Also, we do know what socialism means. We know that what the Democrats in America propose right now is nothing compared to a true socialist cluster**** -I mean, *system*, but then, you have to consider the context. Anybody who proposed that America move to a
full socialist state 200 years ago would probably have been shot dead where he stood. 150 years ago, it would've gotten you beaten senseless/driven out of
town. 100 years ago, a small minority would've agreed with you, but everybody else would bully/insult/look down on you. Now, though, a good part of the
country thinks that the purpose of government is to take care of them.
American leftists have been getting progressively more statist over the lifespan of the nation. Their proposals are always just on the edge of what the
country will accept, and often framed as ways to get the country out of some crisis or another. Look at the New Deal, the Great Society, the War on Drugs, the
War on Terror (I don't know what Bush was smoking when he did that, but it should be illegal), Obamacare, and the "stimulus package"; they are
all 'solutions' to some type of crisis, and all of them boil down to one thing: bigger government.
The trick to all of this is that, while it's easy as pie to get any bureaucracy (and expecially government) to expand exponentially, it's devilishly
hard to shrink it by even a fraction of a percent. The most conservative US presidents in recent history have only managed to slow the rate of expansion.
Actual reductions in government size (except for the military) are myth. While no leftist in modern America will admit to being a socialist, most of the truly
liberal (American liberal) leftists are putting a socialist state into place, one program at a time. Some may not even realize it, but if you read what some
of the extreme left have said in speeches, books, and letters, a good number are actively working for the establishment of a true socialist state in America.
I'd rather have "tax less, and spend no more than that". I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for that, but apparently the only
politicians that agree with me have been safely marginalized by the ones in power. After all, that's what this really boils down to: the acquisition,
expansion, and usage of power by politicians.
A state where candidates were chosen and campaigned for by the people, without the input of the candidates themselves,
would be ideal. Nobody who got elected (assuming the system was correctly implemented) would desire power, so they might actually act in the best interests of
the nation, instead of themselves.
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Atom Bomb of Courteous Debate. Get yours.
I've been writing a bit.
full socialist state 200 years ago would probably have been shot dead where he stood. 150 years ago, it would've gotten you beaten senseless/driven out of
town. 100 years ago, a small minority would've agreed with you, but everybody else would bully/insult/look down on you. Now, though, a good part of the
country thinks that the purpose of government is to take care of them.
American leftists have been getting progressively more statist over the lifespan of the nation. Their proposals are always just on the edge of what the
country will accept, and often framed as ways to get the country out of some crisis or another. Look at the New Deal, the Great Society, the War on Drugs, the
War on Terror (I don't know what Bush was smoking when he did that, but it should be illegal), Obamacare, and the "stimulus package"; they are
all 'solutions' to some type of crisis, and all of them boil down to one thing: bigger government.
Quote:
Every politician in the world is "tax and spend". Obama isn't a liberal by the modern definition of the term. "Tax and spend" does
beat "don't tax and spend", however.
The trick to all of this is that, while it's easy as pie to get any bureaucracy (and expecially government) to expand exponentially, it's devilishly
hard to shrink it by even a fraction of a percent. The most conservative US presidents in recent history have only managed to slow the rate of expansion.
Actual reductions in government size (except for the military) are myth. While no leftist in modern America will admit to being a socialist, most of the truly
liberal (American liberal) leftists are putting a socialist state into place, one program at a time. Some may not even realize it, but if you read what some
of the extreme left have said in speeches, books, and letters, a good number are actively working for the establishment of a true socialist state in America.
I'd rather have "tax less, and spend no more than that". I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for that, but apparently the only
politicians that agree with me have been safely marginalized by the ones in power. After all, that's what this really boils down to: the acquisition,
expansion, and usage of power by politicians.
A state where candidates were chosen and campaigned for by the people, without the input of the candidates themselves,
would be ideal. Nobody who got elected (assuming the system was correctly implemented) would desire power, so they might actually act in the best interests of
the nation, instead of themselves.
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Atom Bomb of Courteous Debate. Get yours.
I've been writing a bit.