yeah, socialism is bad
Pepe Silvia
Posts: 3,758
although it can be argued many of these things could be ran better for those who are against a more socialized approach to health care would you also be willing to give up the rest of these socialistic ideas?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF-W9zcw ... r_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF-W9zcw ... r_embedded
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I have been saying this for years...
Why is it that Americans truely believe the government is fully capable of waging a war to protect us... but, completely inept at providing health care?
Hail, Hail!!!
bcuz wars kick a$$
America fuck yeah!!
1. its the government's constitutional responsibility to protect its citizens.
2. healthcare is much more complicated that maintaining a military force.
3. healthcare is much more expensive.
are you another UHC truther too?
they are things provided to everyone.
you don't need approval or a special plan to have the fire dept save your burning house, it's available to anyone and everyone
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
I'm trying to figure out the logic, here...
So, does this mean that if Health Care was written into the Constitution, it would be run effectively?
...
And maintaining the military is pretty complex... especially the procurement process of weapons systems and trainning... not to mention follow-on maintenance of systems, such as B-2 Bombers.
As for costs... those B-2 Bombers cost a lot of money... not just to build... but, research and development and documenting the processes as well as operations and maintenance.
And that trillion dollars we've spent on Iraq... it ain't coming back. But, you are right on one thing... the price Americans are currently paying for pills rivals the price of building and shooting off laser guided bombs.
...
As for that last comment... come on, was that really necessary?
Hail, Hail!!!
Remind us what you do for a living again Cosmo...
I work in the machinery of the Military/Industrial Complex.
And yeah... that shit is expensive... but, it is run pretty effectively. I have faith in our military... which is run by... **GULP**... THE GOVERNMENT!!! Therefore, i believe the Government can handle Health Care.
...
Which is why I ask people... how do they reconcile their belief that the Government is this inept entity that cannot handle Health Care... yet, they can loiter an unmanned aircraft over the Swat Valley in Pakistan for 72 hours straight by air crews taking 8 hour shifts in the deserts of Palmdale, California and have it unload a laser guided munition on the head of a Taliban leader? is the Government fucking 'Rainman', or what?
Hail, Hail!!!
The word socialism has successfully been demonized by conservative politicians, and both democrats and republicans alike are scared to even use the word, just because the general public is educated to believe that capitalism = good, socialism = bad, private sector = good, government = bad, when this isn't the case at all. Capitalism's main objective is profit, and while the competition gives us a more comfortable style of living, if it isn't kept in check by government, businesses will cut corners and keep consumers uninformed, and we become more vertical of a society, where we have a very successful top 1% with a suffering lower and middle class. There is a balancing act between government and the private sector, socialism and capitalism. While the US has had a pretty good balancing act, lately (both democrats and republicans are to blame for this) we are becoming more vertical, where we focus too much on the economy and measure of human welfare by the GDP, while ignoring the increasing problems that our society presents to us.
Pearl Jam:
Key Arena - Seattle, WA - Sep 21, 2009
Pacific Coliseum - Vancouver, BC - Sep 25, 2011
Key Arena - Seattle, WA - Dec 6, 2013
Eddie Vedder Solo:
Benaroya Hall - Seattle, WA - Jul 15, 2011
You know what is ironic too, is that the two leading talking points contradict each other. On one side, the government run health care will be inefficient, cost too much, and make people wait in line, etc., but on the other side, it has an unfair advantage and put the private insurers out of business. Come on now, pick a side, and you can take you $800 million dollar quarterly profits with you.
Pearl Jam:
Key Arena - Seattle, WA - Sep 21, 2009
Pacific Coliseum - Vancouver, BC - Sep 25, 2011
Key Arena - Seattle, WA - Dec 6, 2013
Eddie Vedder Solo:
Benaroya Hall - Seattle, WA - Jul 15, 2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Socialism refers to any one of various theories of economic organization advocating governmental or whole community ownership, and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation.
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
And tell us if you think the government pays too much for your companies services?
In my opinion, the government is like a virus. It has no conscience, it only aims to grow and therefore benefit those who help it grow. It operates on a giant slush fund with monopoly money, and basically the squeakiest wheels get the grease.
It truly IS a paradox in a lot of ways. You speak of this unmanned aircraft that operates with this incredible precision, yet we still have thousands of human lives on the ground, putting themselves in jeopardy. I do believe it IS CURRENTLY INEPT in handling defense, as would definitely be the same in handling health care. How much money is unnecessarily spent in the defense industry? How much of it is completely unaccounted for? Some changes in our foreign policy would ultimately facilitate more streamlined military spending, but it appears that is off the table for at least another four years.
