2007-12-24 11:34:28 · 15 answers · asked by Gator 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes ... In some areas such as health care
Ok .. beat me up please !
2007-12-24 11:38:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
If addressing a concern in a context of cooperation and good fellowship among citizens, rather than in a context of 'every man for himself' is socialism, then I think we need a lot more of that. Whether on a neighborhood or federal level, there are plenty of jobs that get done a better and cheaper if a lot of folks pitch in and do it as group than if we all try to do every little thing entirely on our own. This nation was made great by the lend a hand barn raising and quilting bee spirit, not the "why should I help those bums" spirit.
2007-12-24 12:21:22 · answer #2 · answered by kill_yr_television 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
A Democratic lead Social Democracy Sounds Great.
2007-12-24 11:40:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Why don't you ask all the Canadians that come to the U.S. for medical services what they think about socialized health care?
A lot of people from countries with subsidized health care come here because they want the best care and don't want to wait months just to get an appointment.
Also, I don't think the majority of people want to subsidize the slackers who don't want to work or do anything to improve themselves.
Welfare should not be a life long sibsidy. I think welfare should last 2 years. During that time, you would have to take some sort of training/schooling to better yourself and to prepare you for a job/career.
Also the benefits should not be based on how many kids you have. It needs to be like the military, with dependents or without. One set rate. That way people would not be having kids just to increase the amount of benefits they receive.
The government has the system set-up so people are dependant on them for everything. The easiest way to control someone is to control the money they have.
2007-12-24 12:10:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
The first and primary goal of any economic system is established upon stability.The socioeconomic platform must exist before any capitalist venture can manifest from that particular economic base. Additionally any American who can go to other country health care systems seem to do so with regularity.
2007-12-24 13:37:57 · answer #5 · answered by stratoframe 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Most folks who are against socialism define it with soviet relics and imagery, unwittingly enjoying socialized state programs that already exist...should their house catch on fire or be burglorized or the water and power shut off, maybe they will learn to appreciate socialism. It's a humanitarian and utilitarian issue more than a political one.
2007-12-24 11:45:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Socialism is one of Ron Paul's plans.
2007-12-24 11:57:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Over the last century, America became more and more socialistic. Your socialist-based (public schooling) history education is showing. If you want America to become more socialistic, then it will have more of what it has now.
2007-12-24 12:40:05 · answer #8 · answered by Search first before you ask it 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Only lazy parasites who are too stupid to make it on their own would support socialism. Unfortunately, that group includes most Democrats.
2007-12-24 11:43:23 · answer #9 · answered by Return of Bite My Shiny Metal... 7 · 1⤊ 5⤋
Let's look at all of the shining examples of places where it has been tried and worked well. I'm waiting....
2007-12-24 11:56:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
This time we'll get it right
2007-12-24 11:40:36 · answer #11 · answered by ? 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