New York City

[Age]

So the social programs are "bankrupting" the country?

Yep.

If they took away the social programs and let the poor just die on the roadsides, would that be preferable?

That would be bad, too. But there has to be a third alternative: a sustainable balance in medical provision. If there's not, then the system itself will collapse, and EVERYBODY will end up on the roadsides. Would you prefer that?

Third alternative? The third alternative is to welcome socialism and social programs instead of complaining that they are "socialist" and therefore genocidal or whatever it is you deem "socialism". Ineffective social programs and an ineffective capitalist economy aren't necessarily strikes against socialism.

Considering that human beings are a 'social animal and species' one would not be mistaken for thinking that being 'social', and creating and living in a 'social community', would be beneficial for all. However, because some people have become so greedy, so selfish, and so 'classist', like "immanuel can", they wil do all they can to denounce and destroy any thing where all are, or could be, equal.

[Immanuel Can]

So the social programs are "bankrupting" the country?

Yep.

If they took away the social programs and let the poor just die on the roadsides, would that be preferable?

That would be bad, too. But there has to be a third alternative: a sustainable balance in medical provision. If there's not, then the system itself will collapse, and EVERYBODY will end up on the roadsides. Would you prefer that?

Third alternative? The third alternative is to welcome socialism and social programs...

No, that's a bad choice. It means you're going to have Socialism, which has a 100% record of disastrous failure. The real third alternative is something sustainable. Socialism is decidedly not.

[Age]

Yep.

That would be bad, too. But there has to be a third alternative: a sustainable balance in medical provision. If there's not, then the system itself will collapse, and EVERYBODY will end up on the roadsides. Would you prefer that?

Third alternative? The third alternative is to welcome socialism and social programs...

No, that's a bad choice. It means you're going to have Socialism, which has a 100% record of disastrous failure. The real third alternative is something sustainable. Socialism is decidedly not.

So,

1. Again, 'this one' believes that its own interpretations and definitions are the only true and right ones.

2. How, exactly, could a 'societal framework' of doing things not work, or not be sustainable, in regards to a 'societal species'?

[Gary Childress]

Yep.

That would be bad, too. But there has to be a third alternative: a sustainable balance in medical provision. If there's not, then the system itself will collapse, and EVERYBODY will end up on the roadsides. Would you prefer that?

Third alternative? The third alternative is to welcome socialism and social programs...

No, that's a bad choice. It means you're going to have Socialism, which has a 100% record of disastrous failure. The real third alternative is something sustainable. Socialism is decidedly not.

Socialism is NOT totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is a bastardization of civil society. Saying you don't like "socialism" because some totalitarians nations like Cambodia and the Soviet Union claimed to be "socialist" is like saying you don't like democracy because some totalitarian nations like North Korea call themselves the "Democratic"Peoples Republic of Korea. You can't get any further off from the inspiration of what democratic socialism is than saying that "socialism" is evil. You may as well say Democracy is evil.

[Immanuel Can]

Third alternative? The third alternative is to welcome socialism and social programs...

No, that's a bad choice. It means you're going to have Socialism, which has a 100% record of disastrous failure. The real third alternative is something sustainable. Socialism is decidedly not.

Socialism is NOT totalitarianism.

In every case, that's exactly what it is.

You may as well say Democracy is evil.

One thing Socialism never is, is actually "democratic." It's inevitably autocratic, elitist, and brutal on the general populace. Just look at what it has done in 100% of the real-world cases of people thinking just what you are thinking. It NEVER produces anything but tyranny. Never.

Where would you point to, and say, "Now, THAT is how Socialism should be done?" And if billions have been subjected to it, in multiple nations, and it's never worked...how did you get to know how to make it work? Are you smarter than all those Koreans, those Chinese, those Russians, and Cubans, and Zimbabweans, and Vietnamese...

Or are you missing something that they all found out the hard way?

[Age]

Third alternative? The third alternative is to welcome socialism and social programs...

No, that's a bad choice. It means you're going to have Socialism, which has a 100% record of disastrous failure. The real third alternative is something sustainable. Socialism is decidedly not.

Socialism is NOT totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is a bastardization of civil society. Saying you don't like "socialism" because some totalitarians nations like Cambodia and the Soviet Union claimed to be "socialist" is like saying you don't like democracy because some totalitarian nations like North Korea call themselves the "Democratic"Peoples Republic of Korea. You can't get any further off from the inspiration of what democratic socialism is than saying that "socialism" is evil. You may as well say Democracy is evil.

Thank you "gary childress". Well said.

[Age]

No, that's a bad choice. It means you're going to have Socialism, which has a 100% record of disastrous failure. The real third alternative is something sustainable. Socialism is decidedly not.

Socialism is NOT totalitarianism.

In every case, that's exactly what it is.

You may as well say Democracy is evil.

One thing Socialism never is, is actually "democratic." It's inevitably autocratic, elitist, and brutal on the general populace.

LOL
LOL
LOL

One only has to 'look at' the actual word to see who and what it favours, and, who and what it does not favor.

But, some are yet to see.

Just look at what it has done in 100% of the real-world cases of people thinking just what you are thinking. It NEVER produces anything but tyranny. Never.

Where would you point to, and say, "Now, THAT is how Socialism should be done?"

The hundreds of thousands of years where human beings lived in 'communal groups'.

And if billions have been subjected to it, in multiple nations, and it's never worked...how did you get to know how to make it work?

Through Honesty, Openness, and the Want of changing for the better. That is, HOW.

Are you smarter than all those Koreans, those Chinese, those Russians, and Cubans, and Zimbabweans, and Vietnamese...

Or are you missing something that they all found out the hard way?

Why you are so desperately 'trying to' imply is some thing like if one is a "christian" like "immanuel can", then one will not do Wrong and will know what is Tue and Right, in Life.

Which is obviously False.

Look, your own personal version, and interpretation, of "socialism" is as Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect as your own personal version, and interpretation, of "Christianity" is.

Full stop.

[Walker]

Only three? The sky's the limit in fantasy land. Just pick a good fantasy name.

Dem 1: What are we going to call this?
Dem 2: Call it affordable. Call it The Affordable Care Act. If we call it that, people will think it’s affordable.

Dem 1: No way. People aren’t that gullible …
Dem 2: Sure they are. Folks are busy. They don’t read the details. Now let’s pass the Inflation Reduction Act. If we call it that, people will think it reduces inflation and that way, anyone who disagrees with it obviously wants inflation to increase.

Here’s How Obamacare Really Works, and It’s Disgusting
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/ ... g-n4945788

[Alexis Jacobi]

At least some part of the problem being discussed — whether it is wise, in a long run, to give power over to a bureaucratic governing class with a bad record for the management of those ‘social’ programs — is not only a problem of the so-called “radical Left” but one of the supposed “radical Right”. I have read some studies that indicate that many of the younger classes both Right and Left leaning tend to want to see their problems solved by government (somehow).

My experience (in Latin America) is that government-run programs like healthcare and also subsidies are established for what seem like good reasons, but they also have the effect of maintaining the classes and the economic structures as they more or less are.

If you live in a poorer neighborhood where all services (water, Internet, gas, energy) are very cheap (compared to wealthy neighborhoods where services are many times more costly) you create incentives for people to remain there and to be sufficiently satisfied with their circumstances so as not to clamor for higher wages or to start small-scale enterprises. The larger function is the ‘stability’ of society which is the desire of the stronger capital-controlling class.

To the degree that services are made “free to all” also reduces the incentive to earn, save, invest and strive for a genuinely strong economic platform.

The better route is if people and families have a very sober and committed relationship to their earnings and to their investments. That would include privately funded health insurance and general economic responsibility. Once it is handed over to government, who always manages it badly, it creates dependency on a bureaucratic system.

I think one must face the fact that presently (just take Gary snd Age as examples) the “mood” is shifting to “believe in” socialistic solutions to pressing problems. The Center-Right will seem like the Old School when they point out what the loss of incentive will result in. But the generation who, like Gary, is weak, not in good shape mentally, flabby in so many senses, yet filled with certainty and intense convictions (“passionate conviction”), and has been indulged by ‘helicopter parenting’ and corrupted by a consumerism (hungry mouth) attitude to life — these people are going to win. They will dominate the political landscape and determine things democratically.

Just wait to witness the groundswell of reaction against Our Holy Savior Donald J. Trump as the next hysterical social reaction process kicks into gear.

It is likely that most who participate here have ANY ownership interest in the Systems of the Economy. No home ownership, no business ownership, no investments. That is a big factor among present-day youth: Why ‘believe in’ the old way of achieving things if, in the dream, you conceive it being provided to you (to one degree or another).

[Alexis Jacobi]

Socialism is NOT totalitarianism.

Wait, don’t fall into the trap of too stark analysis (binary thinking). Take for example what is now being said about the processes of socialism-like impositions in California (my home state).

Socialism (giving power over the government bureaucracy) tends in that direction logically, inevitably. It could be slight or extreme. But the tendency is there.

[promethean75]

"It is likely that most who participate here have ANY ownership interest in the Systems of the Economy. No home ownership, no business ownership, no investments"

Precisely! And worse, much of these owners own at guys like Gary's and Rainman's expense. Fuckin A there's a whole political and econonic philosophy about this very point, in fact. Forget the guy's name, but he had a big matted beard and lived in exile.

Yeah, as i always say, a forum's first order of business should be to divide the members up into their respective classes: proletariat (regular marxism-illiterate incels and emos that work part or full time), lumpenproletariat (marxism-illiterate incels and emos with 'conditions' who don't work and have free computer access), and marxism-illiterate bourgeoisie (company owners and investors who witness the glory and goodness of god everyday... actually, I should say every friday because that's after the payroll is done and the obscene profits can be counted).

[Alexis Jacobi]

Ooooh I like where things are going!

[promethean75]

I just passed up an easy $2,300 deck and pergola because the guy pissed me off. Upper-class Indian whose family has made a fortune off those with bad karma who are obligated to be peasants so they can pay their karmic debt. We were bantering about the recent crypto crash, and so I started complaining about losing my few hundred. He laughs and looks at me... then says something like, "That's nothing. A few hundred is nothing when you have millions!"

I was like damn is this dork laughing at me like the monopoly guy laughed at Ace during the party?

One can clearly see that the gentleman and I were sworn enemies divided by party lines. My goal is to reappropriate his undeserved wealth and his goal is to obtain more of it.

[phyllo]

The better route is if people and families have a very sober and committed relationship to their earnings and to their investments. That would include privately funded health insurance and general economic responsibility. Once it is handed over to government, who always manages it badly, it creates dependency on a bureaucratic system.

You guys are completely out of touch with reality.

The majority of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.

Approximately 57% to 67% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck in 2025, depending on the study. A 2025 study from PNC Bank found that 67% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, up from 63% in 2024, says Investopedia. Other recent surveys suggest a slightly lower figure, with one MarketWatch survey showing 57% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, according to TD Stories.

PNC Bank Study: 67% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, which is an increase from 63% in 2024.
MarketWatch Survey: 57% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck.
Contributing factors: Rising costs of living and inflation are major reasons, causing more people to spend all their income just to cover expenses.
Gender Gap: Women report living paycheck to paycheck more often than men, with 72% of women and 65% of men citing this, according to a Yahoo Finance article.

[phyllo]

Socialism is NOT totalitarianism.

Wait, don’t fall into the trap of too stark analysis (binary thinking). Take for example what is now being said about the processes of socialism-like impositions in California (my home state).

Socialism (giving power over the government bureaucracy) tends in that direction logically, inevitably. It could be slight or extreme. But the tendency is there.

Why don't you discuss this with Binary Boy. He has the superpower to see everything in black and white.

He thinks socialism is communism.