What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
286 Comments
- poopsybythebay, on 03/15/2009, -22/+124Because today's Republicans are completely unhinged. They have no sense of history, no sense of right and wrong, no sense of the absurdity of their arguments, no sense of logic, no sense of how their deception is playing to the body politic, no sense of decency and above all else they just have NO SENSE.
- Arishia, on 03/15/2009, -12/+76Some conservatives have an alternative to this socialist highway system. They propose to have foreign corporations build and maintain toll roads across America. And, they want to build water systems, and other infrastructure projects, all fully owned and operated by foreign corporations charging whatever they want. No government involvment. Sound crazy? Check out the plan McCain supports called Imagine Arizona.
- novenator, on 03/15/2009, -15/+63Very good read that demonstrates that works projects ARE beneficial, not only to the economy but to improving the infrastructure of the nation.
- trolleyfan, on 03/15/2009, -5/+42And because most people define "good" and "evil" not by some religious laws, or laws of logic, or even any rational thought at all, but by the simple mindless definition: "Good" = Things I do / "Evil" = Things Other People do...
- eco57, on 03/16/2009, -13/+47A government that ensures domestic tranquility, provides for the common defense, and promotes the general welfare of the people is a socialist government by design, no?
- HurricaneDC, on 03/15/2009, -7/+35Very interesting read. I'm not sure if I totally support ALL the current spending our government plans, but I sure as hell support works projects like improving the roads and infrastructure. We gotta get off of coal some time, so we might as well let there be jobs for people to build nuclear power plants and set up smart grids.
- afruff23, on 03/16/2009, -11/+33I agree with the gist of this article. The New Deal and the interstate highway system are both examples of nationalized socialism. People (e.g. Republicans) don't have a leg to stand on when they decry policies as socialism but turn a blind eye to their front yard. Of course, the Republicans don't want you to know that they are not against socialism on a principled basis.
EDIT: And as eco57 points out, the very concept of a government is socialist. - ousthouse, on 03/16/2009, -5/+22Government spending for the sake of creating something for the good of the public is cool with most people.
Raising government spending to "save the economy" is what many people consider insane. - inactive, on 03/16/2009, -8/+24"government cannot build and maintain roads as efficiently as individuals that have a vested interest in keeping the road in good, safe conditions so that their business makes money."
The problem with your argument is that such people don't exist. It wouldn't matter to businesses today if the roads were full of potholes. Businesses don't start caring until something is going to effect their bottom line in the short term. Mortgage backed securities are a great example of this. - ftc08, on 03/16/2009, -4/+19Precisely why I'm annoyed people get all huffy puffy about the term "socialism". They don't realize that pretty much every other advanced country besides the US is "socialist" in some sense. And a lot of them aren't in nearly as deep of a ***** as we are from unregulated greedy capitalism. The Interstate system is the damn definition of socialism if you want to get really technical about it, and you don't hear anyone (besides the ultra-libertarians) complaining about it.
Honestly, a little (key word LITTLE) socialism would do America good. Get the moneygrubbing crooks in charge of some of the vital industries and transfer them to transparent government control. Let's rebrand it something that doesn't spark cold war blind hatred. Let's rename it... "Federal Industry Consolidation".
I've got a feeling this comment will be a warzone. - golm, on 03/16/2009, -6/+20So uh ... I'm a republican and I think "building about 8,000 parks, 40,000 public buildings, 72,000 schools and 80,000 bridges" sounds fantastic.
I also think the interstate system is partly responsible for our dependence on foreign oil, as awesome as it is (btw, it was designed for war, so maybe that's why the republicans you are thinking of love is so much).
But my problem with the article is that it seems to say, "you darn evil republicans like A, which cost $500bn ... therefore you should like B, which also costs $500bn." Like I said, I like B; but I don't necessarily think it was the makings of a stronger economy. I think that's the difference in opinion that's not really being talked about; in lieu of that, there's just a lot of "republicans are evil" talk. That's easy. Try harder. Be thoughtful. - inactive, on 03/16/2009, -3/+15That is so cute how you can say:
"It's folly to predict exactly how the free market would have evolved."
and
"it would have been developed faster and better."
