A question about Socialism/Communism

[JayJohn85]

The only people that stand to possibly lose with Socialism are the rich. And because of that, they have made it appear that it is something evil and to be fear. I'm not saying that pure socialism is the answer but some aspects of it do have advantages. Namely, guaranteed health care is the biggest one at least in my book. And regardless of what the media would like to have you believe, I have friends and family in Europe that have the guaranteed health care and they are no worse off than we are. The biggest farce is that they pay more in taxes than we do, that is not completely true. Because if you think about all the "sneaky" taxes we pay such as mandatory car insurance in some states. And others and if you add it all up, its about the same. But just like anything else when it comes to the rich not benefiting from it or they have to lose a bit in the process makes in "evil" or wrong. But nothing is going to change because if you look, Wall Street and the financial dirtbags fucked caused the financial implosion and is anyone being punished for it, considering it is a FACT that their actions caused this to happen...uhhh no and why do you think that is?

this is just :horse:

Mandatory car insurance in some states? WTF???????? Us Europeans have always had to have car insurance well in the UK you do, Its illegal not to have it.

 

[CunningStunts]

However the reason Communism appealed so much was that the nobility would steal all the fruits of the poors labour. And those paupers laboured long and hard.
I suggest:
When you work, 10% of your earnings is held in a national account and when you get sick/have an accident/fall into unemployment then this money is used to sustain you (and your kids if you so choose).
This system would look after those who work and those ho don't work would just never save the cash.

Just like communism, in theory is sounds nice doesn't it? But all of the Western welfare/socialist states are now bankrupt. How's that working out for us?:dunno:

 

[vodkazvictim]

Just like communism, in theory is sounds nice doesn't it? But all of the Western welfare/socialist states are now bankrupt. How's that working out for us?:dunno:

What Western welfare socialist state? Give one example.
And BTW, everybody is bankrupt nowadays. I was just talking to a chinese graduate earlier today. He says there are no jobs anywhere. Worlds fucked.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Mandatory car insurance in some states? WTF???????? Us Europeans have always had to have car insurance well in the UK you do, Its illegal not to have it.

I could be wrong, I really don't know for sure but I think every State has mandatory car insurance.

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

Just like communism, in theory is sounds nice doesn't it? But all of the Western welfare/socialist states are now bankrupt. How's that working out for us?:dunno:

Hi. I'm Canadian. Some might consider my country a socialist state. We're doing pretty good.

Sincerely,
PlasmaTwa2

 

[pool_hustler]

I suggest:
When you work, 10% of your earnings is held in a national account and when you get sick/have an accident/fall into unemployment then this money is used to sustain you (and your kids if you so choose).
This system would look after those who work and those ho don't work would just never save the cash.

What happens to those who are born mentally or physically handicapped?
How about those who become disabled too young to have built a long term sustainable nest egg?

 

[vodkazvictim]

Hi. I'm Canadian. Some might consider my country a socialist state. We're doing pretty good.

Sincerely,
PlasmaTwa2

Isn't that one of the best places to live in the world? I know it has Vicky vette after all...

What happens to those who are born mentally or physically handicapped?
How about those who become disabled too young to have built a long term sustainable nest egg?

Maybe the state should provide for them.
I'm saying those that are capable of looking after themselves should have this 10% taken off their wages and saved for them.
I also think the state should take care of contagious diseases, pro-bono publico.

 

[D-rock]

Isn't that one of the best places to live in the world? I know it has Vicky vette after all...



Maybe the state should provide for them.
I'm saying those that are capable of looking after themselves should have this 10% taken off their wages and saved for them.
I also think the state should take care of contagious diseases, pro-bono publico.

Under your plan, most importantly, is the government also going to guarantee that everybody that is able to work not only has a job but a good paying job around where they live so when their money is taking out they have a meaningful amount left. Who would control that money? If it has to be invested what happens if the market falls apart at the wrong time and the money held in the national account tanks? What would happen if that money is used up in one bad economic situation like now where people have been out of work for years, and then something else happens to somebody? Would your plan adjust for the price of necessities increasing past inflation like health care and medicine? Would you strictly regulate those prices or strictly regulate everything about that whole industry? No matter what a lot would still have to taken from the rich one way or another to even begin to get that to work.

 

[vodkazvictim]

Under your plan, most importantly, is the government also going to guarantee that everybody that is able to work not only has a job but a good paying job around where they live so when their money is taking out they have a meaningful amount left. Who would control that money? If it has to be invested what happens if the market falls apart at the wrong time and the money held in the national account tanks? What would happen if that money is used up in one bad economic situation like now where people have been out of work for years, and then something else happens to somebody? Would your plan adjust for the price of necessities increasing past inflation like health care and medicine? Would you strictly regulate those prices or strictly regulate everything about that whole industry? No matter what a lot would still have to taken from the rich one way or another to even begin to get that to work.

Under my leadership the government would guarantee work to everybody who wants it. Maybe not close, depending on where they live (IE not building a factory in the middle of nowhere for one man who refuses to move) The government would control the money, as it would control medicine (although private practice would be allowed in the spirit of fair competition to keep prices right).
I'm quite happy to take a lot from the rich. They have too much and more than they deserve or have earned.

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

Isn't that one of the best places to live in the world? I know it has Vicky Vette after all...

It's pretty sweet. And Vette lives in Europe. I'm not saying she doesn't live in Canada... But Canada is in North America.

 

[nightwanker]

Anyway, have a look
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=435387