Why are almost all of TCOD liberal socialist atheists? (serious thread this time)

[Butterfree]

This may be true in theory, but when you think about it practically, it's the government's job to be objective, isn't it?

Government? But capitalism doesn't want the government to really come into it at all. If people don't have the money for food and shelter, that's too bad; nobody but themselves ought to care or do anything about it, and they'll just starve and die, the way the runts of the litter often do in nature. Hence why, again, pure capitalism is morally abhorrent; it requires the ability to just shrug off other people starving and dying. If you can't shrug it off, you are acknowledging the need for a welfare system - something fundamentally socialistic.

 

[tim.]

I agree with Butterfree, here, though I stand more on the capitalist side of the spectrum. I know firsthand that people can abuse the system. Speaking of fairness, is it fair that someone should have to work 5-6 days a week to earn the same amount monthly that the government would pay their neighbor in welfare? This doesn't promote economic growth; it promotes people sitting on their asses, collecting government money.

is it fair that someone has to actually work hard 5-6 days a week to barely, if even, get by while "executives" sit around and issue edicts all day for millions of dollars?

also let's not forget that the more 'capitalist' on the spectrum a nation is the WORSE is the reward for hard work. the us and uk, the two most fundementalist nations in the west in regards to capitalism, have among, or THE, worst economic mobility in the developed world. whereas scandanavia for example, with their extremely generous social welfare schemes, have much higher rates of economic mobility and educational attainment.

if there were real socialist labor programs where everyone was guaranteed decent work at decent pay, do you really think unemployment would reach even 1% even with generous welfare programs? besides the idea that socialism guarantees a standard of living NO MATTER WHAT is somewhat misleading. i would propose a guaranteed minimum standard of living THROUGH social programs tied to education, research, work etc.

 

[Tailsy]

I love how everyone assumes there is absolutely no social stigma related to being on the dole and that everyone living on it is a work-shy asshole who feels great about not working!

eyeroll.gif

 

[Aobaru]

This is the same piss-poor argument every capitalist loves to abuse. That is not a problem with socialism, it's a problem on the local level. A system is only as efficient as the gears turning it. I could just as easily say capitalism sucks because my tax dollars are funding Sanford's personal flings and airfare.

Doesn't welfare operate at the federal level? As long as the federal government is paying for them to do nothing, they're going to do nothing.

@Jessie: We're generalizing somewhat here. There are, of course, those who physically can't work.

 

[tim.]

Doesn't welfare operate at the federal level? As long as the federal government is paying for them to do nothing, they're going to do nothing.

@Jessie: We're generalizing somewhat here. There are, of course, those who physically can't work.

do you have any idea what kind of standard of living welfare affords in the us?

 

[Ruby]

Speaking of fairness, is it fair that someone should have to work 5-6 days a week to earn the same amount monthly that the government would pay their neighbor in welfare?

Under capitalism, everyone is allocated random sums of money at birth and then throughout their lives. That's how it works. So no, even if you cut their neighbour's welfare money, the situation wouldn't be any fairer than it was before.

 

[Tailsy]

Doesn't welfare operate at the federal level? As long as the federal government is paying for them to do nothing, they're going to do nothing.

@Jessie: We're generalizing somewhat here. There are, of course, those who physically can't work.

But why are you generalising? There are people stuck on the dole not because of physical or mental disability but simply because they cannot find work. Are they lazy or work-shy? No, they're certainly not. Only a tiny minority actually genuinely 'abuse' the welfare system, and to be quite honest it's insulting that you would so arbitrarily 'generalise' all those people like that. People aren't things you can just sweep a broad brush over so you can make a point, thanks.

 

[Pwnemon]

what? wouldn't cancer patients be more screwed if they couldn't receive even basic treatment for cancer because they couldn't afford it? I live in Australia; my cousin has cancer and has been receiving free treatment for the last few months. I'm not sure I really understand where you're coming from.

Well, it could be people like this guy, who said things like, "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision will be whether we ration care with our eyes open."

you sure haven't met many people! I can name at least ten people who believe this and I'm not even from a particularly conservative country.

Are they conservatives?

You are implying that the US healthcare system was anything but insane in the first place. The US has the most absolutely nonsensical healthcare system that an intelligent species could possibly devise. Tying health care to employer-sponored insurance and having all healthcare payments based on that "insurance." It does about a million things wrong including: freezing up the labor market (this should be a concern for any conservative who believes in a 'free market' for allocating labor), outrageous costs because of the detachment from paying for it, enormous additional costs for employers on top of wages which drive down wages for newer employees and threaten the long-term stability of corporations, a serious lack of availability for millions, all exacerabted by the fact that America is stupid and has the most unhealthy culture of all first world countries(a designation I'm hesitant to even give to the US).

The US system was pretty dumb, I agree. But fixing it by converting it to be more like the Canadian and British systems is very similar to trying to make a machine out of a pile of scraps by taking a chainsaw to it.

The healthcare law is a peice of garbage because it compromised with the right too much. Actually that's why America is such a mess in general - it spends the most on stuff and gets the worst of it. Why? Compromise with the right wing/conservatives. It is OBVIOUS that socialism(hereafter when i say socialism i'll just be referring to the european social democrat platform) works, but the right wing is exceptionally strong in America, so the socialist policies have to conform to a level of conservative appeal which ruins everything.

Even the fact that you would just say something like that without any support sorta says you're not worth debating with.

the idea of 'trickle down' is if the wealthy get MORE, they will hire MORE and stimulate the economy MORE. not if the wealthy have ANYTHING they will do SOMETHING. the idea is if they have MORE they will do MORE. this is demostrably untrue as average wages have not kept pace with the skyrocketing compensation of the top few percentiles. the average worker did MUCH better relatively when the marginal tax rate was 90%.

Well, seeing as the marginal tax rate was 77% under Wilson right before a recession...

If the wealthy had more they would do more! Say donald trump makes 1 billion a year. Assuming that taxes suck up 80% of that he now has 200 mil in revenue a year. If taxes only took, say, 30 or 40% of the revenue, he would then have 6-700 million dollars with which to buy a new business and hire more people.

 

[opaltiger]

Even the fact that you would just say something like that without any support sorta says you're not worth debating with.

This is actually the most hypocritical thing I have ever heard anyone say.

 

[tim.]

The US system was pretty dumb, I agree. But fixing it by converting it to be more like the Canadian and British systems is very similar to trying to make a machine out of a pile of scraps by taking a chainsaw to it.

actually it is more like getting rid of a broken machine that doesn't work a replacing it with a machine that does work.

and lol 'rationing healthcare.' no one rations healthcare like the us. but rich people get whatever they want so that's all that matters. if a poor person without insurance as much as falls down some stairs and breaks their leg their entire life and finances could be RUINED.

Even the fact that you would just say something like that without any support sorta says you're not worth debating with.

healthcare bill compromised with the right: fact
healthcare bill is awful: basically a fact

capitalist healthcare has driven up prices like crazy, leading to insane costs of medicare. horrible labor standards have led to insane costs in medicaid, unemployment compensation and general welfare programs. a lack of meaningful social services have led to a huge amount of crime in many areas which increases law enforcement costs and ruins many education systems. all this increases cost, all due to compromise with the right.

and the thing is we don't even get anything out of it. higher healthcare costs per capita - worse healthcare system and results. higher education costs per student - worse education system and results.

Well, seeing as the marginal tax rate was 77% under Wilson right before a recession...

lol and yes and it was in the 90s during the greatest economic period in US history, the 50s and 60s. fun fact - also the most socialist decades in american history!

If the wealthy had more they would do more! Say donald trump makes 1 billion a year. Assuming that taxes suck up 80% of that he now has 200 mil in revenue a year. If taxes only took, say, 30 or 40% of the revenue, he would then have 6-700 million dollars with which to buy a new business and hire more people.

since "trickle down" economics became a mainstream school of thought incomes for the upper most percentiles have risen astronomically while middle and working class incomes have stagnated. so no trickle down has empirically failed.

