NationStates Jolt Archive

America has, at its heart, a great set of prinicples. Libery, egality and fraternity. Yet currently, only two of these seem to be being espoused by the governing party, and by so many conservative Americans that would shout so loud that the founding fathers were Christians and thus swearing in on the Qu'ran would be anti-American, whilst ignoring the fact that some of their policies go far against what a Christian should be doing in the world to make it a fairer place.

Right now many people are at the bottom rung of society due to forces beyond their control. Its not their fault, they may have been born into poverty, their company was taken over, they didnt have the chance of a good education etc. Currently that is a problem. People don't have an even footing to move up the social ladder. And their inlies the problem. If people are at the bottom of the social ladder, the system should make it so they are there because they should be there, because they don't work, dont put effort in etc. Not because someone else put them there indirectly.

Christians should be fighting against instances where people are at the bottom rung of the ladder unfairly, they shouldnt be whining so loud about Gay marriage that they can't hear the cries of the poor and the dispossessed.

Yes there will always be people on the bottom rung of society But which is fairer. Someone who is at the bottom because he was born into a poor family in a bad area, and despite working hard couldnt get a decent education and is now unemployed due to mass redundincies when his company was taken over by another company, or someone who didn't try at their education, has just lazed around on state benefits and has not ever tried to do anything towards bettering himself. The system should be engineered so that people who work hard, have talent or both can move up the ladder. The day that Americans stop thinking of the soviet union when they hear the word socialist is the day that America will be a better place.

"Social(ist) democrat." I don't like either part of it, since both just give the political class more power over the part of the world economy that they've seized to use for their own purposes. They are the true root of all of these problems, for whenever someone wants to force something onto others that would not be accepted voluntarily. If there is a problem, the political class is not the one to amend it. Rather, it should be done voluntarily, through the subsidiary institutions of family, church (or preferred religious institution), and community, all of which are benevolent, voluntary institutions that have the true good of people in mind.

Also, I'm certain that "liberty, egality, and fraternity" are the French ideals. In America, it is "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (which is a fancy way of saying property).

America has, at its heart, a great set of prinicples. Libery, egality and fraternity. . .

*buzzer*

You're thinking France. French principles != US principles. Also, the Founding Fathers were Deists; they believed that God created the universe, set down rules that it was to run by, then left it to its own accord. They also believed Christ was to be observed and studied as the model citizen, even Thomas Paine, who was an Atheist.

The USA's founding principles were freedom to live as one wished, equality of all before the law, and a government that dispensed pleasures and favors to no one.

Personally, I will never swear allegiance to any form of government derived from Marx's teachings, and will take up arms against it should it reign unopposed in my nation and the rest of the world's opinion be damned.

The USA's founding principles were freedom to live as one wished, equality of all before the law, and a government that dispensed pleasures and favors to no one.

Favorus to no one, but you can step on whoever you like to achieve high status? Does that seem right to you.

And also, are you suggesting that the American system is opposed to what I am suggesting. Do you really think its fair and right that people are at the bottom of society not because they deserve to be that, but that powers beyond their control put them there?

Pandora’s box has just been open what the OP has done is attack a fundamental pillar in the American psyche as such expect this thread to be a 20 page rant about right and wrong from every self obsessed American economist

However I leave this to stew over:

-Social democracy is profitable
-Social democracy provides cradle to grave support
-Social democracy however demands some defence cutbacks something which is taboo in America

Just because it is not their fault that they are in poverty, does it become my responsibility to pull them from it? It is not my problem, it is their own.

If I inherit a large sum of money from my family do you think I should be forced to give a large part of it away?

As it is the United States has already become far too socialist. In a perfect world I would see no public education, no welfare, no social security, no medicare/medcaid, no progressive tax, churches would pay taxes, and HUD.

I am with Novus-America on the last statement. I will never sway to a government based on the words of Karl Marx. In the event of an open rebellion against it I would join against such a government. In the event of a peaceful transition I would leave. As for those in europe who would like seeing America this way, to hell with your system.

Favorus to no one, but you can step on whoever you like to achieve high status? Does that seem right to you.

And also, are you suggesting that the American system is opposed to what I am suggesting. Do you really think its fair and right that people are at the bottom of society not because they deserve to be that, but that powers beyond their control put them there?

But this is the fault of the government, and you propose the solution as, well, giving more power to the government. Which would allow the government to make more problems, and they would propose the solution as being more power to government, and on and on. I would agree that there are forces that place people in the lower-rung, but these forces are made by the government in order to have a dependent base from which to increase their power. The ultimate problem is government force and those who use it to their gain.

Favorus to no one, but you can step on whoever you like to achieve high status? Does that seem right to you.

And also, are you suggesting that the American system is opposed to what I am suggesting. Do you really think its fair and right that people are at the bottom of society not because they deserve to be that, but that powers beyond their control put them there?

Yes, it does seem right to me.

Life isn't fair. It is certainly unfair to take money from the wealthy to give to the poor.

Just because it is not their fault that they are in poverty, does it become my responsibility to pull them from it? It is not my problem, it is their own.

