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]

(Just a side note)-

I put this here because it was a political rant. I'm not sure if things here are required to have religious content as well...

[Corvus]

(Just a side note)-

I put this here because it was a political rant. I'm not sure if things here are required to have religious content as well...

They do, and for that reason, I have moved the topic to the appropriate forum.

[Chem]

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?

From an outsiders view, America is leaning far more to the right. Countries that have a more social-type set up, most EU countries (Social Welfare for unemployed, unmarried mothers etc) are not in decline, in fact they have gotten stronger.

Unfortunately for America, the present administration seems to be pandering to the 1% as it is trying to make the tax cuts permanent. Who picks up the bill? It's the middle classes as usual.

[Corvus]

I'm not American, but I feel I can still comment on some of these issues.

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.

I'm not sure how this is so. The redistributed money doesn't suddenly disappear into a void, does it, nor get digested by the poor, surely?

To be honest, I might share your concern if I thought that the majority of businesses actually improve the wellbeing and happiness of society, but I don't believe this is the case.

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.

I wouldn't agree that richer people are always "more productive" than those who aren't, but, yeah, sure, it's a privilege. But so are all rights, which can only be secured by the state.

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.

But they are gaining, which is why it's possible to take money from them without the whole system crumbling.

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?

Er, well you wrote about something that I can't see as "anti-democratic", at least not on based on what I understand about what is a democracy. Democracy is a fairly vague concept that people like to use interchangeably to mean all sorts of similarly vague ideals, like "freedom", but in the strictest sense, the U.S.A is not a pure democracy. The country closest to pure democracy is Switzerland, where citizens use referenda to vote directly on laws. Under such a system, the unfortunate rich people would have no voice, since that sort of system is essentially majority rule. The U.S. can be termed a representative democracy or a democratic republic, and its elected officials can still tyrannise minorities within the limits of the constitution. The act of tyrannising minorities can be something that only violates our sense of conscience, not any explicit laws.

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.

To cut , I will say there's nothing wrong with the redistribution of property when I apply the utilitarian concept of trying to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest amount people while inflicting the least harm or displeasure. When I compare this with a hypothetical state that has minimal taxation and where many of its citizens have a pitiful wellbeing, I know which I would prefer. And, after all, aren't rights only important as long as they are the best way to achieving happiness for the most amount of people with the least amount of harm done? The redistribution of property agrees well with this principle.

[Corvus]

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?

From an outsiders view, America is leaning far more to the right. Countries that have a more social-type set up, most EU countries (Social Welfare for unemployed, unmarried mothers etc) are not in decline, in fact they have gotten stronger.

Unfortunately for America, the present administration seems to be pandering to the 1% as it is trying to make the tax cuts permanent. Who picks up the bill? It's the middle classes as usual.

I agree, and pose this rhetorical quesiton; which would be better, a borrow and spend conservative who makes the nation's budget deficit grow and grow or a tax and spend liberal?

[Chem]

Corvus wrote:

I agree, and pose this rhetorical quesiton; which would be better, a borrow and spend conservative who makes the nation's budget deficit grow and grow or a tax and spend liberal?

Foshizzle, its a moote question but if you had the choice would you prefer the more liberal Bill Clinton who left office with a budget surplus in the region of $500 billion, but had some questionable morals or George Bush II who is pushing the budget deficit towards $ 1 trillion (with no end in sight)- a person who labelled himself a "Compassionate Conservative" but seems to have left the former part of his label in Crawford?

[foshizzle]

Foshizzle, its a moote question but if you had the choice would you prefer the more liberal Bill Clinton who left office with a budget surplus in the region of $500 billion, but had some questionable morals or George Bush II who is pushing the budget deficit towards $ 1 trillion (with no end in sight)- a person who labelled himself a "Compassionate Conservative" but seems to have left the former part of his label in Crawford?

You do understand that Bill Clinton left us with a multi-trillion dollar national debt?

People seem to misunderstand what a 'surplus' is, when discussing our national debt. The surplus means, at the time, we were making more money than spending. There was still a massive debt, but for a short period of time, it was getting smaller.

And, now, Bush is funding a war. Wars cost money, do they not?

[Chem]

And, now, Bush is funding a war. Wars cost money, do they not?

An ill advised war at that!

If, as you say Clinton had generated a multi trillion deficite, Bush has considerably exacerbated the situation by the lack of control over spending especially on the military (starwars systems for example).
Bush as a president seems to be as fiscally challanged as Bush the businessman. Regan showed that trickle down economics does not work ie give tax breaks to the rich so that they will spend more.

[Dilettante]

I am not American, but here's my two cents anyway:

Social/Welfare programs may be more or less useful, they may be poorly designed and counterproductive, they may, in short, be a mistake. This is debatable. But to say that the US is becoming a Socialist State is a perfect example of a slippery slope argument. It fails to recognize that taking one small step towards socialism does not necessarily mean that the other, say, 2,045 steps are soon to follow. As others have pointed out, it can be argued that the US is, in some ways at least, moving away from socialism rather than towards it. There are plenty of examples of countries where social protection goes considerably further, yet one can't say those countries are "socialist" in any strict sense of the word.