Who is Going to Tell Them?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

lol tax-payer funded does not equal socialism.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Oh stop. Sail up to El Morro where my grandfather was held without trial for 11 years and you'll read the words Bienvenidos a Cuba Socialista.

Welcome to Socialist Cuba.

Your "it's not real socialism" argument is tired and coming from a spoiled American academic point of view rather than the reality Cubans have lived with.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: MykeNukem

Most say Canada is a socialist country. We are in a lot of ways, but one things for sure, the People don't run # here.

Shrug...You guys still kinda identify with a monarchy. Your a commonwealth (created for the common good) realm of a sovereign constitutional monarchy.

Not quite.

We're an Independent Nation with no monarch.

The commonwealth is VOLUNTARY, with no member nation having any more power than any other member nation.

I think Prince Charles visited back in the 70's....

originally posted by: Randyvine2
a reply to: MykeNukem

Marxism is the word.

Yup, that's closer to the truth.

Or a mash up of socialism, marxism, etc..

Whatever they need. BAMN.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: Sookiechacha

In my opinion,extreme socialism leads to communism.I am not
an expert on socialism,but I am an outspoken mama on the net.

Pure socialism is when the people own everything, including private property. Pure communism is when the government owns everything, and there is no such thing as private property. One thing is NOT like the other.

I suppose your point is irrelevant since there is no pure form of any of these ism's.
People bitch about American capitalism but in reality it's full of social programs so it's not pure capitalism.

What they all have in common is that the top one percent are in charge and the rest fight for the scraps.

Socialized medicine is a good idea, taking the excessive profiting out of medicine is necessary. Also, doctors prescribing tests that are not actually needed other than to increase the hospitals ability to pay for all the technology they added that they rarely need is driving up healthcare costs. Seems that everyone is asking for these tests that are not needed a lot too, the results of the tests are often not needed to diagnose a disease. But then again, Our government screws everything up and makes things expensive, so I can't say that is the right way either. We would need input from some of the governments with a good and efficient socialized medicine to help us to reduce these costs and to get quality service initiated. And quality of life needs to be a factor in this, they do that in Europe. Here they torture the hell out of you then you die anyway.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Who is going to convince these people that we already live in a socialist laden society? Medicare and Medicaid? Socialism. Public schools? Socialism.
Unemployment insurance? Socialism. Farm subsidies? Socialism. The military? Socialism. The police? Socialism. Fire Departments? Socialism.

Why do people on the left assume social programs are also "socialism". Ya I get it they both have social in their wording, but they are not the same in any way. Capitalism doesn't mean zero social programs as they can be under any form of Goverment, so it is more about who controls what and in capitalism there is a lean in private control though the Goverment still controls a good deal. In socialism it is heavy Goverment control and communism is 100% government control.

The more Goverment control the less you take home for your hard earnings, and I think it is safe to say the Goverment spends too much and is not very efficient in that spending. That is what happens when you do not need to be good to survive like a private business needs to be. I had shoulder surgery and I picked the private doctor who is considered top of his peers over some random doctor at the VA that I could had also picked. Do you think I made the wiser choice or it doesn't matter which.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
I've always found that it's only socialism if your hand isn't in the pot.

But if you benefit, well, the tune is changed.

I don't know anyone who returned their Trump check or their Biden check. NOT ONE.

I dont believe the checks were meant to be returned. They were meant to be spent. To stimulate the economy to keep it somewhat afloat. So those of us who spent every penny were doing our part to help!

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Sookiechacha

lol tax-payer funded does not equal socialism.

It doesn't equal capitalisms. It's not owned by individuals or a company. It's complete funded, including salaries, clothing, food, housing, education, and medical care, including the VA, by "the people's" tax payer dollars.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It's welfarism.

Welfarism requires a free market to work. It cannot exist in a socialist economy. (see Nordic model)

If you would like to discuss the merits of welfarism, I'd be happy to.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Socialized medicine is a good idea, taking the excessive profiting out of medicine is necessary.

Good idea on paper, but it doesn't work out super well in practice. Why do many Canadians have American health insurance too...lol

So why not meet halfway in this. There is about 20 million Americans who have a hard time getting medical insurance, lets make it easier for them while not touching the other 80%, deal? No need to go full blown Socialized medicine and put extra burden on everyone in the form of a HUGE tax increase, just focus on people who actually need it.

Where I think this would work the best is to have clinics outside of the insurance umbrella. You go in see a nurse practitioner with a doctor on call and pay a small co-pay in cost, and the Goverment subsidizes the clinic.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The Socialism boogeyman. We've all heard it. And it's not without some truth. But "socialism" is whatever we make of it. The concept of "socialism" can also reflect our very democratic republican Social Contract, in which government is beholden to govern with the consent of the govern, and to do what is in the best interests of all the people all the time.

The problem is when "socialism" becomes a power grab. In fact, the problem is always who has the power and how that power is wielded. Is it a tool? Or a weapon???

I happen to like the balance of public options alongside private options -- such as education, protection, healthcare, etc. The public option, usually and necessarily rather bare bones, ensures access and availability for all. The private option provides choices for all, and specifically better choices for those willing to pay for it.

It does not have to be an either/or situation. We can do both. Very effectively and efficiently. In ways that benefit the people -- ALL the people, not the chosen few.

The OP is a fine example of why you don't take things too literally. It's really simple concept to understand the leftist mindset, basically, you just have to look at their "interpretation" of views, opinions and established fact to see how they will react.

The primary difference between what the OP is suggesting is, and how America operates basically comes down to the aged old view of, "Individual Initiative". I have to option and capital to willingly and by choice fund certain programs that can benefit for all. These same individuals prefer private market solutions as opposed to Gov mandated ones.

However, I will offer an Olive branch to Sooki and agree that the US, as of now, more or less operates on a quasi form of micro socialism at the Gov and Local level to help those who are less fortunate and operate at a lower economic stratification. Under those circumstances, it's viewed little more than a "hand out", a far cry from full on Socialism.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Why do people on the left assume social programs are also "socialism".

Why do people on the right think socialism only encompasses "social programs?" Farm subsidies, for example, are a form of socialism that benefits huge corporations.

Capitalism doesn't mean zero social programs as they can be under any form of Goverment,

Capitalisms doesn't address socialism and it isn't a form of government as much as it a type of economy. Capitalism doesn't initiate, manage, regulate or pay for government programs. The people's elected official and tax payer dollars do. Socialism and capitalism can co-exist. Capitalism and communism cannot.

a reply to: projectvxn

Welfarism requires a free market to work. It cannot exist in a socialist economy.

A free market and socialism have, and do, work just fine together.

a reply to: Arnie123

The OP is a fine example of why you don't take things too literally.

The opening post is an example of people who don't understand what socialism is and how it works in our society.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No they don't.

Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the state. There is no "workers". It's the state.

You need to accept that socialism's theoretical framework doesn't work when it makes contact with the real world.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

It doesn't equal capitalisms. It's not owned by individuals or a company. It's complete funded, including salaries, clothing, food, housing, education, and medical care, including the VA, by "the people's" tax payer dollars.

Why would you want that? You ever heard of Goverment cheese? It says cheeses, kind of looks like cheese, but it doesn't smell or taste like cheese. This is what many so called government controlled programs look like. Remember Russia/China were everyone wore the same grey outfits? Yep everyone had clothes 3 sets each of the same thing...lol Is that what you like or want?

In the end it is only better than nothing.... I personally would like more than that meager level of existence if I'm going to work my ass off in the process. I don't want Goverment cheese I want to pick from 100 different ones from around the world....

originally posted by: projectvxn

No they don't.

Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the state. There is no "workers". It's the state.

You need to accept that socialism's theoretical framework doesn't work when it makes contact with the real world.

The idea of the individual disappears, people become numbers, numbers become only statistics, statistics become acceptable losses, so on and so forth. BTW the top 1% is still there no matter the system, but outside of capitalism where you can have a wide range of prosperity in these other systems you only have the haves 1% and the have nots 99%.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: Sookiechacha

In my opinion,extreme socialism leads to communism.I am not
an expert on socialism,but I am an outspoken mama on the net.

Pure socialism is when the people own everything, including private property. Pure communism is when the government owns everything, and there is no such thing as private property. One thing is NOT like the other.

When the people collectively own everything, including private property, who administrators the use of those things and property?