[J m HofMarN]

http://www.buzzflash...17_franken.html

hehe I love to stick it to free market capitalists, let the debate begin!

[Spoon Poetic]

How is posting someone else's silly comic sticking it to capitalists?...

The comic is cute. But it seemed to be criticizing more, capitalism in general rather than just supply-side economics, so I was a little confused as to why it was "Supply-Side Jesus."

This is another of those issues where I am in the middle of the spectrum. I like some government regulation, but not total. I like the government to regulate some areas, back off of others, and then in some places, I want it, like, half-regulated. (As in, rules, but not totally controlled by the gov't)

For instance, I like government healthcare for those that really would just die without some kind of aid for their medical problem. But I hate the idea that several democrats were throwing around a while back, to require every citizen to purchase healthcare from the government. I like having both private and public healthcare. And I CERTAINLY don't want my taxdollars going to superficial procedures such as cosmetic surgery - which I know isn't a big argument right now but it has been talked about and is supported by some liberals.

And what some people don't seem to realize is that there are a lot of people out there that purposely live off welfare and disability and don't work. People seriously try to tell me that republicans pulled that out of their asses, of course these people don't really exist... Riiiight. I KNOW these people. Unfortunately. I'm even related to a couple. Here's a winner - worked one job in her life, a video store I think, and got fired for being an overall bad employee (lazy, disobedient, etc). Got on every gov't program she could at that point - unemployment, food stamps... Then proceeded to get enormous, sitting around doing nothing but eating and playing online games like Gaia and Wajas. Managed to get disability because she got herself so fat. She brags to people how she's "made the government work for her" and how she doesn't have to work a day in her life because of the checks rolling in that are plenty to pay for her dirty 1br apt, her internet, and her junk food. (She has gone so far to say that if she ever developed a health problem she would just get pregnant so she could qualify for medicare, too.) Is it the type of life I'd want to live? No, but I also don't like that my tax dollars go to people like her and that some people would like MORE to go to her.

Anyway, my point with that story - I like that welfare is given only to people who meet certain qualifications, and I am glad that it will run out after a given period of time if no effort to get employment is made. I would like it to stay that way. I do not agree with the people that want to make less limits on welfare, and raise my taxes in order to afford it.

I also am having problems with disability being given for obesity. I am conflicted somewhat because I am not a cruel person (though I probably sound it to some), but at the same time, I totally disagree with the assessment that "obesity is a disease." It doesn't just magically happen, you don't just wake up one day and are afflicted with this disease that made you fat. You consistently eat the wrong food, or too much food, or you aren't active enough to burn off the calories from what you did eat, and usually a mix of two or all three. Sometimes there is an actual medical problem that leads to weight gain - hypothyroidism for instance - but for most fat Americans it's just their own doing. And then they get given money and don't have to work like all of the rest of us that work hard not only at our jobs, but also to stay healthy? It just doesn't sit right with me. At the same time, though, I don't look at the 600-lb woman and think we'd just all be better off if she died due to lack of having any money to keep herself alive... So like I said,. I'm conflicted on that point. Maybe someone here can sway me fully to one side or t'other.

And there's still all the tax issues and what-not to get into. (Economics is too broad for one debate, haha.) I think the wealthy should totally be able to sacrifice a leetle to help those than need it but I don't think taxes should be raised on the middle and lower classes at this point in time. And tax cuts for big companies/etc etc sometimes do stimulate growth but I don't think it's the right time for that now for sure.

Anyway... I like having options in the capitalist business world, I like being able to achieve a dream, or be rewarded more for working more rather than doing more and getting less for it. But I do believe that we should all be compassionate towards those that can't.

I guess I just... I want to help those that need the help, but I wish there was some way of keeping those that don't need the help and just take advantage of it anyway, from doing that. I think some of the limitations we have placed on programs such as welfare help that, but many are lobbying to get rid of those limitations. Of course then there are other other people lobbying to get rid of the programs altogether, which I also don't like. And I want everyone to be able to live and be healthy, but without limiting others if they want to go further than the norm, like in true socialist states.

It's just too big of an argument for me to make a coherent post about at 3 in the morning I guess. I just reread my post and I'm all over the map and sound like a dummy. Sorry folks. I spent too much time on it to scrap it even if I do totally hurt y reputation by posting.

