Movement Toward Socialism and National Debt in the USA.

[wellwisher]

This topic is a spin off from another topic in the "Socialist only" area, where I could not and should not respond. Reading that topic theme triggered these new ideas. Socialism is about more government control over business and the private sector. But since the USA is still highly Capitalist, the Socialists of America get to live within the plentiful bounty of the free market of Capitalism, and not in the more rationed state of Socialism. The Socialist within the US Government, living within the US Capitalist country, see the excesses and fruit of free enterprise, and wish to share this bounty of Capitalism with their base. But they need deficit spending to do so, since Socialism, by itself, would never be able to reach that bountiful economic state of Capitalism, on its own. Central planning takes away self initiative with the politics of chain of command.

Socialism, left to its own devices, would never reach this state of Capitalist bounty, since it is too centrally planned and chain of command inefficient. However, a pocket of Socialist, in a Capitalist country, can buy the bounty of Capitalism, by creating debt; cells phones and internet are able to become entitled items, but not through Socialism, but Socialism plus debt in a Capitalist country.

Socialism, via the Democrat party, is eating the surplus created by Capitalism; buy the extra Capitalist fruit, to make Socialism look better than it actually is by itself; via the national debt. This nebulous debt tricks people into thinking Socialism is creating this shared prosperity all on its own, and is therefore just as good as Capitalism; if you can ignore the debt, to complete the magic trick.

Say there was no more Government borrowing through a Constitutional Amendment. There would need to be more rationing of social resources since government, is way over extended and is too inefficient to pay for everything offered by Capitalism, with just the tax revenues. Plus the Socialist element does not wish to become more efficient, due to unions and union dues needing bodies for bonuses. You can cannot fire anyone, and get away with that, as long as you can borrow to pay for today, while kicking the can to the future as debt.

The expanding debt is exposing real Socialism away from Capitalist Illusion Socialism. The former does not typically have the same bucket of Capitalist fruit and borrowing to create an illusion. Capitalism may be needed within Government, since it is the best way to use limited resources and can get by with less, as learned through free market competition versus trickle down central planning.

In the free market, you can be low on social the totem pole; poor or middle class, but if you have a good idea or skill, you can start a small business and get your idea into the system. But if you were a low member on the totem pole, in the chain of command of Socialism, you will need to push that same idea up the system, against the resistance of company politics, such that so many ideas wither on the vine. But if the idea appears within the fertile ground of Capitalism, where all seeds can flourish, the Socialist chain of command can borrow, to buy this fruit, from the fertilizes fields, starting at the top, adding waste and inefficiency, as it trickles down, with more debt needed to compete the magic trick.

 

[wellwisher]

I like the idea of the two political parties separating the collective federal tax revenue, down party lines, so each party pays for its own ideas; Democrat Socialist ideas are paid with only Democrat tax revenue and Republican Capitalist ideas are paid with only Republican tax revenue. If you claim to be a Republican or Democrat your taxes will go to the Republican or Democrat leadership, who will then manage that for you and your kind; two separate but interwoven Representative Republics. Half the tax revenue will lean more Capitalist and the other half will lean more Socialist for two side by side experiments.

The Constitution says to provide for the common defense and to promote the general welfare. Provide and promote mean two separate things. Provide means to give resources which costs money; provide for your family. Both parties will need to kick in money for the common defense.

Promote is not the same as provide. Promote the general welfare can be done with or without tax money; nanny state or charity. This is where each party has different ideas and approaches for what they think will promote the common good; you can collectively feed each person a fish each day, or teach people how to fish. Both promote the general welfare. This is where each party has to pay for its own ideas and approaches.

If the Democrats want illegal immigration, they will get all the bills this creates and pay the whole tab. Since things are intertwined via open state boundaries, illegal immigration can impact non applicable states, who then can send the DNC part or all the bill. On the other hand, if the Republican want more police, they will need to pay for that extra, while the Democrats can cut costs and reduce the police force to pay for immigration. If one party wants to borrow they are fully responsible for the debt and interests on the debt. If the other party wants tighten the belt and save, to gain interest income, they can choose to share that windfall with their base, or use it to provide more services.

What do you think would happen in this hypothetical division of tax revenue down the line of political philosophy? I will come down to philosophy. What would the country look like? Would some people change parties? Would one party loan the other money? How would each educational system differ? Which would show itself as the high maintenance party?

