Why are you against Socialism?

[Jim Jeffries]

What you are REALLY saying is that 51% have the right to rob the rich at gunpoint to make sure that they use their money the way the 51% says is appropriate. In this case, its not ok to give your kids inheritance.

Speaking of inheritance, did Obama raise the "Death" tax yet?

[P4P Opinion]

What you are REALLY saying is that 51% have the right to rob the rich at gunpoint to make sure that they use their money the way the 51% says is appropriate. In this case, its not ok to give your kids inheritance.

Sit down and relax a little, you're getting hysterical.

I don't think 51% (and where did you get that statistic from by the way?) have the right to take money off anyone. I do however believe that the government should have the right to give poorer people the support they need so they at least have the opportunity to get wealthy. That support includes healthcare and decent education. These people can barely afford to treat themselves when they are sick, let alone fund a college education. If it were the case that the truly wealthy helped the less fortunate out of the kindness of their heart, then it wouldn't be necessary, but it doesn't happen. In no way have I said at any point that it isn't ok to give your kids an inheritance. I have said that the lucky few who are truly wealthy should be taxed more than other citizens, in order to give opportunities to people who weren't born into circumstances like the wealthy. And by circumstances, as I have already discussed with Dick Valentine, I mean middle-class and upwards.

Please address what I say in future, rather than what you think I mean.

[Arrow]

Socialism is not about good government, it's about values.

The enemy of Socialism is greed. Greed is the driving force of Capitalism. We all have it.
Our fundamental pursuit is "For whatever rocks your boat" Whatever makes you happy.
That clip of the Reagan speech ("What if I want two Yachts") pretty much summed it up.
The yacht doesn't make you happy. It's where it can take you.
While we think that money & power makes us happy, nothing will change.

Pure happiness is a rolling stone, We depend on others to gain it & keep it going.
Thats' the value we've lost

The Australian Aboriginal lived under communism for 40 thousand years,
200 years ago they had capitalism thrust upon them, & they are still struggling to understand "Ownership"
So do we, because it's a myth.
We "own" nothing.
We just have more "rights' to things than others.
We seek ownership for security, & that insecurity is born of the iniquities of our society. The "haves & the have nots"

The old "Two feet, two shoes" of communism bogey was right, because the challenge is for everyone to be happy, not for everyone to make one person happy.
When everyone has a pair of shoes, then we work on getting two pairs each.

When we go to parties & barbeques, If only one person is happy, it's a failure.
"What a good night" means everyone had a good time.
That's the incentive of good values, not belittling someone because you've got more than them.

JMO

[!! Shawn]

The USA? If so, I am referring to your country more than most actually. I am probably not however referring to your friends, unless you are acquainted with the mega-rich. I am not referring to someone on $200,000 a year. I am referrring to someone on $1,000,000 a year and more. It is rare for the mega-rich to emerge from no-where. The only consistent examples are sports stars like Manny Pacquiao, who escape their 'rags' background with athleticism and hard work - knowing that they have no other route to wealth. I'm not going to make a list for you with examples of the mega-rich who were born into wealth, because you would simply list me the more famous examples of genuine 'rags to riches' cases and we'd be back to square one. I was merely making the point that we hear about the 'rags to riches' cases because they are extraordinary.

You are full of ****.

Cite your sources... Wait... you don't have any.

[Arrow]

As long as the leader serves the community, I don't see why this has to be so. it is hard to put it into practice, as Geroge Orwell explains in animal farm. What you speak of are the 'fat pigs' who make communism into an over idealistic ideology. However the assumption that the ruling elite will always exploit and make the system fail is just that; an assumption! An advanced nation such as Japan, Germany or the USA could surely organise it into a sytem with checks and balances that make sure it DOES work.

Personally, I think that a mixture of both systems is the best thing: Free market economy with egalitarianism thrown in. The best way to do this would be to stop people hoarding wealth and tax them 2.5% of all their hoarded wealth per annum. This would be more than enough to provide for the poor people of the entire world. Hoarded wealth is why people suffer and why there is inequality and social injustice in society.

In the past, France, germany and the UK have been called socialist countries too and they don't stink of poverty as bad as venezuela so it isn't that simple! Tony Blair's new Labour have gone to the middle, but the old Labour were very very very socialist and nationalised alot of industries in post war Britain. Thatcher came along and privatised some things, but other things such as the NHS never will be and never should be privatised. Now that they have hit recession, Britian is nationalising companies such as Northern rock again. I think a mixed economy is best for all and bring stability. Free market economies are too volatile and controlled economies are too rigid

Australia does not consider itself anywhere near a socialist ideology but it is passionate about social responsibility to help those who can't help themselves.
It is not forced on us. It is our culture.

Australia has a Medicare system funded by a national annual income levy of around 2.5%.
It ensures EVERYBODY has immediate free access to basic health care.
Aged pensioners, Carers, & most facets of the disadvantaged acquire a medicare card. They have their own Doctors. Access to home visits in emergency's. Blood tests (Including home visits also) Ambulance, Public hospitals etc.
There is also the Pharmacutical Benefits scheme (PBS) which means we pay no more than $5.00 for 90% of prescription drugs.

Of course private health care is available & encouraged & has greater advantages.

There is also pensions & unemployment payments too numerous to list.

But aged couple receive around $500 a fortnight & most of the basics such as bus & train travel. mobility requirement are also heavily subsided.

We resent being called a "Welfare State" because it's stigmatic.
About 5-8% of recipients are malingerers, bludgers & users. We accept that begrudgingly, but it's a small price to pay for those who are really in need.

While we were listening to American daytime shows telling their audience to tighten your belts, hold onto you cars, downsize your homes etc. The Australian Government drove a stimulus package that gave every disadvantaged, & low incomes household gifts of from $900 to $2000 & told to SPEND it to keep the economy buoyant.
First home buyer/builders were given subsidies of up to $21000 to stimulate the housing industry.
Subsidies were also provided for numerous work related vehicles to maintain the motor building industry.
There are more & too many to list, & the worst, most vehement critics of the "handouts" begrudgingly agree that unemployment is not likely to exceed 10-12% before the international prediction of recovery commences.

Our main concern lies with the US. It's said that "When the US sneezes, the rest of the world catches the flu"
Obama has a mammoth task.
I personally hope his stimulus package is not used in the normal US capitalist trends of hording, shutting up shop, & waiting for some else to fix it.
And that usually means people are on starvation incomes & fighting for a few hours work.

I make these points with the greatest respect to the broad American public, because history has shown that once it goes down, only hard work over a long period gets it fixed, & that's a pretty scarce commodity at the stock exchange.

[squealpiggy]

Speaking of inheritance, did Obama raise the "Death" tax yet?

The "Death" tax seems so unfair doesn't it? But monies subject to inheritance tax are not subject to income tax. So the recipients of inherited moneys actually benefit from a separate lower tax. The alternative would be paying income tax on the money, so it would end up costing more.

[P4P Opinion]

You are full of ****.

Cite your sources... Wait... you don't have any.

What source do you require? You want me to find a source that correlates with my argument that people from poverty-stricken backgrounds find it next to impossible to become rich without the basic rights of healthcare and good education?

That is going to be difficult because there is no specific graph out there to explain easily, but because you're such a classy individual, I've taken the time to correlate from many sources. You're lucky I'm not busy.

First, let's establish the level of inequality in the USA. Here is a nice snippet from the largest ever study on the matter from the UN (2000):

The Gini value, which measures inequality on a scale from zero to one, gives numbers in the range from 35% to 45% for income inequality in most countries. In contrast, Gini values for wealth inequality are usually between 65% and 75%, and sometimes exceed 80%.

Two high wealth economies, Japan and the United States, show very different patterns of wealth inequality, with Japan having a wealth Gini of 55% and the USA a wealth Gini of around 80%.

Source: http://www.wider.unu.edu/events/past...GB/05-12-2006/

This establishes how the vast level of inequality of wealth in the USA. You may comment that it is from the year 2000. Fair enough. I have used this study because it is still the largest ever, still relatively accurate and a completely neutral source (I don't want you claiming my source isn't credible).

The next bit estabishes how the number of people of extreme wealth has either stayed the same or decreased between 2001 and 2004 - the latest years the IRS have statistics for. I have by the way decided that extreme wealth will mean $5m or more in total assets to again hopefully avoid an argument:

2001

$5m + (All numbers in thousands, all money amounts in millions of dollars)

Number: 366. Amount: 58,511,53

2004

$5m+ (All numbers in thousands, all money amounts in millions of dollars)

Number: 357. Amount: 55,549,64

This establishes that the amount of extremely wealthy people doesn't change much.

Source: Under '2001' near the bottom of the page:

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxst...6426,00.html#2

Source: Under 'All top wealth holders by Size of Net Worth' near the bottom of the page:

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/...185880,00.html

Next, using the same source, let's establish the amount of poverty-stricken people in the USA. There are thousands of statistics available, so I've decided to go with poverty-stricken families with children under 18; basically your average poverty family.

2001

Poverty Status of Families with Related Child Under 18 (All numbers in thousands):

All Familites: 38,427
Below 100% of Poverty: 5,138

2004

Poverty Status of Families with Related Child Under 18 (All numbers in thousands):

All Families: 39,375
Below 100% of Poverty: 5,819

Source (2001): http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032002/pov/new19_002.htm
Source (2004): http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/03200...w45_100_01.htm

This shows that poverty levels do not particularly change either in the same time period.

All of which correlates with what I've said. The numbers of people in extreme wealth do not change and the numbers of people in extreme poverty do not change year in-year out. All of which suggests the difficulty in rising from poverty into wealth, simultaneously suggesting that the common 'rags-to-riches' American dream sold at every opportunity is a myth. I'd love to have the time and the resources to prove conclusively that people of extreme wealth are in nearly every occasion born into at least modest wealth (middle class).

My argument is that universal healthcare and government grants for college for anyone who can't afford it, would have a positive effect. It helps people start on a more even footing. I'm aware of Medicare and that government grants for college are available, but they do not go far enough. I'm not a socialist, but parts of socialism are excellent.

[Danny Gunz]

Milwaukee has voted the most socialist politicians as mayor with 5...

does this guy know how to party or what!?

[TheSurgeonMDMPH]

Cuba was about to prosper had it not been for the revolution. The mob was going to take it over and make tons of money for themselves and the Cubans.

Second, if you really believe the standard of living has improved then why are they driving cars from the 1950's????? All of the good hospitals go to the elitists, do you really believe that EVERYBODY gets a fair piece of the pie? Really, all socialism in Cuba proves is: Socialism doesn't spread the wealth, it spreads the misery.

The easiest example of why socialism must fail is the DMV system in America. If you want that type of institution to spread to healthcare, and other forms of productions, you need mental help.

So predictable! Point to the DMV as an example for the future of healthcare if government gets involved! Lol! Conservative clowns. Not u in particular but those you believe. What should be done about healthcare? If not that then leave as is?

Enlighten me!

[TheSurgeonMDMPH]

What source do you require? You want me to find a source that correlates with my argument that people from poverty-stricken backgrounds find it next to impossible to become rich without the basic rights of healthcare and good education?

That is going to be difficult because there is no specific graph out there to explain easily, but because you're such a classy individual, I've taken the time to correlate from many sources. You're lucky I'm not busy.

First, let's establish the level of inequality in the USA. Here is a nice snippet from the largest ever study on the matter from the UN (2000):



Source: http://www.wider.unu.edu/events/past...GB/05-12-2006/

This establishes how the vast level of inequality of wealth in the USA. You may comment that it is from the year 2000. Fair enough. I have used this study because it is still the largest ever, still relatively accurate and a completely neutral source (I don't want you claiming my source isn't credible).

The next bit estabishes how the number of people of extreme wealth has either stayed the same or decreased between 2001 and 2004 - the latest years the IRS have statistics for. I have by the way decided that extreme wealth will mean $5m or more in total assets to again hopefully avoid an argument:



This establishes that the amount of extremely wealthy people doesn't change much.

Source: Under '2001' near the bottom of the page:

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxst...6426,00.html#2

Source: Under 'All top wealth holders by Size of Net Worth' near the bottom of the page:

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/...185880,00.html

Next, using the same source, let's establish the amount of poverty-stricken people in the USA. There are thousands of statistics available, so I've decided to go with poverty-stricken families with children under 18; basically your average poverty family.



Source (2001): http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032002/pov/new19_002.htm
Source (2004): http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/03200...w45_100_01.htm

This shows that poverty levels do not particularly change either in the same time period.

All of which correlates with what I've said. The numbers of people in extreme wealth do not change and the numbers of people in extreme poverty do not change year in-year out. All of which suggests the difficulty in rising from poverty into wealth, simultaneously suggesting that the common 'rags-to-riches' American dream sold at every opportunity is a myth. I'd love to have the time and the resources to prove conclusively that people of extreme wealth are in nearly every occasion born into at least modest wealth (middle class).

My argument is that universal healthcare and government grants for college for anyone who can't afford it, would have a positive effect. It helps people start on a more even footing. I'm aware of Medicare and that government grants for college are available, but they do not go far enough. I'm not a socialist, but parts of socialism are excellent.

these facts will be ignored becuz they dont fit the talking points they were fed for years.