" BLOTD!!!!

Belly laugh of the day "

" You dont have to convince me with that laundry list that we live in a socilalist society: government already consumes approximately 37% of gdp;add in all the private charities and 39% of gdp is redistributed. That is $0.39 of every dollar that government consumes. Therefore,how can we have our cake and eat it too when government is destroying wealth through expropriation? In fact,where is the capitalism? If liberals continue to want a little more equality,exactly how do we find the optimal point where we cease government taking of private property and allow the economy to grow--at 37% I assume we have exceeded the optimal point. "

" Sorry,

$0.37 is redistributed by government. "

" Great Article Steve, how much time was spent on compiling Government Services? "

" Steve,
I have to agree with Kramerica, BLOTD!!!

You REALLY need to get out of the "city" and into the "country" and get some fresh air.

We have NOT ALWAYS had a mixed economy with socialism.

Most of your examples have mixed up facts in them in that most of the examples you list have only been seen in yours and my lifetimes. But only in the "city".
And most of the services you list are not provided from the tax base.

Armed Forces: Of course, is the constant that has always been provided by our government. It has always been the responsibility of our government to provide a national defense. Our tax dollars provide this for us.

Municipality and the county services are also necessary with the clearing and maintaining of our streets and roads. Also, water and sewer delivery are agreed needs, provided by local taxes.

I even agree with a limited police force. We also have sheriffs deputies.
Of course, when ever you need them, usually it is after a crime has been committed.

In the country and smaller community examples:

Are you aware of how fire and ambulance services operate in smaller communities in rural America?

The answer is volunteers.

Garbage removal is by contractors, or contractors through a municipality. We can't burn it anymore. Funding is not from tax dollars.

What is steam used for?

Electricity and Natural Gas is delivered and maintained by either electical and utility co-ops, or by a utility company that can bill you directly for usage per customer rather than through taxes. Otherwise, propane is used which is provided by independent contractors.

In some locations, private septic systems are used for sewers.

Family services are from our churches.

Private contributions can go to help organizations such as the Red Cross, Cancer Society, etc., etc.

Parks are from private contributions or organizations, ie: Boy Scouts, Lions Club, American Leagion, etc., etc.

Most of the bike trails are old railways. With irratic fuel prices, do you think we might ever need to use them once again as railways to move our commerece?

We are now also in the digital age. The National Weather Service has a web page that can provide severe weather alerts for our area with more efficiancy than weather warning sirens that not every one can hear in the country. It is also Federally funded already by our tax dollars. We can get our alerts on our cell phones and pagers, and by e-mail for LESS money than sirens.(Smarter spending.)

Social Security was another social experiment that is also proving to be a failure. It is going bankrupt, and won't be there for my kids. Of course, it was never intended to be robbed from for funds by our politicians either. The ONLY Presidential candidate we had in this last go-round who addressed this issue with a solution to fix it was Fred Thompson.

Medicare/Medicade are on the same disasterous road as Social Security.


If you want to know how well social medicine works, look at the experiments of its use in other countries such as Canada, and Europe before applying it here. This research is not tough. You could find out you need life saving surgery immediately, yet put on a six month waiting list for it. You could be dead by then. There are many examples of this as fact with social medicine. I also understand you could get closer to the front of the line by paying cash up front for services like my example. Is that fair?
We are currently the MOST technologically advanced country in the world in the field of medicine because we have doctors who can specialize, and because of free enterprise. With social medicine, our world standing will decline drastically, and government medicine will more than likely fail, just like every other social program does in this country.

The scariest phrase in the english lanuage is:
"I'm from the Federal Government, and I'm here to help."
(Just look how well it worked with Katrina.)

I disagree completely with your analogy once again, Mr. Cross.

The Federal Government actually operates more efficiantly when it is a smaller government.

-hfrmack "

" Bigger is NOT Necessarily better. "

" This article is a verbatim list of programs crosseyed is always posting on these blogs. Similar to b hussein and his clinton appointees, I thought the CR Courier would insist on new and changed views, but I guess if the messiah can get away with it, so can crossie.

what cross refuses to understand or even acknowledge what fair and reasonable taxation is. Cross argues the wealthy should have to pay not only higher tax dollars but at a higher % of taxation. the curmudgeon will say 'well, they use more of the infrastructure...bla bla bla" poppeycock! He will say that those who dont make as much should not have to pay the same % because that will harm them more? baloney.

For the record the list that crossie provides, again, is part of 'the general welfare' as addressed in the constitution. 'spreading it around' is NOT in the constitution and is one of the principles this country was founded against. Due process, fair taxation, and taxation without representation are a few terms cross does not spend much time on.

Man, the CR Crouier is sure loaded with liberals these days. From EB to Wood, to Abraham and now Cross!!... I also know of ACLU'ers, do-nothings, and other socialist extremest on the blogs.

Hope and Change, and liberal minions unite to form the new United Socialist States of America. USSA. "

" From wikipedia: "Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society" and "The fundamental purpose of government is the maintenance of basic security and public order — without which individuals cannot attempt to find happiness". So, while the objective of this article seems to try to convince the audience that socialism is a good thing, many of these items truly aren't examples of socialism, rather they are items that any form of government, short of true anarchism, would provide. "

" Since they're obviously lacking material I think the Courier should publish more of Steves writings. A great place to start would be his constitution. It's posted at: http://chat.t1msn.com.mx/MyRepublic/whatsthis.msn

Steve's a regular James Madison. It's got a Declaration, Articles, Amendments, and something called a "Pnyx Conference". I found it odd that Steve made amendments to a constitution that HE worte but thats just me. It's fun to play make believe and dress-up. "

" hfmack, so "Social Medicine" is almost, the "same" as "ours" them with the money live and those without money die. "Is that fair?" What you don't have insurance? We will get back to you. "

" Spenser @ Nov 24, 2008 12:57 PM said, "Therefore,how can we have our cake and eat it too when government is destroying wealth through expropriation?"

If you want the government to take and spend less, which of the services listed should it dispense with?

He also said, ""In fact,where is the capitalism?"

Even assuming that your figure is correct, it's the other 61 cents that the government is NOT taxing away.

/s/ Steve Cross "

" hfrmack @ Nov 24, 2008 5:38 PM said, "We have NOT ALWAYS had a mixed economy with socialism."

Actually we have. Many of the listed services can be traced back to the foundations of the country. And, as we grew, so did the length of the list.

/s/ Steve Cross "

" hetfield @ Nov 24, 2008 5:55 PM said, "Cross argues the wealthy should have to pay not only higher tax dollars but at a higher % of taxation."

