Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But, to play Devil'd Advocate here: I would have to assume that the majority of people who would want to vote in such a system, well, they would HAVE to realize that their taxes will go up as their incomes and freedoms go down wouldn't they?
Progressives don't value Liberty. They value central planning and State control over individuals and industry.
Progressives don't have any principles. They only have goals.
Socialism generally infers state ownership of the means of production outright.
Bernie doesn't advocate for that (in the majority of instances) but he does want the means of production to be extremely strictly regulated and directed by a central authority. This is de facto socialism for all intents and purposes. Only difference is that we will be able to live off our saved capital established over the generations for a while. However, this ideology always leads to the same place in the end.
#1 is an economic and moral concept that makes more sense than the alternative. In Los Angeles, where I live, homelessness is a huge drain on the city. #2 is really just common sense, considering how terrible for-profit healthcare has been for the health of Americans. #3 is the best way to edge out China and our other competition on the global market now that manufacturing has effectively left America. #4 is something I've never heard Bernie Sanders or any other Democratic Socialist mention. #5 and #6 are communist, not socialist. I realize that most Americans think Socialism and Communism are interchangeable, but they are very different. #7 is again common sense. Denying man-made climate change is foolish and the politicians and moneyed interests who continue to fight efforts to do something about climate change are dooming us to a terrible future.
I know... American healthcare is so bad that Americans are being killed by it left and right. And our expected lifespan has either gone down or is, at best flat. Plus, some people in the healthcare industry actually make a PROFIT for rendering services, which obviously is completely insane. Plus most children born in our hospitals get crappy care and often die. Plus...
Progressives don't value Liberty. They value central planning and State control over individuals and industry.
Progressives don't have any principles. They only have goals.
Do people actually believe this? Put down the Kool-Aid. It's poisoned your brain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjimmy24
Socialism generally infers state ownership of the means of production outright.
That's communism, not socialism. Please read a book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjimmy24
Bernie doesn't advocate for that (in the majority of instances) but he does want the means of production to be extremely strictly regulated and directed by a central authority. This is de facto socialism for all intents and purposes. Only difference is that we will be able to live off our saved capital established over the generations for a while. However, this ideology always leads to the same place in the end.
That's not even true. Bernie is for workplace safety regulations, paid time off for things like illness and childbirth, paid vacation time, and stricter environmental regulations. At no time has Bernie ever advocated for some central authority to rule over the means of production. That is an outright lie.
Bernie is a Democratic Socialist, in much the same way as are politicians in Scandinavia. He wants government to work for the people, as it once did. If we want a country that works, with fine educational institutions, clean air and water, etc., we have to pay for it. When Eisenhower levied a 90% tax on the rich (even if they didn't actually pay that much in taxes, they certainly paid more than they do now), the American middle class thrived. Bernie was Mayor of Burlington when I lived there in the 80s, and he's the same guy today that he was then. He simply cannot be bought, which is why he is so beloved in Vermont.
But to answer your concerns:
1) Many of the homeless are vets and others with psychiatric problems; Bernie wants immediate relief for vets and the mentally ill, in the form of a place to live and proper medical care. What American would deny this to such an American in need?
2) Universal Health Care: Yes, he wants "single-payer," the same thing--which is exactly what every other civilized democracy has (and which Obama wanted, too, but knew the Republicans--who are totally bought by the blood-sucking healthy insurance predators--would never go for it, so we got the best we could do). Again, taxes will have to pay for it. But do we want to live in a civilized and humane society or do we not? Gotta pay, folks.
3) Free Education: Not really "free," but certainly inexpensive--like it used to be. I paid $200/semester + books and fees, 40 years ago, to attend one of the top public universities in the nation. Seemed perfectly normal. The history of higher education in the U.S. is that, until the past few decades, it was pretty much affordable for anyone who wished to go. Seems un-American to gouge people for an education. And don't we want an educated populace? Don't we want our children to have access to this without being saddled with debt for the rest of their lives? I don't even have children, and I'd be happy to pay higher taxes if it meant more health care and education for more people. Why wouldn't I be? I live in a community; I can pay more than some other people, so I should pay more than other people. Correction: I do have children, the children of my community. I can drop $100/month, easy, at Starbucks; I can give that up if it means the children in my community would then have a chance.
4) Public transportation is better for everybody, and certainly better for the environment. Such a relief, in Boston and NY, not to have to drive everywhere.
5) Guaranteed employment: To the best of my knowledge, Bernie is not calling for guaranteed employment. He's calling for manufacturing to be brought back to the U.S. The American business community completely abandoned the American people. Their marketing narrative is that they HAD to offshore/outsource in order to "survive" in a "global economy." Total B.S. First, they're the ones that created the global economy; second, they offshored/outsourced because they saw a golden opportunity to exploit resources and labor in "developing" countries (no pesky environmental and labor laws to hold them back) for an OBSCENE profit. Germany said, "Fine, you want to offshore, you will pay taxes through the nose if you do so." End result: Over 90% of manufacturing jobs have remained in Germany--and surprise, surprise, they're doing just fine in the "global economy." The whole globalization thing is the biggest and most dangerous scam ever pulled.
