Socialist Programs - have any of them actually ever worked?

[Train]

I saw a John Kerry ad last night (right in the middle of Ted Coppels 1 hour Reagan Bashing) where Kerry said "We are the rischest country in the world but we dont have national medicare"

Well, spitting out a fact (we ARE the richest country in the world) doesnt neccesarily make the statement right after it true.

Sorry for my lack of accurate figures but im just gonna throw medicare out there; Every single american pays medicare tax on thier paycheck (it aint cheap either) yet what percentage actually get covered by medicare? how are we gonna start a national health plan without considerably increasing taxes? Lets say medicare covers 20% of US citizens, if we all went on national healthcare, wed have to multiply our medicare taxes FIVE TIMES!

not to mention once we get this uber huge healthcare program, being overseen by the government, it would just fill up with corruption, fraud, scandals, more and more tax hikes?

Can some one back me up when I say that the idea of a national health care system scares the living poop out of me.

and then Medicare aside, has any federal socialist program ever worked, I mean Social Secuity sounds great, but arent they like always underfunded, over corrupted, and always want to raise taxes to make it all better?

 

[Zephyr106]

I mean Social Secuity sounds great, but arent they like always underfunded, over corrupted, and always want to raise taxes to make it all better?

No....No....And Maybe.

Read up some more and git these silly black and white notions out of your head.

Zephyr

 

[Train]

instead of shooting down my admittedly innacurate assumption about SS, can you answer the origianl Question?

 

[Spencer278]

I mean Social Secuity sounds great, but arent they like always underfunded, over corrupted, and always want to raise taxes to make it all better?

Social Secuity is way over founded right now. I think bush "borrows" 500 billion dollars from SS goes towards the general budget. Senor citiziens just about never die poor any more thanks to SS. That said I think I lot of reform is need and SS should only pay out to poor people.

 

[zephyrprime]

Well how about the GI bill and the public school system? People complain about the poor performance of the public school system (rightly so) but if school were entirely private, lots of kids probably wouldn't go to any school at all.

About SS, I've never heard of any complaints about it being corrupt. However, I suppose the fact the SS "trust fund" is being constantly raided is a sort of corruption. I guess you could make the case that the "corruption" in public programs like SS occurs differently than normal corruption because the politicians first pass a law to legalize their "corruption".

Looking at other countries socialized health systems, we can see that they're a lot cheaper than the US system. But there's often a lower level of available services which leads to rationing and long waiting lists.

 

[Infohawk]

Can you define Socialist Programs? Is it just anything that is for the public good? Or do you think highway spending falls under that too?

I was also going to mention the GI bill. It was (and is?) a great program that helped many people go to school and educated our workforce. There are also many great public universities out there that don't have to worry about performing poorly (i.e., they're better than most private colleges).

If you define Socialist you may get more help. Or are you only talking about social security?

 

[glenn1]

Socialist Programs - have any of them actually ever worked?

Yes, there are countless examples of socialism working, so long as how you define "working" is to ensure misery is spread evenly as possible to everyone.

 

[Infohawk]

glenn1, in what way did the GI bill spread misery?

 

[CrazyHelloDeli]

No social program devised by humans is entirly successfull. Some are more successfull than others, while some outright fail miserably.

Social security is a perfect example. It has definatly helped a great many people, but because of the constant pillaging and lack of a "Lock Box" or some other sweeping reform, might ultimatly cause it to belly up. If a social program implodes on itself I dont think it can be considered very successfull, even if it did help some people. On the other side of the coin, had there been no social security and people allowed to keep their own money, many many people wouldnt have needed it anyways. Nothing is perfect.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
glenn1, in what way did the GI bill spread misery?

Why don't you go use google and see how the GI bill is founded. Not that the GI bill is a socialist program any more then any other form of goverment pay. Socialist programs are more of a something for nothing type deal.

 

[glenn1]

glenn1, in what way did the GI bill spread misery?

Considering the GI Bill is offered as a sweetener to induce someone to sign up for armed service, I'd call it an economic contract, not a socialist program.

Even if you're specifically speaking of the period when the GI Bill was initially introduced, I find it farfetched to call it socialistic. Socialism has a very specific meaning (a theory or system of social organization by which the major means of production and distribution are owned, managed, and controlled by the government, by an association or workers, or the community as a whole) and the GI Bill doesn't qualify. Nor does Social Security. They indeed qualify as Constitutionally questionable expenditures of funds and a dubious use of taxpayer dollars in any case, but are only "socialist" by way of a sloppy definition of the term in common usage.

 

[Train]

correct me if I'm wrong, but the GI Bill is NOT a socialist program, it is not given out for free, it is an incentive/reward for a job well done (Dishonorable discharges not eligible) not to mention you have to pay into it to get anything out of it. By socialist programs I basically mean "freebies"

 

[XMan]

The New Deal, at the time, did a lot of good. Many of the roads we use today were built during that time. National parks as well, IIRC.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Train
correct me if I'm wrong, but the GI Bill is NOT a socialist program, it is not given out for free, it is an incentive/reward for a job well done (Dishonorable discharges not eligible) not to mention you have to pay into it to get anything out of it. By socialist programs I basically mean "freebies"

Don't you pay taxes for most government services? In this sense, nothing is a freebie. Or maybe you think taxes don't count. Then, do you consider national parks, highways, national defense, and all the other government services you don't expressly pay for freebies and therefore socialist programs?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

I mean Social Secuity sounds great, but arent they like always underfunded, over corrupted, and always want to raise taxes to make it all better?

Social Secuity is way over founded right now. I think bush "borrows" 500 billion dollars from SS goes towards the general budget. Senor citiziens just about never die poor any more thanks to SS. That said I think I lot of reform is need and SS should only pay out to poor people.

Well, that's just lovely - everyone pays in, but only the poor get pay-outs. And they said Robin Hood was dead . . .

More socialists forcing their morality on the rest of us.

 

[dmcowen674]

"Socialist Programs - have any of them actually ever worked?"

Bush, Rush and your fellow P&Nr's feel as though this Socialist program is working perfectly fine. (Shrugs)

 

[Genesys]

gimme the bottom line

No, they have never worked.

Social Security, because of mistakes when it was first formed, and because of the inability or lack of desire to reform it, is quickly failing. There are too many people that are about to start claiming, and not enough to continue paying into the SS fund. The fact that politicians can just reach their hand into the cookie jar and take out however much they need is a huge detractor! If they had set up individualized accounts under government supervision [or better yet, privitized individual accounts] then we would be much better off becuase we would get back the money that we put in.

Carters war on poverty doesnt [didnt] work because the government cant generate enough extra revenue to fully fund something of the sort without raising taxes through the roof and pissing all other tax paying citizens off. Plus, theres not much you can do for those that have no desire to leave that lifestyle behind or exert enough of themselves to become productive members of society.

Welfare doesnt work because it creates dependancy upon the government and stifles the desire to become independant and productive. Hey, its something for nothing, why actually WORK for your living when you can spend all your time boozing it up and wallowing in your sorrows, right?

A national healthcare system wont work [at least in my reasoning] for the reasons you listed. It will cost too much. Besides, its also my belief that a national healthcare plan shouldnt be a function of the government [its unconstitutional] The working masses and their employers should work out healthcare benefits.

 

[oreagan]

Number and percentage of poor persons 65 years or older in select years:

1959 - 35.2%
2000 - 10.2%

That's for that population including those with families. For the elderly without families:

1959 - 61.9%
2000 - 20.8%

Source:
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2002/3e.pdf

 

[Train]

No I dont consider services such as Roads, Water/Sewage Treatment, National parks, etc socialist programs, they are something that benefit everyone and they actually create jobs. The New Deal is arguably NOT a socialist program, it was a public works project, I guess you could compare it to welfare since it was basically Govt money going into the peoples hands, oh but wait there was one little difference, oh yeah, people actually worked for that money, people credit Rooselvelts programs during the great depression for restoring the Pride of the working man, because he was able to put in a hard days work for an honest wage, today you cant make welfare recipients work for thier money or free healthcare because its "humiliating", go figure.

 

[glenn1]

Number and percentage of poor persons 65 years or older in select years:

1959 - 35.2%
2000 - 10.2%

That's for that population including those with families. For the elderly without families:

1959 - 61.9%
2000 - 20.8%

Interesting date choices, since 1959 was a recession and 2000 the very top of one of the biggest financial bubbles in history. Think that might skew the data just a tad bit?

Here's a chart of the period BTW.... chart. Looks like the Clinton era circa 1994 was the high water mark for elderly poverty in the last 40 years.

 

[chrisms]

Sweden or Switzerland or one of those countries has a socialist system which seems to work well.

Socialism can work in doses.. but just like capitalism the extreme of it fails miserably.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: chrisms
Sweden or Switzerland or one of those countries has a socialist system which seems to work well.

Socialism can work in doses.. but just like capitalism the extreme of it fails miserably.

It's Sweden (not to sound snobby but I've never understood how people get those two confused-- the words don't sound the same! My friend confuses them all the time).

Anyway, chrisms is right. "socialism" in doses works. So does capitalism. Of course, it may be that many in this thread only define socialism in a way that can't possibly work (basically a convenient definition that automatically serves their conclusion).

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

You guys a really pitiful. Only a tool would define socialism as "getting something for nothing". But of course using that definition:

1) The typical public financing of private athletic facilities (ie TX Rangers in Arlington). Typically the revenue funneled into building, maintaining, and servicing such facilities exceeds actual financial benefits to the community.

2) Subsidies for fossil fuel industries in Bush's Energy bill.

3) The 5 cent gas in Iraq.

4) Loan guarantees and military hardware to Israel . . . personally I think that costs us a lot.

5) Boeing tanker lease program.

6) The typical DOD contract with many suppliers of advanced weaponry. Often contractors are paid regardless of whether or not they deliver product (working or not).

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: chrisms
Sweden or Switzerland or one of those countries has a socialist system which seems to work well.

Socialism can work in doses.. but just like capitalism the extreme of it fails miserably.

It's Sweden (not to sound snobby but I've never understood how people get those two confused-- the words don't sound the same! My friend confuses them all the time).

Anyway, chrisms is right. "socialism" in doses works. So does capitalism. Of course, it may be that many in this thread only define socialism in a way that can't possibly work (basically a convenient definition that automatically serves their conclusion).

And socialism in large doses kills. Sweden almost killed their economy when they overtaxed the wealthy. The wealthy simply left the country. They lowered the taxes and the wealthy came back, granted they still have very high taxes.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: charrison

And socialism in large doses kills.

It sounds like you're agreeing with chrisms.

Sweden almost killed their economy when they overtaxed the wealthy.

Any evidence of this actually happening?

granted they still have very high taxes.

Yup, and yet it seems like a nice place to live too.