I just answered a question from a person who was so ill informed they must have thought welfare programs were part of infrastructure. I say this because they asked why conservatives were against taxes on infrastructure and called them socialist?
Maybe I'm not a real conservative (by their definition) because I'm not against improving infrastructure. I'm also not against HELPING someone through a hard time, but I don't want to take them as dependants permantly..
2007-06-04 05:26:58 · 13 answers · asked by namsaev 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Taxes used to be for the purpose of infrastructure only......look where we are now.
and I think the use of socialism is this case is a misnomer...socialism looks to the people to support themselves with the "guidance" of the government.....
people now a days want the government to do it for them....
2007-06-04 05:32:19 · answer #1 · answered by penydred 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is not. So many on here do not know the difference between liberalism and socialism.
Modern American liberals are democratic capitalists. That is, they believe that private capitalist individuals should own and control the means of production, as long as they operate within the democratic law. By contrast, socialists believe that everyone should own and control the means of production. Socialism has been proposed in many forms. Perhaps the most popular form is social democracy, in which workers vote for their supervisors, company policy, and industry representatives to regional or national congresses. Another form of socialism is anarcho-socialism, in which employee-owned firms would compete or cooperate on the free market, absent any centralized government at all. As you can see, a central planning committee is not a necessary feature of socialism; only worker ownership of production is. Dictatorships can never be socialist, because workers do not own or control anything when a ruling elite is telling them what to do. For this reason, socialists reject the claim (made by the Soviet Union itself) that the Soviet Union was a socialist country. It was instead a brutal dictatorship over workers.
2007-06-04 05:34:10 · answer #2 · answered by SlickWillie 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
So what is Socialism ? It is NOT communism. It is also not Nationalisation. Looking after the welfare of people that are unable to look after themselves perhaps. And what is wrong with that ? So long as people don't misuse this help, then Socialism can be a part of Capitalism, protecting people from the extremes of the latter. Capitalism is not perfect, as we have discovered from the banking sector running out of control. Socialism can also mean controlling the wealthy for their own good, and the good of us all. A balance is always needed !
2016-05-21 01:43:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What would be the point of infrastructure if it didn't improve, help, allow, or assist in the citizen's way of living? And most liberals don't think socialism is the way to go. But the US has found certain socialized programs do help. If you are do against socialized systems, I assume you will not be cashing your social security check when you retire. There are lots of programs that everyone uses that are based on socialism.
2007-06-04 05:33:31 · answer #4 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Get real; the welfare programs are for the rich!
4th REICH of the Rich
http://www.geocities.com/mrastafari/reich.html
The International Jews and Christians are today's modern day nazis. The Holocaust deeply affected the Jewish psyche- in order to overcome the deep spiritual, mental and emotional trauma that resulted many Jews have developed a reactionary counter- response by becoming 10-100 times worse than Hitler's Nazis. Complete with "tattoo" barcodes to be put on the right hand (recall the numbered tattoo on the right arm in WW2) and a desire to inflict pain and suffering on others, today's international Jews (and Christians) are succeeding in becoming the MOST ruthless peoples in the entire history of the human race. They both were the primary forces behind the slaughters of World War I and World War 2. They are now engineering a thermonuclear war to be fought and won in the Middle East (aka World War 3). The International Christians, as stated, are in direct collusion with the International Jew elite. This Judeo-Christian cabal are now engaged in laying the satanic moral and ethical foundation for their new world order. A Christian infrastructure, in the form of congregations, institutions and church structures worldwide, are already in place. The European union (and eventually Jerusalem) are slated to become the headquarters of this new spiritual Judeo-Christian order as soon as the crisis conditions of the planet require it (as they have diabolically planned). The Anti-Christ (their "Christ") will most assuredly arise out of this context to form a "benign" global dictatorship to rule the world in the years ahead. This is their Judeo-Christian "4th Reich"...and it is here now.
4th Reich Links
International Jew Elite
Jews, International Bankers, Elders of Zion
EU- Center for World Government
International Institutions
Antichrist World Empire
National ID Cards
Cashless Money System
The Surveillance Society
FBI's "Project Meggido"
666-Mark of the Beast
USA Terror Inc
Antichrist/False Prophet
Jew World order vs. Vatican/Pope of Rome
Rothschild and Gold
The Turner Diaries
U.S./Canadian Concentration camps
British Empire vs. Vatican
World Government
Interception Capabilities 2000
NCIC 2000/ F.B.I.-USA
The Biggest Secret/David Icke
Statewatch/ EU
Global Famine/World Hunger-Poverty
Age of Information Warfare
Psychotronics/ Police State
The American Police State
World War 3
Revived Roman Empire
The Great Tribulation
Prophet's Master Links
THE POOR GET POORER
http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/2005/09/poor-get-poorer.html
USA’s COUNTRY'S PERMANENT POOR
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2001-04/03bagdikian.htm
2007-06-09 19:47:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably because the so-called conservative mindset is a very greedy one, willing to horde millions for him/herself and not share successes with those who worked their asses off to make it for them. Why should the wealth of a nation stay in the hands of 3% of the population? This is why unions became popular, but alas! The wealthy just start wars to make more money and horde more wealth! Thank God there are Liberals out there to help maintain a balance!
2007-06-09 14:55:29 · answer #6 · answered by little timmie 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not ALL programs considered socialist ideas are welfare programs:
EPA, community hospitals, public parks, CDC, Veteran's Administration, Peace Corps, NOW, National School Lunch programs and the FDA.
2007-06-04 05:34:52 · answer #7 · answered by Global warming ain't cool 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
YOUR Words - "I'm also not against HELPING someone through a hard time, but I don't want to take them as dependents permanently.. "
This sounds like every Liberal I have ever heard. Guess you are actually a liberal.
No liberal in this country wants to give people money for the sake of giving them money. Liberals want to help people in time of need. Why do conservatives distort that?????
2007-06-04 05:32:34 · answer #8 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
it's all a balance of a good society, in some ways we all need to be responsible for each other or society collapses, in other ways, people should get jobs and provide for themselves as much as possible...and unless we want to end up a fuedal system, we need to make sure children end up being adequately cared for through health care, educated, and fed regardless of what mistakes their parents made...
2007-06-04 05:33:48 · answer #9 · answered by gunkinthedrain 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the staus quo isnt working!
2007-06-09 02:55:40 · answer #10 · answered by Regina 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