• 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
I only voted yes for the top three, but they're not socialist, my taxes pay for them. I'm not being given them for free by a benevolent government, I'm paying for them.
 
Socialism is just a buzzword, its almost completely meaningless since almost no one can agree on exactly what it means. And the only reason any word has a meaning is because everyone agrees on what that meaning is.

Most people think of socialism as a line in the sand, where a government or society can be on one side or the other of that line. And being on one said means instant death and the other is unlimited success, which is ridiculous for multiple reasons like how different cultures react differently to different types of government. And because those people generally can't define that line except in vague terms, which is what socialism is anyway just a vague concept, but they'll continue to act like their vague explanation of "its when the government gets involved in the economy" or something like that is perfectly fine and definitive.

And other people talk about socialism as if its a list of qualifiers that if X amount are met a system is now instantly socialist. This is just as bad as the line in the sand mentality, except instead of one line which have several lines and by crossing so many we suddenly become socialist.

Here's a thought instead of arguing about the meaning of a vague term which no one can agree upon the meaning of, why don't we argue against the laws or programs which we don't like. And not argue against or for them because they are "socialist" but based purely on their measurable effects. You can call the damn Post Office socialist because it competes with private business, but you know what? It works and thats what really matters, not some meaningless label you attach to it. Or what about the Bank of North Dakota, its a government owned government run bank that not only requires private banks working in North Dakota to be members but also competes directly with those private banks. But you know what? It works and its been credited as being one of the major reasons North Dakota has barely been hit in this recession.
 
Why is clean air considered socialist?

:roll: because the government did it. they never really grasped that those who advocate minimal government still advocate some for problems of the commons.


even milton friedman said that fighting pollution was a government responsibility.



as for the program list: NET BENEFIT the only ones i see are Public Education, Street Lighting, and Clean Air. my grandparents have "benefited" from Social Security and Medicare, but had they had that money available to save and invest themselves, they would have ended up with much-much more, so i count that as a net loss.
 
Government never produces, it only destroys, steals and kills.

Yeah, it kills Nazi's, Commies, terrorists...

But it also creates a hell of a lot, most of which you obviously didn't think about when you posted.
 
The internet started out as a government funded program. The irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

Yeps it was actually created by the US military to have a better, more effective, more efficient way of launching nukes at the Reds as well as having a way to communicate if traditional methods went down.
 
Let's face the facts, "socialism" has done as much for this country as free-markets have. I'm sure at one point or another, pretty much every non-Republican government project has been called socialist at some point or another. And those same projects have done wonders for our country. Sure, some have hurt us, like like some free-market concepts have hurt us, but the point is all these "socialist" programs have benefits.

And does anyone besides me find it ironic that social programs like food stamps and welfare are so unregulated?
 
By that logic UHC isn't socialist since the government would just be buying medical supplies from private manufacturers.

Well, UHC is not socialist.

Socialism is not something UHC can be. UHC is just the government providing health care for all, from the taxpayers. Socialism is the government controlling the means of production and the economy. That's something completly different, and has caused a lot of misery around the world.
 
By that logic UHC isn't socialist since the government would just be buying medical supplies from private manufacturers.

They may or they may not. It depends on how it's set up.

They would certainly be in control of all of the commerce, though.
 
None of these are "socialist programs".

Judging by the tone of politics these days, I was under the impression everything government does is "socialist," and this thread was reducing that argument to absurdum.

You're right, these really aren't socialist programs but they are "socialist" according to the GOP if that makes sense.
 
Why isn't the military on that list? Means of production owned by masses, government controlled profit, self management, free association, collective decision making, nationalized etc.
 
Last edited:
Nobody has asked the most important question. We're all arguing over exactly how to define socialism. I think we all know what the asker means generally speaking (even if we can't agree specifically).

What I want to know is, what is benefit? So to clarify, If I give you $100 and you give me back $50 and then ask me, "did I benefit from receiving $50?", is the answer yes or no? Or, perhaps more reasonably asked: If I give you $100 and you give me back $100, but then tell me that though you gave me $100 in benefits, I now owe you more money over the next X number of years because you overspent the money I gave you on other people and ventures... did I benefit? And most importantly, I would want to know the answer to this: If you don't give me a choice but to give you $100 so that you can give me back $100 in benefits and then force me to give you additional money in the future because you overspent the original $100 I gave you... have I benefited?

I would say the answers to these are obviously NO. Which is why I think most entitlement programs are a JOKE and completely unconstitutional. Sure, I collect from them. But did I really benefit?
 
Last edited:
Why is it that so many forget the most obvious option??
"none of the above".
This should also be on our election ballets.
There is a fear that "none ......." will win an election.
 
Why is clean air considered socialist?

If you knew about the fuss the GM and Ford put up about clean air, back in the 50s......If the conservatives of that day were allowed to reign supreme, our nation would be worse than a sewer pit..
And now we have the same/similar problem with the conservatives again (global warming).
Legislation which benefits the people is socialistic.
 
Insurance is also socialist then. Boy with a mind like yours, I can see where socialism is the best thing every invented. :roll:
Not so..
Insurance is the unpleasant thing that happens when our government and the people are not social enough...
Do the Amish have insurance ?
Man is innately socialistic ...He must be in order to survive.
Back in the day, it was the saber toothed cat; today the problem is loneliness, suicide, crime..
Man will never be able to stand on his own.
 
I'm only going with immediate family here, since I honestly don't know for most of my extended family. That being said, neither I nor my family have ever benefited from food stamps, welfare, or FEMA assistance.The benefits are indirect, if the potential starving have not stamps, then they will steal your food....

I also fail to see how some of these things are socialist programs. What exactly is socialist about street lighting and clean air?
Programs that benefit society in general are socialistic.
 
It's also constitutional, which is the real point of all this arguing between right and left. The left wants EVERYTHING to be socialist. The right just wants us to run things according to the document we signed up to.

Totally untrue. I may be a "leftie", but I want things to be balanced.
And when did anyone of this age sign up to a scrap of paper written/designed hundreds of years ago?????
 
Totally untrue. I may be a "leftie", but I want things to be balanced.
And when did anyone of this age sign up to a scrap of paper written/designed hundreds of years ago?????

You contradict yourself... do you suggest not following the constitution and having things balanced? Don't you know what the constitution is or does? 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. If the majority disagrees with something in the constitution, then change it! 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 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. 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.
 
Yeah, it kills Nazi's, Commies, terrorists...

But it also creates a hell of a lot, most of which you obviously didn't think about when you posted.

not in net, it doesn't. if i destroy two buildings of and use the materials to build a third (no bigger than either of the ones i destroyed), do i get credit for "creating buildings"?
 
Of the following, which Socialist programs do not and never have benefited you or anyone in your family? I'm assuming Libertarians will say they and their families have never, ever benefited from any of these...right?

Currently - only some have touched me directly.

But the future holds an untold amount of struggle and strife. I've been in a lot of situations where I was fortunate to be able to go to the government for aid - lest I be homeless *with* kids.
 
Back
Top Bottom