Are we headed for the United Socialists of America?

As we approach the '08 elections, I think we should reflect on what our country is likely to undergo for the next four years. What will it look like in 2012?

Our choices as candidates are poor, even during the primaries, imo. If you're a Democrat, you have a choice between a liberal and a liberal, neither of which has much experience, but both of whom are committed to socialist principles and ideals.

On the Republican side, McCain is increasingly indistinguishable from Clinton. Huckabee has no chance, nor does Ron Paul.

If the Democrats win, expect attacks on our First and Second Amendments. Hillary will push for a new Fairness doctrine. Both she and Obama are for stricter gun control. Both will push for Socialized Medicine. Economically they will favor higher taxes. Obama wants us out of Iraq tomorrow.

If McCain wins, expect him to be weak on illegal immigration (McCain-Kennedy), attack free speech (McCain-Feingold) raise taxes (McCain-Lieberman), and push for some type of National Health Care (McCain-Edwards).

Another important issue will be judicial appointments. Expect them to include more liberals.

Will we be headed for the United Socialists of America?

I dont doubt it one bit, I am not looking forwards to things in terms of health care, illegal immigration and overall national security.

If Juan "Mexican John" McCain should win then our current problems with illegals and the border will look like nothing compared to how bad it will be in 2012.

Our taxes are high enough as it is, especially here on Long Island (and thats just on the state/local level nevermind the federal taxes)

I agree. McCain will reverse his current "position" and partner up with Teddy Kennedy to push through an immigration bill that will include amnesty. He'll drag his feet on a fence, too.

Gawd, I hope not. I'm sick of free roads and National Forests and the last thing I want to do is start paying for my free ER visits.

I miss the good old days, really, when the man with the biggest catapult owned your house and could sleep with your wife.

Why? I have a big catapult. That's why I'm a Libertarian.

reply to post by jsobecky

---

It's a shame but you summed it up very well my friend...

Out of the three still in contention, sadly Obama looks to be the least dangerous...

McCain is just a patsy for the Libs...

Oh well, I guess I was just enjoying the money I work for too much, so now it's time to give it to someone that doesn't want to work for it...

Sickening...

Just look at the threads that have popped up lately... it seems like everyone just wants someone else to pay their way.. I have never seen so many deadbeats come out of the woodwork. I guess it's because they have all the Presidential Candidates supporting the "Dead-Beat Society"...

So, JSO, this is your thread, what's the answer?

Semper

You see this is where I get confused I can understand why some Americans oppose the government taking a great role in the likes of health care.

But why do those same people not oppose the likes of unnecessary agricultural subsidies ?

By the standards set by the American right unnecessary agricultural subsidies and other such things are a form of socialism . I cant work out the mentality of the American right sometimes .

"Free" roads and ER visits? No such thing, my friend. Someone is paying for it, somehow.


How dangerous he is is hard to determine, since he is so vapid. He's great at mouthing platitudes and bromides, but thin when it comes to details. What the hell does "Change" mean, anyway? "Look forward instead of backwards"? Etc., etc.

I don't like his foreign policy, either. On the one hand, get out of Iraq tomorrow, on the other hand, go after OBL in Pakistan regardless of what Musharraf says.


Well, the race for POTUS isn't the only game in town this November. All 435 House seats are up for grabs. On the Senate side, 12 Dems and 23 Repubs are defending their seats. It's astonishing how many of these still have no viable opponent at this stage.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.electoral-vote.com...

You see where I'm going. Concede the POTUS race to the Dems and render the office toothless by regaining control of the House and Senate. That way, we can minimize the damage until we put a real conservative back in office in 2012.

That's my suggestion.

oh, i hope not. i really wouldn't look forward to an increase in standard of living that would come with socialized healthcare, and i'm really annoyed by our socialized libraries, police forces, military, firefighters, education, and all those other useless, trivial things that the free market would handle so well.

face it, the USA would be a better place if we adopted certain socialist systems. our nation has horrible healthcare (unless you're the guy with the biggest catapult) and so many aren't covered. if we tried something similar to France's system, we'd probably see an improvement. our educational system is in the gutter because we've refused to start a federal system that would actually work and instead we place too much power in the hands of states (i'm not advocating no child left behind, if that's what you're thinking)

socialism may not work as a whole system, but many aspects of it do. we need to realize this or we're doomed to fall behind the rest of the world.

Yeah it is going to be interesting in the coming year or two

I agree with Semper I am sick and tired of working and making money only to have it taken and given to someone who is to lazy to take care of themselves
I also don't like the idea of State Provided Health Care as soon as you have that
you will be told what to eat and so on and so forth..

This reeks of socialism but it would be hard to stop since most Americans have become beggars with their hands out me me me mine mine mine I don't want to work but would like some food please..


This country needs a good hard long depression so these people will either learn to work or learn to go hungry I hate to put it that way cause I really don't want to see any one suffer but sometimes that is how you learn your lesson..

Respectfully
GEO

What makes you think your standard of living would rise if medicine were socialized?

As for your other examples, in most cases the free market handles the task much more efficiently than does the public sector. Education, for example. Private schools outperform public schools in every metric.

Theoretically, the gov'ts true responsibilities are limited to security and contract enforcement. Pragmatically, you can add in publics works, such as highway maintenance.




Such as...?


I strongly disagree with this statement, as outlined in my previous reply.


I'm not familiar with France's system, so I can't comment until I've done some research. Do you have any suggestions for sources?

Education is a topic unto itself.

mainly because socialized systems outperform the US when given proper funding. an example of how socialized healthcare fails is Cuba, they simply don't have enough money to spend on it...yet their system actually stretches what little there is to put their system barely behind ours.



actually, you're repeating a common myth. it depends on the area and the funding given to the school more than whether or not it is private.



depends on what political theory you're going to...
if you're looking at the outright ridiculous notion of libertarianism, yes, that's right... but that just doesn't work.



and areas where the government would outperform...




healthcare.
and if we streamlined and redirected spending we could accomplish it without a tax increase.



you strongly disagree that we have bad healthcare unless you can afford it?
it's kind of true. we rank below #30 on the WHO rankings...we're only 2 spots above Cuba for crying out loud.



for their performance, you could look through the WHO's resources, they have plenty on general statistics
for the system...i'm not too sure about specific sources, but i suggest going through wiki to find some works cited in the wiki entry

Define "proper funding". And show where private healtcare is better funded than socialized.


Private schools outperform for many reasons, including the fact that the teachers are not unionized. They pay teachers better and thus attract the best candidates. They don't have to accomodate special needs students. Etc., etc.

I attended private school for grades 1 - 5 (skipped kindergarten). My family moved to another section of town, and I attended what was supposedly "the best" public schools until I graduated high school.

Needless to say, I was a jd within a year, bored to tears in school, and outperforming probably 95% of the students in any grade. To this day, the best work and study habits I have still originated in private school.



Redirecting spending? Does that mean robbing Peter to pay Paul?


The WHO study/report is misleading and incomplete. They chose 5 criteria for their rankings (the US placed 1st in one ranking, btw) which are not an overall ranking of a health system. And you cannot accurately compare the USA with a country such as Iceland, for obvious reasons.

A better metric would be to look at where the world's best doctors get their training, and where people go to for for treatment, if they have the choice of going anywhere. The choice, hands down: the USA.

There is no successful industrialized country in the world that doesn't have a mixed economy, combining a regulated market with a social welfare state.

Not one.

And that includes the United States.

Both "pure" socialism and "pure" capitalism are experiments that have been tried and have failed. One results in violent instability, the other in stagnation and collapse.

enough money to make the system work



USA vs Cuba. Cuba has a system that is worse than the USA's...but they spend exponentially less per person on healthcare.



exactly...private schools aren't necessarily better, they're simply more selective, don't have to work with special needs students, and have more money.



but that's not because it was a private institution, it was because of what it could do AS a private institution. we cannot send every child to a private school, it won't work and so many won't be able to afford it.



no, what i meant would be cutting useless spending and overspending to finance a health care system. we spend so wastefully in areas such as the military, your avatar is actually a great example of a project that is ridiculously over budget. imagine how many people could have received adequate care if we had kept that program at budget.



that would be a better ranking system? if would automatically assume that everyone has the means to get access to that care....which they don't. you want to say that we should judge on a "who has the best care" standard instead of "who has the best care OVERALL" standard.
obviously the USA has the best...but you'd have to pay out the rear for it, and i'm betting that 99% of the population couldn't get that sort of care.

Yup Their already cheating in Washington State only 87% of the votes have been counted. And they deemed McCain the winner. There's about 200 votes difference between Huckabee and McCain. I'm so sick of this juck that the GOP pulls sometimes.

Madness,

Taking into account your own assertion that all systems that are successful are mixed, which I agree with by the way, where does it stop?

At what point do you stop Capitalism from completely dominating the "in place" Socialist structure?

At what point do you stop Socialism from dominating the "in place" Capitalist structure?

I think the fight against socialized health care is a "line drawn in the sand" so to speak. No one can really argue that social programs are not necessary, that's why I could never support Ron Paul.

Currently EVERYONE in the United States gets whatever care they desire just by going to the Hospital. That my friend is a fact. Just go to a local Emergency Room and ask the Doctor there how many ear aches he has treated, or severe cases of Acne.. You will be surprised at what they tell you. They are under obligation by law to treat whoever comes in the door for whatever ails them.

Now the cost of this is reflected in my insurance premiums. That is also a fact. I also do not mind that as that is the way of the Free Market and I support that 100%.

What I do mind is the Government, having shown us time and again how "wonderful" they are at running any program, (Sarcasm) getting involved in something that is working just fine.

Using Cuba, Canada, GB or any of the other quasi-socialist systems is moot as there is a valid argument that they are FAR worse then we are. Also using the projected life spans is also skewed as that incorporates all forms of death and we are far and above ahead of all countries in auto accidents, homicides etc...

How is it anyone can consider letting the US Government run anything?

Semper

Not to get off topic, but there are some instances where the federal gov't was better suited than the private sector to accomplish a task. The US Highway System, for example. And there are shining examples of controlled monopolies working with the feds that have accomplished great things. Our telephone communication system succeeded because of the joint efforts of AT&T and the gov't working together to put up all those poles and string all that wire.

Why would you go to the ER for an ear ache or acne? That makes no sense being that acne can only be treated (permanently anyhow) through Accutane which only a licensed dermatologist can prescribe. Antibotics and creams will not work (at least they dident for me). Ear aches can be treated by your GP doc.

I have actually heard stories about people calling 911 and demanding that an ambulance take them to the ER for pathetic things like stubbed toes, bloody noses, etc.

^^^ This is about the best we can hope for this go-round I'm afraid.

Whether we like it or not the "nod" is going to McCain and the Dems will take the White House. No getting around it now. Even if McCain pulled a miracle out of his magic hat and won it would be to the same end.

Our priority, as conservatives (despite our differences ), should and must be to retake both Chambers of Congress and limit the damage.

If not, I say again, we are royally screwed.

There are too many people here for socialist programs to work properly. The cost to administer it is astronomical, and adds to the expense.

If the doctors and hospitals hands were not tied by the mandates and regulations imposed upon them by the socialist system, there would be room for everyone to get treatment and great treatment at that.

If a "socialist" type program can be shown to work, then I can get behind it. So far most of the ones we have are shyte. Why would we want more? It exacerbates the problems that already exist and ultimately drives up the cost of healthcare and other services for those of us who actually pay our own way. Of course those looking for handouts (sadly a LOT in this country) are going to want socialist programs, then they don't have to be responsible for themselves!!!