Socialism Doesn't Work?

You confuse government with socialism. They are not the same.

 

Every country has socialist programs. And you love them

 

This is just utterly clueless. Canada, Sweden, Norway .. are socialist - but far less vicious police state's than good ol USA.

The point of wealth redistribution is take care of everyone - rich and poor alike.
Universal Healthcare is a "socialist" policy.

You are painfully clueless.

 

The internet was a military funded program at first, food is heavily subsidized and protected with farm programs and even SNAP, the army isn't Constitutional as set up the Militia is to be the army under call of the Congress to be used at the discretion of the Congress but States could and did in the past have formal military units in some cases and organized the militia at their level. And you would be forced to train if eligible and maintain ammunition, a weapon and other things for such duty at your expense under past examples which in truth you should have to do since defense of your home should be your duty that includes the nation you live in why pass that off to professional soldiers not allowed in our core document? Add in other things clean drinking water, clean air to breath, emergency services, public universities, public libraries and many other things.

The reason Socialism is attractive in its many forms is people in the end largely want to feel safe, not worry and have their comforts and Capitalism can't assure those things for everyone while socialism tries to. I want the government to assure I don't have to ever really worry.

 

You are such a follower. You are spewing right wing mantra as if it has some basis in reality. You have no "academic" understanding of socialism.

You did get the "wealth redistribution" part right. What you fail to understand is that you very much like wealth redistribution.

You like roads, Police, sewage, infrastructure, the military and so on. All brought to you courtesy of "wealth redistribution".

 

There is a considerable gap between the richest and poorest – the top 20% of the population earn close to four times as much as the bottom 20%.

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/norway/

Norway is only 5 Million people.

 

I just posted from the World Socialist Movement website. I bet they know more about socialism than you do. Maybe you should take your complaints to them, apparently the world is wrong and you are right (LOL).

 

Your post has nothing to do with my post.

Anyway, roads, police, etc. are not socialism, they are a contract among people to provide a common service. Some places use govt to provide the service, some places provide the service through a private organization. In the USA, many communities handle electric power generation and distribution, water and sewage, roads, through a privately run nonprofit co-operative or a municipal services benefit unit, or even a home owners association.

The military in the sense of national defense from outside attack is not socialism. But the military and police as an internal govt security force used to impose govt decrees and protect the govt from the people - a "police state" - is very much socialism.

 

Capitalism does work, the problem is people don't. They want to be lazy and feed off others. And that is where socialism comes in, it allows for it.

 

The state of the US economy is finally on it's way up. As soon as we can get the government
less involved, i.e. deregulation and tax cuts, the economy with flourish as it has every time
it's been implemented. Unlike the economy under the previous administration, more
government and higher taxes. This policy has failed in the US every single time it's been
implemented.

Thanks for asking.

 

I can't help but observe that you neglected to answer the question.

So, let's try again; how great is your budget surplus?

 

Norway isn't socialist. Government ownership of the oil reserves doesn't make the entire nation socialist. Any more than US government ownership of mineral rights in the western half of the US makes the US socialist.

 

Ok with me. Lets just have their social programs and you can call it whatever you like

 

Neither, it is the government that goes after them.

 

Doesn't "allow" what would occur if the people were free to determine their own place without government interference.

 

Well, you would need their social programs AND government collection of 42% of US GDP.

 

For what they get for it it would be worth it

 

Certainly if you are a user of those social programs.

 

If socialist countries are indeed happier than the US, well than that's because it is hard to please spoiled brats.

 

Virtually everyone would be at some point unless you are uber wealthy....and even they might use them

 

Has nothing to do with political parties or policy. Rather corruption. And it is done on both sides of the spectrum.

 

Then it is the "socialism" that goes after the robber, not the "capitalism." Any government service delivered individually is socialist and we know "capitalists" love socializing their losses.

 

Getting free stuff frequently makes people happy.

Where those countries either have problems or will have problems is that socialism is a way to distribute free stuff, but you still need a way to produce it. Some countries are simply chopping up their resources and selling them to other countries to have stuff to give away. Others are not as lucky and will eventually have to find a way to reconcile their largess with their limited resources and abilities.


​

 

What is styled as helping and caring for others is not that at all. It is not even about equality, being that nothing in all of Creation is equal to like and kind. The false paradigm and misnomer is this striving for equality on superficial levels and terms. Yes there is equality because everything in existence must experience the positive and negative reactions/consequences of its deeds. Forcing others to pay for another only leads to inordinate dependency which is exactly what the greedy who control just about everything want; it keeps the focus off of them and their evil ways that have engendered the situations, in a general sense, that many are displeased with. Taking from one to give to another is contrary to living a peaceful life, which is why such a thing is promoted.

 

The world agrees with me - and so do you. You stated that wealth redistribution is part of socialism - and so does the socialist website.

You are going into loopy doopy land because you can not deal with the consequences of your own words and your lack of knowledge of the Messiah you profess to worship.

Wealth redistribution helps the poor and the sick (food stamps, welfare and universal healthcare). Your claim that Jesus was against helping the poor and the sick is abject nonsense.