It is affordable housing and in some cases free for welfare recipients at the expense of the American taxpayer.
You are quite happy to pay your taxes, but you don't seem to want the government to spend it on anything that may have a positive effect on the less
End of foreclosures
Again I don't see a problem with this
Because nothing is free, somebody has to pay for it, one way or another.
Yes those somebodies should be the corporate fascists who's unbound greed caused the financial crisis
Community based housing
Surely all housing and nieghbourhoods, should be based on community spirit, surely?
I dont know, ask the survivors of the holocaust or the bolsheviks.
I take you are refering to the Ghettos?, I wasn't I was refering to the true meaning of community, people sharing the same space and environment
helping and looking out for one another, if you look after your community, your community will look after you, more of a Christian ideal really,
surely you can't disagree with that?
Our interstates federal highways that connect cities together, America is a travel based economy. They want to restrict our constitutional right to
travel and force us into the rail system as mentioned above in a way that controls, regulates and restricts travel.
Ever heard of Nazi Germany?
Yes I have heard of Nazi Germany, being British, and yet again Nazi Germany has nothing to do with socialism, Hitler was a Fascist and so were the
Nazis. How do you know they want to restrict your right to travel, and why would they if your economy is travel based. Is this just paranoia on your
part? Just because someone want to privide a a public service doesn't mean they want to take away your rights. I still think there is room for
private and public sector businesses, the government should run businesses as long as they are viable, for the interest of the people, it may even
Currently, airlines are privately owned. This implies huge problems and a basic theft or takeover of the airline industry.
Why is theft? Are you implying that they would simply sieze their assets, governments can do that anyway, what's new? If the shares are bought fairly
and squarely, it's like any business take over, there is room for both private and public sector
Federally funded car insurance
This could work like our national insurance, where you pay a fee from your wages, ensuring the low paid are insured, uninsured drivers are a menace
and give insurance companies the excuse to put up premiums.
Doesn't neccessarily make it right, constitutions can be amended. It's seems you don't have a problem with Insurance companies robbing us blind.
Greater access to all media
I don't see a problem with this
This implies greater access for the government to the media, not the people to the media. What this implies is that dissent would not be tolerated and
would be censored. Basically the media would become the governments mouth piece.
State owned media could run in parallell with private media, it doesn't neccessarily have to be a government mouthpiece, there is room for both,
private media is the mouthpiece of certain corporations who themselves have there own agenda, look at CNN and Fox, they are completely biased and push
the views of the corporations that own them. We have the BBC, which 95% of the time it is impartial, the other 5% is when they bang on about the
bloody Royals:-) and we have Independents too, it doesn't do us any harm, a choice of media outlets is a good thing.
The government should not control the media I agree with you there that is wrong, our BBC is not run by the government it is funded by public money
and is bound rules which forbib the governmnet from interfering.
We already have this and a constitutional right to appoint a public defender. What this implies is a takeover of all private lawyers and complete
regulation over the law industry.
That wouldn't really work, I have to agree with you there :-)
These are the high security prisons where they put mass murderers and the upper echelon of prisoners with security risks.
Again not a good idea, where are they going to put all those dangerous people??
Abolishment of the death penalty
The death penalty is Government sanctioned murder, it is not justice, only the absence and failure of Justice
In the cases of mass murder, it is much more reasonable to have them put to death, then have the tax payers pay to feed them and house them til the
day they die.
I can never agree with the Death Penalty it is the abject failure of Justice