 

[Twilight Hue]

This topic is a spin off from another topic in the "Socialist only" area, where I could not and should not respond. Reading that topic theme triggered these new ideas. Socialism is about more government control over business and the private sector. But since the USA is still highly Capitalist, the Socialists of America get to live within the plentiful bounty of the free market of Capitalism, and not in the more rationed state of Socialism. The Socialist within the US Government, living within the US Capitalist country, see the excesses and fruit of free enterprise, and wish to share this bounty of Capitalism with their base. But they need deficit spending to do so, since Socialism, by itself, would never be able to reach that bountiful economic state of Capitalism, on its own. Central planning takes away self initiative with the politics of chain of command.

Socialism, left to its own devices, would never reach this state of Capitalist bounty, since it is too centrally planned and chain of command inefficient. However, a pocket of Socialist, in a Capitalist country, can buy the bounty of Capitalism, by creating debt; cells phones and internet are able to become entitled items, but not through Socialism, but Socialism plus debt in a Capitalist country.

Socialism, via the Democrat party, is eating the surplus created by Capitalism; buy the extra Capitalist fruit, to make Socialism look better than it actually is by itself; via the national debt. This nebulous debt tricks people into thinking Socialism is creating this shared prosperity all on its own, and is therefore just as good as Capitalism; if you can ignore the debt, to complete the magic trick.

Say there was no more Government borrowing through a Constitutional Amendment. There would need to be more rationing of social resources since government, is way over extended and is too inefficient to pay for everything offered by Capitalism, with just the tax revenues. Plus the Socialist element does not wish to become more efficient, due to unions and union dues needing bodies for bonuses. You can cannot fire anyone, and get away with that, as long as you can borrow to pay for today, while kicking the can to the future as debt.

The expanding debt is exposing real Socialism away from Capitalist Illusion Socialism. The former does not typically have the same bucket of Capitalist fruit and borrowing to create an illusion. Capitalism may be needed within Government, since it is the best way to use limited resources and can get by with less, as learned through free market competition versus trickle down central planning.

In the free market, you can be low on social the totem pole; poor or middle class, but if you have a good idea or skill, you can start a small business and get your idea into the system. But if you were a low member on the totem pole, in the chain of command of Socialism, you will need to push that same idea up the system, against the resistance of company politics, such that so many ideas wither on the vine. But if the idea appears within the fertile ground of Capitalism, where all seeds can flourish, the Socialist chain of command can borrow, to buy this fruit, from the fertilizes fields, starting at the top, adding waste and inefficiency, as it trickles down, with more debt needed to compete the magic trick.

Unfortunately, I think the Socialist and Marxists will win here, but they're going to learn their lesson eventually.

 

[wellwisher]

Socialism, in many ways is like being able to stay a child forever, while having collective parents deal with the problems of life for you. This is why it is appealing to young people; extended childhood with new surrogate parents.

Democracy is more like growing up to become a more self sufficient adult who can take advantage of freedom. Part of growing up is having your own voice and opinions and therefore the need for free speech to express yourself in your own way. In Socialism, since you are a dependent, there are more parental rules, but that lack of voice is accepted as a tradeoff for your security.

In Democracy, since you are more independent; individual rights, you can become the king of your own castle. In this castle, you have more choices and you can make your own rules, including building a tiny socialist paradise for your own family, buffered in freedom from outside influences. This way you can help your children transcend from your family socialism, into democracy, so they too can become free.

 

[Altfish]

Socialism, in many ways is like being able to stay a child forever, while having collective parents deal with the problems of life for you. This is why it is appealing to young people; extended childhood with new surrogate parents.

Democracy is more like growing up to become a more self sufficient adult who can take advantage of freedom. Part of growing up is having your own voice and opinions and therefore the need for free speech to express yourself in your own way. In Socialism, since you are a dependent, there are more parental rules, but that lack of voice is accepted as a tradeoff for your security.

In Democracy, since you are more independent; individual rights, you can become the king of your own castle. In this castle, you have more choices and you can make your own rules, including building a tiny socialist paradise for your own family, buffered in freedom from outside influences. This way you can help your children transcend from your family socialism, into democracy, so they too can become free.

Hmm
I'm European, so socialism is not scary. In Europe socialism is NOT communism. It involves capitalism as it accepts that some things are provided by private companies.
Are roads socialist? Are schools socialist?
Socialists are not immature capitalists. Socialists have compassion and realise that not everybody can look after themselves. In times of economic decline Capitalism leads to redundancies, not enough jobs, these people need support and certainly their children do.
Democracy should not be able to be bought by the biggest companies, foreign entities (Russia anyone) and anonymous PACs.
A Democratic country is not elected like the UK or US; in the UK currently the ruling party got just over 44% of the vote; the US has been governed by parties that did not win the popular vote. That is NOT democracy.
Yes, you can build your own castle BUT it still needs someone to lay the bricks, repair the roof, grow the crops, pick those crops, not everyone can be entrepreneurs, some have to work for those tycoons.
I live (not currently, it is more like a dictatorship) in a socialist country, I am free. I could do more under the last socialist government than I can under this free market capitalist government.

 

[wellwisher]

When I was growing up in the North East USA, the Catholic Church was more in charge of the Socialist aspect of culture, but with a none legally binding role. It was done through charity and volunteers. Most of your hospitals back then were named after Saints allowing the poor access to free medical treatment. There were many church run charities; soup kitchens, for the poor, sick and needy, held together with love of each other and choice.

Priest would get extra donations from rich capitalist benefactors through fund raisers. Most people were part of the Capitalist aspect of culture, with the America dream and prosperity in reach, The Churches role help to keep smaller government, allowing private sector surplus, so people could donate time and resources; putting the teachings of Jesus to practice. The church would also encourage self reliance and pulling your weight, but with an eye to charity for those who had a set back.

It was America's Political Left's war on religion and family that made things more complicated and expensive, adding more and more people onto the needy roles in America. Divorce alone created the need for double living resources; two homes, thereby inflating home and rental prices. This added cost stress to the next generation. It also made many women and children unable to manage if you were lower middle class. The American dream was taken away from many in favor of dependency.

The nuclear family had been three generations; grandparents, parents and children, with all generations caring for each other. After the breakup, the children and elderly lost out in the shuffle, due to the escalating household costs. The Left's targeting of religion allowed them to get rid of their socialism charity competition, which was now overwhelmed.

Socialism in modern America is less about charity and the end users. It is now more about growing Government via borrowing and national debt. The system is always ripped off. It may be different in Europe, but you guys have not generated $trillions in debt and counting. I would guess European socialism was designed with more practical common sense.

Socialism is America promises the moon, but never delivers, always with huge cost overruns, with problems build in and compounding as an excuse to grow government even more. It is a top heavy tax payer rip off scam pretending to care. It is big on virtue signally but very inefficient by design. This form of socialism will even pay drunks and drug users to practice their craft. That is a typical design, to create future problems; health problems, so big Government can grow even more.

They do not teach people how to be self sufficient. Instead they want people to maintain dependency; fourth generation welfare, since dependency can be used as a tool to leverage votes. Watch when election time comes. They Left will panic their dependent base, telling them that the Republicans want to take way their entitlements. They will give more of other people money to them.

Socialism in USA is a business tool; share the pie with allied businesses for kickbacks. Maybe the name socialism should not be used for this form of Government role. However, the Left tends to commandeer language to create word confusion illusions. People in Europe, who have a better form of socialism, may think those who do not want Socialism are off base. But socialism in the USA is not what you think it is. This is why I pointed out its connection to debt. Is that how you do it? Maybe it should be called monopoly capitalist socialism, with socialism last and there just for marketing purposes.

 

[Altfish]

When I was growing up in the North East USA, the Catholic Church was more in charge of the Socialist aspect of culture, but with a none legally binding role. It was done through charity and volunteers. Most of your hospitals back then were named after Saints allowing the poor access to free medical treatment. There were many church run charities; soup kitchens, for the poor, sick and needy, held together with love of each other and choice.

Priest would get extra donations from rich capitalist benefactors through fund raisers. Most people were part of the Capitalist aspect of culture, with the America dream and prosperity in reach, The Churches role help to keep smaller government, allowing private sector surplus, so people could donate time and resources; putting the teachings of Jesus to practice. The church would also encourage self reliance and pulling your weight, but with an eye to charity for those who had a set back.

It was America's Political Left's war on religion and family that made things more complicated and expensive, adding more and more people onto the needy roles in America. Divorce alone created the need for double living resources; two homes, thereby inflating home and rental prices. This added cost stress to the next generation. It also made many women and children unable to manage if you were lower middle class. The American dream was taken away from many in favor of dependency.

The nuclear family had been three generations; grandparents, parents and children, with all generations caring for each other. After the breakup, the children and elderly lost out in the shuffle, due to the escalating household costs. The Left's targeting of religion allowed them to get rid of their socialism charity competition, which was now overwhelmed.

Socialism in modern America is less about charity and the end users. It is now more about growing Government via borrowing and national debt. The system is always ripped off. It may be different in Europe, but you guys have not generated $trillions in debt and counting. I would guess European socialism was designed with more practical common sense.

Socialism is America promises the moon, but never delivers, always with huge cost overruns, with problems build in and compounding as an excuse to grow government even more. It is a top heavy tax payer rip off scam pretending to care. It is big on virtue signally but very inefficient by design. This form of socialism will even pay drunks and drug users to practice their craft. That is a typical design, to create future problems; health problems, so big Government can grow even more.

They do not teach people how to be self sufficient. Instead they want people to maintain dependency; fourth generation welfare, since dependency can be used as a tool to leverage votes. Watch when election time comes. They Left will panic their dependent base, telling them that the Republicans want to take way their entitlements. They will give more of other people money to them.

Socialism in USA is a business tool; share the pie with allied businesses for kickbacks. Maybe the name socialism should not be used for this form of Government role. However, the Left tends to commandeer language to create word confusion illusions. People in Europe, who have a better form of socialism, may think those who do not want Socialism are off base. But socialism in the USA is not what you think it is. This is why I pointed out its connection to debt. Is that how you do it? Maybe it should be called monopoly capitalist socialism, with socialism last and there just for marketing purposes.

Is Biden a Socialist?

 

[PureX]

This topic is a spin off from another topic in the "Socialist only" area, where I could not and should not respond. Reading that topic theme triggered these new ideas. Socialism is about more government control over business and the private sector.

No, actually socialism is about sharing control among those effected, not "more" control. It's only viewed as "more" control by those who already have near complete control and do not wish to share it.

But since the USA is still highly Capitalist, the Socialists of America get to live within the plentiful bounty of the free market of Capitalism, and not in the more rationed state of Socialism.

Yes, they get to become homeless and die of curable illnesses when they no longer serve the cause of capitalist greed.

The Socialist within the US Government, living within the US Capitalist country, see the excesses and fruit of free enterprise, and wish to share this bounty of Capitalism with their base. But they need deficit spending to do so, since Socialism, by itself, would never be able to reach that bountiful economic state of Capitalism, on its own. Central planning takes away self initiative with the politics of chain of command.

It's sad that you understand so little about what socialism is, and therefor think you know so much about what's wrong with it. Socialism is the idea that the people being effected by commerce and government should have a say in how that commerce and governance is being conducted, and to what purpose. It's really as simple as that. We can argue and debate the various methods we might employ to achieve that goal, but the idea itself does not change. It simply recognizes that any enterprise that effects the well-being of a number of people should be controlled by those that it effects.

 

[Left Coast]

Who's gonna tell him?

"Similarly, government spending increased under then-President Donald Trump by about 50% from fiscal year 2019 to fiscal year 2021."

U.S. National Debt by Year

The U.S. national debt is the total of what the federal government owes creditors. The U.S. has always carried debt, but the total has expanded rapidly since 2008.

www.investopedia.com

 

[wellwisher]

Who's gonna tell him?

"Similarly, government spending increased under then-President Donald Trump by about 50% from fiscal year 2019 to fiscal year 2021."

U.S. National Debt by Year

The U.S. national debt is the total of what the federal government owes creditors. The U.S. has always carried debt, but the total has expanded rapidly since 2008.

www.investopedia.com

View attachment 85483

This graph is misleading since it is about percent increase from previous debt and not bulk amounts borrowed. For example, when Reagan took office the national debt was $750 billion and he increased that to $2.1Trillion after 8 years,. Now we are up to $33 trillion. The Reagan percent is based on $750 billion and the Biden percent based on $30 trillion. Biden and green energy alone was over a $Trillion and could have been $7 trillion. But that larger amount, which is triple the entire Reagan debt, is still a small percent of $33 trillion; smoke and mirrors.

Reagan spent money on national defense and his tax cut, which ended the ColdWar and created a robust economy. The latter was needed to jump start the inflated and anemic Carter economy. The former allowed Democracy to spread. Good investment.

George Bush's debt was connected to 911 and America being pulled into the Middle East Wars. That was a money pit.

Obama was more connected to expanding the welfare state; Obamacare. The Democrats had tampered with the Housing Market like they did with student loans. The housing market crap hit the fan under Obama. Biden got the crap from the student loan debacle created under Obama. Biden was unable to waive billions like Obama. Biden was prevented from spending like a drunk sailor to fix problems he help created with Obama by tampering with the free market for socialist ideals.

