Deseret News | Don't vote for socialism

Reader comments
Readers' forum: Don't vote for socialism

Page:
< Previous
1
2

Tithes/Offering not tax subsidy | 4:27 p.m. Jan. 25, 2008

Mike, "It's only 7:30 a.m. and already this thread is full of whining and whimpering. Don't make us responsible for our own lives! Don't make us take care of our own families! Don't make us pay our own doctor!"

It sounds to me like you are the one whining and I for one have had it with people like you getting something for nothing (i.e., the use of our roads) and then telling good people that they should be responsible for the less-fortunate while you benefit from the taxes of the less fortunate.

You write, "When are we going to realize that WE are the rich neighbor that can and should be helping the less fortunate." This is an evil argument of evil people. Don't make my Church pay for your right to not pay taxes. At least the poor that we have to take care of pay taxes. You may think that it's okay to make us pay for the less fortunate so you don't have to or in your words "why use taxes when those stupid Churches can help us out by helping the less fortunate so we don't have to."

Taypayers use Churches. | 4:35 p.m. Jan. 25, 2008

GWB, "I wonder how these anti-socialism people can look at themselves in the mirror without revulsion. They get up in the morning and shower with socialized water, flush the toilet to eliminate their waste in socialized sewers."

You hit the nail on the head. Their basic argument is "you pay taxes for those things we need but we don't pay taxes for those things you need." Instead their argument goes something like this "Churches and private individuals and charities should pay for the less fortunate even if they don't ever see a dime of their taxes so that we can use the less fortunates taxes on the things we need." They want socialized water so they use the poor man's taxes to pay for it.

If they cared so much about the poor than they would say "I will not use their tax money to pay for my roads, my sewers, my police, my fire, etc" or better yet "I will not use their tax money to pay for a nice State Capitol renovation so that Churches are forced to subsidize me and my family. Why should the state help them when we can live off of Churches.

digum | 4:57 p.m. Jan. 25, 2008

My point with Ezra Taft Benson was not about his opinion of what government should be, but on his observation of the USSR. He simply stated that their constitution guaranteed bread for everyone but yet shortages of bread were common.

There are some things a government can do better than individuals. GWB brought up socialized water and sewage systems. I wonder if GWB has thought of the logistics of having multiple water and water treatment providers. We all get bills based on our usage for these things and pay for these services. Giving us some control over what we spend. If the system were truly socialized you would get X amount of water per day and then your water would be turned off and would be paid for through your property taxes.

Socialism is not using tax dollars to provide a service. Socialism is taking money from those who have earned a privilege and using force of law to transfer that privilege to those who have not earned it.

Comments continue below

shecky | 4:58 p.m. Jan. 25, 2008

There we go again. All you need to do is mention the words socialism or liberal, and some folks get all worked up. I just ignore any article that throws those words around...they've become meaningless.

Daphnee | 5:10 p.m. Jan. 25, 2008

The World Health Organization (WHO) which is made up mostly of American doctors have selected once again this year France the country with the best health system in the world and the French government spends half in health care as the US spends. French live longer than Americans.
Also France is the 4th world power, not too bad for a socialist country...

Mike | 5:38 p.m. Jan. 25, 2008

To 4:47 p.m.,

How much should I pay in taxes? Would 47% of my income be a good start? That's what I pay, i.e. 25% Federal, 7% State and 15% Social Security. In addition, I pay 10% to my church and another 10%, partially to my church and partially to other charitable organizations. Add to that the hidden gas tax that I pay for each of the 3,333 gallons of gas that I buy each year to pay for the roads that I use. I'll admit that I'm one of the lucky rich guys that has a combined household income of almost $40,000. If you haven't figured it out so far, after paying 50% of my income to the government and 20% to charity, I have a whopping $12,000 left over to pay the mortgage, food, clothing and utilities.

And you want me to pay for you too. That's very noble of you.

Your post leads me to believe that you believe either the government or the church should take care of your every need. Why don't you just open your wallet and pay your own bills and then pay a few bills for those you're feeling sorry for?

Lionheart | 7:04 p.m. Jan. 25, 2008

To Mike, Great Falls and Sec Prog, don't wake up these dreamers with facts. They get surly. They still want to believe in the failed economic utopia philophies of the 19th and 20th Centuries. Socialism, Communism, Keysenian Economics. All abject failures. Now who would be attracted to those philosophies?

You are very shortsighted | 7:40 p.m. Jan. 25, 2008

And only see the side of the picture you want to see. If you were someone that had struggled to make ends meet all your life and then had to declare medical bankruptcy you would have quite a different opinion. There are 50 million people without coverage at all (disgraceful for our advanced country) and many more with inadequate coverage. There are many more that have to already pay a large amount of their income to medical bills. This needs to be fixed!

To Lionheart 7:04 | 8:22 p.m. Jan. 25, 2008

If you want to use that logic, then capitalism is also a failure. Pure capitalism hurts people who can't measure up and it fails those people. In the US we don't have pure capitalism for that reason. We want all to have an education regardless of ability to pay. We want all to have a defense against criminals and foreign invadors. Pure or near pure capitalism has never worked very well and that's why its not practiced.

Lionheart | 8:30 p.m. Jan. 25, 2008

Shortsighted. Are we discussing macroeconomics or microeconomics? Where are the billion for medicade going. Many people have to take out bankruptcy for many reasons other than medical. Then they have to get up and try again. There is only one certainty. Everyone dies, no amount of free medical care will change that reality. When did the people of this country become so ill and needy for medical care. My ancestors lived into their eighties and nineties without the constant testing and medication that has been foisted on this generation of Americans thinking that every mood and flinch has to be medicated. My observation is that most are ill from bad food and habits and toxic medications. Life has it's duality and tragedies, free medicine, unending leisure, nothing will irradicate all unhappiness. Certainly socialism will not be the answer.

