Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Responding directly to the OP, but not quoting it to save space...

In general, most right-leaning or centrist-left people aren't against the idea of social safety net, or even social benefits (beyond safety net). To cast the disagreement you encounter to the *degree* of such programs as "viscerally against the idea" of them is at best ignorant, and at worst a purposeful mischaracterization of the debate.

How large these programs are, what our tax structure should be, and what other competing priorities should be ranked are discussions to be had. It helps no one for you to characterize those who disagree with you on these things in such extreme terms.

On your last point, no one forces people to work a certain amount or to maintain a certain level of consumption. They are free to slow down their pace, work less, produce less, and consume less. Indeed, many people in fact live this way and are very happy. However, we live in a free liberal society (which is oddly something I have to point out to someone who proclaims not to be a communist) and people generally have the freedom to pursue life as they see fit. For their own personal selfish reasons, people produce and consume at a level that suits them, without requiring approval from anyone. Therefore, it is *NOT* better for everyone to implement a production/consumption policy that you personally think is a better balance, because that would be illiberal. Only people with authoritarian tendencies think this way. Implement laws, protect rights, protect public interest where they exist, and let people decide how much they want to work in order to sustain their target level of consumption.

As for my own view on the whole social benefits issue - I generally do not have a problem with them so long as they are not excessive. I do not find free community college to be excessive, because providing a basic level of college education contributes to the public good and is a good thing to have for society. I find student loan forgiveness to be excessive because most student loans that cannot be repaid are due to the student taking on some non-rewarding field of study or having tacked on other things such as living expenses. In that context, these student loans do not contribute to the public good and were merely funding personal hobbies, curiosities, or life styles - all of which the student is entirely free to engage in, just not paid for by other people's money.

Agree with this. Would add that I would consider the following as social benefits for which I would support government funding: (1) basic health care, as I find it infuriating that the working class without benefits is bankrupted by a healthcare event while people on Medicaid are protected; (2) free universal child care and paid maternity leave for up to two kids for 1 year per kid ---but ONLY for the first two kids

1) So long as people realize that basic health care is not full access to the medical capabilities of the US. People will still have to purchase private insurance for additional coverage. 2) free universal child care must be performed by a public institution to be paid for by taxes, just like the current balance between public and private schools. Some sort of voucher system could be implemented, but I don't think that's going to fly. I don't think it's necessary to limit the number of children. I would like to see some population growth, which is a public good.

Oh please. Someone with 8 back-to-back pregnancies should not be able to take 10 years off with $100,000 in income annually on the public dime. You want to have long-term pregnancy leave, pay for it yourself. Its called stepping out of the workforce.

What are you talking about? How does free childcare equal 10 years off with 100k annual income?

In PP’s scenario if the woman had 8 kids one each year she would have 9 years off from work. In these programs the woman is paid her salary during that year of maternity leave. So if she makes 40,000 a year, she continues to earn that salary. And to be honest if this were the case I’d probably pop out three kids instead of one just to have three years paid leave from work!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Agreed. I remember watching a show on this topic and they asked a white woman why the US couldn’t be more like Scandinavia (more social spending, etc…) and I remember being so shocked by her answer. She basically said “all Scandinavians are “the same people”…implying…”white” and that she was okay paying taxes that benefited other white people. But the US is “different” and she would not be okay paying into such a system….Sad (and racist).

I am extremely curious what your take on this would be. The answer ought to be pretty funny and revealing of your ignorance on the topic.

The US can be more like Scandinavia. But it'll be a long road to get there. Don't expect to be living in Stockholm next year. First, change our housing and transportation infrastructure to be less sprawl and car centered. Second, increases taxes to pay for free childcare and higher salaries for teachers. A few more changes along those lines and eventually we will be there. We would have to restrict immigration also, and address the legacy of Jim Crow and redlining. We could be more like Scandinavia. I'd like to be more like Canada to start.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Responding directly to the OP, but not quoting it to save space...

