quote Originally posted by User00013170: Look up contract law, there are some guarantees in life. Aside from that, the government clerk served the people, so yes, she deserves to have that promise kept by the citizens. Like it or not, you OWE her that pension. If there was no intent on honoring it then the contract should have never been agreed to in the first place. As far as Enron, last i heard pensions are managed externally to protect the employees. I don't know the full details but i know there are some regulations attached there to help prevent companies from pocketing the $ and running off into the sunset.

WRONG! Pensions are annuity contracts between the buyer and the provider. I or any other citizen are NOT a part of that contract nor is it legal to force us into that contract without our consent. Income set aside by the government worker to make monthly payments for their annuity contract is just that. It is illegal for pension funds to pull tax payers money to pay beneficaries.

If your government pension fund is broke, then it's tough chit for you. So I DO NOT OWE a government worker chit. If your pension fund gets bailed out by the already broke Federal Government, YOUR bailout loan for your pension fund MUST be payed back in full.

Next time get your facts straight.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Like Venezuela, Cuba, Portugal, Spain, Italy--like the USSR did? Like China was before they switched to a capitalist system? Like we are now that we've been on an entitlement track for so long?

What I mean is name some countires whose economies that you think are doing well and what you think of their level of social programs are compared to yours.
You mention China so are you saying that a communist government with a capatalist style economy is better? I doubt it. It's more likely that your economy is in trouble because of years of mismanagemnet by both parties and many leaders not one. Now you can debate and critisize if the current administration are doing the right things or not but when it comes down to it is is opinion, and we all not what opinions are like.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 08-21-2010).]

quote Originally posted by newf: and we all know what opinions are like.

Individually believed facts?

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Individually believed facts?

Awesome and so true.

quote Originally posted by newf: What I mean is name some countires whose economies that you think are doing well and what you think of their level of social programs are compared to yours. You mention China so are you saying that a communist government with a capatalist style economy is better? I doubt it. It's more likely that your economy is in trouble because of years of mismanagemnet by both parties and many leaders not one. Now you can debate and critisize if the current administration are doing the right things or not but when it comes down to it is is opinion, and we all not what opinions are like.

I'm saying China's economy is far better today, than it was back before The Party eased restricions on capitalism and entraprenership in an effort to head of another Tianimen Sq debacle when they were a pure socialist nation..
Yes, I know I have spelling errors--shoot me.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 08-21-2010).]

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Individually believed facts?

Hmmmmm yes true, but I was thinking of the saying: "Opinions are like A$$holes, everone's got one!"

and some stink more than others.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: I'm saying China's economy is far better today, than it was back before The Party eased restricions on capitalism and entraprenership in an effort to head of another Tianimen Sq debacle when they were a pure socialist nation.. Yes, I know I have spelling errors--shoot me.

I agree with that.

Whoops not the shooting part, you know very well it's not legal for me to carry.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 08-22-2010).]

quote Originally posted by newf: You keep saying socialism fails and I'm not in total disagreement that true socailism has it's share of problems but what about the countries that are thriving with systems that you would classify as socialist or worse?

Which countries?

Oh I don't know maybe you can name some that you think are doing well yourself and check into their level of "Socialism".

Norway, Australia ,Belgium, Canada, Germany, Austria, Denmark.

That's part of my point, some here are screaming that your country is now run by a socialist regime but how is it you are catagorizing Socialism. Many countries provide socialized healthcare and have Unemployment Insurance and Welfare programs but does that mean they are Socialized States, according to some here they might as well be called communist.

As well as they can or only as well as possible with so much of their GDP alloted to social programs?

quote Originally posted by newf: Oh I don't know maybe you can name some that you think are doing well yourself and check into their level of "Socialism".

"Doing well" is subjective. We'd have to agree on what is and isn't "well".

quote Originally posted by newf: I agree with that. Whoops not the shooting part, you know very well it's not legal for me to carry.

Why not? Oh, I forgot--the 1st thing a socialist state does is start taking the guns.

You might want to remove Belgium from your list. There's talk within that nation of them becoming the Greece of the North Sea and their soverign debt stands at 93% of GDP. Unlike all the other European nations you mentioned, they have yet to begin austerity measures to cut back on the social spending that put them in that condition. Yep, they're all doing great.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Why not? Oh, I forgot--the 1st thing a socialist state does is start taking the guns.

You're probably right in a socialist state but we have lots of gun ownership. Please name some of the countries you guys consider socialist?

In comparison to the more socialist leaning members of the Eurozone and even in comparison to the socialist heading West, (depending on which measure of economic stability) Germany is doing much better and is actually doing the best of all Euro-zone nations. Why? Early in the recession, Germany abandoned the Keyesnesian policy of spend spend spend, and began austerity measures--cutting back on social spending. Italy, Greece, Portugal etc, had strong labor unions, a lot of Govt ownership in industry, and tried to stay away from austerity measures untill they had no other choice, and ended up near default on soveriegn debt. Those 4 nations are textbook examples of what socialistic policy can do to a nation and it's economy.

Land mass vs population has a lot to do with it too. If a developed nation is large, with plenty of natural resources, and a comparatively small population compared to that land mass, they do much better, simply because there is naturally more abundance per capita than a highly populated nation of smaller size or even a highly populated nation that is large like the US. This is the predominant reason Canada fares much better than the USA.

Social Dems whine all the time about economic bubbles (tech, corn, oil, housing, wall street bubbles) and who caused them and why they are so bad, but are ominously silent when it comes to one of the biggest bubbles of all-----entitlement bubbles.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 08-22-2010).]

This is a list of countries, past and present, that declared themselves socialist either in their names or their constitutions. No other criteria are used; thus, some or all of these countries may not fit any specific definition of socialism. Their only common feature is using the label "socialist" for themselves, under any interpretation. There are few, if any, definitions of socialism that could fit all the countries on this list. However, most definitions of socialism fit at least some of these countries at some points in their histories.

There are many countries that have been ruled by socialist political parties for extended periods of time without ever adopting socialism as an official ideology in their names or constitutions. Such countries are not listed here. However, see the article on the Socialist International for an up-to-date list of countries that are currently ruled by member parties of the SI (the largest present day organization of socialist political parties).

Conversely, there are some countries that maintain constitutional references to socialism without being currently ruled by a socialist political party. Those countries are included on this list.



Marxist-Leninist -
These countries known as "Communist states" in the West, because their ruling parties generally use the name "Communist Party of [country]." However, the countries themselves are referred to as socialist republics, not communist, in their own constitutions. They are defined by a form of government in which the state operates under a one-party system and declares allegiance to the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. In accordance with Marxism-Leninism, the constitutions of these countries claim that all power belongs to the working class, that a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat has been implemented within their borders, and that they are building socialism, with the goal of achieving communism one day.

Western countries view Socialism and Communism as two distinct form of governmental economy. Concerning Socialism, it regards the welfare of its people like Capitalism does. In the sense that the wealth is redistributed the same way, while taxes would be higher. As for Communism, Western countries regards Communism as the opposite of Capitalism; in which the money itself is redistributed equally among everyone so that they may have a similar lifestyle. Whether their lifestyle is similar remains irrelevant in that sense.

Furthermore, the West views Communism as being a state run by the government for the greater good of all the people. As for those who see the difference between Communism and Socialism in the West, they view Socialism as being a state run by the government for the people.

List of current communist states:
Cuba - Republic of Cuba (República de Cuba) (since January 1, 1959)

North Korea - Democratic People's Republic of Korea (Chosŏn Minjujuŭi Inmin Konghwaguk) (since September 9, 1948) [3] (see Constitution of North Korea).

Laos - Lao People's Democratic Republic. (Sathalanalat Paxathipatai Paxaxon Lao) (since December 2, 1975)

Vietnam - Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Cộng hòa Xã hội Chủ nghĩa Việt Nam) (officially in unified Vietnam since July 2, 1976, but in the north since 1954)

Former:
Socialist People's Republic of Albania (Republika Popullore Socialiste e Shqipërisë/Republika Popullore e Shqipërisë) (January 1, 1946 - March 22, 1992)

People's Republic of Angola (República Popular de Angola) (November 11, 1975 - August 27, 1992)

People's Republic of Benin (République Populaire du Bénin) (November 30, 1975 - March 1, 1990)