I think you've misunderstood me here. I agree with you, it is their job to pull themselves out of poverty, but it is all our jobs to make the ladder they climb out of straight. It is the responsabilty of us all to make society a level playing field. I'm not suggesting old labour style socialism, I'm suggesting where we don't just hand out benefits in the hope they do better. I'm suggesting that the government does its best to make the system fairer so they have the same oppotunity as everyone else

Just because it is not their fault that they are in poverty, does it become my responsibility to pull them from it? It is not my problem, it is their own.

how sweet so will you be fighting your own wars and defending our property from now on

If I inherit a large sum of money from my family do you think I should be forced to give a large part of it away?

yes because its a disgrace for you to have Millions whilst another lives in poverty (which is beside the point as social democracy doesn't equal tax)

As it is the United States has already become far too socialist. In a perfect world I would see no public education, no welfare, no social security, no medicare/medcaid, no progressive tax, churches would pay taxes, and HUD.

oh dear you do know why education was introduced right?

Clue: it has something to do with Factory profit margins

I am with Novus-America on the last statement. I will never sway to a government based on the words of Karl Marx.

Good thing Social democracy isn’t connected with Karl Marx then :p

As for those in europe who would like seeing America this way, to hell with your system.

How intellectual

Yes, it does seem right to me.

Life isn't fair. It is certainly unfair to take money from the wealthy to give to the poor.

Your assuming that is what I am suggesting

You dont understand the diffrence between social democracy and socialism

Social democracy means not just handing out state benefits to everyone, thats old labour socialism. Its not about the rediribution of wealth, taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Its about everyone having the same oppotunity, regardless of where they are on the social ladder. Making the social ladder less crocked and more straight. Its up to the people for them to work themselves to climb out of poverty, its the government and everyone elses job to make that posible for them

*buzzer*

You're thinking France. French principles != US principles. Also, the Founding Fathers were Deists; they believed that God created the universe, set down rules that it was to run by, then left it to its own accord. They also believed Christ was to be observed and studied as the model citizen, even Thomas Paine, who was an Atheist.

The USA's founding principles were freedom to live as one wished, equality of all before the law, and a government that dispensed pleasures and favors to no one.

Personally, I will never swear allegiance to any form of government derived from Marx's teachings, and will take up arms against it should it reign unopposed in my nation and the rest of the world's opinion be damned.

I'm not a Christian or anything but, I think only 2 of the founding fathers were deists.

Really, it all boils down to education. If you can provide everyone with the same high-quality public education and the means to afford a college education if they qualify, there isn't really a need for other major social programs.

By doing this, the responsibility is being shifted to the individual; you're addressing external things like income inequality and inherent disadvantages and instead allowing them to rise and fall on their own merits. There isn't the need for an extensive social system because the people are more capable of rising above their situation, and those that don't are going to be responsible for failure.

It would make more sense to pour welfare in to education and financial aid than to waste it on a situation that isn't improving.

its not

their inlies the problem

its

therein lies the problem

see the difference?

Favorus to no one, but you can step on whoever you like to achieve high status? Does that seem right to you.

And also, are you suggesting that the American system is opposed to what I am suggesting. Do you really think its fair and right that people are at the bottom of society not because they deserve to be that, but that powers beyond their control put them there?

The typical American conservative still espouses Social Darwinism, and believes that anyone who's poor deserves to be, and that having money makes you inherently better than everyone else. Also there are a large number of libertarians on this site who tend to selfishly guard their "rights" while generally refusing to even acknowledge that anyone but them has rights. All they care about is that no one "takes their stuff". That's why so many of them rail against taxes. They don't mind getting services like garbage pick up, mail delivery, etc. themselves, but don't like paying for it, then bitch about people "sponging off me". It never seems to occur to them that the programs they bitch about wouldn't be necessary if people were paid decent wages. Social programs in this country are poorly run but if they are abolished, it would only make poverty and unemployment worse. And true, it could be handled by private charity except for one thing -- most people would never voluntarily give money to charity. The taxes they so hate are necessary because they would not voluntarily pay even for those services they themselves use. They accuse the poor of wnting something for nothing, and yet that's exactly what they want. And I have no doubt that most of them would be in the front of the line to collect unemployment checks if they lost their jobs.

Your assuming that is what I am suggesting

You dont understand the diffrence between social democracy and socialism

Social democracy means not just handing out state benefits to everyone, thats old labour socialism. Its not about the rediribution of wealth, taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Its about everyone having the same oppotunity, regardless of where they are on the social ladder. Making the social ladder less crocked and more straight. Its up to the people for them to work themselves to climb out of poverty, its the government and everyone elses job to make that posible for them

Everyone has a different opinion on what is fair, though. So who is to set the standard? The market? The government? No matter what, you'd upset someone, and that minority would become extremely vocal in its self-defined mistreatment. They would be the victims of tyranny by the majority. And even if that could be avoided, the money would have to come from somewhere, and the lower class would cry bloody murder if it came from their pockets. On the same thought, the upper class wouldn't really care because they have enough money to live comfortably and the experience/connections to get more money. Who ends up being squeezed? The middle class, the backbone of modern nations and a free society.

