#1 Edited by heraldthemoth (8 posts) -

I was just wondering why so many Americans seem to dislike Socialism - many call it "European Socialism".  Many equate it to Communism (which it isn't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism).  Are a lot of Americans selfish? Are most okay with not giving money to the government to take care of other people who are down on their luck as long as they are doing well themselves? 
 
I get the feeling that the mentality is "Fuck the poor, jobless, or sick people. They can go kill themselves for all I care, because as long as I get my HDTV and nice car I don't give a crap." 
 
What are your thoughts on this? 

#2 Edited by azrailx (230 posts) -
  • cuz they are dumb, and its linked with past shitty governments (even thought not rly...)
  • also people dont like feeling like their hard work is being taken advantage of
  • true answer: humans are selfish pricks

^ pick one, or more!?!??

#3 Edited by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

If anyone out there actually thinks like that then the joke is on them! 
Why? Because their HDTVs are still only lousy LCDs

#4 Posted by Video_Game_King (34594 posts) -

Because of the political atmosphere? I dunno.

#5 Posted by DoctorWelch (2774 posts) -
#6 Posted by azrailx (230 posts) -

@ZeForgotten: winner

#7 Posted by iAmJohn (6091 posts) -

Because most Americans don't know what it is or that our country has used forms of Socialism since the beginning. It also doesn't help that one of the political parties is essentially based on the ides that capitalism is the greatest good.

#8 Posted by believer258 (11039 posts) -
Are most okay with not giving money to the government to take care of other people who are down on their luck as long as they are doing well themselves?

No. Most Americans aren't OK with people getting a handout, which this sort of thing leads to.

Look, a lot of people are probably going to quote me and point the YOU'RE WRONG AND HERE'S WHY finger at me, but my mom actually works in a government job that deals with these sorts of things and a lot of capable people somehow manage to get by on a handout while some others who really do need help don't get what they need. They call and bitch and complain about their handout not coming in on time, usually on a fairly decent cellphone right after leaving a restaurant and showing off their brand-new tattoo to their friends. That's the issue - in practicality, it isn't "fuck the poor", it's "fuck the assholes who do nothing and still get by for some reason."

#9 Posted by Demoskinos (13849 posts) -
@believer258
Are most okay with not giving money to the government to take care of other people who are down on their luck as long as they are doing well themselves?

No. Most Americans aren't OK with people getting a handout, which this sort of thing leads to.

Look, a lot of people are probably going to quote me and point the YOU'RE WRONG AND HERE'S WHY finger at me, but my mom actually works in a government job that deals with these sorts of things and a lot of capable people somehow manage to get by on a handout while some others who really do need help don't get what they need. They call and bitch and complain about their handout not coming in on time, usually on a fairly decent cellphone right after leaving a restaurant and showing off their brand-new tattoo to their friends. That's the issue - in practicality, it isn't "fuck the poor", it's "fuck the assholes who do nothing and still get by for some reason."

Yep I feel ya. I dont know how many times at my last job I'd check a lady out that had tons of groceries that she paid for in food stamps but yet has enough money to turn around and have me sell her a carton of cigarettes. That is the real issue like you said people who CAN work are lazy and still manage to leech off government programs.
#10 Posted by banishedsoul1 (294 posts) -

They are brain washed by the ruling class and uneducated by the public school system, being told that spending on any social programs mean you want to bring Stalin back to life and send people to work camps that disagree with you.

#11 Posted by GrantHeaslip (1355 posts) -

I don't think "socialism" is anywhere near the right word to use for the European model. They're still very much capitalistic societies, but societies in which the basics (shelter, enough money to live a dignified life on, health care, etc.) are guaranteed, and government takes a more active role where appropriate. It's basically capitalism with the bad side-effects managed.

Many of the things people think of as socialist actually result in a healthier market: universal health care allows for much greater labour mobility; greater business regulation often prevents big players from running roughshod over new players and workers; deficit-inducing stimulus keeps the economy from locking up when things go bad; big infrastructure projects like public transit prevent gridlock from hurting productivity.

#12 Edited by BrockNRolla (1702 posts) -

@Demoskinos said:

@believer258
Are most okay with not giving money to the government to take care of other people who are down on their luck as long as they are doing well themselves?

No. Most Americans aren't OK with people getting a handout, which this sort of thing leads to.

Look, a lot of people are probably going to quote me and point the YOU'RE WRONG AND HERE'S WHY finger at me, but my mom actually works in a government job that deals with these sorts of things and a lot of capable people somehow manage to get by on a handout while some others who really do need help don't get what they need. They call and bitch and complain about their handout not coming in on time, usually on a fairly decent cellphone right after leaving a restaurant and showing off their brand-new tattoo to their friends. That's the issue - in practicality, it isn't "fuck the poor", it's "fuck the assholes who do nothing and still get by for some reason."

Yep I feel ya. I dont know how many times at my last job I'd check a lady out that had tons of groceries that she paid for in food stamps but yet has enough money to turn around and have me sell her a carton of cigarettes. That is the real issue like you said people who CAN work are lazy and still manage to leech off government programs.

Nothing wrong with that stance, but let's not paint this with too broad a brush. There are people out there who do need the help and really do benefit from government programs. Single parents who can't afford health insurance for their children for instance. That's a great program that helps some people a whole lot. Food stamps as well help a lot of low income families put food on the table.

Are there people out there who take advantage of government systems? Yes. Are there maybe even a lot of people who taken advantage of government systems. That's probably true as well. But let's not say cast out the wheat with the chaff. There is plenty of good that comes from these type of systems.

#13 Posted by nohthink (1222 posts) -

It has to do more with the history of political ideology. I could go on and on about the reason why(being the us history major that I am) but it seems this is not the right place. So in a nutshell, it's like this.... Contrary to common beliefs, it does not relate with Americans being "dumb." When people use this as a default answer for every American's behavior, that shows they are dumb. It came from the idea of strict interpretation of the constitution vs loose interpretation of the constitution(I believe it was Thomas Jeffson and Alexander Hamilton who fought over this. But I'm not sure. Kinda hazy about it since my focus is modern American history). Such a conflict is the foundation of America's political ideology and you can even see that now(democrats vs republicans is basically the same principle) So it is not that Americans confuse socialism with communism(even though a lot of people do confuse them a lot), they were just taught to not allow government to take away their rights and socialism and communism are both considered "bad" because they give too much power to the government base on American starndards. The trend has now changed a bit but America is still largely conservative country. That's as short as I can tell you. I can write a whole paper about it if I want. Hope that helps.

#14 Posted by billyhoush (1186 posts) -

Brainwash or hegemony is correct. They demonize people who get a "handout" by scamming a few dollars out of the system but celebrate the rich and famous who scam way more through white collar crime.

Most people are uneducated because they simply don't have time to learn/read as they feel social pressure to work hard and make as much money as they can before they die. All their free time is spending money on distractions and consumer fetishism to justify working so hard.

#15 Posted by Demoskinos (13849 posts) -

Is a man not entitled to the sweat on his brow? No says the man in Washington it belongs to the poor. No says the man in the Vatican it belongs to God. No says the man in Moscow it belongs to everyone. I rejected those ideas. I chose something different... I chose....Rapture. - Andrew Ryan

#16 Posted by Veektarius (4139 posts) -

Communism, in its theoretical form is the same as socialism, in its theoretical form. Stalinist/Maoist Communism, as it was actually manifested as an authoritarian command economy, is not the same as democratic socialism, which incorporates a substantial social safety net and progressive tax structure into a capitalist economy.

The primary complaint against "socialist" policies is the shift of responsibility from private individuals motivated by personal gain, to government, which is inefficient and may abuse any power it is given for the purposes of furthering interests that an individual does not share. Both of these statements are facts, though they obviously ignore many other aspects of private/public institutions. Why Americans are so dead-set against strong government in the latter 20th century and early 21st is up to debate. Many would point to the founding principals of the nation, but these were somehow less relevant in the early 20th century. Others would point to a massive disillusionment with government that accompanied the Watergate scandal. I do not have the right answer.

#17 Posted by believer258 (11039 posts) -

@BrockNRolla said:

@Demoskinos said:

@believer258
Are most okay with not giving money to the government to take care of other people who are down on their luck as long as they are doing well themselves?

No. Most Americans aren't OK with people getting a handout, which this sort of thing leads to.

