Why is 'Socialism' such a dirty word in the USA?

[Peikko 1,575]

Instead of trying to police and improve the world, how about America work on their own first. That's not socialism, that's common sense.

well, there's something I can agree on. We shouldn't be giving boatloads of financial aid to other countries when we could be using that here.

It's not 'boatloads'. The true figure is about 2% of government spending - insignificant to the US but not to the recipients.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Instead of trying to police and improve the world, how about America work on their own first. That's not socialism, that's common sense.

well, there's something I can agree on. We shouldn't be giving boatloads of financial aid to other countries when we could be using that here.

It's not 'boatloads'. The true figure is about 2% of government spending - insignificant to the US but not to the recipients.

2% of a very big number is still a big number. How many American families could that subsidize health insurance for? If the answer is 1 or more, it's worth it.

[My Name Is Nobody 3]

That makes no sense.

Oh dear, time passed, and posts intervened, but it was aimed at Nobody

I never will make sense to you

[_Simpson_ 250]

I really don't understand the ingrained suspicion of government. I thought "we" were the government - so in effect what's being said is that people don't trust themselves?

No we dont trust the government, we know power corrupts.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I really don't understand the ingrained suspicion of government. I thought "we" were the government - so in effect what's being said is that people don't trust themselves?

No we dont trust the government, we know power corrupts.

Which begs the question again - why bother to vote?

[_Simpson_ 250]

Instead of trying to police and improve the world, how about America work on their own first. That's not socialism, that's common sense.

well, there's something I can agree on. We shouldn't be giving boatloads of financial aid to other countries when we could be using that here.

It's not 'boatloads'. The true figure is about 2% of government spending - insignificant to the US but not to the recipients.

2% of a very big number is still a big number. How many American families could that subsidize health insurance for? If the answer is 1 or more, it's worth it.

I think that 2% is much more needed were it is being spent.

[HAL 9000 96]

One of the biggest reasons many people don't want a NHS is we have seen how incompetent the government is and know better than to put them in charge of our health care.

How do you account for medicare then?

How do you account for social security?

Ok it seems this thread has turned into a "let b1tch about how bad America is" thread. Seems to happen alot here at VJ, although the original poster led it in that direction with the spend money on war and not health comment. We also have the Aussie telling us how great his country is, how cute.

One of the biggest reasons many people don't want a NHS is we have seen how incompetent the government is and know better than to put them in charge of our health care.

There is such a thing as constructive criticism you know.

You call that constructive criticism?

Some of it is.

Its not a matter of substance but rather a matter of style.

[Heracles 417]

Without opening up that whole can of worms - the thinking behind things like Affirmative Action is precisely because there is at least some recognition on the part of government that we have a social system where the people who occupy the bottom of the ladder are essentially kept there. If that wasn't the case - then it wouldn't be say black/hispanic inner city communities that are always on the bottom of the socio-economic scale.

Clearly its problematic in a lot of ways - economics is tied more or less directly to social class and a lot of race-related issues are driven by this.

There's also a foreign policy component to this - in that its always been in the best interests of imperialist nations to maintain the status quo of other countries that would otherwise threaten our strategic (and economic) interests. So if you're getting cheap oil from Iran, for example, and you find out that the president is planning to nationalise the oil supply in order to build the country's infrastructure - you take steps to ensure that president is replaced by compliant dictator.

That's basically what geopolitics is about - and is the reason for nearly every war, coup and other military intervention that the US has been involved in since WW2.

The problem with AA is that it brands someone as inferior. Almost like giving them a disabled sticker to get closer parking. Australia, the UK and Canada illustrate that you don't need to do that and can still assist people out. The US system also creates a us vs them style attitude and builds resentment on both sides; especially from poor white folks who are just as disadvantaged as minorities.

This is now a class war rather than a race war. Much like health care, the rich are trying to do whatever they can to hold onto their lifestyle. For someone worth over $500 million, the US is the place to be because you have so many benefits, such as ridiculously low tax rates and loopholes. Whereas other civilized countries don't want to allow a Mr Potter types in their backyard. Plenty of rich people in those countries too but not as rich or rich from exploiting others.

