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.
I am just wondering how you all would define socialism, and is this something we want and desire in our country? I like Bastiat's definition the best. It is taken out of "The Law", written in the year he died, 1850,giving us a glimpse of how great this country was. It should make a person who lives here today, shudder, at the thought of what free men could be if given the full faculty of his abilities without restraint, and without plunder.
Are we free?
is Sweeden a socialist country?
are things that bad in scandinavian countries?
how about this:
we all like paid holidays, paid time off(vacation, sick time, personal day,...rtc), why should we get paid for not working?
we all like benefits...employer do not have to pay healthcare, dental, & vision plans for us.
is Sweeden a socialist country?
are things that bad in scandinavian countries?
how about this:
we all like paid holidays, paid time off(vacation, sick time, personal day,...rtc), why should we get paid for not working?
we all like benefits...employer do not have to pay healthcare, dental, & vision plans for us.
aren't those socialistic values?
In some countries people like to call "socialist" employers still pay for health care. They just aren't paying out their nose like some U.S. employers are.
Some countries see vacation time as caring about families, individuals, and their bottom line. If you don't have a bunch of stressed out people, it might help them with the county's health care costs. People may be more productive after their vacation or because they aren't all work-a-holics.
is Sweeden a socialist country?
are things that bad in scandinavian countries?
how about this:
we all like paid holidays, paid time off(vacation, sick time, personal day,...rtc), why should we get paid for not working?
we all like benefits...employer do not have to pay healthcare, dental, & vision plans for us.
aren't those socialistic values?
Yes they are. But more importantly they are classes of legal plunder.
A paid holiday is the benefit of the employee, given by the employer. The second it is mandated by the state in the form of a law requiring it, it becomes plunder.
Paid time off, the same way.
But there is a fine line between a benefit given to an employee by the employer, and a forced benefit mandated to the employer to be given to the employee.
How can you not see the difference?
If company A gave everyone who worked for them, a paid vacation, paid time off for illness, and leave(paid or unpaid) for emergencies,,,and company B did not,,,who would the people desire to work for? They may work at company B until a position opened up at company A,,,but rest assured,,they would have no loyalty to company B at all.
If the government came in and mandated benefits for ALL employees, where is the motivation for employers to go above and beyond what the mandates are? They are being forced to do something which otherwise they may not do, thereby creating legal plunder.
As of yet, the employer is not mandated to give healthcare benefits to employees. Some do already. These are companies like company A above that people desire to work for. But because there are people at company B, the laws will be changed to equalize the forced mandates, thereby creating another law to plunder.
When does plunder stop? When is a company making too much money to not regulate them equally? Some companies that give health care now, will stop when the mandates start. Mine for example. Why would the emplyer want to be punished for providing above and beyond health care, when it will be taxed 40%, instead of writing part of it off?
This nonsense about the haves and have nots needs to stop.
The have nots outnumber the haves by a margin of 9-1. But they are really just too damn lazy to see where this has started, so that they can rectify a situation. It is not too late. But people need to wake up and see reality for what it is. It is truly like the matrix. Freedom is an illusion long since lost by the legal plunder of the many to thhe power elite. Now they must give some back to the poor, otherwise they, who outnumber them 9-1, will rise up and TAKE it back.
But not everyone wants a hand out. They just want their property back. They want government OUT of their lives. They want charity to work as charity ought to. They want the American Dream of land ownership, not simply a house to pay for, for 30 working years, to end up having a property tax paid every year there after. In other words, they wind up dependant upon society for an income. It is not supposed to be this way.
And they are sick of people telling them what to do. And they are most sick of not having control over their lives, their liberties, and their property.
Without our labor, this country stops. The plunder stops. The bullcrap laws stop. It is the only thing we have going for us, right now, since liberty and property are gone.
But what happens when they do not need our labor? As we can see, most real producing jobs have left for cheaper labor.
We live in a service based economy, and since this "recession" started, the service industry has gone to hell in a handbasket. It is not going to get any better soon, as the credit that people were using to buy things has dried up. The housing market has dried up. The money is flowing, but not to the people who would bring more money to the service industry. ALL that is left, is for the FED to deflate the currency, or crash it by hyper inflation. Then it is game over. The people need to realize that the government is not the nanny they think it is. These are people who covet power, and lots of it. The laws today would be so regected not even 100 years ago as unconstitutional. Why are they still on the books? Because plunder, both legal and illegal will find a way, as long as there are people who want something for nothing at the expense of someone else.
- everybody else is settled with the imperfections of real life. (Of course, this particular philosopher was living comfortably on an inheritance, which may or may not have colored his thinking.)
Socialism is an abused term - it really was supposed to mean something along the lines of "shared ownership of the means of production", but it now seems to be used for anything that involves taxes.
Quote:
Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.
