We did that in 1929 and there was no socialism then only free and open markets for 10 years under Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. So as Max Yasgur has stated neither 100% capitalism nor 100% regulation can solve everything. Greece is a different kind of Democratic socialism. The Greeks are more tied to the Levant then Europe and have always been free spenders. But William it would be just like you to find the one state who failed and point that out then to talk of the success of the real democratic social states of northern and central Europe who do almost as well as the US. And the people live longer, and are much happier. Why do you never tell the whole truth?
Why do you never acknowledge the 18.2 trillion spent to ensure happiness in America? The point is to point out the Greeks are not the only free spenders.Think this can go on forever?While the far right is wrong in many things the far left is equally wrong.
Because Lou 18.2 is a mythical number my friend. That is our total debt it didn't just happen in the last 7 years. It wasn't all spent on the " happiness" of the non productive, in fact if you would do your homework you would find that that is a very small percentage of the expenditures. And Louman Americas greatest investments should be in it's people.
Think this can go on forever?
As for Ben Carson, seems he's got all the mythical Republican (Tea Party) talking points just about right.
As for Bernie Sanders, seems he's got all the mythical progressive talking points just about right. Hilly's still refining and flip flopping to get her message squared away.
No magpie Bernie has his own set of talking points remember he's a communist in your eyes.
Don't believe I have ever stated Bernie was a communist.But then again you make it up as you go.
Dr. Carson's statement makes no sense as written, he should have said "Lets say if I were in the white house now and I wanted to destroy the nation...".Because the second sentence begins with "I would.....". Then he says that ridicule of basic morality and principles would destroy the military. What? And these things are happening now? Where? The original statements I read from the good doctor made a lot of sense, and he seemed like a viable candidate. But this is pure gobbledy gook. He should be embarrassed that this was actually published. What on Earth was his staff thinking? I think I know now why most of his people have resigned. As for Bernie Sanders, he has no chance. Once he had the term Socialism associated with his name he was finished.
Dr. Carson currently resides in second place in early Iowa poling. Bernie Sanders runs under the socialist banner.As for Greece being the only sick European financial puppy I suggest rick Google PIGS and educate himself. While at it rick read up on our very own socilialst paradise in the Caribbean, Porto Rico.
William PIGS are all weak southern European countries. Why do you specifically shy away from the northern European countries William? Is there some truth that a limited democratic socialism can work and you don't want to admit it. Bernie Sanders runs under the democratic banner William he just has many socialist ideas.What was interesting was Googling Porto Rico as nothing came up. But when I Google (actually Bing much better search engine) Puerto Rico (since I know how to spell the names of the states and territories of my country) I find that Puerto Rico is in fact a commonwealth which is not a term of socialism. Commonwealth means a "politically organized community" or "state", which is simultaneously connected by a compact or treaty to another political system. ". Geez William talk about taxation without representation, Puerto Rico and it's citizens pay about 3.5 billion dollars a year into the US coffers and have no voice in the government that levies that tax upon them. Puerto Rico gets very little back in the form of social security upon retirement, and a small percentage of US Medicaid compared to if it voted for full statehood. That's it otherwise it has to fend for itself financially and is failing to do that not because it is socialist but because it is a poor island with very little economy outside of sugar and tourism. If Puerto Rico fails financially that is on our government as it is a "commonwealth" of the US without benefit of that status as it pertains to the "Wealth " part of the word.
Medicare and Social Security are socialism. IMO, all insurance is really nothing but privately run socialism that makes a profit for middle men. Public schools are socialism. It is true that farther right conservatives openly acknowledge what I just said and they would like to see all of these things abolished. However, a majority of the public does not want to see them abolished, and they won't be. Conservatives, IMO, have a point. When the government offers things that allows people to not have to compete for every last crumb that they consume, it weakens the herd. It gives unsuccessful people a degree of comfort that is paid for by the people who rightly should be masters of us all. Here is the worst outcome for conservatives with regard to Bernie running. He will not win of course, but he will stand there and absorb the taunts and epithets of people who are trying to reignite the Red Scare. The longer he sticks around, the longer he will be able to say, "I do believe in some tenets of mixed socialism and here's why" I said once awhile back that today's young people simply do not have any rational connection to the Iron Curtain. I really believe my generation marks a sharp turning point from cold war mentality to.........something much different. What Bernie is probably going to do is accomplish something along the lines that Ron Paul did for the tea party.
Isn't medicare, SS more like Wimpy/Popeye? I'd gladly pay you Wednesday for a hamburger today?However, a majority of the public does not want to see them abolished, and they won't be. They are both pay as you go systems. As long as taxes contributions cover the bill, all is well. Look for means testing, cut in benefits, tax increases. Then we will see if people really want to support the programs. My prediction: People who have paid in 20+ years feel they are entitled. Younger people see no benefit and will be more angry than today.
I Complain about America Out Fear for the Future.Should the government be doing this?I have seen the government expand it's control over the people. I have seen this government give more to the people who chose not to work encouraging a permanently poor in this country.How does this affect the individual?People have become complacent, mommy government will take care of us. We no longer take care of our elderly, dumping that responsibility on the government. We look to the government to provide healthcare instead of working to better out personal situation.What does this say about us
I think the Mommy or Daddy Government meme has gotten overdone. There are a couple of things to consider with the elderly. There has been a pretty dramatic shift in what the elderly population looks like. Not only do the elderly live longer than previously, but advances in medicine has also ensured that the chronically ill elderly live longer. I don't think it's a matter that families want the government to take care of their aged parents, I think it's much more a deal that A) a lot of families don't want to be bothered taking care of aged parents and B) it is an enormous burden to care for a complexly ill senior. Up til now, and aging senior with dementia probably got a pneumonia, and would pass away in a hospital. These days, we are removing colons of demented patients and sending them home with colostomies that need to be changed by caregivers. This is just one example, but this really doesn't have much to do with a nanny state. As to the first para, I hate to keep countering with the same point, but why is it a bad thing when poor people want a hand out, but totally acceptable for the wealthy to just keep riding the wave of FED gratuity rather than actually invest their money in new ventures that require risk? Entitlement knows no age or demographic bounds
but why is it a bad thing when poor people want a hand outWhy do we enable people to remain on benefits long term?Clinton enacted a time limit. Obama got rid of the time limit with the stimulus. but totally acceptable for the wealthy to just keep riding the wave of FED gratuity rather than actually invest their money in new ventures that require risk?You could ask that question of me. Why would I get rid of all my employees and work alone? 1) Higher taxes.2) More regulation.3) 1&2 equal higher risk of failure. To many times I went without pay, had to contribute more to the company to pay employees. In past years that did not happen, today a reality.4) Poor business climate.5) Competition with foreign companies, free trade agreements.The list is endless, I would never start a business in the US today.You cite the extreme in senior care. How many seniors receive food stamps while the kiddies go on with their lives?
I've started to concede that at an absolute level, any prolonged state of satiation will decrease an individuals desire to work. That said, I also believe that working hard and never getting anywhere will also disincentivize an individual. I don't think that one needs to have a particularly left or right of center view to acknowledge this. I think that societies that have a good balance between these two extremes probably do pretty well.
any prolonged state of satiation will decrease an individuals desire to workI would contend that benefits i.e. food stamps, ADC, etc. should be administered, set at a local level. Setting standards from an 80,000 ft level is nearly impossible as LA is not Searchlight Nevada and the needs of the residents of a small town are far different from a major US city. When we set benefit levels to high, incentive to work is lost, benefits to low people are negatively affected. You cannot set levels for the country from Washington yet the Federal Government still pretends they can.