by Paul Mulshine October 11, 2008 1:43PM


I've noticed lately that a lot of people seem to have discovered that Barack Obama is a socialist.

There's a lot of that going around.

Socialism, I mean.

The only politician that I know of on the national scene who is definitely not a socialist is Texas congressman Ron Paul. And look where that got him. During the presidential primary campaign Paul was treated as a laughingstock by his fellow Republicans for such stances as his call for young people to be permitted to opt out of Social Security.


Paul's having the last laugh these days. As you can see in this clip, the entire U.S. economy is now socialist thanks to the big corporate bailout, says Dr. Paul.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/023456.html

And then there is the unpleasant fact that every senior citizen in America is what my Aussie friends used to call "a dole bludger," someone who takes welfare without working.

One such apparent dole bludger held forth at a recent McCain rally in Wisconsin. The old codger worked himself up into a frenzy that even the hot-tempered McCain might envy, screaming "I'm mad, I'm really mad!" and then shouting, "And what's going to surprise ya, is it's not the economy, it's the socialists taking over our country."

The old coot made it clear that the hated socialists are the Democrats. But assuming he was over 65, which he certainly appeared to be, the guy is receiving the benefit of at least two socialist programs. One, of course, is Social Security. There's a reason they called it "social" security and not Capitalist Security. It's a welfare program and the current codgers are getting a free ride paid for by working Americans. True, they paid into it, but anyone who lives a normal life span will get out a lot more than he or she put in.

And then there's Medicare. The current crop of seniors paid a pittance into it during their working years, but they now have the benefit of a system of socialized medicine till the day they die.

Does this guy really want McCain to fight socialism in America?

Imagine McCain told this guy he was absolutely right and as of January President McCain would end Social Security and Medicare and pay back to senior citizens the amount they paid in, with interest. By February, this geezer would be at a rally demanding to have his Medicare coverage restored.

The truth is, Americans love socialism. They'd better. This is a socialist country. Here's an interesting article that compares our government-funded health care systems, primarily Medicare and Medicaid, with other countries:


"The average rich-country government spends 6.7 percent of GDP on health; America's 6.8 percent is very slightly higher. The national health systems of Canada and Britain cost about 6.9 percent of GDP, and that of Australia 6.4 percent. Germany's government spends the most on health care at 8.9 percent of GDP, followed by Norway, Sweden, France, and Denmark."

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=108&subsecID=900003&contentID=254167

The big difference, of course, is that in most of those countries the socialized system covers everyone, while our socialized system covers just the poor and the elderly. Oh yeah, don't let me forget government workers. They have a system of guaranteed benefits and early retirement that the typical Brit or Swede would envy.

So our system is socialism. It's just an inept form of socialism. And it's also an unsupportable form. The baby-boomer retirement was going to bankrupt us even before the recent market meltdown. Now we could be on the verge of a slide into Third-World status. I've been to countries where you need to carry a backpack just for the bills needed to buy a beer. It's not a pretty sight.

The only way to prevent that would be to take the harsh medicine that Dr. Paul offered us during the primary season. But not a lot of Americans want that prescription, and I suspect the old crank in this video would be among the last to down a dose of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgwiFOid0gA

NOTE: Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute just sent me a paper in which he argues that Obama's plan is socialized medicine, as is Medicare. He doesn't deal with McCain's plan, but it is slightly less socialist than Obama's.

My father is on retirement from the military and post office.It is mandatory to sign up for medicare after a certain age.Let's look at the real problem with social security and thats Congress using it as a savings and loan.As for socialism if that means helping the least of us out,making sure people are getting preventive care so they stay healthy7 longer,making sure everyone has enough to eat and a roof over their heads,that a college education is affordable to all then what's the problem.We can bail out greedy corporate bastards but we can't help our people?Give me a break.

From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need.
Karl Marx

The purpose of the article is that we've been moved into socialism a long time ago, we've just been getting the crappy portions of it and none of the stuff for the people, like the healthcare, unless you're old, handicapped or a poor family.

Is it really a bailout of the corporate elite, when they've bought and paid for the politicians that "bailed" them out in the first place?

I think this is being done on purpose, lets just watch and see what kind of consolidation of our markets happens in the next few weeks.

social security and medicare are not govt benefits

they are insurance benefits that have been paid for

fica

federal insurance contribution act

if congress would quit STEALING THE MONEY there would not be a problem


when the private sector does this they are criminals

why are the feds allowed to steal from our pension funds

WE should form a task force for citizens. Elect a militia to arrest and try anyone that is guilty of any of this crap. I'm sick of congressional double standards.

I don't think that everyone should get Social Security or Medicare.

If you make over $100,000 a year, you don't need Social Security.

It was supposed to be a safety net, not an extra giveaway for greedy millionaires.

How much more money we could come up with if we got rid of this giveaway.

Then it would only be fair that if you make over 100k you should be able to keep the money you worked for instead of redistribution of wealth eh? Works for me. But we wouldn't want to do something as silly as letting someone who worked their ass off to be self supportive enjoy their waning years with the money they worked for now would we? It would be un-American. We need to strip them of their savings and give it to those who didn't work for it and who walk around with a constant sucking sound like a "gimme gimme" Hoover.For some it is more morally acceptable to live on handouts rather than get out and work.
I have a better idea: Everyone gets to keep the cash they and their employers throw away into the bottomless social security pit and save for their own retirement. Hell, it's what we did before that miserable program came along. Social security wasn't designed as a retirement plan for the masses to begin with. It was supposed to be a government mandated safety blanket. If you put money in- you should get money out. It is as simple as that. Didn't put money in? Sorry Charley. Don't f*cking grab my wallet and pull out what you need. Picking pockets is apparently legal for the government.

Amen Cute.

Our country will never be communist nor socialist. If we take a good idea from one of those political ideals and it helps us, I say go for it.

Health care is a problem in this country, I don't care how "socialized" it gets as long as we get people covered.

I have to warn as always. White supremacists have always utilized "communist", "socialist", "liberal", terrorists, etc... (sorry my mind is kinda slow on remembering them all) as politically "correct" ways to get an agenda across to the mainstream so please watch out for these statements.

our government is neither republican,socialist or democratic its just CROOKED...

does that mean they should not pay it

if they pay they should collect

or if they get hit bay another car on the road should they not collect from that insurance company

if you pay you should collect

The problem with socializing is making people dependent on the programs. I personally would have no problem with a national insurance providing we cut enough B.S. programs and other spending to provide money for it. The big problem i see about the near future, is when there are no cuts, and the programs (estimating between 70 to 100 billion dollars a year) are started. This means more deficit, and worse off, more printing of money. That'swhat got us into the problems in the first place. This would slowly force people that originally could afford their own insurance to rely on the government for assistence. Socialism is another form of evil as it is on the path to control ofver the population. The trick is to remain independent while getting the needs of the citizens met. This is the question we should be asking. No liberties should ever be sacrificed for security. The government in it's best state is but a necessary evil.

"""""not an extra giveaway for greedy millionaires."""""

it is not a give away program

check your pay stub

it is an insurance policy the general public is forced to participate in (govt employees and elected officials hvae their own [imagine that] maybe they should have to rely on social security that would fix it real quick)

it is really annoying how so many think social security is a type of welfare program -- when it is a paid for insurance policy

if you wreck your car and take money from the insurance company (is that a type of welfare program)

21% of the budget goes to Social Security.

Check out the original bill:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=13595

Again, not supposed to be a GIVEAWAY to millionaires and billionaires, they don't need it, never HAVE, never WILL.

Insurance companies are private entities, not tied to the government, it's like comparing apples with oranges.

I'm firmly behind Dr. Pauls assertion that it would be representative of Liberty to allow Americans, especially the young people, the opportunity to opt out of Social security.

Why does it have to be white supremacy, to call out socialism when it's actually socialism.
It strikes me as a fear tactic to invoke racism when faced with a undefendable fact.

It doesn't really matter about Soc. Sec., I doubt it will even exist by the time I'm eligible.

What does FICA mean and why are Social Security taxes called FICA contributions?


Social Security payroll taxes are collected under authority of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). The payroll taxes are sometimes even called "FICA taxes."

In the original 1935 law the benefit provisions were in Title II of the Act (which is why we sometimes call Social Security the "Title II" program.) The taxing provisions were in a separate title, Title VIII. There is a deep reason for this, having to do with the constitutionality of the law (see discussion of the Constitutionality of the 1935 Act).

As part of the 1939 Amendments, the Title VIII taxing provisions were taken out of the Social Security Act and placed in the Internal Revenue Code. Since it wouldn't make any sense to call this new section of the Internal Revenue Code "Title VIII," it was renamed the "Federal Insurance Contributions Act."

The payroll taxes collected for Social Security are of course taxes, but they can also be described as contributions to the social insurance system that is Social Security. Hence the name "Federal Insurance Contributions Act."

So FICA is nothing more than the tax provisions of the Social Security Act, as they appear in the Internal Revenue Code.

----------------
http://www.ssa.gov/mystatement/fica.htm
-----------------

not the last line in the second to the last paragraph

""""""Federal Insurance Contributions Act.""""""

maybe green grapes and red grapes

but not apples and oranges