| |
| Democratic Socialism (US) |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| Cosmo |
 Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:19 am Post subject: Democratic Socialism (US) |
 |
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 359
|
My Brand of Socialism (US)
We are supposed to be a citizens government as the Constitution dictates.
The aversion of the conservatives to Democratic Socialism and replacing it with corporate
socialism is a clear violation of our Constitution and its intent of serving the people.
Our Constitution (CN) has outlawed the self serving individuals like kings, dictators,
emporers, popes and any other 'self serving' individuals like capitalists and criminals.
The most logical way to do this is by reforming the electoral system to get rid of the
corrupting dollar influences that the wealthy and the corporations have used to get
control of the politicians.
This can be done with the ‘Public Financing of Our Elections’ with the private dollars
banned from this government function.
Private dollars, which buy advertising, are NOT free speech and therefore can be
legally banned.
Through this process, the politicians would be free from having to solicit these corrupting
dollars and direct their attention to the citizen issues. Once we get the servants of the
citizens into office, we can then push through a socialist platform such as the
one below, which I would advocate.
My idea of a Socialist government would be to promote the following:
Guarantee jobs for all citizens.......... No unemployment!
Guaranteed pensions for all citizens.............For workers, management personnel,
government employees and any other responsible citizens.
Guaranteed health care.............For all citizens and including all credited healthcare
practitioners such as Naturopathic doctors, acupuncture as a substitute for analgesics
and etc. .
And any other essential needs at a reasonable subsistence level.
All the details would be formatted by citizen committees.
The wonderful thing about this program is that one would not need to save any money.
They can spend it all to contribute to a thriving economy that creates jobs.
With this system, they would not need religion either since this security is what people
need and want.
Corporate and wealthy hoarded dollars (surplus) DO NOT contribute to a thriving
Economy.
Our current economy is a lopsided one where the people that do the least have the
highest incomes while the workers have had their incomes reduced to a barely
subsistence level.
There are only two sources of ‘real tangible wealth’ (RTW). These sources are Nature
as a commodity and the worker produced tangible goods.
RTW is what we see and feel like the skyscrapers, bridges, highways, automobiles,
homes and etc.
While on the other hand, the conservative capitalists creations are all in their heads.
This is not tangible wealth. Therefore, workers deserve better and a fairer distribution
of the RTW that they create.
However, in this Socialist state, ‘free enterprise’ would be allowed and government
supported. But there would be limitations on this accumulated wealth as determined
by the citizens.
Income taxes would be graduated on SURPLUS income only from a rate of about 95%
for the top earners to a bottom rate of about 5% for the minimum wage earners.
Any other details can be worked out to restore our economy to a more balanced state...
Of course, all these reforms would result from the government financed and modified
electoral system in accordance with the Constitutional mandate of the ballot box and
not through any revolutionary means by radical communists or coup d’etat power
conspiracies. .
Cosmo |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1063
|
Cosmo; You post is too wide ranging for a comprehensive response, however I will address a couple issues...
The US is made up of 50 separate and independent governments, limited only to the Constitution, its amendments and the laws that can be drawn from those meanings. What you suggest, violate nearly all those laws and eliminate *State Rights*. No single issue mentioned, could in the end become law, for the founders intended use of *Checks & Balances* or the process to amend that original intent.
You mentioned the*Electoral System*, which is used ONLY, for the electing of two people every four years, has nothing to do with any other
election system. Even here, the elector's which are voted on by the public in each State and are State Representatives who represent their State at a Special Meeting. They are not obligated to even follow the peoples decisions, though traditionally have. The system was set up, when male property owners were the only voters and the founders were concerned with decisions they could make. We now only limit voting to those under 18.
Our Constitution does not outlaw anything having to do with Royalty, Corporations, religious people or in fact criminals. Age 35 and born in this Country (with exceptions) are the requirements. The electorate does this job and has not always been perfect.
Lets say, people earning 50k were in the 5% tax bracket and any one earning over 1M were taxed 95%. About what would be required to pay for such a government. The lower bracket would keep 47,500 and the higher earner would keep 50,000. What incentive is there for anyone to advance in any way. Education, exploring ideas or advancing any agenda concerned with a society... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Holmes |
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 09 Feb 2008
Posts: 35
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4060
Location: Scotland
|
I think it is touching that Cosmo's political views are as disjointed and as far from convention as his views on the Big Bang.
This, of course, does not mean he is wrong about either.
Nor does it mean he is right.
_________________
The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is weirder than we can imagine. J.B.S.Haldane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cosmo |
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 359
|
Jackson:
The US Constitution is the CN of today, not the origiinal one that did not have all the Amendments added.
I believe in Evolution and therefore, I believe in todays CN with all its Amendments.
Our CN has 'matured'.
However, it is still being ignored because of religious loyalties and dollar influences.
So we DO need reform. That is why I promete my politicall solution to the current problems that are facing our nation today. So I hope the US citizens get the message here.
Under the republicans that cater to these dollar influences and religious fanatics, our country is floundring with todays problems like a balooning budget and national deficit/debt, shrinking dollar on the international market, outright chauvinism shown among the democrats and republicans promoting their religions is an insult to our Constitution and what it stands for today.
That is why we 'need' political 'reforn', not religious reform.
I could go on promoting my views but time is limited, so I will close this for now.''
Holmes:
This Norton character is of biblical origin, not of our current CN and what it teaches.
The followers of the bible today are the source of all the problems in our country and throughout the world. Who needs it?
Cosmo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1063
|
The US Constitution is the same as was written. This the primary purpose, formation and operation of the Federal Government. The first ten amendments were from the same people who wrote the constitution and done so to emphasize rights of people over government. Each of those ten, were examples of how the amending process should work as well.
In the next 225 years only 17 amendments have been added, many of which were issues argued in 1776. Slavery, womens rights or rights of people.
What has changed, to some degree are the laws, which can be changed to accommodate social trends. The founders were aware of a changing society and allowed for change through amendments, not enacting laws to circumvent the intent of their document.
"Problems of today" of course are subjective, different in each state and the opinion of each individual. Its up to the folks in a particular state to amend their individual Constitution, not the requirement of the other 49 to conform to the one. Culture/Traditions, no less different.
As for republicans and/or Capitalism; Yes they (we) do believe in a Free Market system and feel it has been instrumental in the success of this country. We promote it world wide, in hopes other Nations can achieve what we have. World peace, if achievable, will come from advancements which can be, under this system. Democrat's however are not far off the reservation, only wanting in on the action. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cosmo |
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 359
|
| jackson wrote: |
As for republicans and/or Capitalism; Yes they (we) do believe in a Free Market system and feel it has been instrumental in the success of this country. We promote it world wide, in hopes other Nations can achieve what we have. World peace, if achievable, will come from advancements which can be, under this system. Democrat's however are not far off the reservation, only wanting in on the action |
Capitalism believes in the 'free market system', when it gives them access to cheap labor.
But when it comes to access for the seniors for cheap drugs, they are told to buy american.
Capitalism does not create any tangible wealth as I have said before. In this case, they need workers (hands) to do it for them.
With their 'dollar stuffing frenzy', they have created a lopsided economy that will lead to corporate bankruptcies if they do not learn to 'share the wealth' that workers produce. So I would like to inform them to dump their DSF.'
When it came to the past prosperous economy, it was the 'inventors' and the governments licensing these patents that made the economy grow. Capitalism just stepped in and supplied the investment dollars they scrounged up to contribute their involvement in this growth.
Anyway, like I said before, I do not oppose capitalism. I just would like to see 'limitations' as to how much they can skim off the economy.
Cosmo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1063
|
Free Market, includes labor. Business that requires high concentrations of labor are forced to pay what the available work force demands. This can be through wages or benefits. High Tech Corporations are not importing labor from abroad because its cheap labor, but our educational system is not educating our people. Think you would agree...
I can't argue the old folks and medication issue. Something would seem wrong when a person can save 50% by ordering the same medication from another country (Canada), receiving the same pill and produce by the same source. However *buy American* is based on safety factors where foreign produced medication, in many cases has been found not to be what said. The problem probably in *Patten Privileges*, making generic US producers ineligible to compete for years. Here, Congress has decided the producers of life saving drugs, should have a way to recoup the moneys spent to R&D the medication.
