Socialism -- a pathway to disaster

[Shad]

MAGA mission accomplished?

No. Loss of production and industry to China did that.

 

[Shad]

Sure, let's. I'm not the one trying to parallel universal healthcare with failed 3rd world socialist states.

I never did either. I reject universal healthcare as it ignores personal responsibility with no consequence regarding payments. If someone smokes for 40 years they can go bankrupt before the system covers the costs for the cancer they will most likely develop. They have no problem poisoning themselves and paying for the privilege of doing so. Choices have consequences especially poor ones. Toss in I am against a government monopoly as Sander wants to remove the private sector

 

[Father Heathen]

I never did either. I reject universal healthcare as it ignores personal responsibility with no consequence regarding payments. If someone smokes for 40 years they can go bankrupt before the system covers the costs for the cancer they will most likely develop. They have no problem poisoning themselves and paying for the privilege of doing so. Choices have consequences especially poor ones. Toss in I am against a government monopoly as Sander wants to remove the private sector

I suppose you would like to have law enforcement and fire departments privatized as well for the same reasons?

 

[Shad]

I suppose you would like to have law enforcement and fire departments privatized as well for the same reasons?

Nope. Your house burning can cause a neighborhood to burn down due to collapse, wind, debris. You getting cancers results in just you having cancer.

 

[Father Heathen]

Nope. Your house burning can cause a neighborhood to burn down due to collapse, wind, debris. You getting cancers results in just you having cancer.

So if your child has cancer and you can't afford the massively inflated premiums, copays, hospital fees medicine costs, etc. despite you and your spouse working full time jobs, your child deserves to die after you've been driven into destitution because of some purported lack of personal responsibility?

 

[Shad]

So if your child has cancer and you can't afford the massively inflated premiums, copays, hospital fees medicine costs, etc. despite you and your spouse working full time jobs, your child deserves to die after you've been driven into destitution because of some purported lack of personal responsibility?

My point was about government healthcare not my private choices and burdens I choose to take upon myself. See the difference? I have zero control over someone not me nor my children smoking. I can not cut off their funding. I can not enforce any rule upon them as a member of my household. I can not punish them. I have to pay for some random stranger smoking in 2020 self-caused medical problems based on my success not their failure (income vs risk/costs). If my child gets cancer due to smoking I failed as a parent just on the smoking part.

At worst I am suggesting premiums for people that cause their own issues or take risks of their own choice. You rock climb and fall? You pay more. You are hit by a car while not in violating any law or regulation? The car owner pays.

Do not conflate government mandated systems with charity.

 

[Milton Platt]

As someone who lived in Venezuela and married a Venezuelan, have friends in Cuba and was in the neighboring countries when the Socialist Sandanistas were in power, I can't help but wonder how people can follow Socialism with Bernie Sanders leading the charge.

I have seen it again and again. They promise utopia, using real-life issues, and it ends up being worse than what they had when they started.

Example: Bernie's "Great education with Cuba -- you can't throw out the good of what he did"... really?

It was an education in communism and not in growing in education. It was an elimination of faith-religion and the promotion of the state religion of communism. Yes, graduated doctors in medicine with no medicine to treat the people. Yes, it was agriculture... but for export while each family had delegated 2 chickens a months (to eat), a few pounds of coffee, and other bare minimal sustenance to get you by while the cows were exported and if you killed one, certain prison time.

BUT THEY DID HAVE HOSPITALS FOR ALL AND EVERYONE WAS EQUAL... equal in poverty unless you were in the upper echelon and medicine shelves were bare.

I still remember in an interview with a Cuban pastor in the US (year ago when it was a rare event) - as he began to perspire profusely when asked questions about Cuba. Why? Because his family was still in Cuba and a wrong statement heard by other Cubans (who might be plants by the government) would mean disaster for their family.

So, what do we have today? What is the carrot on the hook of Socialism?

1) Free university education (as long as you don't mind getting the same pay as one who didn't go)
2) Free medical for all (as long as you don't mind not getting the treatment you want when you want it - IF - there are medicines
3) Everybody gets minimum wages $20/hr - you keep $10/ hour and then the government parcels out your monthly need.

See it happen again and again--and they say it would never happen! That is what THEY ALL PROMISED!

Bernie and the rest of them are no different. They are simply adding some heat to the frog in the water.

Are people blind?

Those were dictatorships you are using as a comparison. Democratic socialism does not require that the government own everything. There is a huge sliding scale. It isn't "either/or". The U.S. has socialist programs right now.

 

[Twilight Hue]

MAGA mission accomplished?

More like creating more dependants for big govt.

 

[Milton Platt]

I never did either. I reject universal healthcare as it ignores personal responsibility with no consequence regarding payments. If someone smokes for 40 years they can go bankrupt before the system covers the costs for the cancer they will most likely develop. They have no problem poisoning themselves and paying for the privilege of doing so. Choices have consequences especially poor ones. Toss in I am against a government monopoly as Sander wants to remove the private sector

I don't entirely disagree with you on healthcare. But there seems to be middle ground that everyone ignores. There could be some minimal floor for health care supported by the government that insures everyone gets checkups, and coverage for catastrophic health issues. I don't think that the level of healthcare you get should be governed by whether you are a corporate CEO or slinging burgers at McDonald's.

It can be a blending of the two concepts. If you have that basic coverage handled by the government, you can always pay for more bells and whistles on the private market...and it will be cheaper so more people can afford it.

 

[Shad]

I don't entirely disagree with you on healthcare. But there seems to be middle ground that everyone ignores.

I have proposed a middle ground several times. I have suggested using premiums such as the case with smokers. People on RF ignore it or attempt to shame me over someone's free choice and life style choices. Another example I have made is for people that take part in risky sports activities. For example a few years ago some of Canada's Olympic ski and snowboard team members rented a helicopter to drop them off on a side of a mountain. This was not at a resort. One broke his leg. SAR had to be sent to rescue him. He should pay for some of those costs as he put himself in the middle of nowhere willingly and paid for it.

There could be some minimal floor for health care supported by the government that insures everyone gets checkups, and coverage for catastrophic health issues. I don't think that the level of healthcare you get should be governed by whether you are a corporate CEO or slinging burgers at McDonald's.

It can be a blending of the two concepts. If you have that basic coverage handled by the government, you can always pay for more bells and whistles on the private market...and it will be cheaper so more people can afford it.

My focus is on who pays more and why not coverage. Again back to the smoker example. A smoker gets the same coverage but pays more due to their poor choice.

Seriously you are the first user that have even bothered to respond along these lines instead of grandstanding. Thanks.

 

[dfnj]

Are people blind?

Are you? You pretend laissez faire capitalism is a panacea. It isn't. The system stopped serving the people long ago. Now people are serving the system.

The problems with our country are not rocket science. The billionaires and CEOs pay the lobbyists money to force or persuade the politicians to pass laws creating cartels and monopolies in exchange for campaign financing. We have no free-markets. There is no mechanism in the economy to wring out the inefficiencies of exorbitant CEO pay and excessive dividend payouts. Combine the laws creating with cartels and monopolies with the corporations fixing wages based on data published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics is pure evil. This is because tax payer dollars are being used to directly hurt the US worker. The result is this:

Nobody ever watches this video. The problem is so far worse than anyone can ever imagine. We virtually economic slaves. The 1936 words of FDR are more true today than when he first spoke them:

"An old English judge once said: 'Necessitous men are not free men.' Liberty requires opportunity to make a living - a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor - other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government."

Speech before the 1936 Democratic National Convention

Marx was right! Marx said laissez faire capitalism is always followed by communism. This is because unfettered greed would result in the government's currency collapsing to nothing in value. Once the currency is worthless, people in the breadlines will demand MORE government not less. See you in the breadlines comrades!!

 

[dfnj]

Then, socialism wouldn't be the answer. There is a reason why the purpose of our fathers was a "limited government" and not a government control for all people

The government is about to give billions of dollars to the oil companies. Where are your protests against socialism now? No where!

Trump Prepares Aid Package To Relieve U.S. Oil Producers | OilPrice.com

 

[dfnj]

Interesting take

You Can't Argue against Socialism's 100 Percent Record of Failure | Kristian Niemietz

What about Russia after WWII? They went from nothing to World power in like 10 years.

What about China now? I've went to China in 2003. Make no mistake about China is a communist country. China now is the dominate production economy in the World. Nobody can compete with China.

Here is what will never happen in this country and why China is going to be the only World's super power:

China spending US$3.3 billion on molten salt nuclear reactors for faster aircraft carriers and in flying drones – NextBigFuture.com

Once China stops giving trillions to Saudi Arabia China will be the most powerful country in the World 10 times over.

 

[Kenny]

The government is about to give billions of dollars to the oil companies. Where are your protests against socialism now? No where!

Trump Prepares Aid Package To Relieve U.S. Oil Producers | OilPrice.com

??? And the prices of eggs in China are what???

The title doesn't match the information in the site." Administration officials will present the President with options, which will include financial assistance to industries affected by the coronavirus and the oil price crash."

Options is not "helping".

And just how is "socialism" the answer to that? In Venezuela, price is low but, thanks to socialism, money to buy it is scarce.

 

[Kenny]

What about Russia after WWII? They went from nothing to World power in like 10 years.

WHAAAAT???

You MUST be young too forget.

I have a pastor friend who went to Russia soon after the wall fell down and countries got their freedom back.

You would have known that socialism brings destruction.

World power status on the backs of the poor - everyone was poor

 

[dfnj]

WHAAAAT???
You would have known that socialism brings destruction.
World power status on the backs of the poor - everyone was poor

You seem to be operating under the delusion corrupt and evil governments only happen with leftist governments.

 

[Kenny]

You seem to be operating under the delusion corrupt and evil governments only happen with leftist governments.

Please quote where I said that?

 

[dfnj]

Please quote where I said that?

RE: "You would have known that socialism brings destruction."

 

[Kenny]

RE: "You would have known that socialism brings destruction."

That specifically says socialism. Please read more carefully.

Now... IF YOU ARE ASKING:

Capitalism without loving your neighbor as yourself is also destructive

 

[dfnj]

That specifically says socialism. Please read more carefully.
Now... IF YOU ARE ASKING:
Capitalism without loving your neighbor as yourself is also destructive

You and I will just never agree. Socialism works great! Public roads and infrastructure makes everyone have more wealth. Laissez faire capitalism has serious problems. You should study the works of Karl Marx. He will enlighten you:

According to Marx, the CEOs and shareholders are stealing from the worker's productivity by selling products for more than they are worth. And according to the laissez faire capitalists taxes and socialism is also stealing. So why is one type of theft okay and the other type of theft not okay?

You can't redistribute wealth. Wealth is a system of leverage. But you can ensure workers have enough money to have a decent living according to the standard of our time. And not just enough for subsistence but enough to have something to live for in the pursuit of happiness. And what difference does it make anyway to the CEOs and shareholders. All the money given to workers just flows right back from where it came by the system of leverage.

You tell me. Why don't we just have slavery. Why do we pay workers at all? How do you justify any level of worker's pay? If you hate socialism so much where do you draw the line?

How do you justify the absolutely obscene levels of wealth inequality we have around the World where the top 1/2 of 1% own 99% of everything:

You tell me what is the "right" distribution of wealth in this country? Because it seems to me we are as about as far away from communism as we can get and still have a currency worth a shred of value. I very much doubt the workers of this country are going to own any factories in the near future. My prediction is people will have excessive debt to the day they die.