• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Why americans are so scared of socialdemocracy?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cygnus X-1 said:
For me, an european, being socialdemocratic is just quite natural. It is NOT communism, i.e. the centralization of all the processes in the hands of the govern, which in turn would result, sooner or later, in a dictatorial regime because of the accumulation of money and, consequently, of power. Burocracy also becomes a way to put privileged people to key places, preventing the exercise of justice and destroying progress and changes.
It is NOT neoliberism, i.e. the system that de-regulate everything believed unnecessary at such a point that the vast majority of money goes in the hands of very few, rich people and creates devastating social differences. People that do not have means are condemned to not study as they should deserve, to not have a complete sanitar couverture, to not exploit their potential regardless of thier capacities and eventually, to not live worthily. Competition reaches a point in which in order to get a decent work, non-ethik attitudes are necessary, in which nobody can possibly care about other anymore, in which everyone is against everyone, in which the life of people are reduced to a mere battle and to overworking, while who has metarial richness reaches an untouchable state, poisoning even the justice.

Socialdemocracy is, ideoligically, the de-centralization of the money and the re-distribution of it in the most equal way, thus preventing accumulation of power, corruption and unequalities. A system, in which everyone start with the basics necessary to have a dignified life, i.e. low taxes for studying, large subsidies for families, high taxes for rich people and almost no taxes for poor people, with a exponential curve based on the taxable income. The state control essential processes that are not meant to make profits, but are meant to serve people, like trains, energy, water, post, sanity services and so on, but NOT what is meant to make profits, like banks. It is a controlled capitalistic system, with clear, severe rules for everyone who operate on the market. Against wars and promoting the peace, with the convinctions that within the human race no subraces exist. Ethnik groups exist that are fully equivalent, i.e. every human life is sacred and one person hs no more value then any other person in the entire world.

This is a very short, personal and uncomplete description. But it gives an idea. My question is the following: why isn't in the US a relevant socialdemocratic ideology? Are you people generally SO against to all of that I cited above? If yes, why?

Social democracy as an idea, seems to me to be a completely made up term by Euro-philes and leftists who feel North America is too 'free market' to distinguish between the Canada/US and the model' European economies, who by the way, are solely reliant of a large and export rich market (The United States) for their trade surplus

There's nothing inherently lacking in the way economists describe western democracies, that is, all are essentially or were essentially welfare states with some choosing one extreme (more welfare and more state) and others choosing the other extreme (less welfare and less state). Obviously, the surging conservatism of the last 30 years has shifted the pendulum to less welfare, but it is still within the same paradigm of government collection of income taxes (which were supposed to be temporary to pay for war) to fund social programs.
 
MC Safety said:
It's best to ignore these people.

It's okay to dismiss one of the greatest documents ever created because the creators were flawed.
It's also apparently okay to selectively ignore things we don't like about them while we're also trying to argue founder's intent. No cognitive dissonance there at all.

Women = not human
Slaves = not human
Masses = not to be trusted

Lofty ideals man, lofty ideals.
 
Freshmaker said:
It's also apparently okay to selectively ignore things we don't like about them while we're also trying to argue founder's intent. No cognitive dissonance there at all.

Women = not human
Slaves = not human
Masses = not to be trusted

Lofty ideals man, lofty ideals.

It's not a perfect document to be sure. But I'll take freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, protection from search and seizure, etc., any day.

The document was and is revolutionary. That it didn't go far enough for you is regrettable, but certainly not problematic.
 
BolognaSoup said:
So, like Oprah, right?
That's a cop out response. If only one kid in the Calc course passed, while 39 others failed. Does it mean that only one kid tried or could the teacher have taught the class poorly(Where it was no real fault on the kids side).

To say there is equal opportunity is bullshit. Many of the kids stuck in poor educational areas, are going to remain poor. The chances just aren't there compared to better areas. I would say the main factor is the socio-economic class structure, which "Coincidentally" enough is also heavily racially segregated also.
 
Perhaps it would be best not to categorize people against "Social Democracy" as racist, bible-thumping, ignorant, selfish, brainwashed, pro-war, bigoted, immoral, boneheaded, uneducated peons whose "heads would explode" if they had to explain what socialism means. It's just not a smart strategy for winning people to your side.

There are a number of cultural and sociological reasons why Americans favor individualism and equate it with laissez-faire capitalism. Many of those reasons have been listed.
 
