socialism will hurt the U.S. economy

First I'll address my opponent's points, and then I'll raise a few of my own. But first, "Socialism is a socioeconomic philosophy which has failed everywhere it has been tried." Socialism, under my definition of social democracy, has been very successful in most places where it has been tried. Some of the largest economies in the world are in Western Europe and Scandinavia, and almost all of these countries have features of social democracy. Most "high income" countries, including the United States, have mixed market economies and some form of welfare state. Mixed market countries which are more socially democratic than the United States tend to have greater social mobility and overall happiness. http://www.forbes.com... You will find, when clicking on the above link, that every country that outranks the U.S.has, at the very least, universal healthcare. Even once Obamacare is completely implemented, healthcare will not be universal. Furthermore, Sweden, Germany and Canada all recovered from the recession faster than we did, and all of these countries are more socialist than the U.S., because they all have Universal Healthcare. Second, "Socialism is bad for America because it relies on large,intrusive and controlling governemtn and diminishes the role and value of individual citizens." It can rely on a larger government, but it doesn't have to rely on a larger government. The whole idea of having the "proletariat own the means of production" has been completely misconstrued by the Soviet Union. This doesn't mean government control over the means of production, it means that workers directly control and own the factories they work in.http://www.youtube.com... Third, "of course there are many poor people out there that are hard working, but there are also many who dont care to work and live off." Well actually, the working poor have the most physically demanding jobs. These are people who would be helped by a socialist system. Some poor people are lazy, some poor people are single mothers trying to raise young children (this has often been the case with welfare recipients) but most work as maids, janitors, factory workers, farm laborers etc. These people work the hardest and are paid the least. Now some rich people work hard, but many inherited their wealth, and many get a great deal of their money from investments. Capital gains are not earned with hard work. Speculation can help the economy, but overspeculation has often put the economy at risk. Our recent recession was caused by overspeculation. The issue is, Capitalism takes money from hard working people and puts it into the pockets of a small investor class. Socialism does the opposite. Fourth, the reason why socialist countries tend to have larger public sectors is that larger public sectors reduce unemployment. One policy proposal which mixed market social democracies might adopt is the idea of an ELR, or Employer of Last Resort. The idea is that all people who are involuntarily unemployed due to the lack of available jobs in the private sector would be given a job by the government. Snap crackle pop, there'd be little if any poverty and unemployment. The size of the government would fluctuate with the business cycle; government spending would always be at the right level to stimulate the economy and quickly end economic downturns, and it will also always decrease when the private sector begins to hire more people. All recipients will receive certain benefits, including job training, sick leave and healthcare. Not only is this a good anti-poverty measure, but it would also be countercyclical and it would prevent inflation. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... So in short, Social Democracies have worked, and currently work throughout the world. Socialism does not have to mean state control - it can be direct control used by working people. And finally, on the issue of work, socialism can provide jobs to everyone who doesn't have one, and ensure that everyone who has a job gets certain benefits for the hard work they do. Capitalism, on the other hand, helps investors get rich while median income flatline, and while productivity skyrocket. Unfettered Capitalism can never provide full employment, and Socialism can. In other words, Capitalism hurts hard working people, and Socialism helps them. For all of these reasons I urge you to negate.