Zippin Pippin likely to cost half-million more than anticipated

Schmitt said $300,000 in city reserves have been tapped, and he believes private donations will cover the rest of the deficit.

Huh?

Green Bay is awesome. They have their council meetings online.

FinanceDirector, Dawn Foeller, revised the historical information to include sixmonth’s worth of administrative staff and two park staff members formaintenance. The revised Zippin Pippin operating budget now includes the twomanagers as well as a police officer in place of a security guard.

Giventhe changes, Ald. Theisen asked if the ride is stillon track to pay for itself. Ms. Foellerexplained that the addition of a police officer pushes the budget into anegative status. She ran different scenariosusing both a police officer and security guard to account for different hoursof operation.

This struggling small city on the outskirts of Mobile was warned for years that if it did nothing, its pension fund would run out of money by 2009. Right on schedule, its fund ran dry.

Then Prichard did something that pension experts say they have never seen before: it stopped sending monthly pension checks to its 150 retired workers, breaking a state law requiring it to pay its promised retirement benefits in full.

This is very sad. People worked their whole lives for this? There comes a point where excessive spending by the government will lead to this. It sounds like this is the first of many to come...:(

djDaemon said:

RatherGoodBear said:
I'm not sure what you're talking about here, or what you mean by "socialist systems." Basically under a socialist government, the state provides all your needs, but in return, they tell you what you need. You don't have too much say in the matter.

And now you're arguing in absolutes? As in, if I'm suggesting that I don't mind certain governing systems in the US becoming socialized, I suddenly support completely socializing the entire system? We've used socialist programs in this Country for a long time, mostly to good effect.

Here are some of my experiences with traveling to and speaking with people who lived or came from socialist countries.

So what? Do you honestly think that you wouldn't hear similar stories about life here in the US? In other words, anecdotal evidence is completely irrelevant.

First of all, it's becoming more and more obvious that you know nothing about what socialism is. There is a big difference between the common good and socialism. Having government build and maintain roads is not socialism, or a "socialized system" no matter how much you want to believe it. The population decided voluntarily that if would be more beneficial to all people if roads were constructed and maintained by government entities so they could be used by everyone. Until this was done, in order to travel along a road that passed through a person's land, you needed his permission to do so. Even if you received permission, "his" road may not have been suitable in condition or width to handle whatever you were driving, riding, or leading.

Even though the Feds, states, counties or towns "own" the roads, in our system, they must compensate any owner for any land taken to be used for roads. Even under eminent domain, which is mentioned in the Constitution, taking without fair compensation is not allowed. Under a socialist system, the state already owns the land, so tough ****, they can take what they want with no compensation at all.

Despite your pissing and moaning about absolutes, part of the definition of socialism is that government maintains full or near full control of all economic activity rather than having private enterprise. Not your definition which seems to be that "government" provides everything and pays the cost while you reap the benefits for free.

RatherGoodBear said:
The population decided voluntarily that if would be more beneficial to all people if roads were constructed and maintained by government entities so they could be used by everyone.

How is that any different from...

The population decided voluntarily that if would be more beneficial to all people if health care were provided and maintained by government entities so they could be used by everyone.

...or...

The population decided voluntarily that if would be more beneficial to all people if retirement funds were managed and maintained by government entities so they could be used by everyone.

...or...

The population decided voluntarily that if would be more beneficial to all people if fire control services were provided and maintained by government entities so they could be used by everyone.

...or...

The population decided voluntarily that if would be more beneficial to all people if public safety services were provided and maintained by government entities so they could be used by everyone.

It's all socialism, in that everyone pays in at different amounts (typically determined by how much one earns), and everyone receives the same level of services. You know, for the "common good", as you put it.

I have promised not to create waves to upset the tone. I will strictly answer your question/assertion, though it was directed at Bear.

In Marxist/Lenin theory socialism is merely a step to full communism. Socialism comes after capitalism. There are obviously different forms/types of socialism, but a Marxist/Lenin believer would argue that all these forms are merely stages to the ultimate outcome, which is communism. Khruschev famously said "we will bury you without firing a shot."

Your assertion that the above are all forms of socialism, which I agree with, are inevitable realities to the progression to a Marxist. Remember this is a theory...

Some will argue that there is no progression and that socialism can stand on its own without evolving to communism. Too much to get into.

A capitalist will argue that the COST of socialism/communism is unsustainable. A capitalist will point to the fall of the USSR and the current state of Europe, and recently our own country's debt problems as proof that massive socialist programs are unsustainable and in the end, lead to more misery.

We've heard the saying that there is no good form of government. What this really means is that regardless of system there will ALWAYS be an unfair distribution of resources. There is an never-ending debate between capitalist and socialist as to which system is superior.

The question is what do the majority of Americans' believe? No doubt we have collectively handed over many responsibilities (army, roads, etc) to government voluntarily. For some of your examples above this is not so clear. Did the majority of American's voluntarily hand healthcare to the government, or was this passed against our will? Do the majority of Americans' want government control of retirement? Etc...

Isn't the will of the people expressed through the election of public officials? Isn't that the whole point of democracy? What they do once they're in office is only accountable to the people at the next election cycle.

ApolloAndy said:
Isn't the will of the people expressed through the election of public officials? Isn't that the whole point of democracy? What they do once they're in office is only accountable to the people at the next election cycle.

Not necessarily. What if I agree with said politician on issues A, B and D but not on issues C and E. I still vote for him because he most represents my opinions.

Maybe you agree with A, B, C and D but not E. In the end, he's still the candidate that most represent your opinions and you give him the vote.

We both voted for this guy, but his platform includes doing issue E - which is something neither of us agree with. This is exactly how politicians can end up going against majority public will on certain issues.

Lord Gonchar said:
This is exactly how politicians can end up going against majority public will on certain issues.

That's certainly true, but it's still how democracy works, for better or worse.

And really, it's not like health care was that far down Obama's "to do" list. He campaigned very openly and strenuously regarding his position on health care. The argument could be made that it was one of his top 3 priorities. A huge majority voted for him, so it's not unreasonable to assume a majority want universal health care. That informal polls suggest otherwise isn't necessarily an indictment of universal health care in general, but rather an indictment of this implementation of it. I mean, even I would vote "no", "it sucks" or whatever about the current plan, and I'm a huge supporter of socialized health care, when done properly.

djDaemon said:
That's certainly true, but it's still how democracy works, for better or worse.

Exactly.

I mean, even I would vote "no", "it sucks" or whatever about the current plan, and I'm a huge supporter of socialized health care, when done properly.

Sure, but it still means the majority doesn't like it.

The funny thing is I suspect this sort of thing will become a lot worse before it gets any better. With the public seemingly becoming so polarized and politicians becoming more and more middle of the road it's bound to happen a lot where the leaders are doing things that a majority doesn't support.

Hell, it feels like a win anymore if I agree with a candidate 2/3rds of the time.

Sure, but it still means the majority doesn't like it.

But the majority doesn't like what was presented after changes were made, correct? And changes were made to appease politicians on both sides.

Both sides, at this point, are nothing but mouths that yell constantly and get very little done, because none of the politicians care about whats best for the people, only about whats best for them. No one is willing to make a true compromise, because heaven forbid someone on the left goes along with someone on the right, and vice versa.

The 2 party system doesn't work because each party is trying to one up the other, while ignoring the cries from the people on what they need vs. what they want. Instead of an all or nothing attitude (which is what the people tend to ask for), the idea behind our government is that there would be checks and balances to even things out, but that went away long ago.

Lord Gonchar said:
Hell, it feels like a win anymore if I agree with a candidate 2/3rds of the time.

Granted, I live in FL, but I'd GLADLY settle for 51% at this point... ;)

How are folks defining "socialism?" To me it means public ownership of the means of production. I don't see a public police force or fire department as socialism. Public roads are closer but I think you need to squint and turn your head just right (or is it left? :) ) to see them as socialism. Presumably the government managed retirement funds are social security (though calling that a "fund" is somewhat laughable) but that is a social program not socialism. Public healthcare (government owned hospitals, clinics, etc.) would be socialism at least as I define it because of how much a business healthcare is. Government mandated health insurance is a tougher issue. I don't have a problem with Obamacare because its socialism. I have a problem with it because, although we have a significant healthcare cost issue in this country, there is nothing in Obamacare which I see that creates any incentives to decrease costs.

