That depends on what you consider the difference being between welfare state and welfare itself, and depends on what pie chart you're looking at.Welfare is small beans by comparison.
That depends on what you consider the difference being between welfare state and welfare itself, and depends on what pie chart you're looking at.Welfare is small beans by comparison.
He's not actually correct. If you look at the entire welfare state, including healthcare, pensions, etc. along with general welfare itself, it is a HUGE piece of the budget. The biggest as a matter of fact.Of course.
And people are supposed to look out for the good of the self, within a reasonably regulated free market.
Are you arguing that capitalism has not absolutely blown the doors off of socialism in terms of meeting human needs?
I would argue it's done so that the business, the enterprise, can be sustainable. If it was just about owners making more money then collective bargaining would be disallowed. There is a recognition that no workers (athletes) means no product.Ehh it's a little bit different although there are valid comparisons.
The main thing is that each team has entered in to the league and agreed to these things mainly because they agree that fairness and rules designed to help struggling teams get ahead is better for all of their profits.
See you just want TV sets tuned into the games, it doesn't matter who they are rooting for or if they are even rooting for a team at all. It just matters that they are watching the game. So a basic sense of fairness, people feeling like their team has a chance if managed properly is extremely important.
So there is a selfish capitalistic motive to all of that. Sort of like though this is illegal in the US if several competing companies get together and agree to all start charging more for their product.
But it's even more important then sports because if you have a sports team you have to have teams for your team to play and that team has to be competitive enough with your team that it makes it worth watching. No one is going to take the time or pay money to watch an NFL team play the local high school squad. At least not on a regular basis.
So while sports leagues are competitively socialistic it's a bad example because it's done so that the team owners can make more money.
He's not actually correct. If you look at the entire welfare state, including healthcare, pensions, etc. .
It's a tax advantage for both the employers and whom they employ. It also has not set limit, beyond the amount you get per month. You get it as long as you live, and most probably get a lot more then what they put into it. Most of the money that pension receivers get is coming from the current crop of the working society.Pensions are now welfare? I thought you were pushing for capitalism in this thread? You don't believe in contracting?
I am with you except I believe we have a tad too much socialist controls. We need to free up companies a littleAren't professional sports leagues essentially built on a socialism-like model? Revenue sharing, collective bargaining, salary caps, and drafts weighted to promote a level playing field all seem kind of socialist to me. Think about when an expansion team is added! Teams have to essentially give up players to help the new team get started!
I'm of the belief that capitalism needs some socialist elements (and maybe vice versa) in order to be sustainable. Right now we're seeing symptoms of how capitalism, run amok, creates problems that are undeniable.
This was the original picture:
This was the original pic that I have been responding to. I know no socialists or liberals who are disgusted by a house like that.
If a capitalist wants everyone to be able to live in a house like that he should be willing to pay his yard maintenance people, and the people who actually built the house enough to be able to afford it.
The pic is a deception.
![]()
It's a tax advantage for both the employers and whom they employ. It also has not set limit, beyond the amount you get per month. You get it as long as you live, and most probably get a lot more then what they put into it. Most of the money that pension receivers get is coming from the current crop of the working society.
Pensions are most definitely included in the Welfare state category.
Nope you can thank ill advised tax cuts and ever increasing military budgets for that.
Welfare State-a system whereby the government undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need, by means of grants, pensions, and other benefits. The foundations for the modern welfare state in the US were laid by the New Deal programs of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.There you go making up new definitions again.
Not to mention his choice of South American countries is particularly amusing, since the majority of their problems is caused by the legacy of Colonialism, capitalism run amok!
Welfare State-a system whereby the government undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need, by means of grants, pensions, and other benefits. The foundations for the modern welfare state in the US were laid by the New Deal programs of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
"pensions" in that definition would be the British OAP, our modern day Social Security.
That was the 08' campaign rhetoric. I agreed then.
What is the issue now?
Isn't the world currently on sort of a "hard kill" path now? Would you not agree that maybe the pendulum has swung too far in some aspects of capitalism? Can we move away from a this vs that debate and move toward a discussion, maybe just maybe, on how integrated isms, or ideas, might be worth considering (without allowing fear to disrupt the considerations).Obama will meet with the pope and they shall figure out how to "soft kill" the world with socialism so it doesn't tick people off so much.
no, there is no pendulum that is swinging anywhere but towards hardcore socialism and on a path to hardcore communism. capitalism has been completely ruined by communists like bush and Obama and the pope. And no, this isn't about "socialism vs capitalism", it's about socialism vs humanity. Socialism and communism has but one end game and that is to kill off humanity and humans. We cannot have capitalism if we are dead.Isn't the world currently on sort of a "hard kill" path now? Would you not agree that maybe the pendulum has swung too far in some aspects of capitalism? Can we move away from a this vs that debate and move toward a discussion, maybe just maybe, on how integrated isms, or ideas, might be worth considering (without allowing fear to disrupt the considerations).
Not everything but what you accept as good and right is to be feared.
Wow you're thinking is really seeded in fear it seems. Maybe you should stay offline and close yourself off and in. Are you really scared? Be honest.no, there is no pendulum that is swinging anywhere but towards hardcore socialism and on a path to hardcore communism. capitalism has been completely ruined by communists like bush and Obama and the pope. And no, this isn't about "socialism vs capitalism", it's about socialism vs humanity. Socialism and communism has but one end game and that is to kill off humanity and humans. We cannot have capitalism if we are dead.
no I'm absolutely not scared at all because I go to cornerstone church and hagee tells me how god is going to end this. you should try it. it's really calming.Wow you're thinking is really seeded in fear it seems. Maybe you should stay offline and close yourself off and in. Are you really scared? Be honest.