View Single Post
Old 01-23-2008, 11:24 AM   #4
Exiled Packerfan in SoCal
philabramoff's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 537
philabramoff is on a distinguished road

Firstly, let me say it was a pleasure to read your response.
So often, when I encounter someone on the other side of
the aisle, I get yelled at a lot (which is why I usually avoid
discussing politics with people, except for people that I
know very well).

To answer some of your is interesting that you
make somewhat of a distinction between "socialism" and the
idea of the United States being "semi-socialist". I think there
is a clear distinction between "socialism", and offering "social
programs". My firm belief is that a nation can ONLY offer
effective social programs if it has a very strong, very vibrant
economy to back it up. Moreover, I believe that capitalism
and socialism are diametric opposites toward that end. It
almost seems, from your response, that you tend to agree
with me on this point, in that you don't adopt "socialism"
per se, but a form of socialism which is predicated upon
capitalism. Without getting bogged down on the definitions
of our terms, let's just say that I believe in capitalism as the
most effective economic system for generating wealth for a
nations, and then providing various social programs as needed,
and with clear examination and forethought. Sounds like you
would tend to agree (correct me if I read you differently), but
that maybe you believe in more expansion of those social programs
than I do.

Here's where we might differ...I try to differentiate between types
of government spending which are "necessary" and those which
"would be nice". For example, here in California, there's a measure
on the ballot called Prop 92 which will allot some more money to
community colleges. Now, here at the COMMUNITY COLLEGE WHERE
I WORK, they want everyone to wear "Yes on 92" buttons. I won't
wear one, mainly because I am personally conflicted. Yes, these
monies would HELP the place I'm at (and thus help ME personally as
well). However, the conservative I am tends to ask the question
"who's going to pay for it?" I have a bit of a conscience when it
comes to voting for something where "I get something" but "someone
else is paying for it". My decision has to be based on whether I
feel overall that such a measure would have an overall net benefit
against the idea that many people are working hours at their jobs,
and then having to cough up that money, so it can pay for this.

Speaking of which, I have my first class to teach, now in about
5 minutes, so I have to go.

Will get back to your other responses later.

Later, Fresh.
philabramoff is offline   Reply With Quote