Do Social Security and Medicare represent socialism?

[Oddball]

You trying to claim that confiscating over 12% of my pay -at gunpoint if necessary- doesn't have a crowding out effect of other savings/pension competitors, who would vie for that money?

Not at that rate and the retirement market history, no. It hasn't crowded anyone out of the market. Is it draconian and a bastardization of "retirement?" Sure. But it's not socialism. It's progressive intrusion.

What if **I** want to invest that 12% in a retirement plan of my own choosing?

Where's my choice in the matter?

Who speaks for the financial planners who may have had that money to work with?

 

[Oddball]

Isn't this money that citizens have paid into these programs?
How is this socialistic?

Paid in by force.

How is that free market?

What force?

You don't want to pay in, don't work.

The choice is all yours.

Right....Pay up or "volunteer" to live under a bridge.

Nothing like the fruit of socialist goons showing their true colors.

Good job, tovarich.

 

[saveliberty]

In theory, you are paying your own way in the systems. What makes it socialist is the fact you can't opt out unless you are in government.

 

[Oddball]

Oh, you can opt out, alright.

Just quit working (in the more-or-less legitimate world anyways) and sign up to be a career hobo.

It's a snap...Just ask tovarich Mr Clean!

 

[Big Fitz]

Isn't this money that citizens have paid into these programs?
How is this socialistic?

Paid in by force.

How is that free market?

What force?

You don't want to pay in, don't work.

The choice is all yours.

Oh yes. that's it.

Blame the victim. You a lawyer for the defense?

Redacto in absurdum fail.

 

[Charles_Main]

pensions and healthcare for the elderly are not "socialism".

They are when compelled and dispensed by central authority.

And that crowds out all private competitors.

So Social Security is not (yet) Socialism. Medicare is.

Wrong SS was not suppose to be Socialism. It was suppose to be a pay as you go program. However the politicians have raped it. There is no SS trust fund. It is effectively just another part of the General Budget and there for it has become Socialism.

 

[Charles_Main]

Yes, both are socialism because they have the government do what could be done by a free market. But, libraries, parks, schools and public pools are socialistic. Even police can be considered a socialist institution.

The fundamental Difference between All the others you listed and SS and Medicare is that the others are mostly set up and ran at the local level. Yes Socialistic but not controlled by the Central Federal Government. Which I believe is a very important distinction.

 

[Big Fitz]

But, libraries, parks, schools and public pools are socialistic. Even police can be considered a socialist institution.

Public facilities, when built by private donation for public use, there is nothing socialist about it. It is community property as a gift from those willing to give. So if you get a fund raising campaign to build a public pool, or some wealthy individual donates a library, it is a gift from the magnanimous to the masses. Therefore it is NOT intrinsically socialist.

Public use is not always socialism. Socialism enters into it by HOW it came about. Voluntarily or by force.

From each according to their means to each according to their needs. That's socialism. Free will is often the counter to socialism.

 

[asterism]

You trying to claim that confiscating over 12% of my pay -at gunpoint if necessary- doesn't have a crowding out effect of other savings/pension competitors, who would vie for that money?

Not at that rate and the retirement market history, no. It hasn't crowded anyone out of the market. Is it draconian and a bastardization of "retirement?" Sure. But it's not socialism. It's progressive intrusion.

What if **I** want to invest that 12% in a retirement plan of my own choosing?

Where's my choice in the matter?

Who speaks for the financial planners who may have had that money to work with?

See "draconian and bastardization of retirement." Not Socialism in my book, not at that rate. Doesn't mean I support it though.

 

[Nosmo King]

Isn't this money that citizens have paid into these programs?
How is this socialistic?

Paid in by force.

How is that free market?

The "free" market is not a panacea. And neither is socialism. Both have both beneficial attributes and harmful attributes. What we have in America is a blending of the two and that blend is seen as favorable to everyone who has a mind flexible enough to appreciate both systems.

A "free" market cannot provide a social safety net to all the citizens of the land. And, yes, all citizens DESERVE to be served by a social safety net. Without such precautions, we would be suffering through the embarrassment that is the third world. And in the richest, most advanced country on the planet, that kind of privation is an embarrassment.

Socialism works in moderate doses. The "free" market works best when it works for all and not just those with the means to manipulate the market.

