What's wrong with a touch of democratic socialism?

[PrincessFiona]

OK...I'm just going to ask it straight up...what's wrong with incorporating a little of the idea that a society run as a democracy (let's not start confusing ourselves with communism) should be set up to meet the needs (at least partially) of the society as whole.

Please explain to me why it is more important to protect the rights of big business (including electric companies, btw) by providing them tax breaks, corporate welfare and the option to offshore themselves and avoid taxes altogether....to allow them to do business through loopholes with foreign countries actively involved in terrorism...but it's not ok to provide a basic universal healthcare system to those who are unable to afford private insurance because that would be....bad? It's not a good idea to think of the betterment of our society and consider paid job-retraining programs an integral part of unemployment (particularly now that we've given the wink and the nod to offshore middleclass jobs, leaving many people unemployed and underemployed) and free or subsidized university studies for our future americans.

Honestly, I don't get what the big deal is. We give billions of dollars to bail out corporations that then trun around and screw their retirees out of their hard-earned pensions, but we don't flinch when these people who worked their whole lives end up as greeters at McDonalds and can't afford their prescription drugs. It's all 'capitalism', we hear.

Isn't this a society built supposedly on Christian morals and values? Honestly...not to sound too trite..but ... what would ...Jesus do? Really? How can politicians wave as they're leaving church on Sundays and then on Monday cut funding for public schools to funnel into building socialized healthcare/education systems in Iraq.

Someone please unravel this mystery for me!

kris

[Rapunzel]

So, you're saying that you would prefer a socialist economy to a capitalist one?

Because we don't own anything anymore. Our companies have merged with those of multinational conglomerates, and we aren't always the largest share holder. If we start restriciting businesses, foreign nations might not invest in our stuff and we would then have to start paying back our national debt.

[mommax3]

I would actually like to know the answer to this as well.....what would be wrong with a little "love your neighbor" legislation? I am not an economist, but things seem a little off-kilter in our economy.

[Vanquisher]

From the website http://nationalpriorities.org/auxili.../taxchart.html

Of the $100.00 you paid in taxes:
$29.97 goes to the military
$18.60 goes to pay the interest on the debt
$20.27 goes to health care
$6.58 goes to income security
$3.67 goes to education
$3.44 goes to benefits for veterans
$2.69 goes to nutrition spending
$2.14 goes to housing
$1.72 goes to environmental protection
$0.94 goes to job training
$10.51 goes to all other expenses

Seems so, so, so wrong to me. I put in 100 for a round number. Nearly 30% for miliary? Yes, I would say that is completely f'ed up. Meanwhile, I am paying nealry 19% of my income tax to interest on the national debt. And they wonder why American consumers have such debt problems?

I am not advocating for communism or socialism, but spending HALF our our income tax revenue on military and interest is assinine to me. I think those numbers need to be flipped nearly upside down. It's not as black and white as that, but where do we get off spending that kind of money on bullets and bombs when a majority of the country does not want to be involved in this war.

Latest approval ratings (CBS) for the POTUS: 34%. Wow, that is some stellar work there. I would venture to guess if your boss only liked your work 34% of the time, you'd get fired. No, it's not ALL the POTUS's fault, but the buck stops there, and it is mostly his fault. :>

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/ ... 0874.shtml

[PrincessFiona]

So, you're saying that you would prefer a socialist economy to a capitalist one?

Don't answer a question with a question I just want to know what would be wrong with adding a 'democratic' socialist touch....and just fyi...we don't really have capitalism here either.

kris

[houseelf]

I think that it was Ann Crittenden who opined, "It is one thing to live in a capitalist economy, it is another to live in a capitalist society". I have very, very strong feelings on this issue.

I am all for capitalism. Truly. It works unlike any other system of economics. Capitalism is especially harmonious with democracy in that good ideas survive and bad ideas flounder. Competition is good. Unfortunately, there will always be some losers.