Look, a lot of people are probably going to quote me and point the YOU'RE WRONG AND HERE'S WHY finger at me, but my mom actually works in a government job that deals with these sorts of things and a lot of capable people somehow manage to get by on a handout while some others who really do need help don't get what they need. They call and bitch and complain about their handout not coming in on time, usually on a fairly decent cellphone right after leaving a restaurant and showing off their brand-new tattoo to their friends. That's the issue - in practicality, it isn't "fuck the poor", it's "fuck the assholes who do nothing and still get by for some reason."

Yep I feel ya. I dont know how many times at my last job I'd check a lady out that had tons of groceries that she paid for in food stamps but yet has enough money to turn around and have me sell her a carton of cigarettes. That is the real issue like you said people who CAN work are lazy and still manage to leech off government programs.

Nothing wrong with that stance, but let's not paint this with too broad a brush. There are people out there who do need the help and really do benefit from government programs. Single parents who can't afford health insurance for their children for instance. That's a great program that helps some people a whole lot. Food stamps as well help a lot of low income families put food on the table.

Are there people out there who take advantage of government systems? Yes. Are there maybe even a lot of people who taken advantage of government systems. That's probably true as well. But let's not say cast out with wheat with the chaff. There is plenty of good that comes from these type of systems.

Well, I didn't outright say that it's a bad thing and in theory, it isn't. In theory, the idea is a great thing. It's just that the execution has consistently proven itself horrible thus far, and for every starving parent it seems like there are three who haven't had a job in ten years is buying themselves a new car. The whole damn system needs a restructuring that it isn't going to get, and I don't want to be asked to pay for the food of someone who can walk and talk when a wheelchair-bound midget that works in the theater in my hometown has to keep up his job because he can't handle tickets and greet people anywhere else.

#18 Edited by kindgineer (2484 posts) -

Mainly because of what bullshit they are fed every to make us scared of change. I'm not, in any light, a supporter of socialism, but to think there isn't parts of that in our system already is silly. This country was founded upon freedom where men and women died to fight for our democracy. However, instead of embracing that our political system is capable of more than one facet, we are bullied into believing that socialism will bring tighter bonds.

As I said, I am not a supporter of socialism, however, I don't see a problem with supporting facets of the system much like democracy. It would be like being a republican and veto'ing every democratic idea simply because of your title. No one does that, right?

@believer258: Also, I second this man's thoughts.

#19 Posted by BirdkeeperDan (400 posts) -

I don't really dislike it but I don't think people understand the cons. It's a very hard balance to get people the freedom and wherewithall to start innovating and create new enterprise. I mean it's really really really hard. The only time it's really been perfected was in early American history and it has since been lost. Heavy taxes kill the potiential for what was happening is early American history. Socialism costs a lot of money and that really weighs on business.

You have to pay employees more because they are taxed more and you have to pay them more to make up for this. You have to pay more again because people get money for doing nothing and abusing social securities and you have to pay significantly more than that to attract skilled employees. You have to pay more again to cover all their government mandated benefits. You have have to pay more again in higher business taxes. You have to pay more and waste time dealing with heavy government regulations.

Essentially government eats up so much of the excess money that business and individuals don't have enough money to start or grown new enterprises. At least not on the level in the greatest period of American history.

#20 Posted by Jams (2956 posts) -

@banishedsoul1 said:

They are brain washed by the ruling class and uneducated by the public school system, being told that spending on any social programs mean you want to bring Stalin back to life and send people to work camps that disagree with you.

Brain washed by public schools? Isn't public education be a part of socialism? No wonder our education system sucks, the government (barely) pays for it. Sure socialism might be a good idea in theory, but it doesn't really work in practice. Hell, I don't think any system do. You really have to mix and match what works in all of the systems to get something that will work but the moment you go fully to one system, you get all the shit that comes with it.

#21 Posted by CaLe (3678 posts) -

America is already a socialist country. If it wasn't it would fall apart pretty quickly.

#22 Edited by HeManWomanHater (6 posts) -
The problem is because of the innate American (and by extension human) propensity for such a system as Socialism to encourage laziness and thereby abuse of its supposedly intended purpose.

I have no problem with the social programs we have in the province in which I live, but then again, we can afford them, we're rich. I have no problem with the idea of assisting those, who through no fault of their own are handicapped, sick, injured, etc. And enabling them to either recover, and/or find ways of becoming productive, contributing members of society. Then again, we have a proportionately small population, and our financial resources are proportionately much greater. The problem with such a system in the U.S is the inherent proclivity for corruption and abuse, as well as the fact that the sheer population to economic productivity ratio is an ABSOLUTE F****** NIGHTMARE.

People who complain about Ron Paul not being reasonable and indulging in pie in the sky rationality should really look at how a lot of individuals with aggressive liberal/socialist views believe that somehow there's this grand conspiracy involving people with money holding out on the useless feeders who seem to think they're entitled to other people's money simply for existing. That or they believe that instead of creating debt for military spending (which is a growth industry, with high profit margins), the government should just create massive amounts of debt simply to maintain an unsustainable population's standards of living. There is not enough to go around for that to work in the U.S, there simply isn't.

Just try to appropriate the necessary amount of revenue to make it work, especially with the absurd amount of exemptions that Obabocare stipulates and watch the lulz unfold. Just remember, China will stop buying U.S currency this year, and then the fun is really going to begin. I'm only okay with being taxed up the butthole (which I am), because in spite of that I still make a great living, and what I am contributing is not being spread so thinly that its not doing a pint of piss worth of difference. Honestly, if I were taxed any more than I currently am, I think I would probably reconsider working long hours just to make less than what I do now.

I know a lot of others would as well, and then you'd basically have a wage crash because you'd have those jobs being desperately taken by those less and less qualified, and increasingly desperate for a marginal increase in their previously crappy standard of living. Which makes me honestly believe that liberals really care as little about the standard of living of the middle class as do the really extreme corporate ball-sucking hard line conservatives.

One cares about ensuring everyone's lives and equally cruddy existence because its "fair", and the other simply has no respect for the quality of life of anyone who doesn't hold an upper management position as it undercuts their wages.

Basically, the U.S is seriously screwed, and its the kind of screwed that only a mass die-off and revision of immigration policy will cure.

But that's just my opinion. 
#23 Posted by banishedsoul1 (294 posts) -

@Demoskinos said:

Is a man not entitled to the sweat on his brow? No says the man in Washington it belongs to the poor. No says the man in the Vatican it belongs to God. No says the man in Moscow it belongs to everyone. I rejected those ideas. I chose something different... I chose....Rapture. - Andrew Ryan

yes bioshock proves libertarianism does not work.

#24 Edited by mandude (2667 posts) -

@believer258 said:

Are most okay with not giving money to the government to take care of other people who are down on their luck as long as they are doing well themselves?

No. Most Americans aren't OK with people getting a handout, which this sort of thing leads to.

Look, a lot of people are probably going to quote me and point the YOU'RE WRONG AND HERE'S WHY finger at me, but my mom actually works in a government job that deals with these sorts of things and a lot of capable people somehow manage to get by on a handout while some others who really do need help don't get what they need. They call and bitch and complain about their handout not coming in on time, usually on a fairly decent cellphone right after leaving a restaurant and showing off their brand-new tattoo to their friends. That's the issue - in practicality, it isn't "fuck the poor", it's "fuck the assholes who do nothing and still get by for some reason."

I've worked a job where 70% of the people I deal with are exactly the kind you describe. I'd have to get them on social welfare and rent allowance only to watch them piss away the money they were given and sometimes literally use their house as a toilet. They're clearly coasting by on the generous nature of the system, and it's shameful. Yet still, I can see no moral reason to condemn the genuine people in the remaining 30% who are honest, simply because of someone else's actions.

That's not "fuck the assholes". It's "fuck everyone", because of the assholes.

#25 Posted by BrockNRolla (1702 posts) -

@believer258 said:

@BrockNRolla said:

@Demoskinos said:

@believer258
Are most okay with not giving money to the government to take care of other people who are down on their luck as long as they are doing well themselves?

No. Most Americans aren't OK with people getting a handout, which this sort of thing leads to.

Look, a lot of people are probably going to quote me and point the YOU'RE WRONG AND HERE'S WHY finger at me, but my mom actually works in a government job that deals with these sorts of things and a lot of capable people somehow manage to get by on a handout while some others who really do need help don't get what they need. They call and bitch and complain about their handout not coming in on time, usually on a fairly decent cellphone right after leaving a restaurant and showing off their brand-new tattoo to their friends. That's the issue - in practicality, it isn't "fuck the poor", it's "fuck the assholes who do nothing and still get by for some reason."

Yep I feel ya. I dont know how many times at my last job I'd check a lady out that had tons of groceries that she paid for in food stamps but yet has enough money to turn around and have me sell her a carton of cigarettes. That is the real issue like you said people who CAN work are lazy and still manage to leech off government programs.

Nothing wrong with that stance, but let's not paint this with too broad a brush. There are people out there who do need the help and really do benefit from government programs. Single parents who can't afford health insurance for their children for instance. That's a great program that helps some people a whole lot. Food stamps as well help a lot of low income families put food on the table.

Are there people out there who take advantage of government systems? Yes. Are there maybe even a lot of people who taken advantage of government systems. That's probably true as well. But let's not say cast out with wheat with the chaff. There is plenty of good that comes from these type of systems.

Well, I didn't outright say that it's a bad thing and in theory, it isn't. In theory, the idea is a great thing. It's just that the execution has consistently proven itself horrible thus far, and for every starving parent it seems like there are three who haven't had a job in ten years is buying themselves a new car. The whole damn system needs a restructuring that it isn't going to get, and I don't want to be asked to pay for the food of someone who can walk and talk when a wheelchair-bound midget that works in the theater in my hometown has to keep up his job because he can't handle tickets and greet people anywhere else.

I'm just pushing back on the examples and your statistic is all. I have serious doubts that for every one person the system is helping there are three who are just screwing the rest of us over. It's highly inefficient and it doesn't provide help in an effective manner in many circumstances; on that we can agree. Certainly as well there are plenty of people who take advantage of it simply because they can regardless of whether they actually need it (I can think of two people in my life who have done just that, and it absolutely disgusted me). I only caution against providing purely negative examples as I think a country with social welfare systems, even one that is inefficient, is better off than one without any at all.

I know you aren't personally saying this, but a lot of the negativity directed at such programs leads politicians into screaming about people how people should be "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps," and abolishing safety net programs because of their inefficiencies. Reform absolutely needs to happen, for the sake of both tax payers and those who need service, but reform is the answer, not doing away with such programs.

#26 Posted by Dexter_Morgan_ (314 posts) -

You get what you work for. At the end of the day everyone has the same opportunities as the next person. There is no one stopping you from getting a job and a normal health care plan. There is no one stopping you from getting that nice car or that white picket fence.

Of course there are some that I have no problem helping (veterans, handicapped, women, children) but I don't trust my government enough not to keep my money for themselves.

Also... I don't like being forced to help people. I would do it either way, but my money is my money and I should have a say in where it goes.

#27 Posted by banishedsoul1 (294 posts) -

@Jams said:

@banishedsoul1 said:

They are brain washed by the ruling class and uneducated by the public school system, being told that spending on any social programs mean you want to bring Stalin back to life and send people to work camps that disagree with you.

Brain washed by public schools? Isn't public education be a part of socialism? No wonder our education system sucks, the government (barely) pays for it. Sure socialism might be a good idea in theory, but it doesn't really work in practice. Hell, I don't think any system do. You really have to mix and match what works in all of the systems to get something that will work but the moment you go fully to one system, you get all the shit that comes with it.

the public schools are controlled by the ruling class like everything else.

#28 Posted by SathingtonWaltz (2053 posts) -

@banishedsoul1: Yep, irrefutable proof.

#29 Edited by SathingtonWaltz (2053 posts) -

Some people don't like the idea of being beholden to the State for their needs. Many Americans also believe that being coerced by the government to help people less fortunate than themselves is unethical, and that helping others through your own action is the morally sound way to do so.

#30 Posted by InternetCrab (1504 posts) -

Many Americans consider Socialism to be related to communism. However, I consider socialism to not be related with communism.

I though think that Socialism is a good idea, but it never really works politically.

#31 Edited by Toxeia (721 posts) -

There's a few reasons why Americans don't like socialism. Probably #1 is that people don't like the idea of giving someone a hand out that doesn't need it. I know of plenty of people are are on food stamps and social security but spend all their money on drugs. Long as the government's there to ensure housing and food, why bother trying to move forward?

There are also some fears that people will depend on government assistance and lose their desire to move forward in society. There are plenty of cases where that's not true, but it's a valid concern. Human nature is to be happy with something for nothing rather than doing work for a little more. How many of us have coasted through a class and barely passed because we didn't care?

Then there's the old rooted feeling that Americans should be a proud industrious people. Sadly, this sentiment has disappeared over time but it used to be that being an American meant you were a hard working, problem solving individual that benefited society. Accepting government assistance, especially over a long period of time, is seen in a poor light. It wasn't really until the Baby Boomer generation (those spawned by men coming back from World War II and DNA-ing their women up) that people started to want government assistance in such numbers.

But here's my problem with socialism. It's a government entity deciding how to spend MY money. I like my money, and I like to spend my money on what I want. I'm not greedy, I've volunteered, I've given money to charity, and I've fed the homeless out of my own pocket. I can't trust a government to do that. Too much over head, too many people that take a little every time it passes through their hands.

Things that are provided for us though, I truly appreciate. Taxes used to build and maintain roads, put children through schools (as dreadful as they've become in the past 20 years), these are great things. I don't think they're necessary, but they do a lot to maintain equality in society when people are given the chance to get into school and give them a base-line education, or give people roads so that they can get out of their town and not be just a village, but a larger community. But again, that community should help people that are in need. When my neighbor's house burned down it wasn't the government that gave them a place to stay. It was me. I fed them, and our neighbors gave their children clothes for school the next day. Their being responsible adults purchased the insurance that rebuilt their home. And when they had their house built and everything was back to normal we were all invited to share dinner with them as a thank you.

In short, fuck socialism. That's what community is for, not some douche bag politician.

#32 Edited by CaLe (3678 posts) -

@SathingtonWaltz said:

Some people don't like the idea of being beholden to the State for their needs. Many Americans also believe that being coerced by the government to help people less fortunate than themselves is unethical, and that helping others through your own action is the morally sound way to do so.

I'm calling bullshit on you sir. That's horse crap and you know it. People would die of hunger in the streets while bigwigs and monopoly tycoons drive by in their gold plated Hummers if there were no social systems in place. Are you a republican? Because that's some republican talk right there let me tell you.

#33 Posted by Seppli (9735 posts) -

Seeing how like 10% of the American populus is either in jail/prison or out on probation, you must do something right... or maybe NOT?

#34 Posted by banishedsoul1 (294 posts) -

@InternetCrab said:

Many Americans consider Socialism to be related to communism. However, I consider socialism to not be related with communism.

I though think that Socialism is a good idea, but it never really works politically.

socialism is the first step towards communism.

#35 Posted by CaLe (3678 posts) -

@banishedsoul1 said:

@InternetCrab said:

Many Americans consider Socialism to be related to communism. However, I consider socialism to not be related with communism.

I though think that Socialism is a good idea, but it never really works politically.

socialism is the first step towards communism.

That's something a republican would say!

#36 Posted by PeasantAbuse (5120 posts) -

I'm poor and I hate poor people.

#37 Edited by UltorOscariot (164 posts) -

This amuses me. I like that there is a road at the end of my drive way, I'm alright with ponying up to pay for the local police force and the nation's defense. I am happy to chip in a new fire truck every now and then for the volunteer fire department. I'll even pay for schools to keep the little bastards off my lawn during the day. I'm pretty happy to pay for all of that.

But I'm called "selfish" if I question for what other purpose good sized portion of my income is confiscated from me? How is the person who insists that their neighbors provide for them a life style they have not earned, have a more moral claim on someone else's income than the one who earned it? I'm greedy for earning it, but they aren't for demanding it in lieu of nothing? That's cute.

#38 Posted by Socialone (201 posts) -

The sociology major recommends this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism. This isn't a random essay, but the masterpiece of one the most recognized sociologists since the inception of the discipline (the Big Three being Weber, Marx and Durkheim). Please take 5 minutes to read the Basic Concepts paragraph, it contains all the answers you need.

#39 Posted by Draxyle (1718 posts) -

I think we can all agree that people who abuse the system very much suck, but it's never a reason to drop these programs entirely. We only got to where we were as a society today because we collectively carry the burden of those who cannot carry it themselves. That's why I can never support pure libertarian beliefs; they either assume that everyone has an equal shot at life from birth or they just want survival of the fittest to take out our weak. We can't just ignore the people with lost limbs, incurable diseases, or those that face legitimate discrimination at no fault of their own. Life is too random for that.

