You can't have capitalism without socialism.

Unregulated Capitalism
Imagine a society with no regulation on capitalism and no progressive taxation. Imagine you have a disability and can't keep up. Nobody will hire you an you were fired from your last job because you had the poorest performance. Should society let you starve to death? Sure, there's charity, but what if nobody helps you? What if the wealth gap grew so large that the poor got fed up, revolted, and distributed the wealth with force?

Absolute Socialism
Now imagine a society where equal outcome is the goal, where everyone is offered the same opportunity. Imagine everyone being given the same kinds of jobs and wages. There is less incentive because you don't gain prestige, glory, wealth, success, or opportunity and you end up with a mediocre performance at work. Those who work harder want to have a better life than those who don't try.

Capitalism and Socialism Working Together
In short, strict socialism and strict capitalism don't work alone. But they work well together.

Now imagine a society that is capitalist, but has social programs for those who can't swim in a sink-or-swim society. Imagine a truly progressive tax system where the rich really pay higher net tax rates. Imagine people who fall through the cracks getting the help they need without being ridiculed or seen as a parasite. Imagine those who take the most from the capitalist machine giving the most back, and that wealth distribution being used to help others benefit from the same system with new opportunities.

Socialism evens the playing field in a capitalist society; it prevents monopolies and too much concentration of wealth, which are bad for economies. regulation protects citizens from illegal dumping, starvation, disease, poisonous food and unsafe work conditions.

The Bernie Sanders Phenomenon
The popularity of Sanders, who is trying to harmoniously blend capitalism and socialism, is a good example of how fed up the underprivileged are. They are people whose houses were taken by bank schemes, who face crippling student load debt that they'll never pay off; they're the 1 in 6 people who face hunger every day; they're those who see billionaires enjoying the fruits of other people's labors while they haven't worked a hard day in their lives; they're those who work hard all day and have nothing to show for it; they're the people who still don't have healthcare access because they make too much for medicaid an too little for packages.

These people represent tens of millions of voters. Sanders is offering a solution. He got almost double the votes as Trump in NH. His popularity is growing steadily and may peak in November. The question is, what is the GOP doing to do about it? Are they going to keep talking about which country they'll bomb, or building walls, or other things that most Americans don't care about, or are they finally going to take on the real issues and prevent their party from losing to a majority Democrat government?

 

When you spend enough time buffing, a turd can shine with a beautiful luster....

 

I believe some aspects of socialism are good. The biggest problem with it is governments get power hungry and this proves to be deadly. Corporations and wealthy people get excessively greedy but they just want more money. Governments have armies that end up exterminating it's own people.....give me capitalism any day.

 

Socialism can always bailout capitalism, through taxes on the People.

 

ah yes, another advocate of slavery....

It'll turn out better this time.... promise

 

You dirty commie!

 

Informed consent is not slavery. Why not make like the rich, and claim you need to look for a patriotic clue and a patriotic Cause, somewhere else, for awhile.

 

Well, the problem is that capitalism and socialism are incompatible. either you have socialism or you have capitalism. You can of course have more or less "pure" and "extreme" forms, along a linear spectrum, but ultimately an economy is just one of the two, not both at the same time. Also, I think there is some confusion as to what capitalism and socialism is. Capitalism is not the same thing as libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism, and socialism is not the same thing as a welfare state. The capitalist-socialist debate has to do with how prices are set, how things are produced, how property is handled, and so on. The discussion is not about welfare. A welfare state, even as generous as e.g. Sweden's, is fully compatible with capitalism. To determine wheter an economy is socialist or capitalist, you just have to look at what I mentioned above: how are the prices set, how are things produced, how is property handled? if you looked at the USSR back in the days, and compared it to e.g. Sweden, you'd clearly see the USSR was socialist and Sweden was capitalist. But of course, there are cases harder to decide, when the government heavily involves itself in a free market economy. At which point does it shift from being "a free market economy with a big public sector" to being "a socialist economy with a small private sector"? Back when Europe was in love with socialism, some claimed that France, the UK and Sweden and others were socialist countries. But nay, the laws of capitalism were still in full effect in all countries. It could surely be said they were socialistic but they were not socialist.

 

Why do you believe that?

Socialism and capitalism are not, incompatible. Socialism starts with a social contract like a Constitution. Capitalism merely depends on stable markets.

 

Becuase either prices are set by private actors or they arent'. Either production is privately owned or it isn't.

 

lol there is no freakn consent. its a total lie.

The rich? the rich? we dont have enough rich, not even close to enough. Just look at freakn obamacare, its your lofty socialist ideal.

Obama and pals promised free (*)(*)(*)(*) to everyone who makes less than 250k per year, when all was said and done, it was everyone who makes less than 48k, and you still have to pay to even use it, while it provides vastly less for every user, than what was previously available.

Socialism is a turd, and youre attempting to polish it to a beautiful luster.

 

We have a mixed market economy. How is your point relevant?

- - - Updated - - -

The social Power to Tax is clearly delegated to our federal Congress. And, if you don't want to pay income taxes, why not clamor for an end to our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror?

 

If you have a glass of water, and add one drop of oil, it is mixed, but it is misleading since it is 99% water. Point is, yes, there are some socialistic elements in the US economy, but it is overall much more capitalist.

 

Corporations can have armies and exterminate people too. Sometimes corporations do it for governments or governments do it for corporations. Often the two are indistinguishable. It’s almost as if the root problem is something other than political rhetoric or social structure. Maybe some people are just <insert word of choice>s regardless of the organisational structure they might be working in.

 

And that's what we're seeing. We're seeing social programs take care of those who feel through the cracks created by a market where many people just can't keep up.

And your solution is?

 

Comments like that only prove how warped Bernie and Friends and their socialist cause really are.

And it's also just more proof that the proper synonym for socialism is jealousy.

 

Doesn't American Socialism begin with a re-framing of the Constitution?

 

In your imaginary free market, it would be highly unlikely for there to be much of a wealth gap. Bartering is the closest people will get to a free market these days.

 

It is a matter of degree. How are our social wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, Capitalist?

- - - Updated - - -

still nothing but repeal, and that form of diversion?

- - - Updated - - -

No. Our Founding Fathers got it right the first time with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

 

They have nothing to do with it.

 

Exactly, and countries with a smaller wealth gap tend to have high standards of living. They also have happy, healthy people. Coincidence?

Nations with a lower gini indexes tend to be socialist and poor. Nations with higher gini indexes tend to be oligarchies with a ruling class, and also poor. There is a Goldilocks zone where economies thrive -- where wealth isn't too concentrated or too distributed. Taxation alone can keep things on an even keel and prevent runaway bifurcation.

Scandinavia today, and America in the 1950s, are a good example of balancing wealth where there's plenty of opportunity to get rich but not as much suffering of the poor. America's most prosperous time an greatest growth was when the rich were taxed more and the poor had far more opportunity than today. Today, poverty is a way of life, passed on from one generation to another with almost no way out.

 

They are socialist and have to be funded through income taxes.

 

Indeed.
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/polishing-a-turd-minimyth/

 

Oh thats easy.

1. Dont spend money you dont have.
2. Create a budget and live by it
3. Expand the US economy to pay down obamas huge debt.
4. Cut waste fraud and abuse, the Trump way
[video=youtube;75SEy1qu71I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75SEy1qu71I[/video]

 

That, however, has less to do with a welfare state, and more to do with culture, than you think.

- - - Updated - - -

tax funded =/= socialist.