Welcome to PatsFans.com

Pew On The "Ism's" Or How Socialism vs Capitalism Fairs In America

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Mrs.PatsFanInVa, May 9, 2010.

  1. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    16,429
    Likes Received:
    411
    Ratings:
    +789 / 14 / -6

    #24 Jersey

    “Socialism” is a negative for most Americans, but certainly not all Americans. “Capitalism” is regarded positively by a majority of the public, though it is a thin majority. There are certain segments of the public – notably, young people and Democrats – where both “isms” are rated about equally. And while most Americans have a negative reaction to the word “militia,” the term is viewed more positively by Republican men than most other groups.

    These are among the findings of a national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press that tests reactions to words and phrases frequently used in current political discourse. Overall, 29% say they have a positive reaction to the word “socialism,” while 59% react negatively. The public’s impressions of “capitalism,” though far more positive, are somewhat mixed. Slightly more than half (52%) react positively to the word “capitalism,” compared with 37% who say they have a negative reaction.

    Young people are more positive about “socialism” – and more negative about “capitalism” – than are older Americans. Among those younger than 30, identical percentages react positively to “socialism” and “capitalism” (43% each), while about half react negatively to each. Among older age groups, majorities view “socialism” negatively and “capitalism” positively
    .

    "Socialism" Not So Negative, "Capitalism" Not So Positive: Overview - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

    Interesting that older Americans who are the ones most likely to be benefitting from socialistic programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Senior Citizen programs are the least likely to approve of that which they benefit from.
     
  2. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,437
    Likes Received:
    495
    Ratings:
    +1,081 / 16 / -9

    "Talk to the one star"

    Heh. What's wrong, nobody write the talking points for you guys on this one yet?

    We'll await the Fox spin to be recycled and posted. Wait, do we really think a Pew poll will make Fox?

    :rofl:
     
  3. Nikolai

    Nikolai Football Atheist PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Messages:
    6,796
    Likes Received:
    568
    Ratings:
    +1,499 / 1 / -1

    #54 Jersey

    Well, for older generations, socialism was linked a lot more with Stalinism than it is today, where the Swedish example is probably more the point of comparison than what is going on in North Korea. Even a lot of capitalists today support a few of the measures that are out of the socialist ideal.

    It's all context. At the risk of introducing a wild hypothetical, if the US were invaded, the hordes of gun-toting Americans that would join the insurgency as part of "militias" would probably have a favorable view among most Americans.

    That might speak to the idea that they are perhaps more principled (for better or worse depending on your perspective), seeking what they think is better for the country rather than simply seeking what works best for them. There's a certain admirable quality about that.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2010
  4. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,437
    Likes Received:
    495
    Ratings:
    +1,081 / 16 / -9

    Nik, I think your idea that the older folks who are so ideologically opposed to socialism are standing on principle might be more compelling, were they not so vociferously against cutting any of the fruits of the state sector that they themselves receive, such as social security and medicare.

    By contrast, the young - who stand to pay for those benefits - show a willingness to pay going forward for a measure of public sector support across society.

    One might also explain the Pew poll by a "ratcheting" concept: It is rational to have attained a certain standing vis a vis the state/private mix, and seek to retain that standing, at an advanced age.

    By contrast, if one has a "veil of ignorance" drawn over one's own future and that of one's peers (i.e., you do not know for certain who will need the supports of the future,) you are more likely to choose a state of affairs by which both your risks and those of your peers are mitigated.