Brianemone said:
Personally I'd love to live in some of the northern European countries. The work ethic is far superior to that of NZ and I like the way things are done more than the US. I'm compromising and moving to Australia.
Your compromise is moving to one of the most controlled, backwards countries on the planet?
 
Americans nowadays are just full of brainwashing and propaganda to think that anything other than what the government currently provides = bad. It didn't always used to be this way FDR had the balls to talk about the 2nd Bill of Rights, which I think we still need......

* Employment, with a living wage,
* Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies,
* Housing,
* Medical care,
* Education, and,
* Social security

Nobody has balls to demand that for the American people now though.
 
If the US stopped policing the world and left Korea, Taiwan, Europe, and the Middle East to fend for themselves (i.e. isolationists like the founders intended) I'd like to see who has the best social programs. Also we need to end our stupid trade agreements that permit corporations from easily outsourcing companies to Mexico and India. The US has to get back to only worrying about the US. Unlike when the UK had a huge colonial empire, the US has an empire with all of the drawbacks but none of the benefits.

Edit: And only relatively minor tweaks need to be made: end corporate "person" status that gives them a right to lobby, reform congress corruption standards and add term limits, and have a president with the balls to return to isolationism. No need for tearing up the constitution to get the US back to being the greatest country in the world for its average citizen.
 
I had every intention of reading each reply, but was quickly frustrated and decided to just share my own thoughts w/r/t the OP.

Personally, I'm all for equality of opportunity, to whatever degree is reasonable depending on the society. The socio-political-economic system that is present in a country like the United States will inherently benefit those with wealthy family. They will go to better schools, have better access to health care, and ultimately have better jobs. This wealth and opportunity will be passed on through each generation. They have the means to capitalize best from the system. It's not because they necessarily worked harder or were more "productive". You can be damn sure that the people who wash your public bathrooms are working their asses off and often even work two jobs for meagre wages. They normally didn't have access to the same opportunities.

In order to have a more just distribution of wealth (and I think it would be "just" because the system itself is, if left alone, terribly unjust and disproportionate), you'd obviously need to tax the rich more heavily. This, to me, seems perfectly fine. If you've accrued a massive amount of wealth as a result of the way the system benefits you, and meanwhile millions of people don't have access to good education or health care or security or whatever because they've been born into a more impoverished environment, then there should be redistribution.

There are two reasons, as I see it, as to why this is not a widely popular opinion in the United States. 1. There's a tradition of individualism and related 'wisdom' that gives people the attitude that what they earn is entirely a product of their own unique labour, irrespective of the opportunities given to them. 2. Being taxed more heavily can definitely arouse feelings in any person.

Mars said:
Do you agree with evolution? If so, how can every person be equal? Yes, current systems help people who are not necessarily evolutionarily superior, but shouldn't such a system be replaced with one that identifies those who are better mentally and physically and elevates them to the top, instead of trying to suppress the natural course of selection?
Not every person is the same, no. But the observable differences between people can be largely attributed to the circumstances during their lives. Did they have a stable home? Did they go to a good school? Were their parents well-educated? Did they have access to a good diet, education on food, and frequent exercise (i.e., through leisure time)?

In other words, it is far too difficult to identify people who are naturally gifted. There is no way to cleanly divorce mental and physical capabilities from privilege. Evolution cannot be applied to socio-political-economic systems.
 
MC Safety said:
It's not a perfect document to be sure. But I'll take freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, protection from search and seizure, etc., any day.

The document was and is revolutionary. That it didn't go far enough for you is regrettable, but certainly not problematic.
Seems like the amendments were revolutionary moreso than the core document.
 
Hari Seldon said:
If the US stopped policing the world and left Korea, Taiwan, Europe, and the Middle East to fend for themselves (i.e. isolationists like the founders intended) I'd like to see who has the best social programs. Also we need to end our stupid trade agreements that permit corporations from easily outsourcing companies to Mexico and India. The US has to get back to only worrying about the US. Unlike when the UK had a huge colonial empire, the US has an empire with all of the drawbacks but none of the benefits.
.....dude.

Also, realize that the U.S. "policing" the world is not some do-gooder attitude of American empire. It's performed completely within the context of American ideology and interests.
 
K.Jack said:
Your compromise is moving to one of the most controlled, backwards countries on the planet?

What on earth gave you that idea?

