Originally posted by The Nighthawk

Originally posted by die_another_day
The real drawback of socialism is simply this concept of "equality" which does not exist in reality.

But it can. America's founding is based on this very principle. We just have to want it hard enough to make it happen.

i agree with you. i think we have always had a certain amount of socialism. the degree in which it is applied and used, is what changes. even the very wealthy try and socialize their loses, and that was enacted when the 1st corporation was started and legitimized back in the 1600's.

I am not a socialist, but I believe that everyone in the US should have access to basic health care. This can be done without socialism. All the government has to do is negotiate with large insurance companies to create GROUP policies for American Citizens. The reason there is such a wide discrepancy between people's insurance policies in group plans is because of the demographic mix of each group, and more importantly, the number of participants in the group. The higher the number of participants, the lower the annual premium. The reason we DON'T have that now is simple enough- Insurance company lobbyists and their crooked members of Congress.
A basic group health care policy with annual checkups, pregnancy care, delivery of babies, doctor visits for illnesses, coverage for generic prescriptions, and hospital visits, could be negotiated for a small percentage of what most people(and their employers) pay now. For those that are truly disabled Medicaid already covers them now. Such a policy would not cover cosmetic elective surgery. or other elective surgery not necessary as a true medical problem. This would allow freedom of choice of health providers, with reasonable price fees set in the policy. If someone wanted to see a doctor that charged more than was allowed, it would be their responsibility. This solution leaves the government out of the business of telling you who you can go to, and whether you can go.
Let's see if Obama is serious about health care for all. This solution would be the most efficient, least costly way for BOTH citizens and the government.

The problem with socialism is it's a bunch of people who don't want to do for themselves or work harder to make things happen for them. They look at people who worked their buns off, worked sixty, seventy hours a week with a passion to make alot of money and want what they have for free. These people either don't have a job or they settle for a forty hour a week paycheck. I for one don't want these people punishing the rich because they don't have the gutts to go the extra miles to better theirselves. While we're here posting half our life on forums and websites there are people working, planning for their future and running their businesses. Some start out as early as 4:00 in the morning and get home after nidnight. Some don't get home for weeks. Some travel so much they don't have a home, but they have the energy, the passion for their dream to succeed and have the money they need to support a family or pay their employees. I'm against all who think these people should pay more because they have more money than you. Taking away the rewards and benefits of those who work harder or make better decisions is down right stealing. I think the Fair Tax would solve alot of our problems but no politician wants to give up the best weapon they have against us and that's the tax codes of America. You give any power to the citizens and it threatens to expose those who have taken from us for years and centuries. Yes Socialism is bad and the American dream will disappear when you let governments take from the sucessful.

Response Part 1

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
I AM a Socialist.

Thank you for telling us where you are coming from.

First, for those of you who whine about not wanting people to "get lazy" and rely on "The Government" for everything, and still, STILL, complain about taxes (Legal and Constitutional--See the 16th Amendment and don't give me your "never ratified" garbage either, a cursory glance at Wikipedia proves this is not so), remember that this is the United States of America and our nation is, at its core, based on the Democratic principle of Government For, Of and By the People. Taxes are your DUTY as a Citizen to pay, because as a Citizen, you benefit from what the Government provides (or is supposed to provide).

This is a pretty harsh tone to take. I don’t believe that there is anything wrong with paying taxes. There are certain government responsibilities that taxpayers should be responsible for. National defense, judicial systems, and the like are examples at the Federal level. Roads, first responders, and the like are examples at the State level. The problem is that most people get frustrated when their tax dollars are spent on Unconstitutional and backwards Federal agencies and services.

Second, Socialist policies can SAVE this country.

This remains to be seen.

That's what group plans and networks are all about--insurance companies "socializing" the costs of doing business throughout their customer base, while your employer "socializes" his healthcare costs by spreading it among all his employees (by getting as many as possible into Plan X so that he gets a discount package).

I disagree on a few points. One, private companies paying for the healthcare costs of their employees is not the same as the Federal Government using the wealth of every taxpayer to provide for a state healthcare service. Two, I hardly believe that a state run healthcare system would put your health before finances. Take a look at the current social service programs already going on in this nation and you will see that these government run programs are not out for the benefit of the people (public housing as an example).

If we switch over to a universal health care system that's a gigantic load off the backs of American businesses. Employers who spend millions or more on employee health care plans would be free of that cost.

The problem here is that you are not taking into account the increased taxes on business and individuals to pay for this universal healthcare system. Just because you take a burden from one area does not mean you don’t have to reapply it somewhere else.

Response Part 2

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
And, considering how much policies cost these days (my wife and I were looking because her coverage at work is being downgraded to an "HSA" by her employer to save money--care for both of us would approximately cost 45-50% of our combined annual income for coverage roughly equal to her old insurance…

You take that 50% of your income that you use to pay for your medical coverage and you simply have to pay that money back to the government in taxes, like in most socialized European nations.

Everybody wins except the corporate vampires who feed off the current (and obscene) for-profit healthcare system we have today. What a concept!

The Federal Government has a track record of putting corporate agendas before the populace. Therefore to grow the Federal government with socialism will only get you increased more of the same.

Best part is it doesn't even require higher taxes for the vast majority of Americans... It's corporate welfare at its most insane.

The fact that you use the term corporate welfare shows me you understand how corporations get their power by using the Federal Government as a tool. To give the Federal government more authority by socialism the only thing you accomplish is increased corporatism.

The beast will starve, and then they'll be begging for bailouts just like all the rest of Corporate America…

These bailouts you seem to detest are socialist actions. What we should do is take these companies to task and not reward unethical and stupid business practices.

The Socialist Revolution WILL happen, either by force of law or by force of arms. I for one would prefer the former, because the latter creates a period of chaos where dictators can take control and make the worst nightmares of paranoid reactionaries a reality.

I doubt it will. I will do everything possible to stop such a co-op of liberty. It is funny that you just stated that socialism could let dictators take control and do awful things. Further, Hitler was able to take power using the laws of the German nation back in the day. This shows me that any socialism is asking for corrupt men to seize power. Those who still attest the wonder of socialism have no idea of how human nature will never allow this system to happen.

Socialism is a logical, natural progression for civilization to make.

No it isn’t. Smaller Federal Government with diverse and stronger State governments that protect individual liberty is.

It's about the true promise of America--that we really are all in this together, and we stand or fall as one. People who can't get that through their heads need to wake up to reality.

You my friend are the one who needs to face reality. Time after time socialism has failed and led to stateism of the highest degree. Nazi Germany, USSR, People’s Republic of China, and so on are real life examples that illustrate the promise of socialism in action.

And the funny thing is, if it goes off right, I'll bet within a few years even the nay-sayers will realize just how good it can be.

And if it goes horribly wrong, as history suggests?

And then the United States of America will finally begin to live up to the promise of its foundation.

The foundation of the US is liberty, federalism, equality, states rights, personal responsibility, and local sovereignty. Go read the writings of the founders before you assume you know what they laid as foundation.

Originally posted by toochaos4u
In our town there is also a man whom goes by "Crazy Bob".

As (initially) crewl as this may sound, I say put him out of his misery. I'd want you to do that to me if I became hopeless and broken.

Heck, come on now, here in the good old USA, 115 healthy sane people die every day in automobile accidents, and nobody cares enough to put a stop to THAT! Nobody cares enough to even outlaw pointless alcohol consumption or make DUI punishable by death.

Life ain't all lollypops and gumdrops ~ it's a survival of the fittest and smartest and motivated and successful, and they should not be dragged down involuntarily to the lowest common denominator, should they?

I don't know if I could feel too sorry for an arsonist regardless of their excuse. We down wilds animal that wreaking havoc in our communities, and I'm sorry to tell you but I don't place human life above (or below) wild life ~ we're all citizens of Earth, and humans are NOT above or below equal treatment or consideration when they run amok like a wild beast.

Those that want to show and offer compassion to a madman arsonist while ignoring the hundreds and thousands of innocent deaths that occur every day, from car accidents to starving children around the world, go for it ~ but GAWDAMN if I'm going to play such skewed involuntary socialist games.

When I'm feeling social, I'll send my help to a starving kid half a world away before I help some whiner in this country of numerous opportunities that's thinking he or she is down on THEIR luck and want to jack my charity! So many cry babies in this country now that have no idea what poor and down ontheir luck really means. Makes me sick!

I'm starting to think we Americans NEED to become poor as dirt before most "get it!"

So the people who can't afford to pay into such a system in good times, let alone put food on the table, would then receive nothing in bad times.

Not true, every one can afford social sercicing because it's a small fee to pay.Not everyone is going to get sick or you would have a national emergency from a disaster or a war where everyone would pitch in with a helping hand anyway.The price for social servicing is lower as more people participate in it. You would say that.. why should I pay for others but you pay anyway way more for the insurance company than you would pay for anyone else, but I agree that social service should be optional, just for the people who would want it.

