Jump to content

Home

Socialism Questions


True_Avery

Recommended Posts

http://rawstory.com/2010/02/child-support-subpoena-reveals-palins-grandson-on-socialized-medicine/

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/20/839027/-Palin-grandson-is-socialized-medicine-victim.-

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978063541&grpId=3659174697244816

 

Tripp's grandfather Todd is a descendant of the Yup'ik Eskimo, and thus, his children and grandchildren are registered with the Curyung Tribal Council, part of the Bristol Bay Native Association. Further, this means they are eligible for government-run health insurance through the Indian Health Service.

 

Bristol Palin's lawyers argued that exemptions claimed by Johnston's attorneys were invalid due to Tripp's health coverage by the IHS. On page eight of the court documents:

 

"There are two reasons why this request should be rejected. First, Levi has never paid for any health insurance. One cannot seek deduction for costs or support one has never paid. Second, this insurance is unnecessary. Tripp is an enrolled member of Curyung Tribal Council within the Bristol Bay Native Association consortium. Because the majority of Tripp's health care costs are already covered by IHS and the Alaska Native Medical Center, Mr. Johnston has no need to purchase additional health insurance and his deduction should not be allowed."

 

------

 

Federal Employees Health Benefits Program

http://public-healthcare-issues.suite101.com/article.cfm/health_care_for_the_us_congress

http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Employees_Health_Benefits_Program

 

"As soon as members of Congress are sworn in, they may participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). The program offers an assortment of health plans from which to choose, including fee-for-service, point-of-service, and health maintenance organizations (HMOs). In addition, Congress members can also insure their spouses and their dependents."

 

"The FEBHP's cost is about $40 billion in 2010, including both premiums and out-of-pocket costs. It enrolls about 4 million employees and annuitants and, with their dependents, 8 million persons in total."

 

"Choices among health plans are available to employees during an "open enrollment" period, or "open season," after which the employee will be covered fully in any plan he or she chooses without limitations regarding pre-existing conditions."

 

“Members of Congress have their own pharmacy, right in the Capitol. They also have a team of doctors, technicians and nurses standing by in case something busts in a filibuster. They can get a physical exam, an X-ray or an electrocardiogram, without leaving work.”

 

"The employer* pays an amount up to 72 percent of the average plan premium for self-only or family coverage (not to exceed 75 percent of the premium for the selected plan), and the employee pays the rest."

 

*Note: The Employer being the Tax Payers

 

"In enacting the Medicare Modernization Act in 2003, the Congress explicitly modeled the reformed Medicare Advantage program and the new Medicare Part D Prescription Drug program after the FEHBP."

 

-------------

 

So... Socialist Health Care is evil then why are we allowing our government officials the option of socialist government-run health care? Shouldn't Sarah and the rest of us being trying our hardest to get Tripp out of a system that, she claims, is evil? If Dick Cheney hates Socialist Health Care so much, then why is he currently using his own to fix his latest heart attack?

 

If Socialist Health Care is so bad, then why did Rush Limbaugh praise Hawaii's progressive Health Care system after getting a heart checkup and then, when he was called out for it, turned around and said "no, wait, it does suck after all"?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_010610/content/01125106.guest.html

 

Isn't the saying, "You can't have your cake and eat it too"? Can they go to the conventions and so on and rail on socialism and death panels while they ride the health care gravy train on my tax money? Can they say that socialist health care is evil, but be fine with their grandson using socialist health care right under their nose especially when they're a millionaire and a former federal official using government run health care?

 

Congress and governor Seats, sure, but then you've got police, firemen, street repair, road building, public schooling, and so on using tax money for socialist means. Hell, aren't taxes socialist by today's current political standards? Shouldn't we close down public schools since the teachers are running on socialist funding? How about the police force? They're paid in tax dollars and their Health Care is paid by the state. Do I really want to be driving on a freeway created by the socialist agenda? How about those socialist libraries?

 

Do I really want a military running almost entirely on socialism? Shouldn't the entire thing be capitalist? Are we not crippling our military by powering it with our tax dollars? And why are veterans whining about injuries? Shouldn't they pay for their own mistakes?

 

So, why the hypocrisy?

 

Seriously, I must be missing something because this just doesn't seem right at all. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, demeaning, etc. I'm genuinely curious at why we allow something that is apparently so incredibly evil. I know there are plenty of people on this board against socialism, so I'd like to hear your take.

Speaking of which:

 

To all citizens outside the United States running on Socialism:

 

How are your Death Panels run?

How many mentally disabled people do you execute on a daily basis?

Are older citizens given a choice, or are they killed on the spot?

