Capitalism vs. Socialism – Which is the better System

Capitalism vs. Socialism – Which is the better System?

With the chaos surrounding our economic situation today, and with the talk within the recently concluded presidential campaign, the discussion and debate about the pluses and the minus’ of the competing economic systems of Capitalism and Socialism, have returned with vigor.
Before we can begin the discussion, let’s define the terms. Capitalism is an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals and corporations. Socialism is a theory or system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled collectively or by the government. In a simplified nutshell, capitalists want less government ownership, and socialists want more government ownership.
Historically, the countries that have achieved the greatest amount of economic success, over the years and centuries, have been the countries that have embraced capitalism ( ex. The United States, Japan, So. Korea, Australia to name just a few). There is a smattering of socialism mixed into these countries economic systems ( ex. Social Security, Medicare etc. which represents about 20% of the system overall). The ingredients that seem to have caused that success have been the right to own private property, and the incentive to reap the benefits of your hard work and due diligence by earning and keeping the monetary benefits of the fruits of your labor. Socialism, on the other hand, is very popular among the masses, who for some reason, have not had the financial success that others have gained through their labors, like in the capitalist system.
Winston Churchill once said, “ If you’re not a liberal ( sympathetic to socialism) by the age of 20, you have no heart, but if you’re not a conservative ( sympathetic to capitalism) by the age of 40, you have no brains”. That generalized statement by Churchill has produced some lively debate amongst economists and citizens of all the countries of the world.
The phrases used by proponents of each system can be summed up by the use of some terms that describe the benefits, as they see them, of the system they support. The capitalist believes that wealth in the hands of bright, successful, hard-working people will be the incentive to produce newer and better products and services, because of the expectation of the monetary rewards they will benefit from. They believe in the “ trickle down” prosperity theory as opposed to the “ trickle up” poverty theory, which they claim the socialists espouse. The socialists, on the other hand, say that wealth concentrated in the hands of the wealthy capitalists, produce a society of a few rich people and many poor people with the tendency for the rich to take advantage of the less fortunate. They claim that greed will eventually be the downfall of the capitalist system.
Granted, there have been abuses on the part of capitalists over the years in how they accumulated wealth, but that is the price we pay for being able to live in the most modern, advanced country in the world, the United States. Most rational capitalists believe that government can and should play a role in our capitalist system by clamping down on fraud and the exploitation of labor, but once you take the incentive away from people to have the opportunity to better themselves financially by their intelligence and hard work, you kill the spirit of innovation by trying to make everyone have the same outcome in life. Most of the world’s economic basket cases around the world are predominantly socialist oriented countries. I don’t think that’s what “ Joe the Plumber” had in mind when he asked Barack Obama his question? We’ll see if the answer Obama gave him, that he should “ share the wealth”, will be one of the overriding “ changes” he promised the electorate. You make the call.

Written by Chuck Lehmann
"Chuck on the Right Side"

Napolitano must go!!!

I did not give 5 years of my life, to the U.S.A.F., so some Bleeding Heart Liberal can call me a Terrorist or Racist.

I just signed a petition demanding the resignation or removal of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security issued a report that profiled conservatives as a terror threat.
The report even singled out pro-life citizens and those who oppose illegal immigration, in addition to members of the military.

Please join with me in signing by going here:

http://www.grassfire.org/114/petition.asp?PID=20720543&NID=1

Submitted by Kirk
"Chuck on the Right Side"

Mitt Romney at CPAC 2009

I think most of you will enjoy this speech with the Links enclosed.

I believe Mitt Romney would have been perfect for the Country given its current conditions. How can anyone think Obama could be a better Leader for our Economy than Mitt? That must be some strong Kool Aid these Radical Left Wingers are drinking.
However, that is just one man's opinion and 52% of America chose a different route. One of spending more than President Bush ever imagined. All the while leaving our Country far more "Unsafe" under this current leadership.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtJrw8tSohc
Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQrByrnvHeA&feature=related
Part 2


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZUnuG17A08&feature=related
Part 3

Please click above link on Part 1.
When watching Part 1, look to the right side and you see "Related Videos", there you should see part 2 & 3 of this speech.

If Part 2 & 3 are not visible at youtube, then you can come back here to click Part 2 & 3.

Mitt BLOWS away Barry Obama and Joey Biden, if you could combine their intelligence quotas.

Submitted by Kirk
"Chuck on the Right Side"

DID YOU EVER WONDER……..?

*WHY THE DEMOCRATS DEMONIZE THE WEALTHY AND HAVE TURNED “RICH” INTO A FOUR LETTER SLUR WORD, WHEN IT IS THE “RICH” WHO TAKE THE RISKS, BUILD BUSINESSES, AND CREATE JOBS?
*WHY OUR COUNTRY WILL NOT FALL BECAUSE OUR ENEMIES ARE
TOO STRONG, IT WILL ONLY FALL BECAUSE WE ARE TOO WEAK IN OUR WILL?.
*WHY IF YOU THINK HEALTH CARE IS SO EXPENSIVE NOW, WAIT TILL
YOU SEE HOW MUCH IT COSTS WHEN IT’S “FREE”?.
*WHY GOVERNMENT SHOULD CONCERN SELF WITH WHAT WE DO AND NOT WITH HOW WE FEEL (EX. HATE CRIMES LEGISLATION)?.
*WHY PERSONAL CHARACTER IS DEVELOPED OUT OF A LIFETIME OF CHOICES AND NOT BY A FAWNING, BIASED, JUDGMENTAL MEDIA?.
*WHY THE COMPLETE LACK OF EVIDENCE IS THE SUREST SIGN THAT A CONSPIRACY IS WORKING?
*WHY YOU CAN’T TEACH PEOPLE TO BE LAZY, EITHER THEY HAVE IT
OR THEY DON’T?
WHY ARE THE LIBERALS AGAINST THE WAR TRYING TO ACHIEVE VICTORY AT HOME BY TEARING DOWN THE PRESIDENT FROM WITHIN RATHER THAN DEFEATING THE ENEMY ABROAD?
*WHY WHEN YOU REWARD SOMETHING YOU GET MORE OF IT?
*WHY ONE OF THE BIGGEST HEALTH PROBLEMS FACING AMERICA’S
POOR IS OBESITY AND NOT THE LACK OF HEALTH CARE THAT IS AVAILABLE THRU MEDICAID?
*WHY IT ALWAYS SEEMS THAT THE REV.’S JESSE JACKSON AND AL SHARPTON ALWAYS SEEM TO BE PART OF THE PROBLEM AND NOT
PART OF THE SOLUTION?
*WHY DO MANY SCHOOLS SEEM TO REPLACE EXCELLENCE WITH EXPEDIENCE IN ORDER TO BE POLITICALLY CORRECT?
*WHY DO SOME LIBERALS WHO CANNOT WIN THE WAR ON IDEAS
RESORT TO NAME CALLING AND PERSONAL INVECTIVE TO TRY TO GAIN SUPPORT FOR THEIR MISGUIDED IDEAS?
*WHY IS IT THAT PEOPLE CAN REMEMBER WHEN OTHER PEOPLES ACHIEVEMENTS WERE CONSIDERED TO BE AN INSPIRATION RATHER THAN A GRIEVANCE?
*WHY IS IT THAT PEOPLE WHO ESPOUSE SOCIALISM WOULD HAVE TO
MAKE YOU BELIEVE THAT BUSINESSES CREATE OPPRESSION AND
GOVERNMENTS CREATE PROSPERITY?
*WHY IS IT THAT IF WE MAKE RULES FAIR FOR EVERYBODY, WON’T
THE BEST PEOPLE ACHIEVE REGARDLESS OF THEIR COLOR OR ETHNIC
BACKGROUND?
IS IT ANY WONDER WHY PEOPLE WONDER?

Written by Chuck Lehmann
"Chuck on the Right Side"