Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A large portion of Americans seem to be against social programs even though it may be for the common good. When there is talk of the (on average) much better social programs in many European countries the general response is "well, they have to spend more on taxes". To which I ask.....so? If it meant far better health care, far better maternity leave, etc. isn't that worth it? Do not the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one?
You don't understand America. If you are free to do anything you want to do, then why not take care of yourselves? Our constitution only allows for money to be spent keeping us safe. Anything after that is the individuals choice and responsibility. We have many charities that take care of people in need. We should not penalize a family trying to take care of their own children by placing undue taxes on them which may cause the mother to have to leave home to work instead of taking care of her children. Our government doesn't have that right according to our constitution.
It is a matter of individual rights and responsibilities vs. freeloaders.
1) Genuine ignorance. You cannot underestimate the stupidity of the average person, American or otherwise. This includes people on Medicare and Social Security who do not know that those are federal programs.
2) Racism. "This should only go to the /right people/--"
They get to decide who the right people are.
3) Religious extremism. "Under the /right circumstances/--"
This is an American classic: claim extreme religious beliefs, scream about them being violated, claim you are being discriminated against.
4) Extreme racism. "So that none of those goddamn (black, brown, Hispanic, non-brown-but-mistaken-by-Americans-for-being-Mexican, Mexicans, legal Mexican immigrants, anyone who doesn't look like me) get it."
Many Americans would genuinely live in the acid-drenched effluvia of industrial runoff beneath waste pipes if they thought other people wouldn't even get pipes over their heads.
5) Short-sighted hatred born by inability to feel empathy. "Because only I deserve it."
America is too diverse a nation to ensure that things like welfare programs only benefit the white Christian population. Welfare for anyone else is a "hand out"; welfare for them is a "hand up".
So nobody should have it, because it might benefit a colored person.
This is the left wing straw man built to explain the right wing, not what they actually believe. (And the right does this with the left too.)
As far as individuals welfare, that is your opinion. I would add that the fed is doing more damage than good. The very idea that near 50 million are starving in this country is preposterous. It is more likely that the fed is indirectly funding the drug wars in the inner cities.
Again, obesity ≠ starvation. The poor are the most likely demographic group, by far, to be obese. Both adults and children. What are you smoking?
A large portion of Americans seem to be against social programs even though it may be for the common good. When there is talk of the (on average) much better social programs in many European countries the general response is "well, they have to spend more on taxes". To which I ask.....so? If it meant far better health care, far better maternity leave, etc. isn't that worth it? Do not the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one?
What I work my buttocks off to earn is MY money. Confiscation by various levels of government for redistribution should be illegal and added as an amendment to the Constitution.
A large portion of Americans seem to be against social programs even though it may be for the common good. When there is talk of the (on average) much better social programs in many European countries the general response is "well, they have to spend more on taxes". To which I ask.....so? If it meant far better health care, far better maternity leave, etc. isn't that worth it? Do not the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one?
I don't think most American are actually against social programs. Take a look at footage for Republican town hall meetings (God bless the few brave enough to face the people they're supposed to represent... but don't) and you'll see a furious voter base decrying the evils of those who voted YES on the AHCA.
Americans are against bad social programs. Americans may have a lower tolerance for what is bad in regards to this than Europeans, perhaps giving the illusion that they oppose social programs. And of course, a large portion of an entire generation was sufficiently convinced by the Ronald Reagan types that anything to do with the government is bad. It's an absurd notion, but those people do have a point at times. Excessive bureaucracy can bog down the system, causing well intentioned social programs, with loads of potential, to be underwhelming and have terribly cost efficiency.
But ask around; most Americans agree on this. Things like healthcare are vitally important, and quite a lot are in favor of a universal healthcare type of solution. They just want it to be truly cost effective. If they're taxes go up for an inferior system (even if it's only inferior for some, as it was for the ACA), they're gonna be pissed.
I'm convinced that some people will just never get it. They make decisions based on emotion alone and simply can't understand the rational and principled point of view.
Either that, or they create a strawman and imply that the people against government social programs only care about themselves, as if that's the only possible reason to be against them.
I've been watching Jordan Peterson's personality lectures and he talks about how people with high openness and low conscientiousness will almost always be liberals, and people who are the opposite will be conservatives - the liberals are more artistic/open to new things but unstructured - idea people, and conservatives tend to be less creative but good with structure and keeping things in order - implementation people.
Looking at it that way, it makes sense that those on the left have these grand plans of helping everyone, but people on the right see sustainability issues, as well as moral inconsistencies.
I have a lot of liberal characteristics, but I tend to side with the more logical and rational approach - high openness and high conscientiousness. I'm curious if that's common for libertarians...I would think so.
My support of UHC and other social benefit programs is not emotional.
Notice how the people in favor of government social programs always frame others as greedy, selfish, or uncaring. It's just pure emotion and sentimentality.
"I want to help ALL the puppies in the world"
"Well you can't realistically help all of them..."
"So you're saying you just want them to die??"
"I don't want them to die, but.."
"I can't believe you don't want to help! What kind of person doesn't want to help puppies??"
You have to be rational. Of course if there was no downside to giving people stuff unconditionally we'd be in favor of it, but it isn't that simple.
Not to mention the most important part - you're using the government to force it on everyone else. *Politicians know it won't be sustainable, but they make it the law that you must help all the puppies, and then they're seen as heroes...they'll be long gone by the time problems arise*
I've made plenty of rational, evidence based posts in support of social benefit programs. I know others have as well. The problem is you either ignore them or you call us socialists who want to rob you at gunpoint.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
