Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US?

Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

4u2spoil -> Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/13/2009 7:14:53 AM)
I'm American, but currently live in a European country which is not entirely socialist, but has programs that could be described as socialist. While there are some abuses, and some people who oppose the programs, they are widely accepted. They haven't prevented the world economic problems from hitting this country, but they haven't exacerbated the problem either. Now, in fairness, this economy is the size of maybe two large US states combined, so no one knows for sure if these programs/policies would scale to support the size of the population of the US. But, I'd still like to know why so many Americans seem to use Socialism as a 4-letter word. If individual states could accept or reject programs deemed socialist, would it make a difference in your view?

MichiganHeadmast -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/13/2009 7:18:52 AM)
Read Ayn Rand.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/13/2009 7:56:56 AM)
quote: If individual states could accept or reject programs deemed socialist, would it make a difference in your view? Individual states can have programs that are socialist in nature and many do. A lot of reasons exist for American's disdain for government funded social welfare programs. I think we had a rather lengthy thread about this very recently. I'm not going to go into a long, boring rant about my distaste for socialism. But I'll tell you this; I don't want a nanny to take care of me. I can take care of myself, and I am insulted when the government forces something down my throat. I don't want money taken out of my paychecks for social security. I can save my own money, thank you very much. I can do a better job of saving my own money too. I don't want to pay for other folk's irresponsibility, and that includes businesses that couldn't cut the mustard. Like I said, I won't start a rant. I'll end by saying that I'm an adult. I don't need anyone to take care of me, and I don't want it. It used to be considered shameful to take charity. Of course a lot of things have changed in the last 100 years, and a lot of them aren't for the better.

KaineD -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/13/2009 7:59:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 4u2spoil I'm American, but currently live in a European country which is not entirely socialist, but has programs that could be described as socialist. While there are some abuses, and some people who oppose the programs, they are widely accepted. They haven't prevented the world economic problems from hitting this country, but they haven't exacerbated the problem either. Now, in fairness, this economy is the size of maybe two large US states combined, so no one knows for sure if these programs/policies would scale to support the size of the population of the US. But, I'd still like to know why so many Americans seem to use Socialism as a 4-letter word. If individual states could accept or reject programs deemed socialist, would it make a difference in your view? It's a cultural thing, going back to the Cold war. Politicians at that time were so succesful at drumming up support against commies that the mentality communism and socialism are very very very bad things has been passed down generation to generation. Sometimes, people don't really understand what socialism is, but they still hate it. A policy that leans slightly to the left can be exaggerated by the right to look socialist, and you'll have a whole crowd of people convinced the US is going to become a socialist country unless something is done. Another amusing thing is the dislike towards European countries. European countries, which function perfectly well, with health care systems far surpassing the US, but nevertheless people stuck in the Cold war do NOT under any circumstances want any policies in government that would make the US anything like "socialist" Europe. It's crazy. And ironically, the people MOST like this are usually the people of lower classes, the people that could be helped most with socialist policies. It's brainwashing, is what I've come to realize. Years and years of the media and politicians drumming out that capitalism is absolutely amazing. But capitalism has been abused by the greedy, which is why the US is in its current poor economic situation. I'm not saying ditch capitalism, I'm not saying wave the flag of Stalin either. People just need to realize that if something can technically be called socialist, it doesn't inheritely mean that it is bad.

Termyn8or -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/13/2009 8:01:05 AM)
A few of the clearest reasons : Socialism is seen as similar to communism, an anethma to anyone who values the original intent of the founding Fathers of this country. It is a redistribution of wealth, also never intended in this country. It's easy to find the exchange between one Horatio Bunce and then congressman David Crockett. In other words it is seen as diametrically opposed to the individualism embodied back in those days. What's more, many see the redisbribution of wealth as punishing success and rewarding failure, which is pretty hard to deny at best. Freedom is earned. Freedom is maintained by making a success of one's self. This may require a war, or alot of hard work, but in the end, people would pride themselves on not owing anyone a thing. You can't do that if you take. In that way it runs counter to the spirit of this country. More later. T