How long was the longest you had to wait for care?

How crippling are your taxes overall?

How many dead people are in the clinic lobby's on average?

Are you allowed property?

How many kids are you allowed to have?

How long have you been a communist?

How long have you hated Jesus?

 

You think I'm joking? I listen to Glenn, Rush, Fox, and watch the Republican speakers so I'm straight faced asking you all how terrible your lives are. Feel free to correct me, but from my understanding those are all completely valid questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply
How are your Death Panels run?

Weekly meetings: there's a government target of three hundred deaths a week but the current average is unfortunately just shy of 200 (another New Labour failure, I say). We mostly pick from out of the white Anglo-Saxon middle classes, generally protestants. The board is unashamedly pro-Arab Catholics.

 

How many mentally disabled people do you execute on a daily basis?

Unfortunately, until the new NHS database is set-up we won't be able to get statistics on the daily operations of the Death Panel. I read somewhere that the number is generally around five.

 

Are older citizens given a choice, or are they killed on the spot?

Of course they're given a choice. It's much harder to kill someone if their in hysterics over not having the right type of tea. That said, the government are trying to push a new "Tea Variety Card" bill through parliament, which is set to speed up the entire process. Yet I can't help but feel that having all that information on some super-computer, readily accessible by the execution staff dehumanises the whole affair somewhat.

 

How long was the longest you had to wait for care?

12 years.

 

How crippling are your taxes overall?

I am forced to have children just to have a cheap alternative to turkey at Christmas.

 

How many dead people are in the clinic lobby's on average?

None... why would you want dead people lolling around the lobby? What an absurd question.

 

Are you allowed property?

We have no desire for property. Property is simply a distraction from the work of the motherland.

 

How many kids are you allowed to have?

Four at any one time, excluding those reared for Christmas.

 

How long have you been a communist?

Since I first hated Jesus.

 

How long have you hated Jesus?

Since I became a communist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are those last questions jokes? I know you said they weren't, but to me, they just seem, no offence, ridiculous.

 

And, in answer to your question about the hypocrisy going around...well, I don't really know why. Though, I will admit, after reading articles in Time magazine, I've come to the conclusion that the Republicans are, unfortunately, nothing but hypocrites in this time and age. They're trying to discredit Obama and the Democrats by whatever means possible, and I guess that means they're willing to become hypocrites in the process. The worst part is that it's working. Trust in the government is at an all time low, the Tea Parties are forming, and nobody seems to notice that the Repubs are just contradicting themselves. I really would like to believe that the Republicans are not trying to be hypocrites, I really do, but that is most definitely not the case at this point. George Washington was right - political parties don't make you loyal to your nation, it makes you loyal to your party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are those last questions jokes? I know you said they weren't, but to me, they just seem, no offence, ridiculous.

Every one of my questions I've asked are reasons against socialism given by Savage, Rush, Fox, and Republican speakers. If they are valid reasons given by speakers and politicians on why socialism is evil, then there must be something to them, especially when it is evident that people believe them because they state them at rallies in voice and on signs.

 

If these people take them as serious stances, then I'll use them as serious questions. As you say below, the Tea Party and so on have been gaining supporters by the day.

 

And, in answer to your question about the hypocrisy going around...well, I don't really know why. Though, I will admit, after reading articles in Time magazine, I've come to the conclusion that the Republicans are, unfortunately, nothing but hypocrites in this time and age. They're trying to discredit Obama and the Democrats by whatever means possible, and I guess that means they're willing to become hypocrites in the process. The worst part is that it's working. Trust in the government is at an all time low, the Tea Parties are forming, and nobody seems to notice that the Repubs are just contradicting themselves. I really would like to believe that the Republicans are not trying to be hypocrites, I really do, but that is most definitely not the case at this point. George Washington was right - political parties don't make you loyal to your nation, it makes you loyal to your party.

Still, by being so heavily anti-socialism aren't they effectively trying to undermine their own socialist health care that they themselves use? Schooling? Military Funding? The public libraries in which Glenn Beck states he read books on why socialism and taxes are evil?

 

What is there to gain from it? Isn't that self destructive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, in answer to your question about the hypocrisy going around...well, I don't really know why. Though, I will admit, after reading articles in Time magazine, I've come to the conclusion that the Republicans are, unfortunately, nothing but hypocrites in this time and age.

 

C'mon, Ping, are you implying that hypocrisy is only a republican problem?:

 

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2005-51-vote-nuclear-option-is-arrogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/

 

And then there's this:

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/its-my-health-its-my-choice-danny-williams-says/article1477872/

 

If the Canadian system is as great as advertised, why would a Canadian pol come south of the border for his med treatment? One type of behavior for the rich/ruling class and another for the rest?

