Explaining Socialism to a Republican

[Jamie_B]

uhm, I dont think people are getting enough money from SS to buy a flat on the beach. In fact due to the rising costs of prescription drugs, many seniors are having trouble filling prescriptions.

[bengalrick]

uhm, I dont think people are getting enough money from SS to buy a flat on the beach. In fact due to the rising costs of prescription drugs, many seniors are having trouble filling prescriptions.

 

I said that I wouldn't expect them to get that type of money, nor should they.

 

My point, very similar to yours here, is that SS is not enough to provide the basic amenities to our senior citizens. And to circle back towards the beginning, is a program that is not serving its ultimate purpose sufficiently. And to circle even further, is a great example of how well the gov't handles social programs inefficiently.

[Jamie_B]

I was with you till the last line, I dont think its a case of goverment handling social programs inefficiently so much as its a case of funding being less than it should be or due to that celing that Reich talked about in his article. If though you mean inefficiently in terms of how current monies are distributed and how a means test might be a better way to go with assuring those that need the money get it and those that dont dont, then yes I agree.

[Homer_Rice]

 

I just don't understand why there is a limit at all. They say to raise the cap to 190,000. Why is there a cap at all? Is there anyone here that can explain that to me. 

 

I basically agree with the article. But it is one thing to have the program still around but its quite another for it to do what is intended by then. I am not confident that will be the case.

I don't have any details right at hand, but I suspect that among the political pressures to not raise the upper limit on SS contributions comes from corporate interests. After all, corps match individual contributions and raising the upper limit would extend their liability--significantly for some companies.

[Homer_Rice]

Means testing social security (from the top) is something im completely in favor of

Not me. After all, SS is insurance of a kind. If you pay in, you should get a return, even if one is filthy rich. Although the laws pertaining to this which distinguish between earned income from investment income may be worthwhile to review insofar as the amount of one's monthly SS check is affected. So, I guess that might be some kind of means adjustment. It doesn't seem completely right that a working stiff has their SS check reduced based on other work they might be doing simultaneously while someone receiving income from some "rent-seeking" activity does not bear a similar burden. But overall, if you pay in you should get some return.

[bengalrick]

I was with you till the last line, I dont think its a case of goverment handling social programs inefficiently so much as its a case of funding being less than it should be or due to that celing that Reich talked about in his article. If though you mean inefficiently in terms of how current monies are distributed and how a means test might be a better way to go with assuring those that need the money get it and those that dont dont, then yes I agree.

 

I thought the last line would deter you :) I almost left it out for that reason but I wanted to circle back to my original point. I should have added that it is my opinion that it is an example of inefficiency of the gov't to run a program with the correct funds. You have corporate lobbyists that fight to have crazy bad rules like allowing the rich pay much, much less because they are rich. The fact that they will pay in so much less and get the same amount is extremely inefficient.

[bengalrick]

Not me. After all, SS is insurance of a kind. If you pay in, you should get a return, even if one is filthy rich. Although the laws pertaining to this which distinguish between earned income from investment income may be worthwhile to review insofar as the amount of one's monthly SS check is affected. So, I guess that might be some kind of means adjustment. It doesn't seem completely right that a working stiff has their SS check reduced based on other work they might be doing simultaneously while someone receiving income from some "rent-seeking" activity does not bear a similar burden. But overall, if you pay in you should get some return.

 

I agree with this. They should get a return for paying in. They should have to pay the same type of percentage the rest of us do and should be a quick and easy way to at least patch the problem. Of course nothing is easy when we talk about lobbyists and the ultra rich, who essentially write the laws.

[Jamie_B]

 

I agree with this. They should get a return for paying in. They should have to pay the same type of percentage the rest of us do and should be a quick and easy way to at least patch the problem. Of course nothing is easy when we talk about lobbyists and the ultra rich, who essentially write the laws.

 

 

Welcome to fascism

[|Lucid|]

 

 

Welcome to fascism

 

 /\

/  \

 ||

 ||

 ||

[|Elflocko|]

 

 /\

/  \

 ||

 ||

 ||

 

X2

[bengalrick]

I don't think that is a fair statement. Not far from the truth but much too broad of a statement. Not sure what to call it, but lets not call it fascism because that only creates a divide between the two sides of politics that are here, and diverts us from the things we should and do all agree on.

