Socialism & Fast Food Compared
 

It's frustrating when you see the nation's health going down and can't get others to see it. Then I realized it's because it involves addiction. And suddenly I saw a parallel between socialism and fast food. So, here it is:

1) Since around the mid 1900s people have gradually developed a taste for both socialism and fast food.

2) Both feel good in the short run but have long term consequences.

3) Both can become an addiction but the users seldom see it as such. They just think it's good.

4) Now one addiction has led to more of the other. The health of our nation is deteriorating and more socialism is seen by many as the fix.

Note: If I have to explain #4, you're more addicted than I thought. :)

That's an interesting anaolgy except that you cannot really field a strong military without a strong central government. You also need one for uniform transportation like roads, canals, and railroads; homeland security; computer security; patent and copyright enforcement; immigration; epidemic control; food and medicine safety; banking, etc.

Space exploration is getting interesting though with private companies getting involved.

Think a more adequate analogy would between Jacksonian Democracy and that of Jefferson. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacksonian_democracy

I just do not buy the "socialism" rant you see in much Republican writings.

I would be more worried about the repubs turning us into an Oligarchy.

Kinda like sex. :laugh:

so for some of you more government (and more cost) is OK.....and the reason it is OK is what?

btk

All of the above are things that individuals can't do for themselves so I'm not suggesting that we do away with them. But there are many government programs for things that individuals can and should do for themselves. For example, Social Security (saving for retirement), Medicare, food stamps, farm subsidies and unemployment compensation.

And here's a big one: Each person should know how to take care of their health (eat a healthy diet and soforth) so they can lower their risk of becoming a burden on the rest of us. This one is a big one because health care costs could perhaps be lowered by about a trillion dollars per year. U.S. healthcare expenditures were 2.6 trillion in 2010.

When George W. Bush was President, there was a shortage of able bodied young-men wanting to join the military. 30% of those trying to join were rejected because of being overweight. Talk about the nation becoming weaker! So what did they have to do to come up with more recruits? They had to offer a $10,000 sign-up bonus. I think it's a good example of national health issues leading to economic issues. The country is going broke as people get fatter and sicker and no one is offering any solutions.

the apparent current mode of life for far too many is continue to get fatter and sicker and more dependent on government....hence a different type of slavery being implemented and accepted.....knowingly or not.....or don't care.....gimme my food stamps!!!!

btk

Seriously??

If you understand the meaning of the word, it describes Obama-ism far more than Reagan-ism.

I know you don't see that and that's your problem, and your failing.

" But there are many government programs for things that individuals can and should do for themselves. For example, Social Security (saving for retirement), Medicare, food stamps, farm subsidies and unemployment compensation."
_________________-

This very well may true - however, what would you suggest happen to those who did not save enough on their own for retirement, health care, did not have enough money for food, or when laid off for a long period of time from work?

Do you personally believe those people and their families should be forced to live under a bridge in a refrigerator box, starve, and die? Or what would be your personal solution?

YOu still can't connect the dots between Obama and Socialism??? Order today the movie called AGENDA - Grinding America Down and guaranteed you WILL get it.

You did not answer the question in the above posting. You diverted.

Who created that movie? Fox Noise? Mr. Bouncy-Bouncy? Tea Party? Another 'reliable source'? :(

I just did a search to find out how long man has lived on earth. The answer was: 2 million years. How long have all of the above programs existed? I would guess about 60 or 70 years. How did we get along without them before?

Once again, a diversion non-answer.

In case you forgot the question, it is, "Do you personally believe those people and their families should be forced to live under a bridge in a refrigerator box, starve, and die? Or what would be your personal solution?

Richie come on...I'm pretty sure I understand the word much better than you just by your empty response.Oligarchy has nothing to do with Obama or Reagan If you can't see that that's your problem and it's you that is failing.
OLIGARCHY-a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people usually for corrupt and selfish reasons. Today in America we have a society in which money is incresingly concentrated in the hands of a few people and some large corporations. How anyone can seriously deny that our political system is being warped by the influence of big money is beyond me. And before you get into the class warfare stuff yes I do believe that there is class warfare and it is being waged by these super rich against me and the rest of the middle class.

If you go back to a time before these programs started, were people forced to live under bridges in a refrigerator box, starve, and die?

Once again, a diversion non-answer from you.

I asked specifically, "Do you personally believe those people and their families should be forced to live under a bridge in a refrigerator box, starve, and die? Or what would be your personal solution?"

Are you going to answer the question as to what your personal beliefs are and what your personal solution is? An attempt at diversion will not be accepted as an answer.

Naw not many people like fresh lake fish, too fishy

pretty good rubi

Buggy, Let me try to answer the question you posed. No one wants to see people starve, live in boxes, etc. Our underlying problem with most government programs is that we fail to acknowledge, no matter how noble your intentions are, you get what you reward. Let me provide some examples:

We had the seemingly worthwhile goal of every family own their own home. To encourage this we made mortgage interest and property taxes deductible. The unintended payoff - urban sprawl, hollowed out cities, voluntary segregation, death of public transportation in large parts of the country MacMansions, an explosion in the number of cars, vastly increased energy usage, etc.

To encourage giving, we made charitable gifts tax deductible. The payoff, since the largest recipient of tax deductible donations are churches, we have seen an explosion of MegaChurches and a vanishing of neighborhood churches. Neighborhood churches were a major part of the glue that held our society together. You had a responsibility not only to the church, but to your friends and neighbors for your conduct.

To aid single parents, we established Aid to Families With Dependent Children. The payoff, we are closing in on having half of all children be born without an identified father. The figure is now 70% in the black community. Having a child out of wedlock is one of the surest paths to poverty and the surest way to make certain that your children think nothing is wrong with this. I know two families where this has turned into a multi-generational problem.

We wanted to support family farmers and guaranteed crop prices. In the case of sugar, we went beyond that. The payoff, the family farm has vanished and the payments continue. We pay more for farm products and the corporate farms reap the benefit. If you wish to see corporate farms in action, go check out Purdue or any other mass producer of chickens. See how they are raised - at independent contractors caring for 100 to 250 thousand chickens at a time, see how they are slaughtered, see how they check or do not check for disease. The unfortunate thing is that you may never eat chicken again.

I can go on with virtually every program you can name, but I think I have made my point. Support of any behavior causes an increase in that behavior be it unemployment, planning for retirement, accepting responsibility for our own medical bills, etc. To correct unwanted behavior, we need to withdraw the support for it. There is no way we can do this all at once. Society has come to rely on these rewards.

The first thing I would do is start eliminating income tax deductions. The deductions you now have for the house you live in continue - when you purchase a new house they end. Charitable deductions should be phased out over five years - Year one notice, year two 75% and in year five zero. My basic guideline is that anything you do voluntarily should not be tax deductible - the few things that you do involuntarily, such as nursing home care, should be deductible. No marriage bonus and no deductibility for kids. You chose to have or adopt them.

Then I would start winding down entitlement programs The exceptions being on Social Security and Medicare, at least for those 55 and over. Start to wind down AFDC to two children.You would be amazed at how fewer kids are born out of wedlock without this incentive. You can understand where this goes for other government programs.

Ah....where have the good old days gone?

At least I am glad to finally hear a conservative admit that Medicare and Social Security programs are entitlement programs.

"Then I would start winding down entitlement programs The exceptions being on Social Security and Medicare, at least for those 55 and over."

The amount of money that I paid into SS and Medicare I will never recover unless I get really lucky and live to be 125. Entitlement, no way, I paid for mine, guess you did not pay for yours so its an entitlement for you so send it back and tell them you don't want it. That should make things fair and you would be paying your FAIR SHARE.

Talk about a diversion and a non-answer! I pointed out that every government program intended for societal engineering has failed to produce the desired outcome and instead has had results ranging from simply bad to full blown catastrophes. AFDC is a good example of a catastrophe. You addressed one line and failed to either agree or disagree with the basic premise. If you disagree say why. You should not demand answers from others and then fail to provide them yourself.

Not going to quote the whole thing.

I was just getting ready to answer buggy's question until I read this. I don't think I could improve on this.

I would add that the left often tries to belittle and berate by asking questions that have obvious answers with little substance.
Hell no people don't want them to live under a bridge in a box and die.
But if they are forced to do something for themselves to get themselves out of a problem instead of a hand out I would bet the outcome would be better than buggy's solution, if his solution is welfare.

I can't help myself here, but I have to add also I have lived on the street. Not under a bridge but I hoped for a bridge. I finally got a covered area to protect myself from the weather and I always looked for a way to better my bad situation. I was always looking to get a better shelter and finally got off the street. I did not die, no I survived and grew into a better person. If someone had made my street time better by giving me handouts I am not sure I would have figured out how to get out of it.
You don't don't have to die if you live under a bridge. As a matter of fact it may save your life!

Good answers from you and BBQ-Man.

BBQ-Man: When you reward something, you get more of it.

Notlongnow: Hardship helps one grow into a better person.

My grandfather came to this country around 1909 with nothing except perhaps a bag with some clothes. He was just hoping to get a job and there were no government handouts to help him. He left his family behind in Europe with the idea that he'd eventually have enough money to send for them. He got a job working in a coal mine and slept in a railroad box-car long enough to save the money to send for them.

There's nothing like hardship to change a person's priorities. Today we have so many safety nets that people squander their money even while they are unemployed. They get unemployment compensation and food stamps and then go out and buy junk food and other unnecessary items. Hardship would help them to manage their money better and they'd be much more likely to save for a rainy day.