A History of Socialism in America

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is the crux of my disagreement with you on this. You clearly feel like people who don't want to share the money they've earned are greedy or in some way in the wrong. You, me, and everyone else are owed nothing from anybody.

Whats greedy is expecting or feeling entitled to the money others have made that you haven't earned.

Whats selfish is thinking that people really benefit in the long run from being coddled by the state.

a reply to: Bennyzilla

The question lies who determines what someone has earned? Unless one is self-employed, no other business can make it without its employees. Walmart would not earn billions a year when no one was employeed there. Yet, they delibrately pay their employees, less than minimum wage, trying to cut every possible loophole when it comes taxes, knowing that people live to here and now. Someone has to step in, as people can do terrible things in order to survive and companies exploit paying deliberately them less knowing government would help to cover the most basic expenses of full-time employees while using every possible way to not file taxes- all that in order to pay its leading employees and board members Extreme salaries.Isn´t that greed?

At least in this area, this is considered greed. There is a moral side to business. If one can not pay their employees fairly (living wage for full-time job), if one can not follow safety or environmental regulations in their company, iff you cannot follow the laws - all that while still making a profit - they should not start a company.

This is a nation with one of the highest entrepreneurship rates in the world...

Money is not everything. Business should make money, but not by exploiting someone. After all, without employees there would be no profit, the people running the business live in the same environment, their kids live there. Do they really just not give a fu'k about anyone else than themselves and their profits? Isn´t that greed?

originally posted by: Cabin
a reply to: Bennyzilla

The question lies who determines what someone has earned? Unless one is self-employed, no other business can make it without its employees. Walmart would not earn billions a year when no one was employeed there. Yet, they delibrately pay their employees, less than minimum wage, trying to cut every possible loophole when it comes taxes, knowing that people live to here and now. Someone has to step in, as people can do terrible things in order to survive and companies exploit paying deliberately them less knowing government would help to cover the most basic expenses of full-time employees while using every possible way to not file taxes- all that in order to pay its leading employees and board members Extreme salaries.Isn´t that greed?

At least in this area, this is considered greed. There is a moral side to business. If one can not pay their employees fairly (living wage for full-time job), if one can not follow safety or environmental regulations in their company, iff you cannot follow the laws - all that while still making a profit - they should not start a company.

This is a nation with one of the highest entrepreneurship rates in the world...

Money is not everything. Business should make money, but not by exploiting someone. After all, without employees there would be no profit, the people running the business live in the same environment, their kids live there. Do they really just not give a fu'k about anyone else than themselves and their profits? Isn´t that greed?

You clearly do not understand how wages are figured out. The fact Wal-Mart needs a lot of cashiers does not mean that the cashiers are worth more than their present wages. Wages are nothing but where supply and demand meet. There are a ton of people willing to work for the wages that Wal-Mart pays so that is all they are going to get paid. If someone thinks Wal-Mart doesn't pay enough, they do not have to work there.

On the other hand, when workers are scarce, a business has to increase wages. This is why athletes, entertainers, and some executives make outrageous salaries as there are only so many people qualified to do the job.

a reply to: Enochstask

Compromise with Republicans, are you nuts? The bill was passed in the middle of the night by Democrats only, and not one single vote by Republicans was for that malfunctioning piece of legislation. No one even read the damn thing. Remember the witch Pelosi saying "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it"? Obamacare was nothing but a flim flam scam which nobody can use because the deductibles are so high. If you like your healthcare you can keep it yada, yada yada. I give you credit,you spin a mean pile of excrement.

I'll have to disagree with both of you. Obama killed the public option early on to appease the insurance lobby. I do believe that in essentially patterning it after "RomneyCare," the thought was that they could garner at least a tiny bit of Republican support.

I've been against the PPACA (aka ObamaCare) since the public option was dropped. The public option could have been used not only to provide insurance for the uninsured but would have established a base for health insurance policies and provided competition for the insurance cartel. Basically what we got instead was subsidization of the insurance companies and an expanded risk pool intended to drive down insurance premiums.

For what it's worth, had Romney beaten Obama, I expect we would have ended up with something similar because premiums have been rising out of control and quickly. I don't think the lack of Republican support has anything to do with anything but politics. It was a win-win, even the ones who might otherwise have voted for it, didn't have to because it was going to pass without them.

As for Pelosi's statement, you're misinterpreting it or rather, repeating the spin put on it by the conservative media.

She made the statement during a 20 minute speech at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel, on March 9, two weeks prior to the vote. The audience wasn't Congress, it was the public. Pelosi was saying, "you (the people) will have to wait for we (Congress) to pass it so that you can see what's in it (all the good stuff)."

The problem I have with socialism is that is assumes central planners know better than the individual. It also assumes that people need to be forced to share their wealth which is simply not the case.

