Who is Going to Tell Them?

If you cant see the difference between a capitalist society with social programs and socialism, I am sorry I cant help you and if you had a civics class in the past,, or a govt class you should demand the school refund that money.

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.

We donated ours to the local food bank - does that count?

Also, When it was time for our 20 year old roof to be replaced, we did not use any of the companies that offered to "write it up as storm damage" and bill the insurance -
- we paid for it out of the money we had budgeted for and saved in our "home repair/emergency" account..

It seems fairly clear that an awful lot of US posters on here do not understand the difference between social programmes and Socialism. Far less do they understand what Marxism actually is.

Obviously, neither pan out very well in the real world.

Animal Farm by George Orwell is recommended reading.

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others", etc.

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.

can you point to a socialist nation that has run so well that we should emulate it please.

originally posted by: network dude

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.

can you point to a socialist nation that has run so well that we should emulate it please.

I thought that that poster was just trying to educate folk on what socialism and communism actually is, not recommending either?

It's a given that neither systems ever work out well.

a reply to: network dude

If you think I'm advocating for the USA to adopt a purely socialist government, you're mistaken.

I also don't advocate for a purely capitalistic government either. a balance of both are needed for a healthy economy.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Your reading comprehension is absolutely awful.

I didn't say Karl Marx coined socialism. I said he used socialism as the substrate of communist theory, which is factual.

Really, read the source material. Your laziness in refusing to do so is fueling your ignorant arguments.

Oxford Handbooks-Marx’s Concept of Socialism

a reply to: projectvxn

I didn't say Karl Marx coined socialism. I said he used socialism as the substrate of communist theory, which is factual.

So what? That's what we do. The USA never has solely relied on capitalism. The US didn't decide to create a for profit military to pay off the debts accrued during the American Revolution. The created a federal treasury and devised a taxation system to pay for it. The Founding Fathers didn't make any kind of stipulation that the Post Office needed to pay for itself and show a profit.

Really, read the source material. Your laziness in refusing to do so is fueling your ignorant arguments.

You seem to think that the word "socialism" is a dog whistle call for Marxism. It isn't. If you want to discuss Karl Marx and Marxism, make a thread about it. This thread isn't about defeating capitalism and replacing it with socialized communism. It's about how the United States has integrated capitalism and socialism to somewhat successfully create a more perfect union.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: rickymouse

I just hit two things here, there are lots more I know about. The colonoscopy does have risks, I know one person who died from a puncture and another one who went through three surgeries because the hole they created leaked poop into the cavity where the guts are from the colonoscopy they got as a precaution.

I am getting real life horror stories from people I know about supposedly rare problems yet it seems to me that if these things are happening to so many people I know it is NOT rare.

I hate the insurance system. I got a bill for 1650 and I was like is this really the number I should pay? I see numbers all over the place and none match up. In the end after talking to billing at the surgery clinic they said disregard the bill, I owe nothing, so why did I get the bill in the first place...lol The system sucks, it is over inflated in cost, too many middlemen making money and it should be the medical staff. Look at doctors that do cosmetic surgery. My wife got her breasts done for 7k, straight up price, top doctor. The doctor makes over a millions a year... The doctor that did my shoulder surgery gets a lot less than that and that surgery was 25k.

We would need to tear down the whole system and start with a new baseline on everything, I don't see it happening.

BTW I would still get colonoscopy.... my friend went from healthy to dead in 4 months.

No matter how bad you think it all is now all you need to do is remember what a 60 year-old person looked like in the 70s, or even the 80s compared to today. Hell the guys who were like 45 in the 80s looked worst than I do today and I'm 61. I remember thinking boy I hope I'm not that bad off when I hit 45...lol

So a lot of it is perspective...

You are right about doing a full overhaul of the medical system. Myself, I think that we should go to socialized medicine here.

