If Obama Is A "socialist"....

Does the Social Security System in the United States equate to Socialism?

In the United States, Social Security refers to the federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program.

The original Social Security Act[1] (1935) and the current version of the Act, as amended[2] encompass several social welfare and social insurance programs. The larger and better known programs are:

* Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance
* Unemployment benefits
* Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
* Health Insurance for Aged and Disabled (Medicare)
* Grants to States for Medical Assistance Programs (Medicaid)
* State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
* Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
 
One more person to add to the list of American's who don't know what socialism is.

Socialism is NOT a form of government - its an economic system. There is nothing about socialism that precludes "individual rights".

I agree with your first point but it can violate rights, like the right of an individual to own a business or property, if the means of production are truly owned by the State like true socialism advocates.

I question the "right" to own property. But that's not the point - socialism can exist without a state at all, let alone a state that controls the means of production.

Only with those qualifiers or exceptions can it exist without violating rights, it's very definition by economists is as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production so I guess I don't understand where your coming from unless you think things such as insurance or ag co-ops are socialist:eusa_eh:
 
the people on social security and medicare have paid into the system their entire lives, they were'nt asked if they wanted to pay into the system they were told they would pay into the system and then when they reached old age they would receive social security and medicare.


Aside from your bullshit, fudge-face, how is that different than National Health Care?? Hmm? And you don't have to pay into social security or medicare, you have the choice to avoid the American government, and starve.


I sell Medicare Supplements, actually "most" have to pay into Medicare Part A, I say "most" since there are exceptions such as the Railroad, government employees, etc.

Medicare Part "B" is an option as is "C", now "D" is but you will get charged a penalty if you don't join when your eligible if you ever do join.


It's complicated to try and explain on a forum:tongue:

Primarily because, D was a major-SCREW-UP!!!!!!!!

"John Boehner, the Republican House leader who will become Speaker if Democrats lose control of the House in the upcoming midterms, recently offered his solution to the current economic crisis: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmer, liquidate real estate. It will purge the rottenness out of the system. People will work harder, lead a more moral life."

Actually, those weren't Boehner's words. They were uttered by Herbert Hoover's treasury secretary, millionaire industrialist Andrew Mellon, after the Great Crash of 1929.

But they might as well have been Boehner's because Hoover's and Mellon's means of purging the rottenness was by doing exactly what Boehner and his colleagues are now calling for: shrink government, cut the federal deficit, reduce the national debt, and balance the budget.

And we all know what happened after 1929, at least until FDR reversed course.

The issue isn't just economic. We're back to tough love. The basic idea is to force people to live with the consequences of whatever happens to them.

In the late 19th century it was called Social Darwinism. Only the fittest should survive, and any effort to save the less fit will undermine the moral fiber of society.

Republicans have wanted to destroy Social Security since it was invented in 1935 by my predecessor as labor secretary, the great Frances Perkins. Remember George W. Bush's proposal to privatize it? Had America agreed with him, millions of retirees would have been impoverished in 2008 when the stock market imploded.

Of course Republicans don't talk openly about destroying Social Security, because it's so popular. The new Republican "pledge" promises only to put it on a "fiscally responsible footing." Translated: we'll privatize it.

Medicare, on the other hand, is a huge problem and its projected deficits are truly scary. But that's partly because George W. Bush created a new drug benefit (Medicare D) that's hugely profitable for Big Pharma (something the Republican pledge conspicuously fails to address). The underlying problem, though, is health-care costs are soaring."
 
I agree with your first point but it can violate rights, like the right of an individual to own a business or property, if the means of production are truly owned by the State like true socialism advocates.

I question the "right" to own property. But that's not the point - socialism can exist without a state at all, let alone a state that controls the means of production.

Only with those qualifiers or exceptions can it exist without violating rights, it's very definition by economists is as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production so I guess I don't understand where your coming from unless you think things such as insurance or ag co-ops are socialist:eusa_eh:

Social anarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's an example.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top