[clue-talk] Wow, Card's a little political...

[Nate Duehr]

On Oct 31, 2008, at 11:34 PM, Angelo Bertolli wrote:

> Well Social Security is one that (although needs to be managed  
> better) I'm on board with.  I'm sure I'll never need it, but I'm  
> glad we have it.  When I said that the US created social programs  
> that helped to build the middle class, I was referring mostly to the  
> New Deal.

My grandfather, who lived on a farm in South Dakota during that time,  
remembers VERY clearly what made the New Deal work... the government  
set up WORK programs that anyone willing to uproot and go work their  
asses off, could participate in.  The Interstate system being built  
through South Dakota kept my great-grandfather, my grandfather, and  
most of their friends and family in paid jobs during very bad times  
later on.

I have NO PROBLEM with government projects that garner RECIPROCATION.   
You want me to hand a poor person a paycheck from my taxes, they can  
move to where they can WORK daily on infrastructure projects.  That'd  
be fine.  We have a lot of bridges here in Colorado that need  
rebuilding.

(And I'm not being an ogre.  People with real disabilities and medical  
conditions are of course, covered by our existing socialist-style  
government entitlement systems.  I'm saying for the able-bodied stuck  
in gangs and SHIT in the inner cities, give 'em a barracks, a job, and  
put 'em to work... if they will CHOOSE to willingly go.  I'll gladly  
pay for that out of my taxes.)

> Ok, ok, I'm sure there are some people who are serious socialists/ 
> communists.  But the Republicans like to equate that with the  
> Democrats when the type of "socialism" the Democrats want isn't even  
> considered socialism by the standard of some European countries.   
> (This goes back to my "colloquial socialism" comment:)  It's not  
> like when people use the word "socialism" in this country they're  
> really talking about us becoming a completely socialist state, or  
> that we will even come close to removing capitalism as our base  
> system.  It's clear (at least to me) that calling someone a  
> "socialist" has come to mean that the person thinks we should have  
> certain social programs.  (And this goes back to my demonizing of  
> the term:)  In that case,  it's either unfair to really call those  
> people socialists, or it's unfair to demonize the term and use it  
> only to mean pure marxism and anti-capitalism.  In short:  99% of  
> the people who get called "socialists" here aren't anti-capitalists.

Let's just call Democrats "too socialist" then.  Would that work?  For  
example, the discussions ALREADY UNDERWAY to forcibly remove money  
from 401k plans and place it in a government trust that buys  
Treasuries (T-Bills) at 3% (lower if you dump a bunch of money into  
them) to "save us from ourselves".  That's just insanity.

> What roles do you think government should take in society, and how  
> can it enforce them?  I mean after all, isn't it just a way that we  
> all agree to live together?  I don't see the inherent flaw in giving  
> money to something that we think benefits us as a society.  And  
> you'll never ever get 100% of the people to agree on everything, so  
> we should just have nothing?

I don't think ANY of us mind giving money to something we all agree  
benefits us as a society.  We just all disagree on what benefits us  
ALL.  :-)  (The hard-core Libertarians on the list with a capital-L  
might not like that sentiment, but most Republicans aren't crazy  
enough to think we all need toll-roads and no government-sponsored  
infrastructure at all.)

--
Nate Duehr
nate at natetech.com