A few Social Programs vs. "Socialism"

Quote :

Why are 47% of Americans paying no taxes whatsoever? Why do you keep forgetting that part?

Why do you only count income taxes? Everyone pays sales taxes, payroll taxes(up to a limit), property taxes, excise taxes, import taxes, vehicle taxes, gasoline taxes, and many other taxes.

taoshum wrote:

Quote :

Why are 47% of Americans paying no taxes whatsoever? Why do you keep forgetting that part?

Why do you only count income taxes? Everyone pays sales taxes, payroll taxes(up to a limit), property taxes, excise taxes, import taxes, vehicle taxes, gasoline taxes, and many other taxes.

Well let's see....

Because income tax takes the greatest part of what income you pay in taxes.

Because consumer taxes ARE equal across the board. The tax rate on gas, on sales, is not dependent on your gross annual income. And people are only taxed on what they consume/use - unlike income tax which is often spent on things that have utterly nothing to do with you.

And because when about half the work force pays nothing, but expects the other half to fund their share of the necessary programs as well as the entitlement programs, it is a bit stupid to whine about "the 400 richest Americans" and what they pay, when that is a drop in the bucket compared to half the workforce paying absolutely not even one thin dime.

Now... why do we keep consistently forgetting the part about the 47% who pay no income tax at all? And who are more often than not the major recipients of all those government handouts? While the other 53% pay their share for them, as well as their own.

Which brings us back to why socialism always inevitably fails: it is dependent on spending other peoples' money until they have no more to give. Why the hell WOULDN'T you vote for a government that promised more spending, more programs, etc when you're one of those for which Income Tax Day is somebody else's problem? You don't know who will pay for all the goodies - some of which you can assume will come your way - but you sure as hell know it won't be you footing the bill.

Motivation inspires everyone...neither a liberal or conservative trait. Motivated or not is the question.
...It is what motivates you, that's the question.

The person that avoids the job, is the lazy one...in my book.
To put your interests before society's, is the easy way out.
To put society's interest first, takes a certain philosophy..and, maybe, the better man to do so.
So to say a socialist is lazy, because he considers everyone else first...just doesnt stick....I know a few lazy conservatives myself...they annoy me a lil more than lazy socialists, i guess.

Considering our flawed economy relies on consistent growth to exist at all...and the fact that our planets resources are finite...especially the most useful to society...
How could a a capitalist..a dead fast supporter of the current economy model...expect mankind to prosper?, but for a limited time...
Anyone concerned knows that the better the current economy does, the more our environment pays for it.
The industrial revolution changed this planet quicker than any other measureable time period. To not see the globally, adverse affects, of land, sea and air...shows either ignorance or compliance.

Without a healthy environment there is no society of any kind. Society's first priority needs to be their environment...because it simply is everything we have...their is no reasonable dollar value to give it...as many corporations do.
Though a capitalist sees dollar value above all...especially concerning wealth.
Some laugh at those who trade chickens...at least they will always be chickens...what's your dollar going to be next week?

And to justify it all with something intelligent , written long ago, yet certainly not meant to be, perfect intelligence for all time...is just using the hard work of others as your scapegoat for the truth at hand.\

If it makes you happy then its OK?!?...I dont think thats what your forefathers meant...but thats just me.

Personaly I think the correct philososphy is neutral, natural and ballanced. at least, intelligence comes from observing nature in some way.
To be left or right is wrong...but easy to do.
To be neutral is the honourable fight.

Since 99% of us have never lived in anything close to a socialist society, we are stuck with theorizing.
To judge a socialist trying to make it in a capilalist society...is realy another experiment altogether.

Everyboby pays in a socialist society.
Only some pay in a capitalist....

mucker wrote:

To put society's interest first, takes a certain philosophy..and, maybe, the better man to do so.
So to say a socialist is lazy, because he considers everyone else first...just doesnt stick....

It does when the socialist decides to use somebody else's labour to fund his magnanimity while generously "considering everybody else" - rather than his own. Let's try a little experiment: give me the PIN code to your bank account. Then stand back and watch how magnanimous and considerate I can be in considering everybody else first!!

Tell me: when you're one of the 47% who pay no income tax, when income tax day is somebody else's problem - isn't it a whole lot easier to be one of them there "better man" socialists who are theoretically considering everybody else first?

When those allegedly concerned about the other man first start setting the example by reaching into their pockets instead of working to have government extract money from others to pay for the programs they want, then I'll buy into the alternative view.

Quote :

Considering our flawed economy relies on consistent growth to exist at all...and the fact that our planets resources are finite...especially the most useful to society...
How could a a capitalist..a dead fast supporter of the current economy model...expect mankind to prosper?, but for a limited time...

So, if we but turn to socialism, then suddenly the planet's resources are finite no longer? Socialism has some magical environmental quality to it? Where do we look to in order to see this socialist environmental utopia? North Korea? Russia? China? Venezuela? I have to say those are pretty poor role models for mankind's future prosperity.

With socialism, people wanting a WR250R when they already have a perfectly functional car for transportation will cease? They will no longer want a laptop? Best Buy will go out of business, closely followed by Starbucks? People will eat less? The demands on the planet's resources will dramatically diminish?

Quote :

Anyone concerned knows that the better the current economy does, the more our environment pays for it.

And the poverty model of socialism is actually green?

We could say "the better a socialist economy does, the less our environment pays for it"? Or is it the misery and general squalor of socialism that ensures it's positive environmental impact?

Quote :

The industrial revolution changed this planet quicker than any other measureable time period. To not see the globally, adverse affects, of land, sea and air...shows either ignorance or compliance.

Which one? The first industrial revolution ended in the early 1800's - where was the widespread devastation back then? The expansive forests of England had been cut down well before that time. Or are you focusing on the second industrial revolution characterized by the advent of steam, electrical, and internal combustion power, ignoring the former?

We had merchant capitalism for centuries in the Middle Ages - if capitalism is the root cause, where were the globally adverse effects back then?

Do we also get to consider how it raised peoples' standard of living, increased life expectancy, etc? If we turn to socialism, will it put the genie back in the bottle? Would the population of China and India have stood stock still?

Quote :

Without a healthy environment there is no society of any kind. Society's first priority needs to be their environment...because it simply is everything we have...their is no reasonable dollar value to give it...as many corporations do.
Though a capitalist sees dollar value above all...especially concerning wealth.

What socialist tract told you the capitalist sees dollar value above all? Capitalism has various definitions, depending on how far you take it, but "dollar value above all" isn't in any rational definition I'm aware of. Capitalism simply describes where the means of production are privately owned and operated to make a profit, instead of break even or a loss. There is nothing whatsoever in the definition of capitalism that also specifies a lack of morality as part of that system.

But let's talk about socialism and that healthy economy. Ever seen any images of North Korea taken by military surveillance photos and SAR? Denuded landscapes, wasteland. How about environmentally sensitive China? We're supposed to believe, after looking at examples like that, that socialism has a greener view of the world? Do the wealthy or the poor have more time and luxury to consider all those environmental issues?

You want a "reasonable dollar value" on the environment? Tell a poverty stricken farmer in the Amazon that he shouldn't burn the jungle to grow soy to feed his starving family, because that makes him look like a corporate capitalist. See if he cares. Try the same argument with a poor tribesman in Africa, poaching ivory and rhinoceros horn.

Quote :

If it makes you happy then its OK?!?...I dont think thats what your forefathers meant...but thats just me.

As you have apparently given their philosophy some study, why not share your version of what they meant with us? You've probably read Locke as well, which inspired much of their thought, so it should be relatively easy to relate what you think they meant to Locke's philosophy.

Quote :

Everyboby pays in a socialist society.
Only some pay in a capitalist....

Backwards again.

Only some pay in a socialist society - 47% pay no income tax at all. And the most successful capitalists - that top 5% - pay 95% of the shot.

In socialism, you get a guaranteed economic result, paid for by the successful - usually capitalists in thought and action.