The indirect welfare model, with private charity being encouraged through tax deductions etc. has been tried, and it seems not to work too well. The cracks get bigger, and more people fall through. In hard times, where more people need charity, less becomes available. That is obviously tragic for those involved, but on a societal scale, this is also where unrest starts. Why should people with empty bellies and no roof over their head feel obliged to hold up their end of the social contract?
Spending your resources on concertina wire and guards to keep the poor out is not an efficient use of resources. Revolts and riots are incredibly wasteful.
Plus there's the whole moral side of it. In industrial ages, it is not outside our reach to see to it that everybody's fed, at the very least.
As for education, Bastiat's lesson is simply no longer valid. In the 1850s, the illiterate could still be employable and contribute. No longer so. Extending public resources on giving everybody at least some basic skills is good societal economics. It also helps extending the talent pool. The talents of some smart kid somewhere are going to waste somewhere right now, and that annoys me to no end.
I think it's fairly inevitable (just like in Europe) that we are heading in that direction. The current economic structure is simply not sustainable or viable for a healthy, functioning society
I am just wondering how you all would define socialism, and is this something we want and desire in our country? I like Bastiat's definition the best. It is taken out of "The Law", written in the year he died, 1850,giving us a glimpse of how great this country was. It should make a person who lives here today, shudder, at the thought of what free men could be if given the full faculty of his abilities without restraint, and without plunder.
Are we free?
Pure socialism is bad.. pure capitalism is bad.. pure 'freedom' is bad.
Anything in it's pure form is never agood thing.
Life, nature.. is all about balance. So are societies... There needs to be balance in anything that we do.
THat means being free while developing structures that are "socialistic" in nature.. because they make our society better in the end.
Unfortunately, people in this country fear what they don't understand.. and a lot, based on what I've read, are completely ignorant to the fact that we do indeed practice some socialistic principles in our societies.. and they help make the U.S the country that it is.
There are some areas where socialism shouldn't be practiced.. but when you deal with something like health care.. where it's a matter of life and death, the ability to have access to it should not simply be determined on wallet size.. as we are all human beings and one is not more valuable then the other. Health care means the difference between life and death. Owning a vehicle is not a life or death situation.. and it KILLS me when people try to parallel the two.
THis liberal doesn't love socialism.. I love a balance
Pure socialism is bad.. pure capitalism is bad.. pure 'freedom' is bad.
Anything in it's pure form is never agood thing.
Life, nature.. is all about balance. So are societies... There needs to be balance in anything that we do.
THat means being free while developing structures that are "socialistic" in nature.. because they make our society better in the end.
Unfortunately, people in this country fear what they don't understand.. and a lot, based on what I've read, are completely ignorant to the fact that we do indeed practice some socialistic principles in our societies.. and they help make the U.S the country that it is.
There are some areas where socialism shouldn't be practiced.. but when you deal with something like health care.. where it's a matter of life and death, the ability to have access to it should not simply be determined on wallet size.. as we are all human beings and one is not more valuable then the other. Health care means the difference between life and death. Owning a vehicle is not a life or death situation.. and it KILLS me when people try to parallel the two.
THis liberal doesn't love socialism.. I love a balance
When I was a kid, I could count the number of times on my hands that I went to the doctor outside of physicals. I was healthy, young, and active. I ate good food, and did not feel the need to overindulge in things that were unhealthy.
So I am supposed to pay for people who do?
My kids do not go to the doctor for a runny nose. In fact, I can also count on one hand the times they have been, outside of physicals. If we deem them sick enough to see a doctor, we go to a local urgent care($40),,and not an emergency room($600). It is simple economics. But, if the person is not footing the bill, they want immediate expensive care.
Not unlike food stamps. I do not get them. I make enough money for my family, and maybe once in a while, with some extra,,we can eat steaks on the grill. But when I am in the store, I see people ALL the time buying up expensive steaks, expensive cereals, and expensive everything,,,because they have welfare food stamps.
This is absolutely NOT right. They should have to use coupons,,or they should only buy generic(or store brands),,,and they should not be allowed to pay for meat that is over a set price per pound, like those oof us who watch what we spend. But hey, it isn't THEIR money,,,it is ours. So, they could care less, as we "owe" it to them,,,but I wonder,,,why?
When I was a kid, I could count the number of times on my hands that I went to the doctor outside of physicals. I was healthy, young, and active. I ate good food, and did not feel the need to overindulge in things that were unhealthy.
So I am supposed to pay for people who do?
My kids do not go to the doctor for a runny nose. In fact, I can also count on one hand the times they have been, outside of physicals. If we deem them sick enough to see a doctor, we go to a local urgent care($40),,and not an emergency room($600). It is simple economics. But, if the person is not footing the bill, they want immediate expensive care.
Not unlike food stamps. I do not get them. I make enough money for my family, and maybe once in a while, with some extra,,we can eat steaks on the grill. But when I am in the store, I see people ALL the time buying up expensive steaks, expensive cereals, and expensive everything,,,because they have welfare food stamps.