It's my argument that the BURDEN of taxation should be equal and not the taxes themselves. You think that the opposite is best: where there are different levels of burden with the poor having the highest burden. Why, pray tell, should the highest burden be upon those least able to pay?

/s/ Steve Cross "

" Ionf @ Nov 24, 2008 6:24 PM said, "while the objective of this article seems to try to convince the audience that socialism is a good thing...."

A "good thing" in that we should switch entirely to socialism?

NOT so.

My point was explicit, you don't have to put words in my mouth. I said, "But the reality is that we are and have always been a mixed economy." My point is that is supposed aversion to socialism is strange because we've always had elements of socialism in out "mixed economy."

He also said, "many of these items truly aren't examples of socialism, rather they are items that any form of government, short of true anarchism, would provide."

Exactly my point. Government is naturally where people work together to get things done. And, when they do so, it is socialistic in nature. No one, in any society short of anarchism is a totally independent actor. We can and we must work together. It's necessary for everyone to get used to the idea that society, by its very nature, is socialistic. So there's no need to get upset when something else, such as the medical care I mentioned, is supplied by our society working together.

/s/ Steve Cross "

" Oboy wrote on Nov 24, 2008 8:56 PM:

" hfmack, so "Social Medicine" is almost, the "same" as "ours" them with the money live and those without money die. "Is that fair?" What you don't have insurance? We will get back to you. "

Wrong. No one is denied health care in this country, regardless of financial stature.
I'm not saying our current health care system isn't flawed. Even Republicans recognize this. There are areas in desperate need of repair. Like the pharmycutical companies, and free health care to illegal aliens.
Other than the few flaws that need repair, the whole system isn't broken, and doesn't need to be fixed by applying social medicine or the government.
That was my point, social medicine would be worse in the long run. I listed the appropriate examples.
-hfrmack "

" cross1242 wrote on Nov 25, 2008 3:11 AM:

" hfrmack @ Nov 24, 2008 5:38 PM said, "We have NOT ALWAYS had a mixed economy with socialism."

Actually we have. Many of the listed services can be traced back to the foundations of the country. And, as we grew, so did the length of the list.

/s/ Steve Cross "

Actually, you are dillusional, Steve.

Another example from your laundry list is education.
Not all schools, institutions, and colleges are funded by taxation. There are private schools too. Kids can still be home schooled. For higher education, one does not have to go to UNI, ISU, IOWA, or Drake to get it. Ever heard of Luther, Wartburg, Central, Elsworth, Hawkeye Comm. College, etc.?

Cemetary Maitenance?
Not all cemetaries. There are many church cemetaries.

Postal Service...BLOTD!!!
In a free market, competition provides better services for everyone. Examples: UPS, Fed-Ex, Fed-EX Ground, & DHL(Though now going out of business). But that's okay, because that's free enterprise.

Steve, you really need to take my advise and get out of the "city", and into the "country" for some fresh air to open your eyes and your mind.
-hfrmack "

" hfrmack @ Nov 25, 2008 9:50 AM said, "No one is denied health care in this country, regardless of financial stature."

Could you explain that? "

" hfrmack writes:

"No one is denied health care in this country, regardless of financial stature."

No one is denied *emergency* medical care. However, many people are denied preventive medical care (or, they choose to spend their limited funds on food and shelter instead of preventive care), and therefore they are more likely to end of needing very expensive emergency care.

The U.S. spends more than any other country on health care, but we do not get the best results. Compare our life expectancy and infant mortality rates with countries that have "socialist" medical care, and I think you'll find that those countries do better. "

" Ok crossie, at what income level does the burden argument decline? 40k, 100k, 250k? you sound like b hussein and his campaign promises now.

does the person earning 15k not use the same services that you define(again) above? why the different rate again? oh, because they cant afford the tax? poppeycock. geta new job. get some training. go into the service! "

" cross1242 wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:01 AM:

" hfrmack @ Nov 25, 2008 9:50 AM said, "No one is denied health care in this country, regardless of financial stature."

Could you explain that? "

I think I did there, Steve. Maybe you should ask an illegal alien how they get theirs.
Even linnea knows.
Check out your local emergency rooms.
linnea is partially right. That is a major part that needs correcting, (E.R.'s)
Even doctors take oaths as to not deny care to patients in need in this country.

linnea wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:12 AM

The U.S. spends more than any other country on health care, but we do not get the best results. Compare our life expectancy and infant mortality rates with countries that have "socialist" medical care, and I think you'll find that those countries do better. "


Well linnea, there are too many variables in your reply to draw that one conclusion. How much more junk food is consumed in our country than your comparison countries? How many more drug and alcohol abusers are there in our county than in your comparison countries?
Do you deny how much more our country is technologically advanced in our medical sciences?
Even heads of state of other countries come here for their serious medical treatment because of our medical advances.
Under social medicine, our medical advances would be a by-gone era.

-hfrmack "

" Even assuming that your figure is correct, it's the other 61 cents that the government is NOT taxing away

Who are you to question whether my figures are correct? Judging by your post you live in a completely unrealistic world;a paradoxical world where,at least from what I've read,you think everybody can be equally wealthy in a world with constraints.

I don't know what 61% capitalism means. If I can't maximize my utility without goverment intervention then it's not capitalism. We can make this an argument in semantics,but either way your economic opinions are bankrupt in logic. "

" socialism is good, just ask Jesus.

WWJD? "

" "Evil acts can be given an aura of moral legitimacy by noble-sounding socialistic expressions such as spreading the wealth, income redistribution or caring for the less fortunate. Let's think about socialism. Imagine there's an elderly widow down the street from you. She has neither the strength to mow her lawn nor enough money to hire someone to do it. Here's my question to you that I'm almost afraid for the answer: Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the lady's lawn each week? If he failed to follow the government orders, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrest and fines to imprisonment? I'm hoping that the average American would condemn such a government mandate because it would be a form of slavery, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another. Would there be the same condemnation if instead of the government forcing your neighbor to physically mow the widow's lawn, the government forced him to give the lady $40 of his weekly earnings? That way the widow could hire someone to mow her lawn. I'd say that there is little difference between the mandates. While the mandate's mechanism differs, it is nonetheless the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another. Probably most Americans would have a clearer conscience if all the neighbors were forced to put money in a government pot and a government agency would send the widow a weekly sum of $40 to hire someone to mow her lawn. This mechanism makes the particular victim invisible but it still boils down to one person being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. Putting the money into a government pot makes palatable acts that would otherwise be deemed morally offensive. This is why socialism is evil. It employs evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person, to accomplish good ends, helping one's fellow man." --George Mason University economics professor Walter E. Williams "

" "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." --Thomas Jefferson

"Every time that we try to lift a problem from our own shoulders, and shift that problem to the hands of the government, to the same extent we are sacrificing the liberties of our people." --John F. Kennedy

"Ask not what your country can do for you........." blah blah blah blah "

" Kramerica, you have made the same mistake many other make by confusing socialism with communism. thanks for playing though... "

" timbrackett wrote on Nov 25, 2008 1:17 PM:

" socialism is good, just ask Jesus.