 

I think of the spectrum's of politics not as a straight line but as a circle. So Fascism and Communism are basically right next to each other. Fascist actually stole many socialist ideas. Again from Wikipedia:

Fascist ideology consistently invokes the primacy of the state. Leaders such as Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitler in Germany embodied the state and claimed indisputable power. Fascism borrowed theories and terminology from socialism but applied them to what it saw as the more significant conflict between nations and races rather than to class conflict, and focused on ending the divisions between classes within the nation.^[10] It advocates a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky to secure national self-sufficiency and independence through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.^[11] Fascism supports what is sometimes called a Third Position between capitalism and Marxist socialism.^[12] Fascist movements emphasize a belligerent, virulent form of nationalism (chauvinism) and a distrust of foreigners (xenophobia), the latter closely linked to the ethnocentrism of many fascist movements. The typical fascist state also embraced militarism, a belief in the rigors and virtues of military life as an individual and national ideal, meaning much of public life was organized along military lines and an emphasis put on uniforms, parades, and monumental architecture.

 

 

Again not far from the truth but calling it that will just divide us in a time we need to unite.

[Jamie_B]

We can't all regardless of political leanings, unite against fascism? I'd think that's the one thing both sides could agree on, hell even the tea party and ows types can agree on fascism being the problem, now the solutions to it are very different.

[|Lucid|]

I don't think that is a fair statement. Not far from the truth but much too broad of a statement. Not sure what to call it, but lets not call it fascism because that only creates a divide between the two sides of politics that are here, and diverts us from the things we should and do all agree on.

 

I think of the spectrum's of politics not as a straight line but as a circle. So Fascism and Communism are basically right next to each other. Fascist actually stole many socialist ideas. Again from Wikipedia:

Fascist ideology consistently invokes the primacy of the state. Leaders such as Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitler in Germany embodied the state and claimed indisputable power. Fascism borrowed theories and terminology from socialism but applied them to what it saw as the more significant conflict between nations and races rather than to class conflict, and focused on ending the divisions between classes within the nation.^[10] It advocates a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky to secure national self-sufficiency and independence through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.^[11] Fascism supports what is sometimes called a Third Position between capitalism and Marxist socialism.^[12] Fascist movements emphasize a belligerent, virulent form of nationalism (chauvinism) and a distrust of foreigners (xenophobia), the latter closely linked to the ethnocentrism of many fascist movements. The typical fascist state also embraced militarism, a belief in the rigors and virtues of military life as an individual and national ideal, meaning much of public life was organized along military lines and an emphasis put on uniforms, parades, and monumental architecture.

 

 

Again not far from the truth but calling it that will just divide us in a time we need to unite.

 

I don't like that definition of Fascism in Wikipedia.  And to be fair, there is a good deal of debate as to what the main tenants of fascism truly are..

 

In the words of Benito Mussolini--

 

 

Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....

...The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after...

...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....

After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....

...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress....

...iven that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State....

The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State....

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

...For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude. But empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century, and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the nineteenth century - repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great experiments of social and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and died for it.

 

 

I'm not sure whether it matter necessarily whether you have a plutocracy, or a dicatorship, I don't think it matters who is in control so much.  I think when you have coorporations usurping control from the people as we have in this country, the results can be much the same.

[sois]

 

From wikipedia:

Social security may also refer to the action programs of government intended to promote the welfare of the population through assistance measures guaranteeing access to sufficient resources for food and shelter and to promote health and wellbeing for the population at large and potentially vulnerable segments such as children, the elderly, the sick and the unemployed. Services providing social security are often called social services.

 

Again it should be sufficient be able to give you enough for food and shelter. Not to buy a flat on the beach but enough for you and your spouse to be able to retire, pay your rent and go to the grocery store without having to create a retirement account 40 years in the past. 

 

Lets say that I took 10% of all my money and started when I was 18. If I were able to save that in a personal savings account at a modest 5% interest for 50 years (retire at 68) assuming around 50k a year. All of these are modest numbers imo. I would have around $1,200,000 saved at retirement. So basically I am supposed to think that its fair that the gov't takes more money than that, for a longer time period and an average of more than 50k a year, and I should still be looking to have to save for my retirement? I can't even get enough to get by?

 

Where in your quote from Wikiepaedia does it say anything about retirement?  It's not for retirement.  It's for old people who's lives suck.  It's a safety net, not a retirement plan.  

[sois]

Not me. After all, SS is insurance of a kind. If you pay in, you should get a return, even if one is filthy rich. 

 

There are insurance vehicles where you pay in and not get shit back.  If you pay for car insurance all your life and if you die without ever filing a claim, you don't get $$$ back.  Same with homeowners  

[sois]

 

I said that I wouldn't expect them to get that type of money, nor should they.

 

My point, very similar to yours here, is that SS is not enough to provide the basic amenities to our senior citizens. And to circle back towards the beginning, is a program that is not serving its ultimate purpose sufficiently. And to circle even further, is a great example of how well the gov't handles social programs inefficiently.

 

Your problem is that you think basic amenities are a flat in retirement.

 

You are right.  It is not serving it's ultimate purpose because people who don't need the program draw on it.  

[bengalrick]

We can't all regardless of political leanings, unite against fascism? I'd think that's the one thing both sides could agree on, hell even the tea party and ows types can agree on fascism being the problem, now the solutions to it are very different.

 

How about this. Every time I hear fascism I will think communist. Every time you hear communist/socialist, you think fascism. Then all will be well ;)
 

This isn't fair because neither are true but both will invoke the emotions you are wanting here apparently.

[bengalrick]

 

I don't like that definition of Fascism in Wikipedia.  And to be fair, there is a good deal of debate as to what the main tenants of fascism truly are..

 

In the words of Benito Mossolini--

 

 

 

I'm not sure whether it matter necessarily whether you have a plutocracy, or a dicatorship, I don't think it matters who is in control so much.  I think when you have coorporations usurping control from the people as we have in this country, the results can be much the same.

 

I think that while communism and fascism are on opposite sides of the political spectrum, they meet in the crazy zone. As I stated above, I see the spectrum as a circle and I would say they meet in the 'crazy zone'

[bengalrick]

 

Where in your quote from Wikiepaedia does it say anything about retirement?  It's not for retirement.  It's for old people who's lives suck.  It's a safety net, not a retirement plan.  

 

It is for guaranteeing access to sufficient resources for food and shelter

 

You should be able to have the basic necessities of life to retire. It is not for only old people who's lives suck. It is for everyone when you hit a certain age.

[bengalrick]

 

Your problem is that you think basic amenities are a flat in retirement.

 

You are right.  It is not serving it's ultimate purpose because people who don't need the program draw on it.  

 

Read my post man... My exact line was: Not to buy a flat on the beach

[|Lucid|]

 

How about this. Every time I hear fascism I will think communist. Every time you hear communist/socialist, you think fascism. Then all will be well ;)
 

This isn't fair because neither are true but both will invoke the emotions you are wanting here apparently.

 

Did you read what I posted from Mousolini?  I don't think it's fair to link Marxism (or Communism) to Fascism.. The only thing it has in common is the totalitarian state.. But the REASONING behind the philosophy is completely the opposite.  Fascism could be totalitarian capitalism, with a rigged system that is set to only reward the people in control. Communism seeks to make all men equal (by force).  Fascism states that men are not created equal, and that enequity is an innate human condition.. It's a caste system where the surfs exist to serve the state and the few in control of it.

 

EDIT

 

I wrote this before reading your next post.

[|Lucid|]

Also, the German model is a little strange to use as a basis for understanding Fascism, as the ideology of the Reich was that the Germanic peoples were the uburmensch, the "super men" who were destined to rule over the untermenchen or "sub-human".. So while their society appears Marxist in ways (government services), it was built off the concept of a global slave labor force to support the German way of life.  The 3rd Reich would have seen Germans living like kings off the sweat of the rest of the world.  They had no plans to give Pols and Slovs fancy government medical care or housing. 

 

It still follows the primary tenet of Fascism - The inherent right of the "ruling class" to rule over the "lesser people".

[sois]

 

It is for guaranteeing access to sufficient resources for food and shelter

 

You should be able to have the basic necessities of life to retire. It is not for only old people who's lives suck. It is for everyone when you hit a certain age.

 

Again, that doesn't say anything about retirement.  If you can work, you should still work.  

[Jamie_B]

 

How about this. Every time I hear fascism I will think communist. Every time you hear communist/socialist, you think fascism. Then all will be well ;)
 

This isn't fair because neither are true but both will invoke the emotions you are wanting here apparently.

 

 

No because they arent the same.

[sois]

 

Read my post man... My exact line was: Not to buy a flat on the beach

 

Apologies.  You said retire comfortably.  That's what I meant to quote.  Again, not a retirement plan.  It's insurance in case your life sucks when you're old and can't contribute to society anymore.