We need Socialism. Socialism Is A Good Thing. Socialism Promotes The General Welfare.

Red Crow said:
Nope ....

I'm pretty sure us normal thinking folks are well aware of what Socialism is all about.
Click to expand...

Thanks Crow...I needed that laugh this morning.

images
 
Hello Flash,

Flash said:
Social welfare programs are only "socialist" if you consider all governmental programs socialist. If so, then all systems are the same because government performs certain basi functions world-wide. What distinguishes socialist system from capitalist systems is that major industries are government owned vs private ownership. The economic definition of socialism is the public ownership of the means of production and distribution.

Communism is a political system and socialism is an economic system. If all social welfare systems are socialist then all governments are socialist by definition.
Click to expand...

Great discussion!

And you are so correct.

Technically, Social Security is not socialism, by definition.

But the term 'socialism,' like so many English words, has seen it's definition change over the years.

Sort of like the way the word 'gay' has completely changed meanings from what it once was.

Now, when we use the word 'socialism' it can mean a lot more than the old dictionary definition.

Now it means things like Social Security, welfare, government assistance programs, mass transit, universal healthcare, taxpayer funded college tuition, etc.

What about collectivism?

Is it socialist if a company is owned by the workers?

Or is that collective capitalism?

I find it fascinating to watch our economy and government structure evolve over time.

I'm glad our US Constitution is flexible enough to allow us to make these changes as the world develops.

I know conservatives are suspicious of changes. And those are important views we need to always listen to.

I am usually one to listen to those reservations and respond that we have new information and new ideas and we should be bold and try them.
 
Grugore said:
If the government controls your healthcare, it controls you.
Click to expand...

If you can personally write a check for all of your healthcare needs, Grugore, then you are independent.
Otherwise, either the government or the private insurance companies partially control your healthcare.

We have a vote in the government.
We have no vote in the insurance company boardrooms.
That makes the government a better choice.

Also, with the government, all the taxes collected for healthcare actually go to healthcare.
With your insurance premiums, much of the money goes to profits.

A five year old would understand this when explained this simply.
Why can't you?
 
Hello Threedee,

Threedee said:
How about grocery stores, restaurants, clothing stores, and housing. Food, clothing, and shelter are as essential as healthcare.
Click to expand...

I think most of those should remain as capitalist ventures. We have the social safety net to provide for most of those needs.

I would be favorable to a government housing plan where the government builds basic no frills housing and then assigns / sells it to the needy who end up with full ownership to do as they please.

One of the things that keeps the poor poor is lack of home ownership. But giving away houses or apartments is fraught with consequences. It could serve as an impetus to not try. Any program which does that would have to place onerous requirements on the recipients to avoid reinforcing laziness.

So maybe in most cases, the recipients would have to work for or pay for most of the housing, but since it is done by the government at no profit, then the housing could be cheaper, and only those of severely limited income would be allowed to apply.
 
The government sustains itself primarily on tax revenue. Tax revenue comes largely from earned income. Earned income comes mostly from jobs. Jobs come from businesses. Businesses are started by dirty, rotten, stinking, greedy rich people who make it possible for most people to earn a living. The common man is exploited by these rotten rich people. The solution is for people to quit their jobs so they do not have to be exploited by dirty, stinking, rotten, greedy rich people, and start their own businesses – so that one day they can become dirty, rotten, stinking, greedy rich people.
 
I just sent you a reply. Cant find my reply to you so I'll start over. The reply I sent to you was tongue-in-cheek as I'm sure you know. I was highly sarcastic as a means of addressing the unfettered hatred that people seem to have for those who keep the economy running. By the way, I am and have always been a middle class guy. I worked 30 years as a peon worker bee. I accepted my job. Every day I worked and they paid me. At ANY point I could have left if I felt I could do it better. Thats the way it is. People hate the rich people because they can't have what they have? Fine, start a business and get it yourself. You say "well I have not had the advantages that the super wealthy have had because of their families, etc." So??? Is life fair? People hate the rich people because they are not "paying their fair share"? Who decides what is fair? People want to rise up and crush the wealthy, kill their wives and children and take their wealth, plunder their village. Really? Well once they have done that what then? What then is they start their own business (maybe...if they have the ambition) and become what they hate. Either that or the gravy train stops and so does the country.

Social safety nets are a must. A caring kind society (which we are not because of all sides, we are not civilized either, thats just a delusion) takes care of those who cannot take care of themselves. This comes from tax dollars and I'm all for it. When I was investing I gave 10% of my earnings every year to charity - directly. Thats in addition to regular church contributions. (like many many others). I volunteer at soup kitchens, etc.

But this bald faced hatred for business and "rich" people has got to stop. It will not because there is big business in it. Ha! there's an irony. So where does it end. Well, I think we know where it ends.....and news flash....in that kind of ending....there is only destruction.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Threedee,



I think most of those should remain as capitalist ventures. We have the social safety net to provide for most of those needs.

I would be favorable to a government housing plan where the government builds basic no frills housing and then assigns / sells it to the needy who end up with full ownership to do as they please.

One of the things that keeps the poor poor is lack of home ownership. But giving away houses or apartments is fraught with consequences. It could serve as an impetus to not try. Any program which does that would have to place onerous requirements on the recipients to avoid reinforcing laziness.

So maybe in most cases, the recipients would have to work for or pay for most of the housing, but since it is done by the government at no profit, then the housing could be cheaper, and only those of severely limited income would be allowed to apply.
Click to expand...

I understand that what I suggest next may be poorly received, but...

...one of the things we should be doing is to DISCOURAGE SOME PEOPLE FROM WORKING.

Anyone taking up space in a job who is not working to maximum productivity...is a deterrent to maximum productivity. And there is an army of people "taking up space" in jobs where they are not coming even close to maximum productivity. In fact, many impact negatively on productivity.

Every job currently being done by a human...that can more effectively be done by a machine...should be turned over to a machine for the doing.

Some jobs can't. No machine will ever make a hand-made silk tie. Few will ever be able to match the social aspect of a good bartender...or the needed TLC of a competent nurse or care-giver.

Right now...we have too many people working because they HAVE TO WORK...and who goldbrick rather than doing their assigned job competently. My guess is most of us have worked with people like that...individuals who would improve productivity by simply staying home.

When I said up above, "...one of the things we should be doing is to DISCOURAGE SOME PEOPLE FROM WORKING"...I am saying we should pay them (or provide for them) to stay the hell out of the way.

Enough for now. More to come on this...although I would love to hear input from others on it.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
If you can personally write a check for all of your healthcare needs, Grugore, then you are independent.
Otherwise, either the government or the private insurance companies partially control your healthcare.

We have a vote in the government.
We have no vote in the insurance company boardrooms.
That makes the government a better choice.

Also, with the government, all the taxes collected for healthcare actually go to healthcare.
With your insurance premiums, much of the money goes to profits.

A five year old would understand this when explained this simply.
Why can't you?
Click to expand...

Health insurance is based on a legally binding contract. What does the government give you? What if they refuse services? What will you do?
 
Hello again Evergreen58,

Evergreen58 said:
Nice. Thanks. I had written you a long reply then I accidentally clicked on the wrong button and deleted it - tech guru that I am. Getting too late here to write it again. Will get back to you later.

Good evening,
Click to expand...

I detest when that happens. There is some key combination on my keyboard that produces that result. Very frustrating when it happens after I have been working on a post for a long time. I frequently take that as an indication that I have been sitting at the computer too long, and get up and walk away. 5 minutes later I usually decide it wasn't all that important, and if it was, I can eventually recreate it in fewer words.

I look forward to more discussions.

Peace.
 
Hello Frank,

Frank Apisa said:
The transition to what we both advocate, Poli, MUST be done gradually...or we will fall into chaos.

"Gradually" does not mean taking forever, by the way. It means incrementally.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I have spent some time trying to envision how that transition could occur from for-profit medicine to a not-for-profit system owned by the people.

It could be done by instituting such a system initially for the young only. Let those who already have health care keep what they have for the rest of their lives (if that model lasts.) As the young who become part of a new system age, let the new system grow and expand to meet the need. That way nobody needs to be displaced from something they like.

If it were done that way, it could be that the new system works so well that many on the old system would like to switch over. That should be allowed. Eventually, the old system would be gone as it gradually gets replaced by the new one. Doctors who began businesses would get to keep them, but they may see their volume decreasing as people utilize the new system. Some of them may wish to convert. There should be a pathway for that.

If we want doctors to be the best they can be, we need a system which allows them to focus on practicing medicine. Running a business detracts from that.
 
rjhenn said:
I'd say those were best left to capitalism. Now, aid to let people use those facilities would be helpful, and perhaps necessary, particularly as automation eliminates many jobs. It might get to the point that aid provides most consumer spending, and would be the only thing keeping a capitalist economy going.
Click to expand...

Wait, consumer spending is necessary to a capitalist economy?
 
Grugore said:
Health insurance is based on a legally binding contract. What does the government give you? What if they refuse services? What will you do?
Click to expand...

Insurance companies are probably the biggest criminals in the country.

You hate government because that's what you're supposed to do.
If you're a flyover country Evangelical conservative, you're programmed to be a serf for the corporate oligarchy.
They own your mind and take exploiting you for granted.

You're the same as your neighbors and the same as your congregation.
You're terrified of well educated intellectuals because, although you can't understand it, they can make such easy arguments against all of your beliefs.

Somebody could give you twenty-thousand dollars to have a fun week in Manhattan or Las Vegas or Paris and you wouldn't know how to do it.
It's not your fault that you're a rube, but you don't have the courage to try improving yourself.

You trust corporate oligarchs over your own government despite this being completely against your own economic best interests.

I'm assuming a lot here, not actually knowing you, but the sad thing is, one can usually do that with confidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top