|user created polls & quizzes|
Get rid of the welfare state altogether, it's mainly the "blues" in red states who recieve the benefits, and the "reds" in blue states who pay.
Yeah -- hell, let them go completely -- let's force them to secede. Most of those states want to secede anyway.
that's nonsense, thc2883.
it's the working middle class in blue states that are footing the bill, the rich in both blue and red states are well sheltered from tax laws by creative financing. and to say "mainly the blues in red states who recieve the benefits" doesn't even deserve a response.
Yes, if that is the case, you should not accept welfare if you do give welfare.
I wonder if those who are so rabidly anti-welfare, realise that the amount spent on it is a mere fraction of what is spent arming America.
Its a stark choice, Money for Death or Money for Life.
The Government is supposed to protect us.
Government welfare is self-defeating. It's corrupt, inefficient and causes dependency. It does not teach people how to take care of themselves or their families.
See my comments in another ballot on my thoughts on the lie that is perpertrated by the right on so called 'family values', suffice to say, many of those on the right haven fallen for the lie.
I'm surprised that so many still fall for 'right' or 'left'.
They should cut government welfare entirely.
Education, defense, police, etc, these are proper government expenses. Paying people not to work isn't.
Would that have anything to do with them being agricultural states?
Either cut in completly for both color of states or make it equally funded.
It's the working class that makes the money for this country and the working class happens to populate most of the cities. Most of the cities happen to be Democrat.
I don't agree with welfare for people who have working capability. If they work but can't make ends meet then the government should give some welfare benefit.
The welfare state is built on the backs of the upper-middle class. They tend to vote Republican even in heavily Democratic states. We can fudge the numbers around to make it appear that Democrats are supporting Republicans, but I'm willing to bet a proper analysis will come to the same conclusion I have.
www. ncpa. org
And that doesn't include social security, medicaid and medicare. The welfare budget is HUGE, even compared to the military budget.
And so the lie gets bigger...
Work the people into a lather and blame it on the scrounging welfare recipients, who are least able to defend themselves.
In the meantime grant huge federal grants to corporations, and allow them to milk us.
I fear that more and more are falling for the same deception. The so called 'upper middle class' are doing very nicely thank you very much, and by perpetuating the 'them and us' culture, leaves those who seek to divide the workers to carry on without impugnity.
The haves and the have nots are rapidily becoming the have nots and the have yachtsm and your complicity in it, makes you no better than those who seek to pull the wool over your trusting eyes.
Instead on constantly defending inequality and down right abuse of those who have no voice, maybe you should shine alight on those who pretend to be on your side.
The people who spout the nonsense about 'family units' and the power they have therein. These people arent for you, they are for promoting the interests of themselves and their paymasters.
There are many of the working class that have bought into the lie, and they strive to climb the social ladder, but to what end, so they can pontificate on those below and so keep the 'con trick' going.
Lets just think about who benefits and who loses in a system that pits one person against another.
thc: You are incorrect, on a state-by-state basis, the so-called Rad States take in more federal money than they contribute.
Hey cath, there aren't red states or blue states, the map is all a shade of purple, sound familiar?
Steel: we should cut all welfare, individual and corporate. If a business or a person can't make ends meet on their own they are not entitled to handouts.
No,reguardless of what the red states believe if they need finacial help then the government should help them.
You call them 'handouts' I call them aiding our fellow human beings.
Its a little word called compassion, you may have heard of it.
Find that line in the constitution if you can.
The proper role of government is NOT charity, if you want to help the suffering people of the world why not do it with your own money? Rather than demanding other people do it with theirs?
Herzog, if you cut government aid to the people then you'd have modern day feudalism.
If someone has two jobs and can hardly pay bills then how is that their fault? Not everyone in the US is CEO material. Not everyone had the chance to go to college. Not everyone can afford to go to college. What exactly would you do to all those people who have two jobs but can't pay bills? Kick them out into the streets?
