Americans are not socialists

[jayem]

RE: "Americans are not socialists," according to the polls I could find, about 38% of Americans say they like socialism. That's not a majority, and it's lower than most other first world countries like Germany (63%) and the U.K. (53%), but it's a pretty large minority. There's some evidence that it's becoming a majority, if you look at how many people say they support socialism in each age group:

18-29: 60%
30-44: 42%
45-64: 33%
65+ 24%

Interesting that the 65+ age group least favors "socialism." Yet how many of them would want to eliminate Social Security and Medicare?

 

[MrSpikey]

Interesting that the 65+ age group least favors "socialism." Yet how many of them would want to eliminate Social Security and Medicare?

Duh...there's socialism and then there's SOCIALISM!

I'm sure once they work out the difference, they'll all be happy with it.

 

[pakicetus]

Interesting that the 65+ age group least favors "socialism." Yet how many of them would want to eliminate Social Security and Medicare?

They do like Medicare and Social Security, but they're also the least likely to support other socialist policies. According to eight polls conducted earlier this year (with a combined sample size of 12,450), they're 40% less likely than millennials to support single-payer healthcare, 80% less likely to support free college, and 30% less likely to support a $15 minimum wage, for example.

 

[Oafman]

I know right. There's more socialists in modern-day US politics than at any time since the Founding Fathers!

 

[NightHawkeye]

Interesting that the 65+ age group least favors "socialism." Yet how many of them would want to eliminate Social Security and Medicare?

Noting that Social Security has passed the point of not working. It's trust fund was pilfered years ago ...
Social Security Insolvency: When And What To Do | Forbes

When is Social Security going under? Before you can collect?

Bad news: The system is already bust. More money is going out in benefits and overhead ($714 billion a year) than is coming in from payroll taxes ($646 billion). For now, the government is covering the shortfall the way it pays for other things: by borrowing, collecting income tax and printing money.

There’s supposed to be $2.7 trillion set aside in a trust fund to cover Social Security benefits. It turns out that this fund is a fiction. The savings account is empty.​

 

[Shiloh Raven]

The U.S. has never invaded and taken over foreign countries to create an empire; we’re content to stay within our borders. After destroying the constructs of collectivism, we have rendered financial assistance, and rebuilt their cities. We are not Imperialists by any definition. Just ask Europe or Japan.​

America definitely does not stay within its own borders. Do you know how many countries it has military bases in and how many military bases it has on foreign soil? How does that not make America an empire? America has its tentacles in so many foreign countries, it is not even funny. Do you know how many years this country has been war since the beginning of its existence?

List of United States military bases

Where in the World Is the U.S. Military?

The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases

US Spending Over $150 Billion Annually On Overseas Military Bases

The United States Probably Has More Foreign Military Bases Than Any Other People, Nation, or Empire in History

As others have pointed out, America is a stolen nation. It is a nation born out genocide, racism, white supremacy, white privilege, discrimination, oppression, massive land theft, and slavery. It was not originally founded on the perpetuated lies of freedom, liberty or justice for all. Native Americans and African slaves (and all other minorities) did not have their freedom or liberty and they most definitely did not have justice. America is on stolen Indian land. Forced Indian Removal was legal and then there was the Trail of Tears and many other death marches to remove Indians from their land so white settlers could took the land as their own. The United States government broke every single treaty it has with individual American Indian Nations.

American Indian Treaties

Treaties Between the United States and Native Americans

Broken Promises On Display At Native American Treaties Exhibit

With more than 500 treaties already broken, the government can do whatever it wants, it seems...

So, instead of worrying about what other foreign countries are doing, maybe the United States government should focus more on honoring those treaties and start paying more of its long overdue payments of land royalties to the tribes.

The American Indian Movement Preamble of Broken Treaties 20-Point Position Paper

And before someone goes off with the "Indians once fought each other and owned slaves!" ad nauseam argument again in an attempt to justify what happened to the Indians in this country, need I remind them that Americans once fought against each other during the Civil War and owning another human being in slavery was once legal in this country. So, if you do not want to hear me tell you that the attacks on 9-11 or any other attack on America should be justifiable because Americans once fought against each other in the Civil War and Southern Americans owned slaves, then I would not go there if I were you.

 

[expos4ever]

It is admittedly flawed, but it still stands as the best and most prosperous this world has ever seen.

What measures are you using to assess the USA as "the best" and "the most prosperous". By most objective measures (per capita wealth, crime, longevity, poverty, etc., etc.), I believe they are nowhere near the top. I believe that Scandinavian countries fare best in this respect.

 

[expos4ever]

The U.S. has never invaded and taken over foreign countries to create an empire;

What you are saying is only true in an extremely restricted sense. Recent history is full of American military interventions clearly designed to protect American interests. No, the USA may not have formally annexed a foreign nation through military force but I suggest it is beyond clear that they have used military force to "get their way" many times.

Consider as a very tiny example the killing of Bin Laden. US forces entered another country, without permission, and conducted a military operation in which, I believe, citizens of that country (Pakistan) were killed. Yes, Bin Laden deserved to be brought to justice. However, imagine the outcry if Pakistani military forces had conducted a bloody military operation, on American soil and without American permission, and killed some American citizens.

People would be calling for blood, I suggest.

 

[Arcangl86]

What you are saying is only true in an extremely restricted sense. Recent history is full of American military interventions clearly designed to protect American interests. No, the USA may not have formally annexed a foreign nation through military force but I suggest it is beyond clear that they have used military force to "get their way" many times.

It's not even true in that restricted sense. Again, I give you Puerto Rico. The colony of West Florida was also annexed through military means as was a large part of Northern Mexico which became the Southwest and California.

 

[RDKirk]

But I hear Hillary wants a socialized military! Won't someone think of the children!

Yes, I understand she plans to allow soldiers to live on the base and eat food on the base without paying for it out of their salaries.

And give them free ammunition as well.

 

[Oafman]

Yes, Bin Laden deserved to be brought to justice.

Summary execution is not justice. He should have been taken to the US and put on trial, and made to answer for his crimes.

Terrorists just kill people they don't like. Civilised societies have a fair system for establishing guilt and determining punishment.

 

[J Cord]

Except for Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Hawaii, countless Native American lands, and not to also mentioning peacefully annexing Texas, buying Florida, a good portion of the central U.S. in the Louisiana Purchase, and Alaska.​

I was taught you guys purchased Alaska from Russia.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I was taught you guys purchased Alaska from Russia.

Treaty with Russia for the Purchase of Alaska | Primary Documents in American History

On March 30, 1867, the United States reached an agreement to purchase Alaska from Russia for a price of $7.2 million. The Treaty with Russia was negotiated and signed by Secretary of State William Seward and Russian Minister to the United States Edouard de Stoeckl. Critics of the deal to purchase Alaska called it "Seward’s Folly” or “Seward’s Icebox." Opposition to the purchase of Alaska subsided with the Klondike Gold Strike in 1896.​

 

[J Cord]

Civilised societies have a fair system for establishing guilt and determining punishment.

Apparently that might end in a little less than one month. According to Herr Drumpf at the second debate, the USA will be implementing sondergerichte to dispose of dissenters.

 

[SnowyMacie]

I was taught you guys purchased Alaska from Russia.

That's what I said.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Apparently that might end in a little less than one month. According to Herr Drumpf at the second debate, the USA will be implementing sondergerichte to dispose of dissenters.

I like those cool sounding names and have come to the conclusion that we need some Lebensraum in order to be great again. Is Canada in favor of Anschluss?

 

[Belk]

Forget The History Of Socialism At Your Peril | Madison Constitution Protection Corp

Our capitalist system, this experiment we call America, is still young, yet it has been responsible for creating one of the strongest, wealthiest, most powerful countries ever known to man, and in record time. It has defeated Socialism and Communism with its allies. It is admittedly flawed, but it still stands as the best and most prosperous this world has ever seen.

The U.S. has never invaded and taken over foreign countries to create an empire; we’re content to stay within our borders. After destroying the constructs of collectivism, we have rendered financial assistance, and rebuilt their cities. We are not Imperialists by any definition. Just ask Europe or Japan.

Those among us who’ve escaped the horrors in their own countries, from the former Soviet Union, the Eastern bloc countries, Cuba, and Argentina, urge us to stop the march toward inevitable destruction. They see the signs. They can never forget how it started. And it is déjà vu for them, seeing their adopted country on similar footing.

We are all in agreement that reform is necessary. Our Republic has drifted further and further from the Constitutional blueprint the founders provided. While we have striven to improve ourselves, and have in many ways succeeded, we have also allowed our leaders to take control away from us, the people. The country was formed with a deliberately limited power structure at the top of the pyramid, leaving most tasks to the state and local levels. Government was to be nearest to the people, where they could have an impact on their own communities, where they could wield power.​

Oh look, a giant appeal to tradition wrapped up in American exceptionalism. The reason why this means we should not try to take care of our own citizens is what exactly?

 

[jayem]

Noting that Social Security has passed the point of not working. It's trust fund was pilfered years ago ...
Social Security Insolvency: When And What To Do | Forbes

When is Social Security going under? Before you can collect?

Bad news: The system is already bust. More money is going out in benefits and overhead ($714 billion a year) than is coming in from payroll taxes ($646 billion). For now, the government is covering the shortfall the way it pays for other things: by borrowing, collecting income tax and printing money.

There’s supposed to be $2.7 trillion set aside in a trust fund to cover Social Security benefits. It turns out that this fund is a fiction. The savings account is empty.​

That's purely Congress's fault. If a country is going to have a public social insurance system, it has to be funded adequately. SS originated simply as an old age pension for retired workers. Congress quickly began expanding it--adding spousal and dependent benefits, then SSI, COL allowances, and so on. Yet, it did not provide funding to keep up. Early on, the law should have been amended to require that any benefit increase is automatically matched by a tax increase. So everyone knows that if they want benefits, they must pay for them. Congress wanted to please the voters, but hide the costs by that fiscal sleight-of-hand mentioned in your article. And you know that both Democrats and Republicans share the blame.

And anyway, living solely on SS is definitely living on the edge. It's not one's total means of support. It's a safety net, which is what it should be. But even so, what do you think would happen if a politician ran on a platform of eliminating SS and Medicare? How far do you think he'd get?

 

[NightHawkeye]

That's purely Congress's fault. If a country is going to have a public social insurance system, it has to be funded adequately. SS originated simply as an old age pension for retired workers. Congress quickly began expanding it ...

Well, yeah, that's the way socialism works. (That was kinda the point of the OP.) Socialism is an ever-expanding umbrella because there's never an end to the "good" things needing to be done with other people's money.

Only problem is the inevitable collapse, as predictable as it is unavoidable, when lots of people die.

 

[jayem]

Well, yeah, that's the way socialism works. (That was kinda the point of the OP.) Socialism is an ever-expanding umbrella because there's never an end to the "good" things needing to be done with other people's money.

Did you miss this?

Early on, the law should have been amended to require that any benefit increase is automatically matched by a tax increase. So everyone knows that if they want benefits, they must pay for them.

All social welfare programs must be properly funded and the voters must know that if they want these programs, they'll have to pay for them. There must be honesty, transparency, and no financial monkey business. If anything, this would act as a check on legislators going too far.

Only problem is the inevitable collapse, as predictable as it is unavoidable, when lots of people die.

Not sure where you're going here. If lots of people die, they're not paying taxes, but they're not collecting benefits either.