It's 'a danger' of free-market global corporatism too...suppose this mom left her children, lets say 2, to go work 40/week at Walmart...at $10.00/hour that's 1600/month, minus taxes, that's a little over 1300/month....a two bedroom apt in San Antonio is around 650-1000/ month..a car payment would be a luxury....after food, electricity, water, insurance, doctor bills etc.....
Yeah, so ? Welcome to life. I didn't her. Funny thing, when my wife and I decided to have kids, we took our financial situation into account, and planned it for when we had some things in place, financially. It's not like people don't realize kids are a financial burden. Please tell me this isn't news to even the most ignorant re .
That right there is exactly why you can't take tea-baggers seriously... everyone else, I got mine, no social security, no medi/cade/care, in fact, no more free care at all...until I get sick and lose my home, money and spouse, then gimme, gimme, gimme...
The problem with socialism is sooner or later you run out of other people's money.
When you do, game over. Between Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and the likely coming cap & trade, those will be enough to finish off this country economically and financially.
To the OP - you want to know why it has a bad name? If you're still alive in 50 years you'll likely have gotten to see the ugly answer to your question when the house of cards that is our national debt comes crashing down.
The problem with socialism (capitalism) is sooner or later you run out of other people's money (to take).
Cute Dan. Seriously, everyone needs to go look at the U.S. Debt Clock and if you are capable of some basic reading comprehension, take a look at it.
To help all you idiotic lib s out, you can do all the taxing of the evil rich folk, business owners, etc. and not come close to covering the debt the fine folks in D.C. are racking up at record pace.
Sooner or later the Chinese will decide to stop financing our debt (ie, raising the limit on the credit card), and when it does it's game over.
The Chinese only own $800 billion of our national debt and if they sold that they would be undermining the value of its own currency...Sooner or later the Chinese will decide to stop financing our debt (ie, raising the limit on the credit card), and when it does it's game over.
Fair enough.
That's why I said I wasn't in favor of a socialist state, but aspects of socialism, such as welfare and other "safety net" measures. I agree that socialism as a total governmental system has failed in many areas. Pretty much, socialism fails as soon as someone who doesn't want to participate is forced to.If the definition of socialism is “system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution in the State”, then tell me, who is going to compete w/ the State?
How is that any different than the individual battles, writ large? In fact, it's EASY to defend iden y politics. One, not allowing it would go against the liberty of someone to freely choose their associations. But even easier, it's NATURAL. There's a reason that people form into groups; it greatly increases your chances of survival. It's why animals form packs; it's why humans do too. To decry group on group warfare as something inherently bad is simplistic and misguided.Are you really challenging this? The group iden y politics that pits one race against the other, sexes against each other, promotes class warfare, and encourages base bigotry is pretty tough to defend.
I'm not for a more expansive and totalitarian government. I approve of some policies on the left, and disapprove. If you've read my posting history, you will see I'm somewhere between left and libertarian, holding strong views on civil liberties and more liberal ones on financial policy.So you believe that a greedy industrialist who becomes a greedy politician will have less influence? Even in a more expansive and totalitarian government that has the means to use force to accomplish his goals? Seriously?
Again, somewhat putting words into my mouth. Would I favor granting more power and control to the government? Of course not, if the current system were working. However, it's clear that the system of health care we have now ISN'T working.And yet you’d favor granting ever more power and control to an ins ution that is not only corrupt but has the power to use force to implement its will.
I've seen evidence that universal health care could cut emergency room costs. I also think that we should provide a basic level of care to all citizens, as a moral... well, imperative is a strong word, but something along those lines.
I can see the reasons for those who disagree, and admit that there seems no perfect way forward.
Just because you insist that the relationship isn't an indictment of capitalism doesn't make it so. When you have money, you have influence; this is basic. After all, greed is good, right? So why do capitalists expect government to NOT help out lobbyists, who in turn help them out once they retire?Think about this carefully. Who is it that can force the taxpayer? The cozy relationship between corporate American and our government is NOT an indictment of capitalism. It is precisely because we have allowed government to become so omnipotent that corporations use it as their tool to stymie compe ion.