No, feudalism came about by the government giving people control over certain lands, or industries.
This is simply another form of governmental charity and is of course wrong.
And I'm not concerned with whose 'fault' a persons failure might be, that's not relevent. But why is it then considered to be the fault of everyone who has a job that some people can't manage to support themselves? That is effectively the system we have, with those who work being punished with taxes to reward those who don't.
You're missing my point. People who have jobs based of physical work don't get 60,000 dollars a year. They get enough just so they can be bankrupt after paying all the bills. You either give free welfare to people who work but are poor or you increase minimum wage by a couple of times.
That Feudalism thing. If you don't allow poor people to get welfare they will not be able to advance and become middle or upper class. Paying for college will become impossible and the lower working class will only get larger. There will be a small percentage that go to college, that small percentage will be the upper class. Then there will be everyone else who has a 5 dollar an hour job. That is what you'll get if the government does give the citizens aide.
The only way Herzog and people of his views will ever understand, is when they are aff ected.
They believe that Capitalism is the ONLY system and that everyone should take respons ibility for their own and their immediate families lives.
Irresp ective on wether they are able to.
He has lived a life of relative privelege and it will only be when he loses it and has to face the problems real people face, like making rent, putting food on the table from wages that are forever squeezed in the name of profit, that they really learn anything of conse quence.
Unfortu nately, he will head off to college paid for by his mummy and daddy not really caring that those on the botton will never have what he was handed on a plate.
He is the epitome of a system that does not reward talent but does reward influence and the almighty dollar.
Please place those assumptions back into your anus. I grew up in the projects and I currently pay for my own education through loans and scholarships. As a kid I would eat rice and eggs for dinner, so don't tell me I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth. My school's playground was the flat concrete surface above a parking lot.
If you care so much for the lazy, you give them your own money. As soon as you start taxing income to redistribute it, you have violated basic human rights. It's pretty obvious leftists do not understand economics but some COMPASSION would lead you to believe that charity should be voluntary. Taking money by force does not show you care for your fellow man.
You've made the same mistake you chide others for making; you have forgotten that the world is not black and white, or rather red and blue.
So you really believe that those less fortunate than you should have to rely on the charity of people like you?
You only have to look to parts of Asia and Africa to see how that would work. Mass starvation and war.
You really do talk utter bollocks sometimes THC
'You only have to look to parts of Asia and Africa to see how that would work. Mass starvation and war.'
Actually steely boy, those nations are poor because they are the exact opposite of free capitalist economies. Take a look at mugabe. His country was once the bread basket of africa, then the governnment stepped in to improve the situation and make life better for the poor and downtrodden workers, and now they can't even feed themselves.
Every famine has it's roots in political errors, not economic.
BTW, I believe in capitalism, that is a system that most definately rewards talent. You are a fan of socialism, a system that abhors talent. You might want to reconsider that crack of yours.
Spreading such lies about socialism only proves you either have no idea what it is, or you have no grasp of the real reasons why Africa and Asia are in such dire straits.
Sorry steely boy, no lies here.
Not that anyone really needs to lie to make socialism and communism look bad, presenting the facts is usually all it takes to convince a rational person that these strategies don't work.
So the question is: are you ignorant or irrational?
Herzog. Albania, Mexico, Poland, and a few others are all Capitalist. How do you explain their poverty?
Mexico is doing pretty good considering the quality of the human capital they have to work with. Poland and Albania are still recovering from communism. As long a Poland stays on the road to free markets, I don't think we'll be making dumb pollack jokes in a few decades.
It's convenient to call the facts lies when they don't agree with your twisted view. But you won't get anywhere talking shit, well maybe into public office.
I have no problem giving to worthy charities, but I'm not willing to help someone that won't help themselves.
herz & thc: I am delighted to see that you actually do read what I say. ;-)
Yes, I am a cad for not pushing back on the categorization.
