The Medicare voucher program

[Hlleonard]

Well said.

We're already not that far away from those on government assistance outnumbering those who are not. One word describes over-reliance on the government, socialism.

It is likely a President with a very strong bent toward socialism will be re elected this November.

--
Socialism is an awfully ugly word, we have struggled for a lot of years to find a medium happy between our two forms of government and hopefully down the road we can find our way out of this mess we have gotten ourselves into... I don't believe either of these candidates can lead us down that path.

[RoadToad]

Obama is not a socialist, just ask any member of the American Socialist Party. Socialists don't bail out for-profit companies. People have thrown that word around as an epithet since the Civil War, and it has rarely come close to being true.

Here's an interesting factoid for you: The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist.

[DJD]

Obama is not a socialist, just ask any member of the American Socialist Party. Socialists don't bail out for-profit companies. People have thrown that word around as an epithet since the Civil War, and it has rarely come close to being true.

Here's an interesting factoid for you: The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist.

He might not be a socialist on the outside but on the inside he is a socialist Muslim..

Heres another tidbit......the democrat party was pro KKK and even been told that they started that crazy group to scare and warn the GOP to stop helping blacks with their rights and freedoms. It took the GOP vote to give blacks. Citizenship because the dems didnt want them to have equal rights.

[Devils Horse]

Obama is not a socialist, just ask any member of the American Socialist Party. Socialists don't bail out for-profit companies. People have thrown that word around as an epithet since the Civil War, and it has rarely come close to being true.

Here's an interesting factoid for you: The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist.

The factoid is irrelevant.

Socialism:
A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole

Okay, substitute government for community in the above definition. Sound familiar?

[Mean Morone]

One of our founders once said that when the people realize they can vote themselves money, it's all over. Very wise man. Another wise man once said if you don't work you don't eat.

[Devils Horse]

--
Socialism is an awfully ugly word, we have struggled for a lot of years to find a medium happy between our two forms of government and hopefully down the road we can find our way out of this mess we have gotten ourselves into... I don't believe either of these candidates can lead us down that path.

Which two forms of government are we talking about? I'm assuming you're talking about the Republican/Democrat two party system.

I'm not a learned scholar on the subject, so bear with me on this. Take a country where the national government redistributes wealth for "social justice"? That same country's government administers it's citizens' health care and forces them to buy into the system whether they want to or not? 50% of that country's people depend on the government for some form of basic need? Does the Democrat party in it's current form not openly advocate all these?

Semantics can in fact be an ugly thing, but that last paragraph sounds a lot like like socialism to me. What would you call it?

I believe step one to getting out of this mess is taking the reigns of power away from tax and spend politicians. Barack Obama is the biggest spender in history. Simple, America desperately needs him gone. We need that lying fool, Harry Reid gone just as badly.

[Hlleonard]

Which two forms of government are we talking about? I'm assuming you're talking about the Republican/Democrat two party system.

I'm not a learned scholar on the subject, so bear with me on this. Take a country where the national government redistributes wealth for "social justice"? That same country's government administers it's citizens' health care and forces them to buy into the system whether they want to or not? 50% of that country's people depend on the government for some form of basic need? Does the Democrat party in it's current form not openly advocate all these?

Semantics can in fact be an ugly thing, but that last paragraph sounds a lot like like socialism to me. What would you call it?

I believe step one to getting out of this mess is taking the reigns of power away from tax and spend politicians. Barack Obama is the biggest spender in history. Simple, America desperately needs him gone. We need that lying fool, Harry Reid gone just as badly.

--
When laws are put in place by our lawmakers, they are supposedly meant for all of us and we are "forced" to abide by them whether or not we wish to, be they democratic or republican, although our lawmakers seem to find ways to exempt themselves from those laws if it is to their advantage... I'm not sure what "social justice" exactly is but I don't believe you will find many folks in our great country that actually believe the government should play robin hood, that seems to be an argument the right attempts to make by their "spread the wealth" rantings on occasion, I believe most people on either side thinks folks should earn their keep in order for us to maintain the country we have. I personally don't believe the new healthcare bill will be a boon exactly to the middle class, I believe it may do further damage to those folks but it was put in place by our politicians and therefore we all have to live with it... I don't doubt your 50% assessment of folks who get help from the system but I ask you, what should our country do for someone who has a family, earns less money than is required to feed and house them, could we be the country we are if we told them "swim or drown" ... I feel like a person who works should be able to earn a wage with which to care for his family without government help and if paying somebody a better wage is called "redistributing the wealth" then I'm all for it.
Two forms of government may not have been the correct wording for the point I was attempting to make, I believe we have had something like the two party system for most of our history, I don't think the policies of either side in themselves would be good for most of us, I believe it is in our best interest to keep them at each others throats, it has done us fairly well over the years and hopefully will continue to do so... I do believe the national debt will bite us in the backside at some point down the road if we don't manage to do something about it, what that something is might be a combination of democratic and republican ideas, we can't start starving folks to balance the budget just yet.

[Devils Horse]

--
When laws are put in place by our lawmakers, they are supposedly meant for all of us and we are "forced" to abide by them whether or not we wish to, be they democratic or republican, although our lawmakers seem to find ways to exempt themselves from those laws if it is to their advantage... I'm not sure what "social justice" exactly is but I don't believe you will find many folks in our great country that actually believe the government should play robin hood, that seems to be an argument the right attempts to make by their "spread the wealth" rantings on occasion, I believe most people on either side thinks folks should earn their keep in order for us to maintain the country we have. I personally don't believe the new healthcare bill will be a boon exactly to the middle class, I believe it may do further damage to those folks but it was put in place by our politicians and therefore we all have to live with it... I don't doubt your 50% assessment of folks who get help from the system but I ask you, what should our country do for someone who has a family, earns less money than is required to feed and house them, could we be the country we are if we told them "swim or drown" ... I feel like a person who works should be able to earn a wage with which to care for his family without government help and if paying somebody a better wage is called "redistributing the wealth" then I'm all for it.
Two forms of government may not have been the correct wording for the point I was attempting to make, I believe we have had something like the two party system for most of our history, I don't think the policies of either side in themselves would be good for most of us, I believe it is in our best interest to keep them at each others throats, it has done us fairly well over the years and hopefully will continue to do so... I do believe the national debt will bite us in the backside at some point down the road if we don't manage to do something about it, what that something is might be a combination of democratic and republican ideas, we can't start starving folks to balance the budget just yet.

I agree checks and balances have done pretty well for us, that's the way our government was designed.

When you give one side or the other a super majority like the Democrats had in Mr. Obama's first 2 years in office, stupid things happen. Like a trillion dollar spending bill getting passed without even being read by all of congress, or a poorly researched and constructed trillion dollar bill to 'overhaul' health care is rammed through.

I don't think anyone from either side is for letting people starve, but look at the dramatic rise in assistance of every form since Mr. Obama became President. Maybe that has to do with the economy, maybe that has do with the Dems wanting a bigger built-in voter base. Most likely some mix of the 2.

The government through some program or set of rules cannot increase middle class pay checks. It's just not going to happen. The governemnt can either confiscate money from some and give it to others, or get the hell out of the way of private business and let the economy get momentum.

The last terrible economy like this during the wretched Jimmy Carter years, we tossed him out, elected Regan and saw huge turn-around. Maybe trickle down economics (the kind Democrats are always condemning because the government's role is minimized) aren't so bad.

I wish we had the answers. Only one thing is an absolute certainty, Mr. Obama has failed miserably, and he needs to go.