What would a socialist America look like?

[Likkmee]

Ever been to Calumet City ?

 

[francoHFW]

it has nothing to do with the legal concept of employment at the will of either party.

It has to do with tax dollars being used to pay someone who can support themselves.

Providing for the general welfare is a reason for the power to tax.

And if someone can take care of themselves, they should not expect to be paid additional money from taxes.

Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is Institutional not individual.

Totally irrelevant to what I said.

Answer this question. If a person has the means to support themselves, should the gov't give them a check based on the fact that they are unemployed?

Yes but they have to prove they're looking for work and only for 26 weeks unless it's another Republican recession or depression, or taking education or training... Which should be a hell of a lot cheaper....

 

[dblack]

No, as far as vacations, you don't have to take it.

But you have to pay for it regardless. Socialism isn't voluntary.

Every other modern country handles it no problem.

Yep. Some people don't mind being pushed around.

 

[WinterBorn]

It has to do with tax dollars being used to pay someone who can support themselves.

Providing for the general welfare is a reason for the power to tax.

And if someone can take care of themselves, they should not expect to be paid additional money from taxes.

Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is Institutional not individual.

Totally irrelevant to what I said.

Answer this question. If a person has the means to support themselves, should the gov't give them a check based on the fact that they are unemployed?

Yes but they have to prove they're looking for work and only for 26 weeks unless it's another Republican recession or depression, or taking education or training... Which should be a hell of a lot cheaper....

I agree that education would be much cheaper. I think we made a mistake when we removed vocational training from the public schools.

But my comment was aimed at a specific person. He has said on other conversations that he thinks he should be able to draw unemployment compensation for as long as he is unemployed. He also thinks that getting fired for cause or voluntarily quitting should not prevent him from being able to draw unemployment compensation. When I suggested that he wanted welfare, not unemployment pay, he denigrated welfare because it requires means tests to make sure he does not have money or assets that could be used to support himself. He vehemently dislikes means tests. Which is why I asked the question I did.

 

[francoHFW]

No, as far as vacations, you don't have to take it.

But you have to pay for it regardless. Socialism isn't voluntary.

Every other modern country handles it no problem.

Yep. Some people don't mind being pushed around.

Mainly Republicans..... Low pay low benefits going to hell in a handbasket

 

[francoHFW]

No, as far as vacations, you don't have to take it.

But you have to pay for it regardless. Socialism isn't voluntary.

Every other modern country handles it no problem.

Yep. Some people don't mind being pushed around.

They have great vacations a living wage great health care daycare paid parental leave cheap college and training and they are being pushed around? Illuminate me LOL

 

[danielpalos]

it has nothing to do with the legal concept of employment at the will of either party.

It has to do with tax dollars being used to pay someone who can support themselves.

Providing for the general welfare is a reason for the power to tax.

And if someone can take care of themselves, they should not expect to be paid additional money from taxes.

We already have unemployment compensation and welfare for the unfortunate. And that's not going anywhere. Now we need, see last post, Fair intelligent always democratic socialist capitalism.

LOL.
".Fair intelligent always democratic socialist capitalism"
Forced upon us by, well you.

work requirements for welfare benefits?

 

[danielpalos]

OP.... Exactly like today except with Health Care Day Care Living wage paid parental leave, good vacations and infrastructure, cheap college and training, taxing the rich more like their fair share, an SS ID card to stop illegal work and thus illegal immigration.

Awesome! Government everywhere, all the time! It's an authoritarian wet dream.

We're too stupid to live our own lives. we NEED people like franco to make decisions for us.

Government fixes the goalposts for Capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

So if the government says you can have a 5 week vacation after a year of work, like basically every other modern country and many others, that makes you a slave to the government?

No, I get it. Government should decide how much vacation we get. They should decide everything for us, because we're just not qualified to lead our own lives.

Business prefers their own rules for their own private profit.

 

[danielpalos]

Providing for the general welfare is a reason for the power to tax.

And if someone can take care of themselves, they should not expect to be paid additional money from taxes.

We already have unemployment compensation and welfare for the unfortunate. And that's not going anywhere. Now we need, see last post, Fair intelligent always democratic socialist capitalism.

LOL.
".Fair intelligent always democratic socialist capitalism"
Forced upon us by, well you.

