November 2, 2008
Socialism is good
Like all socialists, Lehigh County Democratic committeewoman Lynne Hanna confuses government (which few people are against) with socialism.
Which all sensible people are against.
John McCain and his supporters have resorted to using the word ''socialism'' as if it is a bad word. Is he really against the police, firefighters, public school system, sewer system, safe toys, roads and bridges, Medicare and Social Security, to name a few? These are run by government to provide for the protection and needs of society.Republican support for corporate capitalism and deregulation have led us to the current financial crisis. Ronald Reagan started us on this path with his oft quoted, ''We must not look to government to solve our problems. Government is the problem.'' Think about the state of our country today and keep in mind that government is only good for the people when we elect those who believe that with oversight, government is good.
Police? Firefighters? Schools? All local issues.... not federal govt... and those are actually legitimate government roles.
USA Today: (old story, but things haven't gotten better)
Social Security - $4 Trillion dollar unfunded liability.
Medicare - $33 Trillion dollar unfunded liability.
Scores of today's children will be paying out the ass for this.
But yeah, socialism is good if you're not the one on the hook with the tab.
2008 Posted by AlexC at November 2, 2008 5:40 PM
"Socialism" means nothing today when Obama can deny he is one.
"Libertarian" means nothing today when McArdle can claim she is one.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 3, 2008 8:57 AMAnd by the way, I would argue that "education," at the very least in the virtual monopoly sense of modern times, is NOT a legitimate function of government. I fail to see how it safeguards my life, liberty and property.
Even police are questionable today when so many are more likely to abuse you than rescue you. I'm running 50-50 in my short lifetime.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 3, 2008 9:00 AMThat's a difficult argument to parry. Look at the length of your (superb, btw) post and two links to make your point to folks who believe in you.
Comrade Hanna's argument is short and intuitive. It lends itself to a good 30-minute campaign commercial with pictures of firefighters saving children. Our argument lends itself to a policy paper, or a guest lecture at the Community College.
Just once, I want to be on the "cute puppies" side of politics. Just damn once.
Posted by: jk at November 3, 2008 11:52 AMLiberalism: You can have all the cute puppies you want. Not only will we tax your rich neighbors to pay for your puppies, we'll require all new developments to set aside some land for puppy runs.
Conservatism: You can have all the cute puppies you want, as long as they'll grow up to be faithfuly and morally righteous.
Libertarian: Have all the cute puppies you want, we don't care. Just buy them at your own expense and keep them on your own property.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 3, 2008 2:02 PM | What do you think? [4]