 

[Aobaru]

But why are you generalising? There are people stuck on the dole not because of physical or mental disability but simply because they cannot find work. Are they lazy or work-shy? No, they're certainly not. Only a tiny minority actually genuinely 'abuse' the welfare system, and to be quite honest it's insulting that you would so arbitrarily 'generalise' all those people like that. People aren't things you can just sweep a broad brush over so you can make a point, thanks.

Perhaps "generalising" isn't the best word for it, yes. A better word would be "making an example of". Of course the majority of welfare recipients don't abuse the system. I was only illustrating Butterfree's point that, with socialism, mankind's innate greed can, and often does, take over.

 

[ultraviolet]

Even the fact that you would just say something like that without any support sorta says you're not worth debating with.

POT, KETTLE, BLACK, ETC.

Well, it could be people like this guy, who said things like, "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision will be whether we ration care with our eyes open."

it already is (that is, it's rationed between people who can afford healthcare and those who can't). I would imagine it being rationed far more evenly between everyone would be better for everyone, yes? healthcare should be a right to everyone, not just for people who can afford it.

Are they conservatives?

... I thought that would be reasonably obvious from the point I was making, but of course they were.

If the wealthy had more they would do more!

the wealthy are already wealthy; they have more than anyone else! that's what 'wealthy' means.

The US system was pretty dumb, I agree. But fixing it by converting it to be more like the Canadian and British systems is very similar to trying to make a machine out of a pile of scraps by taking a chainsaw to it.

what's your solution? leave it the way it is? I agree with tim., I think it's much more like buying a new machine altogether.

 

[Tailsy]

Perhaps "generalising" isn't the best word for it, yes. A better word would be "making an example of". Of course the majority of welfare recipients don't abuse the system. I was only illustrating Butterfree's point that, with socialism, mankind's innate greed can, and often does, take over.

I think your statement is conflicting a wee bit.

 

[Aobaru]

I think your statement is conflicting a wee bit.

My first statement is about the abuse of the welfare system specifically. My second statement, reiterating Butterfree's point, is about socialism in general.

@Everyone: What are your opinions on social capitalism?

 

[Pwnemon]

well that's nowadays the economy of the US and UK and they're down the crapper so uh no.

I believe that the underlying difference between socialism and capitalism is that capitalism believes that everyone knows what's best for themselves and deserves to be in charge of their own destiny either for good or bad, whereas socialism believes that the elite know what's best for all and that for the good of the people they should submit to a higher power. And the reason a greater amount of the second are here is simply because of how the forums worked out.

All you saying "what if they can't work" have no faith in the human race. Lrn2Charity.

 

[tim.]

well that's nowadays the economy of the US and UK and they're down the crapper so uh no.

please for the love of god read the article. that is not the economy of the us and the uk. the us and the uk are among the most right-wing(THE most right wing?) nations in the developed world. the economy of the us is in shambles because of lax regulation and poor social services driving up long-run costs.

I believe that the underlying difference between socialism and capitalism is that capitalism believes that everyone knows what's best for themselves and deserves to be in charge of their own destiny either for good or bad, whereas socialism believes that the elite know what's best for all and that for the good of the people they should submit to a higher power. And the reason a greater amount of the second are here is simply because of how the forums worked out.

this is the most ludicrous straw man there is. for one capitalism creates a larger and more powerful 'elite' as normal people are increasingly marginalized. if we want to talk about REAL socialism then the entire basis of it is large-scale community participation in government and the economy by every member of society. capitalism results in small-scale participation in government and the economy by those lucky enough to have been born rich.

if we want to talk about what you consider socialism ie. a social democrat platform then it takes NO stance on what people should 'do' with their lives. it simply allows those who weren't lucky enough to have been born rich with an opportunity to do something with their lives through social programs. capitalism is a caste system. do you believe people in the us are more "free" than those in scandinavia? certainly they are not.

All you saying "what if they can't work" have no faith in the human race. Lrn2Charity.

private charity is unreliable.

also, "what if they can't work" is not the only issue. what if they can't FIND work?

 

[AwesomeMcCoolname]

Pfft, I'm not a liberal, a socialist, or an atheist.

 

[ultraviolet]

you're also not great at reading the rules, either! bumping is bad.