Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

I want socialism.

page: 9
21
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Divinorumus
I prefer freedom to choose my own fate and destiny and to succeed or fail based upon my own merit and worth and efforts.


Freedom to do what? Lick the toilets clean at Wallmart for 5 dollars an hour?


Socialism never works and eventually takes everyone down with it when it fails.


Seems to me that the current policy has brought your economy pretty well down without the aid of socialism.

[edit on 19-11-2008 by norskie]




posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by littlehorn
Ok i dont think you're realizing the difference even in SIZE between MOST euro countries and the borders of the USA. I mean to compare the Nederlands to the United States is silly. I mean ill give you the fact that your nation is by far one of the most liberal of all nations (having done great things for the English during the separation of church and state) BUT you're drawing comparisons that are foolish and not practical. If the US was much smaller geographically it would be much easier to enact a social system that would work 'overall'...i mean among other points which im too busy to list.


Since when does size of a country have anything to do with what kind of social or political structure you have......


If you are to buzy or tired to list all differences then why bother with reacting in the first place.......please list all differences, i can't wait..


[edit on 19/11/2008 by operation mindcrime]

edit : i'm not perfect ,i made a few mistakes...then again...i'm not american......


[edit on 19/11/2008 by operation mindcrime]



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 
Starred and flagged.

You're a patriot with real guts because your going to get slammed from a lot of folks out there that don't have a clue as to what a real Social Democracy is all about.

I too believe EVERYONE should pay a straight tax no loopholes, no twisty turny outs.

CEO's and actors should not be allowed to make tens of millions of dollars a year when the common person who gets your egg McMuffin and hot coffee ready every morning barely makes enough to feed her kids.

Everyone that CAN WORK should make enough to be able to live a decent life including quality medical care.

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

Makes no sense.

I advocate a ceiling on what jobs pay and whats more, the people who make the wedgies and save lives should make more then the idiots who sit behind a desk all day and play video golf or get infront of a camera and sing.

The "loop holes" corporations are now using to screw the average worker 35 hour work weeks so you can't have insurance.

Or how about the companies that will hire you work you and when you stay with the company and serve faithfully for several years and start to make some decent money, this same company will fire/lay you off souly to rehire someone at less then what they were paying you. Not because you did something wrong, but for "profit".

Companies either being allowed to take American Jobs off American Soil or being allowed to screw the worker to the point where everyone is putting 8 hours on their time card but really working 10 hours just in order to "keep their job".

I'm tired of no workers rights.

I'm tired of no medical care for now almost 50 million people.

I'm tired of Washington working for the large Corporations and not the American People.

I'm tired of seeing the hugh number of homeless veterans, women, elderly, mentally and physically challenged left to rot on the side of the road.

I'm tired of only the rich having access to quality education.

I'm tired of the rest of the world looking at us as a country that has sold our soul and become a world class bully.

ALL PEOPLE deserve to have basic medical care (life), the possiblity of a job that pays enough that they can have "the pursuit of happiness" and to be able to peacefully protest or talk openingly (liberty).

If our news media were owned by the people (social) and not the rich elite, maybe we wouldn't have to go elsewhere for the real news. Our news media has become a propaganda machine.

Many don't realize that our fire, ambulances and libraries are social run services.

My niece lives in Paris and she says the French have a 35 hour work week with 5 weeks vacation for ALL French citizens.

They also have access to good free medical care.

The French Government is held accountable as working servants of the people not vice versa as in America.

Why do our Congress and Senate Reps get million dollar retirement packages with excellent free medical care and the rest of us have one "medical issue" and lose our homes we worked 20+ years for?

Because the American People have got to start to wake up and make their government officials ACCOUNTABLE for their decisions.

American's have got to demand some straight talk vs lies and manipulation of the truth.

IT'S TIME FOR CHANGE.

If we are not brave enough to wake up and see we need some big changes then our whole country will go down the tube.


ps: We didn't enter Iraq to "spread democracy" as much as "for the oil" and to settle a personal vendetta for the Bush Family.

