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.
Instead of this: "6) Universal Income - Socialism should use the community "pool" of resources to ensure that all citizens are paid on an equal basis, with no jobs or professions more important or better than the next one."
This is closer to the case: 6)Universal Income - Socialism should ensure that all citizens who work are paid a living wage. There will be still people making more money than others. However, some people cannot work (permanently disabled) so they should get a stipend from the government. Those with mental illness, addictions, etc. should get treatment so that they may become productive members of society again.
Bernie Sanders has raped the words "socialist" and "democratic socialist". Sanders is not a democratic socialist, he's a mainstream social democratic capitalist, and is considered a right-winger among true European democratic socialists.
No European country subscribe to "democratic socialism", that is the radical left. Kind of a left-wing version of the Tea Party. For example the Scandinavian system is a progressive capitalist one with elements of social democratic internal policies: equality of opportunity and promoting social mobility. Sanders might be radical on US standards, but for Europeans he's merely the 13th in a dozen.
This is what Sanders subscribes to:
The Nordic model (also called Nordic capitalism[1] or Nordic social democracy)[2][3] refers to the economic and social policies common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland and Sweden). This includes a combination of free marketcapitalism with a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level.[4][5] Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all share some common traits. These include support for a "universalist" welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labor and employers negotiate wages and labor market policy mediated by the government;[6] and a commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets and free trade.[7]
We did adopt many socialist principles but we are still far more capitalistic than anything else.
Capitalism ended in 1933.
Capitalist Principles
...
CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for private profit.
- - - WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY
PRIVATE PROPERTY - "As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217
If you concatenate capitalism with private property, you can see the "inconvenient truth".
CAPITALISM is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are absolutely owned by INDIVIDUALS and operated for their individual profit.
If you think about it, American capitalism is an endowment to be secured by government. There is no government privilege involved in absolute ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and of the gain derived. Nor can capitalism be subject to an excise tax, since no government privilege is involved.
This definition does NOT include usury (banking), gambling (underwriting), speculation, extortion, limited liability artificial persons (government privileged) or other predatory practices usually attributed to "capitalism". Coincidentally, such practices are subject to an excise tax, for they are revenue taxable privileges.
Since the introduction of national socialism via "Social Security", no one has absolutely owned a thing. The government can and will tax away anything and everything. This illustrates that no one owns private property - for any taking of private property must be compensated for (5th amendment, USCON).
Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
From the Communist manifesto:
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
...
“The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of government, i.e. law, amounting to mere user; and user must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.”
— Senate Document No. 43, 73D Congress, 1st Session, entitled: “Contracts Payable in Gold”, by George Cyrus Thorpe, submitted to the senate: April 17, 1933 http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Mone...enateDoc43.pdf
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...al-tender.aspx
". . .Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy."
It would appear, that starting in 1933, THE STATE became the ultimate owner of all property in the USA. And CONgress has used all YOUR goods and services as collateral on their worthless IOUs (dollar bills) - without just compensation.
= Welcome to the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of Amerika. =
. . .
BTW - "estate" and "private property" are mutually exclusive.
That is why government can tax "real estate" but cannot tax "private property."
(Do not believe me. Read the law for yourself.)
...
I wish Bernie good luck, but I don't think Americans will support Scandinavian Socialism for two reasons:
1. It requires a huge tax rate, 50% +.
"We have the highest tax rate anywhere in the world."
"Our taxes - we just put in a plan the other day - we’re going to reduce taxes tremendously because we have the highest tax rate anywhere in the world and our middle class is being absolutely destroyed," Trump said. "It’s being destroyed."
— Donald Trump on Wednesday, October 14th, 2015 in a speech.
If--as Trump says--we already pay the highest taxes in the world, then it should be no problem to reduce our rate to the Scandinavian level and provide the same services they do.
What does that have to do with the post you quoted?
It was a response to the person who was blaming rich white Republican politicians for having agendas. I merely stated that BOTH parties have right white folks running them.
That's why a minimum wage higher than unemployment benefits should be set. Aside from that, such benefits aren't everlasting and if they are, it is because of severe issues probably related to health.
Another problem that arises is that the USA has large economical differences between its states and cities and i think that means that the minimum wage and unemployment benefits in New York should be higher than in Jackson or Little Rock
Agreed completely. Minimum wage should always be handled at the municipal or state level.
Instead of this: "6) Universal Income - Socialism should use the community "pool" of resources to ensure that all citizens are paid on an equal basis, with no jobs or professions more important or better than the next one."
This is closer to the case: 6)Universal Income - Socialism should ensure that all citizens who work are paid a living wage. There will be still people making more money than others. However, some people cannot work (permanently disabled) so they should get a stipend from the government. Those with mental illness, addictions, etc. should get treatment so that they may become productive members of society again.
So a neurosurgeon makes as much as a bagger at a grocery store?
So a neurosurgeon makes as much as a bagger at a grocery store?
That's pretty much how it works. I work with a lot with Russians and there doctors are not only second class citizens, but poorly trained and poorly paid.
But I think socialism/communism would look better here than in most other countries with respect to things like this. That said, I disapprove of making the switch.
That's pretty much how it works. I work with a lot with Russians and there doctors are not only second class citizens, but poorly trained and poorly paid.
But I think socialism/communism would look better here than in most other countries with respect to things like this. That said, I disapprove of making the switch.
If you look at say... Canada or England. Take a look at their medical professionals for example. They make a comfortable living, work reasonable hours, and are trained well. I don't see why you would have to have equal pay for EVERYONE. To me a much more effect form of Socialism would be to have a tax scale that hit the higher paying jobs the hardest, like you see in Scandanavian countries.
But getting the folks below poverty to pay their share? Perhaps a consumption tax is in order?
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.
