Socialism? Who Needs It?

      The fight over government social programs is one which everyone has their opinion on. The arguments this fight starts in Congress, the media, and political conversations. Republicans-generally-believe that social programs, such as welfare, social security, and public health care, are unnecessary and economically damaging. Democrats, on the other hand, feel that such programs, although costly, are necessary and beneficial to society. As usual, I feel that both are wrong, and right, at the same time.
      The fact is, that such social programs do drain the economy. Tax money taken out of circulation for any government use spends weeks or months in the federal and state systems before it is finally put back out into the economy. This wasted time is regrettable; but it is immature and idealistic to pretend that we can end all taxes. However, it is a viable and noble cause to try and reduce taxes to as little a burden as possible. This not only helps the upper class, but anyone living in the nation, as that money improves the entire economy.
      At the same time, though, many people in this country live in terrible conditions of poverty: decades-old, decrepit housing, violence- and drug-infested neighborhoods, little hope of escaping, these conditions are unacceptable for human beings to live in. To decide that such is the fate of those "unable to compete" in our society. It is not so much that they cannot compete as that they never get the necessary resources to do so.
      So our dilemma: we need to help those in poverty, but we cannot afford to do so effectively. But I believe there is an answer: corporations. Yes, corporations, that most "oppressive and imperialist" of capitalist concepts. My answer: we "hire" corporations to provide these services to us. "What? Hire "the Man"? Never!" You say. But first, at least consider this proposition. First, it would allow us to lower our costs, as we would have market competition to lower costs. This would alleviate, or, at least lessen, economic concerns. Second, it would allow us to-constitutionally, legally, and fairly-regulate industries, such as the ever-unpopular Health Care industry. We could make stipulations for the companies competing for the government's money: the companies must open their files to government inspectors, they must offer a government-approved plan to all of their customers, etc. Any other reasonable stipulations could be added. We cannot demand such from companies normally, as they have the right to run their businesses however they choose. But if they choose to compete for this government grand, and they would not have to in order to compete for other customers, they would have to submit to all stipulations imposed. Thus such a plan, then, would allow not only allow us to provide cost effective and sufficient health care, but also impose wanted demands--again--legally-on businesses.
      In the case of welfare, government should offer grants and tax breaks to encourage businesses to invest in poorer regions. If we can improve the entire economy of an area, those in it will benefit far much more than they would with 250 dollars a month. For social security, a mutual plan of millions of people, managed by a number of companies, would allow the money invested to actually accumulate value, rather than lose it as it depreciates over time.
      Many might argue that such propositions are dangerous, that they put to much power in the hands of corporations. But it must be remembered that we, the consumers, control corporations. If we chose to (we have not yet, unfortunately) we could organize not only into labor unions but also purchasing unions, to decide what we want from those we buy from and work for. Such is the true beauty of capitalism. Don't try and control the system; use the system.