HDI: Australia ranked 2nd

The statistic is composed from data on life expectancy, education and per-capita GDP (as an indicator of standard of living)


Legatum Prosperity Index: Australia ranked 6th
Methodology

The 2009 Legatum Prosperity Index is based on 79 different variables analysed across 104 nations around the world. Source data includes Gallup World Poll, WTO, World Development Indicators, GDP, World Intellectual Property Organization, UN Human Development Report, World Bank, OECD, World Values Survey. The 79 variables are grouped into 9 sub-indexes which are averaged using equal weights. The 9 sub-indexes are:

* Economic Fundamentals
* Democratic Institutions
* Health
* Governance
* Social Capital
* Entrepreneurship and Innovation
* Education
* Safety and Security
* Personal Freedom

For example, Personal Freedom includes freedom of speech and religion, national tolerance for immigrants and ethnic and racial minorities. The Social Capital sub-index includes the percentage of citizens who volunteer, give to charity, help strangers, and who feel they can rely on family and friends.

Democracy Index: Australia ranked 10th

Education Index: Australia ranked 1st

Please supply some supporting data/research for your claim.
 
And for all of you people whining about the tax rates, you do not realize how disproportionate the tax system hits the upper middle class. Warren Buffet famously admitted to paying 16% in taxes. He said that was less than his secretary. Why? Because there are so many loopholes that the ultra rich have lobbied for and received. The upper middle class and the "low" rich do not have these loopholes. The problem is not the tax brackets, the problem is our completely corrupt congress. Corruption is the core problem in the US. The entire tax system needs thrown out and started fresh: the amount of possible deductions should be less than 10. Kids, education, retirement, and maybe a few others. If the rich actually had to pay the highest tax bracket, we wouldn't have the income disparity that we have.

It is my belief that Europe's system is government is not necessarily better, but they definitely have better and far less corrupt tax laws. That is what we need to strive to achieve in the US. That will not be achieved until we reform corruption laws. The Congress is allowed to determine their own corruption standards FFS. That is completely insane.
 
The biggest problem the US has is its inability to be honest and critical with itself because of its nationalism - America Fuck Yeah. This nationalistic tendency has been well-manipulated by political and corporate interests who enjoy massive monetary benefits of the American system's many remaining loopholes. Even better, the merest suggestion to the average person that the US's paradigm should be slightly adjusted - not turned into a copy of a European country, just tweaked - tends to trigger patriotic outrage that "the vision of the founders" is being questioned.

As someone said not along ago, America's true religion isn't Christianity: it's America. The American Faith is something not just "bible thumping rednecks" have. I have honestly met otherwise moderate, considerate, and reasonably intelligent people who are full believers in the American Faith. Who truly do think that American is firmly planted at the steering wheel of the boat the human race is sailing on. They think this largely because of our poor education system; when I discuss it with them the have a shocking ignorance of general history and the reasons why many things in even recent history happened as they did. Again, they're not stupid. They have just largely gotten their education from American pop culture and general word of mouth from their fellow citizens.

The people at the top, the apex predators of America's economic system, know full well how "the little people" think and manipulate it on a daily basis. America as a whole is still in shell shock over the cold war. Several generations do still see it as America under siege by foreign ideologies and are deeply suspicious of any idea that doesn't instantly sound as if it was baked into an apple pie in Kansas.

At times, I think only a true and complete economic collapse will force Americans to snap out of it. When everyone is starving, when daily life has fallen apart, but the super-wealthy still sit upon their thrones and try to say "How dare you envy me? I am a capitalist like you, I have earned by hand every one of my 10 billion dollar fortune. Toil harder, lazy would-be socialist!"

Funny enough, I have no problem with a man like Bill Gates. The American system isn't entirely broken. It is still possible to take advantage of opportunity; it's still possible for the "rags to riches" story to happen - and the fact that it is, is used to build a distraction away from the incredible corruption of the system as a whole. Those at the top who cheated their way there, who only took and never gave back into the system in return for their wealth, are very grateful that some people can make it to the top legitimately and through actual work and good ideas.
 
Blackace said:
Because the greatest scam the government has done is made US believe that Soicalist = Nazi
You mean the greatest scam the right wing has ever done.

The right has always been nothing but the fear party and the word 'socialism' is right at or near the top of their list.
 
K.Jack said:
Your compromise is moving to one of the most controlled, backwards countries on the planet?

