Socialism is Not a 4 Letter Word

a reply to: beezzer

Obama care socialist? It is used as a mandatory insurance scam from my point of view.

I live in Sweden where we had a system that was socialist health care for all that we paid by taxes where everything was owned by the state. Risk capitalists did not like that and wanted to make money out of our taxes and pushed for deregulation and that they should take over the hospitals cheap and care of old people thru the tax system. No risk involved since they buy facilities that are needed and the state have our deep pockets.

This is the similar idea to the bankers dream pension system that was created in Sweden to stimulate the stock Market. Every month we are forced to take part of our pension money and invest it in bankers fond that is buying stocks every month.

That is the way capitalism works now days. Profit/benefits to few and the cost shared by many thru tax and insurance schemes.

originally posted by: TonyS

Like it or not, Socialism is the economic model that the US is slowly sliding into if for no other reason than its the model most acceptable to those of the "hive" mind and most all of the new immigrants into the US are hive mind type people and come from hive mind societies.

Which is what makes America what it is. We were based on the ideal of being a country that accepted everyone. When you do that, you're opening the door for people who may not share your ideologies nor wish to acclimate to them. Why should they? The way of life they had before they got here was the only one the knew. It may have sucked big by being where they were, but here in America you can have a financially better way of life. When that happens, your ideologies sit shotgun.

So what happens over time when those people keep trickling in? The "American" way of life slowly changes. Steady drops of water into a creek over time will slowly change it's direction. Most people who have been in America through at least 4 generations don't see that because they are the ones complacent in their belief that things will never change. They don't have to because "America is # 1". Meanwhile, simply by the virtue of new immigrants coming and settling in with their own ways of thinking........hive mind.......things are changing.

Again, that's what makes America what it is.......change dictated by the population. Only in this case, the population doesn't seem to even see what they're doing.

a reply to: NthOther

No, it is showing that they coined the term so they defined it and that definition, which includes being anti-socialist, is the correct definition and the way you are using it is incorrect.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Isurrender73

I think we should require all of our trade partners to adopt the same min wage as the US. This will bring skilled production jobs back to the US. As it will no longer be cheaper to produce them overseas and ship them here.

No tariffs just a universal min wage. True supply and demand, with a living wage for the lowest skilled laborer.

That would require massive authoritarian policies and probably World War.

We are a sovereign nation. We can be the greatest nation and most powerful nation without trading.

Our sovereignty allows us the ability to cancell trade agreements with any nation that doesn't want to play by fair rules.

No one is invading a nation that posses more guns than people. And enough bombs to blow up the Earth, Moon and Mars. Unless they wish to commit suicide while taking the whole world down with them.

a reply to: daskakik

Wow. I rest my case.

Meh this is my politics gentlemen.

I want to be free, I want to get paid more for hard work.

I do not want to make less for hard work.

I want to buy whatever I want to buy cars, houses, land etc.

I do not want to get taxed to death, I know some people in sweden, who live by pretty hardcore socialism laws, just not my style.

I like capitalism I work hard make allot of money, and buy stuff, or donate to social programs etc.

Also if we raise minimum wage to oh say 15.00 an hour EVERYONE will have to get a raise.. Hence the word minimum wage, no sense in trying to argue over that one thou, it just will never end...

It would break the market thou, and piss allot of people off..

originally posted by: NthOther
Wow. I rest my case.

What case?
They invented the word so they get to define it.

You are trying to change the definition of it. If anything you are showing that you are guilty of what you are accusing others of.

a reply to: Bicent76

Personally I think if we eliminated the federal reserve and much of the debt that has been created by the banking industry we wouldn't need to increase minimum wage.

The whole concept of a 30 year loan is BS. No loan should be over 10 years. The price of housing has been artificially inflated by 30 year loans.

This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. So the people have a right to determine the maximum length of loans.

We have put way to much money and power in the hands of bankers. Take the power away from the banks and put it back in the hands of the people and the current min wage would suffice.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." - Thomas Jefferson

originally posted by: Edumakated
Socialism means equality... of misery.

The funny thing is there is often more inequality with socialism, etc because these systems always produce an elite political class who still gets to live like kings while the masses starve. You can only have socialism with tyranny. Notice liberals always have to use the force of government to implement their ideas. If their ideas were so great, government wouldn't be needed to implement.

