Is the U.S. ready for Socialism?

[Van Basten]

Just because you like corruption and an unaccountable, bloated system doesn't make my commentary wrong.

FDR Harmed America.

Yeah, local and state government are so much less corrupt and progressive lmao.

God bless FDR, I'm done here.

 

[eohrnberger]

Is the US ready for socialism? No, not really.

Sure, people are going to vote for what socialist's promises of no strings attached, but with socialism there are always strings attached, with big fishhooks on the ends.

"Sheep will vote for whomever feeds them. Even it's the same person that will eventually lead them to slaughter" - Unknown from the Internet.

As the socialism movement continues to grow and demand ever more from producers for ever less contribution, it will eventually, inevitably, lead the nation to a Venezuela type collapse.

What needs to be asked of the socialism supporters is 'Do you really want to be led and the nation led to that end?'

 

[katzgar]

Is the US ready for socialism? No, not really.

Sure, people are going to vote for what socialist's promises of no strings attached, but with socialism there are always strings attached, with big fishhooks on the ends.

"Sheep will vote for whomever feeds them. Even it's the same person that will eventually lead them to slaughter" - Unknown from the Internet.

As the socialism movement continues to grow and demand ever more from producers for ever less contribution, it will eventually, inevitably, lead the nation to a Venezuela type collapse.

What needs to be asked of the socialism supporters is 'Do you really want to be led and the nation led to that end?'

your assumptions are false. germany has had social programs for 130 years and do nicely

 

[Tigerace117]

your assumptions are false. germany has had social programs for 130 years and do nicely

Germany was fifteen years old in 1886. The Kaiser was never very big on social programs dude.

 

[eohrnberger]

your assumptions are false. germany has had social programs for 130 years and do nicely

Doing nicely? Last I heard the UK, Germany and France's healthcare systems were under sever financial stress, and were in fact going broke.

Government healthcare expenditures have been growing much more rapidly than GDP in OECD countries. For example, between 1970 and 2002 these expenditures grew 2.3 times faster than GDP in the U.S., 2.0 times faster than GDP in Germany, and 1.4 times faster than GDP in Japan.
Who's Going Broke? Comparing Growth in Healthcare Costs in Ten OECD Countries

France's Health-Care System Is Going Broke

UK’s National Health Service Going Broke, British Docs Say It’s Worse Than Communist China

Overcrowded Hospitals Overwhelm U.K.'s National Health Service

NHS "is about to run out of cash" top official warns

This in spite of the rather large share of GDP that these systems get.

 

[katzgar]

Germany was fifteen years old in 1886. The Kaiser was never very big on social programs dude.

your ignorance isnt my issue. let me help you with comprehension. your assumptions are false. germany has had social programs for 130 years and do nicely

 

[katzgar]

Doing nicely? Last I heard the UK, Germany and France's healthcare systems were under sever financial stress, and were in fact going broke.



France's Health-Care System Is Going Broke

UK’s National Health Service Going Broke, British Docs Say It’s Worse Than Communist China

Overcrowded Hospitals Overwhelm U.K.'s National Health Service

NHS "is about to run out of cash" top official warns

This in spite of the rather large share of GDP that these systems get.

its called a recession. thats what happens in a recession.

 

[Renae]

Yeah, local and state government are so much less corrupt and progressive lmao.

God bless FDR, I'm done here.

You put your fingers in your ears and go LALALALA I understand. It's okay, I get you.

 

[eohrnberger]

its called a recession. thats what happens in a recession.

I'm not going to say that the world wide recession didn't have any impact, that wouldn't be accurate.
However, in the case of the UK system, I do believe that there were financial stresses even before the recession began. Similar in France IIRC.

 

[Tigerace117]

your ignorance isnt my issue. let me help you with comprehension. your assumptions are false. germany has had social programs for 130 years and do nicely

You claimed early Germany has been a socialist state since 1916. Which is blatantly false.

Frankly, your an idiot.

 

[katzgar]

You claimed early Germany has been a socialist state since 1916. Which is blatantly false.

Frankly, your an idiot.

that wasnt my claim, you right wing extremists just dont do honesty very well, you just call people names. social welfare programs were all started in germany in the 1880's. go and do your homework like a good little boy.

 

[joG]

You claimed early Germany has been a socialist state since 1916. Which is blatantly false.

Frankly, your an idiot.

It all depends on how you want to interpret it. Germany started introducing bureaucracies to fill social functions that can be seen as the first major elements of what has become the modern socialist system not withstanding the term often chosen is "social democratic" in the 19th century.

 

[Tigerace117]

It all depends on how you want to interpret it. Germany started introducing bureaucracies to fill social functions that can be seen as the first major elements of what has become the modern socialist system not withstanding the term often chosen is "social democratic" in the 19th century.

Yeah, but I wouldn't classify a state with a monarch at the head---the Kaiser--- as a socialist state, seeing as that's about the opposite of what socialism is supposed to be about.

I wouldn't classify Hitler as a socialist either. Or East Germany, for that matter,

 

[Tigerace117]

that wasnt my claim, you right wing extremists just dont do honesty very well, you just call people names. social welfare programs were all started in germany in the 1880's. go and do your homework like a good little boy.

Social welfare programs do not equal socialist state dip****.

 

[joG]

Yeah, but I wouldn't classify a state with a monarch at the head---the Kaiser--- as a socialist state, seeing as that's about the opposite of what socialism is supposed to be about.

I wouldn't classify Hitler as a socialist either. Or East Germany, for that matter,

That is always the problem, where the theory is pure, but not really very helpful. The Monarchy and Hitler and the Soviet did have a state centered Weltbild as does socialism as fundamental principals from which government activities are to be derived. The extent to which the economy was a command, a planned or a mixed one differed as did the amount of GDP that was dedicated to social redistribution. Nonetheless it is quite reasonable to interpret the Bismarkian social innovations as determining forerunners of the later socialist states. Many people will buck at the idea of those measures being termed "socialist", but that does not mean that it is wrong. One thing that might be added is that at that time the societal, technological and economic conditions probably meant that the programs were not as relatively wasteful as they are today, because better options were not possible back then.

 

[joG]

Social welfare programs do not equal socialist state dip****.

You are right that a social welfare program in itself would not mean the state be socialist. As more and more of GDP is subject to redistribution by ever larger bureaucracies evading market price control the argument that social democracy is socialism gains weight and becomes real.

 

[RetiredUSN]

that wasnt my claim, you right wing extremists just dont do honesty very well, you just call people names. social welfare programs were all started in germany in the 1880's. go and do your homework like a good little boy.

And you try to make your own point by using typical and obligatory labeling .......classic!

 

[BitterPill]

:lamo :lamo :lamo You CANT be this uniformed and this naive......


California has the Nations Highest Poverty rate...
Census Bureau: California still has highest U.S. poverty rate | The Sacramento Bee


California has the Nations Highest Child Poverty rate...
Census Bureau: California still has highest U.S. poverty rate | The Sacramento Bee

It looks like I'm not the worst when it comes to naïveté:

Under the traditional method of gauging poverty, adopted a half-century ago, California’s rate is 16 percent (6.1 million residents), somewhat above the national rate of 14.9 percent but by no means the highest. That dubious honor goes to New Mexico at 21.5 percent.​

L.A. tops nation in chronic homeless population
L.A. tops nation in chronic homeless population - LA Times



Homeless ‘State of Emergency’ in San Francisco
Homeless 'State of Emergency' in San Francisco - Breitbart

It looks like the homeless gravitate to California. Frankly, I'm not surprised. It seems the homeless are smarter than the average Texan.

California’s net worth is negative $127.2 billion
California?s net worth is negative $127.2 billion | Politics in the Zeros

Yet California has a rather large rainy-day fund:

By 2017, California could have $7.2 billion socked away in rainy-day fund​

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-california-budget-positive-analyst-20151118-story.html

Go figure.

California lost 9,000 business HQs and expansions, mostly to Texas, 7-year study says
http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/blog/morning_call/2015/11/california-lost-9-000-business-hqs-and-expansions.html

It seems Texas lags in creating its own companies. While I'm not a fan of Texas, I don't begrudge creating companies for Texas. Someone has to do it, and we'll make more. Hell, if there weren't jobs in Texas, Texans might want to move to California, and no one wants that to happen.

 

[Tigerace117]

That is always the problem, where the theory is pure, but not really very helpful. The Monarchy and Hitler and the Soviet did have a state centered Weltbild as does socialism as fundamental principals from which government activities are to be derived. The extent to which the economy was a command, a planned or a mixed one differed as did the amount of GDP that was dedicated to social redistribution. Nonetheless it is quite reasonable to interpret the Bismarkian social innovations as determining forerunners of the later socialist states. Many people will buck at the idea of those measures being termed "socialist", but that does not mean that it is wrong. One thing that might be added is that at that time the societal, technological and economic conditions probably meant that the programs were not as relatively wasteful as they are today, because better options were not possible back then.

You are right that a social welfare program in itself would not mean the state be socialist. As more and more of GDP is subject to redistribution by ever larger bureaucracies evading market price control the argument that social democracy is socialism gains weight and becomes real.

All true. However, I'd argue that a centrally planned economy doesn't necessarily equal socialism either. Socialism-lite, maybe?

But one of the fundamental principles of democratic socialism is opposition to authoritarian( as opposed to simply big) government, so I couldn't really see how, say, Hitler or the Kaiser would have set up a socialist state.

 

[BitterPill]

Social welfare programs do not equal socialist state dip****.

I am afraid they do.

 

[Tigerace117]

I am afraid they do.

So any state---wherever, whenever---is socialist as long as they have even one "social welfare program"?

 

[BitterPill]

All true. However, I'd argue that a centrally planned economy doesn't necessarily equal socialism either. Socialism-lite, maybe?

But one of the fundamental principles of democratic socialism is opposition to authoritarian( as opposed to simply big) government, so I couldn't really see how, say, Hitler or the Kaiser would have set up a socialist state.

Hitler's fascist state was heavily socialist, but only for Aryans: Not Aryan? No soup for you.

 

[BitterPill]

So any state---wherever, whenever---is socialist as long as they have even one "social welfare program"?

It's more a matter of degree than a question of whether socialism exists in every country.

 

[joG]

All true. However, I'd argue that a centrally planned economy doesn't necessarily equal socialism either. Socialism-lite, maybe?

But one of the fundamental principles of democratic socialism is opposition to authoritarian( as opposed to simply big) government, so I couldn't really see how, say, Hitler or the Kaiser would have set up a socialist state.

It is a multi-factorial definition and therefore only more or less perfect for a given case. It is true that a command or centrally planned economy does not necessarily define socialism, which certainly does want redistribution to the population at large. The reason that we usually will associate socialism with central planning and large government is that they usually have gone hand in hand in recent history.

Where I would beg to differ is in the plea one often hears that democratic socialism is opposed in anything but lip service to authoritarian rule and that the national socialists were not socialists. The Kaiser was not a socialist as was not Bismark. That does not mean that the method the latter introduced was not the substance form which socialism grew.

 

[BitterPill]

It is a multi-factorial definition and therefore only more or less perfect for a given case. It is true that a command or centrally planned economy does not necessarily define socialism, which certainly does want redistribution to the population at large. The reason that we usually will associate socialism with central planning and large government is that they usually have gone hand in hand in recent history.

Even Bush expanded Medicare and created the DHS.

Where I would beg to differ is in the plea one often hears that democratic socialism is opposed in anything but lip service to authoritarian rule and that the national socialists were not socialists. The Kaiser was not a socialist as was not Bismark. That does not mean that the method the latter introduced was not the substance form which socialism grew.

National Socialists are big into socialism, but only for specific majorities. The rest can pound sand.