APP - Are Police, Fire Departments Socialist?

[DamnYankee]

On Andrew Wilcow yesterday the host presented what he claimed to be a slam-dunk argument against liberals assertions that police and fire departments are socialist, and accepted by conservatives, therefore other government programs, such as welfare, should also be accepted by conservatives. Wolcow's argument: Although the rich pay more taxes, thus pay more for police and fire services, at least they can access them when needed. They have no ability to access welfare.

What say ye?

 

[Annie]

On Andrew Wilcow yesterday the host presented what he claimed to be a slam-dunk argument against liberals assertions that police and fire departments are socialist, and accepted by conservatives, therefore other government programs, such as welfare, should also be accepted by conservatives. Wolcow's argument: Although the rich pay more taxes, thus pay more for police and fire services, at least they can access them when needed. They have no ability to access welfare.

What say ye?

I can see a point. If 'general welfare' is interpreted as paying taxes for products or services that all may benefit from, then funds for some roads, police, fire, etc., make sense. While someone might say, "I don't drive a car...", they need products that are delivered over said roads.

Hopefully none of us would ever need police or fire, but most of us have had the cause to call the police or paramedics. They are there when you need them.

 

[DamnYankee]

I can see a point. If 'general welfare' is interpreted as paying taxes for products or services that all may benefit from, then funds for some roads, police, fire, etc., make sense. While someone might say, "I don't drive a car...", they need products that are delivered over said roads.

More so because roads are largely paid for by vehicle and fuel use taxes.

On argument against Wilcow is that the rich benefit from not having the poor begging in the streets. Personally I don't see it as a good argument, never mind a slam-dunk as he claimed.

 

[Annie]

More so because roads are largely paid for by vehicle and fuel use taxes.

On argument against Wilcow is that the rich benefit from not having the poor begging in the streets. Personally I don't see it as a good argument, never mind a slam-dunk as he claimed.

Seems to me that 'the possibility of use' is fair. The rich may send their children to public school, but choose not to. Thus an argument may be made for the general welfare.

 

[Good Luck]

It's a crock from the get go. There is no need to defend against the claim that police, firefighting, military, roads, etc. are socialist. Socialism is control of economic assets. The things liberals, in their desperate attempt to defend their socialist leanings, try to claim are socialist are not economic assets, and therefore do not fall under the definition of socialist programs. They are part of the basic infrastructure within which society as a whole, including the economy, operate.

in short, liberals who claim police (etc.) are socialist are either lying about it (if they know the definition of socialism) or are too ignorant to bother listening to.

Of note, though, is how liberals have, in large part, finally stopped denying their intents are socialist. I guess we gotta give them credit for finally owning up to that much.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It's a crock from the get go. There is no need to defend against the claim that police, firefighting, military, roads, etc. are socialist. Socialism is control of economic assets. The things liberals, in their desperate attempt to defend their socialist leanings, try to claim are socialist are not economic assets, and therefore do not fall under the definition of socialist programs. They are part of the basic infrastructure within which society as a whole, including the economy, operate.

in short, liberals who claim police (etc.) are socialist are either lying about it (if they know the definition of socialism) or are too ignorant to bother listening to.

Of note, though, is how liberals have, in large part, finally stopped denying their intents are socialist. I guess we gotta give them credit for finally owning up to that much.

ROTFLMAO!!! Talk about rationalizing. God it's hillarious to watch hypocrites like you and SM cherry pick the government programs you like and try to discredit any one you don't like or agree with as "Gasp!" SOCIALISM!

You guys are just too funny! LOL LOL LOL

 

[Annie]

ROTFLMAO!!! Talk about rationalizing. God it's hillarious to watch hypocrites like you and SM cherry pick the government programs you like and try to discredit any one you don't like or agree with as "Gasp!" SOCIALISM!

You guys are just too funny! LOL LOL LOL

So all government programs are 'socialist?' Or regardless of program, none are?

Seems the argument that many are trying to make is that all programs and or services are equal, they are not.

 

[DamnYankee]

It's a crock from the get go. There is no need to defend against the claim that police, firefighting, military, roads, etc. are socialist. Socialism is control of economic assets. The things liberals, in their desperate attempt to defend their socialist leanings, try to claim are socialist are not economic assets, and therefore do not fall under the definition of socialist programs. They are part of the basic infrastructure within which society as a whole, including the economy, operate.

in short, liberals who claim police (etc.) are socialist are either lying about it (if they know the definition of socialism) or are too ignorant to bother listening to.

Of note, though, is how liberals have, in large part, finally stopped denying their intents are socialist. I guess we gotta give them credit for finally owning up to that much.

Infrastructure is an economic asset. Roads were first built by private individuals who then charged tolls. Even today in the US we have private roads, water and sewer systems that you must me a member to access, and private railroads that you must pay a fee to access. Many entities hire their own police forces in the form of security firms. Building owners routinely pay for private fire infrastructure, such as exterior hydrants and interior sprinkler systems.

 

[DamnYankee]

ROTFLMAO!!! Talk about rationalizing. God it's hillarious to watch hypocrites like you and SM cherry pick the government programs you like and try to discredit any one you don't like or agree with as "Gasp!" SOCIALISM!

You guys are just too funny! LOL LOL LOL

You've become a total retard, 15ppMoot.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

So all government programs are 'socialist?' Or regardless of program, none are?

Seems the argument that many are trying to make is that all programs and or services are equal, they are not.

That's not really the point Annie. What they are doing is a political manipulation that Machiavelli called "The foreign devil". They want to make a demon out of "Socialism" so that you'll look under your bed at night to make sure a socialist isn't underneath it. They will then spin any tail they want to, with out rhyme or reason, to convince you that you need to be protected from this evil demon (and it can be any thing, socialist, liberals, Jews, Muslims, Fuller Brush Salesmen, you get the point).

Socialism is an economic principle where the state controls all aspects of the means of production, including services. You actually see very little of it in our nation. Why? Because as a mechanism of commerce socialism does not work nearly as well as market capitalism.

The problem is, is that for quite a few service our society desires, commerce is a poor mechanism for providing them. Education, Public Health, National Defense, Law Enforcement, Emergency Services, Relief for the Poor, Utilities, etc, etc. Government then provides a collective mechanism where by these services can be provided in a scope and cost affective manner that the commercial sector is unable to provide.

The hypocracy of SM and GL and others on the right is that they want to cherry pick the services provided by government they don't like as "SOCIALISM" but then turn around an rationalize that very similiar government services, that they do like, are not socialism. It's beyond a contradiction, it's just plain silly.

 

[Annie]

That's not really the point Annie. What they are doing is a political manipulation that Machiavelli called "The foreign devil". They want to make a demon out of "Socialism" so that you'll look under your bed at night to make sure a socialist isn't underneath it. They will then spin any tail they want to, with out rhyme or reason, to convince you that you need to be protected from this evil demon (and it can be any thing, socialist, liberals, Jews, Muslims, Fuller Brush Salesmen, you get the point).

Socialism is an economic principle where the state controls all aspects of the means of production, including services. You actually see very little of it in our nation. Why? Because as a mechanism of commerce socialism does not work nearly as well as market capitalism.

The problem is, is that for quite a few service our society desires, commerce is a poor mechanism for providing them. Education, Public Health, National Defense, Law Enforcement, Emergency Services, Relief for the Poor, Utilities, etc, etc. Government then provides a collective mechanism where by these services can be provided in a scope and cost affective manner that the commercial sector is unable to provide.

The hypocracy of SM and GL and others on the right is that they want to cherry pick the services provided by government they don't like as "SOCIALISM" but then turn around an rationalize that very similiar government services, that they do like, are not socialism. It's beyond a contradiction, it's just plain silly.

No, it's not. In all likelihood your municipality has begun to make 'hard choices' now or will be soon. They've different plans they will have to choose to implement if revenues continue to fall or stagnate where they are.

Which are your priorities? Police, fire, library hours, parks available, program cost increase or discontinued?

I'll keep police and fire first. After that, choices.

 

[Phantasmal]

More so because roads are largely paid for by vehicle and fuel use taxes.

On argument against Wilcow is that the rich benefit from not having the poor begging in the streets. Personally I don't see it as a good argument, never mind a slam-dunk as he claimed.

They don't stay in the streets for long and I know you have bullets and a gun, but how many can yo hold off and for how long?

 

[Phantasmal]

It's a crock from the get go. There is no need to defend against the claim that police, firefighting, military, roads, etc. are socialist. Socialism is control of economic assets. The things liberals, in their desperate attempt to defend their socialist leanings, try to claim are socialist are not economic assets, and therefore do not fall under the definition of socialist programs. They are part of the basic infrastructure within which society as a whole, including the economy, operate.

in short, liberals who claim police (etc.) are socialist are either lying about it (if they know the definition of socialism) or are too ignorant to bother listening to.

Of note, though, is how liberals have, in large part, finally stopped denying their intents are socialist. I guess we gotta give them credit for finally owning up to that much.

Are you sure you know the full definition?

 

[DamnYankee]

They don't stay in the streets for long and I know you have bullets and a gun, but how many can yo hold off and for how long?

I was harassed by a bum once at a stop light and all I had to do was tell him that I had one and he backed right off. So my answer is "for a long enough time for the light to turn green".

 

[Phantasmal]

I was harassed by a bum once at a stop light and all I had to do was tell him that I had one and he backed right off. So my answer is "for a long enough time for the light to turn green".

ahahahahaha, you are funny!

 

[DamnYankee]

ahahahahaha, you are funny!

True story though. New York City, 1982, in a 1966 Mustang with my future wife sitting in the seat beside me.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

No, it's not. In all likelihood your municipality has begun to make 'hard choices' now or will be soon. They've different plans they will have to choose to implement if revenues continue to fall or stagnate where they are.

Which are your priorities? Police, fire, library hours, parks available, program cost increase or discontinued?

I'll keep police and fire first. After that, choices.

