You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
October 24, 2016, 05:04:27 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Socialism or lack thereof in the US (split from Christine O'Donnell)  (Read 5829 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Loke

Re: Socialism or lack thereof in the US (split from Christine O'Donnell)
« Reply #75 on: October 01, 2010, 08:02:11 AM »
I'm sorry and I apologies if I have offended anyone with the slave comparison like Salamander pointed out.

But the point of that was that, 80% of a population on 310,370,000 only have 16% of the wealth. And if my math/calculator is correct 62,0740 000 owns 84% of the wealth while 248, 296 000 people have 16% of the wealth.
And if you break it down even more the difference's only gets bigger, and thus making it look like the 20% have it all while the rest have nothing.

Again I'm sorry I was just pissed of/furious 

Ruby Slippers -
You make some great points In your post and I have to agree that the situation between Sweden and the us in different, In Sweden the working/middle class has more of a say in poletics then in the us and ever since the 30's have we focused on building up a good social society and health care, something that the us have not.

Offline Jude

Re: Socialism or lack thereof in the US (split from Christine O'Donnell)
« Reply #76 on: October 01, 2010, 08:43:42 AM »
I think helping the working poor gain access to the basic necessities is an admirable goal and certainly something that government should be doing.  I don't even have a problem with the rich being taxed in order for this to occur -- the majority of the country agrees that a higher tax rate for those making over $250k a year is probably necessary in order to balance the budget and continue providing social services.  I'm not for something like the 90% that it was under Eisenhower, but closer to 50% (I think after the Bush Tax Cuts it'll be around 39%, and something a bit higher would be ideal).  It will benefit the entire country to have more consumers of the products which the poor will use the subsidization to purchase, so the only people who really lose out are the rich and they're making more than enough to survive as is.

Where I disagree with some basic principles of Socialism is the support for the lazy poor.  If you can work, but choose not to, I don't think you deserve even a dime from your fellow citizens.  Our policies should be aimed at making it easier for people to get jobs, supporting those who do work, and taking care of people who are incapable of supporting themselves/shouldn't have (people with extreme disabilities, certain medical conditions, and the elderly).

We've definitely moved in this direction thanks to the work of the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress, but what I find really depressing is how this has been perceived by the public.  It's hard to deny that Republican policies were pro-business and the wealthy (Bush Tax Cuts, TARP, deregulation) while Democratic policies have been aimed at the poor and lower middle class.  Both of these philosophies seemed to have failed the nation if approval ratings are any indication, because the Middle Class makes up the biggest chunk of the electorate, and nearly everything that is done is done at their expense or in no way benefits them.  The Tea Party was born as a direct result from this.

I personally feel that Democratic politics make the most sense.  Of course the Democrats are trying to help the people that actually need it, those who are firmly in the Middle and Upper Class don't really need help.  My guess is that those in the Middle Class who are not happy with what they have are in revolt because they're being told by Conservative scare mongers that it isn't possible to help the disadvantaged and unfortunate without their quality of life being taken from them.

I think that this recession is defined by the anxiety of the Middle Class over a perceived treat to their current standard of living, not any perceptible dip in that standard.  People are still surfing the internet, watching TV, and using their cell phones, they're simply afraid that off in the near future they won't be able to afford that lifestyle anymore, and that's what is driving the political and economic paranoia that's keeping consumer spending down and fueling the feeling of gross political disenfranchisement.

Socialism is simply the narrative that has been adopted to paint an apocalyptic future for individual liberties and economic progress as a result of Democratic achievements.  There are those who are telling this story because they truly fear it as a possible outcome (which I don't think is realistic at this point in time), but I have a feeling that a small minority of influential politicians, lobbyists, and social commentators are disingenuous prophets who are motivated by a desire to protect the interests of the mega-wealthy.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 08:55:33 AM by Jude »

Online Serephino

Re: Socialism or lack thereof in the US (split from Christine O'Donnell)
« Reply #77 on: October 01, 2010, 09:30:11 PM »
I won't disagree that there should be something put in place to prevent lazy people from taking advantage of the system.  That's mainly what's wrong with it now.  I knew a 'Welfare Queen'.  She claimed she couldn't work because she couldn't sit or stand for long periods of time, yet while I was visiting her son sitting at a computer desk was about all she did.  How these people work the system I'll never know, but they use up all the resources so that there's nothing left for those of us that need it.

This is a bit of a rant, but it's also relevant I think.  I'm bi-polar, my worst symptom being anxiety.  It's bad enough that I do receive disability for it.  I tried working; it wasn't pretty....

Anyway, with proper treatment it may be possible for me to work.  Am I getting proper treatment?  Nope!  Thanks to Bush's Medicare 'fix' that's a pretty high premium considering what I'm getting, and I don't get much for it, so I don't have it.  The state says my benefits are too much for Medicaid.  Medicare part A is mandatory, so even if I were to find a low cost insurance plan I could afford, they won't take me because I'm technically insured.  Part A only covers hospitalization by the way, with a co-pay of $1100 per day.   

I'm stuck.  The government is doing the bare minimum to make sure I'm not homeless and starving, which I won't complain about too much...  But what bugs the hell out of me is that no one is willing to actually treat my disability and get me back to work because that would be Socialist, and that's a dirty word!  One would think sending me to a decent psychologist for a little while would cost less in the long run than keeping me on disability the rest of my life.       

I do agree that the US is too big in order for European systems to work.  Something else would have to be done.  Perhaps the states could shoulder some of the responsibility with national oversight.  Why not tweak the Medicaid system a little to function as public health care?  I wouldn't mind paying a premium I could afford as long as it did me some good. 

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Socialism or lack thereof in the US (split from Christine O'Donnell)
« Reply #78 on: October 02, 2010, 08:10:41 AM »

Just posting this to note what people think is the case of the wealth distribution and what it actually is in the United States, I note that the ideal spread people think is fair is shockingly like - Swedens.