You need to take economy 101, because you don't seem to understand that money has to come in before you can spend it.

I would say the insurance company can't do what a bunch of people can do when they stick together.
What insurance company is going to compete with milions of individuals when it comes to funding.It's simple the insurance company would colapse and can't compete with the horde, it takes alot for some company
to compete since they are a few at the top against a mass of people who would only pitch in with a few bucks making out what the other side manages with alot of effort.Cash would come in in small quantities but from alot of people so I don't see why it would not work.How does a hive work?

Unless the system is paid into by everyone and everyone then get's the same rights to receive in bad times, the system won't work. It's like any other kind of insurance, where the system works as long as someone is still paying into the system.

Not all but alot, if you hold an opinion pool you would notice that there are alot of people with out insurance, alot of people that are unhappy with insurance, alot of people that can not cover all the insurance they need.
For people complaining and that are against socialising some things and making them public I agree, they should be able to chose if they want in.
Since this eliminates competition socialisation should only be aplied to basic needs, there should be a minimal level where everyone could get a helping hand.For example I would be against giving money to people that can work but do not work at all because they just don't feel like working, but I would participate in a program of "what if something happens to you and you can't work" Social values should help people who can't really compete due to diferent issues and there should be a limit. Maybe you came from a poor family with no chance of making it out.And even if you will do your best maybe you will have what you want but only after 35,40 years of age, you have to work on that hard.Until then you should have basic needs in case something happens to you.

The only problem with social servicing is managment, if things are optimised then it will work in an efficient mode.

Originally posted by pepsi78
For example I would be against giving money to people that can work but do not work at all because they just don't feel like working,

How about requiring welfare recipients provide us with a detailed recovery and payback plan before we hand them a check? Hum? I'll go for that.

These freaking free money handouts aren't working in America. There ARE people milking the system big time. They collect welfare and hang out at home all day selling drugs for the PTB.

Originally posted by NettleTea
Response Part 1

Response to your Response, Part Whichever.

Thank you for telling us where you are coming from.

I say it LOUD and say it PROUD.

This is a pretty harsh tone to take. I don’t believe that there is anything wrong with paying taxes.

Good for you. And I take a harsh tone because of the vast number of anti-tax, fantasy-prone zealots who infest these forums. If you are not one of these then my comments are not directed at you.

There are certain government responsibilities that taxpayers should be responsible for. National defense, judicial systems, and the like are examples at the Federal level. Roads, first responders, and the like are examples at the State level.

No, actually all of these things receive federal funds, and they have to, because the States and municipalities (mostly) don't have enough revenue-generating ability to do so on their own. See, one of the dirty little secrets is, you're gonna pay for it one way or another. Unless you're lucky enough to live in a state with no income tax, whatever you think you'd save in Federal taxes by leaving these things entirely to the States would just be eaten up with higher State income taxes to make up the difference. All of this has to be paid for one way or another. Also, making it the States' responsibility leads to dangerous imbalances in the quality of services provided.

For example, Education.

Were education properly funded directly by the Federal government, with money equally divided amongst ALL schools in the US regardless of demographic makeup, the quality of education would be comparable across the board.

However, it is NOT. Not by a long shot. Because federal education funding has been steadily cut back again and again, and hampered by the ridiculous NCLB Act, the States and municipalities have had to increase taxes (primarily Property Taxes) to make up the difference and ensure they have something approaching adequate education funding. In those states where incomes are low and jobs are scarce, education suffers. In more affluent states and municipalities, education quality tends to be higher. It's a little more complicated than this in practice, I know. But the gist of it is, the Federal Government, and ONLY it, can properly fulfill the legal, practical and moral obligation the US has to educate its populace equally. Not only that, but the FG's delegation of more and more funding responsibilities to States and municipalities creates an explosion in the Property Tax burden citizens have to deal with. Wanna talk unfair taxes? Property tax is as unfair as it gets (its very existence negates the entire concept of "property ownership" through its implication that you only rent your property from the Government). Slight increase in Federal income tax (or elimination of some pointless "defense" contracts)= lowering or elimination of Property Taxes, and you now actually, really, truly own your home. I'll take that deal!

The problem is that most people get frustrated when their tax dollars are spent on Unconstitutional and backwards Federal agencies and services.

Define, precisely, what you mean by this.

