Socialism...

[Verv]

I'm not saying that I agree with over-taxation, but think about the alternative for a moment. A great many folks would be left to rely on the generosity of their neighbours, and consider me a cynic all you like, but I just don't have a whole lot of faith in that. I could be wrong of course, but greed tends to be a popular human trait.

Let's let believers put their money where their mouths are, that's my view.

I might ask some of you guys for some college money later this year.

I'm 100% for the separation of church and state.

Being that I don't buy in to any religious system, I naturally feel that the government shouldn't endorse any particular one over the other (which republicans have consistently done for the last 50 years).

If you read my OP, you'll notice that my post was questioning why many Christian republicans feel that the book of Romans is worth integrating into their political opinions, but Acts is not. I'm not a Christian and don't feel that political opinions should be derived from either book, I'm just curious as to why people pick and choose which biblical standpoints they're going to carry through to other parts of their lives...

That is a good stance you have, then.

Certainly anyone who wants to incorporate the Bible into the law should also incorporate the Acts with the Ramones... Er, I mean, Romans.

:: hopes people enjoy this clever joke ::

 

[Wyzaard]

anecdotes can show the practical real life situations that the numbers support, and as to the numbers all kinds of them, I have been on threads that were all about the evidences, and still been told they didn't matter because they were further supported by real life examples.

So... you don't have any numbers then? So what use are these anecdotes at all?

In other words, willful blindness, but if you point that out, be ready for a warning. When someone puts forth evidence, statistics, websites, newsarticles, etc. and supports that with ancedotal evidence that shows the same thing happening that the numbers show, and you (general term for anyone) want to claim the evidence isn't provided, it is willful blindness...if you want to claim the evidence isn't strong enough, or could be read a different way, etc. discussion makes sense, but to pretend the evidence isn't provided is willful and it is blindness...

Ummm... Why do you complain about this, and then not post any evidence for the claims you most certainly made?

Edit: I have faced this willful blindness so many times now that I simply don't have the heart left to post all the evidence again, so continue your discussion with the other poster. I long for someone to actually listen to the evidence rather than pretend it doesn't exist, but I can't keep pretending that in this debate anyone cares about the evidence, it's an emotional topic with emotional responses not logical ones. I argue logically, which can be my downfall is such threads where emotions rule.

Ok then... retract your claims, and we can go our separate ways.

Wait... you didn't think you'd just be able to make this ad hom sob story and get yourself off the hook, did you?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Let's let believers put their money where their mouths are, that's my view.

I might ask some of you guys for some college money later this year.



That is a good stance you have, then.

Certainly anyone who wants to incorporate the Bible into the law should also incorporate the Acts with the Ramones... Er, I mean, Romans.

:: hopes people enjoy this clever joke ::

I don't recall anything in the bible about wanting to be sedated or the rock 'n roll high school

Sorry, bad Ramones joke

 

[razzelflabben]

So... you don't have any numbers then? So what use are these anecdotes at all?

see, this is willful blindness, go ahead and report me for calling it what it is...when I tell you that I have repeatedly offered numbers, websites, newspaper articles, and the anecdotal evidence that shows all them as truth, and you insist that I don't have the numbers, it's willful blindness...you can goat me for not offering them in this thread, you can accuse them if being other, but to insist they don't exist is to 1. call me a liar of which you have nothing to base that assumption on and is indeed flaming or 2. you can show yourself as willfully blind. Your choice. Which do you choose.

Ummm... Why do you complain about this, and then not post any evidence for the claims you most certainly made?

because of the above, there is nothing to gain from people who refuse the evidence. If I hand you a sandwich and you refuse to take it and eat, I can do nothing to keep you from starving to death.

Ok then... retract your claims, and we can go our separate ways.

Wait... you didn't think you'd just be able to make this ad hom sob story and get yourself off the hook, did you?

see above....

 

[ThatRobGuy]

see, this is willful blindness, go ahead and report me for calling it what it is...when I tell you that I have repeatedly offered numbers, websites, newspaper articles, and the anecdotal evidence that shows all them as truth, and you insist that I don't have the numbers, it's willful blindness...you can goat me for not offering them in this thread, you can accuse them if being other, but to insist they don't exist is to 1. call me a liar of which you have nothing to base that assumption on and is indeed flaming or 2. you can show yourself as willfully blind. Your choice. Which do you choose. because of the above, there is nothing to gain from people who refuse the evidence. If I hand you a sandwich and you refuse to take it and eat, I can do nothing to keep you from starving to death. see above....

Calling it what it is? Wyzaardis completely right, anecdotal evidence is not evidence. A lot of the evidence you've provided doesn't hold water. You stated that under a free market system people have the ability to change classes...Where are your numbers to back this claim up? From observation of current events and of history, I don't see this as being the case. In the very infancy of our nation, Are beloved founding fathers had slaves right out of the gate...how much chance do people have of changing their social/economic stature with a system that condones trading other humans as commodities?

You stated a few times that today isn't a true free market and that's why you don't like the examples of current events that I provided...

Your opinion is that we currently don't have a true free market system.
Well then, we know we didn't have one in 1776 and if we don't have one in 2009, just when were these magic years that a true free market existed???

 

[Wyzaard]

see, this is willful blindness, go ahead and report me for calling it what it is...when I tell you that I have repeatedly offered numbers, websites, newspaper articles, and the anecdotal evidence that shows all them as truth, and you insist that I don't have the numbers, it's willful blindness...

I don't recall ever talking to you before... do you think I'm a member of some hive-mind or something?

you can goat me for not offering them in this thread, you can accuse them if being other, but to insist they don't exist is to 1. call me a liar of which you have nothing to base that assumption on and is indeed flaming or 2. you can show yourself as willfully blind. Your choice. Which do you choose.

3. You are making claims you refuse to support due to further unsupported claims that you have already supported them along with personal attacks that label the rest of us 'blind'.

Until you produce a sandwich for us, you have no sandwich to give.

 

[razzelflabben]

Calling it what it is? Wyzaardis completely right, anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Anecdotal evidence is important to an entire case that includes the harder, more important evidence....look at it this way, if we have statistics, add to those statistics websites that show the same thing, add to both of those historical evidence, further add to the case news articles, then take all that evidence, keep in mind we currently have 4 lines of evidence and then add to those 4 lines anecdotal evidence, so that anecdotal is one of 5 sources all showing the same thing, and the response to the 5 lines of evidence is anecdotal evidence is worthless, to bad you don't have any evidence, thus totally ignoring all that led up to the anecdotal, the other 4 lines of evidence, there is little reason to present any evidence now is there. If anecdotal evidence was all that was presented, you would have a point, but when anecdotal is following 3 or 4 other lines of evidence, the anecdotal is like icing on a cake.

The question is why present any evidence when like the previous poster, I say, I have statistics, history, newspaper, websites, and anecdotal evidence and the poster says, oh so you have no evidence because anecdotal evidence isn't valid, what is the point of presenting anything? What is the point of putting forth the effort just so the willfully blind can say, you didn't do it, to bad....

A lot of the evidence you've provided doesn't hold water.

I haven't provided any evidence on this thread yet, so I would assume that your comment should be that I have not yet provided evidence to what I am saying....truth...

You stated that under a free market system people have the ability to change classes...Where are your numbers to back this claim up?

I did't provide any for two reasons, 1. no one asked for them, we were discussing our views and no one ask for evidence to support those views and 2. when I support my views, the response is always the same, it isn't "I read the evidence differently" or "I don't agree with your interpretation of the evidence" or even, "thanks for playing the game" the response is always, "you didn't provide evidence"....I show the numbers again and say "here is your evidence, here are the stats, and the socialists among us reply, "see I knew you had no evidence"...I say, "look, here is the evidence" and the response, "put your money where your mouth is and provide the numbers you claim to have"....over time, I get to tired and calloused to care anymore, so when someone shows themselves to be willfully blind as the previous poster did, I simply refuse, waiting for and longing for someone, anyone who will remove emotion long enough to look at the evidence as it is provided.

So let's be honest shall we....I have not yet provided any evidence on this thread and I am not about to because the evidence of willful blindness is so strong that it would be a total waste of time and energy, especial with a busy schedule and a crappy computer. (is crappy computer grounds for a swear warning?)

From observation of current events and of history, I don't see this as being the case. In the very infancy of our nation, Are beloved founding fathers had slaves right out of the gate...

okay, so let me ask you for evidence to support your claims, but remember, I have already addressed the slave issue and claim that the greatest stride to equality for all happened under free market, in other words, how far did we come toward equality for all under free market vs all other forms of gov. Not where did we start, but rather how far did we come that is the question...what you need to do is evidence that free market did not allow equality to move forward.

how much chance do people have of changing their social/economic stature with a system that condones trading other humans as commodities?

how much chance do people have of changing thier social/economic stature when the system helps people to move past their prejudices into a society where equality reigns?