Lionheart | 8:44 p.m. Jan. 25, 2008

Of course capitalism is not perfect, nothing is, however at this time, it is the most moral and least coercise of systems, and has produced the highest good for the most people. Perhaps someone one these postings is the economic genius who will propose a new economic system to supercede capitalism, but it won't be the ideas of the past centuries.

To Lionheart | 8:56 p.m. Jan. 25, 2008

Our nation can well afford to pay CEO's 10's and hundreds of millions of dollars whether or not they run their companies well. If they don't run them well, we pay them 50 million as they are going out the door. If we can afford this we can well afford to pay health care for the needy. And don't think our nation isn't paying for it either just because a private corporation is paying for it. Because the rich get more than they deserve, there is less to go around for the rest of us. I believe the burger flippers actually earn more than they get, they just don't get paid for it. Just as many of the rich get more than they earn. Its high time for a re-distribution.

To Lionheart | 8:59 p.m. Jan. 25, 2008

Capitalism is not the most moral system, and thats why it's not practiced anywhere in the world. What is the most moral and most intelligent is a combination between capitalism and socialism. This is why this is the most widely practiced and the countries that use this combination have the best standards of living.

Anonymous | 9:40 p.m. Jan. 25, 2008

I'm not a socialist nor am I a libertarian. Socialists would destroy any incentive to work (or make choices like an adult), while libertarians fail to understand how narrowly they construe "the free market."

We don't have a free market. We haven't ever had a free market ever since man decided to have any sort of government or any sort of property rights.

What would a true free market be like?

Well, Ted Turner is one of the largest landowners in the country. He owns over a million acres, mostly in Montana (I believe). If someone decides to build a home on his land, Ted Turner scarcely has to lift a finger to get them off. He calls the local sheriff and the problem is solved.

In a real "free market" he'd actually have to do it himself, or have one of his hired hands do it. A true free market is the law of the jungle. That's the real free market. Once you move beyond that you've entered into some degree of government regulation and even redistribution. In Ted's case, the redistribution helps him. The question then only becomes how much is best for people overall?

Mike | 10:08 p.m. Jan. 25, 2008

So, is this an "either/or" question? Do we have to accept either full blown socialism or "the law of the jungle/free market"? The system that we have should work well - if we leave it alone. In it, we have provisions where we unite on a national level to do together that which we can't do alone when we collectively pay for the common defense. Locally we do the same thing when we give our city council permission to hire policemen and firemen to watch out for us. In most communities we allow the county auditor to tax us so that we can collectively educate our children, so that they can make the world better than we did. But, outside of those well defined services, we individually buy our own homes, our own food, our own clothes, our own cars. We each follow our own dream. We each watch out for our own neighbors and catch them as they fall, just as they catch us as we fall. The goodness inside of each of us can't and shouldn't be legislated. Our gift of charity towards all should be our legacy, not a government mandated tax.

Fakes are without goodness | 10:31 p.m. Jan. 25, 2008

Mike, just for your personal consumption. What you fail to understand is that this has nothing to do with "the goodness inside of each of us" and instead has to do with the reality that these individuals pay into the tax system their entire lives as do their families and more often don't benefit from it yet they pay taxes anyways.

If and when you help every needy person then you can say that their is goodness inside of you because your argument is basically that good people should reach into their pockets and subsidize the government and other taxpayers (i.e., you) who suddenly don't want to concern themselves with those who have paid taxes and are now in need.

How would you feel if the Church told you "you have paid tithes your entire life but now that you are in need we can't help you since we united on a Church level to do together that which we can't do alone such as building Churches, Temples and Church-owned Schools." Since that is your argument here.

This goes beyond simple goodness and to the fact that those who have paid into the system should also directly benefit from it.

Mahershalalhashbaz | 11:45 p.m. Jan. 25, 2008

The problem with socialism is that the government becomes the bank of the citizens, except the peasants have little control over where the money goes. This is how it works. Hillary promises to give healthcare to every poor little child and their parents (so she raises taxes to pay for it). Hillary promises to clean up the environment (so she raises taxes). Hillary promises this, promises that, and gives this and gives that. Hillary gets very popular. Then Hillary figures out that she controls the military and most of the wealth, and quickly realizes she can literally conquer the nation. Piece of cake. Tax and spend, tax and spend, and then just tax, and then conquer, using the taxes. Then the people get no healthcare, they get China's clean environment, China's wages, and a whole lot more of exactly what we don't want. And I get killed for telling the truth. No thanks. I'll take capitalism, where we all get to be greedy, rather than just a small group of elitists who get to do that. (I posted this exactly the way I have it here this morning and the Deseret News thought it was evil for some reason.)

Athena | 9:15 a.m. Jan. 26, 2008

What I see a lot here is a confusion between socialism and communism. Socialism already is a middle ground between two extremes: capitalism and communism, which are both just as bad as the other.

You look at what they both say, and how they both actually work, and this is the conclusion: communism is naï¿½ve, and capitalism works on the logic of a third grader. Socialism is the most intelligent of these.

Anonymous | 12:45 p.m. Jan. 26, 2008

Capitalism by it's very nature is doomed to failure.
The first sign of failure is the disappearance of the middle-class.

Korihor | 3:44 p.m. Jan. 27, 2008

The problem is a lot of uneducated Mormons who have nothing for their political and historical education but a bunch of outdated, distorted platitudes from their ultra-conservative Mormons leaders. Talk about an ignorant population!

Page:
< Previous
1
2

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.