Is America becoming Socialist ?

[JimboUK]

I'm worried the US could come out of this experiment in social engineering in an even worse state than the UK has, when Labour took office the nations finances were good and the deficient was very low. The US is going into this already up to its eyeballs in debt, where on earth is the money going to come from?

 

I admire the way Americans take responsibility for themselves, the way success is seen as something to be rewarded, not punished as it has been over here. I'd hate to see that vanish with the dependency and despair socialism inflicts on people. We're facing a huge struggle over here as we try and get those people dependant on the state to stand on their own two feet, it's sad to see adults unwilling to take responsibility for themselves. It wasn't like this prior to Labour taking office, it's their socialist policies and social engineering that is responsible. I really hope the U.S don't follow us down this path, socialism doesn't work. Socialism leaves behind it an unholy mess and the very people it was supposed to help are the ones who suffer most when that mess is cleaned up.

[TheCalliton]

we are no longer the land of the free

we are the land of the less restricted

alla round, we have abigger cage

[grannywils]

Finally, before I forget again, here is the link to that article I posted on The Coffee Party thread. Now anyone who is interested can go and read it at his or her leisure.

http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/its_the_derivatives.php

[species5478]

If people want to sit on their butts and rot, let them

 

You have got to be joking. I must be wasting my time getting in my ten year old Hyundai and driving every morning to my job trying to persuade the long term unemployed to get off their asses and get a job. So you think it's OK for people to draw unemployment benefits and let the poor saps known as the taxpayer, those villainous middle classes, foot the bill? Once more, the idea of universal welfare and health care sounds very good, it is an ideal, but in Britain it spiralled out of control and now we are bust. Socialism, which Obama is moving too, has that effect.

 

No-one denies that the reckless actions of the banks were utterly reprehensible and responsible for massive financial crisis. But deep as that bit, it has been pulled up short because Governments acted, and certainly in the UK the taxpayer has a stake in the banks and will be getting their money back eventually. But with health care and welfare, that problem has been an ongoing one that has been allowed to get out of control, because no-one has dared to tackle it. Indeed, the previous Socialist government here pumped billions into health and welfare to keep their client voters and trade union paymasters happy. Hence we are BUST.

 

That is what I would hate to see happen in the USA. Fortunately, if Obama gets a thrashing in the mid-terms, America may avoid becoming Socialist.

 

First off, I don't entirely disagree with you, however...

 

Unemployment benefits aren't permanent. People can only draw benefits for a set time, before they're forced to makes ends meet on their own again. And I wasn't talking about individuals on unemployment, actually. Those words never exited my mouth. I was referring to bums, or people who choose not to live in the higher echelons of society. Let's face reality. Not every one on the planet can be a doctor, lawyer, president, etc. Some people will live below average lifestyles not matter what we do. When I lived in New York for instance, there was an entire community of people living in the sewer systems of the city WITH children. The only thing they took from people like me, was the garbage that I threw out. Republicans abolished ware-fare, and they are no programs available to help people like this. So just because we don't pay to help unfortunate souls like these, doesn't mean they magically vanish into thin air. And if you think using a tax paid sewer system (infested with rats and roaches) is living the high life at our expense, then that's just cruel...

 

And just because Britain failed to execute their version of warefare doesn't mean the idea is bad, or that they are on the wrong track. The Wright Brothers didn't make a flying aircraft on the first try, either. Some things take time. Finland is number one in schooling. America still has the number one economy. It didn't happen overnight. Britain hasn't been the best at major social issues recently, so I don't think they make the best example for how to establish an ideal taxpayer system. In fact, historically, Britain has always lagged with social equality. If I remember correctly, they were the among first to start grabbing slaves from Africa, and the last to abolish slavery. So what you've basically stated above, is that British people are experts at taking advantage of others, but not helping them. Some would argue, that countries who profited from slavery, are the biggest socialist. Because they are depending on the "free" labor of others. And free labor, is free money. Why not do the work themselves? Isn't that the truly independent way?

 

I'm not sure why you mentioned Obama. I like to bash him for things he's guilty of. But the economic bust did not happen on his watch, or because of policies that he put in place. Barely two years into his presidency, and people want him gone, or to do nothing. We should be careful what we wish for. We might get it. America can't afford another Bush right now, and if Obama is elected out of office or rendered inert, that's what might happen. And what's wrong with socialism? We throw the word around like we're talking about communism, or living under a dictatorship. As I stated previously...

 

I know we like to think of ourselves as independent, but in reality, we are not. Our society only exists in part, because we help one another through tax payer money. If your house is burning, are you going to put the flames out yourself? No. You're going to call the Fire Department. If someone is trying to assault you, there's the Police Department. Foreign invaders? Call the Marines. Going to the park? Museums? Library? Festivals? Fairs? Need someone to pick up your trash? Do you travel on roads? Highways? Do you like manicured streets? Do you like stoplights? What about prosecuting and incarcerating prisoners? Lifeguards when you go to the beach? Bridges? Etc, etc…if you like or enjoy these things, then you like certain forms of socialism.

[ginnyfizz]

The reason that I and other people who are friends of the USA bash on Obama is that we see in him the Socialist tendencies and policies that have been implemented over the other side of the pond and have brought Britain and other countries (Greece, Spain, Portugal...) to the brink of the financial abyss. And we do not wish to see the USA go down the chute with us, believe it or not.

 

Welfare IS forever over here, believe it or not. I have clients who have been signing on the dole for twenty years. I have kids of nineteen who are third generation claimants. Never worked, no intention of doing so. Remarkable how many of them can afford satellite TV and designer clothes though. I SEE this every day, I work in the industry. Now, how would the USA like it if Obama decided to make the USA's welfare provision as generous as ours? Not much, when they get the bill, I suspect.

 

The problem that I and people like me have with socialism is that in practice, it preaches the politics of envy and strips away the individual will to succeed and be in any way self reliant. That will and self reliance, the ability to be allowed to succeed on merit, is what made the USA great. It was what made Britain great too (until the socialists took over.) Socialism creates as big a class divide as ever existed in centuries gone by, promoting a dependency culture and keeping all except the friends of the socialist elite firmly in their places. It would not help your sewer dwellers - they would never get the opportunity to better themselves, and anyway they would provide something for the socialists to wring their hands over and blame the wicked capitalists. Meanwhile the socialist political and trade union grandees would still be driving around in their subsidised limousines, whilst dreaming up policies to stop the middle classes doing so.

 

And we certainly don't get why it is that you have to be on the Socialist ticket to be considered capable of any kind of compassion. Both of my Grandfathers were members of the Conservative party. One of them owned a smelting works and was loved by his workers for his humanity and consideration. The other sponsored a number of refugees from Nazi occupied Europe and housed them either in his own home or at his expense. The point is, there were a lot of others like them, I merely use examples that are known to me to illustrate that compassion for your fellow man is nothing to do with the colour of your politics, but more to do with what you are as a person.

[Balagor]

The reason that I and other people who are friends of the USA bash on Obama is that we see in him the Socialist tendencies and policies that have been implemented over the other side of the pond and have brought Britain and other countries (Greece, Spain, Portugal...) to the brink of the financial abyss. And we do not wish to see the USA go down the chute with us, believe it or not.

 

Welfare IS forever over here, believe it or not. I have clients who have been signing on the dole for twenty years. I have kids of nineteen who are third generation claimants. Never worked, no intention of doing so. Remarkable how many of them can afford satellite TV and designer clothes though. I SEE this every day, I work in the industry. Now, how would the USA like it if Obama decided to make the USA's welfare provision as generous as ours? Not much, when they get the bill, I suspect.

 

The problem that I and people like me have with socialism is that in practice, it preaches the politics of envy and strips away the individual will to succeed and be in any way self reliant. That will and self reliance, the ability to be allowed to succeed on merit, is what made the USA great. It was what made Britain great too (until the socialists took over.) Socialism creates as big a class divide as ever existed in centuries gone by, promoting a dependency culture and keeping all except the friends of the socialist elite firmly in their places. It would not help your sewer dwellers - they would never get the opportunity to better themselves, and anyway they would provide something for the socialists to wring their hands over and blame the wicked capitalists. Meanwhile the socialist political and trade union grandees would still be driving around in their subsidised limousines, whilst dreaming up policies to stop the middle classes doing so.

 

And we certainly don't get why it is that you have to be on the Socialist ticket to be considered capable of any kind of compassion. Both of my Grandfathers were members of the Conservative party. One of them owned a smelting works and was loved by his workers for his humanity and consideration. The other sponsored a number of refugees from Nazi occupied Europe and housed them either in his own home or at his expense. The point is, there were a lot of others like them, I merely use examples that are known to me to illustrate that compassion for your fellow man is nothing to do with the colour of your politics, but more to do with what you are as a person.

 

I don´t see how Mr. Obama has any influence at all on the Greece, Spain and Portugal issue. They all started to go down that hole way before Mr. Obama even started his presidency campaign. Problem with Greece was to many employes in public sector due to nepotism, lack of taxes due to huge amount of deliberately unfinished constructions, thus saving tax, and lack of tourism due to competition with new countries in the far east. On top of that all was supported by huge loans. The same goes for Spain and Portugal, and Italy will soon follow.

It has nothing however to do with socialism, but rather the dark side of capitalism. Giving those loans to Greece was putting all on the stakes. You win or loose. If you loose, the state will pay you, since we don´t want the bank to become unstable. The dark side of capitalism.

I stick with @species5478, and emphasize that socialism is not dictatorship, just because some people mix it up with what has happend in the past. And true if you don´t succed the first time, then get up and try again. Is´nt that what Americans are famous for; to never give up?

[species5478]

@ginnyfizz

 

I my opinion, capitalism is the problem, not socialism. If true socialism existed, then everyone would have a piece of the pie. People are upset, because they don't have things. Not because they have things. Million are contributing to the ridiculous wealth of only a few thousand. Surely a better life can be had if wealth were evenly distributed. Remember this?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTeMCijaaLc

 

@Balagor

 

You make an interesting point. The creation of the Euro seemed to be one of contributors to the downfall in European countries, and not socialism. I of course, am no expert in this field, because I have never lived in Europe, nor do I study their economy in depth. But it stands to reason that if people were given back their own tax money, instead of bailing out banks, then there would have been no riots.

[grannywils]

Thank you Species5478 and Balagor for what you have said here. I could not agree more. And I would only add that some of the finacial woes mentioned by Balagor also resulted from the worldwide banking disaster I mentioned earlier. The whole Nation of Iceland is now completely bankrupt as a result of it. I understand the concerns expressed by Ginnyfizz about going to extremes with any "social" policies, but I sort of resent the constant reference to it, at least in our case, as Socialism. I'm not suggsting that those people who believe in or live under Socialism should not. What I am saying is that we do not, and our social policies happen to be geared in a direction that obviously differs from where Ginny and many others think we should be heading, which I can understand. But Sepcies5478 made some auite valid points regarding Great Britain and how it got where it is today, and let us not forget it's prior Imperialist behavior with many other nations, such as India etc. We have all been in this miasma. The U.S. left Great Britain in order to form a more perfect union, and we have been struggling ever since to get it right. We have many shameful behaviors in our own past. And I grant you that we are still young and still struggling. But, and I mean this with all sincerety, we believe in our freedom to keep on fighting to get it right, and will keep on trying, and will keep on listening to anyone who wants to have a voice in the debate, whether or not we agree, because that is exactly why we created this Democratic nation. And now I think I am finished on this subject. It has just about worn me out. Have at it.

[Aurielius]

I my opinion, capitalism is the problem, not socialism. If true socialism existed, then everyone would have a piece of the pie. People are upset, because they don't have things. Not because they have things. Million are contributing to the ridiculous wealth of only a few thousand. Surely a better life can be had if wealth were evenly distributed.

Even distribution of wealth has been tried it was called Marxist Socialism and I don't think that achieved any degree of the satisfaction you propose in the former Soviet Union. Redistribution of wealth simply is a guise to enfranchise the least productive members of society with the energy, assets and vitality of the productive members. What incentive is there to be innovative, creative and break new ground if you will have to share this with those that had no part in it's creation? I think that envy is endemic to the human condition and will not be eradicated by a political system, there will always be some that are more equal than others and the those that do not have something will want it even if they have done nothing to earn it.

I am not purporting that pure unchecked Capitalism is inherently benign, it needs constraints to make it's inequities less rapacious and is not the final economic solution but it is superior to it's competitors at present. Some form of economic meritocracy with a cushion not a bed for the least fortunate , that still gives them the incentive to get off the bottom tier of the social ladder. If the Europeans among are satisfied with their various forms of Socialism and the effects it has on their respective countries then let them enjoy it's questionable benefits, I simply do not want it in the US.

[species5478]

I my opinion, capitalism is the problem, not socialism. If true socialism existed, then everyone would have a piece of the pie. People are upset, because they don't have things. Not because they have things. Million are contributing to the ridiculous wealth of only a few thousand. Surely a better life can be had if wealth were evenly distributed.

Even distribution of wealth has been tried it was called Marxist Socialism and I don't think that achieved any degree of the satisfaction you propose in the former Soviet Union. Redistribution of wealth simply is a guise to enfranchise the least productive members of society with the energy, assets and vitality of the productive members. What incentive is there to be innovative, creative and break new ground if you will have to share this with those that had no part in it's creation? I think that envy is endemic to the human condition and will not be eradicated by a political system, there will always be some that are more equal than others and the those that do not have something will want it even if they have done nothing to earn it.

I am not purporting that pure unchecked Capitalism is inherently benign, it needs constraints to make it's inequities less rapacious and is not the final economic solution but it is superior to it's competitors at present. Some form of economic meritocracy with a cushion not a bed for the least fortunate , that still gives them the incentive to get off the bottom tier of the social ladder. If the Europeans among are satisfied with their various forms of Socialism and the effects it has on their respective countries then let them enjoy it's questionable benefits, I simply do not want it in the US.

 

 

I don't advocate prior, forms of socialism like the one you mentioned. I'm encouraging a new form built to accommodate contemporary times. Capitalism has proven faulty. Do we simply wait for entire world economy to collapse before evolving? Are you saying a system of Capitalism is best? Maybe you're right. It's faulty, but it has worked somewhat well thus far. And I don't think social evolution of the kind I'm talking about, will ever happen in America, anyway. This country will live, survive, or die in the turbulent waters of Capitalism. Perhaps it's best if we do have a variety of different systems, too. Because each nation must do what works for it.

 

But according to your above statement, you're suggesting that human beings are incapable of innovation on mass scales for sake of things like...personal fulfillment. There are many people who mod games, study astrology, biology, archeology, physics, etc, because they love to do it, not because they get paid to do so. I believe if anything, our current system hinders creativity because it forces people to live for sake or attaining wealth. Our main needs should be attended to. Food, housing, and medical care need to be the human standard. This doesn't include cars, or vacations, or other expenditures. Those things should be worked for. I'm just talking about the basics for survival. No person should be left homeless, starving, or sick. But we act like wild dogs fighting one another for the top spot in the pack, while the rest fight over scraps...it's civilized barbarism.