what is the problem with socialism in the USA? why are people saying they prefer 4 more years of Bush than the socialism Obama may bring? what is so wrong with socialism?
LOL Yeah, that's pretty much the sentiment. Too many idiot voters in America who don't know what's good for them =\ FOX NEWS has the great beauty of spreading fear and hate throughout the population, then Bush steps up and says "I'm gonna save yous peoples from them thar turrurists and commies HURR HURR" Result - one of the world's leading superpowers is run by an idiot as if it's on some kind of medieval crusade. YEAH! Way to set us back 800 years guys. That's... real progress there. Thank you.
Socialism is immoral. It takes from those who have earned to give to those who haven't earned. It encourages greater slavery of the citizenry. That's what's wrong with it.
Oh - I'm sorry, I didn't know that being payed to do nothing other than TO SELL SOMEONE ELSE'S LABOUR at the expense of the proletariat was more moral. oh wait - wait... it's not.
HA Maybe because we believe that you get to keep what you earn rather than letting the leaches of society cruise on other peoples hard work. Yea, we know you hate Bush. It's mostly because success and strength scare weak people!
But - but - improved health care, and better foreign policies, and more productive manufacture, faster export, improved infrastructure....
Why would selling other people's time be immoral, so long as all parties agree to it? edit: what? Who said that? <Cocky comments removed - they can be added later>
And you do, I suppose? First, come live here for a few years before considering yourself an authority. Second, you've just demonstrated what's wrong with socialism - we don't like being told how to live, we'd much rather pick for ourselves. Even if it looks stupid to everyone else. Okay, getting out now before this turns into a flame war.
another thing that bothers me, the USA says NO to socialism yet they take in taxes and spend them on the police, firemen, law system, military, government and health..... is this normal?
Well, yes and no. I believe in services like the NHS and higher funding for the Police, but I highly disagree to allowing lazy c*nts these benefits when they put nothing into them. Socialism is a way for these anti-social parasites to say "I don't feel like it"
Well, you've got a problem there DXR. Either it is normal, or as you (I think attempt to) say, non-socialism isn't congruent with the idea of taxation for the emergency, judicial, and governmental services. But if it isn't, then since america has these services, you are wrong and the USA does not say "no" to socialism.
therefore the USA are socialist, but consider socialism evil. this is were "case by case" judgement and databases are for....
Meh, both sides are bad. Anarchy can't exist, a corporation will just take the place of the government. I prefer a nice blend between the too.
If you do it right you don't have to tell people how to live, you just make it harder to live another way. I don't condone an outright ban on smoking, but I'm all for making it more difficult and more expensive. Same with gas prices. High gas prices are causing people to drive less. Driving less is a good thing. I'd rather see more money put towards public transport, but it's driving the right behavior. No one is telling people they can't drive hummers, but gas prices are making it suffieciently painful that they have a significant disincentive to do so. There are a lot of things that are best handled this way, organ donation or retirement savings for example. If both were made the default option with a free opt-out, far more people would enroll, thereby doing what is generally regarded as being the smart thing. no one is telling them thhey have to make a certain choice, but given that most people take the easiest pate, it behooves us to make the easiest path the best one.
Well, you can't generalise like that. Some in the US consider socialism to be evil, but either they will feel that there are problems with the US as it currently is, or they will consider socialism to be something other than what the US currently has. To be extreme about the matter, all government requires an aspect of socialism simply to exist. One could argue that you can not have government without socialism - and for a given value of socialism that's a sound argument. However most people do not use a very extreme meaning of socialism, rather they apply the term to states in which there is very high taxation and a high degree of nationwide redistribution of wealth. The key to what each person considers socialism are the two "high"s in the last sentence, that varies for everyone. In general it could be argued that the US tends to vote in governments which implement considerably lower levels of taxation than exist in most western european governments. And to restate the answer to your initial question of what is so wrong with socialism, the answer is that it is immoral.
I have a sneaking suspicion that running those services in a socialistic manner is okay (even though, God forbid we would call it socialism) because there's not really any money to be made there. Obviously there is a ton of money to be made supplying the government agencies running these services with what they need. However, there are tons of executives and companies making a ton of money off US healthcare in its current form. That's why the naysayers give it a "nasty" label like socialism (damn Commie pinkos!) and fear monger over it. Just something to ponder.
Right, so you don't want people "leeching off society" (not your words, I know) but you're ok with people getting incredibly rich doing nothing other than exploiting cheap labour? I simply do not understand how those arguments are compatible, or how the latter could possibly be better. In this society we have a somewhat mixed political system. People CAN and DO claim benefits, because they have an issue that prevents them from securing a job - this is caused by employers not being able to provide jobs for them. In a tightly controlled socialist regime everything would state run, so the state would be able to provide appropriate working conditions for the individuals who would otherwise have been claiming benefits. This doesn't happen in our society because there's no incentive for a company to employ someone with a severe disability. But you don't get to choose. Your country is so big and culturally diverse that your vote is completely washed out by the masses of media driven morons who aren't capable of understanding the basic consequences of some of the proposed political changes. That is actually an interesting point that I've never heard or considered before. Interesting..
