Barack Obama and Socialism

[Gek]

The funny thing with socialism is, that if it works well, it supports itself too.


People will get better education--> people get better jobs ---> people get paid more ---> people can pay more taxes ---> money can be spent on better education.

If anything works, it works to support itself. Socialist Russia worked by invading other countries and adding their wealth to the USSR. "Some are more equal than others," and with broad socialism what we'll get is a stratification of the rich and poor as they are now. The only way that won't happen will be to take money from the rich and give it directly to the poor, but then the skyrocketing inflation would force businesses to raise prices, thus making people relatively poor again.

The problem with revolutions is that they always come around again.

 

[Girlysprite]

The point with such structures is always that they live between 'what is good for us as a group' and 'what does an individual want for itself'. It's a slider from one side to the other.

 

[IrrelevantTangent]

I'm down with socialism. It's the exploitation of our broken society that allowed the ultra-ultra-rich (not the top 50%, more like the top 10% or even fewer) to get where they are, and since they owe their success to society, it only makes sense that they should be the ones to fund its operation - it certainly isn't benefiting the rest of us nearly as much. Of course the poor only pay a small amount of taxes - they don't have any money to pay tax with; it just makes sense to me. As for universal health care, I don't see how anyone is against it except through the misinformation, disinformation, and prejudice based on lack of exposure that always floats through these conversations.

I'm The_Oracle and I approve this message. There's nothing inherently wrong with socialism, and if America had socialized medicine like several other notable nations do, that could save many lives and prevent many unnecessary deaths.

 

[Alex_P]

The Guardian/The Observer (sunday format) - Centre Left (liberal, with some conservative bias on NHS and Imigration)

On the topic of Obama stuff and semi-reputable British papers...

The Guardian explains the ACORN scandal: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/oct/13/election-acorn-voter-fraud

(Executive summary: most of the fraudulent registrations were found by ACORN -- they are obliged to flag them as suspicious and pass them on to election officials rather than destroying them.)

-- Alex

 

[Lazzi]

There is only one thing that I woudl love to take form socailism. And that would be the universal health care.

Im have an issue with yoru child not being able to a trated at a hospital simply becuase that hospital doesnt carry yoru insurance pervider, or having to chose which toe to reattach simply beucase you lake the income. Peoples lives and health are not thigns that sh0oudl be trusted to the free market.

Then again having free post secondary education wouldnt be that bad ethier.

Other than those to things i belive we dont need any more improvements, for now at least.

 

[TOGSolid]

Socialism has good concepts with it and it's not entirely a bad thing. Unfortunately, most people have been programmed to insta-rage at the mere mention of the word "socialism." They also seem to be against having raised taxes to provide services to them which boggles the mind. I'd gladly pay higher taxes if it means never having to worry about affording medical care.
Of course as long people go "BLARARAR RUSSIA" every time someone mentions socializing aspects of our society that need it, that'll never happen.

 

[TinyTim]

I love the way you're all so proud of your goddamn country that you assume you're living in a meritocracy.
The truly rich do not become wealthy through hard work, or because they are somehow deserving; they're just canny enough to exploit the flaws in their respective system.

Also, ffs, stop spouting off about political ideologies when you don't know what you're talking about. Communism is a form of socialism, not the other way round. Not all socialists are Marxists (democratic socialism, see the British Labour govt. before Neil Kinnock), whereas Marxists are necessarily socialist.

 

[TomNook]

I love the way you're all so proud of your goddamn country that you assume you're living in a meritocracy.
The truly rich do not become wealthy through hard work, or because they are somehow deserving; they're just canny enough to exploit the flaws in their respective system.

Also, ffs, stop spouting off about political ideologies when you don't know what you're talking about. Communism is a form of socialism, not the other way round. Not all socialists are Marxists (democratic socialism, see the British Labour govt. before Neil Kinnock), whereas Marxists are necessarily socialist.

So all rich people got rich by exploiting the system? According to all you people, when you reach a certain wealth you instantly become an evil money mongering asshole? Sounds a bit Marxish to me.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

So all rich people got rich by exploiting the system?

Not all, but at roughly the same rate that poor people got poor out of laziness.

-- Steve

 

[TomNook]

So all rich people got rich by exploiting the system?

Not all, but at roughly the same rate that poor people got poor out of laziness.

-- Steve

What does exploiting the system entail?

 

[WitherVoice]

What does exploiting the system entail?

I'd guess everything up to, including, and going beyond such examples as:
- using loopholes in tax legislation to place money in such a way as to avoid taxation.
- using other's ignorance of rules and regulations, such as using labour that is unaware of their rights to partially avoid the costs of employing others.
- squashing legitimate opposition through scare tactics.
- overtly illegal activities (dealing in prohibited goods, embezzlement, fraud, theft, blackmail)
- lobbying

 

[Arkracer]

I refute that socialism and communism go hand in hand. In the UK, until very recently have we had a style of politics which could easily be described as having socialist imfluences, and yet I really doubt anyone would describe us as communists.

Besides; this whole knee-jerk reaction to communism is a pathetic relic of the cold war days when the term 'communism' was incorrectly synonymous with 'evil'. Surely you're more mature than that?

(and I'd like to point out that while Obama might be seen as 'centre-left' in American politics, if he were somehow to enter UK politics he'd definitely be in the most right-wing mainstream party. It's all a matter of what you're used to.)

 

[Anton P. Nym]

So all rich people got rich by exploiting the system?

Not all, but at roughly the same rate that poor people got poor out of laziness.

What does exploiting the system entail?

What does willingly starving yourself to get on pogey entail?

'Twas a joke, son, poking fun at the wingnut examples from both extremes. In actual fact posession of wealth (or lack thereof) is not a reliable indication of merit or virtue.

-- Steve

 

[axia777]

I refute that socialism and communism go hand in hand. In the UK, until very recently have we had a style of politics which could easily be described as having socialist imfluences, and yet I really doubt anyone would describe us as communists.

Besides; this whole knee-jerk reaction to communism is a pathetic relic of the cold war days when the term 'communism' was incorrectly synonymous with 'evil'. Surely you're more mature than that?

(and I'd like to point out that while Obama might be seen as 'centre-left' in American politics, if he were somehow to enter UK politics he'd definitely be in the most right-wing mainstream party. It's all a matter of what you're used to.)

++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

[TomNook]

What if you become rich without exploiting or demanding help from the system? Why should I have to give back to it?

 

[Anton P. Nym]

What if you become rich without exploiting or demanding help from the system? Why should I have to give back to it?

You use the system. You went to school, you drive on roads (or, at the very least, buy goods that were delivered over those roads), you had police and military protection, your bank deposits were insured, your food and medicines inspected for safety and quality... all of these functions (and many more) are governmental, even in the US. So you should pay the fees necessary for the upkeep of those services.

That there are additional services you didn't use is immaterial; you probably won't get to claim all your car insurance payments back, and yet you have that insurance because you might need it. Social programs are a form of "poverty insurance" that is available to you should you end up falling into poverty, hopefully allowing you to get back on your feet. The taxes for that are your premiums. Come to think of it, even if you never do have to claim your poverty insurance you still benefit from it; if you think crime is bad now, wait until you see a society where the poor don't have access to those benefits. You're way better off paying those premiums than you would be hiring the number of police you'd need instead (also on the public purse).

I'll also point out that all those services are provided much more cheaply under a universal-payer system than they would be under a "fee for service" system. Roads especially, though private police worth paying for ain't cheap either.

-- Steve

 

[Trace2010]

I refute that socialism and communism go hand in hand. In the UK, until very recently have we had a style of politics which could easily be described as having socialist imfluences, and yet I really doubt anyone would describe us as communists.

Besides; this whole knee-jerk reaction to communism is a pathetic relic of the cold war days when the term 'communism' was incorrectly synonymous with 'evil'. Surely you're more mature than that?

(and I'd like to point out that while Obama might be seen as 'centre-left' in American politics, if he were somehow to enter UK politics he'd definitely be in the most right-wing mainstream party. It's all a matter of what you're used to.)

Communist Dictatorship= Socialist ideology+ (oh, crap, we're here now what do we do to control the populace now that WE'RE in power???)

Barack isn't running in England (could be a better career move for him though!!)

 

[Trace2010]

What if you become rich without exploiting or demanding help from the system? Why should I have to give back to it?

You use the system. You went to school, you drive on roads (or, at the very least, buy goods that were delivered over those roads), you had police and military protection, your bank deposits were insured, your food and medicines inspected for safety and quality... all of these functions (and many more) are governmental, even in the US. So you should pay the fees necessary for the upkeep of those services.

That there are additional services you didn't use is immaterial; you probably won't get to claim all your car insurance payments back, and yet you have that insurance because you might need it. Social programs are a form of "poverty insurance" that is available to you should you end up falling into poverty, hopefully allowing you to get back on your feet. The taxes for that are your premiums. Come to think of it, even if you never do have to claim your poverty insurance you still benefit from it; if you think crime is bad now, wait until you see a society where the poor don't have access to those benefits. You're way better off paying those premiums than you would be hiring the number of police you'd need instead (also on the public purse).

I'll also point out that all those services are provided much more cheaply under a universal-payer system than they would be under a "fee for service" system. Roads especially, though private police worth paying for ain't cheap either.

-- Steve

And I assume that all Americans pay these "premiums"?

 

[TheBadass]

And I assume that all Americans pay these "premiums"?

Yeah, that's why he said exactly that in his post.