Full socialism is the only true answer. Don't provide the elderly a money stipend, provide them medical care, housing, and other basic needs (and probably free rides on public transit infrastructure).
Given the current competence of our government - on both sides - I don't think we can count on being Sweden.
What makes people think any Swedish model can work large scale in the US?
Or, the idea may be that smaller countries are more socially cohesive (fewer degrees of separation between people), and therefore it's politically an easier sell to ask people to contribute to the welfare of others.
Sweden (and other Nordic countries to varying extents) are not socialist. They are market economies first and foremost but offer social programs similar to our own that, at least from an outside perspective, appear for more successful in their goals.
Personal views aside (I favor personal freedom and responsibility and the consequences that come of it), the only way I feel you're ever going to achieve any of that here is by addressing human nature. Some subset of the population is only interested in gaining and exerting power over others, others want everything handed to them and don't intend to provide any contribution themselves, another subset wants only to be left alone, and so on. I don't personally see how such disparate views can be reconciled under such a system to avoid the authoritarianism that has always resulted.
[0]: https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/ [1]: https://www.quora.com/Is-Sweden-socialist
Should I also bring up the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)? (If you're going to claim "that wasn't really socialist", I will not argue, but I will point out that they at least claimed to be.)
Anyway, the point is not that one should cite Venezuela for "any social experiment". One can cite Venezuela (and Zimbabwe) for the position that having the government controlling the means of production often winds up in poverty. (Socialism is defined as "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole", per dictionary.com.) That's relevant because mjevans not only called for the government to spend a bunch of money, but called for "full socialism".
Of course we never eliminated homelessness entirely and due to lack of investment in government housing in recent decades along with skyrocketing real estate prices we have a growing homeless problem. But overall it works out well, I'd rather by poor here than in the US.
What a poignant comment, considering right this very moment, there's a socialist collapse in Venezuela being broadcast.
And is there any particular reason, aside from partisan ideology, to point at Venezuela, which is different in many important aspects from the U.S., instead of one of the very successful Western European nations?
Don't let the marketing fool you.
It just calls socialist just like North Korea calls itself a Republic.
The USA is a good example of a socialist country. Or 'democratic socialism' is a better term.
North Korea has self declared itself to be a Republic.
Don't believe the marketing friend.
The U.S. state does control the means of production in certain industries which you see with this current govt shutdown.
Aircraft, roads and highways, and many other industries.
The key tenant of some schools of socialism is for govt to control the means of production for key areas of the public interest such as police,fire fighters, roads, health care. Etc.
What bothers me is the inability of people to differentiate between full on communism and America's/Sweden's/France's measured version of socialism.
It's all lumped under the same umbrella of 'socialism is bad reeeee'.
"Social democracy is a political, social, and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and capitalist economy."
"Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production"
And the U.S. government generally does not own the means of production (there may be a few small exceptions). In all of the examples you cite (aircraft, roads, and highways), the government is buying something that is produced by a non-governmental corporation. That is not the same as owning the means of production, which would entails something more like the government owning the heavy equipment used to make roads and highways and employing the workers who operate those machines, or the government owning and operating airplane factories.
What exactly is the growing problem? That those services exist? That they cost money? That the government doesn't spend more on other things that it should, messing up the proportions?
From a socialist's perspective, I don't think the fact that those programs take up "over 62% of the budget" would even be considered a problem at all. However, a socialist would clearly see it as a problem if they're mismanaged or wasteful.
> there's a socialist collapse in Venezuela being broadcast.
To be honest, it seems like that collapse has more to do with authoritarianism and rampant corruption than socialism.
Are you seriously expecting things to become more efficient? That's very optimistic for a nation with so many key economic factors for its working citizens stagnant or declining since the early 70s. Very optimistic.
And, all else being equal, if you want to spend less, you have to neglect more problems (and people).
I think the critique of socialism is that it leads to authoritarianism and rampant corruption because it eliminates economically productive ways to provide for yourself.
There are critiques of capitalism that say the exact same thing.
Personally, I think the key variables that makes a successful economy are actually found outside of the details of its economic system (e.g. rule of law, strong yet uncorrupt institutions, democratic representation, cooperative social mores, etc).
Socialism does not necessarily mean central planning.
Resource allocation via the profit motive is a political consideration; it's not some neutral thing that's somehow above politics.
Socialism is a giant umbrella of political philosophy.
More accurate term would be 'regulated calitalism' or a subtype of socialism called 'democratic socialism'. Both of which coexist alongside of capitalism just fine.
It's always extremes with people on both sides because most people from either side don't understand what they're talking about.
Now, you say '[democratic socialism can] ... coexist alongside of capitalism just fine'. It seems much more likely that it is actually normal socialism with the names of things changed. The issue with socialism is that it vests decision making power with government (topically, the thing that is shut down in America at the moment, showing how reliable governments are).
Decision making power can really only be vested with one person. That person might be a capitalist, a politician, a bureaucrat, a worker or a customer. The only system we know reliably works is a capitalist/customer hybrid where major decisions are split between the two (capitalist gets the how, customers the what), with very mild influence from the rest (eg, safety and environmental regulation, wage negotiations with workers).
When the government starts making and enforcing allocation decisions like 'everyone must be paid this', 'everyone gets a house' or 'everyone should get medical attention', it doesn't matter what you call it - wealth will be destroyed. If the wealth destruction exceeds the ability of the economy to create wealth, there will be mass suffering. It doesn't matter what it is called.
Nothing you said is a fact. Everything you said is 100% opinion.
Everyone's entitled to their opinions.
Nothing much for housing besides the general housing assistance schemes.