Well, not all, but if you think so, why not call yourself a socialist? I am a capitalist, and I have no problem saying so.
Almost all. Certainly all in the Republican and Democratic parties. They all believe in some amount of taxation and some amount of social programs. Because that's not my definition of "socialist." That's Xericx's definition. I was simply noting that it applies to most people in the US. Obama is not unusual in that regard. I'm happy for you. Since I believe in a mix of capitalism and socialism, I find it meaningless to call myself either one.
Greed is good. Greed motivates. Moral obligations should be voluntary, not mandated by government without choice. That's why they are MORAL obligations. I believe in a fair and just system of economic freedom. When you do well, you should not be punished for succeeding. There should also be motivation for one to escape the middle class. Its doable for many, but when one is given handouts, it becomes less motivating to do so.
So you think only the rich deserve to be healthy? We're not talking about giving everyone a Cadillac. We're talking about giving them their health.
Actually, that is the real definition. "Your" defintion is an opinion. Don't forget the Fannie/Freddie aspect to all of this. http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/socialism
But it's not affordable, and even when people do have health care, the insurance company just tells them no, we're not covering you. These people can't do anything when the insurance company does that, because they're so in cahoots with the government. Obama is actually willing to take on the health industry by the horns. We need a president to do that. Let's be honest, health care is shitty right now, let's give the thing that has been said to be so bad a chance (given that the "good" alternative the republicans keep talking about fails time and time again). Obama knows what's up. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-aR3Gpsn4v4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-aR3Gpsn4v4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I don't consider taxing richer people a higher percentage to be fundamentally unfair. In capitalism, wealth creates more opportuniies to make more wealth...not in a linear fashion, but in an exponential fashion. This is enabled by society. Without the society, even the best businessman/woman wouldn't make a dime. This opportunity that society affords people (which escalates with wealth) isn't free. The cost is taxation, higher rates with greater wealth to account for the non-linearly greater opportunity society affords greater wealth. If it were linear, then a flat tax would make sense.
When I took the tests in the Politics tests thread, they put me clearly in the socialism area, and I have no problem with that label.
Does running prevent cancer? What if they have a heart attack when they go for that run? What if they tear their ACL why running? Should they just die or be crippled for the rest of their lives?
What insurance company prevents cancer? I have a torn MCL that I've never fixed. I'm fine. Plus, regardless of what you hear, nobody is turned away from health care. If they have a heart attack on a run, the EMTs and fire people don't first ask for an insurance card before providing care.
OK, whatever makes you feel better. Obama's answer to Joe the Plumber confirmed his beliefs to me. We'll have to agree to disagree on this.
Insurance companies don't prevent cancer, but they do prevent cancer treatment. Health care services don't turn down patients, but insurance companies turn down paying for patients, even for stuff they're covered for. The patient will get treatment, and then completely be fucked financially. This is part of the problem that got our economy to where it is. Other's, who don't have things like heart attacks (which get instant treatment), but have time to decide whether they will take treatment or not, will try to get their insurance company to cover what's in their plan, the insurance company refuses, the patient challenges which goes nowhere, and then the person decides not to get treatment because they can't afford it, and screw up their health that way. (Like Barack Obama's mother). It's amazing where we are as a nation on health care, especially given that the party largely supported by Christians is refusing to do the Christian thing regarding health care.
Truth makes me feel better, which is why I pointed out what I did. The US is a mix of socialism and capitalism. The vast majority of politicians and citizens within the US are a mix of socialism and capitalism. How you divide these people of mixed ideologies between "capitalists" and "socialists" is pretty clearly opinion. I'm not even sure we do disagree. I certainly think Obama has socialism in his political ideology. But he's certainly not a pure sociaist, like a communist. If you think he is literally a communist, we disagree. If not, we agree that he's a mixture of socialism and capitalism. Whether you call him a socialist or not is not a concern to me.
We need to pay for our infrastructure and basic services. I'm referring to the highway system, the airports, the court system, federal agencies like the FTC, FDA, DOJ, and the SEC. Studies have shown that the wealthy receive more tangible benefits from these services from the poor. Republicans focus on the social programs for the needy, but they represent a small percentage of the services provided by the government. Someone has to pay for these things. Someone has to pay for construction and upkeep of the airports, the safety c ommunications network, the air traffic ontrollers, the homeland security folks. The ability to fly anywhere in the country easily provides a great benefit to businesses and corporations, and allows them to easily expand the scope of their businesses. Again, someone has to pay for these things. Why does it not make sense for the wealthy--who derive the benefits from these things--to pay a little more than the poor who have never flown in their lives, and who buy all their goods from their neighborhood store? Who will pay for the highway system? Our ports? That's how goods get transported around the country for sale. What about the court system? About 70% of all cases heard by the courts are business related. What about the Patent and Trademark Office, which protects the rights of entrepreneurs and small businesses? It is COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE that the wealthy contribute more so that these services can be provided.
You made the case, in the bolded part, for why those agencies should be abolished. The govt. should not be giving welfare to individuals or corporations.
