garageman's Blog

Actually, you vote for who they want you too also, ie. party nominations.....

But yeah, in this country, your pretty much free to do what the government SAYS you can do.

So much for democracy lol

Democracy? We don't live in a democracy, we live in a democratic republic...the only place you can win the popular vote and lose the election. Zzzzz...

garageman, all i have to say is that you did a great job on the posting of this blog.

I am neither a believer in total liberalism, nor a believer in total capitalism. I think we can all agree that neither system can exist on its own, and that the two NEED to work together. We simply dont live in a world we once did (agrarian farmer society) where one's actions dont affect another's... as population density increases, more socialism is really the only solution. If you really want to have that 'utopia', then you might actually consider the most liberal action of them all... population control. If we could cut the US population by say, 30% in the coming generations (by taxing the crap out of every newborn after the first one)... then yes, the consolidation of wealth and lowering of demand on the open market would make quality of life issues easier to handle with just the open market.

But to keep it simple, Ill make my point clearly... Democracy, or rather, a 'Representative Republic' (what the US is), IS a form of socialism... no matter how conservative or liberal you make it... Democracy by definition is socialist. All that socialism means is that a group of people come together and decide how to spend their money. If they decide to not spend ANY money together, that is still socialism because they decided on it TOGETHER. The problem with most views on Socialism is that we have been trained to react by instinct and say its 'liberal pinko commie soviet' type stuff. Its not. The US government, by definition, is Socialist. The irony is that Cuba, USSR, or China are not actually socialist... because the people themselves do not have a say in how they

Protection: Imagine a 'pay as you need' private alternative... or what privatizing this would mean... murderers would go free if you couldnt pay for the police investigation. Perhaps a private insurance solution would be a good idea, but recent conservative laws have made it hard to even hold insurance companies to their deals... if they determine that providing the benefit is too expensive, they might just refund your premiums and say 'tough luck' like they are doing now already. You might call 911 and insist on your insurance provider before sending a squad out, or a credit-card number. Not to mention, with a 'for-profit' insurance system, you are likely to be paying much higher premiums, so entire sections of a city would simply lose their police protection.

-Fire protection: yes, this is socialized. If it was private, many of the implications seen with the Police example would also hold true... perhaps the insurance would deny your claim until you can provide proof of fire?!?! Lol. But you get the point. So if your neighbor's house burns down, but he doesnt have fire insurance, or cant pay the price, does that mean your home should be put at risk then too because the fire department wont help your neighbor? Who are you gonna sue for damages then... your neighbor who died in the fire because nobody would save him?

-Socialized Medicine: Yes, we actually do socialize it... its called Medicaid. How else would the enderly and retired folks get insurance? No private company would touch them unless they could pay $10,000 a year for it, and even still... As

a huge liability. Providing this service to all means more 'liberty' is restored than taken away IMO, and the resulting 'freedom' on the open market to spend what would otherwise be going to insurance companies, or be set aside 'just in case someone gets sick' is no longer needed.

-Social Security: Those who 'borrowed against' this system should be sued unless they can replace the money themselves. The SS system was fine until other agencies saw this as a 'pool' that they could borrow from.
SS was made seperate from federal tax system for a reason, yet politicians still 'dipped', yet, SS in itself is a good idea. If kept how it should be, how it was intended, it provides an income to you when you retire... no matter if your investments flopped, your kids stole your money, you had to pay medical bills for cancer, etc.

-Education: How many of you went to a University or Public School? How about we take that away and see how much you know? Sure, public schools arent the best sometimes, but still much better than the alternative of NOTHING. Dont forget, Universities are also socialized... so UW-Milwaukee, Madison, Penn State, Berkeley, etc... Sure, you have to pay a few thousand to go there every year, but thats only about 1/3 the total cost per year... the rest is provided by the government. How many of you would have gotten an education at all, or have gone to college without socialized education? Also, keep in mind that many might have gone to a private college... great...but did you still get federal student loans for that college? Even though you went t

than what they spend. So pretty much, the liberal states are getting screwed while the conservatives are reaping the rewards... go figure! Perhaps if 'truth in taxation by state' were implimented (more spending means more benefits) many of the current problems would be solved.

Also consider how taxes and other government controls are used to provide market stability. They prevent major crashes. They prevent inflation. They provide security by bailing out lenders...lol.

Government can also be used to boost private economy. The US auto makers for instance... they COULD be making our vehicles more fuel efficient by using say... carbon fiber instead of steel. Truth is, the 'buy in' for CF is high, but if EVERYONE had to use it, it could be done rather cheaply because the development costs would be spread out by the increased artificial demand provided by the government... bringing costs down. This has been true of many other technologies in the past as well which we now enjoy daily. The private market on its own would not have developed these things at anywhere near the same pace. Auto makers in the US actually WANT higher economy standards passed because this would mean a level playing field (so no one company has to stick its neck out and be 'efficient' rather than 'sporty' and lose money in the process) for all. Think about it... where would we be otherwise? The private market itself tends to stagnate unless the a huge demand is created in a short amount of time... not very common.

Nice try... but thats just not the case. Society allows us more personal freedoms at a cost. The idea is that these costs are usually spread out among many so they are minimal (imagine if only some individuals were funding the armed forces), but provide an even greater result than an individual could achieve. The bottom line is, yes, you are giving up some personal freedom, but getting back more in return. This has been shown to be the case in many EU countries in the manner that it is easier to rise in economic class there than here now... seems odd because they pay more taxes, but in the same respect, their employers dont have to pay for medical insurance, so that frees them up. The individual doesnt have to worry about a medical bill making them lose their home either. Heck, when they get done with university, they dont have student loans either. If you are sick of your job and want to train for something better, you can go to free vocational retraining and become an electrician or mechanic. This allows them to keep a very dynamic and tech-savy workforce as well... none of this 'Id take the training but I cant afford it' stuff.

So if you feel that you dont dont want to pay taxes for some things. Perhaps next time Osama wants to fly planes into your back yard, you can just handle that yourself? Or maybe you would rather handle your own medical care from now on... I hope you went to med school!

Your mistake Hmeister is that you believe the U.S. should fall in line with the European style of Government. Our mistake is that we believe we haven't begun that transformation.

There are always going to be those who think we as a nation do not do enough to help the "down trodden" and will continually call for more, more, more to bring them up to the same lifestyle enjoyed by those who work for what they have. Problem is, in most cases, no matter what is done to help, it's never enough and it does nothing to change their social standing. Doesn't it strike you as odd that these folks don't have the same desire to "earn" what they want as they do to have everyone else give it to them? If they have the time to stand in line for freebies, why don't they have the time to attend classes that will provide them skills to earn their desires? In America there is no reason nor hurdles that keep these people from getting the education that will provide for them, it is self inflicted. Why not spend more time changing these people's mindset so they can become productive rather than try to "educate" those who choose to spend their hard earned money on legal products how socially unacceptable they are being? That is where the rub lies, this Government was not set up to "interfere" in the way people choose to legally live their lives, or consume the products, and services offered. Nor was it set up to be the functionary every fringe group who is offended by those who believe in personal choice. Once we get back to the expectation of everyone accepting personal responsibility for their