Is America becoming Socialist ?

[JimboUK]

@ species I don't think you'll find many over here that disagree with providing the basics for all, I'm a Conservative and I certainly think "food, healthcare, and a place to live" are things that should be seen as basic human rights for those who can't work (those who can but won't shouldn't get a thing). The problem is socialists always want to go further, their favourite being the redistribution of wealth and that's where it all goes wrong. Once you start taking from the better off and giving it to the poor you disincentivise both. The well off have less reason to do well because their reward for doing so is taken away, the poor have less incentive because the reward is handed to them on a plate without them earning it. You also end up with the poor reliant on the state, that gives the state more power over them.

 

Socialists have no reason to the help the poorest, they tend to do all they can to keep them in their place. They don't want people to become self reliant, they need the poor to stay poor so they stay relevant, it comes as no surprise that under the Labour government here social mobility plummeted. The key to helping the poor is education, with that they can go on to better things and stand on their own two feet.

[Monkeybuttface]

i don't believe i will be furthering this thread, it seems to be too hot button for me.

[evilneko]

The bailout was definatly socialist, and I resent it.

 

And it was a Bush thing, too.

 

I think, overall though, it was probably the right thing to do. It was a choice of the lesser of two evils. I don't think Bush really wanted to give these companies a bailout (can anyone watch the address where he announced the bailout, and honestly say that he's talking about something he's proud of doing?), but he and those around him were obviously pretty convinced that the alternative(s) was(were) worse.

 

I can see the logic behind it. Let these companies fail, and potentially face an economic crisis worse than the Depression, or plunge the nation into a pretty much guaranteed recession by making emergency loans. Bush was in a no-win situation, damned if he did, damned if he didn't, and I completely understand why he did. We can all speculate on what might or might not have happened without it, but if there's one thing I learned in economics, it's that it ain't perfect. ;)

[Balagor]

Once you start taking from the better off and giving it to the poor you disincentivise both. The well off have less reason to do well because their reward for doing so is taken away, the poor have less incentive because the reward is handed to them on a plate without them earning it. You also end up with the poor reliant on the state, that gives the state more power over them.

The well off who earns above, say, $ 500.000 a year, still has incentive to stay in his/her job. As for the poor on welfare, I think the desire for a job is just as big as the risk of getting evicted from day to day.

 

Socialists have no reason to the help the poorest, they tend to do all they can to keep them in their place. They don't want people to become self reliant, they need the poor to stay poor so they stay relevant, it comes as no surprise that under the Labour government here social mobility plummeted. The key to helping the poor is education, with that they can go on to better things and stand on their own two feet.

As a matter of fact, NO goverment wants to help the poorest. It cost money, they are no important votes anyway, we always have some rate of unemployment, so why not keep that amongst the poor? And by the nine, how should the poor be better of with any kind of education. Many of them got poor in the first place because they perhaps failed education earlier. And where? The first thing to shut down during crisis are schools, and IF some should get educated, where are the jobs then?

This suggestion is just like our DK Prime Minister. Good suggestions, but no planning. This is not personal, I don´t blame/flame you. But this is just the same record playing from Conservatives Party.

My answer to the topic, unfortunately, is still no. This topic has become very much black and white. It is the cons´n pros within Socialism and Conservatism, banging against eachother. I simply don´t think that we (including I) understand what Socialism is in US, EU and GB and the same goes for Conservatism.

 

My 2 cents :thumbsup:

[evilneko]

I have a friend who is, put in the vernacular sense, retarded. I think he's actually not retarded in the traditional sense, and may have some sort of mental disorder that makes him seem that way, because he can pull off some amazing stunts in chess and with music.

 

I guess you could actually call him an idiot savant.

 

He is however, handicapped with respect to the rest of society. He is handicapped to the point where he actually receives Social Security Disability benefits. His grandfather kicked him out of his house and he's been living at a succession of places, renting a room or even just a frikkin corner of a room. He can't drive, and his mental defect prevents him from having the aptitude required for college. He's quite frankly doing the absolute best he can do, all things considered. He could in fact, quite easily live off his disability benefits, in part because he has so few expenses (doesn't own a home, a car, or anything else expensive).

 

Does he want to? Heck no! He has all sorts of plans. He wants to get a job, because he wants to learn to drive and get a car, which would enable him to join a japanese-speaking meet-up group in the area, among other things.

 

And just where does his money come from? Oh, right -- our tax dollars, hard at work supporting this individual who according to some, has no incentive to work.

[Aurielius]

And just where does his money come from? Oh, right -- our tax dollars, hard at work supporting this individual who according to some, has no incentive to work.