I'm not too worried about censorship if that is what you are referring to. Importing stuff for games I want to play that might not make it trough isn't much of a price to pay (or way to save money as the case might be).
 
Socreges said:
.....dude.

Also, realize that the U.S. "policing" the world is not some do-gooder attitude of American empire. It's performed completely within the context of American ideology and interests.

The US policing the world is the result of the corruption from our military industrial complex. We have an ultra giant military, and this is justified by our politicians by creating made up enemies and unnecessary missions. They do this because the military industrial complex has its tentacles in every single district of every person in the defense committee, republican and democrat. When Obama wanted to cut the F-22s with a FULL democrat congress AND the full support of the secretary of defense why was it so damn hard? Why is the navy forced to buy boats it doesn't want? Because of corruption and ridiculous foreign policy.

Edit: Added a missing "why" in my sentence above to make it more clear.
 
Ripclawe said:
Because it doesn't work as the famous saying goes, eventually you run out of other people's money
Net Debt Per Capita by G7 Country

Based on population numbers, the following list reveals that Japan, Italy and USA lead other G7 nations in net debt per capita.

Japan ... US$44,722 in net debt per person
Italy ... $36,645
United States ... $24,315
France ... $23,457
Germany ... $22,454
United Kingdom ... $13,018
Canada ... $8,015.

Read more at Suite101: G7 Nations Desperate for Big Loans: Net Debt Levels of G7 Countries Approach Bankruptcy http://www.suite101.com/content/g7-nations-desperate-for-big-loans-a91949#ixzz0yifGDrvd

Looking at this list, it's also obvious why Social Democracy wins:
Darkshier said:
It didn't always used to be this way FDR had the balls to talk about the 2nd Bill of Rights, which I think we still need......

* Employment, with a living wage,
* Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies,
* Housing,
* Medical care,
* Education, and,
* Social security

Nobody has balls to demand that for the American people now though.

And one person in this thread who will be very disappointed (if not a troll):
Xyphie said:
So happy that the Social Democratic Party here in Sweden is slowly but surely dying and people turning towards the more social liberal ideologies. It's a disgusting political party that thinks they know better than you want you need and want out of life.
LOL. Like the US Democrats and Republicans being both on the extreme economic right from a European perspective, no major Swedish party is non-Social Democratic in the ideological sense. Europe will be a continent of welfare states – bless this old world.
 
Just realized that if I leave it at "dude", you won't even realize why I reacted that way.

Hari Seldon said:
If the US stopped policing the world and left Korea, Taiwan, Europe, and the Middle East to fend for themselves (i.e. isolationists like the founders intended) I'd like to see who has the best social programs. Also we need to end our stupid trade agreements that permit corporations from easily outsourcing companies to Mexico and India. The US has to get back to only worrying about the US. Unlike when the UK had a huge colonial empire, the US has an empire with all of the drawbacks but none of the benefits.
Everything that you described is American empire. It's to ensure that certain competing powers have their sphere of influence mitigated and that certain important allies in key regions are kept. It's to ensure that all countries adopt/retain/abide by the same economic principles as the U.S. It's to ensure that the U.S. has continuous access to the resources it needs.

And how can you complain that corporations are outsourcing to cheaper places? You want to have your cake and eat it, too. You want the products that get made cheaply abroad and are therefore more affordable in America, but you also want jobs to be kept here so that more people can be employed.

So lastly, how can you not realize the benefits of American empire? American empire operates exclusively in order to acquire, develop and retain benefits for itself.

Hari Seldon said:
The US policing the world is the result of the corruption from our military industrial complex. We have an ultra giant military, and this is justified by our politicians by creating made up enemies and unnecessary missions. They do this because the military industrial complex has its tentacles in every single district of every person in the defense committee, republican and democrat. Why when Obama wanted to cut the F-22s with a FULL democrat congress AND the full support of the secretary of defense why was it so damn hard? Why is the navy forced to buy boats it doesn't want? Because of corruption and ridiculous foreign policy.

Edit: Added a missing "why" in my sentence above to make it more clear.
OK this post helps clarify things, though I do think you're being a bit too simplistic and abstract.
 
Socreges said:
Everything that you described is American empire. It's to ensure that certain competing powers have their sphere of influence mitigated and that certain important allies in key regions are kept. It's to ensure that all countries adopt/retain/abide by the same economic principles as the U.S. It's to ensure that the U.S. has continuous access to the resources it needs.