Since you agree the system has worked, I see trouble in changing the system. The logical answer, would be to educate workers to participate in the investment side which many already do. The 60% or so that work for small business (nothing to invest in) should be allowed to invest through regulated mutual funds, rather than SS payments...IMO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cosmo |
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 359
|
| jackson33 wrote: |
Free Market, includes labor. Business that requires high concentrations of labor are forced to pay what the available work force demands. This can be through wages or benefits. High Tech Corporations are not importing labor from abroad because its cheap labor, but our educational system is not educating our people. Think you would agree...
I can't argue the old folks and medication issue. Something would seem wrong when a person can save 50% by ordering the same medication from another country (Canada), receiving the same pill and produce by the same source. However *buy American* is based on safety factors where foreign produced medication, in many cases has been found not to be what said. The problem probably in *Patten Privileges*, making generic US producers ineligible to compete for years. Here, Congress has decided the producers of life saving drugs, should have a way to recoup the moneys spent to R&D the medication.
Since you agree the system has worked, I see trouble in changing the system. The logical answer, would be to educate workers to participate in the investment side which many already do. The 60% or so that work for small business (nothing to invest in) should be allowed to invest through regulated mutual funds, rather than SS payments...IMO. |
Regarding the drug problem, drugs from Canada and Europe are of equal quality to the US product.
Anyway, the current healthcare monopoly created for the US drug companies and other facilities are not equal to the Alternative Healthcare Practitioners because these AHP are superior to the US HC system in both cure rates and costs. They use 'natural' medicines.
The current side effects of these drug treatments kill over 100,000 patients a year (JAMA). Another one and a half million are hospitalized because of the 'side effects' (JAMA) of these drugs. This is an example when capitalism has this closed monopoly to keep pushing their drugs on the public regardless of the ourcome of the treatments .
Regarding retirement, do you expect a low income person to invest enough money in the market to retire on its earnings?
Another problem with these investments is that the market does lose through capital losses occasionally.
The safest investment is in the US system of SS and non other is equal.
The conservative wars on unions that represent the workers is unjustified because our Constitution mandates a representation of its citizens and who is more deserving of this than the workers?
Nuff said.
Cosmo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1063
|
Influenza vaccines are produced in Canada and England, because of current regulations in the US on manufacturers today. The cost to research and development of any new product, entails billions in many cases, which has to be recouped. Grants and funding does come from government, to some extent but investors in this area nearly equals the entire US budget. I can't emphasize enough, the need for pharmaceuticals to remain independent.
I have already agreed, their should be some relief for people, with fixed incomes and the poor. This in my opinion, could just as well come from States, rather than the Federal Government. Many do and even Wal-Mart has jumped on the issue...
People mis-use drugs and IMO most are not needed in the first place. The treatment industry (Hospitals/Clinics etc) additionally overcharges to extremes. There are reasons, which could be remedied, but would get thrown off this forum, if I mention.
"Educate", the premise of my statement on retiring comfortably. Yes, I think, any person could, millions have and most really want to. The problem is a new car, a boat or some object is always there to entice living the retirement dream that day, not 10-40 years down the road.
I worked for GM, under Union Contract for a few years. Working on the line, one day a light bulb burned out and I replaced that bulb with a spare at my station. The line would shut down if I had not, with a cost of about 5,000 $ per minute in those days. My reward, from the Union was a week off w/o pay for doing what an electrician was required to do. Today 50 thousand plus members of those unions are receiving FULL pay for doing absolutely nothing, as plants shut down for lack of sales. While GM and Ford are losing 50 BILLION PER QUARTER, there competition workers are changing there own bulbs and working for going wages. Detroit has gone from the 7th best per capita family income, lowest welfare rate, to off the chart and highest welfare rate. I see nothing good that has come from organized labor in the past 50 years nor do I think conservatives had anything to do with it.
I do understand you viewpoints however, but the days of isolationism are gone. There not coming back and we and our descendants are going to live in a world economy. We can't, as a Nation, survive alone or can any other Country. Going back to waring over commodities are also gone and IMO, I would rather they stay -gone-... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cosmo |
| Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 359
|
Jackson:
I will admit that unions may have gone to extremes in protecting their jobs.
But why question the tactics of unions?
How aboiut the corporate CEO's skimming all those retirement or severence packages for themselves? They may not do this directly but they do pick the BoD's that serve them, don't they?
Cobsidering that they do nothing but listen to their boards of directors for ideas and discussing business deals in a fancy gourmet restaurant or on a golf course.
And for that they get multimillion dollar incomes?
The failure of the Detroit auto industry is not the fault of the unions but instead, the CEO's that dragged their feet in correcting the defects in the cars?
I used to keep track of the quality of the US cars and the Japanese cars and they corrected defects within a year or two.
But in the US cars, these defects lingered for as long as six years before being corrected. So the problem for the loss of sales can be placed at the top management.
Also, the spread between the top earners in the US and its workers is much greater that that in the Japanese industries.
In the earlier years when the auto industry was enjoying good sales with the strong unions and highly paid CEO's, Ford built up a 'slush' fund of 7 billion and Chrysler had one of 9 billion.
At that time, there was no announcement of GM's slush fund.
Cosmo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1063
|
Unions were of course, "good for society in there day". We have been hearing this for years and years. The tactics and motives of Organized Labor have changed from Labor concerns to survival. To do this they, more and more has been taken from the thriving business or captive government and teachers. Each case has proved bad for the society and making a class of people which is near a monarchy form of society (lifetime appointments to a JOB)...
We have gone over CEO's compensation many times. Lets try a specific, but by no means the only one. Lee Iaccoca, a very successful employee of Ford, worked his way to CEO of that company. Fired the year, Ford earned its highest annual earnings per adjusted money values, because he couldn't get along with Mrs. Henry Ford. Chrysler a dieing company sought Mr. Iaccoca and he obliged. Worked for 1.00 per year, arranged an unheard of loan from government and pulled that out of Bankruptcy. His later wages and compensations were in line and well worth it to that Company. In short there are very few people who can run a major company and those people, now require more and more to attempt or in fact do the job...
Every car, produced by GM or Ford has a near 2,000 dollars cost before heading onto the production line, for what Unions have required. This cost does not exist with Toyota or other domestic producers. GM and Ford, chose to produce larger truck style vehicles (PU=SUV's and the like) even Big Trucks and school bus chassis for awhile. I know the argument about small cars or the quality of their products, but hold little value in these arguments. Productivity of both, finally caught up with competition but not off the line. They are both showing profits outside the US where unions do not exist. Ford in India and GM in China are both very profitable.
Keep in mind, over the years since auto have been, there have been hundreds of auto producers who have gone under. Nearly every one for labor cost, not necessarily product. GM, Ford and Chrysler, management
have always linked management wages (non union) to those of the union workers, encouraged to a degree unions and allowed to grow by the unions per their contracts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cosmo |
| Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 359
|
Jackson:
All you are doing is cheapening labor to the lowest level of subsistance.
Are you telling me that those billionaires deserve those bloated incomes while the workers are being overpaid in the US here with those cheap wages?
Like I said before, are those cheap workers in China and India going to buy American?
Do you see what the government is doing now to give the 'sick' US economy a 'shot in the arm'?
While Bush gave kickbacks to the taxpayers before, now he has to give them more kickbacks to prop up the economy.
Your capitalism is not working here in the US.
It is investing abroad to keep stuffing their multimillion dollar incomes that do not contribute to the mass purchasing power of our people (workers).
If Ioccocca worked for one dollar, why cannot the current billionares do the same?
Ioccoca was an exception to the upper management. The fact that he worked for one dollar just goes to show that they do not need those bloated incomes since they do not spend those dollars that approach 90% of their incomes.
It is only the spenders that contribute to a thriving economy. The US economy, that is.
Cosmo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1063
|
No Mike, the worker IS the lowest paid and receives the least of the profit for a single reason. He/she has not, for whatever reason, advanced beyond that level. We are discussing at the corporate level, which few work in. The 70% of small business is where most work. They work, in general for a person or a few people who put all there money into a business and take the chance on losing everything put up. More than one in two will fail and rarely do the employees lose a thing, other than the job. At the corporate level, management loves nothing more than advancing current employees and most often the case. Most management comes from there, even in the case where the Unions are involved.
Why China??? Use Japan, as we did 50 years ago. Japan makes cheap goods, Japan doesn't pay decent wage and later Japan was buying up the US and moved their factories to the US and around the world, for cheap labor or cost to manufacture. ITS A SOCIAL issue and works.
Iaccoca, is one of many, if not most. Fred Smith, a worker for the US Postal service, tried to get his bosses to try a specific program. They refused, he quit and tried it himself. Before he could get the program started, he was unable to meet a payroll. Took his last 50k to Vegas and told his story. He won, and the next week Federal Express was born. The idea, not that complicated; Have all mail (freight) shipped to one point for redistribution around the country. The results, the largest package delivery system the world will probably ever know and the largest carrier of US Mail today. There are hundreds of people every day, that place everything they have on an idea and many more that are rewarded only by performance. Most of the earning of the CEO, CFO and other high management are from stock price increases.
The Congressional Rebate (Economic Stimulus) and signed by GWB, is in short a political gimmick. The best bet would have been, just to make the Tax Cuts permanent, which would lift the markets by 20% in a few weeks and generate corporate spending the same day. Not doing this and the threat of abolishing those cuts or letting them expire have created this slow down, not the housing issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cosmo |
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 359
|
| jackson33 wrote: |
| No Mike, the worker IS the lowest paid and receives the least of the profit for a single reason. He/she has not, for whatever reason, advanced beyond that level. We are discussing at the corporate level, which few work in. The 70% of small business is where most work. They work, in general for a person or a few people who put all there money into a business and take the chance on losing everything put up. More than one in two will fail and rarely do the employees lose a thing, other than the job. At the corporate level, management loves nothing more than advancing current employees and most often the case. Most management comes from there, even in the case where the Unions are involved. |
I am supportive of the small businesses. That is why I am complaining about the billionaires and multimillionaires as skimming all the wealth for themselves rather than sharing it with the people that create it.
| Quote: |
Why China??? Use Japan, as we did 50 years ago. Japan makes cheap goods, Japan doesn't pay decent wage and later Japan was buying up the US and moved their factories to the US and around the world, for cheap labor or cost to manufacture. ITS A SOCIAL issue and works. |
As I said above, the Japanese have emphasized 'quality' in producing their product (CARS), rather than power and design as a marketing tool.
It took 10 years for this to catch on amongst the American consumers.
So quality outsold power and design.
| Quote: |
Iaccoca, is one of many, if not most. Fred Smith, a worker for the US Postal service, tried to get his bosses to try a specific program. They refused, he quit and tried it himself. Before he could get the program started, he was unable to meet a payroll. Took his last 50k to Vegas and told his story. He won, and the next week Federal Express was born. The idea, not that complicated; Have all mail (freight) shipped to one point for redistribution around the country. The results, the largest package delivery system the world will probably ever know and the largest carrier of US Mail today. There are hundreds of people every day, that place everything they have on an idea and many more that are rewarded only by performance. Most of the earning of the CEO, CFO and other high management are from stock price increases. |
So the Feds excell in package deliveries.
I do not know how their prices compare to UPS or the US Postal service, but when I send mail, I use the USPS rather than Fedex. For packages, I used UPS.
Strictly for convenience rather than preference of prices or deliveries.
| Quote: |
The Congressional Rebate (Economic Stimulus) and signed by GWB, is in short a political gimmick. The best bet would have been, just to make the Tax Cuts permanent, which would lift the markets by 20% in a few weeks and generate corporate spending the same day. Not doing this and the threat of abolishing those cuts or letting them expire have created this slow down, not the housing issue. |
As usual, cutting taxes and increased spending is not the solution for balancing the budget or stimulating the economy.
Those that can 'afford' to pay higher taxes, should do so as a patriotic gesture, rather than hoarding the dollars that are not spent to promote jobs. Spreading this wealth increases the demand for goods and so increases the job availability.
This is the solution for a more prosperous economy.
Cutting taxes for the ultra rich does not help the market because these people do not spend all their dollars. So how do these hoarded dollars help the economy?
The slowing down of the economy happened after the tax cuts were implemented. So these cuts did nothing for the economy.
The Feds cut interest rates down to one of the lowest levels in years.
This created a refinancing of mortgages and demand for houses as an investment.
But this refinancing was for 'variable' mortgages, not fixed mortgages.
Result?
When the Feds started to raising the inertests rates on US dollars, the lenders started to raise the variable mortgage rates. So you know the result.
Borrowers could no meet their higher inflated payments and are defaulting on these increases as a result. So the housing market started to sink.
Also, the job market was shrinking as a result of outsourcing of jobs.
So these problems are all the result of the free market world economy.
Cosmo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
  |
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
Page 1 of 3 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
