News America's aversion to socialism ?

[WhoWee]

Actually I said nothing about government loans. I was talking about switching from the Unemployment training program I'm into an entrepreneurial program. Same idea except rather then showing progress on a degree the beneficiary can work for themselves. You need a business plan, financing in place, and jump through a few other hoops. You also can't draw a salary or pay yourself or your benefits are reduced by an equivalent amount just like if you do any other paid work while on unemployment.

Of course I'm not really considering it (To tenous a legal standing for one). In principle though it would be a potential way to maximise by benefits so I'm surprised you'd be opposed. Starting a business that might be turning a profit before my unemployment runs out rather then working on a degree that will take at least 2 semesters longer to finish then I have left in unemployment. It wouldn't be the first time I've sold or processed drugs I've worked in a liquor store and a boutique coffee roasters.

You didn't need to specify a Government loan - you're on Medicaid, food stamps, and unemployment - you obviously don't have the cash to start a business and would need assistance to engage a start up.

my bold
If you aren't "really" considering it - why insert it into the discussion - that could be described a troll.

 

[KingNothing]

Maybe it's too late to chime in, but I think a lot of people think about Hitler and the Holocaust when they hear socialism.

Nazi = National Socialism

 

[apeiron]

Maybe it's too late to chime in, but I think a lot of people think about Hitler and the Holocaust when they hear socialism.

Nazi = National Socialism

Now that's what you call trolling!

[Oh, you probably mean people are so unfamiliar with political theory they could make this connection? Whoa.]

 

[DoggerDan]

Here's the recording.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...e-cheers-leaving-uninsured-die-163216817.html

Reading the article, I'm heartened. Listening to the recording, I'm further heartened.

Not by the two who were over the top, but by the one (Senator Dr. Ron Paul) who wasn't. He shared a healthy mix of compassion and realism. Yes, you do your level best to help others in need. At what point, however, does their negligence transmute their need into their fault? At the far end of the extreme of irresponsibility, well into willful self-harm, we rescue suicides, too. Some might say, "let 'em go," but I don't think Dr. Paul would do that. He knows, as do we all, that suicide is often, if not usually, somewhat transitory, and that with help people can go on to live healthy lives.

I've read a lot of pot shots in this thread that are far off the mark in this issue.

 

[ThomasT]

Maybe it's too late to chime in, but I think a lot of people think about Hitler and the Holocaust when they hear socialism.

Nazi = National Socialism

I think it's more likely that most people associate nazis with fascism.

Nevertheless, you've steered the thread back toward its theme.

 

[CAC1001]

IMO, I don't think most people even know what "Nazi" even stands/stood for, at least in modern America anyway. The German people, right after WWII, associated Nazis with socialism, that is part of the reason that West Germany adopted a market capitalist economy after WWII.

 

[ThomasT]

IMO, I don't think most people even know what "Nazi" even stands/stood for, at least in modern America anyway.

I think you might be right. What I remember from my grade school days is just that Nazi = Bad.

Anyway, I don't think that an association of socialism with nazism is why some Americans exhibit a sort of Pavlovian 'knee jerk' aversion to socialism.

This, apparently unreasoned, aversion to socialism seems to be, in some sense(s), akin to the aversion to, say, marijuana.

Then again, maybe it isn't, for the most part and by most people, an unreasoned position or attitude. Socialism can be considered a constraint on personal freedom. So maybe Americans' large scale aversion to socialism can be understood as an affirmation of the primacy of the ideal of liberty wrt the ideal of equality.

 

[daveb]

that could be described a troll.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

- Inigo Montoya

 

[KingNothing]

Now that's what you call trolling!

[Oh, you probably mean people are so unfamiliar with political theory they could make this connection? Whoa.]

No, I'm not trolling at all. People on here are intelligent enough to see through the negative connotations, but I believe a lot of people form the "socialism = bad" mental link because of the whole nazi thing.

And yes, people are out of touch with political theory. I don't think people have to know what "Nazi" stands for. I vaguely remember being in a history classroom (probably 6th-8th grade) and learning about Nazis, Socialism, and the Holocaust all at the same time.

My answer to the question is this, plus another factor of not wanting to violate social norms. That is, enough people are averse to "socialism" that the average person is better off at least claiming to disdain it, so as to not appear as a weirdo/evil maniac.

 

[WhoWee]

Originally Posted by WhoWee
"that could be described a troll."

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
- Inigo Montoya

Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

In the post you've commented on maine75man(1 post) - someone that has disclosed he and his wife are on a variety of Government subsidized programs - Medicaid (actually he said it was Medicare earlier in the thread), food stamps (said he bought steaks at $7.99/pound), unemployed, WIC, going to college) - after suggesting that street corner drug dealers pay income taxes - specified that he was thinking of quitting college to open a business dispensing medical pot or growing pot - (because he has the Government safety net to fall back on if it doesn't work). Then he posted "
Originally Posted by maine75man
Actually I said nothing about government loans. I was talking about switching from the Unemployment training program I'm into an entrepreneurial program. Same idea except rather then showing progress on a degree the beneficiary can work for themselves. You need a business plan, financing in place, and jump through a few other hoops. You also can't draw a salary or pay yourself or your benefits are reduced by an equivalent amount just like if you do any other paid work while on unemployment.

Of course I'm not really considering it (To tenous a legal standing for one). In principle though it would be a potential way to maximise by benefits so I'm surprised you'd be opposed. Starting a business that might be turning a profit before my unemployment runs out rather then working on a degree that will take at least 2 semesters longer to finish then I have left in unemployment. It wouldn't be the first time I've sold or processed drugs I've worked in a liquor store and a boutique coffee roasters."

To which I posted "You didn't need to specify a Government loan - you're on Medicaid, food stamps, and unemployment - you obviously don't have the cash to start a business and would need assistance to engage a start up.

my bold
If you aren't "really" considering it - why insert it into the discussion - that could be described a troll."

daveb
If this guy isn't a troll - please read through all of his posts in this thread (again , he only has 1 post credit) - and support your comment (this time).

I maintain this fellow routinely posts with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response - that qualifies as a "troll" by the definition supporting my post.

 

[mheslep]

I can't agree with that. As far as I know the Great Depression is usually judged as 1929-1939 ending just as the war started and two years before the US officially entered the war. GDP stopped dropping and started to rise in about 1933-34 according to this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/US_GDP_10-60.jpg" right around when the New Deal was enacted. It wasn't an immediate recovery but to me it looks like good healthy growth similar to the speed at which the economy "crashed". It seems to be at pre-crash levels right on schedule in 38-39.

At the time of the attack on Perl Harbor, the US unemployment rate was still ~14%. Also, given the Great Depression is indeed credited to a ten year period, what caused the Depression to last far longer than any other economic downturn?

 

[DoggerDan]

I believe a lot of people form the "socialism = bad" mental link because of the whole nazi thing.

I form the "socialism = bad" mental link because of the whole 40% personal taxes and less than stellar socialized medicine thing.

 

[WhoWee]

This Obama supporter is thankful for her benefits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRgB2eeHZEw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRgB2eeHZEw&feature=related

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This Obama supporter is thankful for her benefits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRgB2eeHZEw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRgB2eeHZEw&feature=related

Should I start posting videos from the KKK as the counter argument? Idiot YouTube videos are not evidence of anything. These sorts of tactics are one reason why I no longer respect most Republicans.

 

[WhoWee]

Should I start posting videos from the KKK as the counter argument? Idiot YouTube videos are not evidence of anything. These sorts of tactics are one reason why I no longer respect most Republicans.

What tactics Ivan?

The young lady in the video celebrated her support of the President, explained how his programs have benefited her, and made it clear she's glad someone else will continue to go to work to pay for it. The re-distribution of wealth is clearly working from her perspective - it's only fair that we should hear from recipients.

I would have posted this in the Warren Buffet thread - but she didn't specify who should pay for her benefits - nothing about "rich" people specifically.

 

[maine75man]

You didn't need to specify a Government loan - you're on Medicaid, food stamps, and unemployment - you obviously don't have the cash to start a business and would need assistance to engage a start up.

my bold
If you aren't "really" considering it - why insert it into the discussion - that could be described a troll.

Well as I'm sure more than one person guessed I inserted my comment about leaving school and becoming a drug dealer (albeit a nominally state sanctioned one) to parody your're rather IMO silly and inflammatory post about drug dealers receiving government benefits.

This seems a convenient time to point out we have a very small class of entrepreneurs in the US that have a public safety net available - they are the drug dealers standing on the corner that don't have any legal means of support. Please label this entire post IMO - and note this is nothing more than an unintended consequence in that these people are not required to seek work while on public assistance. Again - IMO - for the entire post and I stipulated in bold a very small class.

In short I was being facetious.

Was is the best possible response? maybe not. I'm afraid that I was offended enough that my own reaction was a bit emotional.

Really if you're trying to say that those who support these programs are okay with the idea of drug dealers claiming benefits then I suggest you recheck the definition of a strawman argument.

 

[maine75man]

What tactics Ivan?

The young lady in the video celebrated her support of the President, explained how his programs have benefited her, and made it clear she's glad someone else will continue to go to work to pay for it. The re-distribution of wealth is clearly working from her perspective - it's only fair that we should hear from recipients.

I would have posted this in the Warren Buffet thread - but she didn't specify who should pay for her benefits - nothing about "rich" people specifically.

The fact you put forth this woman's video as some sort of fair representation of the sort of people who receive benefits and/or support the president is deeply offensive. This again is a textbook case of a strawman argument.

 

[Zarqon]

I form the "socialism = bad" mental link because of the whole 40% personal taxes and ...

I see this point a lot, but I feel it's very misleading. What actually matters in the end to most people is not what the tax percentage is, but rather "how much money do I have left for my leisure when all necessary things are paid".

In the US you might have lower taxes, but on the other hand you have to spend a lot of money on things like private health insurance and college tuition fees, which are both 100% free in social democratic countries like sweden.

 

[russ_watters]

In the US you might have lower taxes, but on the other hand you have to spend a lot of money on things like private health insurance and college tuition fees, which are both 100% free in social democratic countries like sweden.

Free? Really? That tells me a lot about the mindset of people who favor socialistic policies and informs to part of my aversion to it. Such things are only free insofar as someone else [in the US: me] is forced to pay for them.

 

[MarcoD]

Free? Really? That tells me a lot about the mindset of people who favor socialistic policies and informs to my aversion to it. Such things are only free insofar as someone else [in the US: me] is forced to pay for them.

The poster must have meant: free as in paid by the public. Hardly anyone buys into the class struggle of Marx anymore, similarly, hardly anyone buys into free-market ideologies anymore.

If you want to debate capitalism vs socialism, you're probably better off using the terms 'demand-driven' and 'supply-driven' economies, and comparing these on their own merits.

 

[WhoWee]

The fact you put forth this woman's video as some sort of fair representation of the sort of people who receive benefits and/or support the president is deeply offensive. This again is a textbook case of a strawman argument.

The woman in the video gave a heartfelt testimony to her approval of the healthcare legislation. I appreciate her honesty and accept she is deeply patriotic. She loves the President and her country. Further, she is a firm believer in redistribution. In the context of this thread (and although I never made the claim) - why isn't this a fair representation? Also, aside from your representation that you're on Medicare (then opps it's actually Medicaid), you paid $7.99 per pound for steak and that you might become a legal pot grower because if you fail there's a safety net to catch you (but that you're very responsible with coupons) - we don't have any other examples to review - do we?

Btw - this video has received 928,311 hits. The video polls viewers with "like" and "dislike" choices - the results of the poll are 64.8% "Like" (2944 like vs 1600 dislike).

 

[russ_watters]

The poster must have meant: free as in paid by the public.

Just a freudian slip then?

Hardly anyone buys into the class struggle of Marx anymore, similarly….

Actually, it appears to me that that is the primary driver of American politics today!

 

[MarcoD]

Just a freudian slip then?

Nah, just debating semantics. Of course, when everything is paid by the public, people experience it as 'free.' Well, it isn't, but most of them know that too. It's just a word.

At the same time, you are incorrect in assuming that the opposite by necessity is more fair. Now, you just end up paying it directly through your insurance, instead of taxes. Does it really matter that much? IMO, you're probably just paying too much.

Actually, it appears to me that that is the primary driver of American politics today!

Irrelevant. All politicians are demagogues who ride the opportunistic wave. What else do you expect? All the political humbug is just there for show on your TV. I couldn't care less.

If you want to discuss this stuff, you just need a systems engineering perspective to economies.

 

[WhoWee]

Here's a researched description of what it means to be poor in America.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america

"As the table shows, some 46 percent of poor households own their own home. The typical home owned by the poor is a threebedroom house with oneandahalf baths. It has a garage or carport and a porch or patio and is located on a halfacre lot. The house was constructed in 1967 and is in good repair. The median value of homes owned by poor households was $86,600 in 2001 or 70 percent of the median value of all homes owned in the United States.5
Some 73 percent of poor households own a car or truck; nearly a third own two or more cars or trucks. Over threequarters have air conditioning; by contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the general U.S. population had air conditioning. Nearly threequarters of poor households own microwaves; a third have automatic dishwashers.
Poor households are wellequipped with modern entertainment technology. It should come as no surprise that nearly all (97 percent) poor households have color TVs, but more than half actually own two or more color televisions. Onequarter own largescreen televisions, 78 percent have a VCR or DVD player, and almost twothirds have cable or satellite TV reception. Some 58 percent own a stereo. More than a third have telephone answering machines, while a quarter have personal computers. While these numbers do not suggest lives of luxury, they are notably different from conventional images of poverty."

 

[MarcoD]

Here's a researched description of what it means to be poor in America.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america

"As the table shows, some 46 percent of poor households own their own home. The typical home owned by the poor is a threebedroom house with oneandahalf baths. It has a garage or carport and a porch or patio and is located on a halfacre lot. The house was constructed in 1967 and is in good repair. The median value of homes owned by poor households was $86,600 in 2001 or 70 percent of the median value of all homes owned in the United States.5
Some 73 percent of poor households own a car or truck; nearly a third own two or more cars or trucks. Over threequarters have air conditioning; by contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the general U.S. population had air conditioning. Nearly threequarters of poor households own microwaves; a third have automatic dishwashers.
Poor households are wellequipped with modern entertainment technology. It should come as no surprise that nearly all (97 percent) poor households have color TVs, but more than half actually own two or more color televisions. Onequarter own largescreen televisions, 78 percent have a VCR or DVD player, and almost twothirds have cable or satellite TV reception. Some 58 percent own a stereo. More than a third have telephone answering machines, while a quarter have personal computers. While these numbers do not suggest lives of luxury, they are notably different from conventional images of poverty."

According to the link, these are Januari 2004 numbers; i.e., four years before the credit crunch. What is the percentage of people who lost their homes or pensions after 2008? Guess stuff looks a whole lot different by now.

 

[WhoWee]

According to the link, these are Januari 2004 numbers; i.e., four years before the credit crunch. What is the percentage of people who lost their homes or pensions after 2008? Guess stuff looks a whole lot different by now.

Have a significant number of persons lost their pensions since President Obama was elected in 2008?

 

[Zarqon]

Free? Really? That tells me a lot about the mindset of people who favor socialistic policies and informs to part of my aversion to it. Such things are only free insofar as someone else [in the US: me] is forced to pay for them.

I'm not entirely sure what you thought I meant, but what I did mean was that you pay nothing at the particular point you need to go to the hospital (for example if you need surgery or whatever). Of course the whole thing has to be funded from somewhere and it's funded by the taxes naturally.

My original point was just that one cannot compare high taxes in one country directly to low taxes in another country and from that claim that the lower tax situation would always leave you with more money "after the bills are paid". That is simply not a fair comparison when the people in the low tax level country has to pay additionally for things like medical treatment and college tuition, which are already included in the taxes in the high tax country.

 

[maine75man]

Free? Really? That tells me a lot about the mindset of people who favor socialistic policies and informs to part of my aversion to it. Such things are only free insofar as someone else [in the US: me] is forced to pay for them.

Well I believe the stance of many people who favor what you refer to as "socialistic policies" would say that by paying for these programs in your taxes you actually save money in the long run. This my seem counter intuitive but it happens in free market capitalism as well. A good example is product packaging.

Most products in our society come with some form of packaging whether your talking granola bars or refrigerators. Often people decry this packaging as excessive or unnecessary (and in some cases it is) They realize the cost for the packaging is part of the retail price, and wonder why they should pay for all that wasted material they don't use. Companies do put it there for a reason. Good packaging makes a product easier to ship, store, and merchandise. It saves producers and retailers money and that in turn means they can offer the product for less then it could be offered without packaging. In essence packaging's inclusion free or better for all involved.

Government programs are similar IMO. They are government expenditures but their existence can save the government from spending elsewhere and/or it can lower the general cost of living/cost of doing business for the taxpayers. Either way done correctly a program should save more money then it costs.

The problem America has is to many people see government spending as either always bad or always good. When each program should be honestly evaluated on it's own merits.

 

[maine75man]

The woman in the video gave a heartfelt testimony to her approval of the healthcare legislation. I appreciate her honesty and accept she is deeply patriotic. She loves the President and her country. Further, she is a firm believer in redistribution. In the context of this thread (and although I never made the claim) - why isn't this a fair representation?

Yes but what is your claim? Why did you post the link? How does it support your position?

Also, aside from your representation that you're on Medicare (then opps it's actually Medicaid), you paid $7.99 per pound for steak and that you might become a legal pot grower because if you fail there's a safety net to catch you (but that you're very responsible with coupons) - we don't have any other examples to review - do we?

I believe all my posts have added to this discussion. Though I admit my (perhaps) failed attempt at humor in response to what I considered your inflammatory drug dealer post was not my finest hour. I feel I still explained and defended my post when challenged.

 

[WhoWee]

Ye
I believe all my posts have added to this discussion. Though I admit my (perhaps) failed attempt at humor in response to what I considered your inflammatory drug dealer post was not my finest hour. I feel I still explained and defended my post when challenged.

My "inflammatory drug dealer post"? Do you mean this post?

"This seems a convenient time to point out we have a very small class of entrepreneurs in the US that have a public safety net available - they are the drug dealers standing on the corner that don't have any legal means of support. Please label this entire post IMO - and note this is nothing more than an unintended consequence in that these people are not required to seek work while on public assistance. Again - IMO - for the entire post and I stipulated in bold a very small class."

Was I incorrect or even unfair in my description of this very small class of persons? I've never read any reports of street corner drug dealers paying their fair share of state or federal income tax or Social Security/FUTA/SUTA/Medicare - have you?