People's Republic of Bulgaria (Narodna Republika Balgariya) (September 15, 1946 - December 7, 1990)

Chinese Soviet Republic (Zhōnghuá Sūwéi'āi Gònghéguó) (November 7, 1931 - October 10, 1934)

People's Republic of the Congo (République Populaire du Congo) (January 3, 1970 - March 15, 1992)

Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (Československá socialistická republika) (July 11, 1960 - March 29, 1990)

People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (September 10, 1987 - May 27, 1991)

Finnish Democratic Republic (Suomen Kansanvaltainen Tasavalta) (December 1, 1939 - March 12, 1940)

German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik) (October 7, 1949 - October 3, 1990)

Political Committee of National Liberation (Greece) (December 24, 1947 - August 28, 1949)

People's Revolutionary Government of Grenada (March 13, 1979 - October 25, 1983)

People's Republic of Hungary (Magyar Népköztársaság) (August 20, 1949 - October 23, 1989)

Democratic Kampuchea (April 4, 1976 - January 7, 1979)

People's Republic of Kampuchea (January 7, 1979 - October 23, 1991)

Mongolian People's Republic (November 24, 1924 - February 12, 1992)

People's Republic of Mozambique (República Popular de Moçambique) (June 25, 1975 - December 1, 1990)

People's Republic of Poland (Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa) (June 28, 1945 - July 19, 1989)

People's Republic of Romania (Republica Populară Romînă) (December 30, 1947 - December 21, 1989)

Somali Democratic Republic (Jamhuuriyadda Dimoqraadiga Soomaaliya) (July 1, 1976 - January 26, 1991)

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik) (December 30, 1922 - December 26, 1991)

Tuvan People's Republic (Tuva Arat Respublik) (August 14, 1921 - October 11, 1944)

Democratic Republic of Vietnam (Việt Nam Dân chủ Cộng hòa) (September 2, 1945 - July 2, 1976)

People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (Jumhūrīyah al-Yaman ad-Dīmuqrāṭīyah ash-Sha'bīyah)(November 30, 1967 - May 22, 1990)

Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Socijalistička Federativna Republika Jugoslavija, Социјалистичка Федеративна Република Југославија, Socialistična federativna republika Jugoslavija) (November 29, 1943 - October 8, 1991 / April 27, 1992)

Non-Marxist-Leninist -
These are countries whose constitutions make references to socialism, but do not subscribe to Marxist-Leninist ideology. As such, they represent a wide variety of different interpretations of the term socialism. Countries such as Egypt and Libya, for example, have adopted different versions of Arab socialism as their ideology at some point in their history. Tanzania, on the other hand, adopted African socialism as their official doctrine.


Countries whose constitutions contained some references to socialism (under a non-Marxist definition) at some point in their history.

Constitutional references:
Bangladesh - People's Republic of Bangladesh (since 16 December 1971) (Gônoprojatontri Bangladesh) (see Constitution of Bangladesh)

Egypt - Arab Republic of Egypt (Gumhūriyyet Maṣr el-ʿArabiyyah) (since 11 September 1971) (see Constitution of Egypt)

Libya - Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (Al-Jamāhīriyyah al-ʿArabiyyah al-Lībiyyah aš-Šaʿbiyyah al-Ištirākiyyah al-ʿUẓmā) (since 1 September 1969)

Sri Lanka Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (since 7 September 1978) (see Constitution of Sri Lanka)

Syria - Syrian Arab Republic (Al-Jumhūriyyah al-ʿArabiyyah as-Sūriyyah) (since 1973) (see Constitution of Syria)

Tanzania - United Republic of Tanzania (since 26 April 1964)

Informal -
Bolivia - Plurinational State of Bolivia (Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia) (see Movement for Socialism (Bolivia))

Nicaragua - Republic of Nicaragua (República de Nicaragua) (see Sandinista)

Venezuela - Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (República Bolivariana de Venezuela) (see Bolivarianism)

Former -
People's Democratic Republic of Algeria (Al-Jumhūrīyah al-Jazā’irīyah ad-Dīmuqrāṭīyah ash-Sha’bīyah) (15 September 1963 - 23 February 1989)

Burkina Faso

Republic of Cape Verde (República de Cabo Verde)

Socialist Republic of Chile (República Socialista de Chile) (4 June - 13 September 1932)

