ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Socialism

Report this
Created by: DUKAT!!!!

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Feb. 09 2013, 9:37 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 09 2013, 3:53 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 08 2013, 9:41 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 08 2013, 3:50 am

>

>

>So maybe we should reform the system? Giving help to those who need it, as opposed to those who simply want it?
Who defines "need" vs. "want" ??

See... as long as the government can make those determinations, they choose who's wealth gets redistributed from/to.... usually because who's voting for them / bribing them with "political donations."

 

No... the government should not be in this business at all - privately or corporately.  The government should not be picking winners and losers.

 

We all have needs and wants, but it is our own private responsibility to try to meet/fulfill them.  As soon as we tell someoene else that they must meet our needs/wants, they become our slaves.

"Need" should, in most cases, be obvious. Someone who is mentally and/or physically disabled, and therefore lacks the ability to work, cannot be expected to work. A welfare system should exist to provide for them, as they cannot provide for themselves. Without one, they would be forced to depend on hand-outs, which in truth are few and far between (especially for those without the mental capacity to find them), which would often be a death sentence.

I'd even say that people who aren't working due to economic crises, such as we are facing now, are in need, and should recieve benefits, so long as they can prove that they are actively seeking employment.

On the other hand, anyone who can work, but simply doesn't want to, should recieve nothing.

And you're free to donate to them.  You could even come to one of the many "soup kitchens" and food patries and donate your money and time.  But I don't believe in forcing you to support another, regardless of the "reason."  If I force you to pay for someone else's needs against your will, then you've just become a slave.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Feb. 09 2013, 9:57 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 09 2013, 3:56 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 08 2013, 9:49 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 08 2013, 3:50 am

>

>

>Proven by whom? I've seen evidence for both methods, from countries invlolving people who both do and do not want to support themselves. And, often, both and in the same systems.
Proven by multiple studies in multiple countries.

Take a look at unemployment benefits in multiple countries - the longer the benefits last, the longer people stay unemployed, but when unemployment runs out.... all the sudden people have a job.  As unemployment benefits were expanded, more people to advantage of it.  As the time to receive unemployment benefits lengthened, so did the mean time for being unemployed.  In countries that decided to cut unemployment benefits, more and more people "miraculously" found work.

 

If people really want to address the risk of unemployment, they should be free to purchase their own unemployment insurance.

 

Take my parents for example - they have lived off government handounds for a lot of my life and they keep voting for politicians who promise them more.  They choose to do so and will do so for the rest of their lives.  They think that anyone else that has earned money owe that money to them because of "fairness."  They want others to pay for their home, car, phones, internet, satellite TV,, food, etc., but don't want to work for it..... but why work for it if you don't have to?

I ask again, proven by whom? Show me studies.

I've provided this information before showing studies from multiple countries that show a link between the length of unemployment and how long someone receives unemployment handouts.  Please feel free to look it up or do a few minutes of research for yourself.  Some of the studies also showed that because of the unemployment handounts, unemployment actually increases as much as 2.7% (ref WSJ) or as little as 1.5% (Econ Journal Watch.)  When I provided the charts and reference material before, some people provided their own rebuttals, each one of their rebuttals actually agreed in principle that benefits keep people from working (they were only arguing the percentages.)


But for some reason... the data is just ignored because people want "free" stuff.

jcan1701

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5

Report this Feb. 09 2013, 9:59 am

In truth, if the people didn't make such a big fus about it, how many would donate time or money?  Not very many.  Only reason companies and rich people donate is to make themselves look good...not really to help others.  This, of course, inspires comments like Romney's 47% comment, as they've never really understood what is at the bottom of the financial chain.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Feb. 09 2013, 10:07 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 09 2013, 9:37 am

>On the other hand, anyone who can work, but simply doesn't want to, should recieve nothing.
Haven't you noticed the record number of people going on disability lately?  People are choosing this path instead of figuring out what they can do to provide for themselves.


A few years ago, I had a guy working for me that was blind.  Before he was blinded, he had a different career, but after he became blind, he learned another skill.  It wasn't easy, but he did it.


The vast majority of people who can't do physical labor anymore due to some disability can do something else.  It may not what they want to do, but that doesn't mean they should be on handouts.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Feb. 09 2013, 10:12 am

Quote: jcan1701 @ Feb. 09 2013, 9:33 am

>

>Why is it one way or the other?  I did not vote because I believe just a little bit of socialism is a good thing.  100% socialism is terrible, and 100% Capitalism is worse. Examples like Medicare, Medicade, Social Security, and SS Disability are straigh up socialist programs that actually help.  The advantage of these is that they keep the old, sick, and dying people off of our streets, while also helping to put a curb to things like the flu or more serious illnesses that are easily spread.  At the same time, regulated Capitalism is good to, as it funds the social programs, inspires innovation, talent, and skill.  It also encourages people to work.  People keep trying to tell me that the two are incompatable, yet it has worked in the U.S. for the last 100 years.  There is always such a thing as going to far.  America has become the land of extremes, and it won't work well for us to be either 100% Capitalism or 100% socialism.  This is why our government is designed the way it was.  It encourages open debate so that we the people can decide what is good and what isn't with each individual bill.   As I said earlier, America is a land of extremes, so many people do not understand this middle ground.  Its the extremism that causes polls like this, and encourages hatred and intolorence of people with other view points.

>
That's like saying that a little cancer is good for everyone.  Sounds like you've drank the government's Kool-Aid.


If those programs kept people out poverty, then why are the people receiving those handouts still in poverty?  No - it's a system that actually keeps people in poverty.


If those things were such a good thing, why make it mandatory via force of government?  Why not privatize it and let people choose?

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Feb. 09 2013, 10:16 am

Quote: Mason330 @ Feb. 09 2013, 7:17 am

>

>To sacrfice one's freedoms and liberties for the sake of government makes no sense.  Small Government = More Freedom.

>
Great first post!  Welcome to the forum!

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 390

Report this Feb. 09 2013, 10:31 am

Once again, socialism is not a political system. Stop referring to it as such.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Feb. 09 2013, 10:37 am

Quote: jcan1701 @ Feb. 09 2013, 9:59 am

>

>In truth, if the people didn't make such a big fus about it, how many would donate time or money?  Not very many.  Only reason companies and rich people donate is to make themselves look good...not really to help others.  This, of course, inspires comments like Romney's 47% comment, as they've never really understood what is at the bottom of the financial chain.

>
That maybe a small reason for some, but it's not true for many companies and "rich" people.  As some of you know, I am involved with some soup kitchens and food pantries and I use my business contacts to get donations for them - the vast majority of the donations I coordinate are done with the stipulation that it's anonymous.  (The giver is stipulating it, not me.)  Just because you don't know that something is happening doesn't mean it's not.


And so what if someone donates only because they want attention?  It's their money and they can choose to donate it or not!  I really don't care that Bill Gates is donating billions and getting his name in the news - he's trying to help.  If he wanted to cash it all out and build a bonfire, I'd be okay with that too as it's his money.


What people do with their money is their choice.  Forcing someone to "give" their money to something you want them to is slavery.


As for Romney's 47% remark, while it may have been something that doesn't bring people together, it was essentially correct.  And remember, the majority of the "rich" were at one time "poor" (at least according to the IRS' own statistics.)

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Feb. 09 2013, 11:11 am

Quote: jeanluckirk737 @ Feb. 09 2013, 6:30 am

>

>I live in the UK, and I'm a sociolist. DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH THE MONARCHY INFURIATES ME?

>
At least you have smart people like Nigel Farage and Christopher Monckton.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Feb. 09 2013, 11:16 am

Quote: Irina Galliulin @ Feb. 09 2013, 6:10 am

>

>Socialism work perfect, had us replicators. Nobody starv or need job. No money, people like brothers, socialism be utopia.

>
hahahah


Okay - let's just say that there are replicators.  How does someone puchase one if they don't need a job?  How do these replicators get built if nobody is working?  Who's going to repair the replicators if nobody works?  Where is the power coming from if nobody works?  How are all of your other needs met if people no longer work?

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 390

Report this Feb. 09 2013, 12:19 pm

Okay - let's just say that there are replicators.  How does someone puchase one if they don't need a job?  How do these replicators get built if nobody is working?  Who's going to repair the replicators if nobody works?  Where is the power coming from if nobody works?  How are all of your other needs met if people no longer work?


Yeah, he didn't say anything about not working.


EDIT: Of course, in your warped mind, people only work for money so "no jobs" means "no working."

Mason330

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4

Report this Feb. 09 2013, 5:43 pm

Why would anyone not work for money? If you work for no pay that's called slavery.


Kirk out.

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 390

Report this Feb. 09 2013, 6:44 pm

Why would anyone not work for money? If you work for no pay that's called slavery.


So Kirk, Spock and everyone else in Star Trek is a slave then?

Mason330

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4

Report this Feb. 09 2013, 6:59 pm

That's not reality. Paying your electric bill, mortgage, taxes, etc., is reality. Last I checked the bank doesn't care if you think your from the planet Vulcan or not and bills get paid by money and that comes from actually working for it and earning it.


Kirk out.

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 390

Report this Feb. 09 2013, 7:44 pm

Sorry, I didn't realize the 28 seasons and 11 movies of Star Trek that show why people would work for no money was off limits. My bad.


You want a real world example? How about being a parent?

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum