First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Democratic Socialism
4930 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Singapore
Offline
Posted 2/3/09

digs wrote:

Democratic socialism in my opinion is not best. It limits free markets, punishes the rich, and brings division in society. Democratic socialism has larger government, less perosnal freedom, and adhears to "political correctness" and liberalism. I support a Conservative free market economy with small government. I support conservative/libertarian laws and view liberalism as a highly flawed political ideology.


I believe in the same.
4439 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / New Jersey
Offline
Posted 2/3/09

superninjaboy wrote:


digs wrote:

Democratic socialism in my opinion is not best. It limits free markets, punishes the rich, and brings division in society. Democratic socialism has larger government, less perosnal freedom, and adhears to "political correctness" and liberalism. I support a Conservative free market economy with small government. I support conservative/libertarian laws and view liberalism as a highly flawed political ideology.


Yeah there are "NO" divisions in the current system, the rich get more and the poor get the shaft. Democratic socialism would actually cement the ideal that all men are created equal, not only the rich or lucky could live happy fulfilling lives but everyone could. The current economic situation has proven that the free market is full of greedy opportunistic assholes.


that is a flat out lie NO ONE IS EQUAL and ppl need to stop think such idealist nonsense. some people are smarter, stronger, more talkative ect... not to ppl are equal. they may have an equal right to the same possibilities.
once one make money they have the right to be greedy with with. but forcing ppl to be equal you are hurting the those who have work hard and rewarding those who have not.
1718 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
63 / M / Croatia
Offline
Posted 2/3/09
My countrys economy flourished under socialism. When we moved to capitalism, suddenly there was great gap between rich and poor, and economy collapsed. Now we depend on tourism. Still, we pride ourselves with socialists leftoers, like almost free healthcare, care for eldery and children and similar. Capitalism is really not for everyone, and look what global market brought us: crysis. Capitalism is flawed system, but at the moment it is best, but in my oppinion, every system which can be brougtht down by one country (when you think about it, america is responsible for every 3 major economic cryses... idiots) is stupid and bad. Unfortunately I am not economist so I am not sure what system would be better. maybe socialsim maybe not. What I am sure of is that capitalism dehumanises business and customer - provider - employer relaionship.
And socialsm is not communism, it is not utopia, and is not saying that everybody needs to be equal, it says that everybody should be treated as equal, which is different. And I think it is OK that if you make more money to pay more taxes and if you make less money, you pay less taxes. (that, logically, goes even when rich and poor have the same tax index).
As to why european social system failed, well it did not exacitly failed, it was sucked dry by tons of legal and illegal immigrants who lived off social help (you get money while not working... + bonus per kid... I knew some Turks in germany who had 6 kids... they did nothing but collected social help, and they lived better and earned more then some workers - THAT is the root of problem - masses of people who use the system as leeches, they contribute nothing).
Second thing is care for eldery. You know that mortality is smaller then natality in europe, so every year less people work for more poeople.
Thirdly, new members in EU agree to work for smaller wages, and everything in their countries is cheaper, so busnisses move their factories there, and people lose their jobs.
So, you see, if governments really had that much control, as people who area gainst socialism here argue, that would actually be good thing, since they could stop those things. But since they are democratic, they allow freedoms (although democarcy and freedom are two completely different things) for factory owners, coroprations and individuals to do as they please.
At the end, as there are many americans here, while I lived there, I knew many people who had misconceptions about communism, socialism, capitalism etc.. like they were brainwashed robots... it was really funny talking to them. I can say for croatians that we were never poor, and that in "dark ages" of communism and socialism we had more personal freedoms and social justice then I experienced while I lived in America, which I find very funny. As for Croatian economy,... our governor was elected the best bank governor in the world few weeks ago
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 2/3/09

Sleepneeded127 wrote:
once one make money they have the right to be greedy with with. but forcing ppl to be equal you are hurting the those who have work hard and rewarding those who have not.


Those people who get greedy with money tend to cause free market economies to collapse (which has happened in America twice so far). Then they expect that same government to help them get out of that hole they dug themselves, then once they get out they tell that government to back off so they can do the same thing and start the cycle again. The people on the bottom are screwed throughout the entire cycle, and it's not always because they don't work hard.

So which process is really more harmful? I don't think forcing some extremely rich guy to own only 5 cars that he'll never drive instead of 20, and making him get a house with 3 bathrooms he'll never use instead of 10 is much of a punishment.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
38031 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 2/3/09
Actually, banks failed because the government tried to force them to make bad loans to lower income people. If they didn't they were branded as racists or whatnot. Sure the companies are at fault, but too much government intervention is what caused the current crisis. Free market economies with some restrictions is what is best. Unbound capitalism becomes a runaway economy producing 1% billionaires and 99% lower income citizens. However, free market capitalism with very few government restrictions will distribute wealth is cause the economy to grow. The government should "spread the wealth" through taxation, because that always fails. Democratic socialism may work in tiny countries, but among world powers it only destroys. Work ethic and education is the answer, not governments owning their citizens and forcing an unhealthy dependance upon government bail outs and free checks... All government wants is power, why give them more?
4439 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / New Jersey
Offline
Posted 2/3/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


Sleepneeded127 wrote:
once one make money they have the right to be greedy with with. but forcing ppl to be equal you are hurting the those who have work hard and rewarding those who have not.


Those people who get greedy with money tend to cause free market economies to collapse (which has happened in America twice so far). Then they expect that same government to help them get out of that hole they dug themselves, then once they get out they tell that government to back off so they can do the same thing and start the cycle again. The people on the bottom are screwed throughout the entire cycle, and it's not always because they don't work hard.

So which process is really more harmful? I don't think forcing some extremely rich guy to own only 5 cars that he'll never drive instead of 20, and making him get a house with 3 bathrooms he'll never use instead of 10 is much of a punishment.


thats has nothing to to do with why the it collapse its the government's. the restrictions put on then that is the cause. the main reason for the current situation is that banks were giving out loans to ppl who could not pay them back, and Clinton sell all the dept to china in the 90's.

and yes it is that bad it s his money no government has the right to tell you what to do with you money. they worked hard
(or a family member) to get to that place. it is not right to just give sme one who has not earned it money just because they dont have it. the dispersion of wealth it not the solution.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 2/3/09 , edited 2/3/09

Sleepneeded127 wrote:
and yes it is that bad it s his money no government has the right to tell you what to do with you money. they worked hard
(or a family member) to get to that place. it is not right to just give sme one who has not earned it money just because they dont have it. the dispersion of wealth it not the solution.


Not everyone works hard (or as hard as a lot of other people) to become insanely rich, some athletes are naturally gifted and don't have too work hard to become good at a sport. They get paid millions to dribble a ball up and down a court or throw it down a field, and all they have to do on the off-season is stay in shape, which many Americans do without getting paid, so why should other people get paid to do the same? There are some musicians who become rich and famous for making stupid one-hit-wonder songs then fade into obscurity for a long time, while some of them actually do something productive with their money, they could easily live off of it for a while without doing anything. Celebrities in general earn way too much money, I realize that they (most of them) do have a hard job, but their services aren't really essential, it's a shame that people who simply entertain us for a few hours earn more than the people who work to provide us with food, clothing, shelter, education, medical care, sanitary living conditions, and various undesirable yet essential jobs.

Yet there's plenty of people who work their asses off at 2-3 jobs just to make ends meet, they rarely have any leisure time and they are constantly drained from trying to support themselves and their families, and the situation they are in isn't always their fault. So it's ok to let those hard-working people suffer all their lives, and let some actor/athlete (who's only job is to look pretty/stay in shape to entertain people) waste countless amounts of money on million-dollar cars that are just going to sit in their garages, or thousand dollar shoes/clothes that they're going to wear once and let sit in their closet forever, or millions on watches/jewelry/etc that they are going to wear once (if ever) then never see them again?

I honestly don't know much about how our economy works when it comes to measuring the value of one's job, but to me that doesn't seem fair, and doesn't seem to follow the Declaration of Independence's assertion that it is the government's duty to insure everyone's natural rights. But I guess it's just another notch in America's belt of hypocrisy.


digs wrote:
All government wants is power, why give them more?


Because if they don't have it, then people who aren't obligated to insure the well-being of American citizens will have it (i.e big businesses). But I guess I see your point about why it wouldn't work in America.
4439 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / New Jersey
Offline
Posted 2/3/09 , edited 2/3/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


Sleepneeded127 wrote:
and yes it is that bad it s his money no government has the right to tell you what to do with you money. they worked hard
(or a family member) to get to that place. it is not right to just give sme one who has not earned it money just because they dont have it. the dispersion of wealth it not the solution.


Not everyone works hard (or as hard as a lot of other people) to become insanely rich, some athletes are naturally gifted and don't have too work hard to become good at a sport. They get paid millions to dribble a ball up and down a court or throw it down a field, and all they have to do on the off-season is stay in shape, which many Americans do without getting paid, so why should other people get paid to do the same? There are some musicians who become rich and famous for making stupid one-hit-wonder songs then fade into obscurity for a long time, while some of them actually do something productive with their money, they could easily live off of it for a while without doing anything. Celebrities in general earn way too much money, I realize that they (most of them) do have a hard job, but their services aren't really essential, it's a shame that people who simply entertain us for a few hours earn more than the people who work to provide us with food, clothing, shelter, education, medical care, sanitary living conditions, and various undesirable yet essential jobs.




athletes work very hard to get to that place most starting as young children training to get to a level that hundreds of thousands wand but only a few hundred get to. and even most Celebrities have to bust there ass for years to get noticed. what about the thousands of entertainers that are dirt poor only a few make it big.


Cuddlebuns wrote:
Yet there's plenty of people who work their asses off at 2-3 jobs just to make ends meet, they rarely have any leisure time and they are constantly drained from trying to support themselves and their families, and the situation they are in isn't always their fault. So it's ok to let those hard-working people suffer all their lives, and let some actor/athlete (who's only job is to look pretty/stay in shape to entertain people) waste countless amounts of money on million-dollar cars that are just going to sit in their garages, or thousand dollar shoes/clothes that they're going to wear once and let sit in their closet forever, or millions on watches/jewelry/etc that they are going to wear once (if ever) then never see them again? .


they make that much money because the public it willing to pay for it that basic supply and demand. ppl are will to pay such for it they do so


Cuddlebuns wrote:
I honestly don't know much about how our economy works when it comes to measuring the value of one's job, but to me that doesn't seem fair, and doesn't seem to follow the Declaration of Independence's assertion that it is the government's duty to insure everyone's natural rights. But I guess it's just another notch in America's belt of hypocrisy

the right are for opportunity to work toward such and to just have it.
once again people are not equal and never will be. it up to the person to use the tools that can to better themselves. not the government to provide the extra's. every person has the right to PURSUE happiness not have it.

5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 2/3/09 , edited 2/3/09

Sleepneeded127 wrote:
athletes work very hard to get to that place most starting as young children training to get to a level that hundreds of thousands wand but only a few hundred get to. and even most Celebrities have to bust there ass for years to get noticed. what about the thousands of entertainers that are dirt poor only a few make it big.


I realize that athletes do work hard, but their services aren't essential or even necessary at all. Yet there's people who work just as hard if not harder than them to provide us with essential services, and they don't even get paid a small fraction of what those athletes make. But like I said, I don't really know how the value of one's job is measured, if entertainment is more important than food in our country then I guess I'll just have to accept that.



the right are for opportunity to work toward such and to just have it.
once again people are not equal and never will be. it up to the person to use the tools that can to better themselves. not the government to provide the extra's. every person has the right to PURSUE happiness not have it.


The Declaration of Independence also guarantees life, which some people can't have because they can't afford health care, and liberty, which many people can't have because they are basically wage slaves. I realize that we aren't all equal, but we are all human and deserve those inalienable rights entitled to all humans. But not all people have had those rights throughout America's history, so it's no surprise that many people still don't have them.
4439 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / New Jersey
Offline
Posted 2/3/09 , edited 2/3/09



Cuddlebuns
I realize that athletes do work hard, but their services aren't essential or even necessary at all. Yet there's people who work just as hard if not harder than them to provide us with essential services, and they don't even get paid a small fraction of what those athletes make. But like I said, I don't really know how the value of one's job is measured, if entertainment is more important than food in our country then I guess I'll just have to accept that.


that shows ur lack of knowledge on economics ppl are will pay them such high rates so they make it they supply a service that is in high demand so they get paid. the public could refuse to pay such they will make less money. it doesnt matter if they are essential or even necessary at all or not ppl want them




Cuddlebuns
The Declaration of Independence also guarantees life, which some people can't have because they can't afford health care, and liberty, which many people can't have because they are basically wage slaves. I realize that we aren't all equal, but we are all human and deserve those inalienable rights entitled to all humans. But not all people have had those rights throughout America's history, so it's no surprise that many people still don't have them.


not affording health care is not being denied life. you are taking it completely out of context.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 2/3/09 , edited 2/3/09

Sleepneeded127 wrote:
that shows ur lack of knowledge on economics ppl are will pay them such high rates so they make it they supply a service that is in high demand so they get paid. the public could refuse to pay such they will make less money. it doesnt matter if they are essential or even necessary at all or not ppl want them

So it would be ok to triple the price of all food and water in the country as long as people are willing to pay for it?



not affording health care is not being denied life. you are taking it completely out of context.


