Public works are not Socialist

a reply to: muzzleflash

While I find this disturbing...I also find Trump tweeting we need more Quantative Easing pretty much worse since he is actually the president..uh no..printing money to beat china is not the way to go.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Halfswede

Roads etc are " State Owned " unless built by a private enterprise in the form of Toll Roads.

State owned is neither Socialist, Capitalist or Communist.

Actually Interstates are Federal and fall under Interstate trade.

a reply to: Gothmog

Built by Eisenhower and the core for defense.


Edit not an argument against just saying highways are very "not socialist".

originally posted by: Gothmog

Actually Interstates are Federal and fall under Interstate trade.

I fairly sure he means 'state' in the context of 'government' and not as in 'Rhode Island' for example.

I have no problem with government overseeing the roads. I have no problem with the government overseeing our medical industry either. I think socialized medicine would be good, for the basics, not for cosmetics and dental or eyecare other than glasses and exams every two years. Mostly because for profit medicine is being corrupted by greed and because the medical doctors are prescribing tests and therapies that are not necessary just to make sure that everyone stays working in the medical field and to supply the hospitals with income. It has got out of hand. It is not always greed that causes deception.

I do not want a pure socialism though, I do not believe that all these kids need to go college to get a job that does not require a college education. The majority of college graduates do not get a job in the field they have a degree in, it is a waste of money most times. Our society has gone amuck. There is nothing wrong with being a construction worker, factory worker, or a farm worker. These people should not be getting way less than someone working on computer programs, their work is actually more important than someone designing a game or software application that costs millions and drives up prices to the consumer.

Our societies going in the wrong direction, socialism will not fix that, it might actually make it worse.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Gothmog

Actually Interstates are Federal and fall under Interstate trade.

I fairly sure he means 'state' in the context of 'government' and not as in 'Rhode Island' for example.

What ?
Are you Ok ?

a reply to: Gothmog


You're talking about the interstates, their state owned. Whether it's Federal or not is not relevant, the government still owns and maintains them via taxation.

a reply to: Halfswede

If the government gives money to a paving company to pay for a road, the means of production comes from the private enterprise or the people who pay the taxes?

I think people are taking the definitions far to literal. Socialism still has currency, it's just that the money is carefully controlled by a central or local government.

Capitalism is where the end game is to become basically you're own bank and small enterprises control the flow and hire people as needed.

Communism is where money is non existent and government is kept at local levels. Which isnt applicable to this discussion.

If taxes are used to build up public works, that is a socialist idea. If a private company or people pool their money to pay for their town fountain to be fixed, without using government money, that's not socialism.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: dfnj2015

The military industrial establishment is the biggest socialist program in the government and simple cannot be stopped.

Not quite

I won't deny that our military spending could use some trimming, but medical/healthcare (which *are* socialist) and social security (which is dipped into for discretionary spending and *has become* a socialist ponzi scheme) overshadow it by quite a bit, and our interest on the debt is catching up.

Socialist government spending is when the government uses its power to control/regulate/provide privately produced goods and services by public mandate. Therefore, buying a tank is not socialism. Telling a private doctor how to do their private business is socialism. Building a public road is not socialism. Taking private earnings from one person and immediately giving those private earnings to other private citizens as a SS check is socialism (and legalized theft.)

That chart only shows spending and leaves out the critical element of income. Currently more money is collected by the Social Security system than is paid out, so in a way, our Social security tax dollars are being spent on guns and missiles and drones, etc.

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
a reply to: dfnj2015

By the way, when it comes to your precious money coming out of your pocket for socialism just remember it's not how much in taxes that is important. What is important is the purchasing power of your take home pay. I think the billionaires paying the lobbyists to pass laws creating cartels and monopolies is a much bigger problem in this country than the $60 billion being spent per year on the Welfare program (we spend close to one trillion on the military complain about that).

It does matter how much in taxes. They have calculations out on how much all these socialist policies would cost and it's around $70,000 for each family in the US to pay for the free stuff the left is promising. That is $20,000 over the annual median salary here in my hometown.

So where are you going to get the money? You can't tax the people more than they make.

I don't know if you know this but 98% of all facts posted on the Internet are made up at the time someone speaks it.

a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

Social Security should not be in the chart. It's BS military industrial complex propaganda to include it.

originally posted by: Halfswede
Unless they are also Nazi-ist, despotist, communist, monarchist etc.

I can agree with that.

There is a trend by the socialists to try and shame those against socialism by saying things like:

"Do you hate driving on nice roads? Do you hate infrastructure and schools? " etc. because "That's socialism"

The implication is that if you are against socialism, you are against public works and civic improvement.

But actually, these things are not necessarily improvement. They are mostly just cosmetic flash that really just raise the cost and effort of living and maintaining everything higher and higher until no one can even live a basic existence without enormous debt. How many people do you know who are not in debt for the rest of their lives? Are these people who actually have spare money just laying around to build more roads and schools and so forth?

So the whole thing is a bit #ed up from the get go because you're being shamed for being against the massively expensive, wasteful and inefficient system you were born into and never chose to build in the first place.

With the knowledge and technology we have, we could lead simpler, easier lives with less of the "public works" burden for people to spend money they don't have on. A species that can manufacture a computer can certainly design a society that doesn't need excessive public spending. The modern world is a complete mess that people just accept and say "you like driving on roads, don't you?" Well, no. I actually kinda don't. But that's how things work and I kinda have to. That doesn't mean that we necessarily need a gazillion miles of paved roads to make life happen, does it?

People are too unwilling to throw old stuff that doesn't work anymore away and start over with the idea that we have new developments that make the old stuff obsolete. We keep clinging to old ideas like building more roads so people can go into more debt and keep buying cars so they can sit in traffic that is so heavy no one can move. So it takes you 7 years to pay for that car that depreciates to the point to where you own more than it's worth as soon as you drive it off the lot. And then you spend most of your time in it just sitting there in traffic and you wonder why it takes you forever to get anywhere.

Maybe that idea doesn't work anymore when you have such a populous society and taxes are already too high and most people can't even actually buy anything without debt.

Public works? OK. If you're going to say that public works are not necessarily socialism, that's fine. But you need to give up on buying a $50k vehicle that will be next to worthless by the time it's paid for and instead embrace the idea of higher taxes to pay for more efficient public transportation.

That means that people need to give up a lot of the stuff they stubbornly cling to. Massively expanded public transportation expenditure is where people should be putting their money instead of wasting it on wasteful personal vehicles and taxes to keep the roads going. And keep building more roads (that also need constant maintenance for all the vehicles).

The US does transportation wrong. Or I should say that our transportation system is out of step with how we think about public works. If your local school didn't exist, you'd think you were living in the dark ages but nobody wants to pay for upgraded rail systems and subways and so forth.

If you're gonna pay high taxes anyway, you should demand that they be well spent.


The fact is, EVERY government form since the beginning of time has had public works with the goal of adding value for the populace (or some faction thereof). The only difference in all of them is whether the populace had any say in how much was taken out of their pockets or whether they were forced to do the work.

Socialism doesn't own public works as I could just as easily say it is a Nazi thing, and those against socialism--which leads to communism, are not against public works and civic responsibility. Nice tactic though. /sarc