Serious question for Socialist Americans

[Clementine]

The ultimate goal is to provide food and housing for everyone. When you offer everyone food and housing for nothing most people are not going to freely work. So how can you force someone to work and still maintain human rights?

They can't. American was designed as a free market system with freedom and liberty. It is against our constitution to change it to a socialist country. When I see people wanting that, I know they want to shred our constitution.

 

[miami_thomas]

The ultimate goal is to provide food and housing for everyone. When you offer everyone food and housing for nothing most people are not going to freely work. So how can you force someone to work and still maintain human rights?

So who gets food and housing for nothing (everyone)? The overwhelming majority of able-bodied Americans still work for a living.

As it is in Europe.

But in Europe....if you get seriously ill....you won't lose your job. Or your house.
Not here. Most bankruptcies in the US are brought on by MEDICAL BILLS. Heaven forfend we keep families in their houses by asking everyone to chip in a bit.



Know who disagrees with you and agrees with me?

SUPERMAN!

Good go live in a comic book. I’m sure Europe is a wonderful, wonderful place. Why don’t you go live there and leave America to its prosperous capitalism. Stop killing what we have trying to give us what they have. America has always been different from everyone else why the need to be like everyone else?

 

[Decepticon]

Here you go What Is Socialism? Housing

Dumbass.

That's the UK.
You know. ENGLAND?

You worried about them english socialists over here in America are you?

Your an idiot. Read your comments again.

Oh, do they offer EVERYONE IN ENGLAND FREE FOOD AND HOUSING?

NO they do not.
Please be aware that my sister lives in England. My father passed away there and I'm very familiar with their political system and brand of socialism.

Now, please tell me where these ENGLISH socialists are calling for free food and housing for EVERYONE? Oh, they're not.

Did you even READ your linked article? Did you see how it was making the case that spending a little on housing saved 30% on health care costs? No...you probably didn't.


Please don't lecture me about what I wrote. Especially in light that you OBVIOUSLY didn't read your own cite, nor notice where the url says the website is located.
Got a lot of "council housing" issues in the states, do we?

 

[ladyliberal]

The ultimate goal is to provide food and housing for everyone. When you offer everyone food and housing for nothing most people are not going to freely work. So how can you force someone to work and still maintain human rights?

(I don't identify as a socialist and I don't support providing free food and housing for everyone but...)

Scarcely any Americans work solely to acquire subsistence level food and housing for themselves. Almost everyone spends money on clothing, transportation, medicine, better food or housing, consumer goods, caring for others, etc. Almost everyone would rather work and buy nice things than enjoy unlimited leisure and sufficiently low-quality food and shelter.

If we extend your argument to its logical conclusion, we ought to discourage not only public social welfare programs but also private homeless shelters and soup kitchens. After all, they all would harm society by discouraging people from being productive.

 

[Vast LWC]

Communism, Socialism, Liberalism all believe the only way for citizen equality is through the government. What’s the difference in the end they are all very similar.

Yeah... no.

You see, what you're doing there is called "Hyperbole".

It's like saying "Well, surgeons cut people, and do do murderers, so they're really all the same."

Obviously, they are not.

Libertarians, for instance, are not the same as Anarchists.

And right-wing, moral-crusader, corporation-loving types are not necessarily Fascists either.

 

[occupied]

@topic: You have no idea what socialism is do you?

Please educate me. Tell me about all the wonderfulness that is socialism, Liberalism, or Communism. Please educate me.

Nah, I think I like you better wallowing in ignorance.

 

[sealybobo]

The ultimate goal is to provide food and housing for everyone. When you offer everyone food and housing for nothing most people are not going to freely work. So how can you force someone to work and still maintain human rights?

We should charge for clean air and raise the prices so high you can't afford it.

Do Republicans really want to sell the Grand Canyon to private corporations?

 

[KevinWestern]

The ultimate goal is to provide food and housing for everyone. When you offer everyone food and housing for nothing most people are not going to freely work. So how can you force someone to work and still maintain human rights?

