4
4
0
"On Thursday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) gave his long planned speech on Democratic Socialism, invoking great American leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and reminding everyone that some of the most popular social programs we have today — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid — were all once labeled socialist and aggressively opposed by monied interests, who FDR called “economic royalists.”
Not only were social programs opposed and called socialism; so were any kind of laws or regulations that intervened with the “free market” for the betterment of society. “Unemployment insurance, abolishing child labor, the 40-hour work week, collective bargaining, strong banking regulations, deposit insurance, and job programs that put millions of people to work were all described, in one way or another, as ‘socialist,’” explained Sanders.
Of course, capitalists never come out and say that they want the government to get out of their way so that they can take advantage of workers or employ children or contaminate the water supply. They fear-monger about the threat of socialism and claim that as long as the government intervenes with their business, we can never have true freedom."
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/22/america_has_never_recovered_from_ronald_reagan_thats_why_bernie_sanders_is_so_important/
All the screaming and shouting you can hear about this and that being "Socialism" is to trick you into working against your best interests.
Don't be fooled.
Walt
Not only were social programs opposed and called socialism; so were any kind of laws or regulations that intervened with the “free market” for the betterment of society. “Unemployment insurance, abolishing child labor, the 40-hour work week, collective bargaining, strong banking regulations, deposit insurance, and job programs that put millions of people to work were all described, in one way or another, as ‘socialist,’” explained Sanders.
Of course, capitalists never come out and say that they want the government to get out of their way so that they can take advantage of workers or employ children or contaminate the water supply. They fear-monger about the threat of socialism and claim that as long as the government intervenes with their business, we can never have true freedom."
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/22/america_has_never_recovered_from_ronald_reagan_thats_why_bernie_sanders_is_so_important/
All the screaming and shouting you can hear about this and that being "Socialism" is to trick you into working against your best interests.
Don't be fooled.
Walt
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 11
4
4
0
We have plenty of socialist programs in America. Many European countries have more than we do...or at least more advanced socialist programs akin to ours. In a modern, moral society it is a requirement to have these. A portion of my taxes goes to support those who are less fortunate than I. I am willing to give to the nation at the current tax rate in order to support those programs. I would be willing to give more if I knew what those programs were, who they were supporting and why, and how much it would cost me. We are in a class of society where most of these programs will not benefit me personally...so it's about a moral belief that even though I will not benefit, that it is for the good of the Nation. There is a point of diminishing returns for the individual. I cannot give 50% of my pay unless housing costs and costs of living go down throughout the United States. My family and I would not be able to live like we do now. That being said, I could downgrade my family's lifestyle to accomodate the socialist programs that I would have to pay for. Here's the rub. How far down does middle-America have to go to support the rest of society? If you have to give 50% of your money to the government, you will fundamentally have to change the way you live. There is a point where that doesn't become a concern any longer. I don't know what that limit is, but it is well above my pay. Maybe if you make more than $1 million per year, giving $500,000 isn't a big deal...but there is a huge difference in living with $750,000 (25% tax rate) and $500,000. That being said, it's still enough to live quite comfortably. This is where you will get some loud arguments. Why should someone who has worked so hard to get where they are be forced to pay 70-90% of the taxes in America? An interesting problem to have for some. I can tell you that if Bernie amps up the socialist programs in America, it will be a hell of a fight. He's talking about things that will make Universal Health Care look like a girl scout party.
(4)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
This is the argument I always have.
I'm willing to fork over quite a lot of my wages to the government. I am. But I want to see value for it. If the Government wants 20% or even 25%, I better have good roads, top notch education at the post secondary level, and no cost emergency care.
But when we start getting into the 30%+ range, like some states have... I have yet to see that value come to fruition. California doesn't have it. New York doesn't have it. Illinois doesn't have it. What they do have is a hell of a lot of corruption and bankruptcy at the government level. But when you look at states like Texas... who have no state income tax, and just sales tax... they're thriving.
I'm willing to fork over quite a lot of my wages to the government. I am. But I want to see value for it. If the Government wants 20% or even 25%, I better have good roads, top notch education at the post secondary level, and no cost emergency care.
But when we start getting into the 30%+ range, like some states have... I have yet to see that value come to fruition. California doesn't have it. New York doesn't have it. Illinois doesn't have it. What they do have is a hell of a lot of corruption and bankruptcy at the government level. But when you look at states like Texas... who have no state income tax, and just sales tax... they're thriving.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS, I agree. I have my home state set as Washington. No income tax. It has significant sales tax and property tax though. Those taxes hit those who SPEND the most money. It's almost a fair tax. If you spend money on a Mazeradi, you are going to pay taxes through the nose. Those taxes go where they are supposed to due to law. I am willing to pay more, but I want to see concrete improvements across the board...not just an incresae in already failing social programs. We've proven that throwing more money at the education system doesn't help if we do it wrong.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Want a great example of a socialist program? The US military. We get medical, housing, and on the enlisted side food and clothing stipends. We all get the same pay based only upon years of service (since our promotion system is up or out), regardless of performance. Child care and recreation activities are subsidized, as are our shopping experiences (commissary, PX). Our news media (AFN, Stars & Stripes) are government run and funded. We wear "equalizing" clothing in the form of uniforms ... The USMC probably more than most. Our educational system is standardized not only within each service but also across services. Most everything we do is for the collective good -- your ability to be part of the team is a key component of your success. We are generally not interested in your individual skills, but rather what we can achieve as a group.
I'm not talking about whether those things are deserved or not -- just that if you look at the system in which we live -- it's very socialist, which I find rather humorous considering the number of military & veterans who hate it so much while having benefitted from the system.
I'm not talking about whether those things are deserved or not -- just that if you look at the system in which we live -- it's very socialist, which I find rather humorous considering the number of military & veterans who hate it so much while having benefitted from the system.
(3)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
We temper it heavily with elements of "meritocracy" on the enlisted side. We compete against each other for promotions. That up or out concept reduces "dead weight" and you see a lot of variation. You can see E9 at 16 or at 26 depending on how good you are.
But we have 1-2M people service wide. Maybe "triple" that with dependents. It doesn't scale when you go to Retirees and Veterans. It just becomes unsupportable at that 22M level when you hit the DOD > Dept of VA level. It doesn't work, and I challenge anyone to show me how it's functional outside the (enclosed) military. The only reason it really works inside the military is because we don't have true budgetary concerns. It's handled externally at SecDef+ level. And we're bad at that.
But we have 1-2M people service wide. Maybe "triple" that with dependents. It doesn't scale when you go to Retirees and Veterans. It just becomes unsupportable at that 22M level when you hit the DOD > Dept of VA level. It doesn't work, and I challenge anyone to show me how it's functional outside the (enclosed) military. The only reason it really works inside the military is because we don't have true budgetary concerns. It's handled externally at SecDef+ level. And we're bad at that.
(1)
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
The meritocracy argument only holds water if we all didn't know so many dead weights and incompetents throuout the ranks. It briefs well, but is broken in practice..
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SFC Michael Hasbun - As I said "elements of..." It's far from perfect. Remember, we are contract based, and we don't actually fire anyone. They ride out their contract, or we keep them until retirement.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I was really disappointed to scan the initial responses and discover that no one has gotten it correct. Government programs are not "socialist". All you had to do was Google "socialism", then cut and paste the answer: "...a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
Government programs for which there is no constitutional authorization are simply unconstitutional. They are not in and of themselves socialism. Even worse, they have proven to be failures. Social Security is a trust fund just begging to be pilfered. Medicare has done more to increase the cost of healthcare in the United States than any other factor up until Obamacare, another unconstitutional program that is exacerbating every healthcare issue, making it more expensive and less available.
Welfare is another failure. It has trapped a whole class of people who now refuse to find work for the simple reason that it doesn't pay for them to go to work. Charity should have been left to We the People. There is no such thing as government charity. That is simply a canard for confiscation and redistribution of wealth.
Now any who want to live under socialism feel free to go to Europe. They have been practicing it there for several decades. I'm sure they would love to have you. Just leave America alone. We've already tried socialism and it failed miserably. Yes, the Pilgrims tried it and almost perished. No the Indians didn't save them. They saved themselves by dumping communal ownership and centralized management and succeeded through free markets and hard work. Think about that as you give thanks this Thursday.
Remember, bloated government has done more harm than any enemy who ever attacked the United States. Socialism would only finish the job...
Government programs for which there is no constitutional authorization are simply unconstitutional. They are not in and of themselves socialism. Even worse, they have proven to be failures. Social Security is a trust fund just begging to be pilfered. Medicare has done more to increase the cost of healthcare in the United States than any other factor up until Obamacare, another unconstitutional program that is exacerbating every healthcare issue, making it more expensive and less available.
Welfare is another failure. It has trapped a whole class of people who now refuse to find work for the simple reason that it doesn't pay for them to go to work. Charity should have been left to We the People. There is no such thing as government charity. That is simply a canard for confiscation and redistribution of wealth.
Now any who want to live under socialism feel free to go to Europe. They have been practicing it there for several decades. I'm sure they would love to have you. Just leave America alone. We've already tried socialism and it failed miserably. Yes, the Pilgrims tried it and almost perished. No the Indians didn't save them. They saved themselves by dumping communal ownership and centralized management and succeeded through free markets and hard work. Think about that as you give thanks this Thursday.
Remember, bloated government has done more harm than any enemy who ever attacked the United States. Socialism would only finish the job...
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google