OK, explain this to me like I'm a complete idiot because I don't get it, Part 33 1/3.

[HughBeaumont]

"SOCIALISM!"

Republicans scream the supposedly dreaded "S" word at the top of their lungs and repeat it like an industrial loop to each other and to their Democratic friends and family; fueled, of course, by the corporate media and their corporate guests who warn us how BAAAD it would be for the upward transfer of wealth in unbridled corporatist America's unspoken pyramid.

Barack Obama's election to the presidency only serves as gasoline to their weird torch song; as to them, any politician to the left of Joe Lieberman is nothing but a card-carrying Marxist loon who wants a woo-woo, state-run, success-punishing Sovietocracy. Anyone who thinks this is hyperbole should talk to a right leaning Libertarian (let alone a Republican) sometime and see if I'm exaggerating. While this next paragraph will be mere review for most on DU, let us still examine what we get for our tax dollars:

We get police departments that protect us and uphold the law in times of need (most of them do, anyway). We get fire departments that keep our forests and homes safe and act in times of emergencies. We get public schools to educate our children. We get libraries for information, research and entertainment. We get a military to defend the sacred rights of the Constitution, and against all enemies foreign and domestic (supposedly. Bewsh and Cheney are still running free, so that's still up for debate). We get paved roads to drive on and road crews to maintain them. We get public transportation to get around our cities and suburbs easier. We get the US Postal Service, which delivers our mail. We get prisons to keep dangerous criminals from running amok. We get hospitals/clinics to heal and care for the infirm. We get swimming pools for exercise and community. We get water and waste services. We get turnpikes for easier access to cities. We get parks and recreation and departments to keep them clean. We get the Environmental Protection Agency, devised by one of our most corrupt Republican presidents, no less. We get the USDA. The CIA, FBI, DEA, and a bunch of other three-to-four letter departments to make our lives easier and safer.

Seems to me that's a whole hell of a lot of stuff that our taxes go to pay for. Most of it is efficient. Some areas have problems, are inefficient and need improvement. The point is that our tax dollars pay for these services and much, MUCH more. Tax dollars paid for this stuff during Democratic AND Republican administrations. Did anyone cry "Socialism" all this time to that laundry list? No, because that'd be fanatical in itself to do so, save for the most off-the-chart Bircher fascist. These are things we've come to expect and accept as part of the world we live in.

It's also the reason I cannot for the life of me understand why Repukes toss their cookies and assemble to riot, guns and flags at the ready, at the mere notion of adding just two services to that list and improving a third thing that we already GET for our tax dollars in order to make us a better nation.

The first thing is, of course, Universal Health Care. Not universal health INSURANCE, universal health CARE. The U.N. Charter of Human Rights, devised in 1948, specifically states in Article 25, point 1: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

We obviously don't follow this part of the declaration; as several hundred thousands, if not millions, of lives have been destroyed and/or financially bankrupted at the cruel and profit-above-all hands of Big Pharma and Big Insurance-controlled private "Health Care". America's citizens have been charged excessively for MRIs, ER visits, ambulance services, forced to raise funds for sick relatives and thrown out of their homes because they couldn't afford the crime of getting an illness not covered under the pre-existing conditions their insurance plans have. And that's just the people who HAVE insurance, as 48-54 million people in the "richest nation on Earth" aren't even allowed this right.

What's hilarious is that employers are joining in the anti-Universal Health Care chorus alongside the Repukes despite constantly complaining that health care/legacy costs are exorbitant and a burden on their balance sheets. What's even more hilarious is that we still abide by and believe in this loser system despite multiple studies that show all of us actually paying LESS under a Universal Health Care system while all of us would be covered just the same. You know, just like police and fire departments take care of EVERYONE, not just those who can afford it.

A second addition would be higher education. Like health care, thousands upon thousands of our country's young people are barbell-shouldered with thousands upon thousands in student loan/credit card debt before they even enter the work world. Most industrialized nations value an educated citizenry, as it's economically and governmentally better for their well being and long-term survival. Because of this, they subsidize their college educations via taxation. Even India, a supposed Third World country, can do this for their citizens.

Our country apparently thinks Social Darwinism and belief in Horatio Alger should separate those who are really willing to cough up gobs of dough no matter what for that all-important sheepskin and those who were unfortunate enough to drop out of poorer wombs and because of it will be . . . left behind.

