Outside of welfare being exploited by countless amounts of people-why is the idea of a government universally assisting it's citizens so bad? Besides, doesn't our country(USA) have more than enough money to still have a surplus when it does get cheated?
2006-09-29 05:51:35 · 9 answers · asked by rhambass 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Socialism never says that you can't reap what you sow. If you work harder, you have more. A better example of socialism is Canada. Every single person who commented about not getting what you have earned are talking about communism-not Socialism.
2006-09-29 06:00:50 · update #1
Our country wouldn't be in debt if it wasn't for all of the stingy *** multi-billionaires who set up tax shelters and then lie about their companies profits. Yes it's just how business is done, but it would take $.05 out of every working american's pay check over the course of two years to get rid of our "debt".
As far as bueracracies go-we have more of them in America then most other industrialized countries of the world do.
Yet again-there is a huge difference between Socialism and Communism.
2006-09-29 06:04:46 · update #2
Probably because people don't understand what they are criticizing. We have way more "socialism" than we care to admit - fire protection is paid for by taxes on everyone, not just an invoice to the person whose house burned down. Prisons are not funded by criminals and victims alone. Medicare - without medicare all of us boomers would be broke paying for our parents health care; and our kids would not be spoiled rotten and griping that they want to keep everything they earn, because we would not be giving them any help having to save it all for our elders.
Why does capitalism get such a good name? It also has flaws - once a business gets huge enough it can steamroller and eliminate all competition then raise prices to its captive customer base.
Bottom line, we have been trained to dislike socialism and like capitalism but if you pay attention we live in a combination of both and that is the best way. Pay attention people, don't just spout talking points.
2006-09-29 06:10:16 · answer #1 · answered by ash 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Socialism is a monopoly. Just like any monopoly, that's a bad idea. There's a reason we have anti-trust laws.
Furthermore, it is immoral. Socialism steals money from the "haves" to give to the "have nots". Stealing is wrong, no matter the reason. The "haves" must help the "have nots", if they do not, it makes them bad citizens and bad humans. However, stealing from them is just as bad.
You either believe in freedom, or government. They are mutually exclusive. Socialism is bad because it is anti-freedom, therefore anti-American, and anti-human.
2006-09-29 06:09:26 · answer #2 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Have you noticed that almost all significant advances occur in capitalist countries? Do you know why?
it is because people work hard for the purposes of bettering their own station in life. Socialism defies people that opportunity to better themselves through hard work, and gives no one any reason TO work hard.
It also adds layers and layers of beauracracy to the government, which has to be paid for by the people, and this makes the entire population poorere.
As for the USA having more than enough, our government happens to be in debt (and yes, it was in debt before the wars).
2006-09-29 05:59:52 · answer #3 · answered by Ricky T 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Stalinism, it extremely is the gadget that replace into instituted in jap Europe, extremely gave socialism a foul call. That gadget is greater properly defined as State Capitalism. The ruling forms have been quite the capitalist ruling type, as antagonistic to the Western form of so called unfastened marketplace capitalism. until now capitalism succeeded in Britain, and for this reason in the process the international, it replace into defeated in distinctive places...maximum particularly interior the 'city States' of Italy. to declare that socialism is long gone perpetually is to fall into the capture that the absolutist monarchy's and feudal Lords fell into whilst claiming that capitalism replace into defeated as quickly as and for all. as a fashion to attain socialism we'd want a revolution lead by skill of the proletariat. that's ridiculous to think of that a countrywide bourgeoisie might pick to undertake socialism over capitalism. Capitalists income from capitalism, on the rate of the working type. Why might they pick to enforce a gadget it extremely is quite antagonistic their values?
2016-12-12 17:25:18 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wealth distribution, when you are rich you want to get richer and to hell with the people that helped you get that way. Supply side economics does not work as when you lift a society you have to lift from the bottom so that everyone benefits. If you just lift from the top then the rich are the only ones that get any benefit from it.
2006-09-29 05:59:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because it takes money from people that strive to do better to give to those who do not. If you spend four,six, eight years in college to better your life should you not relish in the rewards of your labor?
2006-09-29 05:55:16 · answer #6 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because I work for my money and I should be entitled to what I earn. Those who work hard deserve more than those who dont.
2006-09-29 05:54:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It fails every time it is tried.It is not new and does not work.There is no incentive to produce.
2006-09-29 05:55:00 · answer #8 · answered by Tommy G. 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
SOCIALISM / FRANCE---------------> NOT
2006-09-29 05:58:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