Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: Local Deli...The finest of Kosher meats I'm sure
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
2012-04-16, 03:26 PM | [Ignore Me] #108 | |||
Sergeant
|
It is also a lot harder for shit to get done when you have appointments waiting to be filled. Just last week I believe Obama finally got 70 more members appointed to his staff/judicial appointments. Now, these are not new, they have just been sitting doing nothing because our lovely republicans in office decide to block his appointments. Now, these are not blocks based on merit, they are fully qualified for the jobs, they just don't want to appoint them because of politics. He still has many more administrative and judicial appointments that need to be approved. That is the kind of shit we really don't need in our political system.
__________________
|
|||
|
2012-04-16, 06:19 PM | [Ignore Me] #110 | ||
Lieutenant General
|
No Malorn, socialism is NOT communism. Communism is an extreme form of socialism.
But hey, then the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea has the same state system as a democracy, because it's in the name? And what about the Democratic Republic of Kongo? Malorn, really now. |
||
|
2012-04-17, 09:47 AM | [Ignore Me] #112 | |||
Lieutenant General
|
Insulting? How is this insulting?
They consider the government responsible for providing basic needs such as security (police, national defense), accessible public health, encouraging employment and protecting the rights of the employee, providing for those who can't help themselves (including the elderly and pension plans), accessible education for all (so they can work themselves up). The only things they prefered no free market on were services like energy (nuclear facilities, making sure power supply is in domestic hands and does not become too expensive), transportation (national railways, airports and harbours) and hospitals (public interest). All the latter three groups have already been privatized by the liberals, btw. The idea was that service and quality would go up if there was competition. That was not exactly true, problem with for instance privatizing railways, meant that immediately the less profitable tracks were up for dismantling. Which meant a lot worse service for the people depending on them. Everything got more expensive as well, since government funding was pretty much stopped and now just the clients had to pay the price for exploiting all these less profitable routes, rather than the national community as a whole. Since not everybody uses railroads, that's a lot more expensive for a relative few and it meant more people would take the car (opposite of the intention), which lead to more traffic jams and traffic jams lead to economic damage. The same is true for bus routes. There used to be 5 different busroutes in my own city, but since the privatization, there's only 2 left and they are less efficient as they take longer and less interesting routes (nearest busroute used to go to nearest railway station, now it goes to another one, which takes 10 minutes longer to get there and it's an extra train stop, so I don't use it anymore at all). The stops are frequently also a longer walk or a single stop for entire residential areas. So service has effectively gone down quite a bit. And they're considering on scrapping another line. International shipping and transportation routes too are IMO too important for national security to be completely ran privately, since then economic interest may take precedence over national interest. So despite being a liberal, I kinda agree that in some special cases, some nationalised institutions or subsidies to provide service to citizens isn't always a bad thing, or that companies have to provide services that are less profitable along with a more profitable line. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, otherwise only the profitable lines would still exist. And just look at the state of the British Railways (privatized for decades and decades). What an utter mess. Providing some government services for a more care free life within a free trade and free market system is called a "wellfare states" and that can not at all be compared to communism. Companies are after all in private hands, not public hands. Competition is fierce and the government does not tell the companies what and how many things to produce. So a modern, socialist, political party (typically named labour) is a farcry from the type of socialism you refer to. What you are refering to is a different type of regime that people like Chavez prefer. Modern socialists in Europe don't want anything to do with communism because they value their freedom as well. In fact, next to liberals they are the main proponents of gaining more freedoms to live your life the way you want to, where you want to and with as little concern for your health etc as possible. I know, you have trouble considering that other people than you like freedoms (as you continuously proclaim nobody can understand freedoms like you do), but it's true. Now, I'm not particularly fond of labour for often being a bunch of hypocrits who don't look after the national treasury too well, but they too have a point now and then. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with taking care of one's fellow citizens if you can. It would be ideal if people would do so on their own, but they won't. Hence taxes. |
|||
|
2012-04-17, 02:56 PM | [Ignore Me] #119 | |||
Second Lieutenant
|
I've always really liked the idea of the supremely rich paying supreme amounts of tax. If it bothers them, they can come split a 2-bedroom apartment with me and make $45k a year and enjoy nice low tax bracket. |
|||
|
2012-04-17, 03:04 PM | [Ignore Me] #120 | ||
Lieutenant General
|
Here's a silly thought Halfman, let's all not pay taxes, let's not pay people to built or maintain infrastructure like bridges (you were not doing that before) and let's not pay police and justice departments with tax payer's money.
|
||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|