United States slowly becoming Socialist.

[foshizzle]

I have come to the following conclusion....

A Democracy was never meant to last. It becomes on the decline when citizens realize they can vote themselves benefits from the public treasury in which they do not deposit.

That time is now. A startling image that won't soon leave me is John Kerry saying he's going to raise taxes on the top 1% and everyone cheering; they basically believe that the rich can pay for their things. Unfortunately for them, the following problem occurs.

There are few people that have what is known as "recreation money". Recreation money is excess money that people buy pleasures with. Take my Uncle, a stock broker. He made over 4.2 million dollars last year (That's after taxes, mind you. Before, it was closer to 8 ) and spends thousands everywhere he goes. He recently bought land in Taos, New Mexico. A small, 2-acre plot of land for a "getaway", costing him almost $335,000.


That is what is known as "recreation money".

(I only know this because my father's an attorney, and drafted the contracts needed).

Getting back on topic, when the top 1% of the economy is taxed higher and higher, you lose the money that was originally intented to go back into the economy. You also lose money that goes into businesses (It was once said that the business of America is business. What happens when you lose that?), and ergo, the businesses lose profit.

So who gains from this? Actually, in the long run, noone.

I recall a friend of mine saying medical coverage is a right, not a priveledge. Wrong. It is not a right. It is only provided to you because you live in a country where people believe their bills should be paid by people more productive than themselves. I say this as a general statement, as I support health care.

The real problem with all of this, is that the only people that can see this are the one's not gaining at the current time. Also, being the top 1%, they have a very small voice. Around 1% of it, actually.

Any thoughts? (If you are not from the United States and have nothing but derrogatory comments, please keep them to yourself. I'm trying to keep this as intellectual as possible).

Alright, so my question is, was the statement I made previously (A Democracy was never meant to last. It becomes on the decline when citizens realize they can vote themselves benefits from the public treasury in which they do not deposit.) correct?

Is it happening in America?

[foshizzle]

Alright, so my question is, was the statement I made previously (A Democracy was never meant to last. It becomes on the decline when citizens realize they can vote themselves benefits from the public treasury in which they do not deposit.) correct?

I'll argue for or against America's problem with Socialism another day; my real reason is posting was to determine whether or not my 'thesis' statement was accurate. Do you think a democracy is on the down-slope when the aforementioned occurs?

[Chem]

Quote:
Alright, so my question is, was the statement I made previously (A Democracy was never meant to last. It becomes on the decline when citizens realize they can vote themselves benefits from the public treasury in which they do not deposit.) correct?


I'll argue for or against America's problem with Socialism another day; my real reason is posting was to determine whether or not my 'thesis' statement was accurate. Do you think a democracy is on the down-slope when the aforementioned occurs?

I would have to disagree. Most European countries have far better social programs than America especially since WW2 but I see little evidence of decline in democracy. You will always get the spongers who live off welfare but what's the difference between them and people who live off their parents wealth and/or fame?

[Dilettante]

Alright, so my question is, was the statement I made previously (A Democracy was never meant to last. It becomes on the decline when citizens realize they can vote themselves benefits from the public treasury in which they do not deposit.) correct?

I'll argue for or against America's problem with Socialism another day; my real reason is posting was to determine whether or not my 'thesis' statement was accurate. Do you think a democracy is on the down-slope when the aforementioned occurs?

I would say that no system of government is sustainable if it spends more than it collects, simply for financial reasons. In the long run, neither democracies nor dictatorships can resist this, although dictatorships will hold out longer because they can use force. Hopefully, people in democratic states will vote out any administration which leads the country to bankruptcy, but unfortunately populism and propaganda may ensure that by the time citizens do that it is too late. Most likely, democracies go on a downslope for multifactorial reasons, in other words, the economy plays an important role but it is not the only factor. I'd say that democracies start a decline when citizens become uninterested in the democratic process and are so a-critical and poorly educated that they can't judge who they're voting for.

[LillSnopp]

I'll argue for or against America's problem with Socialism another day; my real reason is posting was to determine whether or not my 'thesis' statement was accurate. Do you think a democracy is on the down-slope when the aforementioned occurs?

Tell me, have you ever been to Europe ?
Because it could be good for you to understand what these "evil socialist" changes can bring..

The real problem with all of this, is that the only people that can see this are the one's not gaining at the current time. Also, being the top 1%, they have a very small voice. Around 1% of it, actually.

You mean the 10 (perhaps 5 ) % of the americans whom actually have money?

I presume you do know the vast gap between rich and poor in the United States. I also presume you do know that million of americans cant even afford health insurance. Just a side note.

[foshizzle]

The 5% of Americans that actually have money?

Where did you hear that?

