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.
Sorry fixed it but its just a link to the libertarian party homepage. Personally if we slowly shifted from federal control over these institutions and put states back in control I wouldn't mind.
Thanks Dr.Joey I wouldn't mind states having more control of that either, we might even be better off having it that way since it would be easier to manage and oversea. However, I wanted to hear from those that keep screaming about how we are going to be a socialist country under Obama. If we take it the other way, as some would have it, what would we do with those people?
If welfare was ended the needy would sometimes come knocking on your door for money. You would tell them to leave at once and slam the door. But one day a poor, desperate woman holding a baby in one arm and with a child by her side would tell you a sob story and you just couldn't turn them down, and so you give them some food and money and they leave. But soon everybody and their dog would be coming to your door at all hours of the day and night begging for something. So I much prefer keeping welfare going.
I think this might make an interesting discussion and since so many people are scared of socialism then we need to explore what we would do if we cut out all social spending. Medicaid/Medicare, Social Security, Welfare (WIC,section 8, food stamps), public hospitals, public schools, etc.
Some of these programs have been called socialist, by that definition then all of them are. So let's pretend that the next president completely cuts social spending of any kind.
What would happen to people utilizing these programs and how would it affect our nation?
Keep in mind that prior to the 1930s we were a nation based on agriculture and manufactoring. Today we are a service oriented economy with fewer low skilled job opportunities.
Over night capitalism would work 100%.
Opening thousand of new non-profit organization helping this people.
Paid by WILLING PEOPLE(and not forced), just like Red Cross.
Over night capitalism would work 100%.
Opening thousand of new non-profit organization helping this people.
Paid by WILLING PEOPLE(and not forced), just like Red Cross.
Who would run these non-profits? Would it fall on the religious communities to educate the poor and treat the infirm? As it stands now they have a hard time meeting existing needs even with government programs in place.
The main difference you would see if you dropped all socialist programs is the family unit would reform itself. Today due to medicare/social security older folks can continue to live on their own, but without those programs you would end up with several generations in one household. While in some ways this would seem bad, there are advantages:
1. No daycare, if mom and dad are off at work, grandma and grandpa can watch the kids.
2. Social and cultural identity, kids would grow up in houses listening to stories of their grandparents, which will give them an identity which is sorely lacking in today's kids.
3. No need to worry about how your parents are being taken care of, they live with you, take care of your family and you take care of them.
Of course there would be down sides:
1. Housing market would slump, if multiple generations grow up, live, and eventually die in the same house, why build new ones?
2. Homes for the elderly would all but disappear, causing a loss of jobs.
I don't see socialist programs ending anytime in my lifetime, far to many people spend their entire life saying to themselves "I just got to make it to 62, and then I can let the government support me." Social Security has sadly gone from a temporary program designed to help the elderly survive the depression to life long goals of their grandchildren and great grandchildren.
The main difference you would see if you dropped all socialist programs is the family unit would reform itself. Today due to medicare/social security older folks can continue to live on their own, but without those programs you would end up with several generations in one household. While in some ways this would seem bad, there are advantages:
1. No daycare, if mom and dad are off at work, grandma and grandpa can watch the kids.
2. Social and cultural identity, kids would grow up in houses listening to stories of their grandparents, which will give them an identity which is sorely lacking in today's kids.
3. No need to worry about how your parents are being taken care of, they live with you, take care of your family and you take care of them.
Of course there would be down sides:
1. Housing market would slump, if multiple generations grow up, live, and eventually die in the same house, why build new ones?
2. Homes for the elderly would all but disappear, causing a loss of jobs.
I don't see socialist programs ending anytime in my lifetime, far to many people spend their entire life saying to themselves "I just got to make it to 62, and then I can let the government support me." Social Security has sadly gone from a temporary program designed to help the elderly survive the depression to life long goals of their grandchildren and great grandchildren.
Good points. I don't think it will happen in my lifetime either but I thought it would be interesting to discuss the "what if' since so many people seem to fear it going the other way to complete socialism.
I think the family unit reforming itself would be a good thing, it would just take about 40 years to get there.
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.
I wouldn't mind states having more control of that either, we might even be better off having it that way since it would be easier to manage and oversea. However, I wanted to hear from those that keep screaming about how we are going to be a socialist country under Obama. If we take it the other way, as some would have it, what would we do with those people?
