What would a socialist America look like?

[WinterBorn]

Not once have I said anything about forcing anyone to work. If you don't want to work you don't have to work. But you don't get any of the money that I earned by working.

See, your plan requires that people "volunteer" to work so they can be forcibly taxed to support you. You are the one wanting to force the socialism of your social values, namely that others support you.

They don't have to work; stop whining.

No, they don't have to work. But then, they don't get paid either.

slaves have to work; that means, no capitalism, only socialism.

Slaves are forced to work for no pay. You do not have to work. But you will have to find an alternate source of income. Expecting others to support you when you are capable of supporting yourself but choose not to is ridiculous. You complain about being forced. And yet you want to force people to surrender their hard earned money to you so you can do nothing. No.

Solving simple poverty is a moral virtue. And, improving the efficiency of our economy will mean a lower tax burden over all since more people will be paying more taxes.

We are not talking about regular poverty. You quit your job and are capable of working.

 

[danielpalos]

Cognitive dissonance? How does that work under our form of Capitalism where a medium of exchange is a requirement in our institution of money based markets?

Nothing I posted fits the definition of "cognative dissonance".

What part of simply paying people not to work is less expensive than means tested welfare, do you not understand? That is where the cost savings will be coming from; the more people on unemployment the less need for means tested welfare.

Welfare is for people who cannot work or cannot find work. That is not the same as someone who quit their job.

You talk of savings, but not having to pay unemployment compensation for people who voluntarily quit a job would save even more.

And you still haven't answered my question.

People spending money is what Causes a positive multiplier effect; and, higher paid labor or potential labor with an income, pay more in Taxes and create more in Demand.

This is true. But you want to take people’s money away from them to support you. Let them spend it on themselves and what they want.

Why do you deserve to be supported by the sweat of someone else’s brow? You can work so work.

It is a self-sustaining policy that solves simple poverty.

You complain about lowering your tax burden, because you may have to "support" someone else. How selfish, is that?

 

[danielpalos]

They don't have to work; stop whining.

No, they don't have to work. But then, they don't get paid either.

slaves have to work; that means, no capitalism, only socialism.

Slaves are forced to work for no pay. You do not have to work. But you will have to find an alternate source of income. Expecting others to support you when you are capable of supporting yourself but choose not to is ridiculous. You complain about being forced. And yet you want to force people to surrender their hard earned money to you so you can do nothing. No.

Solving simple poverty is a moral virtue. And, improving the efficiency of our economy will mean a lower tax burden over all since more people will be paying more taxes.

We are not talking about regular poverty. You quit your job and are capable of working.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment; structural unemployment happens.

You have no to moral basis to care, on an at-will basis.

 

[WinterBorn]

Nothing I posted fits the definition of "cognative dissonance".

What part of simply paying people not to work is less expensive than means tested welfare, do you not understand? That is where the cost savings will be coming from; the more people on unemployment the less need for means tested welfare.

Welfare is for people who cannot work or cannot find work. That is not the same as someone who quit their job.

You talk of savings, but not having to pay unemployment compensation for people who voluntarily quit a job would save even more.

And you still haven't answered my question.

People spending money is what Causes a positive multiplier effect; and, higher paid labor or potential labor with an income, pay more in Taxes and create more in Demand.

This is true. But you want to take people’s money away from them to support you. Let them spend it on themselves and what they want.

Why do you deserve to be supported by the sweat of someone else’s brow? You can work so work.

It is a self-sustaining policy that solves simple poverty.

You complain about lowering your tax burden, because you may have to "support" someone else. How selfish, is that?

I do not complain about supporting people who cannot support themselves. I complain about your plan to be able to quit work voluntarily and be supported by my tax dollars.

Selfish? How about the one who CAN work, but refuses to work and wants other people’s money?

 

[percysunshine]

George Will nails it again. George F. Will: Would Socialist America Be Much Different?

tl;dr - A: About like it does now.

...

What is socialism? And what might a socialist American government do?

In its 19th-century infancy, socialist theory was at least admirable in its clarity: It meant state ownership of the means of production (including arable land), distribution and exchange. Until, of course, the state “withers away” (Friedrich Engels’ phrase), when a classless, and hence harmonious, society can dispense with government.

After World War II, Britain’s Labour Party diluted socialist doctrine to mean state ownership of the economy’s “commanding heights” (Lenin's phrase from 1922) — heavy industry (e.g., steel), mining, railroads, telecommunications, etc. Since then, in Britain and elsewhere, further dilution has produced socialism as comprehensive economic regulation by the administrative state (obviating the need for nationalization of economic sectors) and government energetically redistributing wealth. So, if America had a socialist government today, what would it be like?

Socialism favors the thorough permeation of economic life by “social” (aka political) considerations, so it embraces protectionism — government telling consumers what they can buy, in what quantities and at what prices. (A socialist American government might even set quotas and prices for foreign washing machines.)

Socialism favors maximizing government’s role supplementing, even largely supplanting, the market — voluntary private transactions — in the allocation of wealth by implementing redistributionist programs. (Today America's sky is dark with dollars flying hither and yon at government's direction: Transfer payments distribute 14 percent of GDP, two-thirds of the federal budget, up from a little more than one-quarter in 1960. In the half-century 1963-2013, transfer payments were the fastest-growing category of personal income. By 2010, American governments were transferring $2.2 trillion in government money, goods and services.)

Socialism favors vigorous government interventions in the allocation of capital, directing it to uses that farsighted government knows, and the slow-witted market does not realize, constitute the wave of the future. So, an American socialist government might tell, say, Carrier Corp. and Harley-Davidson that the government knows better than they do where they should invest shareholders' assets.

Mike Lee's office displays two piles of paper. One, a few inches high, contains the laws Congress passed in a recent year. The other, about 8 feet tall, contains regulations churned out that year by the administrative state's agencies.)

Socialism favors vast scope for ad hoc executive actions unbound by constraining laws that stifle executive nimbleness and creativity. (Imagine an aggrieved president telling, say, Harley-Davidson: “I've” — first-person singular pronoun — “done so much for you.”)

A Socialist America?

The worlds worst nightmare.

Cuba would adopt free market democratic liberalism in 5 seconds....Europe would elect a French leader....Russia would erect a statue of George Washington in the Kremlin....Saudi Arabia would legalize marijuana.....Venezuela would would open a Starbucks....all sorts of shit would happen....

 

[danielpalos]

What part of simply paying people not to work is less expensive than means tested welfare, do you not understand? That is where the cost savings will be coming from; the more people on unemployment the less need for means tested welfare.

Welfare is for people who cannot work or cannot find work. That is not the same as someone who quit their job.

You talk of savings, but not having to pay unemployment compensation for people who voluntarily quit a job would save even more.

And you still haven't answered my question.

People spending money is what Causes a positive multiplier effect; and, higher paid labor or potential labor with an income, pay more in Taxes and create more in Demand.

This is true. But you want to take people’s money away from them to support you. Let them spend it on themselves and what they want.

Why do you deserve to be supported by the sweat of someone else’s brow? You can work so work.

It is a self-sustaining policy that solves simple poverty.

You complain about lowering your tax burden, because you may have to "support" someone else. How selfish, is that?

I do not complain about supporting people who cannot support themselves. I complain about your plan to be able to quit work voluntarily and be supported by my tax dollars.

Selfish? How about the one who CAN work, but refuses to work and wants other people’s money?

yes, it is Selfish, when You don't Have to work but can quit your day job and go on unemployment instead.

 

[WinterBorn]

Welfare is for people who cannot work or cannot find work. That is not the same as someone who quit their job.

You talk of savings, but not having to pay unemployment compensation for people who voluntarily quit a job would save even more.

And you still haven't answered my question.

People spending money is what Causes a positive multiplier effect; and, higher paid labor or potential labor with an income, pay more in Taxes and create more in Demand.

This is true. But you want to take people’s money away from them to support you. Let them spend it on themselves and what they want.

Why do you deserve to be supported by the sweat of someone else’s brow? You can work so work.

It is a self-sustaining policy that solves simple poverty.

You complain about lowering your tax burden, because you may have to "support" someone else. How selfish, is that?

I do not complain about supporting people who cannot support themselves. I complain about your plan to be able to quit work voluntarily and be supported by my tax dollars.

Selfish? How about the one who CAN work, but refuses to work and wants other people’s money?

yes, it is Selfish, when You don't Have to work but can quit your day job and go on unemployment instead.

Luckily unemployment doesn’t cover quitters.

 

[danielpalos]

People spending money is what Causes a positive multiplier effect; and, higher paid labor or potential labor with an income, pay more in Taxes and create more in Demand.

This is true. But you want to take people’s money away from them to support you. Let them spend it on themselves and what they want.

Why do you deserve to be supported by the sweat of someone else’s brow? You can work so work.

It is a self-sustaining policy that solves simple poverty.

You complain about lowering your tax burden, because you may have to "support" someone else. How selfish, is that?

I do not complain about supporting people who cannot support themselves. I complain about your plan to be able to quit work voluntarily and be supported by my tax dollars.

Selfish? How about the one who CAN work, but refuses to work and wants other people’s money?

yes, it is Selfish, when You don't Have to work but can quit your day job and go on unemployment instead.

Luckily unemployment doesn’t cover quitters.

it does; the right wing simply doesn't really really care, about Equality, or equal protection of the law.

it must be, a moral defect.

 

[danielpalos]

Perfection, not Defection, is the moral objective.

 

[WinterBorn]

This is true. But you want to take people’s money away from them to support you. Let them spend it on themselves and what they want.

Why do you deserve to be supported by the sweat of someone else’s brow? You can work so work.

It is a self-sustaining policy that solves simple poverty.

You complain about lowering your tax burden, because you may have to "support" someone else. How selfish, is that?

I do not complain about supporting people who cannot support themselves. I complain about your plan to be able to quit work voluntarily and be supported by my tax dollars.

Selfish? How about the one who CAN work, but refuses to work and wants other people’s money?

yes, it is Selfish, when You don't Have to work but can quit your day job and go on unemployment instead.

Luckily unemployment doesn’t cover quitters.

it does; the right wing simply doesn't really really care, about Equality, or equal protection of the law.

it must be, a moral defect.

The moral defect is in the person who can work but demands he be paid for sitting at home.

Imagine the audacity of someone who ridicules those who work, while living off their hard earned money.

 

[danielpalos]

It is a self-sustaining policy that solves simple poverty.

You complain about lowering your tax burden, because you may have to "support" someone else. How selfish, is that?

I do not complain about supporting people who cannot support themselves. I complain about your plan to be able to quit work voluntarily and be supported by my tax dollars.

Selfish? How about the one who CAN work, but refuses to work and wants other people’s money?

yes, it is Selfish, when You don't Have to work but can quit your day job and go on unemployment instead.

Luckily unemployment doesn’t cover quitters.

it does; the right wing simply doesn't really really care, about Equality, or equal protection of the law.

it must be, a moral defect.

The moral defect is in the person who can work but demands he be paid for sitting at home.

Imagine the audacity of someone who ridicules those who work, while living off their hard earned money.

A moral defect is willful blindness.

 

[WinterBorn]

I do not complain about supporting people who cannot support themselves. I complain about your plan to be able to quit work voluntarily and be supported by my tax dollars.

Selfish? How about the one who CAN work, but refuses to work and wants other people’s money?

yes, it is Selfish, when You don't Have to work but can quit your day job and go on unemployment instead.

Luckily unemployment doesn’t cover quitters.

it does; the right wing simply doesn't really really care, about Equality, or equal protection of the law.

it must be, a moral defect.

The moral defect is in the person who can work but demands he be paid for sitting at home.

Imagine the audacity of someone who ridicules those who work, while living off their hard earned money.

A moral defect is willful blindness.

Blindness? I see fine. I see those who need help and those who want help.

You cannot see the difference.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, it is Selfish, when You don't Have to work but can quit your day job and go on unemployment instead.

Luckily unemployment doesn’t cover quitters.

it does; the right wing simply doesn't really really care, about Equality, or equal protection of the law.

it must be, a moral defect.

The moral defect is in the person who can work but demands he be paid for sitting at home.

Imagine the audacity of someone who ridicules those who work, while living off their hard earned money.

A moral defect is willful blindness.

Blindness? I see fine. I see those who need help and those who want help.

You cannot see the difference.

Justice is blind, not picking winners and losers.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, it is Selfish, when You don't Have to work but can quit your day job and go on unemployment instead.

Luckily unemployment doesn’t cover quitters.

it does; the right wing simply doesn't really really care, about Equality, or equal protection of the law.

it must be, a moral defect.

The moral defect is in the person who can work but demands he be paid for sitting at home.

Imagine the audacity of someone who ridicules those who work, while living off their hard earned money.

A moral defect is willful blindness.

Blindness? I see fine. I see those who need help and those who want help.

You cannot see the difference.

We have a First World economy; we need an upward pressure on wages.

Nobody is Worthless under Socialism, that is a capital concept.

 

[BluesLegend]

What would a socialist America look like?

A battlefield with dead socialists everywhere.

 

[WinterBorn]

Luckily unemployment doesn’t cover quitters.

it does; the right wing simply doesn't really really care, about Equality, or equal protection of the law.

it must be, a moral defect.

The moral defect is in the person who can work but demands he be paid for sitting at home.

Imagine the audacity of someone who ridicules those who work, while living off their hard earned money.

A moral defect is willful blindness.

Blindness? I see fine. I see those who need help and those who want help.

You cannot see the difference.

Justice is blind, not picking winners and losers.

This is not about justice. This is about there being a safety net for those who NEED it.

 

[Tehon]

What would a socialist America look like?

A battlefield with dead socialists everywhere.

 

[danielpalos]

What would a socialist America look like?

A battlefield with dead socialists everywhere.

some claim, Jesus the Christ, already "took it for the team".

we have a better understanding of economics, now.

 

[BluesLegend]

What would a socialist America look like?

A battlefield with dead socialists everywhere.

If you think Americans will sit still while socialists force the people into slavery to the government collective you don't know the American people. The few socialists that survive will flee for their lives.

 

[danielpalos]

it does; the right wing simply doesn't really really care, about Equality, or equal protection of the law.

it must be, a moral defect.

The moral defect is in the person who can work but demands he be paid for sitting at home.

Imagine the audacity of someone who ridicules those who work, while living off their hard earned money.

A moral defect is willful blindness.

Blindness? I see fine. I see those who need help and those who want help.

You cannot see the difference.

Justice is blind, not picking winners and losers.

This is not about justice. This is about there being a safety net for those who NEED it.

anyone who may feel, exploited by capitalism?

why Require a social work ethic under voluntary Capitalism?