View Poll Results: Why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

Voters
136. You may not vote on this poll
  • It's just a coincidence, an accident of economics.

    1 0.74%
  • These are just lies fed to us by the liberal media!

    3 2.21%
  • Yes, certain socialized programs DO benefit a democracy's economic health.

    132 97.06%
Page 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 1018192021 LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 201

Thread: So...why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

  1. #191
    Sage
    mpg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Milford, CT
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,769

    Re: So...why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    Then perhaps you'd do well to see how the conservative cognoscenti are all about cutting wages - or refusing to allow long-overdue wage hikes - to government workers in general, and especially when it comes to teachers. Look at the postal workers - they WERE strictly government workers for all our nation's history...until the conservatives pushed to cut the USPS out of our government and has made efforts to completely privatize our mail system. Problem with that is, do you really want to pay a worker only minimum wage when that worker's the one who's trusted with delivering social security checks and all kinds of other mail-with-identity-theft-fodder in it?

    And it's not just teachers and postal workers. The GOP slashed the funding for the IRS, which as a result just said a week or two ago that they won't be able to conduct nearly as many audits as before...and what does that mean? That means there's a whole bunch of companies and corporations out there who will be even more emboldened to cheat on their taxes...which results in less revenue for the government, which leads to less money to pay for the government to do its job.

    It's like I keep saying - you canNOT have a first-world nation if you're not wiling to pay the taxes necessary to maintain that nation's status.
    Name one conservative who says that anyone should make poverty wages.
    If you expect people to be rational, you aren't being rational.

  2. #192
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,461

    Re: So...why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    I made no assumptions, I just asked for an explanation. If you can use one nation as proof of your perspective, then shouldn't I get the same courtesy??
    Hunh???? Dude - look at my OP - I'm referring to ALL first-world democracies. You pointed to Greece, so I addressed Greece...but my thread concerns all nations.

    I agree with your statement about balance, but where do we draw that line?? the problem with socialism is that looks good on a short term basis and over the long term is incredibly destructive. Our current state of welfare is classic example of how a socialistic policy can go from what should have been a small scale application of socialistic policies to one that is threatening the economic stability of this nation. This is why ANY socialistic policy MUST have a very strict limit on it from the get-go. I'd like to see welfare "constitutionalized" with changes to it only happening by way of an amendment and not by way of bureaucratic policies.
    Tell you what. Go buy a plane ticket (I sell tickets, btw, and I usually beat anything you find online) to Australia or New Zealand, both of which have governments which - compared to our own - are what would be in your view much more socialistic...and as you spend several months there, you can decide for yourself if their socialistic policies are driving them to the economic dustbin of history. Heck, you're in Oregon - go drive up to Canada and spend some time there. Same thing. They've had like ONE year of economic deficit since 1996, even though they've got universal health care.
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  3. #193
    Guru
    sawdust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    03-04-16 @ 09:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,177

    Re: So...why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

    When I say social structure, I am talking about institutions in which the government owns the means of production, like the post office, just to be clear.

    We disagree that the so called living wage, what ever that is, has anything to do with reducing waste or fraud within our social programs. I can't even imagine how you could come to that conclusion.

    Relatively speaking, we are a nation in decline. Jobs have left for countries where there is less regulation and labor costs not possible in this country. We have an administration which makes every situation they approach and the new paradigm is leading from behind, if that even means anything. We are not kicking ass, relatively speaking.

    Thanks for teaching me a new word. gotterdammerung You nailed it.

    This country had the conservative trifecta prior to the progressive gotterdammerung. That's how we became the worlds last superpower. The further we slip into the progressive cesspool the more we lose what made this a great nation.
    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." Attributed to Alexander Tytler

  4. #194
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: So...why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    Y'know, I really don't like arguing with results...and that's what you're doing. We started down the road to socialized democracy when FDR pushed through the New Deal eighty years ago, and as messy as it's been since then, we've done quite well, thank you very much.