This remains to be seen.

Yes indeed it does! And I can't wait.

I disagree on a few points. One, private companies paying for the healthcare costs of their employees is not the same as the Federal Government using the wealth of every taxpayer to provide for a state healthcare service.

Actually, it is. Regardless of whether it comes from payroll deductions at your job or taxes, the net result is exactly the same: You have less money in your pocket. There are differences in the details, such as the fact that through taxes, the overall cost is far less, because there are more people among which to spread the cost--and because the people running a Federally-based program aren't getting multi-million-dollar compensation packages and revenue isn't being gambled in crazy Vegas-style investment schemes to maximize profit, there's less overhead.

Two, I hardly believe that a state run healthcare system would put your health before finances. Take a look at the current social service programs already going on in this nation and you will see that these government run programs are not out for the benefit of the people (public housing as an example).

These programs you mention are ineffective precisely because they have been deliberately broken. Right-wing pawns of the Elite have run a campaign spanning generations to destroy these programs--with one important result that many people no longer belive the Federal Government can be effective.

I see you fell for it.

Fund these programs properly. Place qualified experts in positions to run them with real plans, rather than stacking them with political crony appointments. Stop outsourcing services to private, for-profit companies (such as many housing projects, prisons, etc. do) and put the programs fully under the oversight of legislative and Executive leadership, as it should be. You might be amazed at the result.

The problem here is that you are not taking into account the increased taxes on business and individuals to pay for this universal healthcare system. Just because you take a burden from one area does not mean you don’t have to reapply it somewhere else.

Quite the contrary. I have taken this into account, and the fact is, if done properly there is still plenty of room for profit and success. I'm not saying the individual should be hampered in their efforts for personal achievement. There are plenty of ways to fund such a program, while also fixing other problem areas of our economy. Bring back the 20% import tariff and eliminate "free trade" agreements, for one. "Free Trade" does nothing but force american workers to compete on a badly tilted playing field with foreign workers (of course that's the real point, to break labor and destroy any concept of workers' rights). Those tariffs pretty much funded our entire Federal government during the first hundred years, give or take, since this nation was founded. Imagine what they could do now.

And of course there's always the "defense" budget. Do we really need thousands of nukes, hundreds of $150 Million-Plus fighters, and a Navy large and powerful enough to devastate any nation on the globe? I don't think so. In fact I don't want it. Period. Having such things gives people ideas that we should use them, and the Elite manipulate these ideas to manufacture more war. Cut that down and see how much more money we'd have for social programs.

To be continued........

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
No, actually all of these things receive federal funds, and they have to, because the States and municipalities (mostly) don't have enough revenue-generating ability to do so on their own. See, one of the dirty little secrets is, you're gonna pay for it one way or another. Unless you're lucky enough to live in a state with no income tax, whatever you think you'd save in Federal taxes by leaving these things entirely to the States would just be eaten up with higher State income taxes to make up the difference. All of this has to be paid for one way or another.

You don’t seem to understand that this is the way it’s meant to be. The Constitution limits what the Federal Government can do, and then leaves the rest up to the State Governments. Why is this? Well the State Governments are better able to identify what the citizens of that particular State need. You want universal health-care, go wheel and deal it out at the State level. The more local you go, the better a dialogue you can have on what is really necessary. This local sovereignty is very important to the proper functioning of our nation. If you don’t like this idea of restricted Federal Government then go amend the Constitution.

For example, Education.

Were education properly funded directly by the Federal government, with money equally divided amongst ALL schools in the US regardless of demographic makeup, the quality of education would be comparable across the board.

However, it is NOT. Not by a long shot. Because federal education funding has been steadily cut back again and again, and hampered by the ridiculous NCLB Act, the States and municipalities have had to increase taxes (primarily Property Taxes) to make up the difference and ensure they have something approaching adequate education funding.

I agree that there needs to be uniformity in education. You are off when you say that all schools should be funded equally. The overpopulated schools in urban centers need more funds than schools that are not so pressed with the study body. This idea of socialistic equality in all things flies in the face of common sense. Oh and the NCLB Act that you don’t seem to like is of course a measure done by the FEDERAL Government which hampers STATE Governments from educating our children. This is another example of how the Federal Government is out of touch on so many issues. It amazes me that socialists who hate the corrupt Federal Government are the first to demand its expansion.

Wanna talk unfair taxes? Property tax is as unfair as it gets (its very existence negates the entire concept of "property ownership" through its implication that you only rent your property from the Government). Slight increase in Federal income tax (or elimination of some pointless "defense" contracts)= lowering or elimination of Property Taxes, and you now actually, really, truly own your home. I'll take that deal!

Here we see eye to eye. You even state yourself that you wish to cut “defense” contracts. This is a limited government value. Who taxes us to pay these wasteful and Unconstitutional defenses contracts? The Federal Government. Why again are you a socialist?

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
These programs you mention are ineffective precisely because they have been deliberately broken. Right-wing pawns of the Elite have run a campaign spanning generations to destroy these programs--with one important result that many people no longer belive the Federal Government can be effective.
I see you fell for it.

That was laughable. These “Elite” that you speak of are the Federal Government. The reason these programs fail is because it is too profitable for them to prosper. Both right-wing and left-wing politicians have made their fortunes and careers on fooling the people into believing that government can solve all problems.

Fund these programs properly. Place qualified experts in positions to run them with real plans, rather than stacking them with political crony appointments. Stop outsourcing services to private, for-profit companies (such as many housing projects, prisons, etc. do) and put the programs fully under the oversight of legislative and Executive leadership, as it should be. You might be amazed at the result.

I have two problems with that. First is the Federal Government has no authority in many of these matters. Show me in the Constitution where the Federal Government has authority for half of these agencies and programs. Second, is that you are ignoring basic human nature and the ease of corrupting politicians. It is silly to assume that you can pick out people who will always do the right thing when in office. If you had this ability, why then have we had so many politicians?

"Free Trade" does nothing but force american workers to compete on a badly tilted playing field with foreign workers (of course that's the real point, to break labor and destroy any concept of workers' rights).

And of course there's always the "defense" budget. Do we really need thousands of nukes, hundreds of $150 Million-Plus fighters, and a Navy large and powerful enough to devastate any nation on the globe?

You are right on point with these limited government ideals. Get rid of these globalists trade agreements that work to undo our sovereignty. Cut the defense spending to a responsible and Constitutional size.

Why do you constantly call yourself a socialist? Everything that you want (like universal healthcare, and other such programs) can be accomplished at the State level. All of the corruption that you cite is a result of an all-powerful Federal Government. Socialists feel that if they just got to run the big Federal Government then they wouldn’t turn into tyrants. History has shown time and time again that large centralized governments do nothing but oppress the people.




[edit on 22-11-2008 by NettleTea]

Point One: No one will ever be equal. Keep the dream going as long as you want through as many democractic leaders, republican, neocon, socialist, communist, - any type of regime - no one will ever be equal. So give it up.

Point Two: No one owes you jack. Besides the privelages granted in the US Constitution, you should feel grateful if you get a handout from a private charity. It is not the governments job to elevate the low and bring down the high. If a business cannot sustain itself in the Darwinian world of the free market, it will be humbled and another will take its place. Those who advocate the taking of ones and giving it to another are nothing but vultures and looters.

Point Three: If you want something, you need to work for it. 2/3 of the US Economy is through private business. If 2/3 of the people can do it, there should be no excuse for people whining about the evil corporations. If you have a superior product, if you outperform your competitors, you generally will succeed. The government should stay as far from the realm of private business as possible.

Point Four: Greed is good. The invisible hand of capitalism has helped out the world more than any other force in the history of mankind. You go into business to make money. Those who attempt to vilify this are nothing but looters and those who are ashamed of it will eventually fail.

Point Five: The smaller the government the better. As long as they protect your life, liberty, and the *pursuit* of happiness, a government is doing its job. Any more or any less and it is a failure.

[edit on 22-11-2008 by SCLibertarian]

[edit on 22-11-2008 by SCLibertarian]

I strongly believe we generate more than enough tax dollars between income taxes and
user taxes to support the finest education, health care and social programs anywhere
on the planet.

The problem is that half of our tax base goes to support an extremely bloated military industrial complex, outright fraud, embezzlement and corporate protectionism.

In a few short years, more than half the U.S. population will be over 65 years old and
with advancements in medical care, these people will need social programs for many years
to come.

In my opinion, we must change our education system to insure that each student leaves the public education system with the necessary job skills to become a productive member of society.
If they do not wish to go on to an academic career, then they must go on to publicly funded
vocational schools.

We already have more than enough unskilled workers to handle unskilled labor tasks.

If we fail to make our education system, the finest available for all U.S. citizens, then
we will no longer remain a world leader.

It's really not about the money, it's about changing our national priorities.