Quote Originally Posted by .blank cd View Post
Alright! That's good. We can both agree that this is a standard definition of socialism, so we can both take def. number one--the various economic and political theories--and agree that socialism is an all-encompassing term, just as we can agree that capitalism is also an all encompassing term. Both have a bunch of theories within them. If we can agree that there are good and bad theories in capitalism, as well as good and bad theories in socialism, is it fair to market only the good parts of capitalism and only the bad parts of socialism?
I believe that this just comes down to a core belief of whether or not you believe you can achieve success with hard work.

Capitalism is survival of the fittest, the ability to achieve great success with hard work by being the best you can be.

Socialism doesnt believe you are capable of that, and that the only way you can truly achieve greatness is to have it given to you, provided to you, or taken from someone else because you arent smart enough or capable enough to achieve it on your own.

Capitalism is a system where the poorest of the poor, the most uneducated person, can achieve success by hard work. Look at any professional sports player , or many CEOs who came from nothing and achieved great wealth or social status , etc.

Socialism believes that the system is rigged in capitalism and isnt fair, so the govt must provide it to you.

In one instance (capitalism) you would have kanye west, Jay z, Lebron james, Michael jordan, Steve Jobs..........

In the other (socialism) by the very definition you would not.

Socialism by todays definition depends on a flawed view of the world IMO. It assumes that their are rich and wealthy to pillage in the first place. But what happens when all those people arent around? You get 1990s Russia. Where only govt officials have any real wealth. It destroys the middle class. Because once you eliminate everyone at the top, there is no reason to work to get there or stay there. Would kanye produce records if he couldnt make 12 million last year? Would A-Rod be the greatest baseball player if he couldnt make millions of dollars? Would steve jobs had invested billions if he couldnt MAKE billions?

First you have to understand that capitalism is driven by greed, want for wealth, success etc. You have to understand that in order for their to be a TOP there has to be a bottom. Not everyone can be rich, that is life. Do you agree with that?


One of its theories basically says, and conservatives can agree, that socialism is pretty much taxpayer money used on government programs for the betterment of society. Healthcare is a good example that conservatives hate. Government takes taxpayers money, puts it into a big account, and now less fortunate people can get their doctors visits taken care of.
Kinda. But see the problem is you guys dont understand the scope of the problem you are even trying to fix. all you see is "free helathcare is good!". What you dont understand is that the COST OF HEALTHCARE is 2 TRILLION DOLLARS AND CLIMBING, that is almost 4 times the cost of last years DEFENSE BUDGET. SO if you want to TAX people to pay for their healthcare..............it would be a massive increase something like 25-35% to BREAK EVEN. So why it sounds good when you say "people should have health care and it should be govt paid" you have to understand what that actually means. Who pays for it? Obviously you dont think the already "poor" should pay for it, so that leave the top income earners. I ask you this, should they provide the money for healthcare, will you be ok with NOT having a job? will you trade free healthcare for no job (because we both can agree that increasing a businesses taxes or a wealthy mans taxes 25-35% will see massive layoffs).

When those layoffs happen the govt tax revenues will decrease, which means they will have to borrow more. Which leads me to my next point, SOCIAL PROGRAMS ARE UNSUSTAINABLE.

Name me 1 social program that is solvent.......you cant. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaide, Foodstamps, Welfare, etc are all INSOLVENT because they dont work. Postal Service? Bankrupt.

Let's expand on less fortunate for a second. Some conservatives say there's no such thing as less fortunate people. Just lazy-asses. Let's get one thing straight--you're not gonna get rid of the working class, the lazy ass people they speak of. Simple as that. And that's a fact some have yet to come to terms with. Just as you need a CEO to run a big company, you need a waiter to run a restaurant. You need someone to assemble that Ferrari, you need someone to sell it to you, and you need someone to change its oil.
First of all no one said that so stop making up talking points. However i do believe that a ton of people in this country who cry foul are LAZY or they dont want to take responsibility for thier mistakes.

A person starts a business to make a profit. He employs people to make more profit. If the guy building the ferrari doesnt want to make $15/hr, he doesnt have to. there isnt a gun being held to his head. You can fix that through education, different trade skill, etc. If every person at wal mart quit tomorrow, wal mart would go under. But they dont , because they realize that their job payes what the rest of the market dictates. If you arent happy making $15/hr at wal mart, then its on YOU to change that, not the business, not the govt.

This is why i wonder why you have avoided the "what education level do you have, what is your job, do you have a college degree" question. Probably because that would circumvent your entire argument. Because if YOU dont possess the qualifications to be rich, then you dont DESERVE it, period. thats my point.


So with that said. Let's expand on another taxpayer funded program. The interstate highway system. Based off the German autobahn, a brainchild of the German Reich and the Weimar republic. You pay your taxes, the govt. puts that in a big account, and they pay for roads with it. Now you and the rest of the driving population can drive across the country conveniently. This idea was implemented by a republican president by the way.
Great, again you dont understand the shear size of the argument. We have 15-20million people out of work or underemplpoyed. On one hand you saiy that wages are too cheap, companies are evil, etc, but on the next hand you want to make everyone a construction worker and build highways? or do you think all those jobs are going to pay $50,000 a year? What do we do once the roads are built?

You agree we arent going to hire 10 million construction workers right? The govt doesnt create jobs, not sustainable ones. Because it cant create wealth. So you spend 400 billion on construction jobs and when all that work is done, then what? youre HOPING there will be other jobs for them to get hired to, but if not, we didnt fix the problem, we bandaided it.

If construction workers are out of jobs because theres no work to do, then does it make sense to arbitrarily hire them and invent jobs that dont exist anyway? The "roads and construction" stuff is not a solution, its a talking point that wont put a dent in unemployment, and is another waste of taxpayer money. Its something that probably does need to be done, but it doesnt address the problem of our stagnate economy. Sorry. Its something we should look at doing , for infrastructure reasons, but its way down on the totem pole. Also, the STIM 1 of 800 billion was supposed to be for ROADS AND BRIDGES, what happened to all that money? oh, it was wasted , and was mainly kickbacks. Govt cant spend money efficiently, that is proven.

So I could go on and on about police and the taxpayer funded United States military. But hopefully I've enlightened you to at the very least look at socialism objectively, as there are good and bad theories
See you guys like to do everything one way. I say socialism doesnt work and you say "OH SO YOU HATE POLICE THEN!". No, again, you simply dont understand the argument.

Police, Fire, Teachers, etc are all great aspects of state funded organizations (not federal). but they are volunteer. No one MAKES you be a police officer. But they are still a capitalistic part of society because they way that police/fire/teachers are funded is through the collection of state/county taxes, which come from the population living there. So an area must make it beneficial for people to live there, encourage good business environments, in order to collect revenue to pay for those services. It isnt the govt simply dictating "you must be a police officer" which is what a socialist/marxist society would do.

They are also in many cases BANKRUPT from state to state (from unions and other stuff) but many places need fed bailouts to keep their current police staff. So, EVEN if it is one of your socialist examples, it is another fact that they DONT WORK. They are not sustainable.

Also, we dont want people to be police officers and fire fighters and teachers , its nice that some people want to do that, and many of us greatly appreciate it, its a noble profession. But we cant have a country built on wanting to solely be that, we want people to generaly strive to be better, which is why MOST of those jobs DONT require a college degree