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]

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 on those silly minimum wages in the US.



How well did that work during the great depression?



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.



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



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.



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



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.



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.



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



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]

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.



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.



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.

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.



No but so doesn't the USA either.

Why?

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

'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.

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]

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...

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

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]

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]

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:



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]