An example of how socialism in America works

The title of this thread is misleading... Actually, I would like anyone to post an example of a government run industry or program that is successful.

There are plenty to choose from:

The education system
Medicare
The prison system
Social security
Welfare

That is just a few... So could one of you people please explain how these, or any other government programs, have been successful compared to the private sector?

Here is my take on the ones I posted:

Education: See this thread

Medicare: It's on the verge of bankruptcy. It provides sub-standard care and costs way too much.

Prisons: From Wikipedia... "Private prison companies operate with the goal of not only running correctional facilities more efficiently and safely than government, but also to create jobs for citizens in their local communities. According to Reason Foundation studies, private prisons outperformed their government-run counterparts in both quality and cost.

According to a 2003 report, research showed that not only do the private prisons themselves save money, but they also put external pressure on the public prison system, further constraining the escalation of costs. Data showed that states using private prisons had considerably more success in keeping public corrections spending under control than states with no private prisons. During the period studied, states with private prisons saw the growth in daily costs of housing prisoners in the public corrections system reduced by 8.9 percent.

One of the most significant findings was that turning over even a small portion of prison populations resulted in big savings. States with less than 5 percent of their prison populations in private facilities experienced a 12.5 percent increase in expenditures versus an 18.9 percent increase in those states with no private prisons. However, states with larger percentages under private management had even greater savings with growth in expenditures at only 5.9 percent during the period studied.

In a 2008-released study, evidence indicated that states can save a substantial amount of money if they use a shared system of both privately and publicly managed prisons. The research showed that during the study period (1999-2004), states were able to save up to $15 million on their yearly corrections budget by using at least some privately managed prisons. The study was overseen by James Blumstein, director of the Health Policy Center, Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy Studies."

Social Security: Do I really need to comment here?

Welfare: Ditto

The only thing I can think of is the military.

We do have the most potent armed forces in the world.

However I do question the way our government uses the military...so they could also be an example of a dismal failure. Not based upon their skills, but rather based upon their commander and chiefs inability to lead as he is the highest ranking military officer. This applies to the last 5 Presidents including Obama since he is unproven.

JReed wrote:The only thing I can think of is the military.

The military's inefficiency is the reason there are private security companies like Blackwater protecting diplomats in Iraq, instead of military personnel doing it. The reason that Haliburton exists, is because of the inefficiency and high cost of using the Army Corps of Engineers.

The military's inefficiency is legendary, but you can't privatize it. It is one of the few things that is the sole responsibility of the federal government to provide for us.

The prison system being more privatized I would support. I also support a voucher system for education, not to end public schools, but to compete with the public schools. I think both would benefit from that. When it comes to social security. Well this is a problem. From what I understand. All money collected from tax payers for social security goes to the general fund. So of course the politicians always dip into those funds collected. I would support something that did not go to the general fund. For example you could be given the choice what percentage of your income you would want to go a savings account that was deducted from your pay. This would be placed in an account maintained by the government. Depending on what amount of money we put into it would determine what age we would retire. We would have the say at what age we would like to start receiving the funds. Also for those who became wealthy for what ever reason would be given the choice to receive their money back, and not have to put into the system.

Medicare. I don't know what to make of it except that is being run poorly. I do like the idea though.

Theophilus wrote:The prison system being more privatized I would support. I also support a voucher system for education, not to end public schools, but to compete with the public schools. I think both would benefit from that. When it comes to social security. Well this is a problem. From what I understand. All money collected from tax payers for social security goes to the general fund. So of course the politicians always dip into those funds collected. I would support something that did not go to the general fund. For example you could be given the choice what percentage of your income you would want to go a savings account that was deducted from your pay. This would be placed in an account maintained by the government. Depending on what amount of money we put into it would determine what age we would retire. We would have the say at what age we would like to start receiving the funds. Also for those who became wealthy for what ever reason would be given the choice to receive their money back, and not have to put into the system.

Medicare. I don't know what to make of it except that is being run poorly. I do like the idea though.

What you just did, was point out the failures of socialism. What I haven't seen yet, is someone showing me a successful socialist program in the US.

I have a feeling I'll be waiting a long time for that.