I think, on the whole, that capitalism is a great system of government. I'm willing to point out the flaws when and where I see them though.
If the government DIDN'T intervene with TARP, there was a very good chance of going through another Depression with a capital D. I understand why they did it, and also hate that they had to.
Yes, I'm younger than you. I can't speak to the effectiveness of social security; I've heard mixed support from both sides. I think the greatest problem was lack of foresight in assuming how much longer we'd live, and how much more medical technology we'd have in the future.Several TRILLION $ have been confiscated since Johnston’s “Great Society” to what effect? Do you think that idea was implemented effectively?
I don’t know how old you are but I suspect you’re younger than me yet I know I’ll never benefit from the social security money that has been confiscated from my wages for the last 30 yrs. It was a ponzi scheme from the start. Was that idea implemented effectively?
What of other social programs? Do you think all should be done away with? Food stamps, welfare, unemployment? (Note: Just because there has been fraud in the system doesn't, in my mind, necessarily make the system flawed. If the frauds can be fixed, or reduced to an acceptable level, the system can work.)
I'm not a big fan of socialism.I strongly encourage you to read Friedrich A. von Hayek’s book The Road to Serfdom http://72.167.56.43/content.php?id=1...enu_item_id=82 for a much more articulate critique of socialism if you are truly interested in this subject.But thanks for the suggestion!
Don't read Kierkegaard; he'll just depress you.
And it becomes redistribution of wealth, allowing others to live off others hard work.
My God. You are dead wrong!
To practice what the Bible says is not socialism. Example please.
No, they may not imagined it, but how can you claim it goes against their principles?
Absolutely. And that doesn't take long.
I think he was referring to DARPANet, which was created by the government. Ie. it was a project started by the gov, instead of created by private parties. *shrug*
It is hated because it violates freedom, which is rather sacred in the states. Nothing special. It has to do so by it's very principal.
Perfect freedom doesn't exist anywhere. Like all things, society will find a compromise between how much freedom it is willing to exchange for other protections. Taxation is a good example. A pretty massive assault on your personal property and liberty, yet it is regarded as necessary by nearly everyone.
The American and world economy is a mixture of command and control with capitalism. Only radicals think that it is one and should be the other. There are thousands of thousands of government controls on the economy that are viewed as necessary. There are also thousands of totally free markets. Even underground black markets. We have every base covered. A single type only works in theory on some paper of a PhD student.
Socialism is for the weak.
u weak brah?
is that why Geithner is begging them to unpeg their currency?
Boondoggles!
I don't want my wealth "distributed" i work hard for every penny i earn. I want to keep it.
and i don't want the Gov't telling me how much i can earn, what car to drive and what insurance to get.
Our country was founded on the concept of getting OUT of those types of European philosphies. Now our Potus wants to take us back to the days of "Jolly Old England"
NO Thanks!
One Big Ass Mistake America
not really.
So my early military encounters using the AN/FRC-109, 159, 162, 165, etc...
Those radios that started communications backbones were were created by the military?
NO! They were made by Linkurt and Collins, and were making equipment for AT&T also.
How about the multiplexers?
Oh lets see... I worked on muxes made by Rockwell, TRW, General Electric, Seimens, etc.
As for the DARPA net? It was a contract to a commercial business as well, to simply make a digital switching system.
Guess what, it was a variant of what AT&T used, in fact a later packet switch I worked on was an AT&T DACS III frame. It used over 100 386 processors, a Hewlett Packard microsequencer running UNIX.
Only the demand was created by the government. The supply was created all by civilian ventures.
I agree.
I say that everyone who believes in socialism, should give 80% of their salary to the government so the can fairly redistribute it back to them and their like minded buddies.
Just stay out of my pockets. Not to go religious, but back in the time, the church was the controlling body. They expected a 10% he. I say we all pay 10%, no deductibles, and see how that goes.
Before you cry about the poor not being about to afford it, remember, if the government thinks they need it, it will get redistributed to them. At the same time, it gives all wager earners "skin in the game," so they think before they elect politicians wanting to spend more tax payer dollars.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