    PFnV
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2010
  5. Nikolai

    Nikolai Football Atheist PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Messages:
    6,796
    Likes Received:
    568
    Ratings:
    +1,499 / 1 / -1

    #54 Jersey

    Fair points. I'd probably like to give you a better answer, but time doesn't permit, so I'll leave it at that. ;)

    Your first point is a good example of how "capitalists" do support at least a modicum of socialism.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2010
  6. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    27,328
    Likes Received:
    200
    Ratings:
    +573 / 6 / -24

    #18 Jersey

    "Teaming-up" with wifey once again? Isn't that special....move, I think I'm gettn' sick!! :eek:
     
  7. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    27,328
    Likes Received:
    200
    Ratings:
    +573 / 6 / -24

    #18 Jersey


    None of us "older folks" (yourself included) would give a rats behind about social security "IF" we hadn't been FORCED to contribute to it all our fuggn' lives PFiVA. So yeah, we now have a right to want that money to be where it's supposed to be when we retire.

    Only an idiot pays for something and doesn't care about what he/she gets in return.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2010
  8. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,437
    Likes Received:
    495
    Ratings:
    +1,081 / 16 / -9

    Thought you had her on iggy, PR... you just can't leave the PFnV family alone, it seems.

    Nik, we have explained the draw for the middle-aged and older folks, who, like PR, are supportive of socialist programs for themselves.

    We can explain how younger age cadres would believe a "covered" society to be a better society, in the abstract, since they do not know whether they will need a social safety net or not.

    In earlier age cadres - say, my own/PR's (end of baby boom) - Kids from many walks of life believed it was a given that bad things would not happen to them. We all grew up thinking we were bullet-proof, recession-proof, etc. I wonder whether that is as strong an impulse in millennials. I believe the tendency persisted at least in "generation X."

    The answer to that question will be significant. If they are acting out of ideology, changing (perhaps more mature) will likely change their answer.

    If, on the other hand, millenials perceive themselves as vulnerable to the lurching nature of unregulated markets, their reaction to socialism will likely persist.

    As PR shows, we all embrace some socialist features in our economy; it is, in fact, a mixed economy, and those with ideological axes to grind about taxes, deficits, and the like, pull up short of the big programs, medicare and social security, which cover just about all Americans eventually. Those programs are also responsible for the majority of government spending, and the proportion will grow.

    Talk about a sense of "entitlement(s)".

    At any rate, I am far from against these programs. I do believe, however, that we need to pay our bills. If we are retaining medicare and social security, we will raise taxes. Period. There is not enough money to borrow in the world to cover the demographic tidal wave of the baby boom, and as we've seen, the entitlements will not be sacrificed by those who rely on them.

    Naturally, the something-for-nothing crowd will continue to insist that nobody pay their taxes, ever, and simultneously insist that they be able to collect from a system they "paid into." Never mind that the amount they paid in is not the equivalent, on average, of what they are able to take out. Social Security and Medicare assume growing age cadres to provide current retirees more benefits than they "paid for."

    The question appears to be not whether Socialism is popular; as PR shows, everybody wants the government's help. The question is whether we are each individually willing to contribute for the good of all, along the lines of what we have done thus far vis a vis Social Security and Medicare.

    We'll all likely work longer. We'll all likely add another percent to our Social Security tax. We'll likely stop the practice of allowing earners past 108K or so (I believe that's the current cutoff), to skip the social security payment.

    I'm positively excited to see what this next crop of young punks make of politics going forward... they did themselves proud in '08... but then, hey, a lot of people did ;)

    PFnV
     
  9. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    16,429
    Likes Received:
    411
    Ratings:
    +789 / 14 / -6

    #24 Jersey

    It could just be that they're acting out of ignorance. The following quote is just plain disheartening - especially when you consider it might be correct.

    The poll's conclusion should not be interpreted to mean any shift in the country's thinking about these terms because many of the respondents may not have known what the words really meant.

    "Do they know what either of these words mean?" Jamieson of the University of Pennsylvania asked rhetorically. "'Socialism' is not a word used in ordinary political debate nowadays. When people hear the word, what do they actually think? Do they think of a political philosophy advanced by Karl Marx or do they think of someone being highly sociable. When they hear 'capital' do they think they big white building in Washington, or uppercase letters?"

    'Socialist' Not a Slur for Many, Poll Finds - ABC News
     
  10. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    27,328
    Likes Received:
    200
    Ratings:
    +573 / 6 / -24

    #18 Jersey

    I have MrsPFiVA on ignore...I never said I had you both on it. After all, how could I ever get through a day without reading one of your lengthy posts?;)

    I don't understand why you never admit that the problem with soc security is that the gov't began putting the money into the general fund sometime in the 60's? "THE PROBLEM" is that our gov't sees social security as just an extension of the federal tax. Can't you admit that?

    When I retire, I'll have contrited $130 to $150k to SS over my career. I started contributing in 1982. Had I been able to put that money into a 401k, there would be enough to pay me $30k/yr for 20 years after I retire....easily.

    So, no, I do not cherish social programs at all. Even the one's I'll be eligible to receive upon retirement. But our gov't TAKES money from us all our lives for these programs which leaves people like me with LESS to invest for my own retirement. Basically, our gov't has hooked the American people into dependancy by forcing us all to depend upon them.

    I'd prefer to provide for all my own needs, but that opportunity was taken from me before I even began my career. Now, had the federal gov't decided to end social security 20 years ago AND stopped collecting SS taxes, I'd be fine & dandy with not getting any SS upon retirement.
     
  11. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,437
    Likes Received:
    495
    Ratings:
    +1,081 / 16 / -9

    Gotcha, so you just make sure you comment on the presence of both of us on one thread.

    Come to think of it, you're replying to a thread and you have no idea of the point of view of the OP. I really don't understand the draw.

    I don't think we've ever actually even had that conversation. I limited my comments above to contributions to and prospective payouts from SS, and the implications of the general demographic trends. "The government" could "see Social Security" as a cupcake factory, a series of basketball games, or a nine-headed beast from the book of Revelation, for all I care. The number of dollars collected and the number of dollars dispensed are out of whack. That's what I'm addressing. SS & Medicare are also the source of a great deal of our debt, yet our "debt hawks" never dare mention it ("our" meaning the nation's, not this board's.)

    For the record: I simultaneously think of SS as something that has to be tweaked, not destroyed. We have some well-off folks here who've never known poverty, who say social security is a commie program and gramma should start eating alpo next year. Screw 'er. She should have planned better. That's not my point of view either.

    I'll take "I'll have contrited" to be a garden-variety typo rather than one of the Freudian variety.

    So your desire is 30K/yr, without a COLA, for 20 years, after you retire.

    Let's say that's today. Leaving aside inflation after your date of retirement, and the need for that 30K/yr to increase, here's the calculation:

    You started with $130K contributed to a 401(k) since 1990. Let's say - as is unlikely, and would be to your advantage - that you paid in your 130K in equal chunks from 1990 to 2010. That would be $6,500 per year.

    So here's what I'm doing: I'm in excel, adding $6500 per year to your nest egg; then I'm applying an annual rate of return in another formula, and adding that percentage after each year. We'll keep that return percentage constant and see how high it has to be. Remember, we're compounding through the 20 year period.

    Now, assuming an average 10% return on your investment per year, like clockwork, your $6500 contribution per year plus that return would provide you with $409,516.20 - you have to admit 10% is a hefty expected ROI on your $6500/year nest-egg. Your hoped-for $600K would not materialize.

    For your $6,500 per year to turn into your $600K for your retirement, your annualized rate of return would have to be north of 13%.

    Now let's inch a little closer to the reality:

    - My understanding is that the average portfolio, measured from 2000 to 2010, would have barely eked out a zero rate of return. At any rate, no pun intended, the return over those years, taken together, was historically low.

    - $65,000 of your contributions would therefore net you about $65,000 during that period, leaving you 10 years for $65,000 to turn into $535,000. That would require an annualized rate of return of about 37%, during your first ten years of contributing.

