Socialist USA

The United States of subsidies: The biggest corporate winners in each state
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...winners-in-each-state/?utm_term=.b64d823796e6

The Corporate Welfare State: How the Federal Government Subsidizes U.S. Businesses
https://www.cato.org/publications/p...w-federal-government-subsidizes-us-businesses

Where Is The Outrage Over Corporate Welfare?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/taxana...-outrage-over-corporate-welfare/#423579b827dd

"Fascism should rightly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
Benito Mussolini.
 
Hello Evmetro,

Ok lefties, If you could have USA modeled after a socialist country, which would it be? What is the greatest socialist country that you know of?

I don't think we should model our country after any other single country.

We can take ideas and use them, but I can't really think of any other nation which can realistically serve as an example of how the USA should be. Some of the examples given are the size of one of our States. It would be unrealistic to try to take a program which works for 3 million people and try to make it work the same for 300 million.

I'm calling this a moot question.

It appears to stem from an old myth that a nation has to choose between capitalism and socialism. For years it was thought that socialism is like a disease, which once begun, grows and grows until it destroys capitalism and freedom.

But that is not the case. Capitalism and socialism can be mixed, resulting in a hybrid economy. And there is very just cause for doing so.

Some things should be left to capitalism.

Other things should be done with socialism.

Still others should have a 'public option' where the government provides a bare-bones basic version of something, and individuals are free to purchase a nicer version of that same thing.

Take transportation, for instance. We already mix socialism and capitalism there. We have mass transit, (which does not always pay for itself,) and we have fancy automobiles and private jets/helicopters. The poor have a way to get around, go to work, participate in the economy, and the rich have nicer ways to travel. And it all works pretty well.

Personally, I think health care should be done in a hybrid way. The government should provide a bare bones health care system paid for by taxing mostly the rich. If richer people want something better for themselves, shorter lines, fancy architecture, private rooms, etc, they should pay for that themselves. I could see government hospitals, labs, doctors, pharmaceutical production, all at no charge to citizens, and a completely parallel private system with all the latest and fanciest stuff, all for-profit, with comparable insurance rates. You get what you get from the government, and if you want better, then go earn lotsa money and buy it up. The government should not be on the hook for providing the most expensive care, and there should be limits to what the government will provide. For tough-luck cases that need more than the government can do, let there be non-profits which rely on charity, or for-profits which want the PR of taking some of those cases.

And let there be a strong part of that which focuses on PREVENTION. One of the reasons health care costs so much in the USA is because we get so sick. We have to turn that around. We have allowed capitalism to make people sick. Capitalism doesn't care if you get sick are stay very healthy. Capitalism, left unregulated, is going to market and sell some of the most unhealthy things out there. Anything for a buck. We need to be far smarter in our regulation. There are too many gullible people who fall for too many come-ons. People need to be encouraged to eat much healthier and get more fitness. For instance, crony capitalism tells our government to produce an eating guide that tells people what a balanced diet is. But those recommendations may not really be the healthiest way to eat. Red meat is part of the government diet, but if you eat too much you might just have a heart attack. Why are the messages of capitalism so much stronger than true public information messaging? And what is this about going after kids? That is not cool. We have to properly regulate capitalism so we have a healthier stronger populace instead of this huge and far too common overweight problem.

All schools need to have PE. Budgets should not be cut to the point that kids are not even exercising. That is ridiculous. Like asking for health problems in a decade or two. Mandatory PE!

Professionals would have to decide in my system if they are in it to help people and earn a reasonable living doing so, or if they are in it for the big money. Then we would find out how many doctors are really altruistic, and how many are only in it to get rich...

It makes no sense to have health insurance for profit. Especially if it is tied to employment. There's no competition. The whole health care system is totally rigged and everybody knows it. It shows very plainly how capitalism has broken down. The users cannot shop for price. Usually it comes with the job. Somebody else shops for you. That's not capitalism. That's a rigged system.