Someone gets sick, they can't afford to pay for medical care, so they are left to suffer/die. How is that not being denied life?
4439 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / New Jersey
Offline
Posted 2/3/09 , edited 2/3/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:
So it would be ok to triple the price of all food and water in the country as long as people are willing to pay for it?

yes because some one can come in and sell it for less. it is worst in socialism since the government owns every thing and there is no competition to bring prices down. it is basic supply and demand
high supply and low demand equals low prices
low supply and high demand = high prices



not affording health care is not being denied life. you are taking it completely out of context.


Someone gets sick, they can't afford to pay for medical care, so they are left to suffer/die. How is that not being denied life?

that why hospitals HAVE to treat you and they have government programs to help out.
but you are still taking it out of context there was no health care then it was written. right to live mean not to be killed by some one else.


why should others be forced to pay for your needs it it fair to take what they have. deny them what. when you the change to put your self in a better position
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 2/3/09

Sleepneeded127 wrote:
that why hospitals HAVE to treat you and they have government programs to help out.
but you are still taking it out of context there was no health care then it was written. right to live mean not to be killed by some one else.

People's tax money is funding those government programs, right? Shouldn't we get rid of those since we're taking their money and using it to provide services for people who can't afford it, and therefore don't deserve it? Why worry about treating the inferior people who can't pay when there's plenty of people who can pay that need medical attention?



why should others be forced to pay for your needs it it fair to take what they have. deny them what. when you the change to put your self in a better position


Personally, I feel that people who provide essential services deserve more money than people who provide non-essential services, since they are the ones who help us stay alive and live comfortably and make it possible for those people to become extremely rich. I feel that people who live in extreme extravagance are are just selfish and greedy, and if they have all the wealth then there is little to no opportunity for anyone else to get any. I used to feel that they should do more for their fellow citizens who helped them get to that position, but I guess I shouldn't expect so much from people. I've already acknowledged that none of this is possible in America, and I don't expect it to ever happen here.

It's not always as simple as just "changing" and getting into a better position.
4439 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / New Jersey
Offline
Posted 2/3/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


Sleepneeded127 wrote:
that why hospitals HAVE to treat you and they have government programs to help out.
but you are still taking it out of context there was no health care then it was written. right to live mean not to be killed by some one else.

People's tax money is funding those government programs, right? Shouldn't we get rid of those since we're taking their money and using it to provide services for people who can't afford it, and therefore don't deserve it? Why worry about treating the inferior people who can't pay when there's plenty of people who can pay that need medical attention?



why should others be forced to pay for your needs it it fair to take what they have. deny them what. when you the change to put your self in a better position


Personally, I feel that people who provide essential services deserve more money than people who provide non-essential services, since they are the ones who help us stay alive and live comfortably and make it possible for those people to become extremely rich. I feel that people who live in extreme extravagance are are just selfish and greedy, and if they have all the wealth then there is little to no opportunity for anyone else to get any. I used to feel that they should do more for their fellow citizens who helped them get to that position, but I guess I shouldn't expect so much from people. I've already acknowledged that none of this is possible in America, and I don't expect it to ever happen here.

It's not always as simple as just "changing" and getting into a better position.


none of this is possible any place on earth people will always want more. unless u live in complete socialism where every thing is shared no growth is allowed there are no luxuries. then you can live that way no rewards for being talented or working hard. in your world you punish those who have natural talents because they are better at thing then others.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 2/3/09

Sleepneeded127 wrote:

none of this is possible any place on earth people will always want more. unless u live in complete socialism where every thing is shared no growth is allowed there are no luxuries. then you can live that way no rewards for being talented or working hard. in your world you punish those who have natural talents because they are better at thing then others.


No luxuries? I consider indoor plumbing, electricity, cars, roads, internet, cable, stable buildings, warm clothes, and clean water to be luxuries, since a large portion of the world's population doesn't have those. I don't care about hard work or having a lot of stuff, just enough work to make sure that I and the people I care for stay alive and have a few simple luxuries, and to have something to give to others who are less fortunate. Talent is nice to have, but it's not essential so I don't really care, and I don't see why people should be rewarded for being talented at being manipulative and gluttonous. I guess America isn't truly a place where anyone can become anything as I've been lead to believe; that it's not meant for inferior people like me who know what it's like to have almost nothing and who care for others who are in even worse circumstances than I've been in.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.