Tony Auth by Tony Auth

Tags: Be the first to tag this comic!

Comments (66) Jump to Comments Form

nomad2112 said, 3 months ago

Does Auth have a clue about the government set up by our Founding Fathers?
HUMPHRIES said, 3 months ago

nomie, you bet he does. What happened to you ?
Harrison_Bergeron said, 3 months ago

No, of course not. You pledged your lives, fortunes, and sacred honor so that looting, parasitic, criminal filth could rob the citizens blind and subjugate them under a totalitarian regime, reducing them to the status of government-owned livestock.
Harrison_Bergeron said, 3 months ago

Seriously though, why is it so hard for left-wingers to comprehend that there really ARE millions upon millions of Americans who genuinely do NOT want the government to own them and their lives?

O well, I guess this is just another example of the complete and total role reversal of the two main political factions in this country. Those who once insisted that protest and dissent were vital aspects of a free society have changed their tune now that THEY are the ones in power.

And, of course, vice-versa.
ynnek58 said, 3 months ago

Is Tony Auth suggesting socialism is good? Cleaver – it’s worked so well everywhere else it’s been tried (Cuba anyone? USSR? N. Korea? Venezuela? China before they went capitalist?). Oh, I forgot – Our socialism is going to be different, it’s going to work THIS time…not! You’d have to be an idiot or amoral to think that robbing others to pay for what you want is OK! Recent survey indicated something like 50% of the people questioned didn’t even know the government got its money from the people lol – these people vote. Look no further for the problem; we have seen the enemy and it is us!
HUMPHRIES said, 3 months ago

Harry - career military man. Should have been conservative enough … but at this point in life government elements, Army & VA have proved much more reliable and trustworthy than the majority of bankers, lawyers or insurance reps I’ve had contact with. Wonder how many others there are with the same feelings ?
meowdam said, 3 months ago

They were called the “rabble” back then , nothing new here , move along ……
hoyacougar said, 3 months ago

Auth is not arguing for a health plan here; he is arguing that it is a waste of democracy for one side to try and shout down the other rather than listen and negotiate.

Socialism is not an either/or proposition. It’s a matter of how much gov’t is good. No one is suggesting we emulate Cuba or North Korea. I don’t see Canadians, Swedes, Danes and others with more socialistic policies than the US complaining about the yoke of gov’t making them feel like gov’t livestock.

We have rationed health care now. I had to wait 3 months for my last appt with a specialist. Tough to imagine change being any worse.
BOB HASTY said, 3 months ago

Nomad has forgotten tthat his rich friends and corporatist oligarchs would do anything to fog over our founders’ intentions to rid this country of the kind of class warfare in which the private health care industry is in currently.
The VA and Army health care programs are recognized as the GOLD STANDARD against which all private insurance fail. Ronald Reagan made it possible for his wealthy friends to gain 25% of every health care dollar. True patriots will always take up the fight against this tyranny!!
DrCanuck said, 3 months ago

I am a socialist Canadian and I don’t feel I’ve been “robbed blind and subjugated under a totalitarian regime, reduced to the status of government-owned livestock.”

(Harrison follows that lovely intro with “Seriously though.” After that, I doubt if anyone will ever take him seriously again. :)
harleyquinn said, 3 months ago

“We are Americans and we have a right to disagree.”
Gary Kleppe said, 3 months ago

What everybody here is ignoring is that the idiots screaming against government health care aren’t a spontaneous grass roots uprising. They’re orchestrated by people who are making big bucks off the current system and don’t want to give any of it up.

And for those who insist that government-run health care is evil, will you be saying no to Medicare when you’re old enough to qualify for it? Didn’t think so.
DrCanuck said, 3 months ago

Satipera: True dat.
Gretta Germroth said, 3 months ago

Yeah - Medicare is SO great, then why don’t they pay for anything? And everything is so tied up in red tape you can forget about collecting from them. I work for a PT and we can’t afford to take many medicare patients. And most health insurances are non-profit anyway. The VA works here in Maryland, my husband goes there, but the quality of care in other areas of the country sucks. Nothing the government ets involved in doesn’t involve graft & corruption.
oldlegodad said, 3 months ago

Gretta, I have used the MD VA,(Easton) why are they so much better organized and available than Virginia?
hoyacougar said, 3 months ago

Gary, that was the point of my first paragraph. Auth is not taking sides here on the healthcare debate or socialism; he’s pointing out how undemocratic it is to have an orchestrated campaign that goes around the country shouting down town hall discussions and then points to those town halls as evidence that the people are against reforming health care.
striper77 said, 3 months ago

The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that not only are Obama’s disapproval ratings soaring but support for his health care plan is now less than 49 percent, a new low.

Could it be because the radically liberal administration of Barack Hussein Obama is lying to Americans and will take their health care away just to save the future of the Democrats agenda? – At issue is are Obama’s promises that people who are happy with their current health insurance can keep it. That’s a claim contradicted by FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan consumer advocacy group at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center.

With the help of his partners-in-crime Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid – is trying to FORCE Americans to accept socialized health care like Canada and Europe…
ReFlex-76 said, 3 months ago

No one will be forced into any “socialized health care” if they are fine with their private provider. That’s the whole point of the Public OPTION: give people more choices, thus more freedom.

Speaking of FactCheck.org, in their own words:

No, it won’t be “Canada-style”:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/canadian-straw-man/

No, there’s no “kill the elderly” (really?!) plot:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/false-euthanasia-claims/

No, your premiums won’t double:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/cpr-administers-bad-facts-again/
hoyacougar said, 3 months ago

from the front page of factcheck.org: But the health care bills moving through Congress don’t call for a single-payer system like Canada’s…

Striper: your attempt to spread false ‘facts’ are the reason for the declining #s and you are doing us all a disservice.
WestTex13 said, 3 months ago

Reflex -I think what some are trying to say is with the cost, expenditure and competitiveness will be damaged by a public option. Companies will buy into a less expensive plan with poor coverage if it costs them less money than a private option.

I know there was discussion of Medicaid/Medicare cuts to fund the program which isn’t a problem as long as all funds are channeled into the new program (without being partial diverted. Ye old pork barrel service) and the current quality of service is not reduced.

Personally I am for Insurance Company Reform, Tort Reform, Pharmaceutical Price Reduction but I having experienced governmental sub-standard health care, I sincerely doubt it will be a quality program based on their VA track record. Fortunately my company provides insurance so I can see a private practitioner and I would hate to be put back in an environment where I am once again on regulated health care. Of course I will approve of any public provided option if all Congress, Senate and Presidental staff members are required to be on the same public option, because then we know it’ll be well don; due to the nature of self-interest..
iamthelorax said, 3 months ago

Reflex: I would take the word “Option” with a grain of salt.

Usage of the plan might be optional, but for practical purposes, payment into the plan won’t be. An insurance program can’t be financially sustained if it’s mostly comprised of un-insurable people who already have expensive needs and people who can’t afford insurance.

The money needs to come from somewhere, and it would mostly come from people who aren’t on the plan….assuming of course, that there would be a choice.

Politicians are politicians, and they will have to answer to angry voters on the plan groaning about how it’s not fair that other people have better coverage.

In Canada, whenever people talk about having access to a private option, there’s a lot of protesters screaming about how it’s unfair and that there’s some kind of evil American movement trying to destroy our universal coverage.

I had heard a bit about this weird “kill the elderly to save money” theory. That is some strange stuff, we tend to get that kind of conspiracy stuff from the opposite side of the argument.
dtroutma said, 3 months ago

I too have found that VA works pretty well given their financial restraints of insufficient budgets for nearly a decade. As to the right wing whiners who’ve never actually READ the Constitution, depending instead on the “Rush condensed version”, we spent decades under the “What’s good for General Motors is good for the USA” model, and now the whole nation, not just GM need bailing out.

