that's why there is competition, another big company goes and makes a monopoly with lower prices then they would have a war of prices, getting the lowest possible for the consumer
LONG before Obama was around to, just throwing that out there for ya.
it's necessary for a successful economy to have a little socialism, i just consider obama to be an extremist when it comes to socialism
well, I know people have said this before, but socialism just can't work. It's basically communism as far as the economy side of things goes, and communism just fails. IF communism were actually what it said it was and IF people weren't selfish, it would work. The problem is, communism almost never is what the government tells the people it is like, and People are selfish. We (especially Americans) don't think ahead, so If we can benefit now by getting food because of the work of someone else, without us working at all, we will. For example, I should be doing my schoolwork right now, but I'm not because I benefit in the here and now (by getting to mess around on the internet) but screw myself over in the long run (Not having schoolwork done when it is due. Socialism just cannot work unless all people are equal..ly hardworking. Everyone, if they get paid the same whether or not they work, will just sit around doing nothing and the economy will crash. another example: the U.S. Economy has had more bad happen to it in the past month or so that Obama's been president and doen his socialist stuff than before, because the people that decide what happens to the money don't trust him and his $800 billion gift baggies to crappy companies.
Are you absolutely fucking serious!!? You don't know what socialism even is! It is nowhere near communism! Where did you get your info, Fox News? Socialism is just a government ruled by the proletariat, usually ruled by some concepts of spreading the wealth around. Socialism is really the nicest form of government that we've thought of so far; it provides a minimum standard of living for everyone higher than the norm in a laissez-faire economy where there are billionaires and people living in cardboard boxes. In socialism, there is just a free-market society, but with public schools, universal healthcare(sometimes), food stamps, and welfare. Welfare is, in many ways, government charity. In socialism, people's paychecks are different. Socialism does not follow the "from each his ability, to each his need" mentality, it follows a more "from each their job, to each their need plus what they earned." That is not bad, that is providing everybody with at least a somewhat nice life. Actually know what you're talking about before you blast it with falsehoods.
I always love to say that Communism is like Socialism on steroids.
But think about it, of all of these charities are being raised for the people and everyone is beginning to get what they need from the government, theyâll probably want more. More rights, more equality, less bigots, it might even become a commune in about a dozen decades.
there'll be no competition with doctors all the work will be crappy because of that they'll be employed by the govt you pay taxes for the stuff you don't need it will be at a very low set because everyone will have them
where there are billionaires and people living in cardboard boxes
2% of rich people inherit their money, so why does the rich have to work hard and the poor lazy people get the money?
it provides a minimum standard of living for everyone higher than the norm in a laissez-faire economy
soâ...cialâ...ismâ â/ËsoÊÊÉËlɪzÉm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA â"noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. 2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
comâ...muâ...nismâ â/ËkÉ'myÉËnɪzÉm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kom-yuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA â"noun 1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. 2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party. 3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party
socialism is a synonym for communism...it's just at a lesser stage
but since the democrats control legislative and executive branches i guess you could call it communism
Actually, I've read excerpts of Althusser's works on Marxist philosophy, The Communist Manifesto, and excerpts of Marx's Grundisse. I was talking purely about the Marxist materialistic definition of socialism, which is simply a government ruled by the proletariat, not a proto-communist system.
No taxes, because he could just yell at money to appear; no army, because he's Chuck Norris, goddamn; and no economic crisis because he could roundhouse-kick the DOW back up.
Socialism is really the nicest form of government that we've thought of so far; it provides a minimum standard of living for everyone higher than the norm in a laissez-faire economy where there are billionaires and people living in cardboard boxes. In socialism, there is just a free-market society, but with public schools, universal healthcare(sometimes), food stamps, and welfare. Welfare is, in many ways, government charity. In socialism, people's paychecks are different.
Socialism sucks... It's good for some things, but not as the only thing... Universal Healthcare = Bad. Even if you did have the money to pay for said program (I don't see where you would pull that from), your hospitals would then be overcrowded...
Media news don't count. Provide a link to a station that gives legit and truthful information. These are just here to stir the masses and deepen the broad generalizations people seem to blindly follow.
Not just this one case in Japan (it was the most recent, and I didn't feel like posting 20 links). There are issues in the UK and Canada as well.
And this one: I can tell this guys Republican. You want to hear it from MY citizenship point-of-view? Fine.
Universal healthcare is giving everyone here treatment of illnesses and injuries with little to no cost to their services. This helps many homeless people, or people in poverty, because they can't afford the treatment.
your hospitals would then be overcrowded...
DUH. With Japan being a fraction the size of the USA, just shy of being a big fraction of the population, and with having little land to actually be usable, there's no wonder why we are getting overcrowded! Universal health care has nothing to do with this! The fact that most of the residents in Japan are from apartments and tenements supports this. To conserve land, when residents want to build a house in an area, what do we do? We tear down existing foundations and replace it. This calls for old materials being used and causing problems for the new houses anyways.
Media news don't count. Provide a link to a station that gives legit and truthful information.
Ok, how can I provide a link about news, that isn't media? And, you cannot deny that Hawaii had a universal health care program (for kids only mind you), that covered it's relatively small population... And people who could afford health care dropped it in favor of getting free health care. Thus swamping the Hawaii government, and it ran out of funds and had to cancel after 7 months.
DUH. With Japan being a fraction the size of the USA, just shy of being a big fraction of the population, and with having little land to actually be usable, there's no wonder why we are getting overcrowded! Universal health care has nothing to do with this!
Umm, like I said, Canada and the UK also suffer from overcrowded hospitals... And, because the government does have to pay for everyone and the hospitals are so pressed for space, oftentimes the treatment is nowhere near the quality it is here.
It's a nice idea, but, similar to communism (but still different), it is impossible (or at least pretty darn hard) to execute well.
there's no wonder why we are getting overcrowded! Universal health care has nothing to do with this!
if something once pricy is now cheap do people tend to come to it more?
Universal healthcare is giving everyone here treatment of illnesses and injuries with little to no cost to their services. This helps many homeless people, or people in poverty, because they can't afford the treatment.
that's in the theoretical world, we live in the real world
Canada and the UK also suffer from overcrowded hospitals... And, because the government does have to pay for everyone and the hospitals are so pressed for space, oftentimes the treatment is nowhere near the quality it is here.
ctually no we (UK) don't. The main reason healthcare was bad pre 1997 was because the Tories didn't put enough money into it. Now that we have good old socialist-democratic labour in charge, they've pumped tons of $ into infrastructure and healthcare. The quality is of a high standard, but for those who want premium you can always go private.
it is impossible (or at least pretty darn hard) to execute well.
Look at Finland as one prime example of a good, functional, universal system.
If something is difficult to implement, but will reap rewards and correct a social evil, then is it not worth the effort?
