Well, a big part of the problem is that schools no longer spend enough time teaching the downfalls of socialism and communism. We were in school when the cold war was a reality - not a chapter in the history books.

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

That's true.

You should just sit and listen to a group of young adults talk about politics. It's like they are speaking another language.

---

That's because they rarely actually talk politics, they talk social issues.  What needs to be realized is that "society" and "government" are supposed to be two different things. 

They think socialism is about society, aka, movie/TV/internet stars.

flan327 wrote:

---

Socialism is not a "one size fits all."

flan

---

The higher the level of socialism, the faster the fall. 

flan327 wrote:

---

Socialism is not a "one size fits all."

flan

---

 A good friend  was raised in Bosnia  when it was under communist  rule. She said socialism and communism  were very close in beliefs.

I know Jesse got his voter card Friday.

He hasn't really stopped talking about voting.

He is watching the campaigns very closely.

He is 18 and stanchly conservative.

Caitlyn is too.

Yes. I am happy about that.

Aaron is a little more middle of the road. Which is fine too.

I don't know. Every generation has the older generation doubting if they will ever wise up. A lot of them change their minds when adult reality happens to them.

Ohfour wrote:

---

Lindley wrote:

---

I don't know. Every generation has the older generation doubting if they will ever wise up. A lot of them change their minds when adult reality happens to them.

---

But 26????  Really?  That seems a bit old... 

---

 Yeah that is pretty  old but then we have a lot of 18-20 year olds serving in the military. I heard someone  call them the everybody gets a trophy  generation.

 

  The thing also about  Bernie  is that he is so old. You see pictures  of before  and after pictures  of presidentsome and you can certainly how much the office  ages them. I can't  imagine  him looking  any older.

Oh my!
I had no idea that Bernie wants to do away with private property, that he'll take your house away, and all businesses and means of production will belong to The State.
I've listened to his speeches, and there was never a hint of that.
I guess you learn something new every day.

weltschmerz wrote:

---

Oh my!
I had no idea that Bernie wants to do away with private property, that he'll take your house away, and all businesses and means of production will belong to The State.
I've listened to his speeches, and there was never a hint of that.
I guess you learn something new every day.

---

 Then why don't you take him?  

Ohfour wrote:

---

weltschmerz wrote:

---

Oh my!
I had no idea that Bernie wants to do away with private property, that he'll take your house away, and all businesses and means of production will belong to The State.
I've listened to his speeches, and there was never a hint of that.
I guess you learn something new every day.

---

No you, evidently...

As stated before, there are levels of socialism.   

---

 So why are people comparing it to Bosnia and Russia? It's patently absurd.

Why not compare it to those other awful countries where life is a living hell? Like Sweden, Canada or New Zealand?
Oh, wait.....

More, for Welts's enlightenment...

By the late 19th century after further articulation and advancement by Karl Marx and his collaborator Friedrich Engels as the culmination of technological development outstripping the economic dynamics of capitalism,[26] "socialism" had come to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy for a post-capitalist system based on some form of social ownership of the means of production.[27][28] By the 1920s, social democracy and communism became the two dominant political tendencies within the international socialist movement.[29] During the 20th century, socialism emerged as the most influential secular political-economic worldview.[30] While the emergence of the Soviet Union as the world's first nominally socialist state led to socialism's widespread association with the Soviet economic model, many economists and intellectuals have argued that in practice the model represented a form of dictatorship,[31][32][33] state capitalism[34][35][36] or a non-planned command or administrative economy.[37][38] Socialist parties and ideas remain a political force with varying degrees of power and influence in all continents, heading national governments in many countries around the world. Today, some socialists have also adopted the causes of other social movements, such as environmentalism, feminism and liberalism.[39]

Interesting read...

Many leftists hail Scandinavia as a socialist haven that demonstrates the inferiority of capitalism. Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders recently declared that the United States ought to emulate Scandinavian countries because they provide education and healthcare “for free.”


There are many problems with this line of thinking. For one, it is fallacious to claim that a system that works for homogenous countries like Finland and Norway would also succeed in a massive, diverse country such as the United States. For another, it is incorrect to refer to Scandinavian countries as “socialist,” given that no Scandinavian countries nationalize their means of production.






Scandinavian countries—specifically, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland—are perceived as socialist because their citizens pay very high income taxes. However, these countries still suffer from many of the social and economic ills that socialism is supposed to prevent. Additionally, the United States taxes wealthy Americans at much higher rates than Scandinavian countries tax their similarly wealthy citizens, yet leftists such as Sanders are still displeased with how our tax system is organized. Finally, another European country defies the liberal “Scandinavian socialist success” narrative so completely that it demonstrates why capitalism is the best economic model in existence.


Scandinavian Countries Aren’t Socialist

One of the reasons it is incorrect to refer to countries like Sweden as “socialist” is that these countries were once far more progressive than they are now. The Economist says Sweden was once a “tax-and-spend” economy in which author Astrid Lindgren (of “Pippi Longstocking” fame) was required to pay more than 100 percent of her income in taxes. This heavily progressive tax rate stunted economic growth, and Sweden fell from the fourth-wealthiest country in the world to the fourteenth-wealthiest country in just 23 years.


The electoral success of moderate and conservative parties throughout Scandinavia is at once a rejection of progressive policies and an endorsement of free markets.

The government recognized the cause of the trouble and instituted several capitalist reforms to resuscitate Sweden’s economy. According to The Economist, following the success of Sweden’s relatively right-leaning Moderate party, “Swedish GDP is growing strongly, and unemployment is falling. The budget is heading into surplus next year.” The article notes that many Swedes support moderate and right-wing reforms: “The centre-right has made welfare payments less generous, cut taxes for the lower-paid and trimmed the numbers on sickness benefit. Voters seem to approve.” The electoral success of moderate and conservative parties throughout Scandinavia is at once a rejection of progressive policies and an endorsement of free markets in what some consider to be the most progressive region in the world.


In some ways, Sweden is now less progressive than the United States. Harvard professor Gregory Mankiw writes that the wealthiest decile of Swedes carries 26.7 percent of the tax burden. In The United States, the figure is a whopping 45.1 percent. Additionally, wealth inequality is more pronounced in Scandinavian countries than it is in the United States. In Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Norway, the top decile of earners own between 65 and 69 percent of the country’s total wealth, an astonishing figure. Sanders is apparently unaware of this reality, given that one of his primary reasons for praising Scandinavia was their low levels of wealth inequality.


Scandinavia Has High Taxes and High Personal Debt

Despite their rates of wealth inequality, it is true that the citizens of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland devote more of their income to taxes than American citizens do. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the average American spends 9.8 percent of his income on taxes; Swedes spend 12.3 percent, Danes 26.4 percent, Norwegians 10 percent, and Finns 12.9 percent. Perhaps because of these measures, government debt is less of a problem in Scandinavia than it is in the United States.


Scandinavia’s progressive tax systems fail to protect their citizens from staggering personal debt.

However, Scandinavian rates of household debt are astronomically high. OECD figures also show the average Dane has a household debt equal to 310 percent of his disposable income; the number is 173 percent for Swedes. In America, the average is 114 percent. While America’s economic problems cannot be ignored, it is noteworthy that Scandinavia’s progressive tax systems fail to protect their citizens from staggering personal debt.


Finally, and perhaps most surprisingly, Sweden’s public education system is ranked lower than that of the United States. According to the OECD, Sweden ranks 30 of 37 in math and 24 of 37 in reading. The United States, meanwhile, is 27 of 37 in math and 25 of 37 in reading. Norway and Denmark are both ranked better than the United States, but not by much. These realities destroy the pervasive myth that “socialist” Scandinavian schools are the best in the world. Despite what Sanders might believe, educational institutions in Sweden are not superior to those in the United States. Sweden’s high tax rates have not ensured educational excellence, and many Swedes likely pay the equivalent of college tuition for their children in the form of taxes anyhow.


The Non-Socialist European Success Story: Switzerland

This evidence is quite as compelling as the success story that is Switzerland. Unlike its neighbors, Switzerland is one of the most capitalist countries in existence. Its citizens only pay 8.6 percent of their personal incomes in taxes annually, and its economic climate is particularly well-suited to entrepreneurship. The Huffington Post writes that 99 percent of Switzerland’s economy is made up of small and medium-sized enterprises, which also employ three-quarters of the country’s workforce.


Many leftists extol the limited successes of Sweden and Finland without ever acknowledging Switzerland.

Switzerland is ranked best in the world on many categories related to economic development, including “innovation, on-the-job staff training, attracting talent from elsewhere, and for government-provided training.” Ultimately, The Huffington Post claims, “Switzerland is home to one of the world’s most thriving economies and also one of the happiest populations on the globe.” Many leftists extol the limited successes of Sweden and Finland without ever acknowledging Switzerland, although it outperforms much of Europe in various economic and social metrics.


Although it is very capitalist, Switzerland boasts many of the advantages that socialist Scandinavian states are supposed to claim exclusively. Switzerland’s unemployment rate is just 4.5 percent, which is one of the lowest rates in the world. The country’s poverty rate is similarly low (XLS). Those who immigrate to Switzerland have an average employment rate of 76 percent, which is much higher than the European average of 62 percent.


Furthermore, the Swiss educational system is ranked third in the world by the OECD. Only Korea and Japan are ranked higher, which means Switzerland’s educational system is the best in the Western world. Many claim this distinction belongs to Finland, but Finnish schools are in fact ranked 10/37 in math and 4/37 in reading.


Additionally, income inequality and debt are both quite low in Switzerland. This reality persists although Switzerland’s wealthy have the lowest tax burden in the world; the richest decile in the country pays only 20.9 percent of the country’s taxes. Remarkably, even though the tax burden on the wealthy is minimal, Switzerland’s national debt as a percentage of its gross domestic product is lower than Finland’s, Sweden’s, and Denmark’s.


Switzerland is the closest to “paradise” of any European country, yet it remains one of the most capitalist economies on Earth. Its success is a powerful antidote to socialist claims about the benefits of progressive taxation, and all but destroys the assumption that Scandinavia as a bastion of socialism shows that only collectivism can produce success.


Regardless of the facts presented here, socialists like Sanders are sure to continue citing Scandinavia to support their narratives. If you happen to encounter such a person in real life, however, consider reading them this from The Economist: “Yet three deeper factors should give Social Democrats everywhere pause for thought. The first is that [Swedish] voters seem to value competent government above ideology.” Perhaps it is time for Americans to do the same.

TRUE socialism fails every time.
Bernie doesn't want to take your sh!t away and turn it over to the state.

weltschmerz wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

I'm astounded by the ignorance.
Socialism fails every time.

---

 Ha ha.

You seem to be forgetting I lived behind the Iron Curtain.  Under communism.

---

Your point? 

weltschmerz wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

I'm astounded by the ignorance.
Socialism fails every time.

---

 Ha ha.

You seem to be forgetting I lived behind the Iron Curtain.  Under communism.

---

 You live under the American shield. 

I've said for a long time that the youth of this country, or at least the Bernie supporters, only see free free free. They think short term and not long term. They're mostly in college and they see a free college education. They don't see who will pay for it.

As far as kids living at home and being on our insurance and stuff, I think we have made the economy this way. In our parents and most of our generations you could go to college and get a job right out of college. And though you might not be making huge money out of the gate you would still be able to get things like health insurance and benefits. Our politicians have killed our economy. A college education is not longer a promise of a job in this economy. And Obamacare has killed the insurance benefits for many. While I do think some kids can't cut the apron strings I think many stay at home because the economy is so bad.

weltschmerz wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

weltschmerz wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

weltschmerz wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

I'm astounded by the ignorance.
Socialism fails every time.

---

 Ha ha.

You seem to be forgetting I lived behind the Iron Curtain.  Under communism.

---

Your point? 

---

 My point is that I don't need to be schooled on socialism. I'm very well-versed in it.

Don't like Bernie? Don't vote for him.

---

Obviously not.  You seem to like it...

And only idiots are voting for Bernie.  There are quite a few of them... 

---

 Only idiots vote for Cruz or Trump.

---

 Wow!  What a comeback!   

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

weltschmerz wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

weltschmerz wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

weltschmerz wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

I'm astounded by the ignorance.
Socialism fails every time.

---

 Ha ha.

You seem to be forgetting I lived behind the Iron Curtain.  Under communism.

---

Your point? 

---

 My point is that I don't need to be schooled on socialism. I'm very well-versed in it.

Don't like Bernie? Don't vote for him.

---

Obviously not.  You seem to like it...

And only idiots are voting for Bernie.  There are quite a few of them... 

---

 Only idiots vote for Cruz or Trump.

---

 Wow!  What a comeback!   

---

 Thank you. Apparently, there are quite a few of them.

Ohfour wrote:

---

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

weltschmerz wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

weltschmerz wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

weltschmerz wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

I'm astounded by the ignorance.
Socialism fails every time.

---

 Ha ha.

You seem to be forgetting I lived behind the Iron Curtain.  Under communism.

---

Your point? 

---

 My point is that I don't need to be schooled on socialism. I'm very well-versed in it.

Don't like Bernie? Don't vote for him.

---

Obviously not.  You seem to like it...

And only idiots are voting for Bernie.  There are quite a few of them... 

---

 Only idiots vote for Cruz or Trump.

---

 Wow!  What a comeback!   

---

Consider the source...

A Canadian sticking her ignorant nose into American politics.  Honestly, whoever she wouldn't vote for would be the best and most logical choice. I mean seriously, look at what she stands for...

---

 Got your panties in a bunch, do you?

People who think "just a little bit of socialism" won't lead to more and more socialism obviously have never read a history book, or even current events around the world.

Pretty much...

weltschmerz wrote:

---

TRUE socialism fails every time.
Bernie doesn't want to take your sh!t away and turn it over to the state.

---

 You know crap about socialism if that is your takeaway.  Once socialism is introduced into a society it is hard to extract it back out. Generations will suffer.  If the US contracts their welfare system as it is currently managed, a whole generation of welfare takers will suffer.  That would not have occurred had we not given the generous benefits, those people would be working and raising their children with the understanding they are expected to do for themselves.  We would not have the deficit we do today.