Is America a Socialist Country?

cobraboy

Pro-Bono Demolition Hobbyist
Jul 24, 2004
40,964
936
113
Bill Maher: New Rules - Socialism - YouTube

Americans say they hate socialism, but they certainly run head first towards these programs:

1. Social Security
2. Medicare
3. Umemployment
4. Corporate bailouts
5. Farm Subsidies
etc.

Frank
Socialism implies transfer of wealth.

But Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment are NOT transfers of wealth. Or were never structured that way.

They each are PRE-PAID "insurance" programs. The individual pays into SS and MC for an entire lifetime, often $325,000-$425,000. It's almost like an annuity: pay into it for a loooooong tme, then receive distribution based on what you paid in. That is HARDLY "socialism." The fact that gubmint did a crap job in predicting demographics, expanded the programs well beyond initial intent-usually for vote-buying reasons-and chose crap investments (T-Bills instead of traditional investment vehicles) does not change the facts. They just point out typical bureaucratic/political mishandling of funds. Nothing to see here. Move along. Bidniz as usual.

Unemployment is also an insurance program but underwritten on an individual bidniz, not on the individual. Premiums are determined by the bidniz profile from claims being filed.

All 3 programs are similar: they require historic payments into a "Trust Fund" to pay for future claims. NOT socialism.

Contrary to political spin, not all gubmint programs are "socialism." Non sequitor unless you ignore facts.

What we generally think of "Welfare" is more of a "socialistic" program because they rely on current general taxation...NOT specific taxation like FICA or UTC-6...to fund them. Same as bailouts, subsidies, etc. Those are classic wealth redistributions that are more indicative of "socialism."

Don't mix the two, they are NOT the same.

But the bigger issue is the increasing addiction Free Cheese someone else paid for. There is a certain irony in how we see "Do Not Feed the Animals" signs in parks and zoos...lest they become dependent of easy food access, lose their hunting skills and become aggressive toward the easy food source...yet society is A-OK with humans becoming dependent on Free Cheese from gubmint.

But I suppose that irony would also change if animals were given the "right" to vote...:cheeky:
 

cobraboy

Pro-Bono Demolition Hobbyist
Jul 24, 2004
40,964
936
113
Your opening assumption comes from where?
Not an assumption.

The $$$ for gubmint to spend has to come from somewhere. Gubmint doesn't have the $$$ themselves, but DO have guns and a military to enforce tax laws. Taxation is either to pay for gubmint or for economic sanctions. Take your pick. And when only half the population pays wealth (income) taxes, it's clear there is a transfer of wealth.

And, specifically, gubmint in the US has ordered 450,000,000 .40cal hollow point bullets to be delivered to it in the next 5 years.
 
May 12, 2005
8,564
271
83
America is not a socialist country. However, it is on the path to becoming one. The entitlement mentality is overtaking the population and people are looking for more and more "free" money and bennies from the government. Couple that with the philosophy of many politicians that the government can and will take care of everyone's needs and problems through a new program of some sorts.
 

pedrochemical

Silver
Aug 22, 2008
3,410
465
0
Not an assumption.

The $$$ for gubmint to spend has to come from somewhere. Gubmint doesn't have the $$$ themselves, but DO have guns and a military to enforce tax laws. Taxation is either to pay for gubmint or for economic sanctions. Take your pick. And when only half the population pays wealth (income) taxes, it's clear there is a transfer of wealth.

And, specifically, gubmint in the US has ordered 450,000,000 .40cal hollow point bullets to be delivered to it in the next 5 years.



Interesting, and I am in no way throwing stones here.

There is an Atlantic divide, perhaps a linguistic divide.
But what socialism means to you is obviously different to what it means to me.



What parts of a society do you feel should become/remain socialised?
For example, where do you stand on the following?

The police?
The army?
Education?
Health?
The fire service?
The postal service?
Libraries?
Ambulance service?

How far would you like government to butt out of our lives?
 

rice&beans

Silver
May 16, 2010
4,293
374
83
Interesting, and I am in no way throwing stones here.

There is an Atlantic divide, perhaps a linguistic divide.
But what socialism means to you is obviously different to what it means to me.



