There are plenty of examples of "socialism done right" in the US. Roads, bridges, public parks... I spent last Sunday blasting clay pigeons on a socialized range. State owned, open to the public - that's socialism. I think this is one of the problems. Liberals say socialism and mean these things. Conservatives say socialism and mean government farms and factories.
I looked up "socialism for dummies" (not because I think you are a dummy--- I just thought it would give a basic definition). Here is what it said:
•
Quote:
Socialism: Socialists are motivated by the desire to improve quality of life for all members of society. They believe in a political system characterised by strong state direction in political and economic policy. Another key idea is redistribution of resources to redress inequalities inherent in free-market economy.
That is what I don't agree on. Especially the last sentence. It kills the motivation and drive that built this country. SOME state direction makes sense. But I think only a necessary minimum.
In A Way Even A liberal Democrat Should Understand
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25%savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22%savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16%savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, ' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
I looked up "socialism for dummies" (not because I think you are a dummy--- I just thought it would give a basic definition). Here is what it said:
?That is what I don't agree on. Especially the last sentence. It kills the motivation and drive that built this country. SOME state direction makes sense. But I think only a necessary minimum.
By some definitions, especially the ones bandied about in this last election cycle, you're a socialist. Congratulations. Welcome to the club. That's where a very large majority of the population is.
Just as it's silly to call you a socialist, it's silly to call most of us socialists. I might be on the left, but I don't cater to the extreme left wing that calls for european-style socialism.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
By some definitions, especially the ones bandied about in this last election cycle, you're a socialist. Congratulations. Welcome to the club. That's where a very large majority of the population is.
Just as it's silly to call you a socialist, it's silly to call most of us socialists. I might be on the left, but I don't cater to the extreme left wing that calls for european-style socialism.
I have never suggested that I am a socialist. I don't even think I called anyone on here a socialist. The closest I came was MAYBE implying such to someone who said "we need more socialism".
Anyway... Some government management of infrastructure only makes sense due to the logistics of it. I do not like the redistribution of resources. Removing the consequences of people's actions. Those types of meddling. The problem is that we ARE starting to drift into a European style of "socialism". Many,(including me) feel that this last election was probably the last chance to change course. Again don't get me wrong, I was not a big Romney fan. I just believe that Obama's vision for the "new America" is very different than the America that I would like to retain.
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
I like our schools, libraries and medical services, and we took full advantage of them while raising our kids. Being fully employed though, we also paid a lot of taxes to help support the system we were using. In the big picture, I figure we came out ahead.
The concept that you all refer to as socialism seems to work well for us up here. It's not perfect, and a lot of tax dollars go to waste on bloated bureaucrats, but the system has always served us well and has a lot of potential.
I like our schools, libraries and medical services, and we took full advantage of them while raising our kids. Being fully employed though, we also paid a lot of taxes to help support the system we were using. In the big picture, I figure we came out ahead.
The concept that you all refer to as socialism seems to work well for us up here. It's not perfect, and a lot of tax dollars go to waste on bloated bureaucrats, but the system has always served us well and has a lot of potential.
Thank you Alex. I always wondered why I loved the Canadian people!
). Here is what it said:
Linear Mode
