Why Socialism Cannot Work.

LBRTRN,

What does easy have to do with the issue? Nothing worthwhile is ever easy.

I’d also note, wanting the government to help people help themselves does not mean that it should be attempting to remove risk or the chance of failure.

Given time, I suspect that entitlement systems will be entirely replaced with newer and better systems… because they have proven themselves to be a bad and unsustainable system, which have the consequences you are rightfully lamenting.

The future, don’t know, we aren’t there yet, but it will happen or the country will fail financially. Choose.

Capitalists are not stupid; they’d be washing cars or dishes otherwise. They know that if the majority of people in an economy are poor, no one will be able to buy what the capitalist produces. I suspect that capitalism will eventually make us all quite well off (as consumers anyway) and that almost everyone in the world will have adequate everything. The attempt at popular government redistributing wealth will be seen as a hiccup on the road to a very prosperous future.

There will be wealthy individuals, a huge middle-class, with poverty seen as an anomoly.

[quote]vroom wrote:
I don’t know how to put this, but there are things that capitalism cannot do.

Sometimes, such as the case for a common military, the government steps in to provide those services.

Is that socialism? We pay taxes to the government for national defense. How horrible!

I can also see paying taxes to make sure every child has a chance at an education is a horrible thing as well. Damned socialism!

Also, I think the world would be a much better place if nobody could afford any type of serious health care. I mean, can’t those person live on the street for the rest of their short lives, once they get injured? Damned socialism gets in the way again!

Although I agree that NASA is not the most efficient use of money on the planet, should there never have been any space initiatives? Should we have waited another thousand years for private industry to finally decide to take the risk?

What about the Internet? Without the government doing research with our hard earned tax dollars, it never would have been brought into existence.

Maybe if we could stop arguing comic book politics about the evils of socialism, taxation and so on, we’d see that there is no perfect system, and theoretically, governments are supposed to help overcome those imperfections.

However, perhaps the problem is that we don’t really want “other people” to succeed. Health care, education, and so on makes it easier for people to get by in this world… and without them the rich would have even more advantages over the rest of us.

Yes indeed, we should argue for the benefit of the rich, because us poor folk certainly deserve no comforts! Damned socialism![/quote]

I agree with most of this, but capitalism can do these things, the way I see it, central gonvernment is an invention of rich members of a capitalist society to keep the other 98% from killing them every century or so, and to more efficiently handle common defense etc which was primarily a need of the rich. So the central government becomes as strong as the rich allow it to become to meet their needs and not have a revolution, and in a country like the U.S. it works its way down one level at a time to the poorest. We don’t take care of everybody, but we make sure that there are few enough really poor people to inconvenience us (everyone else). Then we appease the low middle class enough to move them to the middle side instead of the poor side should the needs to take sides happen. Then we give the middle enough hope that they can get super rich that they see things a little through the eyes of the rich.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Do they really?

Is that their election platform? Let’s create entitlements, slow growth, cause high unemployment and otherwise make the economy suffer?

Don’t look now, but the Bush regime has done a good job of raising entitlements and expenditures on its own.

To be a compassionate society we simply must find ways to provide aid that do not cause dependence or the creation of entitlement. What those ways are I don’t yet know, but it is vital that we figure out how to do so.[/quote]

Is it their platform? Probably not but it is the end result of their governments social management.

I see, it’s Bush’s fault.

Most would say that Bush has cut entitlements while expenditures (read Iraq) have cost a lot. Not sure where you are getting he has expanded entitlements, because I don’t see it.

A compassionate society can exist without wholesale handouts. Those people that can not contribute because of misfortune should be helped. Those that choose to live an irresponible life, should reap what they sow… Where the balance is, I’m not sure.

[quote]RHINO928 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Do they really?

Is that their election platform? Let’s create entitlements, slow growth, cause high unemployment and otherwise make the economy suffer?

Don’t look now, but the Bush regime has done a good job of raising entitlements and expenditures on its own.

To be a compassionate society we simply must find ways to provide aid that do not cause dependence or the creation of entitlement. What those ways are I don’t yet know, but it is vital that we figure out how to do so.

Is it their platform? Probably not but it is the end result of their governments social management.

I see, it’s Bush’s fault.

Most would say that Bush has cut entitlements while expenditures (read Iraq) have cost a lot. Not sure where you are getting he has expanded entitlements, because I don’t see it.

A compassionate society can exist without wholesale handouts. Those people that can not contribute because of misfortune should be helped. Those that choose to live an irresponible life, should reap what they sow… Where the balance is, I’m not sure.

[/quote]

No disrespect intended Rhino but if you “don’t see” how Bush has increased entitlements then you aren’t looking hard enough.

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:

No disrespect intended Rhino but if you “don’t see” how Bush has increased entitlements then you aren’t looking hard enough. [/quote]

I am fairly certain he didn’t really mean that. I believe he was saying that was how the left felt. I don’t know of anything Bush really cut from any spending bill.

Although we do hear about it all the time. Unfortunately this is completely untrue. It is a twisted idea of economics where if you decide not to increase it as much as you were, then it is a cut.

“I was planning on eating two whole pies more then usual. Instead I ate one, so I reduced my eating by 50%.” Sounds funny when applied to diet doesn’t it?