I'm tempted to copy what you wrote as a response without the "That's ridiculous" part. It isn't ridiculous, it is just a factual description of reality. The reason the US can afford the strong social programs is because of its heavy commitment to capitalism. If a country is poor and weak then it can't afford to endure the pain that a strong social program causes. Poor countries just can't sustain populations of people who consume resources and don't create anything especially valuable. If you scale up the social programs too far at some point the wealth destruction becomes intolerable; there's some optimal amount of damage that can be accepted and "lean in to socialism" isn't the best strategy to find that balance because by the time the pain becomes intolerable it has already happened.

> The reason the US can afford the strong social programs is because of its heavy commitment to capitalism.

The US does not have strong social programs. It's an example of the opposite. Look at Canada and Europe for examples of strong social programs.

Some social programs are wildly overpowered, others are shells of their intention.

It’s a wide spectrum, very distributed.

Despite wanting to, you really cannot form an opinion on US social programs as a whole without misinforming someone gravely.