You stated a few times that today isn't a true free market and that's why you don't like the examples of current events that I provided...

today we have a mixed economy that is moving at a feverish pass toward complete and total socialism, therefore any current events that you provide are those that speak for socialism not free market...what you need to do is compart free market to socialism....how are we better off today then we were under free market, minus of course the normal technelogical advancements that would have occured anyway, such as automobiles, and new drugs, etc. The things that our government afforded us, not life?

Your opinion is that we currently don't have a true free market system.
Well then, we know we didn't have one in 1776 and if we don't have one in 2009, just when were these magic years that a true free market existed???

Let's first establish whether or not you know what free market is...what do you think free market is, and when it has been practised? From this above statement I would have to say, your understanding of free market is lacking a bit.

 

[razzelflabben]

I don't recall ever talking to you before... do you think I'm a member of some hive-mind or something?

what I am suggesting is that your posts show the routine responses of those who wish to remain emotionally connected and evidentcially blind.

3. You are making claims you refuse to support due to further unsupported claims that you have already supported them along with personal attacks that label the rest of us 'blind'.

Until you produce a sandwich for us, you have no sandwich to give.

see previous post.

 

[Wyzaard]

how much chance do people have of changing thier social/economic stature when the system helps people to move past their prejudices into a society where equality reigns?

You're not talking about a capitalist system here, so I'm not sure how one is to respond...

what I am suggesting is that your posts show the routine responses of those who wish to remain emotionally connected and evidentcially blind.

This is an unsupported personal attack... do refrain from doing so in the future.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Let's first establish whether or not you know what free market is...what do you think free market is, and when it has been practised? From this above statement I would have to say, your understanding of free market is lacking a bit.

Free market is an ecomomical idealogy where the market is completely separate from any kind of goverment involvment...A true free market doesn't even have any uniform currency restrictions. From around 1779 through the very late 1800's...We had private banks printing their own currency...which doesn't necessarily sound all that bad at first, but then came the crash/panic of 1901.

If you have a bunch of currency from 6 different banks, those individual banks control the value of the currency by regulating the amount in circulation and the amount of commodities backing per unit. J.P. Morgan and Rockefeller started buying out all of the smaller banks (which they were able to do with their vast wealth because the government can't prevent monopolies in a true free market system).

If they now own 5 of the 6 banks that you hold currency from, they control the value and exchange rate of 5/6 of your money. Since they wanted to get into the internation central banking scheme with Rothschild and Warburg, naturally they formed their own currency (which they were allowed to do as bank owners in a true free market system) in the form of the Federal Reserve bank. Since they were pushing for their own currency to reign supreme and become the standard, naturally they did everything in their power to devalue the independant currency printed by all of the banks they bought out leaving most people virtually devestated by the rapid loss of value on all of the currency they possesed.

Benjamin Franklin warned of the dangers of allowing international banks to take over because it wasn't an "honest" money system. However, in a true free market, the government is powerless to stop that kind of take over. The free market system is nothing more than a precursor to a total aristocracy.

There has to be some kind of regulating body for the economy. You can't leave money control in the hands of the people because as we can see from history, whoever has the most will end up running the whole show and you end up with a regulating body anyways, it just ends up being the bankers themselves instead of an impartial third party like it should be...

Any other questions?

 

[fated]

This is a question for republicans who vote (R) because of their religious faith...

Why do you guys uphold the bible on certain issues like gay marriage and abortion, but in the same breath, say that Obama is promoting socialism and that socialism is wrong?

In your minds, why is the book of Romans worth upholding for it's stance on gays, but the book of Acts' position on Communalism/Socialism not valued or taken literally?

Don't you feel that's selective faith?...either the book has all of the answers and is perfect...or it's a faulty book and therefore can't be trusted 100% on all issues...

Your thoughts?

Socialism might be theoretically OK, but because of human limitations it is unfeasible to expect it to work out. Of course Obama is not a socialist, but believes in more -federal- government than many people do. In fact, I just saw an article that indicates that the number of people who would call Obama a socialist has increased, which seems to indicate that his preference to have things carried out by the federal government is more unsettling than many of them had previously thought.

Abortion, on the other hand, is always wrong, as it willfully and premeditatedly takes the life a human, who has the right to not be killed like everyone else.

And gay marriage is a matter of keeping the public joining of a man and a woman as the primary building, basic, most populace, standard, etc, exalted above other relationship formats.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Socialism might be theoretically OK, but because of human limitations it is unfeasible to expect it to work out. Of course Obama is not a socialist, but believes in more -federal- government than many people do. In fact, I just saw an article that indicates that the number of people who would call Obama a socialist has increased, which seems to indicate that his preference to have things carried out by the federal government is more unsettling than many of them had previously thought.

Abortion, on the other hand, is always wrong, as it willfully and premeditatedly takes the life a human, who has the right to not be killed like everyone else.

And gay marriage is a matter of keeping the public joining of a man and a woman as the primary building, basic, most populace, standard, etc, exalted above other relationship formats.

For the human element of socialism, Denmark has implemented it very well.

Even though I'm mostly liberal, I agree with your stance on abortion...however I do understand the opposition's reasoning on it.

For gay marriage, we can't make laws based on religious belief, that would be a theocracy. You can't replace someone else's rights (as 2 legal consenting adults) to pursue what makes them happy - with your own personal religious belief. To do so is unfair to them.

Before this conversation side bars too much, I'd like to focus on economic morality as much as possible in this thread...however, if you'd like to discuss the other things, start a thread and send me a PM and I'd be more than happy to join in

 

[fated]

For the human element of socialism, Denmark has implemented it very well.

Even though I'm mostly liberal, I agree with your stance on abortion...however I do understand the opposition's reasoning on it.

For gay marriage, we can't make laws based on religious belief, that would be a theocracy. You can't replace someone else's rights (as 2 legal consenting adults) to pursue what makes them happy - with your own personal religious belief. To do so is unfair to them.

Before this conversation side bars too much, I'd like to focus on economic morality as much as possible in this thread...however, if you'd like to discuss the other things, start a thread and send me a PM and I'd be more than happy to join in

People generally make a decision on gay marriage based not on logic, but rather on being attacked as if discerning differences in living arrangements were merely cosmetic and bore no logical differentiation. That is that they are ignorant to the fact that differentiation can be made using logic, and that such logic isn't discriminatory in the same sense as bigotry, but based one what is or isn't an immutable characteristic, such as skin color, rather than simply a desire or behavior. Thus, they compel individuals that they can mock into agreeing with them to parrot their own hate speech and doctrine, which is not even accepted by the population that those people are supposedly 'defending.' It is an effective PR campaign.

To focus on economics, the reality is that after hoarding a certain amount of goods, your actions can definitely be a type of oppressive force on those that lack the capacity to gain even minimal and sometime normal amounts of goods.

On the other hand, socialism can limit the just availability of goods, such as a business to people who might otherwise participate. It can limit the availability of jobs. And, it does not even avoid the trouble of having corporate overlords, in fact, it can make that even worse (such as when the UK prevents people from buying with their own money medical treatments it has deemed to expensive or inefficient to be given to everyone).

You can discuss Denmark in this light if you wish, that would probably be constructive for people concerned about the economic aspect and how its damage is limited in modern governments.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

To focus on economics, the reality is that after hoarding a certain amount of goods, your actions can definitely be a type of oppressive force on those that lack the capacity to gain even minimal and sometime normal amounts of goods.

On the other hand, socialism can limit the just availability of goods, such as a business to people who might otherwise participate. It can limit the availability of jobs. And, it does not even avoid the trouble of having corporate overlords, in fact, it can make that even worse (such as when the UK prevents people from buying with their own money medical treatments it has deemed to expensive or inefficient to be given to everyone).

You can discuss Denmark in this light if you wish, that would probably be constructive for people concerned about the economic aspect and how its damage is limited in modern governments.

I use Denmark as an example for people who are convinced that Socialism is some kind of evil to be feared. People often falsely lump all socialist views in with Stalin which we know isn't the case. The limiting of goods would be a symptom not of socialism itself, but the planning and implementation. A good idea can be butchered by human error as you mentioned in your post before, I just wanted to make the distinction that just because human error is a real element, that doesn't necessarily mean that every plan is going to fail due to that element.

I think the main aspect of socialism that is the deal breaker is the heart of the individuals who make up the country. If you have a nation of begrudging givers, it's going to fail. People in a successful socialist society realize that it's more important for people to be fed than for someone to buy millions of dollars of luxury items. People can still be rich in a socialism, but even the rich realize that it's important to pay more in taxes so that country remains peaceful and prosperous. Making sure that every is given a fair shake reduces crime and poverty and I think the CEO's in Denmark realize that it's worth only making 4 million a year instead of 400 because they're still rich, plus, they don't have to worry about getting mugged or dodging homeless people when they want to go out for a night on the town.

 

[fated]

I use Denmark as an example for people who are convinced that Socialism is some kind of evil to be feared. People often falsely lump all socialist views in with Stalin which we know isn't the case. The limiting of goods would be a symptom not of socialism itself, but the planning and implementation. A good idea can be butchered by human error as you mentioned in your post before, I just wanted to make the distinction that just because human error is a real element, that doesn't necessarily mean that every plan is going to fail due to that element.

I think the main aspect of socialism that is the deal breaker is the heart of the individuals who make up the country. If you have a nation of begrudging givers, it's going to fail. People in a successful socialist society realize that it's more important for people to be fed than for someone to buy millions of dollars of luxury items. People can still be rich in a socialism, but even the rich realize that it's important to pay more in taxes so that country remains peaceful and prosperous. Making sure that every is given a fair shake reduces crime and poverty and I think the CEO's in Denmark realize that it's worth only making 4 million a year instead of 400 because they're still rich, plus, they don't have to worry about getting mugged or dodging homeless people when they want to go out for a night on the town.

Realistically, however, Denmark is too small to be considered in comparison with US federal law. A better comparison would be a small state or large county, and at that, one that has far less cultural diversity than you see in the US today.

Would you agree?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I'd say the following:

If people starve to death through no fault of their own while you use your abundant wealth to build a larger swimming pool in your back yard, you are already guilty of negligence.

If the authorities then step up to you and seize part of your property in order to save other people's lives, they're right to do so. It's not theft, it's enforcing a minimum amount of decency and responsibility.

I don't believe that mankind will ever turn out to be economically equal - nor that it should be. Work ought to be rewarded properly - but within the limits of what the community can bear. It won't do to keep people in abject poverty, without any chance of rising above their sorry lot, while you glut yourself in luxurious abundance.

 

[Hooksta]

From a wordly point of view are U.S. Democrats even close to socialists? I would imagine Europe would consider them Centrist. In fact, I imagine European's think we are nuts screaming "socialist, socialist!!"

And since the subject of socialism is the discussion. How much socialism is too much? Doesn't the government provide public education? My wife and I don't have children but yet we pay taxes to educate them so that they can one day knock us out of a job. I don't go all ape about that. I figure educating kids is a good thing...even if I must bare some of the responsibility to pay to educate YOUR kids. In addition, no one seems to have a problem with the government (state or local) paying for a police or fire department, or for highways, or libraries, etc. But paying so that all have access to health care...wait a minute buddy now your taking my money! And apparently this one item crosses the line to full and total socialism. (good grief)

I recently read that as of March 2009 that the U.S. had more than a half million (500,000) troops deployed in over 150 countries in the world. Exporting democracy is apparently big business for us. We have the largest military budget and I believe we are also the only industrialized nation without universal health care. Do we truly need to have this much military prescence or could we spend a little of that money on health care? Bush spent us into a deficit and spent no less than 1.4 trillion to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, had no ties to OBL, had no WMD's. In Kentucky where I live no one mentions this, but rather they all scream that their kids will be paying for the trillions that Obama has slated for building infrastructure in this country and for investing in clean tech. I assume its because of sources like Fox News or a religious tie because I am dumbfounded that no one thinks their kids are paying for Iraq and building its infrastructure.

Now I am not saying Obama is doing everything right. What I am saying is I believe we have the opportunity to re-evaluate where our money should be allocated. I know it goes against the belief that America is number one at everything but there is nothing wrong with studying what works and doesn't work for other countries. Isn't this a better approach that succession? It seems it only took 100 days of having a Democrat in the office for Texas to abandon the "Country First" slogan and are now apparenly entertaining the idea of commiting treason so that they may sucede from the U.S. Obama has been in office a touch over 100 DAYS and we are already in succession talks!!!!

From the Christian point of view...why do are actions support military force over caring for the poor and sick?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

From a wordly point of view are U.S. Democrats even close to socialists? I would imagine Europe would consider them Centrist. In fact, I imagine European's think we are nuts screaming "socialist, socialist!!"

And since the subject of socialism is the discussion. How much socialism is too much? Doesn't the government provide public education? My wife and I don't have children but yet we pay taxes to educate them so that they can one day knock us out of a job. I don't go all ape about that. I figure educating kids is a good thing...even if I must bare some of the responsibility to pay to educate YOUR kids. In addition, no one seems to have a problem with the government (state or local) paying for a police or fire department, or for highways, or libraries, etc. But paying so that all have access to health care...wait a minute buddy now your taking my money! And apparently this one item crosses the line to full and total socialism. (good grief)

I recently read that as of March 2009 that the U.S. had more than a half million (500,000) troops deployed in over 150 countries in the world. Exporting democracy is apparently big business for us. We have the largest military budget and I believe we are also the only industrialized nation without universal health care. Do we truly need to have this much military prescence or could we spend a little of that money on health care? Bush spent us into a deficit and spent no less than 1.4 trillion to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, had no ties to OBL, had no WMD's. In Kentucky where I live no one mentions this, but rather they all scream that their kids will be paying for the trillions that Obama has slated for building infrastructure in this country and for investing in clean tech. I assume its because of sources like Fox News or a religious tie because I am dumbfounded that no one thinks their kids are paying for Iraq and building its infrastructure.

Now I am not saying Obama is doing everything right. What I am saying is I believe we have the opportunity to re-evaluate where our money should be allocated. I know it goes against the belief that America is number one at everything but there is nothing wrong with studying what works and doesn't work for other countries. Isn't this a better approach that succession? It seems it only took 100 days of having a Democrat in the office for Texas to abandon the "Country First" slogan and are now apparenly entertaining the idea of commiting treason so that they may sucede from the U.S. Obama has been in office a touch over 100 DAYS and we are already in succession talks!!!!

From the Christian point of view...why do are actions support military force over caring for the poor and sick?

You are correct in saying that true Euro socialist would not acknowledge Obama as a real socialist. First off, the recognize that our leaders are nothing more than a compilation of the lobbyists who fund them, and second, our US leaders don't truly care about the citizens of the nation like some leaders do in other parts of the world.

I don't feel that the bail outs are due to any kind of socialist view...I feel that they happened because the central bankers told Obama "Do it or else".

They're the ones who have the most to gain by the banking bail outs. As part of the US code, which far too often trumps our constitution, any bank that operates within our borders has to adhere to whatever the federal reserve mandates. Now, as the terms of the bail out read, if the banks can't pay back what the government gave them in cash, they have to pay it back in ownership stock. If our government owns banks, and bank owners have to obey the federal reserve, where does that put our government and the federal reserve in the chain of command

 

[razzelflabben]

I use Denmark as an example for people who are convinced that Socialism is some kind of evil to be feared. People often falsely lump all socialist views in with Stalin which we know isn't the case. The limiting of goods would be a symptom not of socialism itself, but the planning and implementation. A good idea can be butchered by human error as you mentioned in your post before, I just wanted to make the distinction that just because human error is a real element, that doesn't necessarily mean that every plan is going to fail due to that element.

so let's then look at the new movement in this country to socialism (government owned = good of the many) the argument is always used it helps the poor...what poor were helped by the buy outs or the stimulus package just passed? What poor will buy a new car from the automakers that were bought out? What poor will be borrowing money from the banks? As to the stimulus package keep in mind it is primarily based on taxes paid, that means that if you are too poor to pay tax, it doesn't help you...so socially speaking, who is benefiting from the socialist agenda now being played out in the US? The middle class...opps they aren't the poor, but isn't socialism there to help the poor? I'm confused...

I think the main aspect of socialism that is the deal breaker is the heart of the individuals who make up the country. If you have a nation of begrudging givers, it's going to fail. People in a successful socialist society realize that it's more important for people to be fed than for someone to buy millions of dollars of luxury items. People can still be rich in a socialism, but even the rich realize that it's important to pay more in taxes so that country remains peaceful and prosperous. Making sure that every is given a fair shake reduces crime and poverty and I think the CEO's in Denmark realize that it's worth only making 4 million a year instead of 400 because they're still rich, plus, they don't have to worry about getting mugged or dodging homeless people when they want to go out for a night on the town.

only problem is that when the help goes to the middle class, and the money that is suppose to help the poor is used to create more jobs for the middle class, it isn't helping the poor, but rather those that the bible already calls rich but society calls middle class....that is why it is so appealing to the masses, if the masses are middle class and they are the ones benefiting, why not vote for it?!

 

[razzelflabben]

You're not talking about a capitalist system here, so I'm not sure how one is to respond...

exactly, nor am I talking about a socialist system, the only system that even comes close is free market.