 

@Evilenko

Oh yes we dastardly conservatives would like to throw widows and orphans out into the street also, do you seriously present this individual case as a rational for the social agenda of the left? For better or worse Social Security has been with us since FDR and is so far insinuated into the social fabric of the country that it would be impossible to disestablish. Social security is a system which in the main is one in which we pay into during our working careers and then withdraw benefits in our latter years, I am sure that your friend gets his benefits due to the payments made by his family which now in turn support him. This is hardly a free hand out but rather a quid pro quo relationship. In addition your friend has the desire to work and advance in the world at least as far as he is able, that I would propose is more attuned to a conservative ethic than a socialistic one, it seems it does not take the IQ of a rocket scientist or social worker to see the value of work as a means of self advancement.

[species5478]

@ Balgor and evilnecko

 

Agreeable points, and well versed.

 

@ Jim

 

 

 

You bring up interesting points as well, Jim. I appreciate your opinion. The following comment isn’t necessarily directed toward just you, I'm just bored and feel like typing. Here’s my stance.

 

I don’t think your reasoning helps your cause. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying that the main motivation people have for doing things, is greed. But I can think of many other reasons why people do things for the benefit of society. Volunteering is a good example. There’s thousands, if not millions of different programs and organizations that thrive off free participation. Everything from building homes, to helping feed starving children are examples of things that people do simple because they have the will, (and financial fortitude) to do so. Poor people can’t usually afford to volunteer, because they’re struggling to survive. Also, working for profit doesn’t guarantee anything other than a paycheck. At my last job, I worked for a local ambulance company called PMT, that’s based out of Phoenix. Approximately half of the EMT’s and Paramedics would ride in ambulances, and sleep on the job. I knew of two who would regularly do cocaine, and then tend to patients. There are many lazy people who "work". Only a quarter of those who worked at PMT actually enjoyed their jobs, and did it to the best of their ability. And nearly all of the volunteers excelled at the job, because they did it for enjoyment, and not for profit. I personally think greed, and working for profit, diminishes the quality of goods and service for all and only the owners of said business emerge as the prime beneficiaries. I’ll admit however, that there are instances where working for profit is necessary. I don’t know of anyone who wants to work in a landfill, for instance. So these types of jobs should give people more money under a socialist system because they’re undesirable jobs. Other jobs, like working in politics, should be volunteer based, or offer meager wages to offset the abuse of power.

 

I think you mentioned a good point by stating socialists would desire increased benefits if they got their way. But we’ll never know, if there isn’t a working socialist program in place to judge such an assertion by. What we do know, is that no matter how much money a company, or a person makes, they ALWAYS want to go further, and make more money. It’s never enough. And the bottom line of all businesses within the Capitalist model, is profit, profit, profit.

 

You also mentioned that a socialist’s ultimate goal, is the redistribution of wealth. But isn’t exactly what’s happening under the Capitalist system? In fact, isn’t that the basis of Capitalism? Redistributing wealth? The only difference with capitalism, is that only a few people have access to most of the wealth while others starve, die from the inability to take care of themselves, work slavishly for years on end, and suffer menial lives. Is it really worth it?

 

It might be true, that taking from the rich, and giving to the poor, disincentives both. Yet, only seven percent of the world’s entire population is considered wealthy. And wealth on a global scale, means making more than 30,000 dollars a year. Most of the BILLIONS of people on the planet survive on less than a dollar a day, so that the rest of us can have three computers, two cars, etc. You and I might see wealth as making more than 200,000 dollars a year. In which case the stats lower further. So is it alright that less than a tenth of the global population hordes all the wealth? It just seems amoral to me. I would have a greater appreciation for people defending Capitalism if they admitted it was a necessary evil, and defended it from that stance. But to make it seem as if it’s the best way to run a society, or the only way to improve a society, is just wrong.

 

Food for thought…

 

Let’s say…there was a room filled with ten people, you included. Of these ten people, I had all of the food, medical supplies, and living amenities, and the biggest gun. I gained these items through a collective effort, and exploitation, of all ten people. Instead of sharing my food, I decided to stand back, and watch as two of the people starved to death. I felt like making the world's largest taco that day. Another two died of a sickness that I had the cure for, but didn’t give because I felt they were lazy, and didn’t deserve to live. Some might call this playing God, but I don’t care. After all, they’re lazy. They deserve to die for being sloths, right? Let’s forget the fact that I murdered someone myself. But I served my sentence, and I should live because...I’m a hard worker?

 

The remaining five people, seeing the miserable life and deaths of the first four, have no choice but to succumb to whatever my demands may be, if they want a piece of what I have. But I don’t give it willingly…I make them work HARD for only a tiny piece of food, medicine, and a few amenities. They now battle amongst themselves, and fight so vigorously, that not all five people can afford to have even the meager scraps that I doll out. I love it, because they all want to be like me, but I know they will NEVER be like me. Simple mathematics dictates, that there can only be one ME. These five people exist, because I require servants. And without them, I’d have nobody to horde my wealth over, or to help make more. So I lie, and tell them fanciful stories about how they can have what I have.

