Social Democracy

The pro speaker has not posted about certain debate rule format so I will make my own to not cause an unfair advantage. This first round will just be my opening argument and I will not attack or refute any of the pro speakers points until the next round. The pro speaker seems to be very well organized and probably better than myself. I still hope to be a challenge for him. Now this debate is about social democracy. I am fine with the way my opponent has defined it but if I my add to it. The word socialism is used a lot lately without a strong understanding of what it is. Socialism is defined by Google as a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. I would like to state that there is no socialist government as socialism implies that there is no government; the economy and policy is decided by everyone. So when we speak about social democracy, we say that we want to come close to this in democratic means. But the issue stands as there is no real social democracies that have achieve true socialism. With that said, I would argue that socialism is simply not achievable foe the United States because of our overall temperament and the size of our country. As a country, we but the idea of "I" higher than the nation or "us". This has been with us since out inception and it will be difficult if not impossible to get rid off. Without the support of the masses, socialism cannot be done democratically. Also, America is a special place and it is difficult to compare it to other countries. We have over 300 million people living here with all different ideologies, race, ethnicity, and origins. My mother immigrated from Peru which is much more socialist than America. I go back every year and see mass poverty and a corrupt government. The problem is that socialism is defined as no government but can only really be achieve by violent revolution or big government; and we have seen time and time again that when the government becomes unchecked, it grows corrupt with power. I would also argue that socialism does not work in the way we intend. The economy is complex and when we try to change it to our whim, we end up making the problem worse. We can see this best in the stag-flation crisis in the 1970's. The economy slowed to a halt and the Federal reserve responded is lowering interest rates and flooding the economy with money and welfare programs to kick the economy back up. The result was rapid inflation and a scare that the economy was about to crash. People would not spend their money and banks would not give out loans in fear of a collapse that would make the money worthless. The fix? A new chairman of the Federal reserve. He raised interest rates and cut spending which caused a small rescission... but inflation also stopped. In time the economy recovered as it always does. This whole event could have been avoided if the government stayed out of the economy. There are countless examples of government intervention causing inadvertent problems later. We are successful as a nation and will continue to grow and be the best. We as a nation would never allow a social democracy to develop and even if it does, it would be bad for everyone.