs were canceled. Very few still exist, and they are still privately funded. The government funded ones are only for specific groups, ones which most people who need them do not qualify, and most who do qualify are not interested. The money that the government took in taxes is basically wasted now and no one is being helped. All because the rich were taxed more.

 

[skookerasbil]

Heres the bullseye on the American peoples mood in recent weeks...............at this point, its not even debatable anymore...............thye are quickly realizing what they voted in was a Modern Day Wizard of Oz

 

[Ravi]

In another thread the statement was made that Socialism makes us less free. Canada, England, and Europe are all countries and regions much more socialized then we are yet all provide equal or greater quality of life, longer life, and equal or more civil liberties. So exactly how has socialization in those countries made them less free than ourselves?

And if you could I would like the explanation in the form of a logical argument-that is, your predicate should be supported by premises and conclusion congruent to all premises and predicate. "I'm a dumb fuck, go to Canada dick-wad, etc" are fallacies and only shows your ignorance. Many of you have already established that so now I am giving you the opportunity to show some intelligence. How exactly are we more free while others with comparable or better quality of lives and liberty aren't?

I don't know. My Canadian relatives can buy products from and travel to Cuba and I can't. Maybe they do enjoy more freedom than I.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Perfect example:

In my area, all the resources to get schooling were privately funded. The rich funded them. However due to increased taxes to pay for, of all things, drug programs and shelters, those education programs were canceled. Very few still exist, and they are still privately funded. The government funded ones are only for specific groups, ones which most people who need them do not qualify, and most who do qualify are not interested. The money that the government took in taxes is basically wasted now and no one is being helped. All because the rich were taxed more.

That is far too general for belief, Kitten. Give specifics that can be check. Critical Thinking Skills are imperative here because your bias is too well known.

 

[KittenKoder]

Perfect example:

In my area, all the resources to get schooling were privately funded. The rich funded them. However due to increased taxes to pay for, of all things, drug programs and shelters, those education programs were canceled. Very few still exist, and they are still privately funded. The government funded ones are only for specific groups, ones which most people who need them do not qualify, and most who do qualify are not interested. The money that the government took in taxes is basically wasted now and no one is being helped. All because the rich were taxed more.

That is far too general for belief, Kitten. Give specifics that can be check. Critical Thinking Skills are imperative here because your bias is too well known.

Do you ever enter real life? You can't link real life you know, that's just not possible.

 

[skookerasbil]

Perfect example:

In my area, all the resources to get schooling were privately funded. The rich funded them. However due to increased taxes to pay for, of all things, drug programs and shelters, those education programs were canceled. Very few still exist, and they are still privately funded. The government funded ones are only for specific groups, ones which most people who need them do not qualify, and most who do qualify are not interested. The money that the government took in taxes is basically wasted now and no one is being helped. All because the rich were taxed more.

That is far too general for belief, Kitten. Give specifics that can be check. Critical Thinking Skills are imperative here because your bias is too well known.

Somebody please kill me............yikes. Master of the two sentence gay post like lots of lefties who debate in talking points.

s0n.....time to change your avatar. You need binoculars to read it

 

[pal_of_poor]

How can you have more 'freedom' when a government can force you to do things with your own money you don't agree with?

The problem many people have with socialism is it never knows when to stop, while everyone agrees it would be good to help old and poor people, socialism tends to blur the lines of who needs help and where the money is to come from.

The main problem is, people don't have free will, they HAVE to go along or be arrested.

That is why the question was treated with derision, it should have been obvious.

I'd love a provision that would allow us all to allocate our federal tax dime on what we like. But it isn't that way.

There will always be things that we don't agree with. Some of us don't like the voluntary murderous wars, or CIA coups we regularly spend our money on. Some don't think NASA is a good thing, though I am not among the group. Some don't think helping keep people from starve is good, or keeping people from dying by providing health care, some don't like Social Security.

I really have to laugh at all these people on the right coming up with whiny questions like "Mr. Senator, what'er ya gonna do bout our debt (whimper) it's so out of hand," but only seem concerned now, instead of in the last eight years, were we shot from about 4 Trillion to 10 trillion, just so the super rich could get a tax cut. Where the F___ do you think we're going to get the money? Seriously? Do you believe we're going to plant a money tree? Sometime in the future, preferably closer to the present, we're going to have to start raising more in taxes than we spend, so we can start paying down the debt, and reducing an ever more onerous amount of interest we pay.

By the way, the interest takes a big chunk out of our budget each year, money we could be spending to do the things we need, like keeping bridges from falling into rivers, or rivers from flowing down the middle of public streets, or coal ash flows into good neighborhoods. And by the way, the interest is paid to the top ten percent too, another premium paid by the government to the super rich, who already get a great capital gains tax rate at 15 percent on money made from buying and selling stocks.

And this insane policy of sending jobs to third world countries--when are we going to start talking about how stupid it is that we do that. These folks who used to work in America paid taxes, to America. But as we send them away, as we attack unions, as we cut the collective pay of the workers in America, we also make the debt, and yearly deficits, increasingly severe.

It's time to buck up. Each person needs to look at how much they earn, and decide, "Do I want to pay taxes, or should the people who have tripled their wealth in the last 30 years while the rest of us are getting screwed, pay more in taxes?" Because really, it's a question of the rich paying the taxes, or the poor and middle class. And in our downturn, it's only going to cut purchasing more when you tax those who are pretty much spending everything they earn anyway. Tax the people who have all those treasuries earning government interest, the super rich, and tax them hard and fast, and long, for at least as long as the two wars are going on, or there is debt. The top tax rate during, and after WW 2, during the time of the greatest economic expansion in history, was 91 percent.

