Will the U.S. ever become a social-democratic country?

[ElectionsGuy]

Social Democracy isn't socialism. At least not of the type you're describing. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are social democratic countries, but you can't call them socialist in the manner you're describing. They're capitalist; in fact, I've read an article that state that Norway was better for start-up businesses than the US. And the way that the Scandinavian countries operate isn't incompatible with American life.

No its not, but its pretty darn close. The only reason I even mentioned socialism was because the author mentioned socialism as well as social democracies. I never intended to call them "socialistic". I kind of lumped the two together and that was unfair of me. And I said that socialism and social democracies go against founding principles, not our way of life.

Those countries you mentioned are livable, but they are, like all social democracies, high debt, many social programs (welfare state), high taxes, and big government. Those are all things our founders tried to avoid happening, and it was certainly not what our country was based upon. Anyway, I obviously have a strong opinion against socialism/social democracies, but its because I think its one of the most dangerous things that could happen. In fact, we may be going down that road as we speak.

[Gass3268]

Social Democracy isn't socialism. At least not of the type you're describing. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are social democratic countries, but you can't call them socialist in the manner you're describing. They're capitalist; in fact, I've read an article that state that Norway was better for start-up businesses than the US. And the way that the Scandinavian countries operate isn't incompatible with American life.

No its not, but its pretty darn close. The only reason I even mentioned socialism was because the author mentioned socialism as well as social democracies. I never intended to call them "socialistic". I kind of lumped the two together and that was unfair of me. And I said that socialism and social democracies go against founding principles, not our way of life.

Those countries you mentioned are livable, but they are, like all social democracies, high debt, many social programs (welfare state), high debt, and big government. Those are all things our founders tried to avoid happening, and it was certainly not what our country was based upon. Anyway, I obviously have a strong opinion against socialism/social democracies, but its because I think its one of the most dangerous things that could happen. In fact, we may be going down that road as we speak.

That is a flat out lie

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Social Democracy isn't socialism. At least not of the type you're describing. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are social democratic countries, but you can't call them socialist in the manner you're describing. They're capitalist; in fact, I've read an article that state that Norway was better for start-up businesses than the US. And the way that the Scandinavian countries operate isn't incompatible with American life.

No its not, but its pretty darn close. The only reason I even mentioned socialism was because the author mentioned socialism as well as social democracies. I never intended to call them "socialistic". I kind of lumped the two together and that was unfair of me. And I said that socialism and social democracies go against founding principles, not our way of life.

Those countries you mentioned are livable, but they are, like all social democracies, high debt, many social programs (welfare state), high debt, and big government. Those are all things our founders tried to avoid happening, and it was certainly not what our country was based upon. Anyway, I obviously have a strong opinion against socialism/social democracies, but its because I think its one of the most dangerous things that could happen. In fact, we may be going down that road as we speak.

That is a flat out lie

It is and it isn't. It was designed to block any form of dictatorship, which could entail a monarchy, or a socialist, fascist, or corporatist dictatorship. It was also designed to allow for the United States to try certain things out (see Prohibition) over time.

[Lurker]

lol teenage internet libertarians

To be fair, adult 'libertarians' are equally ignorant about social democracy.

[barfbag]

Income inequality and poverty is on the rise in America with no signs of stopping. Do you think (with the rise in Millennial and minority votes) that the U.S. will ever become a socialist or social-democratic country similar to Germany, France, or even Canada?

This of course means universal healthcare, higher education, and more social spending by the government. Since we're still quite a young country, it seems likely that we could end up on that path in the next few decades.

If that happens, then I'll be moving to the former state of Texas.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Social Democracy isn't socialism. At least not of the type you're describing. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are social democratic countries, but you can't call them socialist in the manner you're describing. They're capitalist; in fact, I've read an article that state that Norway was better for start-up businesses than the US. And the way that the Scandinavian countries operate isn't incompatible with American life.

No its not, but its pretty darn close. The only reason I even mentioned socialism was because the author mentioned socialism as well as social democracies. I never intended to call them "socialistic". I kind of lumped the two together and that was unfair of me. And I said that socialism and social democracies go against founding principles, not our way of life.

Those countries you mentioned are livable, but they are, like all social democracies, high debt, many social programs (welfare state), high debt, and big government. Those are all things our founders tried to avoid happening, and it was certainly not what our country was based upon. Anyway, I obviously have a strong opinion against socialism/social democracies, but its because I think its one of the most dangerous things that could happen. In fact, we may be going down that road as we speak.

That is a flat out lie

Actually, America's homegrown colonial aristocracy...oh, I'm sorry, the "Founding Fathers" were terrified of democracy because they knew that the common folk would act against the power elite's interests.

[barfbag]

Social Democracy isn't socialism. At least not of the type you're describing. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are social democratic countries, but you can't call them socialist in the manner you're describing. They're capitalist; in fact, I've read an article that state that Norway was better for start-up businesses than the US. And the way that the Scandinavian countries operate isn't incompatible with American life.

No its not, but its pretty darn close. The only reason I even mentioned socialism was because the author mentioned socialism as well as social democracies. I never intended to call them "socialistic". I kind of lumped the two together and that was unfair of me. And I said that socialism and social democracies go against founding principles, not our way of life.

Those countries you mentioned are livable, but they are, like all social democracies, high debt, many social programs (welfare state), high debt, and big government. Those are all things our founders tried to avoid happening, and it was certainly not what our country was based upon. Anyway, I obviously have a strong opinion against socialism/social democracies, but its because I think its one of the most dangerous things that could happen. In fact, we may be going down that road as we speak.

That is a flat out lie

It is one of the most dangerous things that could happen. It's killed more people throughout the history of our world than Nazism and terrorism. Also, our founding fathers did try to avoid debt.

[Cobbler]

Social Democracy isn't socialism. At least not of the type you're describing. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are social democratic countries, but you can't call them socialist in the manner you're describing. They're capitalist; in fact, I've read an article that state that Norway was better for start-up businesses than the US. And the way that the Scandinavian countries operate isn't incompatible with American life.

No its not, but its pretty darn close. The only reason I even mentioned socialism was because the author mentioned socialism as well as social democracies. I never intended to call them "socialistic". I kind of lumped the two together and that was unfair of me. And I said that socialism and social democracies go against founding principles, not our way of life.

Those countries you mentioned are livable, but they are, like all social democracies, high debt, many social programs (welfare state), high debt, and big government. Those are all things our founders tried to avoid happening, and it was certainly not what our country was based upon. Anyway, I obviously have a strong opinion against socialism/social democracies, but its because I think its one of the most dangerous things that could happen. In fact, we may be going down that road as we speak.

The Nordic countries (minus Iceland) have a much lower debt-to-GDP ratio than the US does. The idea that the social democracies inherently have a higher debt is false (they have higher taxes to pay for their programs, obviously, but the point remains).

[Kitteh]

Social Democracy isn't socialism. At least not of the type you're describing. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are social democratic countries, but you can't call them socialist in the manner you're describing. They're capitalist; in fact, I've read an article that state that Norway was better for start-up businesses than the US. And the way that the Scandinavian countries operate isn't incompatible with American life.

No its not, but its pretty darn close. The only reason I even mentioned socialism was because the author mentioned socialism as well as social democracies. I never intended to call them "socialistic". I kind of lumped the two together and that was unfair of me. And I said that socialism and social democracies go against founding principles, not our way of life.

Those countries you mentioned are livable, but they are, like all social democracies, high debt, many social programs (welfare state), high debt, and big government. Those are all things our founders tried to avoid happening, and it was certainly not what our country was based upon. Anyway, I obviously have a strong opinion against socialism/social democracies, but its because I think its one of the most dangerous things that could happen. In fact, we may be going down that road as we speak.

That is a flat out lie

It is and it isn't. It was designed to block any form of dictatorship, which could entail a monarchy, or a socialist, fascist, or corporatist dictatorship. It was also designed to allow for the United States to try certain things out (see Prohibition) over time.

Social Democracy

Social Democracy isn't socialism. At least not of the type you're describing. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are social democratic countries, but you can't call them socialist in the manner you're describing. They're capitalist; in fact, I've read an article that state that Norway was better for start-up businesses than the US. And the way that the Scandinavian countries operate isn't incompatible with American life.

No its not, but its pretty darn close. The only reason I even mentioned socialism was because the author mentioned socialism as well as social democracies. I never intended to call them "socialistic". I kind of lumped the two together and that was unfair of me. And I said that socialism and social democracies go against founding principles, not our way of life.

Those countries you mentioned are livable, but they are, like all social democracies, high debt, many social programs (welfare state), high taxes, and big government. Those are all things our founders tried to avoid happening, and it was certainly not what our country was based upon. Anyway, I obviously have a strong opinion against socialism/social democracies, but its because I think its one of the most dangerous things that could happen. In fact, we may be going down that road as we speak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

[H. Ross Peron]

I don't see the United States becoming a full-on social democracy like Scandinavia but a transition to a social market economy with many social democratic elements like in Germany is quite possible as Millennials rise to political prominence.

[tallguy23]

I don't see the United States becoming a full-on social democracy like Scandinavia but a transition to a social market economy with many social democratic elements like in Germany is quite possible as Millennials rise to political prominence.

I also see this possibly happening. The Millenial generation may be libertarian on social/civil rights issues (gay marriage, weed, wiretapping) but economically they are much more liberal. I could see our health care system becoming similar to Switzerland (basically a more liberal Obamacare), and higher education being paid for by the government in the the next 30 years.

[barfbag]

I don't see the United States becoming a full-on social democracy like Scandinavia but a transition to a social market economy with many social democratic elements like in Germany is quite possible as Millennials rise to political prominence.

I also see this possibly happening. The Millenial generation may be libertarian on social/civil rights issues (gay marriage, weed, wiretapping) but economically they are much more liberal. I could see our health care system becoming similar to Switzerland (basically a more liberal Obamacare), and higher education being paid for by the government in the the next 30 years.

Our second amendment prevents this from happening.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't see the United States becoming a full-on social democracy like Scandinavia but a transition to a social market economy with many social democratic elements like in Germany is quite possible as Millennials rise to political prominence.

I also see this possibly happening. The Millenial generation may be libertarian on social/civil rights issues (gay marriage, weed, wiretapping) but economically they are much more liberal. I could see our health care system becoming similar to Switzerland (basically a more liberal Obamacare), and higher education being paid for by the government in the the next 30 years.

Our second amendment prevents this from happening.

How?  Are you envisaging armed gangs of thugs preventing elected representatives from enacting those policies?

[barfbag]

I don't see the United States becoming a full-on social democracy like Scandinavia but a transition to a social market economy with many social democratic elements like in Germany is quite possible as Millennials rise to political prominence.

I also see this possibly happening. The Millenial generation may be libertarian on social/civil rights issues (gay marriage, weed, wiretapping) but economically they are much more liberal. I could see our health care system becoming similar to Switzerland (basically a more liberal Obamacare), and higher education being paid for by the government in the the next 30 years.

Our second amendment prevents this from happening.

How?  Are you envisaging armed gangs of thugs preventing elected representatives from enacting those policies?

I hold the same views on the matter as the founding fathers would. Is revolution bad when there are free elections in place? That's the bigger question. My other thought is that when two people no longer get along, they shouldn't be forced to stay married. The same should go for the states who would never want to be part of such a thing such as Utah and Oklahoma. I'd be living in the former state of Texas anyways.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Is revolution bad when there are free elections in place? That's the bigger question.

If these are the sorts of hypothetical policies about which you're so concerned then that question doesn't even get a chance come into play. The idea that things as innocuous as a Swiss-style healthcare system and free public higher education come anywhere within even the remote gravitational pull of anything that would justify large-scale violence, or attempting to start little tinpot breakaway countries expressly to deny them to people, is downright evil.

[Cobbler]

I don't see the United States becoming a full-on social democracy like Scandinavia but a transition to a social market economy with many social democratic elements like in Germany is quite possible as Millennials rise to political prominence.

I also see this possibly happening. The Millenial generation may be libertarian on social/civil rights issues (gay marriage, weed, wiretapping) but economically they are much more liberal. I could see our health care system becoming similar to Switzerland (basically a more liberal Obamacare), and higher education being paid for by the government in the the next 30 years.

Our second amendment prevents this from happening.

How?  Are you envisaging armed gangs of thugs preventing elected representatives from enacting those policies?