Now, that still doesn't change the irony pointed out by the ballot question. ;-)
Poland and Albania havenever been Communist countries, so I guess ignorance still runs rife.
THC, so far there has never been a Communist countries. All those countries had a facist form of government. Ok, lets take a look at other Capitalist countries with Capitalism. Costa Rica, Palau, and what's your explanation for all those other central American counties that base their economy on the trade of human organs?
There has never been a truly Capitalist country either, well maybe Hong Kong comes close and they're doing pretty damn well. It seems the kettle is calling the pot black. Perhaps the former Warsaw pact countries were not completely Communist but their economic systems were Socialist, and this was the source of their poverty.
btw, Costa Rica is another country that has done a lot with the human capital it has.
LD: poland and albania are still recovering from their little stint under soviet economic suppression. Mexico is alright, but they are also suffering because they have an extremely corrupt government, as well as not having an entirely free economy.
And those nations you've named all have the same problems mexico has, it seems to be common in latin america. Corrupt government that runs on bribes, and a number of nationalized industries don't = prosperity.
Capitalism doesn't ensure prosperity, it merely lets people have the freedom to succeed or fail. And given the option people usually succeed. Hence why the capitalist west has a standard of living that can't even be compared to the collectivist east.
Now, can you name me a wealthy communist nation? You have two options: one offers a relatively good chance of success with the possibility of failure, the other guarantees failure. Take your pick.
Steely: both those nations were part of the soviet union, I guess history isn't a required course over there either. What do you people learn in school?
PS: poland was the most anti-soviet, pro-west, pro-free trade nation in the former soviet union, and now they are one of the wealthiest former communist states.
'There has never been a truly Capitalist country either'
Then you don't know what Capitalism is.
'Warsaw pact countries were not completely Communist but their economic systems were Socialist, and this was the source of their poverty.'
No, their source of poverty was totalian rulers whos number one priority was building massive armies.
'Costa Rica is another country that has done a lot with the human capital it has.'
Costa Rica is currently capitalist yet 20 percent of their population lives below poverty level. They have a population of 4 million. The so called "communist" China has only 10 percent of its population below poverty level and China has 1.3 billion people living there. Why don't you explain that? While you're at it explain why Capitalism hasn't helped the 12 percent of Americans that live below poverty.
NOW FOR HERZOG
'Now, can you name me a wealthy communist nation?'
That depends on what you call socialist or communist. Some people consider France and Germany to be fairly communist, as well as China. Hell, those three countries have a lot to offer when it comes to wealth.
Let me make a note. Pure communism or socialism can never good. Same way pure capitalism can never be good. To me personally a good country is a country that allows a free market and treats the working class fairly. That's all I'm asking for, nothing else.
France and germany have economies which were built under capitalism and are crumbling under socialism. They've taken the opposite path that their buddies in the east have. They started out free and are slowly building themselves a socialist tomb.
And as a result their economic growth can't afford to pay for their social programs much longer. Their problems make our social security crises look like a record surplus.
China, for all their claims of being a communist nation, has freed up its economy to a remarkable extent and began to grow simply because of that fact. Under mao, who wanted pure communism, there was almost no economic growth. Only later when his successors began implementing capitalist reforms did the economy begin to grow.
"Then you don't know what Capitalism is."
A logical and moral person who believes we need more Socialism in our system obviously does not understand either Socialism or Capitalism. Are you immoral, illogical, or ignorant?
"The so called "communist" China has only 10 percent of its population below poverty level and China has 1.3 billion people living there. Why don't you explain that?"
China defines poverty at a much lower level than we do. It's pretty simple. A large proportion of Americans in poverty would be considered middle-class in China.
I tire of pointing out both the factual and historical inaccuracies of both Herzog and THC, so I refer you to my profile page, where I have attempted to give you both an education.
I trust you will come away enlightened, although given your positions on most things political, I doubt you will learn much that will help you understand.