You want tires? You can call around, get the best price comparing the same product. You can't do that with health care. It's rigged. Not capitalism.

It's just like what coal mining did to local economies. Those at the top got very rich. The rank and file got seriously taken advantage of. None of the rank and file coal miners got rich. All that energy they were extracting out of the ground made somebody else rich, somebody who wasn't down in the mines risking their lives.

Big Pharma and Big Insurance got rich. Fancy doctors got rich. Hospital corporations got rich. Patients and lower echelon workers, even nurses, got the shaft. Before Obamacare, many American households were bankrupted by a medical event. And that still happens - While all those fancy big power players are getting rich. The whole thing stinks. We should throw it all out, start from scratch, and create a sensible health care system.

The rich have the rank and file arguing against one another. Thinking that health care is so expensive that others need to be left out so they can have lower rates. How about leaving out the ones who are extracting so much wealth out of the middle class? That's where the money is going!

The rich power-players have pitted the left and right against one another so everybody will be distracted and won't notice how bad the rich power-players are ripping us all off.

Basic health care does not need to cost this much, folks.

We don't have to exclude anybody.

We don't have to be so chintzy.

All we have to do is cut the profits out of basic health care.
 
Hello Evmetro,



I don't think we should model our country after any other single country.

We can take ideas and use them, but I can't really think of any other nation which can realistically serve as an example of how the USA should be. Some of the examples given are the size of one of our States. It would be unrealistic to try to take a program which works for 3 million people and try to make it work the same for 300 million.

I'm calling this a moot question.

It appears to stem from an old myth that a nation has to choose between capitalism and socialism. For years it was thought that socialism is like a disease, which once begun, grows and grows until it destroys capitalism and freedom.

But that is not the case. Capitalism and socialism can be mixed, resulting in a hybrid economy. And there is very just cause for doing so.

Some things should be left to capitalism.

Other things should be done with socialism.

Still others should have a 'public option' where the government provides a bare-bones basic version of something, and individuals are free to purchase a nicer version of that same thing.

Take transportation, for instance. We already mix socialism and capitalism there. We have mass transit, (which does not always pay for itself,) and we have fancy automobiles and private jets/helicopters. The poor have a way to get around, go to work, participate in the economy, and the rich have nicer ways to travel. And it all works pretty well.

Personally, I think health care should be done in a hybrid way. The government should provide a bare bones health care system paid for by taxing mostly the rich. If richer people want something better for themselves, shorter lines, fancy architecture, private rooms, etc, they should pay for that themselves. I could see government hospitals, labs, doctors, pharmaceutical production, all at no charge to citizens, and a completely parallel private system with all the latest and fanciest stuff, all for-profit, with comparable insurance rates. You get what you get from the government, and if you want better, then go earn lotsa money and buy it up. The government should not be on the hook for providing the most expensive care, and there should be limits to what the government will provide. For tough-luck cases that need more than the government can do, let there be non-profits which rely on charity, or for-profits which want the PR of taking some of those cases.

And let there be a strong part of that which focuses on PREVENTION. One of the reasons health care costs so much in the USA is because we get so sick. We have to turn that around. We have allowed capitalism to make people sick. Capitalism doesn't care if you get sick are stay very healthy. Capitalism, left unregulated, is going to market and sell some of the most unhealthy things out there. Anything for a buck. We need to be far smarter in our regulation. There are too many gullible people who fall for too many come-ons. People need to be encouraged to eat much healthier and get more fitness. For instance, crony capitalism tells our government to produce an eating guide that tells people what a balanced diet is. But those recommendations may not really be the healthiest way to eat. Red meat is part of the government diet, but if you eat too much you might just have a heart attack. Why are the messages of capitalism so much stronger than true public information messaging? And what is this about going after kids? That is not cool. We have to properly regulate capitalism so we have a healthier stronger populace instead of this huge and far too common overweight problem.

All schools need to have PE. Budgets should not be cut to the point that kids are not even exercising. That is ridiculous. Like asking for health problems in a decade or two. Mandatory PE!

Professionals would have to decide in my system if they are in it to help people and earn a reasonable living doing so, or if they are in it for the big money. Then we would find out how many doctors are really altruistic, and how many are only in it to get rich...

It makes no sense to have health insurance for profit. Especially if it is tied to employment. There's no competition. The whole health care system is totally rigged and everybody knows it. It shows very plainly how capitalism has broken down. The users cannot shop for price. Usually it comes with the job. Somebody else shops for you. That's not capitalism. That's a rigged system.

You want tires? You can call around, get the best price comparing the same product. You can't do that with health care. It's rigged. Not capitalism.

It's just like what coal mining did to local economies. Those at the top got very rich. The rank and file got seriously taken advantage of. None of the rank and file coal miners got rich. All that energy they were extracting out of the ground made somebody else rich, somebody who wasn't down in the mines risking their lives.

Big Pharma and Big Insurance got rich. Fancy doctors got rich. Hospital corporations got rich. Patients and lower echelon workers, even nurses, got the shaft. Before Obamacare, many American households were bankrupted by a medical event. And that still happens - While all those fancy big power players are getting rich. The whole thing stinks. We should throw it all out, start from scratch, and create a sensible health care system.

The rich have the rank and file arguing against one another. Thinking that health care is so expensive that others need to be left out so they can have lower rates. How about leaving out the ones who are extracting so much wealth out of the middle class? That's where the money is going!

The rich power-players have pitted the left and right against one another so everybody will be distracted and won't notice how bad the rich power-players are ripping us all off.

Basic health care does not need to cost this much, folks.

We don't have to exclude anybody.

We don't have to be so chintzy.

All we have to do is cut the profits out of basic health care.

Blasphemer, blasphemer I say!
 
Congrats, you are the first lefty in this thread to post a reply that demonstrates that you have read and understand the opening post.

I am not a lefty..

I find this intriguing: "Like Denmark and other European countries, equality is considered one of the most important values in society. "
 
There is no reason we have to let the AMA control medicine. The USA could say otherwise. We didn't elect the AMA. Most of those people want to get rich, and some think they deserve to be really rich. If their position is that providing good health care is too expensive to be able to cover everyone then perhaps we should just have more government medical schools and crank out some truly dedicated professionals who can take care of most of the needs of the rank and file and do it for a middle class income.

We have a lot of people who go into medicine because they want to get rich. Most US medical students come from affluent families. The percentage of them who want to be a General Practice Doctor (which is what communities need the most) is dropping. Most medical students want to be specialists. That pays a lot more than General Practice. Are they only in it for the money or what?

Practicing medicine is not magic. It's just knowledge. Knowledge can be shared. And good medical students don't have to come from affluent families. Maybe we need to open a lot more medical schools and crank out a lot more good doctors.

Why is it that the Ivy League schools have not expanded in proportion with the population? Why are there not more of them now than there were when the population was half of what it is today? Are they becoming more and more elite?

Should practicing medicine be left only to a shrinking and increasingly exclusive elite?

I don't think the AMA has done a very good job.

There is a part of medicine in America which is dedicated to feeding the egos of doctors.

That is not useful.
 
There is no reason we have to let the AMA control medicine. The USA could say otherwise. We didn't elect the AMA. Most of those people want to get rich, and some think they deserve to be really rich. If their position is that providing good health care is too expensive to be able to cover everyone then perhaps we should just have more government medical schools and crank out some truly dedicated professionals who can take care of most of the needs of the rank and file and do it for a middle class income.

We have a lot of people who go into medicine because they want to get rich. Most US medical students come from affluent families. The percentage of them who want to be a General Practice Doctor (which is what communities need the most) is dropping. Most medical students want to be specialists. That pays a lot more than General Practice. Are they only in it for the money or what?

Practicing medicine is not magic. It's just knowledge. Knowledge can be shared. And good medical students don't have to come from affluent families. Maybe we need to open a lot more medical schools and crank out a lot more good doctors.

Why is it that the Ivy League schools have not expanded in proportion with the population? Why are there not more of them now than there were when the population was half of what it is today? Are they becoming more and more elite?

Should practicing medicine be left only to a shrinking and increasingly exclusive elite?

I don't think the AMA has done a very good job.

There is a part of medicine in America which is dedicated to feeding the egos of doctors.

That is not useful.

AMA is a subscription organization and most doctors do not belong or pay dues to it.

We do have the most expensive medical education in the world.
 
Hello Evmetro,



I don't think we should model our country after any other single country.

We can take ideas and use them, but I can't really think of any other nation which can realistically serve as an example of how the USA should be. Some of the examples given are the size of one of our States. It would be unrealistic to try to take a program which works for 3 million people and try to make it work the same for 300 million.

I'm calling this a moot question.

I appreciate that you took some time on your reply. My expectations of lefties on this forum is that they will provide a brief and evasive reply that does not demonstrate that they have read and understand the opening post, kinda like post 21. You have gone the extra mile and have opened the door to discussion and debate.

It appears to stem from an old myth that a nation has to choose between capitalism and socialism. For years it was thought that socialism is like a disease, which once begun, grows and grows until it destroys capitalism and freedom.

But that is not the case. Capitalism and socialism can be mixed, resulting in a hybrid economy. And there is very just cause for doing so.

Some things should be left to capitalism.

Other things should be done with socialism.

It sounds like you like the nordic model. Is there one you like the most? Is there something you see in the Nordic model that you think belongs here?
 
The world’s top 100 economies: 31 countries; 69 corporations
https://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/world-s-top-100-economies-31-countries-69-corporations

Too late.

Awesome. Hope the corporations number gets even bigger in the next 35 years. Daddy's got a retirement to pay for. What do you think happens to the $4T people in America put into retirement plans--it goes into a safe somewhere, has a big old orgy, and churns out little copper-tone babies by the ton?

You do know a big part of the reason the rich are getting richer since Reagan is because Reagan was POTUS when the IRS allowed individual 401K's at which point the masses began sheltering their income into the markets making it Not Income Yet competing for the same stocks that have skyrocketed as long as you ignore their real dollar value
 
Sure, the black man is holding you down, we got it, long, long ago. You've morphed into everything you decry you pathetic entitled little feckless prick of a shitpile. Now run along to another thread and prattle on about how Europeans are being run over by a mysterious dark horde headed hear next.

Racist trolls have nothing in their pathetic lives but to inject their stupidity where it's not even a point of reference or topic.
 
Congrats, you are the first lefty in this thread to post a reply that demonstrates that you have read and understand the opening post.

Actually, he's not tired of banging his head against a right wing wall....to date, you and your cohorts can't fault him.
 
Finland

Finland has one of the world’s best education systems, with no tuition fees and also giving free meals to their students. The literacy rate in Finland is 100 percent. Finland has one of the highest standards of living in the world.

Like Denmark and other European countries, equality is considered one of the most important values in society. Whereas in the Netherlands, government control over the economy remains at a minimum, but a socialist welfare system remains.

The lifestyle in the Netherlands is very egalitarian and organized, where even bosses do not discipline or treat their subordinates rudely.

Finland is also in the midst of overhauling their social welfare system because it encourages people not to work as is.
 
Finland is not a Socialist nation.

Because means of production are not state owned, Finland cannot be considered to be a socialist country. However, being a Nordic welfare country, Finland has socialist characters in the form a large public sector.


Finland has a thriving private sector, including e.g. worlds biggest mobile phone manufacturer Nokia. This has made Finland into a very prosperous country; according to World Bank (2008) Finland is the 10th richest country in the world, measured by nominal GDP per capita.

Finland's public sector is large, comprising about half of the GDP. Practically all health and education services are provided by the public sector. Even though this model could be called socialistic, it is very effective. High quality health care is available for all, and this costs only 7,5% of GPD (e.g. in USA the costs is 16%).

