What would you do without social security, paramedics, public schools, police protection, postal services and medicare?
Furthermore - Why insist that "socialism has never worked" when it's consistantly been of more benefit to Americans than things like privatized insurance?|||Finally someone who understands true socialist principles. Most people don't even have a remote clue of how much good socialist ideas have brought to us. Labor unions, increased minimum wage, national healthcare systems (canada and uk), better education systems, money to help keep the poor people from dying etc. Hats off to you for not falling head first into right-wing propaganda. If socialism was used there would be less starvation, less illiteracy, less crime, and less people who can't afford health care.|||Also highways. But,the great trick that was put over- Social Security. It was sold as an insurance program, when actually it is simple and good welfare. The claim is that people pay into this insurance program called SS. Really- SS tax is taken from their check just like income tax No choice.
Report Abuse
|||I say F every one it seems like everyone is out for themselves|||I found this website interesting. Heres what it stated:
Socialism vs. Capitalism
Over the past few decades Western European countries have have passed laws and taken other steps towards socialism (or Marxism). This, combined with globalization, has lead to increased pressure on the United States to become more socialistic. Although the ideas of socialism seem appealing, it a fundamentally flawed system and it begins a slippery slope that falls into communism.
Wikipedia defines socialism as "a social and economic system (or the political philosophy advocating such a system) in which the economic means of production are owned and controlled collectively by the people. Many socialist ideas come from Marxism (more commonly, "communism"), which essentially calls for a reversal of what we know as the structure of society. In The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx predicts that the proletariats will overthrow the bourgeoisie (which seems to be happening to some degree). The bourgeoisie are upper management and upper class, the white collar workers, while the proletariats are the working class, the blue collar workers. Since the proletariats "do all the work", Marx and other socialists suggest that they should get an equal share of the wealth. A Marxist society would have no private property rights and goods produced in it would be distributed among the citizens--"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
The idea of a Marxist society is very alluring. In today's world of freedom and fairness, the notion of everyone being completely equal, even if this means taking from the rich and giving to the poor, seems just; however, the defect in Marxism is obvious. It is dependent on a type of human nature that is hard to come by. For Marxism to work, very little greed and jealosy can exist and people must have a general feeling of charity and a willingness to work their hardest for the good of everyone. These are obviously not common traits. Marxism could also work if those who have the greatest abilities and those who work the hardest are satisfied with rewards equivalent to those with lesser abilities and those who don't work hard at all. This is also very unlikely. Marxism undoubtedly leads to free riding and slacking.
On the other hand, capitalism utilizes the willpower of individuals, especially entrepreneurs, to foment economic activity. Capitalism is based on the assumption that individuals operate based on self interest; however, by doing so they not only help themselves, but also propel others towards economic success. As Adam Smith put it, "by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."
I was given an assignment by a teacher in high school to write a paper on whether capitalism or communism would be better in "a perfect world." On first glance, communism seems to be the obvious choice, but if it were a perfect world, then not only would people work hard to support their families and progress individually, but even capitalists would be willing to donate to charities, etc. I believe that in a perfect world, a very similar outcome would occur in either communism or capitalism.
The communist societies that have been or are being attempted are really not communist societies at all, although they try to be. The USSR, for example, attempted communism but ended up being way to totaliarianistic--in stead of everyone working for the benefit of the society, there was a group of individuals with total power (Joseph Stalin took this role for a quarter century). Today's China is the same way--there is a centralized bureaucracy that calls all the shots. In both of these cases many people are forced to take part in the society against their own will. The Soviet Union obviously didn't work and China is becoming more prosperous only as they allow their economy to be more capitalistic. Taiwan, China's capitalistic counterpart, is years ahead of China on almost any measure of prosperity.
The fact is that people can't be forced to take part in communism. It simply won't work unless everyone is willing, and even then greed can easily lead to its demise. On the other hand, capitalism can work even if there are some who don't want to pull their weight--the difference is that those that don't pull their weight will suffer the consequences. Just like in communism, capitalism will work better if everyone works hard to produce valuable products. Also just like in communism, a capitalist society where there exists charity and good will will eliminate preventable suffering of all individuals.|||Social welfare for poor or ill people is not socialism.|||Social security is socialism? Get an education. People pay into social security all their lives. It's their money.|||You're confusing socialism with social programs.|||Social security is NOT socialism. It's just that we don't like the idea of dumbassocrats giving our hard earned money away to those who have NOT earned it.|||Deal now stop siphoning off my damn money and let me invest it the way i see fit. You might want to look up social security since you pay into it your entire working life i don't know how you can really call that socialism, seems more like a crappy investment that pays out **** for a return. But then again it doesn't matter for me since by the time i am eligible for it, there will not be social security anymore.
Cute trick to try and confuse social sevices with socialism. Most of those services go off of a grid like systm for example a school is mainly funded by the property taxes around the school, and some federal funding. Its why you get such horrible inner city schools and nicer schools in better neighborhoods with higher home values. Btw you pay for paramedics personally if you call an ambulance thats like 700 dollars minimum, cops are paid threw your state taxes usually with some federal funding and medicare is a sinking ship that is failing miserably. Guess again next time and try not being so ill-educated.|||The money I have put into social security all my working life is rightfully mine, with that said, it won't be there once I retire. Thanks to moron's like Clinton who used it to balance the budget it is projected to be bankrupt after the baby boomers get their share (convenient for Clinton being a baby boomer isn't it?). So, I am not counting on it being a part of my retirement.|||Please refrain form the put downs. They have enough on their plate when it comes to getting a Republican in as president in 2012.
There have been a few Governor's who have said they will return any stimulus package for their State(s) without depositing it into their general fund. Maybe you should ask those same Governor's if they would be willing to take a cut in their retirement pay when they retire. My bet is no.|||WHY DID THE DEMOCRATS PUT SUCH A HEFTY TAX ON S.S.
AL GORE WAS THE DECIDING VOTE ON RAISING TAXES ON IT FROM 50 TO 85% OF IT IS NOW TAXABLE.
THANKS AL, FROM THE OLD FOLKS.|||I tried to get out of paying social security a while back, because I knew it was going to go bankrupt. Unfortunately, when I worked for the feds, it was no longer an option. Dude, Social security in it's current form DOES NOT WORK. Both Parties admit something drastic needs to be done. There is already a prokected bankruptcy date for it. BOTH PARTIES admit it!!!!!|||why should they give up their pensions that they worked all their lives for,and payed into,its morons like the crazy who had 8 more kids when she already 6 who make them sick off where there tax money is going,glad to hear shes moving into a bigger house to take care of them,oh my wonder whos paying for that,|||im sure they would be fine with it had the government not confiscated a portion of their paycheck for their whole life for that purpose|||I'm absolutely refusing to take government charity.
Socialism impoverishes everyone it touches.
Police and fire protection the road system is not based on public ownership of private business. Bastiat postulated Government's legitimate role is to defend the population against bullies, defend the shores, preserve the peace, provide a court system for redress of grievances. Postal services should be run by the states. At the federal level it should provide interstate and international mail services.
My family does just fine without public schools. One of our kids is just about to graduate University and the other is about to enter one. We didn't take a dime of public funds to educate them. I'm proud of that fact!.
Without government interference we would be far wealthier and we would be employing at least 50 more people who would also be a lot wealthier.|||None- why should they?
The money was taken by force from them without a choice.|||We PAID into the system that the government forced on us...we should get that money back.. it is not welfare like you liberal losers want... You want to suck MORE money out of my paycheck and wallet to give to the stupid of your party.
NOBAMA!|||We are talking about the same social security that has been overspent and we are looking at it running red within 30 years, right? The same social security that we initiated private sector alternatives like 401Ks because SS couldn't do the job, right?
We are talking about the same public schools that have dropped the USA from the top of education in the world to the teens, right? The same public school system that is now having private sector charter schools fill in what the public system couldn't do, right?
We are talking about the same police protection that strike leaving us unprotected...the same that businesses feel that they need private sector security so that they have faster response, right?
We are talking about the same postal service that doesn't guarantee when things will be deliverred, constantly cuts back services or increases charges and that we had to resort to private sector delivery services like FedEx. right?
We are talking about the same medicare that is already in trouble (unlike Social security that will be in trouble here soon) and that the elderly have already started replacing with their own private sector medical policies?
Is this the socialism that is benefiting Americans that you speak of?|||Socialism is really the only thing that works. It is something people just have to deal with.
You have morons who refuse to acknowledge social programs as socialism. That is why we call them morons.
What is funny is how people on the right tend to use socialism more than on the left. And they complain about it lol.
It is just lack of education. Simple as that.|||Wow.
Socialism does NOT keep me alive every day. I stay alive every day IN SPITE OF socialism.
First of all, paramedics, public school and police protection are paid for through my property taxes. Unless there's a big pork-ridden spending package (like the stimulus package that just passed), the federal government doesn't fund those things.
Secondly, I think I'd do much better without Medicare, thank you, and that's coming from a guy whose mother is a huge beneficiary of medicare.
If I didn't have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars INTO social security over my lifetime, I wouldn't expect anything back. As it is, I'm going to get back far less than I'm paying into it, if I get anything at all.
And as far as medicare goes, they can have that back too. I don't understand why we can't buy our health insurance the way we buy our car insurance. When you buy car insurance, what happens if you lose your job? NOTHING! As long as you continue to pay your premiums, you maintain your car insurance. It has NEVER made sense for the employer to provide health insurance. In fact, the only reason employers began offering health insurance was because when FDR's administration instituted "wage freezes", adding "benefits" was the only way to give employees a raise.
Today, people don't stay with the same employer all their lives like they used to. Thus, it doesn't make sense to have health insurance grouped with your job and employment. But don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating the government take over. Whenever the government does anything, it does it in a way far less effective than if the private sector does it.
This is not a partisan issue. Both the previous AND the current administration seem hell-bent on getting the hand of government into whatever it can. First it was the insurance companies (AIG), then it was the mortgage industry (Fanny/Freddie), then it was the automakers (GM %26amp; Chrysler - which, by the way, is a completely privately held company...not even publicly traded), and now the banks (Bank of America, CitiGroup, etc).
And finally, to answer your question, I suspect that many a republican would be happy to turn down their social security checks if it truly meant an end to the socialistic leanings of our government.
If you're a big fan of socialism, Canada, the United Kingdom, and France all have openings available.|||For Republicans, "socialism" is just another tricky word, like the phrase "flip flop" was used against John Kerry. They pick a word, with no knowledge of its meaning, then use it to criticize the opposition.
Republicans would not turn down a penny if they found it on the sidewalk at their feet. They collect Social Security, then criticize it, telling you how THEY could become rich investing those paltry sums. It doesn't matter that these Social Security payments are the financial bulwark for millions of Americans, they only think of themselves. It's a Me, First philosophy.
Just think, if you had invested your SS funds in the stock market a few years ago, where would it be today? You might even have invested it with Madoff...there's a good Republican program! Yep, they'd all be rich if those Pinko Hands Out Liberals didn't insist upon this Socialistic-Communistic ruination of our great society! Any Republican can tell you this!
The smart people of today are those who DIDN'T invest their SS funds in the stock market. They're collecting a check every month, while the investors are crying all the way to the failing bank.
No comments:
Post a Comment