 

Face it, hypocrisy is human and indiscriminate......and in great abundance in politics. It's often wedded to condescension.

 

So... Socialist Health Care is evil then why are we allowing our government officials the option of socialist government-run health care? Shouldn't Sarah and the rest of us being trying our hardest to get Tripp out of a system that, she claims, is evil? If Dick Cheney hates Socialist Health Care so much, then why is he currently using his own to fix his latest heart attack?

 

Congress and governor Seats, sure, but then you've got police, firemen, street repair, road building, public schooling, and so on using tax money for socialist means. Hell, aren't taxes socialist by today's current political standards? Shouldn't we close down public schools since the teachers are running on socialist funding? How about the police force? They're paid in tax dollars and their Health Care is paid by the state. Do I really want to be driving on a freeway created by the socialist agenda? How about those socialist libraries?

 

Do I really want a military running almost entirely on socialism? Shouldn't the entire thing be capitalist? Are we not crippling our military by powering it with our tax dollars? And why are veterans whining about injuries? Shouldn't they pay for their own mistakes?

 

So, why the hypocrisy?

 

Seriously, I must be missing something because this just doesn't seem right at all. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, demeaning, etc. I'm genuinely curious at why we allow something that is apparently so incredibly evil. I know there are plenty of people on this board against socialism, so I'd like to hear your take.

 

Not quite sure how you jump to conclusion that govt employees receiving benefits, as do many in the private sector with their employers, is axiomatically socialist. Govt. by its nature is not automatically socialist or communist b/c it's govt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C'mon, Ping, are you implying that hypocrisy is only a republican problem?:

 

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2005-51-vote-nuclear-option-is-arrogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/

 

And then there's this:

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/its-my-health-its-my-choice-danny-williams-says/article1477872/

 

If the Canadian system is as great as advertised, why would a Canadian pol come south of the border for his med treatment? One type of behavior for the rich/ruling class and another for the rest?

 

Face it, hypocrisy is human and indiscriminate......and in great abundance in politics. It's often wedded to condescension.

 

 

I wasn't implying that it was solely a Republican problem, what I was trying to say is that to me it's a bit more widespread, or just more obvious to everyone else. And I should also point out that I get the feeling that most of the party is doing it, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you allowed property?

 

Is that really used as an argument by somebody? And people are buying it? Or you just raving :xp:? Even the people of the soviet union were allowed to have property, they were allowed to own their houses, cars and a lot of other stuff. The only thing they werent allowed to own was industrial machinery. Shocking eh? :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't implying that it was solely a Republican problem, what I was trying to say is that to me it's a bit more widespread, or just more obvious to everyone else. And I should also point out that I get the feeling that most of the party is doing it, too.

 

Even if you change the word "only" to primarily, that's a very skewed view. It would be much like if you'd been reading The Weekly Standard and concluded that corruption and hypocrisy were mostly a glaring democrat problem. I'd say that if you're reading material that favors one side over the other that you're likely to walk away with such a cock-eyed view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware that something is automatically socialist in nature simply because it's financed by taxes. That would mean that all government is socialist in nature, which is completely untrue. I can certainly see the benefit to convincing everyone that it is true, however.

Sarah Palin should fall down a hole someplace and die.

And I'd help dig the hole, but what everyone needs to realize is that the best weapon to use against an attention whore like Sarah Palin is to stop paying attention to her. Without attention to absorb she'll dry up and blow away like any other piece of fecal matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... Socialist Health Care is evil then why are we allowing our government officials the option of socialist government-run health care?

 

Actually, lots of US citizens dislike it intensely that gov't. officials are allowed it. We shouldn't. So, why does it happen? Suppose there are things we have no control over. Like this. Personally I'm sick of the lack of leadership and lack of good example provided. By both parties. They may be employed by the gov't, but that shouldn't mean they get any more privledge than we little people do. And if I get the ire of people in general who work for the government for holding my beliefs...so be it. We ought to fight it.

 

As well, we have a president that promised us transparency, afterall. However he is powerless to stop the senate members from shutting the door on the press. That's not even going into if whether or not he approves of whatever deals are made behind closed doors. So we'll have to just leave it at that. Point here is I don't necessarily blame the president b/c of a lack of transparency due to Reid and Pelosi--but he'd be remiss in his position if he didn't try to do something to correct it to keep his promise.

 

If Dick Cheney hates Socialist Health Care so much, then why is he currently using his own to fix his latest heart attack?

 

Just because he is being a hypocrite doesn't mean anyone with the same leanings necessarily agrees with him or his actions.

