Universal Socialism in the USA...bought to you by the DNC

The liberal-left attitude of expectations and demands for universal socialism

from JoeUser Forums
Editorial Note: This article is not supported by John Kerry, George Bush or any other politician coping with campaign finance reform rules....it's just my personal philosophy....and I'm Stephen Kelley and I endorse this article

The trouble is the liberal-left attitude of expectations and demands for universal socialism. Everything is a so-called God given right. Just cause you were born wearing a red, white and blue diaper with the Statue of Liberty's flame of freedom flying out of your butt doesn't give you the right to have or use everything that any other American worked for and earned. Health care, housing, employment, food, etc., none of it is a guaranteed right. (Toss in there free webspace, free bandwidth, free software and the like, none of it is guaranteed either and if someone is handing it out for free, stop crying about how it works and what it does and doesn't do for you, kiss my pimply white ass and just be grateful it's not that hairy and I took a shower today)....but I digress.... The only thing guaranteed is the pursuit of these things, that's it, nothing more. Now if someone wants to take the stand and say that they're oppressed from this pursuit, I'll stand behind them and support them 100%, if not they can just bugger off.
philosophy
11,159 views 20 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just cause you were born wearing a red, white and blue diaper with the Statue of Liberty's flame of freedom flying out of your butt doesn't give you the right to have or use everything that any other American worked for and earned.


How cold and callous (and right) of you. Now people that don't work for the finish line aren't ever going to get there.

Thanks for posting this, but I doubt the bleeding hearts will get it. They haven't seen far enough past their (granted noble) ideals to realize that someone has to pay for it, and that someone will be people that had nothing to do with the situation of the needy, and that in fact it will come from the pockets of people that might use the money (if they choose to) to build the economy - the very economy that is dying because leeches are sucking the cash out of it and are returning nothing.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's like saying the RNC is a bunch of callous greedy jackbooted thugs hell bent on controlling everybodies lives and taking away all your liberties. That's not true....or is it?

The reason the economy is dying is because of Bush 2.0's crappy (and/or non existant) economic policies. Plain and simple!
Star Control: Origins
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
A little thing called socialism has taken hold here, not with the great hold that it had and still has in some european countries, but none the less we've got an unhealthy dose of it. Now we have politicians, Clinton proposed it before and Kerry's preaching it now, saying everyone has got a right to healthcare. Next it'll be a job, then housing, then food on the table and on and on until the that field of blue with 50 stars is replaced with a field of red and a single white star, you can toss in a hammer and sickle too if you like. People need to get up off their lazy arses and work for what that want and expect. People need to have a sense of pride in their work and what they own. People need to create their own opportunities, instead of waiting for government handouts. That is how America was built.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
America was built on the labour of slaves, not free enterprise. Just look at the figures for evidence of that.

Universal healthcare and education are an investment in the country's future, not a "right". By providing subsidised healthcare, the majority taxpayers ensure that they will have access to a pool of healthy laborers when necessary, who do not have to spend a week off sick when a doctor's visit and a drug would make it better in a day. It benefits all society for the poor to be healthy. Education (especially higher education) traditionally provides a return on the investment once the student completes. The taxes they pay later generally add up to more than the cost of the education provided.

The right to food is already granted to American citizens, as evidenced by the low starvation figures in that country.

Sure people should create their own opportunities, but without help some will die before this is possible. What kind of person would see another die so that they themselves don't have to give out handouts?
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
I still don't buy into the need for government assistance. My grandfather was a fisherman with a basic 6th grade education. He moved to this country in pursuit of opportunities he did not have in the country he left. He bought a home and raised a family of seven children on that trivial income. It's what's important to you and providing a home for his family and the opportunities this country has to offer is what was important to him and he did it without government assistance.

I only have a high school education and about 7 years ago I lost everything and had to start over. Neither 23 years ago when I got out of high school nor 7 years ago when I lost everything (but I won't blame Clinton and the Dems, just my ex-wife) did I look to the government for assistance. I'm not against lending a hand to help someone find their place in society or get ahead, but it should be my choice, not some politician's choice in Wash. DC. My "charity" tax dollars should be spent in my community.

BTW....my grandfather wasn't a slave and he contributed to and helped build America as well
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

. The US was not built on the labor of slaves. That's an absurd statement.  Slavery was almost extinct in the north at the same of the revolution and that is where, by far, most of the US's early GDP game from.

Universal health care is not an investment into the country's future.  It is a way for incompotent politicians to try to control even more of the nation's GDP.  I can take care of my own health care thank you very much. 

Currently, 85% of Americans have had healthcare in the last 365 days (all but around 45 million).  Of the 45 million last year that reported not having healthcare everyday, only 20 million went the full year without healthcare (i.e. the others were between jobs or just picking up healthcare).  Of that 20 million, 11 million of them could afford health care but choose not to (i.e. make over $45,000 and are under 40 years of age).  Of the remaining 9 million left, about half of them coudl get free health care thorugh Medicaid if they filled out the forms but for whatever reasons haven't.  That leaves about 5 million, out of nation of 300 million who are working but don't have healthcare.  BTW, this was all part of the August 26 census bureau report.  But cynical politicans latch on that during the past year 45 million people went at least 1 day without health insurance.