The only thing that makes the (federal) government an attractive option in doing anything is its sheer size, power, and authority, and for some reason, people equate that with efficiency. I do not.
well stated...it's all a balance between the two.
and hey, can't one be a true believer in captialism ANd see the value of social programs as well? again, balance...it doesn't have to be all or none.
and i do have to agree with cosmo to the point that yea, we all know the government fucks things up, but they also do a helluva lot of things 'right' too.....it's complex running anything as large as our country, our government, our programs...no matter what they are. and holy shit, there is plenty of waste in private corporations as well, i am amazed at times. only when things aren't going right do the issues get addressed, whether public or private.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Exactly. Only we don't care about all the private waste because private corporations aren't accountable to us like our government is. I'd rather give my money to an organization that's at least accountable to me in theory than to one which legally isn't.
We have a lot of socialized everything here. I checked out a book from my library--yes, I make use of socialist institutions in this country. The book was a cozy murder mystery. Whoever had checked out the book before me had underlined or highlighted in yellow every reference to socialized medicine in Britain. And then had written his or her own commentary in the margins to bolster claims, totally defacing the book. I thought it was rich that here was someone who obviously frequents/benefits from public libraries complaining about socialism through the medium of a socialistic institution that enriches our daily lives. People are funny, belief-driven creatures. I'm pretty sure the underliner had no clue that without socialism in the US, she would be paying through the nose for every book that crossed her hands, or at least something to rent them from someone else who owned them.
I say down with libraries and fire departments!!! Nothing but socialist claptrap designed to RUIN this country! :twisted:
Under a real free-market capitalist system, waste in private corporations would ultimately lead to their demise. Poor business practice would not be protected, bailed out, or rewarded in anyway for poor decision making. The market would stand to keep companies far more "regulated" and on an even playing field than any man-made laws (excluding fraud, theft, collusion, etc..) and competition would be much fiercer.
Fierce to the point of actually murdering the competition? That's if the market is allowed to regulate itself. Because the market would NOT regulate itself and competition would rule. The best way to corner the market in your business... make it so you are the only business, right?
And Fraud, Theft and Collusion are man-made laws... if it weren't against the law... because there were no laws... it wouldn't be a crime.
Bottom line... there NEEDS to be an outside governing body that posts regulations... otherwise, we end up with the people making the money... and the rules.
Hail, Hail!!!
Fierce to the point of actually murdering the competition? That's if the market is allowed to regulate itself. Because the market would NOT regulate itself and competition would rule. The best way to corner the market in your business... make it so you are the only business, right?
And Fraud, Theft and Collusion are man-made laws... if it weren't against the law... because there were no laws... it wouldn't be a crime.
Bottom line... there NEEDS to be an outside governing body that posts regulations... otherwise, we end up with the people making the money... and the rules.[/quote]
Not to mention all the malpractice that would occur. Like I said, if there was no governing bodies like the FDA, the big businesses would cut corners. In fact, the FDA already lets them cut corners because we have a government that believes that capitalism is the answer to all our problems. Anyone should see Food Inc if they can, or get it on DVD whenever it comes out, because it really shows that we have regressed so far back in our regulatory system that the meat manufacturing of today almost resembles the meat and food industry 100 years ago when Teddy Roosevelt raided the factory and changed laws.
Pearl Jam:
Key Arena - Seattle, WA - Sep 21, 2009
Pacific Coliseum - Vancouver, BC - Sep 25, 2011
Key Arena - Seattle, WA - Dec 6, 2013
Eddie Vedder Solo:
Benaroya Hall - Seattle, WA - Jul 15, 2011
I don't understand why people equate free markets with absolute anarchy and lawlessness, this is not the case. Free markets means that the government stays out of business, stops playing favorites and subsidizing their friends. How much more sense would clean, greener energy make right now if our tax dollars didn't deceptively lower the price tag of fossil fuels?
Of course competition is fierce, and companies would seek to put each other out of business-- except, in a free market system they would not have at their disposal the most effective and mafia-esque method of doing this, which is using THE GOVERNMENT to make laws that put their competitors out of business.
And under the current system, the people who literally "make the money" make the rules. "Regulation" brought us fractional reserve banking, the IRS, The Federal Reserve, need I go on? So much for regulation.
the free market failed. money rules now. which, given the principles of capitalism how could you expect anything different? companies like wall mart make more money than countries like greece, while 11-13 million people starve to death because profit is more important than people.
capitalism, at its core, motivates people with greed and selfishness, encourages and rewards those things, while socialism puts the community over people. that fundamental shift in motivation removes the motivation behind almost every type of violent crime. and much more...its worth checking out....this shit we have today rewards the wrong kinds of people.
Commy,
the fundamental flaw with your argument (and don't get me wrong, on the SURFACE it IS a GREAT argument) is this:
how does a "socialist" system significantly alter the state of affairs with respect to who has the power and who controls the majority of the wealth?
Can you name me one socialist country which belongs to the EU which you think meets your standard?
