Would we have a middle class, if it weren't for socialized programs?

Question

I hear peole today talking about capitalism versus socialism. Without SOME socialism, we wouldn't have a middle class, and without a middle class, we couldn't afford all of those tax cuts for the very poor, and the very rich. SInce the middle class is paying for all of those tax cuts, shouldn't we be SUPPORTING our middle class? Or would you rather have just rich and poor..?

there are several programs that promote education and health care for citizens that might otherwise not have achieved it. The equal rights amendments forced people to give others opportunity. Minimum wage laws stopped people from becoming endentured servants, and the list goes on...all of these programs have promoted the people into jobs and education.

no, vno, you don't usually get what I'm talking about...

no, nicholas, women don't get what they earn. They still get paid less. We aren't there, yet. But social programs and laws that protect the MAJORITY (men are not the majority, and whites are no longer the majority either) have helped people achive the American Dream (middle class)

vno, read your response again, and then MAYBE you will get my details...

Answer 1

You are totally right. Prior to the economic re-organization of the FDR social programs, 97% of monitary value was controled by the Rothschilds, the Rockerfellers, the Morgan clan, Harrimans, Carnagies and their cronies. Since then we have diversified and there are more megarich and less poor and we have a middle class because of the WPA and other "New Deal" programs. The problem is that most people are ignorant of the history of our economic system, and unwilling to actually read about it on their own. Instead they would rather just accept right or left wing rhetoric as absolute truth, and just call all the people who do look into it names.

Answer 2

I agree with you completely and have argued this point myself before.

I have come to the conclusion that FDR had it right... FDR created s sort of capit-social-ism.

Now some might argue why do we even need the socialism portion? The answer is very easy to find. All you have to do is take a look at history and our current society. Throughout history, purely capitalist economies have fallen... always tending to result in the erosion of the middle class and eventually ending in a revolt of the masses. You see this same thing playing out today in our society.

Also, in our society, you can see that the idea of a free and fair completitive market failing when you examine the wealth of this country. 80% of the wealth in this country is inherited while 5% own 90% of that wealth. That is not a successful capitalist market.

Now back to FDR, FDR had this idea that if you could combine aspects of the two then you could prevent that inevitable result. It was a very good idea and the republican party has been unfortunately trying to reverse most of FDR's New Deal... you also see them doing this by deregulating things such as energy, phone companies, etc... that each time have resulted in skyrocketting cost of living expenses.

Because I am a liberal, I get accused all the time of being a communist. Actually for a long time I considered myself a marxist but I have since come to terms with what my idea of the most successful society is.. that is the capit-social-ist one I described.

This way you keep all fairly content.

Say for example, at birth each person was given 1/4 of an acre to always be theirs no matter what and upon death it would be returned to the government... with the option that it could be traded for a different location.

Now from there, each person has a choice. The socialist ones could choose to sit on that piece of land and barely scrap by.. maybe have a garden to eat, etc... OR the more competitive ones would have the option of competing in the capitalist aspects of society.

That is where capitalism comes into the idea. You would still have that option if you wanted more from society.... the option to go to college, etc... and then compete.

The reason that this is fair and equal is that ALL are given the same at birth so I don't see how anyone could argue that someone else is living off of them because each start out with the same.... Also, some will of course have more than others because of inheritance.

Anyways, that is a brief descriptin of what I think would be the most successful society having learned from past failures in history.

PS As for your exact question, the social programs that keep our elderly, sick and poor from living under bridges are what make us a successful civilized nation instead of a 3rd world country.

Answer 3

Here is a novel idea. You get what you earn. If you work hard, then you can become wealthy, and if you're a lazy dirtbag, you can be poor, and blame yourself.
---

women don't get what they deserve? cite the sources. How much maternity leave do men get. There are too many variances to state such a fact.

In retrospect, could you kindly tell me why I was turned down for the opportunity to bid on minority gov't contracts because I am a white male.

Do you not understand that if you increase minimum wage, the cost of a mcdonalds hamburgert will go up, so that worker will not be any farther ahead?

Everyone in this country has the same opportunities (except for white men like me, as cited above) to achieve a better life for themselves.

Everyone has access to public schools, libraries, emergency rooms, etc. There is not anyone out there holding people back, not allowing them to succeed.

Social programs do not protect the majority. They tax the majority to pay for the few that don't pay taxes, because they don't work.

Answer 4

I strongly disagree that socialism creates our middle class. People in the USA are financially better off than they have been in it's history. Home ownership, which is at an all-time high in the US, is paid for by having a job in a capitalist work force, not a socialist government handout. The middle class does not pay more taxes after the most recent tax cuts, the very poor do not pay taxes at all, in fact they recieve an EIC!

Answer 5

Most social programs are not designed for the middle class. There are cut off levels for income. Without these programs, the middle class would pay less taxes and could afford these program for themselves. Just the Federal budget alone has over $1 Trillion dollars earmarked for social programs (then add on the states' contribution).

The government then could exempt the first $50,000 or $60,000 in income from the income tax. Most middle class familes would pay little or no income tax.

Answer 6

Socialized programs support the poor and not the middle class. The exception being education which benefits all.

I do not expect our government to ever support the middle class.As you can not take from the middle class then give it back to the middle class and expect to gain votes. The only way to support the middle class is to make their pursuit of happiness easier, but that would involve making government smaller.

Answer 7

I think you have it backwards. The middle class we have is in spite of socialism. For example, did you know that poor people were making excellent progress in economic advancement, crime, out of wedlock births and other measures of improvement helping them move into the middle class until the socialistic Great Society programs came along and reversed all these trends?

Answer 8

There was a middle class long before there was socialism. The middle class enabled the advent of socialism. You even admit they are the ones paying for the programs.

Answer 9

Actually, 10% of the most wealthy pay 90% of the tax, not the middle class.

Anyway, I don't know what you are getting at about NOT supporting the middle class. How are they not supported? Isn't what the middle class needs most national defense, a stable monetary system, infrastructure, and such? The govn't is taking care of those things.

don't agree with = don't get you

Nice.

Answer 10

HH - 1st I can't believe Heather won (but that was I just favored Virginia). I thought VA style and food was better but Heather did run the kitchen better - and that's what it is all about!

Now you will not like this link but think about reading it because it relates to the taxes & socialism.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/cy2003.guest.html