Often times the problems I constantly hear from the left are created by the government by distorting markets and poorly thought out regulations. It is ironic because the leftist solution is usually more government. They always rationalize that they just didn't spend enough instead of admitting that maybe the policy is just bad.

I have no problem paying taxes for the common good. The question is what should we be paying for and how much is enough? Government cannot be everyone's savior nor should it be involved in all aspects of our lives. Good government is a small government.

a reply to: Edumakated

Having run a business more than once, even currently, I do understand how wage system works, although I can not stand business models like that - focusing on selling massive amounts of cheaper products which are possible due to extrmely low salaries and tax loop holes. Such business models kill the economy, kill the tax system, kill the companies who want to do the right thing.

I can bring an example from local area. There was this nice coffee shop nearby. Decent elder man running it for a long time. Every employee got decent wage, very cozy place with reasonable prices. What happened, some other guy decided to open another coffee shop nearby. His purpose was sole profit. The employees were very poorly waged, which led to very low prices. It was time of the economic crisis and these people were just desperate for a job. In the end, people unfortunately go for the cheaper cost. The first place had to close down due to majority of clients leaving for the cheaper place.

Why I brought this point. If there is even a single loop, a single company in the nearby area who is able to use it or just by using any means gets a cheaper cost, they win. Walmart could easily pay all their cashiers living wage, cover the healthcare by adding a little extra to the cost of their very low-priced products. That is not their business model and that affects every company either selling or producing products nearby, as they have to somehow lower the price of the product. In the end, way too many die out due to such business practices.

I have personally always taken every member of my team/company as part of family. Happier, healthier employees are far more productive as well. I have even cut my own salary to pay them more. I still earned more than them, after all skills do matter, but they were paid significantly over the average pay in the sector. Of course the price of our service was higher than rivaling companies, but I am happy I did the right thing.

Another point, I wanted to bring is the fact that desperate people are willing to take desperate actions, especially if family is involved. There are way too many companies out there who significantly lower their wages during economically different times. Not because of the fact that they would not make profit, but because of the fact they know there is always another desperate person behind the door in a need for a job. I personally know a few company owners who did that in 2009, after the crisis burst out. Their profits nearly doubled that year...

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I have a problem with a system in which roughly 47% of society lives off the earnings of the other 53%.

Do you really?

I think that like most conservatives (hell most Americans), you're enamored with capitalism and you're constantly making excuses for its shortcomings. The major difference in the popular politically-driven notions of the economy are in who gets the blame. The Right tends to blame the poor and government regulation while the Left tends to blame the rich. Clearly history is on the side of the Left in this regard because history is replete with one example after the other of the rich abusing the lower classes. In practical terms, they're also on firmer ground because the wealthy do in fact "run the world" from business and finance to politics.

Welfare doesn't cause unemployment or underemployment. Labor supply does not create labor demand. Spikes in welfare program enrollment have followed economic down turns, not preceded them. You're right that the system is broken, you're wrong in thinking that cutting welfare will fix it. Nor will removing regulation and gutting labor laws. Nor would all of the country's unions magically disappearing tomorrow.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not much of your Op to disagree with:

To end poverty the government needs to own all property, manage all businesses, and establish equal wages for everyone except those who are running the show (they are the ones who get rich and normally have a life style beyond most peoples wildest dreams).. There have been a few countries that have tried that.. I think they always fail because of nepotism and who you know in government not by what you know. When they fall it is seldom peaceful although it does happen.

I can't think of a program that government runs that isn't screwed up; if not today then just give it time..

I am for small government with the best people possible in government positions; not some job program for idiots controlled by bigger non thinking idiot robots that can barely read from a script put together by a committee of lawyers...

In America today I have read that there are more government workers than people who work in manufacturing and actually produce stuff...

The government workers all get paid (some rather well) and have great health benefits, and even get most if not all the holidays off. Great gig if you can put up with the stupidity of a bureaucratic system I suppose.

I personally like a democratic system, where the votes are not rigged and when the government gets bloated with inefficiency and stupidity the population can peacefully get a do-over.. But I have always thought I could take care of myself and if I couldn't it was my own fault not big brothers. Keep the infrastructure built/repaired, protect our borders and have equal justice for all.. IMO they can't even do that...

There are plenty of socialist in America today and they are a growing segment of the population..

Adam Smith said;

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”

Smith’s point was that the free market does not depend on benevolent behavior or altruism for altruism in reality is actuality a scarce resource; the market can function well even if it is in short supply because it is trying to make a profit and prices are set by supply and demand; look at the price of oil for proof,... marketers lives depend upon their endeavors.. Lazy or inept you FAIL, go bankrupt, and maybe starve... Very motivating !

