[quote]As you can see, you have succeeded in irritating me with your own repeated ad hominem.
You are entirely wrong. I hold individual freedoms and responsibilities in the highest standing. In fact, I would argue that the first among those responsibilities is the one we have to others.
No. It is your wasted intellect.
Communitarian values, including Socialism, have made our species as successful as it has become. Socialism, per se, is a relatively new process. You may know the difficulties Capitalism had in its birth, so I would expect the newer advancement to need some room, too.
The model for Capitalism that most of the world has experienced is one of crass exploitation; from the Opium Wars to Iraq's occupation. It is no wonder that peoples who have been drained of their countries natural resources look to alternative models.

The U.S. is a mixed economy - a capitalist country has never existed.



Sez who?

Quote:

The richest country in the world certainly should be able to provide a safety net for the bottom 5% of the people who simply are unable to earn a modest income for themselves. Unfortunately, the programs we now have to assist the poor do not use "means testing" (where someone gets a benefit only if they are truly poor). Programs like Social Security and Medicare are hugely expensive - and they are offered to virtually every person over the age of 65, rich and poor alike.

President Bush has proposed legislation to means test sections of medicare.

__________________
Read this post quick before the mods delete it!

TOTALLY ridiculous. It is capitalism that has it's roots only as far back as the 18th century. Socialism, by contrast, in essence, is as old as the stone age, with some grand poobah controlling the distribution of goods (by force).

__________________
Read this post quick before the mods delete it!

No I do not believe that socialism is the same as communism (I'm socialist myself)

In a Free Market subsidies should not be used, that's Socialism although mainly used to aid the status quo which is normally large land owners so I am of the opinion that subsidies should not be used at all. And the same with import duties. I'm one of the socialists that think that the Free Market can be used to level the playing field.

Globalisation is a force when unhindered by protectionists can produce great wealth for the whole world and not just for the misers.

Yeah. Well, I'll try and get over it.

I'm glad you abhor "wasted intellect," although I'm not yet convinced you have anything personally to worry about.

FYI, the above two statements of yours might make sense to you, but the world's biggest proponents of Socialism would consider them incompatible...........in fact, opposites.

Germans didn't invent socialism, but started adopting it and trying to force others to adopt it by the mid-nineteenth century. Their "Progressive" agenda was to progressively confiscate individuals' property in accordance with their productivity. They fought two world wars against the individualist "liberals" who valued the freedom insured by capitalism, in effort to inflict the fascism necessary to enforce socialism.

In contrast to individualism, economists define "Socialism" as a community where individuals are expected to sacrifice anything and everything for the benefit of the larger group. Central planning is where decisions are made without regard for personal preferences or individual ideas or desires. The Nazi's hated the Jews and the British because they preferred individual choice and ownership personal property, to the dictates and confiscation practiced by central planners in their manipulation of the masses.

Actually, Socialism has always been seductive to short-sighted idealists. It's fatal flaw is that one person's needs become an arbitrary decision by some other person. It has destroyed every society in world history that adopted it, because of the real needs of individuals not getting met, the absence of personal rewards for the production of excellence, and for the inevitable eventual consolidation of power to a single dictator.

So, apotropoxy, I suggest you stop confusing shrillness for insight, and try studying some history and economics books before displaying your rather obvious ignorance with such reckless abandon.

It's the same old and tired story by Dems. When they have the presidency, suddenly we hear absolutely nothing about poor people, the homeless or global warming. Then suddenly WHEN a Republican is president----per the Dems----these things suddenly appear again.

Too funny.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

The implication was that we did.

Both Republicans and Democrats have been holding many absurd notions out as truth for decades. It's time America woke up...

Silence, demon.

I said silence, demon.

ROTFL. It won't help because it's a government program, but I'll bet a million dollars you'd be lauding it as a great plan if the Democrats had implimented it...

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

No, they don't. Government's ONLY legitimate function is to secure the inalienable rights of each individual under Natural Law.

The general welfare clause of the Constitution did not allow government to tax and spend to its heart's desire to provide for U.S. Citizens. The proof of that is irrefutable:

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 _Madison_ 1865, I, page 546

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constitutents." - James Madison, regarding an appropriations bill for French refugees, 1794

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831 _Madison_ 1865, IV, pages 171-172

And Thomas Jefferson, you might remember him as the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence, said:

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Poverty, homelessness, and mentall illness, as well as illegal immigration...HAVE DECLINED...


then again, they have also been STRICKEN from the U.S. census.....we no longer ATTEMPT to count them...


THANKS BUSH....you have addressed the hungry in America...what a champ.


http://infowars.com/articles/nwo/vid..._rice_bush.htm

^watch the incumbants destroy America!!^

It is most definately a legitimate function.
Our welfare systems in this country are in dire need of repairs. There does, in fact, need to be a system which points those in need towards productivity (or at least the children of those in need). This can only happen through social programs which don't perpetuate a cycle of dependancy (which it does seem to currently be a problem). This does not, however mean, in any way, that welfare programs are not a countries duty. To secure the "inalienable rights of each individual under Natural Law" includes not allowing people to starve, not forcing people to steal and beg in order to fulfill their basic human needs. It also means allowing the children of those who find themselves in these positions, an equal playing field on which to enter the adult world, through the availability of food, education, and health care. This is the only way to increase the number of productive citizens within a nation and not create a huge gap between the rich and the poor. These gaps simply cause less productivity overall, giving less to everyone (not to mention the ever looming threat of revolts and outright war which arise from a government which ignores its poor).