The typical American conservative still espouses Social Darwinism, and believes that anyone who's poor deserves to be, and that having money makes you inherently better than everyone else.

Those people are horrible, which is why I'm glad not to be counted among them.

Also there are a large number of libertarians on this site who tend to selfishly guard their "rights" while generally refusing to even acknowledge that anyone but them has rights. All they care about is that no one "takes their stuff".

If what you're saying is true, then they are hypocrites. However, can you provide solid proof of your statement? Otherwise, you're making a generalization, something that lefts and centers get very vocal over when it used on them.

That's why so many of them rail against taxes.

Interesting tidbit: the US tax system is actually regressive. When you kit a certain level of income, the amount taxed ceases to increase, resulting in a regressive tax, which is unjust. That's why I support a universal sales tax on all new products; used items would be left alone.

They don't mind getting services like garbage pick up, mail delivery, etc. themselves, but don't like paying for it, then bitch about people "sponging off me". It never seems to occur to them that the programs they bitch about wouldn't be necessary if people were paid decent wages.

Again, who defines decent wages, and what about the people who disagree?

Social programs in this country are poorly run but if they are abolished, it would only make poverty and unemployment worse. And true, it could be handled by private charity except for one thing -- most people would never voluntarily give money to charity.

By your reasoning, it is implied that it is justifiable to deny me my individual sovereignty over what is mine and force me to help others.

Really, it all boils down to education. If you can provide everyone with the same high-quality public education and the means to afford a college education if they qualify, there isn't really a need for other major social programs.

By doing this, the responsibility is being shifted to the individual; you're addressing external things like income inequality and inherent disadvantages and instead allowing them to rise and fall on their own merits. There isn't the need for an extensive social system because the people are more capable of rising above their situation, and those that don't are going to be responsible for failure.

It would make more sense to pour welfare in to education and financial aid than to waste it on a situation that isn't improving.

Education is part of it, but not all of it. You need social welfare to an extent as its unrealistic to assume everyone will be employed all the time. But it must not be a dependency. It must encourage people back into work, not be an alternative to work

Just because it is not their fault that they are in poverty, does it become my responsibility to pull them from it? It is not my problem, it is their own.

If I inherit a large sum of money from my family do you think I should be forced to give a large part of it away?

As it is the United States has already become far too socialist. In a perfect world I would see no public education, no welfare, no social security, no medicare/medcaid, no progressive tax, churches would pay taxes, and HUD.

I am with Novus-America on the last statement. I will never sway to a government based on the words of Karl Marx. In the event of an open rebellion against it I would join against such a government. In the event of a peaceful transition I would leave. As for those in europe who would like seeing America this way, to hell with your system.

As an American, I have one thing to say: That's utter crap.

As an American, I have one thing to say: That's utter crap.

I agree.

Interesting tidbit: the US tax system is actually regressive. When you kit a certain level of income, the amount taxed ceases to increase, resulting in a regressive tax, which is unjust. That's why I support a universal sales tax on all new products; used items would be left alone.
Reminds me of National Insurance, where people earning under and just over the national average pay 10% and those over pay 1%.

Social welfare does one thing well and that is promote social stablity. If you look at the least developed countries of the world they have low economic development and no social welfare and they are hot beds of crime and instablity. ALL the most advanced nations of the world provide some level of welfare and they didnt we would see much greater problems and slower economic growth. The cost of social welfare is really a small price to pay.

Socialism does not work. Socialism has not ever worked, and wont. Take a look at the major crises in our country; Education, Social security Medicare/Medicaid etc. These are socialist policies that are bankrupting America. Once Again, Socialism/Communism does not work. A perfect example would be of the recent increase in minimum wage, in which the goal is a good one, a noble and a charitable goal, where people are more equal, however, what is really achieved by minimum wage? if I don't have the skills to get a job at 5.50 an hour, how is raising the legal wage i can be paid going to help me get a job? it doesn't, so, minimum wage increases do not help people get jobs. But it does not stop there.

Hypothetical situation, you are a small business owner, you have about 5000 dollars with which to hire employees, you hire some people at minimum wage, and others at higher wage based on their job, with that portion of your budget you have broken even. Congress decides to raise minimum wage a couple dollars an hour, and you suddenly have deficit. You can no longer afford all your employees, so, what will you do?

Some people will fire some employees to make up for their deficit, others will raise prices of the goods they sell, others still will take more money from wherever they have profit, which leads to many negative side effects of minimum wage, price of goods goes up, unemployment goes up, poverty goes up, small business is hurt financially. Only super companies like WalMart, Kroger, McDonalds, and other international stores will be able to afford this increase, and stay competitively priced.

Where is the positive outcome of this supposedly well intentioned meddle into the free market? I certaintly do not see one. In policies like these we must focus on what the law produces, not what its intentions are, because no matter how well intentioned something can be, it can still do much harm to the people it is supposed to be helping.

As an American, I have one thing to say: That's utter crap.

Please explain yourself.