In capitalism - you are guaranteed only the pursuit of happiness. If you fail, others are not required to reach into their pockets to make good your losses, ensuring the risk was not all that much to begin with.

I think Jager made some excellent points in answering your post, but i'll toss my 2p in too.

mucker wrote:

Motivation inspires everyone...neither a liberal or conservative trait. Motivated or not is the question.
...It is what motivates you, that's the question.

The problem with socialism, is the diminished motivation. That is why Cuba is introducing some 'capitalism' into it's economy.. just heard this in the news this week. They are allowing people to have small businesses.. taxing the heck out of them, but the people are starting the businesses anyway.. they are 'motivated' to get ahead & not be stuck in the dead end poverty that socialism brings. Of course, China also did this a few years back. The history & role models of socialism are not that impressive. I cannot fathom why anyone would prefer that system to live under.

mucker wrote:

The person that avoids the job, is the lazy one...in my book.
To put your interests before society's, is the easy way out.
To put society's interest first, takes a certain philosophy..and, maybe, the better man to do so.
So to say a socialist is lazy, because he considers everyone else first...just doesnt stick....I know a few lazy conservatives myself...they annoy me a lil more than lazy socialists, i guess.

You are talking about individual traits within people. Yes, some people are lazy. Some are more industrious. But which system encourages or rewards the better trait? Lazy people in a socialist system drift through life, letting other people pick up the slack & support them. Lazy people without socialism to prop them up go hungry. Their motivation is then to survive, & to survive they must work.

mucker wrote:

Considering our flawed economy relies on consistent growth to exist at all...and the fact that our planets resources are finite...especially the most useful to society...
How could a a capitalist..a dead fast supporter of the current economy model...expect mankind to prosper?, but for a limited time...
Anyone concerned knows that the better the current economy does, the more our environment pays for it.
The industrial revolution changed this planet quicker than any other measureable time period. To not see the globally, adverse affects, of land, sea and air...shows either ignorance or compliance.

? I'm having trouble following you here. The economy does not always grow.. it declines sometimes, like it is doing now. This happens in all global markets, regardless of politics or govts. Sometimes it is war, sometimes natural disasters contribute to it.. sometimes it is a normal market cycle. The economy is not stagnant, but it does not always grow.

Technology & the availability & use of cheap energy have compounded the problems on the earth. But this is also a factor in socialism. China is clearly one of the main polluters on the planet today. Regulation & responsible behavior is needed to restrain the polluters. Capitalism is not the problem, here. Dictatorships & monarchys can also be anti-green. As i see it, most of the problems with pollution are related to population growth.. which system has more problems with over population? Can you prove a correlation, or is that more of a cultural & ethnic issue?

mucker wrote:

Without a healthy environment there is no society of any kind. Society's first priority needs to be their environment...because it simply is everything we have...their is no reasonable dollar value to give it...as many corporations do.
Though a capitalist sees dollar value above all...especially concerning wealth.
Some laugh at those who trade chickens...at least they will always be chickens...what's your dollar going to be next week?

You're losing me, here. The chicken traders are capitalists. They exchange their goods & services for others. Socialism takes your chicken & gives it to someone else.. usually the ruling class. They may let you keep a chicken now & then, but mostly you are raising chickens & giving them away.

Your environmental concerns are with you in any system. I covered that above. There is no logical connection that capitalists are the worse polluters.. Monarchists in Hawaii ruined 'pearl harbor' with cows running in the streets, polluting the bay, killing the oysters. Then they clear cut all the old koa trees to sell to the europeans.. so they could dress, make war, & be like the euro monarchs. Many 3rd world countries today are doing the same things. Where do the greenies have the most problems getting reform? It's easy to get an audience & sympathy & laws passed in the US, Canada, Denmark, etc.. but do they listen to you in India? Venezuela? China? Do they enforce the laws?

I'm talking about real environmentalists.. not just socialist posers who use environmental issues to promote their leftist agenda.

mucker wrote:

And to justify it all with something intelligent , written long ago, yet certainly not meant to be, perfect intelligence for all time...is just using the hard work of others as your scapegoat for the truth at hand.\

If it makes you happy then its OK?!?...I dont think thats what your forefathers meant...but thats just me.

I assume you're dissing our declaration of independence. No problem.. a lot of tories wanted to stay loyal to the crown & went up to Canada. Of course, in time, you eventually left the monarchy & are now in a more parliamentary, socialist system. If that's what you guys want, go for it! I still see the 'self evident' truths of your right to 'life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness'. If your govt is securing those rights, or if you're happy with the level of freedom you have, who am i to find fault?

The right to 'the pursuit of happiness' is not the same as, 'if it feels good, do it'. Some forms of govt are destructive to the right to this pursuit. They put overbearing taxes on you so all your labor is spent giving to the oppressive govt. That is why we rowed out into the harbor in the middle of the night & threw all the tea into the bay. It was a protest over taxation without representation. So then they sent in armies.. we fired back.. you know the rest. But it is the responsibility of govt to protect & secure our rights as Americans to a pursuit of happiness, not dictate to us what we will do, or what makes the govt happy, or have them tell us what makes us happy. Our govt system works for us. We do not work for it. At least that is how it is supposed to be. We have strayed from that lately.

mucker wrote:

Personaly I think the correct philososphy is neutral, natural and ballanced. at least, intelligence comes from observing nature in some way.
To be left or right is wrong...but easy to do.
To be neutral is the honourable fight.

Since 99% of us have never lived in anything close to a socialist society, we are stuck with theorizing.
To judge a socialist trying to make it in a capilalist society...is realy another experiment altogether.

Everyboby pays in a socialist society.
Only some pay in a capitalist....

So.. what is 'neutral'? Is that your position? You possess the balanced, wise, & correct philosophical & political views? Anyone to the right of you is extreme right, & anyone to the left is extreme left? How do you know you are 'neutral, natural & balanced'? Perhaps you are just at an extreme & think everyone else is wrong. That's a unique concept! But ok.. i don't want to upset your perfect balance. You be sure to let the rest of us know where we are off.. but do explain it so we can get it. But also be patient & tolerant towards us who are so clearly 'wrong', since you possess the balanced & honorable Truth.

I would say most of us live in a socialist system. The US is probably not as socialistic as most, yet we have a lot of socialistic policies, & have had for years. Our welfare system is definitely socialistic.. & racist.. & oppressive. We now have a socialistic health care system that the left has imposed upon us.. but hopefully it will not last. It should be declared unconstitutional, but if not, will probably be repealed after the next election. Socialism & euro envy has been the rule for the last couple of years, here. But some of us are not happy, & our votes are reflecting that. Perhaps many modern day 'tories' will be upset if we return to a more constitutional America & will join you in Canada.

Jager said you got your last point backwards. I also disagree that everyone pays in a socialist system.. many do not, obviously. The ruling elite certainly do not. They benefit the most. I would say that more people suffer in a socialistic society.. at least that seems to be true in history. The more socialistic the society, the less prosperity, more poverty, more oppressive, & less free the people are. In time they throw off the shackles of socialism & embrace capitalistic policies to bring prosperity to the people. I don't know what you mean by 'some pay' in a capitalistic system.. Some pay taxes? Are you agreeing with Jager about the 47% in the US who do not pay taxes? I don't consider the US to be a pure 'capitalistic' system.. it is much more socialistic in it's function & form. But in a free market society, regulated to protect the rights of the citizens, those who make more will & do pay more for the infrastructure, defense, & management of the country. At least that has been the historical norm.. that is the reason for the growth of the middle class in the US. People have been free to 'pursue happiness', which means for most a better life for them & their children. I much prefer this system. I am not rich, but i am free. I would not trade it for all the tea at the bottom of the harbor.

What strikes me is that the argument are always as if it was all socialist against all capitalist.

A balance society is the target. There should be enough room so that individuals that work more get better benefits than those who don't. The same logic should also apply to those who don't work but get benefits fron other people's work, they shouldn't be rewarded because they take advantage of other's people work.

I really don't see why a small number of private interests should get more benefits from commun ressources than most of the citizens. If thay can get rich and richer by providing added value good. Either americans or citizens of other countries don't take pride in not contributing in their society. A smal minority does but we must not make a generalityy out of it to support low partisanery. Let's find waus that get out of the unending fight between capitalism and socialism. Let's learn for once in recent history.

And let's not forget that although the famous 47% is often repeated it doesn't mean 47% of lazy people. And it doesn't mean that these same people will keep recieving more than what they pay in future years. For many an increase in wages will get them out of it. There are some that work at so low salaray that the fact to pay income tax would mean that they wouldn't be able to pay the basics. Retired people with not enough revenues are included in it. How much of this 47% are lazy people that don't want to work or that don't work as hard as the others but didn't get the opportunity to get an available job that pays more ? It's easy to state that 47% are lazy people, it's as easy to state that these 47% are the victims of the system and they can't afford to live in their country even if they work hard. There are more and more citizents that recieve less and less for the same work effots and this money is going to people that still recieve big increases in revenues. That amounts to state that the system works for fewer citizens than ever while it benefits a lot more for a few that don't work more than before but take better advantages of the low salary workers.

Dancamp wrote:

A balance society is the target.

I'm good with that as long as I, not you, get to decide what is balanced. Do we have a deal?

See the problem?

The real target is a society living within the constitutional principles that exist. Those principles, affirmed by the people (okay, not affirmed by the people in Canada, but their Premiers) are how the people wanted their country to operate. If the society decides they believe the desires of people have changed, the moral, honourable, and proper thing to do is to then propose an amendment to that constitution to reflect the new desires. If there is support for moving the goalposts, then it will change - towards socialism, or towards capitalism, whatever. If it the amendment doesn't pass, then it means that those claiming what society wants are what they believe in are simply blowing smoke out their asses while telling everyone it's pixie dust.

Arguing a move towards socialism (or totalitarianism, or whatever) is needed for "balance" is immaterial and smoke and mirrors. If Obama or anyone else thinks that the country needs to be fundamentally changed (Obama's words and declaration of intent, not mine), then the only moral and honest thing to do is to put those fundamental changes into amendments to the Constitution. Not just proceed full speed ahead, assuming the courts aren't likely to catch up with them. US governance has been well outside of constitutional principles and intent since at least Rooseveldt, generally under the covers, and with the support of both parties on a regular basis.

Quote :

There should be enough room so that individuals that work more get better benefits than those who don't. The same logic should also apply to those who don't work but get benefits fron other people's work, they shouldn't be rewarded because they take advantage of other's people work.

I can live with that - sounds like capitalism to me.

Quote :

I really don't see why a small number of private interests should get more benefits from commun ressources than most of the citizens.

What specific resources in the community are you talking about? Do police or fire departments drive twice as fast to respond to some private interests than the other citizens (who are also by definition private interests)?

Are the roads smoother for a small number of private interests when they drive their car than they are when you drive yours?

Quote :

Either americans or citizens of other countries don't take pride in not contributing in their society. A smal minority does but we must not make a generalityy out of it to support low partisanery.

??? Maybe there's a language issue here and I'm taking you wrong? I'm fascinated to learn you have somehow or other discovered that Americans opposed to the back door conversion of America to socialism have no pride in contributing to their society (and therefore presumably, make no effort to contribute to that society). Where can I read all about this? Or is this really just your opinion, based on your view of the world?

The community benchmark survey found that conservatives (we assume capitalists would be more conservative than liberal, right?) give 30% more to charity based on the national mean than liberals. And conservative families, incidentally, tend to have household incomes slightly LOWER than liberal households. Quick quote from the study:
"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.

Where is all that socialist compassion - the better man, putting the welfare of the other guy first that mucker was speaking of - when it is time to reach for your wallet instead of somebody else's wallet?

I believe that most capitalists, from the Mom & Pop Yamaha Shop, to the architect working out of a small office, to Teck Coal are quite proud of what they bring to a community in the way of jobs, investment, spinoff spending, etc. In the evil lumber industry, their unions in Canada like to point out that for every job in the forest industry, there are three spinoff jobs created. Not a bad contribution.

Quote :

And let's not forget that although the famous 47% is often repeated it doesn't mean 47% of lazy people. And it doesn't mean that these same people will keep recieving more than what they pay in future years.

That's true. It includes those who have been socialized into being a government ward their entire lives by being raised in that environment, being told the government has a duty to provide them with a guaranteed economic outcome, and have not seen or been inspired to try any other way.

It includes those hopelessly dis-spirited by the impersonal government welfare/entitlements machine that puts them in crime ridden housing and an endless journey of bureaucracy while helpfully managing their lives for them.

It includes the illegal aliens.

It includes those who could afford to pay at least some income tax - but don't, because of government tax benefit schemes giving them various credits to buy their votes at election time. Kind of like how the Liberals pandered to immigration for so many years in Canada. Basically, vote buying schemes.

It includes those who are retired, but, having been assured their whole lives that Social Security and Medicare were there, and government would look after them, never saved to be responsible for their retirement, but spent the money on recreation, toys, bigger houses, parties, etc, instead.

It includes those in dead end jobs who CHOSE not to make the sacrifices required to take the next step up - join the military in a trade and gain access to the GI Bill ($20,000 from the gov buys a lot of education), or head to the oil patch or the northern mines, etc.

No, you don't have to be merely lazy to be among the 47% who pay no income tax. Stupidity and being socialized into accepting an existence as a ward of the government will get you there as well.

While are also playing the "let's not forget" game, let's not forget that income is far more variable from year to year among higher income earners than with lower income earners. One of the elements of many better rewarding jobs is risk; when the risks pan out there are greater rewards, when they don't pan out... well, you pick yourself up and start again. My grandfather eventually owned a small logging company - but he went broke and lost his shirt on his homestead and a few other ventures before eventually prevailing.

Quote :

There are some that work at so low salaray that the fact to pay income tax would mean that they wouldn't be able to pay the basics.

Maybe if everyone paid some income tax instead of just half the population, the income tax rates would be significantly lower across the board and they could afford to pay at least some of their share.

And maybe if we quit spending trillions of dollars on socialist inspired entitlement programs - not to mention the incremental increase in government waste and corruption as government grows to provide all those programs - the tax burden would be much, much, much lower on EVERYONE across the board, and again they could afford to pay. Everyone would benefit from doing that - a socialist success story by eliminating socialism!

Quote :

There are more and more citizents that recieve less and less for the same work effots and this money is going to people that still recieve big increases in revenues.

It is definitely not a central tenant of capitalism that you give "big increases" to people for doing nothing in exchange for that money. That would be socialism in fact. If I am a capitalist, just why am I going to pay you more than Rydnseek if you put in the same work effort as he does? Where is the profit in paying something for nothing extra? If I decide to pay you more, it is to reward you, and motivate you to continue and him to do better, because you provide more value to me in the work you do than he does. Capitalism doesn't give extra wages out for no other reason but to give somebody some guaranteed economic outcome. That's socialism that does that.

The only place I can think of offhand where two people put in the same amount of effort, but one receives more and more while others receive less and less is private sector workers versus government sector workers. Government workers make far and away much more than their private enterprise counterparts doing exactly the same work. I don't hear government unions complaining about that during their bitter denunciations of "big business" - and no business is bigger than the government they work for. Government is definitely not an example of capitalism.

Quote :

That amounts to state that the system works for fewer citizens than ever while it benefits a lot more for a few that don't work more than before but take better advantages of the low salary workers.

Ah, no it doesn't, actually. Quite the opposite.

Heh...I guess this is why they don't put two steering wheels in cars.

motokid wrote:

What is it about having some understanding and support for a few simple social programs, and the GIANT leap to accusing somebody of being a "socialist"???

And make no mistake, what I'm talking about is the use of the word "socialist" in an insulting and derogatory fashion.

Police, fire, emergency response, and education are social programs that benefit everybody.

Welfare and unemployment, food stamps and public housing, (when not being abused), and social security serve a purpose.

While these programs have their faults and imperfections, they serve a purpose that benefits all of society on some level.

There are plenty of "free", "western influenced" countries that have social programs that far and away out socialize many of the things we have going in USofA.

Some of those countries have higher rates of education, better health statistics, longer life expectancy, higher happiness ratings, lower crime rates, and less people in prison than USofA does.

I find the "blanket" insult of "socialist" to be highly aggravating and in many ways just outright childish.

If for nothing else, there has to be an educational system in place that provides some basic level of service to every living person doesn't there?

And fire, police, and emergency response are the same way.

If my neighbors house is burning down I don't want the fire company to wait to be paid by the owners before they put it out.
Or refuse to put out the fire because the owners can't afford to pay to have it extinguished.

Are not our national parks social programs on some level? We all pay for them even if there's also an admission fee at the entrance.


Do those that despise the very idea of social programs think everything would be better if it was strictly run for profit?

Should all elementary schools be run like colleges? For profit?

I support you !. I have been to many place in USA and many people there ask me how i can live in a socialist country ? Most of the people there have no idea of how i live my life. Most of the people i meet i USA have been to less states i USA that i have. Yes we earn less we probably own less things and pay more tax. But we have healtcare insuranse we have uneployment insuranse we have 5 weeks of hollidays we have less of debt inour countrys than USA have. Jäger and co will be att my troath and say that US are supperior in every way. I think its unwurthu in a civilized country to have 50 million people with out healt insurance and so one. I pay taxes gladly beccause i made the class journey from poor working class kid to a well educated well payd citizen i Sweden who own everything sombody poosibly could ask for.. I and people in the same possition dont need more things even if we want to.

rokka wrote:

I support you !. I have been to many place in USA and many people there ask me how i can live in a socialist country ? Most of the people there have no idea of how i live my life. Most of the people i meet i USA have been to less states i USA that i have. Yes we earn less we probably own less things and pay more tax. But we have healtcare insuranse we have uneployment insuranse we have 5 weeks of hollidays we have less of debt inour countrys than USA have. Jäger and co will be att my troath and say that US are supperior in every way. I think its unwurthu in a civilized country to have 50 million people with out healt insurance and so one. I pay taxes gladly beccause i made the class journey from poor working class kid to a well educated well payd citizen i Sweden who own everything sombody poosibly could ask for.. I and people in the same possition dont need more things even if we want to.

Still it is a choice that has to be done by most of the people that will pay and live wih it. It's not a question of what is the best for everyone,it's a question of what fits most of those that will have to live with it.

I believe in a capitalist country that let individual get almost all the benefits of their work. I don't believe in a country that lets individual get most of the benefits by taking advantages of weaknesses of the other citizens.

I guess Sweden and many other countries spend their money more wisely than the US.

The amount of money we spend on weapons of destruction and "military intelligence" probably exceeds the entire budget of Sweden.

Maybe we could adopt the peso as our new currency?

rokka wrote:

Jäger and co will be att my troath and say that US are supperior in every way.

Wrong again.

I am not really interested in rankings. Particularly when attempting to rank different countries on an equal footing, eliminating all the variables, is pretty much impossible. Example: how many violent gangs made up of thousands of illegal immigrant gang members are operating in Sweden? Malmo is Sweden's third largest city with 280,000 people? New York's ghettos are bigger than that. That is just two examples - and yet people apparently think you just simply compare countries. Do you think you can actually make a 1:1 comparison with so many differences?

What matters to me is I prefer the American ideals that were set forth in the Constitution. What people elsewhere choose - as long as they have the opportunity to freely choose with regular elections - is irrelevant to me. If I wanted the soft tyranny of socialism, Canada is much closer to the US than Sweden. If you're happy with socialism, then good for you, but that's not what I choose.

Quote :

I think its unwurthu in a civilized country to have 50 million people with out healt insurance and so one.

Let's break down that number generated by Nancy Pelosi for you - without the spin and assumptions. It is taken from the 2006 Census - and deliberately provided by Pelosi to the media without the context of ALL the numbers. Why? Because Pelosi knows stupid people never think to look at comments like that and then go read the fine print. So let's do that:

First, it was 46.5 million, not 50 million as you posted (but why not add an extra 7% when you're trying to make a point?). And that number was later revised downward to 45 million.

10 million were illegal immigrants - who, incidentally, do use the taxpayer-funded health services they don't pay for. The cost of their charity care absorbed by health providers gets passed on to those who are paying for their health care - helping the cost of health care in the US to rise.

17 million had incomes of over $50,000/yr - they could afford health care, but chose not to purchase it.

Related to that, 4.5% of the uninsured make over $90,000 a year - an indicator of people who prefer pay as you go to buying insurance.

18 million were between 18 and 30 and in good health, apparently not in need of or seeing a need to buy health insurance. How many of you at 18 years old figured you needed to buy health insurance? Add a portion of them to the "pay as you go" crowd.

Those numbers will shift with the later revision of the total number of uninsured on the day of census.

Of the non-elderly population who became uninsured in a given year, 50% regained their coverage within four months, only 30% remained uninsured a year later. Isn't that kind of significant?

And 20% of the uninsured were eligible for existing government health care plans: Medicare, Medicaide, Military Health System, Veterans Health Administration, Indian Health Service, etc - paid for by the taxpayer - but for whatever reason chose not to apply for those health insurance coverages and benefits.

Seems that "50 million without insurance" is not quite that simple as it first sounds when carelessly tossed around by the socialists and statists, is it? In fact, that claim is about as stupid as thinking you can make a direct comparison between the US and Sweden or any other country.

Quote :

I pay taxes gladly beccause i made the class journey from poor working class kid to a well educated well payd citizen i Sweden who own everything sombody poosibly could ask for..

Except maybe critical health care when you really need it. My experience watching my mother wait for ten months for cancer treatment in Canada, while her cancer became terminal, is only anecdotal at best. As is my experience watching my father a few months later die a painful death of bone cancer - patiently waiting for the pallative treatment at the same distant cancer treatment center that they told him would at least give him quality of life until near the end (they did follow up with a phone call three months after his death to inform him a bed was now available, which was nice of them). Would I have paid every cent we owned for immediate treatment for my mother; a death with dignity and relatively pain free for my father? Without question. But all of that is simply anecdotal - might have just been abberations in socialized health care that they were unlucky enough to be the recipients of, just a few months apart. So let's have a little look at the blanket belief that socialized health care is awesome - it's from the Washington Post, not exactly known as a shrine of conservative advocacy:

Government health care advocates once sang the praises of Britain’s National Health Service (NHS). That’s until its poor delivery of health care services became known.

A recent study by David Green and Laura Casper, “Delay, Denial and Dilution,” written for the London-based Institute of Economic Affairs, concludes that the NHS health care services are just about the worst in the developed world. The head of the World Health Organization calculated that Britain has as many as 25,000 unnecessary cancer deaths a year because of under-provision of care.

Twelve percent of specialists surveyed admitted refusing kidney dialysis to patients suffering from kidney failure because of limits on cash. Waiting lists for medical treatment have become so long there are now “waiting lists” for the waiting list.

Government health care advocates sing the praises of Canada’s single-payer system. Canada’s government system isn’t that different from Britain’s. For example, after a Canadian has been referred to a specialist, the waiting list for gynecological surgery is four to 12 weeks, cataract removal 12 to 18 weeks, tonsillectomy three to 36 weeks and neurosurgery five to 30 weeks.

Toronto-area hospitals, concerned about lawsuits, ask patients to sign a legal release accepting that while delays in treatment may jeopardize their health, they nevertheless hold the hospital blameless.

Canadians have an option Britainers don’t: proximity of American hospitals. In fact, the Canadian government spends more than $1 billion each year for Canadians to receive medical treatment in our country. I wonder how much money the U.S. government spends for Americans to be treated in Canada.

Sven R. Larson tells about some of Sweden’s problems in “Lesson from Sweden’s Universal Health System: Tales from the Health-care Crypt,” published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (spring 2008). Mr. D., a Gothenburg multiple sclerosis patient, was prescribed a new drug. His doctor’s request was denied because the drug was 33 percent more expensive than the older medicine. Mr. D. offered to pay for the medicine himself but was prevented from doing so. The bureaucrats said it would set a bad precedent and lead to unequal access to medicine.

Malmo, with its 280,000 residents, is Sweden’s third-largest city. To see a physician, a patient must go to one of two local clinics before they can see a specialist. The clinics have security guards to keep patients from getting unruly as they wait hours to see a doctor. The guards also prevent new patients from entering the clinic when the waiting room is considered full. Uppsala, a city of 200,000 people, has only one mammography specialist. Sweden’s National Cancer Foundation reports that in a few years most Swedish women will have no access to mammography.

Dr. Olle Stendahl, a professor of medicine at Linkoping University, pointed out a side effect of government-run medicine: its impact on innovation. He said, “In our budget-government health care there is no room for curious, young physicians and other professionals to challenge established views. New knowledge is not attractive but typically considered a problem [that brings] increased costs and disturbances in today’s slimmed-down health care.”

Budgeted health care - how can you possibly live without it?

http://www.healthpaconline.net/health-care-statistics-in-the-united-states.htm

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2009/11/19/health-care-spending-canada.html

Dancamp wrote:

http://www.healthpaconline.net/health-care-statistics-in-the-united-states.htm

Well, this is a good place for that link - they're unabashed socialists advocating for "Funding for universal health care is provided by the population, whether through compulsory health insurance, taxation, or a combination of both." You just know that you're dealing with an impartial group when looking at what a group advocating the essence of Obamacare.

This caught my eye though, true or not: 75% of all health care dollars are spent on patients with one or more chronic conditions, many of which can be prevented. Followed immediately by "what you can do". Does it say "Quit overeating, get exercise, teach your kids healthy lifestyles, encourage a friend to go for a walk"? No, it says you should write your politicians and ask for socialized healthcare.

So, let's see if we can follow this: 75% of medical expenses are spent on chronic conditions which can be prevented, mostly through lifestyle changes. But because people choose not to make those lifestyle changes, everybody should shell out to pay for medical care resulting from that refusal to live responsibility. According to these people, not only do you have a right to destroy your health without anyone having any say in the matter, you also have an accompanying right to then have everyone else forced to pay for your health care costs.

Quote :

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2009/11/19/health-care-spending-canada.html

Yes, you don't have to look to England's National Health Service to see socialized medical care (which the US already has a good portion of) has more than enough of it's own problems with funding and delivering universal health care.

Canadian Health Care Costs Skyrocketing

"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," stated Supreme Court of Canada Justice Beverley McLachlin in the court's 2005 Chaoulli decision, which struck down Quebec's ban on private health insurance. In Chaoulli, the Court recognized that Canadians suffer - and sometimes die - on waiting lists.

Both systems have a lot of problems. The parts of the US system that are still private, however, provides freedom of choice.

motokid wrote:

rydnseek wrote:

sheesh, kid.. do you read (and believe) all the stuff from that site? It is obviously left biased.. no problem with that, but where & how do they come up with their 'facts'? Look at some of the great headlines in this place:


What a great bunch of headlines! There are lots more, too.. amazing stuff you'll never read anywhere else!

Keith Olbermann? The guy who was too liberal & extreme for msnbc? He's one of their heroes? You must be getting desperate for debating fodder if you have to get your 'facts' from places like this..

Scotty,

I've been playing the debate game long enough to know one thing....when you can't refute the things in the article always attack the source.

I could easily say the same thing about everything jager links to as well. His crap is just biased to the "other side".

Thanks, Ed. It is good to be personal in these forums, especially when heated political/religious debates come up... which, of course, you are the main instigator of!

I don't really see this as a game. I will make light of it, & crack stupid one liners, but it is pretty serious stuff, & will affect us & future generations for years to come. I was dissing your source, but mainly because they don't provide any facts or truth, but only spin. They also know that half truths & repeated falsehoods will provide the desired effect more than simply analyzing facts. These are typical tactics used by propaganda disseminators. Many political & philosophical groups do this, & have throughout history. They are not concerned about any 'Truth', but only on spinning something to promote their agenda. This last link you posted was clearly in this boat. It is not a factual information source, but a spin tank. Any facts or points of logic they might have are lost in the spin cycle.

It is possible, imo, to read many sources, discern hidden agendas, cross check facts, & come to a more informed conclusion. But it requires critical thinking & a healthy dose of skepticism.

motokid wrote:

Will you deny that the income gap is increasing between the rich and the poor?

No, & i will add that it is my opinion & analysis that the socialistic programs in the country are at the root of this. Poor people are herded into gulags & trapped in poverty. They are not given the respect or the motivation to do otherwise. 50+ years of this social experiment have proven this.

motokid wrote:

Will you deny that more people are "becoming" poor than are gaining wealth?

No, because the left always hits the middle class. They pretend to be champions of the poor, but in reality they mostly tax the middle class, provide nothing to the poor to really help them, & increase the elite ruling class.. more rich. We have a lot more 'rich' govt workers making 200k+ a year than we've ever had.

motokid wrote:

Will you deny that our country's health costs are higher than others?

Sometimes, you get what you pay for. But i'm not sure what your point is with this.. If doctors & health care people made less, you would be happy? Do you propose wage fixing doctors & health care professionals? What if they unionize & demand increased pay & benefits?

motokid wrote:

Will you deny that we get less for that higher cost?

Personally, i don't know. I was under the assumption that most socialized countries aren't that thrilled with their health care. I know many of the rich & ruling Canadians come to the US to get services, rather than wait in line. They would probably say they get less for the higher cost of their socialized medicine.

motokid wrote:

Will you deny our rates of people in prison compared to other modern western civilizations?

Prisons.. hmm. This is one of the great liberal experiments, too. But to answer the question, i don't know what the incarceration rates are in all the countries of the world. I've never been interested in that statistic, and can't see how it relates to the discussion. Are you implying that socialist countries have less crime, the people all love each other, hold hands & sing kum-ba-ya? Many socialist countries, along with a lot of dictatorships, have lots of people in prison who have practiced their religion openly, or spoken openly about something the authorities disapprove of. I would rather not live in a system where people are locked up for criticizing the govt. Many of these govts also might have smaller prison populations because they kill their offenders.. like women caught in adultery. But you were not comparing to all the world, & all political systems, just 'modern western civilizations'. So i will have to plead ignorance. Perhaps you will post these various prison rates & comment on how this is significant?

motokid wrote:

Will you deny that we as American's tend to think we're better than everybody else?

It does seem to me that all people, all over the world, & throughout history, have felt nationalistic & racial superiority. It is a major cause, if not the main one, of wars, murder, & other crimes that people do to each other. Do you feel that Americans are the worst at this? I don't know how one could make this kind of judgement. Some individuals might be worse than others.. it seems to me that the leftist elite have a very high view of themselves, & despise the 'unwashed masses'. Some cultures have racial & cultural superiority as a central tenet of their world view. The Saudis do not view Americans as having an equal culture... they see themselves as infinitely superior. I think we are also seeing a bit of a resurgence in racial & national pride in France & Denmark, too. But 'we as Americans?' I don't feel superior or inferior. I cannot say how all other Americans think. Do you feel we are superior or inferior to everybody else?

Now if you are talking about the philosophical basis for our various political systems, then yes, i feel the American model is superior & better for all the citizens. I also think we have strayed from this model, & are embracing other systems (socialism) with a proven track record of restricting freedoms & rights of their citizens.

motokid wrote:

Will you deny that we ignore how others in the world do things even if they have proven results?

I think we are doing exactly this. Instead of learning from the mistakes & successes of other countries, we are intent on re-inventing the wheel at every turn. Now, to be fair, we have done a lot of inventing with this new fangled wheel, & have increased in technology. But regarding socialism, we have not learned much. Many in America are gripped with Euro envy & can only see the glowing successes of the Europeans, but do not see any of the failures.

motokid wrote:

I'm not saying America doesn't have plenty of great things going for it, but I also refuse to think we are perfect in any way.
In fact, I can see huge problems and hope we can fix them.

I don't think you've heard much from me on 'american exceptionalism', even though you've posted against this a few times. I agree with you about our huge problems, & I think it is the socialistic influences in this country that are the main causes of those problems. The socialistic experiment has failed, & it is high time to get back to constitutional, historical America.

motokid wrote:

being a country of people who are only focused on what "I can get" rather than what "we" can do is a rather scary proposition isn't it?

Unfortunately, it is primarily the socialistic policies & world views that have bred this feeling of entitlement from our citizens. We look to govt to take care of us, bail us out of our bad decisions, release us from any irresponsible behavior, & in general become our 'big brother'. We do not want them to secure our basic rights, but manage our lives. Unless we can return to the basics of America, we will only be a footnote in history, & the American experiment will be over.

I am totally befuddled as to why there seems to always be a "all or nothing" mentality here.

I am in no way advocating a "switch" to socialism.

Why can't we have the best of both worlds?

Why can't there be a free market - capitalist system, with some very sound social programs both existing in harmony?

Why do some people think even the remote thought of a social program equates to a full-on desire to proceed down the path to flat-out communism?

It all seems so very chicken little-ish.

"We can't have any program that helps educate the poor because that's a social program and that leads to Marxism!!!!!!!"

I don't get that at all.

Jäger wrote:

Well, this is a good place for that link - they're unabashed socialists advocating for "Funding for universal health care is provided by the population, whether through compulsory health insurance, taxation, or a combination of both." You just know that you're dealing with an impartial group when looking at what a group advocating the essence of Obamacare.

When I read your posts, as soon as it is different from your point of view, it biased, socialist with a qualitative.

Jäger wrote:

This caught my eye though, true or not: 75% of all health care dollars are spent on patients with one or more chronic conditions, many of which can be prevented. Followed immediately by "what you can do". Does it say "Quit overeating, get exercise, teach your kids healthy lifestyles, encourage a friend to go for a walk"? No, it says you should write your politicians and ask for socialized healthcare.

So, let's see if we can follow this: 75% of medical expenses are spent on chronic conditions which can be prevented, mostly through lifestyle changes. But because people choose not to make those lifestyle changes, everybody should shell out to pay for medical care resulting from that refusal to live responsibility. According to these people, not only do you have a right to destroy your health without anyone having any say in the matter, you also have an accompanying right to then have everyone else forced to pay for your health care costs.

Sure, the US social system doesn't have any influence on the social habits of it's citizens. After all they are just to dumb to stop believing what free entreprises convince them to do.

Quote :

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2009/11/19/health-care-spending-canada.html

Canadian Health Care Costs Skyrocketing

"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," stated Supreme Court of Canada Justice Beverley McLachlin in the court's 2005 Chaoulli decision, which struck down Quebec's ban on private health insurance. In Chaoulli, the Court recognized that Canadians suffer - and sometimes die - on waiting lists.

Both systems have a lot of problems. The parts of the US system that are still private, however, provides freedom of choice.

[/quote]

True, both systems have their problems. Private health care gives you freedom of choice on what you can afford if you can afford any.

The health costs are rising everywhere but more so in the US. Thanks to the system that promotes it.

motokid wrote:

I am totally befuddled as to why there seems to always be a "all or nothing" mentality here.

I am in no way advocating a "switch" to socialism.

Why can't we have the best of both worlds?

Why can't there be a free market - capitalist system, with some very sound social programs both existing in harmony?

Why do some people think even the remote thought of a social program equates to a full-on desire to proceed down the path to flat-out communism?

It all seems so very chicken little-ish.

"We can't have any program that helps educate the poor because that's a social program and that leads to Marxism!!!!!!!"

I don't get that at all.

That's how we started.. a few socialist programs here & there. But the leftist agenda is not happy with 'a few'. They want more. More & bigger govt. More taxes, more spending. We need to define what the function of our federal govt is, & limit it to those functions. Let the state & local govt make programs that 'help educate the poor'. They are closer to the problems, know the people & situations better, & will manage it better. The federal govt is not equipped to manage a nationwide program like this.. there are too many variables.

I have not opposed social programs. You can do all of them you want, in your community, with your citizens' support. I do not think it is the fed govt's job to manage those kinds of programs.. local, regional & individuals are better equipped to see real need, detect fraud, & solve specific problems.. problems that cannot be solved with federal level policy.

If you read any of my posts, you would know this is my position & the basis for my arguments.

motokid wrote:

I am totally befuddled as to why there seems to always be a "all or nothing" mentality here.

I am in no way advocating a "switch" to socialism.

Why can't we have the best of both worlds?

Why can't there be a free market - capitalist system, with some very sound social programs both existing in harmony?

First, because there's a Constitution that lays out a very specific framework on what limited powers are to go to the Federal government and those powers not enumerated for that belong to the people. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say those limitations on power are optional or advisory only, but a lot of people and politicians sure seem to think it's supposed to work that way.

You won't be the first to say "screw the rules, a little socialism won't hurt", but that is not the way the country is supposed to be run. Nothing in the Constitution gives the Federal government the authority to regulate what is sold at school bake sales on weekends to support a trip to France or a local football team or whatever - but they have done it anyway. A small example, but an example nonetheless. And the last 70 years have pretty much proven that having gotten an inch, they're now taking miles. The commerce clause is now used by the Federal government to claim jurisdiction over just about anything you do that could somehow involve commerce - or anything you DON'T do, because by not doing it you're apparently affecting commerce as well. Government overreach has become the norm.

Socialism could be quite legitimate in the US - it's very simple, all you have to do is propose an Amendment to designate those "very sound social programs" as among the powers within the framework of the powers given to the Federal government. But the socialists and statists haven't attempted that, not even once; they're all backdoor men. Why? Simple: because such an Amendment would require the approval of a large majority of the American public to pass, and they know it wouldn't have a chance of passing.

Second, the essential difference between the system the Framers left us and socialism is that the Framers gave us a model of minimal government intrusion and maximum personal choice. Socialism is all about government intrusion in your way of life and no choice in what they use their power to force you to buy and pay into - even when that has nothing to do with you. Socialism says you don't have any right to direct or control how somebody else is living their life (nor should you, just the government gets to do that) - but by God, you're responsible for paying your taxes to deal with the outcome of how they live their lives. Want to eat like a pig, live in front of the TV, and waddle your way into cardiovascular disease and diabetes in your early 40's? No problem, that's your business. But socialists say we need to all buck up for universal health care so that once you've done that to yourself and haven't done enough to be able to pay for the best of care, that's when the responsibility starts for the rest of us to pay up to cover your fat ass. No thanks.

By the way what "very sound social programs" are you talking about. To be "sound" a program has to be fiscally viable, not in a spiral of ever increasing debt, often accompanied with ever increasing limitations on the services it is supposed to provide. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid have been flat out Ponzi schemes since the day of their inception. Which makes the US pretty similar to Canada when it comes to socialist programs.

Quote :

I don't get that at all.

Of course you don't. You're a socialist and the idea that a country's government should recognize the restrictions on what it is and isn't supposed to be doing is not that important to you. You love the theory of the wonderfulness of "sound social programs" ignoring the fact that all these social programs have accumulated enormous unfunded liabilities and are cutting services. In fact, it took the Supreme Court to point out to Canadian provincial governments that Canadians are suffering and dying on medical waiting lists, while they wait for the "sound social program" of socialized health care to get around to treating them.

Yup, it starts out with people arguing "just a few social programs". And before long, it even gets so invasive the President decides one of his unelected, unaccountable czars needs to have the federal power to control what your kid's school sells at a weekend bake sale - the doughnuts might not be good for you.

rydnseek wrote:

The problem with socialism, is the diminished motivation. That is why Cuba is introducing some 'capitalism' into it's economy.. just heard this in the news this week. They are allowing people to have small businesses.. taxing the heck out of them, but the people are starting the businesses anyway.. they are 'motivated' to get ahead & not be stuck in the dead end poverty that socialism brings. Of course, China also did this a few years back. The history & role models of socialism are not that impressive. I cannot fathom why anyone would prefer that system to live under.
. . .

Are you agreeing with Jager about the 47% in the US who do not pay taxes? I don't consider the US to be a pure 'capitalistic' system.. it is much more socialistic in it's function & form. But in a free market society, regulated to protect the rights of the citizens, those who make more will & do pay more for the infrastructure, defense, & management of the country. At least that has been the historical norm.. that is the reason for the growth of the middle class in the US. People have been free to 'pursue happiness', which means for most a better life for them & their children. I much prefer this system. I am not rich, but i am free. I would not trade it for all the tea at the bottom of the harbor.

I think part of the problem with the discussion in the US is our terminology. We equate "socialism" with "communism" and no grey territory between the two. 30 years ago, I took a US Government class with an Orange County College instructor who had been Richard Nixon's California campaign manager in the 70's. (That association dried up his political career path, but had no effect on his academic standing.) He separated economic systems into capitalism, socialism, and communism and had wonderful definitions for the three.

It is abnormal in the US, but rational to remember that these are economic systems, not political systems. As such, neither of the three includes democracy or any sort of representative political system. With that in mind, you are absolutely right that we (and most countries of the world) are some sort of socialist state. Capitalism, unchecked by government, runs to monopolies and a form of totalitarian dictatorship by the rich that has reared its head in large and small moments through history. (The traditional American western storyline is a great example of the small moments that were repeated in practically every newly "settled" area in the country.) I don't think we have experienced a democratic communist state in history, but I could be wrong about that. We have experienced non-representative and representative socialist states on every continent. So far, democracy has been rarely tried anywhere and is always terminated by immediate interference by more powerful economic interests.

Our "socialism for the elite, capitalism for the rest of us" system seems doomed to me. The ruling elite are inbred and inflexible, for the most part, and grossly self-interested to the detriment of the national interests. I have had long conversations with foreign students from all over Europe at the college where I teach and nobody appears to be particularly interested in experiencing the flaws of our system. Having worked in the devices end of our non-socialized medical system, I'm completely unconvinced of the advantages of for-profit medicine. Having taught in the for-profit education system, I think that is a flawed and almost uselessly corrupt system. It ought to be obvious that our current for-profit military is sucking the life out of the nation's budget. Our for-profit prison system has made us the horror of the industrialized world. Some things are best dealt with as a democracy and a corporatocracy is a long ways from democratic.

"Free" is a relative term, mostly relative to scope and perspective. As long as you limit your scope and perspective to "I'm free to buy anything I can afford," we're probably the most free nation in the history of the world. If quality of life is the measure, we're far from "number one" by practically every measure. One reason we're unlikely to address this is that our education system has been gutted and appears to be irredeemable. We're cranking out useless lawyers, MBAs, financial scammers, and obsolete trades by the thousands (for hundreds of thousands in education debt) and our public universities are educating more foreign engineers than domestic. The bottom 10% of graduating classes are going into education and even they give it up after a few years.

A friend who was once a world-traveling manufacturing quality consultant used to pound on me for my lack of respect for our "buy what you can" medical system. Until she was struck down by a debilitating genetic disability, she was convinced that our for-profit insurance and hospital system was the best in the world. Once her medical insurance company discovered her disability, she was dropped and offered a $10,000/month policy with a $100k annual deductible. Believe it or not, she could afford that for several years. When the disease cut into her 80 hour/week, 500k miles/year travel capacity, she couldn't. Now, she's arguing the exact opposite position and only wishes that Obama had the guts to completely socialize our medical system. I thought that when I found that the British system paid 1/10th of the Medicare price for pacemakers and ICDs back in the 90s. The fact that Medicare is prohibited from bargaining for prices on devices, drugs, and procedures is beyond idiotic.

Go USA!

The belief that capitalism, socialism, and communism are merely economic systems and not political reality as well is a belief lacking a grasp on governance. We can ignore communism for the present discussion because we do not have that in the US, but we certainly do have socialism. Capitalism and socialism certainly are economic systems, but they are also political systems and operating philosophies.

It would be difficult to say with a straight face that our current Marxist president is a capitalist - or a constitutionalist either, for that matter. His administration is all about socialism, from Obamacare on down. Ripping up existing bankruptcy law to hand companies over to union officers is anything but capitalist or constitutional. Other presidents, like Reagan, were unabashedly capitalists and small government advocates - even when not one single budget escaped having Democrats tag more spending and taxes on it (a fact "dead on arrival" Tip O'Neill was proud of until his death). Furthermore, the philosophy of a country as defined in it's constitutional documents alone can define their political system as either capitalist/free enterprise or socialist/Marxist.

The term socialism for the elite, capitalism for the rest of us is popular with the statists and leftists. It fits with their self-pity and image of being victims with no control over their lives, the mere pawns of others. The term refers to their claim that the bulk of the nation's resources go to the wealthy. Yes, you know who we're talking about: the richest 5% of Americans who made $159,000 or better in 2008, and who paid 59% of all the income taxes collected. Yes, most of our nation's resources supposedly go to this 5% who pay not 5% of income taxes, but nearly 60% of income taxes. Apparently, they believe that the enormous amount of America's resources that are poured into the entitlement entitlement plans that are beggering us - Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc to name but a few - were put in place to benefit this "elite". It begs the question why these people making $159,000 would put in place - and willingly pay all that income tax to fund - socialist programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security when they make enough that they don't need such entitlement programs. In fact, it also begs the question of how this small 5% of Americans supposedly suck up the bulk of the spending on these entitlement programs - particularly when their financial status disqualifies them from using and benefiting from some of these programs. The reality of course is that the money not wasted and pissed away in these entitlement programs goes overwhelmingly to that half of the population who pay no income tax at all.

The radical leftists would similarly have people believe that capitalism leads to forms of totalitarian dictatorships. The concept is absurd of course, on many levels. First, capitalism cannot exist outside of a "one man, one vote" system. If capitalists cannot choose their governments as they choose how they will engage their pursuit of happiness, the freedom of capitalism cannot exist. And so, we are supposed to buy into the theory that this very small percentage of the population who make up the evil "rich" form a totalitarian dictatorship that others live under. One has to wonder how, in a country with regularly scheduled elections, where each American gets exactly one vote regardless of their economic status, how the tiny minority who are the "rich" manage to win those elections to become our totalitarian dictators all the time. It shouldn't need to be said, but anyone who writes we have totalitarian dictatorships in the US, where we vote our elected representatives in, either doesn't get out much and so has no knowledge of what a totalitarian dictatorship is (think: North Korea) or is merely using loaded language in an attempt to smear and cause fear. Which leads us to the next reality when deconstructing leftist/statist propaganda: the tactics of radical leftists.

One cannot read a socialist/statist delivering their screed for long without having them dip into their trick bag and haul out Saul Alinsky and his Rules for Radicals. And so, they come out with comments like "the ruling elite are inbred" - one of Alinsky's Rules was to ridicule the target, for ridicule is hard to defend against. Carrying on, we read these same immoral, radical, leftists posting just a few weeks ago: "As for the Teabaggers and wingnut hate mongers who inspired the shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords..." - a blatant lie, as we all know Loughner was apolitical (websites can be edited, but page caching lives forever!). It's a lie, but one of Alinsky's Rules for these radicals is to demonize those they hate, to cause others to fear them. How better to attempt that than to claim that Loughner was inspired by Tea Party principles and conservatives? And ironically, while posting such poisonous hatred from the extreme left, claiming those on the right are "hate mongers".These are the tactics of the radical left and statists, and they really don't know any other way. It's blatantly morally dishonest, but when the truth can't win Americans to your point of view, you fall back on what you know best.

What's perhaps the worst in all of this, is these extremist, dishonest, radical leftists, who will say just about anything they can get away with to influence others to their way of thought, frequently settle on careers teaching at colleges and universities where they can occupy the bully pulpit with young minds, a banquet of tablua rasa, who frequently accord them much more respect and trust than they have ever earned. There are the better known ones inhabiting our educational system - unrepentant radical leftist and terrorist Bill Ayers is not only Obama's original political sponsor but retired as a professor at the University of Illinois. Fellow radical leftist and terrorist Bernardine Dohrn teaches law at Northwestern University School of Law. Other radical leftists spreading their poison in colleges to young minds are less well known, but they all operate in the same manner.

These are the people who hope to offer themselves as our moral guides and advisors...

Dancamp wrote:

True, both systems have their problems. Private health care gives you freedom of choice on what you can afford if you can afford any.

And unlike dying-on-waiting-lists Canada, thanks to EMTALA if nothing else, in that private health care system you WILL be treated when the ambulance arrives or you make it to the hospital. True, you may be broke if you were one of those who chose not to purchase heath care but instead spent the money on motorcycles or something similar. Or, you might be one of the poor who walk away from those bills laughing because you know they can't get blood from a stone and somebody else will pick up your costs - driving up health care even further. But you won't die on a waiting list or because an underfunded and underequiped hospital didn't have the equipment and specialists to give you the treatment you needed. Nor will you have to wish you were Belinda Stronach or Danny Williams, rich enough to fly down to the Mayo Clinic for immediate treatment after spending years in politics pitching the wonders of socialized medicine.

Quote :

The health costs are rising everywhere but more so in the US. Thanks to the system that promotes it.

Yes, thank the government for that.

The one that turns a blind eye and allows 13 MILLION illegal immigrants to stay in the country, cities and states to declare themselves outside the law as "refuge states" (but Arizona on the other hand cannot enforce the law), and those 13 million immigrants to get much of their healthcare at the expense of the rest.

The government that incessantly meddles in the health care system, including prohibiting health insurance companies from advertising and selling policies across state lines, and thus reducing much of the competition.

And how government intervention decreases price sensitivity in consumers - just as excluding 47% of Americans from worrying about what a program will cost them on their annual income tax reduces price sensitivity regarding government programs.

There's lots more, but that's not bad for a start.

Jäger wrote:

Socialism ensures even the lazy, unmotivated, and underachievers get a guaranteed economic outcome - paid for by the industrious, motivated, and success driven. A quick read of the Constitution will show that there was never any discussion or intent to set up a republic with a guaranteed winner's ribbon even for the underachievers and the outright lazy. What we were given was life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. And like many things, you get what you put into it.

Capitalism rewards those who risk and work. It's not a far stretch to also appreciate the jobs and economic activity those engaged in capitalism spin off also benefits society. The idea that capitalism rewards only capitalists just does not work - or at least it won't until the day that we can all depend on government to provide our jobs. While, on the other hand, somebody living out their life on the government dole benefits nobody. Worst of all, they don't even benefit themselves. What a waste of a life.

I'm pretty sure you are aware that most of the above is philosophy, not reality. Socialism produced the aerospace industry, computers, our military industrial complex, mass transportation from trains to highways, much of modern medicine, and a relatively stable economy for the United States. Capitalism caused economic crashes, high level corruption in corporations and, especially, the financial mobsters, much of the world's pollution and ecological catastrophes, and a host of unsolvable world problems. Socialism, at its worst, produced the Soviet Union, where all of your best examples are typified. Capitalism, at its worst, produced the United States invading Iraq for oil and Afghanistan for a variety of corporate motivations after the country was attacked by Saudis. Some economists relate 1930 Germany and Italy's "solutions" to capitalist motivations. Capitalism is capable of producing incredible gadgets and of marketing the "need" for those gadgets to almost anyone anywhere. Socialism is capable of concentrating the resources of a nation for solving major technological or cultural problems. I don't see any way that our overpopulated world can survive without the order of socialism and the creativity of capitalism. However, I don't see large corporations contributing answers to any real problems in either system.

It is important, if we are talking about solving problems, to keep economic solutions separate from cultural systems. There are a fair number of stable, progressive socialist nations with high quality of life and reasonable creativity. They are, however, all democratic and sometimes more democratic than the US. In particular, I'm thinking Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Australia, France, Netherlands, New Zealand, and Canada. You'd have to (I think) classify all of those places as "socialist" and yet they are also places with solid education systems, a decent quality of life, and probably the world's hope for long term energy solutions. (Except for France which seems to be bound to be locked in as one of GE's atomic energy customers.)

Jäger wrote:

And unlike dying-on-waiting-lists Canada, thanks to EMTALA if nothing else, in that private health care system you WILL be treated when the ambulance arrives or you make it to the hospital. True, you may be broke if you were one of those who chose not to purchase heath care but instead spent the money on motorcycles or something similar. Or, you might be one of the poor who walk away from those bills laughing because you know they can't get blood from a stone and somebody else will pick up your costs - driving up health care even further. But you won't die on a waiting list or because an underfunded and underequiped hospital didn't have the equipment and specialists to give you the treatment you needed. Nor will you have to wish you were Belinda Stronach or Danny Williams, rich enough to fly down to the Mayo Clinic for immediate treatment after spending years in politics pitching the wonders of socialized medicine.

Yes, thank the government for that [healthcare costs rising].

The one that turns a blind eye and allows 13 MILLION illegal immigrants to stay in the country, cities and states to declare themselves outside the law as "refuge states" (but Arizona on the other hand cannot enforce the law), and those 13 million immigrants to get much of their healthcare at the expense of the rest.

The government that incessantly meddles in the health care system, including prohibiting health insurance companies from advertising and selling policies across state lines, and thus reducing much of the competition.

And how government intervention decreases price sensitivity in consumers - just as excluding 47% of Americans from worrying about what a program will cost them on their annual income tax reduces price sensitivity regarding government programs.

In the US, a lot of "government meddling" is the result of corporations working to preserve their monopolies and trusts to keep prices artificially high.

There is a lot of documentation showing that if you don't have insurance and don't have assets to take, you will find yourself on the street with a handful of generic placebos. The majority of bankruptcies in the US have been due to medical bills. A substantial number of people in that situation either had insurance and were dropped or had it and it didn't keep them from going under. It's easy to point fingers at victims when you are young, healthy, and lucky. Our system is so contaminated that only the people actually providing service are blameless. And, unfortunately, a good number of doctors have succumbed to financal incentives and have become part of the problem. I saw that, a lot, in medical device studies where docs were simply bribed to come to unsupportable conclusions for buckets of money. Drug studies are notoriously flawed.

If the government's management is so poor, why do medical companies spend millions fighting Medicare's ability to negotiate prices? There is a reason Canada can supply almost any drug or device for a fraction of the US price and it is price negotiation. Our conspiring non-competitive "capitalist" corporations buy politicians specifically for the purpose of keeping prices high and competition low. If you imagine a better system without government, you need to read more history. Again, many socialist countries provide the same services for lower prices.

The ranting about Canada's "death lists" is amazing propaganda. I have spent a lot of time in Canada talking to Canadians about their healthcare, among other things, and I don't hear much US envy there. None, in fact. The exchange students we have at the college are amazed that our system is so hard to use and expensive. They all pray for good health while they are here and learn to appreciate their home system from our example.

Jäger wrote:

. . . One has to wonder how, in a country with regularly scheduled elections, where each American gets exactly one vote regardless of their economic status, how the tiny minority who are the "rich" manage to win those elections to become our totalitarian dictators all the time. . . .

And how soon we forget the 2000 and 2004 "elections."