• 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!

Idaho first to sign law aimed at health care plan

Hatuey said:
What do doctors 'produce'? What do health care professionals 'produce'? If the standard for socialism is the production of a 'product'. Then why do you oppose Obama's plan for health care?
Click to expand...

Because its the biggest rip off in the history of this country and its not paid for................
 
VanceMack said:
OK...lets stay with that...

How is my decision to work for the federal government any different than you or anyone else choosing to work for ANY private employer? We both negotiate salaries and benefits packages (and make no mistake...the government does not 'provide' us housing or medical care. Every year we receive a statement declaring exactly what those services are worth as a componenet of our benefit package.

When you hire on with ATT you are given a salary and the option to buy into insurance. Your salary is going to be CONSIDERABLY higher than that of the soldier working a comparable job. Again...its all part of that negotiation.

ATT might aslk you to go work in the field. If so you will likely be paid a per diem and maybe even havardous duty pay. So too does the soldier.

The soldier WORKS for the government. the government PAYS the soldier and honors the benefit it promised in return for no overtime pay, some pretty ugly working and living conditions, devastation to families, etc. Without the benefit and compensation package the government as employer offers it is highly unlikely that too many people would stay in and make it a career.

Still looking for the socialized aspect.
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether you think signing a contract with the government and signing a contract with a private employer are the same things are the same thing, they have absolutely nothing to do with what socialism actually means.

Socialism has to do with means of production. When they are completely operated by the government, they fall right inside the definition of what is socialism. The military provides a service. This service is provided to the people(to the proletariat), by the people(by the proletariat).
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
You can down my service or any other members service but at least we served in some capacity when our country called unlike you.............
Click to expand...

Im gonna throw the flag on this one...

Yes...I served in the military. And you. And lots of others. But 'service' os a relative term. teachers serve the country. Police officers serve the country. Farmers. Every average citizen that goes to work, pays taxes, and votes responsibly serfves the country.

I couldnt do some of those jobs. I wouldnt want some of those people next to me doing my job. I volunteered...my choice.

I dont downplay military service by ANY means...but lets just keep everything in perspective.
 
MrVicchio said:
So Hazlnut, what exactly does the Military "PRODUCE"? What do POLICE "Produce"? What does the Post Office "PRODUCE"?
Click to expand...

Oh, ye of limited education.

They are all socialized institutions. If you don't understand that, get out of this thread, it's over your head.

I'll give you a hint, not a damn thing.
Click to expand...

So, you believe in order to be socialized, something must produce a product like wigits? A service can not be socialized?

Do you really believe that?

That would mean that the NHS is not socialized medicine... right, Vicchio? I mean, they don't produce anything except babies, and health...

The Military is a Cosntitutionally mandated requirement to keep the Country safe.
Click to expand...


Is it run with private or public funds?

Socialized. Socialized. Socialized.

The Post Office serves the country in ensuring mail gets around, a novel idea for it's time, but the advent of Email, and companies like Fed EX and UPS show how little the Post Office is really in demand anymore.. that might explain why it's going bankrupt...
Click to expand...

I guess you haven't been to the post office lately....

And police... are a state function to maintain law and order... they don't PRODUCE anything.
Click to expand...

We need a smiley thingie that shows a person talking about his ass...

Socialized.

Keep revealing your total ignorance...
 
Navy Pride said:
You can down my service or any other members service but at least we served in some capacity when our country called unlike you.............
Click to expand...

Please don't make me bring out Caine just so I can make you look like a hypocrite? I'm really starting to thinking you're just some 13 year old kid reading the diaries of his grandfather and making the rest up as he goes.
 
Hatuey said:
Can you read? Because if you could you would not be trying to spew the same ridiculously ignorant amount of garbage you are. Regardless of whether you think signing a contract with the government and signing a contract with a private employer are the same things are the same thing, they have absolutely nothing to do with what socialism actually means.

Socialism has to do with means of production. When they are completely operated by the government, they fall right inside the definition of what is socialism. The military provides a service. This service is provided to the people(to the proletariat), by the people(by the proletariat).
Click to expand...

Dont get snotty with me. I'm being respectful of you. I expect the same FROM you.

You know what...never mind. I thought differently of you right up until that last post.
 
I just used your definition, now you changed it. Keep going kiddo.
 