For some missions, maybe. I would argue that South Korea is probably the most worthwhile mission we have, but the UN is involved in that also. If the North invades the South it is not just the US's problem. Every European nation will be pulled into that war. We do not need to outspend Europe at the rate we do for this mission.

But for other missions like Tawain and Japan? Why are we defending them against China? This is a total phantom problem that we do not need. Japan can rearm and defend itself. Tawain is not as important to us as China proper is. It is not worth a war to defend Tawain.

Why are we putting missile shields in eastern Europe? If Russia invaded Poland, would not Europe have to deal with this?

Also, and probably the least useful and most dangerous to the US, is our alliance with Israel. What is going to happen in the Middle East when Israel attacks Iran's nukes, as they are saying they will? The US has the potential for being dragged into a war with Iran that no one in the US will want. This alliance is insane.

In other words, the benefits we get from our foreign alliances are not worth the cost. You say they are, and that is a valid opinion, but there is no debate about this at all in congress. This should at least be debated and discussed, the benefits and costs should be made clear to the American people and we should determine whether or not we should pay for this. This should not be left up to backroom deals and lobbying behind the scenes, it is too important.

Socreges said:
And how can you complain that corporations are outsourcing to cheaper places? You want to have your cake and eat it, too. You want the products that get made cheaply abroad and are therefore more affordable in America, but you also want jobs to be kept here so that more people can be employed.

I am not a believer that the benefits we get from outsourcing out-way the drawbacks of eliminating American jobs. We have a consumer economy, but what happens when the majority of consumers do not have jobs? 30 years ago an American could get a well paying job with a high school degree. Those jobs are virtually gone today because of outsourcing. Also, you have to ask yourself, who is the primary beneficiary of outsourcing? That would be the shareholders, not the average American.

Socreges said:
So lastly, how can you not realize the benefits of American empire? American empire operates exclusively in order to acquire, develop and retain benefits for itself.

I think we need politicians with the courage to ask these questions. America needs debate on whether the costs are worth the benefits. Like we are debating now, this is healthy and good debate. I just wish it happened in a presidential debate or in congress.
 
Hari Seldon said:
And for all of you people whining about the tax rates, you do not realize how disproportionate the tax system hits the upper middle class. Warren Buffet famously admitted to paying 16% in taxes. He said that was less than his secretary. Why? Because there are so many loopholes that the ultra rich have lobbied for and received. The upper middle class and the "low" rich do not have these loopholes. The problem is not the tax brackets, the problem is our completely corrupt congress. Corruption is the core problem in the US. The entire tax system needs thrown out and started fresh: the amount of possible deductions should be less than 10. Kids, education, retirement, and maybe a few others. If the rich actually had to pay the highest tax bracket, we wouldn't have the income disparity that we have.

It is my belief that Europe's system is government is not necessarily better, but they definitely have better and far less corrupt tax laws. That is what we need to strive to achieve in the US. That will not be achieved until we reform corruption laws. The Congress is allowed to determine their own corruption standards FFS. That is completely insane.
A flat tax (At most two tiers) with no loopholes ends corruption of the system altogether. Anything involving a progressive tax will corrupt the system since it's subjective to begin with and require loopholes to pass with the middle class, much less the wealthy.

Americans only say they have a problem with socialism. In reality, they love it and would have a hard time functioning without the entitlements already in place, so it's silly to be bent out of shape over one or two more.
 
Because those who would push social democracy in America have done a horrendous job framing their position in a way that makes sense to Americans, and those who have gone out to put a hit on any and all socialism have managed to paint this bleak anti-American vibe behind any program where the government might increase its presence in.
 
Carton said:

People here judge Australia based on the restricted games situation, and the theoretical internet censorship bills. AKA none of the important stuff

As for the OP, something something pull yourself up by your bootstraps something something.
 
Cygnus X-1 said:
A system, in which everyone start with the basics necessary to have a dignified life, i.e. low taxes for studying, large subsidies for families, high taxes for rich people and almost no taxes for poor people, with a exponential curve based on the taxable income. The state control essential processes that are not meant to make profits, but are meant to serve people, like trains, energy, water, post, sanity services and so on, but NOT what is meant to make profits, like banks. It is a controlled capitalistic system, with clear, severe rules for everyone who operate on the market. Against wars and promoting the peace, with the convinctions that within the human race no subraces exist. Ethnik groups exist that are fully equivalent, i.e. every human life is sacred and one person hs no more value then any other person in the entire world.

