Will America become socialist now that Biden has basically won?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnz123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We thought critical thinking from the time our child could speak.

The rest of your cartchture is just that, unkind and a trope.
 
Although I personally believe our rights and freedoms are being slowly boiled away like a frog in a pot and our constitution is being violated at every chance imaginable, we still are not Cuba, North Vietnam or Venezuela. But that does not mean religious freedom is not under attack and those who wish to curb such freedoms have not actually done so already. Look at the ACA. It forced the Little Sisters of the Poor to provide contraceptives but this was later taken to court and they won. But for a time, they were mandated by law to do so. Had we not fought, and won, we would be one step closer to tyranny.

And what about the recent court decision to allow homosexual persons to marry? Or how about allowing transgendered persons into the locker room or washroom of their preferred “identity”? There is most definitely persecution of Christians. It may not be us being thrown in a pit of lions, but I dare you to go into your work place and start preaching the gospel. Right now, there are so many companies that have gone “woke” that if you wear a crucifix, and someone gets triggered, you could get fired. People are being cancelled over FB posts saying they support police. While that is not a religious persecution, it is an massive tidal wave of impending tyranny that is already washing up on shore.
 
Socialism is not:
  • Providing for the common good where subsidiarity principles can be observed, such as providing for our military, our interstate highways, and our monetary system
  • Obtaining taxes that provide for such things
Socialism is:
  • Whereas a centralized government owns and controls the means to an entire industry, such as healthcare, allowing no private ownership or state or local or individual control over such free exercise thereof.
 
We should definitely fight against those things you mentioned.

What won’t help our cause is the caricaturing of those we oppose. It weakens our position.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. I am guilty of it sometimes as I am a fallen human and ultimately succumb to lower the bar of my own integrity, I try and do my best never to use ad hominem attacks, and be honest and factual in my discussions. I believe often times I am the recipient of being caricaturized (I’m white, so I’m a racist, I’m a conservative so I hate giving to the poor, I’m a Catholic so I hate gay people)…

Of course, my opinions will be my opinions, but not compromising on the facts.
 
Canvas said:
40.png
StudentMI:
In other words government regulating and punishing private companies for running their businesses.
Click to expand...
Also; Government essentially controlling the means of communication.
Click to expand...
But do let’s permit government to control all other segments of society? 😝
 
JoeFreedom said:
  • Whereas a centralized government owns and controls the means to an entire industry, such as healthcare, allowing no private ownership or state or local or individual control over such free exercise thereof.
Click to expand...
Are these your words? If not, would you mind providing a link to give credit to whomever said them?

If we agree on this definition, (and just for the sake of argument, I’ll suppose that I do), I’m not sure that at least for this discussion, health care is a good example of the concept.
  1. Single-payer health care normally comes with a private option, so that “allowing no private ownership” part would be null and void.
  2. Single-payer health care isn’t socialized medicine, the latter of which has health care providers who are government employees.
  3. The Vatican supports universal health coverage.
 
Canvas said:
Also; Government essentially controlling the means of communication.
Click to expand...
I actually read something pretty interesting some years ago about the media in Norway. Apparently the government subsidizes the production of different papers and journals and magazines. Ironically the result is a greater variety of viewpoints than we have in the US.
 
Pretty sure a publisher can in fact choose what it publishes, even promoting a political point of view if it so desires. Is “publisher” really the word you’re looking for, here?

Also, responding to speech with “that’s not actually true, so maybe spectators/readers shouldn’t act on it as though it is” is not censorship.
 
blackforest said:
40.png
johnz123:
Well first it starts with medicare for all, then maybe free college tuition, then other things.
Click to expand...
We’re 207 posts in, and nobody has provided any operational definition of “socialism.”
Click to expand...
Socialism: A political position that you think your government is taking when they want to spend money on policies that will help the general population but with which you don’t agree.
 
StudentMI said:
Apparently the government subsidizes the production of different papers and journals and magazines.
Click to expand...
I don’t see any issue with this. We already have some public media: NPR, PBS, even Stars and Stripes for the military. We could use more media that isn’t driven by ratings and sensationalism.
 
