Anonymous wrote:Are you seriously asking why people on the right extending all the way to the center-left (aka almost everyone), are viscerally against giving others a list of stuff they didn't earn, even though there are good arguments against it?

Answering for myself (from the center-right), I'm in favor of most of the things you listed, but against student loan forgiveness. I get the feeling student loan forgiveness is what you're really asking about. I'm against it because taking out student loans was a gamble that was taken with full information and a path to success. People bet on themselves, sometimes that doesn't go smoothly, but they should keep trying, not get bailed out.

Center left here and I'm definitely against student loan forgiveness. I think debt jubilees are stupid. If someone was stupid enough to take out the loans, then they should be responsible for paying them back. I do think they should be dischargeable in bankruptcy though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Americans seem so viscerally offended by the idea of someone receiving something they didn't work for."

"Something" has to come from somewhere. It doesn't spring from nowhere. Justice and fairness is important to Americans. It's not about being offended. But you are free to work as little as you'd like. No one will prevent you from moving to a cabin in the woods by a pond, and it's a legitimate choice.

One of your comments I found particularly bizarre... "leisure time and vacations looked down upon." I have no idea what you're talking about. Americans lead rather leisurely lives compared to most of history.

In addition to the moral hazard and cultural metastasis, it also this it is the element of government force (directly or indirectly) that rankles. People have less of an issue with charity than with government redistribution programs.

Yeah, because then charities can pick and choose for people like them to get assistance and ignore the truly needy.

Anonymous wrote:"Americans seem so viscerally offended by the idea of someone receiving something they didn't work for."

"Something" has to come from somewhere. It doesn't spring from nowhere. Justice and fairness is important to Americans. It's not about being offended. But you are free to work as little as you'd like. No one will prevent you from moving to a cabin in the woods by a pond, and it's a legitimate choice.

One of your comments I found particularly bizarre... "leisure time and vacations looked down upon." I have no idea what you're talking about. Americans lead rather leisurely lives compared to most of history.

In addition to the moral hazard and cultural metastasis, it also this it is the element of government force (directly or indirectly) that rankles. People have less of an issue with charity than with government redistribution programs.

"Americans seem so viscerally offended by the idea of someone receiving something they didn't work for."

"Something" has to come from somewhere. It doesn't spring from nowhere. Justice and fairness is important to Americans. It's not about being offended. But you are free to work as little as you'd like. No one will prevent you from moving to a cabin in the woods by a pond, and it's a legitimate choice.

One of your comments I found particularly bizarre... "leisure time and vacations looked down upon." I have no idea what you're talking about. Americans lead rather leisurely lives compared to most of history.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're projecting quite a few opinions. As the PP pointed out, there is already a substantial entitlement sector in the United States.

There's many different kinds of entitlements and just about everyone benefits from some entitlement to some degree. But I do imagine most people agree entitlements can only go so far. What people don't like are privileges. Forgiving student loans, for example, is a privilege rather than an entitlement.

"if we all just worked LESS, and produced less, consumed less?" = dramatic decline in most people's standard of living.

This is an extremely American-centric view of standard of living, or at least with respect to quality of life.

It would absolutely be better for the environment if we produced and consumed less of everything. A cleaner environment would unequivocally improve quality of life, and reduce costs elsewhere.

Same thing with reduced workload. If you work less and partake in more leisure and family activities, you will objectively be healthier, spend less on pills and medical procedures, and save more money as a whole.

In the big picture, I think the costs of overworking onto all of society outweigh the benefits of any extra innovation it yields.

Just look at the workday time creep. The American cultural norm used to be Nine to Five, like the Dolly Parton song. Then it became 8 to 6. Now it's basically 8 to 6 but you have to be available to stay late whenever needed and answer work emails off hours and on weekends. Your company owns you.

Shrugs. I've lived in different countries in different parts of the world and with different cultures. What you're imagining really doesn't exist. PEople work. They have to in order to live. It's that simple.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The federal government has about 200 means tested programs. You can add any number of state programs and charities. The total of all 3 comes to nearly $1 trillion spending every year. It’s about $17,500 for every person under the poverty line, every year. So one question one might ask: are we satisfied with the outcomes for this level of spending? I bet a lot of people, across the political spectrum, would answer ‘no’. So, what to do? Just spend more? Reallocate across the same set of programs? Drop some programs and consider new ones? As a conservative I think these are reasonable approaches. My takeaway, though, is that just spending more is not the best way.

The problem for conservatives is that when a program is dropped or cut, there usually isn't anything to fill the gap. It's pull yourself up by the bootstraps. The point is the cuts because by cutting government spending and "entitlements" (a better term would be earned benefits) allows them to lower taxes on the wealthy and corporations. I don't disagree with your points in theory.

Well think back not too long about the policies of Bill Clinton (D). How would those go over in today’s Democrat party? I personally like leaders to be Governors. Tells me they had to make some tough choices. Conservatives take a little more of an economics approach to things, where the government is spreading around a finite resource.

Are you seriously asking why people on the right extending all the way to the center-left (aka almost everyone), are viscerally against giving others a list of stuff they didn't earn, even though there are good arguments against it?

Answering for myself (from the center-right), I'm in favor of most of the things you listed, but against student loan forgiveness. I get the feeling student loan forgiveness is what you're really asking about. I'm against it because taking out student loans was a gamble that was taken with full information and a path to success. People bet on themselves, sometimes that doesn't go smoothly, but they should keep trying, not get bailed out.

Somebody has to produce that to which people become entitled. If the entitlement mentality become too societally diffuse and inculcated, you start to decline. In individual cases it may not apply or make sense, but in the aggregate, that ethic is what keeps the capitalistic juggernaut engine going.

There, gave it a shot.

Anonymous wrote:You're projecting quite a few opinions. As the PP pointed out, there is already a substantial entitlement sector in the United States.

There's many different kinds of entitlements and just about everyone benefits from some entitlement to some degree. But I do imagine most people agree entitlements can only go so far. What people don't like are privileges. Forgiving student loans, for example, is a privilege rather than an entitlement.

"if we all just worked LESS, and produced less, consumed less?" = dramatic decline in most people's standard of living.

This is an extremely American-centric view of standard of living, or at least with respect to quality of life.

It would absolutely be better for the environment if we produced and consumed less of everything. A cleaner environment would unequivocally improve quality of life, and reduce costs elsewhere.

Same thing with reduced workload. If you work less and partake in more leisure and family activities, you will objectively be healthier, spend less on pills and medical procedures, and save more money as a whole.

In the big picture, I think the costs of overworking onto all of society outweigh the benefits of any extra innovation it yields.

Just look at the workday time creep. The American cultural norm used to be Nine to Five, like the Dolly Parton song. Then it became 8 to 6. Now it's basically 8 to 6 but you have to be available to stay late whenever needed and answer work emails off hours and on weekends. Your company owns you.

Anonymous wrote:The federal government has about 200 means tested programs. You can add any number of state programs and charities. The total of all 3 comes to nearly $1 trillion spending every year. It’s about $17,500 for every person under the poverty line, every year. So one question one might ask: are we satisfied with the outcomes for this level of spending? I bet a lot of people, across the political spectrum, would answer ‘no’. So, what to do? Just spend more? Reallocate across the same set of programs? Drop some programs and consider new ones? As a conservative I think these are reasonable approaches. My takeaway, though, is that just spending more is not the best way.

The problem for conservatives is that when a program is dropped or cut, there usually isn't anything to fill the gap. It's pull yourself up by the bootstraps. The point is the cuts because by cutting government spending and "entitlements" (a better term would be earned benefits) allows them to lower taxes on the wealthy and corporations. I don't disagree with your points in theory.

You're projecting quite a few opinions. As the PP pointed out, there is already a substantial entitlement sector in the United States.

There's many different kinds of entitlements and just about everyone benefits from some entitlement to some degree. But I do imagine most people agree entitlements can only go so far. What people don't like are privileges. Forgiving student loans, for example, is a privilege rather than an entitlement.

"if we all just worked LESS, and produced less, consumed less?" = dramatic decline in most people's standard of living.

The federal government has about 200 means tested programs. You can add any number of state programs and charities. The total of all 3 comes to nearly $1 trillion spending every year. It’s about $17,500 for every person under the poverty line, every year. So one question one might ask: are we satisfied with the outcomes for this level of spending? I bet a lot of people, across the political spectrum, would answer ‘no’. So, what to do? Just spend more? Reallocate across the same set of programs? Drop some programs and consider new ones? As a conservative I think these are reasonable approaches. My takeaway, though, is that just spending more is not the best way.

Because our society has a bunch of established myths. This is one of them.

It's because Republicans hate poor people who don't look like them. That's all there is to it.

Why is it that so many Americans, especially on the right wing but also center and center-left, are so viscerally against the idea of someone receiving something basic that they didn't "earn"? Of all the terrible things in society, why is this the thing that generates so much outrage?

When it's about any left wing or moderately left policy - student loan debt forgiveness or free college, a public health system, a nationally higher minimum wage, family leave and childcare, public housing, the increased unemployment payouts over the pandemic, people like to mock these ideas and call them "free stuff" and "entitlements" for people who haven't earned them, as if that's some horrible thing.

I am not even arguing that I am in favor of every single one of these left ideas. There are valid criticisms of whether these things can be implemented soundly and whether we can configure a tax structure, without loopholes, that would pay for them, and whether as the assumed "world police" we can afford to reduce our military budget enough to have the social programs of the levels of other countries. There are obviously logistical criticism of any large scale government program in such a huge country being implemeneted from scratch.

But rhetorically, Americans seem so viscerally offended by the idea of someone receiving something they didn't work for... and this is almost always about low income people receiving something, and not about corporations that lie, cheat, and steal every day (or at the very least deceive, manipulate, and rig the system every day). Why is it so offensive that somebody receives a home if you don't think their low income job means they didn't work hard enough for it? Furthermore, there is an attitude that glorified suffering, like "I had to work 80 hour weeks and suffer to get into the middle class, so you should too." Is it that crazy to want things to get better and easier for future generations? Is it offensive to your great uncle who died of polio that the polio vaccine was created and people don't have it anymore? Wasn't the innovative vision of the future supposed to be a world where automation and technology makes things easier, so less labor is needed to provide for the world, and people could have more leisure time? Instead, work productivity has doubled, more or less, and work weeks and work days have gotten longer.

I'll also say that I'm not a Communist. I don't agree with state control or everything and government-appointed roles for people. I am American by marriage, not by birth, and still, some ideas are foreign to me. Why is leisure time and vacations looked down upon? even if it's just spending time with your family, caring for children or the elderly? Why is this devalued in favor of work?

Wouldn't it be better for everyone, for the environment especially, and for health, if we all just worked LESS, and produced less, consumed less? I think so many of the problems and needs that are especially prevalent in America are connected with overworking. So maybe it's not the end of the world if people receive food, healthcare, and shelter without having to "earn" it?