You can't have capitalism without socialism.

You'll find that many wealthy people support Sanders.

 

Yes, it is.

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money.--Margaret Thatcher

 

So, you're a billionaire? If you're not, then you need to take your own advice.

Meanwhile, in reality, there are too many Americans working hard and being responsible with their money and still not getting ahead. Unfortunately, their numbers are growing, but there's hope with the likes of Sanders and a common sense look at wealth distribution, socialism, and finding a balance between capitalism an socialism.

 

No it isn't, because that means every government throughout history has been socialist. That is a meaningless definition of socialism.

 

OMFG AHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Nancy Pelosi had the process perfected long before myth busters even tried... lol

 

How am I, someone paying federal taxes on my income, responsible for making sure that those who do not pay those taxes can "get ahead" and/or do not "fall through the cracks"?

 

Yup, and its the government who is utterly irresponsible.

Its time they got FIRED.

 

And other liberals, long before her.

 

I'm not surprised.

But what is frustrating to me is how the Left has this one-eyed analysis of how prosperity has been achieved in this country. To Socialists like Bernie and his following, the only way it's been done is through Wall St.

I've never heard Sanders tell about the success stories of any American, who started at the bottom, and worked their way up to financial success. What is wrong with that in this wonderful, capitalist country?

 

Capitalism without compassion is like good intentions without guided follow through. The road to hell is paved with good intentions - not gold. Maybe that's why the Bible's follow through reminder is that it is easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven. Clearly good stewardship of resources is not the same as selfish hoarding. The Bible even recognizes the practicality of paying taxes - render onto Caesar that which is Carsar's and unto God that which is God's.

God must have been a socialist. Why else would he say the meek, the humble, will inherit the earth - not the selfishly aggressive.

Even today the "trickle down" theory is not unlike the old plantation mentality that justified slavery. George Will wrote an op - ed saying income inequality was good for everyone. He spoke of plantations where the most able should have the most money because they, not slaves, knew best how to use and manage money. The problem with his premise was that plantation owners inherited their plantations - not their best overseers or slaves who may have been smarter and better managers. Slaves, of course, had no rights to own any wealth - it all belonged to the master. Today's selfish arrogant capitalists argue the poor are poor because they lack innate ability or are not trying and that the rich are rich because they're smart and earned it. They're confusing slave owner mentality, plantation owner mentality, with modern capitalism.

George Will argued that globalization helps everyone not just America's richest corporations that move American factories and jobs from poor country to poor country like locusts as workers everywhere demand more than sweatshop, practically slave, wages.

Maybe in hundreds of years globalization will even out but now globalization has its winners and losers. America's top one percent is a winner in globalization while America's poor are the big losers and America's middle class, which creates the most new jobs, is stagnating and bearing the brunt of the tax burden because unlike giant corporations like G.E. they can't get away with paying no taxes at all.

America's version of capitalism was about creating equal opportunity for all - not outsourcing jobs to create wealth for the one percent.

Trump congratulated Bernie Sanders but said " he wants to give away OUR country"

Give away to whom?

Bernie talks about American people and addressing infrastructure and education.

Trump talks about tax cuts as a panacea and doesn't tell America they heavily favor the already rich, have no way to pay for themselves, and will drive up the deficit.

Tax cuts aren't "free" money - cutting tax money for defense, health, and education iniatives have a cost not only in lost capabilities for Americans but lost jobs in military, health, and tax payer funded education for all children.

Capitalism is based on supply and demand. Wealth is required to buy goods and services and all the wealth is going to the top one percent. The ninety nine percent depend on jobs to acquire wealth and if the top one percent is sending American factories lock stock and barrel overseas and making American workers train their replacements ( or else they don't get severance pay or any pay at all) American workers are left with no jobs or jobs paying so little they can't start their own small businesses as they did before which was the engine that traditionally kept the American economy percolating.

Jobs are created if and when there is a demand, not before. Outsourcing jobs to sweatshops overseas is being sold as a way to get cheaper goods for American workers to buy goods ignoring the obscene profits corporations are making, the horrendous conditions in overseas sweatshops, and the fact that outsourcing American jobs leaves too many American workers without jobs to earn money to buy the cheaper overseas made goods no matter how cheap those goods are priced.