You have to remember, when my wife was working we got the health insurance, I was a licensed builder, so it came in handy that she had the good insurance from the health department. But the insurance cost the health department almost thirteen grand a year, and we still had deductables and copays. It cost us another two grand a year to pay all of that and because insurance was so high, she only got around twenty seven grand a year total wages there. less than fourteen bucks an hour and that was a pretty decent job around here because it covered all of the health insurance. She retired six years ago. The cost of the insurance for the company plus our copays was half of her wage, plus we both paid into medicare all along . Figure that out, and socialized medicine costs are not that much higher because they regulate profits.

People did look older then, lots more wrinkles, probably because people were skinnier...now those wrinkles stretched and are filled full of fat since everyone seems to be overweight. People drank strong coffee and alcohol a lot, and smoked more cigarettes, all of that adds to looking older. I worked with a lot of older people in construction and most of the ones who did not drink and smoke were not so wrinkly, That coffee that they drank was boiled to tar, stronger than hell. Not many people in the sixties around here had drip coffee makers. The quinines and turpenes in coffee caused a lot of heart attacks back then, the paper coffee filter takes out those turpenes, they bind to the filter and are tossed out nowadays, screens don't stop that chemical from going into the coffee. The turpene is bound to one of the quinines which causes afib like symptoms. It took reading over fifty research articles to peact that together.

originally posted by: rickymouse
The quinines and turpenes in coffee caused a lot of heart attacks back then, the paper coffee filter takes out those turpenes, they bind to the filter and are tossed out nowadays, screens don't stop that chemical from going into the coffee. The turpene is bound to one of the quinines which causes afib like symptoms. It took reading over fifty research articles to peact that together.

Well this and a 1000 of other things, I think people drink as much today as back then. In 1900 avg life expectancy was 50, in 1970 it went up to 70, now it is pushing 80. Social security not too far in the future will be like 72, so I guess we are doing something right.

Full overhaul just isn't going to happen any time soon and so anything like Obamacare will just be a Band-Aid and pretty much worthless.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

What seizing of the means of production have we done in the United States?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
You seem to think that the word "socialism" is a dog whistle call for Marxism. It isn't. If you want to discuss Karl Marx and Marxism, make a thread about it. This thread isn't about defeating capitalism and replacing it with socialized communism. It's about how the United States has integrated capitalism and socialism to somewhat successfully create a more perfect union.

Socialism is very dependent on a strong private work force to pay for everything otherwise you get Greece type scenarios. People also have a tendency to not want to work when they can get the Goverment to pay for them. Case in point the COVID unemployment in play right now that businesses can't fill positions to stay open. In a socialized system the lottery winner is the person who can claim disability and so get paid for nothing. Its a huge scam many work on to live on the Goverment dole.

Smaller population can mange it better than larger ones such as Netherlands population of 17 million compared to our 330 million. If we looked at America how many people would actually be working to be the bread winner for the bloated socialized Goverment? I don't think enough......

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Sookiechacha

What seizing of the means of production have we done in the United States?

Exactly. But folk do not understand what they are talking about.

According to some on here, we in the UK have a socialist govt cos we have an NHS.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I didn't say we lived in a total socialist system, but as you point out, there are elements that are socialist. Public aspects are socialist. They are administered by the government and supported through tax dollars and called public in the sense that they are supposed to be accessible to all taxpayers.

But even as I am part owner as a taxpayer - part of your "the people" - I cannot just go to those public facilities and use them when I want and as I see fit like I can my own privately owned property. The government decides how those facilities will be run and what the rules of use are. My point about the lockdown was to say that I could not access the exercise facilities of a "public" (socialist) space even as a member of "the people" who is ostensibly part owner and in whose name those facilities are being run. Rather than administrators who are supposed to be working for me tell me how it will be.

Now, once we reach the tipping point where enough systems are socialized, it won't matter. We will live in a socialist system and be heading down the hard road to communism.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Sookiechacha

What seizing of the means of production have we done in the United States?

None yet, but they would eagerly embrace it with the healthcare system.

a reply to: Xtrozero

People also have a tendency to not want to work when they can get the Goverment to pay for them.

People also make a living off building tax payer funded roads, bridges, dams, highways, schools, government buildings, etc. Capitalism depends on socialism as much as socialism depends on capitalism.

In a socialized system the lottery winner is the person who can claim disability and so get paid for nothing.

In a capitalistic system, someone like Jeff Bezos can borrow off his financial holdings, never have to pay income taxes, and still make more money than the year before.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

People also make a living off building tax payer funded roads, bridges, dams, highways, schools, government buildings, etc. Capitalism depends on socialism as much as socialism depends on capitalism.

I don't think there is a person in America that would argue no social programs, but as you said it needs to be a mix...Not too much Goverment and not too much Corporatocracy.

What you suggest above is not generated funds....Even though it creates jobs, (military 28 years), it is all 100% expense with zero funds created. That is the private sectors job.

In the case of Greece they had too many bloated Goverment positions that made much more then their private counter parts, and so the private sector dried up into massive unemployment. Even France a couple of years back had riots because the Government said they need more taxes for medical.

Once again I think you are using the wrong words to suggest socialism and not just social programs. Also, what program should be state level and what should be federal...Socialism tends to be federal so are you in favor of diminishing the power the states hold and move to a more Democracy from a Republic?

In a capitalistic system, someone like Jeff Bezos can borrow off his financial holdings, never have to pay income taxes, and still make more money than the year before.

Then change tax laws, but in the end who really cares. Bezos most likely makes nothing and as you said borrows off his stock that is worth 200 billion. I can't say that is either good or bad....I do know he has created a service that is crazy good and created 900,000 jobs that feed families.

Now compare him to someone that never pays any federal income their whole lives because they spend it all on subsistence living even though they are physically and mentally able to work. Who is the bad person here?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Private companies get government contracts and grants to pay their employees to build roads, bridges dams, schools, government buildings, et al. The employees dump their money into economy and people use the roads and bridges to go to work, go shopping, eat at restaurants and go to movies. Any small city official will tell you that a highway running through their town generates revenue.

Then change tax laws, but in the end who really cares. Bezos most likely makes nothing and as you said borrows off his stock that is worth 200 billion. I can't say that is either good or bad....I do know he has created a service that is crazy good and created 900,000 jobs that feed families.

I'm not saying Bezos is a bad guy. You're right, he generates a lot of jobs and revenue.

Now compare him to someone that never pays any federal income their whole lives because they spend it all on subsistence living even though they are physically and mentally able to work.

I don't know who that is. It's not most people, or even the average person on public assistance. But, if you think there's a lot of healthy people living their whole lives off the public assistance, never paying a dime in income tax, then "change the law!"

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: projectvxn

I don't see Karl Marx talk up or promoting socialism in that comment, do you?

Karl Marx promoted totalitarian communism through a violent revolution.

Do you not understand that communism is a form of socialism?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Private companies get government contracts and grants to pay their employees to build roads, bridges dams, schools, government buildings, et al. The employees dump their money into economy and people use the roads and bridges to go to work, go shopping, eat at restaurants and go to movies. Any small city official will tell you that a highway running through their town generates revenue.

Its not new revenue, its paid for by taxes, is my point.... The only "new" revenue is from the private sector, the government operates in the red.

Then change tax laws, but in the end who really cares. Bezos most likely makes nothing and as you said borrows off his stock that is worth 200 billion. I can't say that is either good or bad....I do know he has created a service that is crazy good and created 900,000 jobs that feed families.

I'm not Bezos is a bad guy. You're right, he generates a lot of jobs and revenue.

I don't know who that is. It's not most people, or even the average person on public assistance. But, if you think there's a lot of healthy people living their whole lives off the public assistance, never paying a dime in income tax, then "change the law!"

There are more well off people paying a large amount of the taxes out there and providing jobs to others, than the "rich who pay no taxes" ideal. There is also a good percentage of Americans who don't do much with their lives even though they are physically and mentally capable, and they basically pay nothing into that fed system. But then we talk about the evil rich and how they get their tax write-offs lol.