KaineD -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/13/2009 8:10:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou Individual states can have programs that are socialist in nature and many do. A lot of reasons exist for American's disdain for government funded social welfare programs. I think we had a rather lengthy thread about this very recently. I'm not going to go into a long, boring rant about my distaste for socialism. But I'll tell you this; I don't want a nanny to take care of me. I can take care of myself, and I am insulted when the government forces something down my throat. I don't want money taken out of my paychecks for social security. I can save my own money, thank you very much. I can do a better job of saving my own money too. I don't want to pay for other folk's irresponsibility, and that includes businesses that couldn't cut the mustard. Like I said, I won't start a rant. I'll end by saying that I'm an adult. I don't need anyone to take care of me, and I don't want it. It used to be considered shameful to take charity. Of course a lot of things have changed in the last 100 years, and a lot of them aren't for the better. Yeah, this is one of the typical arguments. It's amazing to me that we're living in our current economic climate and people still don't understand... A person can work hard all of their life, and through no fault of their own lose their job and their home. And yet helping others is deemed as "helping people that were irresponsible". Similarly, a business can go under through no fault of the management. The economic recession is having a rippling effect through businesses. Take the UK for example. Woolworths went under. Woolworths owned a sub-company that dealt in supplying goods for other businesses. Zavvi used this as their main supplier. When Woolworths went under, it was only a week or two later that Zavvi announced they would be going under too (although I think someone has managed to save Zavvi, though I could be wrong about that). So through no fault of their own, the economic recession hit Zavvi. So say some people got together to help Zavvi through before the company collapsed, that's wrong? Dozens and dozens of stores across the UK closed, hundreds and hundreds of jobs gone, but no one should help them? Even though if they did go under, that's going to cause yet more economic issues? Millions in the US are losing jobs. It's a rough situation. Each individual wasn't "irresponsible". This economic crisis has been caused by one thing - greed. The greed of a minority of people. Everyone else shouldn't have to suffer because of them, and outdated ideas that we shouldn't help the jobless because that's "socialism" are NOT going to help the situation.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/13/2009 8:12:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 4u2spoil I'm American, but currently live in a European country which is not entirely socialist, but has programs that could be described as socialist. While there are some abuses, and some people who oppose the programs, they are widely accepted. They haven't prevented the world economic problems from hitting this country, but they haven't exacerbated the problem either. Now, in fairness, this economy is the size of maybe two large US states combined, so no one knows for sure if these programs/policies would scale to support the size of the population of the US. But, I'd still like to know why so many Americans seem to use Socialism as a 4-letter word. If individual states could accept or reject programs deemed socialist, would it make a difference in your view? There are numerous reasons many americans hate socialist programs. 1. And I'd say this is the biggest reason. They often are implemented in such a terrible manner, they neither help the problem, nor get help to those that should have gotten it. Example, Food Stamps, you can buy Sodas and Candy Bars with Food Stamps. Most of the times I see a link card (Illinois food stamps), someone is using it to buy Soda, or chips or some other non-food at a convenience store. Give me a fucking break. Now, would I have a problem if the program, only allowed for the buying of FOOD, no I wouldn't at least nearly as much. As in Food Stamps could buy only non-prepacked foods, such as Meat, Eggs, Cheese, Pasta, Milk, but couldn't buy prepacked food or snacks. Food Stamps are supposed to keep you from starving not buy you totinos pizza rolls, and Cokes. Another Example, Disability. There are tons of people claiming they are disabled and they very well maybe partially disabled, but why they get a check (most of them), is beyond me. So, a person with a back issue, can't talk on the phone and do support work? Anyway, it's a bunch of crap really, I actually know a guy right across the street right now, that is supposedly disabled, that also works, under the table. Whatever. I actually know way more non-disabled disabled ;people than disabled ones. LOL. Lazy fucks most of them, leeching the system. Now, some people do need it if they have severe chronic diseases or such, but most could do something they just would rather collect money and be leeches. 2. The more taxes you impose on people the harder it is for the working to get ahead. Social Programs like the US has help virtually no working class people. 3. Philosophical reasons, that one shouldn't take from another without their permission. I'd say the biggest is 1 though. They are just huge money drains.

KaineD -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/13/2009 8:16:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou There are numerous reasons many americans hate socialist programs. 1. And I'd say this is the biggest reason. They often are implemented in such a terrible manner, they neither help the problem, nor get help to those that should have gotten it. Example, Food Stamps, you can buy Sodas and Candy Bars with Food Stamps. Most of the times I see a link card (Illinois food stamps), someone is using it to buy Soda, or chips or some other non-food at a convenience store. Give me a fucking break. Now, would I have a problem if the program, only allowed for the buying of FOOD, no I wouldn't at least nearly as much. As in Food Stamps could buy only non-prepacked foods, such as Meat, Eggs, Cheese, Pasta, Milk, but couldn't buy prepacked food or snacks. Food Stamps are supposed to keep you from starving not buy you totinos pizza rolls, and Cokes. Another Example, Disability. There are tons of people claiming they are disabled and they very well maybe partially disabled, but why they get a check (most of them), is beyond me. So, a person with a back issue, can't talk on the phone and do support work? Anyway, it's a bunch of crap really, I actually know a guy right across the street right now, that is supposedly disabled, that also works, under the table. Whatever. I actually know way more non-disabled disabled ;people than disabled ones. LOL. Lazy fucks most of them, leeching the system. Now, some people do need it if they have severe chronic diseases or such, but most could do something they just would rather collect money and be leeches. 2. The more taxes you impose on people the harder it is for the working to get ahead. Social Programs like the US has help virtually no working class people. 3. Philosophical reasons, that one shouldn't take from another without their permission. I'd say the biggest is 1 though. They are just huge money drains. A big part of your argument is that people abuse socialist programs. Some inevitably do, yes, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be implimented. People will abuse any system, like the banks and CEOs abused the capitalist system.

