Capitalism or Socialism choose a side and state your point

[CWestfall]

"In Capitalist systems, man exploits man. In Socialist systems, it's the other way around."

It's not about swinging left or right, it's about a middle ground. You don't take showers either boiling hot or freezing cold, just like most government realise a stable economy relies on a good mix of security AND freedom.

My name is Cole Westfall, and I support the Mixed Economy.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

Capitalism. Be responsible for your own shit people! Hell, the government can't even balance their own budget, how are they going to take care of my health care?

Probably about the same way you will if things go bad. Go seriously into debt and lose everything, or be bullied around by big business (aka HMO and insurance plans) into getting crap service.

Enjoy!

The problem with that is that it's not true. I'm in a lower income family and my mother is very sick. She has Hemolytic Anemia which is a fairly rare blood disorder. Despite the fact that she cannot pay for medical care, she has received probably upwards $50,000 in health care, the vast majority of which has been written off by the people supplying the health care. Not only has she not had to pay for it(we make slightly more than is required for Medicare and cannot afford insurance), but the service has been excellent. She told me recently that all the people she has been in contact with have been friendly and experienced.

Evidently, people just like to really exaggerate the claims that poor people don't get health care.

 

[A random person]

I'm for a mixture. People can try to become rich and competition is good for the consumers, but wealth gets spread around so no one has to be poor and businesses are regulated to stop monopolies and bad business practices that hurt the consumers (if it wasn't for consumer advocacy we wouldn't have airbags as standard).

Really, I believe in a comfortable living always being available and allowing people to strive for greater wealth and power through superior business (the wealth spreading would just inhibit hilarious amounts of wealth that's only useful if you want to gold plate everything).

But definitely have universal healthcare. Peoples lives aren't just a business.

I'm curious as to how you expect your utopia to pay for this "universal health care." Obama-care is estimated to cost $1.5 TRILLION and that's the rough estimate.

Good point. As much as I preferred Obama to McCain (didn't hate McCain himself, but Palin made me scream WTF!), he seems to have problems with responsible spending. The best plan I can think of right now would be for the government to provide cheap insurance and have some tax payer money go towards healthcare (like Canada), but with private insurance companies competing with government healthcare, but I'd have to analyze Obama's plan for a more in depth idea.

So you want Medicare? A government program already in existence that is said by one David Walker former Comptroller of the United States Government to cost an estimated $2-3 Trillion dollars in unfunded liability? http://www.forbes.com/2006/11/05/walker-gao-concord-face-cx_rs_1103autofacescan04.html

Or maybe you were referring specifically to Medicare part D passed through by George W. Bush which will have the same unfunded liability, but in the area of $17 Trillion.

Or maybe we not make the government run our medical system. Just a thought.

Medicare only applies to those 65 or older or who have a few other conditions, had to be said.

 

[nickfurze]

Neither group is perfect. In reality an ideal society would use elements of both. Can't I just say free-market liberism, (but with socialist elements.) the rich remain rich but the poor get a good deal.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

I'm for a mixture. People can try to become rich and competition is good for the consumers, but wealth gets spread around so no one has to be poor and businesses are regulated to stop monopolies and bad business practices that hurt the consumers (if it wasn't for consumer advocacy we wouldn't have airbags as standard).

Really, I believe in a comfortable living always being available and allowing people to strive for greater wealth and power through superior business (the wealth spreading would just inhibit hilarious amounts of wealth that's only useful if you want to gold plate everything).

But definitely have universal healthcare. Peoples lives aren't just a business.

I'm curious as to how you expect your utopia to pay for this "universal health care." Obama-care is estimated to cost $1.5 TRILLION and that's the rough estimate.

Good point. As much as I preferred Obama to McCain (didn't hate McCain himself, but Palin made me scream WTF!), he seems to have problems with responsible spending. The best plan I can think of right now would be for the government to provide cheap insurance and have some tax payer money go towards healthcare (like Canada), but with private insurance companies competing with government healthcare, but I'd have to analyze Obama's plan for a more in depth idea.

So you want Medicare? A government program already in existence that is said by one David Walker former Comptroller of the United States Government to cost an estimated $2-3 Trillion dollars in unfunded liability? http://www.forbes.com/2006/11/05/walker-gao-concord-face-cx_rs_1103autofacescan04.html

Or maybe you were referring specifically to Medicare part D passed through by George W. Bush which will have the same unfunded liability, but in the area of $17 Trillion.

Or maybe we not make the government run our medical system. Just a thought.

Medicare only applies to those 65 or older or who have a few other conditions, had to be said.

Oh snap, you really showed me. I mean, how could I possibly come back with anything, seeing as how you totally destroyed my argument about it costing a ton of money by telling me that it only effects a certain percentage of the population? It's not like that very argument is actually a point my favor as the liability is huge on the part of the government for a program that is actually only used on a small subset of the population.

 

[Borrowed Time]

Capitalism. Be responsible for your own shit people! Hell, the government can't even balance their own budget, how are they going to take care of my health care?

Probably about the same way you will if things go bad. Go seriously into debt and lose everything, or be bullied around by big business (aka HMO and insurance plans) into getting crap service.

Enjoy!

The problem with that is that it's not true. I'm in a lower income family and my mother is very sick. She has Hemolytic Anemia which is a fairly rare blood disorder. Despite the fact that she cannot pay for medical care, she has received probably upwards $50,000 in health care, the vast majority of which has been written off by the people supplying the health care. Not only has she not had to pay for it(we make slightly more than is required for Medicare and cannot afford insurance), but the service has been excellent. She told me recently that all the people she has been in contact with have been friendly and experienced.

Evidently, people just like to really exaggerate the claims that poor people don't get health care.

I'm sorry to hear about the state of your family, but thank you for bringing to light the truth of most situations. Most of the time it's not the government that's helping those who need it, in fact it's the private institutions and individuals who do so with compassion. Government =/= compassion.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Socialism can never really happen as if a country was actually Scoliastist it would require the country to be completely uncorrupt Russia was Socialist to start off with then became communist(Stalin).
No system is perfect so I say stick to the devil you know.

 

[A random person]

I'm for a mixture. People can try to become rich and competition is good for the consumers, but wealth gets spread around so no one has to be poor and businesses are regulated to stop monopolies and bad business practices that hurt the consumers (if it wasn't for consumer advocacy we wouldn't have airbags as standard).

Really, I believe in a comfortable living always being available and allowing people to strive for greater wealth and power through superior business (the wealth spreading would just inhibit hilarious amounts of wealth that's only useful if you want to gold plate everything).

But definitely have universal healthcare. Peoples lives aren't just a business.

I'm curious as to how you expect your utopia to pay for this "universal health care." Obama-care is estimated to cost $1.5 TRILLION and that's the rough estimate.

Good point. As much as I preferred Obama to McCain (didn't hate McCain himself, but Palin made me scream WTF!), he seems to have problems with responsible spending. The best plan I can think of right now would be for the government to provide cheap insurance and have some tax payer money go towards healthcare (like Canada), but with private insurance companies competing with government healthcare, but I'd have to analyze Obama's plan for a more in depth idea.

So you want Medicare? A government program already in existence that is said by one David Walker former Comptroller of the United States Government to cost an estimated $2-3 Trillion dollars in unfunded liability? http://www.forbes.com/2006/11/05/walker-gao-concord-face-cx_rs_1103autofacescan04.html

Or maybe you were referring specifically to Medicare part D passed through by George W. Bush which will have the same unfunded liability, but in the area of $17 Trillion.

Or maybe we not make the government run our medical system. Just a thought.

Medicare only applies to those 65 or older or who have a few other conditions, had to be said.

Oh snap, you really showed me. I mean, how could I possibly come back with anything, seeing as how you totally destroyed my argument about it costing a ton of money by telling me that it only effects a certain percentage of the population? It's not like that very argument is actually a point my favor as the liability is huge on the part of the government for a program that is actually only used on a small subset of the population.

Ok, I did support your initial point about the current system being bloated. What I would want would be healthcare for all and not just those few people.

And medicare is horribly bloated as you demonstrated, yes. We should have the system cover everyone, as I just stated. And yes, government health care is expensive, but public health is important, and the government does exist to help the people. I still say go with a government insurance option.

