Political Crossfire Forums

[Dookiestix]

Patriarch wrote: Most of the programs you are talking about involve implementing socialism. Socialism almost never works. Just ask the Russians.

Or even France. There they have tried a quasi social/still capitalist approach and they have riots almost every weekend now. Not to mention a huge problem with immigrants and islamo fascists.

Furthermore the only way you can really help out these disadvantaged people is either trying to get them jobs and tax cuts---> Conservative Ideas. Or buy simply taxing the hell out of the rich and redistributing it in welfare---> leftest idea.

I don't think welfare for the most part is a good Idea. Especially unfettered welfare. It causes single mothers to want to have more kids, to get more money which is not good for society. It also causes illegals to want to come to the US so all their kids can get free Welfare and medicade.

And not to mention some people on it are just plain lazy and don't want to work, so we have to work for them? No way.
How's socialism working for the Canadians?

[_Kev_]

Patriarch wrote: Most of the programs you are talking about involve implementing socialism. Socialism almost never works. Just ask the Russians.

Or even France. There they have tried a quasi social/still capitalist approach and they have riots almost every weekend now. Not to mention a huge problem with immigrants and islamo fascists.

Riots every week? Islamo fascists a product of socialism?

:roll:

You're going to have to back this up. Good luck.

Quote: Furthermore the only way you can really help out these disadvantaged people is either trying to get them jobs and tax cuts---> Conservative Ideas.Or buy simply taxing the hell out of the rich and redistributing it in welfare---> leftest idea.

Well, there goes reaching across the aisle. It's this sort of oversimplification that's destroying American politics.

Quote: I don't think welfare for the most part is a good Idea. Especially unfettered welfare. It causes single mothers to want to have more kids, to get more money which is not good for society.

The "welfare-queen" is all but a myth. The amount of people who CHOOSE to live solely on welfare is next to nothing because life on welfare is next to nothing. If the system is abused, it should be reformed not eliminated.

Quote: It also causes illegals to want to come to the US so all their kids can get free Welfare and medicade.

If by providing social welfare programs people want to live here, so be it. There was a time when being the land of oppurtunity was a good thing.

Quote: And not to mention some people on it are just plain lazy and don't want to work, so we have to work for them? No way.

Again, these people are few and far between. Social welfare programs are meant to be a stepping stone for some and a lifeline for others, not a free pass. If there's abuse, the answer is reform.

Healthcare is different though. There's no excuse for nearly 50 million Americans to lack basic coverage.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf
(Page 20)

You'll notice a 10 million person gap between those below poverty (page 13) and those without coverage. It's not just about the poor- the lack of access to basic healthcare is outrageous for what is supposed to be one of the wealthiest nations in the world.

You should be applauding the OP's willingness to see the good in what's trying to be done and join in the search for a solution, rather than taking jabs at liberals and the poor.

*Edited for page numbers.

[Thrilla]

Moracca wrote: I was just curious to see how other "neo-cons" thought of the leftist goals in the social services arena. Personally I feel that the leftist agenda concerning nationalized health care and socialism in general is a noble goal. I mean, the fact that leftsists want to ensure that everyone has at least access to health care, a place to stay and food to eat is as American to me than anything else. The problem is implementing these programs. I think that if we can find responsible ways to implement these programs we will have taken many steps forward in making the US a better place. However, the costs associated with these programs would be enormous.

Anyway, I'd like to see what everyone out there thought of the end result of these leftist ideals without too much argument on how to establish them. We all know that implementation is the problem along with the ability to sustain them longterm. I dont have a problem in the world with anyone wishing the best of circumstances on other citizens... whether that be health coverage, welfare, or otherwise... where i find the problem is in the line of thinking that gives the government the onus to carry out those wishes.
I share your concerns in that the implementation of these programs are where we find most of the dificulty... but like i said... my problem lies in the thought process of having the government act as "parent" to its citizens but having the taxpayer foot the bill.... in these scenarios .. i believe it to be a better policy of taking out the middleman ( the government) and handling our own business like responsible adults should.

I find is disagreeable to mandate the government to change its principals in order to provide care for its citizens..rather than attempting to mandate society ,at large ,to take the reigns in this regards
as I understand it .. the basic principals of our governemnt are pretty well laid out in the preamble.
Quote: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. where i take note is in the wording... "insure" domestic tranquility... "provide for" the common defense.. and "promote" the general welfare.
I do not confuse the terms "provide" and "promote".. as i believe many do.

one aspect of healthcare that i would not find disagreeable would be rendering any payments for healthcare insurance premiums or actual payments for services rendered as 100% tax deductions for all....this would be along the lines of "promoting".. you would still have the choice and freedoms to choose and recieve healthcare services as you deem neccessary without overt government intervention... you would be, in essence, in control of your funds.... which is how it should be.

mandating and actively engaging in the procurement of health services is what i would consider "providing for". and does little but add a beauracratic environment with massive government intervention with impossible oversight potentials and ushering in a realm where corruption can reign supreme.

of course exeptions are evident.. such as the disabled and the severly downtrodden... which i believe is one area where the goverment can and should break its principals of "promoting" and actually " provide for"... but i would prefer the family unit be responsible for its members... if at all possible.

but yeah.. these programs have noble ambitions... however I see placing this responsibility in the hands of hte government as less than wise.. and certainly less than noble

[Dennis]

callous wrote: Moracca wrote: I was just curious to see how other "neo-cons" thought of the leftist goals in the social services arena. Personally I feel that the leftist agenda concerning nationalized health care and socialism in general is a noble goal. I mean, the fact that leftsists want to ensure that everyone has at least access to health care, a place to stay and food to eat is as American to me than anything else. The problem is implementing these programs. I think that if we can find responsible ways to implement these programs we will have taken many steps forward in making the US a better place. However, the costs associated with these programs would be enormous.

Anyway, I'd like to see what everyone out there thought of the end result of these leftist ideals without too much argument on how to establish them. We all know that implementation is the problem along with the ability to sustain them longterm.

I believe a national healthcare system shouldn't go the entire way.

A person who averages 25 hours a week working over a 6 month period should have full healthcare benefits no questions asked.

A person who is disabled and can not work should have full healthcare benefits no questions asked.

A hippie living on the street making a living out of asking people for money? f**k em.

Right on! Universal should only be for those who work, especially since it would (should) be paid for through tax dollars.

I would also add being provided with a choice between private and universal care, and having no extra tax taken if you choose private care.

[Medius]

Moracca wrote: I was just curious to see how other "neo-cons" thought of the leftist goals in the social services arena. Personally I feel that the leftist agenda concerning nationalized health care and socialism in general is a noble goal. I mean, the fact that leftsists want to ensure that everyone has at least access to health care, a place to stay and food to eat is as American to me than anything else. The problem is implementing these programs. I think that if we can find responsible ways to implement these programs we will have taken many steps forward in making the US a better place. However, the costs associated with these programs would be enormous.

Anyway, I'd like to see what everyone out there thought of the end result of these leftist ideals without too much argument on how to establish them. We all know that implementation is the problem along with the ability to sustain them longterm.

I am not a neo-conservative, however, I do count myself as fiscally conservative. I think that there is definately a need to help people and bring them access to basic human needs. The trick is to bring it to the lowest possible level (government-wise).

Our states or ideally our local towns and cities should be the ones to organize and help the less fortunate. I have three reasons for this:

1.) Smaller endeavors generate less waste. The federal government loses inordinate amounts of money to waste for their large-scale programs.

2.) Local programs bring with them a better sense of community. When you deal with a sea of faceless numbers, it is easy to lose sight of who you are helping and whether they need help.

3.) Choice. At a local level it gives communities more choice as to how they provide for those in need. It doesn't make sense for every community to have the same program. In some communities a work program may be more beneficial while in others it may be more cost effective to offer goods, services, or even money to help the down-trodden.

[Patriarch]

Dookiestix wrote: Patriarch wrote: Most of the programs you are talking about involve implementing socialism. Socialism almost never works. Just ask the Russians.

Or even France. There they have tried a quasi social/still capitalist approach and they have riots almost every weekend now. Not to mention a huge problem with immigrants and islamo fascists.

Furthermore the only way you can really help out these disadvantaged people is either trying to get them jobs and tax cuts---> Conservative Ideas. Or buy simply taxing the hell out of the rich and redistributing it in welfare---> leftest idea.

I don't think welfare for the most part is a good Idea. Especially unfettered welfare. It causes single mothers to want to have more kids, to get more money which is not good for society. It also causes illegals to want to come to the US so all their kids can get free Welfare and medicade.

And not to mention some people on it are just plain lazy and don't want to work, so we have to work for them? No way.
How's socialism working for the Canadians?

It's working wonders in Canada. 20% unemployment. Sky rocketing taxes. Sky rocketing property prices. Legalizing of drugs. 3-5 hour long wait to see a doctor. Oppression of civil liberties such as: Banning of Satellite's for tv; Banning of English in the Quebec sector, etc.

[Patriarch]

KRiche2 wrote: Patriarch wrote: Most of the programs you are talking about involve implementing socialism. Socialism almost never works. Just ask the Russians.

Or even France. There they have tried a quasi social/still capitalist approach and they have riots almost every weekend now. Not to mention a huge problem with immigrants and islamo fascists.

Riots every week? Islamo fascists a product of socialism?

:roll:

You're going to have to back this up. Good luck.

Quote: Furthermore the only way you can really help out these disadvantaged people is either trying to get them jobs and tax cuts---> Conservative Ideas.Or buy simply taxing the hell out of the rich and redistributing it in welfare---> leftest idea.

Well, there goes reaching across the aisle. It's this sort of oversimplification that's destroying American politics.

Quote: I don't think welfare for the most part is a good Idea. Especially unfettered welfare. It causes single mothers to want to have more kids, to get more money which is not good for society.

The "welfare-queen" is all but a myth. The amount of people who CHOOSE to live solely on welfare is next to nothing because life on welfare is next to nothing. If the system is abused, it should be reformed not eliminated.

Quote: It also causes illegals to want to come to the US so all their kids can get free Welfare and medicade.

If by providing social welfare programs people want to live here, so be it. There was a time when being the land of oppurtunity was a good thing.

Quote: And not to mention some people on it are just plain lazy and don't want to work, so we have to work for them? No way.

Again, these people are few and far between. Social welfare programs are meant to be a stepping stone for some and a lifeline for others, not a free pass. If there's abuse, the answer is reform.

Healthcare is different though. There's no excuse for nearly 50 million Americans to lack basic coverage.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf
(Page 20)

You'll notice a 10 million person gap between those below poverty (page 13) and those without coverage. It's not just about the poor- the lack of access to basic healthcare is outrageous for what is supposed to be one of the wealthiest nations in the world.

You should be applauding the OP's willingness to see the good in what's trying to be done and join in the search for a solution, rather than taking jabs at liberals and the poor.

*Edited for page numbers.

I didn't say Islamo Fascism was a product of Socialism I said they are having a huge problem with immigrants who are of that decent. 10 million more Muslims have moved into "tolerant" France. And what did many of them do? Started actively oppressing free speech. They threaten any media outlets that spoke ill of Islam in any form. They hunted down an anti-islamo Fascist man and murdered him. These are just some examples of the problem.

And as far as you down playing any problems with welfare your point is clouded with too much, ehhh but that never happens, talk. You can't praise a program that has so many faults and just play down all the faults by saying, that never happens though.

The fact of the matter is our government is supporting welfare moms to have 20 kids and rewarding her for it, It's corrupt and you won't convince me any different. I am not going to believe your liberal lies anymore.

[Gremlin]

Shakes head...

...The American people in general are "conservative" on the spectrum. Keep in mind the real issue is not "left", "right"... the real issue is "classism". The rich/comfortable citizens generally will be conservative, essentially protecting what they have done in their life to continue doing it. Strong Army, small government, lower taxes,.... the poor more liberal and want progressive change to have a bigger pie in the game of life.


