What is wrong with socialism?

[gambitnut]

I am unsure as to why people who are, in essence, supporting socialism stray away from that monniker, when it is quite accurate.

When I took the tests in the Politics tests thread, they put me clearly in the socialism area, and I have no problem with that label.

 

[Денг Гордон]

Anybody can go for a run.

Does running prevent cancer? What if they have a heart attack when they go for that run? What if they tear their ACL why running?

Should they just die or be crippled for the rest of their lives?

 

[Minstrel]

Actually, that is the real definition.[/url]

That's the definition of "socialism." What makes a "socialist" is very much opinion.

 

[PapaG]

Does running prevent cancer? What if they have a heart attack when they go for that run? What if they tear their ACL why running?

Should they just die or be crippled for the rest of their lives?

What insurance company prevents cancer?

I have a torn MCL that I've never fixed. I'm fine.

Plus, regardless of what you hear, nobody is turned away from health care. If they have a heart attack on a run, the EMTs and fire people don't first ask for an insurance card before providing care.

 

[PapaG]

That's the definition of "socialism." What makes a "socialist" is very much opinion.

OK, whatever makes you feel better.

Obama's answer to Joe the Plumber confirmed his beliefs to me. We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[Денг Гордон]

What insurance company prevents cancer?

I have a torn MCL that I've never fixed. I'm fine.

Plus, regardless of what you hear, nobody is turned away from health care. If they have a heart attack on a run, the EMTs and fire people don't first ask for an insurance card before providing care.

Insurance companies don't prevent cancer, but they do prevent cancer treatment. Health care services don't turn down patients, but insurance companies turn down paying for patients, even for stuff they're covered for. The patient will get treatment, and then completely be fucked financially. This is part of the problem that got our economy to where it is. Other's, who don't have things like heart attacks (which get instant treatment), but have time to decide whether they will take treatment or not, will try to get their insurance company to cover what's in their plan, the insurance company refuses, the patient challenges which goes nowhere, and then the person decides not to get treatment because they can't afford it, and screw up their health that way. (Like Barack Obama's mother).

It's amazing where we are as a nation on health care, especially given that the party largely supported by Christians is refusing to do the Christian thing regarding health care.

 

[Minstrel]

OK, whatever makes you feel better.

Truth makes me feel better, which is why I pointed out what I did.

The US is a mix of socialism and capitalism. The vast majority of politicians and citizens within the US are a mix of socialism and capitalism. How you divide these people of mixed ideologies between "capitalists" and "socialists" is pretty clearly opinion.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

I'm not even sure we do disagree. I certainly think Obama has socialism in his political ideology. But he's certainly not a pure sociaist, like a communist. If you think he is literally a communist, we disagree. If not, we agree that he's a mixture of socialism and capitalism. Whether you call him a socialist or not is not a concern to me.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I have a torn MCL that I've never fixed. I'm fine.

Well, I'm convinced. Fuck universal health care.

 

[Dumpy]

We need to pay for our infrastructure and basic services. I'm referring to the highway system, the airports, the court system, federal agencies like the FTC, FDA, DOJ, and the SEC. Studies have shown that the wealthy receive more tangible benefits from these services from the poor. Republicans focus on the social programs for the needy, but they represent a small percentage of the services provided by the government. Someone has to pay for these things. Someone has to pay for construction and upkeep of the airports, the safety c ommunications network, the air traffic ontrollers, the homeland security folks. The ability to fly anywhere in the country easily provides a great benefit to businesses and corporations, and allows them to easily expand the scope of their businesses. Again, someone has to pay for these things. Why does it not make sense for the wealthy--who derive the benefits from these things--to pay a little more than the poor who have never flown in their lives, and who buy all their goods from their neighborhood store?

Who will pay for the highway system? Our ports? That's how goods get transported around the country for sale.

What about the court system? About 70% of all cases heard by the courts are business related. What about the Patent and Trademark Office, which protects the rights of entrepreneurs and small businesses?

It is COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE that the wealthy contribute more so that these services can be provided.

 

[Denny Crane]

We need to pay for our infrastructure and basic services. I'm referring to the highway system, the airports, the court system, federal agencies like the FTC, FDA, DOJ, and the SEC. Studies have shown that the wealthy receive more tangible benefits from these services from the poor. Republicans focus on the social programs for the needy, but they represent a small percentage of the services provided by the government. Someone has to pay for these things. Someone has to pay for construction and upkeep of the airports, the safety c ommunications network, the air traffic ontrollers, the homeland security folks. The ability to fly anywhere in the country easily provides a great benefit to businesses and corporations, and allows them to easily expand the scope of their businesses. Again, someone has to pay for these things. Why does it not make sense for the wealthy--who derive the benefits from these things--to pay a little more than the poor who have never flown in their lives, and who buy all their goods from their neighborhood store?

Who will pay for the highway system? Our ports? That's how goods get transported around the country for sale.

What about the court system? About 70% of all cases heard by the courts are business related. What about the Patent and Trademark Office, which protects the rights of entrepreneurs and small businesses?

It is COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE that the wealthy contribute more so that these services can be provided.

You made the case, in the bolded part, for why those agencies should be abolished. The govt. should not be giving welfare to individuals or corporations.

 

[Dumpy]

You made the case, in the bolded part, for why those agencies should be abolished. The govt. should not be giving welfare to individuals or corporations.

The FTC and the FDA primarily protect the wealth and welfare of the populace. The SEC increases invester confidence and makes a robust stock market possible. Obviously, everyone receives benefit from these agencies; the wealthy just more so. There are all things that people can't accomplish on our own; we have to pool our resources for the common good.

 

[Denny Crane]

The FTC and the FDA primarily protect the wealth and welfare of the populace. The SEC increases invester confidence and makes a robust stock market possible. Obviously, everyone receives benefit from these agencies; the wealthy just more so. There are all things that people can't accomplish on our own; we have to pool our resources for the common good.

I believe that govt. services should be color blind in all senses.

Roads don't care if it is a rich person or poor person driving on them.

The FTC and FDA protect nobody.

 

[Nikolokolus]

You are expanding on my earlier post where I noted that "socialist" is seen as a pejorative in the US, but that if you don't view it as such, what is good/bad about the merits of this ideology?

I was forced to read Marx's critique of capitalism in an economics class (and he came up frequently in discussions in a couple more) and the fundamental reason pure Marxism (Socialism) fails in my opinion is that its underpinnings are based on a faulty and rather naive belief that people in society share a goal of the "common good."

 

[Dumpy]

I was forced to read Marx's critique of capitalism in an economics class (and he came up frequently in discussions in a couple more) and the fundamental reason pure Marxism (Socialism) fails in my opinion is that its underpinnings are based on a faulty and rather naive belief that people in society share a goal of the "common good."

I believe tht it is more apt to say that socialism isn't appropriate for the way people behave in society TODAY. Marx never advocated starting a socialist society in the present; it was picked up by others. It may be appropriate 100 years from now. It may be appropriate 1000 years from now. It may never be appropriate. We just don't know.

I feel bad for Marx. He was just a philosopher, you know? He wasn't a radical or a leader. I've visited his grave on Highgate Hill (hopping the fence, because the cemetary was closed on Sundays). It's just a small marker with his bust on top, if I remember correctly.

 

[maxiep]

But it's not affordable, and even when people do have health care, the insurance company just tells them no, we're not covering you. These people can't do anything when the insurance company does that, because they're so in cahoots with the government. Obama is actually willing to take on the health industry by the horns. We need a president to do that. Let's be honest, health care is shitty right now, let's give the thing that has been said to be so bad a chance (given that the "good" alternative the republicans keep talking about fails time and time again).

Obama knows what's up.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Health care is affordable. No hospital can refuse to treat you. If you have insurance, the overwhelming number of cases are payed for without a hassle. If you are too stupid to purchase even catastrophic insurance and you have to sell your house to save your life, it's a small price to pay.

I wonder why you believe why heathcare in this country is "shitty right now"? It's pretty obvious to me you've never been treated abroad if that's your conclusion.

 

[barfo]

Health care is affordable.

For you and I, maybe, but for someone flipping burgers, it's not so affordable.

No hospital can refuse to treat you. If you have insurance, the overwhelming number of cases are payed for without a hassle.

That hasn't been my experience. I have only limited experience, but it hasn't been positive as far as hassle-free goes.

barfo

 

[Денг Гордон]

Health care is affordable. No hospital can refuse to treat you. If you have insurance, the overwhelming number of cases are payed for without a hassle. If you are too stupid to purchase even catastrophic insurance and you have to sell your house to save your life, it's a small price to pay.

I wonder why you believe why heathcare in this country is "shitty right now"? It's pretty obvious to me you've never been treated abroad if that's your conclusion.

Just because other countries have more shitty health care (which I can neither confirm or deny), that makes it alright for our country to have shitty health care?

 

[Masbee]

The argument against Socialism is that free market economics will give you the most efficient economy possible. But you also have to take into account equity. Taking care of your people with things like health care are hits we should be taking to the efficiency of the economy to improve the well-being of our people.

I don't think anyone is arguing for 100% socialism, which has proven to be ineffective. (In theory, it could work, but human greed will always get in the way from making it work).

No so.

In theory, Socialism fails.

Lack of accurate pricing information is a key driver to the failure of a Socialist economy. Ironically, the existence well developed, mature and large capitalist economies, which provided pricing information for their use, allowed the existence of large Socialist economies that would have otherwise collapsed much sooner than they did.

 

[maxiep]

I don't consider taxing richer people a higher percentage to be fundamentally unfair.

Whether or not it is fair or unfair, it is inefficient and reduces the overall size of the economic pie. Socialists care more about how the pie is divided while capitalists care more about the size of the pie.

In capitalism, wealth creates more opportuniies to make more wealth...not in a linear fashion, but in an exponential fashion.

Let's assume the above statement to be true (which it is not). That "wealth" is not held in the hands of one person; it is reinvested and redistributed by creating more jobs and more investment. Having the market allocate the wealth created is simply more efficient than having a bureaucrat do it.

This is enabled by society. Without the society, even the best businessman/woman wouldn't make a dime.

And society's progress is enabled by the individual. You could have a society without entrepreneurs and that society would die off waiting for the next handout. The society benefits by the increased investment created by profit. The individual should be rewarded for the risks they take.

This opportunity that society affords people (which escalates with wealth) isn't free. The cost is taxation, higher rates with greater wealth to account for the non-linearly greater opportunity society affords greater wealth. If it were linear, then a flat tax would make sense.

The additional opportunities created by the sweat of the risk-taker is how it is repaid. If you wish to discourage investment, tax it to death. That's why the capital gains tax is the worst idea around. If I make a profit by taking a risk, the government holds out its hand for it's "fair" share. However, if I lose money, where is my partner? Can I recoup my "fair" share of the loss?

 

[maxiep]

Just because other countries have more shitty health care (which I can neither confirm or deny), that makes it alright for our country to have shitty health care?

I'll ask the question again: Why is our country's health care "shitty"? And yes, relativism is important in this case. If you want an illustrative example of what US socialized healthcare would look like, go visit a VA hospital.

 

[Dumpy]

The additional opportunities created by the sweat of the risk-taker is how it is repaid. If you wish to discourage investment, tax it to death. That's why the capital gains tax is the worst idea around. If I make a profit by taking a risk, the government holds out its hand for it's "fair" share. However, if I lose money, where is my partner? Can I recoup my "fair" share of the loss?

Yes, you can deduct capital losses in future years against future capital gains.

 

[maxiep]

For you and I, maybe, but for someone flipping burgers, it's not so affordable.

I disagree. They may have to live without a television, VCR, car or new clothes, but it's an issue of priorities.

That hasn't been my experience. I have only limited experience, but it hasn't been positive as far as hassle-free goes.

barfo

Well, I'm sure if you put the same folks that designed Medicare in charge, it will make it all better.

 

[maxiep]

Yes, you can deduct capital losses in future years against future capital gains.

And how does that help me if I have no future gains?

 

[maxiep]

Insurance companies don't prevent cancer, but they do prevent cancer treatment. Health care services don't turn down patients, but insurance companies turn down paying for patients, even for stuff they're covered for. The patient will get treatment, and then completely be fucked financially. This is part of the problem that got our economy to where it is. Other's, who don't have things like heart attacks (which get instant treatment), but have time to decide whether they will take treatment or not, will try to get their insurance company to cover what's in their plan, the insurance company refuses, the patient challenges which goes nowhere, and then the person decides not to get treatment because they can't afford it, and screw up their health that way. (Like Barack Obama's mother).

It's amazing where we are as a nation on health care, especially given that the party largely supported by Christians is refusing to do the Christian thing regarding health care.

Do the Christian thing and dedicate you life to volunteering your time to caring for others,

 

[Dumpy]

And how does that help me if I have no future gains?

I believe you can carry your losses forward for seven years. You may actually be able to deduct it against normal earned income, but you can do the research. I seem to recall recently selling some mutual fund shares for a loss, and being able to deduct it against something, even though I haven't sold anything for a gain.

 

[Minstrel]

Whether or not it is fair or unfair, it is inefficient and reduces the overall size of the economic pie. Socialists care more about how the pie is divided while capitalists care more about the size of the pie.

Which is why every democacy has settled on mixing the two. Growing the pie and dividing it more equitably. No one opts for pure capitalism or pure socialism.

And society's progress is enabled by the individual. You could have a society without entrepreneurs and that society would die off waiting for the next handout. The society benefits by the increased investment created by profit.

Again, this is why the two are mixed. Everyone is encouraged to be an entrepreneur, not everyone has the opportunity to do so. Those who are able to do so reap plenty of rewards. Rail against taxes all you want, but the idea that millionaires and billionaires aren't better off than people below the poverty line because those below the poverty line get those "sweet hand-outs" is clearly ridiculous. Success isn't de-incentivized. No one would trade greater success for lesser success because of taxation.

If you wish to discourage investment, tax it to death.

Agreed. Since no one is advocating taxing it to death, this isn't relevant. No one is arguing for communism, or a cap on what people can earn. The wealthy are still far better off than the poor. The middle class are still much better off than the poor. "Wealth redistribution" is limited to providing the essentials for everyone; nobody's getting rich off "hand-outs" and the wealthy aren't being robbed of their ability to live high on the hog. So, incentives to succeed and invest exist plenty strongly.

 

[maxiep]

I believe you can carry your losses forward for seven years. You may actually be able to deduct it against normal earned income, but you can do the research. I seem to recall recently selling some mutual fund shares for a loss, and being able to deduct it against something, even though I haven't sold anything for a gain.

Again, if I make $100K on an investment and wish to use that money to purchase goods and services for my family, I first write a check to the Federal Government for $28K. If I lose $100K on the same stock, I can't ring up Washington, DC and ask for a $28K check to soften the blow.

 

[maxiep]

Which is why every democacy has settled on mixing the two. Growing the pie and dividing it more equitably. No one opts for pure capitalism or pure socialism.



Again, this is why the two are mixed. Everyone is encouraged to be an entrepreneur, not everyone has the opportunity to do so. Those who are able to do so reap plenty of rewards. Rail against taxes all you want, but the idea that millionaires and billionaires aren't better off than people below the poverty line because those below the poverty line get those "sweet hand-outs" is clearly ridiculous. Success isn't de-incentivized. No one would trade greater success for lesser success because of taxation.



Agreed. Since no one is advocating taxing it to death, this isn't relevant. No one is arguing for communism, or a cap on what people can earn. The wealthy are still far better off than the poor. The middle class are still much better off than the poor. "Wealth redistribution" is limited to providing the essentials for everyone; nobody's getting rich off "hand-outs" and the wealthy aren't being robbed of their ability to live high on the hog. So, incentives to succeed and invest exist plenty strongly.

I'm sorry, but you continue to create these false strawmen as a debating tactic and it's flat out silly. No one is talking about pure socialism or pure capitalism. To imply that's my point of view is ridiculous.

 

[Dumpy]

Again, if I make $100K on an investment and wish to use that money to purchase goods and services for my family, I first write a check to the Federal Government for $28K. If I lose $100K on the same stock, I can't ring up Washington, DC and ask for a $28K check to soften the blow.

I believe the rate is 15%

and, as I explained, you can deduct the losses in future years, up to some limit.

 

[maxiep]

I believe the rate is 15%

and, as I explained, you can deduct the losses in future years, up to some limit.

There are different levels for different incomes and investment classes. I'm aware you can deduct losses at some future point if you have a future gain, but that's not symmetrical to the event in a gain.