Why do so many Americans want socialism (and support Bernie Sanders' Idealism)?

The problem is as Dems have shifted right, so have the "socialists". Bernie is a democrat.

Damnit bobsal u1553115! I'm a Canadian not an American (spoken in the Southern drawl style of DeForest Kelley).

There needs to be a balance of socialism and capitalism. Some level of socialism combined with some level of capitalism is a good thing.

The FDA are required to enforce food and drug safety. Food and pharmaceutical companies ensures safety standards because the FDA is regulating them. EPA are required to enforce air, water, and ground safety standards. Oil, gas, and toxic waste companies will dump poison in our water, our land, and our air without the EPA being a watchdog over them. They would save a lot of money dumping that poison anytime and anywhere they want. Public schools are required to educate ALL children K thru 12 with no tuition cost. Private schools are not required to educate nobody's child unless they choose to. Private schools can refuse enrollment of any child for any reason. Private schools can charge parents any amount of money they choose to educate their child. Consumer Protection Agency is required to regulate and be a watchdog over Financial and Banking Industry. They are required to ensure that predatory lending and unlawful banking practices don't occur. Particularly instances where their actions hurt consumers. Police officers are required to serve and protect the public from crime. A private police force would not be required to protect anyone. Their police protection would be for hire. The US Postal Service is required to provide mail service to every home everywhere everyday, except for sunday. Even if your home is in the middle of nowhere for the same cost. These are just a few examples of the importance of having government required to serving the public. Because private companies are profit driven, private sector will often cost more. Since the government by law cannot seek profit, government will often cost less.

There are many instances where government is more efficient than private sector. There are also instances where the private sector is more efficient than government. There is one big difference between private and government. Government is REQUIRED to serve the public. When the government is REQUIRED to serve the public that is a good thing. Some instances the government does a good job serving the public and some instances it doesn't. The fact that they are REQUIRED to serve the public is the most important quality of government. We can debate when and where government is needed. But, government is definitely needed. On the other hand, the private sector is NOT REQUIRED to serve the public. They serve the bottom line. Money and profit. I AM NOT SAYING THAT IT'S A BAD THING. I AM NOT SAYING THAT IT'S WRONG. I am merely stating a fact. There is a need for both a STRONG private sector and a STRONG government.

There are people out there trying to dismantle the government and replace the government with private for profit. Which would be the worst most horrible thing that could happen to this country. I would be horrified if those anti-government people were tasked with regulating drinking water safety, food and drug safety, air safety, fire and police protection, mail delivery service, etc, etc, etc. Especially when they are PROFIT driven with no regard to the safety of the public . It would be a total disaster if wallstreet, banking, insurance industry, utility companies, oil companies, coal companies, and gas companies were left alone to regulate themselves. Especially when they are PROFIT driven. They would have no one telling them that they can't dump poison chemicals wherever they wanted. They would have no one telling them that they can't engage in inside wallstreet trading. It would be scary if private police and fire fighters serve only who they wanted, maybe a monthly fee for their services. You might think this sounds crazy, but there are lobbyists and LEGISLATORS aggressively trying to dismantle, weaken, and abolish government. As long as we have sane people fighting against that agenda, we can prevent much of this insane agenda from occurring. I want a strong Consumer Protection Agency. I want a strong Environmental Protection Agency. I want a strong Food and Drug Administration. I want a strong US Postal Service. I can continue to list all kinds of reasons we need government. But, I think I made my point.

No, we pay taxes to support a military powerful enough to slaughter Leftists and Socialists who try to topple our freedom and democracy.



We're still free and democratic despite the worst efforts of the Left to abolish such practices.



I've often noted that Liberals hate freedom and democracy just as much as the 9/11 hijackers did. This guy proves what I was talking about. He belongs in a cell at Guantanamo alongside his terrorist buddies.

