View Full Version : Why are so many people uptight about the word socialist?
gimmethesimplelife
1-22-16, 11:03pm
This is something I have been wondering for some time. When I hear the word socialist I think of Western Europe and social welfare programs of the sort Sanders is proposing. The word socialist does not conjure up visions of the former Soviet Union or the current day basketcase Venezuela is. Venezuela is socialism taken to an extreme, sort of like the carte blanc Wall Street has to be very lightly regulated and cause economic chaos due to greed and playing by their own rules. Though I see Venezuela as being yet more extreme than Wall Street. I guess I'm talking of a more moderate form of socialism with some competition (but with checks and balances). Anyway, I'm just curious why what Sanders proposes is so unacceptable to some people. Why the discomfort with the word socialist? There is no snark here, I honestly don't get this. Rob
iris lilies
1-23-16, 12:01am
I dont know what Bermie is proposing. Why dont you give me 3 of his best points and Ill tell you if I like them.
But to answer your question about socialism, we have a fair number of socialistic instituitons. Many of the f them do nor serve us well.
Some of us don't like initiating the use of force against others.
This sparked me to scan the net for info of assorted varieties on Socialism. Thanks, but no thanks.
Webster : a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.
Democratic socialism is different than the socialism we think of where the government owns everything. Democratic socialism is based on democracy, but it does regulate capitalism, and it does provide social welfare, like some of the programs have already like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.
According to Wikipedia, Mandela was a Democratic Socialist, as was Francois Mitterrand, Nehru, Tony Blair, and Allende.
People are afraid of it because of its close association with communism, although they are not the same, and the perception that free markets and personal freedoms will be taken away. In my mind, an unfounded fear. Anyone can start a business, be an entrepreneur, build a corporation--maybe you just have to abide by some rules to ensure the public good is put before profit. No one has anything taken away, except for maybe the fear of starving to death on the street.
Personally, I'm not really for or against Democratic Socialism--I'm much more interested in distributism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism):
Under such a system [distributism], most people would be able to earn a living without having to rely on the use of the property of others to do so. Examples of people earning a living in this way would be farmers who own their own land and related machinery, plumbers who own their own tools, software developers who own their own computer,[34] etc. The "cooperative" approach advances beyond this perspective to recognise that such property and equipment may be "co-owned" by local communities larger than a family, e.g., partners in a business.
Williamsmith
1-23-16, 10:12am
The problem with socialism raises with the origin or our government. We are , well were meant to be, a federal republic. That means a representative government where most issues are decided at the local level first, then state and finally national level for some few defined powers. Those powers are specifically enumerated.
Trouble is we have already added powers that are not within the framework of the original intent of the founding fathers. And so we are already a partly socialist government masquerading as a federal republic. Kind of a mongrel breed, not quite socialist not quite republic. So we have no real identity.
Cruz and the like want to return us to our roots.......sanders and the like want to evolve us into a socialist society which he deems more appropriate to our current status.
We are a collapsing society as we currently are and so it would be nice to pick a direction and claim an identity. Or reclaim one. The establishment has no identity, responds to every whim of popularity and only legislates what keeps them in power while placating the masses. They are flushing the country down the drain and planning an exit for themselves.
Really socialism is is not consistent with republicanism or what founding fathers intended.
Ultralight
1-23-16, 10:56am
Really socialism is is not consistent with republicanism or what founding fathers intended.
Were the Founding Fathers wrong about anything?
Williamsmith
1-23-16, 11:58am
Were the Founding Fathers wrong about anything?
There is no such thing as right or wrong.........there is only this way or that. And you can always turn around if you don't like the briars.
Ultralight
1-23-16, 12:01pm
There is no such thing as right or wrong.........there is only this way or that. And you can always turn around if you don't like the briars.
Uh...slavery?
Ultralight
1-23-16, 12:06pm
There is no such thing as right or wrong.........there is only this way or that. And you can always turn around if you don't like the briars.
And, you're a moral relativist? Very left-leaning of you...
There is no such thing as right or wrong.........there is only this way or that. And you can always turn around if you don't like the briars.
I actually agree with this, it's harsh and objective but it's true. Or perhaps, that all things can be viewed as right and wrong, but we choose based on where it balances. Even slavery. For the white plantation owner and the society he participated in, purely within the purview of economics, it was 'right'. A conveniently self-serving moral position arose from this economic benefit. For everyone else in the country it was wrong, both in terms of economic competition and morality. So, thankfully, slavery lost out to a larger sensibility of what was right.
Ultralight
1-23-16, 12:17pm
I actually agree with this, it's harsh and objective but it's true. Or perhaps, that all things can be viewed as right and wrong, but we choose based on where it balances. Even slavery. For the white plantation owner and the society he participated in, purely within the purview of economics, it was 'right'. A conveniently self-serving moral position arose from this economic benefit. For everyone else in the country it was wrong, both in terms of economic competition and morality. So, thankfully, slavery lost out to a larger sensibility of what was right.
Punching an old blind lady in the face for sadistic entertainment -- right or wrong?
I'm not going too far down this road with you. Apparently for the person doing it - Really? who the hell is that, anyway? - it's right. For the other 7 billion people on the planet most likely including the old lady, it's wrong. Majority rules.
I don't imagine most people that get uptight about socialism or democratic socialism know the Webster dictionary definition. My take is that they have the idea that our capitalistic system where hard work and enterprise are rewarded by wealth is diminished by wealth redistribution where the hard working are punished by having to share with others who are less ambitious. And that redistribution is controlled by the government. Which in turn all diminishes the incentive for new enterprise. Whether I agree is another issue, but I think that is why some people get uptight about it.
Taxes = redistribution, so the word itself doesn't scare me.
However I think a lot of people are watching their tax money already get "redistributed" in a way they don't like, e.g, perpetual wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, agribusiness subsidies, etc., so since that's not likely to change, then we might as well elect those who will redistribute it for the greater good as is currently done in the Scandinavian and some European countries.
Teacher Terry
1-23-16, 3:35pm
Most people I know are not afraid of it at all and intend to vote for him. I am undecided between him and Hillary. I think people are fed up because trickle down economics does not work and there are wealthy people that pay less in taxes then their hired help such as secretaries. Way too many loopholes for the rich to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. There is a big difference between that and taking hard working people's $ and give it to those that don't work. No one wants to do that. They want the rich to pay what they should.
We do so many things in a socialist model - from fire and police to schools and highways. It's just people don't refer to these as "socialist". "Socialist" is a label with high negative connotations in this country but there really isn't much substance behind the negativity.
Last decade we nationalized the airline security industry - but I don't think I heard it referred to once as socialism, although it was.
a lot like what Teacher Terry said: I think a big message that Sanders has that other candidates are that our tax structures support super wealthy corporations and not the average person. The income and tax gap is increasing, heck if it had worked I wouldn't be for change but it is not just about everyone having a jet but addressing basic living expenses. This isn't happening by accident, there are tax structures and policies that were probably intended to promote a trickle down process, however it has not worked in a dramatic way.
