What do you people mean that keep claiming the US is getting socialistic?

Socialistic means government involvement at higher levels than capitalism, which is basically any government involvement. It doesn't necessarily mean government owned business, but usually refers to economics & the attempt to reduce the "inequality" between the rich & poor.

Indeed, although as Red points out many people are operating on old views of welfare & do not really understand the system as it is today.

 

That is exactly the problem. It's always an "image" - never the truth.

I don't necessarily see a problem with the welfare program in America & any correlation with dishonest politicians. The problem that I see with welfare is how easy it is to abuse (just like many other layers of the government).

 

Earlier you accused me of being all over the place on this thread. The reason I am doing so is because I don't know anything about economics, capitalism, or socialism. I'm all over the place asking questions because I want to learn some answers.

I agree with what you wrote that a democracy can decide to go more socialistic or more capitalistic. But I still would like to know what each side stands for. No one has really given me any solid answers to my questions, I assume because they think I'm trying to "trap" them. Seriously, I really don't know very much about socialism, capitalism or economics. This is not a trick.

 

As far as "socialism" means supporting a government that provides for the welfare of its citizens, it seems that a person could be just in favor of those "socialistic" things that come across to him as benefiting everybody equally, like having a strong military, a strong CIA, a strong FBI, a strong DEA, a strong police force, strong public prosecutors, strong court system, strong prison system, strong fire departments, strong highways and streets, etc.

The gray area is when it comes to what other "socialistic" things benefit everybody equally. Do free public schools benefit everybody equally? Do public libraries benefit everybody equally? Does government-provided medical care benefit everybody equally? Does government-provided social welfare (helping the poor, disabled, elderly, unemployed, etc) benefit everybody equally? Two people could have a fine debate arguing back and forth that such things do or don't directly or indirectly benefit everybody equally.


As for a government attempt to reduce the "inequality" between the rich & the poor, I really don't see the rich having a whole lot to fear from either party ... the rich are well-presented by fellow rich Congressmen in both parties. I do think the astronomical pay CEOs get compared to employees has gotten insane, but I don't see a whole lot of other examples of a growing rich-poor divide like you find in 3rd world countries.

 

Acusasions of the U.S. becoming socialist is a soundbite by conservative pundits.

If you look at the widening gap between rich and poor, the weakning of labor unions, free trade agreements, deregulation of utilites, phone companies etc. and tightening of the welfare systems, it appears that the U.S. is actually less socialistic that it was 25 years ago, and it wasn't then.

 

Haves and have nots, Red. It's always been that way and it always will be.

You need to work for a better employer, because you are obviously bitter.

My company offers employee discounts for everything from automobiles to airfares. Employees can purchase stock at 85% of the quote and if the stock goes below what you bought at, you get a full refund of your contribution at the end of the year. The 401K match is 117% (7% match for a 6% contribution). Employees get 4 weeks vacation, 2 discretionary days, 2 floating holidays and 12 holidays. Not all CEOs are bad.

 

Are they hiring :hihi:

 

Sure. You want to live in the Big Apple? Fear not, the company provides a cost of living bump for living up there. If I wanted to work there, they'd buy my (present) house and pay for the move.