I don’t think every Democrat is a socialist. In fact, I have voted for moderate Democrats many times. But let’s try a reasoned debate…
Republicans label proposals that rely on government to distribute an economy’s goods and services as “socialist” programs. At the heart of socialism is the concept that the government decides who should get what.
In contrast, Republicans believe that as much as possible “the marketplace” should determine how goods and services are distributed.
Other countries especially European ones have had to back off the percent of their economy that is “socialistic”.
Scandinavian socialism is less real than Santa Claus — American Thinker
Modern Socialism
Modern socialism which is what you cite as “working”. It uses a combination of taxes and entitlements to redistribute income and wealth in society. Both Republicans and Democrats support this kind of socialism for the disabled and the elderly. I know of very few Republicans that want to end social security.
So the real question becomes how much socialism is to much? Not whether a country should have some “socialistic” programs where the government redistributes some of its income to the poor especially the disabled.
But Republicans think that the less socialism in the economy the better off everyone including the poor are over the long term. No one disputes that short term more socialism can elevate the standards of living of the poor, but longer term the impact on economic growth and prosperity hurt everyone but especially the poor. Name a country that is 100% socialist where the poor are living at close to the level of the poor in the US. So while capitalism does create income and wealth disparity, it does so at the same time it raises the relative standards of living of everyone.
Progressive liberals Democrats believe they can manage the economy at the government level. The flaw in their ideology is that while they think they can distribute goods and services better than the marketplace can, there is nothing in their ideology that encourages the production of the goods and services they propose to redistribute…
Simply said…
So why do you work? If Trump told you to go out and clean the streets for free would you do it? If Biden offered to pay you $500 an hour to clean streets would you do it? Bottom line, money talks, bullsh*t walks. People work for money. Now if Biden offered you to pay $500 an hours to clean streets and then took back $499 in taxes would you work? Probably not… you would simply collect your entitlements and go do something you would rather do than clean streets. Granted these are extreme examples, but the principles are the same principles underlying the differences between Republicans and Democrats regarding the economy, taxes, and entitlements.
Poverty and Entitlements vs Work
In general people who receive entitlements are poor (exceptions are people like me who get social security and Medicare, but are not poor). Those entitlements are largely funded by taxes on working people including the working poor. Entitlements rarely help people escape from poverty and often keeps them in poverty as escaping poverty means losing one’s entitlements. I am over 65, if I work to much I start to pay an almost brutal effective tax rate as my social security benefits get reduced by half of what I earn, plus I pay taxes on that income on top of my lost social security. In effect, I am being paid to not work and penalized if I choose to work. So I am happy collecting my checks and living off my savings. It works fine for someone with my wealth, but it leads to generational poverty for many families… certainly you would not consider generational poverty a good thing I hope.
In contrast, if even one person in a family living in poverty gets a full time job the probability of that entire family remaining below the poverty line drops by more than 75%.
So Republicans support job creation as the best means to eliminate poverty, many Democrats support entitlements as the best way to help people in poverty… but sadly the two are somewhat incompatible and that becomes the rub.
So are Democrats more compassionate if they help people in poverty but also cause them to remain in poverty or are Republicans more compassionate because they want to create jobs that help people escape poverty but the lack of entitlements could make it harder for those in poverty to live? It is a debate worth having… but the answers are not clear cut.
Taxes
But the biggest problem with entitlements is simply that they have to be paid for (though we are doing a pretty good job at passing those costs on to future generations or hiding them by “printing” money). Now those European countries are finding the system is breaking down. In Italy for example, more than 17% of the economy is now conducted through the “black market”. People are simply saying “no” to the taxes it needs to fund entitlements… this means it has to raise taxes even more… and that leads to more people saying no…
So the rich decide they don’t want to pay taxes by using legal tax shelters are moving their income overseas and the poor and middle class avoid taxes by working “off the books”. We are encountering more and more people that offer “cash discounts” for services. We decline those offers, but I can’t believe everyone is.
Is there any evidence progressive liberalism won’t work in the US
I live in California, one of the most progressively liberal states in the country ruled largely by one party the Democrats, who have the votes to do whatever they want.
We have the highest effective tax rates in the country, the biggest economy, the 7th highest median household income and the most robust entitlement programs… so how are they working for the poor?
Our cost adjusted poverty rate is the highest in the country, 50% above the national average. And those numbers exclude millions of illegal immigrants living in poverty.
We have the highest number of homeless.
Our middle class is hallowing out as people slip below the poverty line or move to other states to seek work
Our population is declining as people vote with their feet on our state’s policies.
Our energy prices are so high because of taxes, that many poor are being crushed by the cost to fuel their cars and heat and cool their homes.
In other words, the results of the most progressive liberal policies in the country is pain and suffering with nearly one in five people having slipped into poverty. The road to hell is paved with good intentions…
Where I think we could agree is that Republican policies are can be counter intuitive. It is hard to see how reducing entitlements helps the poor but it does… whether it was Clinton’s welfare reform in the 90s or North Carolina’s unemployment reform more recently reduced entitlements reduced poverty and increased employment.
I have read the conservative economic studies that claim FDR work programs had little economic benefit and they are pretty compelling. But where I depart from the conclusions of those economists is that requiring work from those that are not disabled in order to receive entitlements even if it is relatively unproductive work preserves the essential importance of “work” in our economy.
If Democrats want to get my support, propose entitlements programs that require work from able bodied people and does not “pay” above what people can earn in the private sector. This will insure “floor” for those in poverty, preserve the “work ethic” among those not presently employed in a “real” job until they can find one, and help create a reserve of workers to fill jobs as the economy expands.
One problem I don’t think Democrats are prepared to face is that people who don’t work eventually become unemployable.
