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

[Angelo Bertolli]

Jed S. Baer wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 00:25:04 -0400
> Angelo Bertolli wrote:
>
>   
>> By the way, the Democrats aren't socialist.  Neither am I, but this
>> list has a lot of right wing campers so I know the things I pick to say
>> make me sound differently.  We're all capitalists in this country, but
>> some of us think that a different mix and balance of social programs
>> are necessary for a good society.  (Well except for maybe you and Jed,
>> who as far as I can tell don't think we should have any social programs
>> or taxes.)  But at least admit that it's not as black and white as "the 
>> Republicans are Capitalists" and "the Democrats are Communists."  It's 
>> just not true.
>>     
>
> Regrettably, plenty of nominal Republicans have plenty of socialist
> leanings. Do you remember Hillary's nice little speech where she said, in
> reference to these so-called "windfall profits" that oil companies get,
> that she would "take that money" from them? How about Obama's comments to
> Joe the Plumber? He wants to "spread the wealth around". I note only that
> Democrats seem to be more open about it. But IIRC the concept of national
> health care has bi-partisan support.
>   

I like the concept too.  It's the implementation I worry about.  And I'm 
guessing you're already convinced there could be no good implementation 
that would work?  Whatever we're doing right now isn't working, and both 
parties still don't seem to have a clue about how to make it work.

> Gee, what does that remind you of? "From each according to his abilities,
> to each according to his needs." That's Karl Marx. That's part of
> socialism. That's what we have in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,
> AFDC, ad nauseum.
>   

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.

> It's been a very long time since we were "all capitalists" in this
> country, if indeed that's ever been the case. Perhaps in the very early
> days of the country. Ever look here: http://www.cpusa.org/ ? Or were you
> unaware of the direct support of the American Communist Party by the
> Soviet Union? There have been plenty of hard-core communists / socialists
> in the U.S.
>   
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.

> I cannot think of a single Federal elected office holder who actually
> adheres to the U.S. Constitution. Even Ron Paul has voted for pork-barrel
> spending. Contrast that to, for example, Grover Cleveland, a Democrat,
> who vetoed "benevolent" appropriations. I just love to link to this
> article by Walter Williams:
>
> http://townhall.com/Columnists/WalterEWilliams/2006/09/13/constitution_day
>
>   

I don't understand what you mean.  Maybe I'm not the primary audience 
for this link, but how are are things like welfare and pork-barrel 
spending "contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and 
subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is 
founded?"  Does it specifically restrict this kind of thing?

> I have nothing whatsover against charity. But I do believe that it should
> be a private decision, not something forced upon people at gunpoint. And
> if you don't believe that government-sponsored charity is enforced,
> ultimately, by force, just stop paying your taxes. At some point, armed
> federal agents will come to your door.
>   

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?

Angelo