So... Glenn Beck vs Socialism......

[Chibibar]

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local...s_host_for_jibe_becks_no_comrade_of_ours.html

Wow.. ummm... yea!
The interesting thing is that I think about what do we have now that is consider socialist?
What is Socialism? well..... on wiki it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

(The following is just my train of thought. Feel free to correct me. It is my personal opinion)
I feel that capitalism (free market) sometimes goes against socialism. My father taught me that if I work hard (or smart) I can make a good life for myself. BUT it all depends on the opportunity before you. What doors are open to you? What chances do you have if you come from low-income society?

Low cost housing give people of lower income a chance to own their own place. I know how that feels. When I bought my first house (still in it) I felt GOOD. This is my castle. My place. My rule. It is a good feeling. My wife's family is poor (personally from bad decisions but that is another story, but her siblings at least two of them are doing well.), but they will never have a chance to own a home even with help cause they can't budget or keep a job due to personality issues. So... is this system a bad thing? shouldn't people be able to own a place of their own?

What about Social Security? I know it is going to be a failed system by 2037 if we don't a thing about it per this article. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110127/ap_on_re_us/us_social_security
BUT to many people, this is their source of income upon retirement or disable. Sure it was never meant to be a permanent system, but it is the only thing we really have. My job offer retirement plans and "add on" like 403B (being government we don't have 401k in our sector unless you want to do it on your own) which is nice, but some people can't afford to put away extra money other than SS due to low income. Is this a bad system? (i.e. bad to have)

Food stamps and unemployment - some consider this to be socialist but my friends are struggling to keep their homes due to lack of jobs available that can pay to the level they are getting now (they can earn less in fast food but wouldn't able to make ends meet and lose their home) is that a bad thing?

I know that some people take advantage of the system (like Welfare system) and "live comfortably" (I put that in quote since that is matter of perspective) but there are some legit reason people use these system.

Is socialism really a bad thing?

 

[Tress]

An overly-simplified way to look at it:

Socialism looks great on paper. I wish it could work. But it defies current human nature, and until that changes, it's a bad idea.

 

[Chibibar]

An overly-simplified way to look at it:

Socialism looks great on paper. I wish it could work. But it defies current human nature, and until that changes, it's a bad idea.

you mean like back stabbing and wanting to be "top dog" and take it all and don't wanna share?

 

[Tress]

you mean like back stabbing and wanting to be "top dog" and take it all and don't wanna share?

Greed, competition, desire, wanting things, wanting to be better or the best, needing motivation related to external rewards... things like that.

 

[Krisken]

That's the thing, Chibi. No pure system will work on its own. Making it so cut and dry without elements of other systems is a guarantee for failure.

 

[MindDetective]

Socialism requires everyone buy into it explicitly. There's nothing tacit about the agreement in socialism. That's why it doesn't work on a large scale. At best you can find that kind of agreement with small groups of people.

 

[Chibibar]

But interesting thing that "most" people buy into SS, food stamps, and welfare (I use the term 'most') loosely. So I guess the question would be, is it just socially "unacceptable" of "new system" like health care (at least for the U.S.) due to the greed of everyone else?

 

[MindDetective]

But interesting thing that "most" people buy into SS, food stamps, and welfare (I use the term 'most') loosely. So I guess the question would be, is it just socially "unacceptable" of "new system" like health care (at least for the U.S.) due to the greed of everyone else?

It can't be "most". It has to be all.

 

[Chibibar]

It can't be "most". It has to be all.

Well. I use "most" cause it is in place now and people are using it, but many grumble and such, but still the system exist. I was reading the SS article and discover that the government was dipping into the SS fund (since it was there) to fund other projects and I'm guessing those projects failed and thus no money going BACK into SS. (that is how I understand it)

Right now the system allow everyone to contribute via paycheck deduction (you can't opt out I think) and now many baby boomers are cashing in on it (granted it is not much) but due to the source is from payroll deduction and major dip in job loses, SS funds are spending (issuing check) more than getting in.

I always thought why not have a baseline system that everyone have access to (i.e. basic needs like shelter, food, water, health) and people can work on the other part like getting more money to buy luxury items and be that "king of the hill"

 

[Adam]

1 in 8 Americans receive food stamps. This can only happen if all pay for it.

 

[MindDetective]

1 in 8 Americans receive food stamps. This can only happen if all pay for it.

It can certainly happen if fewer than all pay for it, actually.

 

[SpecialKO]

What does Co-Op City have to do with socialism, even the Beck version of socialism?

Most NYC co-ops, including Co-Op City, exist because the city was worried in the 50s that middle-to-upper class citizens would leave due to out-of-control rent increases by landlords (gi-normous seller's market) and they would lose most of their tax revenue to Westchester county, Long Island, and New Jersey. Many of those Co-Ops are still around today and are very successful (Stuyvesant Town is an example all the way on the other end of the scale from Co-Op City).

Being able to use Co-Op city as affordable low-to-mid income housing is a side-effect of the general failure of the Bronx's own financial management and business planning (plus their burrough government is corrupt as hell, even for NYC).

 

[Tress]

What does Co-Op City have to do with socialism, even the Beck version of socialism?

Let me answer with a question of my own: what does logic have to do with Glenn Beck?

 

[GasBandit]

The thing one has to remember when reading/listening to right wing talkers is that when they say "socialism" all they really mean is "centralized governmental authoritarianism."

As for the original Chibi question, which wasn't really about co-op city either - why is socialism (or centralized gov authority) bad? Well, in little doses it can be nice. In large doses like we have now, it retards initiative and rewards sloth... leading to the "producers vs parasites" mentality.

The old adage about "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for the rest of his life" only is true if the giving of fish to hungry men is not institutionalized, or if it is, a very strict limit is put on it... otherwise, what need has that man to fish at all if fishes just keep getting delivered to him?

Let's not split hairs here - Communism and socialism ARE very closely related. So let's take Marx's communist manifesto for a spin, as it suits Socialism as well - "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." The system breaks down quickly because many people are disinclined to work one iota harder than will merely prevent discomfort... and if their needs are guaranteed regardless of whether their contribution is their actual ability or not. We've seen it demonstrated again and again.

But all this is different from a co-op. Co-ops abound for a number of reasons, even here in Texas, farmers form co-ops to get better prices on agricultural supplies because forming a co-op lets them order everything together and basically get volume discounts.

 

[Tress]

The thing one has to remember when reading/listening to right wing talkers...

I am serious when I say there's a difference between right wing talkers and Glenn Beck. I don't always agree with O'Reilly or Limbaugh, but I can respect the difference of opinion. Beck is just a stupid asshole. I don't ever get the sense he truly believes in much of what he says; it's a job for him. Sure, he may be more conservative in his personal views, but half the shit that comes out of his mouth seems insincere and ridiculous. So whenever Beck says something, I urge people to ignore it. He's not worth it. He's a clown. He damages the conservative half of the country with his antics, and it's a shame more people don't see that.

 

[Mathias]

I side with Tress. Although it's not common, I can agree with O'Reilly or Limbaugh on certain things. Most of the time I understand where they're coming from. Glenn Beck is just an assclown.

 

[Ravenpoe]

I can't claim to have any respect for Limbaugh. But I can respect O'Reilly. I don't usually agree with him, and I feel that he, like every other talking head on tv, he ramps up his talking points with viscera and vitriol, but at least I feel like he believes and stands by what he's saying.

Glenn Beck, on the other hand, is just batshit fucking crazy.

 

[TheBrew]

I can't claim to have any respect for Limbaugh. But I can respect O'Reilly. I don't usually agree with him, and I feel that he, like every other talking head on tv, he ramps up his talking points with viscera and vitriol, but at least I feel like he believes and stands by what he's saying.

Glenn Beck, on the other hand, is just batshit fucking crazy.

I will give O'Reilly credit for going on other shows and having guests on that actually challenge him. Beck is a Libertarian coward and fool.