Quote Oralloy:


And since the Right considers Medicare and Social Security leftist, Socialist programs that they have all kinds of plans to do away with, Oralloy's statements are equivalent to:
"We pay taxes to support a military powerful enough to slaughter the people who want to continue Social Security and Medicare, and thereby topple our freedom and democracy........We're still free despite the worst efforts of the people who want to continue Social Security and Medicare to abolish such practices.....I've often noted that people who want to continue Social Security and Medicare hate freedom and democracy just as much as the 9/11 hijackers did."

Man Oralloy, you really have something against the people who want to continue Social Security and Medicare. Whew!

There is nothing wrong with people who support social programs so long as they are not trying to disarm the military or disarm private citizens.

Come on Orall boy. You dont give a crap about disarming the military. Your real worry is someone might take away your guns. Than you wouldent have any toys to play with. Right?

Oy, Oralloy has entered the picture, time to leave - that guy is living in the basement of his mother's house and comes up with the weirdest ****. Nothing makes sense what he comes up with. The only thing certain is his affliction with guns and the utter absence of brain power.

Quote oralloy:


Quote oralloy:


But oralloy, not many conservatives agree with your second statement, they lump people who paid into Social Security and Medicare and expect to collect it as Stalinists or worse. Why, listen to House Speaker Paul Ryan-third in line to the presidency-talk about Social Security and Judge Andrew Napolitano, a well known Fox conservative voice. So when you say our military should turn their guns on Leftists and Socialists, to most people that means people who want to collect on what they paid in. Which is most of America.

House Speaker Paul Ryan:


Judge Andrew Napolitano:


Of course, it is true that if the military does turn their guns on people collecting Social Security then the system would have firmer financial footing , as the percentage of people collecting would fall in comparison to the percentage of people paying in. Nonetheless, I feel if this is the approach the GOP wants to take, they should write it in the party platform, vote on it then address the American people in November with their unique solution to retirement fund insolvency.

This pissant knows this seems to know about me - my father, commanding officer, and fellow colonel John Craig, flew into the center of Baker, that is, Bikini.

When I was training on nuclear weapons in the USAF, we saw training films about the bomb on Bikini. Worked with the damn things for four years, and never saw that film again. Good thing.
One good thing that came out of my stint in the air force is the fact that I was able to travel to Paris, Madrid and London while stationed in Morocco. That's when the travel bug bit my behind, and have since traveled to 80 countries.

See! Even Canadians have shifted right to the American south!!!!

Finally, I can appreciate an intelligent argument. I am a conservative, and whenever I present my views to liberals, I often get ill-manner and sometimes insulting and even violent replies, especially on the internet when people don't know each other. I think these people are giving a bad image for liberals.


I'd like to see some proof of that. I came to America 15 years ago and workers in the supermarket are much nicer than they are today. There are often more than 10 registers open. I could have a friendly conversation with the cashier. Today, these people are replaced by machines that talks to me (in some way). Also, 15 years ago, wherever you call, you get a person answering you. Today, you talk to Siri (or whatever robot they call it). There's no human interactions anymore. Supermarkets and fast food restaurants are the #1 employers of minimum wage earners and thus, at $15, double of today's minimum wage, is bound to have consequences.


I don't see how that could happen. Food and necessities have the thinnest profit margins and doubling today's minimum wage would have the highest impact on Food. Thus, it would be almost illogical that food price won't rise. I had a professor who actually said that high minimum wage is likely to sink middle class because if my company pays me a salary, it's very, very unlikely they'll give me a raise when minimum wage doubles. Thus, facing higher food costs, I actually became poorer.


It's true that some people enjoy the work they do -- that's great. However, here's a reality check: did that guy inspire to be a supermarket cashier (totally no offense to cashiers) when they are young? Probably not, they probably wanted to become an astronaut, scientists...etc. Life choices probably didn't pan out the way they wanted it to be. So if welfare pays 80% of their current wages, are they going to continue working or quit? Bottom line is, if what you said is true, that income is a secondary benefit, Maoism should have worked to some extent, but failed miserably, as my parents and I personally experienced it first hand.


