Started By
Message

re: Why do people in the US want socialism

Posted on 12/22/16 at 3:40 pm to
Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
112456 posts
Posted on 12/22/16 at 3:40 pm to
quote:

We are talking about TOPS, a state-funded scholarship program.


I'm opposed to TOPS. It's not merit based. It's existence based. If TOPS were full scholarships for kids with ACTs of 30 and above that would be OK for the reasons I described above.
Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
112456 posts
Posted on 12/22/16 at 3:44 pm to
quote:

I think you should look at 'B' with a fresh set of eyes to see the collective benefit.

There is none.
quote:

but we definitely need some form of social safety net.

No, we don't.

quote:

As for privatizing 'A', I don't think you've properly considered the consequences of a for-profit police force, fire dept, or military.

I have. Long before I came here.
Posted by Korkstand
Member since Nov 2003
28707 posts
Posted on 12/22/16 at 3:53 pm to
quote:

Singapore passed them a few years ago. Not sure of the various rankings today and not looking it up.
I looked it up, and HK was #1. Not that it matters, though, they're both way up there. As long as we're talking about a very free economy.
quote:

The people of HK didn't live in cages.
I think about 100k people in HK live in cage homes today.
quote:

This isn't 18th century France.
So your definition of poor is as compared to 18th century France?
quote:

The poor have big screen TV, cell phones, AC and don't even need to work.
It's clear that you don't even know a poor person, and cannot possibly relate.
quote:

Nope. That's false. Rich people have to spend money or invest. Both = better living conditions for everyone.
Mostly true, until you come back to reality where everyone does not mean everyone.
Posted by Korkstand
Member since Nov 2003
28707 posts
Posted on 12/22/16 at 3:55 pm to
quote:

I'm opposed to TOPS. It's not merit based.
The state says it's merit-based, and the guy in here who received TOPS says it's merit-based, but Zach says it's not merit-based. It must not be merit-based.
Posted by Korkstand
Member since Nov 2003
28707 posts
Posted on 12/22/16 at 3:57 pm to
quote:

There is none.
There are plenty, if you choose to open your eyes and mind.
quote:

No, we don't.
See above.
quote:

I have. Long before I came here.
It takes a really fricked up interpretation of "free market capitalism" if you think a for-profit military sounds like a good idea.
Posted by HailHailtoMichigan!
Mission Viejo, CA
Member since Mar 2012
69288 posts
Posted on 12/22/16 at 4:05 pm to
Korkstand, I personally don't think socialism is equivalent to police departments, army, fire, etc. Those are public goods, not in the sense that we believe it moral that everyone should have them, but public in the sense that a private firm would find it impossible for non payers to not benefit.

Those things are tax funded because taxation is the only way for everyone to actually pay for benefitting. A private fire firm can't go to the house next door to the house they just saved and demand payment
Posted by Korkstand
Member since Nov 2003
28707 posts
Posted on 12/22/16 at 8:22 pm to
quote:

Korkstand, I personally don't think socialism is equivalent to police departments, army, fire, etc.
Neither do I.
quote:

Those are public goods, not in the sense that we believe it moral that everyone should have them, but public in the sense that a private firm would find it impossible for non payers to not benefit.

Those things are tax funded because taxation is the only way for everyone to actually pay for benefitting. A private fire firm can't go to the house next door to the house they just saved and demand payment
Right. I didn't bring this topic up, but my comment on it was that these (essential) services are publicly funded because capitalism does not adequately address them. Capitalism is not a one-size-fits-all system to solve every problem.

And no, we don't think of these services as being equivalent to socialism, but the fact is they have socialistic properties. We just don't talk about it because 'socialism' is apparently a dirty word, and people think it's just a step away from communism. It doesn't have to be. It's just a better fit than capitalism for certain problems.

And capitalism introduces its own problems. Like I said, inequality itself is not inherently a problem, and it is probably even a necessity for the system to work. But, like most things, when pushed to the extreme, inequality can create very serious problems.

Those who are against social safety nets feel that it is ok and natural for some people to not only fail to thrive in the system, but to be downright non-functional in society. They feel that it's human nature for there to be "winners" and "losers". I just think that if you're willing to accept that the "losers" should just lose without help, then you have to be willing to accept the inevitable consequence that the natural human will to survive will make these "losers" turn to crime. Then we pay for it anyway in the form of increased police budgets, increased prison population, and lost property and lives.

"Pure" capitalism ignores its own problems. We don't have to.
Posted by Ralph_Wiggum
Sugarland
Member since Jul 2005
10666 posts
Posted on 12/22/16 at 8:37 pm to
The promises of capitalism hasn't come true for everyone. There are a lot of people who work, obey the law, and do good things for their community and family but still run into problems due to health issues, accidents, jobs leave their community through no fault of their own and they can't always move to where the jobs are since there are family obligations such as older parents and relatives and preferences to be near family and yet they still get screwed over by the world capitalist economy.

People do get retrained and do get vocation skills and yet when the housing market collapses or the oil prices collapse or go sky high they still get screwed over and they are good hardworking people.

That's why. You have to understand that a lot of people do all the right things you tell them to do and things can still go wrong and they want a society and economy that does not throw them away.

They also realize that capital cares nothing for their living conditions and that capital only cares for further accumulation of capital and any societal benefit is accidental and ancillary and not necessary for capital to accumulate.

You all act like capitalism works for everyone and it doesn't always work that way.

Plus the majority of people in the US want democratic socialism and not communism. You can still own your own business under democratic socialism but you can't do it in a way that destroys your community and country. Most people want a more generous social welfare state but that will mean more taxes and upper-class don't want to pay more in taxes because they see no benefit to them since they have enough money to buy what they want and don't require a social safety next or public goods like schools and environmental protection laws.

The socialism you think people want in the US is not the socialism they want. But to scare people you tell others that is the socialism they want.



Posted by Marco Esquandolas
Member since Jul 2013
11424 posts
Posted on 12/22/16 at 8:41 pm to
quote:

If you aren't making something real you don't have anything important.



...like the dot-com explosion of the '90's (which slick Willie took economic credit for)??

I'd say that was pretty important.

Posted by zatetic
Member since Nov 2015
5677 posts
Posted on 12/22/16 at 8:49 pm to


“Contrary to what so many good people – out of sheer terror of ‘Communism’ – think, Capitalism is not ‘free enterprise,’ an incentive for success, ‘a chance for all.’ Capitalism is trusts, speculation, parasitical usury. Capitalism is J. P. Morgan, Rothschild’s bank, ripping apart the nations like maddened swine. Capitalism is the frying pan in which culture is rendered down to the grease of money. Following it, as the night to day, is the thrice hotter fire of ‘Communism.’” William Striker

Capitalism is good between the states in the united states of America. It is just not productive between different cultures unless you don't mind losing one culture.
Posted by zatetic
Member since Nov 2015
5677 posts
Posted on 12/22/16 at 8:52 pm to
quote:

...like the dot-com explosion of the '90's (which slick Willie took economic credit for)??

I'd say that was pretty important.


They don't make anything that can't be made elsewhere. Why did so many IT companies go overseas as an example.

What are you going to do with your dot-com stuff if war happens? You going to make websites? You need real manufacturing to be sound.
Posted by TBoy
Kalamazoo
Member since Dec 2007
23698 posts
Posted on 12/22/16 at 9:08 pm to
I agree that socialism is bad. So what we need to do is cut out all of the subsidies and tax breaks and make every person and every corporation pay their full freight.
Posted by LSUfan20005
Member since Sep 2012
8814 posts
Posted on 12/22/16 at 10:19 pm to
I'll bite.

Although I'm a 34yr old professional making great money, it's clear that capitalism in America is built on a pile of paper. It only works because of credit.

Sure, it's given Americans the best quality of life in the world, and I wouldn't change a thing.

But most of us are just indentured servants. Whole sectors of our economy rely on rampant, irresponsible credit to exist. People who graduate with $50k in student loans facing the prospect of grinding away for the next 30yrs just to achieve a modicum of happiness can easily see an alternative in Socialsim.

There's a chunk of people who see this as unsustainable, immoral, and pointless - and I can see why.
first pageprev pagePage 4 of 4Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram