Why are Americans so afraid of Socialism?

[marquis2]

because assisting social leeching parasites and unwilling to work ghetto people is definitely against the values of America. Obama wants to implement a social assisting where poor people and also unwilling to work people have their healthcare paid by hardworking honest citizens and by a part of the state with the social taxes. That kind of system was implemented in France in 1975 by Chirac when population from Magrheb was massively immigrating in France. Many of immigrants knew that in France, they would have a free healthcare and being paid social helps, this kind of system lasted till 2003 where now the the healthcare isystem is getting privatized and the social helps given regarding very strict conditions. 27 years of assisting and giving social helps to leeching parasites and unwilling to work ghetto people that are not bringing anything to the country,that is more than enough to hate socialism.

When a safety net is in place for the population there will be those who abuse the provisions.We have this in the UK and makes good headlines.But the amount is surprisingly low in fact and certainly not enough to justify the accusation that it encourages laziness.It's a sign of a civilised community that nobody gets laft on the scrapheap , that nobody is denied access to medicine or allowed to starve.
Call it a safety belt instead of a safety net.Wearing a seat belt is generally a good thing but there are cases where it makes things worse in an accident.But the good vastly outweighs the bad.
Also remember that life is dynamic and individual situations change.People can be well set at one time in their lives but then circumstances can change through no fault of their own.

 

[deltaoscarbravo]

Show me a definition of Totalitarian where it says "we must invade our neighboring countries" that does not come from a source that has the word 'wiki' in it. Just 1.

Cambridge Dictionary for one. Read it for yourself.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=83953&dict=CALD

The Soviets wnated to maintain the same totalitarian structure of communist rule throughout the USSR and separately the eastern bloc countries of Europe from 1948 onwards.

When Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968) tried to change their totalitarian regimes, USSR invaded.
That's what totalitarian regimes do.
They enforce their regime in their own country and they try the same regime in other countries too (if they can) : to the exclusion of all other political entities.

I guess you have never actually spoken with a Russian party member who actually lived in Soviet Russia? At my age I have had the time to speak with a lot of them.
.

Incorrect.

I have an inlaw - not blood relative - who's mother was a member of the USSR's politburo.
I have spoken to others who lived under Communist rule in Russia.

So you think it is right that 1% of the population pays 60% of the tax?
How about a system were everyone pays (including politicians) the same ammount?

earlier, you were bemoaning the poor standard of US education.
By the standard of your replies, I can see why.

So let me give you a quick economic theory lesson.
The first law of any tax system is to make the tax system equitable and progressive.
Equitable means fair.
Progressive mean that the tax should only be applied for reasons that are worthy or essential.

Your thesis about everyone pays the same amount doesn't hold water.
If a person earns $30k pa and another person earns $200k : you contend that they should pay the same amount of tax.
That is not equitable nor is it progressive.

What is equitable and fair is for everyone to pay tax acording to their rate of income, up to a threshold.
If you earn more, you should pay proportionately more tax, up to a threshold.

How about a system that taxes businesses when they outsource jobs (like phone jobs) to foreign countries? Better yet make that tax equal to what a US workers minimum withholding would be not the foreign workers rate.

Let me get this straight.
On the one hand you claim that US capitalism is the be all and end all.
But when those very same US capitalists can make even more profit, you want to tax them?
Isn't that the fist law of uber-capitalism, maximise profit?
I would have thought that your kind would have supported this?
And you're against having to pay tax anyhow - according to your messages earlier - so why tax uber-capitalism?
After all, isn't the US model the right one (according to you anyway)?

You really don't know what you want, do you?
Alle carte capitalism - capitalism when it suits, tax when it's suits and then don't tax when it's suits?

 

[georges]

When a safety net is in place for the population there will be those who abuse the provisions.We have this in the UK and makes good headlines.But the amount is surprisingly low in fact and certainly not enough to justify the accusation that it encourages laziness.It's a sign of a civilised community that nobody gets laft on the scrapheap , that nobody is denied access to medicine or allowed to starve.
Call it a safety belt instead of a safety net.Wearing a seat belt is generally a good thing but there are cases where it makes things worse in an accident.But the good vastly outweighs the bad.
Also remember that life is dynamic and individual situations change.People can be well set at one time in their lives but then circumstances can change through no fault of their own.

Assisting people is the worst thing to do. It is definitely not a sign of a civilised community but it is a system where some people live at the expense of the others. When a person is giving a chance in a country, it is his/her duty not to fuck it up and succeed. It is also the duty of this same person to integrate himself/herself in the country where he/she migrated in. Don't tell me please that Indian or Pakistanese communities have integrated so well in you country (UK) when it is not the case. When a population is not making efforts or unwilling to integrate in the country where she migrated in, then the inlanders or the people from the country have the whole rights to refuse to give any kind of helps. If a population causes more troubles and problems to the country where she migrated in, it is justified that the state and the inlanders don't help them. For desserving something, you have to earn it. It is called meritocracy and I am all for it. Paying money for others and assisting them is not a safety belt but a brake and an unnecessary thing. People should be able to manage their own things by themselves and should be able to have the capacity of forward thinking in any kind of situation.

 

[boobfan]

Cambridge Dictionary for one. Read it for yourself.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=83953&dict=CALD

The Soviets wnated to maintain the same totalitarian structure of communist rule throughout the USSR and separately the eastern bloc countries of Europe from 1948 onwards.

When Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968) tried to change their totalitarian regimes, USSR invaded.
That's what totalitarian regimes do.
They enforce their regime in their own country and they try the same regime in other countries too (if they can) : to the exclusion of all other political entities.




Incorrect.

I have an inlaw - not blood relative - who's mother was a member of the USSR's politburo.
I have spoken to others who lived under Communist rule in Russia.





earlier, you were bemoaning the poor standard of US education.
By the standard of your replies, I can see why.

So let me give you a quick economic theory lesson.
The first law of any tax system is to make the tax system equitable and progressive.
Equitable means fair.
Progressive mean that the tax should only be applied for reasons that are worthy or essential.

Your thesis about everyone pays the same amount doesn't hold water.
If a person earns $30k pa and another person earns $200k : you contend that they should pay the same amount of tax.
That is not equitable nor is it progressive.

What is equitable and fair is for everyone to pay tax acording to their rate of income, up to a threshold.
If you earn more, you should pay proportionately more tax, up to a threshold.





Let me get this straight.
On the one hand you claim that US capitalism is the be all and end all.
But when those very same US capitalists can make even more profit, you want to tax them?
Isn't that the fist law of uber-capitalism, maximise profit?
I would have thought that your kind would have supported this?
And you're against having to pay tax anyhow - according to your messages earlier - so why tax uber-capitalism?
After all, isn't the US model the right one (according to you anyway)?

You really don't know what you want, do you?
Alle carte capitalism - capitalism when it suits, tax when it's suits and then don't tax when it's suits?

Well you failed with your example for a definition of totalitarian that states "we must invade our neighboring countries". The cambridge definition is correct "of or being a political system in which those in power have complete control and do not allow people freely to oppose them"
Soviet Russia after Stalin died was not totalitarian people were actually free to disagree with the government all they wanted as long as it was still a point that could fit within the socialist or even communist doctrine. Prior to Stalins death such dissent was addressed with a bullet and an unmarked (in some cases mass) grave. After Stalins death if someone voiced an opionion that was not popular they may find themselfs getting grilled for a few hours by the KGB and if the suits were not happy with what they heard they were sent to a Gulag for a little while (or a long while).
You don't seem to understand that they could not have 'invaded' either Czechoslovakia or Hungary they occupied their states when a democratic system threatened because states is all the Soviets saw Czechoslovakia or Hungary as.

A Progressive tax system is a socialist economic construct.
A flat tax system is a capitalist economic construct. Find some of John Nash jr's stuff on economic theory that will help you understand the difference.

 

[D-rock]

After writing long post after long post about our economic system I don't really feel like I want to do it all over yet again right now. To sum up the biggest real reason why I think so many Americans in general are afraid of socialism by what I have observed throughout me life is this, and I hate to say it, but...

Americans are generally a very selfish people.

I don't like saying it, but it's true. We are that way both as individuals and as a group. We are good at looking out for ourselves and have a big I'll "get mine" attitude with everything even if it might adversely affect others, the communities we live in, or the country and world as a whole. We are good at putting ourselves first and looking out for #1, sometimes at any cost. A lot of people might intentionally hide or have been conditioned to hide that under some ideology, even if that ideology has gotten to the point it doesn't make sense, but the underlying reason for it is usually the same. We want all we can get and don't want to give up anything, even if we don't relatively even need it, even in the instances where the benefits of looking our for ones own self are only very marginal compared to a huge benefit for everybody else if the opposite was true. It doesn't really make sense, but it's true nonetheless.

 

[marquis2]

Assisting people is the worst thing to do. It is definitely not a sign of a civilised community but it is a system where some people live at the expense of the others. When a person is giving a chance in a country, it is his/her duty not to fuck it up and succeed. It is also the duty of this same person to integrate himself/herself in the country where he/she migrated in. Don't tell me please that Indian or Pakistanese communities have integrated so well in you country (UK) when it is not the case. When a population is not making efforts or unwilling to integrate in the country where she migrated in, then the inlanders or the people from the country have the whole rights to refuse to give any kind of helps. If a population causes more troubles and problems to the country where she migrated in, it is justified that the state and the inlanders don't help them. For desserving something, you have to earn it. It is called meritocracy and I am all for it. Paying money for others and assisting them is not a safety belt but a brake and an unnecessary thing. People should be able to manage their own things by themselves and should be able to have the capacity of forward thinking in any kind of situation.

Your argument is exactly what I'm trying to expose.Perhaps IN THEORY assistance is a brake but not IN PRACTICE.
Yes, people have a duty to try and succeed and pull their weight but this is not possible for everyone.
Your whole argument is based on hypothesis and doesn't relate to the world as it really is.
Some time ago the Asians were kicked out of Uganda and settled in Leicester.They received a lot of help and not that many years later over 1000 of them were millionaires.But without the assistance they would not be where they are now.

 

[bustybbwlover]

i'd have to say assisting people is the sign of a civilized community. helping or taking care of those who can't or failed to take of themselves is a sign of humanity. to let people who fucked up in life or people who are incapable of caring for themselves suffer would be one of my signs that there is an uncivilized society. maybe we should just eat the poor babies tho to alleviate hunger it seems like a swift and modest proposal

 

[deltaoscarbravo]

Well you failed with your example for a definition of totalitarian that states "we must invade our neighboring countries". The cambridge definition is correct "of or being a political system in which those in power have complete control and do not allow people freely to oppose them"
.

Soviet Union was a totalitarian country and the Soviet Union did invade Hungary and Czechoslovakia, in order to maintain the totalitarian regimes that existed in both countries.
Both countries populations attempted to overthrow the existing totalitarian regimes in their respective countries.

Soviet Russia after Stalin died was not totalitarian people were actually free to disagree with the government all they wanted as long as it was still a point that could fit within the socialist or even communist doctrine. Prior to Stalins death such dissent was addressed with a bullet and an unmarked (in some cases mass) grave. After Stalins death if someone voiced an opionion that was not popular they may find themselfs getting grilled for a few hours by the KGB and if the suits were not happy with what they heard they were sent to a Gulag for a little while (or a long while).
You don't seem to understand that they could not have 'invaded' either Czechoslovakia or Hungary they occupied their states when a democratic system threatened because states is all the Soviets saw Czechoslovakia or Hungary as.

Post-Satlin regime was totalitarian : and try to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
There was little or no relaxation of the regime, post-Stalin.
All internal opposition was put down - all opposition in eastern Europe (such as Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968 and Poland in the 1980's) was put down with direct Soviet support.

A Progressive tax system is a socialist economic construct.

Wrong again, I'm afraid.
The first tenet of taxation is that a tax should be progressive.
That was advocated in the 18th century.

That's a clue by the way.

A flat tax system is a capitalist economic construct. Find some of John Nash jr's stuff on economic theory that will help you understand the difference.

A flat tax system being a capitalis construct?
You're waffling again, amigo.

And as for citing John Nash ! If I need to know about Game Theory, I'll consult Nash.
Nash did not offer any views regarding taxation.

You're a spoofer, fan

 

[lurkingdirk]

so, other than "Americans are selfish" and "Socialism suck ass," any theories as to why people are afraid of it?

I wonder if it isn't still a product of cold-war politics and fear mongering. If you think none of that went on, I suggest you watch "The Atomic Cafe'." An interesting and entertaining watch. Even though the cold war ended long ago, I don't think we can rid ourselves of decades of hateful and often misleading rhetoric about the evil, baby-killing communists (often referred to as socialists).

maybe?

 

[deltaoscarbravo]

so, other than "Americans are selfish" and "Socialism suck ass," any theories as to why people are afraid of it?

I wonder if it isn't still a product of cold-war politics and fear mongering. If you think none of that went on, I suggest you watch "The Atomic Cafe'." An interesting and entertaining watch. Even though the cold war ended long ago, I don't think we can rid ourselves of decades of hateful and often misleading rhetoric about the evil, baby-killing communists (often referred to as socialists).

maybe?

It's more deep seated that the coldwar, i would suggest.

The very rich in America, have achieved their status by exploiting millions of poorer Americans.
That's how they gained their wealth.

And in order to protect that wealth, they will oppose any change to the US socio-economic structure.
To this end, any effort to increase taxation diminishes their profit/wealth.
Even if the tax being raised is for the common good ie. provision of general medical insurance for all people.

The very rich fight every effort to redistribute wealth - and they use the "bogeyman" of creeping socialism to try to scaremonger opposition.

 

[E-Ann-Hilden]

Socialism fails, has failed and been proven a failure on any large scale.
That is reason enough.

Care to give an example, most European Nations have some version of it and get by perfectly fine.

If you say you dont want it in the U.S. that is fine, but on a whole it is not a failure. Yes, Germany is quite a failed country...

 

[deltaoscarbravo]

Care to give an example, most European Nations have some version of it and get by perfectly fine.

If you say you dont want it in the U.S. that is fine, but on a whole it is not a failure. Yes, Germany is quite a failed country...

Germany is a failed country?
I disagree.

I travel to Germany both on business and on holiday and Germany is superb country.
Germany has been an economic powerhouse since the early 1960's.
It's infrastructure is second to none.
It's healthcare system is worldclass.

And what other country in the world could absorb an instant 25% increase in population (reunification of East Germany with West Germany) and still perform as a worlclass country?

 

[E-Ann-Hilden]

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude .

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” <----- Is by Winston Churchill.

Also I have been to Bosina with the US Army as part of the UN force in the late 90's and have personally saw what socialism can do to a country. Also our Decleration of Independance states "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Socialist are angry people, or they are rich college kids that are pissed at mommy and daddy and feel they need to wear Che t-shirts.

Also if socialism works why have so many Europeans of all nationalities, Cubans and Soivets Deffect or Immigrate to this country? Maybe so they can something more, looking for the American dream.

Your statements are really your perception and are not rooted in fact. I have seldom seen any of this failure or angry attitude while travelling thorough Europe.

 

[E-Ann-Hilden]

Germany is a failed country?
I disagree.

I travel to Germany both on business and on holiday and Germany is superb country.
Germany has been an economic powerhouse since the early 1960's.
It's infrastructure is second to none.
It's healthcare system is worldclass.

And what other country in the world could absorb an instant 25% increase in population (reunification of East Germany with West Germany) and still perform as a worlclass country?

You did not read my post, I was making a point. Of course Germany is not a failed country. I thought it was interesting that people think socialism does not work in other countries, when it clearly does.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Sweden is socialist. They also have the highest standard of living, such as life expectancy, in the Western world. Something about it is sick though. Maybe it's all the arab parasites that have ravished towns like Malmo, I don't know. I just think America would be so better off if it had been able to muster the ability to continue under the AOC - Articles of Confederation. I think each state should ultiamtely have their own rights and abilities to help the people of their area; not a massive, opressive federal thing. Socialism is just one step closer to realizing a large oppressive government, with less and less states rights.

 

[ballzano]

Well the main reason is, it doesn't work.

 

[YMIHERE]

Well you failed with your example for a definition of totalitarian that states "we must invade our neighboring countries". The cambridge definition is correct "of or being a political system in which those in power have complete control and do not allow people freely to oppose them"
Soviet Russia after Stalin died was not totalitarian people were actually free to disagree with the government all they wanted as long as it was still a point that could fit within the socialist or even communist doctrine. Prior to Stalins death such dissent was addressed with a bullet and an unmarked (in some cases mass) grave. After Stalins death if someone voiced an opionion that was not popular they may find themselfs getting grilled for a few hours by the KGB and if the suits were not happy with what they heard they were sent to a Gulag for a little while (or a long while).
You don't seem to understand that they could not have 'invaded' either Czechoslovakia or Hungary they occupied their states when a democratic system threatened because states is all the Soviets saw Czechoslovakia or Hungary as.

You must be channeling President Gerald Ford during one of his out of the reality moments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8rg9c4pUrg

 

[lurkingdirk]

You must be channeling President Gerald Ford during one of his out of the reality moments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8rg9c4pUrg

right, because there was nothing spurning the russians on to imperial expansion at this point. no "warm water" port, no mining or agricultural concerns, it was just the "socialism" that made the communist empire aggressive. an interesting perspective.

 

[calpoon]

Socialism is so scary that I'm going to dress up as it for Halloween.

 

[Facetious]

Re: Why are Americans so afraid of Socialism?

Because only the socialists (democraps with their filibuster proof houses of congress) would enter the arena of repealing the 22nd Amendment. :thefinger