Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Government has a responsibility to see that everyone has access to all the basic necessities.
to each according to his needs or necessities is communist. Are you communist?? Is it in the Constition??? America acheived so must because we were free to sink or swim. Russia and China slowly starved 100 million to death precisely becuase they wern't!!!
How could you not know that????????????????????? How could you be so slow??????????
government should provide that with the idea that help is temporary.
too stupid!!! banks have to pay bailout money back, liberals give personal bailout welfare for generations and generations in part because they are slow and part to buy votes.
We are still the richest country in the world overall; we ought to be able to help all Americans achieve a minimal standard of living
you mean some Americans should sign up to let others mooch of them their entire lives.
If all of a sudden, Americans had to pay $40,000 for that same vehicle while the rest of the world still paid $20,000, would you be okay with that, or would you say WTF? We need to change something.
of course we need to change to capitalism just like China did!!
Providing an adequate safety net for the poor is not communism you stupid fuck.
The WILL be a single payor system in plave within in a decade if Obamacare stands, its just that simple...and THAT is what this ACA is designed to do...get the public ready for complete take over of the industry.
Well, at least you have the courage of your convictions. Most of those of asked, aren't really ready to endorse a full-fledged caretaker state.should we go to single payer for all industries or just health care??
I'd really like to hear an honest answer to this question. Mostly it just gets dodged. If government should be responsible for making sure everyone has health care, does this imply it should be responsible for all of life's necessities?
Government has a responsibility to see that everyone has access to all the basic necessities.
... we have become a society where many people blame the poor for our problems, calling them leeches and saying all they do is suck the life out of our economy. It's all pretty sad if you ask me.
As for healthcare, I find it absolutely hilarious that so many Americans support paying more than double for a service or product than everyone throughout the rest of the world. And what do we get in return for all that extra money we are spending on healthcare? Do we get twice the life expectancy? Is everyone cured of cancer here in the US, where they would die in other countries? Currently, you can buy a new midsize car for around $20,000, give or take a few grand. This price is pretty standard worldwide. If all of a sudden, Americans had to pay $40,000 for that same vehicle while the rest of the world still paid $20,000, would you be okay with that, or would you say WTF? We need to change something.
Well, at least you have the courage of your convictions. Most of those of asked, aren't really ready to endorse a full-fledged caretaker state.I'd really like to hear an honest answer to this question. Mostly it just gets dodged. If government should be responsible for making sure everyone has health care, does this imply it should be responsible for all of life's necessities?
Government has a responsibility to see that everyone has access to all the basic necessities.
... we have become a society where many people blame the poor for our problems, calling them leeches and saying all they do is suck the life out of our economy. It's all pretty sad if you ask me.
It's definitely sad. The makers-takers nonsense punishes the victim. It's wagging a finger at desperate people simply playing by the rules we keep voting for.
I don't really have that much of a problem with the safety net concept. I don't think they do that much good, overall, but they do at least alleviate suffering in the short term. It's when safety nets get too ambitious and begin to impact their relative markets that the trouble starts. The state's response is generally the opposite of what is needed - rather than rolling back the policies distorting the market they regulate more and expand the safety nets. This serves the interest only of those in control of the regulatory process.
As for healthcare, I find it absolutely hilarious that so many Americans support paying more than double for a service or product than everyone throughout the rest of the world. And what do we get in return for all that extra money we are spending on healthcare? Do we get twice the life expectancy? Is everyone cured of cancer here in the US, where they would die in other countries? Currently, you can buy a new midsize car for around $20,000, give or take a few grand. This price is pretty standard worldwide. If all of a sudden, Americans had to pay $40,000 for that same vehicle while the rest of the world still paid $20,000, would you be okay with that, or would you say WTF? We need to change something.
But what to change, eh? In my view PPACA doubles down on the worst aspects of the current system. We're allowing the insurance corporations to install themselves as permanent public (but still quite for-profit) utilities. We even sold out our right to say no them when we don't think their crappy insurance is worth the money. What were Democrats thinking? How could they do this?