WWJD? "

I'm glad you asked, Tim. Search your soul, then read Kramerica's response.

I don't believe Jesus would endorse government socialism either. He'd encourage YOU to go mow the widow's lawn down the street. That's just being a good neighbor/Christian.

WWJD? If you were sick, and needed help, I'm sure the answer would be turn to prayer.

I'd recommend turning to prayer frequently for guidance and for our country. Just as Jesus would recommend.

Kramerica,
Excellent post!
-hfrmack "

" for timbrackett:

“We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism.”

- Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1959 "

" Kramerica @ Nov 25, 2008 1:44 PM tried to show that all socialism is bad. Specifically, he asked: "Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the lady's lawn each week? If he failed to follow the government orders, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrest and fines to imprisonment?

No.

Next, he asked, "Would there be the same condemnation if instead of the government forcing your neighbor to physically mow the widow's lawn, the government forced him to give the lady $40 of his weekly earnings?"

No.

Concluding, he states, "Probably most Americans would have a clearer conscience if all the neighbors were forced to put money in a government pot and a government agency would send the widow a weekly sum of $40 to hire someone to mow her lawn."

I not one of those who would approve.

What I would approve of is a government program, funded by general taxes, that would broadly provide programs to help keep our parents in their own homes as long as they can. That would include a lot of different services possibly including sending city employees around periodically to help with mowing the lawn in summer and, the climate in Iowa being what it is, shovel the walks in winter. But, that service will be a small part of a much larger system of services.

Why to I approve that while I don't approve what Kramerica proposes on a alternative basis?

It's because I want a system that we are a community and in our community, we take care of each other on a communal basis. What Kramerica proposes is a system that, in some way imposes a burden on some limited portion of society and not the society as a whole. Those on whom the burden is imposed will resent it. And, what is more the lady down the block will know that those on whom the burden is imposed resent her for causing them a burden. Kramerica's way shows no community spirit but actually cultivates an attitude that, "I've got mine, Jack, and I'm don't like giving you any."

The other major problem with Kramerica's argument is that it's an argument that ALL collective (socialism) is wrong. But, as I've pointed out, socialism is already here and, what's more, it isn't going to go away. The argument now is whether socialism should be extended to medical benefits (or taking care of little old ladies who are having difficulty managing on their own). To be a valid argument, Kramerica can't argue that all socialism must be stopped but that it shouldn't be extended. Krameerica's argument doesn't respond to that at all.

(But, still, it's a decent argument.)

/s/ Steve Cross "

" There you have it folks...

The world according to "Commrad Cross".

The "All-Knowing", "All-Wise" one has spoken.

There is no arguing his points, they are "facts" beyond the pale. (satire)

When will you learn, Kramerica?!?!?
Commrad Cross is NEVER wrong...

When the Soviet Union collapsed, "Commrad Cross" found himself out of work writing for "Provbda".

Fortunately he found work again, here in the United States, at our own, local WCF Courier.

He can be read daily on the "opinions" page, spewing his hatred for Capitolism, and the American way. "

" Try to socialize medical professionals and their special interest groups. Its going to be fun to watch Obama try. The spread between private and public health care will be like nothing ever seen before. This isnt the police or trash collectors union...

Private clinics, private hospitals, health care associations. And the public care will wither on the vine. But you will have your Socialized Medical Card. Enjoy it. "

" kramerica--that quote was completely irrelevant!

hfrmack--i spent time in prayer over this past election and felt compelled to vote for president-elect obama. i felt his policies and proposals were more in line with the teachings of christ than mccain's (and the recent g.o.p.).

and i feel, from my understanding of scripture that jesus would support a socialist form of government.

now, before you question my understanding of scripture i will advise you that i went to a conservative church-school (with southern baptist curriculum) from k-12 and spent two years in conservative bible college studying for the ministry. "

" p.s. i feel jesus would support a socialist government for the exact reason you stated. he would encourage me to be a good neighbor. so many christian conservatives want to apply their beliefs to government when it comes to abortion, but when it comes to feeding the poor, taking care of the sick, etc. we are just supposed to be good neighbors instead of applying our beliefs to government all of the sudden. i feel it is a double standard. "

" baloney cross. keep parents in homes as long as they can? why dont they rent? why do they have to own a home.

the housing crisis was caused by liberals who insist that everyone own a home regardless of how much money they make. this raised all house prices. then BAMM, those folks coulnt afford the mortgage. DUH.

of course the left dont agree. they try to blame graham or some other righty. but from carter to clinton to pelosi and barney 'gay escort in basement' franke, they all caused the failing. frank is on record for saying fannie didnt need more regulation. he knew fannie was a huge democratic slush fund and he didnt want that interrupted. frank also said he would never vote to bailout fannie.

not watch phil and cross againg say this is just a fallacy. what hypocrits.

this is simple folks. dont borrow against your means. regardless if loans are available. take accountablity of your own situation, dont rely on socialist government. it isnt their job.
as the ussr found out.

now the oily one will save us from ourselves. "

" timbrackett "..i feel Jesus would support a socialist government.." - I disagree, the majority of the founders of the socialist movement were atheists to start, but that is irrelevant. You need to understand the socialist (in an economical and political sense) believed it was fundamental to eliminate all structures which created “classes” (private property, family, religion, personal beliefs, and so on) in order to create one utopian class where all could be categorized in. The idea was once these “classes” were eliminated we would have one class to govern over all (doesn’t make sense to me because someone would still be holding power). However, having differing religious beliefs within a population can and will create “classes”. This is why initial fundamental socialist disapproved all recognition of religions, and this would make Jesus unhappy.
Next point. The argument of socializing health care, not matter how strong it tugs on those good old heart strings, is not the answer or any type of solution to the health care problem in the US. It only takes a few Google searches to figure this out. For example, one of the quickest growing industries in Canada is PRIVATE health care facilities. People are paying private hospitals money out of their own pockets to get needed health related procedures in a timely manner. I’m not saying I know the answer to this problem (if I did I wouldn’t be wasting my time posting a response to some retirees Waterloo Courier article), but it doesn’t take much to see that socialized health care has NEVER worked as well as our flawed system here in the US. All you have to do is visit Mayo Clinics in Rochester to validate this point; people from every corner of the world come there for help.
Mr. Cross, good thing you’re a retired lawyer because you have yet to make one argument within the borders of the Waterloo Courier which persuasively provokes any sense of agreement or understanding of your points. Also, I like how you constantly defended your initial positions by clouding them up with blog responses. You entertain me and I guess that’s worth the price of admission. "

" hetfield @ Nov 26, 2008 8:21 AM said, "baloney cross. keep parents in homes as long as they can? why dont they rent? why do they have to own a home."

