I want socialism.

I have been chewing on this for a couple of days ('cause of what somebody said....sorry i forgot who) and i believe indeed America is to big to have a social structure like the Netherlands or Denmark.

It would never work on a scale as large as your country/continent is. So maybe the only thing left to do, to make this work, is to proclaim each one of the 52 states it's own country with it's own goverment.

Think about and get back to me on this one.....


edit : drinkin beer and typing don't mix!!!!

[edit on 22/11/2008 by operation mindcrime]

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
I have been chewing on this for a couple of days ('cause of what somebody said....sorry i forgot who) and i believe indeed America is to big to have a social structure like the Netherlands or Denmark.

It would never work on a scale as large as your country/continent is. So maybe the only thing left to do, to make this work, is to proclaim each one of the 52 states it's own country with it's own goverment.

Think about and get back to me on this one.....

edit : drinkin beer and typing don't mix!!!!

[edit on 22/11/2008 by operation mindcrime]

Why not if it's handed over to federal juristiction.Each state would take care of it's own social program, altho in some states it would run better and in other states it would run below that. Just like the police departament, fire department, unified school districts and so on.They are ran all by the state and they are doing just fine.Some states have a lower crime rate and some have a higher one.It depends on who you vote for as a governer, it does not matter what policies are implemented, they can be about social services, education, capitalism and so on..if you vote for the wrong guy then the same effect would emerge regardles of what policies are implemented. Social services would work under a right and profesional staff , governator.


[edit on 22-11-2008 by pepsi78]

Not true, every one can afford social sercicing because it's a small fee to pay.

Not on those silly minimum wages in the US.

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.

How well did that work during the great depression?

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 when those most needing it in bad times are even poor in good times, the system won't work, because the poor can't pay into it and the rich won't pay into it.

, but I agree that social service should be optional, just for the people who would want it.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that, so there is nothing for you to agree with.

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?

You wrote that taxes should be for poor people only, for those who wanted social services. Well, the rich don't need them, so why should they pay into the system. This leaves only the poor who can't afford to pay into the system. A system like that would go bankrupt every time the economy went into recession.

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.

Only poor people would want to join and we are back to bankruptcy again.

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.

competition hasn't benefitted the average american in relation to healthcare. The average US healthcare costs pr person are twice those of the average european healthcare costs pr person, and the performance is generally better in europe.

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,

AFAIU most unemployment systems function on a performance basis, ie. if you can document that you are applying for x number of jobs per week you are still in the system, if you don't apply for x jobs a week, you are out of the system.

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.

Congratulations, you have just described how things work in every scandinavian and european welfarestate.

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

Actually, management can do alot of harm to efficiency. A healthcare system should not be run as a business, it should be run by administrators, not managers.


[edit on 23-11-2008 by aaa2500]

Healthcare at point of contact should NEVER be run as a business. The two (Healthcare and Business) are incompatable.

How can you CARE for someone when you are billing them for every pill, dressing, bedpan change, bedsheet change, jug of water and every other little thing that happens on a daily basis on a hospital ward - It is not ethical or moral.

''Ah here you are Mr Smith, a new jug of water, you must keep your fluids up or you may get dehydrated or a Urinary Tract Infection''. ''Oh by the way, thats £5.00 for the jug of water''.

[edit on 23/11/08 by Wotan]

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
America has 300+ million people European countries have less that 50 million people.

Germany has 82+ million people. France has 64+ million people. The United Kingdom has 61+ million people. Taken together, the European Union has around 500 million people.

America has welfare, Unemployment, Unions, Public Education, Sick leave, I think the only thing that America doesn't have compared to Europe is Universal Health Care.

Take this from somebody who has lived in both the USA and in more than one EU country: The US welfare, unemployment, public education and sick leave benefits aren't particularly good when compared to most if not all of that in the EU.

The last time I counted, I didn't pay that much less in state and federal taxes in the USA than what I currently pay for taxes and national insurance in the UK, yet I get significantly more. When I add the private health insurance I had to have in the USA to the taxes I paid there, I actually paid more and got less for my money than what I currently get in the UK.

Having the state (in the European meaning of the 'country' as opposed to an US state) provide for some basic necessities that everybody need to have anyway is a good thing, even from a purely financial perspective due to the economy of scale. It really has nothing to do with political outlook.

People need to open up and realize that America is already a semi-socialist country, which the government can't run right. Partly because we have 5X many people than the countries in Europe.

