but I do think the views of democrats wanting complete socialism represents a very small fraction of them.

This doesn’t matter. Total socialism is not the only bad type of socialism.

When we think about socialism, we always think about the failed state of the USSR and we think of a completely uniform society.

No we don’t always think that. Soviet style socialism is not the only type of socialism that’s detrimental.

The truth is that most developed countries use some forms of socialism successfully.

No they don’t. Most of those developed countries are suffering from the negative side effects of socialism, which include dependence on government, reduced freedom, perpetuation and proliferation of a dependent under-class, and a reduced standard of living.

In fact, the U.S. uses socialism when they collect taxes to build roads and bridges or pay teachers and police.

Really? That’s how you view socialism, as building roads, bridges and paying teachers and police. If the U.S. had just stuck to those, there would be no need for this website. And besides, the US spends the second most amount of money per student in the world, yet its public school system is riddled with problems, and every president comes up with some ambitious program to fix things, and nothing improves. And haven’t you heard that the roads and bridges are crumbling? (At least that’s what I hear from Obama.)

The GOP gleefully points at Greece and Italy as countries whose social programs have dragged down its economy to the point of default, but actually that represents only one small factor. Looking at countries like Canada and Germany that have a much larger welfare state than Greece and Italy, yet have come through the global recession better than U.S., we can see that social programs aren’t the sole cause of Greece’s financial woes.

Canada and Germany have cut back on their socialism, while the U.S. has attempted to go all in.

Looking at recent U.S. history during the Clinton administration we can see that high tax rates on the wealthy did not negatively impact the economy, nor disenfranchise the rich. Although we don’t want total socialism in this country, a little socialism to balance wealth distribution better might be healthier for us in the long run.

During the Clinton administration, there were no high tax rates on the wealthy. They were just a little higher than those now. And just as you can say that the higher tax rates under Clinton did not negatively impact the economy, I can say that the lower rates under Bush did not lower tax revenues to the government. What then allows us to think that increasing them would raise enough money cover the much, much larger deficit the U.S. government has now than it had under Bush? Absolutely nothing! Going back to the upper bracket tax rates under Clinton would do nothing to fix the budget deficit.

Although we don’t want total socialism in this country, a little socialism to balance wealth distribution better might be healthier for us in the long run.

That’s right, a little socialism. The U.S. has already gone way beyond the point of “a little socialism”, and needs to cut back on it. The federal U.S. government already spends all of its revenues on social programs. The rest is financed with borrowing. So you want more? We cannot pay for it. Not even by taxing the rich. All those “developed countries” where you claim socialism is so successful also levy heavy taxes on the middle class. So what allows us think that the U.S. can finance socialism with taxes on the rich? Absolutely nothing!

It is NOT why socialism fails, but rather, the mistakes of the past we must learn from as we go into the future. Adapt Socialism, or whatever you want to call it, into a working form of government, not riddled with the problems above.

To the guy who said that taxes don’t reduce the incentive to work, I’m living proof that this is plain false. I could work more hours but I choose not to because it would increase my tax burden disproportionately. In other words the net pay for these extra hours would be even less than what I get for the hours I do.

To the guy who said that England’s healthcare system is what America should strive for… First off, it’s not free since prescribed drugs are not free and everyone who works has to pay a supplement of income tax called the national insurance. Secondly I can’t say much good about this system. It almost failed to treat me for a problem that could have resulted in blindness, had I not gone to the hospital emergency department against the advice of my doctor. On another occasion I had to seek dental treatment outside the country just to get a proper level of care.

Health care in England is definitely not ‘equal for all’. Those who need good care and have money can use the private health sector or seek care in another country. In effect, they pay for their own health care two times, once to subsidise the public sector and once to get care in the private sector.

To the guy who created the site I say well done, and you can add to the list of socialism’s unintended effects the fact that it leads even good people to do bad things. People choose not to report all their income to the taxman. Others fake diseases and disabilities in order to claim benefits. Others claim that they are single when they’re in a couple. Others make babies just to get into public housing.

All of which lead me to believe that socialism is a creation of the devil. Lure men with promises of protection and easy reward, and then when they’ve succumbed kick them into submission with high taxes, high prices, unemployment and state dependence. Sounds like a job for the devil.

but it was voluntary. not forced at point of a gun. people are not being treated unjustly if they don’t have as much as another, unless you stole it from via fraud or a gun. we are responsible for our own upkeep, if we need help people who are doing better generally are willing to help, but to steal it via taxation, using the poor as a front for the theft well is just plain wrong. I noticed that the more nations stray from bible principles the worse they do, if they disobey laws on theft, covetuousness or adultury or having other Gods besides the creator, or murdering or commiting fraud they suffer consequences regardless if they believe in god, you don’t have to believe in a god to suffer death if you jump off a building because you believe you can defy the law of gravity. moral laws are the same, if you break them you suffer, regardless of your belief in a god or not. your reap what you sow, break god’s moral laws and you suffer corruption. those laws are as sure as the law of gravity or law of day and night.

Someone with some sense proposes an idea, a well backed idea to say the least, which gets ripped to shreds by the left claiming that “The fat cats are what is destroying this country” or that “China is a rising superpower, they must have it right” or “when does socialism mean wealth distribution” or “equality is the best way to prosperity”.

Well guess what, our friends from Argentina, Brazil, and Sri Lanka have given real life examples of failed socialism, and every one of you all have ignored them!

As you all hopefully understand, the DEFINITION of socialism in the DICTIONARY says that socialism “advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.” Meaning that the government takes control of land, business, and (simply putting it) offers entitlements in exchange for higher taxes FROM ALL.

Todays world proves that socialism creates a welfare state, look at Europe. Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, all socialist countries who have lazy citizens who expect to retire at thirty five and survive off of government checks. The world economy is in turmoil due to the distrust the world has in these nations. Even look at the United States! Medicaid destroys work ethic, no wonder the poor never leave their class! they have no incentive to do better! They are being paid to live for free in the projects.

Although free market capitalism has its problems, it is the best way to achieve prosperity. That is final.

And getting into the whole China debate… The only reason that China is in the position it is in today is because it has corruptly, yet effectively has manipulated its currency. Government officials purchase land at cheaply set government prices and sell them on the free market to companies looking for tax breaks, resulting in enormous profit. On top of that they are hiring their workforce of a whopping 1.3 billion (1,300,000,000) people for barely nothing. So China is not a product of socialism but of corruption.

Quite frankly i would much rather trust those fat cats on wall street to create jobs than the government. With more money in the company’s hands rather in the government’s companies will have the opportunity to expand even more, thus creating jobs. As long as we give companies incentive to stay on our soil. This will work (proof during the good old ronald reagan days), and that is exactly why redistribution wont work, it doesnt create jobs, it just makes everyone lazy and destroys the American dream as a whole. People will have no chance to become sucessful, they will just take the checks like any other rats of the welfare state.

Noone can agree on anything anymore, congress is falling to corrupt politicians, if you’d ask me I believe the founding fathers are all rolling in their graves right now.

I believe i have said enough.

Also … (hehe) you a Ron Paul supporter?

It is basically a philosophical treatise on the proper role of government. It favors a very limited government, arguing from the first principle of human rights and that the government’s role should no more than secure them. It is deist, if not Christian, though many of its ideas could be useful to those who are not.