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'm not sure how to answer that. This country has a mix of socialism and capitalism. Schools are definitely socialistic and so are many other things. Almost 10% of West Virginia is on Disability and that includes medical coverage. The top five states in the country on Disability are all in the south, West Virginia, Arkansas, Mississippi, Kentucky and Alabama. Medicare recipients only pay about a third of the costs for the benefits they receive, we tax payers pay the rest. Almost all nursing home care is paid for by Medicaid. The funny thing is, I don't see seniors or people from the south protesting to end those programs.
I'm not sure how to answer that. This country has a mix of socialism and capitalism. Schools are definitely socialistic and so are many other things. Almost 10% of West Virginia is on Disability and that includes medical coverage. The top five states in the country on Disability are all in the south, West Virginia, Arkansas, Mississippi, Kentucky and Alabama. Medicare recipients only pay about a third of the costs for the benefits they receive, we tax payers pay the rest. Almost all nursing home care is paid for by Medicaid. The funny thing is, I don't see seniors or people from the south protesting to end those programs.
We have some people on both the right and the left who vehemently will deny that a welfare state is socialism. Usually for opposite reasons. We even have people who for years have demonized welfare policies as socialism and then turn around and say that tax funded programs are not socialism, but just part of a capitalist mixed economy.
I don't think there are any countries which provide housing for everyone, but the concept of providing tax-payer funded services is socialist, but it does not make the whole country socialist. Every country has tax payer funded services. Nordic countries have more such services than us, but they also have free market economies, so as whole they are mixed.
I wonder how much socialism is socialism. I heard that medicine can make a person well but to much can kill also. There seems to be a recommended dosage for a positive outcome. That's how I view socialism.
If blue states want to give away free education, housing and all the other free stuff they can do that now. I would like to see them do it. Then we could have examples of success and failure and decide if its worth doing on a national level. That would be better than doing it on a national level and damaging the entire country with another Obama like program.
Some socialist countries are smaller than some of our states. Size or population shouldn't be an issue. Put you state where your mouth is liberals and get it done.
I wonder how much socialism is socialism. I head that medicine can make a person well but to much can kill also. There seems to be a recommended dosage for a positive outcome. That's how I view socialism.
If blue states want to give away free education, housing and all the other free stuff they can do that now. I would like to see them do it. Then we could have examples of success and failure and decide if its worth doing on a national level. That would be better than doing it on a national level and damaging the entire country with another Obama like program.
No country has part of the country providing education, housing and health care, while another part of the country provides nothing. Thats impossible as long as we have free movement of people. Red states can simply kick out all the disabled by eliminating all support for them and they will be forced to flood the blue states. The red states can then brag how a public safety net doesnt work. No country does it like this. And the ruling class in America knows it, thats why they always bring up this "state's rights" rhetoric.
Technically, no. Socialism involves state ownership of means of production. The welfare state is actually a historical compromise to avoid socialism.
However, when taxation and government regulation become excessive, it is 6 of one, half dozen of the other. For good or ill, in modern parlance, it is acceptable to denounce European models as "socialist."
Technically, no. Socialism involves state ownership of means of production. The welfare state is actually a historical compromise to avoid socialism.
However, when taxation and government regulation become excessive, it is 6 of one, half dozen of the other. For good or ill, in modern parlance, it is acceptable to denounce European models as "socialist."
So workers have no say in the matter? A dictator can own everything and calls it "socialist" for propaganda purposes to appeal to the masses even though workers are literal slaves of a ruling king?
Do you know of a place where workers have actually owned the means of production? I am talking about workers. Not a dictator.
Any form of taxation can be considered socialism, as it's taking some of the output of means of production, which is essentially "ownership lite".
Last edited by Joe90; 06-30-2018 at 02:18 PM..
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.