We are talking about a bunch of social programs. Not socialism. And as they say, the government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul. And right now, we have more Pauls than Peters so democracy says we should continue in our current direction.

GoBucks89 said:
How are folks defining "socialism?"

By it's accepted definition(s):

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.

I don't see a public police force or fire department as socialism.

I suspect you might see things differently if the US had private police and fire up until now, and government were now advocating pulling them under their control.

...that is a social program not socialism.

*facepalm*

The distinction between a social program and socialism is very important. And it is being blurred by folks who want the US to move toward socialism in the true sense of its definition (government ownership and control of industry, business enterprise, etc.). Their defense to objections to socialism is that our social programs are already socialism so we might as well go there but that isn't the case.

**edit -- And on the flip side, many folks who object to any given social program raise the flag of socialism when its not applicable. I don't view Obamacare as socialism (at least not in its current form) but just think its bad policy which will make a bad problem worse.

If we agree on the definition of socialism as an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.

Then Social Security is, without question, socialism (hence the "facepalm"). Everyone pays into OASDI, and not everyone receives the same level of service in return. Just like universal health care. Or the fire department. Or the police department. And on and on...

You hit the nail on the head though, in that the discussion shouldn't be centered on the benefits/drawbacks of any one political/economic theory, but rather on the characteristics and value of the specific program in question. Sadly, elements of our society seem content to merely place labels on ideas and use those labels to monger fear, which speaks towards Tek's point regarding the brokenness of our system.

GoBucks89 said:
...And it is being blurred by folks who want the US to move toward socialism in the true sense of its definition (government ownership and control of industry, business enterprise, etc.). Their defense to objections to socialism is that our social

Who really wants that? I'm not aware of that being anyone's platform.

You obviously don't watch enough Fox News.

which speaks towards Tek's point regarding the brokenness of our system

This quote is funny because of the dual meaning. If we actualy focused on the "brokeenness" of our system...we could all agree that none of these social(ist?) programs matter because we cannot sustain any of them. Europe is currently waking up to that reality. We are following their footsteps.

I am with Bear (shocking?) in that the definition of words do matter. I think government ownership of GM is socialism. I think government ownership of rollercoasters is pretty darn close to socialism. I think army, roads. health-care, etc are social programs. GM and Rollercoasters do not benifit the whole. There is a difference. A fine line, but a difference indeed. Before we go back and forth I'll concede that there is an argument that the rollercoaster/stadiums COULD benifit the whole. In my defense I point to the 60 minutes story and offer a trillion ;) plus reasons that the benifit to the whole is often a bastardized justification.

Who really wants that? I'm not aware of that being anyone's platform.

This is where your trust of government and politicians comes into play. Do you think somebody that believes in socialism principles would honestly campaign on that platform? Or would they get into office and behave differently than they campaign? Marxist/Lenist theory predicts that incrementalism is the means to their ends.

Means of production: Does anybody believe there are those among us that would like to see energy production nationalized? What about mining? Food production (fishing/etc)? I opine that there are plenty of leaders in Washington who indeed support socialism in the classic sense of the definition. But I do agree that that is not anybody's publicized platform.

.

There are scores of anti-capitalism folks out there particularly now. Scores of folks who want to step up regulation of businesses. Some just in certain industries. Others on broader scales. Limit executive compensation. Mandate "living wages." Mandate health insurance. Increase taxes on businesses. Surtaxes on "excess profits." Gives government effective control and ownership of industry (or at least parts of it). No one will come out (at least not in the mainstream) and say they are for socialism because they understand how it will be perceived by the masses. Its one of the reasons that cries of "socialism" are often times effective. No need to watch FoxNews to find these folks. Just talk to family and friends. Read blogs/posts in the internet. Some will come out and admit it directly. Others don't want to admit it but when you hear their views of capitalism and government its clear where they think we should go. Certainly not the majority of folks but a lot more than I would have ever thought. And numbers have grown since the financial/economic crisis started 3 years ago.