Well that's a very good point but what does that have to do with calling a government service "socialism"?

 

[Annie]

Well that's a very good point but what does that have to do with calling a government service "socialism"?

Mott, on another thread titled something about why vote Republican? While I don't always and am less likely to do so in the future, the reason someone without a top paying job or money in the bank might choose to do so is that there is a basic ideal that government should make the types of choices that we do. Prioritize, first things first. I pay my mortgage first, utilities second, taxes on time. Now I'd really like some furniture, I really need it. However, too bad for now.

There are services that the government must supply, local is easiest to address and understand. It's imperative to have police and fire when needed. Safe water from tap. Sewage that goes where it's supposed to and doesn't come back with heavy rains. Roads that don't swallow cars.

Libraries are great, I think every town should have one, I patronize mine several times a month. I was thrilled 8 years ago to vote for a special assessment to add to collection and addition to the building. It's fabulous, (has won several national awards). Tons of computers, online renewals and holds, etc. For the past couple years now tax revenues have gone down. In order to keep all their staff, (a choice), they have eliminated Fridays to be open. Currently they are open 9-9, but are having to consider shortening those.

The park district too has made cuts and increased fees for programs. Our schools haven't had to make cutbacks, so far. The schools are not where this town wants to see any cuts, though if choice were between police/fire and schools, my guess is the kids would be paying more for athletic and club fees.

Conservatives, at least myself, are not against government, we just don't expect them to keep spending or making bad choices on spending when there isn't money there. We believe that government should be run intelligently, not like they have an unlimited VISA card.

Note special assessment for library I mentioned above. It's paid for in 2012, right out of property taxes, then the % to library reverts to previous amount. I'd expect to see the library ask for an increase in operating expenses. The board is smart enough to know, that people are hurting and are already paying for the special assessment.

The federal government and the State of Illinois should be as responsible as local municipalities. Stop entitlements. Explain what they want, why, and how they want to pay for it, then leave it up to the people.

 

[Canceled2]

No, it's not. In all likelihood your municipality has begun to make 'hard choices' now or will be soon. They've different plans they will have to choose to implement if revenues continue to fall or stagnate where they are.

Which are your priorities? Police, fire, library hours, parks available, program cost increase or discontinued?

I'll keep police and fire first. After that, choices.

In my state with its democratic governor and legislators facing a terrible budget deficit; they always tell the public "you have to agree to these tax increases or people will die and police and fire crews will have to be trimmed down."

The manipulation between "general funds and other funds" has been the sleight of hand used to scare the public into obediantly accepting higher taxes. Without reforming how governments fund their various departments and how budgets are managed combined with more negotiable public union contracts there will never be transparency and honest practices.

 

[Annie]

In my state with its democratic governor and legislators facing a terrible budget deficit; they always tell the public "you have to agree to these tax increases or people will die and police and fire crews will have to be trimmed down."

The manipulation between "general funds and other funds" has been the sleight of hand used to scare the public into obediantly accepting higher taxes. Without reforming how governments fund their various departments and how budgets are managed combined with more negotiable public union contracts there will never be transparency and honest practices.

I'm in a blue state, but a red county. I live in Wheaton, the county seat. Pretty much most of the municipalities in DuPage are well run. Now the county government itself? Some problems, but nothing like Chicago. In fact, the recession has been good for the county, they've really had to reevaluate their priorities. I think the 'wealthy' label on DuPage may be a misnomer, as it's not that folks are so rich, (some are), it's more the absence of poverty for the most part. Also a very educated electorate.

Now the state? A disaster:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2009/1230/Which-states-are-facing-the-worst-budget-deficits-in-2010

Which states are facing the worst budget deficits in 2010?

Many states fell into a fiscal hole in 2009, and continue to lag behind in economic recovery. A look at ten states facing the biggest budget problems in 2010.

By Amanda Paulson, Staff writer
posted December 30, 2009 at 1:20 pm EST

The national economy may be in recovery, but most states haven’t yet hit bottom – and many are already facing massive budget gaps halfway through their fiscal year, despite basing those budgets on dismal forecasts.

“Unless you’re North Dakota, you’re probably a state that has had some degree of difficulty or crisis involving finances,” says Arturo Pérez, a fiscal analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), which released its survey of state budget situations earlier this month. “It’s the worst situation states have faced in decades, perhaps going as far back as the Great Depression in some states.”

The result: furloughs, deep cuts to state programs and services, fee and tax hikes.

“The next couple of calendar years will be some of the worst in terms of the tough choices that elected officials will have to make,” says Scott Pattison, executive director of the National Association of State Budget Officers, adding that the stimulus funds that benefited states will soon be drying up, make the situation even more difficult. “There’s not a lot left to do that aren’t really really tough political choices.”

Heading into 2010, here are some of the states facing the toughest fiscal challenges:...

Illinois. The Land of Lincoln is already facing a budget gap of 16.5 percent through the first five months of this fiscal year, and the outlook for next year – particularly with looming pension payments – is gloomy, with a gap of at least $11 billion...

The gap is now well over $13B and rising.