Because that's where they want to be. It's also where they do best.

In any case, the proposal was used because I was trying to show that it could be a program to deal with a much bigger goal and not just to get the grass cut.

He also said, "the housing crisis was caused by liberals who insist that everyone own a home regardless of how much money they make."

So, you want to kick you parent or grandparents our of their homes to make room for others? How positively "liberal" of you.

He also said, "dont rely on socialist government. it isnt their job.?

You perpetually argue against ALL socialism despite the fact that a significant amount of socialism is already here. My original point was that people can't argue against augmented health care on the basis that it's "socialism." The only valid argument is whether we extend socialism to include health care. Given the circumstances that socialism is already here, it makes no sense to just argue against "socialism" as if that alone is a disqualifying factor.

/s/ Steve Cross "

" There are about 5 items Cross listed that we need. The rest the free market can cover. I'm about at the age to qualify for Social Security. Why should Kids who have never had a vote in this pyramid scam pay for my lack of financial planning. I owe no one anything as far as health care, a pension, heat or Business development loans. They owe me nothing Man you need to wake up. You in fact are basing your entire life on your Christian values. I want no part of it. As a Wiccan if I go in a hotel I want a book on Isis not Jesus. Should my views be pushed down your throat? If I want to marry more than one wife how is that your business? If a woman wants more than one husband and all are of LEGAL age how is that your business? You Mr. Cross need to quit cramming your Christian ideology down our throats as Constantine did. You are like Caligula in your ideology, always right and self serving. Now all you need is a statue. "

" hfrmack @ Nov 25, 2008 7:56 PM posted a rebuttal that called me every name in the book.

Is name-calling the only argument that you're capable of?

/s/ Steve Cross "

" OK, cross, tell you what. you are a proponent for helping the downtrodden(as am I, but private donations dont do anything for you) and the truly lazy. Open your home up to some of these folks for the cold winter up North. Share your bedroom and bathroom and kitchen with these do-nothings. Dont worry if they sit and watch TV all day eating your cheetos, they serve a break. Dont bother asking them to chip in on rent and utilities or even the cost of your food. Please, dont set up job interviews for them, or better yet, do set up interviews then go back and interview the interviewees to see how your rack-ups did.

do this and report back in March/april.

we'll miss your posts the next few months, but it will be worth it to see how your social experiment went.

merry husseinmas, and happy socialist new year to you and yours. "

" timbrackett-
Did you know our country was founded on Christian principles? Even Washington D.C. was laid out in the shape of a cross. You can still see the shape of this today in aerial views of the city. We have "In God We Trust" on our currency, and references to God on many government buildings.

Our founding fathers tried to instill in our government Christian principles, such as individual freedoms and liberties. We also have freedoms of religion instilled by the wisdom of our founding fathers.

I'm pretty familiar with scripture myself. J.C. is my Savior and Lord.
His teachings that I'm familiar with are to spread His word and teachings, and to serve our fellow man.
But on a personal level and faith. I'm not familiar with any scripture where as He endosed forcing Thy beliefs and teachings. Not even on a national or government (Socialist) level.
Christianity is a community of Christians with individual faiths. We share our beliefs with others in our community, we don't force it upon them.
Most of us, including myself, believe abortion is murder in the womb.

You are probably more knowledgable on Scripture by your education than I am.
Could you tell me where in Scripture I can find where Jesus endorses forced beliefs, or even at a government (Socialist) level?

-hfrmack "

" thatguy--the majority of our founding fathers were deists, but we are a "christian" nation, founded by christians? just because some politicians/leaders use socialism (like others use religion) to advance their own agenda does not mean that all socialism (or religion) is bad.
obviously, when i make the claim that jesus would support socialism i refer to economic socialism, but now that you mention it i would be willing to discuss jesus' opinion of organized religion. "

" cross1242 wrote on Nov 26, 2008 10:02 AM
Is name-calling the only argument that you're capable of?

What? No sense of humor either, commrad?

What's scary is that you are actually serious in your beliefs, and that you can't see all of the holes pointed out to you in your examples and beliefs by Kramerica, hetfield, Spencer, rooster, and myself.

Remember...Two wrongs don't make a "right", but three "rights" make a "left".
-hfrmack "

" "It's because I want a system that we are a community and in our community, we take care of each other on a communal basis."

People already do that by choice. If you feel its' not being done well enough, work to change the individual's hearts. Common citizens already do it better than the gubment would.

I've argued before socialism works great..........when it's done with the agreement of the participants. When you give the government the power..any power...it tends to keep growing and growing. Hence my post earlier:

“We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism.”

- Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1959 " "

" hfrmack-your entire post was one big contradiction. you spent the first two paragraphs talking about how our nation and our government was founded on "christian principles", but now you don't want to force your beliefs on anyone. but wait a minute, you will force one belief on everyone--your belief that abortion is murder (derived, i assume, from biblical passages).
which is it. are you going to quietly live out your faith without "forcing" it on anyone, or are you going to let your faith dictate your political beliefs and therefore "force" your faith on others by supporting politicians/policies that you agree with?

i still see it as a double standard that the anti-abortion christians were fleeced by the g.o.p. con-job of the late 70's and forsook just about every other christian principle to fight abortion. we inject our faith into politics and policy over abortion, but when it comes to other teachings of christ it is more politically expedient to leave that up to the individual because we wouldn't want to force our beliefs on others. it's hypocrisy. and it is a huge reason i left the republican party.
and i've gotta go to work now, but i'll give you some scriptural passages to answer your last question in the next day or two. "

" Timbrackett – I know what you meant but disagree. Advancement of socialist ideals (political, economical, social, or any other “…cal”) will ultimately lead to the distinction of all religions, not just Christianity. This outcome will be derived by any and all perpetually advancing socialist society; it has to happen to stay true to their core beliefs (this is where socialism and communism gets in that gray area). I personally feel Jesus would value willing participation of individuals over any state or national entity mandating to provide the same contributions or services these individual would have, but this is all just my own opinion nothing else. "

" Abortion. a dirty word to leftists. of all the hammering i put forth regarding the insidious act, liberals everywhere hide behind it. I have yet to read one liberal come right out and say it. 'I support abortion!' you say 'i support womens rights' huh? what is that? So you support those who do the act, but you dont suport the act?

