|
Post by clareabel on Oct 12, 2009 15:08:06 GMT -5
Why is socialism bad? Don't link me to anything, I want your opinion, in your words.
|
|
|
Post by Metzuda on Oct 12, 2009 16:56:42 GMT -5
Because it forces everyone to do something they ought to be doing voluntarily. My name is not Runny.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 12, 2009 17:27:07 GMT -5
Hi Runny
|
|
runny
New Member
I am cool or something.
Posts: 11
|
Post by runny on Oct 12, 2009 17:42:57 GMT -5
^Kind of, If you don't want to do it, why be forced to? That is not what America was founded on. "You will do it because i tell you to" There is something called free will y'know. I help people sometimes but do i need to take money out of every paycheck to help them? no there is much better ways to help them, like rebuilding their house (if they are extremely poor) having a food drive. ect ect,
In my opinion why I am against socialism(now keep in mind there are different degrees of it.) The stricter Socialists restrict freedom of speech, they control the media, living conditions are more undesirable. (Don't forget The nazi's called themselves the National socialist party)
The less strict Socialists you would get. Health care takeover, slight media bias or complete media takeover, paying for everyone else through taxes.
Now im not entirely against socialism by the way, I Don't "hate" it, I think Britain, Sweden, and other countries systems work fine (and if i was to move to one of those countries i would be content) I'm just simply trying to convey that 50% of Americans disagree with health care reform and that i feel that our system is working fine as well. Plus in our U.S. Constitution it is Un-constitutional to have universal health care.
Article 1 section 8 states
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures
And all in all I oppose it because it is unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Post by Muffy on Oct 13, 2009 1:12:28 GMT -5
Socialism is unfair. It benefits those who should not benefit, and doesn't give enough benefit the ones that labor. I do think that socialism can work for a very long time in smaller countries, but not a government the size of america. Hasn't history taught us that already?
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Oct 13, 2009 2:31:46 GMT -5
|
|
runny
New Member
I am cool or something.
Posts: 11
|
Post by runny on Oct 13, 2009 2:34:54 GMT -5
Yes jeremy, I know that we apparently fund iraq and afganistan, which is no bueno
|
|
|
Post by clareabel on Oct 13, 2009 2:55:57 GMT -5
The less strict Socialists you would get. Health care takeover, slight media bias or complete media takeover, paying for everyone else through taxes. I don't get what the health care thing is all about, and paying for things through taxes just ensures a fair system where everyone gets something and people can pay more for extra if they want. Article 1 section 8 states The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures And all in all I oppose it because it is unconstitutional. Maybe I'm being stupid, but I don't get how that opposes paying for certain things through taxation... Socialism is unfair. It benefits those who should not benefit, and doesn't give enough benefit the ones that labor. I do think that socialism can work for a very long time in smaller countries, but not a government the size of america. Hasn't history taught us that already? Granted. But how about those that work their absolute hardest, have done all their lives, but are simply unable to get steady work? This could be for all kinds of reasons, not necessarily through the fault of that person. I know someone in the US who does construction work, but during the winter months the work dries up and no matter how hard he tries he can't get a job in any of the number of things he's trained in- he's got 3 daughters, his wife has just had twin boys, and they have no medical insurance because they can't afford it. History has taught us that communism doesn't work in large nations. Marxism stated that this system would not work in the kind of economy that Russia had at that time. However, socialism is not the same as communism. Some socialist ideals make sense so that people can survive. Also: Surely those of us who are Christians should be happy with the idea of contributing towards other people's welfare? I know and understand your point of choice to do this, but a system where everyone gives fairly is much easier to orchestrate than that of random donations, which because of their sporadic nature would be much more difficult to get to the people who need them, when they need them.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Oct 13, 2009 3:20:39 GMT -5
^Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by Muffy on Oct 13, 2009 6:46:42 GMT -5
Granted. But how about those that work their absolute hardest, have done all their lives, but are simply unable to get steady work? This could be for all kinds of reasons, not necessarily through the fault of that person. I know someone in the US who does construction work, but during the winter months the work dries up and no matter how hard he tries he can't get a job in any of the number of things he's trained in- he's got 3 daughters, his wife has just had twin boys, and they have no medical insurance because they can't afford it. History has taught us that communism doesn't work in large nations. Marxism stated that this system would not work in the kind of economy that Russia had at that time. However, socialism is not the same as communism. Some socialist ideals make sense so that people can survive. Also: Surely those of us who are Christians should be happy with the idea of contributing towards other people's welfare? I know and understand your point of choice to do this, but a system where everyone gives fairly is much easier to orchestrate than that of random donations, which because of their sporadic nature would be much more difficult to get to the people who need them, when they need them. This makes sense. My problem with "equal distribution" is that it benefits the lazy. That is unbiblical. At the same time, I do think we should benefit those who are needy that can't work at all because of various health issues. I will never argue for capitalism, I think its just as bad of a system as socialism, only it works better in big government situations.
|
|
|
Post by Van Zan on Oct 13, 2009 11:12:47 GMT -5
Whether it's "bad" or not is irrelevent to Americans. It's against the Constitution. If you're dealing with it in a more general sense, I do believe that it's a very poor design for government, but you'd have to specify what level of socialism you're talking about Clare. What exactly are you referring too.
|
|
runny
New Member
I am cool or something.
Posts: 11
|
Post by runny on Oct 13, 2009 11:15:02 GMT -5
Whether it's "bad" or not is irrelevent to Americans. It's against the Constitution. If you're dealing with it in a more general sense, I do believe that it's a very poor design for government, but you'd have to specify what level of socialism you're talking about Clare. What exactly are you referring too. Exactly, Technically the constitution could be modified at any point to have it be constitutional, But this health care bill would still be unconstitutional because it fails to change these amendments. If it was constitutional for it to happen, I would not mind.
|
|
|
Post by Van Zan on Oct 13, 2009 11:20:15 GMT -5
Yea, I don't know if that answers her question at all, but I thought it was important to point out.
|
|
runny
New Member
I am cool or something.
Posts: 11
|
Post by runny on Oct 13, 2009 11:27:06 GMT -5
Yea, I don't know if that answers her question at all, but I thought it was important to point out. well. that basically explained everything in a nutshell.
|
|
|
Post by Maarten on Oct 13, 2009 11:30:52 GMT -5
I don't understand all the fuss you Americans have about your constitution....
|
|