This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 22 May 2009 - 02:05 AM

[civilian_number_two]

Yes, people abuse welfare. Also, too much is spent on politicians and on pilitical trips and on bullshit programs run by and for politicians. This criticism is aimed at Democrats and Republicans alike: more money is spent keeping valueless people in extreme wealth than will ever be spent keeping lazy people in near-poverty.

Also, $1M missiles targeting $12 targets, just to keep up contracts with companies friendly to so and so for some campaign contribution and whatnot: this criticism targets Democrats as well as Republicans.

I am a socialist, for purposes of referencing and pigeonholing, but I think you all knew that anyway.

[J m HofMarN]

And I CERTAINLY don't want my taxdollars going to superficial procedures such as cosmetic surgery - which I know isn't a big argument right now but it has been talked about and is supported by some liberals.

It's a right bunch of nonsense to say that cosmetic surgery can't be covered by the government. Wrinkle removal, wart removal, fat removal, and so forth could all be considered necessary procedures by some but would be cosmetic to others. In a society where image is important these procedures could indeed improve the quality of life and/or productivity of the people recieving them. Deciding where we draw the line is difficult I think, but people ought to be able to look and feel good about themselves, and if cosmetic surgery is needed for that, then I would say a socialized health care system should pay for that to an extent.

For instance, a woman who is flat chested might well develop self esteem or confidence issues from that. This would effect her work abilities and therefore have an effect on society at large just the same as another disability. This is not to say that all women would require this procedure, but if it was clear that it effected her quality of life? Yeah I think she has every right to ask for help in getting breast implants or what have you.

And what some people don't seem to realize is that there are a lot of people out there that purposely live off welfare and disability and don't work. People seriously try to tell me that republicans pulled that out of their asses, of course these people don't really exist... Riiiight. I KNOW these people.

The fact that things are abused is just inherent in any society. Any system will have people that find ways to exploit it no matter how nonsensical and contradictory it is. The frankly batfuck insane welfare/unemployment web in the US is one of the most disjointed public welfare systems on earth and yet people still take advantage of it. But making it nigh impossible to get benefits when someone actually needs them is worse then giving benefits to someone who doesnt need them. Let's face it if someone is scamming welfare for their livelihood they werent going to end up as a productive member of society anyhow. They would almost certainly end up in jail anyhow, in which case we still have to support them plus theyve committed a crime against other citizens and incarceration is more costly than welfare.

Anyway, my point with that story - I like that welfare is given only to people who meet certain qualifications, and I am glad that it will run out after a given period of time if no effort to get employment is made.

Ok, but your clear evidence that people stil cheat the system is not really encouraging for these controls. Also, while it may mean that a tiny, tiny percent of your tax dollars go to waste if benefits are easier to get, it means that a family who otherwise wouldnt qualify for any one of numerous silly reasons, will be able to continue to stay in their home. Benefits outweigh the negatives.

And there's still all the tax issues and what-not to get into. (Economics is too broad for one debate, haha.) I think the wealthy should totally be able to sacrifice a leetle to help those than need it but I don't think taxes should be raised on the middle and lower classes at this point in time. And tax cuts for big companies/etc etc sometimes do stimulate growth but I don't think it's the right time for that now for sure.

Taxing the rich more than the poor is an idea inherent to any good system of government. Its only in the US that this is called socialism. The idea that giving the rich more money will in some way benefit the non rich is also a phallacy inherent largely to the US. Putting money in the hands of the rich to give jobs to people is like socialism, but with an added element of beuarocracy and no oversight whatever. If the government wants to create jobs, it should, rather than giving money to the rich by tax cuts and having trhem skim it and distribute some of it through payrtoll, they should simply create a government employer such as the CCC and directly distribute the money without any skimming.

Anyway... I like having options in the capitalist business world, I like being able to achieve a dream, or be rewarded more for working more rather than doing more and getting less for it.

The falsity that all you have to do is work harder to succeed in capitalism is an out and out lie. It merely serves to motivate the workers. In fact, anyone can be laid off or fired at any time regardless of the quality of their work. The lack of security and guaranteed minimum income only serve as a whip of fear at the backs of the proletariat, and are far more real than the allegedly rich rewards that supply side capitalists hold forth as the supposed cornucopia of their system.

And I want everyone to be able to live and be healthy, but without limiting others if they want to go further than the norm, like in true socialist states.