LOL!

JGS said:
Americans only say they have a problem with socialism. In reality, they love it and would have a hard time functioning without the entitlements already in place, so it's silly to be bent out of shape over one or two more.

This. The USA has been a social democracy for a *long* time. It's not as redistributionist as a state like, I dunno, Iceland, but its still no libertarian's paradise - not even close actually.
 
The problem in America isn't that we don't have enough social programs. It's that the wealthy have completely taken over the system and put is in a corporatocracy. We are essentially composed of a party who outly lobbies for corporate interests, and we have a party who covertly operates in the interests of corporations while covered by a thin veneer of populism.
 
Let's stay away from discussions of specific political affiliations, and talk specifically about economic policy here.

Americans very strongly value freedom. It is unquestionable, in my mind, that this freedom comes at the cost of equality. Many European states definitely have a smaller gap between their rich and poor, and that is a very valuable quality.

But equality is something you have to enforce. If you do not enforce equality, then the powerful (i.e. the rich) will prey on the weak (i.e. the poor).

It's up to you to decide how much equality you should enforce. America seems to strongly prefer very light enforcement in that regard.
 
Hasan said:
Sorry to go off topic, but doesn't a European sound better than an European? Which is accepted as grammatically correct? Or is it open?

We don't use either a, or an it is dropped completely.
 
Hari Seldon said:
In other words, the benefits we get from our foreign alliances are not worth the cost. You say they are
Actually, no. I'm not advocating one way or another. I just think your first post (ideas divorced from a complete, cogent perspective, imo) was a bit confused and didn't appreciate the entire circumstances of American empire. The picture you painted (e.g., isolationism, American empire doesn't benefit itself) is too simplistic.

Hari Seldon said:
I think we need politicians with the courage to ask these questions. America needs debate on whether the costs are worth the benefits. Like we are debating now, this is healthy and good debate. I just wish it happened in a presidential debate or in congress.
Totally fair.
 
bonesmccoy said:
LOL!



This. The USA has been a social democracy for a *long* time. It's not as redistributionist as a state like, I dunno, Iceland, but its still no libertarian's paradise - not even close actually.

Yeah this is true and its kind of dumbfounding that people actually think poor people are left on the street to die of starvation and malnutrition. That's not to say that it doesn't happen occasionally, but this country has a fuckton of social programs for people.

--Food stamps for the poor.
--State run food programs for pregnant women and children up to age 5. Its called WIC - women, infants, children in my state, and it gives milk, eggs, cheese, juice, peanut butter, and other select food items for free and this is IN ADDITION to any food stamps a family receives, and it isn't generic government food either. They can use their vouchers in any grocery and buy name-brand items.
--Government-subsidized housing for the poor.
--Free health care for the poor in the form of state run Medicaid programs. I'm pretty sure just about every state has a health care program to cover children in poor families
--Free health care for senior citizens in the form of Federal run Medicare
--Free prescription drugs for senior citizens
--Unemployment compensation for people who lose their jobs.

Along with the thousands upon thousands of charities in this country.

Shit.. I know I'm forgetting some other big entitlements also.

The problem isn't that the poor aren't taken care of in this country. The problem is in the middle class. People who make too much money for any assitance, but don't make enough to pay for things like health care. Those are the people who are taking it right in the ass in America. People who live from paycheck to paycheck and are just 1 medical emergency away from bankruptcy.

I wouldn't expect foreigners to have knowledge of, or understand this based upon the amount of mind-fucking-blowing hyperbole you read on this board. If you believe the crap you read in most poli-gaf threads, then you'd think that the rich in this country all got rich on the backs of poor people, and that they all stole and cheated their way to the top. You'd also believe that the rich have left poor people to suffer and die in the streets from starvation, pestilence, and disease. Nothing could be further from the truth. That's not to say this doesn't happen occasionally, because it does, but it is the exception and not the rule.

If you are a legal citizen of the United States and you're going to bed hungry tonight, then its your own fucking fault. There are government programs for you. There are thousands of soup kitchens and shelters in this country for people that have had life kick them in the ass. Along with thousands of charitable organizations and churches whose only mandate is to help those that can't help themselves (Yes I said churches, *gasp*, believe it or not GAF, not every fucking church out there wants to convert you into a mindless bible thumping sheep. Some of them actually want to help).
 
bill0527 said:
Yeah this is true and its kind of dumbfounding that people actually think poor people are left on the street to die of starvation and malnutrition. That's not to say that it doesn't happen occasionally, but this country has a fuckton of social programs for people.
I don't think many people actually think that. It's just that the U.S. is much further right than most states in the West in terms of income distribution and the strength of the welfare state.

Korey said:
United States known as the land of opportunity, where your dreams can come true or you can fall hard, that's what's driven the progress that has made our country as prosperous as it has. How many technologies have we invented that are being used all over the world?

Our system facilitates people to work harder to get what they want. To "make it". If you don't work hard, don't have any good ideas, and aren't talented, you'll live an average life. And if you're born poor, you can get out of that if you make the right decisions and work hard enough.

Like you said, there are pros and cons to each system, this is the one that works for us and arguably has more pros from the way things have turned out.

I don't see that many people flocking to Norway, and yet America has a huge immigration problem. Maybe that's one of the reasons Norway can sustain itself with its current system without any problems? I honestly can't even locate Norway on a map. So...there you go.
Gah, you're such a fucking nationalist. No wonder you always troll soccer threads. :lol
 
The answer is so very simple. America was basically founded on the principle that Governent if uncontrolled is the enemy of the people and the people have to keep government in check or the government takes over everything.

Hence why when you see things like Healthcare and it viewed as a takeover by the Government people get up in arms.

As far as why do other countries who are socialdemocracies tend to fare better in polls etc. Its also very simple. They dont have the burdens of being a superpower and what that entails and in many cases the countries tend to be culturally far less diverse so at home issues are far simpler.

Though we see in the case of immigration in many of these countries now things are starting to get testy between cultures
 
OP: I'm not afraid of it, in fact I embrace it.

Basically we have generations of Americans who were raised to believe that social democracy is godless communism. This ideology is joined at the hip in many cases with their church which ties into family and social life. The result is a bunch of people who are basically brainwashed to vote against their self-interests. It's all very depressing.

However considering the fact that social democracy is losing big in Europe right now you may have to ask your fellow Swiss friends the same question.
 
You asked the wrong question. In the end, it doesn't matter if americans like or dislike socialdemocracy. The better question is: How can the USA ignore the fact that the infrastructure is getting worse and the communities are nearing bankruptcy? It blows my mind when I read that some communities have fired all their cops because they don't have the money for the salary.

You don't need socialdemocracy to have a functioning infrastructure, but when the tax money isn't enough, at least make sure that the rich people donate enough money to make the society better.
 
Neo C. said:
You asked the wrong question. In the end, it doesn't matter if americans like or dislike socialdemocracy. The better question is: How can the USA ignore the fact that the infrastructure is getting worse and the communities are nearing bankruptcy? It blows my mind when I read that some communities have fired all their cops because they don't have the money for the salary.

You don't need socialdemocracy to have a functioning infrastructure, but when the tax money isn't enough, at least make sure that the rich people donate enough money to make the society better.

Problem is these cities like the ones you refer to in California have for years lived well beyond their means. Times were good so to hell with being prudent fiscally in case times change. Its part of the idiocy of the arguement raising taxes fixes the problems. People look at Marijuana as some magical cure for budget issues. Truth is all its gonna do is give morons with power more money to waste and look for more excuses for more taxes

This can be applied to many people in the United States too. While even those who were prudent are feeling it now that the economy has been bad for so long the people who were frivolous with their money and lived beyond their means royally screwed the pooch
 
Xeke said:
the_soviet_union_iii__391626.png
That's a funny looking mcdonalds...
 
Diablos said:
However considering the fact that social democracy is losing big in Europe right now you may have to ask your fellow Swiss friends the same question.
Social democratic party is losing popularity all over Europe but that doesn't mean the end of socialdemocracy. Pretty much every party for example here in Finland share the core ideology of socialdemocracy and vast majority of population want to keep the current system.
 
antonz said:
Problem is these cities like the ones you refer to in California have for years lived well beyond their means. Times were good so to hell with being prudent fiscally in case times change.
Yeah, better cut taxes and enact some kind of TABOR style "reform" so that states can't bank for hard times because they're forced to return any unused taxes. That'll solve the problems. :lol
 
Mars said:
Do you agree with evolution? If so, how can every person be equal? Yes, current systems help people who are not necessarily evolutionarily superior, but shouldn't such a system be replaced with one that identifies those who are better mentally and physically and elevates them to the top, instead of trying to suppress the natural course of selection?

