ExRx.net

Socialism looks good on paper but it does not work. In Europe it is mostly liberal or left leaning capitolist governments. Some of them have some services that have been socialized, but we have even socialized some things here.

An example of socialism is the former Soviet Union. That didn't work. However we have also seen here that deregluation does not work for many aspects of government.

Some things can be socialized and some things just shouldn't. Health care for example shouldn't be. But health insurance should. That is because by it's very nature insurance IS socialism.


So I think you are probably right in what you think, but just wrong in what you think socialism is. I think you just have a liberal capitolist democracy with more regulation mixed up with socialism.

And what percentage of income do socialist nations pay with regards to income taxes? Isn't Switzerland somewhere around 50%, and other European countries around 40%? I've busted my ace to getting to where I am in life, I'd like to keep as much of my cash as possible and use it for my family. I do agree with Ironman, socialism has it's place in health insurance (or maybe at the least it should be more of a regulated industry with limits on profits and investments).

AIG : There probably won't be anything but bad press for what they did, BUT they should be required to pay for that crap out of their own pockets at a minimum (reimburse the govt. for their stupidity).

The countries with higher tax provide more services to their people and the tax is progressive. There is also a smaller ratio between the highest paid employee and lowest paid in their companies, which is cultural rather than regulated.

So maybe the highest tax rate is 60%, but that is only for the very wealthy and the government provides health care, has entitlement programs similar to social security and medicare, except they are properly funded and they also provide insurance and utilities. maybe they have very good free public transportation too. This is a fictional example though.

You should evaluate a country by the standard of living rather than just how high the tax is. Some countries have a lot of deductions too. Like maybe you are taxed at 80%, but you can deduct everything you save, and all your bills. So you only pay 80% on a small percentage of your income. Say 20%. So you start with 50K, which looks like you owe 40K. But then you deduct everything and you have 10K left, which comes to 8K. 8K is just 16% of the 50K. This is an extreme and of course fictional example. But it shows that everything is not what it seems on first inspection.

Bushs approval rating is at 24% right now. On average that means 1 in 4 people feel he was a good president. I'm trying to figure out how that is even possible. I bet 100% of those people are voting for John Mccain as well and are probably clueless on anything that is going on currently in politics.


Watch this video on those mindless republicans I meantioned before, it reminds me of those Scientologist videos. All claims can't be backed up and are just retarded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E

I am not arguing against the mindless republicans but don't think for a minute there isn't plenty of mindless democrats.

This year I plan not to vote in the presidential election because both these guys are socialists, and yes that is bad. For my local reps, I have a simple criteria on who I vote for. Did they support the bailout? If they did, I don't care what party they are in, they don't get my vote.

Tyler you will get your wish. We are going to socialism. It is then this country is doomed.

While I do agree with that…

Fanatically blind supporters of either side are dangerous. Some of the people on that video are completely mindless, and I hear about this everyday. But the differences can be seen…

Take for example an interviewee on NPR recently, and I quote this democrat woman, "I never thought I was racist until now, I mean I never really thought about it. I can't vote for him. He is one of them, he will only take care of his people." She is oblivious to the fact Obama is Bi-racial, not to mention she would strong fast vote for any Democrat that comes down the pipeline, except a black man for president. As twisted as it is, as morally objectionable her statements may be, at least she isn’t blindly following the party line. Yes she is an ignorant a$$face, but none the less, at least she has made up her own mind, not had it made for her.

On the other hand, and keep in mind NPR covets McCain like a rabid Packers fan, I have yet to hear a story of a republican voting for Obama for any reason, let alone independent thought.

As for socialism, keep in mind America is not a democracy by definition. The popular vote can be vetoed at anytime and thank god in certain instances. The country will not turn to total socialism, the government will dip three fingers in every cookie jar around to get the "market" back up, but I don’t see any "complete" takeovers happening, ever, healthcare included. Partial nationalization won't happen either, the money would slow down.

Politicians make much more money from "free" enterprise than they do from nationalized business. None of these people want skinner or shallower pockets. I don't see much of either of the two candidate's plans getting passed within the first term. Or either of them following through on too many of them anyway, they are both swinging for the fences, which more often than not leads to a strike out.

