Socialism and the United States

[Theseus1234]

I'm preparing myself for the flame war here, but I've been having thoughts on this for a while. Relative newcomer to the Academy here so go easy on me.

Why is the fear of "Socialism" a valid argument against government programs in the US? The distribution of wealth is FAR too stratified for socialism to become reality in the foreseeable future. I think people are falsely linking "redistribution of wealth" with "socialism" (and most likely, a poor understanding of socialism). "Redistribution of wealth" is a means to stimulate the economy using government money and help people in the process. "Socialism" is the collective agreement by the working class to make decisions concerning industrial production (according to wikianswers). I fail to see the similarities.

[LegionnaireX]

I think your definition of socialism is too formal and a little out-dated. The social-utopians of the 1800s shared such a definition of socialism, but the term socialism has, since the late 1800s, been associated with social reform through the system of government. The use of tax dollars to fund social welfare programs is the modern definition of the word.

A little bit of socialism is good. No body wants a return to late 1800s America, but the fear is that if you redistribute wealth enough people receiving the aid may become dependent on it. This may cause a loop in which people who are dependent on the government vote for tax increases to fund the support they receive, but do not pay for.

[Theseus1234]

I think your definition of socialism is too formal and a little out-dated.

That's the idea, though, at its core. Whatever connotations it has are just that, connotations.

I'll go easy on you...
Thats not what its used for, thats not what happens, and its a poor way to 'stimulate' the economy even when they try.

Thanks. Care to enlighten me? Always eager to see both sides of an argument.

[LegionnaireX]

That's the idea, though, at its core. Whatever connotations it has are just that, connotations.

The "fear" is still rational (if any fear can be) even by your definition. As socialism by your definition can still be interpreted as a societal institution that is less capitalistic and less competitive. If the government taxes the successful into oblivion and credits the poor with handout's, there will be no economic incentive for higher education, entreprenuership, risk, hard work etc. This is an extreme case, but that is what is feared.

[Theseus1234]

The "fear" is still rational (if any fear can be) even by your definition. As socialism by your definition can still be interpreted as a societal institution that is less capitalistic and less competitive. If the government taxes the successful into oblivion and credits the poor with handout's, there will be no economic incentive for higher education, entreprenuership, risk, hard work etc. This is an extreme case, but that is what is feared.

Bu that's what I'm saying. It's going to take major financial and political overhaul to ever get there. Sure, maybe benefits is a stepping stone towards complete socialism.

Even if the government forced every person in America into the same sized houses, with the same amount of initial money and the same education (with people specializing in college because training someone to be part doctor, part-theoretical physicist is just stupid), people would still advance up and down the economic ladder because of different ways handling money, different investment strategies and so on. Capitalism is our means of a safeguard against socialism. Capitalism will rectify any socialist movement, or at least accommodate for it. The rich will still get rich while the poor will still be poor.

EDIT:

The recent housing crisis which was caused in large part by government social programs was hardly fantasy through, was it.

The huge deficit we now enjoy as a result of overspending on social programs isn't fear mongering.

My reasoning for the crisis the repeal of the law that separated savings and investment banking, but that's not under debate here.
If Republicans want to cut the deficit, then they shouldn't falsely tout the fear of socialism and just say they want to reduce the deficit. Threatening socialism is just a way to gain supporters.

Here's an idea! Let's not cut taxes, but also cut spending programs. Wouldn't that reduce the deficit or at least work to halt its rise faster than the alternatives? (i.e. raise taxes, raise spending, or cut taxes, cut spending) Why does what we do to taxes have to be linked to how much we spend? Before you say "the poor wouldn't be able to afford it", I'm talking about raising taxes for like the top 15% or 20% of Americans, or alternatively, letting the Bush tax cuts for the middle and high income brackets expire.

Your state is broke.

That's possible the best argument I've ever heard! So elegant...So graceful...so beside the point!

[Phier]

That's possible the best argument I've ever heard! So elegant...So graceful...so beside the point!

And why is the state with one of the largest economies in the WORLD broke?

[Phier]

Thanks. Care to enlighten me? Always eager to see both sides of an argument.

Well now that I don't' have to listen to birth stories, and my minions are off doing my bidding, I may answer this question, though not quite in depth.

Most 'redistribution' in the US is not done for economic benefit, but social appeasement. Its vote buying with other peoples money.

But as an economic stimulus it fails for a couple reasons. One is it discourages people from finding a job. If all you are qualified for is a basic entry level job, it makes more economic sense to stay unemployed on state funds than actually working such a job. Now the smarter will see that such jobs lead to higher paying jobs, but the average, often not well educated person, working like that makes no sense. I think it was Jack Kemp who used to say that the highest tax in America would be on a single mother switching from welfare to the workforce. The issue was that she ends up making less money, having less time at home, with less programs to help her, because she wants to actually work for a living.

