What do you people mean that keep claiming the US is getting socialistic?

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by JohnLSU, Apr 4, 2008.

  1. JohnLSU

    JohnLSU Tigers

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    6,870
    Likes Received:
    293
    I read a lot of comments on here that feel the US is socialistic (or getting that way). Can anybody give me a definition of what socialistic means to them?

    To me, the US is not socialistic. I think the concept some of you get confused with socialism is the concept of a welfare state (click here for link to definition), which could be used to refer to pretty much every 1st world country out there.

    In other words, I think a lot of you have no idea what you are talking about when you throw the word "socialistic" around. But then again, I could be wrong. It's not an issue I've done a lot of research on.
     
  2. Bandit88

    Bandit88 Old Enough to Know Better

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Messages:
    6,068
    Likes Received:
    511
    Yep. You're wrong.

    Think redistribution of wealth and an anti-free market bias.

    Not an ABSOLUTE anti-free market system, just a bias. Hence the "istic". Just like we're not a pure democracy (thank goodness).

    Good job on the shorter posts. I'm actually reading them now...
     
  3. lsutiga

    lsutiga TF Pubic Relations

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    26,705
    Likes Received:
    6,275
    How about the farmers knowing how much they'll get for their crops before they plant cause the gov't gives, "Guaranteed payments" not to mention the Farm Program.

    "Set aside" programs where they're paid "Not to plant" a percentage of their land. I thought about going into that line, but with the "No hog raising" business. Was going to start out slow though, and "Not raise" 50k the first year and see how it went.
     
  4. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,722
    Examples?
     
  5. luvdimtigers

    luvdimtigers Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,574
    Likes Received:
    308
    The United States is no where near a socialistc country. No country can be purely capitalistic without regulations.

    Just because we don't let people go without a little minimum health care, and starve in the streets, it doesn't mean we're socialistic.
     
  6. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    I don't like the idea that if someone has a lot of money it automatically means that it's to the detriment of the less fortunate.
     
  7. luvdimtigers

    luvdimtigers Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,574
    Likes Received:
    308

    Where do I say that?

    I'm all for people getting as wealthy as they can.
     
  8. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,722
    It ain't automatic but it sometimes works that way. In the '60's a CEO made 10 times what their average employee made, today they make about 100 times more, even though their roles have not changed. Republicans want the rich to get richer. Democrats want everyone to get richer. Neither are socialists.

    Socialism wants to make everyone equal. A great, stable democracy, like the 19th and 20th century America, seeks to produce a large middle class that can range from just getting by to very well off--not too many of the dirt poor or the extremely wealthy.

    Throughout history successsful societies have had large middle classes--classical Greece, Imperial Rome, Great Britain, America. Those societies that are dominated by a tiny rich upper class or who have a predominant poor class NEVER last for long or grow very large before economic collapse, revolution or conquest eliminates them.

    Democracy/capitalism creates the best environment for a healthy and growing middle class. Socialsm tries to make everyone equal at the expense of making everyone productive. Democratic capitalism tries to enfranchise as many citizens as possible for the health of the nation while leaving personal success up to personal ambitions and capabilities.
     
  9. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    And they leave out that nasty little "work for it" requirement.
     
  10. luvdimtigers

    luvdimtigers Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,574
    Likes Received:
    308

    That's bullxhit and you ought to know it. Bill Clinton (a democrat) tightened up the welfare requirments.

    I hate to break this to you, but no one is living the life of reiley on welfare, unemployment, foodstamps, any of that. It's there as a tempoary fix to keep people alive.

    Disability in La. with workmans comp insurance, is tougher than you think. I'm speaking from experience on this one. I know a guy who got burned really bad by an arc flash (2nd and 3rd dergee burns on 45% of his body. Here's a little secret: With workmans comp, you can no longer sue the place you work, unless you work directly for that company, If you're a contractor, you're out of luck. It was a tradeoff the Foster admin. made with business. And if you do sue, workmans comp get all their money back off the top of any settlement you get.

    We have a lot of problems in the U.S. There are definitely abuses in lawsuits, etc. But this utopia for people taking advantage of the system is by and large, bullchit.

    Fat cat CEO's and corporations cost the taxpayer way more in tax fraud and tax code abuses than the welfare abusers.
     

Share This Page