Greed, corruption(legalized), and profit are NOT sound foundation for governance, or government. Of the people, by the people, and for the people substituted “corporation” for people, even in a ludicrous Supreme Court decision a long time ago that gave corporations the PRIVILEGES of a person, with NONE of the RESPONSIBILITIES, to include paying taxes the same as a “person”(The wealthiest of those also squeaked in more than a few exemptions.)

Capitalism is an ECONOMIC system, subservient to a system of governance- the “right” has lost track of that. Democracy has room for both capitalists, and “socialists” who see that as a system to care for all, not just the poorest or richest among us, but all. Both reasonable profit, and protection result. It is the Lays, Madoffs, and Cheney’s who lost site of this.
deadheadzan said, 3 months ago

anthony and dtroutma, you are making very important true statements about the phony “grass root protesters” (really hired shills) and the difference of capitalism being a form of economics and not a way of governance.
believecommonsense said, 3 months ago

I appreciate Auth’s toon and commentary on what passes for civil discourse these days. He’s right, this is not what our founders would have envisioned for our great experiment in democracy.
Dypak said, 3 months ago

Harrison_Bergeron said,
Seriously though, why is it so hard for left-wingers to comprehend that there really ARE millions upon millions of Americans who genuinely do NOT want the government to own them and their lives?
——
Why is it so hard for everyone to understand that we already have many socialist programs in all levels of government and that they’ve been there for years. From the US Post Office in competition with UPS to city and municipal hospitals and clinics. We already HAVE the government involved in health care. Obama just wants to make it more efficient and cover everyone.

I live in a small town. When I go to the doctors office there is always some young couple who can’t pay for their kids medicine. Or some older couple, not on medicare yet, who can’t pay for insulin. People are dieing folks, and you argue about the socialist boogeyman.

You folks lived through George Bush and Dick Cheney. How can you be afraid of Obama? Does it even look like he’s worried about running for reelection? I’m sure he will. But as was posted above, his poll numbers are falling. Is he backpedaling? Not yet, as far as I can tell he’s working just as hard as ever to get his programs done. Grow up. Quit being afraid of the scary black man and face the facts, he’s working hard to get America back on track.
fennec said, 3 months ago

Dypak, YES. Thanks for a pragmatic comment that gets to the bone of the matter.
ynnek58 said, 3 months ago

A democracy can have both free market folk and socialists, but we cannot be free of the effects of choosing socialistic policies (Hyak, The Road To Serfdom). It doesn’t matter whether socialism is forced on you by a party or whether you collectively vote for it, the end results are the same (bad).

Bush was a chump and no example of fiscal conservatism, OK, get over it, but the nonsense going on now on every level is virtually unprecedented (OK Bush started that too, but it doesn’t make it right).

The biggest problem is that 1) the government gets it money from the citizens (a fact that 50% of the populace are ignorant of) and 2) some people think it OK to take the resources of others to pay for what they want or think they deserve – cash for clunkers, proping up someones house that they paid too much for, bailing out a company that had no foresight or engaged in risky practices, or even healthcare.

How I’m I responsible for every mistake every idiot out there makes? Any what gives any of you the right to take my money without my permission (theft buy gun is a crime, but by vote it’s a virtue)? Defense, regulation of commerce, OK there are a few things that the Gov-ment is actually consbleeeputionally authorized to do, but the rest of it is just foolishness in the extreme.

Bottom line is the right and the left are full of nut jobs that want my money.

I work with a bunch of Europeans on the project I’m on and they pay so much in taxes that the below 40 crowd are sill in apartments and have virtually no way of accumulating any wealth – maybe that doesn’t matter to some of you because you want to remain on the government bleeep till you die, but I’d like a little something for myself and my posterity.