Again, the EU has more than 50% more people than the USA. I see that you want to compare individual EU member states with the entire USA. I don't believe that's a fair comparison, even if your numbers were right.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by Wotan

 

But is the EU the final end all and be all to government? I guess what I'm trying to say is that Europe is not a country Europe is a bunch of different countries all under different government then the EU which controls the euro does the money.

And the USA is a bunch of states with their own state governments, governed by a union-wide central government. Much like the EU, only that the EU doesn't have a common foreign policy (yet) or a president (yet). There still is a common legislation (called EU directives) and a EU legal system. The member states can set their taxes within the limits that the EU has set. Standard rate VAT can not be lower than 15% and corporation tax can not be lower than 10%, for example. When Cyprus became a member of the EU they in fact had to increase their taxes and around 2/3's of their budget now comes from VAT income (mainly from tourism) alone.

The EU does not control all aspects of every government and laws that exist in Europe does it?

No but so doesn't the USA either.

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by Frankidealist35

 

No one should be paid so much money they can't even spend it.

Why?

Originally posted by Divinorumus
Tell me, once those socialist ideals infect this land too, where do those that don't want to be infected like that run to now?

I would suggest Dubai. Yes, in the United Arab Emirates. You would feel right at home, except for the drinking.

Originally posted by moniker

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by Frankidealist35

 

No one should be paid so much money they can't even spend it.

Why?

'cause every 30sec. some kid dies because of hunger and getting more money then you can spend means somebody is getting the short end of the stick......that's why!!!!

Don't tell me that the person who is making so much money should divide it himself after getting it. The system itself is just wrong when somebody is making more money then they can spend.....

Moraly speaking that is........on the other hand if somebody manages to make more money then they could spend...hiphiphurray for him.

Originally posted by operation mindcrime

Originally posted by moniker

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by Frankidealist35

 

No one should be paid so much money they can't even spend it.

Why?

'cause every 30sec. some kid dies because of hunger and getting more money then you can spend means somebody is getting the short end of the stick......that's why!!!!

Don't tell me that the person who is making so much money should divide it himself after getting it. The system itself is just wrong when somebody is making more money then they can spend.....

Moraly speaking that is........on the other hand if somebody manages to make more money then they could spend...hiphiphurray for him.

I'm not at all convinced that putting a cap on earnings is the correct solution to help dying kids.

Originally posted by moniker
I'm not at all convinced that putting a cap on earnings is the correct solution to help dying kids.

Me neither.....
but there is something morally wrong when a man can make more money then he could spend (think about this sentence!!!) (i'm not talking about making a lot of money but more than he could spend!!!)
And on the other hand people who die from hunger. Is it because this man works harder??? if so than the good for him but if not then there is something wrong....agreed???

reply to post by operation mindcrime


"but there is something morally wrong when a man can make more money then he could spend"

No there isn't - Comrade Commissar

What about his family, what about his children and grand children can he not save for their futures...

You'd have the State steal the wealth from multiple generations to give to total strangers - after the bureaucracy takes it's 50% cut; and if he disagrees with your Marxist policies and decides not to give you what he rightfully earned, the SWAT team will come and visit him and his family.

How old are you?

Do you even know that you are a Communist?


Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.







[edit on 23-11-2008 by asala]

Originally posted by TruthTellist
No there isn't - Comrade Commissar

What about his family, what about his children and grand children can he not save for their futures...

You'd have the State steal the wealth from multiple generations to give to total strangers - after the bureaucracy takes it's 50% cut; and if he disagrees with your Marxist policies and decides not to give you what he rightfully earned, the SWAT team will come and visit him and his family.

How old are you?

Do you even know that you are a Communist?

* You are continually touting Marxist-Leninist strategies, as if they were a good thing! I hope you never have to experience living under the kind of state you continually espouse. However, since you are a communist; I can only hope (fingers crossed) that you fall down or trip or somehow hurt yourself grievously in the future and experience extremely excruciating pain because of it. I have always hoped that all Communists have at least three painful falls in their lifetime.

my my, did i hit a nerve here......

My age: not that it has anything to do with it but it's 31....why???

Do you even know that you are a Communist? : No i really had no idea...who very good of you to be able to tell this from just two replies...

Listen , Communist...no i am not....social libralist....yes i am... give it a few years and after your economy has fallen to the ground you to will know the meaning of sharing. Wether you like it or not........

But the real problem here is YOU not being able to have a decent conversation without going into the name calling....that's a sign anti-social behaviour....

DO YOU EVEN KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMMUNISM AND SOCIAL-LIBRALISM??????

But to answer your question (in a decend manner) : I never spoke of stealing wealth of people in any way whatsoever. I mearly said that there is something wrong when people earn more then they can spend while there are people who die of hunger....if you disagree on that than come with a good argument and don't just ramble on about communism etc...

I guess it's just fear so i won't hold it against you...now try again...

Originally posted by operation mindcrime

Originally posted by moniker
I'm not at all convinced that putting a cap on earnings is the correct solution to help dying kids.

Me neither.....
but there is something morally wrong when a man can make more money then he could spend (think about this sentence!!!) (i'm not talking about making a lot of money but more than he could spend!!!)

Perhaps, but who is to say how much that is?

reply to post by Frankidealist35


Welcome to Australia it`s already here!

reply to post by moniker


If all is working correctly.....your consious should be able to do that.
Indeed, i'm not talking about some goverment taking away your precious money but plane human decency........

Is that such a weird concept nowadays....

yeah yeah, i know......that's Utopia, if you think people are gonna volunteer in taking less money for their work but is it really.....when your making more than you can spend....

I mean come on...what kind of work do the people do that make the most....farm?...firefighter?....social worker?....teacher?.....hell no!!!
It's the kind of people who seem to have made a job out of doing nothing but play around with thinks that aren't even there or even theirs to begin with. No matter what the outcome ,they will get their BONUS.....

And the name of the game.....: gimme gimme gimme, it's mine and i want more!!!!! MORE MORE MORE.......

Yeah you support these the best you can 'cause god knows they need your support in these hard times......

I'm sorry but i get a little upset when it comes to yuppie babyboomers who don't seem to have eyes for anything but them selfs......(did you notice?)



[edit on 24/11/2008 by operation mindcrime]

Edit: for the same reason as always.....typos.....

[edit on 24/11/2008 by operation mindcrime]

[edit on 24/11/2008 by operation mindcrime]

Originally posted by switching yard
Socialism as enjoyed currently in Scandanavian countries and The Netherlands is quite good or that's my impression, anyway.

I'm for well managed social programs that will eradicate poverty and support a high standard of living for what has traditionally been called "the middle class" or the "working class". In Sweden and The Netherlands, they have a higher average standard of living, more purchasing power, and about triple the vacation time off each year than Americans. They stay out of foreign wars and don't give money out like candy.

The Netherlands are not a socialist gov't, they are a constitutional monarchy.

Sweden is, however they have higher taxes, a considerably lower per capita income, and well there were the sterilizations and lobotomies that used to happen there to "create" a better socialist society:

"The tax burden in the Swedish economy tripled between 1950 and 1980. In 1970, when taxes were not much higher than they are in America today, Sweden's GDP per capita ranked fifth in the world4. Since taxes passed 50 percent of GDP the country's overall prosperity has dwindled, and the downturn has been most dramatic in measures of the standard of living. In 1970 Sweden ranked third in OECD for individual consumption, 39 percent above OECD average. By 1995, Sweden barely beat the OECD average, ranking 14th with an individual consumption 1.4 percent above OECD average, and has been stagnant since that time."

www.freedomandprosperity.org...

And their economic freedom is lower than ours...

www.heritage.org...


[edit on 24-11-2008 by innerlogik]

Originally posted by innerlogik
The Netherlands are not a socialist gov't, they are a constitutional monarchy.

Correction.....it's a parlamentary constitutional monarchy in which the monarch does not personally exercise power.

I live there....i know.....

Mod Edit - removed posted U2U - Private Message:

2f.) Private Messages: You will not use the private messaging system (U2U) to send mass messages to multiple member accounts. All private messages are subject to these terms and conditions, violations will result in immediate account termination. You also agree that "U2Us" (Private Messages) are confidential. You will not post or publically display U2Us received from ATS staff or other members, in any way, without the written permission of the author.

Terms and Conditions

[edit on 24/11/2008 by operation mindcrime]

[edit on 24-11-2008 by elevatedone]

Woops....sorry about that....

It just gets me so mad when you make a point in the middle of a discusion and somebody just choses to ignore you.....

I know i know...it's their good right and it is in the ATS T&C but i think this guy just got the better of me.

Wont happen again......


edit : i got the quote out to not make such a long story

[edit on 24/11/2008 by operation mindcrime]