Socialism has never been forced on anybody, brainwashed functional moron. That's communism d u h

So no laws are necessary for socialism? I could get behind that.

socialism requires social morals for free. Ten simple Commandments from a God, not the Expense of Government!

 

[danielpalos]

So if the government says you can have a 5 week vacation after a year of work, like basically every other modern country and many others, that makes you a slave to the government?

No, I get it. Government should decide how much vacation we get. They should decide everything for us, because we're just not qualified to lead our own lives.

You are a total fool lol. One of the 26% insane Americans, from stress. Idiots. You don't have to take your 5 week paid vacation moron LOL

At least be man enough to admit you think you are superior and that we would ALL be better off allowing you to make decisions for us.

he has to be the truest witness bearer of them all, and resort to the fewest fallacies.

 

[danielpalos]

No, as far as vacations, you don't have to take it.

But you have to pay for it regardless. Socialism isn't voluntary.

Socialism is Government and governments Cost.

 

[blastoff]

George Will nails it again. George F. Will: Would Socialist America Be Much Different?

tl;dr - A: About like it does now.

...

What is socialism? And what might a socialist American government do?

In its 19th-century infancy, socialist theory was at least admirable in its clarity: It meant state ownership of the means of production (including arable land), distribution and exchange. Until, of course, the state “withers away” (Friedrich Engels’ phrase), when a classless, and hence harmonious, society can dispense with government.

After World War II, Britain’s Labour Party diluted socialist doctrine to mean state ownership of the economy’s “commanding heights” (Lenin's phrase from 1922) — heavy industry (e.g., steel), mining, railroads, telecommunications, etc. Since then, in Britain and elsewhere, further dilution has produced socialism as comprehensive economic regulation by the administrative state (obviating the need for nationalization of economic sectors) and government energetically redistributing wealth. So, if America had a socialist government today, what would it be like?

Socialism favors the thorough permeation of economic life by “social” (aka political) considerations, so it embraces protectionism — government telling consumers what they can buy, in what quantities and at what prices. (A socialist American government might even set quotas and prices for foreign washing machines.)

Socialism favors maximizing government’s role supplementing, even largely supplanting, the market — voluntary private transactions — in the allocation of wealth by implementing redistributionist programs. (Today America's sky is dark with dollars flying hither and yon at government's direction: Transfer payments distribute 14 percent of GDP, two-thirds of the federal budget, up from a little more than one-quarter in 1960. In the half-century 1963-2013, transfer payments were the fastest-growing category of personal income. By 2010, American governments were transferring $2.2 trillion in government money, goods and services.)

Socialism favors vigorous government interventions in the allocation of capital, directing it to uses that farsighted government knows, and the slow-witted market does not realize, constitute the wave of the future. So, an American socialist government might tell, say, Carrier Corp. and Harley-Davidson that the government knows better than they do where they should invest shareholders' assets.

Mike Lee's office displays two piles of paper. One, a few inches high, contains the laws Congress passed in a recent year. The other, about 8 feet tall, contains regulations churned out that year by the administrative state's agencies.)

Socialism favors vast scope for ad hoc executive actions unbound by constraining laws that stifle executive nimbleness and creativity. (Imagine an aggrieved president telling, say, Harley-Davidson: “I've” — first-person singular pronoun — “done so much for you.”)

All of America would look like California, minus the palm trees.

 

[Votto]

George Will nails it again. George F. Will: Would Socialist America Be Much Different?

tl;dr - A: About like it does now.

...

What is socialism? And what might a socialist American government do?

In its 19th-century infancy, socialist theory was at least admirable in its clarity: It meant state ownership of the means of production (including arable land), distribution and exchange. Until, of course, the state “withers away” (Friedrich Engels’ phrase), when a classless, and hence harmonious, society can dispense with government.

After World War II, Britain’s Labour Party diluted socialist doctrine to mean state ownership of the economy’s “commanding heights” (Lenin's phrase from 1922) — heavy industry (e.g., steel), mining, railroads, telecommunications, etc. Since then, in Britain and elsewhere, further dilution has produced socialism as comprehensive economic regulation by the administrative state (obviating the need for nationalization of economic sectors) and government energetically redistributing wealth. So, if America had a socialist government today, what would it be like?

Socialism favors the thorough permeation of economic life by “social” (aka political) considerations, so it embraces protectionism — government telling consumers what they can buy, in what quantities and at what prices. (A socialist American government might even set quotas and prices for foreign washing machines.)