Grim17 wrote:

Theophilus wrote:The prison system being more privatized I would support. I also support a voucher system for education, not to end public schools, but to compete with the public schools. I think both would benefit from that. When it comes to social security. Well this is a problem. From what I understand. All money collected from tax payers for social security goes to the general fund. So of course the politicians always dip into those funds collected. I would support something that did not go to the general fund. For example you could be given the choice what percentage of your income you would want to go a savings account that was deducted from your pay. This would be placed in an account maintained by the government. Depending on what amount of money we put into it would determine what age we would retire. We would have the say at what age we would like to start receiving the funds. Also for those who became wealthy for what ever reason would be given the choice to receive their money back, and not have to put into the system.

Medicare. I don't know what to make of it except that is being run poorly. I do like the idea though.

What you just did, was point out the failures of socialism. What I haven't seen yet, is someone showing me a successful socialist program in the US.

I have a feeling I'll be waiting a long time for that.

I was pointing out changes I thought might help. I agree completely social security as it now will have big time problems if we don't change it.
I thought I offered a good alternative. Though still being run by the government. An alternative that would give people more choice, and money collected that would not be going to the general fund. I know this is a problem, and to stick my head in the sand and hopes it goes away will not work. I am simply offering an idea I think might work. What do you think of my idea?

I think SS should have never been in the general fund to begin with. It should have been kept in a separate account that couldn't be used for any other purpose.

Just so you know, I wasn't criticizing your post. I was just pointing out that the people on this forum who have defended socialist programs, can't give me one example of a successful one. The truth is, there is one government program that was successful... I'm just curious if anyone will figure out which one it was.

Grim17 wrote:I think SS should have never been in the general fund to begin with. It should have been kept in a separate account that couldn't be used for any other purpose.

Just so you know, I wasn't criticizing your post. I was just pointing out that the people on this forum who have defended socialist programs, can't give me one example of a successful one. The truth is, there is one government program that was successful... I'm just curious if anyone will figure out which one it was.

I know you were not criticizing my post. This is just a good discussion, and one that needed to be brought up. My feeling is some of these programs are good. Just not run correctly.

Whats the defintion of successful?

I think I could think of smaller programs that might be considered socialistic, that are a success. Or at least I support what they do. I have a younger cousin who has 2 kids and is a single mom who me and my wife help out that have benefited from these programs.

Im pretty sure these are federally funded too.

Weatherization programs-the gas companies and electric companies have actually helped poorer people bring their bills down by buying them products like Compact Flourescent lights, special showerhead, things to help just seal up your home, etc.

Women, Infants, Children- I dont understand how people cant get behind something like this, poor children are pretty much given free milk and other essential foods to them.

I mean whats the definition of successful to you Grim? Id much rather support the government funding these social programs than give billions upon billions to banks, auto-makers, insurance companies, etc. that have proven to be unsuccessful.

luciano wrote:Whats the defintion of successful?

I think I could think of smaller programs that might be considered socialistic, that are a success. Or at least I support what they do. I have a younger cousin who has 2 kids and is a single mom who me and my wife help out that have benefited from these programs.

Im pretty sure these are federally funded too.

Weatherization programs-the gas companies and electric companies have actually helped poorer people bring their bills down by buying them products like Compact Flourescent lights, special showerhead, things to help just seal up your home, etc.

Women, Infants, Children- I dont understand how people cant get behind something like this, poor children are pretty much given free milk and other essential foods to them.

I mean whats the definition of successful to you Grim? Id much rather support the government funding these social programs than give billions upon billions to banks, auto-makers, insurance companies, etc. that have proven to be unsuccessful.

Good points you brought up. I do support W.I.C. I think it has done well. Though not perfect. I think it is the best we can do.

Anyone for starving infants raise your hand.

Not me.

I don't think anyone has a problem with the scope of the programs. They all have merit, and an honorable usefulness. The problem is the bureaucracy, when less than one penny per earmarked (ooh! bad word) dollar actually contributes to the cause. Some overhead is expected, but too many pockets are getting lined along the way. Charity (the honorable kind), as it seems, is only a good thing if someone can profit from it.

Education: See this thread

You didn't make a very convincing case that privatization is the answer

Medicare: It's on the verge of bankruptcy. It provides sub-standard care and costs way too much.

What would happen if a private medicare system was on the verge of bankruptcy? A government bailout, because the system couldn't be allowed to fail. Like everything else in the privatization argument, what the proponents actually want is to privatise profits while they're there to be made, and socialize the losses when they occur. The care is not substandard either, you go to the same doctors on medicare as you do with private insurance. Without medicare, many elderly or disabled people wouldn't be able to afford medical care at all. That would be substandard.

Prisons:

The reason private prisons work is because the entire system is overcapacity with non-violent offenders, mainly convicted on drug charges. So they have a guaranteed captive customer base. What happens if the population goes down for any reason and they can't keep the beds full? Socialize the losses again, because we can't let prisons close up because they're not yielding a sufficient return to the shareholders. Not only that, the potential for corruption is huge. There was recently a case of a county judge in western PA who was getting kickbacks to send unrepresented juvenile defendents to a private youth correctional center for offenses that normally wouldn't have required any jail time.

Social Security: Do I really need to comment here?

I wish you would, because it's a prime example of a 'socialist' government program that has worked for generations. Do you have any idea what poverty rates among the elderly were before social security? Not having social security was a proven failure.
And now, imagine if it was privatized and taken over by wall street, like certain people were suggesting in 2005. People wouldn't be whining it's going to go bankrupt in 40 years, like they've been doing every year for the past 40 years, it would be a major national crisis right now.
And the disability portion works fine as well.

Welfare: Ditto

Care to explain how someone is going to make a profit from providing charity? Non-profit private charities can be very efficient, but they also rely on voluntary donations that dry up at the times when their services are needed the most. Every charity is hurting right now, you should see my email inbox.

Grim, JR, Theo, L, DM, tj:
I'm learning something from all of you and I appreciate your awesome debating skills. Thank you.

thomasjay wrote:

Education: See this thread

You didn't make a very convincing case that privatization is the answer

Medicare: It's on the verge of bankruptcy. It provides sub-standard care and costs way too much.

What would happen if a private medicare system was on the verge of bankruptcy? A government bailout, because the system couldn't be allowed to fail. Like everything else in the privatization argument, what the proponents actually want is to privatise profits while they're there to be made, and socialize the losses when they occur. The care is not substandard either, you go to the same doctors on medicare as you do with private insurance. Without medicare, many elderly or disabled people wouldn't be able to afford medical care at all. That would be substandard.

Prisons:

The reason private prisons work is because the entire system is overcapacity with non-violent offenders, mainly convicted on drug charges. So they have a guaranteed captive customer base. What happens if the population goes down for any reason and they can't keep the beds full? Socialize the losses again, because we can't let prisons close up because they're not yielding a sufficient return to the shareholders. Not only that, the potential for corruption is huge. There was recently a case of a county judge in western PA who was getting kickbacks to send unrepresented juvenile defendents to a private youth correctional center for offenses that normally wouldn't have required any jail time.

Social Security: Do I really need to comment here?

I wish you would, because it's a prime example of a 'socialist' government program that has worked for generations. Do you have any idea what poverty rates among the elderly were before social security? Not having social security was a proven failure.
And now, imagine if it was privatized and taken over by wall street, like certain people were suggesting in 2005. People wouldn't be whining it's going to go bankrupt in 40 years, like they've been doing every year for the past 40 years, it would be a major national crisis right now.
And the disability portion works fine as well.

Welfare: Ditto

Care to explain how someone is going to make a profit from providing charity? Non-profit private charities can be very efficient, but they also rely on voluntary donations that dry up at the times when their services are needed the most. Every charity is hurting right now, you should see my email inbox.

Good post.

Poor old Grim.

That's his style.

If unsuccessful at spreading fear and alarm in one thread, wait a day or so, and try the exact same thing, about the exact same subject, on a totally new thread.

Plenty of other nations are able to run socialised medicine, welfare, and other programs just fine. Maybe we should just be taking a cue from them. Especially considering that we are the ONLY country that I am aware of that is considered developed and not 3rd world that doesn't provide all of it's citizens a way to get health care.

lisan23 wrote:Plenty of other nations are able to run socialised medicine, welfare, and other programs just fine. Maybe we should just be taking a cue from them. Especially considering that we are the ONLY country that I am aware of that is considered developed and not 3rd world that doesn't provide all of it's citizens a way to get health care.

Yes, but don't you see?

In the world of Frank and Grim, such things are not important.

What's important is to represent such matters in an askew manner, so as to create a sense of fear among the ignorant.

Unless you are ignorant, and you are patently not, then you kinda get immune to it.

I'm getting to the point where I just roll my eyes... I don't know why I respond. I'm off to go start a much more relevant political thread. Hehehe

lisan23 wrote:I'm getting to the point where I just roll my eyes... I don't know why I respond. I'm off to go start a much more relevant political thread. Hehehe

Really?

Must be catching.

It is getting to the stage that when I see who the thread author is, I take a sharp intake of breath.