I'm a Democratic Socialist and here's why...

[Hallow'sEve]

I really don't see where "letting financiers play roulette with everyone's money and then run off with the winnings while leaving their losses for everyone else to pick up" fits into the US Constitution.

Because in a Depression EVERYONE losses at roulette. Especially since America is a major world power, everyone would be effected, everyone would lose. All money would be worthless, as in the last one. And believe me, mass rebellion from a Global Depression (or at least an American one) would be so deep that even the business's guards would turn around and shoot them in the face.
This (global depression) would lead to one of two senarios. 1- We revert to our basic instincts and fight for whatever's left. OR. 2- We use (at least) 2,000 years of experience to work together to find a way to solve the problem. Going through opt 2 would make us better and wiser in the end. It also would mean comming out other side mroe re-afirmed with the roots of what our Forefathers had about this country (my opinion).

(BTW, I don't see how socialism CAN'T lead to commusim)
The Germans, Swedes, Danes, French, Dutch and Swiss have succeeded at holding off the creeping tide of Communism for a minimum of fifty years. Now admittedly it's possible that Americans aren't up to matching the fortitude of the French, but I'd like to think they could give it at least a close miss.

I didn't know that those countries had that kind of governemnt, my bad. But from your post it still looks like communism is the inevitable, quote, "Succeded at holding off the creeping tide of Communism".

I'm not saying one is right or the other. I'm just saying options and what I think is liable to happen and the possible consequences. I don't want to go into a depression but it means comming out the other side mroe re-afirmed with the roots of what our Forefathers had about this country then I'm wiling to step foward in that direction.
------------------
The reason we're in a recession NOW is the same as before, we bought things on credit that we thought we could pay for, but we ended up being unable to. The business have fault in this because they kept lending money when they probably shouldn't. I wouldn't say the government is at fault in this because it shouldn't be their business. Government wasn't supposed to be involved into the economy in the first place. But the blame is really on the US citizens who bought but didn't/couldn't pay.

 

[kawligia]

OP, I have only skimmed your post and the posts following, but you seem to be saying that just because TOTAL freedom (anarchy) is a bad idea that total government domination (socialism/communism) is a good idea.

Extremes on EITHER side of the spectrum are almost always BAD ideas.

Total government control inevitably leads to oppression and tyranny by the government. Anarchy ALSO leads to oppression and tyranny, not by the government, but by your neighbors who are stronger than you.

The answer is to have SOME government regulation where necessary BUT ONLY where it really is necessary. The government should PROTECT you, not CONTROL you.

 

[Hallow'sEve]

OP, I have only skimmed your post and the posts Extremes on EITHER side of the spectrum are almost always BAD ideas.

Total government control inevitably leads to oppression and tyranny by the government. Anarchy ALSO leads to oppression and tyranny, not by the government, but by your neighbors who are stronger than you.

The answer is to have SOME government regulation where necessary BUT ONLY where it really is necessary. The government should PROTECT you, not CONTROL you.

This is just a fundemental truth.
It's also a fundemental truth that when the opression get's to be too much then a revolution comes into play. The goal is not to reach that revolution but rather to stall it as long as possible (because, in the ideal sense, that means you're government is doing great).

 

[watchman 2353]

So by your logic, the government rules the people, instead of the people running the government. It is in the declaration of independence that we establish the government's power is that given by the people, not the classical European vision of the governor's ruling the people. It all comes down to why. Why does some poor mother in Brooklyn deserve the money that I worked hard to earn in Maine, several hours away. She doesn't. What will she give me in tern to deserve such a payment.

 

[Hallow'sEve]

Yes, but the primary purpose of any government is to protect the people it's been established for.
However, throughout history the main problem is the definition of "defend" and "serve"

 

[mokes310]

...I believe Governments have a very important role to play in the managing of the market economy.

Preeching to the choir buddy, good thread!

 

[watchman 2353]

Our government is not required to serve, it is required to defend. "serve" is added in a more modern context. Until the civil war, the government just held the line and made the us secure. After the war, the government abolished slavery (a good thing) yet has not stooped shoeing it's uninformed dick in every other social issue. Even if socialism was moral, do we want the government covering the socialistic roles. Look at the way they screwed up wellfair, letting people who didn't work get all the benefits. Do you want them also telling you what medicines you can take, and what car you can drive, and what you will make. The line between socialism and communism is a fine one. It is easily crossed, and then we are screwed.

 

[Avatar Roku]

You don't need to say why the socialism part is better anyway, socalism's the way to go. A lot of my thoughts are similar to some of the points you've made here, I've just never sat and put it into words like you have.

A good read

I agree.

In my eyes, socialism was started because people wanted money by stealing it from the rich but their to lazy to. Obviously I really hate Obama.

So, in your mind, the amount of money one gets is directly proportional to their effort? Because I know people who work 3 jobs and are still just barely above the poverty line. Also, what work has Paris Hilton done?

Just for some of the other posts, Socialism and Communism are not the same thing. True, Socialism is one of the ideas behind Communism, but it can and has been used for other things as well. There are quite a few Socialist Democracies, like France.

 

[watchman 2353]

You don't need to say why the socialism part is better anyway, socalism's the way to go. A lot of my thoughts are similar to some of the points you've made here, I've just never sat and put it into words like you have.

A good read

I agree.

In my eyes, socialism was started because people wanted money by stealing it from the rich but their to lazy to. Obviously I really hate Obama.

So, in your mind, the amount of money one gets is directly proportional to their effort? Because I know people who work 3 jobs and are still just barely above the poverty line. Also, what work has Paris Hilton done?

Just for some of the other posts, Socialism and Communism are not the same thing. True, Socialism is one of the ideas behind Communism, but it can and has been used for other things as well. There are quite a few Socialist Democracies, like France.

What right do you have to state who works. The reason someone is pore with three jobs is probably because of lack of education. also, Paris Hilton dosen't work, yet her fauther did. Shoulden't he be allowed to give his money to the ones he loves? Why does the peroson he never met deserve it. I support socialistic programs for children, to give all children an equil opertunity, yet once your 18 it is your job to support yourself and if you can't than it is nobody's else problem/fault except your own.

 

[Ken Korda]

You don't need to say why the socialism part is better anyway, socalism's the way to go. A lot of my thoughts are similar to some of the points you've made here, I've just never sat and put it into words like you have.

A good read

I agree.

In my eyes, socialism was started because people wanted money by stealing it from the rich but their to lazy to. Obviously I really hate Obama.

So, in your mind, the amount of money one gets is directly proportional to their effort? Because I know people who work 3 jobs and are still just barely above the poverty line. Also, what work has Paris Hilton done?

Just for some of the other posts, Socialism and Communism are not the same thing. True, Socialism is one of the ideas behind Communism, but it can and has been used for other things as well. There are quite a few Socialist Democracies, like France.

What right do you have to state who works. The reason someone is pore with three jobs is probably because of lack of education. also, Paris Hilton dosen't work, yet her fauther did. Shoulden't he be allowed to give his money to the ones he loves? Why does the peroson he never met deserve it. I support socialistic programs for children, to give all children an equil opertunity, yet once your 18 it is your job to support yourself and if you can't than it is nobody's else problem/fault except your own.

How would you choose you olympic team? Would you choos the best atheletes or would you choose the children of the 1984 olympic team?

Who would you choose to run a business? The best business people or the children of the best business people of the 1980's?

 

[watchman 2353]

What about the people who bought houses they couldn't afford. Why should I have to pay their mortgages with my taxes. Before the government pays for the fiscally irresponsible (I include the corrupt banks that gave the lone as well as the people that took them) they should pay the rest of my parent's mortgage. They have made every payment for the last 20 years, and are 5 years out. Now they have to pay, through taxes, for everyone else mortgages.

 

[Alex_P]

Do you want them also telling you what medicines you can take, and what car you can drive, and what you will make.

So, what, you're pining for the glorious libertarian utopia in which driving to work makes you feel like Mad Max and 90% of the products on store shelves are fuckin' placebos?

-- Alex

 

[watchman 2353]

Once upon a time there was socialism, and it was this really really dumb political theory, poorly implied by corrupt bastards, and widely accepted by morons. Wipe your own ass, live you own life, and I'll live mine.

Even though I agree with your political message, word it better. I am interested in this discussion and don't want the mods shooting it down.

 

[Arachon]

In my eyes, socialism was started because people wanted money by stealing it from the rich but their to lazy to. Obviously I really hate Obama.

And that's a pretty bigoted point of view, you assume that everyone who is poor is so because of laziness, and that everyone who is rich has become so by 100% honest work.

And I fail to see the connection between Obama and Socialism...

 

[watchman 2353]

Yes with the car, yet no with the medicine. I have no problem with the government testing drugs, yet government health care inherently decides which medicine it will pay for. I also don't want to have the government paying for services I don't approve of, like abortions or stem cell surgeries, or rehab, or anti-depressant medication. You can pay for the services yourselves, yet I don't want to.

 

[watchman 2353]

And I fail to see the connection between Obama and Socialism...

I see a large percentage of O'bama's policies to be socialistic. As in his gun control. Yet he is the president, we need to at least respect him. That is one of the things I hated about the liberals for the last 8 years. It has been atrocious how they commented about bush as insulting his intelligence and sleeking style. I don't want to turn around and be hypocritical by doing that to obama. Disagree with him political, yet don't insult him.

 

[Avatar Roku]

What right do you have to state who works. The reason someone is pore with three jobs is probably because of lack of education. also, Paris Hilton dosen't work, yet her fauther did. Shoulden't he be allowed to give his money to the ones he loves? Why does the peroson he never met deserve it. I support socialistic programs for children, to give all children an equil opertunity, yet once your 18 it is your job to support yourself and if you can't than it is nobody's else problem/fault except your own.

The problem is that we don't really have those equal opportunities. It's not right that someone can go to public school in a bad neighborhood, not be able to afford college, and then be stuck with, as I mentioned before, 3 jobs and barely being above poverty. I fail to see how that is her fault.

You're right about one thing though; I shouldn't have brought Paris Hilton into it, there isn't really relevance.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

What about the people who bought houses they couldn't afford. Why should I have to pay their mortgages with my taxes. Before the government pays for the fiscally irresponsible (I include the corrupt banks that gave the lone as well as the people that took them) they should pay the rest of my parent's mortgage. They have made every payment for the last 20 years, and are 5 years out. Now they have to pay, through taxes, for everyone else mortgages.

That's because if you allowed the idiot bankers (meaning, almost all of them in the US and quite a few outside too) to go broke your parent's house would end up being worthless, because no one could afford to buy it at anything resembling the cost of the mortgage they're paying. So they'd be broke too. I'd bet that it'll actually cost them less in the long run to support the bail-out than it would to let the collapse take its course.

The problem with laissez faire is that it assumes the participants in the market are rational actors. They're not, not really and certainly not all of the time; most of the time they're making judgements based on incomplete information, and all too often they're "going with [their] gut" or following a popular trend rather than doing a hard analysis. The typical monetarist would say that the market will weed out that kind of behaviour while rewarding good investors, and I suppose they're right... but that kind of behaviour is so wide-spread (even Greenspan got caught up in it) that after the weeding out there'd be virtually no players left in the market.

Monetarism doesn't adequately account for "irrational exuberence", or outright fraud, in the market and it underestimates the impact of cartels. It also doesn't handle the conflict between short-term and long-term interests too well, and it has a touching faith in the integrity of businessmen that alas isn't supported by the evidence.

-- Steve

 

[watchman 2353]

My father got 50 dollars from his parents when he went to college, and had to pay for it for many years after. Their are ways to pay for college without any money to begin with. Also, there are countless grants and scholarships. In my community alone over 20,000$ is roled over each year because nobody applies.

 

[Alex_P]

Yes with the car, yet no with the medicine. I have no problem with the government testing drugs, yet government health care inherently decides which medicine it will pay for. I also don't want to have the government paying for services I don't approve of, like abortions or stem cell surgeries, or rehab, or anti-depressant medication. You can pay for the services yourselves, yet I don't want to.

Public healthcare won't destroy private healthcare any more than public education has destroyed private education.

And, seriously, anti-depressants? You categorically disapprove of anti-depressants?

...

Sigh. Seems like there's a ton of "excluded middle" going on in this thread.

-- Alex