Sad...but funny (and true.)

[Nightshade]

Of course socialism's apologists will say 'OH! This is just cherrypicking the worst examples!' and 'socialism works! It just hasn't been done right!'

Hey, socialism sounds great. I'd be all for it if...well...it didn't wreck countries, give cover to despots and made social class stratification WAY worse rather than to eliminate it as its supporters would claim it did.

[vision]

Canada, please report in and squash this annoying, delusional, little bug.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-ran ... -1.2470040

[Tunnelcat]

Don't count out those very prosperous, democratic and happy Scandinavian countries too.

[Ferno]

Canada, please report in and squash this annoying, delusional, little bug.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-ran ... -1.2470040

Canada checking in. Yup, the bug's a-flurry alright.

[Top Gun]

I honestly believe that anyone who misuses the term "socialism" in as an egregious a manner as that comic should receive a swift kick to the groin just on principle.

[Spidey]

Pointing to some of the most capitalist countries on the planet to defend socialism is the real irony here.

[Tunnelcat]

Pointing to some of the most capitalist countries on the planet to defend socialism is the real irony here.

Maybe there's really no difference. There are no pure social or economic systems at all. They're all conglomerations or reiterations of many other systems. It's how those systems are abused by the few and powerful that makes the only difference.

[Vander]

It's not about left and right. It's about top and bottom.

[Spidey]

Pointing to some of the most capitalist countries on the planet to defend socialism is the real irony here.

Maybe there's really no difference. There are no pure social or economic systems at all. They're all conglomerations or reiterations of many other systems. It's how those systems are abused by the few and powerful that makes the only difference.

Oh hell no, there is a real difference here and it is very important to understand that difference.

See, the ultimate irony is that it’s capitalism that generates the wealth needed to provide generous social programs to begin with.

Any economic system such as socialism that bases production on pure need instead of supply or demand will never produce anything more than austerity or sustenance living.

Socialism only works as a sub component of a larger more productive system. And referring to Sweden, Denmark, Norway as well as others as “socialist democracies” is a misnomer, because only the government is even close to that description, while the economic system is market driven, which is a complete disqualification of socialism.

[Tunnelcat]

Personally, I think what we call capitalism is morphing slowly into a plutocracy at our own behest. By the way Spidey, how would you describe what the Chinese have? They claim they have a communist government, but capitalism is clearly driving their economy.

[Spidey]

Capitalist Dictatorship?

[Top Gun]

Socialism only works as a sub component of a larger more productive system. And referring to Sweden, Denmark, Norway as well as others as “socialist democracies” is a misnomer, because only the government is even close to that description, while the economic system is market driven, which is a complete disqualification of socialism.

Exactly, and the countries referred to in the original cartoon are even less socialistically-inclined (is that a word?) than the Nordic countries. Hence my ball-kicking wishes.

[callmeslick]

Capitalist Dictatorship?

yup, that is essentially what an oligarchy is.

[Ferno]

It's not about left and right. It's about top and bottom.

and all the greys in between.

[Tunnelcat]

Fascism is Capitalism plus murder.

[woodchip]

Fascism is Capitalism plus murder.

Yet the socialist Russians coined the term "Gulags".

[Lothar]

There are forms of socialism that can be well-used and combined with capitalism to make a strong system. The Scandinavian model(s) give us an example of how it can work, if not perfectly, at least better than America's capitalism combined with incoherent mixed-socialist-fascist-capitalist-racist-populist-wtf. Whereas Greece gives us an example of what not to do.

Being intelligent human beings, we should learn from examples. Lightly-fettered capitalism to build wealth, a strong and consistent safety net to defray the actually really-high costs of not having one, simple and sensible regulations and tax laws all around. This is why I've become a proponent of the "basic income", no minimum wage, and a semi-progressive tax scheme. Everyone can afford the very most basic needs for survival, and everyone can choose to work to supplement their basic needs, as much or as little as they desire, without ever running into a "crap, I made $3 too much in the month of May and I lost my Medicaid" type scenario.

[callmeslick]

I see pluses and minuses to your ideas, above, Lothar. While I don't see any significant numbers abusing our current safety net, and feel that it could well be made more robust, especially in terms of medical care, food, housing support, I DO feel that one always walks a tightrope about disincentive. Depending on how you define 'minimal', you could easily kill individual productivity to the point it impacts the overall economy, let alone the Federal Budget. Personally, I favor cradle to grave Medicare, with adequate Medicare tax to pay for it. I favor maintaining the current status of Social Security, and raising the maximum wage threshold to $200,000, which is minimally adequate to weather the baby boom retirees. I favor a mandatory minimum wage around $11, a balance for all areas, rural and urban, at a level shown worldwide to be perfectly sustainable without corporate profits taking an excessive hit. Beyond that, it is a matter of balancing costs and priorities with a simple tax code(flat rate on all income with a $30,000 exemption for everyone) that pays ALL the bills. It shouldn't be difficult to accomplish, but it IS ideological. My plan(and yours too, Lothar)implies that government plays an active role to benefit the populace, and can do so successfully. Others do not agree. The choice of which direction the nation pursues is the core divide in our nation, and the root cause of the generally 50/50 representation we've had for 20 years or so.

[Top Gun]

...without ever running into a "crap, I made $3 too much in the month of May and I lost my Medicaid" type scenario.

This is the real kicker. There was a period of time when I was unemployed and had some ongoing medical issues, so I attempted to apply for medical assistance. I was rejected because my bank accounts exceeded the "maximum asset limit," which at least in my state is a whopping...$250. Yes, you read that right. It's just a complete joke.

[Lothar]

...without ever running into a "crap, I made $3 too much in the month of May and I lost my Medicaid" type scenario.

This is the real kicker. There was a period of time when I was unemployed and had some ongoing medical issues, so I attempted to apply for medical assistance. I was rejected because my bank accounts exceeded the "maximum asset limit," which at least in my state is a whopping...$250. Yes, you read that right. It's just a complete joke.

More generally, the way we handle assistance programs as "need-based" ends up creating a poverty trap. If you're poor and qualify for the majority of programs, and then you start to work your way out, you can suddenly end up not qualifying for a bunch of important stuff, and end up in a much worse spot than before.

I recently saw a piece about how some Seattle businesses are having minimum wage employees ask for less hours -- because with the boosted minimum wage, they're at risk of losing their benefits if they work the same number of hours as before.

I'm going to keep hammering the idea of the "basic income" as a good solution. There's no qualification threshold; you never go backwards by earning more.