Where is the socialist utopia now?

Hahaha, yeah, RIGHT. Your so socialist, you have to pay for your healthcare.

The US is still mostly right wing. Face it. Socialism fails, as any country who leans to the left gets embago's levelled on them by the US. So tehy can't trade. Try to prove me wrong? Except he countries you can exploit like Vietnam and China, as you can use them as virtual slave labour as your own labour costs are to high, beause you have Human rights in the US. Which are admitadly a left wing thing, as without trade unions you wouldn't have things like minimum wage, or workers rights. We'd be in a stiuation like the Idustrial Revolution in the UK, where there was virtual slave labour.

The left does have good points folks, as well as flaws.

Come to that, China, who I don't doubt the US see as the source of lefty evil in the world, are having a great economy boom. Yet hte US one is doing the opposit. Hmm.

This is insane.

You've posted one link, to one economic downturn, in one country, as credible evidence of the entire failure of left wing programs. And people are buying it.

The reality is, the most liveable countries in the world have always deployed a mixture of left-wing policies and free market economics. Countries like Norway, Sweden, Canada, Beligium, and Denmark have consistenly topped the UN's list of the most livable countries. These are all countries that you'd likely label 'socialist'.

See: www.infoplease.com...

Thankfully, leaders in these countries don't worry about the baseless ideological pandering that you do, and rather attempt to apply a mixture of left and right wing programs that suit their unique populations and resources. If you stopped worrying about whether they was some threat of 'creeping socialism' in the US, and started thinking about what programs are most beneficial to the country, I'm sure the United States could top that list every year. It's just a matter of balancing economic incentives with a reasonable social net...that's all people want and need...the oppurtunity to excel, but the reassurance that if they fail, they'll be safe. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Maybe a public health care system would be a nice start for the US?

Plus it might save you guys some money...even with tens of millions of uninsured people, you still spend the most money per capita for what is a relatively average system...maybe some of that 'socialist' thought might help you guys?

See: www.academyhealth.org...




[edit on 24-2-2005 by robotbot]

The main reason the USA is far away above those of other western countries in patents, GDP, and a true standard of living is the fact that our taxes are the lowest. unfortunately, we like to reward those who feel they should not have to work just because; so our taxes are increasing. Sooner or later another country will realize America's downward spin to European magnitudes and will adopt a more fair tax rate. That will attract those hardworking and brilliant to their country. That will leave America to the blood sucking leaches on our society. Want to help the poor! Reach into your pocket and do something. Do not put a gun to my head and make me do it. I give generously enough to successful programs. You think voting for these liberal vote buyers is helping the poor? No, it keeps them down and repressed thus guaranteeing another democrat vote.

Slavery reparations...no. Reparations for destroying a culture and convincing a whole race they are inferior to whites and can not compete evenly with them...you bet ! So is there an attorney that is willing to break with all the other donors to the Democratic party and sue these socialists for the fiasco they created?

By the way, how did they create equality in the south? They dumbed down the whites to create and even larger dependent mass of probable Democratic voters.

Deny ignorance, breed true self esteem. How? Destroy the teacher unions!

Why would they want people to be successful? So they will have to pay unreasonable taxes and therefore vote conservative. Hell no dumb all the people down to the point where they need the government for everything and can not take care of themselves. Public schools, factories for democratic voters. To those well educated wealthy rich liberals, go find other people to pick your cotton! This dog don't hunt, wowf!

[edit on 24-2-2005 by Reaganwasourgreatest]

This is the funny point where this debate changes from economics to politics. Which is nice because economics aren't really my strong suit.

I guess reganwasourgreatest and I would probably just agree to disagree. I don't think that anyone with 'socialist' tendencies (i use quotes because I abhor labels like that) would necessarily agree to support 'blood sucking leeches', but I do think that they would agree that the state should support those who are unable to support themselves.

I understand the private charity argument (a fan of Any Rand, perchance?) but I just believe that I would want my bottom line to be guaranteed by the state. Since I'm a graduate student who's about to turn 25 and lose access to my parents health plan, I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I'm damn happy to live in a country (I'm in Canada, by the way) that guarantees me health insurance and the same access to health care as I had before. (Minus the free teeth cleaning and discounted prescriptions that I got with my parents...but who likes the dentist anyways?)

I can easily admit that most of America's overwhelming successes have grown from its private system. But I don't think that you can attribute the whole thing to lower taxes. The scandinavian countries have consistently had some of the highest taxes in the world, but have been able to reimburse that money into tons of programs, not the least of which are great public education systems. These great systems insure an educated populace and encourage strong and innovative technological developments which then find there way into the private market and eventually get reinvested back into the public system.

I'm not saying that one system is perfect. Far from that. I think that it's a matter of balance. Balancing resources with your populations. Balancing taxes with strong public systems (that work...if there corrupt then it doesn't mean anything). Balancing personal incentive with collective good, and basically just balancing your decisions to your interests. No one system will work for every country, and I guess that's what's nice about democracy..the people get some say in their systems.

The majority of Americans (as I garnered from the last election) seem to buy Reganwasourgreatest's arguments...and I guess I can just say, 'To each his own'...it's worked for you before, it may keep on working. All I can say is I'm pretty happy where I am...

...oh...and I don't think you need to worry about america becoming more 'socialist' (Frankly, I can't imagine where you get that impression from) because it seems to be quite the other way. At least that's how it looks from up here...

Just a quick edit because I just reread regan's post...you asked if I think that voting for liberals actually helps the poor. Well, I can't say anything about american liberals (I can't really tell them apart from the Conservatives...they both seem pretty right to me) but I do think that voting liberal in Canada helps. (Actually, I didn't vote for the liberal party here, but I'll use your language to keep things consistent.) I can understand your belief that these social systems denigrate people and encourage poverty, and I think when they are poorly developed and executed, that's entirely true. But, if the programs are well developed and divided even from rich to poor (ie. strong public education and health) then I don't think it contributes to cycles of poverty. If kids are given the oppurtunity to be equal to their peers at a young age through these programs, then it can only help but encourage them. Somehow I think that private charity that singles out and targets individuals might be more detrimental than a large public system that simply insures equality for everyone. Actually, just a quick question...if you believe that private charity can do a better job at helping people than public funds, then wouldn't you just be further encouraging these people you call 'blood sucking leeches', because now they can get there money more efficiently?

[edit on 24-2-2005 by robotbot]