In general, most right-leaning or centrist-left people aren't against the idea of social safety net, or even social benefits (beyond safety net). To cast the disagreement you encounter to the *degree* of such programs as "viscerally against the idea" of them is at best ignorant, and at worst a purposeful mischaracterization of the debate.

How large these programs are, what our tax structure should be, and what other competing priorities should be ranked are discussions to be had. It helps no one for you to characterize those who disagree with you on these things in such extreme terms.

On your last point, no one forces people to work a certain amount or to maintain a certain level of consumption. They are free to slow down their pace, work less, produce less, and consume less. Indeed, many people in fact live this way and are very happy. However, we live in a free liberal society (which is oddly something I have to point out to someone who proclaims not to be a communist) and people generally have the freedom to pursue life as they see fit. For their own personal selfish reasons, people produce and consume at a level that suits them, without requiring approval from anyone. Therefore, it is *NOT* better for everyone to implement a production/consumption policy that you personally think is a better balance, because that would be illiberal. Only people with authoritarian tendencies think this way. Implement laws, protect rights, protect public interest where they exist, and let people decide how much they want to work in order to sustain their target level of consumption.

As for my own view on the whole social benefits issue - I generally do not have a problem with them so long as they are not excessive. I do not find free community college to be excessive, because providing a basic level of college education contributes to the public good and is a good thing to have for society. I find student loan forgiveness to be excessive because most student loans that cannot be repaid are due to the student taking on some non-rewarding field of study or having tacked on other things such as living expenses. In that context, these student loans do not contribute to the public good and were merely funding personal hobbies, curiosities, or life styles - all of which the student is entirely free to engage in, just not paid for by other people's money.

Agree with this. Would add that I would consider the following as social benefits for which I would support government funding: (1) basic health care, as I find it infuriating that the working class without benefits is bankrupted by a healthcare event while people on Medicaid are protected; (2) free universal child care and paid maternity leave for up to two kids for 1 year per kid ---but ONLY for the first two kids

1) So long as people realize that basic health care is not full access to the medical capabilities of the US. People will still have to purchase private insurance for additional coverage. 2) free universal child care must be performed by a public institution to be paid for by taxes, just like the current balance between public and private schools. Some sort of voucher system could be implemented, but I don't think that's going to fly. I don't think it's necessary to limit the number of children. I would like to see some population growth, which is a public good.

Oh please. Someone with 8 back-to-back pregnancies should not be able to take 10 years off with $100,000 in income annually on the public dime. You want to have long-term pregnancy leave, pay for it yourself. Its called stepping out of the workforce.

What are you talking about? How does free childcare equal 10 years off with 100k annual income?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Agreed. I remember watching a show on this topic and they asked a white woman why the US couldn’t be more like Scandinavia (more social spending, etc…) and I remember being so shocked by her answer. She basically said “all Scandinavians are “the same people”…implying…”white” and that she was okay paying taxes that benefited other white people. But the US is “different” and she would not be okay paying into such a system….Sad (and racist).

I am extremely curious what your take on this would be. The answer ought to be pretty funny and revealing of your ignorance on the topic.

The US already pays a huge amount in social spending. Looking at federal and state means tested programs, along with charities, almost $1 trillion every year. About $17,500 every year for every person under the poverty line. I’m not happy with the outcomes for that social spending, and I’d rather explore why that is, rather than simply spend more.

PP here. I understand your point. But the other side of the argument is that the outcomes of the social spending are unsatisfactory because we have not spent enough - we have not crossed over an inflection point where the social programs become truly life-changing rather than just placing band-aids on structural issues. There is nothing uniquely capable/superior/different about Scandanavians that make them especially suitable for implementing social benefits. Indeed, they failed at this spectacularly leading up to the 1990s, leading to a significant drawback on the level of social benefits. We may argue that their current level seems much more sustainable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Agreed. I remember watching a show on this topic and they asked a white woman why the US couldn’t be more like Scandinavia (more social spending, etc…) and I remember being so shocked by her answer. She basically said “all Scandinavians are “the same people”…implying…”white” and that she was okay paying taxes that benefited other white people. But the US is “different” and she would not be okay paying into such a system….Sad (and racist).

I am extremely curious what your take on this would be. The answer ought to be pretty funny and revealing of your ignorance on the topic.

The US already pays a huge amount in social spending. Looking at federal and state means tested programs, along with charities, almost $1 trillion every year. About $17,500 every year for every person under the poverty line. I’m not happy with the outcomes for that social spending, and I’d rather explore why that is, rather than simply spend more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Agreed. I remember watching a show on this topic and they asked a white woman why the US couldn’t be more like Scandinavia (more social spending, etc…) and I remember being so shocked by her answer. She basically said “all Scandinavians are “the same people”…implying…”white” and that she was okay paying taxes that benefited other white people. But the US is “different” and she would not be okay paying into such a system….Sad (and racist).

I am extremely curious what your take on this would be. The answer ought to be pretty funny and revealing of your ignorance on the topic.

The US can be more like Scandinavia. But it'll be a long road to get there. Don't expect to be living in Stockholm next year. First, change our housing and transportation infrastructure to be less sprawl and car centered. Second, increases taxes to pay for free childcare and higher salaries for teachers. A few more changes along those lines and eventually we will be there. We would have to restrict immigration also, and address the legacy of Jim Crow and redlining. We could be more like Scandinavia. I'd like to be more like Canada to start.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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

Agreed. I remember watching a show on this topic and they asked a white woman why the US couldn’t be more like Scandinavia (more social spending, etc…) and I remember being so shocked by her answer. She basically said “all Scandinavians are “the same people”…implying…”white” and that she was okay paying taxes that benefited other white people. But the US is “different” and she would not be okay paying into such a system….Sad (and racist).

I am extremely curious what your take on this would be. The answer ought to be pretty funny and revealing of your ignorance on the topic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Responding directly to the OP, but not quoting it to save space...

In general, most right-leaning or centrist-left people aren't against the idea of social safety net, or even social benefits (beyond safety net). To cast the disagreement you encounter to the *degree* of such programs as "viscerally against the idea" of them is at best ignorant, and at worst a purposeful mischaracterization of the debate.

How large these programs are, what our tax structure should be, and what other competing priorities should be ranked are discussions to be had. It helps no one for you to characterize those who disagree with you on these things in such extreme terms.

On your last point, no one forces people to work a certain amount or to maintain a certain level of consumption. They are free to slow down their pace, work less, produce less, and consume less. Indeed, many people in fact live this way and are very happy. However, we live in a free liberal society (which is oddly something I have to point out to someone who proclaims not to be a communist) and people generally have the freedom to pursue life as they see fit. For their own personal selfish reasons, people produce and consume at a level that suits them, without requiring approval from anyone. Therefore, it is *NOT* better for everyone to implement a production/consumption policy that you personally think is a better balance, because that would be illiberal. Only people with authoritarian tendencies think this way. Implement laws, protect rights, protect public interest where they exist, and let people decide how much they want to work in order to sustain their target level of consumption.

As for my own view on the whole social benefits issue - I generally do not have a problem with them so long as they are not excessive. I do not find free community college to be excessive, because providing a basic level of college education contributes to the public good and is a good thing to have for society. I find student loan forgiveness to be excessive because most student loans that cannot be repaid are due to the student taking on some non-rewarding field of study or having tacked on other things such as living expenses. In that context, these student loans do not contribute to the public good and were merely funding personal hobbies, curiosities, or life styles - all of which the student is entirely free to engage in, just not paid for by other people's money.

Agree with this. Would add that I would consider the following as social benefits for which I would support government funding: (1) basic health care, as I find it infuriating that the working class without benefits is bankrupted by a healthcare event while people on Medicaid are protected; (2) free universal child care and paid maternity leave for up to two kids for 1 year per kid ---but ONLY for the first two kids

1) So long as people realize that basic health care is not full access to the medical capabilities of the US. People will still have to purchase private insurance for additional coverage. 2) free universal child care must be performed by a public institution to be paid for by taxes, just like the current balance between public and private schools. Some sort of voucher system could be implemented, but I don't think that's going to fly. I don't think it's necessary to limit the number of children. I would like to see some population growth, which is a public good.

Oh please. Someone with 8 back-to-back pregnancies should not be able to take 10 years off with $100,000 in income annually on the public dime. You want to have long-term pregnancy leave, pay for it yourself. Its called stepping out of the workforce.

What are you talking about? How does free childcare equal 10 years off with 100k annual income?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Agreed. I remember watching a show on this topic and they asked a white woman why the US couldn’t be more like Scandinavia (more social spending, etc…) and I remember being so shocked by her answer. She basically said “all Scandinavians are “the same people”…implying…”white” and that she was okay paying taxes that benefited other white people. But the US is “different” and she would not be okay paying into such a system….Sad (and racist).

I am extremely curious what your take on this would be. The answer ought to be pretty funny and revealing of your ignorance on the topic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Responding directly to the OP, but not quoting it to save space...

In general, most right-leaning or centrist-left people aren't against the idea of social safety net, or even social benefits (beyond safety net). To cast the disagreement you encounter to the *degree* of such programs as "viscerally against the idea" of them is at best ignorant, and at worst a purposeful mischaracterization of the debate.

How large these programs are, what our tax structure should be, and what other competing priorities should be ranked are discussions to be had. It helps no one for you to characterize those who disagree with you on these things in such extreme terms.

On your last point, no one forces people to work a certain amount or to maintain a certain level of consumption. They are free to slow down their pace, work less, produce less, and consume less. Indeed, many people in fact live this way and are very happy. However, we live in a free liberal society (which is oddly something I have to point out to someone who proclaims not to be a communist) and people generally have the freedom to pursue life as they see fit. For their own personal selfish reasons, people produce and consume at a level that suits them, without requiring approval from anyone. Therefore, it is *NOT* better for everyone to implement a production/consumption policy that you personally think is a better balance, because that would be illiberal. Only people with authoritarian tendencies think this way. Implement laws, protect rights, protect public interest where they exist, and let people decide how much they want to work in order to sustain their target level of consumption.

As for my own view on the whole social benefits issue - I generally do not have a problem with them so long as they are not excessive. I do not find free community college to be excessive, because providing a basic level of college education contributes to the public good and is a good thing to have for society. I find student loan forgiveness to be excessive because most student loans that cannot be repaid are due to the student taking on some non-rewarding field of study or having tacked on other things such as living expenses. In that context, these student loans do not contribute to the public good and were merely funding personal hobbies, curiosities, or life styles - all of which the student is entirely free to engage in, just not paid for by other people's money.

Agree with this. Would add that I would consider the following as social benefits for which I would support government funding: (1) basic health care, as I find it infuriating that the working class without benefits is bankrupted by a healthcare event while people on Medicaid are protected; (2) free universal child care and paid maternity leave for up to two kids for 1 year per kid ---but ONLY for the first two kids

1) So long as people realize that basic health care is not full access to the medical capabilities of the US. People will still have to purchase private insurance for additional coverage. 2) free universal child care must be performed by a public institution to be paid for by taxes, just like the current balance between public and private schools. Some sort of voucher system could be implemented, but I don't think that's going to fly. I don't think it's necessary to limit the number of children. I would like to see some population growth, which is a public good.

Oh please. Someone with 8 back-to-back pregnancies should not be able to take 10 years off with $100,000 in income annually on the public dime. You want to have long-term pregnancy leave, pay for it yourself. Its called stepping out of the workforce.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Agreed. I remember watching a show on this topic and they asked a white woman why the US couldn’t be more like Scandinavia (more social spending, etc…) and I remember being so shocked by her answer. She basically said “all Scandinavians are “the same people”…implying…”white” and that she was okay paying taxes that benefited other white people. But the US is “different” and she would not be okay paying into such a system….Sad (and racist).

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.