socialism

[leftistdestroye]

sanctamaria17;3631333]

However, I believe federal minimum wage should be raised (it ISN’T enough to survive and people living off it aren’t necessarily being lazy)

There are 2 million people earning minimum wage. More than half are teens/students. The states already have the power to raise minum wage, and they do. Federal minimum wage laws are nothing but political fodder.

and more money should be spent on education (not necessarily on welfare, which needs reform) and making our public schools safe and effective places of learning.

Collectively, more money is spent on education than on defense.(prior to the war on terror) It was liberalism that has made the schools and society, less safe. Look at the inner cities. Nasty places to live. The lib/dems set up those areas to “help” the minorities. It was a miserable failure, from which I don’t know if they will ever recover from.

G.K. Chesterton and Dorothy Day were both Catholic and liberal. Nothing wrong with it, as long as God is your first authority

As long as they keep out of the government. Liberalism and Catholicism want the same things as far as humanity is concerned. It is when the abuse of governmnet happens, then we have a problem. Though modern Liberalism goes far against the teachings of the Church. That old, slippery slope thing again.

 

[leftistdestroye]

Pong;3632577]

Socialism as the end, rather than the means to an end, is a good thing. Marx advocated socialism as the in-between to ultimately bring about communism. He was a communist; why some think that we socialists are Marxists is beyond me.

Why did Marx use socialism to bring about communism? Because it is in between Capitalism and Communism! The US has gone from Capilalism, on our way to socialism, and…well, who knows.

Capitalism in the States has gone awry. Corporations continue to profit from the poorest citizens and when those corporations finally start to fail, taxpayers are left with the bill. The system is broken.

People are living better and are richer than any other time in history in the US.

 

[leftistdestroye]

chevalier;3637906]****

Yes, but that’s better for many people than a system in which you don’t get any healthcare if you can’t pay for it.

County hospitals are one option. If they can’t then family.

Personally, I agree with you, rather, although I’d be very afraid of an unrestrained system of private healthcare. Some boundaries have to exist for example in order to avoid the closing down of unprofitable hospitals or the abandonment of those who can’t afford the healthcare they need.

Well, it was cheaper before the government got involved, for one. And many hospitals close today, because they are giving away free healthcare, especially to illegal aliens.

Remember also that private companies tend to charge as much as they can get away with. This is the menace of capitalism. If they can charge this much, there’s no reason why they should charge lower. In theory, they will charge lower if they can sell more that way, but that’s just theory. In practice, the sure revenue from higher prices is too tempting.

They charge more, because of fraud, and running to the doctor for ever little thing, malpractice insurance, because of lawsuits, etc. Approx. 75% of Americans have some kind of coverage. The gov covers about 25% of them. That federal budget is like 1.5 trillion a year, I think(correct me if a wrong) for that 25%.

And in capitalism, people work for next to nothing too. This includes people with university education, talents, industriousness. Some have to work for free to achieve some experience with which they can look for work.

Sorry? I think you mean Communism

What if she had no money to pay for it in free-market circumstances?

Local taxes should cover that.

 

[leftistdestroye]

ecp007;3638879]

Your understanding of economic transactions is very limited. What do you think rich people do with the $500B?? They use it to get credit to buy $100 Trillion worth of stuff. They buy luxury cars (employing upper class engineeers, middle class factory workers, lower class car repairmen, minimum wage and below car cleaners and cheufers), luxury watches (employing sales people, shop owners, mall owners, maintenance crews), airplanes (employing pilots, stewdesses, mechanics), houses (employing maids, Home Depot workers, gardeners, furniture salesmen, tile installers, painters, pool cleaners, etc, etc, etc) you get my drift.

What about the people who invest their money??? They employ stock brokers, market traders, and factory workers that work in the corporations they invest in.

A rich person with money invests and spends not only the money that they have, but also the money they can borrow off of the money they have. Therefore, they employ / help more people, thus helping more families, then the gov’t beaurocracies ever could by simply spending every sent they get in taxes every year. And that doesn’t even count all the gov’t waste that lines the pockets of lobbiests and political contributors.

And don’t the top 1 or 10% pay like 80 or 90% of all taxes? Cut big government to save money.

 

[royal_archer]

maybe i should explain further.
i’m not for some robin hood system, taking from the rich to give to the poor. i do think the wealthy should be taxed more, since who really needs millions and millions of dollars in the bank? end bush’s tax cut to the rich and that would bring in 500 billion dollars! that money should go to social programs.
.

That is stealing and a mortal sin. Actually it is two mortal sins: stealing and coveting. Instead of trying to use coercion to take money from the rich, you would be better off to work harder to help the poor yourself.

cut the military budget in half, bring the troops home, and close bases around the world. all of that money that is saved could go to social programs. health care should be a right, not a choice. education as well. community colleges and trade schools should be free. investing in people should be a high priority of the government. .

Much of that money is going to social programs in those foreign countries. Look how we contributed to the rebuilding of Japan and Germany. We are now doing the same in Iraq and Afghanistan.

minimum wage should end. what about a living wage? or dare i say, a maximum wage!? how many americans can live and support a family for 6 dollars an hour? investing in workers is an investment in our country. housing should be affordable. .

First not every worker is supporting a family. Minimum wage jobs are a great opportunity for inexperienced workers to get into the job market. The are also a great opportunity for supplemental income. Keep in mind that workers in other countries work for much less than six dollars per hour and can afford to live on it. If American companies can no longer hire people at these wages, many companies will be forced to move jobs overseas or will be forced out of business. Instead of complaining about the very high minimum wages in the States, you might be better to address the sweatshops in foreign countries that truly exploit workers.

just a few thoughts.
other than that, i’m not for a government telling me what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. i think that the government, like that one post said, should do the right thing.
i could never be a commie.

You say you do not want the government telling you what to do but you seem to advocate the government telling others what to do.

On a side note please consider:

usccb.org/nab/bible/2thessalonians/2thessalonians3.htm

2 Thessalonians
Chapter 3

6
We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us. 2
7
For you know how one must imitate us. For we did not act in a disorderly way among you,
8
nor did we eat food received free from anyone. On the contrary, in toil and drudgery, night and day we worked, so as not to burden any of you.
9
Not that we do not have the right. Rather, we wanted to present ourselves as a model for you, so that you might imitate us.
10
In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.

 

[markomalley]

Though modern Liberalism goes far against the teachings of the Church. That old, slippery slope thing again.

If you look up the writings of Leo XIII, you will find that he condemned so-called classical liberalism, as well.

 

[ecp007]

Wow… you would probably make a horrible economist. 200:1 ratio for credit.

Well, I’m certainly no economist, just a working joe, but I did put $3,000 cash + $12,000 from a credit card, to buy a $300,000 property. That’s 100:1. If I can do that, with no financial advisors, what can Donald Trump do? (I sold the property for $400K a few years later - maybe I won’t make a good economist, but I’m not such a bad business woman??)

I also do not understand your fetish for the current service economy too.

I don’t have a fetish for service economy, I was pointing out that buying luxury items has a trickle down effect. It stimulates the economy at all levels, from mid-upper class engineers like me, through union factory workers and mechanics, all the way down to service workers…Don’t you think that uneducated people have a right to work and make a living too?

Care to name them? It is not that I am denying that they exist, but I want to see how many of them who do not conform to your political agenda.

What political agenda? Government waste is rampant on all sides of the political spectrum (including the Greens who are getting rich off of the Global Warming crisis). I would rather the money be in the hands of the people directly, then in the hands of any politician.

 

[cynic]

…another one of these threads where *any *degree of government involvement in the health, education and welfare of citizens is considered socialism.

 

[leftistdestroye]

cynic;3641247]

…another one of these threads where *any *degree of government involvement in the health, education and welfare of citizens is considered socialism

Probably because we already have governmnet involvment in health, education, and welfare. We see it as an escalation of government involvment. Which, will lead to socialism.

 

[Ron21]

Atleast socialism seems much better than capitalism

Consider this. Liberation Theology which combined Marxism (the ultimate form of Socialism) and Christianity was condemned by the Church. Socialism (especially its extreme forms like Marxism and Nazism) is inherently anti-religion and violent in nature.

In addition government control does not necessarily mean contributing to the general welfare. In many cases, it actually harms the general populace through rationing of food and healthcare and the burdensome beaurocracy. Free will is removed from the people since every aspect of life is controlled by the state of which, in many case, they are considered property.

Furthermore, socialism has given rise to relativism which is increasing imploding society.

No, socialism in its many forms is not the answer but the problem.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Atleast socialism seems much better than capitalism

Seems better, but the reality is worse.

The most socialistic parts of our system – the public schools , for example – are the parts which don’t work. You may have missed it, but a recent study shows the high school dropout rate for our 50 largest cities averages 50%.

 

[neat62]

Atleast socialism seems much better than capitalism

How so? When socialism takes “control” of all things and puts it in the hands of a few? It gives the government the full control to dictate who gets what and when…how is that right? Are we just “too stupid” to be responsible for ourselves?

While Capitalism encourages personal responsibility and accountability…you want to earn money…you have to work for it, period. Control is placed in the individual’s hands…if you work hard, educate yourself, you have opportunity…with socialism, you can only do what the government allows you.

 

[East_and_West]

.

G.K. Chesterton and Dorothy Day were both Catholic and liberal. Nothing wrong with it, as long as God is your first authority

G.K. Chesterton would have been considered liberal for his day because he was a big supporter of democracy. Today, he would be considered a staunch conservative.