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?
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?
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?
Except when it goes too far. Not all European countries are the perfect world you paint them out to be. The American Left likes to claim every country that is 'more' Socialist then we are is better.
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 dont think american are against social programs per say, what they are against the these programs being FEDERAL programs. most of the crap the feds cover should be done at the state level. a one size fits all program doesnt fit anyone.
the other thing these social spending programs do is help lead to massive federal debt. it also leads to massive gridlock in congress because everyone wants a piece of the pie, and everyone wants a certain tax code, and then to avoid the gridlock, we get massively complicated tax codes, and massive spending bills among other things, and we get the federal government interfering in our lives on a variety of levels.
Most Americans are against helping those struggling- as its always the fault of that person. Never mind that murica is ranked low in economic mobility; when you're down, that's where you'll stay. Of course they always point to the rare exception of the dirt poor to billionaire story, not realizing that If it was so easy EVERYONE would be doing it and it wouldnt be news. They despise their tax dollars going to help others, yet have no problem paying for stupid wars and corporate welfare.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,601,582 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeaveWI
Most Americans are against helping those struggling- as its always the fault of that person. Never mind that murica is ranked low in economic mobility; when you're down, that's where you'll stay. Of course they always point to the rare exception of the dirt poor to billionaire story, not realizing that If it was so easy EVERYONE would be doing it and it wouldnt be news. They despise their tax dollars going to help others, yet have no problem paying for stupid wars and corporate welfare.
I have to agree here. Further fueling it is one major reason people came here (according to the national mythos) - to make money, better themselves, and illegitimately conflating the two. This goes all the way back to the Puritans / Calvinists who often equated either (a) material wealth as a blessing from God or (b) poverty is a curse from God (or both).
Add to that a long tradition (especially in the western 2/3 of the country) of frontier individualism (make it on your own) and paranoia against "the government", plus equating freedom with something just short of anarchy. Throw into this stew later a strong Social Darwinist streak in our culture (the strong deserve to survive and thrive, the weak deserve to die off or starve), let it cook for 400 or so years, and you have mainstream American culture.
Voluntary charity is a blessing.
Compulsory charity is a curse.
Government "taking" from one to "give" to another, under threat, duress, and/or coercion isn't voluntary charity.
Before you can have a discussion on this topic you must define your terms. How do you define "social programs". There are social programs that assist both the poor but also the middle classes. In additional to social programs you have governmental programs that assist all Americans and benefit all income brackets.
Space and time limit my response here, but needless to say that what programs you support or oppose depends where you sit on the political spectrum. There are traps for the unwary here as discussions here are full of hypocrisies. For instance, let's take Medicaid. Medicaid is a social program that benefits the poor whose income is too low to afford medical care. Republicans will rail against this program. However, Medicaid is also a growing middle class program as it pays for long-term care in nursing homes that most middle- class families cannot afford.
Hypocrisy arises in this area as those who loves ones are in need of nursing home care will apply for Medicaid to offset the costs. These same people may however may rant and rave against those lower income folks that they perceive as gaming the system. Conservative politicians may rant against the lower-classes being on Medicaid, but just wait if they cut Medicaid nursing home expenditures. You will see the long-.term care lobby and middle-classes, especially those with elderly parents or disabled children, rise in anger.
Your question is a good one. It is more complex to answer if one is being honest with ones' self.
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.
