America has a mixed economy. That means we dabble in both capitalism and socialism. It has never been nor will it ever be purely capitalist or socialist.
Here's a list of just a few of the socialist programs we have:
The Justice System
The Roads, Highways, etc.
If Americans' tax dollars pay for something and the government controls it, that is socialism.
Also, conservatives and Republicans are not the same thing.
Conservatives want smaller government (or so they say while they run for office), meaning they don't like items 7 - 10 on that list.
Republicans used to be liberals. (I.e., Abraham Lincoln)
All apologies for waxing political. I just needed to write that down and share it with someone outside of my general vicinity.
Anyone have anything to add or any counter-points or arguments?
I have always assumed conservatives hate socialism because they hate paying the taxes to support it. Small government, no social welfare, etc. should mean lower taxes. And who gives a damn about the disadvantaged, right?
Can I query the sports on your list. Are the NFL and NBA really funded and controlled by the government? I am, from the UK. The government here does provide grants to sports here, but not to leagues that can make huge amounts of money on their own. I do not think even kids football (soccer) gets government money.
My take on this: (As extremes, and "pure" definitions.)
Socialism: you give all you money to someone that will take some for themselves, and use some to give you what you need...
conservative: you keep all your money and buy what you need for yourself...
The first one means everyone supports everyone... even the ones not working, or not making enough to support themselves... Sounds good for the poor people, but not so good for the ones making more money... But the downside is that no one needs to work because "someone" will support them... this kills an economy...
Socialism can, and does, work very well for small groups because everyone is working for the common good. And it is easy to see who is not pulling their own weight. Past a certain size, the ones not working can hide in the crowd and live "for free".
The second one is more of "sink or swim"... You keep your money, and you can help some people that need help. (Because you have more money) there is no safety net if you land on hard times. (Hope you have savings to live on.) This is better for the economy because there is a reason to work harder... more money... This will grow an economy by leaps and bounds.
If you want more, work harder (or smarter) for it.
(Think welfare abuse.)
Neither is the "best" option, but the balanced blend works for most people.
Is it coincidence that my advertisement on this page is an “NRA survey”??
I label myself as an intelligist or a common sensilist. Lol. This debate could run in circles forever and it is exactly what is wrong with, at least, the US government. Conservative vs liberals, socialists vs capitalist...
It’s truly a shame that our political leaders tend to commit entirely to a camp or be outcast entirely.
As for the OP, if conservatives dislike a mixed economy... tough shit. It’s a necessity regardless of political or economic POVs.
The true question should be “what programs should be supported by tax dollars?”
Side note: professional teams are not, I believe, socialist programs.
This is a copy of a previous post.
So . . .
I smell SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM!
I was wondering why someone asked this, when we had already discussed it once...
Facebook recycled an old video...
A very good watch.
Are the NFL and NBA really funded and controlled by the government?
Well, a large amount of taxpayer dollars go towards most of the stadiums and such, but no; they are not completely funded by the government.
What is nice?
By the by, you forgot to drop a link to "spinner tools" for no good reason this time. Should this make me assume you are an actual person who wishes to interact on this forum in good faith? (I hope so. I find actual people who wish to interact in good faith quite pleasant!)
Well, that's not very nice thing to say; now, is it?
I merely asked what you meant by "Nice." Then, I pointed out that you forgot to post a link to "spinner tools" (apropos of nothing). After that, I said that I hoped you were an actual person who wished to interact on this forum in good faith.
So, after all those pleasantries, I'm wondering why you would reply that way.
It pains me. It really does.
Why does your name have two more 'x's than it did last time you posted something?
Isn't that odd? (I find it odd.)
I actually thought alex was just saying "Nice." because all of my "EXPLETIVE DELETED" posts, and that everything was all in good fun, and I'm still hoping that alex is an actual person who wants to interact with us in good faith.
If this is the case, I forgive you, alex.
I've always wanted to have a neighbour just like you.
I've always wanted to live in a neighbourhood -- with you.
So, let's make the most of this beautiful day.
Since we're together, we might as well say,
"Would you be my,
"could you be my,
"Oh, please, won't you be
alexsanderngaongo, ajalexxx, and ajalexxxxx
What if all three accounts belong to one particular individual named "Alex"?
I assumed Spinner Tools sold those annoying things people spin on their fingers.
Actually, it's software that is used to REWRITE ARTICLES.
So, to make sure I've got this straight: you used Spinner Tools to copy my post, and you re-posted it as if it were your own new post? Then, you followed up with a post from a different account (which still includes the name "alex") -- which linked to Spinner Tools -- which is software that will help more people do this very same thing?
That's the game, huh?
You get the ethos by plagiarizing and re-posting old posts? Then, you skip the pathos and logos and drop the link from a different account?
FORUM SPAMMERS make my friends who run this site work harder.
FORUM SPAMMERS are not very neighbourly.
FORUM SPAMMERS sometimes cause sites like this one to shut down.
I'd still like you to be my neighbour, but you'll have to stop misbehaving first. (Sorry.)