This is one of the few anti-Obamanomics arguments that I've really enjoyed reading.

Good job, yo.

Education and medical services on the other hand are an example of client politics. Everyone pays for them, yet only a certain group of people and that makes them completely different from those services mentioned above. By forcing these kind of programs on the American people the government is acting like a self-righteous bully who wishes to steal money from its citizens in order to give a service to someone else... often times for political gains.

Disagreed.

Everyone uses medical services, so that is arguably a human need. And every citizen under the age of 18 receives education, which is the biggest factor in making America's economy strong.

You say we're stealing from citizens to give services to someone else. I say your "someone else" is a citizen too. We're building a stronger country by giving our citizens equal access to healthcare (pretty important for living) and education (important for economic reasons). I think making us stronger is better than making a few people richer.

Public education in America has been a failure. Those who live in the inner cities are forced to go to some shitty school and without choice there will be no competition to make that school better. Social Security is broke and yet will owe people trillions of dollars that the government does not have... it's a failure.

Public education is not failing, but most conservatives I speak to seem to wish it were. There are a lot of factors most don't consider when it comes to an education debate. For instance, those who live in inner cities are also likely to be the products of broken families, often with one or more close relative in prison, surrounded by a culture of crime that does not promote or value education.

In fact, as a nation, there has been a move towards anti-intellectualism for the better part of this century. And that move is based in the idea that intellectualism is for snobby liberals. It is conservatives who truly understand the working man, and snooty latte-drinking liberals with college degrees who are at fault for the sorry state of the country. This certainly doesn't do much to promote American education.

There is also the problem of huge inequities in public education in terms of dollars spent per student. Not only are there no national standards in terms of curriculum, but there's also no standard on how money is spent. I grew up in SC and went to one of the richest schools in the state. My district had passed a lot of bond referendums increasing property taxes in order to increase their budget. About two hours away, in a town called Allendale lie some of the poorest schools in the state. My school offered 17 AP courses, had four computer labs (which were hardly used), a state of the art media center with a technology magnet program, an English/history magnet program, as well as an arts magnet program. By comparison, the school in Allendale had no air conditioning, a rodent problem, and leaky roofs. They couldn't afford a book for each student, so each classroom got a class set which the students used during class only. Some classrooms didn't even have enough desk space for all the students.

This kind of inequality is NOT going to be fixed by privatization!

As for social security, not only is privatization a terrible solution, it is practically impossible, as the transitional costs would mean that the current generation would be funding two systems. It would also subject retirement income to the fluctuations of the market, make Wall St. financial institutions a LOT of money, and eliminate disability insurance.

With the new health care bill, Medicaid is expanding to some additional 15-20 million people adding up to 500 billion dollars. [1]

Obama wants to raise taxes for Social Security [2]

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/04/cost-medicaid-expansion [1]

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/03/12/obamas-reckless-tax-increase-to-save-social-security/ [2]

How is welfare a very basic social program? What is your definition of social programs?

Some people have been on welfare for their entire life and encourage their children just to be as irresponsible. Welfare and Medicaid are the most sicking social programs in America. People who are no benefit to society live for free at the taxpayers expense and now will get free health care. What a deal?

The reason there is no completely capitalist society is because of government, and the reason there no completely socialist society because of government. This is difficult to understand. Government makes laws. In the capitalist society, laws are supposedly to protect from exploitation, and in a socialist society, laws are to prevent exploitation.

I'm a socialist Atheist for free markets. Planned economies are too slow, unfortunately so is the market but its better then Planned.

I don't think this nation was founded as a Christian nation. But the majority of Christians (especially Christian conservatives) do. Hence the word "supposedly" ;-)

I don't recall reading in the Bible that taxes which fund socialized programs to strengthen a nation are sinful and tyrannical. Maybe I spaced out during that part of Sunday school?

Your argument that the government will make Christians less charitable is presumptuous, assuming that the only valuable contribution one can make is monetary, and further assuming that taxes will be raised on most Christians.

I'm sure if you asked one of the many people receiving unemployment benefits after losing their job in our weak economy they'd tell you how tyrannical it is and how incompetent and terrible a system we have.

With more men getting laid there is a far less chance of rape or sexual frustration (which can cause mass murders or even a lousy job at w/e they're doing).

so yes, it can strengthen the nation. entitlement pleez.

YES IT IS.

Socialism is economic freedom. Unfortunately, propagandist have done their job well. When you think of socialism, think of co-operatives at least, people actually owning their own things at most.

Please define socialism for me since I don't know what it is!!

Socialism is not economic freedom.

In socialism, government owns or shares a part in business. That is the short definition. This does not apply to citizens, but business owners. Good job falling for libertarian/corporate propaganda.