6) No candidate, to the best of my knowledge, is calling for guaranteed "universal income." When an economy works, it's not necessary.
7) Yep, climate change: everything else is detail. Just a fact. Green businesses, green jobs consistently out-perform business-as-usual, in terms of profit. Even Harvard Business Review featured an article a few years ago, stating that if you weren't on the sustainability train in future business, you would be left at the station. I highly recommend watching Ray Anderson's Ted talk (businessman from Georgia, owned second-largest carpet manufacturing business in the world, who had an epiphany about this), or William McDonough's Ted talk. The writing is on the wall; the window is rapidly narrowing. People need to grow up and stop clinging to political ideologies where this topic is concerned. I mean, seriously: Big ball of fire in the sky, geothermal, wind (think: Parable of the Flood). But no: let's destroy the oceans, blow up mountains, frack, etc., so that a very few predatory businesses can make an obscene profit at the expense of the planet's health and our children's future. We're losing 200 species/day to extinction. It's not natural; it's not evolution; it's us. And it's un-American to allow this to go on, or think that this is "capitalism." This isn't capitalism; it's a global oligarchy that is destroying our world. We are the only "developed" nation in the world that still entertains this inane and dangerous "climate denial" nonsense. But denial and fear sometimes win out.
All of the above: seems like common sense to me, whatever label you want to put on it.
Ok thank you for your post. You seem to be well educated on the issue, which is what I was looking for in my original posting... Some clarity.
You have mentioned the ideas that Bernie is for. And quite frankly they all sound awesome! But, as stated in my OP posting: How and where does the money come from to pay for all of this? Is there a plan to pay for it all, and please don't tell me that greedy corporations and rich people can foot the bill for all of this, it's simply impossible. So, let's imagine that he raises taxes on the middle class and poor, there's still not going to be enough to pay for it all.
The only way I could ever see enough funding for such social programs would be to eliminate the social programs we already have such as food stamps, wellfare, HUD, Medicare/Medicade, Public schools, etc...
To wipe the slate clean and start over. Would that be a fair statement? Are there any "experts" out there that have a plan to pay for it all? If so I'd really love to read up on it thanks.
Ok to my questions:
Topic 1: Many homeless and Vets already have places to go and government programs to not only take care of the mental and physical health, but there's also private, non-profit Charities in which to support our downtrodden as well. No money down VA loans and subsidized housing as well. Could we expand this help through the Feds? Sure we could, or would you be more in favor of taking the billions that we already blow down the drain on HUD, VA, etc and re-routing these funds to our homeless and vets in a more streamlined manner? Do we always have to spend more I guess is my question?
Topic 2: Blood sucking insurance companies. How would you eliminate these corporations humanely? Let's say that all three branches of government decided to become a single payers system. This would essentially eliminate the need for Big Insurance and Pharma. So, how would you go about displacing these companies or shutting them down? Also, what would you do with their employees, which runs in the millions?
Topic 3: I agree that Universities charge way too much. I would like to see all the money that the large schools earn on football TV contracts go into reducing tuitions or paying their educator's instead of buying new stadiums. But we do have Pell Grants, well, thousands of Grants out there as well as scholarships to help aspiring students. I would also push for more meaningful degrees. There are far too many useless degrees out there that students are paying 100K to get and that will do NOTHING for them in the real world. A BA in African Studies or 16th Century Music is certainly going to limit your job opportunities.
Topic 4: I would only say that public transportation should be addressed at the state level. Our state is more spread out with only a few urban areas, and we limit our public transportation to bus routes. Although there have been talks about adding a high speed rail line from one city to the next, I would gladly spend more in taxes to fix and widen the roads we already have in place before voting to pay for a rail line. Such local issues should be left to the local governments. If the Feds want to help pay for it, then it should go up for vote, just as it does locally.
Topic 5: Would you suggest punishing these outsourced companies to force them to move to the US through taxation? Import tax I'm guessing?
Topic 7: I would argue that 95% of the world's countries don't adhere to your global clean standards and would never adhere to clean air laws, deforestation laws, etc. Look at Brasil, look at any river in Thailand-India-China-Ethiopia-Argentina, look at the housing boom in Europe (they use lumber too you know), the smog in Japan etc.
I personally think the Earth is getting hotter. But to me, I would much rather spend my tax money not punishing corporations that use fossil fuels and deforest America. I think that we do a pretty darn good job of policing these folks. I would much rather spend my scientific experts and money and innovation on our oceans, which are now a floating mass of churned up ground up plastic. To me this is a much greater threat to humanity than a few degrees of warmth (which could be created by the sun... who knows).
If the EPA is so effective, why do we still have coal mining, fracking, gas stations and refineries, hydroelectric plants, strip mining? And again, having a broad sweeping magic wand, how would you propose eliminating these vital industries and the jobs of the people that work there?
I'm only trying to ask questions that I have asked many times, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus on how to pay for all of these desires, and hopes.