Hey steely, you claim that socialism is wonderful and all the real world examples of it's failure were simply instances where it was done wrong, corrupted. Alright, let's go with that.
Capitalism and democracy have been tried numerous times, and no one to date has got them perfect. However the attempts have been wonderful successes on average, with a high standard of living, economic and social progress and freedom unheard of in most nations.
Socialism and communism have been tried about the same number of times as democratic capitalims, probably more. And every time they have met with absolute failure. You might think it's worthwhile to keep sacrificing millions of lives and subjecting dozens of nations to absolute poverty and oppression in the name of an experiment which has ALWAYS failed. But the odds aren't in your favor lad.
Here's an analogy for you, because I know how you people love my analogies. You believe that beating your head in with a brick will make you smarter. You try it once, it hurts like hell and you are no smarter. Do you A) keep trying it for nearly a century, dozens and dozens of times despite getting the same result every time, all the while assuring yourself that the theory is sound you just haven't quite done it right, or do you B) give up after the first few attempts realizing that it's a dumb idea and more likely to just inflict ever increasing amounts of pain rather than accomplish your goal? Most people would go with option 'B'. You have chosen 'A'. Why is that? You keep asserting that this theory of a demented spoiled brat in germany is a sound idea, despite the fact that every attempt to implement it has met with nothing but failure, there were no partial successes, no room for improvment, no indicators that any of it was doing any good. Is this a religion to you? Based entirely on faith and not facts? Do you simply hate the fact that in a free competitive market you and people like you will lose every time because you can't compete on the same level as others? Or do you honestly believe that the next time they try it they'll get it right, breaking with nearly a century of precedent?
France and Germany if anything have gotten more Capitalist over the years. China is more communist then France and Germany so they're doing just fine. Especially since they have a cheap working class and a work force of 800 million. I'd say that with years China will get richer as so will the people.
'Are you immoral, illogical, or ignorant?'
None of the above.
'China defines poverty at a much lower level than we do. It's pretty simple. A large proportion of Americans in poverty would be considered middle-class in China.'
That's if you base it on GDP per capita. Let me make this very simple. I think that the GDP per capita is the worst thing that economic statistics have to offer. China may have a GDP per capita of 5,000 dollars a year but with the 5,000 dollars the number of things that come free with that is very large. How exactly do you know what China considers below poverty?
HERZOG'S SECOND COMMENT
Herzog, Capitalism has been around longer than communism. The actual true idea of Marxist communism came out in the last century. Capitalism on the other hand has been around since the renaissance and European enlightenment era.
The system that the Netherlands had when they broke away from Spain is the system that I think is best. Majority were rich middle class, poverty was low, there weren't corrupt billionaires and as a result they had the larges fleet for economy and most important bankers in Europe. To top it all off they were the first modern democracy. That's my idea of a fine government system. Let me go back to the point I was trying to make a few days ago. You can't have pure Capitalism and you can have pure Communism. In pure Communism greed will tear the people apart and if pure Capitalism the poor will never advance. Reason the poor won't advance in pure Capitalism is because in pure Capitalism you'd have to kill off all welfare and start charging people for things like police services and taxes would be very high. It's best to have a free market and a system that treats the working class humane. Anyone out there who understands what I'm saying.
PEOPLE ARE ALREADY CHARGED FOR POLICE SERVICE! Dammit! Why can't you understand that we already pay for government services? Nothing is free. Private businesses have proven that they can provide higher quality service at lower costs than the government. A truly Capitalist system would have much lower taxes than we currently have. Perhaps a pure system would be bad for the poor, that's why I support limited subsidies to give everyone a decent education and yes, "free" healthcare for children.