EDIT: I'd also point out that Ed's original question, the one I'd hoped someone would answer, was "should we go to single payer for all industries or just health care??". Single payer is far more than a 'safety net'.
Providing an adequate safety net for the poor is not communism you stupid fuck.
100% slow and liberal!!!!Where's the adequate safety net???? You call a near genocidal war on American blacks an adequate safety net???? 75% percent of black kids born without a father is an adequate safety net????? Slow???????
Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "In too many cases, if our Government had set out determined to destroy the family, it couldn't have done greater damage than some of what we see today. Too often these programs, well-intentioned, welfare programs for example, which were meant to provide for temporary support, have undermined responsibility. They've robbed people of control of their lives, destroyed their dignity, in some cases -- and we've tried hard to change this -- encouraged people, man and wife, to live apart because they might just get a little bit more to put in their pockets."
we could survive slavery, we could survive Jim Crow, but we could not survive liberalism- Walter Williams
Even in the antebellum era, when slaves often werent permitted to wed, most black children lived with a biological mother and father. During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldnt do, what Jim Crow couldnt do, what the harshest racism couldnt do, Mr. Williams says. And that is to destroy the black family
The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals' expansion of the welfare state. Most black children grew up in homes with two parents during all that time but most grow up with only one parent today.
Liberals have pushed affirmative action, supposedly for the benefit of blacks and other minorities. But two recent factual studies show that affirmative action in college admissions has led to black students with every qualification for success being artificially turned into failures by being mismatched with colleges for the sake of racial body count.
The two most recent books that show this with hard facts are "Mismatch" by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr., and "Wounds That Will Not Heal" by Russell K. Nieli. My own book "Affirmative Action Around the World" shows the same thing with different evidence.
Thus began an unprecedented commitment of federal funds to a wide range of measures aimed at redistributing wealth in the United States.[1] From 1965 to 2008, nearly $16 trillion of taxpayer money (in constant 2008 dollars) was spent onmeans-tested welfare programs for the poor.
The economic milieu in which the War on Poverty arose is noteworthy. As of 1965, the number of Americans living below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since the beginning of the decade and was only about half of what it had been fifteen years earlier. Between 1950 and 1965, the proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level, had decreased by more than 30%. The black poverty rate had been cut nearly in half between 1940 and 1960. In various skilled trades during the period of 1936-59, the incomes of blacks relative to whites had more than doubled. Further, the representation of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations grew more quickly during the five years preceding the launch of the War on Poverty than during the five years thereafter.
Despite these trends, the welfare state expanded dramatically after LBJ's statement. Between the mid-Sixties and the mid-Seventies, the dollar value of public housing quintupled and the amount spent on food stamps rose more than tenfold. From 1965 to 1969, government-provided benefits increased by a factor of 8; by 1974 such benefits were an astounding 20 times higher than they had been in 1965. Alsoas of 1974, federal spending on social-welfare programs amounted to 16% of Americas Gross National Product, a far cry from the 8% figure of 1960. By 1977 the number of people receiving public assistance had more than doubled since 1960.â¨
The most devastating by-product of the mushrooming welfare state was the corrosive effect it had (along with powerful cultural phenomena such as the feminist and Black Power movements) on American family life, particularly in the black community.⨠As provisions in welfare laws offered ever-increasing economic incentives for shunning marriage and avoiding the formation of two-parent families, illegitimacy rates rose dramatically.
The calamitous breakdown of the black family is a comparatively recent phenomenon, coinciding precisely with the rise of the welfare state. Throughout the epoch of slavery and into the early decades of the twentieth century, most black children grew up in two-parent households.⨠Post-Civil War studies revealed that most black couples in their forties had been together for at least twenty years. In southern urban areas around 1880, nearly three-fourths of black households were husband-or father-present; in southern rural settings, the figure approached 86%. As of 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks nationwide was approximately 15%scarcely one-fifth of the current figure.⨠As late as 1950, black women were more likely to be married than white women, and only 9% of black families with children were headed by a single parent.
During the nine decades between the Emancipation Proclamation and the 1950s, the black family remained a strong, stable institution. Its cataclysmic destruction was subsequently set in motion by such policies as the anti-marriage incentives that are built into the welfare system have served only to exacerbate the problem. As George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams puts it: The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do. And that is to destroy the black family. Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell concurs: The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.
Providing an adequate safety net for the poor is not communism you stupid fuck.
100% slow and liberal!!!!Where's the adequate safety net???? You call a near genocidal war on American blacks an adequate safety net???? 75% percent of black kids born without a father is an adequate safety net????? Slow???????
Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "In too many cases, if our Government had set out determined to destroy the family, it couldn't have done greater damage than some of what we see today. Too often these programs, well-intentioned, welfare programs for example, which were meant to provide for temporary support, have undermined responsibility. They've robbed people of control of their lives, destroyed their dignity, in some cases -- and we've tried hard to change this -- encouraged people, man and wife, to live apart because they might just get a little bit more to put in their pockets."
we could survive slavery, we could survive Jim Crow, but we could not survive liberalism- Walter Williams
Even in the antebellum era, when slaves often werent permitted to wed, most black children lived with a biological mother and father. During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldnt do, what Jim Crow couldnt do, what the harshest racism couldnt do, Mr. Williams says. And that is to destroy the black family
The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals' expansion of the welfare state. Most black children grew up in homes with two parents during all that time but most grow up with only one parent today.
Liberals have pushed affirmative action, supposedly for the benefit of blacks and other minorities. But two recent factual studies show that affirmative action in college admissions has led to black students with every qualification for success being artificially turned into failures by being mismatched with colleges for the sake of racial body count.
The two most recent books that show this with hard facts are "Mismatch" by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr., and "Wounds That Will Not Heal" by Russell K. Nieli. My own book "Affirmative Action Around the World" shows the same thing with different evidence.
Thus began an unprecedented commitment of federal funds to a wide range of measures aimed at redistributing wealth in the United States.[1] From 1965 to 2008, nearly $16 trillion of taxpayer money (in constant 2008 dollars) was spent onmeans-tested welfare programs for the poor.
The economic milieu in which the War on Poverty arose is noteworthy. As of 1965, the number of Americans living below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since the beginning of the decade and was only about half of what it had been fifteen years earlier. Between 1950 and 1965, the proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level, had decreased by more than 30%. The black poverty rate had been cut nearly in half between 1940 and 1960. In various skilled trades during the period of 1936-59, the incomes of blacks relative to whites had more than doubled. Further, the representation of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations grew more quickly during the five years preceding the launch of the War on Poverty than during the five years thereafter.
Despite these trends, the welfare state expanded dramatically after LBJ's statement. Between the mid-Sixties and the mid-Seventies, the dollar value of public housing quintupled and the amount spent on food stamps rose more than tenfold. From 1965 to 1969, government-provided benefits increased by a factor of 8; by 1974 such benefits were an astounding 20 times higher than they had been in 1965. Alsoas of 1974, federal spending on social-welfare programs amounted to 16% of Americas Gross National Product, a far cry from the 8% figure of 1960. By 1977 the number of people receiving public assistance had more than doubled since 1960.â¨
The most devastating by-product of the mushrooming welfare state was the corrosive effect it had (along with powerful cultural phenomena such as the feminist and Black Power movements) on American family life, particularly in the black community.⨠As provisions in welfare laws offered ever-increasing economic incentives for shunning marriage and avoiding the formation of two-parent families, illegitimacy rates rose dramatically.