Sanders is also talking about universal health care system (at least not a for-profit model) and education including the student loan debt crisis.
Were the Founding Fathers wrong about anything?
I think they could have put a little more effort into the Commerce Clause and spared us a lot of federal usurpation in the coming centuries. Many of them also made what proved to be the faulty assumption that slavery as an institution would gradually wither away on its own.
But calling their accomplishments imperfect in no way invalidates the brilliance of what they did achieve.
There are obviously an infinite number of gradations on the spectrum from the command economy to a totally free market. I think that historically command economies tend to be more coercive and double down on their mistakes rather than correct them. Free markets, while being more innovative and adaptable, have a general tendency toward inequality. How one feels about where we should be on the spectrum generally depends on how one weights freedom against equality.
Me, I come down closer to the free market end of the scale. I'm a bit uncomfortable with a term like "democratic socialism" because of the "tyranny of the majority" connotations connected with it.
early morning
1-24-16, 5:33pm
I'm a bit uncomfortable with a term like "democratic socialism" because of the "tyranny of the majority" connotations connected with it. Personally, I'm more uncomfortable with the "tyranny of those few who hold all the cards in the [increasingly] stacked deck" - which seems to be the end result of unfettered capitalism. Is the tyranny of the majority worse than the tyranny of the minority? In which group does one have the most opportunity to effect long lasting change? I think it's easier to effect change in a more stable manner in a majority rules situation as opposed to a situation where control is tightly held by a select, wealthy few. They maybe overthrown, but that leads to its own form of chaos and instability. Give me democratic socialism over plutocracy, thanks!
I wonder if as the USSR drifts deeper down the memory hole, the stigma of "socialism" will fade as well.... USSR = Bad -----> Socialism = Bad.
iris lilies
1-24-16, 8:44pm
I wonder if as the USSR drifts deeper down the memory hole, the stigma of "socialism" will fade as well.... USSR = Bad -----> Socialism = Bad.
Dude, it really is more complex than that.
I wonder if as the USSR drifts deeper down the memory hole, the stigma of "socialism" will fade as well.... USSR = Bad -----> Socialism = Bad.
Dude, it really is more complex than that.
That's pretty much the way it was taught to me in elementary school in the 70's. And then we would have a "duck and cover" drill to practice what we would do when the evil socialist Soviets dropped nuclear bombs on us.
Would you care to elaborate?
How does a socialist differ from a democrat?
Gardenarian
1-24-16, 9:32pm
I think people equate socialism with higher taxes, and that puts them off. Many people are wary of giving the government more power, which is what is implied in socialism.
And I do think the spectre of the USSR looms pretty large for most boomers.
Ultralight
1-24-16, 9:34pm
How does a socialist differ from a democrat?
Dude, I wish the democrats were socialists.
When I hear "democratic socialism" I just think of the happy people in Northern Europe who live under it. When I hear "capitalism" I think of the worst excesses of greed. Simplistic, I know. Yes, Europeans may pay higher taxes, but they get something in return.
Dude, I wish the democrats were socialists.
Are you saying that there is a difference? If so, can you define it?
gimmethesimplelife
1-24-16, 11:23pm
When I hear "democratic socialism" I just think of the happy people in Northern Europe who live under it. When I hear "capitalism" I think of the worst excesses of greed. Simplistic, I know. Yes, Europeans may pay higher taxes, but they get something in return.Yes. This is exactly how I see it. And stated more clearly than I could state it. Rob
Williamsmith
1-25-16, 5:11am
"America has been transformed from a republic to a monarchy ----a monarchy not ruled by a king or queen but by money men, corporations, and their lackey polititians all driven by money lust."
The reason people are so uptight is because the transition to socialism has never been done in a peaceful democratic way. There has usually been at least one rope involved.
Ultralight
1-25-16, 8:32am
Are you saying that there is a difference? If so, can you define it?
I would say there are differences between Socialists and Democrats. Though I think, in certain circumstances, the Democrats will allow someone very socialistic to be a token in their party. Think of Dennis Kucinich or The Bern.
But the vast majority of Democrats take massive amounts of corporate money and they support and/or put forward policies and political practices that advance capitalism. And that, amigo, is not very socialist of them. Think Billary or Barry.
It is a popular fantasy among conservatives that Democrats are socialists. It is almost total fantasy though.
Ultralight
1-25-16, 8:33am
"America has been transformed from a republic to a monarchy ----a monarchy not ruled by a king or queen but by money men, corporations, and their lackey polititians all driven by money lust."
The reason people are so uptight is because the transition to socialism has never been done in a peaceful democratic way. There has usually been at least one rope involved.
I agree with your quote.
But...
Capitalism is probably bloodier than socialism though. There is plenty of ropes in capitalism...
How does a socialist differ from a democrat?
How does a democratic socialist differ from a Social Democrat?
Ultralight
1-25-16, 10:00am
How does a democratic socialist differ from a Social Democrat?
A social democrat goes to cocktails parties and rubs elbows with fancy types.
Capitalism is probably bloodier than socialism though. There is plenty of ropes in capitalism...
So you wouldn't count Mao, Stalin, Castro, Tito, Pol Pot, etc. as socialists?
How does a democratic socialist differ from a Social Democrat?I don't know, I think they're all one and the same. I also think the preferred term is irrelevant, it's the intent that matters. About half the citizens of this country expect government to enforce social equity or pure democracy, the other half wants no part of it. One is ultimately self destructive and the other is self sustaining.
In my mind, the republican ideals of this country's founding were revolutionary and far reaching. It seems a shame that so many are fully prepared to destroy their long term benefit in favor of short term goals.
Ultralight
1-25-16, 10:39am
I don't know, I think they're all one and the same. I also think the preferred term is irrelevant, it's the intent that matters. About half the citizens of this country expect government to enforce social equity or pure democracy, the other half wants no part of it. One is ultimately self destructive and the other is self sustaining.
In my mind, the republican ideals of this country's founding were revolutionary and far reaching. It seems a shame that so many are fully prepared to destroy their long term benefit in favor of short term goals.
I disagree with so, so much of this.
I'd be open to splitting the nation in two, like a very amicable divorce.
I don't know, I think they're all one and the same. I also think the preferred term is irrelevant, it's the intent that matters. About half the citizens of this country expect government to enforce social equity or pure democracy, the other half wants no part of it. One is ultimately self destructive and the other is self sustaining.
In my mind, the republican ideals of this country's founding were revolutionary and far reaching. It seems a shame that so many are fully prepared to destroy their long term benefit in favor of short term goals.
Alan, do you think of broad reaching entitlements like social security, medicare, and medicaid as falling into the category of the social equity that is undermining republican ideals?
I can see where some forms wealth redistribution under a socialist system would reduce the incentives for innovation, hard work, fresh new enterprise, and wealth accumulation as a result. Those are things I would estimate are unique strong points for our republican democracy. But when it comes to imposing the burdens to the very upper levels of the uber wealthy, I'm not sure the same rules apply.
When people make comparisons to the happy Europeans under socialist principals, it might be relevant to consider that Europe is not exactly flourishing these days. Nor do they maintain a strong military that at least some might consider important to maintaining a global balance or power (I don't necessarily fall into that category). Rather than making a strong division between republican democracy and socialism, I can see a blend of the two as a reasonable medium ground, but I'm not certain exactly where to make the division. When it comes to what some call entitlements, I see a portion of the population is being in need and deserving and another portion that takes advantage to the system.
When I hear "democratic socialism" I just think of the happy people in Northern Europe who live under it. When I hear "capitalism" I think of the worst excesses of greed. Simplistic, I know. Yes, Europeans may pay higher taxes, but they get something in return.
Our "tax rate" isn't really lower, its just hidden. We have costs for food and energy and roads that sound cheap because the true, subsidized costs aren't generally touted in public. If its all taken into account the real cost of just about anything is astronomically higher than what's on the sticker. Another problem with so much of the economic activity taking place behind the curtain is that the taxpayers have less say in (and information about) what's spent where. Its not necessarily that Northern Europeans get more in return, but they do have a more transparent view of where their 60% government stipends are going and so have an opportunity to make changes if the ship is veering off course. When statutes are written by and for the special interests and included in massive legislative tomes we lose all transparency. Example: I'm currently working with a very small segment of verbage in the farm bill and I'm only just beginning to realize how naive it was to think that legislation was actually about farming.
Me, I come down closer to the free market end of the scale. I'm a bit uncomfortable with a term like "democratic socialism" because of the "tyranny of the majority" connotations connected with it.
A free market originates thanks to government, because of a set or rules put in place to help achieve whatever the goal of that government is. Without those rules there's nothing there beyond survival of the fittest. I will forever look first to market solutions to almost every problem because when profit is involved there is incentive to find the most efficient solutions. That's the up-side. The problems start, as we all know, when the most successful marketeers are able to wield enough influence to change the rules to reap the benefits in ever increasing increments. I don't condone the government's use of force against citizens for anyone's gain, whether it's at the muzzle end of a rifle or by the stroke of a pen. Its just a different color of tyranny.
Alan, do you think of broad reaching entitlements like social security, medicare, and medicaid as falling into the category of the social equity that is undermining republican ideals?
Yes, using government force to usurp or replace personal responsibility falls well outside republican ideals.
When people make comparisons to the happy Europeans under socialist principals, it might be relevant to consider that Europe is not exactly flourishing these days. Nor do they maintain a strong military that at least some might consider important to maintaining a global balance or power (I don't necessarily fall into that category). Rather than making a strong division between republican democracy and socialism, I can see a blend of the two as a reasonable medium ground, but I'm not certain exactly where to make the division.
I'm one of those who believe that a balance of power is necessary to contain violent eruptions. The ability to adequately defend oneself, and others, is vital to a peaceful community or the entire world. Parts of Europe have abdicated their defensive responsibilities to others, namely the United States and NATO and we have accepted that responsibility in return for greater power and influence. We haven't seen a socialist leaning European country demand the right to be responsible for itself militarily since Charles de Gaulle kicked NATO forces out of France nearly 50 years ago.
When it comes to what some call entitlements, I see a portion of the population is being in need and deserving and another portion that takes advantage to the system.
I am very much in favor of safety nets for the truly needy, churches and charitable institutions used to fill that need. Having government assume that responsibility has done little to assist the needy other than to make people comfortable in their dependence. or so it seems to me.
Yes, using government force to usurp or replace personal responsibility falls well outside republican ideals....
Thanks for the perspective. I remain in the middle ground. There are some elements of what might be called the new socialism that don't agree with. For example, making the minimum wage a "living wage". I've worked my share of minimum wage jobs. I don't think they were ever intended to support a family, but a starting wage where a person would live with family or roommates or with other wage earners. That is what I did and it was definitely an incentive to better my education and job skills.
There are big parts of our health care system that are broken. For a simple example, why is it that a person with insurance is charged a much lower negotiated fee than one paying cash. Why do we pay more than other countries and get less benefits in terms of a healthy population. I would like to see an honest effort to fix the broken system and making health care more affordable before just giving up and taxing the wealthy to help the under insured. But I do see basic affordable health care as a requisite for one of wealthiest nations.
I doubt if it falls within a strict definition, but I can see the military budget as a form of socialism. A tax is employed to form a government run agency to insure the safety and well being of the citizens. I can see that philosophy extending to other areas and basic affordable health care is one.
Why do we pay more than other countries and get less benefits...
Couldn't we say the same about education, where we spend more but achieve poorer results?
catherine
1-25-16, 12:40pm
But I do see basic affordable health care as a requisite for one of wealthiest nations.
I agree.. and I don't believe that if you rely on the government for healthcare you are abdicating personal responsibility. Sh*t happens in life, and while we can do health-promoting things, we are much more often subject to the whims of fate. If we had a streamlined single payer system, and doctors could let go of the FTEs required to handle paperwork to the myriad of insurance companies, and efficiencies could be built in, doesn't that make sense?
This is not the old days where treatment consisted of bed rest and an aspirin. Medical therapies today can bankrupt even the most fiscally responsible. I pay more for my health insurance than I do for the roof over my head and that just doesn't seem right.
But this is one of those topics we've raked over the coals before...
Relevant point for this argument: If Democratic Socialism means affordable healthcare for all, and eliminates the crazy complexity and confusion for all parties involved, I'll take it.
iris lilies
1-25-16, 12:44pm
That's pretty much the way it was taught to me in elementary school in the 70's. And then we would have a "duck and cover" drill to practice what we would do when the evil socialist Soviets dropped nuclear bombs on us.
Would you care to elaborate?
Its odd that you ascribe my aversion to more socialist influence here to dislike of the USSR. Not true. And anyway, despite the "Socialist" in their acronym I thought they were straight up communists. Their government owned their means of production. Classic defnition of communist.
But back to socialistic influences in our country: we have a mix of capitalistic and socialistic society, and I dont think it serves us well to move more toward the socialistic. More taxes for those who produce, more handouts doemthose who do not--carry that ro,the logical extreme and pretty soon few or no one will bother to work or at least work in an open way where the IRS can seize income tax.
I wasn't specifically attributing your aversion to socialism to the USSR, but was providing context to agree with the other poster with whom you had disagreed.
We've hashed out repeatedly on this board various suggestions for providing more socialized services in this country without breaking the bank. Things like reducing military spending, big agg subsidies and corporate welfare, Which far exceed social assistance spending significantly but benefit a ridiculously small number of people. I suspect voters wouldn't be as down on taxes if the taxes collected actually somehow benefitted large numbers of regular people instead of small numbers of wealthy people.
iris lilies
1-25-16, 1:26pm
I wasn't specifically attributing your aversion to socialism to the USSR, but was providing context to agree with the other poster with whom you had disagreed.
We've hashed out repeatedly on this board various suggestions for providing more socialized services in this country without breaking the bank. Things like reducing military spending, big agg subsidies and corporate welfare, Which far exceed social assistance spending significantly but benefit a ridiculously small number of people. I suspect voters wouldn't be as down on taxes if the taxes collected actually somehow benefitted large numbers of regular people instead of small numbers of wealthy people.
Im ok with reducing big ag suvsidies, military, etc, but why must you tuen around and spend it? Why cant it come back TO ME. Its my freeking money.
Im ok with reducing big ag suvsidies, military, etc, but why must you tuen around and spend it? Why cant it come back TO ME. Its my freeking money.
Given how much deficit spending we do, and the debt itself - it would take a phenomenal of cutting before we'd realistically see any money coming back to anyone.
iris lilies
1-25-16, 2:36pm
Given how much deficit spending we do, and the debt itself - it would take a phenomenal of cutting before we'd realistically see any money coming back to anyone.
Ok, cut spending and aply it to the debt. Dont just say " ok now i am continuing to spend your money like a drunken sailor."
What is the "national debt"?
How large is it?
What purpose does it serve?
Who holds it?
iris lilies
1-25-16, 3:08pm
What is the "national debt"?
How large is it?
What purpose does it serve?
Who holds it?
well, i equate deficiet spending to bad.We d not do that in my household and i dont want my government doing it.
I dont u derstand the articles put there that claim the national debt is not that bad of a thing. i thnk it is a bad thing.
please convince me its not a bad thing, I mean that sincerely.this will hep me sleep.
ApatheticNoMore
1-25-16, 3:10pm
What purpose does it serve?
I suspect no public purpose since they could just create money. Now I am not arguing there are infinite amounts they could "print" with no consequences (although some people do argue that), but I think they could probably finance the deficit with money creation with minimal inflation. Maybe it serves purposes of bondholders of paying them basically risk free interest, as U.S. government debt is the risk free benchmark (though not a very high interest rate at present), and more significant than bondholders probably it serves the interest of bond traders, of those who are allowed to buy and sell government debt.
We've hashed out repeatedly on this board various suggestions for providing more socialized services in this country without breaking the bank. Things like reducing military spending, big agg subsidies and corporate welfare, Which far exceed social assistance spending significantly but benefit a ridiculously small number of people.
Per Politifact. Federal spending comes to about 26% on health care, 25% on Social Security, 16% on Defense and 4% on Agriculture and Food programs.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/17/facebook-posts/pie-chart-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/
It's hard to see how your claim of "far exceeds" can be true.
I agree.. and I don't believe that if you rely on the government for healthcare you are abdicating personal responsibility. Sh*t happens in life, and while we can do health-promoting things, we are much more often subject to the whims of fate. If we had a streamlined single payer system, and doctors could let go of the FTEs required to handle paperwork to the myriad of insurance companies, and efficiencies could be built in, doesn't that make sense?
But this is one of those topics we've raked over the coals before...
Relevant point for this argument: If Democratic Socialism means affordable healthcare for all, and eliminates the crazy complexity and confusion for all parties involved, I'll take it.
Sorry if I've beating a dead horse. I assume the OP came up with some context to Bernie's version of democratic socialism. I basically agree with what you say, but in the context of Bernieism it a whole big package. We not only get affordable health care, but what I understand is cradle to grave no cost health care, including long term care. I realize that no one wants to dump large amounts of hard earned money into health care, but we do already have Obamacare, medicare and medicaid. The system is no doubt flawed, but do we need "free" cradle to grave care. Do we need free tuition when I would think anyone motivated to higher education can get a student loan, financial assistance, or work their way through school like many of us in the old school did. And I see making minimum wage a living wage a disincentive to get out of the lowest paid and in most cases the lowest skilled jobs.
Capitalism gave us a lot of good things, like the incentive to work hard and prosper as a result. And that doesn't just include wealth, but the new innovations our society is known for. I understand that this doesn't work for everyone, but how much of a fudge factor should we give. When do the ones taking advantage of things overshadow the ones in need. Unfortunately, we can't make up our personal menu of political platforms.
I think if the tea party could come up with a decent health care system and a good plan to address climate change I might join them, but then again it wouldn't be the tea party anymore.
ApatheticNoMore
1-25-16, 3:48pm
And I see making minimum wage a living wage a disincentive to get out of the lowest paid and in most cases the lowest skilled jobs.
so, some low paid jobs perform some of the most important functions in society like caring for children or the elderly etc.. Why should you have to have a prestigious job to get by? And maybe there will always be some people, even in utopia, with much below average intelligence as well who can not do anything but flip burgers. Shouldn't they be allowed enough to survive? Wouldn't life be much happier if everyone's work was regarded as having value. I don't relate to a universe where the only reason people want to learn things (that includes gaining practical skills) is for money. And let them entice employees in other ways besides wages as well - like interesting work or flex time or equity etc.. But anyway no one is proposing and pretty much no one proposes that all jobs should pay exactly the same. Really pretty much no one advocates that. But that all jobs should pay enough to get by ... (yes you can debate the exact amount, it's not going to be the same nationwide).
Long term care would mostly a be a relief not to people who didn't pay for long term care but to THEIR CHILDREN, who are left with the bill for Alzheimers parents or something, just because they did not plan. Yes I know they should have chosen their parents better!!! How silly they were not to!
so, some low paid jobs perform some of the most important functions in society like caring for children or the elderly etc.. Why should you have to have a prestigious job to get by? And maybe there will always be some people, even in utopia, with much below average intelligence as well who can not do anything but flip burgers. Shouldn't they be allowed enough to survive? Wouldn't life be much happier if everyone's work was regarded as having value. I don't relate to a universe where the only reason people want to learn things (that includes gaining practical skills) is for money.
Long term care would mostly a be a relief not to people who didn't pay for long term care but to THEIR CHILDREN, who are left with the bill for Alzheimers parents or something, just because they did not plan. Yes I know they should have chosen their parents better!!! How silly they were not to!
I can agree with some of what you say. With little exception my entire family has been employed in some aspect of community service. Teachers, morticians, social workers, city planers, wildlife biologists. The concept of working only to acquire wealth is out of my universe, too. But these all required some motivation to provide for a family, become skilled and educated, and but to also help others. I know that there are some who are destined to become burger flippers. On the other hand I have some personal experiences of people taking easy basic service jobs over jobs requiring hard work but have good chances to learn skills, advance and get decent benefits. I'm not so sure that a minimum "living wage" wouldn't make that more common.
Also, at some point in a persons state of need for long term care, medicaid kicks in. It's not pretty, but it provides a basic need without being a burden on the next generations. That's not to say our health care system isn't broken, but how much more do we really need to provide the basics.
The Storyteller
1-25-16, 5:49pm
Anyway, I'm just curious why what Sanders proposes is so unacceptable to some people. Why the discomfort with the word socialist?
Ignorance, mostly.
iris lilies
1-25-16, 6:16pm
Ignorance, mostly.
Well, that is just lazy discourse.
But rhen I blame the OP's form of question. It invites comment about the "other's " ideas and that is usually a formula for failure.
hey storyteller, I retired last spring from the same socialistic organization that you work for, the public library. Fortunately there were secret libertarians in our organization who gave me hope.
What purpose does it [the national debt] serve?
My best guess is that it is the easiest way to continue the subsidies that keep most of our consumables affordable while at the same time lining Bernie's billionaire class. We need to keep spending future dollars to maintain that lifestyle because we don't have the cash to pay for it now.
ApatheticNoMore
1-25-16, 7:58pm
Well it's a benefit of empire (and maybe co-dependent trade relationships with other countries) to issue debt to buy real goods, though that's the trade deficit. But since that is the case anyway (and no I don't advocate empire, but it's kinda the case). Yea, I think the U.S. probably could create money for the entire deficit and it would have very little negative effect.
Per Politifact. Federal spending comes to about 26% on health care, 25% on Social Security, 16% on Defense and 4% on Agriculture and Food programs.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/17/facebook-posts/pie-chart-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/
It's hard to see how your claim of "far exceeds" can be true.
Considering that social security and medicare are, at least currently, paid for by money paid in by workers, and with some modest tweaks could be solvent indefinitely I personally wouldn't include them as social assistance. They are not need based. They are long term insurance policies that people have paid substantial amounts into with the expectation of getting something out later. The other thing is that I include the almost $5 trillion of QE purchases of worthless crap assets from financial institutions over the past 6 years to fit into the category of corporate welfare. I realize this isn't directly government spending, but in terms of our economy the effect is the same. Large financial institutions receiving massive subsidies. If added in to the nearly $4 trillion federal budget this, all by itself, would clock in at 20%. This alone dwarfs all social assistance spending, which comes in somewhere in the neighborhood of just north of $300 billion per year. Less than 10% of the federal budget. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/01/12/no-we-dont-spend-1-trillion-on-welfare-each-year/
As for the defense budget there have been many billions of dollars over time that were dedicated to foolish programs that existed/still exist only to line the pockets of defense contractors who had/have lavished large contributions on politicians. More than $50 billion on a series of failed missile defense programs for the 'threat' of North Korean missiles alone. https://theintercept.com/2016/01/06/north-korea-missile-waste/ And then there are subsidies to fossil fuel companies. $21 billion per year on average. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/12/us-taxpayers-subsidising-worlds-biggest-fossil-fuel-companies
I can just imagine the howls from people at the injustice of it if the QE money had gone directly to the people with underwater mortgages and crappy subprime loans so that they could continue to pay them off and prevent the banks' assets from becoming the crap that the federal reserve bought directly from those banks. But if that's the way it had played out millions of American families would be much better off financially today, the banks would've been just as solvent, and the overall cost would've been the same. But instead that money just went straight into the banks' and people with enough money to invest in the stock markets' pockets.
This is my problem with the current system. We obviously have plenty of money to spend on programs that actually help people but we, in the form of our government and our central bank, choose to put that money towards saving big financial institutions and improving the bottom line of wealthy corporations in the form of lucrative contracts for unneeded services and products instead of individual people that are struggling.
This is my problem with the current system. We obviously have plenty of money to spend on programs that actually help people but we, in the form of our government and our central bank, choose to put that money towards saving big financial institutions and improving the bottom line of wealthy corporations in the form of lucrative contracts for unneeded services and products instead of individual people that are struggling.
amen. But you know, somewhere out there is someone who bought a candy bar with their food stamps, so they become the target of the white hot middle-class anger. Go figure.
amen. But you know, somewhere out there is someone who bought a candy bar with their food stamps, so they become the target of the white hot middle-class anger. Go figure.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/kansas-welfare-bill-would-cut-into-benefits-with-atm-fees/
But having to drop $1 per day of your social assistance in ATM fees to make cash withdrawals to pay one's rent $25 at a time is perfectly acceptable, since, well... Banks! They bought and paid for those legislators so they damn well better get their little mini cut of the profits, even if it's just $1 at a time. It just wouldn't be fair to the poor little banks if the law required that they allow un-fee'd EBT withdrawals.
Maybe the candy bar lobby needs to step it up a notch.
Williamsmith
1-25-16, 10:52pm
It seems totally consistent to me that our politics have been shaped largely by the huge bailouts started by Bush the republican and followed through by Obama the democrat. If we go way left or way right from here....that will be a large part of it.
It seems totally consistent to me that our politics have been shaped largely by the huge bailouts started by Bush the republican and followed through by Obama the democrat. If we go way left or way right from here....that will be a large part of it.
I think you're right. The bailouts of the banks instead of letting them fail due to their incompetence has pissed off anyone who has been paying attention and has made them realize that it really IS all about the influence of big money. Both of our political parties have been a part of it. The two candidates offering alternatives that are proving popular are both convincing voters that, for whatever flaws they may have, they aren't part of this crappy crappy status quo.
Williamsmith
1-26-16, 4:59am
I think you're right. The bailouts of the banks instead of letting them fail due to their incompetence has pissed off anyone who has been paying attention and has made them realize that it really IS all about the influence of big money. Both of our political parties have been a part of it. The two candidates offering alternatives that are proving popular are both convincing voters that, for whatever flaws they may have, they aren't part of this crappy crappy status quo.
Assuming you are referring to Trump and Sanders. In the case of Sanders...I agree and he is telling people he is way left and people are getting the honesty and committing to a full frontal assault on federalism. And I'm saying, it's too bad it got this way because the Revolution was fought to preserve ideas that are not consistent with socialism per se. But our country already is half way there. The half that isn't is corrupted by money men and their interests. So it's a choice to continue changing the country to reflect our European roots or stop swimming and go back to shore.
In the case of Trump, his supporters are too angry to realize Trump is not taking them back to shore. He is only whipping up their anger but has no plan to return where they want to go. If he succeeds, once the election is over, his voters will watch as he vacillates from issue to issue without any direction, he is a money man in sheeps clothing. His ship will sink the country into more polarized and divided politics. My optimism grows from the hope he is inventing this support himself and when the polls open we will find out it has all been a reality tv farce.
rodeosweetheart
1-26-16, 7:04am
Not sure how to do Tweets so just copying this one I saw this morning from last night's dem event, which I thought was an effective addition to the discourse on socialism:
Bernie Sanders @BernieSanders 9h9 hours ago
'Socialist' programs from FDR and LBJ:
✅ Social Security
✅ Minimum Wage
✅ Medicare and Medicaid
✅ 40-hour work week
#DemTownHall
Considering that social security and medicare are, at least currently, paid for by money paid in by workers, and with some modest tweaks could be solvent indefinitely I personally wouldn't include them as social assistance. They are not need based. They are long term insurance policies that people have paid substantial amounts into with the expectation of getting something out later. The other thing is that I include the almost $5 trillion of QE purchases of worthless crap assets from financial institutions over the past 6 years to fit into the category of corporate welfare. I realize this isn't directly government spending, but in terms of our economy the effect is the same. Large financial institutions receiving massive subsidies. If added in to the nearly $4 trillion federal budget this, all by itself, would clock in at 20%. This alone dwarfs all social assistance spending, which comes in somewhere in the neighborhood of just north of $300 billion per year. Less than 10% of the federal budget. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/01/12/no-we-dont-spend-1-trillion-on-welfare-each-year/
As for the defense budget there have been many billions of dollars over time that were dedicated to foolish programs that existed/still exist only to line the pockets of defense contractors who had/have lavished large contributions on politicians. More than $50 billion on a series of failed missile defense programs for the 'threat' of North Korean missiles alone. https://theintercept.com/2016/01/06/north-korea-missile-waste/ And then there are subsidies to fossil fuel companies. $21 billion per year on average. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/12/us-taxpayers-subsidising-worlds-biggest-fossil-fuel-companies
I can just imagine the howls from people at the injustice of it if the QE money had gone directly to the people with underwater mortgages and crappy subprime loans so that they could continue to pay them off and prevent the banks' assets from becoming the crap that the federal reserve bought directly from those banks. But if that's the way it had played out millions of American families would be much better off financially today, the banks would've been just as solvent, and the overall cost would've been the same. But instead that money just went straight into the banks' and people with enough money to invest in the stock markets' pockets.
This is my problem with the current system. We obviously have plenty of money to spend on programs that actually help people but we, in the form of our government and our central bank, choose to put that money towards saving big financial institutions and improving the bottom line of wealthy corporations in the form of lucrative contracts for unneeded services and products instead of individual people that are struggling.
My point was that social, or entitlement spending is not dwarfed by what you're characterizing as "bad". You need to ignore some programs, count taxes never levied as expenditures, and treat general economic stimulus programs as "bailouts" to make your case.
Maybe the candy bar lobby needs to step it up a notch.
Considering three members of the Mars family make up the third richest family in America (http://www.forbes.com/profile/mars-1/), I'd say the lobbyists pushing sugary sh*t are getting the job done. Especially when you consider that its still legal to use SNAP benefits to buy all the Snickers bars the food desert can provide.
I think you're right. The bailouts of the banks instead of letting them fail due to their incompetence has pissed off anyone who has been paying attention and has made them realize that it really IS all about the influence of big money. Both of our political parties have been a part of it. The two candidates offering alternatives that are proving popular are both convincing voters that, for whatever flaws they may have, they aren't part of this crappy crappy status quo.
The banks that were saved were probably too big to fail and any one of the big failures could have been the start of a house of cards economic topple. What is unfortunate is that we let it happen in the first place by not having conservative restrictions in place, like the Glass-Steagall, that very well might have prevented the whole mess. Repeal of the Glass-Steagall was the connection of big money to politics. Just my 3 cents.
The banks that were saved were probably too big to fail and any one of the big failures could have been the start of a house of cards economic topple. What is unfortunate is that we let it happen in the first place by not having conservative restrictions in place, like the Glass-Steagall, that very well might have prevented the whole mess. Repeal of the Glass-Steagall was the connection of big money to politics. Just my 3 cents.
I know BS has pushed for that, but I wonder if it would really be relevant. Canada, for instance, never had an equivalent law and seemed to get through the crisis with fewer issues than many other countries.
The banks that were saved were probably too big to fail and any one of the big failures could have been the start of a house of cards economic topple. What is unfortunate is that we let it happen in the first place by not having conservative restrictions in place, like the Glass-Steagall, that very well might have prevented the whole mess. Repeal of the Glass-Steagall was the connection of big money to politics. Just my 3 cents.
I agree. And to repeat a tired meme that's been around for years, too big to fail is just too big. The big megabanks needed/still need to be broken into little enough banks that if any one of them failed life as we know it wouldn't be over. I also question the accepted wisdom that if we'd allowed the economic implosion of all implosions to happen back in 2008 that it would've been a forever thing. Yes, a lot of paper assets would have been gone forever. Yes, there would've been several months where the main street economy would've been in disarray. But people still need food and homes and cars and whatever. Businesses that provide actual useful services would have probably recovered relatively quickly and be doing fine now. And plenty of smaller banks and credit unions didn't participate in the subprime crisis. They would have likely survived and been able to pick at the carcasses of the failed banks to get some worthwhile assets at great prices. Anyone who truly believes in capitalism should have favored that choice. Part of capitalism is that failed businesses happen and their assets get sold off, often at fire sale prices, to others who can deploy them more efficiently. Socializing $4 TRILLION dollars worth of financial losses at a few mega-financial firms, downplaying it as just a move to stabilize the economy instead of the mega-mind blowing theft that it was, and then deriding socialism is such a massive disconnect to me.
lessisbest
1-26-16, 12:19pm
Interesting discussion. The same reason I lock my doors at night are the same reasons I don't like the word socialist/socialism, or the results of the social experiments of socialism which have never worked. I don't want anyone (or the Government) to take what I own and give it to someone else - my money, my property, my ideas, my work effort..... I can choose to give what I want, to whom I want, without their aid.
People filled with fear have been brainwashed into thinking that they can't make it, they're just the little guy! So they think it is fine for the Government to take "it" (fill in the blank) from someone else so they can have more. In an exceptional country like the United States, where we chose NOT to go the way of the rest of the world's governments at the time, and be free and unique country instead with freedoms not seen in other countries, we seem to be going backwards and the fundamental transformation is going to destroy this country. First you put a leash on the people, then you put a muzzle on them, eventually you take everything from them and lock them up!
Government is a necessary evil, but big government (which means socialism) is BAD. You may not care that the government takes over the banks until they take what you have IN the bank. You may think nationalizing health insurance is great - until they can't support the whole thing and NO ONE has insurance. You may not give a hoot if the government forces eminent domain on the little old lady so they can have her property so Donald Trump can build another building named after himself, but wait until it's YOUR home and your stuff.
Think of it like this.... Fire is good when you have it under control. You can keep warm, cook with it, make things.... BIG fire, out of control, is destructive, and that's what socialism is to me.
Williamsmith
1-26-16, 3:02pm
The horse is already out of the barn....we are already a socialist country. Your paycheck is a socialist document. You tax returns....are socialist documents. Welfare.....socialism. Medicare and Medicaid......socialism. Social Security......socialism. Refugee, Indians, Foster care, homeless, adoption, earned income tax credit, supplemental health insurance, healthy start, head start, food stamps, child nutrition, LIHEAP, school breakfast,lunch, and dinner ,WIC, summer programs, public housing, rural, housing, native housing, weather instill, phone service, PELL grants, education grants, adult education, migrant education,block grants, titles, family planning, independent living, childcare, rural development........I missed a bunch. So we add healthcare. ........everybody needs healthcare. Why not make it an all skate since we are almost all in anyway.
Ultralight
1-26-16, 3:04pm
The horse is already out of the barn....we are already a socialist country. Your paycheck is a socialist document. You tax returns....are socialist documents. Welfare.....socialism. Medicare and Medicaid......socialism. Social Security......socialism. Refugee, Indians, Foster care, homeless, adoption, earned income tax credit, supplemental health insurance, healthy start, head start, food stamps, child nutrition, LIHEAP, school breakfast,lunch, and dinner ,WIC, summer programs, public housing, rural, housing, native housing, weather instill, phone service, PELL grants, education grants, adult education, migrant education,block grants, titles, family planning, independent living, childcare, rural development........I missed a bunch. So we add healthcare. ........everybody needs healthcare. Why not make it an all skate since we are almost all in anyway.
It could be a better socialist nation. ;)
It could be a better socialist nation. ;)
Somewhere between the magical Kingdom of Denmark and the Department of Motor Vehicles?
As I recline on my throne of skulls, muttering things like "Let them eat Snickers" or "God save Goldman Sachs", I dread the day my retirement portfolio reaches double-comma territory. Will my name be entered in Bernie's Black Book of Class Enemies? Will I be marked for dispossession by the Sandernistas?
Ultralight
1-26-16, 4:28pm
Somewhere between the magical Kingdom of Denmark and the Department of Motor Vehicles?
As I recline on my throne of skulls, muttering things like "Let them eat Snickers" or "God save Goldman Sachs", I dread the day my retirement portfolio reaches double-comma territory. Will my name be entered in Bernie's Black Book of Class Enemies? Will I be marked for dispossession by the Sandernistas?
Denmark is cool! I'd be quite content with such a set-up.
Will I be marked for dispossession by the Sandernistas?That's traditionally where Socialism leads so, yeah!
Ultralight
1-26-16, 6:47pm
S Will I be marked for dispossession by the Sandernistas?
Relax. We socialists (though I am an anarchist at heart) would use your money for very good purposes!
Somewhere between the magical Kingdom of Denmark and the Department of Motor Vehicles?
http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/flint-water.jpg
Williamsmith
1-26-16, 9:11pm
Michigan is the canary in the mine.
Michigan is the canary in the mine.
http://www.thisismarketplace.org/sites/default/files/WWW/data/images/repository/2010/04/27/20100427_detroit5_83780435_23.jpg
I know BS has pushed for that, but I wonder if it would really be relevant. Canada, for instance, never had an equivalent law and seemed to get through the crisis with fewer issues than many other countries.
At the best of my understanding the Canadian banking system is structured differently and had their own regulations different in nature but having the effect of limiting their exposure to sub-prime loans within their own bank structure. This article is from a reasonably neutral source and gives a nice account in better detail than I'm able. https://www.richmondfed.org/~/media/richmondfedorg/publications/research/econ_focus/2013/q4/pdf/feature2.pdf
I could see replacing our bank system to one like Canada's with similar regulations instead of bringing Glass-Steagal back to our bank system, but that's not likely to happen and might even speak positively of their social democracy in providing a more secure banking system.
Williamsmith
1-27-16, 6:46am
I retired in 2010. Prior to 2007 law enforcement at all levels were being trained in mortgage fraud investigation. I was a part of that training. It was the Wild Wild West in those days. Banks were taking great advantage of the lack of oversight. Mortgages were being issued on houses that were never built, on houses that were built with no intention of ever being sold, on houses for fictitious people. Building contractors were making killings on houses that were built below grade specifications because inspectors were being paid to not show up at the job site. Real estate agents were selling houses they knew were not properly inspected and were appraised at higher values by corrupt appraisers. Law enforcement couldn't keep up to the demand for criminal investigation. The banks never checked on the security of their investment. The collapse happened because of lack of oversight and then of course the tax payers ......us got screwed again.
We are in the same boat with education and the auto industry. The turmoil caused by all this is reflected in the the volatility of our markets. It is pure greed and it will be laid on the heads of our kids and our kids kids.
That's traditionally where Socialism leads so, yeah!
The person being the natural prey of the People?
Its not too far fetched to classify roads, public schools and state universities, the military, national parks, etc. as socialist institutions. In reference to the OP and in the light of the current political climate "socialist" and "socialism" are really nothing more than sound bites for talking heads and no scarier than "social media". "Redistribution" OTOH is an relatively innocuous little term that has a fairly widely accepted definition. One can certainly exist without the other and, in the case of the examples above, already does. My vote will be cast with the hope of avoiding policies of direct redistribution (among other things), but no real consideration regarding the candidate's ranking on a hypothetical socialist scale.
Ultralight
1-27-16, 11:58am
http://www.thisismarketplace.org/sites/default/files/WWW/data/images/repository/2010/04/27/20100427_detroit5_83780435_23.jpg
What does this illustrate?
Ultralight
1-27-16, 11:59am
Its not too far fetched to classify roads, public schools and state universities, the military, national parks, etc. as socialist institutions.
And most Republicans would prefer to eliminate or privatize all of these.
And most Republicans would prefer to eliminate or privatize all of these.
I have yet to meet one of them. Why do they always want to talk about roads? You can be a conservative and still drive on roads. You just might prefer them to be locally controlled rather than have the Federal All-Father dictate the placement of every pebble involved. It would be a fringey conservative indeed who advocated privatizing the military.
There is a spectrum of public and private spheres of activity. The different between right and left is that the right is more suspicious than the left of government as the answer to any given problem.
Ultralight
1-27-16, 12:30pm
You can be a conservative and still drive on roads.
Yes, you can be a conservative and still drive on socialist roads. But that would make one a Roads Socialist. One could identify as "Fiscally conservative, socially conservative, but roadly socialist."
It would be a fringey conservative indeed who advocated privatizing the military.
Exactly! If socialism is good for the military, why shouldn't it be good for healthcare? ;)
Yes, you can be a conservative and still drive on socialist roads. But that would make one a Roads Socialist. One could identify as "Fiscally conservative, socially conservative, but roadly socialist."
If a road is funded by use taxes, such as state and federal fuel taxes, tolls and permit fees collected from commercial carriers, is it really socialist?
If socialism is good for the military, why shouldn't it be good for healthcare? Protection against foreign enemies is the primary responsibility of the federal government, I'm not sure where healthcare fits into the enumerated powers.
There is a spectrum of public and private spheres of activity. The different between right and left is that the right is more suspicious than the left of government as the answer to any given problem.
True that. Of course the suspicions held by the left regarding privately based problem solving also holds some water. I recently read an interview with Bill Gates, in The Atlantic if I remember correctly, and he spoke to the inefficiencies of the private sector. One example he gave was how many venture capital investments fail for every success. Government will never be the panacea that some think it can be, but there are problems who's scale means they can only be solved by an institution with the scope of the government. Defense, probably healthcare in the broadest sense of the term, possibly the smart grid, transportation infrastructure, etc. The investments are too big and the ROI is too obtuse for those things to work in the world of quarterly reports. To me the issue of more government vs. less government is overshadowed by getting the best people IN government.
Exactly! If socialism is good for the military, why shouldn't it be good for healthcare? ;)
If aspirin is good for headaches, why shouldn't it be good for cancer?
Different problems require different solutions. Conservatives are less likely to use government as a sort of duct tape for a wide range of issues. That doesn't mean that public sector solutions are never appropriate.
If a road is funded by use taxes, such as state and federal fuel taxes, tolls and permit fees collected from commercial carriers, is it really socialist?
Protection against foreign enemies is the primary responsibility of the federal government, I'm not sure where healthcare fits into the enumerated powers.
It's questionable whether use taxes do in fact pay for the roads. http://www.uspirg.org/reports/usp/who-pays-roads
One could argue that congress has the duty, or at least the right, to legislate regarding healthcare in the same section 8 of the constitution where the power to protect against foreign enemies is "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". I'd consider general welfare to realistically include healthcare.
Ultralight
1-27-16, 1:43pm
It's questionable whether use taxes do in fact pay for the roads. http://www.uspirg.org/reports/usp/who-pays-roads
One could argue that congress has the duty, or at least the right, to legislate regarding healthcare in the same section 8 of the constitution where the power to protect against foreign enemies is "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". I'd consider general welfare to realistically include healthcare.
Liberal hogwash!
One could argue that congress has the duty, or at least the right, to legislate regarding healthcare in the same section 8 of the constitution where the power to protect against foreign enemies is "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". I'd consider general welfare to realistically include healthcare.
I tend to also think of the reference to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Not to totally discount the constitution, but it also seems to me an issue of just doing the right thing, regardless. I consider the Golden Rule to have precedence over the constitution in most cases, if not all.
It's questionable whether use taxes do in fact pay for the roads. http://www.uspirg.org/reports/usp/who-pays-roads
One could argue that congress has the duty, or at least the right, to legislate regarding healthcare in the same section 8 of the constitution where the power to protect against foreign enemies is "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". I'd consider general welfare to realistically include healthcare.
Couldn't you use "general welfare" to justify pretty much anything you viewed as good?
Ultralight
1-27-16, 3:36pm
Couldn't you use "general welfare" to justify pretty much anything you viewed as good?
Yes. You could do the same.
I suppose if you are going to define "socialism" as "anything the government does" then you can make all sorts of debating points. But it sort of reduces the utility of the word.
Ultralight
1-27-16, 4:06pm
I suppose if you are going to define "socialism" as "anything the government does" then you can make all sorts of debating points. But it sort of reduces the utility of the word.
Exactly!
ApatheticNoMore
1-27-16, 4:14pm
It's not a very useful word already as it's being used. Bernie Sanders isn't really socialist. He's maybe somewhere in between an FDR Democrat and a social democrat. So yea saying any government program including any welfare state program is socialist is fairly meaningless (but social democrat, ok that's fair enough). I think it's some kind of branding on Bernie Sanders part to call himself a socialist. I used to think he had actually run on the Socialist party ticket (such exists in some states) and that was why he called himself a socialist. But I was mistaken. He hadn't.
Ultralight
1-27-16, 4:19pm
Democratic socialism is just a political system where people can and do vote for socialist policies, right?
ApatheticNoMore
1-27-16, 4:28pm
Since socialism means anything and everything now ... But FDR considered himself as saving *capitalism* with his programs.
But I think it's most accurate to consider welfare states capitalism with some socialist and some distributionalist elements. Because many (usually most) businesses are still in private capitalist hands. See is it really socialism if you don't have worker control that is economic democracy etc.? Either through the state (no this has not always worked well in practice, though I think it would make sense for some things) or not through the state (worker co-ops). In a welfare state some parts of the economy may be socialized though the state (like the NHS in the UK - but many single payer models are partly private just very tightly regulated - unlike the corrupt crony profiteering free for all we have), but many parts of the economy are not socialized.
Couldn't you use "general welfare" to justify pretty much anything you viewed as good?
Indeed. Just as one can use the phrase 'a well regulated militia' to mean individual people.
And really, without access to healthcare how much general welfare is a person going to be having?
And really, without access to healthcare how much general welfare is a person going to be having?On a Federal level, is the individual even an issue? Couldn't it be argued that the "general welfare" refers to the states?
On a Federal level, is the individual even an issue? Couldn't it be argued that the "general welfare" refers to the states?
For those interested in a little pre-bedtime reading there is plenty to study up on. The whole general welfare clause has been an issue of debate for years. My rough interpretation is that the framers may have originally intended this to be on items that would include things more general, like paying national debts, foreign negotiations, and defense with the items more related to the individual to be a state issue. The most recent general ruling goes back to the FDR administration when the Supreme Court may have had more progressive members. At this point, it seems that the definition was left to the discretion of congress, within other limitations in the Constitution and the courts. I gathered this could include things like taxation to provide health care. I could have read more, but my eyes were getting heavy, so you may have to reach your own conclusions.
It seems like we should be able to start with a pretty simple filter. What action accomplishes the most significant benefit for the largest share of the target audience and what is the most efficient/cost effective way to administer it? For example. Important to remember that such an oversimplified filter would only be a starting point, but it could be a useful tool. Especially if we're trying to get back to one person, one vote instead of one dollar, one vote.
Bernie does not identify as a socialist. He identifies as a social democrat.
Ultralight
1-28-16, 11:25am
Bernie does not identify as a socialist. He identifies as a social democrat.
Why doesn't he say "Socialist Democrat?"
When I hear "Social Democrat" I think of a Demcrat with a good sense of humor who is fun to hang out with at parties.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.