Democratic Socialist Movement.

[FullyAmbivalent]

What would be wrong with a democratic-socialist movement?
Is capitalism or socialism closer to christian ideals?
(Note: I am not talking about Authoritarian Socialism, but DEMOCRATIC socialism.)

 

[Scholar in training]

Democratic socialism doesn't work because it is state-sponsored oppression. Socialists think that corporations don't meet the people's needs. What makes them think the state will do better?

 

[Law of Loud]

Democratic socialism doesn't work because it is state-sponsored oppression. Socialists think that corporations don't meet the people's needs. What makes them think the state will do better?

Democratic socialism is hardly a state-sponsored oppression. If by Democratic socialism you are referring to Social Democracy, these are merely governments that mandate a certain level of respect from the employers to their employees. Employees are given a wide variety of benefits (such as much longer vacations) and a high minimum wage by government regulations. This has the affect of raising prices somewhat, though that's a relatively minor issue considering most people have substantially more spending money. Healthcare is typically government-run, and although many will point fingers at Canada as to why it is a bad system, Canada's a bad example. The failing of Canada was that the system was implemented, but the "every tax is a bad tax" attitude resulted in the system being massively underfunded.

It's interesting to note that despite many's hatred to this system, it has resulted in an arguably better lifestyle in most of the countries where it has been implemented.

 

[Nightson]

I'm a democratic socialist, and proud of it.

 

[MaryS]

The only presidents that I would consider as having been real socialist Democrats are FDR and LBJ. They both did the biggest welfare spending and established two of the biggest long-term social programs (social security and medicare). Hmm, seems socialist presidents also are good at getting us into bigger wars.

George Bush has done too much socialist spending that I think is a waste.
There are articles calling him "LBJ Junior" and "The mother of all spenders".
Also, the American Conservative Union preferred the system of welfare reform that went into effect during the last years of the Clinton administration, but the Senate apparently failed to renew that system of welfare.
There were plenty of RINOs in the House of Representatives that voted against it too.

(from the www.acuratings.com site for the year 2002:
Welfare Reform Extension. HR 4737 (Roll Call 170)
The bill would renew and extend the welfare reform bill passed five years ago, establishing certain standards for states to reduce welfare caseloads and putting almost all federal assistance into block grants for use as the states decide.
ACU supported this.
(to see how members of the House voted on the above, go to
http://www.acuratings.org/default.asp?ratingsyear=2002 and select a member of the House and click on the tab to see their votes for that year.

 

[Law of Loud]

The only presidents that I would consider as having been real socialist Democrats are FDR and LBJ. They both did the biggest welfare spending and established two of the biggest long-term social programs (social security and medicare). Hmm, seems socialist presidents also are good at getting us into bigger wars.

Of course, because the attack at Pearl Harbor was Roosevelt's fault. Grow up.

George Bush has done too much socialist spending that I think is a waste.

George Bush has hardly been LBJ Junior or a socialist in any sense. If anything, his major issue has been ridiculous tax cuts and an expensive wr effort. Not socialism, which is nearly the opposite of his agenda. Socialism isn't just hand-outs, in fact hand-outs are a very minute aspect that would nearly be eliminated if it were implemented well. Socialism is about taking care of your fellow citizens by providing them with good jobs, good (free) education, good healthcare, and a good safety net in case they slip.

Heh, you've really got into the ACU haven't you. Sometimes it's good to think for yourself. Even if they do support Clinton (which is a good thing), make sure to assess politics yourself.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What would be wrong with a democratic-socialist movement?

I'm an atheist who is against democratic socialism. I personally hope the Social Democrats here in Sweden are voted out of power soon.

What's wrong with them?

First off, they tax so much people have become very dependent on the government. People don't learn how to save money very well, for instance.

Second, this system seems to weaken families. The state is expected to handle financial needs that may have brought families together. Everything is the State's responsibility.

Third, they are oblivious to the needs of entrepreneurs and small businesses. The regulations and taxes on businesses seem geared to big business, and this makes it very difficult for small businesses to compete, or even to get started.

Fourth, unemployment is sky high, possibly because of how difficult it is on small businesses and would-be entrepreneurs. Employee taxes are so high that businesses seem to want to hire the absolute minimum number of employees, and then work them to death.

Fifth, with high unemployment, there are fewer and fewer people holding the economy up with their productivity. Atlas may shrug eventually, or at least be dragged down into the muck.

I hope for continued shrinking of government, for Sweden's sake.

 

[tulc]

Hmm, seems socialist presidents also are good at getting us into bigger wars.

"coughtheydidn'tstartthewarscough"
tulc(just something stuck in my throat!)

 

[jayem]

I'm skeptical of government providing social services except in one area. Health insurance is too important and too expensive to be left completely to private corporations. There will have to be a basic form of health insurance provided publically for everyone. A one payer system similar to Canada's Medicare. Doesn't have to be a huge federal one-size-fits-all program. Probably better if groups of states formed regional health insurance funds. All residents in a region would enroll in a fund, which would pay their medical bills. This will replace Medicare and Medicaid. Hospitals and providers would still be private entities, but would submit bills to this one entity. Payment levels would be negotiated each year with providers. Benefits would have to be limited to evidenced-based necessary services (figuring this out would be the really hard part.) Instead of employers and employees paying premiums to private companies, they'd pay taxes to support their regional funds. Theoretically, premiums might be lower, since a publically administered fund would not have to charge extra for a profit margin. Private insurance could still be available for those willing to pay extra for coverage of frills--deductables, experimental treatments, transplants, etc. Still would be hugely expensive, but it would relieve business of bearing most of the burden for providing health insurance, and it would cover everyone. It would end the necessity of getting a job with benefits, in order to have affordable health coverage. It really needs serious study.

 

[Voegelin]

Democratic socialism doesn't work because it is state-sponsored oppression. Socialists think that corporations don't meet the people's needs. What makes them think the state will do better?

They don't really believe the state will do better. Socialism is all about seizing power and the property of others. About those with no talent and no resources stealing from those who have either or both. All leftist rhetoric about "social justice", helping others and equality is a con.

In western democratic states, socialist repression can be mitigated to some extent. In less developed areas it is always, and rapidly, exposed for the culture of death it is.

 

[Scholar in training]

George Bush has hardly been LBJ Junior or a socialist in any sense. If anything, his major issue has been ridiculous tax cuts and an expensive wr effort. Not socialism, which is nearly the opposite of his agenda. Socialism isn't just hand-outs, in fact hand-outs are a very minute aspect that would nearly be eliminated if it were implemented well. Socialism is about taking care of your fellow citizens by providing them with good jobs, good (free) education, good healthcare, and a good safety net in case they slip.

Is this why national reading and math scores are so low? If socialism is about taking care of people by giving them a good education, I would say that it has failed miserably.

Heh, you've really got into the ACU haven't you. Sometimes it's good to think for yourself.

Just because Mary agrees with them, smart guy, doesn't mean that she isn't thinking. If you want to play that game I might as well criticize you for parroting the bolded talking points mentioned above.

 

[FullyAmbivalent]

Is this why national reading and math scores are so low? If socialism is about taking care of people by giving them a good education, I would say that it has failed miserably.

No, the problem with public education is that it is under funded and the standards for success are far lower then they desired for a good base of knowledge. If we would spend half as much as we do on our military we could have a great public school and university system. However, the prioties of the United States of America seems to be geared around wealthy elite and war to defend wealth.

Does anyone find it interesting that two of the main oil pipelines in the middle east run through Iraq and Afganistan?

We are so quick to kill people, yet so slow to do good for our own fellow country men and women.

 

[Scholar in training]

No, the problem with public education is that it is under funded. . .

Where would the money come from, and how would we see this implemented efficiently? Higher taxes and more state regulation (read: red tape)?

. . .and the standards for success are far lower then they desired for a good base of knowledge.

And how do we fix this permanently?

If we would spend half as much as we do on our military we could have a great public school and university system. However, the prioties of the United States of America seems to be geared around wealthy elite and war to defend wealth.

Or the public school system costs too much money (like all the other pork projects) and should be dismantled in favor of homeschooling/private schooling.

Does anyone find it interesting that two of the main oil pipelines in the middle east run through Iraq and Afganistan?

Argument from NO BLOOD FOR OIL (sexed down).

We are so quick to kill people, yet so slow to do good for our own fellow country men and women..

I don't think that the public school system is doing any good for this nation.

 

[zoink]

No, the problem with public education is that it is under funded

On average how much should be spent per student?

Sincerely,
zoink

 

[Law of Loud]

They don't really believe the state will do better. Socialism is all about seizing power and the property of others. About those with no talent and no resources stealing from those who have either or both. All leftist rhetoric about "social justice", helping others and equality is a con.

In western democratic states, socialist repression can be mitigated to some extent. In less developed areas it is always, and rapidly, exposed for the culture of death it is.

I'll say this as many times as is needed. Socialism is neither power-grabbing, nor theft. In a pure socialist system, that land belongs to everyone, including you. Through the basic premise of a government under a social contract, you gave up your right to that property by consenting to the government. It's not theft - it's voluntary on your part.

The less developed areas of the world don't implement socialism very well because of corruption, just like they don't implement any other form of government well.

In the western Democratic states, socialist repression is non-existant. These states are some of the free-est on Earth, some giving out such civil liberty that the US appears as some totalitarian regime, when of course it's not.b

 

[Law of Loud]

Or the public school system costs too much money (like all the other pork projects) and should be dismantled in favor of homeschooling/private schooling.

I think existing example should prove this. In the European countries that fund their education systems substantially more than we do, we also see very high testing scores, as well as a solid, well-rounded education. American education is lagging behind due to a lack of funding.

Every single person that I know at my school who came from a private school prefers the public school. The quality of education is better, and you learn a lot more about people they tell me.

Of course, private schools and homeschooling are good for some people. But they will never be the answer.

 

[MaryS]

I think existing example should prove this. In the European countries that fund their education systems substantially more than we do, we also see very high testing scores, as well as a solid, well-rounded education. American education is lagging behind due to a lack of funding.

As a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, the United States is outspending all other countries. So, it can't be just about needing more money for education.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/edu_tot_exp_as_of_gdp&int=-1
Education: Total expenditure as % of GDP

1. United States 7.0% of GDP
2. Denmark 6.7% of GDP
3. Sweden 6.5% of GDP
4. Canada 6.4% of GDP
5. France 6.1% of GDP
6. Australia 6.0% of GDP
7. Norway 5.9% of GDP
8. New Zealand 5.8% of GDP
9. Switzerland 5.7% of GDP
10. Austria 5.7% of GDP
11. Finland 5.6% of GDP
12. Belgium 5.5% of GDP
13. Germany 5.3% of GDP
14. United Kingdom 5.3% of GDP
15. Italy 4.9% of GDP
16. Netherlands 4.7% of GDP
17. Japan 4.6% of GDP
18. Ireland 4.6% of GDP

It's also interesting to note that none of the countries in the above list are even close the United States in population! Many of the countries listed have less of a population than some of our largest states.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/peo_pop&int=-1
(population rankings chart)

 

[Redneck]

I'll say this as many times as is needed. Socialism is neither power-grabbing, nor theft. In a pure socialist system, that land belongs to everyone, including you. Through the basic premise of a government under a social contract, you gave up your right to that property by consenting to the government. It's not theft - it's voluntary on your part.

So nobody owns anything? It wouldn't be a crime for me to take my garbage and dump it on someone else's land, because it's actually not someone else's land?

In the western Democratic states, socialist repression is non-existant. These states are some of the free-est on Earth, some giving out such civil liberty that the US appears as some totalitarian regime, when of course it's not.b

Like when the people vote no for a levy for a sports stadium but they do it anyway?

 

[MaryS]

"coughtheydidn'tstartthewarscough"
tulc(just something stuck in my throat!)

I never said that FDR or LBJ started a war. Unlike some people, I do read a variety of history books by liberal authors.

LBJ definitely got is into what I call a "bigger war". He was the one who ran a campaign promising to "seek no wider war" and did the most massive escalation of troop deployments. He certainly could have been impeached for his purposely deceptive tactics regarding the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution too.

FDR did try to get us into the war prior to the attack at Pearl Harbor. Actually, I disagree with liberal authors that slam FDR for trying to get us into war sooner because I think we went in when it got way out of control and put tens of millions of more lives at risk.
The Japanese, by the way, did use FDR cutting off their supplies (especially oil exports) as a reason (or excuse) for attacking America.

 

[Maxwell511]

As a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, the United States is outspending all other countries. So, it can't be just about needing more money for education.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/edu_tot_exp_as_of_gdp&int=-1
Education: Total expenditure as % of GDP

1. United States 7.0% of GDP
2. Denmark 6.7% of GDP
3. Sweden 6.5% of GDP
4. Canada 6.4% of GDP
5. France 6.1% of GDP
6. Australia 6.0% of GDP
7. Norway 5.9% of GDP
8. New Zealand 5.8% of GDP
9. Switzerland 5.7% of GDP
10. Austria 5.7% of GDP
11. Finland 5.6% of GDP
12. Belgium 5.5% of GDP
13. Germany 5.3% of GDP
14. United Kingdom 5.3% of GDP
15. Italy 4.9% of GDP
16. Netherlands 4.7% of GDP
17. Japan 4.6% of GDP
18. Ireland 4.6% of GDP

It's also interesting to note that none of the countries in the above list are even close the United States in population! Many of the countries listed have less of a population than some of our largest states.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/peo_pop&int=-1
(population rankings chart)

Maybe Americans are just bad socialists nothing wrong with that whatever works works.