Dypak is spot on – I’d like to be free of ALL of this mess and all of these idiots.
ynnek58 said, 3 months ago

And one other short note:

According to CNN and a doctor buddy of mine about 90% of what ails us is preventable. Where is the reward for good behavior? Where is the incentive? If I have to pay do I get control? NO more Micky-Ds, everybody’s got to exercise, hey you lay off that dessert, no smoking drinking, and you, over there, GET THAT CONDOM ON – what are you thinking? Is it going to get to that? Perhaps this government health care might just work…. if we introduce involuntary neutering, yeah! that’s the ticket… just saying…
cabrobst said, 3 months ago

The wealthy few never change. The Republicans would take us back to the dark ages of bigotry and make themselves our kings if they could.
striper77 said, 3 months ago

Anthony 2816 & Cabrobst,

Everything you have stated I have seen the democrats do. I think you are looking at bass backwards or you have eaten some mushrooms or have on rose colored glasses.

It is the democrats that go after your inalienable rights. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Anthony 2816 said, 3 months ago

Striper, you’re either a compulsive liar or a paid Republican shill (and they’re wasting their money, given how many people you push away). Or both, come to think of it.

The ACLU protects your inalienable rights. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Yet you hate them for doing so.

Did you hate them for protecting Rush Limbaugh?
longtimecomicsfan said, 3 months ago

And yet, it was the Republican president that sent his attorneys before the Supreme Court to argue that he had the power to designate U.S. citizens as “illegal enemy combatants” by memo, detaining them indefinitely without charges of criminal activity or court trial.

Eliminating the legislature (no charges of breaking any laws) and the courts (no trials to establish guilt or innocence) leaves only the power of dictator to imprison and execute enemies.

The current tactic of sending groups of belligerents to shout down public discourse amounts to little more than employing groups of Nazi thugs, some of whom are doubtless at work even in comic strip forums today.
striper77 said, 3 months ago

Anthony stated The ACLU protects your inalienable rights. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The ACLU is not protecting any of my rights. They are only fighting for the liberal side. Homosexuals, child molesters, tree huggers, fur huggers, bestiality, green peace, gay parades, etc. You get the general idea.

It was not to long ago in one of the states a library had a video with nude children in a sexual nature. It appears their was some outcry of the citizens due to the library having this video. It got to the police and they went to the home owner and took this video from them which was illegal to have.
The ACLU turned around and sued. I am not sure of the amounts.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that I am speaking about is to be done in a morally and good character.

I am not with the ACLU and the liberals with their agenda:
Child molesters keep on being child molesters
Bestiality participants keep on practicing
Homosexuals keep on being a homosexual
Aids carrier keep on having sex
Child porn keep on producing
NAMBLA keep on being NAMBLA
Al Qaeda Muslim terrorists keep on blowing up buildings and American citizens (just not their buildings and people)
Porn keep it rolling
Prostitutes keep working
Call Girls stay in business
You get the general idea
WestTex13 said, 3 months ago

Actually during the formative years our forefathers screamed and yelled while in parlimentary process quite a bit and there was even a case where one representative took his cane to another.. So technically we’re exactly what they envisioned..

Anthony 2816 - I am more of the opinion that nothing or no one defends a persons right except oneself. Every government liberal or conservative can turn on its people.. Hence the Right to Firearms.. It wasn’t designed by our forefathers for hunting applications.. Thats a very new twist.. It was put there so that if the American people ever became so opprossed by their own government becoming too tyranical then they would have the tools at their disposal to fight that injustice.. The American people are the watchdogs who must preserve the integrity of the American design. Not merely the Air Force, Marines, Navy, Army, Nation Guard or Police Forces operated by the government.

Sorry to interrupt.. Please continue..
striper77 said, 3 months ago

Longtimecomicsfan stated And yet, it was the Republican president that sent his attorneys before the Supreme Court to argue that he had the power to designate U.S. citizens as “illegal enemy combatants” by memo, detaining them indefinitely without charges of criminal activity
or court trial.

If my memory serves me correctly this was attempted due to the terrorists attack. He was trying to single out potential terrorists in order to make the country saver.

Obama is doing the same thing but completely opposite. He is putting all the conservatives on the homeland security watch list. I am hearing more about it everyday.
Just today I read that anyone whom opposes the obamacare are being put on a list.

The difference on this is he is doing it for political reasons and the hope of keeping himself and the democrats in office.

