Barack Obama and Socialism

[WitherVoice]

I live under a strongly socialist-influenced (by US standards) economy. I definitely feel motivated to work, but at the moment I am too sick to work, and in this rather horrible situation, a rather extensive system, paid for by tax money, sets in... not to "let me live like a king" on other people's dime, but to have me put back in shape to work again... this free, effective and very high-quality service makes me feel secure that even if I do get ill, I will not be left without the means of surviving, but at the same time, it is hardly a stimulating existence, and given enough time spent ill I will definitely end up with less means than I am comfortable with.

Sure, some people exploit this system. I don't really mind. Every system is exploitable, because systems are based on rules, and rules never cover everything properly. I pay income taxes at about 30%, which will increase to around 48% if I get to a point where I make ludicrously high pay... somewhere around the 500K$/year mark. Yea, that's a lot of my 500K per year, but I don't mind that either. I can afford it. I pay no health insurance, and for the "omg long queues" and "crappy hospitals", no mate, hospitals here are top-notch. Granted, it's not perfect, and a lot of people still have trouble with the health care system, but you know what? People who come into contact with the health care systems out there tend to be sick. If you're sick, you have a problem. This lends itself to not having a good time, so when you are in need of health care pretty much coincides with a time of your life in which you are likely to complain a lot.

The healthcare system of the US is a mystery to me. Plain and simple. The state here does pretty much the same job as the insurance companies do over in your place. Through taxes, they "enforce" a certain degree of health insurance upon everyone, because the hospitals are pretty much going to have to TREAT everyone... and the gov't would end up with the bill for those who can't pay anyway, same as in the US. So the systems aren't much different, right?

WRONG. (And shut up.)

US health insurance companies take at least 85% of all the money that's paid for healthcare and uses that to pay staff, notably lawyers they can use to stick it to their customers after the fact, ridiculously high pay for lobbyists etc. The gov't here pretty much has to play with open cards, so while the politicians and functionaries fuck up and waste money on failed shit with alarming frequency, we can still do the math fairly easily and come up with the sum here. They do the same job as the insurance companies do, in fact, arguably a better job, for 7% of the money put into it.

 

[Azhrarn-101]

Funny thing is, that while most americans consider Obama fairly leftist in his stance, compared to european politicians he'd still be extreme right wing for the most part.

It is mainly a manner of perspective, US citizens have had the fear of socialism and communism spoon fed to them since the 50s when the USSR was the big evil menace.
A little more social security doesn't hurt, in fact it can make a country much stronger. But the fear of anything even in the slightest way associated to the old red menace makes it something american citizens fear, even though it would probably do a lot of good and make the country stronger in the long run.
Take some examples from EU countries, most of them have strong social security systems and aren't exactly full of good-for-nothing bums now are they?

 

[WitherVoice]

(snip)
Take some examples from EU countries, most of them have strong social security systems and aren't exactly full of good-for-nothing bums now are they?

See you started off quite good there, but then you invited Americans to speculate upon the nature of non-Americans. Down that way lies badness. They may not want to SAY it now that you put it like that, but yea, by and large they DO think that all other countries are full of either good-for-nothing bums or dangerous terrorists (I am in favour of socialism so I qualify as the latter). They also think I am in danger of being accosted by polar bears as I walk through the snow to my job, it seems.

 

[Ultrajoe]

I say if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Wait a second...

 

[Girlysprite]

If people would only get money while they do not work, there would be no incentive to work indeed. But the system shouldn't and doesn't work like that. Where I live people have a few months to find a job that fits with their education, if they didn't find one by then, they have to take any job offered to them.

Young people (younger then 27) do not get money; they are offered a job or education. This system works like a charm. people are given money, but only if they try to get a new job.

 

[The Lyre]

Firstly; Socialism did not bring about the fall of the USSR. The Perestroika program did - therefore, if you wish to blame something, blame Gorbachev, for this program ended in the government having virtually no control over economic conditions.

In fact, the irony of this being that the Perestroika program had very Capitalist elements - private ownership, for example. The first time such principals had been reintroduced since Lenin's time. Not to point the finger, but it seems a little odd that the USSR collapsed after trying to comprimise with other nations and their idealogies.

Now then, Health Care;

I personally believe Health Care is a right - in fact, I believe that had history been different, it would be in your constitution. I should probably quickly clarify that - at the time of the framing of your constitution, everyone could afford healthcare, so it was never raised as a problem.

I believe the responsibility of a Government is to protect and better the country it serves - health care falls under both of those. If a ridiculous number of people die because they couldn't afford health-care, then there is something wrong with the country.

I found out this morning that the U.S.A. does actually, in one case, give free healthcare - to convicts. I find that rather amusing - your rapists and murderers are getting free health-care, but the destitute aren't. Although I suppose those hobos could have all kinds of nasty diseases, at least the serial killers had the decency to get a job before they brought an axe down on their family.

Your country is very, very wrong in many areas - and some Socialist elements could be the start to fixing that; hence why I support Obama.

 

[Hrafnsmerki]

I was going to say something, but I think WitherVoice really said everything I was going to say... And he said it better. Where are you from, WitherVoice?

 

[skakashijutsu]

I think that they are somewhat socialist, but it doesn't really matter since the policies would be put in place for the good of the American people. We are in a HUGE rut right now, so at this point, it shouldn't really matter; as long as it gets the job done. Actually, I don't really think of socialism or communism based policies. As long as he's not Kim Jong Il and as long as he's not friggin' Hitler, I don't care, because people need health care, won't be able to afford such taxatin for long, etc.

 

[minignu]

I would rather task the government in providing healthcare for all, than through a system of insurance and healthcare companies that are attempting to make as much money as possible along the way and screw the customer. But then, that's me I guess.

 

[scarbunny]

How dare Obama try and offer free health care where does he think he is a country that looks after its poorest?

Seriously why are americans so scared of having free health care? Surely this policy alone is worth electing Obama?

Hell I have around half a million dollars worth of hardware and surgeons time in my leg, If I didnt live in the UK I would be screwed.

 

[Mistah Kurtz]

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.

So you think Hobos should get 3 hot cooked meals a day while they get drunk and do drugs? Maybe a little starvation will encourage them to get off the junk and get a job. That's the problem with you college students who give the rest of us a bad name - you're lazy, most of you have never worked in your lives, and you've been taught to look at Lenin and Che Guevara as freedom fighters instead of murdering commie terrorist scum. You're afraid to suffer, you're afraid to better yourself - you want the government to be your parent. I don't. I want smaller government - I want to be my own person, and if I get rich someday I don't want the government swooping in and taking a huge slice for the people who didn't work as hard. Most likely though, I'll remain poor, but I'd rather earn an honest meager living than steal from someone who worked harder than me so I don't suffer as much. That's not what America is about - it's what communism is about. Communism is not an 'edgy' thing, it's not a good idea - it's a fringe idea that's responsible for more deaths than Adolf Hitler many times over that retarded college students cling to as a knee jerk reaction from Jon Stewart telling Sarah Palin to fuck off.

 

[Ray Huling]

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. ...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...the economy will likely take a huge hit and collapse.

You don't know anything about rich people.

The crazy thing about the working rich is that they keep working. You see: money has no value in itself; it's only good for spending on things. But look at guys on Wall Street: they work 100 hours a week from the day they finish their MBA until they drop dead. They're not in it for the money--or, rather, they're not working to earn money in order to spend it on things they like.

Money's just a means of establishing status for the working rich. In other words, it doesn't matter how much they keep; it only matters how much they earn.

The idea of economic incentives breaks down at the highest levels. And it gets even weirder as you go higher. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates and Carlos Slim and their brethren can't spend their money in any way that makes rational economic sense. Their fortunes place them in the economic position enjoyed by nation-states. They're inhuman.

The rational actor model never made much sense in the first place, but with dudes like these guys running around, it is clearly time to retire the concept.

 

[kippers and biscuits]

So you think Hobos should get 3 hot cooked meals a day while they get drunk and do drugs? Maybe a little starvation will encourage them to get off the junk and get a job.

You clearly don't know much about the homeless, its not some choice "Oh I can't be bothered to work I'll just lie on the streets and beg". Many of these people end up homeless through bad luck and often tragic circumstance and once you don't have an address it becomes extremely difficult to do anything.This including get a job, because of the bureaucracy surrounding these procedures. Also try turning up to a job interview in a set of filthy clothes, half starved with often minimal qualifications.

Spreading the wealth around, basically, means taking from the rich and giving to the poor. People who work hard to be successful (like Joe the Plumber) shouldn't be penalized for succeeding. Critics will point out the fact that wealth is extremely concentrated into the far upper tiers of society, but they also fail to point out that the top 50% of wage earners in this country pay 97% of all federal taxes - the bottom 50% pays only 3%, so I'd say they're at least doing their share. Spreading the wealth is not what America does - that's what the USSR did - right up until their collapse.

Are you saying that we should be feeling sorry for the rich then? The rich pay more taxes but that's because they can afford to, suggesting that they are hard off because the people at the bottom who are struggling to get enough money to feed themselves and other basic needs like a place to live don't pay as much in tax is ridiculous. You say people who work hard shouldn't be penalised- that's fair enough but by saying that you are also saying that everyone who is poor is in that situation because they don't work hard enough and it is their fault which cannot possibly be true. The truth is a privileged few are given so much more opportunity than somebody who say- has to choose between studying for better qualifications and getting a job to help pay the bills for their single mum who is struggling with poverty. America calls its self a Christian nation but ignores the terrible inequality on its own doorstep, as Bill Hicks said " Wake up America"

 

[Walden]

So you think Hobos should get 3 hot cooked meals a day while they get drunk and do drugs? Maybe a little starvation will encourage them to get off the junk and get a job. That's the problem with you college students who give the rest of us a bad name - you're lazy, most of you have never worked in your lives, and you've been taught to look at Lenin and Che Guevara as freedom fighters instead of murdering commie terrorist scum. You're afraid to suffer, you're afraid to better yourself - you want the government to be your parent. I don't. I want smaller government - I want to be my own person, and if I get rich someday I don't want the government swooping in and taking a huge slice for the people who didn't work as hard. Most likely though, I'll remain poor, but I'd rather earn an honest meager living than steal from someone who worked harder than me so I don't suffer as much. That's not what America is about - it's what communism is about. Communism is not an 'edgy' thing, it's not a good idea - it's a fringe idea that's responsible for more deaths than Adolf Hitler many times over that retarded college students cling to as a knee jerk reaction from Jon Stewart telling Sarah Palin to fuck off.

In a communist system, you would not be providing hot meals to people who do nothing. They would work, unlike in the current system where they can't be employed at all. The real difference between capitalists and communists is that communists aren't afraid to sacrifice their own good for the good of others. Would I pay higher taxes so that everyone can have a wage they can live on, a healthy life, and a warm place to sleep? Absolutely, and I wouldn't be afraid that I wouldn't have money because I would know that I also benefit from the programs I would be paying for. Communists believe that one should not work for one's personal benefit, but rather for the benefit of the rest of the world.

And if people are worried about the rich not being able to afford their next yacht or whatever, let me ask this: how much money does a person really need? Do people really need enough money to buy fleets of cars or homes the size of small villages? This kind of excess is one of the things that started the communist movement in the first place.

Now, about Lenin. You're confusing Lenin with Stalin. This is a common mistake, since the American school system, and pretty much every academic system in the world below the college level reviles anything "socialist" or "communist." Lenin lead a revolution and fixed a lot of things that the Czars had screwed up. He was a communist. Stalin was a brutal dictator who twisted Marx's and Lenin's philosophies to turn the USSR into a militarized giant with himself (Stalin) at the head. Stalin is not a communist, and the contemporary communist movement (The Fourth International) considers Stalin's crimes to be some of the worst of the 20th Century.

For people who are interested in learning about communism and socialism, I recommend the World Socialist Website (http://www.wsws.org/), which is the website of the Fourth International, and the website of the Socialist Equality Party, the American communist party (http://www.socialequality.com/).

 

[Mistah Kurtz]

So you think Hobos should get 3 hot cooked meals a day while they get drunk and do drugs? Maybe a little starvation will encourage them to get off the junk and get a job.

You clearly don't know much about the homeless, its not some choice "Oh I can't be bothered to work I'll just lie on the streets and beg". Many of these people end up homeless through bad luck and often tragic circumstance and once you don't have an address it becomes extremely difficult to do anything.This including get a job, because of the bureaucracy surrounding these procedures. Also try turning up to a job interview in a set of filthy clothes, half starved with often minimal qualifications.

Spreading the wealth around, basically, means taking from the rich and giving to the poor. People who work hard to be successful (like Joe the Plumber) shouldn't be penalized for succeeding. Critics will point out the fact that wealth is extremely concentrated into the far upper tiers of society, but they also fail to point out that the top 50% of wage earners in this country pay 97% of all federal taxes - the bottom 50% pays only 3%, so I'd say they're at least doing their share. Spreading the wealth is not what America does - that's what the USSR did - right up until their collapse.

Are you saying that we should be feeling sorry for the rich then? The rich pay more taxes but that's because they can afford to, suggesting that they are hard off because the people at the bottom who are struggling to get enough money to feed themselves and other basic needs like a place to live don't pay as much in tax is ridiculous. You say people who work hard shouldn't be penalised- that's fair enough but by saying that you are also saying that everyone who is poor is in that situation because they don't work hard enough and it is their fault which cannot possibly be true. The truth is a privileged few are given so much more opportunity than somebody who say- has to choose between studying for better qualifications and getting a job to help pay the bills for their single mum who is struggling with poverty. America calls its self a Christian nation but ignores the terrible inequality on its own doorstep, as Bill Hicks said " Wake up America"

Actually, you're wrong. Most homeless people aren't there because of bad luck, they're there because they're drunks and drug addicts. The few who are genuinely in rough times or are mentally ill I can understand helping, but the drug addicts? I have no sympathy for them. I've spent a lot of time doing drugs and a lot of time watching friends go down the wrong paths - snorting coke, shooting heroin, and when they end up homeless and begging for change, I won't feel sorry for them - they were warned, and they don't deserve part of my paycheck.

 

[Mistah Kurtz]

So you think Hobos should get 3 hot cooked meals a day while they get drunk and do drugs? Maybe a little starvation will encourage them to get off the junk and get a job. That's the problem with you college students who give the rest of us a bad name - you're lazy, most of you have never worked in your lives, and you've been taught to look at Lenin and Che Guevara as freedom fighters instead of murdering commie terrorist scum. You're afraid to suffer, you're afraid to better yourself - you want the government to be your parent. I don't. I want smaller government - I want to be my own person, and if I get rich someday I don't want the government swooping in and taking a huge slice for the people who didn't work as hard. Most likely though, I'll remain poor, but I'd rather earn an honest meager living than steal from someone who worked harder than me so I don't suffer as much. That's not what America is about - it's what communism is about. Communism is not an 'edgy' thing, it's not a good idea - it's a fringe idea that's responsible for more deaths than Adolf Hitler many times over that retarded college students cling to as a knee jerk reaction from Jon Stewart telling Sarah Palin to fuck off.

In a communist system, you would not be providing hot meals to people who do nothing. They would work, unlike in the current system where they can't be employed at all. The real difference between capitalists and communists is that communists aren't afraid to sacrifice their own good for the good of others. Would I pay higher taxes so that everyone can have a wage they can live on, a healthy life, and a warm place to sleep? Absolutely, and I wouldn't be afraid that I wouldn't have money because I would know that I also benefit from the programs I would be paying for. Communists believe that one should not work for one's personal benefit, but rather for the benefit of the rest of the world.

And if people are worried about the rich not being able to afford their next yacht or whatever, let me ask this: how much money does a person really need? Do people really need enough money to buy fleets of cars or homes the size of small villages? This kind of excess is one of the things that started the communist movement in the first place.

Now, about Lenin. You're confusing Lenin with Stalin. This is a common mistake, since the American school system, and pretty much every academic system in the world below the college level reviles anything "socialist" or "communist." Lenin lead a revolution and fixed a lot of things that the Czars had screwed up. He was a communist. Stalin was a brutal dictator who twisted Marx's and Lenin's philosophies to turn the USSR into a militarized giant with himself (Stalin) at the head. Stalin is not a communist, and the contemporary communist movement (The Fourth International) considers Stalin's crimes to be some of the worst of the 20th Century.

For people who are interested in learning about communism and socialism, I recommend the World Socialist Website (http://www.wsws.org/), which is the website of the Fourth International, and the website of the Socialist Equality Party, the American communist party (http://www.socialequality.com/).

No, I'm not confusing Lenin and Stalin - Lenin was a brutal fuck as well. This is a common mistake, since it's fashionable among the college aged to be communists and be apologetic towards Lenin.

Now - "You would not be providing hot meals for doing nothing - they would work". That's what we do in a capitalist society - you WORK for what you get. The problem with socialism is that by redistributing the wealth and making companies public institutions you eventually don't have enough wealth to spread around and everyone suffers. Selfishness in an economy is a necessary evil because self interest is the driving force behind development, expansion and innovation. You honestly think the soviets were all happy to be working for each other, sharing the wealth, and knowing full well they'd be granted no opportunity for personal advancement by displaying their individual merit? I refer you to the old communist workers motto - "I pretend to work, and they pretend to pay me." Socialism has never worked, and has proven time and time again to lead you nowhere but self destruction, and for the life of me I'll never understand why college students, the supposedly educated, can't seem to grasp this. Did you by chance have Bill Ayers as one of your professors? That might explain a bit.

 

[minignu]

Actually, you're wrong. Most homeless people aren't there because of bad luck, they're there because they're drunks and drug addicts.

Link please.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

I'm fine with it because it's already over. The Federal government now has a controlling interest in the top 9 banks in America. On a Republican President's watch and with his adamant support. The government now controls the economy and the free market is dead. Frankly, I always thought the fantasy of getting rich and owning your own business was just as probable as winning the lottery but that's just me.

 

[Mistah Kurtz]

I don't have a problem with socialism; in fact I'm critical of Obama for not going far enough. You could call me Democratic-Socialist-Lite, I don't want a complete command and control economy but I do want to nationalize certain portions of our economy...housing and energy for example. I don't disagree with his taxes either, I've been calling for tax breaks for the working-class for some time now. The only problem is I don't want the working-class spending I want us saving and paying off our debts. Such a thing is going to have to happen if we're expected to pay off our soaring debts. Taxing the wealthy, meanwhile, can pay for a two-tier Health-care plan, a bigger safety-net, etc. etc.

In response to Good Morning Blues:

Communism is the type of government, Socialism is the style of economics.They are exactly the same thing, just one pertains to the country's politics. That's why they go hand in hand. Just like our (America's) Democracatic Republic has a Capitalist economy.

And I can't trust someone who associates with an unrepentant terrorist. And yes, people like Ayers can get far in the educational system because there are many like him in high positions in that field.

I've had enough of the Ayers nonsense. The man served with him on a board over a decade ago with several other individuals and for some reason now Obama is a terrorist by association. Almost as bad the rants some members of my family go on about in regards to their certainty of Obama being the anti-Christ, which is hilarious because my mom just went off on a rant about how the world is going to end with Obama (since he?s the anti-Christ) then just informed my brothers and sisters that they need to start making out their Christmas lists. I want to get on about McCain's connections to G. Gordon Liddy, terrorist right-wing Cuban exiles in Florida, and Palin's connections to the Alaskan Independence Party who wants to secede from the union.

Typical liberal lie. He didn't 'serve on a board with the guy', he served on a board with the guy, was involved in him personally, launched his political campaign in the guys living room - Obama has accepted money and donations from Ayers on numerous occasions and Ayers even had a fund raiser for Obama which he happily attended. This does not make Obama a terrorist by association, and no one says that - that's another typical liberal lie. They take a reasonable claim, blow it out of proportion, and then debunk it - a political strawman. A good tactic for covering up terrorist relations to be sure, but to those of us who pay attention it's not quite good enough. No one has suggested that Obama is a terrorist at all, other than perhaps a select uneducated folks from the far right - what we are saying is that Obama has had no problems associating with this man, going to Reverend Wrights church for 2 decades, befriending Marxists, and even becoming an important member of the New Party, an american socialist political party. His ties to the extreme left are numerous and established - why don't you Obama supporters just admit you don't have a problem electing a socialist who has no problem (yes, I'll say it again - Palin was right) "palling around with terrorists." I'm not a huge McCain fan, but I'll be damned sure to cast my vote for him to keep that Marxist scum out of office. 30 years ago this man would have been tried for treason, and now he's most likely going to lead the entire country. How did this happen? When did the marxists start outnumbering the capitalists in this country? Frankly, I find it pretty despicable that you're openly supporting socialism - I'd rather have a fucking nazi in office then a god damned communist.