Forum Thread

Americans Love Socialist Programs, but Hate the Word Socialism

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 23 1 2 Next
  • jaredsxtn
    2015-10-14 06:33:25 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I've always wondered why so many Americans insist they will never vote for a Socialist-Democrat President, but then tell the Government to keep their hands off their socialist Medicare health benefits. Or why Americans insist they will never vote for a Socialist-Democrat President, but recoil at the thought of privatizing Social Security.

    Take a second to think about the most popular programs in our country. Social Security is probably the most popular program that ever has or will be instituted in this country. It is now taken as a given that you will receive a check from the government once you reach a certain age and you will receive that check until the day you die. Millions of senior citizens depend on that check just to get by and we would have a mutiny in this country if we were ever to get rid of this program. And as the first word says, this is a social program.

    And then there is Medicare. Medicare is a single-payer (or should I say government/taxpayer) funded health insurance program. Every taxpayer puts into the pot and (at least for now) those 65 and older receive healthcare. That is socialism. Plain and simple.

    We also have social programs for the poor and despondent; the weak and downtrodden. We are awash with socialist programs that keep millions of our citizens alive. Seriously, just take a few minutes and research the various social programs we have at the local, state, and federal level.

    I'm not suggesting that our Federal government should become an entirely socialist government, but I'm just tired of so many Americans using that word as a pejorative while at the same time benefiting from a host of programs that are socialist. If you're so scared of socialism then don't enroll in Medicare and send your Social Security check back to the Federal government each month.

  • Dutch
    2015-10-14 07:08:22 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:

    I've always wondered why so many Americans insist they will never vote for a Socialist-Democrat President, but then tell the Government to keep their hands off their socialist Medicare health benefits. Or why Americans insist they will never vote for a Socialist-Democrat President, but recoil at the thought of privatizing Social Security.

    Take a second to think about the most popular programs in our country. Social Security is probably the most popular program ever has or ever will be instituted in this country. It is now taken as a given that you will receive a check from the government once you reach a certain age and you will receive that check until the day you die. Millions of senior citizens depend on that check just to get by and we would have a mutiny in this country if we were ever to get rid of this program. And as the first word says, this is a social program.

    And then there is Medicare. Medicare is a single-payer (or should I say government/taxpayer) funded health insurance program. Every taxpayer puts into the pot and (at least for now) those 65 and older receive healthcare. That is socialism. Plain and simple.

    We also have social programs for the poor and despondent; the weak and downtrodden. We are awash with socialist programs that keep millions of our citizens alive. Seriously, just take a few minutes and research the various social programs we have at the local, state, and federal level.

    I'm not suggesting that our Federal government should become an entirely socialist government, but I'm just tired of so many Americans using that word as a pejorative while at the same time benefiting from a host of programs that are socialist. If you're so scared of socialism then don't enroll in Medicare and send your Social Security check back to the Federal government each month.

    Jared this country is totally nuts; they have these socialistic things for more than 25 years or more in Europe; so we are not number one related to care for our own people.

    How about all the refugees in Europe because of us; they all get "social" money; roof over their heads and job/language training etc. Would the US do something like that; I doubt it . Money and the rich is the only thing what counts here.

  • TJ
    2015-10-14 07:37:04 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Socialist-Democrat President....... A rose by any other name....... People / voters have some serious hang ups. If I were Bernie, I'd have a press conference tomorrow and somehow disassociate myself with the term. If with the best of intentions you call a woman Handsome......it will not be received well. There are terms that are accepted and some that are not. This is not the time or place to establish a new path or to indoctrinate a new term. Bernie could proceed 100% on the same path but losing the awkward word: Socialist, would serve him well.
  • Chet Ruminski
    2015-10-14 07:41:52 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Better dead than red and all the other allusions to how life is bad under any socialist influence. Some of the most vocal opponents are people most in need of help. Takes a lot of trurning around but Bernie is sparking a lot of interest. Biggest problem is that people have been brain washed into thinking that their problems are a result of their own ineptitude. Not know they never have a chance.
  • jaredsxtn
    2015-10-14 08:16:50 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    TJ Wrote: Socialist-Democrat President....... A rose by any other name....... People / voters have some serious hang ups. If I were Bernie, I'd have a press conference tomorrow and somehow disassociate myself with the term. If with the best of intentions you call a woman Handsome......it will not be received well. There are terms that are accepted and some that are not. This is not the time or place to establish a new path or to indoctrinate a new term. Bernie could proceed 100% on the same path but losing the awkward word: Socialist, would serve him well.

