• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

People who steal threads suck !!! (Socialism: Is it dead yet ?)

J

jacobnero6918

Senior member
Why do people still cling to this worn out ideology ? All the misery it has created is mind boggling and yet people still think it's a great idea. The really amazing part is that they think your crazy if you think we should try something else. They simply assure you that it wouldn't work despite that fact that no nation has ever really tried a new way. I'm pretty sure that these kind of people were around when the idea of forming the United States was put forth. I'm sure they thought it was blasmphey to go agianst the usual ideals of the day.

I long for the day when socialism will be heaped into the idea trash bin !
 
They cling because they are worthless bums. Something for nothing is all they are after. Feed me, clothe me, pay my medical, give me money cause I spilled hot coffee on myself, I don't want to be responsible for myself.
 
As a former card-carrying Pinko, I believe that most socialists function under the hopeful delusion that Man is basically good and noble. If that were true, socialism would work beautifully. But given the actual tendencies toward selfishness and greed in humans (which we Christians believe is the result of mankind's fallen nature), socialism inevitably fails.
 
If you're from the US, just look north. Lots of Socialism up there in Canada. Plus the Liberal Party is in charge and it looks like they're going to win the election next week. No need to label them "liberals", it's right in their name.

The number of Socialist countries far outweighs "capitalist" countries such as the US.

Of course, the US is a Socialist country to a great degree as well.

Michael
 
Personally as far as mixed economies are concerned (even the US is a mixed economy, not a capitalist econmy, actually the economies that are closest to true capitalism only exist are ones in parts of the 3rd world where 97% of the people are dirt poor) its horses for courses.

Once a nation restricts itself to a particular idealogy its fuked, there's no doubt about that. Really the best idealogy is that of pragmatism using, where policies are utilised from both the left & the right, depending on what policy is best for the given situation.

Look at the Olympics for instance, Atlanta decided that it was going to have a commercial, business run olympics & it was a schemosle (spelling?), where as Sydney had a goverment run Olympics & were thius able to do many things a corporate Altlanta type Olympics couldn't do. For example, after the furor advertising caused at Atlanta, they even enacted legislation to ban advertising withing so many yards of olympic venues - hence the Goodyear blimp had to have a new paint job. A corporation just can't do that sort of thing. To stop traffic jams they enacted bills that made all parking with in so yards or kilometres (depending on the event) of an olympic event, illegal or closed, thus forcing everyone to use public transport. They had free public transport on the govt bus, rail & ferry network included in the price of tickets, too. In the end Samaranch said it was the best Olympics ever, something he did not say at Atlanta. Also the Sydney Olympics made a profit, too.

Also look at healthcare. Because the US is being closed minded idealogically, it has the worst healthcare system in the OECD, with 40 million people not covered & its the most expensive in the whole world too (both per-capita & as a percentage of GNP). It's no co-incidence, that all the other nations in the OECD have nationalised healthcare systems with full coverage to, that are at least 35% to 40% cheaper. Even Cuba has a better healthcare system than the US, you just have to compare life expectancies to see that.

Also, you just have to look at the State run rail networks of Europe, for example France's, to realise that govts can provide services as good as, if not better, than the private sector. Look at the infranstructure of places like the Philipines & Tailand - just ask someone in Bangkok if they would like a govt subway system so they wouldn't have to spend 4 hours ever morning & 4 hours every evening commuting between home & work, all because there's no infastructure, because people pay buggerall in tax.

So really in a mixed economy, both capitalism & socialism have their place.
 
Keep in mind, socialism doesn't always = decreased personal responsibility. At least not in our modern interpretation of it. Most socialist countries never had welfare or equivalent thereof. And you sure as heck wouldn't get paid if you spilled coffee on yourself 😀. It's a different kind of responsibility.
 
We are social animals. We have been socialists for 10 million years. We will always be socialists. Only in the lonely sick western individualistic society have people abandoned a sense of responsibility for the group. Socialism will never die because every family is socialistic. We are all one family. Because selfishness is the result of diminished self respect, socialism will grow as humanity heals. The alternative is extinction.
 
If the Sydney Olympics made a profit, after taking into account EVERY expense incurred, it will be the first city to do so in modern history! I remember business that were near the Olumpic Village that had their parking taken away were complaining long and loud.

Most Socialists believe that the circumstances just haven't been right for it to succeed.

I must admit that it is a temptation and that on the surface Socialism looks like it would work wonderfully. Possibly this is the reason younger folks are more likely to embrace that ideal. After you get a few years working in the real world, you come to understand that it could never work.

And of course there goes DEBANSHEE harping about our healthcare system.....again! Everything said has been debuncted many times on this forum....
 
It all depends on definitions. The Soviet Union was a socialist country(not a true communist one)... on that ground we can safely say that Socialism is dead and buried.

The problem is people starting defining anything slightly left of centre as socialist... which is ridiculous. Someone brought up the Canadian Liberal Party. Well under the liberals the government has eliminated a $42 billion deficit and is now running a huge surplus.. cut income taxes by over $100 bil over the next 5 years, cut the corporate tax rate from 28% to 21%, cut the capital gains tax, signed NAFTA, expanded for increased free trade and drastically reduced the size of the federal government to the point that it is the smallest a a percentage of GDP since the 1960s. Not exactly socialist in my book.
 


<< And of course there goes DEBANSHEE harping about our healthcare system.....again! Everything said has been debuncted many times on this forum... >>


??? Sez who? Most health economists, American or otherwise, would concede that the US system has some major problems. The existence of a multitiered system can have its benefits (at least for the well off), but the main drawback as mentioned by others is the lack of medical coverage of a large minority of the population. To deny this is to ignore one's own problems. The key is to try to determine how best to serve this portion of the population. You realize of course, that the US has by far the most expensive medical care system in the world, despite the above mentioned group with no medical care. For example, having an MRI in every single tiny community hospital, although nice, is not the best use of resources when those resources are limited. And the administrative costs of medical care in the US are astronomical, partially because of the extremely complex private insurance coverage.

On the flipside, I've always thought it odd that US citizens have such fear of the word &quot;socialism&quot;. While the US is less socialist than, say, Canada, it is still heavily socialized. It's just a matter of degree... the term is not black and white. The term does not encompass just one single intepretation of one single ideology. Medicare in North America was invented in Saskatchewan, and was brought into use by Tommy Douglas who was a left wing Baptist preacher (interesting combo). Strangely enough, not so long ago, the left wing government there kept power by keeping smaller hospitals CLOSED and by keeping the books balanced. In fact, they cut programs started by a previous right wing government because they felt the cost was too high for the minimal returns. The tax rate there is not low, but it ain't that high either. The key point is that the people were relatively satisfied for what they paid in taxes, but needs differ in different times, and a smart government would choose what policies would best help its people during those times, regardless of the ideological label given to the policies.

Nope, most intelligent regulators will tell you that will some government involvement in our affairs is required. Without it, our countries would be in total chaos. Obviously the degree of intervention differs greatly, but as long as there is government, there will usually be some degree of socialism (ie. a &quot;mixed&quot; economy). It's just a word. Deal with it.


<< give me money cause I spilled hot coffee on myself >>

Heheh. Actually, the more socialized countries have not have this problem. This up until recently was a problem unique to the United States. However, we up here in Canada are unfortunately starting to learn this moronic attitude from the US. Awards in lawsuits are skyrocketing, following the American example. This cannot happen in certain &quot;socialist&quot; countries because of the laws in place and the way the medical system works.


------------

Hey, the post below is a good read. Some interesting points.


 
Javelin - It is all relative when you look at the Liberal Party in Canada compared to the others. With socialized medicine, cheap university education (even with the tuition rise ove the last decade), and the pervasive welfare system in Canada, it is hard to argue that Canada is not a Socialist country. Even with the tax cuts, the tax burden is much higher on a Canadian than on an American.

After growing up in Canada and living there until I was 24 and now spending 10 years in the US, I have a decent grasp of the different levels of Socialism.

The USA has Socialized medicine - Medicaid and Medicare are the two main examples.

Tominator - I would be happy to discuss socialized medicine as a possibility with you some time. I worked for a medical product company and a health insurance company, so I have some perspective there. I also have been able to compare care in Canada and the US. Plus my wife's a doctor. I will say that choosing not to have socialized medicine makes for many, many sick people who cannot get care because they cannot afford it. I will admit that there may be state or private level programs that could attack that problem without having a federal system.

DABANSHEE - Per capita health care in the US is higher, but there are three main distortions that have to be taken into account. 1) US medical education is barely subsidized and very expensive. The average MD graduates with $100K-$120K in debt. 2) With the amount of lawsuits doctors face, most practice very defensive medicine. They perform procedures and tests that a reasonable person would deem to be not neccessary in order to protect themselves in the event of a lawsuit. 3) Drug cost is probably below true market in many countries and the US bears higher costs that subsidize those countries.

I guess I could add that the US is over hospitalized in many areas where many countries with socialized medicine are under hospitalized. So many US hospitals run under capacity and have less to spread their fixed costs over where hospitals in Canada tend to run over capacity. Same goes for major medical devices such are MRI scanners.

Michael
 
EUG



<< Most health economists, American or otherwise, would concede that the US system has some major problems. >>



I don't know any Americans be they economists or otherwise that don't think we need major changes. However, Government price controls have never worked at controlling the cost of anything. Medicare/caid is so bloated with waste and fraud that if we based our whle healthcare system on it we'd be completely bankrupt in short order. Government control also will lead to rationing of health care as it has in the UK and Canada.

Most without healthcare in the US do so by choice! Do you see Single Moms with babies in tow in lines to see a doctor when the welfare check comes? Hell No! But I'll bet if the truth were known, you'd see those same Single Moms sans baby buying lottery tickets or waiting to get into Casinos. Besides the bulk of those without any healthcare insurance are the very young that do not need it.

Michael

If I remember correctly you've replied to similar posts on this subject and your comments are welcome.



Red Dawn




<< ....small minded brethren.... >>



I hope you included me!😉

No one wants Bore dead. They just want him to disappear!😀

As a note to this. I've spent over 20 years paying for medical bills that insurance will not pay for one reason or another. Without those bills, I'd be a wealthy man and living very well off. I would benefit greatly by a Socialised Healthcare System, afterall everyone else would be paying part of MY expense! But I do not want me children and grandchildren paying for my misfortune. All letting the Government control this would do is put the cost off and let the next generation pay it. How do you think we got the National Debt or Social Security?
 


<< Keep in mind, socialism doesn't always = decreased personal responsibility. >>



Thats for sure decreased personal responsibility only applies to the non producers that the liberals err uh socialists maintain as their power base so therefore a producing class must be maintained. This calls for an increase in personal responsibility to provide the wealth that is redistributed to the poor non producing class who in turn vote for the socialists to keep them in power so that they can get even more of the wealth that someone else has produced as a result of their personal responsibility.
 
Socialism, as an all encompassing way of life is dead. Socialistic programs are alive and well, however, and they will continue to exist. Let's consider the Socialism of the USSR for a bit. Did universal healthcare, housing, or other similar programs bring the USSR's demise? No, it was the Socialistic and unrealistic economic micro-management of the economy that did the USSR in. Every factory, farm, and store was told what products would be produced/sold from a government beurocracy(sp..hmm, that's a bad one too).

Often, the managers of the business knew that it couldn't feasibly meet the demands of the beurocrats(SP), but they had no choice then to try. A case in point(sorry no links or references): I once heard of a man and wife who had graduated from Moscow U from an Agriculture program. They were &quot;sent&quot; to the USSR's agricultural heartland where they would manage a collective. They were sent orders as to what they would produce and what amount they would produce, they fell short. The next year they were sent new orders which demanded more than the previous year, again they fell short. Every year the beurocrats(sp) sent more demanding orders, every year they were unable to meet those orders, and after a few years their yields began falling off due to soil fatigue. They tried to tell the beurocrats(sp..again...expect more)that the goals were unacheivable and that now the land needed either a different crop or a year or two to rest, but the beurocrats(sp) just demanded more. The 2 of them eventually just quit the Agri business out of disgust. This is where Socialism fails.

Of interest, concerning the Canada is Socialist idea, if you look beyond the always pointed out social programs, you'll see that in some ways Canada is more free market/capitalist than the US. Agricultural subsidies: The US subsidizes wheat production, in Canada we used to, but now those subsidies are mostly gone. The end result is that the Federal government is forced to offer emergency bail outs in bad years.

Socialist ideas will be around for a long time and most of us will benefit from them at some point.
 


<< Socialist ideas will be around for a long time and most of us will benefit from them at some point. >>



The problem still is that none of us will benefit in the long run...
 
&quot;But I do not want me children and grandchildren paying for my misfortune. All letting the Government control this would do is put the cost off and let the next generation pay it&quot;

You truelly are a fukwit Tom, the simple fact is that nationalised healthcare is cheaper, that's why the US Has a healthcare system that's the most expensive in the world (both per-capita &amp; as a percentage of GDP). Hence its in the land of budget &amp; trade deficits (the US) that one's descendents pay for a greater portion of one's healthcare than anywhere else.

You see in nations where the govt is the only purchaser of healthcare there are limits on what healthcare providers charge - if a doctor charges more than the scheduled fee, the goverment just won't pay the bills or the gap (depends on which country), then that doctor looses his customers to other doctors (which is precisely what happened in Canada when some doctors decided to opt out of the system, they all gave in, in the end).

Now why does such as system work better than one where healthcare is just left to the market. The simple reason is demand is static relative to supply &amp; hence price, people do not get less sick if doctors charges go up, as such there are no mechanisms for controlling costs - which is why the US spends about 15% of its GNP on health, yet all other countries in the OECD spend less that 10% of their GNP on health, even though they have total coverage. BTW, its fair on doctors as tertiary education in virtually the rest of the OECD is payed for by the Tax-payers.

Yes, that's another benefit of living in a nation that's more pragmatic &amp; doesnt restrict itself to certain ideaologies. In places like Australia &amp; much of Europe, as well as having virtually free cradle to grave healthcare we have virtually free cradle to grave education (here in Oz I can study at tech for $200 a year &amp; go to uni for $2000 a year, which is virtually nothing compared to what it actually costs, plus the govt actually gives you an allowance of $200 a week just to turn up). Hence the rest of the OECD is much more egalitarian &amp; thus does not have the unspoken problems of class &amp; poverty that exist in the US (well no where to the same degree), where tertiary education is virtually either just for the well off or those willing to go into debt for 15 years (thus we dont need positive discrimination to make the enrolements look more balanced).

There are no streets in Sydney I'd be afraid to walk down at night, just as when I was in the Netherlands there were no streets I was afraid to walk down at night. Even the dole (welfare for the unemployed) in the Netherlands is higher than the US minimum wage, which means the only people who live in poverty are addicts, alcoholics &amp; illegal immigrants, &amp; even the vast majority of those a doing ok. If you'd call wondering down to the pharmacy &amp; getting their daily dose of tax-payer subsidised methadone or diamorphine &amp; spending the rest of the day nodding off in front of the telly 'doing ok', but its a hell of a cheaper on the tax-payer than criminal justice US style &amp; the Drug war, by many billions, in fact - a dose of methadone or diamorphine (prescription heroin) costs non more to make than instant coffee. That's why, unlike the US, building &amp; maintaining new jails is not the biggest growth industry in Europe.

BTW, neither the Netherlands or Australia currently have trade &amp; budget deficits.

Really if once a govt limits oneself to a certain ideaology the're fuked. On wouldn't run a company, by limiting plans &amp; aims to ones of a particular ideaology, no they utilise whatever policies are right for a given situation. Well the successful corporations do, anyway. Why should govts be any different, that maybe why the most successful govts today are the mixed economies that utilise policies from both the left o&amp; right.
 


<< You truelly are a fukwit.... >>

Am I being called something?:Q

As usual you fail to include the reality in your discussion.

The amount of money that the US spends on helping ILLEGAL immigrants in the US would bankrupt your little POS country in a month! LOL!

 
Really when comparing things like that one should do so on a per-capita basis, or as a percentage of GNP/GDP.

Per-capita Australia &amp; probably even the Netherlands has just as many illigal immigrants as the US. &amp; as a percentage of GNP they probably spend just as much moey on illegals too.

I don't really think you are a fukwit Tom (I enjoy our debates &amp; I even nominated you to join 'Hippy's Pub') as soon as i sent it I regreted not deleting that bit, so I'm sorry. But I couldn't understand how anyone wouldn't realise that a more expensive healthcare system would mean a bigger percentage of the cost being passed on to future generations.
 
The reason U.S. health care sucks is beacause its run by the government.

<< &quot;The federal government knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and then say, 'If it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk.' Nowhere is this clearer than in health care. There was a time when health insurance was accessible to almost anyone at a modest price. But after 30 years of government intervention, insurance companies have been forced to restrict their polices and charge far more than many people can afford.&quot;
&quot;Before the federal government intruded into health care in the 1960s, health care cost a fraction of today's prices, hospital stays didn't cost a year's wages, health insurance was a lot less expensive and accessible to virtually everyone on some basis, and doctors even made house calls.&quot;

&quot;It isn't enough merely to oppose the Clinton health-care makeover or the Republicans' piecemeal enactment of it. We need to get the federal government out of all areas of the health-care industry. That would lower dramatically the cost of your health insurance, make it easier for your doctor to take care of you, and reduce dramatically the cost of a hospital stay.&quot;
There was a time in America when your doctor knew you and could easily remember your specific medical situation, when a hospital stay wouldn't bankrupt you, when low-cost health insurance was available to virtually everyone -- even those with pre-existing conditions. For those in need, there were doctors who provided free or low-cost care, and there were free clinics and charity hospitals. No one was deprived of adequate health care.

Today that efficient, benevolent care exists only in the imaginations and promises of politicians. And yet Americans took these things for granted just a few decades ago -- before government moved into our medical lives, supposedly to make things better.
No political reform will ever achieve the kind of care the politicians keep promising, because you can't organize health care by force and expect people to function as they did when they worked together voluntarily. >>


Edit: For those who don't know me, all my political threads contain qoutes from Harry Browne Libertarian (unless otherwise noted).
 
Tom,



<< Most without healthcare in the US do so by choice! Do you see Single Moms with babies in tow in lines to see a doctor when the welfare check comes? Hell No! But I'll bet if the truth were known, you'd see those same Single Moms sans baby buying lottery tickets or waiting to get into Casinos. Besides the bulk of those without any healthcare insurance are the very young that do not need it. >>



Just because an idiot would head to a casino upon receiving a welfare cheque, does not make this behaviour that of welfare recipients. Last I checked, welfare cheques wouldn't cover a couple day's stay at an American hospital with a few tylenols and x-rays...which is probably why &quot;Single Mom with babies in tow&quot; don't spend their cheques on healthcare. You know, they do pay rent and have grocery bills.

And don't think young people don't need heatlhcare insurance. There are a lot of horrible cancers that ravage young people. They are extremely fast-spreading but one has the best chance of survival if one has the disease caught at an early stage and then is followed up with aggressive treatment. Having had first-hand experience of a family member who was 25 years old and struck with a very aggressive cancer, our &quot;social&quot; healthcare system in Canada did a quite acceptable job. The disease was caught early (because we can head to the doctor's whenever we wish for check-ups), and it was beaten. That family member is now cancer free (I believe just over a year with no signs of the disease any more). If you fall into the category of not having healthcare insurance because you are young and think you don't need it, do yourself a favour and pick yourself up some insurance and go to regular checkups. It could very well save your life...and or allow you to live a more quality of life (i.e. save a few amputations here and there).

-GL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top