When Capitalism Fails Socialism Bails It Out

United States
June 7, 2009 8:14am CST
Lately people have complained about how Obama is a Socialist and is ruining the United States economy. That national health care is bad for the economy. They go on to say that him Nationalizing the banks is the worst thing ever and that Socialism is our enemy, therefore Obama is the enemy. But have they not realized that the United States has been using Socialism ideology for decades? When your kids attend a public school, receive education and eat their breakfast or lunch for free is a socialist idea. Another socialist idea is public transportation, such as busses in your city or railways. Even though they are not free they are next to free because of its low fee to be able to use its service. Another institution that has been nationalized are libraries. Should I go on? Because there are many institutions in the US that have been raised upon the foundation of Socialism that it is hypocritical to judge it as the worst ideology ever, when we have been living off of it for the longest time. So, if they really hate Socialism, we should either pay for those services or stop using them. In other words, let us privatize our schools, so kids not only pay for college but grade school as well. Let us take taxis instead of the bus, and always but our books as oppose to getting them for free. Another point, that just came to mind, is that Obama isn't doing anything new with his policies. At least not from afar, because Franklin D Roosevelt did the same thing in the 1930's witht the Great Depression. The New Deal was a Socialist Deal and is what brought up the economy back up to its capitalist state. Like the great intellectual Noam Chomsky said, "When capitalism fails, Socialism bails it out."
2 people like this
7 responses
@trose7 (248)
• United States
7 Jun 09
Capitalism only fails because socialism bails it out. Bailouts tell people that it's ok to make bad investments or decisions, so long as your a big company. We'll bail you out, don't worry. Should we privatize schools? Somewhat, yes. I think the government should give families the money to send their ids to school with, and then schools compete for students in order to raise efficiency and education. Socialism has always failed and will always fail because it is inefficient. I'd rather have a bunch of big bankers scamming me out of money then the government wasting my money.
1 person likes this
• United States
8 Jun 09
On the point you made about privatizing schools and the government pays us for the tuition, that is just another quality of socialism. I've heard in a interview with Chomsky who said that almost all middle class votes against their economic interests and when I read your comment; I'd rather have a bunch of big bankers scamming me out of money then the government wasting my money," I thought, point proven
@trose7 (248)
• United States
8 Jun 09
There are qualities of socialism in every government in order to protect the people; in this case our future generations. My economic interests are to be free to spend my money how I wish, not the government take more of it and spend it for me.
• United States
8 Jun 09
The ironic statement I found is that you rather banks scam you out of money rather then the govt wasting your money, I don't see the difference. If, unless you agree with some of past few wars the U.S has been involved, they have been wasting your money. And as you said their is a Socialist element to every govt, then you contradict yourself because in your first statement you presume to go against socialism, but now you say that it does exist to "protect."
• United States
8 Jun 09
You make some excellent points. The truth is, most Americans lack any kind of fundamental idea of just what the term socialism means. It has become a catchword intoned by the radical right to bewail its unfamiliar and well-deserved powerlessness. It is also true, however, that most Americans like Obama and his policies. They admire his courage in making tough choices, and they applaud his determination not to pursue politics as usual. They understand that without the actions taken by Barack Obama (and before him, George Bush), the economy would be in even worse shape than it is now. Think about it, if Obama is a socialist for his economic interventions, then so is George Bush, who started down the same road before his term expired. Most Americans have the common sense to recognize that all this rhetoric about socialism is merely smoke and mirrors--the effort of a defeated philosphy, a minority party, to rabblerouse rather than participate in government through bipartisan cooperation. They prefer to stir memories of the Cold War rather than coooperate in solving the problems that we face as a nation. Their rantings, fortunately, appeal rather narrowly.
1 person likes this
• United States
8 Jun 09
Thank you for your response LoveTravel. So far you have been the only user, in this discussion, who has understood my point. That the term socialism was given a negative connotation and have always sticked it to dictators, so we all assume anything that is close to socialism is a tyrant decision.
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
8 Jun 09
I would suggest you check the polls. People like President Obama as a person but his policies are and not so popular. Most have less than 50% support. Many people are very concerned about his policies and the direction he is taking the country. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
8 Jun 09
Rasmussen, Gallup and Wall Street Journal/NBC are respected polls and generally consider accurate. The article dealt with specific questions in a poll and not a summary of what someone though was important. The summary is not important what is important is the specific questions. For example if you ask most people if they like President Obama they will say yes. But when the question is do you want more money spent on a stimulus package the answer is different. President Bush often got high marks for his policies but low marks overall. There is a question that was often asked about the economy during President Bush's term was "Are you being hurt by the poor economy?" and most people answered no. The follow up question was "Are you concerned about others who are suffering from the poor economy?" The answer was yes. The summary was people are concerned about the effect of the poor economy on people. The problem was that the economy was growing and we had the lowest unemployment in many decades but people were being led to believe the economy is bad. You have to go by the specific questions and not summaries.
@amylan (191)
• France
7 Jun 09
Dude, what you are talking here is the notion of welfare states, of which there are various approaches, namely different welfare regimes. United States used to adopt the 'Anglo-Saxon' model, while some Nordic and Western European countries are under the social-democratic regimes,which could be considered as 'socialist', as government shoulder the reponsibility of providing extensive high-quality service. To the contrary, the American's liberalist approach (also adopted by Great Britain) is subjected to limited, basic public services. Apparently, Obama is taking the new social trend towards social democratic ideology, by which, unfortunately, he failed to notice the impossible federal budget to doing so.
• United States
8 Jun 09
Thank you for responding. so what exactly is your point here my friend?
@matersfish (6311)
• United States
7 Jun 09
You're kind of making a big leap here -- comparing golf balls to Jupiter. Yes, we have a few social ideas here. Yes, they're to help the "many." But unlike socialISM, this isn't necessarily at the expense of the few. They're not necessarily government=controlled to the point that the state and the citizens can't call for change within the system. What people fear is socialISM -- not some social engineering. There's a gargantuan difference. When a government takes control of private industry completely, infringes on state rights, and plays Robin Hood with everyone's money who makes enough of it, then you start to have socialISM (it gets more extreme from that point). What we have/had in America was a capitalist society with a heart. Just because we accept a few social ideas for the greater good, we shouldn't have to bite our tongues about complete and total social REengineering running a muck. That's like saying, "Well, it makes sense for Obama to spend 10 trillion because Bush spent 3 trillion. He was already spending!" lmao ... See how that gets? Or, maybe, "Well, hell, you were just shot in the leg -- you won't die. Let me shoot you in the other leg, and the arm, and maybe the butt while we're at it! You'll still be alive... and heck, you're already shot!"
1 person likes this
@Latrivia (2889)
• United States
7 Jun 09
"When your kids attend a public school, receive education and eat their breakfast or lunch for free is a socialist idea." Yeah, and an excellent one at that, what with falling academic standards and each generation of kids getting dumber and dumber because they're taught to pass a test so the school can get money from the state. Public schools pale in comparison to private schools. Like someone else said, we're a "capitalist society with a heart". Pure capitalism would be bad, but so would pure socialism. We found a happy medium. However, the government is trying to take it too far. Everything our government touches eventually turns to crap. It happened with our schools, our postal system, our transportation system, and other government owned businesses(even medical care). Sure, they still function, but at substandard levels. Private school, privately owned postal services, and privately owned modes of transportation usually tend to outshine their government owned counterparts. The more people it has to support, the crappier it gets. With this in mind, I wonder why people want the government to own the medical care industry, given that it's inevitably only going to decrease quality of it.
@lisan23 (444)
• United States
7 Jun 09
A happy medium? Why don't you tell that to the millions of unemployed - that despite our failing economy it really is a "happy medium". Or GM, or Chrysler? That what were experiencing now is just part of our happy medium. Sorry - but that's so off base. It was not a happy medium - there was too much capitalism involved (the housing market).
1 person likes this
@Latrivia (2889)
• United States
7 Jun 09
And look at the wonderful job they did. The situation still sucks, and CEO's are still begging for money. Had the government not been involved, GM or Chrysler would have gone under and been bought out by another company, and job loss might have been minimal. The government getting involved is the problem. It needs to keep it's nose out of the private sector's business.
1 person likes this
@lisan23 (444)
• United States
7 Jun 09
Explain to me how job loss would've been minimal. Using logic, too.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
7 Jun 09
"But have they not realized that the United States has been using Socialism ideology for decades?" Everyone knows that there is some degree of socialism in our government if you want to break it down that way. Unfortunately, you appear to have no clue as to what is and is not nationalized. Public schools are NOT run by the federal government. Every time the federal government screws with the public school system (No Child Left Behind) is goes to crap. Public schools are run by local school boards with vary heavily from state to state and even from county to county. Public transportation is not controlled by the federal government either. Different states, counties, and cities control their own public transportation and in some areas, what people think is public transportation is a completely private business without any governmental control. Libraries are not even CLOSE to nationalized. I've been working in libraries for years so I can tell you that many libraries don't get so much as a dime of federal funding. The majority get funds from local property taxes or private non-profit organizations. In smaller states like Maryland they get money from state taxes. "The New Deal was a Socialist Deal and is what brought up the economy back up to its capitalist state." Roosevelt didn't run a socialist state as much as he lead a dictatorial totalitarian regime. He bullied the other branches of government to run things the way he wanted and didn't bat an eye at the idea of imprisoning honest taxpaying citizens for their ancestry. That man turned what could have been a 4 year recession into a 12 year great depression. It was the war that pulled us out, NOT his New Deal. I think you should study government and history a bit more. You clearly have no clue what the national government does and does not control, nor do you understand how the great depression ended.
• United States
8 Jun 09
Thank you for responding. To answer your points, I am aware that the government doesn't directly own every single institution I mentioned. But that doesn't deny they are social programs available to all people regardless of their economic status, and that is a quality of socialism. However, if you feel that I have mistaken somewhere, go ahead and correct me, I am no ignorant nor will I take offense if you correct me. I've never read anywhere that FDR was a dictator, if you can point me to the source I will sure to read it. As far as I know the 1930's was the Great Depression, so do show me where I can find that after those four years there was an even worse economic downturn of 12 years. However, the people did elect him four times, so I can't see why they would if his policies were so bad. You see, my opinion was based on a few books I've read so far, and a few interviews I've seen of Noam Chomsky regarding the bailouts. So, you who has worked at libraries, or library for years, you must have some knowledge, so enlighten me and recommend me some sources. That way we can further this discussion. Some books where I got my opinion were; The Shock Doctrine, by Noami Klein, Confessions of an Economic Hitman, by John Perkins, and Socialism: A Very Short Introduction by Michael Newman. and also Noam Chomsky interviews. Hope to hear your reply.
@usaction (651)
• United States
24 Jun 09
You got it right on, Johnny! Social Security, anyone? Anoyne see the news vid on Yahoo, or article, showing that Denmark is ranked as where people are the most content in the world, followed by a lot of Northen Eurpoean countries, because they have a lot of socialized programs. Let's not forget Canada, Australia, and other countries, that have health care for everyone! And you're right, in that these aren't new ideas. Private (insurance) companies don't like it, because they cant charge billions of dollars. It is supposed to be "by the people, for the people," not "by the company, for the company!"