America is moving toward an oligarchical socialism
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Yet before they can seize power from the president and his now subservient party, the Democrats need to agree on what will replace Trumpism.
Conventional wisdom implies an endless battle between pragmatic, corporate Clintonites on one side, and Democratic socialists of the Bernie brand. Yet this conflict could resolve itself in a new, innovative approach that could be best described as oligarchal socialism.
Oligarchal socialism allows for the current, ever-growing concentration of wealth and power in a few hands — notably tech and financial moguls — while seeking ways to ameliorate the reality of growing poverty, slowing social mobility and indebtedness. This will be achieved not by breaking up or targeting the oligarchs, which they would fight to the bitter end, but through the massive increase in state taxpayer support.
Conflicting visions
Historically, liberals advocated helping the middle class achieve greater independence, notably by owning houses and starting companies. But the tech oligarchy — the people who run the five most capitalized firms on Wall Street — have a far less egalitarian vision. Greg Fehrenstein, who interviewed 147 digital company founders, says most believe that “an increasingly greater share of economic wealth will be generated by a smaller slice of very talented or original people. Everyone else will increasingly subsist on some combination of part-time entrepreneurial ’gig work‘ and government aid.”
Numerous oligarchs — Mark Zuckerberg, Pierre Omidyar, founder of eBay, Elon Musk and Sam Altman, founder of the Y Combinator — have embraced this vision including a “guaranteed wage,” usually $500 or a $1,000 monthly. Our new economic overlords are not typical anti-tax billionaires in the traditional mode; they see government spending as a means of keeping the populist pitchforks away. This may be the only politically sustainable way to expand “the gig economy,” which grew to 7 million workers this year, 26 percent above the year before.
Handouts, including housing subsidies, could guarantee for the next generation a future not of owned houses, but rented small, modest apartments. Unable to grow into property-owning adults, they will subsist while playing with their phones, video games and virtual reality in what Google calls “immersive computing.”
The socialist challenge
Particularly since Donald Trump’s election, the leaders of corporate America — especially in tech and finance — have merged with the Democrats. They appeal to progressives by advocating politically correct views on immigration, gender rights and climate change, while muzzling conservatives both inside and outside their companies.
But now the socialists have raised the ante for progressive credibility. Going beyond green and identity issues, they are raising issues that impact most families. Arguably their strongest case can be seen in health care, now the top issue with voters, according to Gallup. In some states, notably California, socialists are also backing a drive for rent control to help families cope with high rents and low wages.
A focus on such basic issues could reorder not just the Democratic Party but the country itself. Faced with limited future prospects, more millennials already prefer socialism to capitalism and generally renounce constitutionally sanctioned free speech — not something you like to see in what will soon be the largest voting bloc in the country.
A New Deal for oligarchs
Theoretically, the Democrats moving to the left should terrify the oligarchs. Yet increased income guarantees, nationalized health care, housing subsidies, rent control and free education could also help firms maintain a gig-oriented economy since these employers do not provide the basic benefits often offered by more traditional “evil” corporations in energy, manufacturing and basic business services.
Such subsidies would help millions of gig workers, as well as the vastly underpaid production workers at Amazon’s warehouses, erratically paid workers at the Tesla car factory or the contract labor who clean the tech firms’ buildings and provide security. As historian Jeff Winters has pointed out, the oligarchy, representing basically the top .01 percent of the population, are primarily interested not in lower taxes but in protecting their market shares and capital; they have been at least as brilliant in avoiding taxes as developing innovative products. He points out the very rich have maintained their share of assets even in welfare states such as Sweden and Finland.
The losers here will be our once-protean middle class. Unlike the owners of corporations in the past, oligarchs have no interest in their workers become homeowners or moving up the class ladder. Their agenda instead is forever-denser, super-expensive rental housing for their primarily young, and often short-term, employees.