 

[ultimaavalon]

Someone may have already mentioned this, but I prefer Capitalism, because I like the idea that one day I can become rich, unlikely as that may be, as opposed to never having the opportunity to begin with.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

I'm for a mixture. People can try to become rich and competition is good for the consumers, but wealth gets spread around so no one has to be poor and businesses are regulated to stop monopolies and bad business practices that hurt the consumers (if it wasn't for consumer advocacy we wouldn't have airbags as standard).

Really, I believe in a comfortable living always being available and allowing people to strive for greater wealth and power through superior business (the wealth spreading would just inhibit hilarious amounts of wealth that's only useful if you want to gold plate everything).

But definitely have universal healthcare. Peoples lives aren't just a business.

I'm curious as to how you expect your utopia to pay for this "universal health care." Obama-care is estimated to cost $1.5 TRILLION and that's the rough estimate.

Good point. As much as I preferred Obama to McCain (didn't hate McCain himself, but Palin made me scream WTF!), he seems to have problems with responsible spending. The best plan I can think of right now would be for the government to provide cheap insurance and have some tax payer money go towards healthcare (like Canada), but with private insurance companies competing with government healthcare, but I'd have to analyze Obama's plan for a more in depth idea.

So you want Medicare? A government program already in existence that is said by one David Walker former Comptroller of the United States Government to cost an estimated $2-3 Trillion dollars in unfunded liability? http://www.forbes.com/2006/11/05/walker-gao-concord-face-cx_rs_1103autofacescan04.html

Or maybe you were referring specifically to Medicare part D passed through by George W. Bush which will have the same unfunded liability, but in the area of $17 Trillion.

Or maybe we not make the government run our medical system. Just a thought.

Medicare only applies to those 65 or older or who have a few other conditions, had to be said.

Oh snap, you really showed me. I mean, how could I possibly come back with anything, seeing as how you totally destroyed my argument about it costing a ton of money by telling me that it only effects a certain percentage of the population? It's not like that very argument is actually a point my favor as the liability is huge on the part of the government for a program that is actually only used on a small subset of the population.

Ok, I did support your initial point about the current system being bloated. What I would want would be healthcare for all and not just those few people.

And medicare is horribly bloated as you demonstrated, yes. We should have the system cover everyone, as I just stated. And yes, government health care is expensive. I still say go with a government insurance option.

Alright, suppose we go with government run health care. How do we afford it? With the current budget of the US, how do we have enough money on our plate at the current time without adding upwards $1.5 trillion or however much it's going to cost?

Not only do you have to take into account the fact that this last February the government spent(or made a bill to spend over a course of 10 years or something) $789 billion that the government does not have and will have to borrow, but they're also talking about what could possibly be another stimulus package that would be even bigger than the last one. http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.hancock10jul10,0,6622609.column

So just from those things how is it going to be even possible to pay for all this!?

 

[Aries_Split]

Personally, i say we tear it all down. complete anarchy. from the ashes of anarchy new civilizations will rise. they will survive as best they can. the one who does it best will be the one that survives.

 

[Cliff_m85]

Capitalism. It's stopped the British and French from warring.

 

[A random person]

I'm for a mixture. People can try to become rich and competition is good for the consumers, but wealth gets spread around so no one has to be poor and businesses are regulated to stop monopolies and bad business practices that hurt the consumers (if it wasn't for consumer advocacy we wouldn't have airbags as standard).

Really, I believe in a comfortable living always being available and allowing people to strive for greater wealth and power through superior business (the wealth spreading would just inhibit hilarious amounts of wealth that's only useful if you want to gold plate everything).

But definitely have universal healthcare. Peoples lives aren't just a business.

I'm curious as to how you expect your utopia to pay for this "universal health care." Obama-care is estimated to cost $1.5 TRILLION and that's the rough estimate.

Good point. As much as I preferred Obama to McCain (didn't hate McCain himself, but Palin made me scream WTF!), he seems to have problems with responsible spending. The best plan I can think of right now would be for the government to provide cheap insurance and have some tax payer money go towards healthcare (like Canada), but with private insurance companies competing with government healthcare, but I'd have to analyze Obama's plan for a more in depth idea.

So you want Medicare? A government program already in existence that is said by one David Walker former Comptroller of the United States Government to cost an estimated $2-3 Trillion dollars in unfunded liability? http://www.forbes.com/2006/11/05/walker-gao-concord-face-cx_rs_1103autofacescan04.html

Or maybe you were referring specifically to Medicare part D passed through by George W. Bush which will have the same unfunded liability, but in the area of $17 Trillion.

Or maybe we not make the government run our medical system. Just a thought.

Medicare only applies to those 65 or older or who have a few other conditions, had to be said.

Oh snap, you really showed me. I mean, how could I possibly come back with anything, seeing as how you totally destroyed my argument about it costing a ton of money by telling me that it only effects a certain percentage of the population? It's not like that very argument is actually a point my favor as the liability is huge on the part of the government for a program that is actually only used on a small subset of the population.

Ok, I did support your initial point about the current system being bloated. What I would want would be healthcare for all and not just those few people.

And medicare is horribly bloated as you demonstrated, yes. We should have the system cover everyone, as I just stated. And yes, government health care is expensive. I still say go with a government insurance option.

Alright, suppose we go with government run health care. How do we afford it? With the current budget of the US, how do we have enough money on our plate at the current time without adding upwards $1.5 trillion or however much it's going to cost?

Not only do you have to take into account the fact that this last February the government spent(or made a bill to spend over a course of 10 years or something) $789 billion that the government does not have and will have to borrow, but they're also talking about what could possibly be another stimulus package that would be even bigger than the last one. http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.hancock10jul10,0,6622609.column

So just from those things how is it going to be even possible to pay for all this!?

Ok, the government's just being stupid here. Seriously congress and Obama, forcefully nationalize the damn companies that are too big to fail already.

Yeah, while healthcare should be a high priority since life is important, we need to stop throwing money at problems, that or have China call off our debt in some deus ex machina. A generic response, true, just give me a list of some unnecessary crap the government's doing (we can both agree there's plenty) and I'll look at it.

 

[The Jackyl]

Neither. Anarchy FTW.

But if I have to choose: Capitalism. I find the idea of the free market to be wondrous and magical, although in practice it seems to not work out so well.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

I'm for a mixture. People can try to become rich and competition is good for the consumers, but wealth gets spread around so no one has to be poor and businesses are regulated to stop monopolies and bad business practices that hurt the consumers (if it wasn't for consumer advocacy we wouldn't have airbags as standard).

Really, I believe in a comfortable living always being available and allowing people to strive for greater wealth and power through superior business (the wealth spreading would just inhibit hilarious amounts of wealth that's only useful if you want to gold plate everything).

But definitely have universal healthcare. Peoples lives aren't just a business.

I'm curious as to how you expect your utopia to pay for this "universal health care." Obama-care is estimated to cost $1.5 TRILLION and that's the rough estimate.

Good point. As much as I preferred Obama to McCain (didn't hate McCain himself, but Palin made me scream WTF!), he seems to have problems with responsible spending. The best plan I can think of right now would be for the government to provide cheap insurance and have some tax payer money go towards healthcare (like Canada), but with private insurance companies competing with government healthcare, but I'd have to analyze Obama's plan for a more in depth idea.

So you want Medicare? A government program already in existence that is said by one David Walker former Comptroller of the United States Government to cost an estimated $2-3 Trillion dollars in unfunded liability? http://www.forbes.com/2006/11/05/walker-gao-concord-face-cx_rs_1103autofacescan04.html

Or maybe you were referring specifically to Medicare part D passed through by George W. Bush which will have the same unfunded liability, but in the area of $17 Trillion.

Or maybe we not make the government run our medical system. Just a thought.

Medicare only applies to those 65 or older or who have a few other conditions, had to be said.

Oh snap, you really showed me. I mean, how could I possibly come back with anything, seeing as how you totally destroyed my argument about it costing a ton of money by telling me that it only effects a certain percentage of the population? It's not like that very argument is actually a point my favor as the liability is huge on the part of the government for a program that is actually only used on a small subset of the population.

Ok, I did support your initial point about the current system being bloated. What I would want would be healthcare for all and not just those few people.

And medicare is horribly bloated as you demonstrated, yes. We should have the system cover everyone, as I just stated. And yes, government health care is expensive. I still say go with a government insurance option.

Alright, suppose we go with government run health care. How do we afford it? With the current budget of the US, how do we have enough money on our plate at the current time without adding upwards $1.5 trillion or however much it's going to cost?

Not only do you have to take into account the fact that this last February the government spent(or made a bill to spend over a course of 10 years or something) $789 billion that the government does not have and will have to borrow, but they're also talking about what could possibly be another stimulus package that would be even bigger than the last one. http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.hancock10jul10,0,6622609.column

So just from those things how is it going to be even possible to pay for all this!?

Ok, the government's just being stupid here. Seriously congress and Obama, forcefully nationalize the damn companies that are too big to fail already.

Yeah, while healthcare should be a high priority since life is important, we need to stop throwing money at problems, that or have China call off our debt in some deus ex machina. A generic response, true, just give me a list of some unnecessary crap the government's doing (we can both agree there's plenty) and I'll look at it.

"Too big to fail" shows a complete lack of understanding of the US economy(not trying to be mean, I'm mad the the media keeps parroting that phrase). 70% of all jobs are made by small businesses, so even if all the big companies fail we still have a lot to lean on from the small business man.

In capitalism, failure is a good thing for the economy. It means other companies can cannibalize the company that failed and, hopefully, make a better widget because of it. Failure is necessary. Imagine what would have happened if instead of letting the horse and buggy fail when the car was being made, the government subsidized the horse and buggy companies. That's what we need to do now. Yes, it means harsh economic times, but it also means that we'll be able to get back up from it instead of wallowing in horrible government programs like we did during the Great Depression.

Not only that, but I heard recently(I'll need someone from somewhere outside of the US to confirm) that the Great Depression is only called the Great Depression in the US because around the world the people took the economic beating, didn't give in to government programs and were able to get out of the depression quicker than America did. I believe it lasted somewhere around 5-10 years longer in America because of the government intervention.

 

[Zand88]

EDIT: Changed it to Anarchy. Cause of Max's point, and because complete and utter chaos always gets the blood pumping.
And couldn't you have added a poll?

Anarchy.

I mean, it's going to happen eventually.
Probably after the bombs go off.

Might as well get a head start.

People, the point is that you have to choose between them, there is no "other." Basically, it's asking for a rock or a hard place.

But anyway, it's a loaded questioned. Socialism, and I really don't think of it as bad or as "corrupt" as the supposed money-lovers like to claim.

 

[Borrowed Time]

But anyway, it's a loaded questioned. Socialism, and I really don't think of it as bad or as "corrupt" as the supposed money-lovers like to claim.

You're right, it's not bad or corrupt truly. The application (just like capitalism) easily leads to corruption because of human nature. Not only that, but I have a much better time swallowing the idea that I get to keep what I earn and then give to those who need out of compassion and an actual sense of duty to them, then having someone say, "ok, you work for us for 50% of the time now and we'll tell you how to spend your money to help the people right around you, even though we're half a continent away."

If someone came knocking on your door and demanded 50% of what was in your bank account to help the local pool when there's a homeless family just across the street that you were in the process of helping build a home (yes i realize this is an extreme hypothetical situation) but now could not help them because said individual just took 50% of your funds, I'd think you'd be a little ticked. Let me choose where my money goes.

Yes, I understand not everyone is going to be charitable with their funds, but there are a lot more then we give credit for who are willing to be.

 

[Lord George]

Anarchy.

I mean, it's going to happen eventually.
Probably after the bombs go off.

Might as well get a head start.

Anarchy's not chaos you know but rather a system where everyone would have complete and utter individual freedom, and all live happily side by side, being peaceful and free, urgh horrible.

To OP: I would go for Fascism with complete social and economic control under the hands of a strong government, that'll make things run smoothly, and if not you can just start shooting people.

 

[Raptoricus]

Anarchy.

I mean, it's going to happen eventually.
Probably after the bombs go off.

Might as well get a head start.

Sorry to disappoint you, but true anarchy, like true communism and possibly true democracy will never happen... If the world does fall into anarchy, you will get people that will go "Oh, I'm an anarchist and I have these ideas, follow me!", then there won't be anarchy anymore. If that does or doesn't happen, eventually leaders will start to arise... True communism (Marxism) would never work due to human greed, but I still think it would be the best out of anything... True democracy, every single person in the community would need to vote on every single thing... that would just get annoying...

Pretty much this, neither true communism, or true capitalism have ever existed, and I don't think that either ever will, both are just systems to govern people (or for the people to govern the people ). IMO it's time for a new political system...
I'm going to call it "Capcommunism", it will be awesome.