can conservatives name one industriliazed nation that has no social programs?

Question

when will conservatives learn that government has and will always have programs that are necessry for the people.

Answer 1

Good question.

Unfortunately, those who zealously believe that all government programs are bad do not leave any wiggle room for the government programs that actually produce results that they themselves depend upon.

Here's a listing of what some consider to be the U.S. government's 50 greatest endeavors:
http://www.brook.edu/GS/CPS/50ge/50greatest.htm
Let's see y'all get by without a single one of those government actions or programs.

However, to be fair, I'm sure some could argue that no program is "necessary for the people" because "the people" could all just go live in the woods & live off the land with their guns and their SUVs. ;) However, the fact remains that governments themselves were formed by groups of people who decided that they wanted to collectively act for the betterment of all involved & thus created government & its programs. One who argues that all government programs are bad doesn't have to live in this country (good luck finding a country with a government that has fewer programs per capita than the U.S.), but why should they tell me what the government SHOULDN'T be able to do with my tax money? :)

Answer 2

Simply because such programs exist does not make them justified. There are plenty of things that most governments do which you might not agree with.

Nor does the widespread presence of these programs necessarily mean they make sense economically; they may be bad ideas that are adopted anyway because they are politically popular.

But, you did ask a question, so I should answer it. To my knowlege, there are no industrialized nations without ANY social programs. Then again, practically anything can be seen as a "social program" in certain contexts.

Some nations have very limited social programs. Hong Kong and Singapore have some pension programs and worker's compensation programs, but many of them are almost entirely privatized. Some of the smaller, wealthier states of Europe also had limited social assistance programs, but that was probably due to the fact that they did not not have very many poor.

Most conservatives will allow for some level of social assistance programs, especially at the local level. They tend to have problems with FEDERALLY administrated social programs or ill-administered programs.

It's libertarians like me who want to throw the starving poor out into the streets :)

Answer 3

There aren't any - but liberals would socialize everything and have us fund every kind of idiocy through some sort of government program. Government programs are necessary, but not to the extent that they exist in this country. Look at the Big Dig in Boston - if a private business were run like that - it would have gone bankrupt and it's officers would have been put in jail for trying to build a tunnel so shabbily. But, make it a government project - the budget means nothing, overruns are expected, and there is no accountability.

A government program usually involves fraud, waste, corruption, and 90% of the time, a private enterprise could it do it cheaper, better, more efficiently - and have the added benefit of accountability. No one is responsible for government programs - they all can point at someone else when it's time to figure out who is responsible...

Answer 4

because there turned right into a time after we had what we talked about as households and it changed into only anticipated you care on your own, even with the way you felt about one yet another. You were a shame in case you probably did not, welfare replace all that. And it really is not as a lot because the church homes to do all of it both, they artwork with the family participants after we had households. Like after we had an outstanding style of those human beings bawling about Katrina months on end this one previous guy in between the Scandinavian countries reported we guard our personal. We get flooding and all that all and sundry comes jointly and works jointly to placed existence decrease back to accepted.

Answer 5

Stocko nailed it. I've never had a problem with the government developing programs to help people who need it.

But where do you draw the line? The welfare system was designed to assist people in transitional phases of their lives, not generation after generation.

Social programs? Sure. Cradle to grave "nanny-ocracy"? No thanks.

Answer 6

Very few conservatives call for the abolition of all social welfare schemes.

Answer 7

There is such a thing as degree.

A reasonable vs unreasonable amount.

Answer 8

there is none on this planet .SO why do you think bush believes like tom cruze that we must prepare the planet for the return of our creators ..

Answer 9

Yeah...by the people...for the people and of the people doesn't really apply for repukes