 

[asterism]

Yes, both are socialism because they have the government do what could be done by a free market. But, libraries, parks, schools and public pools are socialistic. Even police can be considered a socialist institution.

The fundamental Difference between All the others you listed and SS and Medicare is that the others are mostly set up and ran at the local level. Yes Socialistic but not controlled by the Central Federal Government. Which I believe is a very important distinction.

And in that case actually not Socialistic since they are controlled and funded at the local level.

 

[asterism]

Isn't this money that citizens have paid into these programs?
How is this socialistic?

Paid in by force.

How is that free market?

The "free" market is not a panacea. And neither is socialism. Both have both beneficial attributes and harmful attributes. What we have in America is a blending of the two and that blend is seen as favorable to everyone who has a mind flexible enough to appreciate both systems.

A "free" market cannot provide a social safety net to all the citizens of the land. And, yes, all citizens DESERVE to be served by a social safety net. Without such precautions, we would be suffering through the embarrassment that is the third world. And in the richest, most advanced country on the planet, that kind of privation is an embarrassment.

Socialism works in moderate doses. The "free" market works best when it works for all and not just those with the means to manipulate the market.

Ok, but what when that "safety net" becomes a hammock?

 

[Oddball]

Isn't this money that citizens have paid into these programs?
How is this socialistic?

Paid in by force.

How is that free market?

The "free" market is not a panacea. And neither is socialism.

Strawman...Nobody said the free market was a cure-all...Just decidedly better than authoritarian central control.

Both have both beneficial attributes and harmful attributes.

Problem being that when the free market fails, they (usually) go out of business, while the apologists for the socialistic welfare handout state whine and moan that their failures are somehow evidence that even more money has to be thrown at the problem.

What we have in America is a blending of the two and that blend is seen as favorable to everyone who has a mind flexible enough to appreciate both systems.

Right...And blending sewage into fresh water is supposed to make the sewage less sewag-y?

A "free" market cannot provide a social safety net to all the citizens of the land.

Another worthless platitudinous strawman.

And, yes, all citizens DESERVE to be served by a social safety net. Without such precautions, we would be suffering through the embarrassment that is the third world. And in the richest, most advanced country on the planet, that kind of privation is an embarrassment.

America has suffered through more than 65 years of the New Deal and 45 years of the Great society, yet the "precautions" you cling to with so much zeal have produced dubious, if not non-existent, results....Lemmie guess, all we need is even more money to be thrown into the social safety hammock, right?

Socialism works in moderate doses. The "free" market works best when it works for all and not just those with the means to manipulate the market.

Uh-huh...and socialistic turds in the federal gubmint have no interest whatsoever in manipulating socialistic programs for their financial and political gains, right?

 

[Nosmo King]

Paid in by force.

How is that free market?

The "free" market is not a panacea. And neither is socialism. Both have both beneficial attributes and harmful attributes. What we have in America is a blending of the two and that blend is seen as favorable to everyone who has a mind flexible enough to appreciate both systems.

A "free" market cannot provide a social safety net to all the citizens of the land. And, yes, all citizens DESERVE to be served by a social safety net. Without such precautions, we would be suffering through the embarrassment that is the third world. And in the richest, most advanced country on the planet, that kind of privation is an embarrassment.

Socialism works in moderate doses. The "free" market works best when it works for all and not just those with the means to manipulate the market.

Ok, but what when that "safety net" becomes a hammock?

A favorite anecdote among Libertarians. Folks will just get lazy and abuse the system.

Well, sure. Folks will abuse the system. People have a tendency to do that. Some folks get legitimate drivers licenses then abuse the system by speeding or driving drunk. The exams for that license cover both of those possibilities, the licensee knows that. And yet, they abuse the system.

What is the alternative to Social Security and Medicare? A quick and easy way to wipe out any retirement savings because a medical situation arose that was not covered by the expensive "free" market insurance companies. It could never happen? It happened thousands of times this week already.

People want to work. The jobs just aren't there. 10% of the nation just doesn't decide to take a six, ten, fifteen month sabbatical. they are out of work and desperate to earn again.

And while some abuse the system, it's no reason to abolish it as it benefits more than the abusers carry away.

 

[Oddball]

A favorite anecdote among Libertarians. Folks will just get lazy and abuse the system.

Well, sure. Folks will abuse the system. People have a tendency to do that. Some folks get legitimate drivers licenses then abuse the system by speeding or driving drunk. The exams for that license cover both of those possibilities, the licensee knows that. And yet, they abuse the system.

Like politicians and bureaucrats don't abuse the system, fool?!?!?!???

And the only "investment" they make is for political gain, with no regard for how much of your hard-earned money they flush down the crapper.

Damn, Sam.....

 

[Mr Natural]

Paid in by force.

How is that free market?

What force?

You don't want to pay in, don't work.

The choice is all yours.

Right....Pay up or "volunteer" to live under a bridge.

Nothing like the fruit of socialist goons showing their true colors.

Good job, tovarich.

That's the price you pay to live in a civilized society.

Don't like it? Go live under the bridge.

As for me, I 'll join the rest of the grown ups and accept my obligations and responsibilities as part of life.

 

[Oddball]

What force?

You don't want to pay in, don't work.

The choice is all yours.

Right....Pay up or "volunteer" to live under a bridge.

Nothing like the fruit of socialist goons showing their true colors.

Good job, tovarich.

That's the price you pay to live in a civilized society.

Don't like it? Go live under the bridge.

As for me, I 'll join the rest of the grown ups and accept my obligations and responsibilities as part of life.

No, it's the price I pay for a massively bloated federal bureaucracy, that cares more about keeping itself in power than anything else.

Maybe when you grow up and accept full responsibility for yourself, you'll understand that.

 

[Nosmo King]

A favorite anecdote among Libertarians. Folks will just get lazy and abuse the system.

Well, sure. Folks will abuse the system. People have a tendency to do that. Some folks get legitimate drivers licenses then abuse the system by speeding or driving drunk. The exams for that license cover both of those possibilities, the licensee knows that. And yet, they abuse the system.

Like politicians and bureaucrats don't abuse the system, fool?!?!?!???

And the only "investment" they make is for political gain, with no regard for how much of your hard-earned money they flush down the crapper.

A: you're talking out of your ass. Can you honestly say that the free market isn't manipulated by the moneyed interests in order to gain more personal benefit? Never even heard of a "Golden Parachute" for executives while the closed a plant and laid off the workers, huh?

And you have the temerity to call me a "fool"!

 

[Oddball]

A favorite anecdote among Libertarians. Folks will just get lazy and abuse the system.

Well, sure. Folks will abuse the system. People have a tendency to do that. Some folks get legitimate drivers licenses then abuse the system by speeding or driving drunk. The exams for that license cover both of those possibilities, the licensee knows that. And yet, they abuse the system.

Like politicians and bureaucrats don't abuse the system, fool?!?!?!???

And the only "investment" they make is for political gain, with no regard for how much of your hard-earned money they flush down the crapper.

A: you're talking out of your ass. Can you honestly say that the free market isn't manipulated by the moneyed interests in order to gain more personal benefit? Never even heard of a "Golden Parachute" for executives while the closed a plant and laid off the workers, huh?

And you have the temerity to call me a "fool"!

If anybody is talking out their ass it's you.

You're one of those rubes who somehow think that just because someone is a part of the Big Daddy Big Gubmint machine, that the less-than-desirable attributes of human nature that you so easily see in free market types don't apply to them.

And all that makes you is a.....big....fat....fool.

 

[Big Fitz]

As for me, I 'll join the rest of the grown ups and accept my obligations and responsibilities as part of life.

Oh really? How about expecting the recipients of welfare to grow up and accept their obligations and repsonsiblities? Instead of making gubmint the surrogate daddy, women need to made to realize that Uncle Sugar isn't going to cover for her babydaddy, and if he isn't going to man up, he isn't getting an either.

Women... let's be honest, if you told men no more sugar without marriage cause someone's going to be helping pay for that kid being raised, you'd see single mother pregnancy drop overnight, AND these hounddog losers looking for the next little miss somethin-somethin start getting respectable and quick. You have that power. But till Uncle Sugar cuts off the tramps, it ain't gonna happen.

So, if we're gonna suddenly 'man up', let's look at who's REALLY acting immature: deadbeats.