MrVicchio said:
I just used your definition, now you changed it. Keep going kiddo.
Click to expand...

Changed what? What definition did you use? You asked what the military produces. The military produces a service. It is no different than cops, firemen etc. The production methods of such a service are controlled strictly by the government. Do you not see your contradiction yet? It is ridiculous for you to call Obama's health plan socialist, when doctors and health care professionals do not 'produce' anything material either. They provide a service.
 
Last edited:
Definitions of socialism on the Web:

1.a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2. an economic system based on state ownership of capital
Click to expand...

I think this was yours.
 
VanceMack said:
Im gonna throw the flag on this one...

Yes...I served in the military. And you. And lots of others. But 'service' os a relative term. teachers serve the country. Police officers serve the country. Farmers. Every average citizen that goes to work, pays taxes, and votes responsibly serfves the country.

I couldnt do some of those jobs. I wouldnt want some of those people next to me doing my job. I volunteered...my choice.

I dont downplay military service by ANY means...but lets just keep everything in perspective.
Click to expand...

He's just some kid talking about his grandfather's service. Nothing more. Nothing less. My theory is that he just spews whatever he hears people around him saying. He said something about living in Washington. Maybe his parents live near a retired community and he has access to a lot of old folks. Probably a very inquisitive kid but one who clearly exaggerates the **** he hears.
 
MrVicchio said:
I think this was yours.
Click to expand...

And where in that definition did you see anything about producing 'a product'? I stated what the military produces.It produces a service. The service? National defence. And it is controlled and owned by the state. Thus making it socialist. With what part of that do you disagree?
 
Hatuey said:
Lol. You do know the military is one big socialist program right?
Click to expand...

Socialism is a form of forced wealth redistribution. Since Americans consent to be governed by the Constitution, there is nothing socialist about the military, as it prescribed by law.
 
hazlnut said:
Sure, you say that now.

But when the socialized mail delivers your copy of Men's Health and your socialized veteran's benefits check......

And when the socialized police patrol your city.........or the socialized paramedics save your life...........

And when you drive on the socialized roads...........to your socialized public school......or the socialized rest stop near the socialize state park.......where you meet friends for social interaction around the the camp fire.......

.......and should your fire get out of control..... guess what? Those socialized firefighters will show up......
Click to expand...

"Socialized" is not the same thing as "socialist". Socialism is a specific economic philosophy that involves forced redistribution of wealth by the state. Most of the things you listed are Constitutional, hence they are not "socialist".
 
Ethereal said:
Socialism is a form of forced wealth redistribution.
Click to expand...

No. It is not. Socialism is a system under which the government controls the means of production. That is the most basic pillar of it. Everything else is added on. The proof is in governments which have had wealth redistribution programs without being socialist and remaining clearly right wing.

ex. Peronism in Argentina.

Since Americans consent to be governed by the Constitution, there is nothing socialist about the military, as it prescribed by law.
Click to expand...

So since the masses consent to having an organization where the means of production are controlled by the state, it is not socialism? Next you'll be telling us that the caudillos were left wing and Liberalism in its most basic form has nothing in common with what is considered American Conservatism.
 
Ethereal said:
"Socialized" is not the same thing as "socialist". Socialism is a specific economic philosophy that involves forced redistribution of wealth by the state. Most of the things you listed are Constitutional, hence they are not "socialist".
Click to expand...
Don't you think that explanation of the obvious, necessary as it is for such an intellectuality honest poster as hazelnut, needs some kind of further definition?

Derka Derka!:monkey
 
Ethereal said:
"Socialized" is not the same thing as "socialist". Socialism is a specific economic philosophy that involves forced redistribution of wealth by the state. Most of the things you listed are Constitutional, hence they are not "socialist".
Click to expand...

Try to follow the thread before you open your mouth and comment.

We all know what Vicchio and other hyper-partisans mean when they call Obama a Socialist. They're talking about what they see as socialized medicine.

But you knew that.... so your point is a rather stupid and silly parsing of words.

so·cial·ize (ssh-lz)
v. so·cial·ized, so·cial·iz·ing, so·cial·iz·es
v.tr.
1. To place under government or group ownership or control.
2. To make fit for companionship with others; make sociable.
3. To convert or adapt to the needs of society.
 