Republic of Ghana

People's Revolutionary Republic of Guinea (République populaire révolutionnaire de la Guinée) (1958 - 1984)

Bissau-Guinea

Republic of Iraq (Al-Jumhūrīyah al-ʿĪrāqiyah) (14 July 1958 - 16 July 1979)

State of Israel (Medinat Yisrael)

Democratic Republic of Madagascar (Repoblika Demokratika Malagasy) (21 December 1975 - 19 August 1992)

Republic of Mali (République du Mali) (6 December 1968 - 12 January 1992)

Republic of Nicaragua (República de Nicaragua)

Portuguese Republic (República Portuguesa) (1976- 1989)

Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe (República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe)

Republic of Senegal (République du Sénégal)

Republic of Seychelles (Repiblik Sesel)

Democratic Republic of Sudan (Jumhūriyyat as-Sūdān ad-Dīmuqrāṭīyah) (1969 - 1985)

Republic of Suriname (Republic Suriname)

Tunisian Republic (Al-Jumhūriyyah at-Tūnisiyyah)

Republic of Uganda

Former states -

United Arab Republic (Al-Jumhūrīyah al-‘Arabīyah al-Muttaḥidah) (1958 - 1961), now Syrian Arab Republic and Egyptian Arab Republic

People's Republic of Zanzibar (Jamhuri ya Watu wa Zanzibar) (1964), now part of Tanzania.

Ephemeral -
These are short-lived political entities that emerged during wars or revolutions (mostly in the aftermath of World War I) and declared themselves to be socialist under some interpretation of the term, but did not survive long enough to create a stable government or achieve international recognition.

Alsace Soviet Republic (November 9 - November 22, 1918)

Asturian Socialist Republic (de facto) (October 5-18 1934)

Azerbaijan People's Government (November 1945 - December 1946)

Bavarian Soviet Republic (Bayerische Räterepublik) (April 6 - May 3, 1919)

Bessarabian Soviet Socialist Republic (May - September 1919)

Bukharan People's Soviet Republic (October 8, 1920 - February 17, 1925)

Chinese Soviet Republic (Zhōnghuá Sūwéi'āi Gònghéguó) (November 7, 1931 - October 1934)

Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic (February 12 - May 1918)

Estonian Workers' Commune (Eesti Töörahva Kommuun/Эстляндская Трудовая Коммуна) (November 29, 1918 - June 5, 1919)

Far Eastern Republic (Dalnevostochnaya Respublika) (April 6, 1920 - November 15, 1922)

Finnish Socialist Workers' Republic (January 28 - April 29, 1918)

Galician Soviet Socialist Republic (July 8 - September 21, 1920)

German Socialist Republic (Räterepublik) (November 9, 1918 - ?)

Hunan Soviet (1927)

Hungarian Soviet Republic (Magyar Tanácsköztársaság) (March 21 - August 6, 1919)

Khorazmian People's Soviet Republic (April 26, 1920 - October 20, 1923)

Limerick Soviet (April 15 - April 27 1919

Lithuanian-Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (Lietuvos-Baltarusijos Tarybinė Socialistinė Respublika) (February 27 - August 25, 1919)

Republic of Mahabad (Komarî Mehabad) (January 22 - December 15, 1946)

Mughan Soviet Republic (March - June 1919)

Soviet Republic of Naissaar (December 1917 - February 26, 1918)

Paris Commune (La Commune de Paris) (March 18 - May 28, 1871) (first socialist republic in history)

Persian Socialist Soviet Republic (June 9, 1920 - September 1921)

Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam (Chính phủ Cách mạng lâm thời Cộng hoà miền Nam Việt Nam) (April 30, 1975 - June 2, 1976)

Slovak Soviet Republic (Slovenská Republika Rád) (June 16 - July 7, 1919)

Turkestan Socialist Federative Republic (April 30, 1918 - October 27, 1924)

Democratic Republic of Yemen (May 21 - July 7, 1994)

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 08-22-2010).]

Lots of "formers" on there.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Lots of "formers" on there.

Kinda reaks of failure.

Yup it does, that's why I keep saying that the cries of Socialism are misguided. Many democratic countries have social programs and still thrive as in the example of Germany posted. They may have restructured but they haven't cut out social programs like healthcare.
Just because a nation has social programs to benefit the population it doesn't indicate that the Government or Country is Socialist and doesn't seem to indicate economic failure.
Thanks for helping me make that point.

quote Originally posted by newf: Just because a nation has social programs to benefit the population it doesn't indicate that the Government or Country is Socialist and doesn't seem to indicate economic failure. Thanks for helping me make that point.

That was also my point.
"Socialism" is mostly used as a worse-case senario trigger word.

Exactly, the screams of socialism and even communism in the U.S. are extremes to cause a reaction. The unfortunate thing is some actually seem believe it. A mix of capatalism with some social programs seems to be what most people have come to want. The success is hinged on the implimentation and management of that type of system and is most certainly up for debate.

quote Originally posted by newf: Yup it does, that's why I keep saying that the cries of Socialism are misguided. Many democratic countries have social programs and still thrive as in the example of Germany posted. They may have restructured but they haven't cut out social programs like healthcare. Just because a nation has social programs to benefit the population it doesn't indicate that the Government or Country is Socialist and doesn't seem to indicate economic failure. Thanks for helping me make that point.

I'll help ya a little further.

http://www.businessweek.com...alnews/D9E2KEA81.htm

quote The Associated Press February 24, 2010, 10:35AM ET Germany preparing for new health care reform By VERENA SCHMITT-ROSCHMANN BERLIN Germany is preparing yet another reform of its once highly regarded compulsory health insurance system, which has experienced massive financial problems. The government said Wednesday it established a new commission of eight ministers to draft a major revision of the system that covers 90 percent of Germany's roughly 82 million inhabitants. Health Minister Philipp Roesler has said he wants to slowly part with the traditional system in which employees share rising health care cost with their employers. Instead, the insured are to pay premiums independent of their work situation with the government helping the poor. "We have a clear mission to start designing a new system," Roesler's spokesman Christian Lipicki said in a press conference. However, Roesler's plans have stirred conflict even within the coalition government of Chancellor Angela Merkel, and it is unclear whether a compromise can be reached in time to start implementing the reform next year. "We still have our eyes on this deadline," Lipicki said. Markus Soeder of the conservative Christian Social Union -- the Bavaria-only sister party to Merkel's Christian Democrats -- told the Berliner Zeitung newspaper that Roesler's ideas were "not a model for Germany." While radically different from the private sector insurance system in the United States, Germany's health insurance system is no different in having to deal with sharply rising costs, international health care policy expert Christian Lammert of Berlin's Free University told the AP. While President Barack Obama has tried to expand coverage to millions of uninsured in the U.S., the issue in Germany has been who pays what without increasing labor costs, Lammert said. German health care costs are estimated at a total euro250 billion ($339 billion) a year, of which the mandatory system is expected to cover about euro174 billion this year. The government funnels a total of euro15.6 billion in tax money into the system in 2010. Nonetheless, the insurance is expected to run a deficit of euro4 billion, according to a December government estimate.

http://www.spiegel.de/inter...,1518,705045,00.html

quote Facing a projected shortfall of 11 billion euros for Germany's health care system in 2011, Chancellor Angela Merkel's government agreed on Tuesday to increase contributions. But the plan is a far cry from radical reform, leading to calls for the country's health minister to resign. Germany's government has been arguing for months about how best to reform the country's chronically indebted health care system. On Tuesday, leaders of Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition finally reached agreement. The deal, presented by Health Minister Philipp Rösler -- from Merkel's junior coalition partner, the Free Democrats -- calls for contributions to rise from 14.9 percent of employee income to 15.5 percent. The contributions remain split 50-50 between workers and employers. In addition, additional charges demanded by insurers to eliminate shortfalls will no longer be capped at 1 percent of employee salaries. "The expected deficit of €11 billion in 2011 will be cancelled out," Rösler told reporters on Tuesday. He said he was optimistic that the new contribution regime would result in lasting stability for Germany's health care finances, but added that the system for how contributions are made must still be reformed. Rising costs have dogged Germany's health care system for years, and multi-billion euro deficits have become the norm. As recently as 2006, Merkel -- then in coalition with the center-left Social Democrats -- proudly announced what she called "far reaching reform." Raining on the Parade Then, as now, however, the reform was a far cry from what was originally promised. In 2006, Merkel's Christian Democrats had sought to radically change the way health care contributions are made -- via joint contributions from employers and employees -- as a way to inject flexibility into the country's labor market. This time around, it was Rösler's Free Democrats who wanted to shake up the system. Rösler had promised the introduction of a per-capita payment system, which would have seen all Germans pay the same amount into the system, though with government assistance for those who couldn't afford it. In 2006, a similar idea was blocked by the Social Democrats. This year, it was the Christian Social Union -- the Bavarian sister party to Merkel's Christian Democrats -- who rained on the parade. The ensuing debate contributed mightily to the widespread impression that Merkel's coalition prefers infighting to governing. Health care costs in Germany are rising at roughly 5 percent each year, according to Peter Altmaier, parliamentary floor leader for Merkel's conservatives. He promised that Tuesday's agreement will be the first step towards a "long term solution." While the plan allows insurers to determine how high the additional charges should be, it calls for assistance for low wage earners. Should the additional charges be higher than 2 percent of their salary, they will receive state help. The plan is a far cry from the radical reform that Rösler had been championing. On Tuesday, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, SPD floor leader, called for the FDP minister's resignation on the grounds that he was clearly unable to push through his preferred plan. Steinmeier said the plan was unfair and would "hit low and middle income earners the hardest." cgh -- with wire reports

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 08-22-2010).]

Is your point that Germany's healthcare system is in need of reform?

Can't say I know enough about their system but rising healthcare costs seems to be an issue almost everywhere.

quote Originally posted by newf: Exactly, the screams of socialism and even communism in the U.S. are extremes to cause a reaction. The unfortunate thing is some actually seem believe it. A mix of capatalism with some social programs seems to be what most people have come to want. The success is hinged on the implimentation and management of that type of system and is most certainly up for debate.

"Some social programs" and Socialism are not one and the same. Socialism is a system whereby government has control over businesses and markets, not to mention wide ranging controls over individuals and society. Here is the definition from dictionary.com

so·cial·ism   [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
–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.

Social programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, are not necessarily socialist, but forced universal health care would be.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Social programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, are not necessarily socialist, but forced universal health care would be.

FB, I'm very disappointed in you. ( shakes head sadly ) Socialism is socialism; it is only a matter of degree here. SS and Medicare were the beginnings of a trend toward more and more government " entitlements" which are all socialist. LBJ moved us way down that road with the Great Society, and Barry's national healthcare is simply one last step in the left's long term plans.

SSI is something that really gets me going as a 19 year old taxpayer that will NEVER see a dime of that money.

But in all reality it's whatever. I'll pay the glooberment what they make me, and I'll save my own retirement. I completely understand why some of you older folks (no disrespect intended) didn't save anything considering everything looked hunky dory back then but us younger folk will have to plan for our own retirement... while paying for yours. It stinks, but whatever. That's socialism for ya.

quote Originally posted by heybjorn: FB, I'm very disappointed in you. ( shakes head sadly ) Socialism is socialism; it is only a matter of degree here. SS and Medicare were the beginnings of a trend toward more and more government " entitlements" which are all socialist. LBJ moved us way down that road with the Great Society, and Barry's national healthcare is simply one last step in the left's long term plans.

Two things...

1. I believe FDR was a socialist, and his idea or Social Security may have been socialist like so many of his other programs.

2. When Social Security was started the retirement age was set at 65 when the life expectancy was something like 64.5. In other words, they didn't really expect that many people to actually live long enough to collect. That's why I say it might not be considered completely socialist.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: You might be surprised. Many of us "older folks" (although I'm only in my mid-40s) did in fact save. My wife and I have 401k's and IRA's My parents did as did my grandparents. Most older folks still do. Social Security is not in my long term planning for retirement. I consider it to be "gravy" if it's still around when I'm that age.

Good for you! I know my father has most of his in stocks so I hope that all works out. He plays it really smart, but besides that I don't know much about his plan.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: Good for you! I know my father has most of his in stocks so I hope that all works out. He plays it really smart, but besides that I don't know much about his plan.

You might want to show him the www.europac.net website, and consider foreign stocks and gold. Word has it the U.S. markets might be heading toward another crash.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: You might want to show him the www.europac.net website, and consider foreign stocks and gold. Word has it the U.S. markets might be heading toward another crash.

Will do.

Thanks.

quote Originally posted by newf: Is your point that Germany's healthcare system is in need of reform?

My point is that their system was/is unsustainable. I didn't say their socialized medical care system needed a reform--they did--you said it was working great--it was, but they simply could no longer afford it. They realized this, attempted to reform it, but were able to push thru only a "mini reform" which is only good enough to carry them thru 2011---1 yr. And this, is a social program in arguably the best and largest operating economy on the European continent.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: My point is that their system was/is unsustainable. I didn't say their socialized medical care system needed a reform--they did--you said it was working great--it was, but they simply could no longer afford it. They realized this, attempted to reform it, but were able to push thru only a "mini reform" which is only good enough to carry them thru 2011---1 yr. And this, is a social program in arguably the best and largest operating economy on the European continent.

Nope never said their healthcare system was working great, almost every country is having issues with their healthcare systems.
I don't know if the German healthcare is considered one of the best or not.

I go back to my point of disagreeing with people here saying these are Socialist Nations because they have social programs like Unemployment Insurance/Welfare, Old Age Pensions, and Healthcare.

If you put social programs like Welfare, Old age Pensions and Unemployment Insurance to a rerforendum what do you think the results would be?

Define "Old Age Pensions". If you mean Social Security, it would pass, simply because so many people have paid into it and have yet to recieve anything at all back out of it--they don't want to lose what they have already contributed, but if you allowed them to draw their contributions out lump sum tomorrow, SS would be history. If you wait a few years when the bulk of the baby boomers start drawing it--different story.

Unemployment insurance is paid by the employer, so it would stay--it doesn't cost the workers anything so they don't see any reason to discontinue it. If you mean these unemployment benefit extensions--they would go down in flames IMO.

Welfare--define it. Welfare is a catchall term for foodstamps, WIC, public housing subsidy, and 1/2 doz other state and federal programs. I don't know enough about them to really comment, but since the last federal welfare reform act was enacted and implemented, I have seen a lot less abuse of it. For about 25 years, there was so much fraud and corruption in it, there were people on it from very well heeled communities, making much much more than the federal poverty line and--well--it was a mess.

SS is handy, but you should be able to opt out of it. Im living on my savings, but the SS is a little bit of monthly spending money I enjoy. It not much like some may think....I doubt it even would cover your apt rent in most cases. Just remember, its not a government handout....there just giving you your own money back you paid in for 40 years in small amounts. The reason you younger ones are paying mine now is the government squandered what I paid on other useless crap over those years instead of saving or investing it. Since yours is the only money coming into it, they have to get it somewhere.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: OK, leftists, how are we going to get out of this one?

By blaming it on Bush.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: When Social Security was started the retirement age was set at 65 when the life expectancy was something like 64.5. In other words, they didn't really expect that many people to actually live long enough to collect.

, though I could believe it. You know this how ? Why even start a retirement system that one is not expected to use ?

quote Originally posted by cliffw: , though I could believe it. You know this how ? Why even start a retirement system that one is not expected to use ?

Because it was intended to help really old folks, not as a catch-all retirement program.

http://www.foxnews.com/poli...curity-analysts-say/
http://www.politifact.com/t...ity-life-expectancy/

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: SS is handy, but you should be able to opt out of it. I'm living on my savings, but the SS is a little bit of monthly spending money I enjoy. It not much like some may think....I doubt it even would cover your apt rent in most cases. Just remember, its not a government handout....there just giving you your own money back you paid in for 40 years in small amounts. The reason you younger ones are paying mine now is the government squandered what I paid on other useless crap over those years instead of saving or investing it. Since yours is the only money coming into it, they have to get it somewhere.

I'm sorry I don't think it is just that the government raided SS. While that may be a contributing factor it is a flawed system. I mean who would voluntarily sign up for a pension that was set up betting on a 50% chance you'd die before they had to pay out to you.
Back to the original point, the state employees negotiated-- if you could call it that-- their contracts and pension benefits with the governments. Being agents of the government themselves they should have known that the government could and would screw them at its convenience.