There is no "right" to food in the United States, btw.  Americans have the right to be free. And that includes the freedom to starve if we're foolish enough.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Good points here.

"The only thing guaranteed is the pursuit of these things, that's it, nothing more."

That's really the crux of it, isn't it. The difference in philosophy between the left and the right. As a general rule, the left believes the government should 'give' you those things because you have a 'right' to them.

One of the things that was mentioned was health care. That has become such a false argument, due to the terms 'health care' and 'health care insurance' being used interchangeably. Health care is not health care insurance and vice-versa, although you would think so by how they are used by so many people, politicians and media.

"45% (the figures vary) of people in the US don't have health care" are the headlines.

Wrong.

Everyone in the US can get health care, regardless of their ability to pay for it, insurance or otherwise. It already has become a 'right', due to laws prohibiting a medical practitioner from refusing needed service to an individual.

The objective is to give everyone health care insurance. It is framed in the term 'health care' as a way to further the agenda by implying that millions of people are being refused their basic medical needs, which is not true.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
As a general rule, the left believes the government should 'give' you those things because you have a 'right' to them.


I'm most likely "left", so I have to disagree with this statement. I pay taxes and expect there to be healthcare because I have a responsibility to my fellow citizen, not because the recipient has a right to it. Part of being a citizen is trying to do what is best for those citizens who are poorer and less fortunate than myself. If someone through selfishness or greed refuses to do their duty (as could be seen in the 19th century where there was no social security) then they should be forced to take on the responsibility through the auspices of the state. Citizenship is not merely a matter of rights, but of responsibilities too.

The US was not built on the labor of slaves. That's an absurd statement. Slavery was almost extinct in the north at the same of the revolution and that is where, by far, most of the US's early GDP game from


Personally I date the birth of settler nations like the US and Australia to the time of settlement, but it is of course true that there was little legal northern slavery following independence. I still think the exploitation of slave labour was a major component of early American development though, especially in the south.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Part of being a citizen is trying to do what is best for those citizens who are poorer and less fortunate than myself.


cactoblasta, the right believe that also ... only they tend to believe that it should be the individual's responsibility, not the government's. Our government was never intended to provide social welfare.

"If someone through selfishness or greed refuses to do their duty (as could be seen in the 19th century where there was no social security) then they should be forced to take on the responsibility through the auspices of the state."

That makes a big assumption and leaves out the majority of people who are not selfish, nor greedy, nor financially able to part with such a large part of their income. With the government forcing every wage earner to participate in paying for social welfare, there is no discernment of greed or selfishness.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
That makes a big assumption and leaves out the majority of people who are not selfish, nor greedy, nor financially able to part with such a large part of their income


Those who are neither selfish nor greedy would have no problem with providing healthcare or education for the masses; that's why charitable donations are tax deductible (or at least they are in Australia). Those who can't afford to pay much tax aren't supposed to; thus the existence of graded tax systems. They also have access to subsidised health and education to assist them in their plight. I'm not going to try and argue that taxation is especially effective or the best way of doing things as it would be far better if private charity could be relied on. But if taxes were greatly reduced, I doubt there'd be a big increase in charitable donations to compensate for lost welfare revenue. Certainly we haven't seen a particularly high proportion of lost taxes from the last Bush tax break go to charity - why is it that we assume this will happen with a greater reduction in taxes across the board?

I think there has to be a point where responsibility is enforced through law in the same way that rights are. Being a good citizen is one of those responsibilities. Sure, making it compulsory removes the generous nature of the contribution, but far better to have the money going towards national growth than to allow people to feel selfrighteous about the limited generosity that most (myself included) would likely indulge in.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm not denying that the end result can be good, merely that the premise of such a system is, as essencay stated, socialistic.

I don't suscribe to the notion that doing a bad thing is justified if the desired results are achieved. In other words, socialism is a failed model in realistic terms. Ideally, it looks good, but it hasn't held up as a viable model for any country. In my mind, that makes it a bad system. On the other hand, the democracy and capitalism of the US has allowed it to become one of the, if not most, thriving and richest (in terms of standard of living) nations in the world in a relatively short period of time. Additionally, the US was formed and intended to be a nation of individual freedom, freedom which is not allowed or permitted under socialism.

I'm very curious if those that promote and desire facets of socialism in the US would want a true socialistic society.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm very curious if those that promote and desire facets of socialism in the US would want a true socialistic society.


Of course I don't want a true socialist society. I'm not an idiot. The last thing I'd want is for the common people to have a real voice in the doings of the nation. Western democracies, based on clever use of oligarchies and the manipulation of human common sense, are far more beneficial to society as a whole. But the simple fact is that all the countries with higher standards of living than the US incorporate a higher level of socialism in their societies. Whether this is a result of universal healthcare, education etc or simply the benefits of racial homogenity and cultural solidarity is debatable. But it's likely socialist-style elements are a part of their success. It's not a slippery slope towards communism, it's the result of a decision "to leave noone behind".

