Frence pension problem is real, and it's going to be a US issue soon.

[blackangst1]

When you take my money, and give me stuff I need in exchange for it, that is how it is supposed to work.
More and more people are not able to afford those things now, and a huge chunk of them can't afford to when they are too old to be productive. That is what social programs are for.

I find it strange that you think that 'paying for things' won't get traction, but think capitalism is the solution.

The one thing I have a problem with it the word "take".

 

[fskimospy]

Typically "socialist" is defined by the government controlling or interfering free markets, nationalizing industries (which many Democrats want to do), and subsidizing industries they feel should get it (hello Green New Deal). What the Nordic countries are is a welfare state. There is a difference.

The US government has done all of those things throughout our history and if you really want to see the industries with the biggest subsidies you can pass right over the green new deal and look at fossil fuels and the farm industry.

Ok great though, you don't think Norway is socialist. Do you think if Democrats, today, asked to implement Norway's exact policy agenda that conservatives would describe it as socialism? You know as well as I do that the answer is a resounding yes. This is of course my point though, the EXACT policies you describe as 'not socialist' in Norway would 100% be described as socialist here.

 

[fskimospy]

The one thing I have a problem with it the word "take".

So you're against taxation as a concept?

 

[blackangst1]

So you're against taxation as a concept?

Nope

 

[SMOGZINN]

Typically "socialist" is defined by the government controlling or interfering free markets,

America does tons of this. We put trillions in to the bailouts. We regulate almost everything, often to the point of generating legally defended local monopolies.

nationalizing industries (which many Democrats want to do),

Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac, and Amtrak are all nationalized companies.

subsidizing industries they feel should get it (hello Green New Deal).

Hello famers, coal industry, iron industry...

 

[blackangst1]

The US government has done all of those things throughout our history and if you really want to see the industries with the biggest subsidies you can pass right over the green new deal and look at fossil fuels and the farm industry.

Ok great though, you don't think Norway is socialist. Do you think if Democrats, today, asked to implement Norway's exact policy agenda that conservatives would describe it as socialism? You know as well as I do that the answer is a resounding yes. This is of course my point though, the EXACT policies you describe as 'not socialist' in Norway would 100% be described as socialist here.

Cuba and Venezuela are socialist countries too. How are they doing?

 

[thilanliyan]

So you would support increasing income taxes for the upper poor and middle class to 40-60%?

I'm definitely not a 1%'er, living in Canada so my taxes are most likely higher than yours, and I'm okay with that because I know I nor my parents, friends, etc don't have to go bankrupt due to medical bills for example. I'm in my late 30s and healthy so I barely use the medical system but I'm okay with paying into it in higher taxes.

If I'm getting something good and useful out of my taxes why would I be against that? That's what they're for.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Cuba and Venezuela are socialist countries too. How are they doing?

Deflectors to full! Evasive pattern omega delta one!

 

[blackangst1]

Deflectors to full! Evasive pattern omega delta one!

Guess you missed the point lol

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Do you think if Democrats, today, asked to implement Norway's exact policy agenda that conservatives would describe it as socialism?

Guess you missed the point lol

Answer the fucking question and quit posting jibberish in the thread.

 

[fskimospy]

Cuba and Venezuela are socialist countries too. How are they doing?

I think they are doing very poorly, but then again I never insinuated that socialism was always successful! As I have said many times, socialism is a continuum and all countries fall somewhere on it. Some socialist policies are good (health care) and some are bad (government running the oil industry).

It doesn't change the fact that implementing the Norwegian 'not socialist' system would be described as socialist by US conservatives if the Democrats ever tried it and you 100% know this is true. This is why their claims that socialism doesn't work are dishonest shitbaggery. It's the no true scotsman fallacy, if it works it isn't socialism. That's how they somehow get to a place where countries where government consumes half of GDP as not socialist but complain that a US health care plan that's based around people buying private insurance is socialism.

 

[brycejones]

Cuba and Venezuela are socialist countries too. How are they doing?

Like shit, they also are extremely mismanaged and undemocratic. You would find very people in the US who would even begin to advocate for the model those 2 countries have adopted. Name one national organization or leader at the national level pointing to those two countries and advocating for the same package of things those countries have done.

 

[blackangst1]

I think they are doing very poorly, but then again I never insinuated that socialism was always successful! As I have said many times, socialism is a continuum and all countries fall somewhere on it. Some socialist policies are good (health care) and some are bad (government running the oil industry).

It doesn't change the fact that implementing the Norwegian 'not socialist' system would be described as socialist by US conservatives if the Democrats ever tried it and you 100% know this is true. This is why their claims that socialism doesn't work are dishonest shitbaggery. It's the no true scotsman fallacy, if it works it isn't socialism. That's how they somehow get to a place where countries where government consumes half of GDP as not socialist but complain that a US health care plan that's based around people buying private insurance is socialism.

My complaint is I dont think the USA should be inching towards a welfare state. This is a pretty good article on the subject.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

My complaint is I dont think the USA should be inching towards a welfare state. This is a pretty good article on the subject.

You don't think we should be concerned with human welfare? Or you don't think we should be spending money on 'handouts'?

What makes you think we're not already a welfare state? What makes you think it's a bad thing? In your own words, not someone else's.

 

[blackangst1]

You don't think we should be concerned with human welfare? Or you don't think we should be spending money on 'handouts'?