This sounds a lot more like fascism than capitalism. :lol Capitalism enables people who are either more unique than others or who understand the system to become incrementally richer, so rich people aren't exactly the evolutionairy apex of humanity.
Also you can't really agree with evolution/natural selection, it's just there. And you shouldn't try to derive how things should be from how they where in the present/past.

Social democracy tries to even the playing field a bit for people who weren't born into money. And you can still become really succesfull if you manage to use your skills/uniqueness in a productive way, but the difference between poor and rich is just a little smaller.
 
Hari Seldon said:
If the US stopped policing the world and left Korea, Taiwan, Europe, and the Middle East to fend for themselves (i.e. isolationists like the founders intended) I'd like to see who has the best social programs. Also we need to end our stupid trade agreements that permit corporations from easily outsourcing companies to Mexico and India. The US has to get back to only worrying about the US. Unlike when the UK had a huge colonial empire, the US has an empire with all of the drawbacks but none of the benefits.

Edit: And only relatively minor tweaks need to be made: end corporate "person" status that gives them a right to lobby, reform congress corruption standards and add term limits, and have a president with the balls to return to isolationism. No need for tearing up the constitution to get the US back to being the greatest country in the world for its average citizen.

Here, here!
 
The US is a very unique country. It is physically large, has the largest population of what would be considered a 1st world nation, and also has 50 states with very unique needs and many with very unique ideals and cultures.

Having a social-democracy which implies a set of rules that applies to all of these very unique states and areas is not all that feasible. Creating a mini Utopian country that has a population of 30 million or so is not outside of the realm of possibility for a smaller country that has less diverse influences then the US does. But having the same rules, for Hawaii, California, Texas, Utah, Florida, Maine, Alaska and New York does not make sense. It would be like using some sort of socialized government in Europe in which, Spain, Germany, the UK, and France all agreed to the same set of rules. So yeah maybe the UK is booming and Spain is bombing, but Spain will be OK because the success of the UK picks them up in this hypothetical situation. Yet because of this the UK is not reaching the heights and progressing in the way it could because it is stuck in this socialized pot. And what exactly in that scenario motivates Spain to progress or try new things?

The greatest benefit of the US is its diversity, and how different one state is from the next, and each state can learn from the others mistakes and triumphs. It increases competition, continues diversity, promotes identity, and is why we remain much more efficient in our semi free market. Of course it is all much more complex then this, but the main point I am making is that greater and forced socialization, considering each states unique industry and cultures is not comparable to the success we have seen in other nations around the world.
 
shaft said:
OP where u from? Because social democrat parties are losing in Europe :(:(:(
This is not entirely true because only the diehard parties are dying out and this is because they have served their purpose. They have created a big socialist society already and other parties are now taking over because they convey a better way of managing these societies. I would argue that 99% of all parties in Europe today are socialist but only 2% admits it.
 
Cygnus X-1 said:
Socialdemocracy is, ideoligically, the de-centralization of the money and the re-distribution of it in the most equal way, thus preventing accumulation of power, corruption and unequalities. A system

Well, you in your own words just explained why social democracy is invalid in the U.S.

If you don't understand what I'm saying, maybe this will help?
Tammany_Ring%2C_Nast.jpg
 
C4Lukins said:
It would be like using some sort of socialized government in Europe in which, Spain, Germany, the UK, and France all agreed to the same set of rules. So yeah maybe the UK is booming and Spain is bombing, but Spain will be OK because the success of the UK picks them up in this hypothetical situation. Yet because of this the UK is not reaching the heights and progressing in the way it could because it is stuck in this socialized pot.
It's not happening anytime soon, but EU is getting closer and closer to this point.
 
C4Lukins said:
The US is a very unique country. It is physically large, has the largest population of what would be considered a 1st world nation, and also has 50 states with very unique needs and many with very unique ideals and cultures.

What happens when one state decides to give for instance free healthcare and education to their citizens? Can they do that, or is that regulated on a federal level?
 
GCX said:
It's not happening anytime soon, but EU is getting closer and closer to this point.

Which I believe would be a shame. It could help prop up certain countries, but would also remove the incentive for those suffering most to get their shit together.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom