GoSkins561 Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 We'll see how universal health care pans out.Again confusing socialism with communism. They teach that in high school now, you know? And yes, you are wrong on both counts. Natural selection? That could work too. Let's repeal all laws and just have a big shootout. Whoever's left gets all the women. But seriously, you should actually do a little research into what socialism (not communism) is. In no way does a democratic socialist system supplant capitalism. You have proven yourself to be one of those who wants everything handed to them. Let me ask you this, based on your current situation, (income, housing, life style) do you see any way to improve your situation with out having to depend on others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Doh, this thread gets to be 12 pages, and I haven't even had a chance to weigh in... Socialism is when the people, usually through government, control the means of production for a good or a service. That would be the dictionary definition and the one I was taught in Econ classes. Here's the shock: The U.S. already has socialized medicine. Ever gotten surgery from an unlicensed doc? When was the last time you got a prescription drug from an unlicense doc or a prescription drug that wasn't FDA approved? Don't think medicine is the only place where the will of the people controls the production of a good. Why don't we have more nuclear power plants? Why can their lines only go through certain areas? Why is my city water clean? How do I know my meat isn't tainted? The people, through their governments, have exerted power over the means of production...and I like it that way! :cool: Does socialized everything have problems...sure. It takes forever to get new drugs approved or for that matter to get much improvement in a variety of fields. That said, I would get far less done than I do today if I had to run tests to see if my water was good everytime I wanted a drink or to find our which doctors know of what they speak, or ....and the list goes on. At some point, point out that we are a socialist country isn't different from pointing out that we are a republic rather than a democracy. We don't have time to be experts on everything, so we delegate that responcibility to those whom we trust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 The irony is that we already have a system that redistributes that wealth in this nation, except we don't even have any benefits such as free healthcare or education. For example, every time we receive tax cuts, such as the one recently pushed through by Congress, most of us will end up paying far more than what we receive as a tax cut. And who receives the larger amount of this tax cut? The upper income earners, of course. For the $600 you may receive in a tax cut, ultimately, due to the debt and interest incurred by this tax cut, most of us will pay thousands of dollars for our meager bit of the pie. The wealth is already being sucked awayand redistributed - most of us just don't know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGreenistheBest Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 You have proven yourself to be one of those who wants everything handed to them. Wrong and it's both insulting to me and ignorant that you would say that. But you made your decision about me back on page one and haven't listened to a word I've said since. Let me ask you this, based on your current situation, (income, housing, life style) do you see any way to improve your situation with out having to depend on others? I reached my current situation without depending on others and will continue to improve my life without depending on others. In fact, I haven't depended on another person financially for over five years, including my parents. I make my own way in life. I'd just like to know that if I get sick and have to go to the hospital, there's no chance that my health care provider will decide to retroactively remove me from their coverage area instead of covering the costs they agreed to cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I would consider my self leftist, yes.No, you've completely misunderstood again. You are confusing elements of communism and even borderline fascism with a system of socialism that has never been implemented before. A proper socialist system that works in conjunction with capitalism and democracy means that free market will continue to exist. The government will regulate certain things such as health care for the people. This is not increased regulation! The government already regulates quite a bit, but the goal of socialism is to place the wellbeing of all citizens, ALL CITIZENS, above everything else. This means government regulation is adjusted, not increased, but adjusted to provide equal opportunities for everyone. Read: EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES, not GREATER OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE WHO WORK LESS. People will continue to gain what they earn. Wealth will not be redistributed. The government will not prevent private enterprise, they will simply enforce the rules of fairness and opportunity that this country was founded on. There will be no rewards for people not trying their hardest. Capitalism and democracy will remain. That's why it's called a social democracy, not a socialist republic or communist regime. Collectivism is part of communism, not socialism. Socialism CAN emphasize the good of the community while still protecting the good of the individual. What it comes down to is keeping the right people in office through our American right to free speech, free press and free elections. You sound like a member of the Socialist Labor Party. Guess what, we are a Republic, not a democracy. Name one example how there are not equal opportunities for all in this country. Now, how will social democracy correct this? What happens to a social democracy when it also begins to fail many of its subjects? What's the point of a democracy when everything is bureaucratic anyways? What will elections solve? New administrators and officers to administer the programs and infrastructure? I understand socialism being the answer to the evils of capitalism, but for me, socialism produces inferior product. In cases of monopolies, what are we to do? We already have socialistic road and education systems. We have monopolies in utilities. Why don't we take over utility companies? You are advocating making our health care system socialistic. Trust me, I understand the point of this. We would all own the systems, thus change them when they become unfavorable. We would have control over the systems much like we currently have control over our schools and roads. Right? Now who here thinks we have control over our schools and roads and our military and our space program, etc..? We elect people to appoint people to control these aspects. These systems are run corruptly and very inefficiently. Why? Because there's no competition to make them function better. Socialism is the answer to capitalism when innovation fails. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Wrong and it's both insulting to me and ignorant that you would say that. But you made your decision about me back on page one and haven't listened to a word I've said since. . I recall you flying off teh handle saying something like "I am so glad we are getting everything handed to us, I can't wait to collect my free health care" It ticked off many posters including myself. I reached my current situation without depending on others and will continue to improve my life without depending on others. In fact, I haven't depended on another person financially for over five years, including my parents. I make my own way in life. I'd just like to know that if I get sick and have to go to the hospital, there's no chance that my health care provider will decide to retroactively remove me from their coverage area instead of covering the costs they agreed to cover. If you pay your bill your insurance will cover you. Sure it is expensive, maybe you should look towards an HSA instead of the people who are more succesful than you. If you play your cards right, one day you might drive a Ferrari. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 The irony is that we already have a system that redistributes that wealth in this nation, except we don't even have any benefits such as free healthcare or education. For example, every time we receive tax cuts, such as the one recently pushed through by Congress, most of us will end up paying far more than what we receive as a tax cut. And who receives the larger amount of this tax cut? The upper income earners, of course. For the $600 you may receive in a tax cut, ultimately, due to the debt and interest incurred by this tax cut, most of us will pay thousands of dollars for our meager bit of the pie.The wealth is already being sucked awayand redistributed - most of us just don't know it. Because our Government is too big and because of our monetary policy. The good old inflation tax coupled with the income tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 What socialism does is removes some incentives from the people to succeed, work hard and better themselves. What collectivism does is makes us continue to see things as groups. This discourages ambition, liberty, innovation and freedom and encourages discrimination and welfare. What you are defending is welfare. Welfare must be fair and balanced meaning that those who are above average, work hard and provide for their own, must also provide for others that do not have the same ability. That is unAmerican my good friend. Our Government is not meant to provide for the less fortunate. Our people should help those that need help via charities and organizations. If that does not work, then they must start helping themselves. I believe that any nation-state requires its citizens to have a bit of collectivism. Especially since 9-11, patriotic love of the U.S. has certainly been highly touted and espoused, and the idea of the citizen soldier placing the nation-state ahead of his or her life as being the high virtue of the collective will of the community. The military is an example of collectivism and a form of socialism, in many aspects. Furthermore, look at group sports and group activities: Humans are social creatures. We work, entertain, and play in groups. Of course, we are very individualistic creatures, but we easily interact in groups. Thus, I don't think collectivism or groupism is necessarily against human nature or non-existent here in this nation, but it is just when such collectivism becomes the forced will of the state does it become perhaps a bit dangerous, or when collectivism overrides the individual human spirit. I am taking a bit of a devil's advocate position here as well as thinking out of the box a bit, but I believe that elements of socialism and collectivism have been around for a while in our country. For example, World War Two highlights what our country can do when it has a collective will, and perhaps sometimes our nation needs that from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Because our Government is too big and because of our monetary policy. The good old inflation tax coupled with the income tax. And the Federal Reserve as part of the system as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGreenistheBest Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I recall you flying off teh handle saying something like "I am so glad we are getting everything handed to us, I can't wait to collect my free health care"It ticked off many posters including myself. Hmm, maybe you should quote that post for me. If it was in the "socialized healthcare" thread, then I was probably saying it just to push buttons. I was getting a lot of personal insults in there and didn't feel like playing fair. Nevertheless, I do not advocate people getting things without earning them. If you pay your bill your insurance will cover you. I have first hand experience that suggests otherwise. Sure it is expensive, maybe you should look towards an HSA instead of the people who are more succesful than you. I do not "look to the people who are more succesful than me" for help. Maybe you should try to keep up with what I've been saying for the last 10 pages instead of repeating the same tired broken-record arguments that have been discounted repeatedly and stop flinging childish allegations at me to hide the fact that you either cannot or are not willing to understand where you are wrong. If you play your cards right, one day you might drive a Ferrari. More likely I will have donated a lot of my money to charity and still drive a Civic which gets great gas mileage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 More likely I will have donated a lot of my money to charity and still drive a Civic which gets great gas mileage. Go ahead that's your choice, continue to drive your Civic, continue to donate money to Chairty. I will be working for a Ferrari, after all that is what America is all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Go ahead that's your choice, continue to drive your Civic, continue to donate money to Chairty. I will be working for a Ferrari, after all that is what America is all about. Having a hard time coming up with a sadder mission statement for life... :doh: but whatever works for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGreenistheBest Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Go ahead that's your choice, continue to drive your Civic, continue to donate money to Chairty. I will be working for a Ferrari, after all that is what America is all about. I judge my success in life by the amount of happiness and positive change I bring to the world, not by the size of my bank account or the distance between myself and the unfortunate. "And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." I Corinthians (ch. XIII, v. 13) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Having a hard time coming up with a sadder mission statement for life... :doh: but whatever works for you. I have my goals, part of it does include giving money to non profits. I trying to say, I refuse to buy into his socialist view points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I"And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." I Corinthians (ch. XIII, v. 13) Now you are coming around to the American way. However, you advocate forcing people to be charitable. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Now you are coming around to the American way.However, you advocate forcing people to be charitable. :doh: After we give all of our money to the government, how will we give money to charity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGreenistheBest Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Now you are coming around to the American way.However, you advocate forcing people to be charitable. :doh: Yes, let's fabricate that I advocate mandatory charity now. After we give all of our money to the government, how will we give money to charity? Already addressed. I'm not going to play musical chairs with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Yes, let's fabricate that I advocate mandatory charity now. Already addressed. I'm not going to play musical chairs with you. Ah, because you want the government to donate your hard earned money for you. This is the same kind of thing as you saying "The Chinese are Capitalist" :laugh: . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGreenistheBest Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Ah, because you want the government to donate your hard earned money for you. Again, already addressed. Please reread the last five or six posts of mine and attempt to formulate a new argument or at least support your argument with new information. Repeating your tired and incorrect assumptions over and over again is polluting this thread. This is the same kind of thing as you saying "The Chinese are Capitalist" You never had a response for that one, either. Maybe you should just start over from the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 After we give all of our money to the government, how will we give money to charity? All of these Government programs can easily be replaced by charity. Once that is done, we can get rid of all the taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RVAbrendan Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Here's the problem with this philosophy. In a capitalist system, and indeed with any economic system, there has to be people at the bottom. This country would be no where near as advanced had we not had millions of cheap, uneducated laborers. Not everybody will, or can advance, no matter how hard they try. For instance, road workers have tough jobs, they work hard and in brutal conditions--they are essential to this country yet they are valued lower because so many people can do the work they do. Assume that every road worker decided to get an education and "move up," as they say. The roads still need to be paved. Wherever the previous road workers "moved up" to will now have an overabundance of people for certain industries, bringing wages down. The problem we have now remains. We need people at the bottom. We need them to accept less pay for harder work, and when they become drunks because their bones hurt (not to mention their spirits), and they get lung conditions from breathing in toxic dust, etc. and can't afford to pay their mortgage because of outrageous medical expenses, the least we can do is show some compassion and help them out. They are, after all, fellow citizens, and they deserve respect for the **** they put up with so we don't have to. Do lazy, poor people take advantage of certain assistance programs? Absolutely. But, statistically speaking, far more is spent for the super rich (which supposedly means they are smarter and harder working) taking advantage of assistance programs of a different sort. I feel we need to reevaluate how we assign value to labor or essential goods and services within a capitalistic framework. A healthy balance between socialistic and capitalistic economic philosophies (which we already have to a degree as it is) would go a long way in helping fellow citizens who, try as they might, can't get their legs under them. I like this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGreenistheBest Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 All of these Government programs can easily be replaced by charity. Once that is done, we can get rid of all the taxes. :laugh::laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 You never had a response for that one, either. Maybe you should just start over from the beginning. I sure did, China is very far from being a capitalist government. They don't even consider themselves to be capitalist. China = Capitalism, only if you refuse to accept the truth. According to Wilipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_with_Chinese_characteristics Socialism with Chinese characteristics From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Communism Portal This article is about the term itself and its relationships. For its implementation and effects see Economy of the People's Republic of China and Chinese economic reform. "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" (traditional Chinese: 具有中國特色的社會主義, simplified Chinese: 具有中国特色的社会主义, Pronunciation (help·info): Jùyǒu Zhōngguó tèsè de shèhuìzhǔyì) is an official term for the economy of the People's Republic of China which as of 2008 consists of the state having ownership of a large fraction of the Chinese economy, while at the same time having all entities participate within a market economy This is a form of a socialist market economy and differs from market socialism and mixed economy in that while the state retained ownership of large enterprises,. [/size] <<<<HELLO THIS IS NOT CAPITALISM it does not use this ownership to intervene to change prices which are set by the market. John Gittings in The Changing Face of China quotes Deng Xiaoping as stating: "Planning and market forces are not the essential difference between socialism and capitalism. A planned economy is not the definition of socialism, because there is planning under capitalism; the market economy happens under socialism, too. Planning and market forces are both ways of controlling economic activity." [1] The PRC government maintains that it has not abandoned Marxism, but is simply developed many of the terms and concepts of Marxist theory to accommodate its new economic system. The ruling Communist Party of China argues that socialism is not incompatible with these economic policies. In current Chinese Communist thinking, the PRC is in the primary stage of socialism, and this redefinition allows the PRC to undertake whatever economic policies are needed to develop into an industrialized nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Communism is a political system. Socialism is an economic system. They are not codependent. You have that backwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGreenistheBest Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I sure did, China is very far from being a capitalist government. They don't even consider themselves to be capitalist. Your quote proves that they are communist, not capitalist. You still haven't learned the difference between economics and politics. You have that backwards. No, I'm afraid I hit it straight on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.