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 good read on American social programs in place at the moment=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social..._United_States
Amazes me that Republicans would like to eliminate all these social programs that are beneficial to many and employ many in the admin of said social programs.While some may mistakenly call this socialism to me these social programs in place are the signs of a successful and prosperous society.For those that think these social programs should be eliminated i'm sure they would be first in line to derive benefits from these social programs if needed.
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?
Here's the trick, have you lived in Europe? I mean actually resided there, not just spent a vacation, or an exchange term at school there? I mean actually lived there for say three or more years? The problem with the fascination of the left in the U.S. with the feel-good social programs of Europe is their deliberate, and willful ignorance to the fact that those programs simply do not work. They are fiscally unsustainable. For a recent example, see the EU wide austerity measures from 2008-2010.
The reality is that yes, people in places like the U.K. do pay significantly higher taxes, but do not receive the "far better health care" you mention as a return on their investment. The NHS is in a shambles. It has operated in the red for nearly 2 decades. The quality of care is nowhere near what we enjoy in the U.S. Wait times for all elective procedures, and care rationing are very real things. I know this, because I lived there, and had to use the NHS for medical care.
So let me ask you in return, is it worth paying a significantly higher amount in taxes, and getting a lower standard of care in return, so long as everyone has the same low level of care?
All of my friends and family have fed, clothed, and housed their families without any help.
I'm willing to help people in need. I'm not willing to help people who suck.
"I've got mine, who cares about you?"
Who are you to judge? Better to leave social decisions to a qualified social worker. A social worker has been trained to determine whether someone is deserving of help. They're not just throwing money at anyone, they're helping people who are down on their luck. The social services need reforming, it's true. No one should be on food stamps or welfare forever as a life style. There have to be limits except in cases where the person is disable or elderly and can't help themselves. This country is divided by extremes--all or nothing, a lot of people don't see that there are shades of gray in between.
I'd be more supportive of increasing social programs, but it seems like most people in the "middle class" don't even benefit from them because they "make too much". For example, the new free college in New York is only for students from parents with a combined income of 100-125k, which is a pretty low threshold for a northern state where the cost of living is more expensive. The system is set up so that poor income families can have tons of children because they will get financial support from the government, and the wealthiest families are all set. As someone who will be part of the lingering middle class in a few years when I'm done with my training, I don't even know if I'll be able to afford even just one kid. I won't get financial help, and after all the necessary expenses are paid for, there isn't much left over.
I'd be more supportive of increasing social programs, but it seems like most people in the "middle class" don't even benefit from them because they "make too much". For example, the new free college in New York is only for students from parents with a combined income of 100-125k, which is a pretty low threshold for a northern state where the cost of living is more expensive. The system is set up so that poor income families can have tons of children because they will get financial support from the government, and the wealthiest families are all set. As someone who will be part of the lingering middle class in a few years when I'm done with my training, I don't even know if I'll be able to afford even just one kid. I won't get financial help, and after all the necessary expenses are paid for, there isn't much left over.
Maybe you should move....(said sarcastically in reply to earlier comments)
Here's the trick, have you lived in Europe? I mean actually resided there, not just spent a vacation, or an exchange term at school there? I mean actually lived there for say three or more years? The problem with the fascination of the left in the U.S. with the feel-good social programs of Europe is their deliberate, and willful ignorance to the fact that those programs simply do not work. They are fiscally unsustainable. For a recent example, see the EU wide austerity measures from 2008-2010.
The reality is that yes, people in places like the U.K. do pay significantly higher taxes, but do not receive the "far better health care" you mention as a return on their investment. The NHS is in a shambles. It has operated in the red for nearly 2 decades. The quality of care is nowhere near what we enjoy in the U.S. Wait times for all elective procedures, and care rationing are very real things. I know this, because I lived there, and had to use the NHS for medical care.
So let me ask you in return, is it worth paying a significantly higher amount in taxes, and getting a lower standard of care in return, so long as everyone has the same low level of care?
The UK ranks better than the US in almost any health category like infant mortality etc. If you are wealthy, yes the US has hospitals worth traveling to. For the bottom 80% not so much. Thousands in the US die because they will not see a doctor about a minor issue before it becomes a major issue due to bills. Pricing is hidden. Etc.
Because limbaugh, fox , and the repubs taught them to...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariatozz
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?
After years of brainwashing by am hate talk since Limbaugh hatred and bigotry turned out a generation of greed and hate
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?
How about you pay for your own life choices. Socialism is dead.
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?
Ask those on the left. I suggested implementing a 25% national VAT tax in the US (like many Scandinavian/European countries have) to fund single payer national health care, and those on the left just about had a seizure over that. They want single payer national health care, but they DON'T want to pay the taxes needed to fund it. Go figure... /SMH
Many on the left fail to realize that even Seniors have to PAY for their Medicare... Monthly premiums, co-pays, deductibles, prescriptions aren't covered, and only 80% is covered. Seniors must buy an additional supplemental insurance policy if they want prescriptions and the other 20% covered.
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.
Because limbaugh, fox , and the repubs taught them to...