There is one service that we already get for our tax dollars yet has been proven woefully inadequate when bumped up against other industrialized countries, and that's our social safety net. Unemployment insurance only lasts 13 to 26 weeks and provides a middling to poverty-level pittance that doesn't cover basic needs and leaves the recipient holding the bag when it runs out. Social Security is borrowed from quite often and is the subject of privatization; a mistaken and dangerous notion for a service that's supposed to be insurance, not investment. Again, this is another complete violation of Article 25 of the UN Human Rights Charter, despite argument and fear-mongering from various conservatives.

So what it boils down to is this:

If all of what we get in the third paragraph doesn't make us "Socialist", how and why does adding just two more services to that list and improving a third all of a sudden make us "Socialist"?

Services that, by the way, would help and be available to ALL people, not just the ridiculously privileged?

Services that would make us progressive, competitively advanced and economically more sound in the long run?

I'm all ears. Seriously. How does that work?

Please think like a Republican and explain this to me like I'm a complete IDIOT because I don't get it.

[chrisa]

1. They really don't care...

What Obama does. They would call everything he does that they disagree with "Socialist" because it's a buzzword to scare people.

[notesdev]

2. We've been quasi-socialist for a long time

and things only continue to trend in that direction. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid - all are socialist in nature. Even under a GOP President, these things grow (e.g. Medicare Part D).

The problem comes when people a generation or two down the line have to make good on the promises their predecessors made. (X you are here)

[global1]

4. Our Current Fianancial Crisis Has Nothing To Do With The Expense Of The Services We All Enjoy......

as listed in the original message by HughBeaumont as you insinuate in your response. Our current financial crisis has to do with greed of the financial wizards that run the companies that we're in the process of bailing out. If they were regulated and didn't let greed get in their way - there would be plenty of money around to support universal health care, education and still provide us with a social safety net.

Don't buy into the rhetoric that it is these social services that are sinking this country.

[notesdev]

5. No really, there wouldn't be

not at our current standard of living.

It's easy to make promises, hard as hell to actually come through on them.

Yes, we can make health care universal, but at the cost of rationing it. There's no other way to distribute a limited resource for free.

Yes, we can throw yet more money at education, and end up with more of the same - people who possess college degrees but are barely literate or employable.

Yes, we can pretend that Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme, up to the moment (coming very soon) when there's no more money to send out checks.

And I'll even lay out there that yes, we actually can come up with the money to pay for all these things! But... there's a catch.

The catch is that you can't finance them the way our government has been financing its operations. Our government finances part of its operations with tax revenues, but these don't even come close to covering it. The rest is financed by issuing debt.

The main buyer of US federal debt is... the Social Security Administration. That's right, instead of holding in trust the actual retirement savings of Americans, for which you are taxed every paycheck, the federal government takes that money and trades it for debt. This works fine up to the point (which is imminent) where SSA stops making a profit and starts needing external funding itself in order to make good on the promises made to the people.

The Fed policy in the face of this appears to be to monetize the debt, subsume it in inflation, make it easier to pay off with cheaper dollars than those that were borrowed. What, do you suppose, does this do to the ability to borrow further? It jacks up interest rates in response. Why would anyone buy dollar-denominated bonds when there is the clear intention to inflate those dollars and reduce the value of what you are buying?

This - if not stopped - will lead to something called a "bond market dislocation". Look it up, but do it before lunch, not afterwards.

The brief version is that once we lose the ability to borrow, the ONLY way to fund operations is to monetize everything, leading us directly to a Weimar Republic scenario. The government has to print so much new money every year to fund its operations, that inflation will go through the roof, and the standard of living of Americans through the floor.

In summary, you've got to research the facts about how these things are funded, do the math, and ask yourself what are the consequences. If you don't, you are just guessing - and making seriously wrong guesses that will wreck what remains of the financial health of the nation.

[HughBeaumont]

8. So we should just never have them or even mention it, since it would be impossible to pay for it all

We had and continue to have all of what's in the third paragraph without issue or hem and haw, all of this time. But three services that would help people, relieve a burden from employers, allow our economy to keep flowing even in troubled times, relieve millions of citizens from the risk of getting thrown out to the streets (which proves even MORE costly to the economy, resources and society when it happens) is all of a sudden impossible.

There's ALWAYS tons of money to keep corporate America and the military and the wars they conduct comfortable and flowing in times of thick and thin, but the normal everyday Joe . . . well, "you gotta just accept that some people, unfortunately, are going to get left behind".

Yes, let's just keep the current ineffective system in place and watch as thousands get bankrupted and evicted. The usual "It just wudn't werk in a country our size" chestnut. Classic.

Also, please point out where any of what I mentioned is "free". You'd pay for it via taxation. Production for resources would be via taxation. This isn't a free lunch, it's a service. Just like libraries. And police. And Fire. Same/same/same. What's the problem?

If we can find the tax booty to kill dozens of Iraqis a week, we can find the funds to help hundreds of American citizens have easier lives.

[notesdev]

12. It's not an either/or question

We have the resources to do neither.

If we cut the defense department and all war appropriations entirely... we would still be in the hole.

The core problem we have is that we have a huge amount of embezzlement and fraud built into our current way of doing business, and nobody feels compelled to tell the truth. Until we fix that, our resources - no matter how distributed - will be inadequate for any serious purpose. We can't do business in this country anymore without finding half of everything stolen in the transaction. Until the laws against fraud are seriously enforced, there is nothing we can do to fix the problem.

Are we seriously going to sink another $600 billion we don't have into a healthcare system where the least productive services pull out the most cash? Another who-knows-how-much into an education system, where the real money gets hoarded so that boards of directors can play big shots in the capital market with university endowments, leaving the student with an eye-popping mountain of debt and an often worthless piece of paper (arguably in many cases, negative worth given the alternative amount of actual work experience) to show for it? What then do we say, in just a few years, when we suddenly lose the ability to pay Social Security without resorting to stealing it directly from all other holders of our currency through outright devaluation?

We need to fix our national finances first and foremost and make the sacrifices necessary to get the job done. Only then can we even begin to seriously consider changes that require us to spend money. Our nation needs to learn to live within its means, as so many individuals are rapidly discovering is now the only way to survive.

[global1]

3. Great Post - K & R - I've Been Asking The Same Question And The Repugs I Know......

can't answer that. Each has their own specific reason why they support the Repug party - like Guns, Abortion, Excessive Taxes, etc - but none of them ever even mentioned 'socialism'. I think because it really isn't an issue for the rank & file common Repug.

Where all this 'socialism' talk comes from is from the 'politicians' in D.C. and the talking heads that are in the pocket of Big Pharma, Big Insurance and Big Corporations. It boils down to $'s and lots of them - it's greed that is talking.

I would be interested in other DU'ers observations about your question - but that's what I've seen.

I'm going to bookmark your Post and if you don't mind copy and paste it in some e-mails to my Repug friends. You have laid out a beautiful argument. I hope it resonates.

[rrneck]

6. They're for socialism

as long as the only thing that gets socialized is risk. Profit should always be private for them.

We all pay for the cops that drive on public roads to respond to distress calls to their mansions within gated communities. And when they screw up, well then it is up to all of us to bail them out because they are too big to fail.

[gauguin57]

7. Every time the Pugs scream about the "danger of W. European-style Socialism," ...

... I say to the TV, "... and the problem with that would be ...???"

What's so bad about peace, love, understanding, or Western European-style socialism?

[nichomachus]

9. Well, the first thing is, you can't take them literally

They know it's not socialism, but the booboisie in the US is easily frightened by imaginary bogeymen. So, the propaganda-meisters will wave whatever bogeyman seems to fit the situation. First it was communism and when that went away, they had to change it to socialism, which for many of the boobs is the same as Soviet-style communism. You can also frighten the booboisie with the "gay agenda." Now, we have an education system chockablock full of "bad teachers." Heck, some of the boobs even believe that the devil himself is lurking in the bushes waiting to drag them into hell -- or at least working in disguise in the local Piggly Wiggly.

Why do you think they had to co-opt the media and destroy education? An ignorant population is so much easier to control with fear and propaganda.

[barbtries]

10. you're too smart to get it

don't try. as an aside, i've been thinking lately that when i discuss universal, single payer health care with my rw sister, i'll tell her i'm for it, just like i'm for all of us having roads to get from one place to another, or all of us having as you noted the police there in case of a crime and the FD there in case of a fire or injury. just for everyone. all for it.

[eridani]

11. Capitalism cannot survive without large investments in public goods n/t

[GeorgeGist]

13. Capitalism doesn't work.

Why should it survive?

[eridani]

14. It does if it's regulated closely

Privately owne utilities can be good if they are tightly regulated, even though I prefer public ownership. The point is that one way or another, the public needs to exercise some kind of democratic control.