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.
Try to imagine an America without SS, healthcare, unemployment and disability benefits. All this on top of an America whose middle class has been decimated. I can only imagine the former, but Elizabeth Warren does a good job of imagining the latter for us in her latest article, "America Without a Middle Class". Read it and weep.
I don't quite follow your sarcasm. I'm just saying, who wants to go back to 1861? The country was still mostly rural, people died young of communicable diseases, if you fell on hard times for the most part you just had to starve to death, and so on. What was so great about it?
Well in some ways, with respect to government intervention, 1861 was preferable to today with respect to the extent of current government intrusion. Too many people fall into the trap you inadvertantly step in, believeing the government can do more than it really can. In most instances (OK crazies I am not advocating no government) government actions have unintended consequensces which make the problems they are trying to adress worse or create alternate problems.
I don't quite follow your sarcasm. I'm just saying, who wants to go back to 1861? The country was still mostly rural, people died young of communicable diseases, if you fell on hard times for the most part you just had to starve to death, and so on. What was so great about it?
Eliminating entitlements does not negate the advances in science/medicine/technology or mean returning to all the conditions of 1861.
Eliminating entitlements does not negate the advances in science/medicine/technology or mean returning to all the conditions of 1861.
Many kids are immunized under the "Vaccines for Children" program, a federal/state program for uninsured and underinsured kids. That is just one example.
I don't know why 1861 was brought up in the first place. It was the start of the Civil War, not exactly the nation's finest hour.
I don't think there's anything wrong with "entitlements" like welfare, SSD, and unemployment if they were only given out as orginally intended. If we could stop the welfare queens and those who choose to make a living out of government assistance, I see nothing wrong with those programs.
On the same token, we should also do something about corporate welfare.
I can imagine a country without entitlements. It would be one where four generations had to live under one roof because the elder generations couldn't care for themselves any longer....either physically or financially. For those who claim we should be allowed to save/invest in our own futures instead of paying in to Social Security and Medicare, I say it won't work because young people don't ever think they are going to get old or disabled. So they won't be motivated to save and invest for 50 years in the future when they have so many 'must haves' on their want lists today. Even for the few young people who do save and invest for their future, what are they going to do if through no fault of their own the investment market crashes just when they need it the most? Entitlements help not only the older generation that is currently getting them but they also free up their kids and grandkids from having to be morally, ethically and in some cases the legally responsible for their well being.
Many kids are immunized under the "Vaccines for Children" program, a federal/state program for uninsured and underinsured kids. That is just one example.
I don't know why 1861 was brought up in the first place. It was the start of the Civil War, not exactly the nation's finest hour.
Right on both counts. I think the difference of opinion revolves around how much government involvement in our lives is desirable. I happen to believe minimal government involvement in peoples lives allows greater freedom.
Lots of people didn't, that's how. Life expectancy was lower. People died of many now vaccine-preventable diseases. And so forth.
Vaccines and antibiotics are cheap.
Here is a little stat that might make you go "huh?":
your great-grand parents actually had a longer lifespan than you do if you adjust for now treatable conditions.
Stated another way, if they had had vaccines and the cheapest antibiotic, they would have lived longer on average than you. They worked harder, were thinner, and ate better than you do today. The reason their overall life expectancy was shorter was due to disease and infection. Those who made it lived very long lives.
We are not healthier today. We just have better medicine.
It's pretty difficult for me to imagine what it would be if they were eliminated afetr generations having been accustomed to them but I don't have too much trouble imaging how much better many things would be had they never been started.
Othne prime example is that there would not have been the drift away from the family unit which would have an effect on many many other things .
Entitlements have replaced family
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.