Now there is the idea, leave the rest of us alone, and tax the ones who can afford to pay. After all, everything that has happened has been at the behest of those people, those rich people who put the various politicians in office, and who pull their puppet strings. So let them pay to clean up their mess!

 

[PeterS]

True socialism infringes on the individual's right to private property, which is a right we in the US generally value (see the 5th Amendment).

But we are talking about socialism in Canada, England and Europe. All have the same access to private property as we do plus have greater personal savings and discretionary income to buy it. If 'property' is your argument then it is one you loose...

 

[KittenKoder]

True socialism infringes on the individual's right to private property, which is a right we in the US generally value (see the 5th Amendment).

But we are talking about socialism in Canada, England and Europe. All have the same access to private property as we do plus have greater personal savings and discretionary income to buy it. If 'property' is your argument then it is one you loose...

Yet ... all of those countries are behind in every advance, they are even behind the US.

 

[007]

Is the US still locked into an 18th Century mindset because of a written constitution?

It created, in a historically short period of time, the most powerful and free nation on earth.

You saying there's something wrong with that?

I asked, "is the US still locked into an 18th Century mindset because of a written constitution?"

Is it?

That's debatable, although I wish it was more than it is.

Now I asked, "is there something wrong with that?"

 

[PeterS]

Alright ... here's the simple answer that is so easy to see, it's almost glowing.

It takes away the freedom of the rich to decide how to spend their earned money and forces them to support people who either do not care, or are unwilling to try, instead of offering the help they do to those of us who simply can't but want to try.

So socialization reduces the ability of the wealthy elite to be benevolent and this represents a loss of freedom? But you are ignoring that socialization reduces the need for benevolence so if my ability to give what is not needed is the measure of loss of freedom how is losing what isn't needed a loss?

You sound like Karl Marx. It's okay to admit you're a Marxist.

I haven't made an argument yet I am simply trying to understand the arguments made. Benevolence is subjective and relevant to need. So why do we need it and how is this an infringement of liberty?

 

[Meister]

When person A exists to involuntarily have earnings and possession taken from then for the benefit of person B, while person B does nothing to earn said benefit from person A, it does indeed equal less freedom

Ah, jeez, look up 'social compact', 'constitution,' 'declaration of rights', and 'conclusion to Civil War.'

Morons.

Ahh jeez.. look up individual freedoms, PERSONAL responsibility, and liberty... and while you are at it, the actual words and concepts within our constitution

Moron

Jackie looks up nothing, he's a troll. He just spews his garbage for everyone to pick up.

 

[goldcatt]

True socialism infringes on the individual's right to private property, which is a right we in the US generally value (see the 5th Amendment).

But we are talking about socialism in Canada, England and Europe. All have the same access to private property as we do plus have greater personal savings and discretionary income to buy it. If 'property' is your argument then it is one you loose...

But then you're not talking about true socialism.

 

[PeterS]

True socialism infringes on the individual's right to private property, which is a right we in the US generally value (see the 5th Amendment).

But we are talking about socialism in Canada, England and Europe. All have the same access to private property as we do plus have greater personal savings and discretionary income to buy it. If 'property' is your argument then it is one you loose...

Yet ... all of those countries are behind in every advance, they are even behind the US.

How so? Give a specific example.

 

[PeterS]

True socialism infringes on the individual's right to private property, which is a right we in the US generally value (see the 5th Amendment).

But we are talking about socialism in Canada, England and Europe. All have the same access to private property as we do plus have greater personal savings and discretionary income to buy it. If 'property' is your argument then it is one you loose...

But then you're not talking about true socialism.

Then why the panic and demonizing of these counties and regions?

 

[KittenKoder]

It created, in a historically short period of time, the most powerful and free nation on earth.

You saying there's something wrong with that?

I asked, "is the US still locked into an 18th Century mindset because of a written constitution?"

Is it?

That's debatable, although I wish it was more than it is.

Now I asked, "is there something wrong with that?"

I know of one thing wrong with being locked in the 18th century ... no computers. Nope, I like today, in spite of the bad government, thank you very much.

 

[KittenKoder]

But we are talking about socialism in Canada, England and Europe. All have the same access to private property as we do plus have greater personal savings and discretionary income to buy it. If 'property' is your argument then it is one you loose...

Yet ... all of those countries are behind in every advance, they are even behind the US.

How so? Give a specific example.

Actually, this only works the other way around, show more major advancements that were not just a change but actual improvements that came from those countries, the US has more.

 

[goldcatt]

But we are talking about socialism in Canada, England and Europe. All have the same access to private property as we do plus have greater personal savings and discretionary income to buy it. If 'property' is your argument then it is one you loose...

But then you're not talking about true socialism.

Then why the panic and demonizing of these counties and regions?

Have I demonized them?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The extreme righturds are screaming. Beck continues losing major advertisers, disrupters continuing to be told to behave or go to jail, millions of good-thinking Americans telling the Palinistas "enough is enough!".

A heath care reform bill, whether singer-payer or two-term, will go through, period. With the growing political power of minorities and women and young people and with only 1 out of 3 voters a white male, the tide has turned against post-Reagan Republicanism.

Either the modern GOP changes, or it dies.