    - Most people contribute more as their earning power grows, so we have probably minimized the problems with your retroactive "plan" for your social security money. If, in fact, you contributed an average of 5k for the first 10 years (=50K), and an average of 8K for the next 10 years (=80K), the rate of return you would need is north of 41% annualized over those 10 years. If you contributed an average of 4K those first 10 years and an average of 9K the next 10 years, the number is more than 45%. If you have your statement, you know which of these conditions pertains.

    My bet is that you're saying you'd be making that 45% return, but even if you're assuming 30%, that's a little loony. The state pension funds are in their current mess because they were assuming rates of return of 8.5% or 9%.

    By the way, all these numbers ignores the certainty that you would be paying fees on your magical 401(k) account.

    As demonstrated above, it seems that given what we know, at May 2010, this premise is flawed. I don't think you would have created the wealth you say you require in your retirement.

    There are other flaws as well, and this goes to what people really do when they have to save for retirement. They don't do it, quite simply. And having done too little, they realize when they are looking the gold watch in the face (as if anyone gets one of those anymore,) that they are short on savings. So they do the reverse of what they should: they start taking bigger risks - i.e., they start chasing that outsized return when they are in their higher earning years to make up for lost time.

    But you wouldn't do that, of course.

    From the above, it seems that that opportunity never existed, in terms of providing for your own needs at the rate at which you saved, given the outcome you would have preferred.

    PFnV
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2010
  12. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    27,328
    Likes Received:
    200
    Ratings:
    +573 / 6 / -24

    #18 Jersey

    When you write a longggg, rambling reply such as this, it gives one the impression you're pompous enough to believe you have that much knowledge to share. When you do this time after time, it's a very lasting impression.



     
    Last edited: May 13, 2010
  13. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    41,727
    Likes Received:
    279
    Ratings:
    +1,145 / 5 / -10

    You can say that again.
     
  14. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,437
    Likes Received:
    495
    Ratings:
    +1,081 / 16 / -9

    I'll take your short and fact-free response to be an admission that you have stated what you wish were the case, for ideological purposes, rather than what is the case. If you believe me to be pompous for doing your homework for you, I'll just call you lazy for not doing it in the first place.

    Lazy thinking doesn't lead to correct conclusions. This explains many of yours.

    PFnV
     
  15. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    27,328
    Likes Received:
    200
    Ratings:
    +573 / 6 / -24

    #18 Jersey

    Nice try PFiVA....maybe you need to understand that no homework is required for political banter on a football website.

    nothing....NOTHING here is that serious PFiVA. Maybe it's time to accept the fact that dotting your "i's", crossing your "T's" and doing research isn't necessary here.

    No one here will change anyone's opinion.
    No one here will gain any status of any sort
    No one here will ever be known to anyone else (except the 2 from VA)
    No one here looks up to anyone else
    No one here has ever won or lost a debate
    No one here spends time researching....Oops, scratch that one!:D
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2010
  16. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,437
    Likes Received:
    495
    Ratings:
    +1,081 / 16 / -9

    Translation: You got nothin'.

    Noted. And re-noted. Say it again, I'll note it again.

    "Nice try" indeed.

    PFnV
     
  17. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,250
    Likes Received:
    328
    Ratings:
    +824 / 27 / -33

    If you got nothing, you got nothing to lose...

    or better said by bob dylan...

     
    Last edited: May 14, 2010
  18. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,738
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Your thinking is exactly why this place turned into schit. It used to be a good place to share ideas and learn; but now its just a bunch of arrogant people blogging away all day.
     
  19. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,437
    Likes Received:
    495
    Ratings:
    +1,081 / 16 / -9

    Heh - while we're on lyrics...

    YouTube - Monty Python - Money Song

    The only trouble's when the music stops
     
  20. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    27,328
    Likes Received:
    200
    Ratings:
    +573 / 6 / -24

    #18 Jersey

    = (i.e. More liberal)
    = (i.e., More conservative)

    Just be honest sd and say what you really mean.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>