 

It's on him.

 

Also I'd like to add: If a political conservative is for less government overall and protecting our freedoms and liberties then Cheney (no liberal votes notwithstanding) is a s***ty example of one. Why do I say this? Considering: the patriot act tripled the size of overall government, indiscriminantly, and took away many smaller freedoms and liberties. He FAILED to keep government down and to protect our freedoms.

 

Some say at the cost of those we are granted better security. Ok. Slippery as this slope is I think this question is worth asking: When we give up freedoms to the government, will we ever get them back? If so, when?

 

It should have been applied with checks and balances like time limits and laser slim focus on the areas of power allowed to the gov't. Just my opinion.

 

For ignoring all this, I really dislike him. I even mistrust him. Because of his and Bush's actions, this is what the opposition thinks of, EVERY TIME when anyone mentions their rightward leaning political views. Not that Keith Olberdouche would really care. But still...

 

Last note: I'm not altogether sure Dick Cheney is completely human anyways.

 

(Rush Limbaugh) *brevity*

 

Same goes here with the pundits. If there are people who go with it when someone is being a hypocrite, let 'em defend themselves and each other.

 

You're only paying this much attention to it with these folks because you have such an obvious dislike of them. Come on, They all do it.

 

*brevity*

So, why the hypocrisy?

 

Perhaps it's the times we live in. Nobody means just what they say. :dozey:

 

All I can say is if anyone is truly open minded, they don't conflate the misguided actions of a leader (or of the few) under that banner to individuals who may agree with that banner in general. Nor should you assume that any such individuals necessarily agrees with those actions. It would not be right if, for example, I blamed my neighbors in NV for the hypocrisy of some butt-wipe senator in another state, no matter how much my neighbors loved that senator. However, I am well within my means to lambaste them for continuing going along with that senator's actions thereafter.

 

That same hypocrisy is not exclusively nor predominantly (EDIT: not permanently as though naturally ingrained, anyways) to one side or the other as though it were a (born in) trait. I'm not going to point the finger, but will say the left are just as guilty on hypocrisy as the right. It shifts around from time to time with both sides. (Depending on issues and people involved.) You could look for it on both sides and find it.

 

Hypocrisy itself: It is disappointing, yes. It is at least as disappointing if not moreso when one who strongly identifies with the right (being all about self governance and self reliance) decides to turn around and use government run services for their little things.

 

The turncoat actions of some in charge: I don't condone them, personally. Why would I? I'm only shooting myself in the foot if I did. And frankly neither should anyone else. While hypocrisy is frustrating, annoying, evil, and as I said before, disappointing, it is hardly a surprise.

 

It's wrong. You know this. So let's be real: It's nothing new. It happened since long ago, and will probably continue forever more until the human race can no longer make decisions for itself.

 

And since this hypocrisy largely seems to revolve around social issues of taxing and spending: While we cannot completely cut out government and we do need laws, it ought to be minimal, but strongly enforced.

 

Tax and spend...no financial, fiscal conservativism at all. Shame. So nice how no parties actually use that as a policy anymore.

 

We as a nation could really stand to just step on the brakes w.r.t. spending. Especially if cutting taxes. I'm not big on international dealings but it might actually help the U.S. if we weren't in the red all the time. Our creditors/lenders might relax a little more at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll respond to more later, but am low on time atm.

 

I wasn't aware that something is automatically socialist in nature simply because it's financed by taxes. That would mean that all government is socialist in nature, which is completely untrue. I can certainly see the benefit to convincing everyone that it is true, however.

Interesting Then what constitutes socialism?

 

–noun

1.

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of productionand distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2.

procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3.

(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfectimplementation of collectivist principles.

 

If a Library is being funded by Tax Dollars given by the community (via state), isn't it not a socialist building? Or, is it not because of a government medium?

 

Is not the road socialist because it is a "building" created by community money and not a capitalistic system? The police a government run, but socially/community funded group?

 

Indeed, a "government" does not need to be socialist in nature, but since our government is community funded is it not a socialist republic? Or, is it not socialist because the community doesn't have direct control? But, then what is voting?

 

So, again, either I'm missing something in translation or much that is funded by taxes/community is indeed socialist by definition. If "universal" Health Care is socialist because it is paid with tax money, then I currently fail to see how everything else paid for by taxes isn't socialist. Same goes for the bailouts being socialist. The current, political/media definition I see simply seems to paste "socialist" on anything with tax dollars next to it. Even put Tax Dollars aside and just look at churches and charities; are they not also socialist for being community funded?