There’s surely a compelling logic for oligarchic socialism. The tech moguls get to remain wealthy beyond the most extreme dreams of avarice, while their allies in progressive circles and the media, which they increasingly own, continue to hector everyone else about giving up their own aspirations. All the middle and upwardly mobile working class gets is the right to pay ever more taxes, while they watch many of their children devolve into serfs, dependent on alms and subsidies for their survival.
“Theoretically, the Democrats moving to the left should terrify the oligarchs. Yet increased income guarantees, nationalized health care, housing subsidies, rent control and free education could also help firms maintain a gig-oriented economy since these employers do not provide the basic benefits often offered by more traditional “evil” corporations in energy, manufacturing and basic business services.
Such subsidies would help millions of gig workers, as well as the vastly underpaid production workers at Amazon’s warehouses, erratically paid workers at the Tesla car factory or the contract labor who clean the tech firms’ buildings and provide security. As historian Jeff Winters has pointed out, the oligarchy, representing basically the top .01 percent of the population, are primarily interested not in lower taxes but in protecting their market shares and capital; they have been at least as brilliant in avoiding taxes as developing innovative products. He points out the very rich have maintained their share of assets even in welfare states such as Sweden and Finland.
The losers here will be our once-protean middle class. Unlike the owners of corporations in the past, oligarchs have no interest in their workers become homeowners or moving up the class ladder. Their agenda instead is forever-denser, super-expensive rental housing for their primarily young, and often short-term, employees.
There’s surely a compelling logic for oligarchic socialism. The tech moguls get to remain wealthy beyond the most extreme dreams of avarice, while their allies in progressive circles and the media, which they increasingly own, continue to hector everyone else about giving up their own aspirations.”
"Moving up the class ladder." ? ?
Is this why Mulvaney is removing the chains from the 'Payday Lenders?' Is this DeVos is putting 'the screws' to the holders of 'Educational Debt?'
And so much more. But can not do a "War and Peace" thing here.
Socialism = Helping people that need help.
Capitalism = Helping people that do not need help.
Socialism= the largest killer of human beings in the history of the world. Read a history book for crying out loud. Better yet move to Venezuela , I hear they are looking for more Socialists there.
You are right. Well said. Great post.
America Is Moving Toward An Oligarchical Socialism
No surprise there-- Trump is doing exactly what his Russian masters want him to do!
Actually this oligarchy the secular progressives have embraced to run America with is exactly what Heartland America elected Trump to prevent. The working and middle class aren’t going to stand for what this article suggests.
LMAO! Trump is moving us towards Socialism?
Look at how this author defines socialism. This author equates 'socialism' with public programs and services.
You, in contrast, equate 'socialism' with brutal authoritarian rule with a command economy. Others equate 'socialism' with an egalitarian nightmare where everyone is 'equal'. The definitions are all over the map - especially here in the USA. It is embarrassing.
That is the problem with people operating at a level of understanding that goes no deeper than repeating a label or a slogan.
Whatever the variation of it different people subscribe to, I reject all of them.
Then you are simply rejecting a label. That method is as mindless as categorically rejecting every idea proposed by a member of the other party while accepting every idea proposed by a member of your party.
'What, that was originally proposed by a Democrat? I reject it!'.
Do you see the problem?
My suggestion is to go below the label and understand the subject matter. Then reject or accept or modify or whatever. Don't blindly reject (or accept) something simply because of a label.
My problem with your definition of Scoialism is out of step with, and completely ignores, the history, and REALITY of socialism. My definition of Socialism comes from it's history. Simple as that.
You repeat slogans and point to nations that self-label as socialism. You have yet to show any understanding of the subject matter. You are stuck at the label level and clearly refuse any information that runs contrary to your superficial understanding of this subject.
Ignorance of this complex subject is cool; I have no problem with that and am quite willing to share what I have learned. However, willful, stubborn -even militant- ignorance is offensive.
I see
One of the core beliefs of socialism is the governments involvement in privately owned business's. Trump has done that since he took office. Carrier ring a bell? How about his constant crying about the NFL? His attacks on FB and Amazon?
You are supporting a president that is more socialist than you think. Congrats!
A very miserable history filled with human suffering.
Absolutely. It is hard to imagine that anyone would promote the slogan-level meaning of 'socialism' which includes:
The term 'socialism' is so overloaded with nonsense nowadays that it has lost all relevant meaning. It just means 'something I dislike'.
LMAO! Trump is moving us towards Socialism?
Well, one thing we can be grateful for- in Capitalist societies there is not now- no has there ever been-- human suffering!
"Oligarchical Socialism." ? ? Another made up 'fear word' by the dead and buried conserva/krats to hide everything they've failed and those things yet to be failed.
Supply Side Economics still breathes. The wealth is concentrating and the power is consolidating. Hence the conservative 'nattering nabobs of negativism' for any connotation of social, socialistic and socialism. Be afraid! The conserva/message.
Hell, the last thing the right wing and conservatives can accept is when the 'tax dollars' actually and finally do something for those who paid them.
"Oligarchical Socialism." Yikes! There's a fly in the soup! Save us! Holy crackers!
It's been almost 30 years since Reagan held office. 16 of those years had a Democrat sitting in the White House.
As much as some complain about economics, you'd kind of think some brilliant Democrat would, oh, I don't know, change things instead of merely bitching about them.
That would be a novel approach.
Yeah too bad the conservatives dont take your advice about the left wing media "controlling it all" instead of doing nothing but bitching about your good old Fox being the only conservative outlet, well stop bitchin and start more conservative news outlets then. DUuu !
Nope instead many conservatives and now the president want to take down the opposition instead of trying to compete. WOW how un American !!
damn !
Nice whataboutism!
Yea Tex ,
whats’ it all about ?
Thanks I thought it was quite fitting for the article.
yeah, you were this close to being on topic!
You tell me, Alfie!
Except that Trump specifically said that the federal government was not going be regulating these industries. Did you somehow miss that?
When the left controls it all in our Oligarchical Socialism that is the topic right ?
Ya know I do feel for the conservatives at this time though cause they have so little power over all of us right now.
LOL
Is it really?
The article is a great exposure of the wall st. Finance and the Tech industry and the oligarchy they are creating and that the democrats are cooperating with in exchange for support silencing conservatives , supporting key green and social left issues and taxing the middle and working clas out of existence to pay for social programs and guaranteed income for the non working and those part time support workers for their industry. This stuff has been going on for years and the middle class and working class are fed up.
Sure those liberal oligarchs like trump have to be stopped somehow.
okey-dokie then.
Then go after the people and companies who have the money to take care of the problems of the country, instead of the middle class. Be cause that has gone on for years as well, no wonder we are feed up.
That ‘s AlPhalPha to U Darla Iing
fishin in the shallows , casting me aside. Just because U have that special , Sinething about Kary , haut
The most frequently repeated complaint about the Republican tax cuts is that they are a massive "giveaway" to the rich. New evidence shows that this claim, like almost every other attack on the tax bill, is false.
In the run-up to the passage of the tax reform plan, which President Trump signed into law on Dec. 22, critics attacked it on several fronts.
They said there was no way the tax cuts would spur extra economic or job growth. But after the tax cuts went into effect, several economists sharply increased their growth forecasts for 2018.
They said the plan would raise taxes on the middle class. Nancy Pelosi claimed as recently as this month that the tax bill will boost taxes on "86 million middle-class families." Even the Washington Post called her out for this falsehood.
They said none of the benefits of the corporate tax cuts would "trickle down" to workers. That would be news to the more than 4 million workers who've received bonuses, wages, or improved benefits as a direct result of these cuts.
They also said the tax bill was a budget buster that would never come close to paying for itself. But the latest CBO report shows that the extra economic growth created will offset a substantial portion of the tax cuts.
Giveaway To The Rich?
However, the most frequent charge leveled against the GOP tax cuts was that it would make the tax code less fair. It was, they said, a "huge," "massive," "the most insane" (pick your over-the-top adjective) giveaway to the rich.
Now we know that this, too, is false.
Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff, along with University of California, Berkeley, economist Alan Auerbach, conducted a detailed analysisof the winners and losers of the tax bill.
They found virtually no change in the progressivity of the tax reforms. The rich, they concluded, "will pay essentially the same share of taxes" as before.
Data from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center shows the tax code getting more progressive under the Republican tax cuts, according to a report on the data in the Wall Street Journal.
Top 0.1%, for example, will see their share of federal income taxes paid climb to 22% this year, up from 18.9% last year.
The share of income taxes paid by the top 1% will reach 43.3% this year, compared with 38% last year.
How is this possible, given that the law cuts the top income tax rates?
Millions More Pay Nothing
Because while it cut taxes for the relatively few rich in the country, the law also cuts taxes for the vast middle class — through lower rates, a much larger standard deduction, and doubled per-child tax credit.
The law also kicks many families off the tax code entirely. According to the Tax Policy Center, 45.8% "tax units" will owe nothing in federal income taxes this year, or will get a net refund thanks to tax credits. That's up from 43.4% under the old law.
So, thanks to the GOP tax cuts, the rich will pay either the same or a greater share of the nation's income tax bill and millions more will pay zero income taxes. How exactly is this a "giveaway" to the rich?.....https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/republican-tax-cuts-fairness-rich-share-paid/
Business owners including rich ones did get a better break than the common man.
The Senate approved the $1.5 trillion tax bill, which includes permanent tax breaks for corporations and temporary tax cuts for individuals, by a final vote of 51-48. Once enacted, the legislation will represent the most drastic changes to the US tax code since 1986.
Yes and no, I dont follow trump on twitter so I'm not up to date on his talking points of the moment. I guess my inclination that this was just another red herring was correct.
At least he may be learning not to try to take actions on his red herrings after the immediate botched implementation of his Zero tolerance of illegal immigration policy enactment.
Can you link to this evidence from anywhere other than a far right fringe website? (i.e. American Thinker)
Clinton did something Reduced Deficit to near 0, it was reversed by Bush, Obama did something reduced deficit to about 400 billion from astronomical proportions, Trump reversing that back to 1 trillion dollars
Wow, a President has the power all by himself to reduce deficits?
Who knew?
And all along in school, my teachers taught me that Congress actually controls the purse strings, and that Presidents can't spend money unless appropriated by Congress!
Wait until I tell them they were all wrong because you say so!
Isn’t that amazing? Tip O’Neil spends like a drunken sailor on liberty and it’s Reagan’s deficits. Newt Gingrich compelled balanced budgets and yet its the Clinton surplus. Oh and the government shutdowns. A GOP President and it’s the presidents shutdown. A democrat president and it’s congress that did the shut down.
The article clearly states otherwise and is right. Don’t forget the nation wide $750,000 cap on mortgage interest deductions and the $10,000 nationwide cap on deductions for state and local taxes. Those two caps will only affect the affluent wealthy people and offsets the cut from 39.6% to 37% on the top rate.
You tell me, your the one referencing Regan and then pointing out Dems have been in the Whitehouse for 16 years yet claimed they did nothing. If you don't like being reminded that the Dems have been doing something and the Repubs are the ones dragging the country down then don't post such nonsense.
I was referring to SSE. I believe you know that, or least should have.
Lots of people seem to complain about SSE. It is reasonable to ask what has been done by opponents of SSE what they have done to change it.
Ben Shapiro and Tim Allen are fine examples of how that actually works.
As much as some complain about economics, you'd kind of think some brilliant Democrat would, oh, I don't know, change things instead of merely bitching about them.
Well I could be wrong-- but IMO its quite likely the voters will do exactly tha--t in the next electionas! (At least in the House-- IMO right now the Senate is to close to call).
Since the claim is that the GOP is responsible for SSE even when Democrats are in power, and Reagan has been gone for 30 years, and we have had both Republican and Democratic Congresses, why do you think NOW America is going to change? And what exactly will SSE change in TO?
Yea, don't see any mention of SSE in your post or the one you responded to. What is SSE now that you mention it?
Please read the entire thread, starting at post #4.
Has it really been that long? I miss him and I must be getting old!
ok, i was responding to #4.1 directly, not the rest of the thread or whatever it devolved into. So yea my previous statements stand, there is no mention or SSE in 4 or 4.1 so i guess my comments were spot on in reference to your overreaching, grandstanding and finger pointing.
Oh well.
My guess is the seeder heard someone, somewhere say that trump is beholden to russian oligarchs, which he is. So go search for an article that plays to the, "I know you are but what am I" argument and post it here.
When someone called trump a fascist, within 24 hours, there was an article here saying how the left is all fascists, (which is ridiculous since fascism is a far right wing ideology).
The progressive democrat tech industry and wall st bankers and media are all an oligarchy that is trying to starve out the working and middle class with new tax and regulatory burdens to pay for socialism for the non working and part time contract workers they won’t pay living wages to. It is the progressives that are harboring and supporting like minded oligarchs who will help them impose their will upon the bitter clingers and deplorables
It is articles like this that contribute to the widespread confusion on socialism. The word means so many things nowadays - probably because every time someone declares something as 'socialism!' it sticks. Ironically the original meaning is largely lost. In this case, this author equates socialism with public programs and services. To this author, universal healthcare is an example of socialism when in reality it is statism or -as commonly practiced- social democracy.
Oligarchal socialism is a perfect oxymoron. It is also a sad indication of the level of misinformation posed by 'experts' that only serve to lower the collective intelligence in our nation.
No, Joel Kotkin, you simply are describing a strategy for a more concentrated form of capitalism. The described system is capitalism that is protected by a careful balance of giving the people just enough to keep them passive. It will probably work too.
Supply Side Economics. Trickledown. Whatever you want to call it is still the American economic system.
Capitalism is dead. Bait and switch has been accomplished.
We the people elected Trump precisely to prevent this progressive/tech social dystopia from proceeding further. It also shows why Obama and Hillary had such utter contempt for the bitter clingers and deplorables in the America they intended to destroy in order to create their new world order and impose it on us.
Yep some of we the people dont want the country to move forward. Too bad the past is done. trump is but a temporary set back, ya can't stop the world from progressing forward, its against the laws of nature.
Supply side economics is capitalism.
So you support a future as described by the seeded article?
(hint) Every economic system (of modern, established nations) is a variant of capitalism. All of our systems involve a minority controlling the productive resources of the economy. Sometimes the minority are private sector capitalists and other times it is government officials and politicians. Some variants are better than others but the economic system is always capitalism.
Capitalism = minority control over the productive resources of the economy.
Unfortunately HA I see a future much different that we have now one way or another.
As tech takes over and mankind gets lazier we'll (for a time) probably become more a society of leisure and slaves.
What we now see as the wealthy and the poor. (But on steroids!)
I also see that as inevitable. Barring a catastrophe such as nuclear war.
“Democrat Hillary Clinton wasn’t listening and didn’t seem to care. She didn’t campaign much in rural or industrial America or include their priorities in her agenda.
Clinton’s view was clearly illustrated after the election when she said:
If you look at the map of the United States, there is all that red in the middle, places where Trump won. What that map doesn’t show you is that I won the places that own two-thirds of America’s gross domestic product. I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward. And his whole campaign, "Make America Great Again," was looking backwards.
This is the way Clinton looked at rural and industrial Americans. She looked down on them as backward, pessimistic, and stagnant. We cannot be surprised they didn’t vote for her.
But Trump saw them and gave them the respect they deserved. He acknowledged the work that they did and its importance to the economy. His message to them was simple: Elect me and together we will make America great again. Trump recognized their existence, their value, and their plight.”
First off Hillary wasn’t fit to walk my dog. (neither is trump).. Seriously, I would not trust either of them with my chows !
But as far as the Midwest, I honestly can’t speak from firsthand experience in today’s worlds but when I did live there (from birth till about 19 ) I found Bartonville Illinois very stagnant and unfortunately many people were pessimistic because the work force was going backwards.
Caterpillar even had figured out it did not need to pay the wages it paid because they had no competition. Backwards.
PS: Cat WAS Peoria, and Peoria was Bartonville. Period ! ... (40 years later that hasn't changed from what I'm told by family who are still there.) And Cat still pays crap because they still have no competition !
IMO: People in the Midwest have been waiting and hoping the government would turn corn fields and baseball fields into productive means for many many years. I did not think that was the government's job nor that they would do it, so I relocated many years ago.
Also IMO: trump exploited that situation to gain power, now that he has power what he does with it is yet to be seen.
As I have said before, most of what president trump has begun is just that... begun. Time will tell the end results. Positive,or negative. I figure we'll see a mixed bag like with most presidents before him.
What president trump seems to want may be good for the interior but may not be so right for the exterior and with America already being so divided all I can say is Good Luck America. One way or another America is moving forwards. Time will tell which way it really is.
Good Luck to ALL of America !!
United we all once stood. Unfortunately, not so much today.
No. SSE is not capitalism. Even GHWBush referred to SSE as, "Voodoo Economics."
SSE continues its exploitation only because the wealth is more powerful than the people. This is why Citizens United is so important to so few.
So trump is going to get rid of Twitter? You may be in for a very long wait.
That interior includes very large chunks of very blue states including NY, Illinois, California, Oregon, Washington. There are large chunks of Ca, Or, Wa, that have much more in common with nearby mountain states, the prairie states, and Texas than with the urban parts of their own state.
Well we have another big fire here. Closed both sides of I-5 and everything from north of Shasta Lake to the Siskiyou county line at Dunsmuir is being evacuated. Some big rigs got trapped by the flames and are burning. Hopefully all the people in any vehicles there got out.
Stay safe. I am not all that far North of you and we have had an extraordinarily dry and hot summer. Not even indoor wood stoves are allowed, (people burn their junk mail in them in the summer). Living in a forest, me and my neighbors tend to take red flag warnings pretty seriously.
Yes-- but guess what?
Under Communism (USSR, Communist China, etc) who do you think controls/controlled the economy? Who had the large dachas, expensive cars, etc in the USSR? What was life like for the average peasant? For the average factory worker?
In every large society, there is an elite that controls things. And who are obscenely wealthy.The only difference between a so-called Capitalist" society, a "Communist Society" . . . a "Democracy".....even a religious theocracy-- is that in some societies the elites are successful at giving the illusion that its all very democratic-- in other countries they don't even try to!
BTW,before we get into out own political biases (and/or conspiracy theories) the reason for this should be made clear. People are different. Some are just really considerably smarter than others. But that's not the only factor.
Whether extremely intelligent of not, some people a quite practical, others (including some who are highly intelligent) lack common sense.
But perhaps most important of all-- regardless of brain power, or even common sense, some people are really driven to succeed. Others are not. (Some people are obsessed with money..others may not be but are obsessed power. Others don't care. about those things. Its a question of what a person values.
They stopped train traffic through there and people wanting to keep traveling have to take hw 299 from Redding to Burney and Hw 89 from Burney to Mt. Shasta to go north, the reverse to go south. The roads are so clogged that the 95 mile detour is taking 8 hrs.
Which is the intent, of course.
It’s easy to understand why progressives don’t want their master plan for our future to be discussed in public like this. I’m grateful to the Orange County Register and Real Clear Politics for publishing it and spreading it more widely across the net.
I notice you don't (can't) address TiG's comment about socialism being, by definition, not oligarchical. You choose instead to try scare tactics and insults.
All forms of socialism practiced in the 20th and 21st on earth have had an oligarchical ruling class overseeing it. Why would the one described in the article be any different.
If they're ruled by oligarchies, then by definition, they're not socialist.
That plus the fact that the majority of the population just isn't all that bright!
"Oligarchical Socialism" is a contradiction in terms.
