Don't be scared of Socialism

anapaix wrote:

I don't know. I mean France, Spain, Italy, and Greece are all doing great.

Who wouldn't want their economy like those?

Any particular reason you didn't compare to the Scandinavian countries who by all accounts are far more "socialist" than these dysfunctional Mediterranean societies?

Nah, I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that people in Scandinavia are far richer, safer, healthier and happier than Americans and that it would completely ruin your dum\bass nonsense argument.

.

There you go, baffling them with facts.

May I ask who pays for all those services you just rattled off? It wouldn't happen to be all of this nation's taxpaying individuals and businesses would it? Your hypothetical CEO and his company are helping to support those services, so I would hope they provide some benefit. Not to mention the fact that taxpayers are the primary owners of all businesses in this country.

Taxpayers support the government, not the other way around. Also, more than a few people would take issue with you touting the benefits of unemployment benefits. These only exist as a necessary evil, and have ballooned beyond their original purpose.

Over Your Head wrote:

Taxpayers support the government, not the other way around. Also, more than a few people would take issue with you touting the benefits of unemployment benefits. These only exist as a necessary evil, and have ballooned beyond their original purpose.

How? Unemployment insurance is non-discretionary. The reason payments have increased is the same reason food stamp rolls have increased - there are a lot more people who qualify.

95% of people on unemployment insurance want to work. Same w/ those on foodstamps. The US is the most parsimonious developed country in the world when it comes to benefits for the bottom quintile. There may well be "socialism", but it is of a bare minimum.

Are you suggesting that because 5% of recipients are gaming the system we should scrap the whole system?

Over Your Head wrote:

Taxpayers support the government, not the other way around.

and for their support they get things listed above as well as

- clean drinking water

- airplane inspection

- national defense

there are numerous things the private sector cannot provide because nobody else can spend the kind of money to make these investments. The US healthcare morass is the best example - everybody is not covered. the policy goal is not an efficient market - it is a market where everybody is covered, like all other modern countries do.

Actually if you believe that a transparent market is an efficient market (like Adam Smith did) then the goal of the ACA actually is a more efficient market. Today's US health insurance system is unbelievably inefficient, probably the least efficient in the world. A single-payer system (the absence of a "market") would waste fewer resources than what we have today.

I find it odd that often times it's the conservatives that compare government activity to socialism but in this thread it's the liberal argument making the comparison.

government /= socialism /= government

It's where you draw the line that defines what you call socialism. Based on some of these comments, it sounds like general governing of the people could be considered socialism. This obviously is untrue and not a widely held belief.

My two cents in this debate is about the direction that policy is pointing which is towards deeper liberalism and eventually closer to a near-socialist state.. In part it's a reflection of a changed economy and outlook. Conservatives fight against this because they know that as the ball gets rolling, it picks up steam, as failed policy results in more policy, and a socialist america is not America.

-the Krispy Kremlin

The government is set up to allow a tiny minority to exploit the rest of the population.

80s throwback wrote:

Over Your Head wrote:

Taxpayers support the government, not the other way around. Also, more than a few people would take issue with you touting the benefits of unemployment benefits. These only exist as a necessary evil, and have ballooned beyond their original purpose.

How? Unemployment insurance is non-discretionary. The reason payments have increased is the same reason food stamp rolls have increased - there are a lot more people who qualify.

95% of people on unemployment insurance want to work. Same w/ those on foodstamps. The US is the most parsimonious developed country in the world when it comes to benefits for the bottom quintile. There may well be "socialism", but it is of a bare minimum.

Are you suggesting that because 5% of recipients are gaming the system we should scrap the whole system?

No, I just think it's ridiculous how many handouts the government gives. For instance, 1 in 6 people in this country are on food stamps. The idiocy of our tax code gives preferential treatment to some people/corporations all in the name of social engineering. Give social security another generation or two and we'll really be in a bind. I support a basic safety net for those who really need it, but we're only screwing ourselves down the road with this nonsense. All welfare programs (traditional or corporate) were made with sound goals in mind, but we all know what they say about the road to hell and good intentions.

This thread just shows how messed up the political systems of the world are. Governments are supposed to watch over people like a shepherd watches his sheep. A shepherd makes sure his sheep are safe from outside dangers. He leads them to where the grass is green, and leaves them to do their business there. He will do his best to prevent his sheep from going astray, and will find those that do and bring them back. The government is supposed to be a watchful guardian of the people. It is supposed to protect from outside dangers and present people with opportunity. If people go astray in their ways, the government should find them and bring them back to where they are supposed to be.

Waco Taco wrote:

This thread just shows how messed up the political systems of the world are. Governments are supposed to watch over people like a shepherd watches his sheep. A shepherd makes sure his sheep are safe from outside dangers. He leads them to where the grass is green, and leaves them to do their business there. He will do his best to prevent his sheep from going astray, and will find those that do and bring them back. The government is supposed to be a watchful guardian of the people. It is supposed to protect from outside dangers and present people with opportunity. If people go astray in their ways, the government should find them and bring them back to where they are supposed to be.

Can't tell if you are serious.

Hilarious post either way.

Recognizer of Hilarity wrote:

Waco Taco wrote:

This thread just shows how messed up the political systems of the world are. Governments are supposed to watch over people like a shepherd watches his sheep. A shepherd makes sure his sheep are safe from outside dangers. He leads them to where the grass is green, and leaves them to do their business there. He will do his best to prevent his sheep from going astray, and will find those that do and bring them back. The government is supposed to be a watchful guardian of the people. It is supposed to protect from outside dangers and present people with opportunity. If people go astray in their ways, the government should find them and bring them back to where they are supposed to be.

Can't tell if you are serious.

Hilarious post either way.

What's funny about it? Is the government NOT supposed to keep its citizens safe and in check?

Confuzzled wrote:

Recognizer of Hilarity wrote:

Can't tell if you are serious.

Hilarious post either way.

What's funny about it? Is the government NOT supposed to keep its citizens safe and in check?

In check?

Recognizer of Hilarity wrote:

In check?

Yes, you know like not destroying themselves or each other.

kdkdk wrote:

Recognizer of Hilarity wrote:

In check?

Yes, you know like not destroying themselves or each other.

Sorry, but you are going to have to be a little more specific than that.

Recognizer of Hilarity wrote:

kdkdk wrote:

Yes, you know like not destroying themselves or each other.

Sorry, but you are going to have to be a little more specific than that.

More specific about which part?

kdkdk wrote:

Recognizer of Hilarity wrote:

Sorry, but you are going to have to be a little more specific than that.

More specific about which part?

Define 'to destroy oneself' and 'to destroy each other'.

Recognizer of Hilarity wrote:

Define 'to destroy oneself' and 'to destroy each other'.

Why are you playing dumb?

kdkdk wrote:

Recognizer of Hilarity wrote:

Define 'to destroy oneself' and 'to destroy each other'.

Why are you playing dumb?

I am not.

The problem is that posters write nonsense using vaguely defined generalities like 'destroying oneself' which, on the face of it, sounds terrible. Of course we don't want any of that (people destroying themselves), now do we? Then said posters use this obvious conclusion (destroying oneself is 'bad') to justify government policies, structures and powers that are not at all sensible (some would say something much more strongly negative).

So, unless you are willing to be FAR more specific about what you think it is the government's business to concern itself with, your arguments will be invalid (to put it gently).