Socialism favors maximizing government’s role supplementing, even largely supplanting, the market — voluntary private transactions — in the allocation of wealth by implementing redistributionist programs. (Today America's sky is dark with dollars flying hither and yon at government's direction: Transfer payments distribute 14 percent of GDP, two-thirds of the federal budget, up from a little more than one-quarter in 1960. In the half-century 1963-2013, transfer payments were the fastest-growing category of personal income. By 2010, American governments were transferring $2.2 trillion in government money, goods and services.)

Socialism favors vigorous government interventions in the allocation of capital, directing it to uses that farsighted government knows, and the slow-witted market does not realize, constitute the wave of the future. So, an American socialist government might tell, say, Carrier Corp. and Harley-Davidson that the government knows better than they do where they should invest shareholders' assets.

Mike Lee's office displays two piles of paper. One, a few inches high, contains the laws Congress passed in a recent year. The other, about 8 feet tall, contains regulations churned out that year by the administrative state's agencies.)

Socialism favors vast scope for ad hoc executive actions unbound by constraining laws that stifle executive nimbleness and creativity. (Imagine an aggrieved president telling, say, Harley-Davidson: “I've” — first-person singular pronoun — “done so much for you.”)

How would it look like?

Just walk down the streets of San Fran and Chicago, assuming you survive or don't accidentally get stuck with a syringe, that is.

 

[danielpalos]

No, as far as vacations, you don't have to take it.

But you have to pay for it regardless. Socialism isn't voluntary.

You prefer screwing over the middle class and the working class? Great idea....

it should be moral to Tax the Rich into Heaven, with "under God" in our pledge.

 

[danielpalos]

it has nothing to do with the legal concept of employment at the will of either party.

It has to do with tax dollars being used to pay someone who can support themselves.

Providing for the general welfare is a reason for the power to tax.

And if someone can take care of themselves, they should not expect to be paid additional money from taxes.

Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is Institutional not individual.

Totally irrelevant to what I said.

Answer this question. If a person has the means to support themselves, should the gov't give them a check based on the fact that they are unemployed?

An public policy constitutes an public use. Eminent Domain applies.

 

[WinterBorn]

And if someone can take care of themselves, they should not expect to be paid additional money from taxes.

We already have unemployment compensation and welfare for the unfortunate. And that's not going anywhere. Now we need, see last post, Fair intelligent always democratic socialist capitalism.

LOL.
".Fair intelligent always democratic socialist capitalism"
Forced upon us by, well you.

Socialism has never been forced on anybody, brainwashed functional moron. That's communism d u h

So no laws are necessary for socialism? I could get behind that.

socialism requires social morals for free. Ten simple Commandments from a God, not the Expense of Government!

The 10 Commandments? As social morals for free?

If you want to follow the 10 Commandments, that is great. But for those who are not Judeo/Christian they don't work for social morality.

 

[WinterBorn]

It has to do with tax dollars being used to pay someone who can support themselves.

Providing for the general welfare is a reason for the power to tax.

And if someone can take care of themselves, they should not expect to be paid additional money from taxes.

Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is Institutional not individual.

Totally irrelevant to what I said.

Answer this question. If a person has the means to support themselves, should the gov't give them a check based on the fact that they are unemployed?

An public policy constitutes an public use. Eminent Domain applies.

That is not an answer to my question.

 

[danielpalos]

Providing for the general welfare is a reason for the power to tax.

And if someone can take care of themselves, they should not expect to be paid additional money from taxes.

Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is Institutional not individual.

Totally irrelevant to what I said.

Answer this question. If a person has the means to support themselves, should the gov't give them a check based on the fact that they are unemployed?

An public policy constitutes an public use. Eminent Domain applies.

That is not an answer to my question.

The law is employment at will not for the Cause of morals from the Age of Iron.

 

[WinterBorn]

And if someone can take care of themselves, they should not expect to be paid additional money from taxes.

Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is Institutional not individual.

Totally irrelevant to what I said.

Answer this question. If a person has the means to support themselves, should the gov't give them a check based on the fact that they are unemployed?

An public policy constitutes an public use. Eminent Domain applies.

That is not an answer to my question.

The law is employment at will not for the Cause of morals from the Age of Iron.

Still not an answer. Do you not understand the question?

If you are going to take tax money to survive, shouldn't you have to sign a paper swearing that you actually need the money and cannot support yourself without it?