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.
Give me an example of a relatively prosperous country that has done it differently and more effectively than by using a government-administered safety net.
I didn't say I had a solution. What I said was that a huge safety net, like that in France isn't producing any better results than that of the more scaled back United States. Given that, it seems pointless to base standard of living off of something that isn't really making any difference.
I have been to many French cities. I haven't seen slums. The notion that France has slums seems like something grasped from the air, completely baseless.
I think that America is first and foremost a bourgeoisie society. This is why materialism and social status (based on materialism) are extemely important. Quality of Life is not very important. Or Americans believe that quality of life can only be had by financial means. I think that life can have quality without dollar signs.
I lived in Germany for many years. I also spent much time in France. What I noticed in France was less stress among the people. The French don’t rate each other by occupations. To ask a Frenchman what he does for a living is not considered polite. In America, however, that will be revealed in casual conversation within minutes. It sure is a pleasure to encounter a French person, not knowing if he/she is an accountant, lawyer, plumber, clerk, and be able to talk about things like art, film, literature, politics, etc.
But you did say there are "more effective ways". Such as?
I think you have to motivate people to better their situation. That's not necessarily financially, either. If you're not bettering yourself as a person, you're generally deteriorating, and when you live on a handout, with no virtually no chance of betterment, what can you do except exist on your hand out?
What has essentially become an underclass has to be convinced that it doesn't have to stay as an underclass. Of course, there would have to be opportunities for them. And to use France as an example, there's not.
People need a reason to live, and they aren't really getting that. Having been on both sides of the coin, I can say it feels really good to be earning an honest living. I may not have thought that until I got things together, but it's a pretty big boost to a person's self esteem.
I don't have a solution because I honestly don't know how to do it. But do you really think things in a society like that are as peachy as you make them out to be?
I have been to many French cities. I haven't seen slums. The notion that France has slums seems like something grasped from the air, completely baseless.
I think that America is first and foremost a bourgeoisie society. This is why materialism and social status (based on materialism) are extemely important. Quality of Life is not very important. Or Americans believe that quality of life can only be had by financial means. I think that life can have quality without dollar signs.
I lived in Germany for many years. I also spent much time in France. What I noticed in France was less stress among the people. The French don’t rate each other by occupations. To ask a Frenchman what he does for a living is not considered polite. In America, however, that will be revealed in casual conversation within minutes. It sure is a pleasure to encounter a French person, not knowing if he/she is an accountant, lawyer, plumber, clerk, and be able to talk about things like art, film, literature, politics, etc.
I take it they were rioting in thin air as well? And having polite, stress free riots?
Good post!
I think that the phrase 'making it' means nothing more than money. For those who value money above everything else America is an excellent choice.
The people who are obsessed with 'making it' can be seen every day, they run around in a frenzy, full of anxiety, stressed and strung out. They are so busy with 'making it' they have little time to enjoy life. The adage holds true; Americans live to work.
I've lived in Europe for a long time and noticed the differences. Contrary to popular American belief, the Europeans do not rely on the government to take care of them. But the safety net in Europe provides in cases of unemployment and health problems so that the citizens do not wind up living in the streets. That's why Europe does not have the vast number of homeless people, nor the expansive slums like in America.
Great points. And this is exactly why I don't really fit in so well here. I don't really care about 'making it.' I have no problem with work, in general, but my life does not revolve around my employment; my time spent there is a commodity I am selling to my employer. I am not living at that time; I'm a drone hired to do a job, and I do it well. But there is nothing in life that I wish to accomplish that has a thing to do with my employment. It's money to live and that's that. I'd rather be imitating da Vinci.
How's that for about the most anti-American thing you've ever read?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
I suppose anybody in France who wants to work hard and hardly get any vacation and pay out of his own pocket for health care, he is probably free to do so, but doesn't have to. Maybe that's what it means to have freedom.
In general, I'm not opposed to 'social nets' or programs, provided they aren't a downright ridiculous waste of tax money, and provided they are not chipping away at the right to choose my own lifestyle. Freedom is number one for me, even if it means an uncomfortable existence. I just want to be left alone in that regard. I want to keep life simple and more or less 'disappear' as far as the government is concerned. If the social program is voluntary, and either you are in for good or out for good, I'm fine with it. I like to see people happy with the way things are set up. But I also like to see me happy with the way things are set up.
My main problem with social programs is not really the programs themselves, but the way they tend to be imposed. It came to a head for me with the health care (yeah, here we go again) thing that hopefully I don't have to have nightmares about any more. It would have imposed a required bi-annual medical exam. Sorry, but that is not in harmony with my philosophy concerning health care, and I should not be sent to prison because I don't believe in conventional medicine for the most part. I'll pay them to sew my slashed arm together and prescribe glasses, but that's about it. This is just me personally, but I have this crazy notion that my body has the ability and responsibility to take care of itself; when it can no longer do that, it's time for me to move on and free up the wasted resources for someone who has a body that can. Again, that's just my take for my own body and life--I don't expect anyone else to feel that way. But I should have the right to handle it like that if I so choose.
I think we would all be happier if programs were available, but voluntary. For instance: do you want to sign up for our health care system? If you do, all medical care will be provided and you will be taxed XXX% of your wages for it. If you don't, be advised you will never get health care save it be what you can pay for yourself. But it's your choice... I would be completely happy with such a program. Those who wanted the coverage would have it. I would have the right to refuse it. Everyone is thrilled.
I think we would all be happier if programs were available, but voluntary. For instance: do you want to sign up for our health care system? If you do, all medical care will be provided and you will be taxed XXX% of your wages for it. If you don't, be advised you will never get health care save it be what you can pay for yourself. But it's your choice... I would be completely happy with such a program. Those who wanted the coverage would have it. I would have the right to refuse it. Everyone is thrilled.
And if they've been healthy their whole lives thus never paying into a system they didn't really need, then discovered a cancerous tumor one day...what's next?
And if they've been healthy their whole lives thus never paying into a system they didn't really need, then discovered a cancerous tumor one day...what's next?
In my case, it would be time to check out. In a 'normal' person's case, they'd better opt into the system if they don't want to make that same choice. The need for the system is not based on whether you are healthy, it's based on risk management over your lifetime. If you're only basing it on whether you are healthy, you're being short-sighted and you'd better do some soul searching. You have to base it on what you really want for yourself if you are faced with that situation.
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.