The calamitous breakdown of the black family is a comparatively recent phenomenon, coinciding precisely with the rise of the welfare state. Throughout the epoch of slavery and into the early decades of the twentieth century, most black children grew up in two-parent households.⨠Post-Civil War studies revealed that most black couples in their forties had been together for at least twenty years. In southern urban areas around 1880, nearly three-fourths of black households were husband-or father-present; in southern rural settings, the figure approached 86%. As of 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks nationwide was approximately 15%scarcely one-fifth of the current figure.⨠As late as 1950, black women were more likely to be married than white women, and only 9% of black families with children were headed by a single parent.
During the nine decades between the Emancipation Proclamation and the 1950s, the black family remained a strong, stable institution. Its cataclysmic destruction was subsequently set in motion by such policies as the anti-marriage incentives that are built into the welfare system have served only to exacerbate the problem. As George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams puts it: The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do. And that is to destroy the black family. Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell concurs: The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.
Providing an adequate safety net for the poor is not communism you stupid fuck.
100% slow and liberal!!!!Where's the adequate safety net???? You call a near genocidal war on American blacks an adequate safety net???? 75% percent of black kids born without a father is an adequate safety net????? Slow???????
Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "In too many cases, if our Government had set out determined to destroy the family, it couldn't have done greater damage than some of what we see today. Too often these programs, well-intentioned, welfare programs for example, which were meant to provide for temporary support, have undermined responsibility. They've robbed people of control of their lives, destroyed their dignity, in some cases -- and we've tried hard to change this -- encouraged people, man and wife, to live apart because they might just get a little bit more to put in their pockets."
we could survive slavery, we could survive Jim Crow, but we could not survive liberalism- Walter Williams
Even in the antebellum era, when slaves often werent permitted to wed, most black children lived with a biological mother and father. During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldnt do, what Jim Crow couldnt do, what the harshest racism couldnt do, Mr. Williams says. And that is to destroy the black family
The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals' expansion of the welfare state. Most black children grew up in homes with two parents during all that time but most grow up with only one parent today.
Liberals have pushed affirmative action, supposedly for the benefit of blacks and other minorities. But two recent factual studies show that affirmative action in college admissions has led to black students with every qualification for success being artificially turned into failures by being mismatched with colleges for the sake of racial body count.
The two most recent books that show this with hard facts are "Mismatch" by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr., and "Wounds That Will Not Heal" by Russell K. Nieli. My own book "Affirmative Action Around the World" shows the same thing with different evidence.
Thus began an unprecedented commitment of federal funds to a wide range of measures aimed at redistributing wealth in the United States.[1] From 1965 to 2008, nearly $16 trillion of taxpayer money (in constant 2008 dollars) was spent onmeans-tested welfare programs for the poor.
The economic milieu in which the War on Poverty arose is noteworthy. As of 1965, the number of Americans living below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since the beginning of the decade and was only about half of what it had been fifteen years earlier. Between 1950 and 1965, the proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level, had decreased by more than 30%. The black poverty rate had been cut nearly in half between 1940 and 1960. In various skilled trades during the period of 1936-59, the incomes of blacks relative to whites had more than doubled. Further, the representation of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations grew more quickly during the five years preceding the launch of the War on Poverty than during the five years thereafter.
Despite these trends, the welfare state expanded dramatically after LBJ's statement. Between the mid-Sixties and the mid-Seventies, the dollar value of public housing quintupled and the amount spent on food stamps rose more than tenfold. From 1965 to 1969, government-provided benefits increased by a factor of 8; by 1974 such benefits were an astounding 20 times higher than they had been in 1965. Alsoas of 1974, federal spending on social-welfare programs amounted to 16% of Americas Gross National Product, a far cry from the 8% figure of 1960. By 1977 the number of people receiving public assistance had more than doubled since 1960.â¨
The most devastating by-product of the mushrooming welfare state was the corrosive effect it had (along with powerful cultural phenomena such as the feminist and Black Power movements) on American family life, particularly in the black community.⨠As provisions in welfare laws offered ever-increasing economic incentives for shunning marriage and avoiding the formation of two-parent families, illegitimacy rates rose dramatically.
The calamitous breakdown of the black family is a comparatively recent phenomenon, coinciding precisely with the rise of the welfare state. Throughout the epoch of slavery and into the early decades of the twentieth century, most black children grew up in two-parent households.⨠Post-Civil War studies revealed that most black couples in their forties had been together for at least twenty years. In southern urban areas around 1880, nearly three-fourths of black households were husband-or father-present; in southern rural settings, the figure approached 86%. As of 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks nationwide was approximately 15%scarcely one-fifth of the current figure.⨠As late as 1950, black women were more likely to be married than white women, and only 9% of black families with children were headed by a single parent.
During the nine decades between the Emancipation Proclamation and the 1950s, the black family remained a strong, stable institution. Its cataclysmic destruction was subsequently set in motion by such policies as the anti-marriage incentives that are built into the welfare system have served only to exacerbate the problem. As George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams puts it: The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do. And that is to destroy the black family. Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell concurs: The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.
BTW, I don't endorse a full fledged caretaker state. If you work and are successful, you don't need any extra help. The extra help is only for those who desperately need it. Here is what really bothers me. So many people complain that a lot of people live off the dole for their entire lives, and while this is true, they also say that these people are lazy and should get a job. Well, there is a minor problem with that. Those people have no skills and if we look at the current job market, there are an awful lot of people who have skills who can't find work. How does anyone expect a person with no skills and no work history to get a job when skilled people can't find work? Sometimes people are just not realistic about how things really are.
Re: the bolded portion - I gathered as much from your post, but the health care debacle shows where benign safety net efforts can lead. Especially when they're framed as 'guaranteed rights' as you seem to want to do with health care. I understand the compassion and sense of community that drives the desire to have safety nets in place. As a sane, moral society we can and should provide for those who fall through the cracks. But government is the wrong tool for the job.
Re: the bolded portion - I gathered as much from your post, but the health care debacle shows where benign safety net efforts can lead. Especially when they're framed as 'guaranteed rights' as you seem to want to do with health care. I understand the compassion and sense of community that drives the desire to have safety nets in place. As a sane, moral society we can and should provide for those who fall through the cracks. But government is the wrong tool for the job.
The government is not the wrong tool for the job. They're the only ones who CAN do something this large.
In every first world country, health care is funded by the state through taxes levied specifically for that purpose. And all of those first world nations have health care on a par with that of the US, at half the cost. If governments are the wrong tool for the job, why are all of these governments able to provide ALL of their citizens with a high standard of care. These nations have longer life expectancies that the US, at a significantly cheaper cost per capita.
Why do people still believe that if the government is the sole provider of health care, the people will actually get health care?
If governments are the wrong tool for the job, why are all of these governments able to provide ALL of their citizens with a high standard of care.
I was brought up to believe that not everyone can compete under a capitalist society. There will always be those who fall behind,
the obligation to provide a strong social safety net for those who are not as capable, so that our society can thrive together. Even the Bible
Why do people still believe that if the government is the sole provider of health care, the people will actually get health care?
Its a well established principle that a governemnt monopoly is the most efficient way to deliver health care, automobiles, and energy, not to mention many many other goods and services!!
The 100 million who slowly starved to death in the USSR and Russia don't mean a thing!!
That France's per capita income is equal to Arkansas' does not mean a thing either!!
It's not as though all organizations ever, which could be termed 'governments' always do everything inefficiently, compared to whatever standard. The important thing is what the people want, really. And if the people want healthcare provided for all, particularly those who don't currently have it, then ideally, that's what our representatives should endeavor to implement. And, indeed, if even just in the abstract, if a person wants something, he probably won't want it done 'inefficiently.'
And it's also hardly true that to provide universal healthcare automatically leads to gulags and mass murder, and to say such is largely a kind of propaganda, and beyond that, false.
It's not as though all organizations ever, which could be termed 'governments' always do everything inefficiently, compared to whatever standard.
