• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which Socialist programs do not and have never benefited you or your family?

Which Socialist programs do not and have never benefited you or your family?

  • Public education.

    Votes: 5 20.8%
  • Street lighting.

    Votes: 6 25.0%
  • Clean air.

    Votes: 6 25.0%
  • Food stamps.

    Votes: 21 87.5%
  • Social Security.

    Votes: 9 37.5%
  • Medicare.

    Votes: 10 41.7%
  • Medicaid.

    Votes: 13 54.2%
  • Welfare.

    Votes: 18 75.0%
  • FEMA assistance.

    Votes: 20 83.3%
  • College grants.

    Votes: 12 50.0%

  • Total voters
    24
Nothing in the poll fits the definition of socialism.

so·cial·ism
   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
 
This is actually a very biased poll. There is no " i have always benefited socialist programs" option. I learned about this in my public opinion class, you are skewing your results and forcing people to take an answer that confirms your bias about socialist programs.
 
You contradict yourself... do you suggest not following the constitution and having things balanced? I see the constitution as a guide, not a leader, its written on but 4 pages, nothing is covered in detail, this is the reason for all the amendments. Don't you know what the constitution is or does?do you?.. as I have said many times, the constitution is open to interpretation And it was written and designed hundreds of years ago, with the ability to edit it throughout history as necessary. Which means it is as up to date as we, America, want it to be."we, America is far too conservative, far too dated, the paper needs updating. If the majority disagrees with something in the constitution, then change it! Its that simple???? Don't use that poor argument of it being 'old' to justify your progressive agenda. This has been happening a lot. Progressives pass an unconstitutional law be honest , this statement is your opinion.. and find some twisted interpretation of the constitution to justify it. Why? Because the correct avenue of making these laws constitutional would be to amend the constitution. And to do so would be to boldly claim exactly what it is you are doing: restricting the freedoms of the individuals and states. If you boldly state what it is you are taking away from people, it would never pass.May I try to take away misery and poverty from the people???? And so you have to back door the law in order to get it to pass. Your lying to yourselves as much as lying to the people. Just admit what you are and try to change the constitution. If you are right and that is the new thought of this age, then it should be no problem.
Conservatives cling to the old "freedoms and liberties" so much.
Freedom from affordable health for the masses.
The conservatives are the wealthy, what do they care about the masses?
 
Conservatives cling to the old "freedoms and liberties" so much.
Freedom from affordable health for the masses.
The conservatives are the wealthy, what do they care about the masses?

It is that easy to change if the majority of 2/3's feels it to be necessary. And if my statement of progressive unconsitutional laws were just an opinion, you wouldn't have a need to argue that the constitution is out of date. Because you are arguing this point, you imply your concession that the rules don't fit what needs to be done (in your opinion) and are outdated. I am simply requesting that we update the rules if that is the case. I believe that you are truly arguing for what you believe will make the majority of people happier in life and that's why you chose your side. You want a government to protect the masses. I want a government to protect the individuals. The individuals can then protect each other. I have faith in mankind that we can do this. But I refuse to do it against the rules. If it is the case that the government can run free without rules and impose any law they want on the people, even if for the good of the masses, we risk creating a totalitarian state. We need to have rules on the government.

If you believe that the rules should be different, then so be it. But I would say you are in the minority and that's not what we believe America should be. If we did believe that, the constitution would be updated and this argument would be obsolete. But since the constitution remains as it is, I must assume there is not enough support for your side to update it and that America is not 'far too conservative' in its constitution, but is exactly where the people want it to be.
 
Do you think that it will be necessary to have a constitutional amendment for the masses to have affordable health care?

I know that I am in the minority, its not so bad at all, I'm secure, fat, and fairly happy, and retired.
If I were in the poor group(minorities/unemployed, underemployed) then things would be different.
 
Do you think that it will be necessary to have a constitutional amendment for the masses to have affordable health care?

I know that I am in the minority, its not so bad at all, I'm secure, fat, and fairly happy, and retired.
If I were in the poor group(minorities/unemployed, underemployed) then things would be different.

No, an amendment isn't necessary so long as nothing is done that is unconstitutional. I would ask that the government, instead of intervening even more, actually step out a little bit and let the insurance companies compete across state lines. Right now, I can only look for insurance companies in my state due to federal regulations. With little competition within my state (VERY little!), they can charge whatever they want. And lastly, we need to increase the supply of medical staff (perhaps by making college more affordable... by reducing grant supply so that colleges stop charging so much knowing that the government will just match whatever the increase they choose). We need to reduce malpractice suits. All of which will decrease how much a doctor gets paid. We need to get the costs of healthcare down while increasing the competition between insurers. We don't need the government to tell us how to run industries. We need the government to protect our rights.
 
Forgot the Military on that list. The military is the ultimate social program and rarely benefits anyone but those in the military, which are limited numbers of people.
 
Then Obamacare isn't socalist...


Correct, it is not socialist.

Words do have meanings. The term "socialism" means that the government controls the means of production. Using the term as a pejorative to describe government actions that one feels unnecessary simply obfuscates the meaning and evokes negative emotions, which, of course, is why the word is used inappropriately.
 
Correct, it is not socialist.

Words do have meanings. The term "socialism" means that the government controls the means of production. Using the term as a pejorative to describe government actions that one feels unnecessary simply obfuscates the meaning and evokes negative emotions, which, of course, is why the word is used inappropriately.

Wow.. respect man.. never thought I would hear that from an American right winger :) kudos!
 
Wow.. respect man.. never thought I would hear that from an American right winger :) kudos!

Thanks. Can I quote that next time someone is ragging on my post about how "liberals" are so "misinformed" and etc.?
 
Why do you keep setting up such foolish strawmen?

Look, nobody is arguing against any possible form of collective action. What people object to when they complain about tendencies toward socialism are the more extreme examples of these things.

Making polls with poorly thought-out gotchas regarding street lights and clean air doesn't prove your point, it just makes you sound like you don't understand the discussion that's going on around you.
 
Back
Top Bottom