I agree that it is a moral thing to do. It is true that children should not be punished for their parents' poor choices. That's why my brother proposed a new welfare system for his graduate thesis. He's liberal, but interestingly he agrees with me that today's welfare system does encourage laziness. He proposed (and I agree) that welfare should only be handed to people that lack choices. For instance, a disabled person should be able to receive welfare. A child should be rewarded welfare only if he does good in school. This encourages parents to send their kids in school instead of forcing them to work at a young age. Perfectly healthy people, regardless of their income, should not receive any welfare because they are fully capable of improving from their current situations. I would go as far as saying that senior welfare should also be limited. If poor planning such as squandering away your money on lavish goods, expensive vacations, or gambling is the result of their predicament, then it should not be tax payer's responsibility to bail them out. When I was 18 I had a part time job as a sales. I started saving right there an then, putting money into my IRA. I had a co-worker in her mid 40's. Her husband is a cashier at a supermarket. Every time there's a new technology gadget, she's the first to buy it, regardless whether she really needed it. They have over 50k in credit card debts and yet they plan trips to Vegas. When they retire, they probably won't have any savings. Should we help them? I don't think I want to help people that lives beyond their means. This may should immoral, but morality has a limit in a sense that I can't help everyone else's bad decisions.

I perfectly understand progressive tax system that only the last bit of income gets taxed at the highest bracket. I am talking about the utilitarian theory that how many units of leisure would a person be willing to trade for an additional unit of income. If there were no tax, say, if I make $50k and to earn that additional 10k I'll have to sacrifice 5 hours of leisure a week. I'll probably be willing to do that. However, let's say that last 10k is taxed at a higher rate, say, 50%. Now I will only earn 5K for the 5 hours of leisure I forgo. That may not be worth it to me. Let's say that to earn that extra 10k means I must spend 5 hours a week at school to earn a degree. Now that this additional income is heavily taxed so it almost acts as a deterrent for me to pursue this degree. I understand what you say about pride and status. However, unless you can present some hard-research, I am confident to say that "pride and status" means very little to middle class Americans.

Lastly, another point I've always discussed with people is that American schools, despite being good, teach too much equality, rights, justice, helping the poor and all that ideology. However, they NEVER teach responsible spending. Not one class since middle school that any teacher mentioned that we should be careful when using credit cards and don't spend beyond our income. 18 year old kids who get their first credit card gets exited and the next thing you know is they've maxed it out.

Did you know that our economy does much better with democratic presidents?
From Politifact: "The stock market does better when you have a Democratic president in the White House." At the 2012 Democratic National Convention, former President Bill Clinton had this statement rated True: "Since 1961 … our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 (million)."
Did you know the republicans tries to suppress voting in many states?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/opinion/republicans-and-voter-suppression.html?_r=0
Did you know the republicans wish to control women's bodies?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Women
Did you know the Trump is a republican?
...... Trump is a racial bigot.
...... Trump speaks with disdain about women.
...... Trump is a liar.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83

We've debated the minimum wage a few times. You might want to start with this thread.

http://able2know.org/topic/316134-1

Proof that wikis have a major flaw: at least for a period of time, anything can be promoted as fact.

99% or more of Pro-Lifers have no interest in controlling women's bodies. That argument is not only absurd, it's obscene. What they want is to save the lives of the unborn.

During the Revolutionary war, American heroes fought for our liberty and in that fight killed British soldiers. By the logic of this insidious argument, those Americans wanted to kill Englishmen.

Bravo

Who are these people? Who in America is promoting governance by corporations? Easy to post hysterical hyperbole, but let's see some substance.

Quote Finn:

Of course. In any specific battle, any combatant wants to take out as many of the other side as possible. So yes, Americans wanted to kill Englishmen during the Revolutionary War.

Your point is.......?

And anti-choicers insist on making women do with their pregnancy what they demand, not what the woman freely chooses to do and what the Supreme Court has ruled she can do.