The current rage against socialism is an extremely politically manipulated one (Obama a socialist? Pfffhah!); completely ignoring how socialist we already are . I wouldn't want us to become a completely socialist society by any means, capitalism works mostly fine for all our luxury goods and services, but I feel that our health and education are so vital that everyone has to have a chance at it for an overall better society. Even the rich benefit from having a healthier and smarter "lower class" (depending on who you ask).

#40 Posted by SathingtonWaltz (2053 posts) -

@CaLe said:

@SathingtonWaltz said:

Some people don't like the idea of being beholden to the State for their needs. Many Americans also believe that being coerced by the government to help people less fortunate than themselves is unethical, and that helping others through your own action is the morally sound way to do so.

I'm calling bullshit on you sir. That's horse crap and you know it. People would die of hunger in the streets while bigwigs and monopoly tycoons drive by in their gold plated Hummers if there were no social systems in place. Are you a republican? Because that's some republican talk right there let me tell you.

Stop putting words in my mouth, I merely explained why many Americans are opposed to Socialism. I'm not a Republican but I'm sure as fuck not a Democrat either. Both parties are fucked beyond belief. You either choose the party of Political Correctness, Special Interests, and big spending, or the party of corporations, wealthy elites, religious nutjobs, and big spending.

#41 Posted by Jace (1092 posts) -

Because I'm a producer, and socialism wants a piece of my pie. To that, I say "fuck off."

#42 Posted by CaLe (3678 posts) -

@UltorOscariot said:

This assumes me. I like that there is a road at the end of my drive way, I'm alright with ponying up to pay for the local police force and the nation's defense. I am happy to chip in a new fire truck every now and then for the volunteer fire department. I'll even pay for schools to keep the little bastards off my lawn during the day. I'm pretty happy to pay for all of that. But I'm called "selfish" if I question for what other purpose good sized portion of my income is confiscated from me? How is the person who insists that their neighbors provide for them a life style they have not earned, have a more moral claim on someone else's income than the one who earned it? I'm greedy for earning it, but they aren't for demanding it in lieu of nothing? That's cute.

Notice a trend? You only want to pay for things that help you. A true republican if I ever saw one.

#43 Edited by EXTomar (4121 posts) -

I have always held the belief that people should be suspicious of big government and big business. I can't figure out why people point out how terrible and dystopian the world is if governments get too much control over individuals and then turn around cede a lot of their rights and powers to some private intentional business which seems pretty dystopian.

#44 Posted by Benny (1937 posts) -

Isn't it widely known that socialism works in theory but since humans are selfish in nature (we kinda enjoy surviving, since it means we can keep on, keeping on) it would never actually work? If there was no such thing as selfishness we'd already be there.

#45 Posted by TheAmericanAce (46 posts) -

Because for one thing, my tax dollars would be given to people on welfare who purposely have 20 kids so they can get the free money to live off of.(Not everyone does that OKAY, I know.) and Because lots of people would abuse free health care at my expense also, when my hard earned tax dollars should go to something better that actually benefits society like roads and such rather than someone else at my own expense.

#46 Posted by SathingtonWaltz (2053 posts) -

@CaLe said:

@UltorOscariot said:

This assumes me. I like that there is a road at the end of my drive way, I'm alright with ponying up to pay for the local police force and the nation's defense. I am happy to chip in a new fire truck every now and then for the volunteer fire department. I'll even pay for schools to keep the little bastards off my lawn during the day. I'm pretty happy to pay for all of that. But I'm called "selfish" if I question for what other purpose good sized portion of my income is confiscated from me? How is the person who insists that their neighbors provide for them a life style they have not earned, have a more moral claim on someone else's income than the one who earned it? I'm greedy for earning it, but they aren't for demanding it in lieu of nothing? That's cute.

Notice a trend? You only want to pay for things that help you. A true republican if I ever saw one.

Stop generalizing people as Republicans, you come across as a prick when you do. Both of the ethical and moral stances regarding Socialism (1. Government coercing people into helping others by taking their hard earned money is wrong / 2. Society should share the burden and help those who can't help themselves, government is merely the most efficient system in which to accomplish this) are completely valid and logical. It all comes down to personal preference, moral upbringing, and ethical conditioning.

#47 Posted by NTM (7032 posts) -

Are you American? If not, I keep wondering why so many people keep making threads of the U.S. in a somewhat negative sense. We're not that fucked up! Some are... I'm not though! Arrrrrr.

#48 Edited by CaLe (3678 posts) -

@SathingtonWaltz said:

@CaLe said:

@UltorOscariot said:

This assumes me. I like that there is a road at the end of my drive way, I'm alright with ponying up to pay for the local police force and the nation's defense. I am happy to chip in a new fire truck every now and then for the volunteer fire department. I'll even pay for schools to keep the little bastards off my lawn during the day. I'm pretty happy to pay for all of that. But I'm called "selfish" if I question for what other purpose good sized portion of my income is confiscated from me? How is the person who insists that their neighbors provide for them a life style they have not earned, have a more moral claim on someone else's income than the one who earned it? I'm greedy for earning it, but they aren't for demanding it in lieu of nothing? That's cute.

Notice a trend? You only want to pay for things that help you. A true republican if I ever saw one.

Stop generalizing people as Republicans, you come across as a prick when you do. Both of the ethical and moral stances regarding Socialism (1. Government coercing people into helping others by taking their hard earned money is wrong / 2. Society should share the burden and help those who can't help themselves, government is merely the most efficient system in which to accomplish this) are completely valid and logical. It all comes down to personal preference, moral upbringing, and ethical conditioning.

It comes down to 1. Bad and 2. Good and I've noticed republicans are generally bad and greedy! I've noticed this! I'm waving my finger in the face of republicanism and calling it bad! Just like when you buy a new puppy and for a while you tolerate it peeing in the house, but after a while you'll point your finger at the dog and you'll say bad dog! It needs to learn to pee outside. Republicanism needs to stop being a puppy and stop peeing all over the house.

#49 Posted by Blearious (35 posts) -

I think it's rooted in the American Dream. We're taught that everyone, with hard work, can succeed in life. Therefore, to take away what we've earned and give it to people who didn't earn it (or deserve it) gets under people's skin. That said, I don't necessarily agree with that sentiment. Sure, in any system that redistributes wealth to the less fortunate (in our country, Welfare), there will be people who take advantage of it. Many Welfare recipients have no plans to get a job or contribute to society and they'll continue abusing the system for as long as they can. But, for every jerk that won't get off their lazy ass, there are people struggling with multiple minimum wage jobs trying to feed their families and depend on that check in the mail every month. So, I support Welfare, which is one of several Federal systems in the United States that borrows from socialist ideals. Is it perfect? No, but seldom is anything perfect. The people who use socialism as a bad word are people that are so caught up their own affairs, that they forget that there are honest, hard working people in this country that simply cannot get by without help. Of course, I do believe that people who succeed in life should be rewarded, and that's why I support capitalism, but no one system is a good fit for everyone. I'm happy that I life in a country that recognizes that.

#50 Posted by SathingtonWaltz (2053 posts) -

@CaLe said:

@SathingtonWaltz said:

@CaLe said:

@UltorOscariot said:

This assumes me. I like that there is a road at the end of my drive way, I'm alright with ponying up to pay for the local police force and the nation's defense. I am happy to chip in a new fire truck every now and then for the volunteer fire department. I'll even pay for schools to keep the little bastards off my lawn during the day. I'm pretty happy to pay for all of that. But I'm called "selfish" if I question for what other purpose good sized portion of my income is confiscated from me? How is the person who insists that their neighbors provide for them a life style they have not earned, have a more moral claim on someone else's income than the one who earned it? I'm greedy for earning it, but they aren't for demanding it in lieu of nothing? That's cute.

Notice a trend? You only want to pay for things that help you. A true republican if I ever saw one.

Stop generalizing people as Republicans, you come across as a prick when you do. Both of the ethical and moral stances regarding Socialism (1. Government coercing people into helping others by taking their hard earned money is wrong / 2. Society should share the burden and help those who can't help themselves, government is merely the most efficient system in which to accomplish this) are completely valid and logical. It all comes down to personal preference, moral upbringing, and ethical conditioning.

It comes down 1. Bad and 2. Good and I've noticed republicans are generally bad and greedy! I've noticed this! I'm waving my finger in the face of republicanism and calling it bad!

Alright, well good luck with that. Believe it or not many political ideologies operate in grey areas where several moral stances that oppose each other are valid simultaneously.