Which would be crazy. Money and free job training in exchange for 4 hours of work a day? Seems like a pretty sweet deal that he has cooked up.
Which of these socialist ideas do you support?
- Thread starter BAnksMcFadden
- Start date
Which would be crazy. Money and free job training in exchange for 4 hours of work a day? Seems like a pretty sweet deal that he has cooked up.
Military and space programs and that is about it from the federal government. Charity of any sort is more efficiently provided at the local level so that someone can really see if someone needs it AND if they deserve it. Infrastructure always turns into bid donor construction companies getting highway contracts and also used to blackmail states to get them to agree to other things.
This is true, and another reason drug testing would be a waste of money and resources.
That's fine. Don't believe it, but that's what the testing has revealed in the states where it has been implemented.
It's simply astounding that you and others refuse to believe the actual results of testing programs that have been implemented in various states' welfare schemes. Facts be damned, your political leanings and stereotyped beliefs are more persuasive than raw data.
And yes, all the other posts about the time to test positive being so short for drugs not called marijuana are correct, but that only further underscores the inherent ineffective and wastefulness of drug testing in this context.
If you are concerned with helping the needy, you don't need the government to do so. There are thousands of much more efficient means to do so. Thousands of charitable organizations that do it much cheaper and better than the government. If you are so undisciplined that you have to have someone MAKE you help the needy, I'm sure there are organizations that can help with that too.
Thing is, when you "contribute" because someone makes you, it is not very benevolent.
Thing is, when you "contribute" because someone makes you, it is not very benevolent.
A Democracy can only last until its citizens determine to vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury. After that, the majority will elect candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury leading to inevitable collapse due to loose fiscal policy.
This is why our founding fathers' established a representative republic. It is imperative to elect representatives who will understand and do the right things, not pander to the public and promise more social entitlements than we can actually afford.
First, the thesis of the question is wrong. Police, fire departments, jails, and such are local, community activities. They have nothing to do with socialism per se, which is CENTRAL CONTROL ofcertain services.
Sheriff departments, for instance, are publicly elected and report NOT to any government, but to the people.
Public schools are socialist in nature, and they are the very WORST education option, costing 2x what private education costs and 20x what homeschooling costs, with lower results than either.
Roads and bridges are usually functions of government, but when accomplished privately, are done far more effectively.
Most of the other things listed are socialist, and are not powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.
Where done, they are abject failures, from SS to corporate taxes.
I'm curious why anyone would argue against a structure similar to this. A capable person shouldn't receive anything from the government unless they are doing something to earn it. Getting handed other people's hard-earned money should be quite difficult.
“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group of course that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few other Texas oil millionaires and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
The author of this quote is noted left-winger Dwight D. Eisenhower.
The author of this quote is noted left-winger Dwight D. Eisenhower.
yes Carson is an idiot...if he only had half a brain...
I was not a Carson for President guy but he is far from an idiot. Yale graduate, neurosurgeon, separating conjoined twins, director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at James Hopkins...complete idiot.
Steal the crayons from Walmart. Cost is built in to each crayon. OP forgot to include stealing what is not yours in his bolded section.
No, I would take a step farther and make the tests somewhat random. The waste is pretty negligible for state governments, according to the linked article I first responded to. If that amount of "waste" happened within a program liberals supported, they'd mock conservatives for such a negligible amount.
Is it a waste for employers to give drug tests?
Where t g e HECK did that come from, and what does that have to do with the discussion we are in?
I simply answered the question.
Boy, liberals can NOT HELP but view everything through the lens of conflict between races, sexes, and income groups.
Vongrats, your Karl Marx training must be complete...
This stuff is killing us. They have eliminated fat in foods and replaced it with high frutose corn syrup. People feel they are eating fat free and actually eating more sugar than pastrys.
You are incorrect about every single argument you make. Please explain to me how private schools cost half as much as private schools? And if you think homeschooling should even be in the conversation of goals we should have as a country, you're a complete idiot.
I don't know who these tests were conducted on, exactly, or how they were administered. I can guarantee you, though, that there is a HUGE, GIGANTIC issue in South Carolina with Medicaid patients selling prescription narcotics. The talk in this state of testing them is not to see if they're smoking weed, but rather to see if the pain meds they have been prescribed are actually in their system before they get them re-filled.
Really comparing Carson to this guy...might be more suited to compare Hillary to Ted if we are comparing anyone that has been a part of this Presidential campaign
Glad you're jumping to conclusions. I have no political leanings. Get off your high horse. Marijuana alone should kick more than 1% of welfare recipients. Test the general population and see what happens. 1% leads me to believe some things in the studies are flawed, probably intentionally.
You think that it's only Medicaid patients? If so, your head is in the sand. On a sidenote, Medicaid patients can get way less opiates than privately insured patients. Opiate addiction and the selling of opiates is a huge problem in this country, and it's not limited to Medicaid patients. Serious reform is needed when it comes to controlled substances, but it is unlikely to happen, as the medical lobby has very huge sway.
He wasn't comparing Ben Carson to Ted kiazinski. Get your panties out of your ass crack. And your comment is just stupidity. Stick to football bro.
i dont understand what you dont understand.
you have REPEATEDLY advocated for returning to various times in our history when African Americans were outright marginalized or enslaved. you cant advocate returning to such a time while ignoring the realities of those times. it seemed, based on your post above, that you were saying the US, pre 1860, was a utopia of sorts. a reasonable person cannot ignore the fact, that, during that time, African Americans were literally enslaved all over our country. you cant seperate slavery from the day-to-day lives of americans pre 1860. hence the question. you seem to prefer a time in america when blacks were either enslaved, or segregated, or completely marginalized. what dont you understand about our questions? slavery, jim crow laws, segregation, those were significant facts that had impacts on everyone's lives at the times you keep pining for. its not surprising people are calling you out.
and you make yourself out to be a myopic idiot by consistently referring to karl marx and/or saul alinsky in refuting people's points.
im surprised there is ANY support for fam subsidies. they are a form of protectionism that is keeping produce prices artificially high to benefit multi-national corporations. it is, literally, corporate welfare. never-mind that the subsidies, as mentioned, are going to producers who grow crops that are literally killing Americans WHILE making them dumber.
thanks for the advice and your opinion...
And don't worry...i am much more pissed off about us getting our ass handed to us by Wake in baseball than I am about what is being said in this thread. It effects me very very little
I'm not going to necessarily argue against that. The problem I see is that it's idealistic. The process to achieve those goals has inefficiencies that out weigh the cost of simply giving people money and resources and accepting a certain level of corruption/fraud to begin with. I've long thought about the system of guaranteed basic income. It's being tried in various countries, including, most recently parts of Canada. Think about this:
1. No more welfare fraud
2. Remove overhead of agencies designed to implement welfare handouts with requirements to enforce rules to reduce the said fraud
3. Reduce the incentive to not work. In other words, today we have a system where unemployment benefits are not much worse than minimum wage, so why work? But, if you had a basic income, any work is additional income to improve your quality of life.
4. Eliminate minimum wage, which creates a more accurate free market.
5. Humanitarian reasons- get people off the street
6. Some people want to do volunteer work, but can't because they have to live. This enables those people to pursue that.
7. Like (6), some people, such as artists/musicians/etc. may find that their basic income is all they need in life, and may choose to create something useful for society from it.
8. Get the government out of our lives. Why have an invasive government just to ensure we're deserving of benefits?
Profit.
Victory.
Would there be people that do nothing? Sure. But, we have that today already. I believe people, in general, want to earn more money, given the opportunity. Would we have to have a serious discussion on immigration laws? Yep.
Milton Friedman was the godfather of modern conservative financial thought. Here's something he described similarly:
In the state of SC, we spends about $13k per student per year. You can look it up in any of a dozen different sources.
Go to the website for OPS, a typical private school in Orangeburg. Cost is about $6k/ year. If you don't like that one, i can show you a dozen more.
Reason is that less than 1/2 of the money spent in public education ever even makes it to the schools (about 48%). This is typical of the waste of ANY socialized system.
And as for homeschooling, I'll post some statistics at some point, but every single study is pretty consistent. While an average public school student scores in the 50th percentile on standardized testing, homeschooled kids score in the 83rd percentile on tthe same testing.
It ain't even close.
Idiot.
Last edited:
High corporate tax rate
Income tax
Social Security - retirement age NEEDS to be raised to 70+
Welfare
Disability
Unemployment - i agree with @OrangeTigerTower and @scotchtiger on this one, people should be working to better themselves or help the state/locality provide services. This is not far from Obama's proposal of a nationwide, extensive Americorps Though, im not sure why they dont see it as a massive expansion of the federal government. I mean, those people will become federal employees to an extent.
Public pre-k - study after study after study says pre-k improves life outcomes, the government should provide it, free of charge to everyone. plus, it allows people to get back into the workforce after having a baby quicker.
Public elementary school - everyone deserves an elementary education
Public secondary school - everyone deserves a high school education
Public trade school - not everyone should go to college
Paid family and maternity leave
Public University
Socialized Healthcare - i believe its the role of the federal government to provide a baseline of healthcare to its citiznes
Farm subsidies
Corporate bail outs
Infrastructure (roads rail ways, air ports)
Police
Fire departments
Prison system - i believe its the role of the government to rehabilitate people who have committed certain crimes. not sell them into the prison industrial complex who's shareholders demand their repeated and constant incarceration.
Bro, no one was enslaved. It was more like a father/son relationship.
#&%@ Son of a rabbit!!! Hot dammitt mannn lol. I am not sure to laugh at the short sightedness of this post OR piss at myself for being curious at the ongoing discussion. After watching VCU not show up or no commitments today and since I am here, here is my take. The whole political spectrum can be sum up in this post just reading responses. People's true feelings and political ideology just drips out in their response. Individuals particular politicians want to eliminate programs, US government departments and professions cause it does not fit THEIR need in their life. I find it humorous that people especially politicians can do with out education :/ The $&$@ folly of this post is each one you outline effects MILLIONS of Americans. I don't have a garden in the backyard and live in a city so let's eliminate Farm subsidies. The alternative is trading another country for what we have grown here at home. Our economy has thrive with a balance of socialism and capitalism. I can argue for the last 36 years we have tilted heavy towards capitalism causing this discord and CEO financial equity gap.
I would give y'all the kumbya Hakuna Matata line ~ let's find common ground, see what departments can be streamline or reorganize, reexamine structure if social programs and etc. Fact is it will take a political party to win all three houses to accomplish this goal in their vision. In our current political climate, I do not see the necessary cooperation from the right.
By the way corporate bailouts could not even get the Democratic Socialist to vote for it. Bail outs is Plutocracy
Last edited:
Private schools also don't pay for busing. Private schools also don't provide lunches to kids that can't afford them. Everybody that can go to a private school can afford to go to a private school. And the majority of kids that are homeschooled, I homeschooled by people that are confident enough to do so. Would you suggest that we should make more of our population be educated by the uneducated public? The thought of that scares the shit out of me. And homeschooling completely ignores half of what education is, socialization. Many homeschooled kids coming to the real world completely unable to perform even the basic social functions.
Idiot.
I want to drive down but not sure if I will make it or not. I may tag team it with a fishing trip with a manufacturer but still working on it. Up in air as of today
oh and i am happy again now that we are winning haha