As of Novermber, 2003, the United States was generating around $30,000 dollars for every man, woman and child in the country.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/dinctabs.html

There are some stats for the income of United States citizens.

Please stop 'bashing' the United States; rather, if you're going to, be correct about it.

[Dilettante]

LillSnopp:

I presume you do know the vast gap between rich and poor in the United States. I also presume you do know that million of americans cant even afford health insurance. Just a side note.

A vast gap between rich and "poor" is not a big problem unless the "poor" are really living in poverty (inadequate housing, undernourishment, no access to education, etc). I wouldn't worry too much about the rich getting richer, I would worry about the basic needs of the poor being met.

Millions of Americans are indeed without health insurance, but perhaps we should note that only about 30% of them are uninsured because they can't afford it. 25% of the uninsured are young, healthy people who choose to take the risk of paying an occasional medical bill rather than a monthly premium. Also, those uninsured are not a stable group: many of them are simply between jobs, so their names and faces change all the time. (Source= Marilyn Vos Savant, The Power of Logical Thinking New York 1996, St Martin's Press) In short, there is an important problem, but it is less dramatic than it looks at first sight.

[AlAyeti]

"A nation would slide into decadence if everyone wants benefits and there is no one around to pay for them. Will this ever happen? Doubtful. The rich are fond of money, which is why they're rich and why they would resent people touching it, and they will always be looking to make more than a bit of health care and a few hundred dollars a fortnight will provide."

The rich are a by-product of others getting what they want and what they need. Ever heard of a railroad or an automobile? Or, a super market? They are beneficial to ALL yet make very few extremely rich. And so what? Who cares what a few rich people enjoy? I'm not even close to rich but I have more than I need or really even want! All my stuff and food is brought to me by capitalism.

Socialism and communism seems to breed decadence and relativism far more than the representative form of government of the USA. Decadence in terms of the poor being prostituted and sold into modern slavery and/or just killed off. I can't believe the prostitues in Holland wouldn't rather be getting their pay another way. And I can only assume the children raped non-stop in Eastern Europe, Africa, Thailand et al, wouldn't rather just be playing like children do. I see socialism as the worst possible form of societal rule. Only if what is happening worldwide and not in America - where any offense to a child is front page news - is any teacher. The poor need to be educated differently than they are now. That is the main problem with the "democratic republic" of the USA.

Can socialism solve social problems? Anyone with a TV set can answer that only one way.

Is Europe getting better or just becoming apathetic to the cultural-carcinogenic properties of socialism? Soon Ireland will be a bunch of people who know nothing of, nor, want to know anything about the "history of Ireland."

Socialism is not an endless picnic where all can consume what they want. There are people needed to supply the supplies. And that takes capitalists getting rich in the process, while bringing the people of the world what they need and clearly what they want!

Socialism is another form of monopoly and nothing more. Monopolies are not healthy for the "betterment of society."

The world is not moving towards socialism. Call me on my cell phone and let's talk about it.

Get the point.

[LillSnopp]

The world is not moving towards socialism. Call me on my cell phone and let's talk about it.

You finally got cellphones in the U.S? Congratz.

What did you mean by this last sentence?

[Cathar1950]

"Do you think a democracy is on the down-slope when the aforementioned occurs?"..."was the statement I made previously (A Democracy was never meant to last. It becomes on the decline when citizens realize they can vote themselves benefits from the public treasury in which they do not deposit.) correct?"
No.
I suspect what you mean that "Socialism" is messing up Democracy because every one wants a free ride. This is to put socialism in the junk folder, so that its viablity is not explored. Democracy has many varing meanings, ideas and practices. they is also no historical data to go on. It is still an experement as are all forms of government. But we can't look and pont our finger and say "see! they were doing socialism and it ruined their democracy". It looks like two straw men fighting each other maybe a person with a pack of matches could make it interesting.
Npt everyone wants a free lunch. except maybe those working in Gov. or Corporate America. It sure isn't the poor. They are just happy to eat and belive in a future worth living.
Any complex society uses social resourses (as well as natural) to function.
I would say Socialist and communist functions happened in earlier societies or the group and individuals wouldn't have survived. labels like socialism and communism allow us to ignore our responiblity to our fellow
humans. We pretend like they are all lazy cheaters. and we shouldn't give them a hand because it will ruin democracy and freedom.
We should take care of each other. Most want to have meaning, purpose, housing, food and clothing(optional). If you have way more then you will ever need. Then most likely some one is going with out. A just society works to make sure some don't go with out everything. Humany sympathy and the structures needed to cary out real caring is not socialism kicking down the door of Democracy. the only welfare state that is our down fall is the wefare state for corporate American at the expense of every one else.

[Cathar1950]

Sorry