    I agree with you that the American public hates the word, but the point I was trying to get across in my thread is that the American people already love socialism, but they are afraid of the word socialism.

    I applaud Senator Sanders for actually standing up for what he believes in. If the average American took the time to think about all the socialist programs they already hold dear to their hearts then maybe we can begin to realize that the vast majority of us are already Democratic-Socialists.

  • Chet Ruminski
    2015-10-14 08:34:22 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    We are afraid to offend the .001 ? Why is there hesitation to express support for what is right? Saying it isn't the right time for Bernie is also saying that it isn't the right time for for the poor and impoverished to receive any help.
  • TJ
    2015-10-14 10:53:24 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Because while you and many others watch the news, read articles on the internet, discuss topics. You become informed. Many voters know little to nothing about the issues, the candidates plans, or their true values. They cast a vote that counts as much as yours even though if asked in the parking lot - after voting.....They couldn't explain what they just did or why. It's a sad scary fact that so many voters are in essence shooting into the dark while thinking I contributed to the process.

    That's why I believe it matters when one uses the term - Socialist - because it causes the R's to bitch about it not being American and the 30 - 45% who vote blindly are probably very easily swayed by often heard criticism.

  • Chet Ruminski
    2015-10-14 11:49:38 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    TJ Wrote:

    Because while you and many others watch the news, read articles on the internet, discuss topics. You become informed. Many voters know little to nothing about the issues, the candidates plans, or their true values. They cast a vote that counts as much as yours even though if asked in the parking lot - after voting.....They couldn't explain what they just did or why. It's a sad scary fact that so many voters are in essence shooting into the dark while thinking I contributed to the process.

    That's why I believe it matters when one uses the term - Socialist - because it causes the R's to bitch about it not being American and the 30 - 45% who vote blindly are probably very easily swayed by often heard criticism.

    ""That's why I believe it matters when one uses the term - Socialist - because it causes the R's to bitch about it not being American and the 30 - 45% who vote blindly are probably very easily swayed by often heard criticism.""

    TJ that is so absolutely true. People do not want to think they are uninformed and will attach to any opinion they hear to appear informed. The truth of that is validated by how much money is spent on advertising. Advertising is to sway people's minds. It is easy to gain immediate relevancy by chanting popular lines.

  • Chet Ruminski
    2015-10-15 12:22:37 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Copied this from a remarks column about Bernie doing so well:

    " Sanders sounds like he is pissed that that rich folks have the wherewithal to get rich through hard work. Not all of the rich had their money handed to them. Some worked hard for what they have through opening their own businesses. That opportunity is available to everyone".

    That is the general GOP response. Just do it!

  • workingman
    2015-12-03 11:15:51 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    This country is too poor to be giving stuff away for free. Almost 20T and growing in debt and we spend 69% of the federal budget is spent on social programs. That is not the purpose of the Federal Government.

    Medicare 25% Social security 24 % social needs like housing assistance 20% Debt service 6%. EVERYTHING ELSE including defense makes up the last 25%.

  • Dutch
    2015-12-04 09:08:37 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    workingman Wrote:

    This country is too poor to be giving stuff away for free. Almost 20T and growing in debt and we spend 69% of the federal budget is spent on social programs. That is not the purpose of the Federal Government.

    Medicare 25% Social security 24 % social needs like housing assistance 20% Debt service 6%. EVERYTHING ELSE including defense makes up the last 25%.

    You are an Republican!!! Just about all our debt "trillions" was wasted on our wars; not on social security!!!!!
  • lonely bird
    2015-12-04 09:16:57 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    workingman Wrote:

    This country is too poor to be giving stuff away for free. Almost 20T and growing in debt and we spend 69% of the federal budget is spent on social programs. That is not the purpose of the Federal Government.

    Medicare 25% Social security 24 % social needs like housing assistance 20% Debt service 6%. EVERYTHING ELSE including defense makes up the last 25%.

    sigh. the vast majority of u.s. debt is held internally. the fed, soc sec, state and local governments all hold far more than 50% of u.s. debt. a country that controls its currency will never, ever, not pay its debt.

    as for the purpose of government the document is worded so that, yes, social programs most certainly are the purpose of the federal government. without social security poverty was the largest contributor to death of seniors. with the dissolution of company pensions by the advent of 401k's (created originally for executives until companies found out that they could screw their workers by shifting them to a 401k) retirement has become less secure. the destruction of unions and the rise of short-termism financialization has led to stagnated wages. now the so-called sharing economy with its emphasis on temps, contract work, so-called short-term gigs etc will drive wages down further.

    hear is some interesting material for thought:

    blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/201...

    the author wrote "plutocrats" a very depressing and, imo, true book re: income/wealth inequality.

  • Chet Ruminski
    2015-12-04 09:20:03 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote:
    workingman Wrote:

    This country is too poor to be giving stuff away for free. Almost 20T and growing in debt and we spend 69% of the federal budget is spent on social programs. That is not the purpose of the Federal Government.

    Medicare 25% Social security 24 % social needs like housing assistance 20% Debt service 6%. EVERYTHING ELSE including defense makes up the last 25%.

    sigh. the vast majority of u.s. debt is held internally. the fed, soc sec, state and local governments all hold far more than 50% of u.s. debt. a country that controls its currency will never, ever, not pay its debt.

    as for the purpose of government the document is worded so that, yes, social programs most certainly are the purpose of the federal government. without social security poverty was the largest contributor to death of seniors. with the dissolution of company pensions by the advent of 401k's (created originally for executives until companies found out that they could screw their workers by shifting them to a 401k) retirement has become less secure. the destruction of unions and the rise of short-termism financialization has led to stagnated wages. now the so-called sharing economy with its emphasis on temps, contract work, so-called short-term gigs etc will drive wages down further.

    hear is some interesting material for thought:

    blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/201...

    the author wrote "plutocrats" a very depressing and, imo, true book re: income/wealth inequality.

    Faith, hope and charity and the greatest of these is charity. People have been brain washed so much about not wanting or accepting help and that they should be giving instead of taking care of themselves that they can't make rational decisions about their state in life. The from cradle to grave that you can be whatever you want to be that they can't tell the difference between something being their own fault or that they are victims of greedy money hoarders. People in power that are only satisfied with large balance sheet numbers in their favor. The masses seem to have an amazing capacity for taking a beating and not complaining. Or else they are so overrun that they neither have the time or energy to work additionally to better their cause.

  • iolo
    2015-12-22 08:56:26 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Americans misuse the word 'socialism', which really means 'political control by the working class'. Only in America. even theoretically, does anyone believe in unrestrained capitalism, surely?
  • Dutch
    2015-12-22 09:03:32 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    iolo Wrote: Americans misuse the word 'socialism', which really means 'political control by the working class'. Only in America. even theoretically, does anyone believe in unrestrained capitalism, surely?
    I guess you are mistaken; the word social has nothing to do with political control, but instead makes a fair distribution of wealth possible, so the lower classes have a life and don't have to sleep on the street, like the case is in the US. How come that we have 50,000 homeless veterans?
Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 23 1 2 Next