Trump had the COVID crisis to deal with, which was a money pit, especially since the Democrats shut down half the economy and put them on the national welfare tab. We became half socialists with that a drag on the economy, that we still feel. However, before that, Trump had allowed both the Democrats and the Republicans to over spend, with the welfare state growing, so he could get what he wanted on defense. Trump was hoping to work as a team for the country but the Left kept double crossing him.

A good example of the American version of socialism is public education. Public Education should be about the students since they are the reason we have the Department of Education. But it is really set up to serve the teachers unions and politicians. The US national test scores keep going down, but you cannot fire anyone or even set up healthy competition with educational funding like school choice. If this type of socialism was for the children; reason to be, it would be about maximizing student outcome and not just maintaining a failing status quo.

During COVID, the Democrats shut down school in their state, creating hardship for millions of students. It was teachers first in this bizarre world of America pseudo-socialism. I agree with the intent of socialism, but not the America rip off version of lords and thieves, first.

 

[Left Coast]

This graph is misleading since it is about percent increase from previous debt and not bulk amounts borrowed.

Bulk amount borrowed is less relevant due to inflation and GDP.

Reagan spent money on national defense and his tax cut, which ended the ColdWar and created a robust economy.

There was a recession.

Obama was more connected to expanding the welfare state; Obamacare.

Obamacare isn't "welfare." It was mostly an expansion of private insurance plans, an originally conservative idea.

The Democrats had tampered with the Housing Market like they did with student loans. The housing market crap hit the fan under Obama.

No, that was under Bush. Bush was President in 2008. Obama inherited it.

Trump had the COVID crisis to deal with, which was a money pit, especially since the Democrats shut down half the economy and put them on the national welfare tab. We became half socialists with that a drag on the economy, that we still feel. However, before that, Trump had allowed both the Democrats and the Republicans to over spend, with the welfare state growing, so he could get what he wanted on defense. Trump was hoping to work as a team for the country but the Left kept double crossing him.

LMAO! This is such absurd revisionist history I don't even know where to start. Trump never "hoped to work as a team" with Dems.

A good example of the American version of socialism is public education. Public Education should be about the students since they are the reason we have the Department of Education. But it is really set up to serve the teachers unions and politicians. The US national test scores keep going down, but you cannot fire anyone or even set up healthy competition with educational funding like school choice. If this type of socialism was for the children; reason to be, it would be about maximizing student outcome and not just maintaining a failing status quo.

Look at the countries with the best education systems. They're robust public education systems. That should tell you the problem with America's education system isn't that it's public.

 

[Left Coast]

Here's another look by dollars:

How US national debt grew to its $31.4 trillion high

The debt ceiling fight in Washington is drawing attention to the $31.4 trillion debt already accrued by the United States government

abcnews.go.com

 

[wellwisher]

The Democrats had tampered with the Housing Market like they did with student loans. The housing market crap hit the fan under Obama.

No, that was under Bush. Bush was President in 2008. Obama inherited it.

The idea of national affordable housing began in 1934. Changes would be made each decade, leading to the 2008 Housing Crisis. The Democrats, even before Bush was President, wanted this vision of affordable housing and loosened the criteria for buying a house by agreeing to have the government underwrite the loans This allowed banks and builders to sell housing to anyone, including those not normally qualified or at risk.

Before the housing bubble burst and was still inflating, I had moved to Florida. There anyone could buy a new house, with no money down and very low monthly payments; below rent, for the first three years. After that the monthly payments would balloon up to normal market rates. This is when the crap hit the fan with many three year old houses abandoned. This excess housing inventory causes home prices to fall, with those who still tried to cope, seeing their loan cost more than the worth of their depreciating house. They too defaulted and it was off to the races. Too many unqualified home owners were way over their heads and sinking. This bubble burst was not free market driven, but was due to government tampering with the free market, which is typically done by the Democrats; virtue signally; big heart small brain.

The same happened with student loans, where everyone was encouraged to go to college under Obama, with the lure of easy to get student loans. At that time, even vocational schools stopped teaching the trades, and started to encourage student to go to college; teachers union. There is still a shortage of skilled trades people but the balance is restoring. Similar to mortgage loans, student loans had no money down and no payments until graduation, and then the crap hit the fan. This was made worse by the Democrat run colleges, price gouging, due the loans being supposedly underwritten by Uncle Sam. Big Government was supposed to pay for this screw up, like the housing screw up, but the Republicans decided to stop bailing out the Democrat blunders. Government tampering with the free market gives the free market a bad name. Then the Left lies about it when their crap hits the fan. These same boneheads now mess up socialism the same way. They think a utopian dream, more money, and top heavy bonehead strategy is all you need.

 

[wellwisher]

If you look a globalism, which is being pushed by the Left, this vision requires a large donation by Capitalist countries like the USA; use another USA credit card. Socialism, which is at the roots of Globalism, is not as self sufficient, but needs to milk the capitalism cow for life support, so it does not implode right away. But eventually the seed potato is all eaten and there is nothing left for Capitalist to plant for the future. The pendulum is about to swing the other way so the rest of the seed potato can return to the spring planting fields, to build up a surplus.

Capitalism is more connected to Democracy, than Socialism is to Democracy. The nature of Democracy is being confused by the Left wing propaganda machine. The Central planning nature and control over business and life by Socialism is closer to Fascism. For example, in the free market of Capitalism, new goods and services are added all the time. What is selling is based on supply and demand=democracy. In a free market, electric cars would have been offered, along with gas and diesel cars, as part of the many offerings and choice needed for all the individual demands of democracy; something for all price points.

American Democrat Socialism offered electric cars but due to its central control nature, tried to limit options for alternate transportation and energy; tamper with the free market of Democracy, thereby taking away democracy, by choking some popular demand, leading to inflation; faster use of seed potato.

Democracy is about freedom of choice, with Capitalism offering more choices, all the way down the social ladder. It allows for the abundance at grocery stores. Socialism is more about central planning, which to coordinate an entire culture, needs to take away choices, as you go down the ladder; triage. Those at the top have more choices, but these diminish as you go down. Voting alone is not Democracy if you have no choice, and are told who to vote for, by central planning; Biden. If the masses wanted more x and less y, you do not get a vote, since Big Brother knows best.

But in Capitalism anyone can start a business and offer new goods and services, which may or may not grow, based on supply and democratic demand. You may need to market your product, to help lead democracy demand to your door. In the free market democracy you cannot force people to buy. The customer is always right is pure Democracy. Forced to buy X is more fascist and is allowed in Socialism, if the top deems it so, even for political reasons.

 

[Balthazzar]

Socialism goes like this: You get this and that, but the American dream and capitalistic pursuits are mostly non-existent. The stipulations attached to the humanitarian type efforts of the socialists involved require that you stay where they put you and acknowledge and be thankful for what you have ... they'll take care of the rest, including your progeny and their futures also.

 

[metis]

There are numerous forms of socialism, including the Nordic Model that I'm fond of. Maybe that explains at least in part why Norwegians and Swedes live an average of 8 years longer than Americans.

Nordic model - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[PureX]

Socialism goes like this: You get this and that, but the American dream and capitalistic pursuits are mostly non-existent. The stipulations attached to the humanitarian type efforts of the socialists involved require that you stay where they put you and acknowledge and be thankful for what you have ... they'll take care of the rest, including your progeny and their futures also.

You really have no idea at all what socialism is.

 

[Balthazzar]

There are numerous forms of socialism, including the Nordic Model that I'm fond of. Maybe that explains at least in part why Norwegians and Swedes live an average of 8 years longer than Americans.

Nordic model - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Free education, free health care, unionized workforce (We'll get you the wage you deserve mindset) low corruption, pension plans, and ... perceived sense of liberty...all contributing to sense of well being and security ... Happiness.

All that sounds great. It's a type of democratic socialism where the citizens feel like they are part of the processes, not to mention (I'll mention it anyway) wide acceptance of being service oriented with social duties to communities. Almost sounds too good to be true. What's their debt to asset ratio?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There are numerous forms of socialism, including the Nordic Model that I'm fond of. Maybe that explains at least in part why Norwegians and Swedes live an average of 8 years longer than Americans.

Nordic model - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Canada's model has some similarities to the Nordic Model. We cannot, of course, get there completely due to differences in our forms of government (all the Nordic Model countries are unitary nations, without states or provinces with their own governmental powers). Canada has both federal and provincial/territorial governments. But Canada is also quite high on the happiness index, and markedly less wealth concentrated in very few hands.

It's actually interesting that the US is about the wealthiest country in the world -- except that very, very few people actually have the lions share of that wealth, and far too many people are considered in relative poverty.

 

[Balthazzar]

You really have no idea at all what socialism is.

Sure, at 34 trillion in debt and all the socialist programs to consider, some already in play, the stipulations are non existent, capitalism still reigns supreme and the American dream even closer than it was when we were pulling up our boot straps and making some honest effort to gain financial security apart from government funding.