Canvas said:
48.png
phil19034:
There was an independent report (referenced by the moderator during the Vice Presidential debate) that indicated that Kamala Harris (based on co sponsorship of bills, votes, bills introduced, etc) was the furthest left Senator in the Senate.
Click to expand...
How does one measure “leftism”?
Click to expand...
We could measure it by how far the Democrat Party has moved towards it in the past 10 years.

Their position in 2005-10 and earlier on the issue of immigration…


The narrative that the right is moving further right but the left has remained in stasis is clearly untrue.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think most of the people who voted for Biden knew much about him, to be honest. The Senate should be able to block most of his or her most extreme measures, as it stands. The House, on the other hand, is having a lot of internal fighting, especially between the “moderates” and the “democratic socialists”, in the Democratic party, so, I don’t know what is going on there.
 
Freddy said:
Maybe you should check out how places like Australia and the UK do it.
Click to expand...
A recent poll indicated that a majority of people in the US do not want a “one size fits all” approach; they wish to continue with their policies.

Under the heading of “no such thing as a free lunch”, and with medicine (from doctors to equipment to pharmaceuticals) having no chance of becoming less expensive, it is extremely unlikely we will be finding any magic bullet.

Can things be improved? That is beyond not only my knowledge base, but possibly beyond any conversation, as both parties have drifted, if not run, farther apart. And no matter what is done, the rule of unintended consequences will still hold sway.

Currently we have a Hobson’s choice: major cost to the policy with bearable deductions, or bearable cost of the policy with huge deductions. Right, wrong or indifferent, the decision to bind policies to pre existing conditions was a major driver of the cost factor.

Given that the Republicans endured an impeachment inquiry that lasted 3 years, and the host of shenanigans before, during and after, Joe Biden’s call for unity is beyond a farce; turnabout may not be fair play, but if he thinks by saying some pious platitudes he can erase the last four years, then he is truly missing a beat.

And if Georgia manages to produce two Republican Senators, he will be hamstrung; if they do not, then he will be pressured to push through some of the more radical legislation; and it will be a guessing game and grist for the betting world how long he will retain office. Given hs second in command, that might become even more raucous.

And if they succeed in pushing an agenda beyond a moderate Democrat stance, they may find a backlash of historical proportions.

The drift of the rest of the US elections - state and federal - indicate that the US is not primed to become socialist. The flip of the House flopped resoundingly. The flip of governors flopped. Most projections of a blue wave look somewhere between purple and red.

So in short, a minority seems to want to change healthcare to model Australia or the UK; or Sweden, or… Some years ago Investors Business Daily did a survey of several countries with socialized medicine. It is amazing the facts which one does not hear about the holes in the various methods of socializing medicine - a good deal of which we need to have present when the Socialists come with their agendas. There simply is no such thing as a free lunch.
 
Last edited:
otjm said:
48.png
Freddy:
Maybe you should check out how places like Australia and the UK do it.
Click to expand...
A recent poll indicated that a majority of people in the US do not want a “one size fits all” approach; they wish to continue with their policies.
Click to expand...
That’s why I suggested that you check out the system in, for example, Australia. It isn’t a ‘one size fits all’ system. There’s no problem in having personal policies. My wife and I have them - and they’re not cheap. But we can afford them so that enables us to have, for example, private elective surgery when we want it as opposed to having to fit in with the public system. If you can’t afford it and you need elective surgery then you wait. If it’s an emergency then you go to the front of the queue.

If you need to see a doctor then the cost is minimal (I think about $40) and prescription medicine is relatively inexpensive (it’s free in the UK).

And our conservative government would do themselves a mischief laughing so much if you suggested that the system is akin to socialism. Likewise the Conservative government in the UK. It’s recognisednin both countries that those who want to go private should have that option and that those who can’t are still looked after. It costs wage earners 2% of tbe taxable income to fund the public system. If you have private insurance, that’s waived.

I literally do not know anyone who complains about having to pay it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top