Government screws up and it was very well summarized by Hillary, "What difference does it make" ...she left out the old tried and proven (get off the hook) statement, "we need to look forward and not back upon our mistakes but improve the process for future generations".. Then nothing gets done but some bureaucratic paperwork while a new program is initiated whereby new inept people are assigned .. Even if the new people are knowledgeable the bureaucratic process will normally not enable them to get anything positive accomplished for all the reports and paperwork generated will set in a dust bin until hell freezes over.

People think government programs work as long as their welfare checks arrive... Even government knows if the checks don't arrive there will be hell to pay... self interest.. and a priority, no ?

originally posted by: Cabin
a reply to: Edumakated

Having run a business more than once, even currently, I do understand how wage system works, although I can not stand business models like that - focusing on selling massive amounts of cheaper products which are possible due to extrmely low salaries and tax loop holes. Such business models kill the economy, kill the tax system, kill the companies who want to do the right thing.

I can bring an example from local area. There was this nice coffee shop nearby. Decent elder man running it for a long time. Every employee got decent wage, very cozy place with reasonable prices. What happened, some other guy decided to open another coffee shop nearby. His purpose was sole profit. The employees were very poorly waged, which led to very low prices. It was time of the economic crisis and these people were just desperate for a job. In the end, people unfortunately go for the cheaper cost. The first place had to close down due to majority of clients leaving for the cheaper place.

Why I brought this point. If there is even a single loop, a single company in the nearby area who is able to use it or just by using any means gets a cheaper cost, they win. Walmart could easily pay all their cashiers living wage, cover the healthcare by adding a little extra to the cost of their very low-priced products. That is not their business model and that affects every company either selling or producing products nearby, as they have to somehow lower the price of the product. In the end, way too many die out due to such business practices.

I have personally always taken every member of my team/company as part of family. Happier, healthier employees are far more productive as well. I have even cut my own salary to pay them more. I still earned more than them, after all skills do matter, but they were paid significantly over the average pay in the sector. Of course the price of our service was higher than rivaling companies, but I am happy I did the right thing.

Another point, I wanted to bring is the fact that desperate people are willing to take desperate actions, especially if family is involved. There are way too many companies out there who significantly lower their wages during economically different times. Not because of the fact that they would not make profit, but because of the fact they know there is always another desperate person behind the door in a need for a job. I personally know a few company owners who did that in 2009, after the crisis burst out. Their profits nearly doubled that year...

But who is at fault? The competitor with cheaper prices or the fact consumers want cheaper prices? On one hand, we hear complaints about Wal-Mart but every one I drive by seems to have a full parking lot full of shoppers.

While I agree with you that businesses sometimes have to think long term and have a more holistic approach instead of just numbers on a spreadsheet, unless consumer behavior changes, business are going to do what they have to do to stay open. Consumers show time and time again that they make their purchase decision on price most of the time and they don't care about things like wages and feel good stuff.

To clear up some ideas about where the U.S. government gets its money I found this:

1) Income taxes paid by individuals: $1.48 trillion, or 47% of all tax revenues.
2) Payroll taxes paid jointly by workers and employers: $1.07 trillion, 34% of all tax revenues.
3) Corporate income taxes paid by businesses: $341.7 billion, or 11% of all tax revenues

Link

The site also explains how the government will spend more than the 3.18 trillion it collects in taxes this year, so they will borrow the money that is not brought in by taxes and increase the national debt.

None of this has anything to do with democratic socialism except that all governments, even tiny ones, must have a source of income. All governments collect taxes, so how will changing the method of governance change a government's need for income? If taxes are not used to support the government, then what do you suggest some 'small' government do to make money?

Corporations make more than most individuals, yet they pay the least amount of taxes. This is neoconservatism at its best. America could lower personal income taxes if it would tax corporations more and reintroduce a strong protective tariff that would help support American industry.

In the end, I do not want more or less government, for I find the American government to be just right. The smaller the government becomes the more vulnerable to large corporate interest it becomes. The larger a government becomes the more it steps on personal freedoms and liberties. America seems to be in the middle and that is where I like it.

a reply to: Edumakated

This is a two-sided coin. Businesses could act morally, consumer can do that. Although I would say the only way to solve such situation is government intervention by losing tax loop-holes and establishing minimum wage equal or higher to living wage so that people not need extra support from food-stamps or other government related social program. As living wage is not something one can live a boasting, more luxorious lifestyle, there is still motivation to better oneself.

Other countries have managed that, while even covering health costs, education etc from taxes and people work under 40 hours a week. US can do the same. Currently, this is all about corporate greed.

originally posted by: Edumakated
The problem I have with socialism is that is assumes central planners know better than the individual.

Isn't that why we bother electing people in the first place? We vote for people who know more about how to run governments and how to get things done than ourselves?

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: nwtrucker

The right NOT to be involved in or taxed for these programs.

I'd agree with that. A purely socialist state gives people an option of what they spend their hard earned on.
That needs to be addressed.