People often foolishly think any of these politicians care about average Americans. They don't, they won't and there is no reason for them to, outside of a few months of lies around election time. Politicians care about money and power. They want ego strokes and $3,000 an hour hookers. Take Switzer as a perfect example of greed and power being the sole reason for his ambition. Blame lobbyists if you must, but as someone that works in business, I think lobbyists are the smartest of the bunch, all the money, none of the press. Free to be as bad as can be, with no worries about getting votes next year.

The simple reason that America will not "go socialist" is CASH MONEY. Don't let the current crisis confuse you. The world will be fine soon enough and no politician will want a pay cut.

Actually the country is closer to facism. It has gotten rather statist too. Look at the disparity between the rich and poor. Most companies in this coyntry pay the highest paid employee 400 to 600 times as much as the lowest. Because of loop holes most large corporations paid no taxes. Investors were allowed to do whatever they wanted at the cost of everyone else. There is also still a little prejudice against people who are not white and or christian and or straight.

As for statist, look at all the stuff like the patriot act that has been passed that erodes civil liberties.


Hoosegow, I think what you are actually afraid of is more government regulation, higher taxes on the wealthy and more funding for governent programs. I am sure you don't really think that the market will be closed and all businesses seized by the government do you? Everyone paid the same? no? Than it isn't really socialism.

So moving to the left, yes, socialism, no.

That evil "act"... Oh man, talk about wrapping the destruction of what America stands for in the flag so sheeple except it. And people think the bail out is bad?

Your right Ironman... Where was the outrage and panic when they truely took a step towards totalitarian dictatorship?

"Oh no, my retirement money... This country is going to pot oh no the sky is falling and America is ruined, but strip my rights, eh ok." People are retarded sometimes

By todays judgements, the orginal "patroits" would be considered terrorists, enemys of the state. In that view, I would be proud to be amoung that group.

"By todays judgements, the orginal "patroits" would be considered terrorists, enemys of the state. In that view, I would be proud to be amoung that group." - nygmen

Actually, they were considered traitors and criminals in their own time, not only by the Brittish, but also by many Americans. We only see things their way because they won the war.

I am in agreement with Ironman. The US will never go away from a market system, and neither will any of the developed western nations. For one, if you have a command economy you're already denying your citizens a great deal of freedom right there.

Secondly, markets are mostly efficient. The problem is that they are not entirely efficient, because there are too many externalities that can cause market failure. True Laissez-faire capitalism is flawed for this reason. Increasing government regulation is not only inevitable, but in many instances desirable.

Afraid of more government regulation - yes. Afraid of higher taxes, not just for the wealthy - yes. Afraid of more govenment funding for anything - yes. Will the market be closed immediately, no - but the government will eventually take it over and all businesses will be government run. In the near future, no one will be paid. We will be alotted a certain amount.

It isn't a hostile takeover. The government is making everyone want them to take over. We are inviting the devil into our house and no one seems to give a flying f.

Good point... But had they lost I think they would have tried again eventually.



The people don't want this, and neither does the government as a whole. The government doesn't even want this short term. The government is pouring cash into the market, not taking over.

I think your paniced. It's not nearly as bad as this.

That is never going to happen. The central banks and large corporations run the country. They are making way to much money to ever let that happen.

I think yuo'll find owning 'business' so to speak is definitiely not what a Government wants. Australia and England both owned EXTREMELY large and profitable companies like the postal systems and major telephone companies but privatised them because their hold on the companies limited competitors entering the market and therefore decreasing the number of companies they were able to gain revenue from in taxes. Also as business goes, a Government doesn't want to shell out if something goes wrong with something they own, that makes them look bad as the obviously were unable to run a subsidiary segment for their people so why would they be able to run a country? They want to do just what is happening right now, come in guns blazing and be the hero, they want to ne Arn in Terminator 2, the old bad guy becoming the new good guy defeating the ever changing and unpredictable enemy that was created by the same maker! In communism etc. there can never be a 'hero', the ethos on paper is aimed against people standing out, but the US thrives on a 'hero' or 'svaiour' figure who grabs you from certain peril at the last minute, they wany Indiana Jones!

I hope yall are right, but I don't think so. I think yall have become used to the government making decisions for you on what is right and wrong. I'll agree with you jeffrerr about the US thriving on a hero figure. That's what is so wrong with what is going on right now. People are looking for someone to save them and not doing a damn thing to save themselves. If the banks and other credit companies go out of business because they made stupid decisions, so be it. If it trickles down into a worldwide recession/depression, so be it. When we come out of it, we will be better off and more stable.