It'd suffer only if the Socialistic setup would not suit the current economy.

Socialism would deal with economic freedom, not personal freedom.

That would depend on how the economy is set up.
As it stands we currently acquire money due to jobs that we take. That money then is used in order to purchase things or pay bills.

If a Socialist economy was used then they could think ahead and take out money depending on costs of living, thereby negating any excess work that people would have to do in order to just live. It's really how Socialism is used that would prove whether or not it is good.

You do realize that in this current economy for America you're pretty much told how much money you'll make, and if you disagree you have a chance at being fired? Sometimes you do get to make your own decision as to how much money you can make, but not always...trust me on that.

I did not say that it was that way with everyone.

Everyone has a choice to take a job or leave it.

Correct.
Currently America has more economic freedom than what one would expect from a Socialist based economy.

Is it really helping our economy? No.
It's nice, though.

Maybe you could rephrase that statement?

*Sigh*

Very well, I shall break it down so that there is no confusion.
First off I state that America has more economic freedom(not hard to comprehend, correct?), and then finish off the sentence by comparing the current economic freedom of America to a Socialist based economy.

Still confused?

It seemed as if you were saying that America was a socialist based economy.

Only because I had worded it in a manner that most people would not. However my wording was correct, grammatically speaking of course.

Thank you, good night!
:drool:

Dogma. Please justify. Are you saying that Amerian are currently not free because they pay taxes?

One problem..there's a government retirement program for people who work with the government.

LOL no, if you work for them for 20 years, you can retire with benefits.. why else would they call it a 'retirement benifit'

LMAO you really believe what you say.. My uncle never "optioned" the retirement benefits.. He never opted to donate to it, But after 23 years with the government, he retired. he was later informed he qualified for them and started getting checks in the mail monthly..
thats why i said what i KNOW to be true..

You can't read, or won't see the printed text i guess...

He never paid into it...

is that plain enough..

but john said:One problem..there's a government retirement program for people who work with the government.

and you replied:It's optional.
so i refuted it by stating what i knew was an occurance where it wasn't optional and was paid for.. By the government specifically...

Another fact about government retirement.
I worked at the wonderful Department of Health one summer, and was offered up government retirement plans.

I was not allowed to choose a different retirement plan, and if I entered into that retirement plan I would be unable to get the money from it until I reached a certain amount of money, and a certain amount of time.

Not as free as you would think eh?

As my more recent post points out, it depends more on the State and how the local government handles retirement plans.

So why is it that, since it's supposedly all the same, different ways of how this is dealt with seem to exist on just the basic setup?