I'd rather take my chances with freedom.

Have you ever been to Europe? Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Germany, Finland?

In Sweden everything becomes more expensive when risk capitalists buy our state owned companies except telephone cost. Telia had a monopoly and was milking it. Water, power and rail roads are all costing more now for the consumer than before and there is no extra benefit.

That state have control over some part of society do not mean they are automatically doing a bad job and are inefficient compared to risk capitalists doing the same thing.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Bicent76

Personally I think if we eliminated the federal reserve and much of the debt that has been created by the banking industry we wouldn't need to increase minimum wage.

The whole concept of a 30 year loan is BS. No loan should be over 10 years. The price of housing has been artificially inflated by 30 year loans.

This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. So the people have a right to determine the maximum length of loans.

We have put way to much money and power in the hands of bankers. Take the power away from the banks and put it back in the hands of the people and the current min wage would suffice.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." - Thomas Jefferson

well that is not going to happen.. Sadly minimum wage jobs is something my parents threatened me getting if I did not work hard and get a education..

I am not a big fan of how the federal reserve works, but I know the powers that be, and it is not going away..

a reply to: Isurrender73

That kinda makes sense.

But you forgot about Socialism needing a global central banking system to redistribute money effectively.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

Changing from social to private might help eliminate the corruption in the beginning.

But the goal of every private capitalist company is to make more money each year. So eventually the higher cost will not only catch up to but surpase whatever money was being wasted in the socialist system.

The solution is to the eliminate the corruption that currently exists in the system. Privatization of social programs will always lead to higher costs.

True transparency of social institutes, including executive wages should eliminate much corruption. We could even pay private contractors to do cost analysis of programs to help lower costs.

The use of private contractors is common in the private sector so it should be used in the public sector as well. We waste a lot of tax payers monies using outdated systems.

a reply to: Isurrender73

I always love it when two people can approach an issue from different directions and come to the same basic conclusion -- like now! I agree, but I come at it from another angle -- from our organic law and John Locke's Social Contract, the basic premise being that people unite to form a government to act with their consent, on behalf of all, in the best interests of all. Our Constitution is the written document which enumerates which powers we give the government; the Bill of Rights enumerates specific rights that the people -- and the individual states -- maintain and that the government cannot violate, but is also very clear that those are not our only rights.

Our founding fathers believed in strength in numbers, and the power and resourcefulness of people to work together and take care of each other. Property ownership was encouraged and promoted among all, giving everyone something to work for and to provide for their families and to fight for against those who would infringe our property rights. Public education was also encouraged for many of the same reasons -- so people could take care of themselves and each other. They knew such institutions would be good for the people both as individuals and as a society. For the same reasons (and more), healthcare should/could also be promoted and encouraged.

But we should not have to relinquish our rights to provide our own services and institutions right alongside public institutions, such as public and private schools, public and private law enforcement/security, etc. Neither as individuals nor as states.

We can do better, but not until we put people (and the fair distribution/access of the nation and earth's resources) before profit. The principles the nation were founded upon are sound, but they've been so twisted and distorted we no longer see the value of our organic law.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: LittleByLittle

Changing from social to private might help eliminate the corruption in the beginning.

But the goal of every private capitalist company is to make more money each year. So eventually the higher cost will not only catch up to but surpase whatever money was being wasted in the socialist system.

The solution is to the eliminate corruption thst currently exists in the system. Privatization of social programs will always kead to higher costs.

Private corporations becomes a parasitical oligarchy after a while by consolidating the markets controlling the price and flow of resources.

I am for a base level economy where any person can own a house and a car, computer, phone, tv and have a vacation a year without over working. There will be people that want more and they should be allowed more for more contribution but the base level economy comes before any luxuries. 6 hours week should be implemented since we have already made machines so efficient that production do not need more and intellectually you are normally not very good after 6 hours anyway.

The bad side of socialism in Sweden in education system like for me was that if you excel in one area you are not put in a very advanced setting where you would thrive since people are to concerned about equality of education for all. I was really good at math and really bored during my 9 first years and spent time helping classmates instead of learning more.

The whole thing made me in one way lose interest and I could probably have learned higher level than the University degree math I took if I was challenged more earlier.

I sucked at PE and Swedish language. How they could make religion/philosophy/geography and history that boring as it was in School is beyond me but they did succeed.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: beezzer
Conservatives today are practical.

I'm not talking about conservitives today, I meant that in those days those wanting to keep things as they were, the general definition of conservative,were the loyalists.

The rest of your post is irrelevant.

Depending on which historian you read, all of the Americans were conservative. All wanted to keep the relationship with England that the colonies had before the Stamp Act, and for some years into the war, hoped for a peace that would let America keep her place in the commonwealth.

Americans were fighting to keep what they had and not lose it to new English policies.

Somewhat like conservatives today fight against new ways to use governmental power.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Isurrender73

That kinda makes sense.

But you forgot about Socialism needing a global central banking system to redistribute money effectively.

Imagine a flat trade tax.

Some nations will be heavy importers. This will create wealth in the countries who are heavy exporters.

The problem comes in when the importers run out of money. This will have a negative impact on both exporters whose demand is gone and employment will suffer. And importers who run out of money and lack the resources to build their infrastructure. Basically leaving us no better off than we are today.

A flat trade tax could be used to regularly rebalance the trade deficits of importers. Rebalancing the wealth will create a continued demand of exports while allowing impoverished nations the ability to continue to import.

Exporting nations will be able to continue to employ the skilled tradesmen. While importing nations will continue to focus on infrastructure. Eventually the 3rd world nations will build the infrastructure to create something close to global parity. At least in the terms of trade.

This is the only way to keep the flow of imports and exports continuing without disruption. Disruption of trade is bad for both nations. A trade tax with a redistribution will eliminate this problem.

I know this is a little utopian, but I see no other way to create skilled labor jobs here and support a growing infrastructure in 3rd world nations.

If anyone has a better idea, please share.

Of course we could continue to allow Greece and other countries to borrow money until they are forced to default. Which is still a redistribution of wealth. But at least my way isn't creating a problem that has to be solved by default.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: NthOther
Democratic social capitalism sounds a lot like plain old fascism to me.

Here we go with the rebranding of socialism. Again. I assume this is to make ol' Bernie more palatable to the flyover masses?

Then you should probably do some research and figure out what all those terms means because Democratic Socialism is not Fascism at all. There is nothing about Fascism that is Democratic at all. They are complete opposites.

Fascism is closer to Capitalism like Socialism is closer to Communism. However Capitalism is not Fascism and Socialism is not Communism. But they are on opposite sides from each other.

Fascism is the opposite of capitalism.

Capitalism has no draft or central bank to fuel and fund the wars between Fascism and Social Democracy.

Fascism and Social Democracy are alike except in the style of the propaganda. The fascist corporations were controlled by coercion and influence just as directly as socialistic corporations are controlled by law. At the level of the citizen, Fascism and Socialism are the same.

There are no properly executed social programs...they are all corrupt or corrupted by receivers of their "good will". And while the idea of "people working together for the common good" is a very nice sounding statement, "forcing people to pay into a corrupt system where little of the money taken actually helps anyone" is far more accurate. If you really want a social program that works, leave it in the hands of the people. Allow individuals to give hand-outs and write them off their taxes. Allow them to give them directly to "the needy" and get a receipt. That way 100% of the money goes toward helping someone and the government doesn't have to start an agency, build a building, pay employees and take "a little off the top".

Our government wants nothing more than to take what we work for and use it to control the masses. They use our money to buy control, votes and submissiveness from "the needy" and in the process...they make more needy.

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
That state hav(ing) control over some part of society do(es) not mean they are automatically doing a bad job and are inefficient ,compared to risk capitalists doing the same thing.

That was worth copying and posting again. That is an excellent point. The way I see that though is that people think the Government here would be controlling things simply for the sake of having control. This is why I think the average citizen balks at the idea.

On a side note, when you Europeans say state, you mean your Government, right?. Here......I believe the states, like Iowa, Maine, etc.....should have more control and the Federal Government (which you call "state" across the pond), should have far less.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

I have a hard time believing that everyone was on the same page.