What parts of a society do you feel should become/remain socialised?
For example, where do you stand on the following?

The police?
The army?
Education?
Health?
The fire service?
The postal service?
Libraries?
Ambulance service?

How far would you like government to butt out of our lives?


Dump everything but libraries.....

A good book goes a long way every now and then.....
 

nas

Bronze
Jul 1, 2009
559
1
18
Socialism implies transfer of wealth.

But Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment are NOT transfers of wealth. Or were never structured that way.

They each are PRE-PAID "insurance" programs. The individual pays into SS and MC for an entire lifetime, often $325,000-$425,000. It's almost like an annuity: pay into it for a loooooong tme, then receive distribution based on what you paid in. That is HARDLY "socialism." The fact that gubmint did a crap job in predicting demographics, expanded the programs well beyond initial intent-usually for vote-buying reasons-and chose crap investments (T-Bills instead of traditional investment vehicles) does not change the facts. They just point out typical bureaucratic/political mishandling of funds. Nothing to see here. Move along. Bidniz as usual.

Unemployment is also an insurance program but underwritten on an individual bidniz, not on the individual. Premiums are determined by the bidniz profile from claims being filed.

All 3 programs are similar: they require historic payments into a "Trust Fund" to pay for future claims. NOT socialism.

Contrary to political spin, not all gubmint programs are "socialism." Non sequitor unless you ignore facts.

What we generally think of "Welfare" is more of a "socialistic" program because they rely on current general taxation...NOT specific taxation like FICA or UTC-6...to fund them. Same as bailouts, subsidies, etc. Those are classic wealth redistributions that are more indicative of "socialism."

Don't mix the two, they are NOT the same.

But the bigger issue is the increasing addiction Free Cheese someone else paid for. There is a certain irony in how we see "Do Not Feed the Animals" signs in parks and zoos...lest they become dependent of easy food access, lose their hunting skills and become aggressive toward the easy food source...yet society is A-OK with humans becoming dependent on Free Cheese from gubmint.

But I suppose that irony would also change if animals were given the "right" to vote...:cheeky:

CB, well said.
I can't fathom why politicians (left and right) are constantly talking about Social Security and Medicare as entitlements?

Yes, North America is a socialist country. More so for the last 3+ years.... Long Live Obama!
 

windeguy

Platinum
Jul 10, 2004
42,211
5,966
113
Interesting, and I am in no way throwing stones here.

There is an Atlantic divide, perhaps a linguistic divide.
But what socialism means to you is obviously different to what it means to me.



What parts of a society do you feel should become/remain socialised?
For example, where do you stand on the following?

The police?
The army?
Education?
Health?
The fire service?
The postal service?
Libraries?
Ambulance service?

How far would you like government to butt out of our lives?

Minimal influence by the government. In general I go along with this platform:

Platform | Libertarian Party
 
May 12, 2005
8,564
271
83
Interesting, and I am in no way throwing stones here.

There is an Atlantic divide, perhaps a linguistic divide.
But what socialism means to you is obviously different to what it means to me.



What parts of a society do you feel should become/remain socialised?
For example, where do you stand on the following?

The police?
The army?
Education?
Health?
The fire service?
The postal service?
Libraries?
Ambulance service?

How far would you like government to butt out of our lives?

Government should provide a safe and secure environment in which to live and work. Ensure personal and economic liberty. Provide and maintain infrastructure i.e, bridges, roads, sewers. A basic education system. And lastly provide a system that creates equality of opportunity.
 

nas

Bronze
Jul 1, 2009
559
1
18
America is not a socialist country. However, it is on the path to becoming one. The entitlement mentality is overtaking the population and people are looking for more and more "free" money and bennies from the government. Couple that with the philosophy of many politicians that the government can and will take care of everyone's needs and problems through a new program of some sorts.

Absolutely, the government can take care of everyone's need! Only on the back of tax payers.

The irony is that the person who pays taxes through out his/her productive years of work, do not receive any assistance when needed, unless of course he/she is destitute.
 

the gorgon

Platinum
Sep 16, 2010
33,997
83
0
America is not a socialist country. However, it is on the path to becoming one. The entitlement mentality is overtaking the population and people are looking for more and more "free" money and bennies from the government. Couple that with the philosophy of many politicians that the government can and will take care of everyone's needs and problems through a new program of some sorts.

i beg to differ. so do students at universities, who have seen tuition fees go up, astronomically , in the last decade. the old socialist thinking suggested that the government should assist students with tuition fees, because all of society benefits from an educated populace. the current thinking is that students are the beneficiaries, and should pay for their education, themselves. that does not seem likea slide into the abyss of socialism..not to me, at least.
 

nas

Bronze
Jul 1, 2009
559
1
18
i beg to differ. so do students at universities, who have seen tuition fees go up, astronomically , in the last decade. the old socialist thinking suggested that the government should assist students with tuition fees, because all of society benefits from an educated populace. the current thinking is that students are the beneficiaries, and should pay for their education, themselves. that does not seem likea slide into the abyss of socialism..not to me, at least.

Government provides free college assistance for the poor. I think it is a great thing.
This turns around and bites the middle class in the behind.

As colleges continues to raise tuition fees, taxes contineus to go up on working class.
At the same time, the working class has to pay for its own eduation... a financial lose , lose situation.
 

cobraboy

Pro-Bono Demolition Hobbyist
Jul 24, 2004
40,964
936
113
Interesting, and I am in no way throwing stones here.

There is an Atlantic divide, perhaps a linguistic divide.
But what socialism means to you is obviously different to what it means to me.



What parts of a society do you feel should become/remain socialised?
For example, where do you stand on the following?

The police?
The army?
Education?
Health?
The fire service?
The postal service?
Libraries?
Ambulance service?

How far would you like government to butt out of our lives?
Maybe, like so many Europeans, you agree with soicialism and it's become part of your DNA.

Not to mention you must not understand the US Constitution, individual state constitutions and local (county and municipal) incorporations.

There is a big difference in paying virtual fees-for-services (public safety), constitutionally mandated departments (Army, Post Office), state/local decisions (schools, libraries) to be paid with various forms of taxation and paying for social services (income stabilization, housing subsidies, food subsidies, Medicaid, etc.) with wealth transfer, whereby the recipient receives no services for the taxes paid..

Once again: All Gubmint Services Are Not Wealth Transfer And/Or Socialism. Advocating a limited role of gubmint into the lives of Free Men is NOT to advocate no gubmint or anarchy. And no libertarian I know advocates anarchy. Some gubmint is necessary in a civil society as chosen by the participants.

And FTR: I am as much against corporate bail-outs and corporate welfare as I am against Nanny State Socialism. I abhor both and vehemently disagree with those programs used to buy votes and campaign contributions. I am very consistent in that regard.
 

bob saunders

Platinum
Jan 1, 2002
32,503
5,930
113
dr1.com
Interesting, and I am in no way throwing stones here.

There is an Atlantic divide, perhaps a linguistic divide.
But what socialism means to you is obviously different to what it means to me.



What parts of a society do you feel should become/remain socialised?
For example, where do you stand on the following?

The police?
The army?
Education?
Health?
The fire service?
The postal service?
Libraries?
Ambulance service?

How far would you like government to butt out of our lives?

The police?---------------------------- Should be at state/municipal level. A small FBI force is necessary.
The army?---------------------------- Federal government responsibility
Education?--------------------------- Only as a regulator/standard setter
Health?------------------------------ FDA, - YES, Again as a regulator, but states rights issue
The fire service?--------------------- local government
The postal service?------------------ privatize
Libraries?----------------------------- local government
Ambulance service?------------------ local government
 

barker1964

Silver
Apr 1, 2009
3,413
2
38
CB, well said.
I can't fathom why politicians (left and right) are constantly talking about Social Security and Medicare as entitlements?

Yes, North America is a socialist country. More so for the last 3+ years.... Long Live Obama!


If you think that Obama is taking this country down a Socialist path......Look at Clinton's record.. He helped everyone and balanced the budget. And what did the Republicans do??????? Made us go broke. Surplus to deficit in two shakes of a dogs tail.
 

edm7583

New member
May 29, 2007
388
32
0
Socialism implies transfer of wealth.

But Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment are NOT transfers of wealth. Or were never structured that way.

They each are PRE-PAID "insurance" programs. The individual pays into SS and MC for an entire lifetime, often $325,000-$425,000. It's almost like an annuity: pay into it for a loooooong tme, then receive distribution based on what you paid in. That is HARDLY "socialism." The fact that gubmint did a crap job in predicting demographics, expanded the programs well beyond initial intent-usually for vote-buying reasons-and chose crap investments (T-Bills instead of traditional investment vehicles) does not change the facts. They just point out typical bureaucratic/political mishandling of funds. Nothing to see here. Move along. Bidniz as usual.

Unemployment is also an insurance program but underwritten on an individual bidniz, not on the individual. Premiums are determined by the bidniz profile from claims being filed.

All 3 programs are similar: they require historic payments into a "Trust Fund" to pay for future claims. NOT socialism.

Contrary to political spin, not all gubmint programs are "socialism." Non sequitor unless you ignore facts.

What we generally think of "Welfare" is more of a "socialistic" program because they rely on current general taxation...NOT specific taxation like FICA or UTC-6...to fund them. Same as bailouts, subsidies, etc. Those are classic wealth redistributions that are more indicative of "socialism."

Don't mix the two, they are NOT the same.

But the bigger issue is the increasing addiction Free Cheese someone else paid for. There is a certain irony in how we see "Do Not Feed the Animals" signs in parks and zoos...lest they become dependent of easy food access, lose their hunting skills and become aggressive toward the easy food source...yet society is A-OK with humans becoming dependent on Free Cheese from gubmint.

But I suppose that irony would also change if animals were given the "right" to vote...:cheeky:

Yes it's an income redistribution program. What happens if you drop dead at 58? Does this insurance program give your estate or your heirs a dime of what you put in?

The Social Security tax is a single flat rate on the first $100,000 or so of wages. Yet the benefits for lower income people represent a higher percentage of the money they actually earned during their lifetime.

Someone born in 1980 waiting until full retirement age.
If he made $15,000 a year his whole life he would receive $810 a month or 64% of his previous income

If he made $35,000 a year his whole life he would receive $1301 a month or 44% of his previous income

If he made $85,000 a year his whole life he would receive $2200 a month or 31% of his previous income

yet in all three examples he pays the same the same single tax rate for Social Security on every penny of the money he made in his lifetime.

It falls under the most basic definition of a Ponzi scheme. Social Security is dependent on future contributors in order to pay benefits, rather than any financial gains earned on the years of payments the beneficiary contributed. A Ponzi scheme is an investment program that pays investors with the contributions of future investors rather than any actual profit earned by the organization from the investors contributions
 

pedrochemical

Silver
Aug 22, 2008
3,410
465
0
Maybe, like so many Europeans, you agree with soicialism and it's become part of your DNA.

Not to mention you must not understand the US Constitution, individual state constitutions and local (county and municipal) incorporations.

There is a big difference in paying virtual fees-for-services (public safety), constitutionally mandated departments (Army, Post Office), state/local decisions (schools, libraries) to be paid with various forms of taxation and paying for social services (income stabilization, housing subsidies, food subsidies, Medicaid, etc.) with wealth transfer, whereby the recipient receives no services for the taxes paid..

Once again: All Gubmint Services Are Not Wealth Transfer And/Or Socialism. Advocating a limited role of gubmint into the lives of Free Men is NOT to advocate no gubmint or anarchy. And no libertarian I know advocates anarchy. Some gubmint is necessary in a civil society as chosen by the participants.

And FTR: I am as much against corporate bail-outs and corporate welfare as I am against Nanny State Socialism. I abhor both and vehemently disagree with those programs used to buy votes and campaign contributions. I am very consistent in that regard.



Socialism is not in my DNA.
And it certainly wouldn't get there by me agreeing with it; that is not how DNA works.
And I am a little more clued up than your average Limey when it comes to your constitution.

I think the point is that some services are definitely not the remit of a sensible government.
Some are.
The rest fall on a continuum depending on your political bent.
That is as far as funding and regulation.
They should not be confused.