Hatuey said:
No. It is not. Socialism is a system under which the government controls the means of production.
Click to expand...

I know what socialism is. After the state seizes the means of production it redistributes the wealth amongst the people until such a time when class distinctions have dissolved, at which point, the means of production are reduced to the collective who operate them via workers councils and direct democracy.

That is the most basic pillar of it. Everything else is added on. The proof is in governments which have had wealth redistribution programs without being socialist and remaining clearly right wing.

ex. Peronism in Argentina.
Click to expand...

I'm just using the classical definition of socialism as espoused by Marx and Engels.

So since the masses consent to having an organization where the means of production are controlled by the state, it is not socialism?
Click to expand...

Socialism necessarily involves the state-seizure of private property. The state cannot seize something when it is prescribed by the Constitution.
 
hazlnut said:
Try to follow the thread before you open your mouth and comment.

We all know what Vicchio and other hyper-partisans mean when they call Obama a Socialist. They're talking about what they see as socialized medicine.

But you knew that.... so your point is a rather stupid and silly parsing of words.

so·cial·ize (ssh-lz)
v. so·cial·ized, so·cial·iz·ing, so·cial·iz·es
v.tr.
1. To place under government or group ownership or control.
2. To make fit for companionship with others; make sociable.
3. To convert or adapt to the needs of society.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and all nations have some form of gov't owned or gov't controlled body working somewhere in society, and we are all in favor of it.
 
hazlnut said:
Try to follow the thread before you open your mouth and comment.

We all know what Vicchio and other hyper-partisans mean when they call Obama a Socialist. They're talking about what they see as socialized medicine.
Click to expand...

I think what he actually means is that it's the forced redistribution of wealth, which is an element of Marxist-socialism.

But you knew that.... so your point is a rather stupid and silly parsing of words.

so·cial·ize (ssh-lz)
v. so·cial·ized, so·cial·iz·ing, so·cial·iz·es
v.tr.
1. To place under government or group ownership or control.
2. To make fit for companionship with others; make sociable.
3. To convert or adapt to the needs of society.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is. Mr. V was obviously referring to socialism, not socialized programs. There is a difference.
 
MrVicchio said:
So Hazlnut, what exactly does the Military "PRODUCE"? What do POLICE "Produce"? What does the Post Office "PRODUCE"?

I'll give you a hint, not a damn thing.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Socialism is not inherently confined to actual tangible products. By your measure, all services are not socialist despite any government ownership and dictating the means of how services are provided.

The military is by definition socialistic as the government owns the means of production and the product is defense. Just because it's not tangible does not deem it not socialist. Medicine is largely a service industry. By your own measure of tangible products, Obama's plan cannot be socialist because it's not producing tangible products, but services instead.

The Military is a Cosntitutionally mandated requirement to keep the Country safe.
Click to expand...

Which is completely irrelevant as to whether it is socialist or not. The Constitution could mandate that the government control the production of doughnuts. Just because COTUS says so doesn't mean squat as to whether it is socialist or not. The problem is your fundamental lack of any understanding of the term.

The Post Office serves the country in ensuring mail gets around, a novel idea for it's time, but the advent of Email, and companies like Fed EX and UPS show how little the Post Office is really in demand anymore.. that might explain why it's going bankrupt.
Click to expand...

FAIL. If you bothered to open up the USPS's 10k, you would notice that its pension is what's killing it. In terms of actual operations, the USPS is making sizable chunks of money. In the business of providing mail service, it does well. In the business of providing a pension it sucks. This has been pointed out several times and you seem insistent upon ignoring it thus suggesting you have no interest in the actual facts.

And police... are a state function to maintain law and order... they don't PRODUCE anything.
Click to expand...

By that measure, a government airline is not socialist because it doesn't produce anything.
 
Hatuey said:
So since the masses consent to having an organization where the means of production are controlled by the state, it is not socialism? Next you'll be telling us that the caudillos were left wing and Liberalism in its most basic form has nothing in common with what is considered American Conservatism.
Click to expand...

Having a military is no more "socialism" than is having a governing body.

Aspects of governments such as a military for protection is as much a capitalist idea as socialist as communist. It is simply a necessary part of any society that becomes large enough to need protection from enemy's foreign or even domestic.

Besides all forms of Democracy involve some form of socialism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom