Whistling past the graveyard of socialism
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
This describes none of the european economies. The biggest "free stuff" people receive is free college education, in some countries. That's a good investment. |
Anonymous
Oh please. Sanders has been foolishly touting Denmark as a socialist model for the U.S. Problem is - even liberals in the U.S. media have concluded Sanders' plan isn't workable for the U.S.: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article50026810.html |
Anonymous
| ^^^ and Denmark is STILL a CAPITALIST COUNTRY! |
Anonymous
Haha! Bullsh!t. The United States is so GD rich, we could do it BETTER than Denmark! Anyway, most Americans want some very simple things that make sense: ** Access to affordable, universal health care from cradle to grave. ** A living wage. ** Affordable child care and/or a wage that makes it possible for one adult in a two-adult household to provide for the family. ** Affordable housing. ** Access to good education in preparation for life after high school. In addition, we need: ** Solid infrastructure for transportation -- roads, public transport, etc. ** Clean water and air, safe products in general. ** Financial security (not crazy wealth, just the basics), so trust in our banks and financial systems and security in old age/retirement. ** Jobs that afford us basic human standards of decency, so we have predictable work hours. ** Appropriate time for children, dependent adults, rest and relaxation. ** An educated workforce ** Families that can raise children (families are the most efficient and effective method we have for caring for the next generation) So... what's keeping us from these things and what's it going to take to get there? |
Anonymous
Qatar's even more. So? |
Anonymous
People paying taxes. Especially the 45% who doesn't pay any federal income tax (this does NOT happen in Europe, where everyone pays income tax). A great place to start would be to establish a 20% Value-Add Tax, so everyone pays 20% tax on everything they buy, from food to cars and new houses -- exactly as in Europe. |
Anonymous
As a pragmatist who spent two decades on Capitol Hill, I think the short answer is that you have to walk before you can even think about running. The problems with every one of those are that (1) the means to achieve them are not politically feasible - people may support the goals in theory, but when you have to propose details for massive increases in government expenditures and/or extreme mandates and restrictions on private entities and individuals, the support quickly disappears; but you would have to do one or both of those because otherwise (2) the private sector will cheat the government out of billions and billions of dollars - if you try to do these things using the paths of least resistance, you end up with something like Obamacare where the government is paying for health care and mandating insurance coverage but the insurers, drug companies, et al are still largely in control and can extort higher prices out of everyone and still avoid covering high risk people by cherry picking which markets to participate in; if the government suddenly started paying everyone's college tuition, just about every college would raise the tuition and students who flunk or drop out would be kept enrolled until the last possible government tuition payment was received - in other words, the things that the for-profit sham schools are now doing to cheat the federal financial aid program and trick their students into piling more debt on top of debt, would become the norm for many more colleges but the government would pay all the bills; so (3) you have to regulate these markets in an efficient way that protects against fraud, provides for transparency, but then allows consumers to make their own choices; then you can have the government supplement the market to help where it is really needed, not to subsidize everyone, but even if you write a great plan, (4) the truth is that the U.S. right now is so full of people who hate and distrust the "others" among their fellow citizens that any big interest groups that are not allowed to write their own subsidies into the new program would convince just about every self-identified group in America that it is a bad deal for people like them at the expense of whatever group it is that they despise. |
Anonymous
| I just got back from the the socialist ghetto called the United Kingdom. It was horrible, I tell you. I mean, except for the abundantly free press, affordable health care, and robust capital markets, thriving arts scene and low taxes the place was so damn oppressive of the people's freedoms. |
Anonymous
True. Thanks to Thatcher. And now ruled by Cameron. Perhaps we US liberals and independents should start voting in mass for moderate pro-business Republicans? |
Anonymous
Would they support universal health care? Uhhhh, no. And alas moderate Republicans in the US are a dying breed. You're going to have to go with a Progressive candidate to get anything done. They're the up and coming political presence. Then there's this, pulled from Wikipedia (but generally accepted) as consequence of Thatcherism: Critics of Thatcherism claim that its successes were obtained only at the expense of great social costs to the British population. Industrial production fell sharply during Thatcher's government, which critics believe was the reason for increased unemployment during her early years as prime minister. There were nearly 3.3 million unemployed in Britain in 1984, compared to 1.5 million when she first came to power in 1979, though that figure had fallen to some 1.6 million by the end of 1990. When she resigned in 1990, 28% of the children in Great Britain were considered to be below the poverty line, a number that kept rising to reach a peak of 30% in 1994 during the government of Thatcher's successor, John Major.[47] While credited with reviving Britain's economy, Thatcher also was blamed for spurring a doubling in the poverty rate. Britain's childhood-poverty rate in 1997 was the highest in Europe.[47] During her government Britain's Gini coefficient reflected this growing difference, going from 0.25 in 1979 to 0.34 in 1990.[48] So any move toward "Thatcherism" would have to acknowledge and address this. Since families are the primary effective purveyor of child care (from raising to feeding to housing), it makes sense to help families avoid poverty so they can avoid child poverty. Make sense? |
Anonymous
singapore has no urms |
Anonymous
+1 Britons lost their freedoms under conservative leadership. |
Anonymous
I am willing to bet Singapore has a teeny tiny itty bitty military wasting their money. I'd go for that. |
Anonymous
This and the waste, fraud and abuse in the government. For the people touting the NHS, everyone I know who has lived with it has had to deal with a poorer level of care than this nation would ever tolerate. The have still get quality care because they can pay for it, the have nots get shafted and people in this nation who have private insurance would be up in arms with what they would receive on the NHS. |
Anonymous
1) Romney established and ran a much better health system than Obamacare. If more liberals and independents would have been willing to support him, perhaps he wouldn't have had to appeal to the right as a Presidential candidate? 2) Wikipedia is a great source for most things, no need to apologize 3) But, somehow, you only included what critics say. Without her, the UK most likely would have gone bankrupt in the 70s...and all those things you seemed to appreciate during your recent trip there would have vanished in thin air |