Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Socialism vs. Capitalism


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,797 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 10 February 2009 - 05:27 PM

Dems, why do you favor socialism? Pubs, why do you favor capitalism? Lets hear it!

#2 Epistaxis

Epistaxis

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,182 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 05:47 PM

I prefer a mix with capitalism being the primary ingredient but with some socialist elements, like roads (infrastructure), defense (military), BASIC healthcare (sorry, no boner pills for the fat and flaccid).

I'd also like the deficit spending bonanza to stop like yesterday.

#3 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,797 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 10 February 2009 - 05:55 PM

I prefer a mix with capitalism being the primary ingredient but with some socialist elements, like roads (infrastructure), defense (military), BASIC healthcare (sorry, no boner pills for the fat and flaccid).

I'd also like the deficit spending bonanza to stop like yesterday.


but dont you think that the existence of nationalized healthcare in turn, gives enough power to the government to make capitalism obsolete?

#4 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,407 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 06:08 PM

Healthcare is only one aspect of capitalism, so no I don't think government healthcare will make us all socialist, even if I am somewhat ambivalent about it.

But I think the best system is a mixture of both, a balance between the two.

#5 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,797 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 10 February 2009 - 07:16 PM

on universal healthcare & socialism...ok i hope you guys are ready for this rant of very knowledgeable information, haha.

first we ask where does the money come from? even if the federal government pays for something, it still has a limited capital pool to play with, unless they plan on taxing americans to 100%. At some point theyre going to have to say to themselves, "this is the amount of money we have to spend on healthcare." You know what happens next? Its called rationing.

So lets say you got 10 blocks of $100,000. Each one of these blocks is designated to treat a specific type of cancer, and youve got 12 people who are diagnosed with this type of cancer. There may be someone in that pool, thats been paying into system devolped around them without their concent, which theyve paid their whole life...and now they need treatment. Then you have a 21-year old recent immigrant, and lets say he's got a H1BV Visa. Now when it comes down to the government deciding who is going to get one of these blocks; is it going to be the retiree who has paid into the system (who isnt going to live much longer anyway), or the 21 year old immigrant? The answer: The 21 year old immigrant, simply because he is going to most likely benefit from this greater in the long term. Also, the government would see it into their best interest to keep him alive so he can continue paying into the system.

Now whats also screwed up with this is that we, the taxpayers are now responsible for the behavior of every single other american in this country. So lets say you have "Person A" and "Person B." They decide that they are going to have unprotected gay sex. This is obviously a behavior that you and i cannot regulate. If one of them transmits a life-threatening disease to the other, guess who is responsible for the bill? WE ARE. We pay the bill. They have the right to behave that way, and now we have the responsibility to pay for it. We have no right whatsoever to tell them what they can and cannot do, yet we are still responsible.

Lets also say you got someone at the buffet, stuffing their face with the worst garbage food of all time. Next thing you know, they have diabetes, heart disease, clogged arteries...their knees hurt, they cant stand up, they weigh 300 lbs. Guess who pays for them? oh whaddaya know...we do!

If someone leads a normal life...they drink socially, they dont smoke, theyre in a monogomous faithful relationship, married with children, eats right and takes care of themself. You ask what do they gain from this? Asides from a healthy life, they get all the more responsibility. Its like the good old saying..."what do you get for good work? more work!"

All 300,000,000 people are now responsible for eachother.

If you want the government to really work for you, then to hell with being to work on time. to hell with doing a good job, screw it...you should quit your job, and while youre at it, get drunk and pee yourself. Just lay in the street and urinate on yourself all day long. Obama will back the meat truck up for you...hey what do you want, free food? You want a free house?

Healthcare is a product, not a right. People NEED healthcare, correct? Oh but hey, anything on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs would be entitled to them by the government, right? We NEED food, long before we need the doctor. So if people NEED healthcare, and therefore its their right to have it (while its our responsibility to pay for it), then why not universal nutrition? Why not have the government step in and decide that cattle ranchers, poultry farmers, dairy farmers, corn farmers, whoever...they owe the product of their labor to hungry people, not a free market. its entitled. they need it. universal nutrition. and while we're at it, lets give people free housing, universal shelter. Universal clothing. The list goes on.

You think this is crazy? I think its a little crazy as a see myself typing it, but lets not forget that the federal government under FDR had no problem coming up with the idea that the government was going to nationalize retirement, and told every american that they had no right BUT to participate in social security. We're so used to it.

this is not about compassion. compassion is when we do things out of the goodness of our heart. when the government makes us do it, its compulsion. basically obama wants to tell the producers of our economy that they dont produce enough. They dont do enough. You know what they should do? The producers should deny production. fire their employees, close their business, refuse to contribute. Lets see what Barak Obama does when everyone who makes $250,000 doesnt show up for work...They fire their nanny's, they fire their gardeners, they dont spend money in a restaurant, builds their own desks, mows their own lawns, etc.