Nonetheless, I am absolutely 100% opposed to the unchecked greed with disregard to the greater good that passes for capitalism in current culture. It is a necessary and proper function of government to educate children, provide infrastructure, and protect its citizens. If this can be provided against the backdrop of capitalism, so much the better. (i.e. Ask me about other of my hotbed issues: school choice vouchers and portable health insurance negotiated by the Government but available through private industry. )

Nobel Prize Winner and father of American economics Milton Friedman best describes my views on the fusion of capitalism with an eye towards the greater good and reinvesting in society. There is a place for both. Unfortunately, the current administration fails miserably on both conservative and liberal views of economics, IMHO.

Kelly

[SueC]

Wow Heidi, those numbers really do sound messed up!
Honestly Kris, I am somewhat of a socialist at heart, so I don't think there is anything wrong with having some socialist principles brought into play. What we're doing now doesn't seem to be working fabulously for anybody but the big businesses and the very wealthy.

[Rapunzel]

This isn't something that can be answered unless we first have an agreed upon definition of "socialism". Sue, you mentioned that you are a socialist at heart, so perhaps you can chime in on which definition of socialism we would be accepting by debating this subject.

Are we referring to Marx's version of socialism (which, btw, had absolutely nothing to do with religion - which he abhorred)? Or, are we referring to a politicaly expedient term (such as The German National Socialists - the Nazis, The Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party, or anarchic socialism - the old, ugly dudes who like to demonstrate around Berkley in the buff)? Or are we referring to the United Order which the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes will be used by members of Christ's church after his second coming?

Wikipedia has an excellent page demystifying much of the term and of the many variations or sects of socialism, countries referred to (by others or by self) as socialist, and concepts lumped in with socialism because they don't fit any other category very neatly (such as the United Order).

In addition to defining socialism, we need to have some successful examples of it in a modern civilization. Oh, and we need to define "successful".

THEN we can actually debate the subject.

[Rapunzel]

Nobel Prize Winner and father of American economics Milton Friedman best describes my views on the fusion of capitalism with an eye towards the greater good and reinvesting in society. There is a place for both. Unfortunately, the current administration fails miserably on both conservative and liberal views of economics, IMHO.

I'm going to have to read more about Friedman's ideas.... Very interesting....

[Rapunzel]

From the website http://nationalpriorities.org/auxili.../taxchart.html

Of the $100.00 you paid in taxes:
$29.97 goes to the military
$18.60 goes to pay the interest on the debt
$20.27 goes to health care
$6.58 goes to income security
$3.67 goes to education
$3.44 goes to benefits for veterans
$2.69 goes to nutrition spending
$2.14 goes to housing
$1.72 goes to environmental protection
$0.94 goes to job training
$10.51 goes to all other expenses

And, of those expenses specifically listed only the following are allowed expenditures for the federal government according to the Constitution:

National Defense


The rest are decidedly outside the bounds of the federal government according to the Constitution and are within the authority of the individual states.

See the following website for a good, quick, easy examination of what is and is not the responsibility of the Federal government:

http://www.nccs.net/101questions.html

(The National Center for Constitutional Studies)

[PrincessFiona]

I think you guys are sidestepping the point altogether though. Forget our military spending..we can tackle that in another post....the main question is really what is wrong with having this 'christian' society actually care about it's fellow man enough to create safety nets. We place politics and big business above people..and it's not something to wave a red,white and blue flag about.

kris

[PrincessFiona]

This isn't something that can be answered unless we first have an agreed upon definition of "socialism". Sue, you mentioned that you are a socialist at heart, so perhaps you can chime in on which definition of socialism we would be accepting by debating this subject.

Are we referring to Marx's version of socialism (which, btw, had absolutely nothing to do with religion - which he abhorred)? Or, are we referring to a politicaly expedient term (such as The German National Socialists - the Nazis, The Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party, or anarchic socialism - the old, ugly dudes who like to demonstrate around Berkley in the buff)? Or are we referring to the United Order which the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes will be used by members of Christ's church after his second coming?

Wikipedia has an excellent page demystifying much of the term and of the many variations or sects of socialism, countries referred to (by others or by self) as socialist, and concepts lumped in with socialism because they don't fit any other category very neatly (such as the United Order).

In addition to defining socialism, we need to have some successful examples of it in a modern civilization. Oh, and we need to define "successful".

THEN we can actually debate the subject.

Instead of trying to confuse the issue by getting into a huge debate about socialism, definitions and current examples of success, lets stick to simply the original question.

I specifically stated democratic socialism, which implies a democratically elected government...and instead of getting all excited by economic, etc theories of socialism...let's stick to the idea of universal healthcare, a safetey net for the unemployed, etc....just the basic ideas that I initially brought to the table.

There are no 'true' examples because democratic socialism exists more as a movement where there are parties in many (mostly european) countries that support it...and these parties have enough influence to inject a little humanity into those societies...ie germany, UK...

To be honest, I'd be willing to take it up a notch and insist that utilities, etc not be privately own...but actually govt. own...but I'll save that for another day.

kris

[Vishenka69]

Oh please don't let the government run my healthcare!! And we do have a safety net for the unemployed. It's called unemployment, it may not always be effective but that is because it is a government run program. I don't want the goverment to take care of me that is not its job. Do you see socialism working anywhere? The European economy is in the toilet. Their taxes are so high that they cannot typically afford to have more than one child, if that. That great socialist heathcare has them paying for their aging population through the nose. I am all for helping those in need, but need must be the key issue. Start raising taxes like these types of programs would require and this country would be hit by the largest economic downfall since the depression. We are a willing and able nation that needs less government involvement not more.

Tara

ITA agree with this. Socialism doesn't work. If anyone feels particularly bad about underprivileged, then they can help them out individually. One can always pretend that we are taxed at European rates and donate the difference to the favorite charity/shelter/school/etc. What will be the incentive to work or do anything if the goverment can always step in and help out. People need to be held accountable for their choices. There's plenty of opportunity for everyone to better themselves regardless of their ethnic, religious or socioeconomic status. Like Tara, I'd prefer even less government involvement if possible.

[Sheherezade]

.the main question is really what is wrong with having this 'christian' society actually care about it's fellow man enough to create safety nets. We place politics and big business above people..and it's not something to wave a red,white and blue flag about.

I think this statement reflects the attitudes of many people in this country and it is reflected in our government spending. (Warning: Whine ahead) I volunteer my little tush off all the time. Community, schools, shelters....what have you. Most people see this as something I do to fill up all my "spare time" since I don't have a "real job" and our household doesn't need extra money. What's that all about? Lots of people work for the greater good of society each and every day, but UNLESS THEY ARE PAID TO DO SO the work is considered a minor contribution, a hobby or what have you. I think that our country unconsiously evaluates everything economically. Why do we place the concerns of big business and politics above teachers, social workers, forest rangers, and volunteers in all these industries? Because that's where the money and power reside - and we all think, just a little bit, that that means they are more important, dedicated and serious. Or maybe we are just afraid of their power. I know I'd rather take on Mother Teresa than Jack Welsh. Maybe it's easier to screw over nice people looking out for others that not-so-nice people looking out for themselves.

(I will now return to lurking.....and get of my . Thanks for letting me yell.)

Oh yeah.....more on topic. I agree that socialist governments are not all they are cracked up to be. I have a good friend who is Swedish and I have been *shocked* to find she has the same problems with work/motherhood despite all the social programs. Her tax rate is 90% and she still had to take a demotion to retail from management in order to work less than full time when her daughter was 2. From what I hear fom her, Sweden is getting more like the US every year economically - except with ghastly taxes. They do have a huge and stable middle class, though. That's a bonus. (Less poor.....and less wealth.)