Is this really what you think? There is room for advancement anywhere if you show good morale and are well liked by your superiors and, lets be honest, less importantly if youre good at your job. Good workers could move up to management positions or higher in a socialist country just like in a capitalist one, the difference is that if they somehow lost their ability to work, there would be more benefits for them in socialism than capitalism.

[civilian_number_two]

What's socialism again? Is that some collectivist scheme where money is gathered from the population and given to the government so that it may do with it what it feels is in the best interest of the people? Do the masses benefit from products and services they would not be able to obtain alone, like hospitals and police and armies and road systems?

Sounds good; the US should try it, and institute income and sales taxes. It sure works for the rest of the world!

[Spoon Poetic]

You can get a "better" position in your job, sure, but that doesn't mean you'll get a pay raise that allows you to take your kids on that dream vacation to Disney World or whatever. That's the whole point of socialism, innit? That's why the majority of my friends from socialist countries moved here. They wanted more than what socialism would allow. They knew they were capable of achieving more so they came somewhere they could do that. Now, I'm not saying that this is right for everyone. Many are perfectly happy in socialist environments. But me personally, I would rather have the ability to be either poor or rich or inbetween. Ha.

And yes, shit happens and you can get laid-off at any time (if you are working for someone other than yourself). And that's discouraging and can cause problems, but there's always something else that can be done. And we DO have programs to keep you on your feet until you find the next thing. And we can pursue any job, have multiple careers, run our own businesses, etc.

And for the limitations on welfare - I like the limits mean that people can not go on continuing to abuse the welfare system past a certain amount of time. So like, if you haven't bothered to look for a job in x amount of years the welfare gets cut off. It's not going to keep people that would otherwise qualify and would do well to have welfare from getting it but it cuts down on the amount that it gets taken advantage of.
I admit I don't personally know how hard it is to get on welfare as I've never done it myself. But it's never crossed my mind that it should be all that difficult, just judging by the hundreds of people I know personally that are on it and similar programs, and my conversations with many of them.
But I do agree that it's worse for someone that needs it to not get it than someone that's taking advantage of it to get it, the problem is, with the way our gov't wastes all our money we don't have enough to pay for both.
So a system that limits people taking advantage of the system but still is accessible to those that need it is ideal.

(And I wasn't saying that taxing the rich more than the poor was a socialist ideal. It's just something else the comic touched on so I mentioned it)

Also, too much is spent on politicians and on pilitical trips and on bullshit programs run by and for politicians. This criticism is aimed at Democrats and Republicans alike: more money is spent keeping valueless people in extreme wealth than will ever be spent keeping lazy people in near-poverty.

Also, $1M missiles targeting $12 targets, just to keep up contracts with companies friendly to so and so for some campaign contribution and whatnot: this criticism targets Democrats as well as Republicans.

Good points. I hate that my taxdollars fund bullshit programs and campaigns and frickin' rodeo museums in South Dakota (who's ever heard of South Dakota anyway?) and stupid wars. But I don't think that has anything to do with socialism versus capitalism. That's just any governments with their own agendas, with their people's taxdollars burning a hole in their pockets.


Finally, I really am surprised, Jm, that you would support tax dollars going to cosmetic surgery. I mean I knew you were very very socialist but dang. It just surpasses all logic, to me. Hell no I do not want my hard-earned dollars going towards Pam Anderson's 57th boob job. Things like the shape of your nose do NOT truly affect quality of life. It's your own ATTITUDE about it that would be doing that - change your attitude rather than taking a $500,000 hammer to your face.
I have had my own share of self-esteem problems, trust me. But never ever would I have dreamed of getting the rest of the country to pay for superficial changes to my body for it. There are so many more important things that money could go to. People are starving, dying from diseases, suffering from lack of education, having babies at too young of ages etc - and the gov't wastes our money on Smiling Bob's penile enlargement, Ashley Simpson's nosejob, and this woman's boobjob? No. Way.
(Oh, and, too fat? It's called exercise and diet.)

I think I missed some stuff and am not making points well and my pronouns are totally not in agreement but it's another insomnia post so I can't expect much from myself. Meh.

Oh, and, "fallacy," not "phallacy"

Edit: saw Civ's post
I never claimed USA was completely capitalist - we are a blend of both and I like having both. In fact I'm pretty sure I mentioned somewhere about liking having some gov't regulation but not total... A mix between capitalism and socialism... Never has there been a completely socialist country, nor a completely capitalist, and due to human nature, there never will be.
When I say I like having both I don't mean I think we're perfect the way we stand now, I think some things could be tweaked to be a little more socialist, and some things not, but I do not want to go a lot more socialist.