What makes you think we're not already a welfare state? What makes you think it's a bad thing? In your own words, not someone else's.

Sorry, Im not going to pushed in to a black and white corner. Its not that simple.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Sorry, Im not going to pushed in to a black and white corner. Its not that simple.

You're right, it's not that simple, so why do you seem convinced that social policies are going to lead us to a welfare state? That's a super black-or-white mentality, and it cordons you off from the rest of rational society.

 

[fskimospy]

My complaint is I dont think the USA should be inching towards a welfare state. This is a pretty good article on the subject.

That piece's argument is so nonspecific that it is impossible to either confirm or refute. It basically says that historically there's no correlation between GDP growth and welfare states (dubious) and then gives some generic idea that now welfare states are worse off without defining what a welfare state is or even which ones they consider to be as much. It's pointless babble, not even sure why it was an article.

What do you consider a welfare state to be and why do you think the US would be worse off if we increased our social welfare spending, specifically?

 

[SMOGZINN]

My complaint is I dont think the USA should be inching towards a welfare state. This is a pretty good article on the subject.

It is a good sentiment, but unless you have any better suggestions then we have to move towards what works.
It is easy to complain about something, but if you can't offer solutions then all you are doing is complaining.

BTW - that article you pointed to basically says that the real problem with welfare states is that people don't get desperate enough to come up with, and then force, large scale reform. Well here is a interesting tidbit, last time they did get desperate enough to force large scale reform the reform they settled on was welfare programs.

 

[fskimospy]

It is a good sentiment, but unless you have any better suggestions then we have to move towards what works.
It is easy to complain about something, but if you can't offer solutions then all you are doing is complaining.

BTW - that article you pointed to basically says that the real problem with welfare states is that people don't get desperate enough to come up with, and then force, large scale reform. Well here is a interesting tidbit, last time they did get desperate enough to force large scale reform the reform they settled on was welfare programs.

As far as I can tell its primary critique is that people are living longer than they used to and so it's putting a strain on welfare programs. Of course, welfare programs are one of the big reasons we are living longer than we used to so it's kind of a great problem to have.

It also make the counter-argument a bit odd: 'welfare programs are making people live so long that we should get rid of them so people die sooner and we can save on the budget' is probably not an electoral winner.

 

[SMOGZINN]

As far as I can tell its primary critique is that people are living longer than they used to and so it's putting a strain on welfare programs. Of course, welfare programs are one of the big reasons we are living longer than we used to so it's kind of a great problem to have.

It also make the counter-argument a bit odd: 'welfare programs are making people live so long that we should get rid of them so people die sooner and we can save on the budget' is probably not an electoral winner.

Yeah, that article is kind of using the 'throw a bunch of shit against the wall and see what sticks' approach. It does not really support any of the things it says, and if you think about a number of it's claims logically for a few seconds you can see that some of it is either self contradictory, or logically absurd, as you just pointed out.

 

[blackangst1]

You're right, it's not that simple, so why do you seem convinced that social policies are going to lead us to a welfare state? That's a super black-or-white mentality, and it cordons you off from the rest of rational society.

No not at all. As another poster pointed out about fskimospy said, its a sliding scale with socialism on one side and capitalism on the other. I dont think any country would fall to to the extreme right or left. My issue is Im uncomfortable with the ever moving slide moving to the left. And I fear for more and more of our country as more and more idiots think things like a 90% wealth tax or the Green New Deal are the answer. Its lunacy.

 

[blackangst1]

That piece's argument is so nonspecific that it is impossible to either confirm or refute. It basically says that historically there's no correlation between GDP growth and welfare states (dubious) and then gives some generic idea that now welfare states are worse off without defining what a welfare state is or even which ones they consider to be as much. It's pointless babble, not even sure why it was an article.

What do you consider a welfare state to be and why do you think the US would be worse off if we increased our social welfare spending, specifically?

How its paid for. I would be MUCH more supportive if the drive was towards things like military spending being significantly reduced than taking other people's money. See my sig from Churchill.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

No not at all. As another poster pointed out about fskimospy said, its a sliding scale with socialism on one side and capitalism on the other. I dont think any country would fall to to the extreme right or left. My issue is Im uncomfortable with the ever moving slide moving to the left. And I fear for more and more of our country as more and more idiots think things like a 90% wealth tax or the Green New Deal are the answer. Its lunacy.

You know, if more conservatives put forth policies that were actually in any way, shape, or form, designed to help out the average person (or even a majority of persons), you'd likely see less 'extremism' from the side of progressives. Conservatives have become a party of 'no', and as such you see progressives pulling harder.

Wanting to reduce overall cost of medical care in our country (as an example) is not a social policy that will slide us into a welfare state. It's just logical, and good business. Oh, and I hate to break it to you, but if you think the Green New Deal is lunacy, you are going to be in for a wake-up call when the weight of climate change starts pressing on us.

 

[SMOGZINN]

How its paid for. I would be MUCH more supportive if the drive was towards things like military spending being significantly reduced than taking other people's money. See my sig from Churchill.

Actually, I would be all for halving the military budget and putting that into these programs. I think that would be a good way of going about most of this.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

How its paid for. I would be MUCH more supportive if the drive was towards things like military spending being significantly reduced than taking other people's money. See my sig from Churchill.

Yeah that's more likely than increasing taxes on those that can afford it.