Also education is free, and the quality of education especially in primary and secondary schools is among the best in the world.

http://www.answers.com/Q/Is_Finland_a_socialist_country
 
Hello Evmetro,

I appreciate that you took some time on your reply. My expectations of lefties on this forum is that they will provide a brief and evasive reply that does not demonstrate that they have read and understand the opening post, kinda like post 21. You have gone the extra mile and have opened the door to discussion and debate.

You're quite welcome. I know you'll get a lot of what you expect out of the left, but everyone needs to remember such stereotypes are by no means absolute. I don't think all conservatives are alike, and neither are all liberals. While I am quite liberal, I value the diversity of views we have and recognize the national strength of having many voices. Therefore, I am glad we have conservatives to challenge our views and keep us honest. I wish everyone had a deeper appreciation for the greatness of our diversity.

It sounds like you like the nordic model. Is there one you like the most? Is there something you see in the Nordic model that you think belongs here?

Norway is a good start. I really like that Norway has a budget surplus, universal healthcare, and that most workers get a 3 month vacation. I am really adamant about the vacation thing. Too much work burns people out, causes them to be bitter. It really does take months to get your head right before going back to work. That level of introspection cannot be achieved in a week or two. I recall working at jobs where I got a week off. Man, just about the time I am beginning to let go of the stress of work, BAM! Vacation is over and it's back to the grindstone. And then all the stress is right back again. You don't even have to make it in the freaking door. Just the rush-hour drive can do it. Everybody is so stressed out they take it out on one another on the highway, which only makes things worse and spreads stress like a disease. We really do have a lot of Americans with their heads pretty far up their you-know-what. Life doesn't have to be like that!

I know I am spoiled to have this beautiful life. I know most people will never be able to enjoy that, and that's sad. Life can be really good but you have to carve it out of this high octane world. Hint: It is more in your head than it is in your wallet. Having a good life you really love is not something you can buy with a lot of money. Money does not equal happiness.

I would like to see the USA adopt the high taxes on the rich of Norway, start paying down the debt, and eventually become debt-free like Norway. This will give us the power to provide far more social services to our population and give us the ability to also have the universal health care the Norwegians enjoy.
 
Congrats, you are the first lefty in this thread to post a reply that demonstrates that you have read and understand the opening post.

Didn't see you offer an exact description of what you were looking for, nor did you offer any kind of description of what you thought would be better then a socialist system. Just the usual right wing rant without comprehension. Looked like something Trump would say with no supportive information.
 
If Finland is not a socialist country they we can adopt everything they have without fear of being socialist.

-chuckling-

It is becoming increasingly clear that most economies are actually a hybrid comprised of some socialist functions and some capitalist functions.

And that is how it should be.

We just have to get the balance right!

I agree education and health care should provided by the government and paid for with high taxes. Just pay it, get over it, and enjoy the benefits of having a smart and healthy populace. It only makes sense a nation of smart and healthy people is better than a nation of sick dummies. It's not rocket science. Just basic logic.
 
Didn't see you offer an exact description of what you were looking for, nor did you offer any kind of description of what you thought would be better then a socialist system. Just the usual right wing rant without comprehension. Looked like something Trump would say with no supportive information.

Trump has a closed mind...

Finland has a thriving private sector, including e.g. worlds biggest mobile phone manufacturer Nokia. This has made Finland into a very prosperous country; according to World Bank (2008) Finland is the 10th richest country in the world, measured by nominal GDP per capita.

Finland's public sector is large, comprising about half of the GDP. Practically all health and education services are provided by the public sector. Even though this model could be called socialistic, it is very effective. High quality health care is available for all, and this costs only 7,5% of GPD (e.g. in USA the costs is 16%).

Also education is free, and the quality of education especially in primary and secondary schools is among the best in the world.

http://www.answers.com/Q/Is_Finland_a_socialist_country
 
Back
Top