What many democrats believe (of course not all, but most rational ones) is that welfare and unemployment are safety nets; the “ultimate goal” - however - is not to provide food and housing to everyone by any means.

I think what most people on the far right should ask themselves is; do I want to live in a country where (a) there are social safety nets in place, or (b) there aren’t any social safety nets in place.

 

[miami_thomas]

Dumbass.

That's the UK.
You know. ENGLAND?

You worried about them english socialists over here in America are you?

Your an idiot. Read your comments again.

Oh, do they offer EVERYONE IN ENGLAND FREE FOOD AND HOUSING?

NO they do not.
Please be aware that my sister lives in England. My father passed away there and I'm very familiar with their political system and brand of socialism.

Now, please tell me where these ENGLISH socialists are calling for free food and housing for EVERYONE? Oh, they're not.

Did you even READ your linked article? Did you see how it was making the case that spending a little on housing saved 30% on health care costs? No...you probably didn't.


Please don't lecture me about what I wrote. Especially in light that you OBVIOUSLY didn't read your own cite, nor notice where the url says the website is located.
Got a lot of "council housing" issues in the states, do we?

I was responding to your question of where socialist were talking about housing. But thankd for playing.

 

[miami_thomas]

The ultimate goal is to provide food and housing for everyone. When you offer everyone food and housing for nothing most people are not going to freely work. So how can you force someone to work and still maintain human rights?

(I don't identify as a socialist and I don't support providing free food and housing for everyone but...)

Scarcely any Americans work solely to acquire subsistence level food and housing for themselves. Almost everyone spends money on clothing, transportation, medicine, better food or housing, consumer goods, caring for others, etc. Almost everyone would rather work and buy nice things than enjoy unlimited leisure and sufficiently low-quality food and shelter.

If we extend your argument to its logical conclusion, we ought to discourage not only public social welfare programs but also private homeless shelters and soup kitchens. After all, they all would harm society by discouraging people from being productive.

Not if you continually try to make it more comfortable to not work. Providing someone with a place to sleep and food until they get on their own two feet is one thing. To try and make their lives the same as someone with a job providing for themselves is something entirely different. At that point it is not longer welfare and is now re-distribution of wealth.

 

[miami_thomas]

Communism, Socialism, Liberalism all believe the only way for citizen equality is through the government. What’s the difference in the end they are all very similar.

Yeah... no.

You see, what you're doing there is called "Hyperbole".

It's like saying "Well, surgeons cut people, and do do murderers, so they're really all the same."

Obviously, they are not.

Libertarians, for instance, are not the same as Anarchists.

And right-wing, moral-crusader, corporation-loving types are not necessarily Fascists either.

Tell that to the Socialist, communist, and liberal parties of America. All are members of the Democrat party so they must agree on something.

 

[miami_thomas]

@topic: You have no idea what socialism is do you?

Please educate me. Tell me about all the wonderfulness that is socialism, Liberalism, or Communism. Please educate me.

Nah, I think I like you better wallowing in ignorance.

Thank God for small favors.

 

[miami_thomas]

The ultimate goal is to provide food and housing for everyone. When you offer everyone food and housing for nothing most people are not going to freely work. So how can you force someone to work and still maintain human rights?

What many democrats believe (of course not all, but most rational ones) is that welfare and unemployment are safety nets; the “ultimate goal” - however - is not to provide food and housing to everyone by any means.

I think what most people on the far right should ask themselves is; do I want to live in a country where (a) there are social safety nets in place, or (b) there aren’t any social safety nets in place.

I would agree with safety nets. But we are well beyond safety nets at this point. We are now talking about providing someone with a better quality of life. I make good money but not great money. I struggle at times to make ends meet. But I pay around 28,000 dollars a year in federal taxes not including SSI or Medicare. For what? What do I get extra for that money? I think that is taxation without representation. Last there has always been charity even without the government.

 

[rightwinger]

The ultimate goal is to provide food and housing for everyone. When you offer everyone food and housing for nothing most people are not going to freely work. So how can you force someone to work and still maintain human rights?

Since we are walking down Hyberbole Lane.....

Why do Capitalists expect workers to work for a wage where they can't afford to care for their families?

 

[Mac1958]

Boy, I really hate to throw out a term that may be construed here as a wild, radical, un-American notion, but what the hell:

Balance.

See, the Left is a little too quick to offer assistance, the Right is a little too quick to say no. An environment of proper balance would make it clear to people that they can't expect handouts without sincere effort first, and it would also be able to provide assistance when and where appropriate, in this land of plenty.

Unfortunately, both ends of the spectrum have their heads so far up their ass that they can't see this obvious fact, and/or their fragile egos prohibit them from giving an inch on the topic and actually engage in mature and reasonable discourse on it.

I know, I know, crazy.

.

 

[Douger]

The ultimate goal is to provide food and housing for everyone. When you offer everyone food and housing for nothing most people are not going to freely work. So how can you force someone to work and still maintain human rights?

What many democrats believe (of course not all, but most rational ones) is that welfare and unemployment are safety nets; the “ultimate goal” - however - is not to provide food and housing to everyone by any means.

I think what most people on the far right should ask themselves is; do I want to live in a country where (a) there are social safety nets in place, or (b) there aren’t any social safety nets in place.

I would agree with safety nets. But we are well beyond safety nets at this point. We are now talking about providing someone with a better quality of life. I make good money but not great money. I struggle at times to make ends meet. But I pay around 28,000 dollars a year in federal taxes not including SSI or Medicare. For what? What do I get extra for that money? I think that is taxation without representation. Last there has always been charity even without the government.

That's Miami all right.BTW, your outrageous property taxes are keeping you safe by allowing the Nazi-Dade Piggery to buy drones to keep an eye on you and your place.

 

[boilermaker55]

The ultimate goal is to provide food and housing for everyone. When you offer everyone food and housing for nothing most people are not going to freely work. So how can you force someone to work and still maintain human rights?

There is something totally wrong with you.
You are worried about socialism, which is not really happening, and right under your nose this country is becoming so plutocratic( just for you... government by the wealthy ),it is amazing. Also we are so much an oligarchy(just for you again...government by the few
), that between these two factions this country needs the groups looking out for the rest of the population.
So why not stop beating the drum for the two types in this country and see where the real downfall of America is coming from today.
Label me a socialist if you want it makes me no never mind.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The ultimate goal is to provide food and housing for everyone. When you offer everyone food and housing for nothing most people are not going to freely work. So how can you force someone to work and still maintain human rights?

Socialiats, among -many- other things, seek to provide "social justice", which boils down to taking from the haves and giving to the have nots. They do this because their version of morality tells them that it is wrong for people to go without when others have more than enough, and they see government as the means thru which they may attain that end.

In short, they happily force their morality upon others, while taking great exception should someone try to do the same to them.

 

[miami_thomas]

The ultimate goal is to provide food and housing for everyone. When you offer everyone food and housing for nothing most people are not going to freely work. So how can you force someone to work and still maintain human rights?

Since we are walking down Hyberbole Lane.....

Why do Capitalists expect workers to work for a wage where they can't afford to care for their families?

Why is it Marxist believe it is everyone else’s responsibility to provide more to them?

 

[KevinWestern]

Socialiats, among -many- other things, seek to provide "social justice", which boils down to taking from the haves and giving to the have nots. They do this because their version of morality tells them that it is wrong for people to go without when others have more than enough, and they see government as the means thru which they may attain that end.

In short, they happily force their morality upon others, while taking great exception should someone try to do the same to them.

However, though, are you totally against the idea of social “safety nets”?

For instance, are you against the idea of folks receiving temporary unemployment payments for when they suddenly lose their job, just to stay afloat for a few months in between?

I suppose unemployment insurance is a form of taking from the haves, and giving to the have nots, but is not a concept that I’m against. Are you?