Barack Obama and Socialism

[Vigormortis]

I agree, what's wrong with socialism?

A lot. For one, if the government freely takes money from the those that work hard to earn it, and gives it to those that do nothing, there's literally no incentive to work. Therefore, with no one willing to hold a job for fear of having their money taken, the economy falters. Even if Obama only raises taxes on those making over 250k a year and starts heavily taxing corporations, to be able to cover the ridiculous amounts of money he plans on spending for things such as "free" universal health-care, he'd have to take 95% or more of the upper classes income. You may say, "That's fine with me. I want some free cash so let's stick it to the man!" Trouble is, who is it that employs the average person? That's right, the rich cats. The company owners. The upper class. If they start losing most of their income, one of three things will occur. 1: Either they'll close up shop because it can't turn a profit or they'll go bankrupt. 2: They'll pack up and relocate their business overseas. Thus, taking their products, money, and jobs away from the American public. 3: These companies will, to have any hope of covering the taxation and still turn a profit, raise the price of their products. Thus, passing the burden onto the average citizen so that, in the end, those making under 250k end up having to pay the taxes anyway. In any of these cases, the economy will likely take a huge hit and collapse. You think it's bad now with the bankrupting of a few banks, imagine what it'll be like if it happens to every market and every industry. Socialism seems like a great idea that some (mostly those that are too lazy to do things themselves or just want everyone else to give them what they need) hold in high regard, but fact is, it never really works out as planned.

However, I have to add that I think our current form of a "free market" is also flawed. A free market only works if there are solid, logical, and fair safe-guards in place that are strongly enforced instead of just suggested.

As a final note, just to clarify, I hate both candidates. Obama speaks in prophetic rhetoric and makes promises he, in all honesty, simply can not keep. McCain, to me, seems like a colossal tool. He's not Bush, but then again, he seems like he has no idea what he's doing. So, I'm not sure which would be worse in office. Someone that would cause a total upheaval of everything this government was founded on and likely cause it to falter; or someone that seems like a bumbling fool that would have to learn everything as he goes. I hate to say it, but I almost wish Hillary was still in the running. I hate her with a passion but damned if she doesn't seem like a better choice then the two jackasses we have as our current choices.

 

[Alex_P]

Sure, Exxon makes huge profits, but they also pay huge amounts of taxes - that one company paid more money in taxes than the bottom 50% of the entire country paid put together.

Source, please? It's not that I think you're lying. It's that I want to see the exact language in your reference.

-- Alex

 

[Azeban]

"I completely agree with you, work is hard, and I'm not good at it. I shouldn't be left to die, I deserve to be taken care of, it's my right. God bless you."

I see your sarcasm, and I raise you this; Socialism doesn't mean necessarily mean handouts, my friend. You will still have to work. Most likely at government-created jobs.

 

[AceDiamond]

Sure, Exxon makes huge profits, but they also pay huge amounts of taxes - that one company paid more money in taxes than the bottom 50% of the entire country paid put together.

Intellectually dishonest statement; a lot of that "bottom 50%" (and where did you get such a figure, might I ask, for accuracy sake?) don't pay any taxes because they're so poor they don't pay taxes, at least not an income tax.

Given how I worked for Exxon-Mobil in some capacity I feel safe to say I have more than an inkling of what I'm talking about when I say yes, they did make record profits, especially since profits is what you wind up with AFTER taxes.

But back to the matter at hand. Socialism is the idea that everybody gives back to the country they live in and everybody is helping everybody else (more or less, there are multiple interpretations). I don't see why that's a bad thing for this country. We've spent who knows how long creating a massive gap between the middle and upper classes because of how the system has been run so far (usually by Republicans I might add), so at this point I'm willing to welcome any change.

Paying less taxes should not be a reward for making more money. You make more money, you give more of it to the government. It's simple, really.

I'd also like to point out in the 1960s and 70s (at least I think those are the decades, I'm sure someone will correct me) England instituted a lot of socialist policies that saved them from financial ruin. I highly doubt America will suddenly become socialist in all aspects, maybe some things will be added to the socialist programs we already have (public libraries, public schooling, fire dept., police dept., postal service) but we'll still remain a capitalist nation.

Working in absolutes is not the way to think about this, at all.

 

[Alex_P]

I'd be quite happy if the previous decade's tax cuts were undone and a few holes were closed up. (OMG SOCIALISM!)

In his little talk with "Joe the Plumber", Obama claimed Joe's hypothetical fantasy-land actually-he's-not-very-successful-in-real-life income of $250k/yr would be taxed at 39% instead of 36%, which he said would put it back to where it was under Bill Clinton.

So, if what Obama says is true, I don't think the tax increase is really all that much of a problem.

-- Alex

 

[kurokotetsu]

What's wrong with free healthcare? Should someone do without having their hand put back on just because they can't pay a bill?

Health care is not a right. Just because it's important to staying alive doesn't mean it's a right. Food isn't a right, is it? Hobos are starving in the street, why shouldn't they get food just because they can't pay a grocery bill? People need cars to get to work - should the government buy poor people cars too? Should someone be deprived of transportation just because they can't pay a bill?

So far what I'm seeing is a shameless support for socialism. I'm actually pretty surprised.
Socialism is wrong because it takes away the incentive to work and takes away the power of the individual. When left wingers tell you that you're poor and destined to stay that way, STOP BELEIVING THEM! In America you work for what you get and you don't resent those who reap the rewards for their efforts. In the words of Glenn Beck, 'why should someone who worked hard their whole life have to cut a check for the guy who fucked up their order at McDonalds?"

AS far as I know there are places were people may get free food. Yes incredible "hobos" getting free food. And public transportation is a news to you? Give it a try is pretty good, and more eco freindly. And yes things like food, health and everything necesary to live should be guaranteed, becasue humans have the right to live.

By the way in the URSS they had more incentives on working than just the walfare. You could literally become a hero. Also ther was nothning better than being a worker. If you salcked off it was almost a crime.

And also I insist that woking hard is different than succeding. The system is far from perfect so you get useless assholes with a lot of money and hard working people struggling to live.

 

[timmyjay22]

And if that guy who effed up stops sitting around waiting for the government to pay for his life, he can find a job and fight for his well-being rather than lay back and accept his fate.

Find a job where? McDonald's? Wal-Mart? What if he's an illegal immigrant? What if he's a heroin-addicted hobo? Are these people employable? Will anybody hire them? Would you hire them?

They allowed themselves to be a heroin-addicted hobo, so it is not for the good citizens of the U.S. to have to raise that person up in the world, it's for themselves to do so.

Illegal immigrant? Should have come over legally. Enough said. If they can't do so, it is not our governments job to baby their needs if they don't ask for it, since typically they sneak over instead of contacting Immigration services, etc.

 

[Good morning blues]

A lot. For one, if the government freely takes money from the those that work hard to earn it, and gives it to those that do nothing, there's literally no incentive to work.

What, you think socialists would tax the rich so thoroughly that it would be cheaper to be middle-class? Nobody's that stupid.

 

[Azeban]

A lot. For one, if the government freely takes money from the those that work hard to earn it, and gives it to those that do nothing, there's literally no incentive to work.

What, you think socialists would tax the rich so thoroughly that it would be cheaper to be middle-class? Nobody's that stupid.

I actually covered this in my argument above. The upper class does not need to make an obscene amount of money to provide motivation to work hard. They just need to be doing slightly better than we are.

 

[guyy]

What's wrong with a bit of socialism?

A better question is, "Don't we already have a bit of socialism?"

Because, of course, we do. There's no such thing as a perfectly capitalist economy, or a perfectly socialist one, because neither of these would work. The government already owns many of our schools and universities, as well as roads and other public property. We also have police, firefighters, etc. Lots of "socialist" things already exist in America, and in pretty much all other countries with governments. Having some socialist policies doesn't mean you aren't a capitalist at all; it's not like Obama wants to put all the transportation systems under the federal government or something.

Calling anything "socialist" bugs me a lot, since it's often misused and always meant to sound scarier than it is. We're already socialist--partially, that is. It's nothing to be afraid of.

 

[Good morning blues]

And if that guy who effed up stops sitting around waiting for the government to pay for his life, he can find a job and fight for his well-being rather than lay back and accept his fate.

Find a job where? McDonald's? Wal-Mart? What if he's an illegal immigrant? What if he's a heroin-addicted hobo? Are these people employable? Will anybody hire them? Would you hire them?

They allowed themselves to be a heroin-addicted hobo, so it is not for the good citizens of the U.S. to have to raise that person up in the world, it's for themselves to do so.

Illegal immigrant? Should have come over legally. Enough said. If they can't do so, it is not our governments job to baby their needs if they don't ask for it, since typically they sneak over instead of contacting Immigration services, etc.

I can understand the "illegal immigrant" argument you have there, but claiming that we should just let addicts rot is mind-boggling to me. Nobody chooses to become addicted to heroin; they do it as a result of poisonous circumstances.

But let's put that aside, and talk about the people who make up the actual bulk of the poor: single mothers. Single mothers make up a massive chunk of recipients of social welfare programs - well over 50%, if I'm not mistaken. So how about this: you're a single mother. You have no skills. You have one or two or three or more children. How about you? Where are you going to find a job? Wal-Mart? McDonald's? The answer is both, and you're going to be working far too much to gain the skills required to bring yourself of your children out of poverty.

 

[Dr Spaceman]

There are economic incentives to supporting the lower classes in addition to fulfilling higher social goals that many people focus on. To give one basic example, if everyone in the country is guaranteed a basic level of health insurance (which is all that Obama's plan promises, it does not make health care a government-run agency) there will be less sick days taken by the working class.

A great example would be Wal-Mart. We all know that Wal-Mart loathes to provide services such as health insurance to its employees. If the government steps in and offers an affordable plan, then Wal-Mart is off the hook, its employees are more likely to work more days and Wal-Mart saves all the money it would have spent on health insurance.

This is actually one of the main reasons why I am largely pro-free market but like the fact that the government can step in and plug the holes which the free market allows. This is precisely why it's almost insulting to call plans like Obama's socialist, the government is interacting with the free market to create a more optimal solution. If the government spending money is "socialist" then color this current administration bright red. (Red like Russia... not like the GOP)

 

[Azeban]

What's wrong with a bit of socialism?

A better question is, "Don't we already have a bit of socialism?"

Because, of course, we do. There's no such thing as a perfectly capitalist economy, or a perfectly socialist one, because neither of these would work. The government already owns many of our schools and universities, as well as roads and other public property. We also have police, firefighters, etc. Lots of "socialist" things already exist in America, and in pretty much all other countries with governments. Having some socialist policies doesn't mean you aren't a capitalist at all; it's not like Obama wants to put all the transportation systems under the federal government or something.

Calling anything "socialist" bugs me a lot, since it's often misused and always meant to sound scarier than it is. We're already socialist--partially, that is. It's nothing to be afraid of.

I agree with you completely. I wish the stigma for that word wasn't so strong.

A mix of policies is often the most sensible one.

 

[Alex_P]

Clearly if we give people food stamps they won't want jobs because they can just live like kings on food stamps.

I know fear of starving alone in the gutter is definitely my only motivation for holding down my high-paying white-collar job!

-- Alex

 

[Vigormortis]

Poor rich people. God forbid they give back to the country that gave them the means and opportunity to become wealthy, and to its people who sustain that wealth.

And free health care? That will never work! Except in UK, France, Canada, Cuba...

And have you ever talked with the average person in, say, Canada that has had to deal with their "free health care" system? If you had, you wouldn't so smug. Fact is, with a free health care system, almost no one gets the help/treatment they need when they actually need it. Since everyone is covered for everything, most people go to the doctor for ANYTHING. Oh, I stubbed my toe, better see the doctor! My stomach hurts, better go to the ER! This happens all of the time in those countries you listed, and it inundates the hospitals and doctor's offices so that, when a legitimate patient comes in with a real medical dilemma, they have to wait not hours, but days even weeks before they can see a doctor. Then there's trying to get prescription medication. Oh dear Christ, I'm not even going to get into that. Point is, sure the system works in so far as it provides free health care for everyone. However, it often fails those it tries to help because the system simply can't keep up. Take it from someone that has not only lived, for 2 years mind you, in a country that has free health care, but has family and friends living there who have had to deal with the so called "perfect free health care system".

 

[Azeban]

Clearly if we give people food stamps they won't want jobs because they can just live like kings on food stamps.

I know fear of starving alone in the gutter is definitely my only motivation for holding down my high-paying white-collar job!

-- Alex

While sarcasm can be an effective tool for getting your point across, let's try not to use it. The other party gets offended and Godwin's law is evoked.

That said, I agree completely.

 

[timmyjay22]

Single mothers are a sad circumstance and I can't rightly propose an idea regarding it.

However, saying that a heroin-addict didn't become a heroin-addict by choice is ignorant. That is just a ridiculous notion. I will not argue further into that.

Goodnight all.

 

[Alex_P]

While sarcasm can be an effective tool for getting your point across, let's try not to use it. The other party gets offended and Godwin's law is evoked.

Aw! I was just about to pull out my favorite picture [http://static.flickr.com/47/136631046_55bf303549_o.gif]!

Spoilsport.

-- Alex

 

[Azeban]

Poor rich people. God forbid they give back to the country that gave them the means and opportunity to become wealthy, and to its people who sustain that wealth.

And free health care? That will never work! Except in UK, France, Canada, Cuba...

And have you ever talked with the average person in, say, Canada that has had to deal with their "free health care" system? If you had, you wouldn't so smug. Fact is, with a free health care system, almost no one gets the help/treatment they need when they actually need it. Since everyone is covered for everything, most people go to the doctor for ANYTHING. Oh, I stubbed my toe, better see the doctor! My stomach hurts, better go to the ER! This happens all of the time in those countries you listed, and it inundates the hospitals and doctor's offices so that, when a legitimate patient comes in with a real medical dilemma, they have to wait not hours, but days even weeks before they can see a doctor. Then there's trying to get prescription medication. Oh dear Christ, I'm not even going to get into that. Point is, sure the system works in so far as it provides free health care for everyone. However, it often fails those it tries to help because the system simply can't keep up. Take it from someone that has not only lived, for 2 years mind you, in a country that has free health care, but has family and friends living there who have had to deal with the so called "perfect free health care system".

It doesn't have to be perfectly free. Deductibles could still be charged to dissuade abuse. I think in a society as well-to-do as ours, health care and food should be rights to all citizens. People in prison have these rights. Why shouldn't the starving hobo who made a few bad decisions have them?

 

[Fanboy]

Poor rich people. God forbid they give back to the country that gave them the means and opportunity to become wealthy, and to its people who sustain that wealth.

And free health care? That will never work! Except in UK, France, Canada, Cuba...

And have you ever talked with the average person in, say, Canada that has had to deal with their "free health care" system? If you had, you wouldn't so smug. Fact is, with a free health care system, almost no one gets the help/treatment they need when they actually need it. Since everyone is covered for everything, most people go to the doctor for ANYTHING. Oh, I stubbed my toe, better see the doctor! My stomach hurts, better go to the ER! This happens all of the time in those countries you listed, and it inundates the hospitals and doctor's offices so that, when a legitimate patient comes in with a real medical dilemma, they have to wait not hours, but days even weeks before they can see a doctor. Then there's trying to get prescription medication. Oh dear Christ, I'm not even going to get into that. Point is, sure the system works in so far as it provides free health care for everyone. However, it often fails those it tries to help because the system simply can't keep up. Take it from someone that has not only lived, for 2 years mind you, in a country that has free health care, but has family and friends living there who have had to deal with the so called "perfect free health care system".

Actually, I live in Canada, and I have never had a hard time at any hospital nor has anyone I know of. In fact, my father is having knee replacement surgery soon. Yes there is a waiting time, but he'd rather wait and have it done free than pay god knows what in the US.

It's far from a perfect system, but it's miles better than the US has.