Americans Love Socialist Programs, but Hate the Word Socialism
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
|