[edit on 19-11-2008 by ofhumandescent]



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
Education for everyone, rich people paying their taxes like they are supposed to, free health care? I like the sound of that.

I think that the philosophy of socialism is better than the philosophy of the current neocons, which is, we invade other countries to spread Democracy. The neocon philosophy doesn't work because we can't invade countries to spread Democracy because they may not want that.

I just think we need a different approach. What's so wrong about socialism? Why shouldn't people get more benefits? They need more health benefits since their companies don't give employees them.

I like how socialist policies usually take a stance in favor of worker's rights. Workers need rights.

I think that this socialism label is just thrown around too much and it's been given a negative label by conservatives.

What's so bad about socialism?


Count me in. I've been waiting for this for thirty years.



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   
never mind..............


[edit on 19/11/2008 by operation mindcrime]



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 
Starred and flagged.

You're a patriot with real guts because your going to get slammed from a lot of folks out there that don't have a clue as to what real Social Democracy is all about.


Frank is going to get what....


This guy just posts a thread and then up and leaves....never heard from him since..

It's us europeans getting "slammed" with a lot stupidity by some really proud americans.

Witch ,i think, is real fun and entertaining.........


Keep it up you guys.....slam me some more....


edit: by the way star-ed you Norsky for that comment......


[edit on 19/11/2008 by operation mindcrime]



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ofhumandescent
 


Non the less.....great post!!!


You really seem to know what you are talking about....



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Whats so bad about socialism? We are. People delude themselves into thinking we will follow the dictum of Karl Marx in "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" It makes the incredibly stupid assumption people will use power and control only for good, And the common good at that. Oh, socialism sounds pretty but its application is fiction. Its just one more excuse to concentrate power in the hands of a few people. Call it what ever you want but it comes back to the same conclusion. One; Never underestimate the power of enlightened self interest. Two; We all need certain things addressed, regardless of cost. The roads have to be maintained, we have a very real need to promote the common defense, our kids need to be able to read and write, do at least simple math, and have some grasp of history. (As a teacher I have often said you can't know where your going if you don't know where you've been). And last a more economical approach to heath care is needed that give a basic level of care, private or public, to everyone. In a very real economic sense our population suffers, and will cost more for all of us if people don't have basic medical care, and we only hear about them when they show up in an emergency room. Last, no one gets anything for "free", be it education, health care, etc. We all pay, now or later...



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by operation mindcrime
 


Since the population exceeds 300 million you're telling me thats inconsequential?! This isnt directly related to size per se...but it certainly makes issues more problematic with the size of our populace plus the size of our country geographically...so yes it does matter.

[edit on 19-11-2008 by littlehorn]



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
I too believe EVERYONE should pay a straight tax no loopholes, no twisty turny outs.

You don't have to believe in socialism to have a fair tax system. You can have a very small government that reduces taxes on everyone.


CEO's and actors should not be allowed to make tens of millions of dollars a year when the common person who gets your egg McMuffin and hot coffee ready every morning barely makes enough to feed her kids.

You can believe that if you wish, but you have no right to take away another persons wealth or property. Again taxes are a necessary evil for certain projects.


Everyone that CAN WORK should make enough to be able to live a decent life including quality medical care.

This again is your opinion. If you want to front the bill for all this then have at it. If not you don't have a leg to stand on. I think that everyone should have to carry a firearm to stop criminals and aid police, but you don't see me trying to legislate that opinion because it infringes on others rights / free will.


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

I think that they should. So here we are at a stale mate, you say cap the wealth, I say don't. The difference between our answers is that you are forcibly taking wealth from someone, while I am not stealing from anyone. That is what freedom is about.


I advocate a ceiling on what jobs pay and whats more, the people who make the wedgies and save lives should make more then the idiots who sit behind a desk all day and play video golf or get infront of a camera and sing.

This is honestly an arrogant statement. Who are you to judge the value of one persons work over another? You can't label an entire career path as unworthy because the participants are not constantly breaking a sweat. Who would be getting all of this capped wealth anyway? The government would collect this money. Do you feel that politicians are so worthy of this wealth because they do harder work than the rest of us?


I'm tired of no workers rights.
I'm tired of no medical care for now almost 50 million people.
I'm tired of seeing the hugh number of homeless veterans, women, elderly, mentally and physically challenged left to rot on the side of the road.
I'm tired of only the rich having access to quality education.
I'm tired of the rest of the world looking at us as a country that has sold our soul and become a world class bully.

Then go out and do something about it. Lobby your STATE Government to get involved. Your idea about liberalism is so contradictory to your supposed goals. Example...


I'm tired of Washington working for the large Corporations and not the American People.

If you admit that Washington (Federal Government) is working for large corporations, then WHY WOULD YOU GIVE THIS INSTITUTION MORE POWER!!!


ALL PEOPLE deserve to have basic medical care (life), the possiblity of a job that pays enough that they can have "the pursuit of happiness" and to be able to peacefully protest or talk openingly (liberty).

The only thing in your statement that is true is the point on protesting (First Amendment). No where in the US Code does it state that the government is responsible for your medical care and a stable job.


Why do our Congress and Senate Reps get million dollar retirement packages with excellent free medical care and the rest of us have one "medical issue" and lose our homes we worked 20+ years for?

Limit the power of the Federal Government and they wouldn't be able to have these retirement packages.


Because the American People have got to start to wake up and make their government officials ACCOUNTABLE for their decisions.

Socialism would only work to make accomplishing that task so much more difficult. Your intentions are good, but your method to attain them is wrong



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Count me out. It's a horrible system.

I am against any and all forms of centralized government. Which represents the power being give to the elites to manage and control your lives, where decentralization means power to the people.

Under a socialized system, we have 1 program for the entire country. Decentralize that to just 1 level, and you will have 50 programs. The more programs you have, the more change and adjustments can be made. When the 1 program goes under, the entire country is screwed. With 50 programs, if 1 program goes bad, it has 49 other programs to choose from. When 1 program find something new that works, the other 49 programs can pick up and add to it.

This allows the greatest amount of change and testing for things in the shortest amount of time, which in turn allows for the best systems to rise to the top. You will not get that with socialism.

I support taking it down even further to a community level, where you then have 1000's of programs doing this. You have alot more say in what happens in your community. This means the people have more power, not just the elite in socialism.

I urge each and everyone of you to understand how this country is supposed to operate before just throwing it in the trash. I am pretty sure you would like what is meant to be.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Socialism should only exist at the community level, never at the higher branches of government.


[edit on 19-11-2008 by badmedia]



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
In the Netherlands we have an unendless stream of foreigners poring into our country and inspite of what you may believe we give them housing, schooling and jobs.... and you know what..... they can really be an asset.

Fine. Good for you all. But you don't understand what I've been trying to say: Those that want to play that way, involuntarily, among yourselves, go for it, more power to ya. I do not need that. I prefer to take care of myself, myself. Socialism should be voluntary. It's immoral to force your ideals upon another.

There are those, like me, that don't need or want to play involuntary socialism. I'm for being socially responsible, but I'm not for involuntary socialism. Play what ever way you all want to play, among yourselves. Who's stopping any of the socialists from playing that game among yourselves right now today? Go for it. BUT keep your way of life to yourselves. DO NOT force me to become a socialist.

If I feel like being social, I'll do so voluntarily and give what I feel I can afford and when I can and to whom I please and on my own terms.

The point I'm trying to make is this is a two way street. Do not force your ideals and beliefs upon me, and I won't force mine upon you.

Does that make sense?

Why must everything be YOUR or anyone else's way? Leave me and others like me alone. Some don't need or want to play your socialist games or live by your ideals. The Muslims want us to become one of them and play their games and I don't need or want that either.

Keep your ideals and ideas among yourselves. Period. Do not force me to be like you. Period.

(sigh.... sorry for being repetitive but my gosh, why is it so difficult to explain freedom these days)



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   
What I don't understand is this...Why must the wealthy pay away all their money in taxes just because they worked hard and were successful? Is it so the people who did not put the same amount of effort in can benefit also? You are worthless to society if you really do believe this. And by no means am I wealthy. I'm a poor college student who grew up in a middle class family. Yet I don't understand people's reasoning for the wealthy paying a significantly higher percentage of their earnings toward taxes? I can understand taxing large companies who pollute and so on...But you people who believe that the wealthy should pay a ton more are just bums. Go out and do something to benefit your society and maybe even yourselves.



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
socialist are people with slave mentalities. they want better from their slave-owners, they want their slave-owners to treat them better and bring justice. but end the end you are a slave. all the so called "capitalist" problems are due to government. the reason you get mistreated by you slave-owner is because you are a weak slave. Instead of whining and trying to worsen other people quality of life and cash reserves, why don't you go start a charity or a business? the true problem with the economy is that it is based on useless things electronics, cars, lawn mowers etc. I don't need or can afford a new one everytime a new version of those things come out. We need an economy based on agriculture and other true essentials. food, fuel, communications, utilities. everything else should be handled by entrepeneurs and agriculture by free-lance farmers. and means of production owned 50/50 worker and owner, not government or society or the "greater good." socialism is lose of freedom and rights, capitalism give consumers and workers right (unions). socialism takes away those rights and gives them to the government. and the government only cares about itself. to look at socialism look at public schools.



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   
I do not think we will ever agree on this topic, the US system and the European system are too far apart and never the Twain will meet.

Americans have to realise that we in Europe have ''evolved'' our system of social principles over many decades, and in some cases centuries, some starting out in Charles Dickens time. To us, they are a natural part of our way of living and to us the American way is seen as too raw and harsh. Canada and Australia have basically adopted the British system but with local variations.

Our nations (European) did not just decide to adopt socialist principles over night, they evolved into our societies over a long time period and are still being adapted even today. The European Union is a large giver of socialist policies and there are still countries that are willing to join 'the club'.

To see how these policies came about, one has to read British History from the time of the Industrial Revolution to the present day. Many of our current policies and thinking came from this era. The UK then, was a pretty grim place and it took some radical thinkers to change the way we then lived.

Remember, the US in the scheme of things is very young compared to European nations. We have been playing at social engineering a darn sight longer than the US. Maybe in a hundred years time the US will be just like the way Europe is now with its socialist policies ..... who knows.



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Move to:

Cuba

Or

Venezulea



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wotan
Maybe in a hundred years time the US will be just like the way Europe is now with its socialist policies ..... who knows.

Yeah, it can take a long time to cram one persons beliefs down the throat of another, eh? Sometimes you simply can't, and so you just have to give up on the "independent" ones and concentrate on corrupting and recruiting their offspring.


The USA was started by and for those that didn't want to hang around in Europe.

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?

Why is it that, like them Muslim fanatics, can't the socialists simply leave those alone that don't want to believe in and play your involuntary socialist ways? Why?

Why not leave socialism as a voluntary thang? Why do socialists INSIST others must be like them and accept their ways? Why? Why, why, why?

You don't see anything wrong with forcing another to subscribe to your beliefs and ways? Those that insist everyone must play socialism are just as bad as those fanatical Muslim extremists that think everyone should be like them too!

Okay, I give up, diplomacy ain't working. Best I go get ready for more bloody wars.



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by NettleTea

Originally posted by Jezus

What many people fail to understand is that in the corporatism we have today, equal opportunity doesn't exist.

More socialist values can change that and give everyone a REAL chance.



Your second statement contradicts your first. The corporatism we live in today is brought about by corporations using the strong centralized government to further their agenda. Socialism increases the size and scope of government. Increasing the size of government works to increase the power and authority of corporations. Thus socialism equates to increased corporatism.


That is an argument of assumed failure.

You are saying that since corporation can't be stopped from grasping power and authority socialism won't work.

However, they can be stopped, and socialistic policies can make it easier to empower individuals and prevent corporatism.

Socialism can allow every individual an opportunity for success by making the basic necessities more realistic to attain.



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by dr_strangecraft
 
The big increase in American population is due to immigrates still flooding into our country.



The race and Hispanic-origin2 distribution of the U.S. population is projected to become more diverse. As the Black; Asian and Pacific Islander; American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut; and Hispanic-origin populations increase their proportions of the total population, the non-Hispanic White population proportion would decrease. By the turn of the century, the non-Hispanic White proportion of the population is projected to decrease to less than 72 percent with about 13 percent Black; 11 percent Hispanic origin; 4 percent Asian and Pacific Islander; and less than 1 percent American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut. By 2050, the proportional shares shift quite dramatically. Less than 53 percent would be non-Hispanic White; 16 percent would be Black; 23 percent would be Hispanic origin; 10 percent would be Asian and Pacific Islander; and about 1 percent would be American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut.

Non-Hispanic Whites, the slowest growing group, are likely to contribute less and less to the total population growth in this country. Although non-Hispanic Whites make up almost 75 percent of the total population, they would contribute only 35 percent of the total population growth between 1990 and 2000. This percentage of growth would decrease to 23 percent between 2000 and 2010, and 14 percent from 2010 to 2030. The non-Hispanic White population would contribute nothing to population growth after 2030 because it would be declining in size.

According to the middle-series projection, the Black population would increase almost 5 million by 2000, almost 10 million by 2010, and over 20 million by 2030. The Black population would double its present size to 62 million by 2050.

The fastest growing race groups will continue to be the Asian and Pacific Islander population with annual growth rates that may exceed 4 percent during the 1990's. By the turn of the century, the Asian and Pacific Islander population would expand to over 12 million, double its current size by 2010, triple by 2020, and increase to more than 5 times its current size, to 41 million by 2050.

According to the middle series, the Hispanic-origin population would be the largest growing group. By 2000, the Hispanic-origin population may increase to 31 million, double its 1990 size by 2015, and quadruple its 1990 size by the middle of the next century. In fact, the Hispanic-origin population would contribute 32 percent of the Nation's population growth from 1990 to 2000, 39 percent from 2000 to 2010, 45 percent from 2010 to 2030, and 60 percent from 2030 to 2050.

The two major components driving the population growth are fertility (births) and net immigration. In the middle series, the number of births is projected to decrease slightly as the century ends and then increase progressively throughout the projection period. After 2011, the number of births each year would exceed the highest annual number of births ever achieved in the United States.

Almost one-third of the current population growth is caused by net immigration. By 2000, the Nation's population is pro-jected to be 8 million larger than it would have been if there were no net immigration after July 1, 1992. By 2050, this difference would increase to 82 million. In fact, about 86 percent of the population growth during the year 2050 may be due to the effects of post-1992 net immigration. The above data taken from this site: www.census.gov...



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   
There are going to be some that will say well never see it.
Others that will say were heading towards it.

With the Trillions of dollars at the fingertips of the feds, there should be no reason why we should not be able to have a minimum standard for the people while still allowing for the beneficial points of capitalism.

The word Socialism has been bastardized by abuse and perhaps a new name needs to be used such as Altruism. A selfless society where we do what is best for all of us, regardless of our current economic status, that not a one of us will fall into a pit of hunger or living without covering.

Capitalism has shown, through the centuries, that it benefits the few while allowing great wrongs to be perpetuated upon the masses. Collaborative governments in conjunction with exploitative capitalism has given us a recent harvest of non competitive auto giants, corrupt lending practices, and deceptive corporate greed which has lined the pockets of the rich while main street has no recourse.

Ralph Nader said in a talk of late, that the reason Capitalism keeps surviving is that Socialism keeps bailing it out. It is we as a social collective that contribute to the single controlling body called the federal government. Its time the practices of the government serve the people and stop serving itself and the corporate elite.

Peace


[edit on 19-11-2008 by HIFIGUY]






top topics



 
21
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join