Capitalism is not the same as selfishness and reckless greed.

Illegal immigrants wouldn't be taking American jobs if American businesses who pay them under the table and pay them no taxes or social security and leave the American public to support illegal immigration children on welfare actually were punished.

When was the last time you saw an American business punished for " using" illegal immigrants?

What's going on now is the old slave mentality. It used to be the "master" of the plantation took advantage because he thought he "owned" people . We once had a democracy giving opportunity to all the people - not a corporatocracy - a system of giant corporations and businesses by the one percent and for the one percent.

Capitalism is not about selfishness, greed, and the benefit of the very few. Capitalism is about creating wealth all right - but it can't be for only the few. In a democracy For capitalism to work in a supply and demand economy wealth needs to be spread around so that everybody can trade money for goods and services that give the vendors they bought from even more money to buy other goods and services they need.

 

Bullcrap.

For workers of the late 1800's to early 1900's, poverty back then was a way of life.

 

Nobody's saying you can't punish corporations when they exterminate people, commit fraud, theft, or assault - just that this is all you should use force against them over. Leave them (and us) alone when they are using their own property in a voluntary manner.

 

That too...but the root of capitalism is also imperfect. It's basically free trade without control from an outside party. But....this is rarely possible as many aspects outside of a direct transaction will affect that transaction and so there really is no such thing as "free trade". It's an ideal.

But also, another one is the idea that you are getting a fair trade. That one person is not trying to cheat you...con you...or in some way bait you into a transaction with you willing cooperation that proves disastrous for you.

There's a lot of flaws...

 

I don't recall God imploring people to subcontract their moral responsibilities to the state, which would then force others to pay for the welfare given to the poor.

 

There was a video that went around for a while on facebook, with some guy at a renaissance faire talking about this. He said, roughly, that, "if you have socialism without capitalism you get communism, and if you have capitalism without socialism you get fascism..." Only problem there is that economic fascism requires socialism, not capitalism, and since we're talking about economic policies the social conservatism of facism is irrelevant. Economic fascism is where the means of production are primarily left in private control, but are taxed and regulated to the point where the state has effective control over industry, without actual liability for it.

The proper system is capitalism-heavy, not a "Mix". I mean, for crying out loud, what nominee from the two parties in our lifetime has wanted to completely abolish one or the other? They've always been a mix, but "a mix" isn't what's right, there is a right mix - that right mix is very, very capitalist focused, with a very simplified set of socialist policies.

 

And some people from the right think that the left wants fascism like the USSR had. Most just want a fair shot. This can be achieved easily if everyone contributes proportionately.

I'm not a communist or a socialist but Marx said two things that were spot on. He said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." He also said that as social bifurcation grows, so does dissent among the have-nots. And he was right: there was a huge revolution in Russia... and China.. and Vietnam... and Korea... etc.. etc...

Paying a progressive net income tax is all you need to do. The essential social programs that prevent so much misery that we so today will be created with that money.

 

None of this answers my question:
How am I, someone paying federal taxes on my income, responsible for making sure that those who do not pay those taxes can "get ahead" and/or do not "fall through the cracks"?

 

Having social programs is not socialism.
One thing for sure, capitalism can survive without socialism, but not the other way around.

 

Hasn't this same tired subject been discussed on this forum about a billion times already? I'm willing to bet that if you went back to the very first handful of threads, this subject would be among them with a nearly identical title.

 

You're probably right.

But as long as Sanders is in the presidential race, we're still going to have to deal with the topic of socialism.

Can't be as bad as the endless GWBush topics we still have to deal with, even though the man has been out of the presidency for over 7 years.

 

Isn't that one of Bernie's speech rally theme's?

 

did you miss it? socialism starts with a social contract not a capital contract; our Constitution is one example.

 

Socialism like any form of government is only as good as its leaders. Some socialists countries are doing well while others socialist countries flounder. At this time there is no purely socialist country where the government control the means of production, distribution and exchange.

 

That is not true. There are some systems which are just inherently flawed, such as socialism. Do you have any basis for your claim that all forms of government are equally viable? What socialist countries are doing well? Scandinavia isn't socialist btw.