Immigrants good for me and you? Bad? How to make a good answer that is accurate?

No, roads and bridges are public works that benefit all of us collectively. Medicare is a complicated form of socialism that selectively benefits individuals. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But they also benefit people with bicycles and people with two legs who want to get from one place to another without having to go through forests and swim through rivers.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The RIGHT use of taxation is for supporting government itself and public works, not socialistic programs.

Let me put it this way: I may decide I support some socialistic programs up to a point but I haven't worked it out yet, and the distinctions I'm making between socialism and public works and other necessary functions of government for the nation as a whole, still apply, and I still say we don't need any more socialists.

Public works seems to me to be clearly distinguishable from socialism: they don't benefit individuals selectively. Even the legless have to have reliable transportation. We all need the police and the paramedics to have easy access to us and so on and so forth.But I certainly haven't denied that we already have many forms of socialism, I might even support some of it, I just don't want any more thank you very much and would like to see reasonable methods for reducing what we've got. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No. Public wqrks is a function of every responsible government, it is not socialism. No. Public works is for the nation itself, socialism takes from some to give to others.

Oh dfon't be silly. Everybody needs roads. People who walk need roads. And people who walk ride in public transportation and cars and everything else and are also benefited by roads. EVERYBODY is benefited one way or another by public works.

I'm sure if you tried REALLY REALLY hard you could see the logical difference between public works and socialism, but perhaps I'll come back and help you out later.

You don't have a clue about much of anything. All the "one way or another" meant was that people who don't drive also benefit from roads by many indirect means, since they need others to be able to get to them at times, police, ambulances, firefighters, family and friends, delivery people and what not, as well as needing rides themselves. How this amounts to foot-stamping is some weird mental mess of your own. Also you have no idea what I might need or find useful. There is such a thing as supporting an idea because you judge it a good idea for society in general rather than always supporting only things that benefit oneself. But I do think that may be a concept people on the Left have no way of grasping.

Pondering this I thought it might be more accurate to say the Left thinks in terms of benefiting classes of people (a chosen class they assume wants to benefit itself being the connection with what I just said), it's always about benefitting somebody in particular, some class in particular, and not about the best policy for society as a whole, they just don't think that way.

Gosh what a glorious example of ad hominem. I had to look more than once to see if there's even one substantive point in that morass. I'm really not sure, but if there is I don't know how to extricate it from the swamp of belligerent false accusations.I like this guy Ben Shapiro who you can find at YouTube denouncing socialism as theft. See that's the difference between socialism and public works, it's taking from those who have means to give to those who don't.That is the role of charity, which he also mentions: we should give to help the poor, and that is an obligation felt by religious people as he points out, but not by atheists and socialists who think the poor should be helped by robbing the rich.They also have the bizarre idea that rich people are rich because they take it from the poor. That's maybe the stupidest idea that socialists have, stupid, perniciously evil and dangerous for the welfare of society as a whole because it encourages a righteous sense of entitlement that encourages theft and violence. The rich are actually creating wealth that previously didn't exist, they are not taking it from anyone. I'm saying this, as far as I know Shapiro hasn't said it.Here's one of Ben Shapiro . I think he does a really good job of analyzing the problems with socialism.He's good on the subject of a basically capitalistic society having a few socialistic programs. It works as long as the socialistic part doesn't get too big (although it is still theft and still has negative effects on society as a whole). He mentions the countries that have some socialistic programs that are mistakenly pointed to as if they were socialistic societies, saying that no, they are capitalistic societies that have enough wealth to support some socialistic programs, but that the overall effect of these programs is negative.He doesn't mention public works in this one and I don't know if he does anywhere else either since this is all I listened to, but his main point is that socialism takes away the incentive to work and invent because you don't get to keep the money you make, it goes to other people. That is not the case with public works at all since we all share in them equally and we are happy to support them.The solution to the problems of the poor has to be charity, I don't see an alternative that really works over the long haul.

The right thinks in terms of freedom, not classes of people at all.Besides, it is that 1% that creates the wealth that prospers society as a whole enough to be able to support some socialistic programs.Read my post above which is about all this.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh nonsense. People with that much money invest it, they don't hoard it. What would be the point of hoarding it anyway? And how DO they hoard it? If it's in a bank account it earns interest and the bank invests it. If it's under their mattress then maybe you could say it's out of circulation but how often is that the case? And who cares anyway? if they earned it it's their money, what business is it of yours? And besides it's in the process of earning it that they contribute wealth by the projects they finance, how else would that happen?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Just the usual envious ignorant leftist said that.If people were not being encouraged to envy the rich they might spend more time doing something creative to improve things, which would improve their own lotEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

You don't have to, because it's not true. Jesus' advocates generous cheerful giving, and hands-on help for those who need it, He certainly doesn't advocate robbing the rich (or really, the middle class) to take care of the poor. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.