The core problem with socialism that causes such a visceral negative reaction from the poor is not the Socialist. The Socialist is certainly no help but the core problem is that the any human with a shred of dignity can smell the stence of paternalism on Socialism from a long way off. It is an assault on that dignity to say or imply that you are going to take care of an adult human of able body and mind. Orwell is wrong people will not choose a life with bread to eat even if they have nothing else. Men and women want to strive, to struggle, to succeed. The poor often have a sense that the cards are stacked against them that somehow the playing field is not level. They most certainly want it leveled but they don't want to be given healthcare, they want to be able to earn healthcare. If the candidates could work out a plan to give America's less fortunate dignity and a road to success they would eat it right up. But that is not what they do. Out of an arrogant Messianic vision or a foolish pandering they tell the people we will save you. What they should say is you can save yourselves and we will be on your side.

If the government wants to be on our side they can stop the lobby influences that make health insurance unaffordable, and, unavailable to persons with pre-existing conditions. If the government wants to be on our side they can use OUR tax dollars to provide safe roads and bridges, not wage an unnecessary war. If the government wants to be on our side they can federally back low-cost student loans for that young people can afford a college education. If the government wants to be on our side they can use OUR tax dollars to rebuild and improve inner city and poor rural schools.

There are a lot of things government could have done had they been on our side. They were not, and did not. They were on the side of corporate America, not the people of America.

"Socialism … has about it something inherently distasteful—something that drives away the very people who ought to be flocking it its support."

i think orwell had it right. socialists treat people like sheep hence the reference to flocking.

'If the government wants to be on our side they can use OUR tax dollars to rebuild and improve inner city and poor rural schools.'

that could also buy me that new fishing boat i've had my eye on if they weren't spending all that money in iraq.

"If the candidates could work out a plan to give America's less fortunate dignity and a road to success they would eat it right up."

Thats describing the old Roosevelt New Deal, which in the end was defended by Nixon against upper class 'faux' liberals, college radicals, who wanted sexual ,liberty not family oriented social security they themselves did not need or want.

"But that is not what they do. Out of an arrogant Messianic vision or a foolish pandering they tell the people we will save you."

Except they don't, they continoue to focus on their sexual issues, mostly oppressing heterosexual white men so far as I can see the past forty years..and right wing, upper class financial politics, unrestrained capitialism.

@ blueskies The New Deal was not about giving people an opportunity to have their own road to success. A useless ditch digging job with the CCC is the opposite of what I am talking about.

@ entj So you should be able to live you life without health insurance get cancer then be essentially be given health insurance and someone who has been responsibly paying premiums their whole life should have to pay for it? Thief

irvingchang:

"Socialism … has about it something inherently distasteful—something that drives away the very people who ought to be flocking it its support."

i think orwell had it right. socialists treat people like sheep hence the reference to flocking.

you fail to draw a distinction btw socialism and communism. congrats. you have the understanding of the two ideas that a high school student should have, and you get it wrong.

socialism does not equal communism. but you've been indoctrinated well. so well that you totally lose the message that Orwell tries to bring. Then again, i have to say, or rather, ask, have you ever read orwell?

oh yeah i have. and whenever a dem runs their yap it sounds like double plus newspeak to me.

Comportment is right. And Americans are stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid. Feh.

Ah, Confetti. You make no arguments that can be met with the cold bright steel of intelligent counter-argument. Thus I am reduced to the ad hominem. You call Americans stupid. Some are some aren't. You sir however certainly are.

Your arguments are as silly and insubstantial as you nom de plume.

irvingchang:

oh yeah i have. and whenever a dem runs their yap it sounds like double plus newspeak to me.

good job. double plus newspeak. kinda like habeous corpus that doesn't exist. exonerate yourself. please.

i was thinking more like campus speech codes, hate speech laws, zero tolerance policies and the other goodies brought to us by hyper sensitive liberals.

for example the banning of stephen foster songs at the local school districts because those tunes might offend some dusky person somewhere.

confetti:

Comportment is right. And Americans are stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid. Feh.

retard.

irvingchang:

i was thinking more like campus speech codes, hate speech laws, zero tolerance policies and the other goodies brought to us by hyper sensitive liberals.

for example the banning of stephen foster songs at the local school districts because those tunes might offend some dusky person somewhere.

please. like scarecrow arguments work on me. why don't you sit through a class in how to argue. you'll learn a lot about how you're a dumbass and how all ur arguments are about how you feel and how you feel afterwards. retard.