What Is Socialism

maporsche wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
My question is this?

Who cares?

Arguing over the meaning of the word "socialism" is pointless. Deciding which government programs are socialist is also pointless.

We have a democracy. These programs are part of the American society because they were enacted by our elected government according to the Constitution. If they didn't have the public support (i.e. if most Americans felt as you did), they wouldn't survive.

Most Americans like giving all kids a decent public education, ensuring that pregnant women and young children have enough to eat and making sure that people with TB can get treated even if they are poor.

This is a democracy, and this is what most Americans want. Who cares if it is socialism or not.

Great post!

Many of these 'socialist' programs that LSM has listed have done wonders for lifting the nation to where it is today. Social Security was enacted because of the horrible drain that the elderly poor had on our society. LSM, are you suggesting that we should do away with SS and instead just have millions of homeless elderly people around our neighborhoods?

& where are we today? How many times have many politicians said, we have 45 million uninsured, we have children going to bed hungry, more homeless? Where exactly are we today? There has been trillions of $$ thrown at poverty, has it helped? NO.

0 Replies

I don't think you understand what democracy is.

Democracy is not the opposite of socialism, in fact it is possible for a country to be both democratic and socialist (read on because I am not proposing this).

The whole point of Representative Democracy is that the elected representatives of the people decide government policy. If the American people want to elect socialists into office, then that is their right and their choice. In fact that is how Democracy works-- people are free to choose a government that will follow any economic policies they prefer.

But I will make this point again unless I be misconstrued. I do not want a "pure socialism" (and this is reflected in my votes).

I advocate a central position-- neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism, but somewhere in between.

Most Americans are centrists when it comes to economic theory. We want some redistribution which is why politicians who say they want to reduce the income gap between the rich and the poor get elected. We want a free market system with some social programs (like WIC and social security) combined with a strong private sector with important government regulation where it is needed (as with food safety for example).

But if the American voters wanted pure socialism, they have every right to vote in elected officials who will give them pure socialism. Likewise, if the American voters wanted pure capitalism they would vote for elected officials that would eliminate social security and WIC.

Of course American voters have elected in a government that supports some government programs and rejects others-- a middle course.

You are complaining about the programs that result from our democratic political process.

I happen to think that our representative democracy (while not perfect) does a very good job in most cases-- including striking a balance between the free market, and a compassionate society that cares about equality and the less fortunate.

0 Replies

Yes the money we have put into social programs has helped.

Our public education system (publically funded with money given from taxes into poorer districts) continues to give us a strong thriving economy. Giving poor families a shot at an decent education is the best way to move people out of poverty.

Our public health system, especially WIC which give food to pregnant mothers and young infants has drastically reduced the death rate of infants in the US, and has also raised education success.

Providing public health services to the poor is critical for all of us. If a poor person has Tuberculosis and doesn't have health care, they won't get treatment. This means the disease will worsen and become a risk to all of us. By providing basic health services to the poor, they will be identified and given treatment quickly. We have been very successful with aggressive, government sponsored public health initiatives to combat these contagious diseases.

The subsidized school lunch program has also raised educational success rates.

The immunization program has nearly wiped out diseases that once killed hundreds and thousands of children.

And I could go on and on, but many of these programs are pro-life issues, they are saving thousands of babies every year... and to me the fact that these babies are already born makes it even more important.

0 Replies

username wrote:

Constitutional, yes, just like everything you list that is in your opinion socialist, as repeatedly adjudicated.

Public ownership is Constitutional? Imonent domain
Show me in the Constitution where it is Constitutional to force me to give my earned wages to somebody that doesn't earn anything.

0 Replies

ebrown_p We do not have a democracy, we have a representative demmocracy.
Socialism is the step between Democracy & communism.

0 Replies

LoneStarMadam wrote:

ebrown_p We do not have a democracy, we have a Representative Democracy. There's a difference.
Socialism is the step between Democracy & communism.

0 Replies

So what?

First of all, you are confusing economic systems with political systems. Democracy is a political system (a way of choosing which laws regulate our society). It has nothing to do with the economic system we have.

Second, you are saying that we need to go to one extreme in order to avoid the other extreme. In this you are neither trusting or accepting the decisions of the government elected by the people to choose the middle path.

I don't think that extreme measures, like doing away with social security, or letting babies and pregnant mothers die of poverty, make any sense even if you are afraid of communism.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

So what?

First of all, you are confusing economic systems with political systems. Democracy is a political system (a way of choosing which laws regulate our society). It has nothing to do with the economic system we have.

Second, you are saying that we need to go to one extreme in order to avoid the other extreme. In this you are neither trusting or accepting the decisions of the government elected by the people to choose the middle path.

I don't think that extreme measures, like doing away with social security, or letting babies and pregnant mothers die of poverty, make any sense even if you are afraid of communism.

