An irreverent, inclusive, alternative parenting community
I need some education from the masses
This may sound like a ridiculous question from a self-proclaimed Smart Person, but what is Socialism and why is it so freakin' scary to some people?
I've read the Wikipedia article which gives a lot of information and I understand the basic concept, but I can't seem to wrap my head around why this would be a bad thing. I need some input from people who actually paid attention in high school government & history classes.
Is it scary because it would take money from the rich with stronger skills in favor of allowing those with less advantages to realize their full potential (line from the article, not my words)? Is it scary because it's not worked so well in other societies and people are worried about bringing down the US? Or is it scary simply because it's different than what we're used to?
Please educate me. I'm asking this in all honesty, no tongue-in-cheek.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by hermit crab on -
Rommie - this is a classic American perspective on government assistance to the poor/welfare, and is exactly captured in the fact that most Americans have bad feelings towards "welfare" and more positive feelings towards "assistance to the poor." Political scientists think about this as a framing issue, in the sense that these two concepts "mean" the same thing, but I think that if most people spoke about the issue in their own words then they would say something along the lines of what you express, which is that if people are truly in need and truly trying to the best of their ability to help themselves, they should be helped, but if people are taking advantage of the public then they don't deserve help. We mean the first when we think of "assistance to the poor" and the second when we think of "welfare."
The thing that makes this opinion so difficult to translate into effective policy is that it is very hard and expensive to measure "truly trying to help themselves." In other words, assistance programs are going to do this inaccurately to a certain degree and make a certain number of mistakes. With regard to those mistakes, I'd argue that it is morally worse to usually make mistakes which are too harsh -- and not help people who really need it -- than it is to tend to err in the other direction and to help a few people who don't really need it. Of course, any person who is in the "doesn't really need it" category creates the additional cost to the program of making it politically harder to have assistance programs, since their manipulation irritates anyone who witnesses it.
An interesting area of public policy, for sure.
rommie said:
Part of it is just this area, I guess. I don't know. I believe in helping people who can't help themselves or who have fallen on hard times, but it gets muddled for me when I'm forced to help people who very well can help themselves and just won't. It makes me frakking angry, and while that's a purely emotional response, I do believe it's valid.
-
Permalink Reply by wookie on -
Most systems work well on paper and poorly in practice. Free market/capitalism isn't any better or worse than any other system. In my mind, the socialist model does the least amount of harm. I'm okay with that.
-
Permalink Reply by GreenLantern on -
This is where I disagree. For the most part, history and current events prove otherwise.
France, greece, and spain are all in trouble economically because they are socialist.
wookie said:Most systems work well on paper and poorly in practice. Free market/capitalism isn't any better or worse than any other system. In my mind, the socialist model does the least amount of harm. I'm okay with that.
-
Permalink Reply by mightyninjamom on -
Well, if we're going to get nitpicky, it looks like none of those countries is listed as being socialist - merely that there are socialist political parties active in the government.
But that brings an interesting element into the discussion - in that you can vote in a socialist candidate, but still have a capitalist country.
GreenLantern said:This is where I disagree. For the most part, history and current events prove otherwise.
France, greece, and spain are all in trouble economically because they are socialist.
wookie said:Most systems work well on paper and poorly in practice. Free market/capitalism isn't any better or worse than any other system. In my mind, the socialist model does the least amount of harm. I'm okay with that.
-
Permalink Reply by GreenLantern on
-
It is a weird situation, for sure. I don't think there is a purely socialist country out there, just ones that are somewhat to mostly socialist. You see more dictatorial control in communism.
Either way, what I object to is people using the force of government to push their will onto others, thus extracting wealth. Some people feel that that is a necessary thing. I feel that it isn't, and people should be able to give to whatever organizations they want voluntarily. The whole premise of my feeling is that taking money from people by means of force, or threat of force, is wrong. Others will disagree with me, and for the sake of this discussion, that's fine. I'm not trying to convert anyone, just trying to make it clear how I feel vs. how others feel, and to hopefully answer the original question.
-
Permalink Reply by Kiwi on -
There is really good article, Confessions of a Welfare Queen, from six years ago that speaks to this.
I'm pretty certain that right now our tax dollars go less to individual abusers of the welfare system and more to subsidizing the wealthy. A family of four on food stamps receiving the maximum amount will get $8,016 in one year. After needing the government to give them $80 billion of our tax dollars AIG, spent $400,000 for a one week retreat for some executives.
rommie said:I look at so many people I've known, and I look at almost half of my former paycheck disappearing into taxes, and I get angry. These are not people I randomly see on the streets, but people I know well. One example: a couple with a daughter a few weeks younger than Moose. Neither parent works. This is by choice, because they have decided that they have a right to spend all their time with their child. The woman is pregnant again, also by choice. They are on every gov't assistance program imaginable and live quite well. They buy exotic produce I couldn't dream of wasting money on, then let it rot because they eat out three meals a day. I am not exaggerating, so people don't think that. The guy has loads of musical instruments, expensive ones, while my husband has been saving for years to replace his broken electric guitar, a hand-me-down from a relative. This is my husband, who I met because he was in a band, who is head of a registered non-profit that assists area musicians and organizations in need of help with their sound equipment. The woman gets angry at me for not "wanting the best for my son" by buying expensive, organic, fair trade, fancy toys that cost hundreds of dollars. She does. I go to their house, and I get so jealous...and in my mind, they're buying all these things with my money. My tax dollars, that I worked my butt off to earn while having to leave my beloved son in daycare. I know so many families like this.
-
Permalink Reply by GreenLantern on
-
Kiwi, you make a good point. In terms of government waste in general, welfare is probably really far down on the list. Also, let's not forget there are government subsidies everywhere, not just for the rich. Farmers, gasoline, alternative fuel cars, buying a house...that's just a short list I can think of really quickly. Usually subsidies do more harm than good in the long run.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2013 Created by Offsprunger.
Powered by