The other reason its a failure is waste. Sure maybe local stores and currency exchanges benefit, but as an 'investment' its not exactly good. New wealth is not created, it simply slows the growth of the private sector by funneling off the money from those people who actually do create jobs. My current overhead is like 35k a month, thats break even. The more that increases, the less growth potential I have. Being it costs me about 1/3 more to higher a new employee than their salary (I think its actually a bit more than that), the more the government 'redistributes' the harder it is for me to hire a new person, (and right now I need another receptionist but can't afford it).

[Phier]

I'll go easy on you...

"Redistribution of wealth" is a means to stimulate the economy using government money and help people in the process.

Thats not what its used for, thats not what happens, and its a poor way to 'stimulate' the economy even when they try.

[Fight!]

How Phier is always one of the first to post is beyond me.

[Phier]

How Phier is always one of the first to post is beyond me.

Even better I'm 'treating' two patients and caring on a conversation with one of their mothers, who is telling thrilling stories of childbirth with one of my pregnant staff, as I type this, its good to be the king.

[Oldgamer]

How Phier is always one of the first to post is beyond me.

Because he's good, and he lives next to his computer, which is always set to the Total War Center. It's possible that Phier is one of these thousand-pound men, perpetually in bed with his computer, his TV remote, and his eating tray right next to him. Fried chicken! Yummy ...

Actually, if you mention "socialism" and "United States" in the same title, you will likely provoke some sort of response from American conservatives/libertarians. I found this thread within five minutes of browsing to the site, tonight.

BTW, sorry Phier ...

Actually, banks, corporations, and individuals are sitting on trillions of dollars because they're terrified of what Obama and the DEMs will do next. These dollars will not be invested in businesses and jobs until those involved have secure and business-friendly economic policy flowing from Washington. It could happen next January, but we'll likely have to wait until January of 2013.

[Phier]

BTW, sorry Phier ...

Liar, you are not sorry at all

[Oldgamer]

Liar, you are not sorry at all

Well, there's one man here who can see through me ...

@Exarch

i dont think americans are against socialistic policies ie welfare, subsidizing poorer kids' educations; but they're against items/things/people labeled socialist because of the Cold War and McCarthyistic hysteria

Exarch, my friend, I fought against people who labeled themselves what members of the Obama Administration call their policies and positions. I'm not going to roll over and play dead because some leftie in Washington calls a policy "progressive", or pursues "social justice".

[Thorn777]

Well, there's one man here who can see through me ...

@Exarch


Exarch, my friend, I fought against people who labeled themselves what members of the Obama Administration call their policies and positions. I'm not going to roll over and play dead because some leftie in Washington calls a policy "progressive", or pursues "social justice", when they actually strive for either nazism or communism(or both) witout them neccessarely knowing.

Rounded up that sentence for you....


Also OP. Lord Mov said it IMO, but IMO they also lack the kind of Volkstum Euro's still have. The US is to much of a collection of different Völker for each one to really care about the various Völker trough collective means.

[Fight!]

Personally, I think that people thinking of the extreme case is rather ridiculous and stupid, but I don't see the fear of the extreme as the reason behind these resistance to the aforementioned changes nor a valid argument for any that might use it.

[LegionnaireX]

Personally, I think that people thinking of the extreme case is rather ridiculous and stupid, but I don't see the fear of the extreme as the reason behind these resistance to the aforementioned changes nor a valid argument for any that might use it.

I think people are fearful mainly because the government programs we currently have in place have been inefficient and corrupted. People also fear growth of bureacracy which cost's may inhibit other more valuable government programs like state-funded public schools. The debt is also a big worry.

[xcorps]

One of the basic principles of this country is the soveriegnty of the individual. Socialism does away with this and makes the state soveriegn. The redistribution of wealth is confiscation based on an ideology that does not empower the individual, and limits the individuals pursuit of happiness. To suggest that because a person has created wealth the state has the power to confiscate that wealth in the name of anything is tyranny.

[thewolflord]

Many (but not all) Republicans in Congress are using socialism like McCarthy did back in the day. They want to create an "enemy" where there is none so as to provide their constituents (many of whom mistake and/or associate socialism for/with totalitarianism) with motivation to vote Democratic and other left-leaning lawmakers out.

Simple fear mongering and irrational fantasy.

[Phier]

Many (but not all) Republicans in Congress are using socialism like McCarthy did back in the day. They want to create an "enemy" where there is none so as to provide their constituents (many of whom mistake and/or associate socialism for/with totalitarianism) with motivation to vote Democratic and other left-leaning lawmakers out.

Simple fear mongering and irrational fantasy.

Your state is broke.

[xcorps]

Simple fear mongering and irrational fantasy.

The recent housing crisis which was caused in large part by government social programs was hardly fantasy through, was it.

The huge deficit we now enjoy as a result of overspending on social programs isn't fear mongering.