So what? Well, I can see that you aren't into the form of gov't we have, you call our form of gov't what you want it to be.
Since when are we supposed to trust our gov't? We were warned by the FFs about trusting the gov't.
One more time, I realize there are some people that need help, so get off the babies & pregnant mothers die. I remember when fanilies took care of each other, church chairties, etc, then there was The war on poverty, & trillions of $$ later....You trust the gov't to take care of you, I'll take care of me & mine.

0 Replies

This is getting silly.

You are arguing against the government as it is right now.

Right now we have WIC and social security and public education and government funded health programs like immunizations.

Right now the vast majority of Americans think programs like this are pretty good things (although there is some debate around the edges). There are scant few Americans who want to get rid of Social Security. The majority of us get upset even with the idea of privatizing some of it.

But I am very happy with resolving these issues as part of the democrat process. The Congress that we Americans elected a few weeks ago will do just fine-- and obviously enough Americans agree with me to have voted them in.

I have the feeling arguing your second point won't go anywhere-- but somehow I can't resist.

What years are you talking about where society was a better place because there were no government programs?

0 Replies

Democracy is not the opposite of socialism, in fact it is possible for a country to be both democratic and socialist (read on because I am not proposing this).
- ebrown_p

It is my understanding that socialism is economic framework, whereas democracy is a political framework; the two are not in conflict with each other. Indeed, many countries with a strong tradition of democracy also have a strong tradition of socialism. Indeed, I believe the Labor Party candidate became Prime Minister in England just after WWII. Their slogan was something like: "Central Planning won the war, now central planning will win the peace," or something along those lines.

Show me in the Constitution where it is Constitutional to force me to give my earned wages to somebody that doesn't earn anything.
-LoneStarMadam

As soon as you show me where in the Constitution it is Constitutional:

-To ban Gay marriages.
-To ban the private manufacturing and sale of nuclear bombs.
-To outlaw the private production and distribution of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin.
-To make military service compulsory. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

This is getting silly.

You are arguing against the government as it is right now.

Right now we have WIC and social security and public education and government funded health programs like immunizations.

Right now the vast majority of Americans think programs like this are pretty good things (although there is some debate around the edges). There are scant few Americans who want to get rid of Social Security. The majority of us get upset even with the idea of privatizing some of it.

But I am very happy with resolving these issues as part of the democrat process. The Congress that we Americans elected a few weeks ago will do just fine-- and obviously enough Americans agree with me to have voted them in.

I have the feeling arguing your second point won't go anywhere-- but somehow I can't resist.

What years are you talking about where society was a better place because there were no government programs?

As I've said before, I wish them (the new congress) well, becaus eif they do well, it benefits all of us. However, raising taxes & going on even more socialized bents will not help us all.
SS & some of the other socialist programs have been in place so long now that most Americans feel it's their right for others to pay their way.
It was a better place before gov't got to be a real nanny. Once gov't gets their claws in us, with our own money, then they own us. We're not much better than a plantation, we work & they allow us to keep SOME of our own money. Bill Clinton once said at a meeting in Mich, I believe it was, "If we allow them to keep more money (tax breaks) they will just spend it on a new car" Can you imagine, they allow us to keep some of our own money.
Slaves used to get paid in room & board & a few rags to cover their body, once we get to where gov't wants us, we'll be paid in room & board. That is socialism, we'll all be alike. At least there won't be a need for a minimum wage, we'll all be earning the same amount.
I remember, like I said, when families took care of their own.

0 Replies

Unfortunately Madam, Most Americans disagree with you. To prove this, we elected a Congress that supports the very programs you want to eliminate.

But, unfortunately thats the risk you take when you live in a representative democracy.

There isn't much else to say about this.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Unfortunately Madam, Most Americans disagree with you. To prove this, we elected a Congress that supports the very programs you want to eliminate.

But, unfortunately thats the risk you take when you live in a representative democracy.

There isn't much else to say about this.

Ah, so now it's a representative democracy, good, glad you accept that. Now, if you do accept that fact then you must also accept the fact that what's going on with redistribution of wealth is not Constitutional. Most Americans have come to expect gov't handouts with tax payer dollars because it's been going on so long. They, like you do not understand the meaning of socialism, IMO.
As for the Congress that was elected, they were, for the most part, conservatves, unless they pretended to be conservative. We shall see.
I have no false hopes of our country ever getting back to what the framers of the constitution had in mind, but I can & will speak out against the nes constitution, it's a fraud.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Unfortunately Madam, Most Americans disagree with you. To prove this, we elected a Congress that supports the very programs you want to eliminate.

But, unfortunately thats the risk you take when you live in a representative democracy.

There isn't much else to say about this.

brownie, what are you doing arguing with this jerk? His entire position is merely an attempt to defend and rationalize his greed. the clown thinks he popped out of the womb fully grown and able to work and fend for himself. a self-made man, albeit raised by wolves.

