What, exactly, is objectionable about "socialism"?

[Ma'ake]

For the sake of argument, let's say Obama is a "socialist". (We're really talking about the "Social Democrat" part of the political spectrum, but that's a debate for another day.)

So, what?

How is this a full repudiation of capitalism / the market system? How is the modest raising of taxes in exchange for a broader safety net such a bad thing? Does anyone really believe this is the first step toward complete socialism/communism?

Exactly how is freedom eroded in this hypothetical? Doesn't broader (practical) access to healthcare result in greater "freedom" for many (hell, for all, when we're talking about the end of sharp cost-shifting)? Aren't the (growing) gaps in coverage we have now a form of "unfreedom"?

I get the hard-right, purist libertarian view that taxes for roads, for instance, is a form of unfreedom. I'm talking about the more generic conservative view.

It seems to me that trading in the really high rollercoaster for a more tempered material existence would be attractive to just about everyone. How many genuinely need that extra 500 sq ft in a home of 4000? Isn't this part of how we got to the current situation?

(And can we avoid talk about "Satan's plan" and ad hominem smears of "Marxist!")

Doesn't this really all boil down to an aversion for (even the potential) for higher taxes? "I got mine, let everyone else figure out how to deal with their own problems" (I would argue that low taxes + higher deficits amounts to selfishness for the today, deferring problems to later generations, but that's a debate for another day.)

I guess I'm really struggling with how greater government involvement in economic matters is such a horrific development that leads to inevitable calamity.

(For the record, I favor a much more centrist approach and believe that Obama will push in that direction in the interests of forging greater national consensus.)

LOL - I'm counting a whole lot of questions in this post... but go get 'em!

[Tex]

There are several problems with socialism but the largest in my mind is that it suffocates the incentive to excel.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Tex

There are several problems with socialism but the largest in my mind is that it suffocates the incentive to excel.

I think you missed the point of Ma-ake's post. He's suggesting that when most voters decry Obama's socialism, they're really just upset about the possible reversion to pre-Bush taxation. But that in and of itself is not socialism. If it were, then by that definition McCain and a whole host of others are socialists -- originally McCain supported the pre-Bush tax rates and opposed the cuts.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I think you missed the point of Ma-ake's post. He's suggesting that when most voters decry Obama's socialism, they're really just upset about the possible reversion to pre-Bush taxation. But that in and of itself is not socialism. If it were, then by that definition McCain and a whole host of others are socialists -- originally McCain supported the pre-Bush tax rates and opposed the cuts.

No, I think it went broader than that.

It seems to me that trading in the really high rollercoaster for a more tempered material existence would be attractive to just about everyone. How many genuinely need that extra 500 sq ft in a home of 4000? Isn't this part of how we got to the current situation?

and

I guess I'm really struggling with how greater government involvement in economic matters is such a horrific development that leads to inevitable calamity.

... go beyond merely pushing 35% back to 39.6%.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by Tex

There are several problems with socialism but the largest in my mind is that it suffocates the incentive to excel.

I don't know if that's true. Many of the innovative breakthroughs in medical research are coming from the UK, for example, which has a healthcare model that goes far beyond the Canadian model. (MDs are state employees. For a lot of good reasons, this model won't fly here.)

In my organization, we have a very highly motivated work force, more than I've seen at any of the private orgs I've been at in my 20+ in IT. We have no profit incentive, though we definitely have a very conservative, finite bottom line.

In my experience, nearly everyone wants to do a good job, they have a good work ethic. It seems to me that productivity is almost always tied to good leadership & management, which exists in many organizations, public & private.

I've known many young parents who took advantage of social programs to go to college, nearly all of whom did better in school because of it, and now make more money & produce more for society (including tax revenue) than if they were left to struggle through on their own. It was a very wise investment in people. (For single parents, the program produced a very high return.)

[BYU71]

I could accept a move back to the pre-Bush tax rates. What's another $10-20 grand out of my pocket.

My problem is what lies beyond there. I really think the European model is a "cast system", I hope I spelled that right. Instead of an upward mobile society, it is an elite society and everyone else.

Look at communism. The leaders live very, very well. The elite in Europe live very, very well. It is extremely hard to break into the upper level or at least that is my view.

Check out the new rich in America vs the new rich in the European Countries like Britain, France, Germany, Spain and Italy. Look at all the minorities in America who have become extremely rich. Can you find me minorities in the countries I have named who have become very wealthy.

[BYU71]

[QUOTE=Ma'ake;283294]I don't know if that's true. Many of the innovative breakthroughs in medical research are coming from the UK, for example, which has a healthcare model that goes far beyond the Canadian model. (MDs are state employees. For a lot of good reasons, this model won't fly here.)

In my organization, we have a very highly motivated work force, more than I've seen at any of the private orgs I've been at in my 20+ in IT. We have no profit incentive, though we definitely have a very conservative, finite bottom line.

In my experience, nearly everyone wants to do a good job, they have a good work ethic. It seems to me that productivity is almost always tied to good leadership & management, which exists in organizations, public & private.




Maybe France has changed in the last 40 years. When I was there most of the French worried about vacation days and stuff that is free.

As far as college goes. I would like to see a study done on how successful people are who worked their way through college vs those who got it for free.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

I don't know if that's true. Many of the innovative breakthroughs in medical research are coming from the UK,

funny you should mention that. My ex-boyfriend, a PhD from caltech, moved to the UK to research because there's so little support for the scientific community here. How sad is that?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

I don't know if that's true. Many of the innovative breakthroughs in medical research are coming from the UK, for example, which has a healthcare model that goes far beyond the Canadian model. (MDs are state employees. For a lot of good reasons, this model won't fly here.)

In my organization, we have a very highly motivated work force, more than I've seen at any of the private orgs I've been at in my 20+ in IT. We have no profit incentive, though we definitely have a very conservative, finite bottom line.

In my experience, nearly everyone wants to do a good job, they have a good work ethic. It seems to me that productivity is almost always tied to good leadership & management, which exists in many organizations, public & private.

I've known many young parents who took advantage of social programs to go to college, nearly all of whom did better in school because of it, and now make much more money & produce a lot more for society (including tax revenue) than if they were left to struggle through on their own. It was a very wise investment in people.

If you look at actuality versus symbols, you'd know the difference.

Socialism as a symbol, seems to undermine the incentives of capitalism. State sponsored activities, government workers and the like run counter to the fundamental principles of capitalism and frontier mentality present in the west.

In a culture which generally accepts the socialist symbol, such as France, government is not seen as the enemy but as the only entity capable of answering many questions.

In our culture, we find government to be an impediment, not a facilitator.

So for me, Obama the Socialist, symbolizes an anti-small business mentality, by reasserting pre Bush tax rates on ordinary income and capital gains, something very important to small businesses. It symbolizes a return to larger government regulations which are expensive for smaller businesses to comply with.

Are there sectors of society which benefit when government stimulates funding which private enterprise won't? Of course.

And Obama's mantra, "we'll make health care more affordable" isn't the first concern to small business owners and we don't know if the net tax increases will translate into cheaper health care.

So the reason is Socialism, especially for those of us with memories linked to the Cold War, and DeGaul (spelling?), is a strike against our very essence.

And practically for westerners or small business entrepreneurs, Obama represents the worst of all worlds, more taxation, more costs of doing business and more regulatory hassles. He is the anathema of everything we need.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

I don't know if that's true. Many of the innovative breakthroughs in medical research are coming from the UK, for example, which has a healthcare model that goes far beyond the Canadian model. (MDs are state employees. For a lot of good reasons, this model won't fly here.)

In my organization, we have a very highly motivated work force, more than I've seen at any of the private orgs I've been at in my 20+ in IT. We have no profit incentive, though we definitely have a very conservative, finite bottom line.

In my experience, nearly everyone wants to do a good job, they have a good work ethic. It seems to me that productivity is almost always tied to good leadership & management, which exists in many organizations, public & private.

I've known many young parents who took advantage of social programs to go to college, nearly all of whom did better in school because of it, and now make more money & produce more for society (including tax revenue) than if they were left to struggle through on their own. It was a very wise investment in people. (For single parents, the program produced a very high return.)

Risk is tied to reward, Ma'ake. Sure there are self-motivated people who will try to do a good job no matter what station they find themselves in. But in a capitalist system what drives innovation and risk-taking is reward.

I listened to a replay last night of a 2 hour interview Hugh Hewitt did with Victor Davis Hanson. He spoke of having appendicitis and requiring an emergency operation in Libya, I think it was. As he lay there recovering, he reflected on the system there that required the doctor who operated on him to be compensated exactly equally with the guy who mopped the floors.

In such a system, why try to excel? Your overachievers might anyway, out of pure type-A drive, but society as a whole will not.