 

I am not attempting to so much convince as I am trying to get my facts straight here, so if someone has a more solid definition of socialism I'd like to hear it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if you change the word "only" to primarily, that's a very skewed view. It would be much like if you'd been reading The Weekly Standard and concluded that corruption and hypocrisy were mostly a glaring democrat problem. I'd say that if you're reading material that favors one side over the other that you're likely to walk away with such a cock-eyed view.

 

Where the hell did that come from? I didn't use the word "only" at any point. Besides, the Repubs are being nothing but whining brats, and if there is one thing I can't stand, it's spoiled brats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd advise you to read what you wrote again. You didn't have to write either "only" or "primarily" as it is painfully obvious that you believe it anyway. Your words were "I wasn't implying that it was solely", ie. only, but in fact you were implying just that. Your last observation above merely reinforces that implication. But outside of coloring inside the lines of the OP, which addresses issues of "hypocrisy", this issue is ancillary to the main question of whether or not govt is, somehow by its nature, axiomatically socialist. But given that you claim to have a negative predisposition toward "whining brats", it's a wonder you can embrace the democrat party either. So, if you wish to provide any further evidence that one party is more full of whiny hypocrites than the other, you can always PM that info.

 

–noun

1.

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of productionand distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

 

The current system in America doesn't do just that b/c there is private ownership of the means of production and distribution. Last I saw, the govt still has to make use of private contractors to supply it with the resources it needs to carry out it's responsibilities under law. While the US has become quasi-socialist, thanks to FDR, it's still not socialist (nor is much of Europe ACTUALLY socialist, just much closer--or perceived as such--than America).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting Then what constitutes socialism?

Put simply, it's government ownership of all production and complete government control of commerce and distribution of wealth, with no private ownership at all. We don't have that here, at least not yet. Obama and his flunkies are working on it, though. The recent government takeover of GM and its giving of a controlling interest to the UAW as a reward for driving the corporation into the ground is a poignant example of this and the corruption that accompanies it.

 

A government service isn't socialist by default. It would only qualify as such if it somehow supported the above. So while the police, fire and highway departments are not inherently socialist in nature, I'd have to say that the public school system most definitely is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put simply, it's government ownership of all production and complete government control of commerce and distribution of wealth, with no private ownership at all. We don't have that here, at least not yet. Obama and his flunkies are working on it, though. The recent government takeover of GM and its giving of a controlling interest to the UAW as a reward for driving the corporation into the ground is a poignant example of this and the corruption that accompanies it.

 

A government service isn't socialist by default. It would only qualify as such if it somehow supported the above. So while the police, fire and highway departments are not inherently socialist in nature, I'd have to say that the public school system most definitely is.

Ohhh, ok, so since we have private security, firefighters, and so contractors who build the highway they aren't fully socialist since there is competition?

 

Ok, that actually makes a good deal of sense. But, in that case, public schooling wouldn't be socialist because of private schooling being an option, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what percentage of school-aged children is private schooling a realistic option?

Not asking if it is a realistic option. Asking if the very fact the option exists as even low level competition means that public schooling isn't socialist according to your guidelines. Private Firefighters aren't seen very often, but you seem to consider government paid firefighters to not be socialist in nature.

 

Also, my former High School went charter and has control over the spending of its own money so, even though it is public, the charter public schools have private control and also don't seem to fit your guidelines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Private Firefighters aren't seen very often, but you seem to consider government paid firefighters to not be socialist in nature.

Probably because, last time I checked, firefighters aren't pushing the socialist agenda. The public school system, on the other hand, is notorious for doing just that, which is why I called it socialist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably because, last time I checked, firefighters aren't pushing the socialist agenda. The public school system, on the other hand, is notorious for doing just that, which is why I called it socialist.

I've asked before and I'll dare another ask:

 

What is the "socialist agenda", and how it the public school "socialist"?

 

Gonna be honest here and say that, right now, "socialist agenda" just looks like a red herring label for something you disagree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I probably would have done better to use wording that didn't sound like propaganda, but it fits in this case. The public school system is the greatest exponent of socialism in this country because it indoctrinates children at a young age to the ideals of socialism by encouraging conformity while discouraging individuality. Conformist children are groomed for success while individuals are groomed for failure by being singled out, persecuted and harassed to the point of suicide (or murder) by the conformist students while the faculty either turns a blind eye or even joins in. Conformists are far easier to govern and control by the mere threat not fitting in, and I happen to regard them as something less than human.

 

Go ahead and think that I'm throwing out "red herring labels for something (I) disagree with" if you wish. I know better because I've lived it and experienced it first-hand. Needless to say, I hate conformity with a purple passion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...