I consider a socialized government program to be one that provides something to someone that they are incapable of obtaining on their own or chose to utilize the government for despite their capability; and is a program that the recipients of did not contribute to. So food stamps is a good example, you can receive this benefit from the government without the requirement of contribution.

The roads are not for many people, if you pay taxes then you are paying for driving on those roads. Radio is not because the government is not paying to run the radio station and they charge a fee for governing the use of radio frequencies. In all reality the FCC should be turning a solid profit, if it was governed by a private company they definitely would be.

The utilities are not a socialized program, most utilities are corporations, yes they are governed and limited and pay licensing fees to government agencies, but the government is not responsible for providing you power from a nuclear power plant. No the government is paid to regulate the use of nuclear power so that it is ideally operated in a safe and consistent manner across the country.

Now what is left off this list that really should be added is that the continuance of our freedom in the US and our presence as a global force around the world, is paid for and run by the government, and every single person on US soil is a beneficiary of that government program. That said the military is not a socialized program either, because while it protects our freedoms it also protects the power of the government, in truth the military does not protect our freedom what it protects is the governing body that provides a structure in which we have those freedoms.

What am I saying? We should be careful as to what we call a socialized government program because much of what the government does is paid for by its citizens whom receive a benefit from taking part in paying for it, it is not handed to them, they pay for it.

Socialized programs must exist, they should not require the government to exist but people are selfish. How many of your neighbors would donate 10$ a month so that a family could receive free groceries? Not enough! So the government steps in where we as humans fail to do our part.

My argument sits on this, if you dont want to see more and more socialized government programs; do your part take an active role in helping others, go serve someone, go tutor a child, go pickup trash off the street, fix a meal for a homeless guy, take a family in need groceries, help a single parent home with the cost of health insurance, serve those around you. If even 20% of Americans did this there would be no need for government social programs.

And for those of you wondering, yes I am serving my community on a consistent basis, are you?

those tax credits are social programs because they are an effort to adjust the share you pay based on your income. in other words based on your needs. it’s a social program for people of a certain income.

highways are there for everyone to drive on and there are no needs base for them, everyone drives on them equally. there are no needs base for them. every qualified driver can use our roads, not every tax payer gets to claim every tax credit.

you proved the point because you can’t see that you are enjoying special tax benefits that not everyone enjoys, you have to meet certain requirments.. a social safety net!

Too bad even when it is pointed out to people, they continue to argue with it, instead of learning something new.

And it’s too bad that when others express their opinion, other folks are missing a chance to learn something new — namely that reasonable people can have a different perspective on things. Instead, they entrench and continue to believe that there is only one reasonable way to look at things.

“I’m not on a social program, so screw the poor” is a terrible attitude to take. And this is no less true if the first part of the statement is accurate.

I think part of the problem is that most people who hear the question mentally convert it to a “government social justice program”, which I would include food stamps, extending unemployment, subsidized housing. Certainly things that just reduce your effective tax rate like EITC (which is just a FICA refund for low wage earners, I mean how is this different from saying the first 15K isn’t subject to employee FICA on a sliding scale, that you fill out another form?) aren’t anything but an indication of our overly complicated tax codes.

If you mean a government program that has social benefits, well of course everyone has used it, most of us went to public schools at some point. Or used public roads. But really if this counts, I think the question strikes me as meaningless.

I’m surprised the “child deduction” on your 1040 isn’t on that list. If a house deduction counts, surely that does. Have a child, take the deduction, used a social program. My thought is this question would show the emptiness of the author’s point.

I think people are getting their buttons pushed since they do indeed get differing treatment based on social considerations but don’t consider themselves on the dole. I think it would be fairer to consider what people’s net balance is versus the government (Do I pay more in taxes or get more in benefits). Hard to calculate, but probably more what people are thinking. Especially regarding cash benefits or “unearned” benefits. (Note that each person will often redefine unearned to exclude their benefits.)

The fact that people use language differently and with imprecision shouldn’t be news. But the fact that we all care so much, well that’s more interesting.

We have a progressive tax rate that determines the base amount owed by each citizen according to income.

So, if they lower the base rate, that’s not a social program, but if they allow a deduction, it is?

As another poster pointed out, you can define social programs to include both money spent on people and money not collected in taxes, but then the whole conversation is silly: everything is a social program, and we all live only through the largess of the government.

granted, that’s a distillation, but the drift was the same.

So I have a great idea for those that despise government handouts: once you reach the retirement age, you get all your money back. Every penny you put in, you get. With a fair intrest added, AND adjusted for inflation. All those SS dollars the mean old gummint stole from you over the years is finally yours! The catch: once your contribution is returned, that’s it.

No more for you. And of course Medicare should be run the same way right? Over the course of 45 years of employment you contributed, say, 68K to Medicare. . .so as long as you stick to checkups and generic meds: no problem!

If you need a new hip of course. . .well…hope you’ve been saving.

So is my idea great or what? Saving money, no handouts, and everyone gets exactly what they contributed.

How simple. How fair. How…immoral.

SS and Medicare are unfunded State welfare socialism that (along with our bloated Defence) is the bar none biggest threat to our nations fiscal survival.

So…do we let sick old people starve and die of treatable illnesses in the richest country in the world?

We’ll see.

As a matter of budgeting, however, there is no difference between a tax break and a social program: both have to be paid for, either by raising tax rates or by adding to the deficit. Eugene Steuerle, a tax economist and political appointee in the Reagan administration, said of the distinction between tax expenditures and direct social spending, “One looks like smaller government; one looks like bigger government. In fact, they both do exactly the same thing.”

“the third-generation on the dole.” Do you have any evidence that a specific American family has been on the dole for three generations?

Absolutely. I do. Intimately.

There is a young gentleman we met though the Big Brothers program who is third-generation “dole.”

But instead of complaining about “lazy people,” we try to do something about it. We’ve open up our home to him — we have him almost every weekend — and try to get him away from his toxic mother and teach him some real skills, like how to figure out what he wants in life, and figure out how he’s going to achieve it.

But I’m afraid it may be a loosing battle. His mom is trying to get him thrown into Juvenile Hall “for a few years” for incorrigibility — he doesn’t clean his room, and he gets toothpaste all over the mirror when he brushes.

And you? Spend much time with those on long-term public assistance (excluding the public assistance of tax breaks, of course!)?

Oops, I guess we gotta rewrite the Constitution. After all, “welfare” is something only liberals care about.

Those who are anti ‘socialist care’ will change your minds when the Republicans re-take the White house and privatise anything that moves. Cell phone camera footage has shown victorious Republicans who ‘shellaced’ Obama last year being verbally abused by those who voted for them when they found out they intended to privatise Medicare/Medicaid. They basically never told the electorate that what their true intentions were, preferring to pray on the Obama-hatred. It worked!

(English spellings used!)

The government can do just as good or better job cheaper. Period. The government outsources because it is a fiscal and social policy designed to re-distribute wealth to private businesses. The private sector can do it faster because they cut corners. The private sector can’t compete price wise when a govt employee getting $30/hr vs $100 or more in the private sector. The only way this is sustained is by policy forcing the money to flow toward the expensive option. Your tax dollars would be much better spent inhouse rather than being contracted out.

Also, it’s real easy to forget when you’re 50 and worked hard everyday since you were 16 that you had the Pell Grant back in college.

Contrary to the ubiquitous propaganda of left and right there are no such things as capitalist and socialist states, market economies and planned economies. All economies are mixed economies involving a combination of mechanisms. Socialists can’t get away from capitalism and capitalists can’t escape socialism.

The real debate should be a technical one as to which combination to deploy in order to maximise human welfare. Unfortunately, this fact does not suit the purposes of competing power interest groups who prefer to pursue their aims by flying under one flag or the other.

When mankind finally wakes up to this (rather like replacing alchemy with chemistry) the world will be a happier, safer and more productive place.