GDP per capita is flawed but not for the reasons you state. First let us assume exchange rates accurately reflect purchasing power. A $30,000 salary will buy more here than in a Socialist nation because services that are private here are Socialized over there. They pay (through taxes) more for less because there is no competition for their business. Their government can provide expensive crappy service and the people have nowhere else to turn. GDP per capita should probably be adjusted for purchasing power, this would make China look much better but they are still poor compared to the West. And the EU looks really bad compared to the US when this is taken into account. Let's just take China's $5,000 per capita, under our definition of poverty, that's more than 50% living in poverty. That's how I know their definition of poverty is different. Purchasing power would change the value but I'm willing to bet it's still over 50%.
herzog may draw as many anologies as he like, it does not change the fact that his premise is flawed.
Socialism nor Communism have NEVER been implemented, and his constant insistance that it was makes me believe he is either ignorant of any facts or is so entrenched in his conditioning, he cannot see the woods for the trees.
I understand he has to defend the corrupt system he supports as to do otherwise would render him foolish.
He has more to lose than anyone, given that he holds the capitalist system so high, that any challenge to this recieved wisdom would just reveal the fallacy.
He will no doubt keep trotting out the same tired old arguments, and I will refute them all, but in the end, his feeble arguments with be as dust.
"Socialism nor Communism have NEVER been implemented"
Perhaps not in their pure form but neither has Capitalism. The various facets of those systems that have been implemented reveal that Socialism and Communism reduce prosperity for the productive poor and middle-class. They also violate human rights, but this doesn't appear to be a concern of the Marxist.
THC, if everyone got an education in capitalism then where would the working class come from? If it's as simple as you say it is then that would mean everyone would get an education and everyone would be upper class leaving you without a working class. That has been the capitalist myth since day one, the myth that anyone can get an education and start off that easy. But what you forgot to say is that the majority of wealthy people in the US have inherited the wealth and that a very small percent go from zero to 100 and that's usually with luck. The upper class gets a push through college because their parents can afford it. The lower class gets pushed back because their parents work 10 hours a day and in the end can't afford to pay for college and scholarships will only pay some of your college and will still in the end leave you in the red when it comes to money. Since you THC live in the suburbs and have probably never lived out on the streets, you just wouldn't know. Police services are paid through taxes but either way they still don't get paid fairly. Let me ask you this. How is it that other countries outside the US (capitalist or not) offer cheap social services and maintain a fairly good economy at the same time? And what's more important, if your working class is treated like everyone else or having a supersized economy?
Do you even read what I write? I grew up poor in the projects. I experienced the streets of the South Bronx firsthand, I lived in Highbridge within walking distance of Yankee stadium. And you know sports stadiums are always in bad neighborhoods. An education does not automatically mean you will become upper-class, I don't where you got that idea from but it's probably a very smelly place. You need ambition, intelligence and many other qualities. A high school diploma is just a piece of paper. The majority of the wealthy in America earned their money, specifically 2/3, but I agree that the other 1/3 don't deserve that money, but we shouldn't just take it from them. Countries outside the US with a large Socialist infestation do not provide better service than private companies here. What they pay through taxes for those services is more than we pay for better service. Prosperity for the greatest number of people is most important, that is why I support free markets.
And still he trots out the same platitudes, he has yet to disprove any of the points I made.
He instead repeats the same mantra he has been indoctrined with.
His, rags to riches story may have some credence if he knew that under a Marxist system, oppotunities would be a lot more forthcoming and he would not have to rely on the good will of the capatilist to raise him from poverty.
This singular fact always escapes the petty bourgoisie (which he is now apart) as they see things from a skewed point of view.
What points? You mean YOUR trite platitudes. I addressed them, but you refuse to know the truth. Prefering to live in this fantasy world you have created where a system that violates human rights is somehow the savior of humanity.
"...he would not have to rely on the good will of the capatilist to raise him from poverty."
Our success did not stem from anyones good will. We worked hard and are enjoying the fruits of our labors. Capitalism does not require intervention for good people to become successful. A Marxist system knocks on the head anyone who dares to rise above the herd. I care for my fellow man, so I ask you to please come back to reality and leave behind your delusions. If you were to die now your life would be wasted, do not take from this world more than you have given.