Those who are wealthy, in control of a bank, Union, State, or Federal Government office... or at least some say in these things, will be liberal. They are the "problem solvers", "organizers", and "progressives".

The the habitat of the man dictate weather one is a liberal or conservative more so then that "said" political ideology from "said" individual.


/back to what ever yall were talkin about...

[Chymical]

oh dear, did someone say 'islamo-fascist'?

[Charlie Man]

Canada is importing people of crazy islamic descent? Well aren't we judging people... and not having a source.
The fact of the matter is when you make crazy assertions, even about welfare or canada, I would like you to have a source.

As for thrilla's post, which makes valid points, perhaps socialism is actually a sensible choice here for health care, in that a nationalized insurance thingy-dingy would be an effective use of public money in that it being a commonwealth application of government is nice and efficient... well, if there's oversight rather than beurocracy.

As for welfare, that's a significantly more complicated discussion because not everyone needs it... so safetynets are hooked to people who don't want them, which creates this awful problem. But that's another thread, I think we're doing national health care here :D

[Angelicus]

callous wrote:

A hippie living on the street making a living out of asking people for money? f**k em.

Well what do you know, will wonders never cease? Finally there is something I can agree with callous on. :lol:

[callous]

Angelicus wrote: callous wrote:

A hippie living on the street making a living out of asking people for money? f**k em.

Well what do you know, will wonders never cease? Finally there is something I can agree with callous on. :lol:

However, if they choose to make their living as a volunteer for a homeless shelter or youth hostile, assisting in human services without a wage, full time, I would give them health care based on participation guidelines.

[Chingu]

Moracca wrote: I was just curious to see how other "neo-cons" thought of the leftist goals in the social services arena. Personally I feel that the leftist agenda concerning nationalized health care and socialism in general is a noble goal. I mean, the fact that leftsists want to ensure that everyone has at least access to health care, a place to stay and food to eat is as American to me than anything else. The problem is implementing these programs. I think that if we can find responsible ways to implement these programs we will have taken many steps forward in making the US a better place. However, the costs associated with these programs would be enormous.

Anyway, I'd like to see what everyone out there thought of the end result of these leftist ideals without too much argument on how to establish them. We all know that implementation is the problem along with the ability to sustain them longterm.

I guess I am what many would call a "neo-con" though I prefer to think of myself more as a Reaganesque Conservative.

I agree that in an ideal world where corruption and greed and power-struggle and so forth didn't enter into it - where we all were perfect examples of moral purity with the teachings of Jesus close to our heart and valued charity and empathy over money and things - this would be perfect. And I agree that it is noble to want to see everyone taken care of to at least a degree where they are not in jeapordy of starvation, no-healthcare etc. Surely these are noble ideals.

As you say though - they are unattainable through the methodology of socialism which is - simply put - the redictribution of wealth. Human nature dissallows it.

I'll tell you all what. I am not wealthy. I'm actually not even close to wealthy. I have a lot of money issues and pressures and troubles. But I understand the way things work and I don't blame anyone else for my lot in life. I'm not going to sit here and mope because I haven't made the amount of money I could have made and blame that on wealthy people who have had the motivation, or have been brought up in a situation where money was passed on to them. I'm not going to begrudge those who have because I have not. That would be to give up on the dream and to sell out to the ones who want to control it all. Screw that.

I know I made some poor decisions, I know I am not as motivated as I should be. I know I have failed in many areas. I could waste my time and blame it on any number of things who's fault it is not. But, because I actually have a brain inside my head - albeit - sometimes I wonder how useful it is - I know that my position in life is pretty much the sum of me. I have made the decisions that have me where I am. I could have done any number of things differently - been more motivate, really tried harder in many respects - completed some things I haven't completed. I know the opportunity is there and that it is me that has failed to grab hold of it as strongly as I might have. I know all of this. Everyone should know that.

Life isn't fair. Deal with it - is what I say. If life presses down on you and you fail - it isn't up to someone else to reach down and pull you up - it's up to you. And in this great nation - that opportunity - daunting as it can be - which is very - in many cases - is there. That opposrtunity is there to a degree - in this greatest nation ever to be on Earth - never before seen in all of mankinds history.

So, to backtrack into socialism - an economic model thathas been demonstrated as a failed idea - would be destructive not only to those with - but even moreso to those without.

[lovebush]

Chymical wrote: I think no one should have healthcare. Kill all doctors and burn down the hospitals.

Evolution...

you'll thank me in ten thousand years.


And brilliant minds like Hawkings? Its our creativity, our minds that allow us to survive and thrive. Even the sick, weak and especially the old can make good contributions.


http://www.hawking.org.uk/about/aindex.html

[Chymical]

^^^ Go to Wikipedia and search for 'sarcasm'

If you wanna see the evolutional implications of how we currently dispense healthcare around the world (amongst other things), with mean-spirit and mateialistic fetishism then read the following short news piece:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6057734.stm
"human species may split in two...

[Sands]

callous wrote: A hippie living on the street making a living out of asking people for money? f**k em.

I met a guy in my travels (I work and live on the road) a few months back...

Early forties, bearded, well dressed with kind of longish hair. When I met him he was in a Best Buy purchasing DVDs. We struck up a conversation about new movie releases.

A few days later I saw the same man (dressed rather shabbily) standing at a stop light where a freeway offramp meets a surface street, with a sign in his hands reading. "No Job", "family needs $$$". I pulled around the corner, parked and walked back to where the guy was standing. He recognized me when I approached and said, "hey man, howzit goin'?".

I asked what he was doing and he told me he was supporting his family.

Evidently, this guy has a regular route of offramps that he visits on a schedule. He stands out there for 8-10 hours a day... and makes between $150 to $300 a day... 5 days a week. Tax free...all cash. He owns a modest house outright, 2 fairly new cars (paid for), and supports a wife and 3 kids. I asked if he considered that swindling people out of money was not honorable, much less highly illegal. He claimed he wasn't swindling anyone and pointed to his sign... he said, "I don't have a job, and my family does need money to survive." Then he pointed to the hundreds of cars and said, "and these generous people provide it." He claims to have been doing this for close to 12 years in 3 different major cities.

I was dumbfounded... all I could do was shake my head and walk away. I talked with a policeman a few hours later and he told me what this guy was doing, while unethical, was not really illegal. The man never "asks for money". People read his sign and pass money out their windows to him.

I did notice however when I visited that city about 4 months later, this guy was nowhere around.

[callous]

Sands wrote: callous wrote: A hippie living on the street making a living out of asking people for money? f**k em.

I met a guy in my travels (I work and live on the road) a few months back...

Early forties, bearded, well dressed with kind of longish hair. When I met him he was in a Best Buy purchasing DVDs. We struck up a conversation about new movie releases.

A few days later I saw the same man (dressed rather shabbily) standing at a stop light where a freeway offramp meets a surface street, with a sign in his hands reading. "No Job", "family needs $$$". I pulled around the corner, parked and walked back to where the guy was standing. He recognized me when I approached and said, "hey man, howzit goin'?".

I asked what he was doing and he told me he was supporting his family.

Evidently, this guy has a regular route of offramps that he visits on a schedule. He stands out there for 8-10 hours a day... and makes between $150 to $300 a day... 5 days a week. Tax free...all cash. He owns a modest house outright, 2 fairly new cars (paid for), and supports a wife and 3 kids. I asked if he considered that swindling people out of money was not honorable, much less highly illegal. He claimed he wasn't swindling anyone and pointed to his sign... he said, "I don't have a job, and my family does need money to survive." Then he pointed to the hundreds of cars and said, "and these generous people provide it." He claims to have been doing this for close to 12 years in 3 different major cities.

I was dumbfounded... all I could do was shake my head and walk away. I talked with a policeman a few hours later and he told me what this guy was doing, while unethical, was not really illegal. The man never "asks for money". People read his sign and pass money out their windows to him.

I did notice however when I visited that city about 4 months later, this guy was nowhere around.

Its a bizarre social commentary to say the least, and my statement isn't exactly acidically against hippies. Its more a statement about the fact that people who choose to try to support their families on low wage jobs, need alot more help than those who choose to live with no strings attached.

I've met alot of hippies of whom I'm extremely jealous because of the balance of happiness and abandonement of arbitrary bulls**t that they have achieved, at no small price I'm sure.

Different strokes.

[Chymical]

hippies? All they wanna do is hang around and smoke pot all day!

Uh oh :(

[Canada_Rocks]

Sands wrote: callous wrote: A hippie living on the street making a living out of asking people for money? f**k em.

I met a guy in my travels (I work and live on the road) a few months back...

Early forties, bearded, well dressed with kind of longish hair. When I met him he was in a Best Buy purchasing DVDs. We struck up a conversation about new movie releases.

A few days later I saw the same man (dressed rather shabbily) standing at a stop light where a freeway offramp meets a surface street, with a sign in his hands reading. "No Job", "family needs $$$". I pulled around the corner, parked and walked back to where the guy was standing. He recognized me when I approached and said, "hey man, howzit goin'?".

I asked what he was doing and he told me he was supporting his family.

Evidently, this guy has a regular route of offramps that he visits on a schedule. He stands out there for 8-10 hours a day... and makes between $150 to $300 a day... 5 days a week. Tax free...all cash. He owns a modest house outright, 2 fairly new cars (paid for), and supports a wife and 3 kids. I asked if he considered that swindling people out of money was not honorable, much less highly illegal. He claimed he wasn't swindling anyone and pointed to his sign... he said, "I don't have a job, and my family does need money to survive." Then he pointed to the hundreds of cars and said, "and these generous people provide it." He claims to have been doing this for close to 12 years in 3 different major cities.

I was dumbfounded... all I could do was shake my head and walk away. I talked with a policeman a few hours later and he told me what this guy was doing, while unethical, was not really illegal. The man never "asks for money". People read his sign and pass money out their windows to him.

I did notice however when I visited that city about 4 months later, this guy was nowhere around.

Hehehe. It is funny. I hear a similar "story" whenever I discuss welfare and the homeless for people. I heard that everybody in upstate NY actaulyl hustles and begs on the streets of brooklyn.

:lol:

[sLiPpY]

Canada_Rocks wrote: Sands wrote: callous wrote: A hippie living on the street making a living out of asking people for money? f**k em.

I met a guy in my travels (I work and live on the road) a few months back...

Early forties, bearded, well dressed with kind of longish hair. When I met him he was in a Best Buy purchasing DVDs. We struck up a conversation about new movie releases.

A few days later I saw the same man (dressed rather shabbily) standing at a stop light where a freeway offramp meets a surface street, with a sign in his hands reading. "No Job", "family needs $$$". I pulled around the corner, parked and walked back to where the guy was standing. He recognized me when I approached and said, "hey man, howzit goin'?".

I asked what he was doing and he told me he was supporting his family.

Evidently, this guy has a regular route of offramps that he visits on a schedule. He stands out there for 8-10 hours a day... and makes between $150 to $300 a day... 5 days a week. Tax free...all cash. He owns a modest house outright, 2 fairly new cars (paid for), and supports a wife and 3 kids. I asked if he considered that swindling people out of money was not honorable, much less highly illegal. He claimed he wasn't swindling anyone and pointed to his sign... he said, "I don't have a job, and my family does need money to survive." Then he pointed to the hundreds of cars and said, "and these generous people provide it." He claims to have been doing this for close to 12 years in 3 different major cities.

I was dumbfounded... all I could do was shake my head and walk away. I talked with a policeman a few hours later and he told me what this guy was doing, while unethical, was not really illegal. The man never "asks for money". People read his sign and pass money out their windows to him.

I did notice however when I visited that city about 4 months later, this guy was nowhere around.

Hehehe. It is funny. I hear a similar "story" whenever I discuss welfare and the homeless for people. I heard that everybody in upstate NY actaulyl hustles and begs on the streets of brooklyn.

:lol:

On Wall Street, they call them "traders" :?