For example, US banks are about to make $38 billion from overdraft fees. The UK's consumer protection division has give the UK banks, the stern don't even think about it. US consumers have little protection against those sort of practices here. Companies can easily setup in states that have lax laws yet still operate in other states and gouge those in other states. In this sense, these companies are abusing states rights and to their advantage. They open up finance markets in the 80's but failed to setup a federal regulatory board to protect the consumer.

No we dont trust the government, we know power corrupts.

Power corrupts the government but apparently not large corporations or the rich.

[_Simpson_ 250]

I really don't understand the ingrained suspicion of government. I thought "we" were the government - so in effect what's being said is that people don't trust themselves?

No we dont trust the government, we know power corrupts.

Which begs the question again - why bother to vote?

Well they are somewhat held accountable, they have to do something to get voted back into office and well we need some sort of a system. We the people know the importance of keeping we the government small.

[Peikko 1,575]

I really don't understand the ingrained suspicion of government. I thought "we" were the government - so in effect what's being said is that people don't trust themselves?

No we dont trust the government, we know power corrupts.

Which begs the question again - why bother to vote?

It makes it very easy for special interest groups and lobbyists to control the government, this type of nonsensical circular reasoning. You elect your officials on a political platform/agenda/manifesto. You expect the elected officials to attempt to implement the manifesto, you hold them account so that they do - you vote them out if they don't. That's the way it's meant to work. The checks and balances are not to prevent government from working, it's to prevent there being a concentration of power in one branch of government and to ensure no one person, or group of persons can inflict policies that have not got an electoral mandate

Confused much are most of the posters, and the US public in general it would seem.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Must be nice to be madame cleo, the only person who isn't confused.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yeah I don't understand why there are ATM loyalty fees, low balance fees and why you're required to pay for check books.

Britain used to have the ATM fees, but they were made illegal after a trade and industry study found that the charges were outrageously inflated compared to what it actually cost the banks (like being charged $2 on $0.02!)

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I really don't understand the ingrained suspicion of government. I thought "we" were the government - so in effect what's being said is that people don't trust themselves?

The founders were just as afraid of anarchy as they were of tyranny. They expected the government to be ruled by learned men, tempered by the representatives elected by white men of property. Senators and electors were appointed in that original scheme, by the states legislatures.

The original scheme has been modified by amendment, to allow for the direct election of senators, to increase suffrage to all citizens in good stead above the age of 18, and insure that the Presdent and Vice-President come from the same party. But still, there is no provision for initiative, recall, or referendum, so the people can only make their views know by petition, demonstration, and the selection of their representatives.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[Peikko 1,575]

Must be nice to be madame cleo, the only person who isn't confused.

I can lend you my crystal ball, if you like

[Heracles 417]

Ok it seems this thread has turned into a "let b1tch about how bad America is" thread. Seems to happen alot here at VJ, although the original poster led it in that direction with the spend money on war and not health comment. We also have the Aussie telling us how great his country is, how cute.

One of the biggest reasons many people don't want a NHS is we have seen how incompetent the government is and know better than to put them in charge of our health care.

No offense but for someone coming from a third world country, America is Gods land. Same way for someone driving a model T, the 2009 F150 is the best vehicle ever. For someone with an Audi S6 the F150 is a joke. The problem here is that many of You don't agree the Audi A6 is better than the F150. Same with health care. Same with the physical state of America and you certainly don't want to hear or even compare the two vehicles. Funnily enough, you have no problems bringing up the negatives of other nations, particularly more social ones, when it suits your agenda. Now if we back track prior to the 60's, yes the US kicked ####.

Dude, a pilgrim is not going to outsmart a convict. Even the f--n queen couldn't kill us. We know every trick in the book. We've just move on (progressed) from that but we can easily spot a scam. So when I see someone trying to pull a fast one, like my point above, I can spot it a mile away.