Socialism and Obama

No, sqweels was obviously making the point that the safety net can’t solve the problems that make it necessary. Nothing we can do will solve those problems. Therefore it will remain necessary.

I truly, honestly can make no sense of that train of thought. Let’s say that we know wormwood will not cure the flu. Are you saying that since nothing will cure the flu, it is necessary that we have wormwood?

More like, wormwood can’t cure the flu but will save you from dying of it, therefore, absent a flu cure, wormwood will always be necessary.

Ah, thanks! So the flaw is in the premise.

Do you mean your premise, that we CAN eliminate poverty and bad luck or shouldn’t care about it, therefore a safety net isn’t needed ? Or mine, that we don’t have any way to eliminate poverty and bad luck ?

Well, there has always been a safety net for poverty. We called it “charity”. I think what is questionable about your premise is the notion that, as BrainGlutton framed it, government social programs necessarily save people from the suffering caused by poverty (dying from the flu). Compare, for example, the effects of private charity versus government spending in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The environmental dangers from the hovels that government provided victims is already legendary. What’s even sadder is the sheer amount of red tape they had to go through just to get screwed. And don’t even get me started on the poverty in Appalachia.

:rolleyes: And which party was in control of the government ? Why, the party that hates the whole idea of government aid to anything but the rich and corporations. Of course they’d be indifferent, or even go out of their way to do as bad a job as possible; putting people who think that a “socialist” government function should be abolished in charge of that function is pretty standard for these people. I expect that part of the point was to provide argument fodder for people like you.

And judging from history, government has done a hell of a lot to lesson the impact of poverty, and private charity very little. You might as well admit that you want the poor to starve, like in the good old days.

Der Trihs, be honest with me. Is this going to be another one of those pointless debates with you where you offer no substance beyond unsubstantiated shrill and hysterical emotionalism? 'Cause like, I could just leave you the last word with your above post and save myself a lot of bother.

Public opinion polls indicate that most Americans want UHC and favor tax reform that increases tax rates for the wealthy and lowers tax rates on everyone else, shifting the tax burden away from the middle and lower class. Whether or not we even have an economic middle class anymore is debatable. This redistribution of wealth is supported by the majority and therefore voluntary.

In contrast, the radical economic policies of the Bush White House have not been voluntary. Bush transferred billions of public funds into the private sector in the form of government contracts that were implemented secretly and without competition or public debate. Moreover, the funneling of public money – taxes- from the lower and middle class to private industry that in turn get massive tax breaks is tantamount to theft. It doesn’t reflect the will of the people. The idea that economic and social policies are voluntary implies consent. After all, American democracy is supposed to be government with the consent of the governed. Without information and truth from the media, an institution once the cornerstone of our democracy, how can people give consent and how can it be voluntary?

It’s up to you friend but I think your instincts are right on the money. See post 17.

Pardon me while I wipe my eyes from laughing so much at this premise. Yes, historically, charity has been with us forever, as has poverty. It was a patchwork and spotty safety net for the vast majority of human history however. I’d love to be able to transport you back a few hundred years, so you could see first hand how people survived on “charity”. You watch them starve to death.

I think our biggest problem now is the marriage of government and business. I don’t think capitalism by itself leads to plutocracy, but when the government of the people serves business interests rather than the interests of it’s citizens that clearly does.

I think with regulations and boundaries the private sector can meet the health needs of most Americans but I agree it has failed. As I understand it the single payer system proposed is not exactly socialized medical anyway correct?

I agree with this as well. I recognize that we are free to examine, reconsider and tweak any system we put in place. I think , in general, government agencies are much less efficient than regulated private companies.

I agree again. Getting rid of lobbyists and returning to a democracy that isn’t indebted to and influenced by businesses sounds like a good start.

I realize that 10% {only an example} of $20,000 has a much larger impact on a family of four than 10% of $100,000 would have but I find it hard to see it as inherently unfair. What seems unfair to me is that someone making more based on their own hard work, determination, and innovation should be rewarded with a higher tax rate. A flat tax rate doesn’t have to exclude deductions for children which for lower income families will be a much larger percentage of their total tax.
A consumption tax can be structured to tax essentials less and luxuries more.
As a society we can decide how we want to structure things but I doubt folks will agree on what is fair.

You’d better take another look at the post you responded to. I did not say government programs don’t help people, which seems to be your interpretation.

No , but that was a great question.

also insightful.

I honestly don’t know. I know there’s a major discrepancy in costs and quality of care from region to region and that’s something that needs fixing. My friend was also talking about the cost of malpractice insurance affecting medical costs. It’s a multifaceted issue.

I’m fine with us as a society finding the balance that works for us.

Looking back a few hundred years is hardly an accurate or reasonable comparison is it?

Would you say non government charities now provide food and shelter to more people , more often than ever before?

Well, I’ve heard the argument before that because the social safety net hasn’t eliminated poverty altogether yet, then it’s a failure and should be gotten rid of. So that’s what I was responding to.

So we’re not allowed to examine the topic from a historical viewpoint? i think that it is very informative to see how things were back when government did not have a role in providing a safety net, and poor people had to rely on the charity of others. You can’t just hand-wave away valid comparisons. Is your argument that human nature has changed, and people are kinder now? If we removed the tax deduction to charities (something of a government hand-out, no?) I wonder how many modern charities would dry up and blow away.

Oh, great. The Charles Dickens argument.

My suggestion is you respond to the actual post you’re quoting. Rather than assume I hold a position I haven’t stated you are free to ask for clarification. Seem reasonable?

I don’t expect poverty to be eliminated. If the choice is help for the poor by income through inefficient government programs, and no help for them, then I’d vote for them to continue. Realistically that’s not the choice we’re facing. I think government programs do help plenty of people but as we go forward we can ask if they are the better choice and if there are problems that need to be addressed. I think the better choice is to gradually shift away from government programs.

I’m not trying to hand wave away a valid comparison. I’m suggesting the comparison isn’t all that valid. Don’t go back several hundred years. Look at more modern societies and how they address these issues and I think it becomes more valid.

Yes I believe people have become kinder in a raised social consciousness way. A couple of hundred years ago we had slavery in this country and women were not allowed to vote. Are we kinder now regarding those issues? That’s the kind of thing I think makes going back hundreds of years an invalid comparison.

Your point about a the tax deduction is valid. No doubt without the tax deduction some people would stop giving but I don’t think it would be as devastating as you seem to think. Remember, the tax deduction doesn’t cover the entire donation. Lots of people donate their time freely to help others and there’s no deduction for that.
That’s not to say we’re at a place where voluntary charity solves all our poverty issues. I just think in going forward we need to continue to change and improve how we do things. That can include encouraging more voluntary giving and also creating more opportunities for people to take are of themselves and teaching future generations both facets of being a good citizen.