twistedreality -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/13/2009 8:17:11 AM)
Does the revolutionary war ring a bell? Our fore-fathers fought and died to get us out from under the opression and control of government. Our society was founded on independence, self-responsibility, hard work and character. Socialism is a smack in the face to these principals. Look around you and see all of those who are milking the system. If government give to those who don't have it; then somebody who works for it doesn't receive it. There is a good reason that "charity" is not in the constitution.

twistedreality -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/13/2009 8:22:37 AM)
We have had socialistic programs that were succesful. But, they were run by individuals, churches, civic groups, etc. I can choose which programs I want to support, by donating to those organizations which I believe in. In true socialism, your choice is taken away and the decision is made by the government. Name one thing the government has run well.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/13/2009 8:24:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KaineD A big part of your argument is that people abuse socialist programs. Some inevitably do, yes, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be implimented. People will abuse any system, like the banks and CEOs abused the capitalist system. My argument is the vast majority of the money is wasted, not 10% more like 70% in my experience with people using such things. Anyway, these systems have been in place for decades now, and they never fix the most obvious abuses, like buying COKES with FOODSTAMPS. What a fucking joke. You know they could help more or tax less if they just did simple common sense things like that, but no people need coke I guess. Whatever, at present most social programs are scams.

KaineD -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/13/2009 8:26:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: twistedreality Does the revolutionary war ring a bell? Our fore-fathers fought and died to get us out from under the opression and control of government. Our society was founded on independence, self-responsibility, hard work and character. Socialism is a smack in the face to these principals. Look around you and see all of those who are milking the system. If government give to those who don't have it; then somebody who works for it doesn't receive it. There is a good reason that "charity" is not in the constitution. smacks head I can't respond to every post here, but really. Your post is completely alien to what is actually going on. "All of those who are milking the system", if you are thinking of people that are taking benifits, that is one of the least reasons why there is an economic recession. People shouldn't be so idealogically partisan. It seems to me so many people are only capable of thinking in extremes, instead of realizing the best of both worlds is possible. Instead of a capitalist system or a socialist system, we need a SMARTER system. Bush's policies largely benefited people at the very top, and it turns out the idea of wealth trickling down doesn't work. Imagine that. Investment in local businesses and college education and so on, will grow the pie, more people would have more for themselves. Such government investment is done through tax money, so therefore its socialism, so let's just let society go to crap and let the CEOs have everything because we wanna defend outdated "principles".

KaineD -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/13/2009 8:28:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou quote: ORIGINAL: KaineD A big part of your argument is that people abuse socialist programs. Some inevitably do, yes, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be implimented. People will abuse any system, like the banks and CEOs abused the capitalist system. My argument is the vast majority of the money is wasted, not 10% more like 70% in my experience with people using such things. Anyway, these systems have been in place for decades now, and they never fix the most obvious abuses, like buying COKES with FOODSTAMPS. What a fucking joke. You know they could help more or tax less if they just did simple common sense things like that, but no people need coke I guess. Whatever, at present most social programs are scams. The economic recession was not caused by food stamps.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/13/2009 8:30:52 AM)
quote: Yeah, this is one of the typical arguments. It's amazing to me that we're living in our current economic climate and people still don't understand... A person can work hard all of their life, and through no fault of their own lose their job and their home. And yet helping others is deemed as "helping people that were irresponsible". Similarly, a business can go under through no fault of the management. The economic recession is having a rippling effect through businesses. I understand completely. However, there are two sides to that coin. Were do you get the money to pay for these programs? The government gets money from taxation or borrowing. Well taxing one group to give money to another group is just wrong, and it won't solve anything. The theory that people will go out and start buying televisions and cars once the government cuts them a check is laughable. People don't spend money when they're broke; they horde it. We can't borrow it, because no one is lending it right now. All we can do it print more money to pay for all these proposed programs, and you know what happens when you do that? You get inflation.