In summary if Bush did what you stated it was for the protection of the country.
If Obama is doing what is being stated on numerous conservative web sites, e-mails and mailers. Obama is doing it only for personally gain.
Karl Marx said, 3 months ago

The production of too many useful things results in too many useless people.
WestTex13 said, 3 months ago

We lost alot of freedoms under Bush… I don’t approve with everything that has passed and most certainly will pass.. I do not feel more secure when the government grows in power and scope.. I merely realize that they have increased their ability to take everything away if they so choose.. The best government is one that governs least.. Set the guidelines and rules in place and don’t change them for a pork barrel payoff.. Laws can’t resolve everything.. Maybe its time for the American people to buck up and focus on self-responsibility for awhile instead of always finding a scapegoat..
Anthony 2816 said, 3 months ago

Socialism is what every government does…it protects society.

Police, fire, health, mail, national parks, roads…it’s all socialism.

Regulations protecting consumers from corporations? Socialism. Don’t want it? What would you do instead? Just get squashed? Take it to court? Guess what…the courts are just another part of our government. All you’ve done is remove prevention (which you call socialism aka regulations) and replace it with treatment, which is rarely a better solution.

Should American who find their home on fire embrace socialism and call the fire department?

Should American who find their home burglarized embrace socialism and call the police department?

Should American who find a family member having a heart attack embrace socialism and call an ambulance?

Or should we all just reject “socialism” and go it alone?

Why do Republicans hate society?
WestTex13 said, 3 months ago

I am going to discuss some points back and forth here.. I believe certain aspects of Socialism are necessary. It is important to avoid Totalitarianism at all costs.. Though what your calling socialism Anthony 2816 isn’t true Socialism despite having socialistic based items. I do prefer to avoid true socialism because when the government truely takes over you have officials who are not invested in an area making decisions that do not apply to them in most cases.

Now does true Socialism work or does it only fail because of Partial Socialism? Historical true socialism and its offshoots work for a short time and then fail.. Even the first immigrants to America tried it and it failed horribly.. Now our partial socialistic agenda moderately works in some areas and works well in others..

Lets look at agenda items:

Police - I feel they serve a purpose but fall short of that purpose and hence are limited. I would prefer to not have Federal Government Law Enforcement given jurisdiction over all levels of legal matters in the US. Our partial system doesn’t really work because if it did then we wouldn’t have gated communities and independent security which is far more effective.. IF and I repeat IF you can afford these luxuries.. Which is the downside to this provision. In Thailand they actually hire off duty officers to patrol neighborhood and business sectors (Everyone chips in to pay a salary) to provide real protections because normal police availability is limited and ineffective.. Only thing I can recall them being good at is issuing my “right to speed as I see fit” tax.. ;) (Note I’m a highway speeder.. I really detest people who speed in residential zones..) I’m sure they help someone but we have no use for them in my community, because by the time they arrive the problem is resolved.

Firefighter - Hmm thats a mixed bag.. I appreciate the fire department but they are severely limited, partially because of funding and there are political matters involved as well.. We had a big fire out here many companies and houses burning, right up to my property line.. They couldn’t stop it an were letting alot of it burn. Only thing they tried to do was stop us from entering our property.. We persisted grabbed the APR units, fired up the backhoes, cleared a multi-acre fire break, including smaller ones for several neighbors, ran out irrigation pipe and controlled the spread of the burn zone so they could focus on the primary fires.. If we relied just on the fire department we would have lost everything.. So do we believe in just relying in the tax payer dollar? No.. We expect to take care of things ourselves.. Its just the way we do things here.. It helps but hardly effective for most people..

Mail.. I don’t even remember the last time I used anything that involved the Federal Post Office.. Long lines and lots of annoyance are all I can recall.. Enough private shipping services that save you alot of money over the federal service exist.. They come to my door.. Its easy and convienent.. Now there was a time when the post office was nice but it seems to have grown bulky, unwieldy and cost ineffective.. So I have no real use for it.. That and the digital age is truely limiting the government ran snail mail service..

Roads now that is something we have alot of in Texas and if not for the government they would be in bad shape…. So I have to go with 2816 on this one too.. We need to contribute to keep our roads safe and in good condition. Its the backbone of safety, commerce and public access.

National Parks, here I’m split. The care and cost of privatization versus the public option leaves alot of room for debate and I could be swayed both ways..

Regulation, I believe should be in place and very limited.. Trust busting is a good thing.. Our trends of bailing companies out and them writing bonuses cause the bailout made them profitable.. I find that abhorrent.. You shouldn’t reward people for failing.. Bonuses are for when a company makes profits and earns them.. Set the guidelines and as long as they are not broken then leave them alone.. It should provide the opportunity for anyone who is willing to work to have the American Dream..

Court system would be great if it were based on guilt and getting to the justice part of an issue.. Instead we have someone paid to prove someone is guilty and someone paid to prove they’re innocent no matter what it takes.. In the end very few people get justice and alot of them get the shaft.. Money talks and justice walks.

As far as ambulances go there are Public and Private hospitals so calling an ambulance is only socialistic depending on who you call.. Umm no don’t treat me I’d like the social option please.. ;)

Socialism has a place.. In very tight moderation.. I believe communities coming together and private sector inferrence can promote more common good if we work together rather than having someone thousands of miles away looking as a zoning map and making allocations which is in the end how socialism works and why I am generally against it..
churchillwasright said, 3 months ago

There is a misconception by some that the police and fire dept’s are somehow a socialist concept. They are not.

These concepts began when people of a town got together and decided to pay people to provide these services. There is nothing socialist about that. This payment eventually became part of taxes.

As a homeowner, if I pay a gardener to work around my house, that is not socialism. If I am part of a homeowners association, we agree to pay gardeners to work on all our properties, that is also not socialist. If the homeowners assoc down the block comes to us and says their owners can’t afford their gardeners, and takes money from my association to do so, then that’s socialism.

If my neighbor’s barn is on fire, but he is poor and hasn’t paid taxes, should my paid fire dept put out his fire? They better, because it could spread to the rest of the town, therefore it is in the self interest of the taxpaying community. There is nothing altruistic about that. Nor socialist.
DrCanuck said, 3 months ago

Time and again, folk mindlessly repeat “socialism has failed all over the world wherever it’s been tried.” Could I get all these examples, please? Or even some? (Communism doesn’t count.)
fennec said, 3 months ago

church, could you explain how what you’re describing is not socialism? And do you really believe that one only works through self-interest? Check out the work done on Capuchin monkeys by de Wals and Brosnan. They find that even monkeys have a sense of fairness and will act on that, even to personal disadvantage.
Anthony 2816 said, 3 months ago

Police: Do we really want many variations of private police forces? Think Blackwater in Iraq.

Fire: It’s the government providing a service. It’s socialism.

Mail: My government-provided mail service is great. I get delivery 6 days a week (vs 5 in Canada). For things requiring signatures, or large packages, they ring my doorbell. For outgoing mail and packages, I just leave it in or near my mailbox. I haven’t set foot in the post office in over two years. Socialism works fine in this regard.

Corporations: I’m all for government controls. Would you really rather trust the benevolence of the pharmaceutical companies than the FDA? Do you believe, as we were promised by the tobacco companies, that cigarettes are harmless? Were all those Wall Street companies acting in our best interest once regulation was removed?

Church, re-read what you wrote about HOAs, and then read the definition of socialism. Realize that HOAs are part of the deeds of the relevant property, and are therefore part of the government.
churchillwasright said, 3 months ago

You are equating a service hired and paid for by a community to socialism. It is not. You are also saying that all government is socialism. It is not. Please go back to school.

Let me try to explain this another way to you. You say “It’s the government providing a service. It’s socialism.” I suppose if you are a non-tax paying citizen, you would think of everything as socialistic, government provided service. For those of us that pay taxes, the government (hypothetically) works for US. We don’t work for THEM. WE set up the govt and elect the people to represent us and oversee how OUR TAX MONEY is spent and on what programs. That is a representative government, not a socialist one. Everyone lives in a society, not every society is socialistic.
Anthony 2816 said, 3 months ago

From dictionary.com: 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.

Does not the government own and control the fire department?

By your non-dictionary definition, it’s obvious that you disagree with the conservatives that national health care is socialism.
fbrewer said, 3 months ago

Back to Mr Auth’s original point - I’ve heard/seen quite a few from the far right claiming that the astroturf protests are simply bleeep for tat. They’re just doing what the liberals (there’s that word) did when they protested for civil rights or against the war in Viet Nam. I suppose they have a point, so it seems only fair that they receive the same response those liberals did - e.g. the civil rights protesters in Mississippi and Alabama and the Viet Nam protesters at Kent State in Ohio. I expect a few lynchings would be a little extreme, but they surely wouldn’t object if a Republican governor called out the National Guard to maintain order. Oh, wait. That probably wouldn’t work, either. The National Guard is probably on assignment in Iraq. Dang!
churchillwasright said, 3 months ago

ANTHONY:
Are you dense or what? The govt doesn’t own the Fire Dept– the people do. To use the FD analogy, in every town I’ve ever lived in, if the FD wanted another fire truck, there were open town meeting to decide if it were needed and how it was to be paid for (disclaimer: I also lived in NYC, and their gov’t is so unwieldy I don’t know what the process is there). In any case, we live in a representative govt. If our representative don’t listen to the will of the people, they will be out of a job. Under a socialist society, the govt just decides carte blanch to buy it.

Just because you think you have little or no voice in the decision, doesn’t mean you live in a socialist society. Likewise, just because you “own” the firetruck doesn’t mean you can ask for the keys to it.

There is another problem with your definition. If you read a little further down, it is explained again, with a little more clarity for dopes that didn’t understand it the first time:

“Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy”

The FD is not a means of production or distribution of goods… to control the economy. Nor is it a “means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc” (from your original posting)

That is the reason for the uproar concerning the govt takeover of the auto industry, because that DOES fit the definition of socialism: it is the collective ownership of the govt of the means of production and distribution of goods (cars) in a plan to control the economy.

I hope I have explained the difference. Once you grasp the definition of what socialism is, then we can have a discussion of whether a govt takeover of HC (which is 20% of the economy) is socialist or not.
Anthony 2816 said, 3 months ago

Church: “The govt doesn’t own the Fire Dept– the people do.”

So you claim that the fire department isn’t part of the local government??? Is that really what you want to say?

Church, the “town meeting” is part of the local government. Are you really that oblivious to that?

Regarding your attempted dissection of the dictionary definition of socialism: Consider our military forces. To paraphrase your words: The military is not a means of production or distribution of goods. Do you therefore claim that the military is not owned and run by the central government?

And since you apparently missed this question, I’ll ask it again: “By your non-dictionary definition, it’s obvious that you disagree with the conservatives that national health care is socialism.” True?
churchillwasright said, 3 months ago

ANTHONY: I have abandoned my trying to explain to you that the govt does not own the FD, people do.

I am now concentrating of the dictionary definition of socialism– which you pointed out by the way. I am not dissecting it– it is an accurate definition of socialism. The FD does not fit it. Unless you think the FD is a means of production and distibution of goods. End. Of. Story.

As far as the military, you are attempting to equate apples and oranges. There is nothing in the Constituion about a FD. But the military is specifically in the Constitution:The Preamble to the Constitution sets forth the reasons for its establishment. Listed fourth in the list of the six reasons given is to “provide for the common defense.” The third reason is to “insure domestic tranquility.” The final reason given is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Clauses 11, 12, 13, and 14. The Congress shall have power * ;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.

To provide and maintain a Navy.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.

As far as HC: false. re-read the bottom of my last post.
senorbullwinkle said, 3 months ago

REPUBLICAN BROWN SHRIT THUGS ! 6:40 MIN. >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#32292235 >
UPDATE 2:45 MIN. > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#32337799