What would it mean to support abortion? you support killing a human life. you support those who are not accountable to their actions. who take their selfish circumstance and impose murder to resolve it.

Leftists hide behind 'not supporting abortion' but 'supporting a womans right,' by saying, 'oh, isnt a real life yet' or 'oh, what do you say when it was rape or incest?' you ignore 98% of the 800,000 other aborted murdered babies to suport a few %.

This is why liberals everywhere are ridiculed, attacked, and not taken seriously. Your stances, and arguments are flawed to the point of allowing murder. You dont want a baby to bother you, so you kill it.

I included this post here because America also has a mixed value system, and liberals are on the dark side, again. "

" thatguy, i respect your opinion and do agree that jesus would value willing participation over mandates but i feel that when willing participation is lacking, jesus would support mandates. and it is my belief that willing participation is not adequately addressing certain needs in our society right now. "

" To the perennial purveyor of paralogism, Mr. hetfield:

Psst! hetfield!
You had better start taking those Liberals a little more seriously. Almost sixty seven million of them just put a guy into the White House that you said would never have a chance of getting there. Ooooops!
I guess your pol cred took a hit with THAT prediction.

Makes me wonder about what else you have been wrong.

There has been a Conservative majority on the Supreme Court now for how long?...'91?...'93? Since 2006, seven of the 9 Justices were appointed by commonly known conservative Presidents. So you have to ask the question, "Why hasn't Roe v. Wade been overturned?"
So you tell me. Why? They've had the clout for a long time. What were they waiting for? Two more so they could have a slam dunk? "

" timbrackett-
Whoa!!! Where was the double standard in my last post and in the question that I posed to you, Tim?
I made NO reference in my post to the G.O.P., or the Republican Party.
I shared my personal belief about abortion, I made no attempt to "force" my belief on you or anyone else. Where is the contrdiction?

I voted my conscience just as you voted yours.

(Once again, just my own opinion)
Murder is illegal in this country, and in every state of this country. (exeption being California for O.J.)

All of us as Christians are familiar with the Ten Commandments, and "Thou Shall Not Kill".

Not even all Republicans are in agreement on this. I wouldn't expect all Dems to be in agreement either.

But what I find a double standard is the Democrat Party is mostly against capital punishment, and mostly for abortion.

Are you for abortion Tim?

I look forward to your reply.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving!
-hfrmack "

" timbrackett wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:37 PM:

I do agree that jesus would value willing participation over mandates...

I'm in agreement with you here also, Tim. That was the point I was trying to get out of you.

I'm one of those willing participants.

We disagree all together about any sort of government "mandate".

Any sort of government mandate would be against our founding fathers' beliefs, and (unless you can verify for me from scripture), against Jesus' teachings.

State sponsered socialism would be as disasterous as every other social program we've tried in this country.
Look how well Social Security and Medicare/Medicade work.

If YOU don't feel I'm putting enough in the collection tray on Sunday, or giving enough to the charities of MY choice, what gives YOU the right to judge how much is enough to give and to whom, if YOU feel willing participation is lacking?

Have a great Thanksgiving!
-hfrmack "

" hfrmack, are YOU aware of how fire and ambulance services operate in smaller communities ? the only thing being volunteered is manpower, which does save money, however, who do you think pays for the $300,000 truck and the $100,000 ambulance and the building they sit in and all the equipment, gear and training ? the answer taxpayers. this is a small examople of all the services you seem to make sound so simple to pull off. why dont you tell the people of parkersburg how unimportant the sirens are, many stated it was the only thing that alerted them seconds before it hit.
where do you think the garbage goes when the independant contractor picks it up ? who do you think maintains the parks ? etc. please enlighten us with your self-proclaimed wisdom. "

" always ask why,
First of all, I never proclaimed my wisdom in this thread.

Second, of course I'm aware of how fire and ambulance services operate in smaller communities, and I'm aware of where the garbage goes, and of civil defense sirens.

I was trying to make my point to the retired ambulance chaser. I'm sorry you misunderstood me, so I will elaborate.

Mr. Cross was trying to paint a picture in his editorial with a laundry list of services that are provided for all of us, as a form of socialism. I say "Hog Wash"!!!
Most of the items he listed are services ANY form of government would provide its citizens.

I was pointing out to him the difference between how services are provided to him in the "city" vs. how these same services are provide to people in the "smaller communities" and in the "country".

Of course volunteer fire and ambulance services have capitol in their vehicles, fire houses and ambulance sheds, and even in their equipment.
These organizations do, (and should) get their funding from the tax base for this. These organizations are also as trained and professional as their full time counter parts. THAT is a big point that needs to be made clear that I should have made clear earlier. The sevices provided by volunteers in these smaller and rural communities is priceless. It leaves one to ask, why can't volunteer services like this be provided for larger communities and cities? It could save the tax payer a lot more money, wouldn't it? If you figure the saleries, health benefits, and retirement benefits on top of the fire trucks, ambulances, and fire houses, it is a lot more payed by the tax payer. And what percentage of the budget is spent for saleries and benefits for a full time fire or ambulance services vs. volunteer?

That's one point.

I have NO qualms with civil defense sirens. Yes they can and have saved lives in all sized communities. Thank God they helped in Parkersburg and New Hartford and Dunkerton.
Yes, this should also have funding from the tax base.
My point was to deflect suggestion from a socialist agenda, and save money for the tax payers.
In a socialist agenda, they would have civil defense sirens blanketing the countryside in one-square-mile areas if they could get away with it. They would be more popular on the countryside than cell phone towers.
The example I posted is another option for residents in rural America.

Most of the laundry list provided by Mr. Cross are NOT examples of "socialism" in America. As I stated earier, these are basic services that you would find in ANY form of government. Mr. Cross was, in painting his picture, try to justify social medicine. Those argments have all been argued as to why we shouldn't. I say let's fix the social programs we have like Social Security and Medicare/Medicade before proposing new socialist ideas like socialist health care. We can fix the few problems we have with our current health care problems for a lot less tax dollars than creating new "socialist" health care problems.

Happy Thanksgiving!
-hfrmack "

" Cross,

Please expand on the "Electrical Power" item on your list. Does Cedar Falls Utilties fall under your "socalism" blanket? "

" “hfrmack” @ Nov 27, 2008 4:14 PM responded to “always ask why” to explain how some local services provided by government from taxes are not socialism but how socialism is still bad. I’d like to show why I think that “hfrmack” is trying to draw a square circle. As might be suspected with that task, he doesn’t succeed.

It’s first necessary to try to pin down what exactly hfrmack’s argument is.

“Always ask why” had objected to hfrmack’s prior attempt to debunk my list of socialistic government services by saying that some couldn’t be socialism because they were free services. He pointed to volunteer fire departments. “always ask why” countered that even for a volunteer fire department there are substantial capital costs that are paid by the taxpayers even if there may be no wages that have to be paid.

“hfrmack’s” response, after apologizing to “always ask why” for saying that volunteer fire and ambulance services were free was to begrudgingly admit that maybe he’s been wrong. But, to try to ingratiate himself with “always ask why” he now suggests that maybe major cities ought to have volunteer fire departments too – just to save money.

Of course, those who pay attention to details might observe that whether a service is cheap or expensive has no bearing on whether or not the provision of the service is on a common basis and paid for in common. In other words, it’s socialistic. In that regard, it’s sort of like being, “a little bet pregnant.” The service is either fundamentally socialistic or it’s not. But the amount of the cost makes no different.

“hfrmack” also says that he approves of civil defense warning sirens that are paid for on a common basis. (This is good position. If he told the good people of Parkersburg, New Hartford, and Dunkerton that they shouldn’t have had warning sirens because it was socialism, that he’d be less than popular there.) His argument is that, “My point was to deflect suggestion from a socialist agenda, and save money for the tax payers. In a socialist agenda, they would have civil defense sirens blanketing the countryside in one-square-mile areas if they could get away with it.”

Now, hfrmack seems to regard “socialism” as when a government spends wastefully. Again, his argument is very wide of the mark. Once again, hrfmack asserts that it’s the AMOUNT of spending that makes socialism. But, socialism really relates to paying in common for common services (from each … and to each – remember?). How wasteful spending determines that a service is socialistic is a brand-new theory in political philosophy.

Finally, “hfrmack” gets beyond just trying to avoid embarrassment by some of the misstated facts in arguing against my claim that they are all examples of socialism. In total, he specifically approves of:

** Volunteer fire & rescue units
** Civil Defense warning sirens
** Garbage land-fills

But, he goes further than approval of a few specific government services and tries to go after them all. He says, “Most of the laundry list provided by Mr. Cross are (sic) NOT examples of "socialism" in America. As I stated earier (sic), these are basic services that you would find in ANY form of government.”

Technically, this argument is the same argument as was presented earlier by “lonf” and I responded to it at “cross1242 wrote on Nov 25, 2008 3:24 AM”. So, in answer to “hfrmack” I’ll quote myself in my earlier answer to “lonf:”

“Exactly my point. Government is naturally where people work together to get things done. And, when they do so, it is socialistic in nature. No one, in any society short of anarchism is a totally independent actor. We can and we must work together. It's necessary for everyone to get used to the idea that society, by its very nature, is socialistic. So there's no need to get upset when something else, such as the medical care I mentioned, is supplied by our society working together.”

My point is not and never has been that we need to change to a totally socialistic economy. As I said in the original article, we are a MIXED economy that’s mostly capitalistic but with strong elements of socialism. Just because any government would have the same services doesn’t convert socialistic services to capitalistic services. We have a mixed economy that includes strong socialistic elements.

The ultimate issue, as I said in the original column, does NOT involve whether ANY socialism is to be allowed. Some socialism is here and, despite “hfrmack’s” wishes to the contrary, it will remain. And, they will remain because the services are both popular and economically provided. The ONLY ISSUE is whether the scope of socialistic services is to be expanded to include health care. And the deciding elements on the question of whether to expand our socialism to medical services is whether we get better services delivered more economically than now.

It is no answer for “hfrmack” to deny that we have any socialism in the United States and then, by extension, we can’t have common medical care just because “it’s socialism” and falsely presume that we have no socialism in America.

“Hfrmack” concludes by saying, “I say let's fix the social programs we have like Social Security and Medicare/Medicade (sic) before proposing new socialist ideas like socialist health care. We can fix the few problems we have with our current health care problems for a lot less tax dollars than creating new "socialist" health care problems.”

I love it that “hfrmack” thinks that Medicare & Medicaid are apparently just “social programs” but not “socialism.” And, he wants to just fix Medicare & Medicaid before embarking on socialism for the first time. Those programs are socialism. They provide funds from everyone based on their ability (progressive taxes) and to each (of a limited number of groups) according to their needs. I’ve got a flash news item for “hfrmack.” It’s that we already have here socialistic medical care in the form of Medicare and Medicaid. It’s NOT a “new ‘socialist’ health care” system. It’s just an issue of whether the existing system is to be expanded to include everyone in common health care coverage.

I have said so many times here that I’m sick of saying it. But, once again, those on the hard right have their own history that’s not shared with anyone else in the world. One of the myths incorporated into our history by the hard right is that there is “no socialism here.” And, one of their great causes is to prevent the odious socialism from ever being part of this country’s economics. So, they are trying to protect our shore against something that landed here long ago and is now so thoroughly integrated into our lives that few recognize it as that terrible “foreign” socialism those on the hard right are foaming at the mouth about.

Finally, I really wish that there were some way to talk with those on the hard right and try to reach some kind of consensus on governmental policy at all levels. (I don’t know, maybe there’s some efficient way to allow some people to “opt out” of some services allowing them to keep more of their precious money.) But, as long as those on the hard right have their own history, it’s just not possible. (I am aware that the hard right thinks that it’s we lefties who have our own history. But, since we lefties share a history of all the rest of humanity except those on the hard right, I have no doubts about who is making up things to suit their political philosophy.) Hopefully, Obama has shown the way on dealing with them. So, we shouldn’t worry about compromise. Rather, we just inflict on them an endless trail of electoral defeat.

/s/ Steve Cross "

" rooster @ Nov 27, 2008 9:12 PM asked, "Please expand on the "Electrical Power" item on your list. Does Cedar Falls Utilties fall under your "socalism" blanket?"

At the CFU website (http://www.cfu.net/aboutus.php?loc=left) this appears:

"Cedar Falls Utilities provides electricity, natural gas, water, high speed Internet and cable television services to a community of more than 37,000 people. The municipal Electric, Gas, Water and Communications Utilities are four separate enterprises, owned by the city of Cedar Falls and operated on a not-for-profit basis for community benefit."

CFU is a property of the CF city government and not a private business. So, yes, it is a part of providing services on a communal basis.

Where there is a private company providing any utility service to a city or other jurisdiction, whether it is a communal service is arguable. However, since all operate on some kind of an exclusive franchise arrangement with the city or other jurisdiction, about any utility is provided communally.

/s/ Steve Cross "

" FISH ON!!!

Quick, hetfield...get the net!!!

He's spinning my line, I hope I can get him landed before he breaks it.

He took the bait I laid out in my reply to always ask why...hook, line, and sinker!!!

Would you LOOK at the SIZE of this one?!?!? It's bigger than the original author's article!!! (Oh wait, it IS the original auther that we threw back last time.)

lonf was absolutely correct as am I in our observations. Commrad Cross' laundry list are mostly examples ANY form of government would provide.

Tax payers don't pay my utility bill for my usage of electricity, natural gas, or water and sewer.

Yes, the only "programs" we have in this country that ARE forms of socialism are Social Security, Medicare/Medicade, and Welfare.

Shoot!!! It's just another bottom feeder...we'll throw it back again.
Some day I'm hoping to get a wall mount!
-hfrmack "

" Cross,

Thanks for the reply but I have to disagree. Electric power does not fit the definition you listed in your article:

"1) They are provided to all of us for each of us to use as we need; and

2) Each of us pays according to our ability to pay (through progressive tax rates)."

At CFU you cannot "pay according to your ability to pay". If you don't pay your bill they turn out the lights. It has nothing to do with tax rates. However, if you don't pay your taxes you're still provided fire and police protection - I agree that those belong on the list. I would argue that utilities are a capitalistic service. Unlike the other items on your list there is no guarantee of electric, gas or water service. "

" Rooster, I was wondering whether that was what you were leading into. I would agree with you that because the utility charges for its services and doesn't tax for its services that it doesn't quite fit the classic definition for "socialism."

However, since the city owns CFU lock, stock, and barrel (that is, it owns the "means of production") AND that it is a declared "non-profit corporation" how can it possibly be classified as "capitalistic"? It's also true that if they wanted to charge more to the "rich" than the "poor" it could do that. (Usually, businesses pay higher rates than home-owners. That's part-way there.)

(It's also probably a non-stock corporation so it pays nothing to the "owners" of the corporation.)

If anything, it's "imperfectly" socialism that fits well into a mixed (capitalistic and socialistic) system.

And, please remember that my ultimate point here is not to condemn anything as "socialism." Rather, it is to point out that socialism is already all around us. So, nobody can validly argue that we can't have some system of communal health care. Whatever system is ultimately agreed to will also probably be "imperfect" socialism. And, like the CFU, that's just so much the better to make it fit well in our mixed system.

/s/ Steve Cross "

" hfrmack @ Nov 28, 2008 9:23 AM said, "Commrad Cross' laundry list are mostly examples ANY form of government would provide."

And, as before, I'll respond, "That's exactly my point." Any form of government is bound to have such socialistic services. Just because any government would provide the services does NOT mean that it's NOT socialism. It just means that virtually any government is going to be providing some services in a socialistic manner.

And, I'll also point out that your denial that it's socialism is a tribute to your ideology because everyone else can appreciate them for what they are -- and figure out that it makes no difference.

Again, I'm not disparaging the services because they are socialism. I'm just saying that you can't refuse to consider common health care on its merits and not just refuse to consider it at all because it's "socialism."

/s/ Steve Cross "

" hfrmack, crossie reminds me of the big mouth singing bass you can buy and hand on your wall. you know, you push a button and it turns its head and spouts off! the dang thing wont stop until IT is done.

anyways, cross's laundry list is doggie doodoo. he trys to minimalize promised socialism by creating an illusion that we are already socialist. we already pay taxes on most of the things he lists. these services are provided for in the constitution as 'for the people.'

what isnt included? bailouts, spreading it around, and messiah-like complexes for our president. He works for us, we dont work for him. What is b hussiens favorite word? 'I' he says this constantly. the arrogance of hope is ridiculous.

in reality, hfrmack, our buddy cross, and those who think like him, have aleady been hooked by b hussein. the singing bass already hangs in the oval office. it definately clashes with the US flag and past presidents who deserve our respect. The singing bass looks good with the picture of ayers with the autograph and note 'love ya, your pal Bill Ayers.' written on it though.

peace. "

" cross1242 wrote on Nov 28, 2008 10:58 AM:
Any form of government is bound to have such socialistic services. Just because any government would provide the services does NOT mean that it's NOT socialism.

I beg to differ...

Are you back on my line again?

I disagree Mr. Cross. I think the term or word you are looking for is "infrastructure", NOT "socialism".
Some of the examples you listed are NOT payed for, or supported by the tax base either. Do you deny this? Some are, but not all. But the ones that are, are not quite defined as socialism as you so addimitly try to explain. Utility companies get their revenue from the consumer by direct billing for each consumer's usage. NOT from the tax base.


so⋅cial⋅ism   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

I believe to implement a new socialist health care system to replace our existing one would fall under catogory number "3." in the definition. Your expansion in your theory would be called "Marxism".

Don't you honestly think that the problems with Social Security and Medicare/Medicade should be adressed and fixed before suggesting more Socialism and problems with Socialist (Marxist) health care? This I pointed out before along with Thatguy, and many other bloggers on this post. Look how well it's worked in other countries, pros and cons, before applying your theory here. Our medical advances in technology and world leadership in the world of medicine would be a by-gone era.

And Socialism was not the direction intended for our government to go by our founding fathers either. Kramerica pointed that out very clearly with exact quotes that I second.

So as much as I'm sure that YOU think your socialist (Marxist) agenda is the answer to all of our woes in this country, I'm in direct opposition.

We can agree to disagree...I'm throwing you back again.

-hfrmack "

" Cross, our buddy hatefield seems to be having a hard time coming to terms with the socialism in America.