This is absolutely NOT right. They should have to use coupons,,or they should only buy generic(or store brands),,,and they should not be allowed to pay for meat that is over a set price per pound, like those oof us who watch what we spend. But hey, it isn't THEIR money,,,it is ours. So, they could care less, as we "owe" it to them,,,but I wonder,,,why?
Trying to sum up the argument against health care reform by your first paragraph just doesn't work. It's ridiculous. Most people I know are not flocking to stand on line at the Doctors simply because they feel they can..
It's ridiculous.
Nor is sayng you don't want to pay for someone else's bad habits.. that too is ridiculous.. for many reasons of which I have gone into extensively on other threads...
As for the food stamp thing.. I completely agree...
But let's look at something.. I have a budget when I go to the supermarket. I usually have noly x amount of money to spend on food.. AND I will try to buy whatever food gets me the MOST Food for that money.. make my money stretch. This week I did great as they had lots of meat buy one get one free..it's like I got double for my money.. and it gave me about two weeks worth of meals (more with left overs actually). I shop smart and am always thinking about how to stretch my money to get the most for it .. (My money.. i'm not on food stamps)
NOw, that being said a person on welfare is NOT given an unending supply of food stamps. Their food stamps equal x amount of dollars.. While they may be buying a $20 steak that would last them one meal, they have then used of $20 for one meal of meat when they could have purchased probably 3 or 4 meals of meat should they have bought the chicken family meat packs, etc with that same $20..
at the end of the month they would have eaten that steak, but their money would have run out sooner and perhaps by the end of the month they'll be eating.. well rice alone because they spent their food stamps foolishly...
THey are not really getting anything better or different..they are getting their alotment and allowed to divy it up however they want.. how smart they are with it.. how they make it stretch to meet their food requirements for the month is up to them. .. I guarantee you those buying the "expensive" brands find that they run out of food before the month runs out.... same as you or I on our little budgets we make for ourselves.
When I was a kid, I could count the number of times on my hands that I went to the doctor outside of physicals. I was healthy, young, and active. I ate good food, and did not feel the need to overindulge in things that were unhealthy.
So I am supposed to pay for people who do?
My kids do not go to the doctor for a runny nose. In fact, I can also count on one hand the times they have been, outside of physicals. If we deem them sick enough to see a doctor, we go to a local urgent care($40),,and not an emergency room($600). It is simple economics. But, if the person is not footing the bill, they want immediate expensive care.
Not unlike food stamps. I do not get them. I make enough money for my family, and maybe once in a while, with some extra,,we can eat steaks on the grill. But when I am in the store, I see people ALL the time buying up expensive steaks, expensive cereals, and expensive everything,,,because they have welfare food stamps.
This is absolutely NOT right. They should have to use coupons,,or they should only buy generic(or store brands),,,and they should not be allowed to pay for meat that is over a set price per pound, like those oof us who watch what we spend. But hey, it isn't THEIR money,,,it is ours. So, they could care less, as we "owe" it to them,,,but I wonder,,,why?
So say someone in your family did overeat or they did work out, would you want them to die or lose their house because they couldn't afford health care?
Also when you were growing up, did you have a lot of opportunities to eat fast food? How big were the portions? Was the government subsidizing unhealthy food? How much were fruits and vegetables compared to today?
Did your parents have to work 2 jobs to support you, which might have decreased the amount of time they had to exercise...?
Socialism ,economy-wise,is defined by 2 numbers...
1) The ratio of taxes to GNP,
for USA it is 38%,for Europe some 50%...
The higher the ratio,the more socialistic a country is...
The higher the top income tax rate,the more anti-rich biased that system is...
2) The ratio of the size of the public/government sector of the economy to the overall economy...
In communist countries it was...100%...
In USA ,it is some 20%
The most capitalist/least socialist country was Hong Kong,before merging with China
& today Singapore ( top tax rate 28%,no SS tax)
& some low tax paradises...Top tax rate 20%,no SS tax...very small gov sector.
Also the big surprise,Russia,with no SS & top rate at 13%,
FSU,Eastern european countries
The most socialist countries are today Cuba & N. Corea,with...100% of the economy belonging to the communists...
Every measure against the private sector,which reduces the private sector & expands the gov sector is socialistic...
Any raise of taxes or imposition of new taxes against the will of the people,
on the pretext of "distribution of wealth ",robbing Pete to pay Paul,
is a socialistic measure.
Thus,
a mandate to save for retirement ( individual pension accounts)
&
a mandate to buy insurance,
would be considered capitalist measures..
The imposition of social security tax ( 1935)
&
later of Medicare/Medicaid ( 1965)
were socialist measures...
These 2 measures are the clench of socialism on American economy.
That's why the "progressives " are mad in favour of them...
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.
Philosophers get to speak in absolutes.