But hand in hand, the capitalist tax machine is no better, because I know for sure if people had a choice about military expenditure it'd be a lot less of the GDP and also more prudent in deciding what wedding to drone.
No one should have to pay for such nonsense given a choice.

So the only fault you've found with socialism I also highlight in capitalism.

Time for a tie breaker, nw.

Hmmm, fair point...Time out....

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FamCore

So how was the system overloaded in the 50's and 60's?

Come on, man. Totally different situation then and you know it. No international competition for manufactured goods, a huge military industrial complex that was running over 10% of the GDP was a factor, as well.

But our MIC is bigger now than it was in the 50's and 60's...

The nation had an affluence. Lots of jobs which translated into lots of revenue for the gov't. Abundance. One can be quite generous when has lots of cash. Productivity was the key. A healthy private sector HAS to be a factor as well.

Sounds like Socialism works to me then.

Sounds like our economy worked in spite of, not because of..

How so? Things were great until Reagan broke things with his "better" idea. To me, this looks like you are denying the obvious.

Really? I guess you weren't around when Carter ran the show, double digit inflation, double digit unemployment...turned around pretty fast and stayed that way for quite a while. One of us is denying the obvious.....

Great thread, Krazy.

off topic:

Congrats on the new forum.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
We vote for people who know more about how to run governments and how to get things done than ourselves?

You can't possibly believe that process is working, whether it was the original intent of said process or not, can you?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Welfare doesn't cause unemployment or underemployment. Labor supply does not create labor demand. Spikes in welfare program enrollment have followed economic down turns, not preceded them. You're right that the system is broken, you're wrong in thinking that cutting welfare will fix it. Nor will removing regulation and gutting labor laws. Nor would all of the country's unions magically disappearing tomorrow.

You're right, IF that was all I've advocated for, but it isn't. One HUGE change since the 1970s that has allowed America to enter into this work to subsidize the lives of others death spiral lies in the advent and embracing of global free trade. That's an issue which BOTH parties in the US have jumped squarely into the middle of and wallowed around in like pigs in mud. We *could* have the best paid workforce in the world, and we *could* have the strongest labor protection laws in the world, and we *could* have (employee contributed) safety nets that are the envy of the world... we just CANNOT have them alongside an open global market which rewards offshoring and foreign production. Only a damned fool would pay higher wages, face more regulations, and have to deal with more red tape keeping a factory in the US when they can produce products for a fraction of the cost and grief in China and ship them to the US market for sale.

We need import tariffs, crushing, unwavering import tariffs like we used to have. We also need to rewrite the tax code making EVERYONE have skin in the game with a 10% flat tax across the board, no deductions, no exemptions, no whining, no crying, and NO Kept Voters... everyone plays, so everyone pays. While we're rewriting that code, eliminate every loophole and shelter which has benefited companies that exported America's jobs. Also rewrite the federal codes to streamline things, particularly in the area of environmental and land use permitting... why does America need multiple agencies doing the same reviews and same type of permits, especially when the law allows one of the agencies to steamroll a project even when the other agencies have approved it? WASTE. Scrap the ACA in it's entirety and deregulate the health insurance market in the same way as car insurance was deregulated years ago, allowing companies to cross state lines.

As far as the blame game goes, I blame anyone who sits on their ass doing nothing while holding a legal mandate stating a percentage of my earnings subsidize their existence. You can't say that about the wealthy... If I can no longer tolerate working for someone or don't wish to support some particular businessman, I have a choice of working somewhere else, buying from a competitor, or not buying the product at all... where is the opt out on having earnings I WORKED for, what I VALUED MY TIME AT and traded that time for, taken from me to be given to those not putting in the effort?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

The idea is a sound one, played out in practice over 200 years? Not so much.

If the elected officials don't know better than the individuals, then why are we bothering with elections at all? Why not just leave the country and go find somewhere else to live where we have the ultimate authority over ourselves?

I hear about this place in South America...

That's why everyone should vote for Bernie Sanders, we have to help our fellow man because climate change is our #1 problem right now, the only way to fix it is by throwing money at it!

If he got elected you'll see your paychecks going from 40% taxed to 60-75%... Can ya feel the Bern? right through your pockets?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I agree with you on the globalization thing and your conclusions.

The problem I see...there are billions of customers out there, the USA has what, 380 million people? Corporations and companies that make things can just set up shop outside of the USA and sell their goods/wares to everyone else in the world.

With those industries completely gone, we'd have a huge vacuum to fill. We'd probably collapse quickly, and someone like Russia or China might decide to take advantage of the situation.

If we were left 100% alone and allowed to rebuild our industries in-house, 100% -- we'd prosper again and all our stuff would be made here, sold here and built by people here. That wouldn't happen overnight though.

Even a slow progression that direction would scare off businesss...