Hard-core denial from hatefield, because the jokes on him and his belief system. "

" Steve,

I've still got to argue this one. In CFU's "About us" section they mention that they transfer 1.4 million dollars to the city of CF each year. It's under the title "Return on Investment". The 1.4 million is a business gain that benefits the owners. It's a textbook example of profit. Also, charging commercial customers a higher rate has nothing to do with their ability to pay. It has to do with with electrical demand and the cost of providing the commercial service. "

" rooster, you raise some more interesting questions. I'm a little surprised that CFU makes $1.4 million in profit. It is a "not-for-profit" corporation and most of them try to income and expense so it just balances. I'm not sure the answer means anything regarding our current debate, but I am surprised.

And, CFU returns it's profit to the "owners." And the owner is presumably the city of Cedar Falls and not private stock-holders.

I'm content to say that maybe CFU is not the best example of government socialism operating a utility. But, my point did not hinge on whether or not CFU was a great example of the modern use of some socialism in government. (I was expecting an attack that utilities are not common services provided by government to all people on a collective basis. Thus, I was prepared to point out the franchise setup of utilities with cities. With such agreements, the city grants monopoly rights to supply services in common to all the residents and businesses in the city.)

My ultimate point is that the natural state of humans is to work together for mutual benefit. The macho, "It's me against the world" view of the hard right is just bogus. We have and will continue to see common plans put in place for the common benefit. That commonality, at its essence, is socialism. But, we are still a mixed economy where private and common enterprises exist at the same time.

So, when some sort of common health care plan is discussed, it's just continuing the use of socialism where private enterprise has demonstrated that it can't serve our interests.

From what I know, the CFU has been setup to provide utilities in Cedar Falls on a common basis. That looks like socialism to me. (I accept that you don't buy that.) And, the eventual solution to health care on a common basis MAY be a quasi-public corporation, similar to CFU, that provides the health care to all citizens following the law that set up the health plan and the corporation. And, when it comes, it will not be something new under the sun for Americans. We are so very use to public provision of services that people don't even realize that it's basically socialistic.

Thank you for your considered reply.

/s/ Steve Cross "

" Steve,

Here's another angle. CFU provides cable TV and internet services to Cedar Falls. MediaCom also provides these services. Do you think that the government should be in competition with private businesses? "

" Rooster:

No. When a needed service in private hands is failing and government needs to provide it ("socialize it") to keep it available at a reasonable price to all, then the answer would be, "Yes." But, straight competition, "no." (Of course, I think that health care is one business that's failing and needs to be "socialized" to keep it supplied at a reasonable price.)

/s/ Steve Cross "

" CFU is a great example of a government service done right. They pay well, their services are good, their rates are among the lowest in the state and they require no tax money. Yet, they are a government entity. If thats socialism sign me up! I think you'd have to chalk up their success to local control. It seems that once the money makes it to Washington or even Des Moines that's where the trouble begins. I think that most people just don't like the idea of a health care system designed and administered in Washigton D.C. They (both parties) don't have the best track record when it comes to fixing problems. "

" hfrmack, thank you for only quoting part of my sentence to make your point.
and i've been out of town the past few days, but when i return on sunday or monday i will have an answer to your question. "

" Rooster, the main problem with a locally-based health-care system is that you wind up with, maybe, 100,000 "systems" nation-wide. And, at least part of the problem now is all the differences that exist already.

I wouldn't disagree that being a national system does make administering the system more difficult. But, I don't think that mismanagement is inherent in a national system. Let's watch to make sure that whatever system is chosen it's with an eye to implementing it right.

BTW, one of the "private" enterprises that's done by the government in Iowa that displeases me is the lottery. I'd rather have the lottery privatized and having the government watching it closely to make sure that there's no cheating and that damages on the side are dealt with and controlled. I think that having the lottery watching itself is a really bad idea.

/s/ Steve Cross "

" timbrackett wrote on Nov 29, 2008 11:53 AM:

" hfrmack, thank you for only quoting part of my sentence to make your point.
and i've been out of town the past few days, but when i return on sunday or monday i will have an answer to your question. "

Hi Tim,
You're correct, I only used part of your quote, but if you look closely at the reply I had, I addressed your whole comment.
It's fine that you were out of town for a couple of days. I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving. I'll look forward to your reply to my question(s).
-hfrmack "

" Rooster, if something like the "bird flu" comes to American shores, I think it would be a great idea to have some sort of national health care in place to give Americans what they need to survive a pandemic.

I hope whoever is president would socialize vaccines for Americans. If it comes down to the have and have not's, everyone would die. "

" Independent,

There is a plan like that. It was formed in 2004 by the Bush Administration. It's called the HHS Pandemic Influenza Plan. Glad to hear that you think it was a "great idea". "

" Rooster, do you think it's a good idea, or do you consider it socialized medicine? "

" Vaccines for a pandemic is a brilliant idea. I expect the government to do it. Even if it happened under the Clinton or Obama administration. Technically I guess it would fall under "healthcare" but I'd be more likely put it under civil defense. Reminds me more of the role the government used to play with supplying the fallout shelters with food and medicine. So something catestrophic like that yes, the feds would be the ones to take it up. "

" Ok, rooster. The point is, is that socialization? I mean, Clayson and his minons think it is.

If you are being truthfull with your response, then I would suggest that you agree with cross1242, that socialism is a necessary means to a successfull society, irregaurdless of where you hide the truth.

I could put CFU in the same category for all that matters. I guess if your civilians are dying of exposure, then it would be civil defense to keep everyone warm? "

" kramerica, maybe Seinfield can solve your problems?

Have you ever given a post about an idea you have? You are basically just a nice hatefield... "

" Independent,

I can't follow you. Do you have a point? Socialism has many branches. You can't just lump everything under one big "Socialism" umbrella. Are you advocating socialized health care coverage or socialized health care? "

" okay, here are some examples of why i believe jesus would have supported government mandates.

matthew 22:17-21 the famous quote "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" comes from this portion of scripture.

matthew 25: 34-40. to summarize, Jesus tells his disciples that when they feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, take in strangers, give clothes to those who need clothes, take care of the sick and visit prisoners, they are doing this to Christ himself. He made no clarification that this was only applicable for those engaging in private donations.

matthew 5:3-12--the beatitudes. includes such teaching as blessed are the merciful, etc.

luke 10:25-37. includes the command to love your neighbor as yourself and the parable of the good samaritan to illustrate who our neighbor is.

luke 18:18-24. the story of the rich young ruler who had obeyed all of the commandments, but Jesus told him to sell all of his possessions and give to the poor.

Jesus taught his followers (christians) to do these things. He made no distinction that we must only do these things on a personal level. we are simply to do them. so i maintain that if personal charity is not fixing the problem then government mandate is what Jesus would support. His teachings indicate that he doesn't care about how the needy receive what they need, as long as they are receiving. "