Footwedge;1315164 wrote:Comrade, we've lived in a partial socialist state for 75 years or so. We would have remained the same had Romney been elected. Reagan espoused social programs too, believe it or not. Our republic has voted for it. Like it or not, that's what the democracy wants. Plenty of opportunity to repeal SS, welfare, UC, and many others. Never happened...and never will happen. Even if Ron Paul been elected (my choice), it would never happen. The vast majority of Americans think these policies need to stay. want to live in a country that has no social programs, then move to Canada....oh wait! In fact, good luck in finding even one country that doesn't provide for the good of their people. Oh, China would probably best fit your political agenda. No business regs, no UC bennies, no health care, no labor laws, no safety laws, no regs on clean air/water...you name it. Beijing is looking for people that view the world the way you do.
Since I and no one else with a life has time to refute every falsehood in that post, I'll start with this. There's a huge difference between "protecting the social programs that have been promised to Americans" and promoting a social/welfare state. Reagan railed against LBJ's agenda in the 60's, and never touched SS and Medicare when he was pres because A) he wasn't a dictator, and B) by then millions of people paid into them and were expecting what they were promised.
Tightening up the existing social programs that are etched into our society is a good idea. Expanding and inventing new ones is not.