There is only 3 types of people that continue to perform in the face of dominishing incentive: Slaves, Prisoners, and Robots. Well since we're not robots, that leaves Prisoners and Slaves. Which one do you want to be? Which one of you wants to live your life working for the government, working for Obama, working for the collective?

It all comes back to rights and responsibilities. They have the right to bahave how they wish, and we have the responsibility to pay. You cant stop these people. They have the right to be gay fat, drunk, high, stupid, and we have to go to work to pay for their irrisponsible decisions.

under socialism we do not work to provide for ourselves or our families. We work to provide for everyone else, the collective. we dont own our labor, we dont own our production, we dont own our minds. obama does.

oh and not to mention under universal healthcare, the entire private sector in the health industry will become obsolete, thus thousands more jobs lost. Why would anyone decide to continue paying into their private insurance like BCBS when they can get it for free at the expense of those that produce in this country?

#6 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,426 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 07:45 PM

you could've saved a lot of typing time if you just wrote "i don't know what socialism is."

#7 Carolina Husker

Carolina Husker

    I hate football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,493 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 08:04 PM

I think Capitalism with government regulation and oversight is the best possible scenario.

I also think the government has a responsibility to care for its poorest citizens, provide infrastructure and a reasonable standard of living for all.

#8 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,668 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 10 February 2009 - 08:28 PM

The pie should be capitalism in the middle, next layer private investment, next layer credit/capital markets then after that layer govt.
Govt first line going back in due to military, infrastructure and base model of education.
Then as you go back toward the core(capitalism) you have more choices going in that direction.
Both can co exists, as long as cap is the driver and not the other way around.

#9 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,929 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 09:01 PM

You idiot, Social Security is not nationalized retirement. It's a system designed to make the older or infirm less of a burden on their relatives, and a safety net if the crap really hits the fan. I know that your knowledge of the New Deal is limited to "IT SUCKED!!!!" but massive unemployment and poverty made caring for the people who fell through the cracks a big big problem. Also, there had to be a system apart from banks to hold the individuals money since pure capitalism wiped out savings.

If not for the Social Security which my parents paid into, when my mom died we would have lost our (small) house.

#10 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,797 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 10 February 2009 - 09:24 PM

I think Capitalism with government regulation and oversight is the best possible scenario.

I also think the government has a responsibility to care for its poorest citizens, provide infrastructure and a reasonable standard of living for all.


well yea and thats what welfare is. however, obama wants to give those who already receive welfare more welfare on top of that through "tax cuts."

#11 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,797 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 10 February 2009 - 09:30 PM

you could've saved a lot of typing time if you just wrote "i don't know what socialism is."


what? i have more intelligence in my pinky finger than you possess as a whole. my post was more in regards to socialized health care (since it had been brought up) than anything else.

#12 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,797 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 10 February 2009 - 09:33 PM

You idiot, Social Security is not nationalized retirement. It's a system designed to make the older or infirm less of a burden on their relatives, and a safety net if the crap really hits the fan. I know that your knowledge of the New Deal is limited to "IT SUCKED!!!!" but massive unemployment and poverty made caring for the people who fell through the cracks a big big problem. Also, there had to be a system apart from banks to hold the individuals money since pure capitalism wiped out savings.

If not for the Social Security which my parents paid into, when my mom died we would have lost our (small) house.


any program the government forces us to partake in without our consent is considered socialist.

but hey, why dont you focus on what my post was really about.

idiot.

#13 Carolina Husker

Carolina Husker

    I hate football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,493 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 09:42 PM

well yea and thats what welfare is. however, obama wants to give those who already receive welfare more welfare on top of that through "tax cuts."


Is there any particular reason that you responded to my post with this vapid babble?

#14 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,797 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 10 February 2009 - 09:51 PM

Is there any particular reason that you responded to my post with this vapid babble?



just trying to get my share of ignorant babble in...the libs are winning in this aspect thus far.

#15 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 10:19 PM

basic healthcare can be provided to the masses at a much lower cost than is being poured into the private sector. Likewise, regulating lawsuits and controlling insurance and pharmy companies can lower the costs of the private sector and allow them to remain competitive so that the market doesn't stagnate. People still have a choice, everyone has basic healthcare and it costs about the same amount that it does now.

Nobody is asking for free nosejobs, people just want to be their health in the hands of people who aren't paid to turn them away (i.e. the insurance companies.)


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.