Additionally, the US was formed and intended to be a nation of individual freedom, freedom which is not allowed or permitted under socialism.


Please try not to confuse socialism with communism or totalitarianism. There has never been a real socialist nation, and chances are there never will be. People just aren't "good" enough to hand over power after the glorious revolution to the masses. You can have freedom with socialism, just as you can have tyranny and repression without it. There is no link, as each seems equally likely to end up dictatorship.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yeah, I know where you're coming from cactoblasta. Like many things, the solution is somewhere in the middle ... hence 'melting pot'.

I am not against government assistance. In this day and age, I think it has it's place. I only wish both sides would be honest about what their objectives are. For instance, "Yes, they are socialistic policys and yes this is a democracy, but we think the US needs to be more socialistic to achieve these specific goals" vs. "We don't think socialistic policy is the most effective way to achieve those specific goals. Here's what will". Then the true dialog could begin.

As it stands now, it is framed as an 'all or nothing', 'good vs. evil' argument and the rhetoric is often extreme ... "leftist, commie pinkos" from one side and "the rich are trying to kill old people" from the other. Not a lot of true dialog on what we want to achieve, only extreme and false diatribes with little or no basis in reality meant to push an agenda using FUD.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Western democracies, based on clever use of oligarchies and the manipulation of human common sense


What a snobbish, elitist statement. Would never have have been uttered by any of the Founders. Unlike many who pay lip service to the notions of individual freedom and governmental self-regulation, they believed it, and in it, to their very bones. They placed a trust and confidence in the general populace that scares the bejeesus out of liberal elitists and they've been chip, chip, chippin' away at those freedoms and responsiblities ever since.

Please excuse the rant. That one just struck a nerve, I guess.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
What a snobbish, elitist statement. Would never have have been uttered by any of the Founders. Unlike many who pay lip service to the notions of individual freedom and governmental self-regulation, they believed it, and in it, to their very bones. They placed a trust and confidence in the general populace that scares the bejeesus out of liberal elitists and they've been chip, chip, chippin' away at those freedoms and responsiblities ever since.


Read Madison if you really want to know what some of the founding fathers really thought of democracy. The whole point was to keep the power in the hands of the powerful, not to spread universal peace and love. They were just very clever at masking their intentions.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Cactoblasta -

Some were indeed afraid of pure democracy and its potential for anarchy, but they were smart enough to construct a representative system that avoided some of pure democracy's pitfalls. And I completely disagree concerning the "whole point." That is a gross oversimplification and flies in the face of historical fact. And if that was their secret intent, they failed. Power in America is not concentrated in a single unchanging cabal, as some would like us to believe - it's constantly shifting, with the previously pedestrian rising to powerful status all the time.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Power in America is not concentrated in a single unchanging cabal, as some would like us to believe - it's constantly shifting, with the previously pedestrian rising to powerful status all the time.


Sorry if I gave the impression that I meant that the powerful was a single unchanging body throughout history; that was unintentional. However power is limited to a relative few in democracies, with the average citizen having little more power (note I didn't say freedoms) than the average citizen of a dictatorship. It is the concentration of power whilst maintaining a veneer of consultation that I feel is the most sophisticated feature of democratic political control.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Maybe we agree more than we disagree here, cacto. No society has ever been without a power class, no society ever will be, on that it appears we agree. In undemocratic societies the makeup of that class is dictated by the use of force by the power class, however, official or unofficial. In democratic societies (I use the term in its common meaning, not literal) the makeup of that class is constantly shifting with members moving in & out more or less freely. I'll admit that those in power tend to try to retain it, human nature being what it is, but our system makes it very difficult for them to do that successfully over the long haul, and does so mostly without force or bloodshed. Much better set of circumstances than in undemocratic societies. Not perfect, I'll admit, since no human endeavor will ever be, but far better.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

Personally I date the birth of settler nations like the US and Australia to the time of settlement, but it is of course true that there was little legal northern slavery following independence. I still think the exploitation of slave labour was a major component of early American development though, especially in the south.

You can believe whatever you'd like. But that doesn't make it true. Slavery was never very widespread in the north. And while certainly slave labor was a major aspect of the old south, that is a very far cry from saying that the US was built on slave labor.  It just wasn't that large a component of the economy overall -- ever.

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

But the simple fact is that all the countries with higher standards of living than the US incorporate a higher level of socialism in their societies.

Which countries would these be? The US has the world's highest per capita GDP and per capita purchasing power.  That is kind of the point, socialism lowers the standard of living by taking away the incentive as well as drying up the raw capital needed to generate new wealth that inevitably benefits everyone.

If you think of most of the modern conveniences we have today, they originated in countries that are distinctly not very socialist (USA, Japan, Korea).  France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Belgium haven't exactly been lighting the world on fire with new innovations have they? Why is that?

Canada has a lot more socialistic-like policies but its per capita GDP (and purchasing power) is far less than the US.  The only way these countries can get rated at having a higher living standard is by messing with the defiition of standard of living to mean various subjective terms.  Pick a average American and pick a average Canadian or average Frenchman and I gaurantee that the American's lifestyle (materially) is better. That's not subjective, that is a statistical fact.