THC, did you know that from 1957 to 1960 the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had the second fastest growing economy in the world? People were middle class, were able to afford luxury and at the same time everyone who wanted it got free healthcare services. You seem to think that the US is the only country in the world that has a good economy. Maybe it's fast growing but the only reason is because rich CEOs exploit the poor and have very useless company benefits to offer.
An (college) education in the US almost always means that the person will become upper middle class. If everyone like you say got an education then there would be no pawns for capitalism to feed off of.
A 3 year fluke is meaningless. A system needs to keep people prosperous for decades, even centuries for it to be successful. And again, that healthcare wasn't free. The reason the US economy grows so fast compared to Europe is that we are closer to the free market ideal. Socialist policies keep Europe down. They keep us down too but we don't have as large an infestation here. Not everyone is capable of earning a college degree and many could only do it in easy fields. My former roommate got her B.S. in psychology and unless she marries a successful man, she will never be upper-middle class. I think everyone deserves a shot at reaching their potential and I have no problem giving money so that the poor can get an education but I don't believe that will make us all upper-middle class. A lot of people will still go to trade and technical schools. In a few decades (unless something major happens) the poor will live like the upper-middle class of today but there will still be people who by virtue of their abilities live much better.
Socialism feed off of the productive but it drives these people away. This is another reason socialist policies result in stagnant economies.
It wasn't just a three year fluke. They were in the top until Tito died in 1980. Healthcare there was free and it did work. The ONLY reason the US has a better economy then Europe is because of low wages, gov't doesn't pay for most public services and cheap labor. I'd rather have a steady growing economy that treats the working class fairly then a booming economy that treats its working class like feudal lords treated their workers in feudal Europe of 13th century. Europeans have the same oppertunity as Americans. I'm not sure where you're going with this.
In the top of what? The top of 2nd world countries maybe. Once again, you make the mistake of thinking that their healthcare was free. The people paid for it, they just paid through a middle man. You should really learn some economics if you want to understand why we are more prosperous than Europe. You obviously know very little now. Productive people are better off under free markets than under Socialist oppression.
If we just stop buying from these capitalists and refuse to help them make their lives on our backs and force them to take responsibility for their own lives then this insidious unprecedented repugnant ouroborous will wither and die within just a single week.
The third world and ourselves can then move in and take all they have stolen from us, we can wipe them away just as the insurgents in Iraq and the resistance in the rest of the world are doing, reduce them to the Reality they have constructed from their desperate fears and ignorance. They will beg us for forgiveness and understanding for their wicked and sinful ways or perhaps not. They will though die without our handouts .
The barbarians are at the gates but fortunately for them, the meek shall inherit this earth
Dr L George Lawrence received some kind of biodynamic signal from direction of the constellation Ursa Major via a biodynamic multiverse transducer utilizing an organic semiconductor -- a mixture of protein complexes ,organo-methylglyoxol compounds and variety of mineral compositions all with their individual response characteristics.The qualitative reactions of this biological "soup" can be directly transduced into a quantitative electrical signal with the use of high impedance amplifiers. When mixed with a local oscillator it produced the desired output signal for analysis.
The communication (Eidetic picture) would be converted into a form suitable for transmission (biodynamic signal), the coding being the method of conversion, and the modulation (patternate content) would be the change in the parameters of the emission serving as the carrier of the (biodynamic) signal. For reception, you would would reverse this process.
Now that were communicating with aliens (with tongue firmly planted in butt cheeks ) maybe we can transcend our differences and live in peace and fornication
Amen and fare thee well !!
(BMN s last post ) YAY!!
.... coz this glass of Scotch has gone missi- , oh i see it , on top of my head all along
Until THC learns that no socialist state has ever existed, my arguments with him are moot. He gives so called examples and each one of them are not socialist, Marxist or Communist.
He says that capitalists benefit from the fruits oftheir labour, he may have misunderstood, capitalists benefits from the fruit of OTHER peoples labour, under socialism, the worker benefits directly.
However, I seem to have the same argument with him, heis stuck in the mire he has been brought up with, perhaps with age will come wisdom, although I doubt it.
They didn't pay, it was free. It was paid for by trade, economic revenue, and the large number of iron mines and oil feilds that Yugoslavia had. They were second in the entire world. I may need 'economics' but you need geography. You probably don't even know where Yugoslavia is located and you have something to say about their system. People are better off in Socialism instead of an imperial Capitalist empire where the country looks to pull the last penny out of your pocket.
Steelhamster. THC and friends are taught to think Mao Soviets and the USSR were Communist instead of what they really were, facists. And THC, research your claims that Poland is a capitalist country. They've had publicly paid for social services since day one. The US is the only country that has too much capitalism. If the US doesn't have a mix then it is very vulnerable to an economic depression since it has too many rich people. If Bill Clinton had been president another 4 years then you'd see what a real country is. He's by far the only president to ever consider a mix of capitalism and socialism.
It's very obvious that you either have a bad memory, don't read my comments or are just plain dishonest. I conceded that no truly Socialist or Communist state has ever existed and that the same could be said of Capitalism. I did point out that numerous Marxist and Capitalist policies have been implemented in countries throughout the world, and the countries with the highest degree of Marxism lagged in prosperity and individual liberty. But the latter is to be expected in a system that by definition does not allow individual liberty. I also told you how NO ONE in my family shares my politcal views and they certainly aren't shared by most "educators" and the media. You have obviously been indoctrinated into an ideology that requires the dedicated follower to abandon reason. A Marxist system that leeches off of the labors of the industrious and steals on behalf of the lazy. Capitalism is based on the mutual benefits afforded by free markets, not the inequities of Marxism.
You forgot tourism. So basically it was ECONOMICALLY prosperous because of natural resources and in spite of Marxism. I never said Poland was completely Capitalist but they are certainly more Capitalist than they were and surprise, more prosperous than they were. How dare you question my knowledge of geography, the only continent that I can't identify all the nations in is Africa. You gave good reason to doubt your knowledge of economics, I'm not even sure why geography was brought into this. No nation in the world has enough Capitalism. Clinton may have been better than Bush and Kerry but he still sucked a royal phallus compared to the early presidents. And please pull your head out and see the real world, a president alone cannot bring prosperity to a nation. Clinton was helped by a Republican congress.
So what's wrong with having a mix of the two? Neither one is always going to work alone so what's wrong with having a mix?
That is an issue I struggle with myself. The choice is between human rights and what is best for society as a whole. For the most part, the two are one and the same but I believe something like mandatory social security contributions (private) may be better for society than no mandatory program at all, but this would be a violation of our rights. I really have no answer for this yet. I am sure that we should have much less Socialism than we currently do but I'm not quite sure if Anarcho-Capitalism would be better for society.
How is there too much socialism in the United States?
An example is the huge unwarranted welfare-state. A safety net is good for society but we really are subsidizing unemployment with our system. Another example is the Socialist/Mercantilist hybrid monster that we call the the Federal Reserve.
Welfare isn't part of Socialism, it's part of extreme liberalism.
True liberals do not support the welfare-state, American "liberals" do. The welfare-state is a Marxist creation.
Then can you name me a single non-American country with welfare?
don't punish the poor for the actions of some rich tyrants
Well, we wouldn't need wealfare in the first place if companies in America are forced by law to divide the profits 50/50 with the employees. If McDonalds spent half of the tax differred business allowences as salary on their employees (not officers), then the employees would take up the tax slack by paying more income tax. why not allow our lower class to afford Food, medical Insurance and housing. Maybe they would stop selling drugs to get rich and using drugs to forget money troubles. Why they may even stay out of jail with full pockets and ruin the cycle of defeatism they're in now.