...in consecutive sentences while trying to remain as serious as possible.
But yes, i'm sure our lovely "free market" (read: corporate) internet -- which somehow would have come into existence, despite many business enterprises laughing at the DARPA proposals back in the '60s, even AFTER all the technical plans had been drawn up -- would have been *much* better...
http://www.enigmacurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2007 ... - Shinpah, on 03/16/2009, -3/+15I wish people would understand that government ownership does not equate to socialism. As Marx would say, in a Capitalist state such as the USA, the government exists to serve the Capitalist class; even things that are public works and do not benefit the Bourgeoisie directly would not be considered socialist unless they directly related to changing the means of production
- johnleemk, on 03/16/2009, -2/+14While I agree with the article, there's a false equivalency here. Not all spending is created equal. If I give someone ten bucks to dig a hole and fill it up, is that the same as me giving ten bucks to a local charity? The main criticism of the New Deal is that a lot of the spending was frivolous.
Having said that, I don't agree with the standard Republican criticisms of the New Deal. Some of it was bad, some of it was good. The worst parts were the policies which promoted wage rigidity and propped up monopolies -- but those have nothing to do with government spending. - JenniferInMO, on 03/16/2009, -6/+18@super: so what is it about Socialism that is bad?
- waydee, on 03/16/2009, -0/+11The USA is a mixed economy.
- decatur8r, on 03/16/2009, -2/+13Ok to start with the interstate highway system was created to move military vehicles from one part of the country to the other. something any republican can get behind.
the new deal was designed to help the poor and middle class get through hard times.
something that doesn't seem to concern the GOP - JenniferInMO, on 03/16/2009, -8/+19Public highways are falling apart because the damned neocons spent all of our money on setting up a perpetual state of war and neglected our infrastructure.
- inactive, on 03/16/2009, -5/+16Psst: You might want to get off of that "socialist" government-developed internet while you're making your point. It was funded in part by "confiscated" money!
- Gerz1219, on 03/16/2009, -1/+12Did you see that picture at the top of the article? *That's* the road system the private sector came up with.
Private enterprise can't build an adequate road system because everyone wants to pass the buck. It's easier to let someone else build roads, and simply negotiate the tolls. than to lay out massive amounts of money beforehand (and as pointed out in the article, the interstate highway system cost the same as the New Deal). So, nobody built roads.
We know this because roads weren't built.
That's the flaw in your argument -- we know what happened when the government refused to build socialized roads. We wound up with a woefully inadequate infrastructure that stifled commerce. Government made the necessary investment and the economy boomed. Your ideology was proven wrong. - SuperMoses, on 03/16/2009, -2/+13Hence why the Socialist Party is against the bailout. Meanwhile, idiots who simply believe everything rightwing and Libertarian pundits tell them believe the bailout is socialism.
- lemur, on 03/16/2009, -0/+10All economies are
- JenniferInMO, on 03/16/2009, -4/+14@Non: Government having too much power isn't distinctive to Socialism. It has to do with how a particular eco-political system is set up.
Arguably, there is nothing our current President is doing that increases the power of the government, and there is a good deal he is doing to re establish the balance of power between the branches (and hopefully with the states as well). He is going much slower than I would like to see in returning our basic civil liberties, but he is making progress and I have reasonable confidence that he will continue in that direction.
What we had with the past administration, and actually for the past 30+ years was a build up to fascism. In looking at the expansion of the Executive Branch, topped off by the recently released memos it is clear that the neocons morphed our government into a dictatorship. Now, THAT is something to be deeply afraid of. - VitriolAndAngst, on 03/16/2009, -0/+10This point is way too nuanced.
Socialism is anything that doesn't provide for a no-bid cost plus contract for a politically connected corporation. - inactive, on 03/16/2009, -4/+14Way to miss the point.
I was actually mocking you, because if we adhered to your randian dogma, the internet never would have been developed and you wouldn't be able to bitch about "confiscated money" on it, ironically. - AgeofMastery, on 03/16/2009, -2/+12More like build bad roads and overcharge people for using them and they have to pay you anyway if they want to leave their driveway. It would be a monopoly situation unless you think there would be multiple roads running side by side to the same places and I could pick which one to use.
- waydee, on 03/16/2009, -0/+10That's right but there seems to be this misconception that the US is a "capitalist" country as if pure free market capitalism exists.
- Alheithinn, on 03/16/2009, -0/+10You're absolutely right, golm, I would have done better to avoid using the term "Republican" but I wrote this after two days of "Republican" idiocy on Digg regarding Obama's citizenship, the economic crisis and cries of "socialism!" But your point is taken and I will remember in the future to be more careful in my use of terms.
- JigoroKano, on 03/16/2009, -0/+9I looked that up on their website and you are correct.
http://socialistparty-usa.org/statements/
The bailouts perpetuate an unnatural consolidation of wealth. So in their eyes it's very capitalist. - Alheithinn, on 03/16/2009, -0/+9The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways and the Interstate Highway System was authorized by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956[8] – popularly known as the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956 – on June 29. To say it was "largely" and investment in citizen transportation and "entirely" billed as one is not entirely accurate. Initial federal planning for a nationwide highway system began in 1921, when the Bureau of Public Roads asked the Army to provide a list of roads it considered necessary for national defense. This resulted in the Pershing Map.
- JenniferInMO, on 03/16/2009, -2/+11@non: Jobs don't leave because of efficiency, they leave because of an inherent unequal playing field which exists in global commerce. I don't believe in isolationism, but some protections are necessary. We now have corporations doing business in the US, making money, paying no taxes and taking advantage of workers in other countries who work for very little.
That is logical from a corporate standpoint, but not from the standpoint of a population which pays the taxes and allows the company the environment to make money. I urge you to read Obama's "The Audacity of Hope." I know it sounds like a crazy suggestion to someone who is such a free-market ideologue, but he offers up a very pragmatic and out of the box solution to the protectionism vs. free trade push-pull.
In short, he promotes fully free trade, but he does not believe in tax or other incentives for corporations to take jobs overseas. He believes there should be a government-private partnership to retrain workers to keep up with the changes of the free-market. The government involvement is mainly to oversee the changes on a global level and to guide training in the directions of business trends. He sees this as a way to get trained workers to keep up with the direction of the market.
I urge you to read it. It is very different than what I thought were the available options. - JenniferInMO, on 03/16/2009, -1/+10@afruff: I don't disagree with your perspective or the fact that you can view it that way. Actually, it is a pretty good point. But in terms of distinguishing different eco-political systems I think the point you are making would be lost on most people. Hell, the basic concept of Socialism is lost on most people who are afraid of the word.
- decatur8r, on 03/16/2009, -2/+11unlike most republicans you sound like you don't mind spending a little money on the people and infrastructure of our own country.
or maybe you just like parks. - CTK14A, on 03/16/2009, -2/+10I would go so far as to argue that the internet as we know it never could have developed from corporate roots. The concept and its consequences are too damned socialist.
- AgeofMastery, on 03/16/2009, -5/+13Lets have all the roads made by private companies for profit Of course that means that every road would have to be a toll road, just imagine getting hit with a new toll every time you went from one company's road to another...
And libertarians wonder why everyone laughs at them... - JenniferInMO, on 03/16/2009, -2/+10@afruff: so the people screaming "Socialism" are exaggerating? I think eco57's point is that if the Republicans are going to scream Socialism and broaden the term so far it might as well apply to the concept of government in general. Argumentum ad absurdum.
- JenniferInMO, on 03/16/2009, -3/+11They totally neglected infrastructure to fight those wars. And they are already trying to rewrite history with respect to both wars. Such nonsense. I am glad President Obama is starting to take steps to establish some transparency. Hopefully, we will come to expect it and shout bloody murder the next time fascist war mongers regain power.
- inactive, on 03/16/2009, -3/+11Forget what the other guy said. What you said is true the government cannot build roads as well as the market could.
The real problem is there is no way to allow the market to work well with roads. The barriers to entry are too high for a free-market aproach to ever allow competition. The nature of roads and highways is one that lends itself universally to natural/technical/last mile monopoly. Thus, the thinking goes that in this case it would be better to vest the power into the hands of the government to run the monopoly, rather then individuals.
BTW that's not the "lefty" argument, that's Milton Friedmans. - DougChristian, on 03/16/2009, -2/+10See, you're argument is what the article is talking about. $48 billion for roads is good, all the rest is evil? The point is, you're willing to accept government spending for things that are important to society ("socialism") in at least one form. Maybe there are more things than roads that are important to society and worth our investment (education, healthcare, energy, etc). And maybe the attitude that government spending on anything that isn't roads is evil communism is not helpful.
- inactive, on 03/16/2009, -1/+9RonPauls: There are many parts of the world where the government, despite their propaganda, isn't actually in charge. You'll notice that, in these parts of the world, the quality of roads falls off rather dramatically.
- Danial, on 03/16/2009, -6/+14Honestly, I wished Eisenhower placed a stronger emphasis on improving public transport and implementing high speed rail like Japan did.
- JenniferInMO, on 03/16/2009, -2/+9"As much as I crticize profligate war spending, Democrat and Republican alike have ignored these needs during that time, so don't pin the shoddy state of our infrastructure on one party or one President."
I made no statement as to who was responsible for the neglect, but your 30 year mark sounds about right. The policies of neglect for our infrastructure started with Reagan and no one paid much attention to maintenance much less improvement or expansion until now. The neocons are mostly responsible. But they really came into power with Bush/Cheney.
During the past 8 years when it became evident that our infrastructure was failing horribly the Bush Administration chose not to do anything. Even after tragedies of Katrina and the collapsed bridges highlighted the issue nothing ever happened. But they had no problem getting us into perpetual war and dependence on the war profiteers who robbed our treasury as badly as the bankers. - Alheithinn, on 03/16/2009, -1/+8You're opposed to people having retirements? Really?
- Alheithinn, on 03/16/2009, -7/+14One would think!
- uRmyHartBstopR, on 03/16/2009, -1/+8Damn Commies. I need those cheap labor so I can get cheap shoes. Can't even brag anymore about a lil girl lost her finger making these Nikes. Now I need think up new lines to start a conversation. You think "Hi, these shoes are not made by child labor," is a good conversation starter? Hell no.
- pingveno, on 03/16/2009, -1/+8What's so bad about the government deciding how a city is going to be structured? It's better to have a well planned city than just letting everyone randomly build wherever it's convenient. Governments can screw things up but millions of individuals would be worse.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 03/16/2009, -1/+8The wealthy use roads but not public schools.
Therefore, the talking shills attack whatever doesn't benefit the ownership class.
Socialism is anything that doesn't benefit them -- and the only thing worse than the self-serving nature of the overcompensated in this country, is the morons who are barely middle class and are constantly defending them.
Time to bite the hand that feeds you if it's the same one that has been beating you like a dog. Have some self-respect. - VitriolAndAngst, on 03/16/2009, -1/+8After we pull ourselves out of this great depression with public works projects on things like alternative energy -- well, I'm sure the Conservatives will re-write history and explain our success with the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
Why aren't these wars helping our economy? Maybe because wars don't help make things better or improve infrastructure. - AZRoboto, on 03/16/2009, -2/+9The interstate down the road from my house is currently only two lanes. This is in the suburbs of Phoenix, by the way, one of the nation's booming spots. TWO LANES. It is being widened to 4 along a ten mile stretch. And now thanks to the stimulus, that length is going to be extended to fifteen miles.
My point being, it helps the lives of the people around that interstate, too. I drive 30+ miles to school 4 days a week. No matter what time of day hitting that choke point is a constant pain in the ass. Wider freeway = happier me.
Plus, it's about time the freeway system gets some serious funds. Freeway development should be done BEFORE a surge in population, not after! - CTK14A, on 03/16/2009, -3/+10Just remember, the bailouts started with Bush. I can't wait to argue the facts for the next presidential, because the attempts to re-write history have already started.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 292 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 