Skip to main content

Publicly financed schools are SOCIALISM. They compete with privately financed and managed schools in every major community in the the United States. Public Schools in the USA are universally paid for with tax revenues. \\ THEY ARE SOCIALIST PROGRAMS. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO SEND YOUR CHILDREN TO A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE FOR SCHOOL YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO EXPECT THEM TO BE EDUCATED BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC, BUSINESSES AND OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS.


Unless, you are willing to accept socialism as a benefit to the community.
"The essence of all religions is one. Only their approaches are different." ~Mahatma Gandhi
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Speaking of public schools, it boils down to this. The rich, the neocons, the republican and democrat conservatives, don't want their kids going to school with your kids. Remember segragation back in the sixties? I remember being in school and the rich and powerful taking their kids out, putting them into private schools, as soon as the segragation bill was passed. Racism is here to stay I think and has never went away. The republican party claims they are not racists and they would be a fool not to because they would lose the black vote.
Do the math. If the public system spends $4,000 per student a year, then a voucher valued at $1,500 to $2,000, leaves an amount of $2,000 to $2,500 to be used to increase the per student amount avalable. Even if the voucher is for $4,000 its only the amount that would have gone to the public system.

Why should one be forced to support a second rate public system? Competition would compel better schools. We already use competition in our universities. The state universities are much cheaper than the ivy league. But, after 3 to 5 years, graduates of both make about the same salary for the same profession.
quote:
Unless, you are willing to accept socialism as a benefit to the community.


This coming from someone who was offended when he was called a socialist? You're a hypocrite. Not only that, just look at the difference in quality between public and private schools. It proves that when some things are simply left to the government to handle, the government will screw it up. Socialism is NOT a benefit to the community at all, take your socialist ideas elsewhere.
Edekit

I will concede that the public school system is a form of "micro" socialism. However i still think the term applies more to a Federal level of government rather than to the local and state level that our schools are run at.

Socialism rears its ugly head in the form of Federal court decisions that censor or restrict the student's freedom.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
Do the math. If the public system spends $4,000 per student a year, then a voucher valued at $1,500 to $2,000, leaves an amount of $2,000 to $2,500 to be used to increase the per student amount avalable. Even if the voucher is for $4,000 its only the amount that would have gone to the public system.

Why should one be forced to support a second rate public system? Competition would compel better schools. We already use competition in our universities. The state universities are much cheaper than the ivy league. But, after 3 to 5 years, graduates of both make about the same salary for the same profession.



The math is no good if every child cannot get the same schooling.Your program would not be good for everyone just a few.
quote:
Originally posted by USA1:
Edekit

I will concede that the public school system is a form of "micro" socialism. However i still think the term applies more to a Federal level of government rather than to the local and state level that our schools are run at.

Socialism rears its ugly head in the form of Federal court decisions that censor or restrict the student's freedom.



>>>I will concede that the public school system is a form of "micro" socialism.<<< Yeah Right and how did you come up with that?You consevative right wing people label everything socialism and you know capitalism is for the very rich and does not benefit the middle class or the poor.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Unless, you are willing to accept socialism as a benefit to the community.


This coming from someone who was offended when he was called a socialist? You're a hypocrite. Not only that, just look at the difference in quality between public and private schools. It proves that when some things are simply left to the government to handle, the government will screw it up. Socialism is NOT a benefit to the community at all, take your socialist ideas elsewhere.
Hey fool, I get offended with ignorance, I am a liberal, not a socialist. You are a Conservative, not a Fascist. I don't call you a Fascist, I do say you support Fascism. The reason is you are in favor of Private enterprise in EVERY case. Your position almost certainly matches mine on Public Roads, Fire and Police Protection, Paramedic Services, and Water projects. You Probably support the Public Private venture called the TVA, The Post office, and THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

You call me a socialist, but only because I also favor public financing of School, at least through the 12th grade, but I don't oppose private schools, I just oppose public money being diverted from public schools to private schools, the say way I oppose the diversion of my capital from a publicly operated and financed social security program into a privately operated one. I am not opposed to private pension plans, or personal retirement investment, I just don't think the Social Security System should be dismantled, and financed by the earnings of small business being invested in Big businesses.

I do object to being called a socialist, because there is a "Socialist Party" in the USA, I am not a member. I also object to being called a libertarian for the same reason. There is also a Communist Party in the United States, and a Nazi Party.

So, if you want to keep things on an even keel, don't be calling me names. HERE IS WHAT I AM...
A LIBERAL, A PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT, A REGISTERED DEMOCRAT, A SECULAR HUMANIST, A MAN, AN OLD MAN, A FATHER, GRANDFATHER, AND GREAT GRANDFATHER. A BROTHER, A COUSIN, AN UNCLE AND SINCE BOTH OF MY PARENTS HAVE DIED, AN ORPHAN.

I don't think I have said you are a Fascist, or a Nazi, or a tyrant, though I have said as much of George Bush, and probably will in the future, and I have occasionally likened his blind followers to the members of Hitler's Nazi Party.
quote:
Originally posted by USA1:
Edekit

I will concede that the public school system is a form of "micro" socialism. However i still think the term applies more to a Federal level of government rather than to the local and state level that our schools are run at.

Socialism rears its ugly head in the form of Federal court decisions that censor or restrict the student's freedom.
Now we are on point.
I disagree with your ASSERTION that student freedom is restricted by the court decisions I know of. What is restricted is the School's freedom to indoctrinate students. You object to having organized prayer prohibited in School. I object, and the constitution prohibits, public schools from indoctrinating the children of Baptists with Catholic theology.
I have an issue with the words "under God" being added to the Pledge of Allegiance, but not to the Pledge of Allegiance. Some Religious Sects object to having their children pledge allegiance to a Nation, under God or not. There are degrees of indoctrination that I will tolerate and there are degrees of indoctrination that you will tolerate. The position of the Constitution is this: No religious indoctrination is permitted under the authority of the government. NOT ANY. If you want your children indoctrinated into the Baptist or Pentecostal Religion, you may do that, but you may not require that to happen within a government supported and mandated educational system.
If you want to have your child pray before beginning classes, pray with him or her, but don't expect the school to do it for you. If your child wishes to pray for guidance before taking an examination your child is free to do that in a public school, but must do it on his or her own. And, your child MAY NOT DEMAND THAT THE TEACHER OR ANY OTHER STUDENT JOIN IN THE PRAYER.

As far as I know no one has ever objected to a teacher saying I hope your all do well on this test, or today's lessons. But I would have fallen out of my desk if the teacher had said "God Help you with this test." When a teacher tries to do that, the teacher is overstepping his or her authority and mandate.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
Public education is no more socialism than are the police or fire departments. All are public services. Unfortunately, education is not well served because of poor techniques, lack of discipline, poor teaching, parental laxity, etc.
Then fix the problems, you are paying for the system.
Thomas Jefferson believed that education should be under the control of the government, free from religious biases, and available to all people irrespective of their status in society. Others who vouched for public education around the same time were Benjamin Rush, Noah Webster, Robert Coram and George Washington. Seven of the 14 state constitutions in 1791 provided for public education. Federal Involvement in Public Education came as a result of inequities. In some systems, including Alabama, if I recall correctly, the basic requirement for an elementary school teacher, in 1945, was graduation from eighth grade. As technology advanced and entered the workplace that system simply was inadequate.

We do need to make some changes. For one thing, discipline should be maintained.
This is not about education per se, but about socialism. Public Schools are socialist. Private Schools are Capitalist. Even the Church Schools are dependent on private capital. Public, as used in "Public Schools" means open to all the public and paid for by the public. Private means open only to those who meet the requirements of the particular school. Legislation and case law have both mandated that Schools are required to admit without regard to race, religion or ethnicity, but they have not altered entrance requirements based on aptitude or knowledge. Even in public systems you have to complete the requirement of 8th grade to enter High School, and of High School to enter College.
Yes it is. It should remain that way. Otherwise, we would have far more idiots than we have in this country. Let's not lobby to get rid of public schools funded by public dollars. If it were done in any other fashion, the parents who are idiots would let their moron kids stay home and we'd be electing the worst kind of idiots - uneducated ones. You think it's bad now with the goofballs in office, just wait for our society to make all schooling a private matter.
Quite using circular logic. Ouroborous may eat his own tail for eternity, butI'm tirred of contemplating about it. Providing public services including parks, paved streets and sanitation is not socialist, nor is public education.

Providing an equal education is a fine thing. But, one more time, the public system needs a jolt to make them produce a quality product -- the well educated scholar. Competition is that goad. Improve or lose that tenured position with the great benefits package -- admitted the salaries aren't always that good.
USA1, The problem with you, as I see it, is you believe there is some Evil associated with Socialism. So, if you find a social program that is NOT evil, or that is good, it it must not be socialism. You KNOW Public Education is a service to society. You know that it is necessary in a technological culture. You know it is publicly financed. You know that it is good, and believe socialism is bad, SO YOU TAKE ON FAITH ALONE The truth that PUBLIC EDUCATION IS NOT SOCIALISM. Well, you are wrong. Socialism is not evil, it is not tyranny, or theft of resources. Socialism is the opposite of Private ownership, but it is not the opposite of Capitalism. Privately owned schools exist. They exist alongside public schools. They serve the same communities, but not the same sectors.
You may argue that the federal government has acted tyrannically in requiring open access to private schools. It is tyranny to force any private institution to serve all members of society equally. It is also in the public interest that Banks, Schools, Restaurants, grocery stores and other NECESSARY services are available to everyone. I would go so far as to agree that Socialists forced the issue, though I would prefer to use the term Liberals. I would also add, that privatizing all education would transfer the problems found in public schools to private schools. Unless you permitted denial of access to specific individuals.

You are denying that public schools are socialist only because you believe schools are good, public schools are desirable, and since socialism is bad and undesirable Public Schools must be something other than socialist programs.

YOU ARE ON THAT BARGE IN THAT RIVER IN EGYPT, DE NILE.
Last edited by Karl Leuba
quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
Again, no matter the form, public schools are failing to produce a sound product. They once did, but no more. Competition works, no matter what the thing is called.
Interventor, the schools are Social Programs, financed entirely by public funding. The solution to the problem is to solve the problem. SINGLE, SIMPLE STEP, PERMIT EXPLUSION OF DISRUPTIVE STUDENTS. Provide for a third party judicial system to make the final decision, and provide due process before finalizing expulsions or long term suspensions. Require that Students be taught at home to respect the classroom, or require that they stay home till they do.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
Again, no matter the form, public schools are failing to produce a sound product. They once did, but no more. Competition works, no matter what the thing is called.


Sure. So, remove them. Only allow the consumers to be educated. Good Lord! That is surely capitalism at its ugliest! Public Schooling would improve if kids would come home to parents who attempted to parent.
quote:
Originally posted by USA1:
Edekit,

Socialism is about the only way that the minority liberal views can by rammed down the throats of the majority of americans through force of the federal government.

No wonder you like socialism.


NO! Liberty and justice FOR ALL! Not just the majority! It CANNOT be ensured in a majority-rule situation. Your thoughts are all good and well until you wake up and find out you're in the minority. Then you'll be begging for something new. Equality in any other fashion is a dream. Socialism is necessary if we're really going to be of the people for the people and by the people. Otherwise, it's for the majority of the people, of the majority of the people, and by the majority of the people. 51% is the scariest number in politics and the subjugate class.

I am white, Christian, heterosexual, married, and I disagree with Bush. I'm in a lot of majorities and I STILL recognize that fairness cannot be present in our current system.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Unless, you are willing to accept socialism as a benefit to the community.


This coming from someone who was offended when he was called a socialist? You're a hypocrite. Not only that, just look at the difference in quality between public and private schools. It proves that when some things are simply left to the government to handle, the government will screw it up. Socialism is NOT a benefit to the community at all, take your socialist ideas elsewhere.



Nash you are the one who gets offended when we call you a Right Wing!!
quote:
Originally posted by one who posts

NO! Liberty and justice FOR ALL! Not just the majority! It CANNOT be ensured in a majority-rule situation. Your thoughts are all good and well until you wake up and find out you're in the minority. Then you'll be begging for something new. Equality in any other fashion is a dream. Socialism is necessary if we're really going to be of the people for the people and by the people. Otherwise, it's for the majority of the people, of the majority of the people, and by the majority of the people. 51% is the scariest number in politics and the subjugate class.

I am white, Christian, heterosexual, married, and I disagree with Bush. I'm in a lot of majorities and I STILL recognize that fairness cannot be present in our current system.


You are scary. I disagree with you and so does History, you should study it sometime.
quote:
Originally posted by USA1:
quote:
Originally posted by one who posts

NO! Liberty and justice FOR ALL! Not just the majority! It CANNOT be ensured in a majority-rule situation. Your thoughts are all good and well until you wake up and find out you're in the minority. Then you'll be begging for something new. Equality in any other fashion is a dream. Socialism is necessary if we're really going to be of the people for the people and by the people. Otherwise, it's for the majority of the people, of the majority of the people, and by the majority of the people. 51% is the scariest number in politics and the subjugate class.

I am white, Christian, heterosexual, married, and I disagree with Bush. I'm in a lot of majorities and I STILL recognize that fairness cannot be present in our current system.


You are scary. I disagree with you and so does History, you should study it sometime.


Perhaps you and your 18 posts should read up on the forum before you act like you know me.

Capitalism and the privatization of education is the real nightmare.
quote:
Originally posted by one who posts


Perhaps you and your 18 posts should read up on the forum before you act like you know me.

Capitalism and the privatization of education is the real nightmare.



According to your socialistic ideology my 18 posts should be equal to your many many posts. If not,then some government entity needs to step in and take up all the posts and redistribute them evenly

A Federal government of socialism will collapse.
quote:
Originally posted by USA1:
quote:
Originally posted by one who posts


Perhaps you and your 18 posts should read up on the forum before you act like you know me.

Capitalism and the privatization of education is the real nightmare.



According to your socialistic ideology my 18 posts should be equal to your many many posts. If not,then some government entity needs to step in and take up all the posts and redistribute them evenly

A Federal government of socialism will collapse.
USA1, would you give us your definition of Socialism?

quote:
All I know is I'm not a Marxist.
Karl Marx
I think you are using "Socialism" to mean "Marxism" which is not socialism.
People who take advantage of opportunity prosper, people who don't, fail. But, people who exploit people are taking advantage of the opportunity to exploit people. Socialism reduces the opportunity to exploit.

Alaska is practicing socialism with it's Oil and Gas Resources. Last year, every person who had been a resident of Alaska for the full calendar year was eligible for a payment of over a thousand dollars. A family of 5, got over 55 hundred dollars as their share of the state's income from Oil Royalties. Oil, Gas and Timber royalties are used in Alaska to pay for Education, and all other state government. The surplus is then distributed to the residents. Corporations deduct the cost of recovering and transporting the oil, pay the state a royalty of 30 to 80 percent of the profit on the sale of the oil, and retain the rest as corporate income.

That is socialism.

Per capita income in Alaska was $33,568 in the year 2004. The same year Alabama per capita income was $26,338.

The per capita tax burden in Alaska was $3,579.30 in 2004. And in Alabama $1,243. But, the state tax burden on individuals in Alaska is far lower than the figures show. The state has no income tax and does not collect a sales tax at the state level, although it allows local governments to collect their own sales taxes. Alaska collects most of its revenue from the oil and gas industry. Also, the population of Alaska is much lower than Alabama, 655 thousand in 2000 compared to 4.53 million in Alabama.

In Alaska the Oil and gas companies pay all the costs, or nearly all the costs of government. That is socialism. In Alabama the workers pay. That's Capitalism.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source so·cial·ism (sō'shə-lĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Edekit

You can spin things all you want, but any american that enjoys freedom should hate socialism.

Please, don't P*** on my leg and tell me its raining.
quote:
Originally posted by USA1:
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source so·cial·ism (sō'shə-lĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Edekit

You can spin things all you want, but any american that enjoys freedom should hate socialism.

Please, don't P*** on my leg and tell me its raining.
USA1, I know the dictionary definition of Socialism. I also know that there has never been a pure socialist state.
I also know that the extreme of capitalism is as tyrannical as the most vicious communist dictatorship. In fact, if you go to the microcosm of a corporation, you see as much tyranny as you will find in any organization. The only difference is the corporation can be escaped in a society that has competing corporations.

The Schools of the US system are escapable. Public school can be substituted for parochial school and vice versa. But only if a public school system stands alongside a private school system. THE PUBLIC SYSTEM IS A SOCIALIST INSTITUTION. It is wholly owned by the public. It is not the only system, parochial and other private schools also exist, and are free to come and go as their finances allow.

Putting public money into private schools weakens the ability of the public system to provide services. Diverting money from the public system to the private system by any method weakens the public system.

If you want to deny education to children on the basis of the economic situation, allow the rich to deny funding to the public schools. REGARDLESS of the justification, diverting tax money from the Public, to the Private sector is denial of educational opportunity to the poor.

Vouchers, Tuition deductions, any plan to divert tax revenue to private schools is the moral equivalent of requiring Ted's shoe store to invest some of his profits in The Runner's Den.

Or, allowing the Diamond Exchange to deduct the cost of Private security from their sales tax obligations.

I am going to use that example, the Diamond Exchange to show you what I mean.

The Public Police protection is available to the Diamond Exchange at exactly the same level as it is available to Joe's Junk Shop. Under a communal system, Diamond Exchange could hire security guards, but could not deduct any of the cost of those guards from its tax liabilities. They would be permitted to put steel bars on their doors and windows, but the cost would have to come out of their sales income. Joe's Junk Shop could do the same, with the same requirements. Joe's Junk Shop is not likely to be robbed of its inventory. Diamond Exchange is likely to be robbed of its inventory. Joe does not need to protect his inventory, and he should not be required to pay to protect Diamond Exchange's inventory. But, Diamond Exchange should not be required to pay for a higher level of police protection than is required by Joe, or any other business with a lower risk of robbery than theirs.

So, we compromise. Instead of collecting a flat tax on all sales to pay for a HIGH level of police protection, we pay for a moderate level of police protection with sales taxes.

Diamond Exchange pays the sales tax, and Joe pays the sales tax. We then add another type of tax, a tax on profits. That money is used to pay for other services. Fire Protection, Schools etc. Diamond Exchange can deduct the cost of Private Security Guards and Steel Bars from the income those taxes are paid from. Joe, who does not bear those added security costs cannot.

What is being argued here is that you and I are not willing to pay to protect the Diamond Exchange from ALL of its risk. We might not want to protect Joe either, but if we end all police protection, neither Joe nor the Diamond Exchange can remain in business. If either store is robbed, the public sector takes on the task of solving the crime, arresting the perpetrators and punishing them.
When you look at Fire Protection, the Diamond Exchange can probably get by with a little caution and a fire extinguisher. Joe on the other hand is at high risk of fire damage.
We do the same for Joe's fire protection as we do for Diamond Exchange's Robbery Protection.

Verify this by checking the cost of Fire Insurance and the cost of Theft Insurance for Joe and the Diamond Exchange. You can actually look at your homeowners insurance policy to see what I am talking about. Your home is rated according to building material proximity of Fire stations, and other risk factors. The liability coverage for a frame house is identical to that of a brick house. But fire insurance is higher for the frame structure.

The problem, as I see it, is the Diamond Exchange is more important to the politician than Joe's junk Yard. It should not be.

In a School System, the rich man's son is not entitled to a better education, but he may well be more important to the politician. He may even be the politician's son. The campaign to increase private participation in education is NOT intended to make education more affordable, or more accessible. It is designed to reduce the investment in educating the children of people who get their living by working for the well to do.


As wealth migrates upward, services to the general public are reduced.

quote:
Edekit

You can spin things all you want, but any american that enjoys freedom should hate socialism.
You can spin things any way you want, but any American who wants his children to have the best opportunity they can utilize should love and cherish a strong and effective public school system.
quote:
Originally posted by USA1:
Edekit,

Socialism is about the only way that the minority liberal views can by rammed down the throats of the majority of americans through force of the federal government.

No wonder you like socialism.
What part of this statement of principal do you FAIL TO GRASP?
quote:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by USA1:
Edekit,

Socialism is about the only way that the minority liberal views can by rammed down the throats of the majority of americans through force of the federal government.


Thanks Karl, but i understand the Constitution.
No wonder you like socialism.
What part of this statement of principal do you FAIL TO GRASP?
quote:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.


Thanks Karl, but i understand the Constitution.
quote:
Originally posted by USA1:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by USA1:
Edekit,

Socialism is about the only way that the minority liberal views can by rammed down the throats of the majority of americans through force of the federal government.


Thanks Karl, but i understand the Constitution.
No wonder you like socialism.
What part of this statement of principal do you FAIL TO GRASP?
quote:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.


Thanks Karl, but i understand the Constitution.
So, you say you understand the constitution, yet you claim that liberals are trying to "ram" socialism down American's Throats. Pray tell me what part of the constitution prohibits the government from owning land, factories, mines, farms, hospitals, schools, or hiring people to work for it?

Seriously, the federal government owns almost half of all the land in Arizona. Not a small quantity of real estate. The federal Government OWNS the military academies. Four great undergraduate schools. Government, Federal, State and Local employs about 22 million Americans. What part of socialism am I misunderstanding? Or is that socialism OK, since it maintains the security of a few thousand corporations and small businesses.

USA 1 YOU DON'T KNOW THE DEFINITIONS OF THE WORDS YOU TOSS AROUND.
"USA1, The problem with you, as I see it, is you believe there is some Evil associated with Socialism."

Well, you will have to admit that there is one thing that socialism excels at. Population control of citizens. Or make that depopulation ... by the millions.


((What's the big deal with same sex marriage? The Clintons have been in one for years.))
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by USA1:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by USA1:
Edekit,

Socialism is about the only way that the minority liberal views can by rammed down the throats of the majority of americans through force of the federal government.


Thanks Karl, but i understand the Constitution.
No wonder you like socialism.
What part of this statement of principal do you FAIL TO GRASP?
quote:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.


Thanks Karl, but i understand the Constitution.
So, you say you understand the constitution, yet you claim that liberals are trying to "ram" socialism down American's Throats. Pray tell me what part of the constitution prohibits the government from owning land, factories, mines, farms, hospitals, schools, or hiring people to work for it?

Seriously, the federal government owns almost half of all the land in Arizona. Not a small quantity of real estate. The federal Government OWNS the military academies. Four great undergraduate schools. Government, Federal, State and Local employs about 22 million Americans. What part of socialism am I misunderstanding? Or is that socialism OK, since it maintains the security of a few thousand corporations and small businesses.

USA 1 YOU DON'T KNOW THE DEFINITIONS OF THE WORDS YOU TOSS AROUND.


Edekit,

Socialism is defined as government control of economics. Buying/selling. If i deviated from the word to include other areas SO HAVE YOU.
Schools,Police and Fire have nothing to do with trade. You think if there is a federal dollar in something than its socialism. I used the term to describe "Big government" and its intrusion on our freedoms. To you Liberals government is the answer to everything.
As i said before, you can spin things all you want. But i don't agree with you. Now, i grow tired of discussing socialism...let us try a new word.
Last edited by USA1
quote:
Originally posted by USA1:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by USA1:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by USA1:
Edekit,

Socialism is about the only way that the minority liberal views can by rammed down the throats of the majority of americans through force of the federal government.


Thanks Karl, but i understand the Constitution.
No wonder you like socialism.
What part of this statement of principal do you FAIL TO GRASP?
quote:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.


Thanks Karl, but i understand the Constitution.
So, you say you understand the constitution, yet you claim that liberals are trying to "ram" socialism down American's Throats. Pray tell me what part of the constitution prohibits the government from owning land, factories, mines, farms, hospitals, schools, or hiring people to work for it?

Seriously, the federal government owns almost half of all the land in Arizona. Not a small quantity of real estate. The federal Government OWNS the military academies. Four great undergraduate schools. Government, Federal, State and Local employs about 22 million Americans. What part of socialism am I misunderstanding? Or is that socialism OK, since it maintains the security of a few thousand corporations and small businesses.

USA 1 YOU DON'T KNOW THE DEFINITIONS OF THE WORDS YOU TOSS AROUND.


Edekit,

Socialism is defined as government control of economics. Buying/selling. If i deviated from the word to include other areas SO HAVE YOU.
Schools,Police and Fire have nothing to do with trade. You think if there is a federal dollar in something than its socialism. I used the term to describe "Big government" and its intrusion on our freedoms. To you Liberals government is the answer to everything.
As i said before, you can spin things all you want. But i don't agree with you. Now, i grow tired of discussing socialism...let us try a new word.
Sorry fella, Police can be private, they are called Security Guards. Fire Departments can be private, they are called subscription Fire Departments. Schools can be private.
You are claiming that services necessary for the safety and security of a community are not socialism if they are public. You are denying that the US constitution MANDATES federal highways. "Post roads" in the language of the Constitution. The Constitution MANDATES Federal Regulation of Interstate Commerce. And the Constitution MANDATES federal regulation of international trade.
quote:
Article One, Section Eight: 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;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
The above is a single sentence. Each clause, beginning with a capital letter and ending with a semicolon is a mandate. The last clause MANDATES that the Congress make law as necessary and proper to execute those powers, and ALL OTHER POWERS VESTED BY THE CONSTITUTION IN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

If you, and the rest of the CONSERVATIVES would just read, comprehend and follow that single section, the nation would be on the road to peace and prosperity.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×