    The point is, for all the complaints by conservatives of how terrible the government is as it allegedly oversteps its constitutional bounds, and of how many freedoms we've lost, America has for the most part only prospered in relation to the rest of the planet and - if to somewhat of a lesser extent - so have the other first-world democracies. Right now, today, the American people as a whole (meaning, not just with regards to white male heterosexuals) are more free, with MORE rights, than ever before. The claims of the Right of how we've lost so many freedoms is frankly quite Orwellian by comparison.

    So if one is to claim how wrongly our government has performed for the past several generations, one must at least first explain why it is we as a nation are doing so well (and in the big picture, yes, we are), and why it is that our people as a whole are freer, with more rights than ever before.
    so what you saying is as long as someone violates the constitution, but it meets your desires........you are ok with it

    i wonder why you don't like citizens united?

  5. #195
    Fourum Addmean
    shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Land of the sodomizers
    Last Seen
    03-18-16 @ 09:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,758

    Re: So...why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Not at all. I claimed that, when faced with socialisms many, deep failures, socialists will attempt the No True Socialism fallacy as a debate tactic, but when attempting to claim widespread support and/or success, they will instead define "socialism" very broadly. I accused them of being inconsistent in debate, which they are.
    Purely subjective as to the "socialists" you're talking to. To claim anything otherwise is opinionated falsity.
    Either I'm right or you're wrong.

  6. #196
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,067

    Re: So...why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    Purely subjective as to the "socialists" you're talking to. To claim anything otherwise is opinionated falsity.
    Sure. After all, there are no True Socialists. Certainly none in any government that has ever put a program called "socialism" into practice. Why if that were the case, then "socialism" could be called on to account for it's failures. No, no no, socialism is just this magical fairy land, where everyone puts aside human nature, and there is no crime, and we all agree to submit all of our effort to the collective, which loves us.....

    oh. Unless you are the OP and trying to make a point that greater economic centralization is a superior form of political and economic organization - in which case socialism is Medicare
    Last edited by cpwill; 02-14-15 at 03:45 PM.

  7. #197
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,067

    Re: So...why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    Hunh???? Dude - look at my OP - I'm referring to ALL first-world democracies. You pointed to Greece, so I addressed Greece...but my thread concerns all nations.



    Tell you what. Go buy a plane ticket (I sell tickets, btw, and I usually beat anything you find online) to Australia or New Zealand, both of which have governments which - compared to our own - are what would be in your view much more socialistic...and as you spend several months there, you can decide for yourself if their socialistic policies are driving them to the economic dustbin of history. Heck, you're in Oregon - go drive up to Canada and spend some time there. Same thing. They've had like ONE year of economic deficit since 1996, even though they've got universal health care.
    They also have more economic freedom than we do, and cut taxes and spending in order to increase growth

    Their top income tax rate is 29%, and the corporate tax rate is 15%. Their average tariff is also a mere 0.05% more than half ours.

  8. #198
    User Bates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Last Seen
    03-08-15 @ 09:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23

    Re: So...why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

    I submit to thee, that outside of the fine North American continent such terms as "big government" and "socialism" are rather meaningless. Historical circumstances and culture dictate the "size" of a nation's state, including its scope and breadth. Of course, in a state that knows nothing but republicanism, "big government" sounds fiendish, as if possessing a baseness character, ready to strike and devolve into monarchy without notice. The American Founders certainly believed this. To strengthen the central government and the President was, to them, a machination and nothing more; "a step closer to a King".

    The ultimate fallacy of American political thought is on display in this thread - the notion that the "size" of government determines an individual's liberty and general economic success the world over. Context is crucial. Certain systems simply cannot be emulated the world over.

    As for the topic's title. Perhaps, it was the culture and work ethic of these nations, coupled with their creation of the right environment in which business could thrive, as well as an amalgamation of other sundry factors - such as their lands being rich in resources, or their histories being relevantly peaceful, or their maintenance of political stability - that led to their respective successes.

    The "First World" did not succeed due to the existence of the welfare state and socialised programmes. Rather, the "First World's" success led to the existence of the welfare state and socialised programmes.

    I might also retort that the "First World" nations many here wish to emulate are homogeneous and small. Consider that their systems cannot be imported across the Atlantic.

    The Anglosphere - English Liberty, English Tradition, English Law

  9. #199
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,461

    Re: So...why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bates View Post
    I submit to thee, that outside of the fine North American continent such terms as "big government" and "socialism" are rather meaningless. Historical circumstances and culture dictate the "size" of a nation's state, including its scope and breadth. Of course, in a state that knows nothing but republicanism, "big government" sounds fiendish, as if possessing a baseness character, ready to strike and devolve into monarchy without notice. The American Founders certainly believed this. To strengthen the central government and the President was, to them, a machination and nothing more; "a step closer to a King".
    Actually, you're quite wrong about that. Washington came out against the Articles of Confederation because they made the government too weak and ineffectual. It was Jefferson and Madison - and not Washington - who wanted to keep the federal government weak.

    That, and you don't seem to understand that when I'm referring to size, I'm referring to the comprehensive nature of government that is present in all first-world democracies...and by comprehensive, I'm referring to the near-ubiquitous depth and breadth of the regulatory nature of the government, the relatively low level of corruption (live in a third-world nation for a while and you'll see what I mean), the middle-class pay of the great majority of government workers, and the effective oversight of those government workers.

    The ultimate fallacy of American political thought is on display in this thread - the notion that the "size" of government determines an individual's liberty and general economic success the world over. Context is crucial. Certain systems simply cannot be emulated the world over.
    I never said that the size itself is what determines the liberty and economic success, did I? Please don't put words in my mouth.

    What I SAID - and what I continue to say - is that the liberty and economic success that is found in first-world nations cannot be had without "big government"...but I never, ever said that it is that size itself that brings such liberty and economic success. Please be aware of the difference. That would be like saying that the internet is possible because of silicon - which is obviously fallacious, since the mere presence of silicon obviously does not ensure the existence of the internet...but likewise, we obviously can't have the internet without it.

    By the same token, the presence of "big government" (as described above) in and of itself by no means ensures liberty and economic success, but the state of the world's nations strongly seems to indicate that we can't have the liberty and economic success without that "big government".
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  10. #200
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,461

    Re: So...why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

    [QUOTE]As for the topic's title. Perhaps, it was the culture and work ethic of these nations, coupled with their creation of the right environment in which business could thrive, as well as an amalgamation of other sundry factors - such as their lands being rich in resources, or their histories being relevantly peaceful, or their maintenance of political stability - that led to their respective successes.

    Then explain China. Business certainly thrives there, despite the relatively recent tyranny of Mao's Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward. Russia (whatever we may think of their leadership) has made great strides since the meltdown of the USSR and their economic default in the late '90's, and may become a first-world nation despite their faux democracy. Brazil is flirting with first-world status, and the culture there certainly doesn't have the same reputation of the work ethic of, say, Japan or Germany. And it's not a matter of being rich in resources (Japan and England have always been resource-poor) or of relatively peaceful histories or political stability (e.g. Europe and Japan after the world wars, S. Korea after the Korean War).

    In other words, while culture can play a major role in the success (or lack thereof) of a nation, it is (as can be seen by the success of several nations in the Middle East) by no means a sure-fire determinant of national success, and the other factors you listed are not as effectual as you seem to believe.

    And one more thing - I listed China and Russia not because they are first-world democracies (which they certainly are not), but because of the degree of economic success they are both enjoying relative to recent great national turmoil.

    The "First World" did not succeed due to the existence of the welfare state and socialised programmes. Rather, the "First World's" success led to the existence of the welfare state and socialised programmes.
    One can understand that argument...but if the socialized programs were in any way a hindrance to the growth of the economy or the strength of the nation, then this should have been seen in the generations after such were adopted, particularly as compared to the growth and development of nations without those socialized programs.

    I might also retort that the "First World" nations many here wish to emulate are homogeneous and small. Consider that their systems cannot be imported across the Atlantic.
    Tell that to Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan, all of whom have followed the same model...especially considering the fact that Japan and S. Korea adopted these systems from the very beginning following utter devastation from war in the last century.
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

Page 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 1018192021 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •