Socialist USA - Why do people support?

The BBQ Pit
1

I got “into it” in another online forum, and I think I’m right. I really want to know what the smart people think about it. That’s why I offer this to you. You, the SD community. Collectively, you are the smartest that I know of.

Anyway, we were talking about gov’t programs that, in my opinion, are nothing more than theft. You know all of them. The particulars don’t really matter, however just consider social security, medicare, and the ridiculously inflated federal tax.

The person I was talking with said,

“I think the “haves” have a responsibility to the “have nots” but I certainly don’t believe that anyone is “entitled” to anything they didn’t earn.”

I succinctly replied that people should take responsibility and make proper decisions.

Then, this person said, "You assume people will do both of those things. Human nature being what it is, I doubt it. "

So I went ahead and said this…

I assume that I will do both. I do not deny human nature, and I even understand that people will be irresponsible. And unhappy.

I just do not believe that I, (I not being just me, but the majority of the peaceful, responsible citizens,) should be held financially accountable for those who make bad choices.

Believe it or not, I would contribute financially to programs for those in need. I would contribute to a voluntary fund for many of the existing programs, but that’s not how it is.

I object on the grounds of principle.

The gov’t has no right to forcefully take my money for these programs.

It isn’t a dream world. I believe that if we removed the coercive programs, the poor, needy, etc. would be better off. I believe this for at least 2 reasons…

  1. The government mishandles money, and every program that exists/has ever existed. Privatization is always better.

  2. People like me, and there are many, would be much more willing to give, if it wasn’t being forcefully taken.

Without the government train wreck involved, I could voluntarily give half of the money that is stolen from me now, and those in need would be much better off.

Said person came back and pretty much called me an idiot, then we went on, and I pretty much called that person a socialist.

The government takes our money for programs that we have not consented to. Programs that they have created, unconstitutionally, to “benefit society.”
My question to you is why do so many people support this?

2

I’m Canadian, so I’ll try and stay out of this thread for the most part; however, to address one of your points…

…one could argue that, considering your population as a whole, by electing your government to power, you have given consent to their policies.

3

Correct. My economic politics are quite far to the left of center. The OP obviously is far right of center economically. What he considers “theft” I consider “fair redistribution of income”. As for “My question to you is why do so many people support this?”, may I ask the OP what your annual income is? If it happens to be well above the median income in the US, then it should be no surprise that those with lower incomes would desire to tax you heavily.

4

It’s a con.

Career politicians and their special interest group supports use that Haves vs. Have Nots guilt trip to justify seizing your income. The sad fact is that an enormous amount of money is siphoned off by people who in no way can be called Have Nots.

Politicians buy votes by re-allocating income.

That’s the deal.

5

Not only do we consent, we demand them. A politician cuts (or advocates) cutting social programs at his peril. Some can be eliminated (or more likely, reformed and shrunk), but others are very popular. President Bush is meeting much resistance at his plans to reform Social Security. If he tried to eliminate it all together, he’d find few friends in Congress, or anywhere else.

Now, why do we like our social programs?
There’s many reasons.
First off, there are those who think that society should prevent people from starving in the streets (especially if they aren’t to blame for their condition, such as children, the mentally ill, or otherwise responsible victims or circumstance). As the largest and more powerful agent of society, it’s up to government to address these problems. If you’re going to give to a large charitible organization anyway, why not just distribute the costs among the entire population via taxation?

Secondly, there’s the idea of a social safety net, and direct benefit to the taxpayer. A non-starving, educated populace makes for a better and more competitive workforce. And heck, maybe someday you’ll be grateful for government assistance. There’s also the somewhat cynical desire to keep the masses content, lest they rise up and eat the rich.

6

My income last year was $31,578. Enough to be comfortable, but not enough to pay for food stamps for others. If I’m paying my bills, budgeting, and eating ramen noodles when I really want to take my wife out to dinner, I have no business paying for meat and milk for those who do not work.

When the food stamp dude in line in front of me at the grocery store is purchasing fresh steaks and ice cream, and I’m behind him with my pasta, should I be saying to myself, “This is fair redistribution of MY income?”

No.

7

This applies to the wealthy as well. With wealth comes power, and with power comes an easier accumulation of wealth. To the extent that accumulated wealth comes from the easy application of power, it is unearned.