Because i'm pretty sure (and i'm not feigning pretense here) that all of the countries which you would consider to currently be socialist have at their highest levels the EXACT SAME RULERS as the "evil" western "capitalist" country, which in fact is a country (the USA) that exhibits more than TWO THIRDS OF THE TENANTS OF COMMUNISM AS DESCRIBED BY KARL MARX (a Jew and a Freemason, FYI).
Going down this line, i foresee that perhaps you will argue something to the effect of "but these are not TRUE socialist countries". Well of COURSE my good friend. But then your argument must account for the fact that, just like "true" communism, man has failed to actually implement and account for such a system as you describe.
In fact, TRUE communism WAS tried, by Trotsky and his followers (who bitterly opposed Stalin [sometimes illuminist puppet] and his Elite-ruled bureaucratic version of "communism"), but he and they were ruthlessly persecuted by the faux-communist regime that was owned by, and in fact nothing more than a staged antagonist to, the very same elite banking interests that now exert so much influence upon nearly every civilized country on earth and financed and organize ALL of the worlds major international bodies, councils, and NGOs.
So if you are proposing socialism as a solution ... TRUE socialism ...
HOW ARE YOU PROPOSING WE ACHIEVE IT?
Certainly i would hope you propose to work it OUTSIDE of the CURRENT system ... ie. the OWNED international elite scheme? Or would you perhaps be content to have THEM arrange it for you?
Would you trust them?
The bottom line is that "CROOKED" PEOPLE CAN AND WILL WORK TO CORRUPT ANY SYSTEM AND CAN AND WILL WORK TO MAKE THAT SYSTEM WORK FOR THEM.
And people, PLEASE.
If you have to ask who "they" are,
ask yourself this:
who is it that decided the people of Europe would have to continually re-vote on EU\Lisbon sovereignty treatise until they got it "right"?
You really chalk that kind of stuff up to one bad leader?
You don't perhaps think there is a BROADER power base behind these types of treacherous trickery?
Are you not angered by the contempt with which your real masters treat you?
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
money rules today. a socialist economy accounts for that, by controlling how resources are used, and who benefits from them. today 1 individual can set up a mine next to a town and extract every last bit of ore, making millions, and leave the people of the community to deal with the mess-a few dozen workers might make a livelihood for a few years, but that's the extent of the benefit the people see from that resource. so ideally, under a socialist structure, the resources of a region benefit the people of that region, not the exxons and foreigners.
at their core, corporations are very efficient when it comes to maximizing profit....ideally set up to do any number of thing. the problem is they are fascist institutions, they have a top down structure. so instead of dismantling them, ideally they should be democratized and ruled by the people that make them run-the workers.
the idea is to put that power you are so afraid of falling into the wrong hands-put that power into the hands of the workers. in every industry/institution.
that will bring about a fundamental shift in who that power serves. as opposed to serving the wealthy minority, as it does today, it will serve the hard working majority, the people that actually deserve it.
its simplistic and a poor answer, but that's the idea.
but you should realize, i'm a minority even among socialists. libertarian socialism is what i am suggesting.
no but don't you think it interesting that when people use their power over the managers and owners, when people stand up for themselves to their governments, when they go on strike every other week, like they do in europe, isn't it interesting that those countries are leaning towards socialists policies? people want socialism, it just has such a negative connotation, especially in the US, its hard for people to except it. and that's no accident. power serves the wealthy minority, and they want it to stay that way, while under a libertarian/socialist system, power serves the people, because it IS the people.
the difference is the countries in europe have a working class that doesnt' sit down while their rights and jobs are taken away, they stand up for themselves. and ultimately people have the power, whatever system, its just a matter of using that power. and in europe, to some extent, they have used that power, for centuries, to the point where even their capitalist masters must account for them when they make decisions, else they face a company wide strike. and even government is looking out for them, to some extent, because that working class hasn't been sitting down over the years.
but its hard to motivate the people enough to strike, especially if the media is as subservient as it is in the US. even unions have become smeared in the media, which a union is simply an organized labor force. but ideally we should set up a system where the authority is either the people, or is motivated enough to serve the people, without having to go through trouble of striking every few years to level the playing field.
as to the bold, that's news to me. interesting. i think you and i both agree that it must be a libertarian structure, whether capitalist or socialist, to prevent a wealthy elite from influencing the authority. if the people are the authority, if the workers make the decisions, it would be hard to influence 15000 votes, or get them to vote on something that isn't in their best interest..
its going to take something like a worldwide worker revolution....but that's not as hard to achieve as someone might think. it could start anywhere....ultimately the people have the power, labor rules, and if we use that power we could do any number of things. a worldwide general strike. shut it all down, give them nothing to rule
agreed.
its about minimizing that factor. by spreading the power out to everyone. libertarianism/anarchy-they can influence a few, but everyone?
i think a key factor in all of this is education,/media. people need to be informed. [/quote]