aravain -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/13/2009 8:31:48 AM)
~FR~ The argument that 'it's in the spirit of the country!' is old and, really somewhat childish. We should be more worried about what's good for US, not what was good for some old farts way back when :P And that's regardless of if you support socialist plans and ideas, or not! Who CARES what the founders thought, if something is broken/needs to be done... IT NEEDS TO BE DONE. I've actually heard the argument that the Electoral College (here's a can of worms [:D]) needs to stay in place because without it the original 'principles' and 'beliefs' of the founding fathers are meaningless. Eh? Excuse me? Who cares, I would rather have a fairer system of electing someone, thank you very much (like, you know, everyone's vote counting as one), in a day and age where a majority of people are educated and have access to materials to educate themselves on their candidates. The electoral college was created because these two things were NOT the norm, and you'd actually elect your electorate, not your candidate (which, technically, you still do, it just says exactly who the electorate will vote for on the ballot), who would then decide for you who you (and all the other people that elected him) wanted for president. Eh, sorry, random mini-rant, but it's the same idea. I don't care about the past, or the ideals and principles of people who are LONG dead... and I don't think that their intentions should mitigate circumstances now. We should be focused on what is good for us now.

KaineD -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/13/2009 8:36:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou I understand completely. However, there are two sides to that coin. Were do you get the money to pay for these programs? The government gets money from taxation or borrowing. Well taxing one group to give money to another group is just wrong, and it won't solve anything. The theory that people will go out and start buying televisions and cars once the government cuts them a check is laughable. People don't spend money when they're broke; they horde it. We can't borrow it, because no one is lending it right now. All we can do it print more money to pay for all these proposed programs, and you know what happens when you do that? You get inflation. "It's just wrong" is not a good enough argument in my view. "It won't solve anything". If the money is spent in the right places and used in the right way, it would help solve problems. I do completely understand your point about printing more money to pay for all the programs. And some of the things Obama would be proposing could be wasteful. But I don't think that means they shouldn't invest or spend. What is the alternative? If the government shouldn't spend money to help businesses and fund programs designed to get people to work, what should the government do?

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/13/2009 8:39:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KaineD The economic recession was not caused by food stamps. The thread isn't about the causes of the economic recession, thus I wasn't answering an unasked question. The thread asks why some view Socialism as bad. And my answer in summation is because the US at least tends to implement ineffective social programs and never fixes even the most obvious flaws, such as my buying Soda with food stamps example. Also, in direct relation, there is an obesity problem among the poor, can you spot a possible reason for this. Yet the government harps about who fat we are and medical costs, at the same time giving the poorest a card they can buy soda, candy, and prepackaged food with. Hell, if I could design the system, I could reduce both the Food Stamp expense, and the fat problem to some degree, and save money, all at the same time, I'm no genius either, but obvious is obvious. I'd never get elected though, because the first time I called someone a dumbfuck, the PC police would make sure I was gone. LOL. However, all that said, the premise is flawed anyway, this country is moving to a more Socialist system anyway, and that will be the end of it, as I'm sure if history is any indication they will be designed to the "food stamp" standard or the "bailout" standard, and only the morally defunct will benefit ultimately. Thanks.

4u2spoil -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/13/2009 8:51:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou I'll end by saying that I'm an adult. I don't need anyone to take care of me, and I don't want it. It used to be considered shameful to take charity. Does it mean that aid programs shouldn't exist for those who do need it? I'm big on personal responsibility, but sometimes no matter how responsible you are things beyond your control occur. If you're hit by a car, and the person responsible drives away leaving you with injuries, is assistance with shouldering thousands of dollars in medical bills shameful? Or perhaps working a low-wage job that doesn't leave you with enough to save for retirement. If you actively seek a better paying job, but can't find one, is it shameful to take assistance for a place to live? Is your main opposition to socialist programs that they benefit people you can't personally deem worthy? There are plenty of shameful examples: people who don't go to work, don't make an effort to find work and decide to live on assistance because it's easier, for example. But for the sake of this question, I'm referring to the higher %age of people who make an effort but still find themselves in need of assistance.

4u2spoil -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/13/2009 9:03:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KaineD Sometimes, people don't really understand what socialism is, but they still hate it. A policy that leans slightly to the left can be exaggerated by the right to look socialist, and you'll have a whole crowd of people convinced the US is going to become a socialist country unless something is done. Another amusing thing is the dislike towards European countries. European countries, which function perfectly well, with health care systems far surpassing the US, but nevertheless people stuck in the Cold war do NOT under any circumstances want any policies in government that would make the US anything like "socialist" Europe. It's crazy. And ironically, the people MOST like this are usually the people of lower classes, the people that could be helped most with socialist policies. It's brainwashing, is what I've come to realize. Years and years of the media and politicians drumming out that capitalism is absolutely amazing. But capitalism has been abused by the greedy, which is why the US is in its current poor economic situation. I'm not saying ditch capitalism, I'm not saying wave the flag of Stalin either. Yeah, I have as many problems understanding the people pointing to the current economic situation and saying "see, capitalism doesn't work," as I do with those who shoot down social programs for being the precursor to living in a communist state. I think a lot of people in the US look at people with a lot of money and think "if I work hard enough, I can have a lot of money someday too." And the someday is what they fight for. Not so many look at people out of work, or homeless and think "if a catastrophic event happens, or a series of unfortunate events comes along, I could be homeless someday too."

missfrillypants -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/13/2009 9:10:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or What's more, many see the redisbribution [SIC] of wealth as punishing success and rewarding failure, which is pretty hard to deny at best. the redistribution of wealth is a touchy subject if someone is planning on taking everything you've earned or a large portion of it, but most socialist programs similar to the ones operating in europe don't do that. they're run off of taxes, which are a little bit higher than they are here, and most of all, are used in more efficient ways. the pork in this country is amazingly high, and if we just cut ridiculous, unnecessary programs and used our money more wisely, that would go a long way. and no one complains normally that the rich must pay higher taxes than the poor because they have a greater income to take a percentage out of... if the money was used to build a bunch of public parks that help the community they live in much less than making sure that the people who make their food at restaurants, for example, can afford to go and visit the doctor when they need to and still take a day or so off to get better instead of what many people HAVE to do, which is work while they are very ill and contagious and do their best not to infect you with whatever they have because they cannot afford the doctor's visit, medication, or missed time from work. that's one example of why public healthcare would benefit you even if you do not need it yourself... less sick people having to go untreated and having to go about their normal business day while sick means you will not catch as much from them. americans have this very limited idea of the world of finance, and if you're poor, even if you are young and just starting out and did not have the advantage of being born into a family who could give you help starting out or with school and things like that, it's obviously because you're lazy and didn't work hard enough. that's simply not true. i have that dirty, terrible thing called credit card debt. most of it was incurred because of medical expenses, although some of it was used to pay for extremely necessary things for moving into my first apartment such as dishes to eat off of or a warm blanket to cover myself with. a very small amount was used for buying a few tops from one of my previous jobs which had an extremely strict dress code i had nothing that complied with at the time. this is not terribly irresponsible of me, to want to be warm while i sleep, not have ear and sinus infections, and be able to wear clothes to work. and i will pay it off, eventually, but it's very difficult paying it off at the interest rates i can afford with my mother's credit history, which tanked after her husband died of a rare disease usually only seen in third world countries and she was trying to keep her house and her two children but could only work a certain amount of time because otherwise she would lose disability and be unable to qualify for help paying for the medicine she cannot work, or indeed, function, if she does not have. neither she nor i is "irresponsible." we're just poor. i am not ashamed of any of this, and it and things like it happen to millions of americans. there are people out there losing their jobs right now because even though they have worked hard and done everything they were supposed to, people who they will never meet made bad decisions, and most of those people, like the auto industry executives, are not suffering from it because they already have enough. and what the already haves forget is that their livelihood depends on the have nots... if enough people are starving, they will commit more crimes and take more drugs and make the lives of the haves more dangerous. they will go to work when contagious, they will stop buying the products that the already have's sell. some of them may even die or have sick family members and be unable to work, which means that the already haves will not need to pay them, but also that the already haves will have trouble finding someone to do the work they are unwilling or unable to do, and if they get a bad enough reputation, it is possible people will not wish to work for them. and of course, every few hundred years in some part of the world where the lives of the have nots are bad enough and firearms are protected under the second amend... oops, sorry, readily available, sometimes people get angry enough that the already haves refuse to allow them even the tiniest portion of what they have in abundance and go and shoot a bunch of the already haves, and if that happens, we will not have socialist programs but probably actual communism, actual scary redistribution of wealth where everyone who's worked hard to gain things lose everything. i am not a failure, and so i am not asking you for a reward for failing. although there are a few people who are born in the higher classes who i think waste the oppurtunity given to them, i am not asking for those who suceed to be punished. i'm saying that the percentage taken out of my wages might be better used helping the people in my community have a chance to succeed, and i am not offended, scared shitless, or sure it's their fault in the first place, and i'd like to see what the world would look like if they DID succeed, and that i'm willing to give them that chance.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875