Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I understand your $38B is over 10 years which you clarified downthread - so that's about $3.8B in a single year. In 2017, the US spent $3.5T on healthcare....in one year. Not sure why you're connecting the two - when one is roughly 1/1,000, or .1% of the other and not growing annually, while the other is growing by about 3-4% a year.Amused to Death said:
Well first what many in the US call socialism is actually a well funded, more highly taxed, support state with a regulated but generally free market. Thats what Bernie, Warren, etc are calling for. Say like Sweden. Last report I saw Sweden for example had more billionaires per capita than the US.jon_mx said:
That's what charities are forGlass Joe said:
They have definitely shifted over the last several decades. If Bernie would support a school voucher system and a privatized retirement system like Sweden I would be more supportive of higher taxes.
I would like to see a program that let you put more of your pretax money into Social Security like it was a 401k coupled with perhaps a slightly higher guaranteed return on the bonds it would purchase a preferred rate as it were. Now obviously when you are young you can recover from bigger risks but as you get older transferring more of a percentage to that account would make sense. And given that people are going to hold those bonds forever the slightly higher rate shouldn't really be a problem.
How is putting more money into Social Security going to outperform 401K's which can be invested in a variety of investments from the stock market to bonds? The government simply spends your money and is an extremely inefficient body crippled by tons of waste and bureaucracy. Sure the government can endlessly print money to cover up the fact your money is long gone, but how long can they keep doing that before we run into high inflation? What guarantees they will keep their promise when the printing presses start to come unhinged? I would much prefer a real investment that has real growth that is managed efficiently and is 100 percent in my name and under my control. Why you would want to throw money into the black hole of social security is beyond me.
If you're worried about market risk as you near retirement, you can always buy an annuity or just invest directly in bonds. Either of those will perform better than Social Security for people who have the spare wealth to invest.
Well I'm thinking this more for the working class. Not going to have a lot but this could give them a bigger monthly payout when the time comes. A bit like an annuity.
I would define it in more definitive terms. If the government spends less than 40 percent of the GDP, you have a strong capitalistic system. You stay under 45 percent and you are modestly capitolistic. Your stay under 50 percent it is quasi-capitalism (or make up a better term). You get over 50 but under 55 and you are a quasi-socialist economy. Once you get above the government is spending or distributing more than 55 percent of the GDP you are modestly socialistic. You go above 60 percent and you are strong socialistic. That is my definition which is now trademarked. We as a country are solidly in the modestly capitolistic category.
By their pure definition, there is not a country which can be classified as either capitalist or socialist. So those definitions are worthless when discussing reality, but yet those terms are thrown around daily. I provided at least a start to defining the terms in a meaningful and determinable fashion to match the current debate.
There's nothing wrong with the definitions...because people want to use them incorrectly is the problem. If the situation doesn't fit the definition of the word, we should probably consider using different words not bastardizing the definitions. That sort of puts a dagger in the attempt at fear mongering, but it IS the right thing to do.
It is not a fear-mongering word. It simply a word which describes whether one wants a bigger government with increasing controls or not. It is all relative to the current conditions.
You're talking out both sides of your mouth. If it's "relative to current conditions" then you need to take the "current conditions" into account. Those conditions clearly show it being used as a form of fear mongering. You yourself said socialism doesn't really exist, and that's 100% true, yet people go out of their way to use the word and keep it in discussion by creating all these bogus definitions because they know the word is closely tied to some pretty horrific regimes (and economic outcomes) in this world's past. There are many words out there that are perfectly capable of describing what's going on in our country and in the world. Socialism isn't one of them.
Seems like we really need definition of socialist, moderate, far left and far right. All seems to depend on the person’s starting point.
“The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable". George Orwell
I am not talking out if both sides of my mouth It is simply used to mean those who advocate for expansion of government spending and control. Certainly if you are not a fan of bigger government you see that as a negative. But that is not fear-mongering, it is descriptive and accurate. If it is so derogatory, why do Bernie and AOC call themselves Democratic Socialists?
We were talking about the term socialist jon, not democratic socialist. There's a difference and you know that. This is a dumb game to play. If you're going to deny how it's used and say "it's simply used to mean those who advocate for expansion of government spending and control" we're done here as you are intentionally ignoring a rather large segment of the population's use of the word under our "current conditions". You don't want to have a genuine conversation. You were correct at the beginning...using the term socialism to describe much of anything today isn't appropriate given it's real definition. There's no need to use the term. There's also no reason to change the definition when there are plenty of other words that can be used. It seems pretty clear to me why people want to keep using the word, but change the definition given this world's history, but if you disagree, fine. I simply find it completely disingenuous.
Hmm. I admit to being confused about the distinction but I’m not quite ready to reach your conclusion.
Socialism: The federal government produces, regulates and distributes healthcare. They own the hospitals, produce the medicine, provide the doctors, surgeons specialists etc. All work for the government and are driven by government regulation.
Commish, you're actually wildly incorrect and I sort of knew you would be...just by tone alone. Your incredulity over tim's inability to distinguish gave it away. It's actually a difficult distinction to make and comes as much from perception as in each system's modus operandi.
please continue....I don't see the distinction as all that difficult. What am I missing? It's always seemed pretty clear to me that democratic socialism is a belief that capitalism does step on liberty and walks right up to that line of balance in distinction while still fighting for equal treatment and providing for all the people of the society.
It's not just a buffer, it's still state control over prices, wages, and industry. The buffer state would be a social democracy not a democratically socialistic one.
I didn't say it was just a buffer. I said it was a buffer...again at 100,000 foot level. If you want to argue that those labeling themselves Democratic Socialists aren't really, by the textbook definition, I'd agree. When you say "state control" do you mean individual states or federal government or both? That's another component.
I mean the nationalization of industry, which would be federal. I've actually argued before, ad nauseam on this board, that Sanders and AOC are fully aware of what they mean when they do not call themselves social democrats but democratic socialists. Big difference between the two in academic and theoretical discipline as opposed to just letting it go.
But see even this is confusing. For 3 reasons:
tim, you've really pretty much got it. The Commish has it to a degree, but I think he's underestimating how much control the state will have over the economy in democratic socialism. They will set labor's wages and goods' prices and production amounts. That's the hallmark of total state control over the economy, i.e., socialism.
The essentially boils down to being confusing only because those people also used the terms incorrectly. At least for #1 and #2. Same with #3 on it's face. Talking through #3 would be an interesting exercise. You'd have to give me more on it though.
I guess I don’t have it because I’m not really sure you’re right either.
I'm curious about what I've said thus far that leads you to this assumption. We haven't even gotten to that part. At least I haven't. I'm still pushing back on the notion that socialism and democratic socialism are the same thing.
I see the dictatorship by the proletariat over the rest of society as opposed to socialism's one-man/one-vote dictum as the fundamental difference, at least in my understanding.
This is true. If they were flat out socialists, their solutions would involve complete government control. I stated above there is a fine line. It's my belief that you can tell a democratic socialist apart from a socialist rather easily be observing if they acknowledge that line and are careful to not cross it, but get as close as the society will allow.
The Commish is downplaying the economic part, by emphasizing the Democratic part. I can’t tell if he’s being disingenuous or just conflating the two.
I think you implied, through the "buffer," that there would state involvement but not control over production, wages, and prices. That was how I read what you wrote. Now, did you mean that?
....