 

"JUST WORK HARDER…" I say, grinning from my golden throne.

 

 

So they work harder, and battle so vigorously for a piece of my pie, that they begin taking from each other. Now, one of the five can’t afford medicine. Another forgoes amenities for food, leaving only three left with fairly humane lives, and a little extra that they pillaged from the bottom two. Because these three are the majority of five, and have someone to look down on, they accept my way of life. Empowered, they endorse the system that I created and back me up when the bottom two desire a fair piece.

 

This is Capitalism…where mass amounts of people defend the livelihood of just a few, hoping they will have it all one day. Dazzled by unrealistic dreams of riches, and power. Diluted by a fantasy.

 

I agree with your stance Jim, on education. Knowledge is power, and more educated people means added advancements for us all.

[Balagor]

@SP5478

By the nine you´re good. Food for thoughts, I just loved it. You just missed the occasional lotteries that keep the dream even more unrealistic.

Extra kudos and endorsements :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[grannywils]

Species 5478:

I vowed to stay off this thread from now on, but I just cannot help myself. I nominate you for our next president. That is, as soon as you are old enough. You have just got it together girl...

[ginnyfizz]

I have to disagree. What Species5478 is saying is theory and just wouldn't wash out in the real world. All very naive, I am afraid, for example;-

 

"I personally think greed, and working for profit, diminishes the quality of goods and service for all and only the owners of said business emerge as the prime beneficiaries. "

 

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but that is preposterous. You have a very typical Socialist hatred against wealth creators and assume that big businessmen are wicked pantomime villains with their overseers cracking whips across the back of the sweating workers. In fact, since the Industrial Revolution, although there have been bad apples among them, some of the biggest business magnates have seen it as their duty not only to pay their workers for their labour, but to improve their lives in other ways. One of our local examples where I live was Sir Richard Arkwright, 250 years or so ago, who not only got very rich personally but built accommodation for his workers, with facilities and sanitation to a standard otherwise unheard of, as well as giving them top level, for the time, wages and conditions. As time went on the Cadbury and Lever families were just two more super rich dynasties who carried on this tradition of philanthropy. In the present day, one of the richest men in Britain is HRH Charles, Prince of Wales - and if you work in any way with youth in deprived areas of Britain - which I do - you will know that he carries on the tradition of using his wealth and influence to help those less fortunate than himself. Likewise in the USA you have had a tradition of wealthy philanthropists, Carnegie and his like. Please do not insult these people.

 

"The only difference with capitalism, is that only a few people have access to most of the wealth while others starve, die from the inability to take care of themselves, work slavishly for years on end, and suffer menial lives. Is it really worth it?"

 

That doesn't just happen under capitalism, species. It happens under Socialism and Communism, where in some cases the starvation is caused quite deliberately (ahermm...dear old Uncle Joe's treatment of the kulaks, anyone?)and you frequently don't get a choice of which job to slave your life away at... Life just isn't fair, it never will be, and one day you will come to realise it.

 

"This is Capitalism…where mass amounts of people defend the livelihood of just a few, hoping they will have it all one day. Dazzled by unrealistic dreams of riches, and power. Diluted by a fantasy."

 

OH, PUR-LEASE! That is just insulting to the intelligence of those of us who favour Capitalism. Some Conservatives are quite well educated - I have a first class degree (I believe that might be termed summa soda pop laude)and professional qualifications. Not everyone, species, is a silly little reality show contestant who dreams of being rich and powerful despite the fact they can't sing, dance or act. Some people ARE greedy, of that there is no doubt. But most are more like me. They want to be able to work hard and in return better their salaries, AND get to keep some of it, so that they can pay the rent/mortgage, eat, run a modest little car, keep up some hobbies (man do I want a new graphics card....), take the odd holiday and save for their retirement. Having been seriously poor, I have this motto;-

 

"Riches I need not, nor man's empty praise"

 

I have no desire to own a yacht or a Lear jet. That is NOT what Capitalism means to the vast majority of people, either.

 

Oh...I nearly forgot. Guess when you will start to discover the full folly of a high tax and spend economy? Yup, when you are old and vulnerable and want to draw a pension. Even if you have managed to save anything and contribute to a works pension, you will discover that your Socialist Government may well have mounted a tax raid on your pension fund (yes, gormless Gordon Brown did that over here) You see the problem with these dastardly Capitalists, species and co, is that your pension funds may well be invested with their companies. So metaphorically putting them up against a wall and shooting them, by which I mean applying punitive taxation, is sheer insanity.