12
   

Why are Americans so afraid of socialism?

 
 
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2011 12:50 pm
The United States of America is supposedly founded on Christian principles. Jesus said "As you do unto the least of my children, you do unto me", "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of Heaven", and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Don't we all have a social contract to look out for the common good? Public schools, libraries, highways and fire departments are all socialist in nature. I've paid Social Security and Medicare all my life. Now they want to take it away from me because it is SOCIALIST??!!! What is wrong with these people? How did they come by so much cold-hearted greed? Why are they so afraid of socialism?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 12 • Views: 7,031 • Replies: 82
No top replies

 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2011 01:08 pm
@Dave World,
Dave World wrote:
Why are they so afraid of socialism?

Because they're tired of being afraid of everything else.
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2011 01:13 pm
@Dave World,
No, not because it's socialist, but because it's unsustainable in it's present format. Jesus preached about taking care of the orphans, the poor, and the elderly. He never preached that we needed to provide them with 30+ years of barely restricted health care with whatever technology is available.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2011 01:15 pm
@Dave World,
Maybe because they don't understand the meaning of the words.

Quote:

'Socialist' not a slur for many, poll finds

When conservative groups label the president or his policies "socialist," they are not trying to make a nuanced political argument but rather rallying the base with charged language, said Larry Sabato Jr., director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

The poll's scientific findings, he said, will not likely alter the way pundits and politicians pick their words, because they've chosen a "a word like 'socialist' to feed red meat to their base.

"It's red meat for the ideological base, which either understand what the term means, or thinks they do, and they understand it to be a bad thing," he said.

"This is not language to change anyone's mind. This is preaching to the choir."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/socialist-slur-poll-finds/story?id=10565255
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2011 01:16 pm
Why would anyone assume that the United States is founded on christians principles? Can you tell where i'll find that in the constitution?
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2011 01:29 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Why would anyone assume that the United States is founded on christians [sic] principles?

The propaganda stream, the voluminous talk.

I don't think that what's in the Constitution has anything to do with this.

0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2011 01:33 pm
See,

Socialism Viewed Positively by 36% of Americans

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125645/socialism-viewed-positively-americans.aspx
0 Replies
 
Dave World
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Aug, 2011 06:30 pm
@JPB,
All other first world, civilized countries provide free health care to their entire populations. It doesn't cost money, it makes money. Healthy people are not a burden on society, they are productive. Healthy people are less likely to be criminals because mental health is included in the package. The cost of the mental health treatment is offset by less prison expense. Likewise, healthy parents raise healthy children. Employers are no longer asked to provide insurance cost sharing in employee compensation. Free treatment for alcoholism alone reduces accidental injuries, lowers criminal activity, and lowers the rate of fetal alcohol syndrome affected children. Get the idea? And all of this is just one aspect of socialism. Extrapolate this logic to cover education and you get similar benefits. Ditto for research to advance science to preserve the environment. On and on. Think it through. The only reason to NOT do all of these things is greed coupled with outright hatred of the lower classes. By the way, get rid of all these underlined sneakily placed advertisements!! How awful.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Aug, 2011 06:34 pm
@JPB,
He did preach that we should sell our possessions to give them money.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Aug, 2011 08:53 pm
@JPB,
Quote:
Jesus preached about taking care of the orphans, the poor, and the elderly. He never preached that we needed to provide them with 30+ years of barely restricted health care with whatever technology is available.


You haven't given him the chance, JPB. Maybe in his second coming he will preach this. Then his stature will likely take a big hit.

0 Replies
 
Dave World
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2011 09:21 am
@Dave World,
Quote:
By the way, get rid of all these underlined sneakily placed advertisements!! How awful.
Sorry about that line, folks. It was an artifact of my browser that caused me to make that comment, not anything you the reader could see. Not crazy, just dumb sometimes. LOL Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2011 10:31 am
@Dave World,
Health care isn't free. We pay taxes. They benefits of socialized healthcare are many, but it does cost. A centralized system of health care makes sense and most countries in the world understand and appreciate this. Socialism, in the US, does not mean the same thing in the rest of the world. Health care in most countries does not mean insurance companies make obscene profits off the sick and dying either. But no system is perfect, eh!
Last night on the Jon Stewart's show, they played a collage of angry Fox ?newcasters? and senators/congress ?persons? spouting off that half the population aren't paying taxes or at least their fare share. Yes, the poor, the homeless, the bankrupt, the foreclosed upon didn't pay their income taxes last year. Imagine that! This is new tactic, the new argument Fox and the republican party have chosen to use, to fight back against raising taxes on the rich. Huh?
Of course it makes sense to have a healthy population. Do what your country demands of you. Don't get sick. Problem solved. See how easy that was.
scclare
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2013 05:48 pm
@Dave World,
I think it's because governments are so inept at managing anything and they are prone to raiding the piggy bank, so to speak. Jesus was talking to individuals when he said that. I don't think governments should be in the business of redistributing wealth. That being said, I think they have an obligation to the people who have paid into the system this long. Benefits should not be expanded however. Social security was one of the first "crisis" that lawmakers created when there was no real need for it. They are not content with just SS however and always want more and more social programs until there is no room in the budget to accomplish their primary responsibilities. That is why we have a 16 trillion dollar deficit.
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2013 10:21 am
@scclare,
Quote:
I think it's because governments are so inept at managing anything and they are prone to raiding the piggy bank, so to speak.


Actually your "governments" are quite adept at managing all you sheeple. Their sole purpose is to redistribute wealth - all you sheeples' wealth gets moved from your pockets to the deep pockets of a small group. You are all just dispensable cannon fodder - in more ways than one.
0 Replies
 
ThinkingBill
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Jul, 2013 08:18 am
@joefromchicago,
Christ saying to take care of others is not saying go socialist and let a government administer it. EVERY place where socialism has been used has been an utter mess. It has never lifted up any population anywhere, anytime.
If someone needs food and you offer a sandwich and they accept, that is a moral transaction. But that is not what socialism is. Socialism is a leader, Obama, riding up on the scene on his mount, the government, and Telling the person with the food to give food to the one without, or he, Obama, will shoot the one with food with some sort of weapon like the IRS, EPA, FBI, and/or any other bureaucracy he can lay hands on. Thus, the utility functions of the government are turned into political apparatchiks, the one without food gets the stinking thinking of entitlement, the one threatened gets the stinking thinking that there really is no point in working or being productive since some government pig will take it away, and the bureaucracy gets the stinking thinking that they are vital in the wrong ways to the country.
That's why.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jul, 2013 08:33 am
@ThinkingBill,
Quote:
EVERY place where socialism has been used has been an utter mess.


That's not thinking, Bill. That's just repeating the propaganda fed you.

Quote:

http://emsnews.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/happiest-nations-are-mostly-northern-socialist-nations/

Happiest Nations Are Mostly Northern Socialist Nations


The US/UK empire complex is involved in this massive internal debate about what sort of financial and social systems we should have. The choice so far seems to be a ‘no social system’ and a ‘free money printing hyperinflationary’ system. That is, we will withhold services and cut the pay of the poor whilst flooding the empire with credit and paper capital for the bankers. The alternative solution seems to be social services for everyone…and flooding the markets with incredible amounts of free money via endless ZIRP credit created by the government! Wow! Talk about insane.

.

ΩΩFirst, let’s go to the far right wing anti-socialist magazine by rich boy Forbes. He absolutely hates socialism and is totally pro-free trade and is perfectly OK with offshoring US jobs. Incidentally, he has an annual ‘which countries are the best?’ lists which include all sorts of things like, is your country pretty? Is it full of goodies? First, let’s look at the list of the winners:



The World’s Happiest Countries Page 2 of 4 – Forbes.com

Norway
Denmark
Finland
Australia
New Zealand
Sweden
Canada
Switzerland
Netherlands
US


They are all borderline socialist states, with generous welfare benefits and lots of redistribution of wealth. Yet they don’t let that socialism cross the line into autocracy. Civil liberties are abundant (consider decriminalized drugs and prostitution in the Netherlands). There are few restrictions on the flow of capital or of labor. Legatum’s scholars point out that Denmark, for example, has little job protection, but generous unemployment benefits. So business owners can keep the right number of workers, while workers can have a safety net while they muck around looking for that fulfilling job.


Of perhaps utmost importance, nearly all the nations in the top 10 are adept at fostering entrepreneurship and opportunity. Legatum’s researchers concluded that a country’s ranking in this area is the clearest proxy of its overall ranking in the index….Consider that Denmark and Sweden rank first and second in entrepreneurship and opportunity, but only 77% of Swedes and 84% of Danes think that working hard will get them ahead. Compare that with the U.S., the No. 3 country for entrepreneurship and opportunity. Fully 9 of 10 Americans think that hard work will pay off.
.

ΩΩWell, at least the writer admits that capitalist-socialism works just fine! Hooray! Too bad the entire magazine hates this idea. The US right wing is totally state-sponsored draconian social engineering which is why these lunatics are screaming about making abortions much more dangerous and harder to access. Plus the churches screaming for everyone to have a zillion babies. If you are a Christian, of course, not if you are a pesky Muslim, for example.

.
0 Replies
 
kerk
 
  0  
Reply Fri 4 Oct, 2013 04:54 pm
Using what Jesus said has always been a favorite tool of socialists. 'But' I have to think Jesus was telling us to do it 'as individuals', 'not' for Caesar to order it done under the threat of prison. Having a Caesar (government) 'force' you to share hardly allows you to do it willingly, and doing it out of fear is the same as not doing it at all. So, the socialist argument using Jesus falls flat.

But here is an interesting story/experiment that would show how socialism 'really' works. If any of you know a teacher, you might let them try it out, although once they understood the results, they wouldn't dare:

"..An economics professor at a local college made the statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.

The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

It could not be any simpler than that..".

And it would apply to the workplace the same way.
Kolyo
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Oct, 2013 09:15 am
@kerk,
kerk wrote:

It could not be any simpler than that..".


"More simplistic" is the phrase you're looking for.
0 Replies
 
Kolyo
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Oct, 2013 09:26 am
@kerk,
The professor was being simplistic in a number of ways:

(1) No politician that Republicans today accuse of socialism is arguing that completely equal economic outcomes are a good thing.

(2) The professor compared the "socialist" grading system and learning environment to the current grading system and learning environment used in education. He should have compared it to an "American capitalist" grading system and learning environment. In that scenario, grades would be assigned as they currently are, but out of 20 students, only 14 would be allowed to attend lectures, only 7 would be allowed to use textbooks, and 2 would be given special tutors. Furthermore, questions of whether someone cheated would be settled by majority vote rather than by a judgement from the teacher. Finally, anyone whose average for the term dipped below a D- would be shot and killed, to model what happens to people who run out of money in our society.

(3) The analogy tries to draw a false equivalence between grades and money, which is nonsense.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Oct, 2013 09:37 am
@kerk,
That story was made up by someone with an agenda. It never happened in real life and it probably never would happen in real life. Most people that get A's don't do it just to get an A. They like learning and would do the work whether they got a grade not. The made up story assumes all people are lazy and only do something if they get a reward from someone else. That isn't the way real people live in the real world.

It also doesn't apply to the workplace. I know a lot of intelligent hard working people that aren't motivated by the paycheck.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why are Americans so afraid of socialism?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/15/2019 at 07:49:33