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.
Many of us,who are faithful in capitalism,understand that already the socialists occupy half of the nation's healthcare...
It is only a matter of time until they turn USA to Canada...
Step by step,they build the socialist state.
The matter is how can we dismantle it...
The 1st step was Social Security,the 2nd was Medicare/-aid,the 3rd is the new law...
So,my simple proposal to undo this socialisation is to privatize everything.
Private insurance only & private pensions only.
People who are already in the system,will continue to be serviced by the government,by going more into debt. But the programs of SS & Mc/Md will be terminated & substituted by a gov mandate to buy private insurance & enroll in private pensions only.
The cost will probably be the same,15.3 % but the fundamental difference is that socialism imposes a tax against the will of the people ,while capitalism issues a common sence mandate,for the general good...
The difference between taxation & a mandate is the difference between tyranny & duty...
As for the debt,it may be serviced,to an extent ,or forgiven.
Govs go to debt since...forever.
A Repub full majority,House-Senate-Presidency,possibly in 2012,with the aid of Blue Dog Dems, could pass such a monumental...termination of socialism...
I would like to hear your opinions,especially from people specialising in economics...
While there are real threats to capitalism, Social Security is not one of them. Soc. Sec. is funded by payroll tax deductions; it is a type of mandatory insurance. It is not the same as welfare. After the recent collapse of equity values, it is amazing that advocates of privatization are not too embarrassed to bring it up again. Who would benefit from privatization? Mainly the Wall Street oligarchy, not the average citizen. The destruction of the American middle class is not in the best interest of capitalism, unless you define capitalism as a third world type of total control by a small minority of super-rich fat cats. A thriving middle class, which includes viable small businesses along side large corporations, is central to capitalism.
There would be stringent rules for those private pensions,similar or tougher than those followed by CALPERS etc...
My idea is just to end that gov clench on people's money...
I am not talking about privatizing the current system,but ending it & replacing it with a new,all-private one...
Thanks for the clarifications of your thinking. However, I think your differentiation between taxation and mandates is hair-splitting. When you say that socialism imposes a tax against the will of the people, you ignore the fact that taxes have to be voted by Congress. Of course any tax will be against the will of some people. When I re-read your proposal, I just can't escape the feeling that you are disconnected from reality. Good luck with your "stringent rules" for private pensions - I shudder to think how that legislation would actually end up. Social Security has worked well for over 80 years, and it certainly doesn't make this country socialist just because Soc. Sec. is run by the government.
It is wrong for anyone to claim that SOCIAl Security & Medi-care/-aid are not socialist programs...
The government confiscates the people's money & runs a program "owned " by the gov & run by comissioners ( in russian "soviet") ...
It is 100% socialism.
Now,those of u who are socialists,just claim that socialism is a good thing,but don't try to claim that those gov programs are not socialised takeover of a large sector of the economy...
A capitalist solution is private pensions & private insurance only...
That can happen voluntarily,theoritically. But reality shows that a ful 1/5 of the people decide,either from desire or from nessecity ,not to pay their contribution but become the parasites of the system...
That blind "liberalism",that silly "non intervention ",that foolish..."laissez-faire", gave the opportunity to the socialists to strike in 1935 with Social Security & in 1965 with Medi-care/-aid.
If they were capitalists,they would mandate private pensions...
They would mandate private insurance,so at least Medicare would be private...
Now,the solutions are ...
Either the people are mandated to pay BOTH SS/Mc/d AND private pension/private insurance ( over 65),which is impossible, ( actually,only "the rich "are doing so now...),
or the gov goes to debt,finances those 2 programs till the last recipient dies & mandates private pensions & insurance...
If the Repubs were not stupid,they would have done it since...1935,when they saw the socialist vultures circling over the sheep...
From 1935 to 1965 to 2010,the socialists got 50% of the most sensitive & crucial part of the economy,the insurance & the healthcare.
They will not stop,until they go to 90%,as in the Continent,where only "the rich" have private insurance & pension & go to private hospitals...
Either they will turn USA to Canada,or we will turn USA to America...
While there are real threats to capitalism, Social Security is not one of them. Soc. Sec. is funded by payroll tax deductions; it is a type of mandatory insurance. It is not the same as welfare. After the recent collapse of equity values, it is amazing that advocates of privatization are not too embarrassed to bring it up again. Who would benefit from privatization? Mainly the Wall Street oligarchy, not the average citizen. The destruction of the American middle class is not in the best interest of capitalism, unless you define capitalism as a third world type of total control by a small minority of super-rich fat cats. A thriving middle class, which includes viable small businesses along side large corporations, is central to capitalism.
I'm sure Wall Street would find some way to continue screwing us all over.
Actually, Social Security is the opposite of socialism. When the Act was being discussed, one way of paying for it that was discussed was to have the funds invested in the private sector, that is stocks. It was felt at that time that if this was done, the govt. would be too involved in the private sector; therefore paying for it by other, non intrusive methods were developed. See the original debate on this. It still holds true. Can you imagine the whining of those who we would have to bail out if it was privatized when the market tanks? The fact is that the govt. has always been involved in the economy, whether it was the federal govt. taking over lighthouses during the early days of the republic, the states taking over private roads and even the building of the transcontinental railroad.
Can you imagine where we would be today if SS had been privatized? Between those that would not have invested and those that would have invested in Madoff-like schemes, the government would be assisting many more folks today, as they would have nothing coming in each month.
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.