This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 23 May 2009 - 02:23 AM

[civilian_number_two]

Good points. I hate that my taxdollars fund bullshit programs and campaigns and frickin' rodeo museums in South Dakota (who's ever heard of South Dakota anyway?) and stupid wars. But I don't think that has anything to do with socialism versus capitalism. That's just any governments with their own agendas, with their people's taxdollars burning a hole in their pockets.

Yeah, it's nothing to do with socialism, except that I was talking about government spending, and tax dolars, and funds earned from governemtn-monopoly businesses. So I was talking about the end users of collectivism, ie government. You lament the tens of millions wasted annually on welfare scammers, and I counter with a lament of the hundreds of billions of dollars of more preventable waste. I say your comments about welfare scams and limiting welfare are typical Conservative base-baiting diversions, and that the budget could be better managed were those in power to take the money they earned o your behalf or collected directly from you, and spend it better. By better I mean spend it on welfare and health care and roads and policing and swo forth. And yeah, they should cut taxes, but they should find the money somewhere else, and not keep instigating class warfare between the middle and lower classes.

Because yeah, I'm a socialist, and I thereofre would like your socialist government to be less abusive of its people and also less insulting to them. If you;re going to take money away from people, you should at least not insult them at the same time (study the rhetoric for instances of "scam" and "waste." Imagine if someoen in politics had the courage to call endless military spending a "scam" or "waste." Yeah, it'd never happen. Better to belittle the poor, mainly the blind, the dying, the cripples and the retards.

[Spoon Poetic]

I definitely agree that our government wastes tons of money and just generally sucks at everything... And that it is better to take care of the people with the money that comes from us anyway, rather than spend it on stupid things.

But I still don't want a complete socialist government. Welfare and public health care should have certain limits (such as, cosmetic surgery should not be included unless it's to correct some kind of horrible disfigurement, such as skin grafts for burn victims). I don't want our corrupt government made up of only a handful of people controlling every aspect of the production and distribution of goods.

While I certainly do not want a complete capitalist state, and I do hope for some improvements in certain "socialist programs," no one has been able to convince me that it would be good to be completely socialist.

I think part of that is because I myself am pretty independent and "Free-spirited" (as corny as that sounds) and my idea of perfect future for myself involves everything from being a production potter to scraping by working at Starbucks to owning my own shared studio space to selling art at Renaissance Faires to owning my own business to teaching private music and/or art lessons to getting education certified to teach public school - as well as someday getting my MFA, and perhaps a degree in geology and going on archaeological digs. It is possible for me to at least get to *try* most of these things in one lifetime in a blended capitalist/socialist environment, and if I fail at one, I fail, I pick myself up, I move on. It would not be possible for me to be this... Uh... Flighty... In a true socialist state, or something near it. I like knowing that I have the freedom to try all of those things.

To some it may seem selfish that I don't pick one job that I'm good at and serve my country's people by doing that job diligently for all the rest of my years... But as I do plenty of other things to serve my community I do not feel that I am a selfish person at all.

Another part of why I don't like complete socialism is because I just don't trust the people that would be running it. There's too few people running the whole shebang. It already feels that way on a lot of levels here, only the big corporations are tied in with the gov't bigwigs and control the world as well... And that is a drawback of our current system, yes. But I Still feel like there are more checks and balances when it's not like... everything is a direct line up to the government at the top controlling it all.



(The truth is, nothing's ever going to be perfect as long as people are involved. )

This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 25 May 2009 - 01:04 AM

[civilian_number_two]

Yes, arg freedom good, socialism bad.

What you don't want is a corrupt government wasting your money. What you got is a corrupt government wasting your money. And to make ammends it tells you that thieves are stealing from the welfare system and that we need fewer schools and hospitals, in order to make ends meet.

Socialist or not, your government is taking too much money and spending it badly. The average person is three bad months away from failure. It is hard to save money. The society is defined by the actions of the government, not by the citizenry or even the corporations. Your government could do better, and yes, improving its existing socialist programs, such as national health care and all that other stuff, would be good for the people, even for the ones who seldom or never avail themselves of these services. There are ways to do that with the existing money.

Instead your government shrieks "socialism," sells you an image of a factory farm and a fiction of limited freedoms, while it takes more money from you in user fees and limits your services, and wastes money on nepotism.

Blah blah blah.

[Spoon Poetic]

Um, yes. Okay. Our government spends money badly, I know that and said it. Everything you just said, none of it is an argument against anything I said or believe...

So... Everybody happy, we all win debate?

[J m HofMarN]

You can get a "better" position in your job, sure, but that doesn't mean you'll get a pay raise that allows you to take your kids on that dream vacation to Disney World or whatever. That's the whole point of socialism, innit?

Yes, despite what you might believe, people in socialist countries can still go on vacation.

They knew they were capable of achieving more so they came somewhere they could do that.

They're taking advantage of the system. In socialist countries education is largely free or vastly discounted. Over here, a skilled profession HAS to get paid well so they can pay for their education and still come out in the green. So they get a cheep education in a socialist area, and get paid a reasonable amount of money to do their part for society, and then come here where they can use the cheep education they got to make a ridiculous amount of money, largely from people who cant afford it because our medical system is so buggered.

but there's always something else that can be done. And we DO have programs to keep you on your feet until you find the next thing.

Clarify that first statement... That doesnt sound like something good to say to someone whos just been laid off... As for the programs, a large part of your argument seems to be about making those programs harder to get.

And for the limitations on welfare - I like the limits mean that people can not go on continuing to abuse the welfare system

This sums up your attitude pretty well. Rather than saying that people cannot make use of it or utilize it, you use the term "abuse" As though collecting welfare, or being poor enough to need it, is some sort of abusive situation with the government.

Did you know that if you don't make enough money, your foodstamp benefits can be cut off. They actually stop aid if you're too poor or cant find a job or get enough hours at your current job. I went through this.

But I don't think that has anything to do with socialism versus capitalism

Generally countries under a socialist democracy and, pretty much evcery other country on earth, spend less on their military than the US capitalist imperialist system. Because force is necessary to maintain neo-colonialism and protect the exploitation of the world that breeds under imperialism. And Imperialism, as Erenesto Guevara puts it, is the highest and hopefully final stage of capitalism.

Things like the shape of your nose do NOT truly affect quality of life.

I'm curious as to how you come to this conclusion. I would suggest that shape of your nose, recurrent severe acne, misalignment of teeth, small breasts, wrinkles, scars, etc, could be publicly or privately negative effects on peoples lives. And if they are bothered by them or teased about them to a certain point, then fixing them should be covered.

And what I'm getting from your last statement is that you're basically happier having unelected corporate folks whose goal is their own profit basically control the country's economy and a good bit of the government, rather than having the government control a good bit of the economy and all of the government.

And saying that pointing out that our govenrment needs to move more towards socialism, and that you're parroting a lot of scaremongering about socialism, whether you know it or not, is kind of an argument against your beliefs and statements whether you like it or not... If Civ didnt make it clearly enough, let me put it in easy points.

Moving further towards socialism is not a slippery slope that will lead to:

You being required to do the same job forever as chosen by some beurocrat

Your tax dollars going to support every lazy person ever who will never have to work because the government pays them not to.

Your taxes being raised to ridiculous levels

The government stamping out all private industry

The ressurection of Joseph Stalin.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 26 May 2009 - 12:13 AM

[Spoon Poetic]

I thought I didn't have to list out all the improvements that could be made to our welfare system because you already knew those. I want it to not screw people over that need it, but still not be easy to take advantage of. I am really not parroting anything anyone else has said to me so much as talking based on what I've seen and experienced. And my family has been through a lot of it as well, though that's personal so I don't use myself as an example. I live in a poorer section of America and know the people welfare and such benefits, I've even been that person and very well might be again.

On top of that, I never said I thought that making a few improvements on some "socialist programs" would be a slippery slope to blah blah blah. If I thought that then why did I say I'd like to see some improvements made to those systems? I was just stating that I like a balance of capitalism and socialism, and do not agree with those that want a total move to socialism, or a "true socialist state." You're putting words into my mouth per usual. Just because I don't like pizza doesn't mean I won't want some tomato sauce and cheese in my pasta. ...Or something... (Actually I love pizza but don't like cheese and I take it off my pizza, but, um, that's not the important part...)

And when I said there's always something to be done, I admit that wasn't so clear. (Of course I do think that some whiners are just spoiled, and don't want to be told that since they've been laid off their 80k/yr job, now they should take what they can get even if it's retail or flipping burgers, cut the cable and get a cheaper cellphone plan, quit buying so much junk food and other luxury items, sell the extra SUV and the boat so as to not keep making those payments, and they'd be just fine.) But what I meant was in response to what you (Jm) said about how in a capitalist society it's "not true that hard work means success, as you can be laid off at any time" or whatever (job is not guaranteed). What I mean is, in our normal state of economy, it's really not the end of the world to be laid off, as there are so many different choices out there. Even today it really is possible to get by after a layoff. It does take hard work, especially when you don't quite qualify for help, but it's possible. I won't use my family as an example here but let's just say I have experience in this area. I just meant that there are always things to keep you busy and help yourself out in some way or another, instead of sitting around whining like so many are wont to do. But I didn't mean that it's all roses and buttercups. I'm not that unrealistic.


Also, I did not know that little fact about foodstamps, that is shitty and I wonder how they can get away with that rule, and that's one of the many things that I'm fully behind fixing. But at the same time, I don't think welfare should be a free-for-all and something that's so absurdly easy to get that you can just live a life of unemployed mediocrity all the rest of your years on the taxpayer's dollar. Not that that really has anything to do with "true socialism" either, but some are arguing for ridiculous things like that in the name of socialism.

I never meant to sound as if I thought that taking advantage of government programs meant that you abusing them. I didn't think I was coming off that way, but sorry that I guess I did. But I don't believe that at all. I just don't like some of the things that some people are proposing that are just ridiculous, and especially if it's being run by OUR government, you KNOW it's just going to be a fiasco.

One of the only personal examples I really feel comfortable with sharing (and "comfortable" is a stretch) is that I've had two surgeries on medicare or similar. I thank the powers that be for that because I couldn't before one of them, and I would likely be dead now if not for the other. I've been in the medicare clinics and physical therapy and stuff, and it sucks. It's dirty and many of the doctors hate their jobs and the nurses are mean and it just isn't quite enough, and you have to jump through all kinds of hoops to get the care you need. I am totally in favour of improving our public healthcare programs so that you don't feel like you're going to pick up a hundred diseases when you go to the doctor for chrissakes. And more people should be able to qualify. (But I don't think that private healthcare needs to be abolished for that to happen.)

BUT the abuse comes in when Papa Joe can get my taxdollars to pay for his penile enlargement, and that people like that scary woman I posted gets my taxdollars for their boobjobs... I'm sorry but you can't convince me that that's a good idea. So I do not believe that this should come with the idea of moving a little more towards socialism or however you put it.

Because no, I don't think a C-cup as opposed to a JJ-cup hurts quality of life. You have a 3-inch penis? Sorry dude, but my taxdollars are not for your fuckery.
Maybe you get made fun of. Maybe you feel inadequate, or not pretty enough. Okay. I can sympathize, even empathize - I had my fair share of those moments, and I still have them from time to time. But there are much easier, much cheaper, much better-in-the-long-run solutions. Good self-image education for one; I'd be behind some taxes paying for that. (An Oprah in every school!) Or even just on an individual level, learning to get past your insecurities. Learning to love yourself. Dieting if you're fat. You grow out of acne and it's a REALLY bad idea to get surgery before you're fully done growing anyway. As for crooked teeth, it depends - is it purely cosmetic? Then it's not going to be that noticeable anyway. Are they crooked enough that they present actual possibility of damage to your teeth? Well, then that's fine as I am all for some healthy teeth.
And for the love of pete, WRINKLES? You cannot escape them without having some kind of procedure like, every frickin' year or even more, depending on the procedure you get. If suddenly public healthcare covers the removal of wrinkles and even one quarter of aging people take advantage of that, that is millions of dollars per year. That would be such a huge hike in taxes. And even if that money poofed up out of nowhere as magical excess money, I'd much rather it go to people with goals that are somewhat less superficial, such as people in third-world countries that just hope to, you know, not starve and such.
These things are all superficial. It's like letting taxdollars pay for Johnny's sports car collection because he's just so depressed and feels so inadequate without some Ferarris to show off. And how in the heck to you regulate something like that? You'd have to start coming up with regulations as to what a person should look like. It'd be like that book"Uglies." Who qualifies for free surgery? How do you make that decision? Who makes that decision? Who decides what's ugly enough to get surgery? This person feels inadequte because they have freckles which they think make them look ugly, cuz someone called them frekcle-face one time and instead of growing up and getting over it, they harp on it for the rest of their miserable freckled lives. They apply for freckle removal and their sob story wins them over so the courts decide that freckle removal is totally necessary and approved. Well then that makes ME feel bad about myself, who has always been proud of my freckles, but now the government has decided that freckles are ugly enough to qualify for free freckle removal. So that becomes the standard, and now I feel pressured to go get my freckles removed whereas I wouldn't have otherwise. And so on. It's just not practical on top of being so entirely superficial.

(Is there such a thing as freckle removal? I don't even know. You get the idea.)

As for all the people that I know that have moved here from socialist countries "taking advantage of the system," I think maybe you should know people and their situations before you make snap judgments about them. The majority of these people aren't educated. They're not rich and probably never will be. That whole scheme of yours might work for some people but that's just not the case with anyone that I know except maybe a couple that got lucky (but it's not like they decided, hey, I'll get cheap education here then TAKE OVER AMERICA with my SMARTS and WEALTH MUAHAHAHA!). It's actually pretty offensive that you would generalize assume that of every single person that moves to America from a socialist state.

Overall, I really am in agreement that we could use a little bit more socialism here. I just do not agree with the argument that we should move totally to socialism, I do not agree with some of the proposed additions to our socialist programs (such as free cosmetic surgeries, obviously, as well as the demolition of all private healthcare, and others), and I do not want to live in a "true socialist state." I do not think that a little push towards socialism will result in this, but I do know that a lot of people are hoping and arguing for it, which is why I addressed it.

And thus ends another 3am insomnia not-making-much-sense post from the Spoon.

This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 26 May 2009 - 01:59 AM

[J m HofMarN]

On top of that, I never said I thought that making a few improvements on some "socialist programs" would be a slippery slope to blah blah blah. If I thought that then why did I say I'd like to see some improvements made to those systems?

Youy said improvements, not that we needed a socialized system of medicine and public benefits such as education, foodstamps and unemployment. And as far as I can tell youre the one that brought up socialism in this thing, which is rather odd considering I'm debating here. I did criticize the rampant free market capitalist system of the US, by which you responded with a criticiism of your image of a socialist state. That leads me to believe that you were more in favor of further capitalist quick fixes to those systems (for instance, making it harder for poor folks to leech off our hard earned tax dollars).

(Of course I do think that some whiners are just spoiled, and don't want to be told that since they've been laid off their 80k/yr job, now they should take what they can get even if it's retail or flipping burgers, cut the cable and get a cheaper cellphone plan, quit buying so much junk food and other luxury items, sell the extra SUV and the boat so as to not keep making those payments, and they'd be just fine.)

After criticizing people who unjuistly recieve benefits you, I guess, are finally putting up an example of one. Let me just be the first to say that I do not believe that most people who are recieving unemployment benefits are wealthy in this fashion. Moreover, I don't think that just losing your job should require you to sell off your car, house, whatever. Doesnt that kind of take away all the gains your great capitalist system offers? Sure, under capitalism you can buy a bazillion things, but if you randomly lose your job, you lose all of them for no reason? And this is ok?

Also, I did not know that little fact about foodstamps, that is shitty and I wonder how they can get away with that rule, and that's one of the many things that I'm fully behind fixing. But at the same time, I don't think welfare should be a free-for-all and something that's so absurdly easy to get that you can just live a life of unemployed mediocrity all the rest of your years on the taxpayer's dollar. Not that that really has anything to do with "true socialism" either, but some are arguing for ridiculous things like that in the name of socialism.

Ok, define fixing? And how would you make it easier to get for those that need it while making it harder to get for those that don't? A mother of two making 30000 dollars a tear whose rent is 1200 a month and who has private school costs and such might need aid more than a mother of two making 12000 a year who lives in a low rent area and sends her kids to public school. So where is the decision made as to who takes priority? The one who has a higher income and a more comfortable lifestyle, is she assumed to be taking advantage of the system? I am very muich for making these benefits easier to get and simplifying the way the system works so that it is easy to figure out if you can recieve benefits. I am curious how your "improvements" relate to socialist ideals, or true socialist ideals, or whatever. Because from my point of view you're arguing in favor of getting the best of both worlds while still keeping firmly to a lot of capitalist doctrines, and a staunch oppositiomn to socialization, while ignoring successful socialist models such as Western Europe and Canada.

I just don't like some of the things that some people are proposing that are just ridiculous, and especially if it's being run by OUR government, you KNOW it's just going to be a fiasco.

This is really a great argument, because it combines not liking things that are ridiculous, and knowing that our government is screwed up. Who could disagree? I still see no real solution other than "lets make it better but also still be how we are now" Do you think that better lies to the right or to the left of the current status of US society?

(But I don't think that private healthcare needs to be abolished for that to happen.)

So, we'll have government clinics for poor people where doctors can work for crappy money and deal with the most impoverished dregs of society, and then we'll have privately funded clinics for the rich, where doctors can be paid in the gold and silver that pours out of Donald Trump's anus during each of his colonoscopies, and this seems like a good way to work things? Seperate but equal didnt work for black folks, it wont work for poor folks either.

Cosmetic surgery :

I think its well within a doctor's or psychologist's right to decide if its required for their patients, and they can then do it and be reimbursed for medical costs. If it affects someone's happyness or the quality of their life, it should be covered.

See, what a lot of capitalists don't understand, is that socialist programs have intangible benefits, and actually do help the economy. We are not just shoving money into the fires here, people. Take, for example your family whose breadwinner has lost an 80000 a year job and now, under your system, are expected to give up all of the benefits that you put forth as justification for the instabilitiy and exploitation inherent in the capitalist system.

In a modersate socialist state, those people can get enoug aid to maintain their quality of life until they can find a job that pays similiarly to the one they previously had. Thusly, they can probably keep making their payments on car and house, and they dont need to move, and they can have time to find a job where their skills will be better utilized. Also, the fact that they can maintain their quality of life is an immeasurable benefit.

I dont assume that of everyone, but I'm simply saying that it does happen, rather often. I for one think the socialist idea of doctors not making a million dollars a year/tuition not costing a ridiculous amount/medical care not costing much of anything is a lot better than high salaries for doctors, high medical costs for everyone, and high tuition for doctors in training.

Also, I advocate socialism, not true socialism or false socialism or fallacy socialism or phallic socialism. But I do advocate socialism, especially on a European model. The main reason being, that none of these programs or changes are at all possible in the US until we start to associate socialism with shared prosperity, and not gulags and that scene of the russian winter with that heavy classical music playing and people slogging through the snow.

[civilian_number_two]

Everything JM said about shared prosperity versus gulags and Russian winters. The anti-socialist conservative movement in the US is an elitist propaganda war. That's right, I said elitist. It's an insult not just to be used on lefties with college educations.

I live in a country with more socialism than you do, and we don't allow socialised medicne to cover elective surgery. Orthodontics are even hard to get, and eyeware coverage is bare minimum (enjoy those big plastic frames). So these boob jobs and penis surgeries some of you fear are just hysterical exaggerations.

If I lost my job, welfare would not pay my mortgage. I would not stay on it long. But if I were permanently unemployable, JM, yes I would sell off assets because welfare is about keeping me alive and comfortable, not about keeping me in a million-dollar False Creek condo. This is for you, Spoon: welfare abusers can be as lazy as they like, but the money won't be enough to let them eat out every day, nurture a charming alcoholism, maintain two cars, or support their expensive DVD habit. Nor should it.

Doctors have to know a lot and they work hard. They deserve good wages. The changes I would make to our socialist system is that since their education is largely subsidized, they should be required to work in the country that subsidized them or they should be made to pay back the difference. A real problem Canada faces is losing educated professionals, people it has paid to educate, to better-paying positions in the US.

[J m HofMarN]

If I lost my job, welfare would not pay my mortgage. I would not stay on it long. But if I were permanently unemployable, JM, yes I would sell off assets because welfare is about keeping me alive and comfortable, not about keeping me in a million-dollar False Creek condo. This is for you, Spoon: welfare abusers can be as lazy as they like, but the money won't be enough to let them eat out every day, nurture a charming alcoholism, maintain two cars, or support their expensive DVD habit. Nor should it.

I'm not suggesting that welfare should take over paying for a mortgage, etc, but it should be substantial enough that you don't have to give up your entire life IE house, car, etc, just because you are unemployed. If people are living significantly beyond their means as in Spoon's example and have incurred huge debts then I can see it, but I took that more as a suggestion that if people have assets, then they should sell those off rather than get welfare. And that just doesnt sit will with me, because in the end the cost of having to rebuild a life is a lot more than the cost of paying out money for several months to offer a safety net that will maintain it until the person returns to work.