Oligarchy means rule by a few. The entire philosophical point of socialism is to NOT have rule by a few, especially in the economy. If you want to see an economic oligarchy, all you have to do is look out the window right now. A minority of the population controls the means of production that everyone else depends upon for life. The majority working class is subjected to the economic rule of the minority capitalist class, who, incidentally, also have their tendrils wrapped around a very sizable portion of the political class.
Capitalism is an economic oligarchy, and an indirectly political one as well (considering the power and influence the wealthiest capitalists have in Washington, a.k.a. 'the donor class').
Socialism, on the other hand, is supposed to be the opposite of an economic oligarchy. It is supposed to mean pluralistic control of an economy, not minority control like in capitalism. That's what distinguishes it from capitalism, for crying out loud. That's what makes it a conceptually different thing.
Of course you must be aware of the fact that regardless of what the stated philosophy of a system is-- there will always be some individuals who crave power, and crave being able to rule. And amongst those there will always be a few who are clever enough (& in some cases lucky enough) to have de facto control. (Those that remain in power for a long time are often clever enough to know how to manipulate the population and to convinec them that its all very democratic...)
if your retirement plan is socialism? better think again.
If there is socialism when I retire in a bit over 8 1/2 years from now I won’t have a retirement plan anymore.
By socialism I suspect you mean social democracy - heavy use of public services / programs funded by higher taxes and a more regulated capitalist engine.
If by some chance (really, really doubt it) you are referring to a system in which control over the productive resources of the economy is no longer in the hands of a minority (either private sector or public sector leaders/officials) then no worries. I am pretty sure none of us will be alive by time our system evolves to that point - if ever.
People worried about 'socialism' today are just afraid of a word that, in all practical senses, has no real meaning to most people in the USA. Much better to not use the 'boogie man' word and just be specific about that which you dislike. Examples of things that already have a name:
Using terms like these gets one's point across more accurately. Calling any of these 'socialism' (as if any of these are a defining characteristic of socialism) reveals ignorance of the subject matter and accomplishes nothing of value.
There is nothing of value in any form of socialism.
Proof that you operate at the label / slogan level of understanding in this topic. You demonstrably cannot muster even a rudimentary rebuttal to what I proposed. I suspect that you did not even read what I wrote.
What motivates people to stick with preconceived, superficial notions and refuse to take even a baby step towards a deeper understanding of something they think they hate?
IMO that is the perfect recipe for ignorance - not good for the individual and not good for society.
if your retirement plan is socialism? better think again.
Social Security is a Socialist concept. No-- its not totalitarian Communism. But it is Socialistic. (Socialism can be moderate-- or extreme. Social Security is typcal of the more moderate forms of Socialism.).
Apparently some people here feel that under Trump, Republican control of Congress, and an increasingly Conservative Supreme Court ...that means we will become a more Socialist country. (If its becoming More Socialist" then obviously that means that previously i t was less Socialist. So therefore tits becoming more Socialist than it was ...under the previous administration (8 years under Obama).
Remember:
Social security is a plan where people pay into it and receive something back from it. It is capped so that there is both a maximum that one can get out of it and that one has to pay into it. To raise the cap one must pay into it without also raising the cap on what one receives from it upon retirement would make it a socialist welfare system.
First, we have a profound imbalance in social security due to the bulk of baby boomers turning from contributors to receivers. Second, baby boomers are living longer than their parents putting even more strain on the system. Since SS is not a pass-thru system wherein one contributes to one's retirement, but - for the most part - a system where one generation pays for the social security of the prior generation, the current working generation is basically screwed. They will be paying more and almost certainly receiving less when they hit retirement age.
You seem to think that the endpoint caps reflect an equilibrium at the moment. Where do you get the idea that SS is currently 'fair' and that no fundamental changes are required?
Here is a quote from an article arguing that Social Security and Medicare are NOT insolvent :
In short, the counter-argument basically is that yeah our systems need serious action but not as badly as you all portray them.
So when we act on social security and medicare, according to you this is 'socialism'.
Oxymoron.
No, it’s accurate. [deleted]