8

On a theoretical basis, there’s really no way to completely extricate the value of your work from the value the government (and other people, and other governments, corporations, etc.) adds to it.

For instance, if there were no armed forces or police, your labor, and by extension, your money, would buy considerably less since anyone anyone with a weapon could help themselves to it. In effect, money would be worthless in the face of a weapon. Yet no one, or very few, would consider the armed forces or police “socialism.” So for programs that help the economy, it’s not a question of whether we should have them, the question is “how much”?

As to programs that help those who could not, as you claim most can, plan ahead, such as being born into poverty or a devastating illness, not enough people would contribute to a voluntary fund to help those in need. So if you want to help a substantial number of these people, you need taxes. If it is on a voluntary basis, fewer would be helped. If you think the paltry support offered via charity would be sufficient, you are free to feel that way, however the majority of charitable social services do support governmental aid programs and concede they would not have the resources to handle the issue alone. (If you think people would step up in the absense of governmental aid, you’re dreaming. It didn’t happen in the 19th and early 20th century and wouldnt happen today.)

Personally, I think many programs are both helpful to the economy and the right thing to do. Police and armed forces provide security so we can grow in security. Unemployment insurance gives workers the time to find a job for which they can add their trained value, rather than settling for a less productive emergency job. And some instances of welfare help the economy by allowing the children to be raised in a home where they are more likely to learn decent values than either on the street or in the dangerous, disconnected, and expensive foster care system.

Lastly,

You may believe there is something in the Bill of Rights that prevents some of this legislation, but constitutional challenges to them would be laughed out of court. Likely even many Republican-appointed judges, to make an understatement. Are you accusing Republicans of being socialist?

9

No kidding.

That is what is sick about federal entitlement programs. Hard working families pay to take care of strangers before taking care of themselves.

It is the opposite of the natural values most humans have: to take care of themselves and their families first and foremost.

I think this is why so many people feel alienated from the government.

10

I’ve noticed that I lean more and more socialist as I age. Bully for me. I remember, much to my regret and shame, once rallying around the cry, “let those who make mistakes suffer the consequences” and “they can’t afford it? Tough”. Fortunately, I did not have to experience a life-challenging mistake myself to revise my views.

No, privatization is always better at implementing a capitalist system. And the goal of a capitalist system is to maximize profit; to get the most possible for the least amount of resources. I suspect you would argue that privatization is always better at maximizing the utility of resources. To which I’d reply that you’re being willfully ignorant, much as the person you were arguing with did. Maximizing the utility of resources is not equivalent to producing the best product or service, which I believe is an assumption implicit in most gung-ho privatization fans. That we disagree is fine with me.

Bless your sainted soul. Surely you’ll acknowledge that not everyone would be so generous. Not even most, in my humble opinion, although that might be a by-product of growing up near NYC. Furthermore, you are assuming that giving half the money that is “taken” from you now is more than the overhead required to provide whatever it is the government is providing. I have no facts and figures to back me on this, but I find it truly hard to believe that this is the case.

11

And this is exactly why public charities cannot be privately funded and why a purely capitalistic system doesn’t work. Thank you for pointing it out.

12

The gov’t has the right idea on many programs. I don’t deny that, however, you know as well as I do that they will inevitably mishandle the funds. Do you agree that we should be coerced into contributing to these programs?

I’m not accusing Republicans of being socialist, both of them are equal.

It’s all a joke. Everything that makes sense today is funny.

You said, in my summation, that preventing legislation of this nonsense on the grounds of the Bill of Rights would be laughed out of court. That, to me, is the problem. The BOR has become a joke, and that is so wrong.

The majority of Americans accept coercion as a given role of government. I don’t.

People, stop and check the parameters under which the US government should operate, then, check what they’re doing now.

Am I a fool to realize this?

13

Been there, with a family of four. Wasn’t at all comfortable. Make more money.

And with all due respect, considering your income, how much do you think you contribute to someone’s steak and ice cream? Likely, few pennies. Let 'em eat steak.

14

Bleah…that’s horrible wording. Sorry about that. Let me try this again:

Furthermore, you are assuming that half of the money that is “taken” will provide at least the same level of services as the government now provides, including the overhead required to provide them.

Is that a little more understandable?

15

You should be very proud of your “aged socialism.” Marx would probably dig it.

Why did you put taken in quotes? Check your paystub. Theft.

Please move to a socialist country immediately. You will fit right in.

Not even close to being willfully ignorant,

RI

16

So many people support the system because the system usually works very well.

Just think, for example, of what a boon public roads are to commerce. By making investments in public infrastructure, the government can improve opportunities for both individuals and businesses. Not all such investments pay off, of course. Just like investments of all kinds, there is risk.

Moreover, it’s clearly the rational choice for most people to support such a system.

(After all, if it wasn’t, why would they support it? And if they are simply not being rational, then why would they be rational under any other system? And if they wouldn’t be rational under your proposed system, then they wouldn’t do very well under it at all. So, no matter how we look at it, the current system is the rational choice for most people, regardless of whether they choose it rationally.)

Simply put, people make mistakes. No matter how strong you are, how smart you are, or how carefully you plan, you will sometimes make wrong decisions. This is, to me, quite obvious. If you disagree that wrong decisions in life are inevitable, then please let us know now and avoid much confusion in this thread.

People, in general, are aware that they have blind spots. They know they are imperfect. A system supported by their money that watches their blind spots for them is in their best interests. (The fact that such a system is imperfect is inevitable. Nothing is perfect.)

So, in short, people support the system because it’s the rational choice for them to make given their veil of ignorance over the future and the knowledge that “there but for the grace of god go I”.

On another note, the OP makes several unsupported assertions. Most glaring are the following:
The government mishandles money, and every program that exists/has ever existed. Privatization is always better.
(You seem to offer this more as an axiom than as a point for debate. Can you prove it, or offer any reason to believe it?)

People like me, and there are many, would be much more willing to give, if it wasn’t being forcefully taken.
(I see no reason to believe that there are significant numbers of people who disagree with the system like you do. If so, why are they still here? Also, I have only your word to go on that you’d give more if you were taxed less. Maybe you would. Maybe you wouldn’t. I don’t know. And you don’t know what others would do, either.)

**Programs that they have created, unconstitutionally, to “benefit society.”
** (What programs have been created that are unconstitutional? What are you talking about here?)

And this is misleading, if not outright wrong:
**
The government takes our money for programs that we have not consented to.**
You choose to live here, yes? You vote, yes? (Or at least, you have the right to vote.) You use public infrastructure? Have you written many congressmen or other leaders about this? In short, I suspect you have implicitly consented by using the fruits of the system and not taking direct steps that would attempt to change the system or at least remove yourself from the unbearable yoke of it.

17

Those pennies are mine. Nobody has the right to take them.

18

Ah…thank you for a cogent, reasoned response. So glad I contributed.

19

Read this…

http://www.no-treason.com/Starr/1.html

20

‘I help to support the prisons and the workhouses – they cost enough – and those who are badly off must go there.’

‘For the poor ye have always with you; and whensoever ye will ye can do them good…’

‘Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in. Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed [thee]? or thirsty, and gave [thee] drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took [thee] in? or naked, and clothed [thee] Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me.’

And this posted by a devout Pagan! :stuck_out_tongue:

I attended a sales seminar where I heard some good advice: Treat every person you meet as if they will be dead by midnight. It puts things into perspective. Would you begrudge a poor person steak and ice cream if that were to be his last meal? You never know. That person you’re cursing really may be dead by midnight. Then wouldn’t you feel like a prick?

What I’m getting at is this: Some people need help. In a country as wealthy as the U.S., the only reason not to help them is greed. You may say that some people abuse the system, but think of the money and lives being wasted by the government now, and with precious little justification. I would wager that helping the poor is a better investment in the future of this country than certain other ‘programs’ I could name. And one thing that makes us human is humanity. There is archaeological evidence that shows some members of prehistoric tribes were supported even after they had outlived their usefulness When natural disasters strike, people are always willing to help. We, on the whole, care about our fellow man. Yes, there is abuse; and yes, I’ve told panhandlers to sod off (not in so many words). But I support social programs that help people out. I think that most of them are not taking undue advantage. I’d like to see more money spent on basic things like medical care, education, and employment programmes.

So I guess that makes me a Socialist. From what little I saw when I travelled through Europe, it looks to me as if it’s working.