0 Replies

So madam are you EVER going to give us your definition of socialism and provide a reputable source to support that definition?

You don't seem to know the consititution. Nor do you understand meanings of words.

The US is a democracy. It is not EVERY definition of democracy but it does fit a definition. Just as an oak is a tree and an oak, the US is a democracy and a representative democracy. Because it is a representative democracy does not mean it can't be a democracy.

Quote:

SS & some of the other socialist programs have been in place so long now that most Americans feel it's their right for others to pay their way.
It was a better place before gov't got to be a real nanny.

That has to be a sample of the most ignorance I have ever seen on this board. Anyone that thinks the US was a better place to live in late 1800s really has no clue about what life was like back then. You ever worked on a farm Madam? I doubt it. You ever worked on a farm without modern equipment. I know you haven't. You ever worked from sun up to sun down 7 days a week? Nah, you are a man/woman of leisure, spending all your time wishing for a life that you really wouldn't want and it would kill you in 2 weeks if you did get it.

0 Replies

The Constitution enjoins the government to "promote the general welfare"--i guess the framers were the victims of "creeping socialism" more than two hundred years ago, before the term socialism was even invented.

Almost no one lives long enough to get back the money which they have put into the Social Security Trust Fund and the interest it has earned. If Social Security is funded from general revenues, it's because the Congress so habitually loots the Social Security Trust fund and has to find the money to pay the checks from some other source.

The FICA tax is 12.4%. A self-employed individual pays the entire amount; a wage earner pays 6.2%, and his or her employer pays 6.2%. If a man today works from age 20 until age 70, and averages $50,000 per annum, $310,000 will have been paid into the Social Security Trust Fund. If he then draws $1,000 per month for the rest of his life (and at current rates, the minimum monthly payment is less than $1,000 per month), he will have to live past the age of 95 to even get his money back, never mind the interest which it was intended to earn by the terms of the Social Security Act.

Of all the examples of alleged socialism which one could have come up with, Social Security has got to be the most stupid, failed attempt to demonstrate it.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The Constitution enjoins the government to "promote the general welfare"--i guess the framers were the victims of "creeping socialism" more than two hundred years ago, before the term socialism was even invented.

Almost no one lives long enough to get back the money which they have put into the Social Security Trust Fund and the interest it has earned. If Social Security is funded from general revenues, it's because the Congress so habitually loots the Social Security Trust fund and has to find the money to pay the checks from some other source.

The FICA tax is 12.4%. A self-employed individual pays the entire amount; a wage earner pays 6.2%, and his or her employer pays 6.2%. If a man today works from age 20 until age 70, and averages $50,000 per annum, $310,000 will have been paid into the Social Security Trust Fund. If he then draws $1,000 per month for the rest of his life (and at current rates, the minimum monthly payment is less than $1,000 per month), he will have to live past the age of 95 to even get his money back, never mind the interest which it was intended to earn by the terms of the Social Security Act.

Of all the examples of alleged socialism which one could have come up with, Social Security has got to be the most stupid, failed attempt to demonstrate it.

medicaid/medicare are far greater fiscal failutes than is SS.

0 Replies

Yes, that is true, Dys--although the Medicaid tax is only 2.9% for the self-employed, or 1.45% each for an employee and his or her employer. It is an under-funded program. However, in view of the indisputable fact that almost no one lives long enough to get their FICA contributions back, never mind the interest, it hardly qualifies as income redistribution.

0 Replies

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Show me in the Constitution where it is Constitutional to force me to give my earned wages to somebody that doesn't earn anything.

Quote:

The Congress shall have Power ..
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The 16th amendment
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

You are free to not pay taxes LoneStarMadam. But don't call yourself a "patriot" while you do it.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

So madam are you EVER going to give us your definition of socialism and provide a reputable source to support that definition?

You don't seem to know the consititution. Nor do you understand meanings of words.

The US is a democracy. It is not EVERY definition of democracy but it does fit a definition. Just as an oak is a tree and an oak, the US is a democracy and a representative democracy. Because it is a representative democracy does not mean it can't be a democracy.

Quote:
SS & some of the other socialist programs have been in place so long now that most Americans feel it's their right for others to pay their way.
It was a better place before gov't got to be a real nanny.
That has to be a sample of the most ignorance I have ever seen on this board. Anyone that thinks the US was a better place to live in late 1800s really has no clue about what life was like back then. You ever worked on a farm Madam? I doubt it. You ever worked on a farm without modern equipment. I know you haven't. You ever worked from sun up to sun down 7 days a week? Nah, you are a man/woman of leisure, spending all your time wishing for a life that you really wouldn't want and it would kill you in 2 weeks if you did get it.

I have given the definition of socialism, if you can't understand the words, get a thesaurus, it'll break down each word/term for you.

0 Replies

What Is Socialism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know