I don't think that will ever happen until a population (the US) is all in agreements to doing so. We had 4 years in a Liberal controlled governments just recently in Obama's first term, he had free reign to do whatever he show chose to push forward. Why didn't he enact more of these programs when given the chance. The best we got was a half-ass attempt at a single-payer system. Were the Dems in office too weak to not bow to Big Insurance/Pharma? Or was there too much money involved on both sides of the aisle (which is my guess)...
Thanks again for your input and I await your insight.
It doesn't have to be everything as stated in your list. Sander's could no way get all his ideas through congress, so we'd never move to a more "European" or even Canadian style of Democratic socialism. We already have socialist programs, but there's a scale. Europe is just further down the scale.
I would be fine with my taxes going up if, in return, I didn't have to pay thousands a year out of pocket for health care and college was cheaper for my kids.
Which programs would you hold more weight to personally and how would you convince the American people to pay for it?
Socialism, in any form is absolutely never going to happen in the USA. Those Euro nations that do subscribe to a democratic form of socialism have had a fair amount of success, BUT, not the kind of lifestyle everyone here in the US wants to live, actually, there are a ton of people living in those socialist nations that will be leaving when the opportunity arises.
So, one can safely say that socialism isn't everyone's cup o' tea, it's also noted in the many posts that the entire construct of socialism relies on a kind of understanding of what it means to live in a place where the overall prosperity is a larger concern than that of the individual's. In America the setup is basically a casino type of economy, it's frictional sides being that of winners and losers. The losers, like those wandering around Vegas and Reno a few years back, are deemed to be losers because they took the wrong path, the winners are seen as winners by the same view, their winning ways guaranteed by the taking of the right path
The "system" takes no formal position on either side, the winners, in true casino fashion, are of course held up as the standard to meet or beat, but most losers know the requirements are high and their larder of skills no match when compared to that of the winners. Winners love the investment markets, they love their winnings also, money to go and do as they please, they hate taxes, they hate any "intrusion by the government" with regard to wages, labor laws, or anything that may serve the losers. They love the fact of their upper position, they denigrate the poor as a group not worthy of their attention, they are after all, the winners, and as such, busy winning more. The mantra is "you can never have enough."
They drive the best cars, shop at high end stores, travel to nice resort places with a lot of the poor working there to serve them, in their world socialism equates with equality, and the winners are considered nothing if not the better segment of the population. These folks make up the bulk of our upper class who rules from the bench, owns or manages the top enterprises, are a part of the vast inherited wealth class, and, most importantly, they operate behind the scenes of political theater. They, like the palace guards, protect their turf, the winners turf, from that growing army of losers.
They fight any legislation that trespasses on their "right" to their winner status, in this world, money makes rights, health care, got money? Transportation, got money, education, got money? Money is their ticket to ride and no one without money need be concerned about these things until they too can get that money. These people are on top of the socio/economic pile in America, they will never give an inch to those who want them to share in the American prosperity they've created for themselves.
Money isn't just a functioning tool to utilize, it has become an indicator, and most know which side they are on by the presence of it, or, the lack of it in their lives. America is not a nation that runs on majority rule, this sets it apart from a more direct form of democracy, here money talks, and it talks loud, it's voice is wrapped up in the money owned media, the government itself, the Wall Street crowd, and guys like Bernie Sanders won't succeed unless he turns down the heat and becomes a good little servant to the real power.. Something I'm certain he understands.
Thank you for your input. I agree that the media and a few rich guys own this country. The media pushes the elections (the candidates then spend their donations on the media), and the cycle continues. The media is who decides which issues are important to us, and we fall for it hook line and sinker. Don't ever think that the media doesn't run this country, because they do, and everything they do, every ounce of their existence is to sell advertising in order to pay their shareholders.
I'm a social democrat but i am a European and although the problems socialdemocracy has to face here are different to the ones that it has to face in the USA but i still want to try to weigh in.
First of all, low level jobs will become fewer and fewer as factories keep moving wherever production can be achieved at lower costs. That means that unemployment will be higher in the future and the implementation of proper Welfare State would basically sum all the current half arsed attempts at it with basic income (for the unemployed, which should be just enough for someone to live his life), minimum wage (which should be enough to ensure a somewhat decent life), universal healthcare and reduced costs (if not free) for basic rights such as healthcare, education, ecc.
Everyone would have to be taxed but the implemention of welfare state policies would mean that there would be a progressive taxation to redistribute wealth. This is the main reason why the upper classes oppose it the most, it simply brings little benefits to them at the present but in the long run, they could risk a loss of wealth and welfare state could give them the chance to avoid extreme levels of poverty so the way i see it's beneficial to them in the long run as it provides them something to fall back on during times of hardships
Welfare State should be funded through higher taxes (keep in mind though that costs for families would be reduced through the implementation of free or lowered prices for several services), spending review and cuts to the military system
Seems reasonable. Except for this, help me to clarify since you live in such system already. As it became easier to not work or contribute to society, as the welfare system improve for Europe, and things became more free or less expensive, wouldn't this encourage more people to just stop working and live off the Government programs. I can easily see this happening. A nation of lazy people. The argument being, "Why work? I get paid to go fishing instead!"
Is this an issue for you where you live?
Thanks for the input.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