America has, at its heart, a great set of prinicples. Libery, egality and fraternity. Yet currently, only two of these seem to be being espoused by the governing party, and by so many conservative Americans that would shout so loud that the founding fathers were Christians and thus swearing in on the Qu'ran would be anti-American, whilst ignoring the fact that some of their policies go far against what a Christian should be doing in the world to make it a fairer place.

Right now many people are at the bottom rung of society due to forces beyond their control. Its not their fault, they may have been born into poverty, their company was taken over, they didnt have the chance of a good education etc. Currently that is a problem. People don't have an even footing to move up the social ladder. And their inlies the problem. If people are at the bottom of the social ladder, the system should make it so they are there because they should be there, because they don't work, dont put effort in etc. Not because someone else put them there indirectly.

Christians should be fighting against instances where people are at the bottom rung of the ladder unfairly, they shouldnt be whining so loud about Gay marriage that they can't hear the cries of the poor and the dispossessed.

Yes there will always be people on the bottom rung of society But which is fairer. Someone who is at the bottom because he was born into a poor family in a bad area, and despite working hard couldnt get a decent education and is now unemployed due to mass redundincies when his company was taken over by another company, or someone who didn't try at their education, has just lazed around on state benefits and has not ever tried to do anything towards bettering himself. The system should be engineered so that people who work hard, have talent or both can move up the ladder. The day that Americans stop thinking of the soviet union when they hear the word socialist is the day that America will be a better place.

Incidentally, Jesus was a socialist.

Not that Christians are particularly adherent to his teaching. Religion has become as much a political statement as a social one.

Incidentally, Jesus was a socialist.

Not that Christians are particularly adherent to his teaching. Religion has become as much a political statement as a social one.

Stop listening to that autocrat, Chavez, who wants to be president for life.

Christ advocated no political system outside of adherence to God's Laws (which none here would do), nor did he go around taking from the rich to give to the poor. He did say to the rich that if they wanted to get into Heaven that would have to give their money to poor, but he didn't snatch it out of their hands while quipping, "You should have done it willing."

Yes.
Social Democracy cannot happen in any sort of decent society.


If it happens, it's an abomination! It surely cannot exist simultaneously with capitalism... right..?

Damned Commies

What suits one, must suit all!

.....
-Social democracy however demands some defence cutbacks something which is taboo in America

The military takes around 5% of the US government spending, err, well, it did. The Iraq war might have bumped it up to 6, maybe even 7%. I doubt that greatly though. Social Security takes 60 something. I think that our defence budget is quite low enough thank you very much.

The military takes around 5% of the US government spending, err, well, it did. The Iraq war might have bumped it up to 6, maybe even 7%. I doubt that greatly though. Social Security takes 60 something. I think that our defence budget is quite low enough thank you very much.

Source, please.

The military takes around 5% of the US government spending, err, well, it did. The Iraq war might have bumped it up to 6, maybe even 7%. I doubt that greatly though. Social Security takes 60 something. I think that our defence budget is quite low enough thank you very much.

Nah. Defense in 2006 was 470.2 billion, out of a federal budget of 2.6 trillion. About 18%. Source is wikipedia, but it's accurate.

Stop listening to that autocrat, Chavez, who wants to be president for life.

Christ advocated no political system outside of adherence to God's Laws (which none here would do), nor did he go around taking from the rich to give to the poor. He did say to the rich that if they wanted to get into Heaven that would have to give their money to poor, but he didn't snatch it out of their hands while quipping, "You should have done it willing."

QFT.

Socialism does not work. Socialism has not ever worked, and wont. Take a look at the major crises in our country; Education, Social security Medicare/Medicaid etc. These are socialist policies that are bankrupting America. Once Again, Socialism/Communism does not work. A perfect example would be of the recent increase in minimum wage, in which the goal is a good one, a noble and a charitable goal, where people are more equal, however, what is really achieved by minimum wage? if I don't have the skills to get a job at 5.50 an hour, how is raising the legal wage i can be paid going to help me get a job? it doesn't, so, minimum wage increases do not help people get jobs. But it does not stop there.

The difference here is this is not Socialism. Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism have a vast difference(sense Rosa Luxemburg's execution caused by the Social Democrats at least). Social Democracy is just Liberalism while Socialism is in a different level of political and economic thought. All of the programs you speak of are Liberal programs and they do work as well as Corporatism works. Austrian Capitalism and Objectivism have been closer to true existence than Socialism ever has on a large scale and look where that lead us, war, poverty, child labor and lovely things of that nature that ended in disaster until market regulation took hold to stop the international proletariats increased class consciousness from spreading. The essence of Socialism is not big centralized government like the right likes to slander and libel us as being but rather promoters of Democracy in both the political and economic realm through a change in ones relationship with the means of production. This is Socialism 101 and if you can't look into it even at that level you have nothing to argue.

Hypothetical situation, you are a small business owner, you have about 5000 dollars with which to hire employees, you hire some people at minimum wage, and others at higher wage based on their job, with that portion of your budget you have broken even. Congress decides to raise minimum wage a couple dollars an hour, and you suddenly have deficit. You can no longer afford all your employees, so, what will you do?

You fire them or increase prices in this society. Socialism does not want that form of economics get your facts straight. I do like any advances that the working class can get so i agree with minimum wage increases but that is not socialism. One of the main points of Communism is the abolition of the wage system. Nor will economics ever be separate from politics. To believe this is just ignorance because those with money will always be in power.

Some people will fire some employees to make up for their deficit, others will raise prices of the goods they sell, others still will take more money from wherever they have profit, which leads to many negative side effects of minimum wage, price of goods goes up, unemployment goes up, poverty goes up, small business is hurt financially. Only super companies like WalMart, Kroger, McDonalds, and other international stores will be able to afford this increase, and stay competitively priced.

In the past we look at periods of substantial minimum wage increases(which this is nothing compared to the raises of the past). Yes you are correct generally there is an immediate rise in unemployment and super companies survive. If you look at something like a five year effect you would notice that poverty levels overall dramatically decrease and the standard of living increases by leaps and bounds.

[/QUOTE]Where is the positive outcome of this supposedly well intentioned meddle into the free market? I certaintly do not see one. In policies like these we must focus on what the law produces, not what its intentions are, because no matter how well intentioned something can be, it can still do much harm to the people it is supposed to be helping.[/QUOTE]

Your arguments are silly and groundless. Just because Smith, Mises and Rand say it doesn't mean it is an accurate interpretation of national and international economics. I would first look into the arguments you are fighting against rather than making groundless ignorant arguments against an economic system that you have very little idea of what it is.

Extremism fails, period.

Socialist or completely private.

Welfare State or Rat Race from hell...they become the exact same on the extreme ends of the spectrum.

All nations need to provide basic services...the founding fathers new that and so they instituted a minimum of basic services.

As the nation grew and industrialized it was recognized thatthose services needed to be increased.

Education(As mentioned by another poster singularly the most important basic service--quality education)
Postal Service(One of the Originals)
Defense
Management of food and drug safety--because we all know damned well no matter how bad the FDA is at its job many products left unchecked would kill their way right out of the market.

I could continue down the list but you get the idea.

However recognizing that government, that those who rule are inherently corrupt and inefficient they made certain to keep Government interference to a minimum.

They would not advocate Socialism on the grand scale, nor would advocate the opposite extreme.

National stability must be maintained through a dangerous balance.

Lets be absolutely clear--there will always be more have-nots then haves, no matter what you...the worker bears the brunt of suffering for society, does the most work and often the most important work---cut him off completely from any assistance at all, no protection for when he is old? No schools for his children? A general labor strike would be the least of your concerns.

However straight up cradle to grave entitlements are not profitable...at all no matter how you play with the numbers.

Americans would never agree to the taxes Socialist States impose.

A balance, really that is all I am trying to say is a balance of the best ideas is what makes a great society...and to my knowledge no one has found that balance yet.

Socialism does not work. Socialism has not ever worked, and wont.

Firstly, its not socialism, its social democracy

Secondly, its working very well in the UK thank you

Take a look at the major crises in our country; Education, Social security Medicare/Medicaid etc. These are socialist policies that are bankrupting America. Once Again, Socialism/Communism does not work.

Thirdly, socialism =/= communisim. Socialism =/= soical democracy. Communism =/= social democracy. Hope that tidyies up your small mind

A perfect example would be of the recent increase in minimum wage, in which the goal is a good one, a noble and a charitable goal, where people are more equal, however, what is really achieved by minimum wage? if I don't have the skills to get a job at 5.50 an hour, how is raising the legal wage i can be paid going to help me get a job? it doesn't, so, minimum wage increases do not help people get jobs. But it does not stop there.

The whole point of the soical democratic system is that your education has provided you with the skills so you can at the very least perform a job of minimum wage standards


Where is the positive outcome of this supposedly well intentioned meddle into the free market? I certaintly do not see one. In policies like these we must focus on what the law produces, not what its intentions are, because no matter how well intentioned something can be, it can still do much harm to the people it is supposed to be helping.

It means that the people at the bottom are better off ultimately, and that is what counts.

Socialism does not work. Socialism has not ever worked, and wont. Take a look at the major crises in our country; Education, Social security Medicare/Medicaid etc. These are socialist policies that are bankrupting America.

Are you sure its these things, and not the expansive and deep tax cuts coupled with a "spend-away!" attitude and expensive war?

Are you sure its these things, and not the expansive and deep tax cuts coupled with a "spend-away!" attitude and expensive war?

The "spend-away" and war are the real reasons for the current budgetary problems. Mr. Bush and the Congresss didn't learn how to pinch pennies for over six years, and they were punished for it.

Extremism fails, period.

Socialist or completely private.

Which is why Britain has a balance


Lets be absolutely clear--there will always be more have-nots then haves, no matter what you...the worker bears the brunt of suffering for society, does the most work and often the most important work---cut him off completely from any assistance at all, no protection for when he is old? No schools for his children? A general labor strike would be the least of your concerns..

However straight up cradle to grave entitlements are not profitable...at all no matter how you play with the numbers.

The job of a social democracy or any state, is not to generate profit. It is to provide for its citizens. The people of a state can make profit, but a government is not a business.

Nor is it the governements job to provide everything for everyone. Merely to keep the ladder of achievement straight so that people can climb up it when you make the nessecary effort


A balance, really that is all I am trying to say is a balance of the best ideas is what makes a great society...and to my knowledge no one has found that balance yet.

The UK does pretty well I think, its just the US hasn't magaed it yet

The job of a social democracy or any state, is not to generate profit. It is to provide for its citizens. The people of a state can make profit, but a government is not a business.

I would contend that the job of the state is not to provide for its citizens, but to serve the primary function as protector from aggression and arbitrator of disputes.

For those that think there is a difference between Social Democracy and socialism, need to relook at their ideology. All you have done is try to butter Social Democracy. All the things you say are NOT socialism, like education. Edication has always been important as far back as ancient Greece and further.....while these other social programs like health, taxes and so forth have not been. Personally i would hope and wish this nation would go back to a more capitalistic/Democracy.

And to those that think i need to help others, thats wrong and oppressive. If they cant get a job, whether they try or not, its NOT my responsibility, its theirs. Its my responsibility to MY family and self. Not complete strangers.

Education was viewed as vitally important by the founding fathers, as they were of the opinion that democracy could only function with an educated populace.

Yes, that's why we created the electorial college - because the founding fathers didn't think the population was smart or informed enough to vote on their own leaders.

Regardless of what the founding fathers wanted, either way, the fact of the matter is that what they desired is over 300 years old - we have kept what has worked, and thrown out what has not. It's 2007, and we need to find what works best in the present age, which may not be what they desired 300 years ago.

As Winston Churchill said, socialism is a dream - sooner or later you wake up to reality. Semantics about what you call it doesn't change the fact that it doesn't work. Look at Europe - we have in general a society/civilization that is on the brink of collapse. We started seeing it in places like Germany and the Netherlands, it made itself fully known in the rioting in Paris, and the situation will continue to decay. Let's face facts - America has problems, but Europe has similar problems. The difference is we're told here in America that 'all is well' in Europe, and so American were very surprised by the rioting in France. When the time comes, whatever happens in Europe will make the Rodney King incident look like a picnic.

Socialism is a failure - you have the same problems, if not worse, you have less freedom, and you have ever increasing tensions between classes that eventually explode or destroy the society. No thanks.

Self interest is a key tenet of the human condition. Why should society try to reverse that?

Whilst I do concede that the minimum wage does require augmentation, equally, the welfare state induces a degree of apathy that precludes self-betterment.

Social Democracy originally meant communism/radical socialism back before 1918. But after the German SDP stabbed the working class in the back during the Spartacist Uprising when it used the Freikorps to stay in power in the bourgeois Weimar republic. Since that, "Social Democractic" became a bad word for the socialist left, which is why the Bolsheviks then adopted the term 'Communist' instead.

Social Democracy today means no more than the welfare state, and probably less as more of their leaders becomes more like neo-liberals.

America has, at its heart, a great set of prinicples. Libery, egality and fraternity. Yet currently, only two of these seem to be being espoused by the governing party, and by so many conservative Americans that would shout so loud that the founding fathers were Christians and thus swearing in on the Qu'ran would be anti-American, whilst ignoring the fact that some of their policies go far against what a Christian should be doing in the world to make it a fairer place.

Right now many people are at the bottom rung of society due to forces beyond their control. Its not their fault, they may have been born into poverty, their company was taken over, they didnt have the chance of a good education etc. Currently that is a problem. People don't have an even footing to move up the social ladder. And their inlies the problem. If people are at the bottom of the social ladder, the system should make it so they are there because they should be there, because they don't work, dont put effort in etc. Not because someone else put them there indirectly.

Christians should be fighting against instances where people are at the bottom rung of the ladder unfairly, they shouldnt be whining so loud about Gay marriage that they can't hear the cries of the poor and the dispossessed.

Yes there will always be people on the bottom rung of society But which is fairer. Someone who is at the bottom because he was born into a poor family in a bad area, and despite working hard couldnt get a decent education and is now unemployed due to mass redundincies when his company was taken over by another company, or someone who didn't try at their education, has just lazed around on state benefits and has not ever tried to do anything towards bettering himself. The system should be engineered so that people who work hard, have talent or both can move up the ladder. The day that Americans stop thinking of the soviet union when they hear the word socialist is the day that America will be a better place.

I dont have the time to go over this piece by piece,but I can tell you just how wrong this is.More socialism is not at alll what this country needs.The economy has been ruined in areas where socialism has had a major impact.Look at most of the Northern states in the country outside libertarian New Hampshire.Jobs flying South very quickly.Very high unemployment rates bt national standards.Socialism is a totally discredited econimic theory.Every one of its major points about society and history,and economics proved wrong.Stop trying to constantly reinvent it as nu-socialism,completely different than the "failed" Soviet Union.Just let it go.Capitalism has proven to be a constantly improving system,just let it run its course and and throw out government managment of the economy.

America has, at its heart, a great set of prinicples. Libery, egality and fraternity.

Stop...


Thos are France's principles...

As a Classic Liberal, I can agree that social democracy is an inherently good idea. There is inequality in society, inequality unrelated to merit; however, it is inequality created by the establishment, and in seeking to increase the size or power of the establishment social democrats are going about it the wrong way.

Ideally, the government would focus -- as mentioned -- on two things primarily: education and military funding. (While practically everything else could be taken by the private sector, such a system could be abused so an additional area of spending would be based on preventing any one company or conglomerate from gaining more than about 25% of the market.) The education funding would be emplaced so that those who score highest after education would be allowed to go into positions of power, whereas those who score lower would not. Thus, only the more intelligent and capable would get into a ruling class of any kind, much like ancient Athenian democracy except without the slavery. As for the military, that would be to defend society against its external enemies (internally, if anyone were threatening the health or property of another they would be dealt with by relaxed gun control laws).

In the end, it would have the same result: those who contribute nothing to society or are unintelligent and incapable of ruling it would end up on the bottom, whereas those who are capable would end up on the top. However, there would be no massive government encroaching on them all and capable of changing policy on a whim, nor any need for expensive and useless welfare or housing projects.

The "spend-away" and war are the real reasons for the current budgetary problems. Mr. Bush and the Congresss didn't learn how to pinch pennies for over six years, and we will be punished for it.


Fixed.

. . .All nations need to provide basic services...the founding fathers new that and so they instituted a minimum of basic services. . .

The only "basic service" that the Founders nationalized was the Postal Service. Well, the banking can be argued, but I don't think we've had a Bank of the United States since Andrew Jackson was president. Everything else, from health care to education, was, at best, something that was taken care of at the state level, where it belonged.

I would also like to point out that the Federal government's power is restricted to what is defined by the Constitution.

Education(As mentioned by another poster singularly the most important basic service--quality education)
Postal Service(One of the Originals)
Defense
Management of food and drug safety--because we all know damned well no matter how bad the FDA is at its job many products left unchecked would kill their way right out of the market.

Department of Education: nonexistent until 1980
Postal Service: Dissolved in 1970
Department of Defense: Formed by the merger of the War and Navy departments; no qualm about its existence.
FDA: Good, God, this thing is so bureaucracy chocked, it's not even funny. A potentially life saving drug or medication can take years to clear.

The only "basic service" that the Founders nationalized was the Postal Service. Well, the banking can be argued, but I don't think we've had a Bank of the United States since Andrew Jackson was president. Everything else, from health care to education, was, at best, something that was taken care of at the state level, where it belonged.

The current Bank of the US is the Federal Reserve.

State level education, healthcare, and other public services are still run by the government. Its hardly less government if held at state levels instead of federal.

FDA: Good, God, this thing is so bureaucracy chocked, it's not even funny. A potentially life saving drug or medication can take years to clear.

In 1992 the FDA started to relaxed their standards and let drugs go into the market quicker. Later several drugs were released that caused great harm. They were criticised for being lax in their duties.

In my opinion, the posters arguing against institutionalized education are wrong. What needs to be done is to provide quality education (WHICH DOES NOT EQUAL THROWING MONEY AT THE INSTITUTION) available across the board.

Which, in my opinion, calls for a vouched where the money is "tied" to the child, like they have in many European countries, since it brings the best realms of free-market capitalism- specifically competition- to public schooling.

Of course, this brings up the problem of transportation- almost everyone I know, for instance, uses the bus for school- since only the rich(er) parents could afford to take their children to other schools.

Of course, that and other more logistical problems can be ironed out. For anyone interested, I'd suggest trying to find John Stossel's special on the issue of education. (Yes, I realize I'm advocating Stossel).

Other than that, I don't think the government can effectively manage many of the other percieved "inequalities".



But on to the main topic. I'm wondering what the exact policies the OP would like to implement are, since until we know that this is all meaningless bickering.

The only "basic service" that the Founders nationalized was the Postal Service. Well, the banking can be argued, but I don't think we've had a Bank of the United States since Andrew Jackson was president. Everything else, from health care to education, was, at best, something that was taken care of at the state level, where it belonged.

I would also like to point out that the Federal government's power is restricted to what is defined by the Constitution.



Department of Education: nonexistent until 1980
Postal Service: Dissolved in 1970
Department of Defense: Formed by the merger of the War and Navy departments; no qualm about its existence.
FDA: Good, God, this thing is so bureaucracy chocked, it's not even funny. A potentially life saving drug or medication can take years to clear.

I am sorry, but the state can only do so much. We need a centralized control of power when it comes to standarizing our kids education, otherwise you will have some school of the south teaching Intelligent design and leaving out certain sciences and math, while other states teach what is appropriate in the north. Point is, you need to standarize in order to make ALL childern get the education.

*fear mongering Red Scarish snip*

I'm sure this has been said before, but I would have to ask you to please get your facts straight and actually take a look at an ideology before you decide what it is. Nothing you stated have anything to do with socialism, and what you did mention are only the bare essentials of social democracy.

Incidently, I'm wondering how education is supposed to work in a fair manner if everyone has to pay for it privately, even though the primary beneficiary of education are corporate leaders.

Stop listening to that autocrat, Chavez, who wants to be president for life.

Christ advocated no political system outside of adherence to God's Laws (which none here would do), nor did he go around taking from the rich to give to the poor. He did say to the rich that if they wanted to get into Heaven that would have to give their money to poor, but he didn't snatch it out of their hands while quipping, "You should have done it willing."

Really? I didn't know I paid attention to Chavez, but since you seem to know that I do, then I guess it must be so.

Regardless, it is exactly to Jesus' teaching that I am referring to. You're right, he didn't advocate a political system (God's Law is not political, by the way). However, His teaching falls into line with a socialist line of thinking. Capitalism is not supported in the Bible; much more one could make an argument for social tendencies exhibited by Christ.

America has, at its heart, a great set of prinicples. Libery, egality and fraternity. Yet currently, only two of these seem to be being espoused by the governing party, and by so many conservative Americans that would shout so loud that the founding fathers were Christians and thus swearing in on the Qu'ran would be anti-American, whilst ignoring the fact that some of their policies go far against what a Christian should be doing in the world to make it a fairer place.

Right now many people are at the bottom rung of society due to forces beyond their control. Its not their fault, they may have been born into poverty, their company was taken over, they didnt have the chance of a good education etc. Currently that is a problem. People don't have an even footing to move up the social ladder. And their inlies the problem. If people are at the bottom of the social ladder, the system should make it so they are there because they should be there, because they don't work, dont put effort in etc. Not because someone else put them there indirectly.

Christians should be fighting against instances where people are at the bottom rung of the ladder unfairly, they shouldnt be whining so loud about Gay marriage that they can't hear the cries of the poor and the dispossessed.

Yes there will always be people on the bottom rung of society But which is fairer. Someone who is at the bottom because he was born into a poor family in a bad area, and despite working hard couldnt get a decent education and is now unemployed due to mass redundincies when his company was taken over by another company, or someone who didn't try at their education, has just lazed around on state benefits and has not ever tried to do anything towards bettering himself. The system should be engineered so that people who work hard, have talent or both can move up the ladder. The day that Americans stop thinking of the soviet union when they hear the word socialist is the day that America will be a better place.

Forget it. Americans are too dumb to understand the concept. Though, they have about the same civil rights as the citizens of former communist east-germany.

As it is the United States has already become far too socialist. In a perfect world I would see no public education, no welfare, no social security, no medicare/medcaid, no progressive tax, churches would pay taxes, and HUD.

Public education is actually a capitalist creation. As technology required more competent labourers the bourgeosis (aka Capitalists) of ye old england passed laws to create public education. Everyone else followed suit to support industrialization.

Welfare, social security and medicare were created after the great depression in order to avoid another such depression. In order to keep the economy going there needs to be a minimum amount of demand to facilitate production (and the jobs that production supports). As long as the poor are using those services the economy is still functioning. The economy functioning encourages investors to invest and maintains growth. It's all in keynesian economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics
Without those safeguards in place, the business cycle would result in depressions rather than recessions.

Forget it. Americans are too dumb to understand the concept. Though, they have about the same civil rights as the citizens of former communist east-germany.

Enlighten us oh holy one!

Enlighten us oh holy one!
No thanks, I quite enjoy watching you guys build a new DDR for yourselves. But, like most people, I wish you'd refrain from raping random 3rd world countries in the process.

Forget it. Americans are too dumb to understand the concept. Though, they have about the same civil rights as the citizens of former communist east-germany.

You know you attract more flies with honey then with vinegar. Everyone always joins in to criticize the americans, but they do alot of things right. They have a number of thriving cities, their culture has influenced other cultures world wide to varying extents. They are the wealthiest nation in the world and have an impressive level of technology. For the most part they have a free and open society, and their laws reflect their culture. Obviously they aren't dumb if they have been so incredibly successful as a country.

On the other side of things, many americans can be overly critical, judging and vocal about the short comings of other societies and go to great extents to avoid talking about the short comings of other societies. America has a great deal of wealth inequity, and despite the big focus on individual freedoms, individuals often get stomped on. The only difference is who does the stomping, in some countries it's the misguided government, in the USA it's corporations going the extra mile to cut costs and compete.

The USA has a number of faults, but so does every other country. I live in Canada, most of our politicians are spineless and we have high taxes. Our social infrastructure is often ill maintained due to populist government policy and my country is slowly becoming a global joke. On the other hand, it's extremely cheap to get an education here (though the quality is facing reduction due to aforementioned populist policies and an uneven ratio of Elder to youth voters (Healthcare is a big money sink)).

Our cellphone deals suck due to our "demographic" and it gets FUCKING COLD in Winnipeg.

Regardless of these shortcomings, this is home, I still love it. And most people will say the same about their own country and jump to defend it if it is insulted (even if they agree).