Argument with a friend over socialism

[Anonymiss1969]

So I started talking to my friend and I said that Obamas healthcare plan is stupid. She disagreed saying, "Id rather pay to help other people than get good healthcare myself and other people get none at all," which then led me to say that history shows that socialism fails in the end. She said she wouldn't mind a socialist america.

The next point I made was that, although America has its flaws, it is the longest lasting government in the history of the world.

Does anyone have any other sides of this that may enlighten me so I better understand both sides of this argument?

 

[hanimmal]

The biggest thing is that pure socialism does not work. And also that is not and will not be the American way. There are some things that we do as a nation to better our standing since we cannot just let people die in the streets. Cooperation helps us to advance as a nation.

If we pool our money we can get a lot more done than by having thousands of individuals constantly disagreeing on what would benefit 'communities'. Things like where should this road go, can it connect to this communities roads, ect. Also we need the government to protect us from people that would want to take us over.

Over the years we have added more and more into what our government covers, which usually will start to jump into the realm of invading our rights. Sometimes those invasions are usually due to the voice of the upiddy people that think they know better than you on how you should live your life (Abortion, gay rights, slavery, marijuana laws, come to mind). And sometimes it is very benefitial and much needed invasions (Medicines that need to pass certain criteria to not be dangerous, speed limits, stop signs, come to mind).

Most are somewhere in the middle.



But it really comes down to how to best work as a group for the betterment of the community. If we can put some money here how will it benefit us all.

This gets to the gist of the insurance plan the government is trying to put together. If we that have insurance are able to get the care we need, then we are fine. But the people that don't are not dismissed if they need care. So we end up having to pay for them anyway through our insurance, or taxes that pay for reduced price care, or bankruptcy laws that we pay for them not being able to pay thier bills.

At least this way it could help clean up the system a bit. If everyone has access to an insurance plan it will help to keep them from using the emergancy room and putting that cost on us indirectly. Also it may help them to become more healthy meaning that when they get the care they need it won't cost as much.

The people that have insurance won't see any difference due to grandfathering that is in the bill. But it will force the people that don't to either get the insurance even if it is subsidized through the government, or to pay 2.5% in taxes because eventually they will need care and it shouldn't be put on just all of us that are responsible.


So anyway the big thing is she is wrong in thinking that socialism works, but you are wrong in thinking that this is socialism.

The talking heads on tv, news, and blogs want people to watch them, and since a trainwreck is a lot more exciting they make it seem like it is a trainwreck to keep people watching.


I call it the 9/11 syndrome. After 9/11 almost everyone was glued to the news. Since then if you think about it the news has stopped even trying to produce good news and decided to become the news. It is so bad that cnn just talks about what people are tweeting to them, Fox searches the conspiracy nut websites to find things to scare people against Obama (like cnn/msnbc did with bush), msnbc is just against whoever is in power to keep the pot stirring, and shows like the Daily show just make fun of them all.

 

[Anonymiss1969]

The biggest thing is that pure socialism does not work. And also that is not and will not be the American way. There are some things that we do as a nation to better our standing since we cannot just let people die in the streets. Cooperation helps us to advance as a nation.

If we pool our money we can get a lot more done than by having thousands of individuals constantly disagreeing on what would benefit 'communities'. Things like where should this road go, can it connect to this communities roads, ect. Also we need the government to protect us from people that would want to take us over.

Over the years we have added more and more into what our government covers, which usually will start to jump into the realm of invading our rights. Sometimes those invasions are usually due to the voice of the upiddy people that think they know better than you on how you should live your life (Abortion, gay rights, slavery, marijuana laws, come to mind). And sometimes it is very benefitial and much needed invasions (Medicines that need to pass certain criteria to not be dangerous, speed limits, stop signs, come to mind).

Most are somewhere in the middle.



But it really comes down to how to best work as a group for the betterment of the community. If we can put some money here how will it benefit us all.

This gets to the gist of the insurance plan the government is trying to put together. If we that have insurance are able to get the care we need, then we are fine. But the people that don't are not dismissed if they need care. So we end up having to pay for them anyway through our insurance, or taxes that pay for reduced price care, or bankruptcy laws that we pay for them not being able to pay thier bills.

At least this way it could help clean up the system a bit. If everyone has access to an insurance plan it will help to keep them from using the emergancy room and putting that cost on us indirectly. Also it may help them to become more healthy meaning that when they get the care they need it won't cost as much.

The people that have insurance won't see any difference due to grandfathering that is in the bill. But it will force the people that don't to either get the insurance even if it is subsidized through the government, or to pay 2.5% in taxes because eventually they will need care and it shouldn't be put on just all of us that are responsible.


So anyway the big thing is she is wrong in thinking that socialism works, but you are wrong in thinking that this is socialism.

The talking heads on tv, news, and blogs want people to watch them, and since a trainwreck is a lot more exciting they make it seem like it is a trainwreck to keep people watching.


I call it the 9/11 syndrome. After 9/11 almost everyone was glued to the news. Since then if you think about it the news has stopped even trying to produce good news and decided to become the news. It is so bad that cnn just talks about what people are tweeting to them, Fox searches the conspiracy nut websites to find things to scare people against Obama (like cnn/msnbc did with bush), msnbc is just against whoever is in power to keep the pot stirring, and shows like the Daily show just make fun of them all.

Thanks for the reply. It seems like the things I've been reading about the healthcare plan have been biased. Thank you for posting something that is completely unbiased. +rep

 

[hom36rown]

America has only been around for 233 years. Not even remotely close to the longest lasting government. Even Rome made it 800 years.

 

[NewGrowth]

Sarah Palin has nice boobies but thank God she is not out vice president!

 

[Anonymiss1969]

America has only been around for 233 years. Not even remotely close to the longest lasting government. Even Rome made it 800 years.

Rome was around for 800 years, but I don't believe they had the same government the entire duration of its existence. I may be mistaken, but this was told to me by someone with their doctorate, so I believed it.

 

[jrh72582]

So I started talking to my friend and I said that Obamas healthcare plan is stupid. She disagreed saying, "Id rather pay to help other people than get good healthcare myself and other people get none at all," which then led me to say that history shows that socialism fails in the end. She said she wouldn't mind a socialist america.

The next point I made was that, although America has its flaws, it is the longest lasting government in the history of the world.

Does anyone have any other sides of this that may enlighten me so I better understand both sides of this argument?

What are you talking about?!?! American is one of the younger governments, relatively speaking. Your statement makes no sense.

 

[Anonymiss1969]

What are you talking about?!?! American is one of the younger governments, relatively speaking. Your statement makes no sense.

*Sigh* Maybe you could educate yourself a little bit. America has had the same government for as long as it has been separated from the British empire. Many other countries have switched forms of government. A dictatorship is a much different form of government than a democracy. The age of a country has nothing to do with the age of its government.

"American" isn't a form of government. You sound almost as stupid as someone who says we speak "American".

 

[NewGrowth]

*Sigh* Maybe you could educate yourself a little bit. America has had the same government for as long as it has been separated from the British empire. Many other countries have switched forms of government. A dictatorship is a much different form of government than a democracy. The age of a country has nothing to do with the age of its government.

"American" isn't a form of government. You sound almost as stupid as someone who says we speak "American".

He is right in terms of current government the US is the longest standing.

If you go back it would probably be Egypt, their system of government lasted 3000 years. The British monarch's have also been around for quite some time.

 

[jrh72582]

*Sigh* Maybe you could educate yourself a little bit. America has had the same government for as long as it has been separated from the British empire. Many other countries have switched forms of government. A dictatorship is a much different form of government than a democracy. The age of a country has nothing to do with the age of its government.

"American" isn't a form of government. You sound almost as stupid as someone who says we speak "American".

I understand this. Still, America has only had one form of government for 200 or so years and it has changed and amalgamated quite a bit throughout that period. There are hundreds of societies with a single form of government which lasted longer than 200 years. The Roman Empire and the Greek polis are the two most popular, but there were many in the east and hundreds more throughout time. Hell, the aboriginals governed Australia for thousands of years under a type of government (depending on definitions).

And sorry for the mistaken 'n'. Your assumption that my mistake is indicative of low level of education is wholly wrong. If only you knew you presumptuous reactionary dogmatist.
Sorry for the hyperbolic reaction, but your statement reeks of ignorance. Plus, your blind dislike of communism and the statement that it's never worked throughout history are completely wrong. Do you know how many socialist countries have thrived over the years? Communism is merely a form of socialism, as an umbrella term. And I understand you were taught to hate socialism in your schools, churches, and homes, but reality is otherwise. Think for yourself a bit.

 

[jrh72582]

He is right in terms of current government the US is the longest standing.

If you go back it would probably be Egypt, their system of government lasted 3000 years. The British monarch's have also been around for quite some time.

He said 'longest lasting government in the HISTORY of the world" which is NOT even close.

 

[jrh72582]

Rome was around for 800 years, but I don't believe they had the same government the entire duration of its existence. I may be mistaken, but this was told to me by someone with their doctorate, so I believed it.

Rome was founded in 753 BC, mythologically. It was first ruled by 7 kings. Taquinius Superbus, the 7th king, was so bad, they moved to a republic. Julius Caesar quashed the republic and began a civil war. Augustus moved the country from a civil war to an empire and rule for 44 years himself as emperor. Rome then governed itself as an empire for a LONG time thereafter.

But like I said, this is merely one example. I'm only showing why your claim is false. Don't get so upset.

Here's proof:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/rome_timeline.shtml

 

[The Warlord]

I understand this. Still, America has only had one form of government for 200 or so years and it has changed and amalgamated quite a bit throughout that period. There are hundreds of societies with a single form of government which lasted longer than 200 years. The Roman Empire and the Greek polis are the two most popular, but there were many in the east and hundreds more throughout time. Hell, the aboriginals governed Australia for thousands of years under a type of government (depending on definitions).

And sorry for the mistaken 'n'. Your assumption that my mistake is indicative of low level of education is wholly wrong. If only you knew you presumptuous reactionary dogmatist.
Sorry for the hyperbolic reaction, but your statement reeks of ignorance. Plus, your blind dislike of communism and the statement that it's never worked throughout history are completely wrong. Do you know how many socialist countries have thrived over the years? Communism is merely a form of socialism, as an umbrella term. And I understand you were taught to hate socialism in your schools, churches, and homes, but reality is otherwise. Think for yourself a bit.

They thrived? While murdering the people and giving them a very low quality of life? Thats thriving? Say the wrong thing and you just "disapear". I wouldn't call that thriving. Existing, yes. Thriving? Not even close. Well the people at the top did well enough like Stalin but the average peasant, not so much. I don't hate socialism because i was "taught" to. I hate socialism because I cherish individual liberty, something that is not even remotely possible under socialism or communism.

 

[jrh72582]

They thrived? While murdering the people and giving them a very low quality of life? Thats thriving? Say the wrong thing and you just "disapear". I wouldn't call that thriving. Existing, yes. Thriving? Not even close. Well the people at the top did well enough like Stalin but the average peasant, not so much. I don't hate socialism because i was "taught" to. I hate socialism because I cherish individual liberty, something that is not even remotely possible under socialism or communism.

Before the recession, England was thriving. Iceland was thriving. Denmark was thriving. France was thriving. Italy was thriving. Switzerland was thriving. They're all socialist.

 

[Anonymiss1969]

I understand this. Still, America has only had one form of government for 200 or so years and it has changed and amalgamated quite a bit throughout that period. There are hundreds of societies with a single form of government which lasted longer than 200 years. The Roman Empire and the Greek polis are the two most popular, but there were many in the east and hundreds more throughout time. Hell, the aboriginals governed Australia for thousands of years under a type of government (depending on definitions).

And sorry for the mistaken 'n'. Your assumption that my mistake is indicative of low level of education is wholly wrong. If only you knew you presumptuous reactionary dogmatist.
Sorry for the hyperbolic reaction, but your statement reeks of ignorance. Plus, your blind dislike of communism and the statement that it's never worked throughout history are completely wrong. Do you know how many socialist countries have thrived over the years? Communism is merely a form of socialism, as an umbrella term. And I understand you were taught to hate socialism in your schools, churches, and homes, but reality is otherwise. Think for yourself a bit.

Man, I was the kid in the back of the class tellin all the other kids they were sheep for believin what theyre told. Its the reason that, although I grew up with an extremely catholic dad and a baptist mom (they were separated), that I don't believe in god. I base my opinions off the histories I've studied.

Using big words that you probably found on thesaurus.com, or some other site that allows people with low vocabularies to sound intelligent, doesn't make you sound smarter than you are. Use your natural vocab and your sentences won't sound so formulated.

I'll admit I made a mistake by making my statement somewhat vague. I should have made it clear that I meant America has the oldest surviving government.

 

[jrh72582]

Man, I was the kid in the back of the class tellin all the other kids they were sheep for believin what theyre told. Its the reason that, although I grew up with an extremely catholic dad and a baptist mom (they were separated), that I don't believe in god. I base my opinions off the histories I've studied.

Using big words that you probably found on thesaurus.com, or some other site that allows people with low vocabularies to sound intelligent, doesn't make you sound smarter than you are. Use your natural vocab and your sentences won't sound so formulated.

I'll admit I made a mistake by making my statement somewhat vague. I should have made it clear that I meant America has the oldest surviving government.

See how easy it is being nice? And I assure you my vocabulary is natural and my sentences formulated on the spot. I could use a more inflated diction if you like. Perhaps some etymological plays on words...pedagogical juxtapositioning...maybe even some dichotomous word play. Trust me, I have quite an arsenal. You engaged an ethos contest with the wrong person.

And BTW, those damn doctorates are never to be trusted.

 

[Anonymiss1969]

See how easy it is being nice? And I assure you my vocabulary is natural and my sentences formulated on the spot. I could use a more inflated diction if you like. Perhaps some etymological plays on words...pedagogical juxtapositioning...maybe even some dichotomous word play. Trust me, I have quite an arsenal. You engaged an ethos contest with the wrong person.

And BTW, those damn doctorates are never to be trusted.

Now that I think about the conversation I had, I misquoted him (the doctorate). Regardless, I don't believe you talk like that on a daily basis, unless youre really fuckin uptight. I've had to take a ton of english, which included a couple semesters of vocab (only because I wanted to be an english major for a while) and one thing I learned is when you try to sound smart, people can tell. Let it flow out naturally and you won't sound so pompous.

 

[jrh72582]

Now that I think about the conversation I had, I misquoted him (the doctorate). Regardless, I don't believe you talk like that on a daily basis, unless youre really fuckin uptight. I've had to take a ton of english, which included a couple semesters of vocab (only because I wanted to be an english major for a while) and one thing I learned is when you try to sound smart, people can tell. Let it flow out naturally and you won't sound so pompous.

A sound piece of advice. In fact, I teach awareness of audience and alienation in my rhetoric class every spring semester. For students, it's important to speak naturally. But I get to talk like this all day long. It's fun to use words as weapons, but it's not why I do it. Perhaps it is a reflection of my ego, I don't know...

 

[budsmoker87]

America definately does NOT hold the title of longest government in history by ANY means. We haven't HAD the same government (a democratic republic) for more than a century at a time.

The british monarchs (or jew-descendant zionists, as they call themselves) have prevailed in OWNING america 3 times, by establishing 3 central banks in america, the most recent (and current one) being the federal reserve. Our government and our currency is completely owned/controlled over british powers as we speak, as it is the Rothschilds, formerly known as the Bauers, who've established the central banks with the help of bought-off politicians, zionist missionaries, the rockefellers (and other female-blood-related descendants of the rothschilds, as jewish faith entails that a jewish woman passes 100% of her jewish heritage to her offspring), etc.

There are only 5 nations, including cuba, lyberia, sudan, iran and one other (russia? correct me here if wrong) that do not have a central bank controlled by the rothschild dynasty



the rothschilds are responsible for funding or provoking war, murder and bribery for as long as america has been in existance

there were 2 incidents in which the rothschilds were not in control- when their first 2 central banks in the US were freed from rothschild oppression. this is when abraham lincoln printed our own nation's currency and when andrew jackson, following his campaign promise to "kill the bank!" did so by vetoing congress' bill to reinstate them.


this is all you need to know about the history of the united states. we were rarely EVER a free nation because we've rarely EVER had our own currency

 

[ilkhan]

Rome itself actually survived until the 1400 as the byzintines (sp),
so 2000+ years.