I hold the same views on the matter as the founding fathers would. Is revolution bad when there are free elections in place? That's the bigger question. My other thought is that when two people no longer get along, they shouldn't be forced to stay married. The same should go for the states who would never want to be part of such a thing such as Utah and Oklahoma. I'd be living in the former state of Texas anyways.

A Swiss-style healthcare system and free higher education justify armed rebellion to you? You might not agree with those things, but to say that people would be rising up and willing to kill over them strikes me as an enormous overreaction.

[ingemann]

To hear Americans in general and Libertarians/Republicans specifict talking about Socialism or Social Democratism are like hearing a 5 year old talk about sex, both toe curling embarrassing and hilarious at the same time.

[ElectionsGuy]

Social Democracy

It is a democracy, but at the same time, it is a mild version of socialism. So, pretty much still a democracy, but going down the road of socialism and governmental control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

This is why I said I feared we are going down this road in the post a few responses up. America especially seems to have a unique fiscal irresponsibility that has plagued our government (recently). Its really sad that most of our debt (12/17!) came from Bush and Obama.

[Cobbler]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is why I said I feared we are going down this road in the post a few responses up. America especially seems to have a unique fiscal irresponsibility that has plagued our government (recently). Its really sad that most of our debt (12/17!) came from Bush and Obama.
[/quote]

The point was that your comment about social democracies being characterized by high debt is incorrect. It would seem that they are better at handling debt than we are.

I don't necessarily think the US should become a social democracy, but we should still be realistic when talking about the systems. The social democratic countries are democracies, not socialist totalitarian states (or even a mild version of them) like you seem to say.

[ElectionsGuy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

This is why I said I feared we are going down this road in the post a few responses up. America especially seems to have a unique fiscal irresponsibility that has plagued our government (recently). Its really sad that most of our debt (12/17!) came from Bush and Obama.

The point was that your comment about social democracies being characterized by high debt is incorrect. It would seem that they are better at handling debt than we are.

I don't necessarily think the US should become a social democracy, but we should still be realistic when talking about the systems. The social democratic countries are democracies, not socialist totalitarian states (or even a mild version of them) like you seem to say.
[/quote]

That is absolutely true, however, if we governed like we were supposed to, we wouldn't be in so much debt. With social democracies, you're going to naturally have high debt to the welfare state, programs, and such. It is absolutely America's (and specifically politicians over the years) problem that we have a huge debt problem that isn't going away (that's another conversation).

A lot of socialist countries or social democracies don't have these totalitarian states as your describing. I never meant to imply that. As I said before, social democrats and socialists are very similar in principle, therefore social democracies and socialistic countries are similar, correct? That's the main reason why I said they were a "mild" version of them. Please, you are probably more educated than I am, if I'm wrong about something here, please tell me.

In the quote above, when I said governmental control, what I really meant to imply was a bigger more powerful government, not complete totalitarian control (my fault, I misspoke).

[barfbag]

I don't see the United States becoming a full-on social democracy like Scandinavia but a transition to a social market economy with many social democratic elements like in Germany is quite possible as Millennials rise to political prominence.

I also see this possibly happening. The Millenial generation may be libertarian on social/civil rights issues (gay marriage, weed, wiretapping) but economically they are much more liberal. I could see our health care system becoming similar to Switzerland (basically a more liberal Obamacare), and higher education being paid for by the government in the the next 30 years.

Our second amendment prevents this from happening.

How?  Are you envisaging armed gangs of thugs preventing elected representatives from enacting those policies?

I hold the same views on the matter as the founding fathers would. Is revolution bad when there are free elections in place? That's the bigger question. My other thought is that when two people no longer get along, they shouldn't be forced to stay married. The same should go for the states who would never want to be part of such a thing such as Utah and Oklahoma. I'd be living in the former state of Texas anyways.

A Swiss-style healthcare system and free higher education justify armed rebellion to you? You might not agree with those things, but to say that people would be rising up and willing to kill over them strikes me as an enormous overreaction.

No it's not at all what I said. However, they're great ways to start a slippery-slope into being socialists. Then the next step is us becoming communist Russia and we saw how that went.

[Zioneer]

I don't see the United States becoming a full-on social democracy like Scandinavia but a transition to a social market economy with many social democratic elements like in Germany is quite possible as Millennials rise to political prominence.

I also see this possibly happening. The Millenial generation may be libertarian on social/civil rights issues (gay marriage, weed, wiretapping) but economically they are much more liberal. I could see our health care system becoming similar to Switzerland (basically a more liberal Obamacare), and higher education being paid for by the government in the the next 30 years.

Our second amendment prevents this from happening.

How?  Are you envisaging armed gangs of thugs preventing elected representatives from enacting those policies?

I hold the same views on the matter as the founding fathers would. Is revolution bad when there are free elections in place? That's the bigger question. My other thought is that when two people no longer get along, they shouldn't be forced to stay married. The same should go for the states who would never want to be part of such a thing such as Utah and Oklahoma. I'd be living in the former state of Texas anyways.

A Swiss-style healthcare system and free higher education justify armed rebellion to you? You might not agree with those things, but to say that people would be rising up and willing to kill over them strikes me as an enormous overreaction.

No it's not at all what I said. However, they're great ways to start a slippery-slope into being socialists. Then the next step is us becoming communist Russia and we saw how that went.

That's not how it works at all.

[Redalgo]

I do not know, in response to the OP, but I doubt it is likely to occur.

Solidarism - a sort of left liberalism exhibiting individualist values and corporatism - seems a bit more likely to me than social democracy here. Though I reckon social democracy would be very agreeable to at least a third of the population right now, and in practice nearly exists in some American states, it is not an ideology wholly compatible with the fabric of U.S. political culture - a culture that is overwhelmingly dominated by variations on liberal thought. In that respect I am inclined to agree with the resident libertarians.

Where I disagree with them, however, is with their claim of social democracy and socialism being completely incompatible with constitutional republicanism or other "founding values." Such leftist ideologies could be imbued with American characteristics so as to effectively set them apart from their counterparts in other parts of the world. But anyway, for the foreseeable future I anticipate social liberalism will remain the dominant ideology of the U.S.

[Kitteh]

That is absolutely true, however, if we governed like we were supposed to, we wouldn't be in so much debt. With social democracies, you're going to naturally have high debt to the welfare state, programs, and such. It is absolutely America's (and specifically politicians over the years) problem that we have a huge debt problem that isn't going away (that's another conversation).

I generally hate getting into arguments about debt because a)I have mixed feelings about the existence of the state in general and b)I'm not convinced that if we must have a state at all that state debt is an issue in itself, but this is really ridiculous. High state spending doesn't create debt. State spending that is higher than state revenue creates debt. You can argue that high spending necessitates either high taxes or high debt and that's bad, which is a legitimate (though not correct imo, but logical) argument, but saying that high spending necessarily leads to high debt is a non-sequitur.

[Person Man]

That is absolutely true, however, if we governed like we were supposed to, we wouldn't be in so much debt. With social democracies, you're going to naturally have high debt to the welfare state, programs, and such. It is absolutely America's (and specifically politicians over the years) problem that we have a huge debt problem that isn't going away (that's another conversation).

I generally hate getting into arguments about debt because a)I have mixed feelings about the existence of the state in general and b)I'm not convinced that if we must have a state at all that state debt is an issue in itself, but this is really ridiculous. High state spending doesn't create debt. State spending that is higher than state revenue creates debt. You can argue that high spending necessitates either high taxes or high debt and that's bad, which is a legitimate (though not correct imo, but logical) argument, but saying that high spending necessarily leads to high debt is a non-sequitur.

This. Saying that "we are going to be owned by China if we spend ____ on ____" is one of the worst political strawmen ever. The Government of the United States isn't a small business or a modest household of 4 people trying to live off of $50,000 a year. The United States can print its own money and the only things that a modern economy is built is goods and services. I am pretty sure that if having high tariffs being places on American goods and services being an issue, we wouldn't need to have taxes at all.

The only thing that matters is supply and demand. Right now, supply is too high and demand is too low. That is a direct consequence of 30 years of trying to keep inflation low. Conservatarians always try to take swipes about inflation in friendly conversations but with demand being the way it is, we will always have 1 or 1.5% inflation even if we print twice as much money to buy down public bonds.

The next 10 years will be like the last 5.