Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentGovernment · 1 decade ago

Why would it be bad if the United States actually did have socialistic welfare-state policies?

I mean, people throw around "socialism" like it's a bad word, but aren't programs like Social Security and state child protective agencies a form of socialism, in a sense?

I don't really understand how some elements of socialist policies would necessarily be bad or hamper economic growth. Take Sweden or the UK for instance - they certainly pay more money in taxes for health insurance and security, but they have high-growth economies, especially recently.

Why wouldn't it work here?

6 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Socialist military structures are not volunteer-based like here in the United States. In fact, Putin (former president) had said that conscription of citizens into the military (a holdover from the communist era of Russia) would be changed to a volunteer format. Socialist nations have military service requirements that are mandatory and therefore ... socialist. Even Obama's idea for a National Service Program is a socialist policy since it would be a federally mandated mandatory program (no choice for anyone who wishes not to partake).

    Before WWII, FDR's national economic policies (backed by Congress) nearly had the United States in a socialist regime. However, his policies were actually hurting the U.S. in many areas including the economy itself. It took WWII to get America out of its economic coma and bring it back to prominence.

    The UK's ecomonic status has always been high due to history more than anything else. That is why the British Pound Sterling remains the highest value-attaining currency in the world. As for Sweden, it's economic growth is based on recent technological advances as well as higher levels of product export. However, when it comes to innovation or advancement, neither country is close to top of the list. Free market nations like the United States and Japan continue that trend. And if you want to bring China into this discussion, remember that they went to more of a free-market leaning economy than their traditional communist ecomony which has led to their increase in GNP as of late.

    Looking at welfare, it was changes in state welfare policies to reduce the dependence upon it that actually improved various state economies. Looking at Social Security, it was meant initially to be a temporary program established by FDR. Social Security was designed to provide retirement benefits for those who put into the program. You put in part of your income so that you have something to fall back on later in life. As for child protective services, they are meant to ensure the quality of life for children. They are designed to check up on any issues of problems and mistreatment of children (ex. child abuse) and get the child out of harm's way from the offending adult.

    In the United States, it has been seen that this nation fares better away from socialist policies than with them.

  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    decrease taxes hasn't gotten us that far in the final 8 years..oh wait a minute it has we are in a recession. If Bush did no longer supply agencies tax breaks for shifting over seas we does not be in this disaster the two. Jobs moved over seas simply by fact they might have their issues remodeled there for lots much less funds and nonetheless get a tax wreck while they deliver it decrease back right here. Greed it replaced into all of it comes all the way down to. Clinton taxes have been greater(36% and 39.6% while in comparison with the 33% and 35% now)) and yet we had a surplus(we've a deficit ) and individuals have been working,yet we've an extremely intense unemployment fee (6.a million the final I knew) no longer this is composed of the folk who're out of unemployment reward. considering I merely informed you suitable to the deficit see what the full effect of each and every plan does to the deficit. the two applicants have promised to stability their tax alleviation courses with budget cuts designed to trim hovering deficits. however the Tax coverage midsection has warned that the two plans -- coupled with the applicants' intense-fee healthcare proposals -- might balloon the $9.6-trillion nationwide debt. the midsection's diagnosis stated that McCain's tax proposals might upload $5 trillion to the debt over the subsequent 10 years, at an analogous time as Obama's might upload $3.6 trillion. i might propose surely everyone to look in any respect the hyperlinks I provided.

  • 1 decade ago

    I could ramble on for hours about all of the reasons socialism is wrong.

    Put all of the programs aside for second. Some are necessary, and some are not. I think people first need to remind themselves just who it is taking everyone's hard earned money and deciding where it should be spent. It's the government. First of all, the government has proved itself incapable of spending money wisely. Why would they? They're not the ones who earned the money, after all. They're the ones who steal it. And stealing is wrong. I don't care how much the goverment says it knows better than everyone else where money should go, it doesn't change the fact it is not their money to be spending on whatever they please.

    People talk about how private businesses are so evil because they are out to make money. Well, duh, of course they're out to make money. That's what a business does. In what way does anyone have the right to say they deserve some of that money? They don't. Not when they have every opportunity to get off their *** and get it themselves. If they're too lazy to go back to school, too scared to take the risk of taking out a loan, or are simply in a rough spot because they popped out three kids before thinking... doesn't give them the right to use the power of government to take what they have not earned themselves. Hey, my life stinks when it comes to money. But at least I'm mature enough to say I know that I am where I am because of the choices I've made, and I know that I don't have the right to take from those who are better off.

    And the government does not care about making money like a business does when they run things themselves. They have no problem wasting it all away on BS because they know all they have to do is turn around and steal more. Take any private business and compare it to a government run business. Almost always you will find the private business is not only a better business to its customers, and is run far more efficiently, but the private business actually has to answer to the governments officials when they do something wrong. Hence the reason you see oil executives pretty much on trial in front of their government, while businesses like Fannie and Freddie don't have to answer to anyone because they are the government. And the government thinks it is god. The government thinks it has every right to steal its citizens money and choose where its citizens money should go, and the only time they are held responsible is if one party or the other decides it wants to gain some political points against the other.

    Let's not even go into the corruption there. All the money they waste on buying votes via the lobbyists.

    I'm going to end up writing so much it wont fit in my answer. So I'll say this. The government has certain responsibilites when it comes to its citizens. The most important being the security of its country, and after that upholding the law. Other than that, yes, there are necessities that they should have the right to spend money on. Things like sewage systems, roads and bridges, schools, court houses, etc, etc. To me child protective services falls under this category.

    Social security, on the other hand, never should have came about. Give a greedy entity money, and the system we have today is what you're going to get almost every time. Intentions, quite frankly, should not count when it comes to government. People need to learn to be responsible for themselves. If they don't, and they make their government responsible for them instead, they might as well be giving their freedom up in order to do so. Because now most people don't save for retirement, so their security depends on the government. And we want to do the same with health care? Where does it end? How long is it going to take people to wake up and realize that the person who has the power is the person who controls your life? And why on earth, with so much evidence in front of us, would we think the government deserves that responsibility?

  • 1 decade ago

    Not "in a sense", they are socialist programs. Paying taxes is socialist, having a federally funded, volunteer military is socialist. It is not a bad word, it only becomes bad if EVERY industry is appropriated by the government. If a certain industry or function of a state/nation has proved to fail over and over, why shouldn't the government step in?

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Because socialism is not bad, and it would work here just like it works everywhere else it's implemented. It has been viewed as bad in a need to separate us from the Soviets during the Cold War. Unfortunatley, too many of my fellow countrymen bought into the anti Socialism propaganda without realizing what it actually is.

  • The word has been made into a boogie-monster. Most U.S. Americans really don't have a clue what socialism is about.

    I pay far less in taxes for health insurance in the U.K. than I would for health insurance in the U.S.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.