s/o Why is it the responsibility of the gov't to oversee programs?

[LizzyBee]

To me caring for the poor and downtrodden is a hallmark of a truely civilised society. I'm happy for my money to go to the government to do that.

 

Many, many Americans agree with your first statement and volunteer their time and money to care for those who have less. It's the second statement that is problematic. The US is so big and diverse that the federal government is bureaucratic and inefficient.

[cdrumm4448]

A previous poster asked where to draw the line regarding what items the government supports: roads, police departments, fire departments, etc.

 

I personally pay entirely too much in property and income tax as it is to pay for all those services already. Add healthcare on top of that, and my taxes get really ridiculous. I have no desire to pay more than I already do. After all, it is our money we have earned. I don't feel someone else has the right to do with most of my money as they please.

 

The money we earn, whatever is left after expenses, is SAVED for retirement and catastrophic illness. I really don't hear anybody here or in real life mentioning saving money for those things. I mean we live tight in order to do that. And I mean tight.

 

So my bottom line is, we pay enough. I cannot do any more for others at the expense of my family.

[Jen500]

I personally pay entirely too much in property and income tax as it is to pay for all those services already. Add healthcare on top of that, and my taxes get really ridiculous. I have no desire to pay more than I already do. After all, it is our money we have earned. I don't feel someone else has the right to do with most of my money as they please.

 

 

You can always move to another state/area with lower taxes. Right?

[Stacy in NJ]

Having lived on both sides of the border, I can tell you the paranoia is not unfounded. We're brought up in a culture of control by fear. We're taught to be very afraid of anyone in authority -- the cops will nail your a$$; the tax man will audit you to death and beyond; the government can storm in guns ablazing if they feel like it; one wrong step and CPS will take your kids away forever. We see it on the news all the time. There's always a "THEM" to fight, too. When my dad was a kid it was the big bad Nazis. Then when he was a young man, it was the big bad Russians, then the big bad Vietnamese/Chinese. Then 9/11 came along and it's the big bad Muslims/Arabs. There's always a boogeyman out to getcha.

 

Let me tell you... it takes years to deprogram from that.

 

Right, or the boogeyman may be a gun-toting, bible-thumping, redneck, rightwing extremist. If he were only sensible (i.e. not paranoid) he'd see that what some want to do in the USA, like nationalizing healthcare, is really what's best for him. Because the reasonable people really do know what's best for him. People who are concerned about expanding government are really just using their "concern" as code for the racist ideas. It couldn't be because they object on philosophic grounds, or that their arguments have validity in historical reference.

 

Only people on the right are capable of paranoia. Everyone on the left is sooooo lucid, reasonable and sensible. Like those folks who swear that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were responsible for 9/11. Or that the Patriot Act was passed so that Bush could spy on their library records. Or that Cuba has the best healthcare system in the world.

 

Let me tell ya, it took some time to de-program from my urban living, union organizing, ultra progressive family and their paranoid, self-satisfied, southern hating knowbetterism.

[Haiku]

The money we earn, whatever is left after expenses, is SAVED for retirement and catastrophic illness. I really don't hear anybody here or in real life mentioning saving money for those things. I mean we live tight in order to do that. And I mean tight.

 

 

One of my children's medications runs $157 a day. That's more than what my husband earns in a year. It doesn't matter how much we save, we can't afford it. Oh, but he should just go get a higher-paying job, right? Tried that. No work here. Oh, well, we should just move, right? Tried that. Can't sell the house.

 

More than half our income goes to health care. We also save for retirement. We live tight, and I mean tight.

 

Tara

[cdrumm4448]

You can always move to another state/area with lower taxes. Right?

 

Yes, that is always an option, but I also view it as a stop-gap solution that only temporarily solves the problem. Having owned a home for 12 years, I have learned something. The government will always get what they want from you, one way or another.

 

For example, my neighbor has protested his property taxes for several years. They were lowered slightly after he jumped through their excessive hoops to prove he was over-assessed. Then he was told not to come back into the office. They would not let him protest again.

 

I just spoke to him a month ago, and he said his taxes are now right back in line with everyone elses. We are all over assessed in my area. I sold real estate for 10 years. I went to the assessors office myself and looked at everyone's assessments and taxes. Mine couldn't be brought down because EVERYONE'S were equally high.

 

I sound like a conspiracy-theorist, but they will get what they want.

[cdrumm4448]

One of my children's medications runs $157 a day. That's more than what my husband earns in a year. It doesn't matter how much we save, we can't afford it. Oh, but he should just go get a higher-paying job, right? Tried that. No work here. Oh, well, we should just move, right? Tried that. Can't sell the house.

 

More than half our income goes to health care. We also save for retirement. We live tight, and I mean tight.

 

Tara

 

You are the exception rather than the rule, and I do feel for your situation. You are one of the people that does need assistance. I have no problem with helping the needy and you certainly qualify. I have a problem with helping those who won't help themselves.

[cdrumm4448]

From Obama's Tax Plan 2008:

 

Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase.

 

August 2, 2009

To get the economy back on track, will President Barack Obama have to break his pledge not to raise taxes on 95 percent of Americans? In a “This Week†exclusive, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told me, "We’re going to have to do what’s necessary.â€

Geithner was clear that he believes a key component of economic recovery is deficit reduction. When I gave him several opportunities to rule out a middle class tax hike, he wouldn’t do it.

“We have to bring these deficits down very dramatically,†Geithner told me. “And that’s going to require some very hard choices.â€

 

 

He is going to have to go after the middle class to pay for healthcare and other new entitlements.

[Stacy in NJ]

I expect I'll deserve to have tomatoes thrown at me for asking this, but how can Americans be so patriotic when they have so little trust in their government? I'm not trying to be rude, honestly. Patriotism is a bit of a weird concept to me anyway, since us Aussies don't really do much of it.

 

I'll agree with Keptwoman. It sure is illuminating hanging out here.

 

 

Rosie

 

Perhaps we're patriotic because we have so little trust in our government. Government is only one aspect of what it means to be a people. We are not our government.

 

Historically American have argued bitterly over every major social movement. We faught a war to end slavery. All of our social progess has been hard faught via bitter dispute. Never ever have we had an outside power impose itself on us, not in the form of imperial Britian, not in the form of facist Germany, not in the form of communist Russia.

 

Maybe are anger, mistrust and bitter feelings are the rough edges of a free people arguing over its destiny. It would be nice if we could all just be more rational, talk in a more restrained tone of voice, and listen more as well, generally, be more civil. And it would also be nice if unicorns would fly down from heaven with free lollipos for everyone.

[dangerdad]

promote the general welfare

 

As has been noted, the term "general welfare" doesn't mean "give people money". It meant laws applied to ensure the freedoms of the public generally, not to enrich or empower select individuals.

 

That's the idea behind an Originalist philosophy of constitutional and statutory interpretation. To understand what the authors of written law and constitution meant and apply it that way. If you just make the written word mean whatever you want it to mean, there's no point in having written law, and we have anarchy.

[Haiku]

You are the exception rather than the rule, and I do feel for your situation. You are one of the people that does need assistance. I have no problem with helping the needy and you certainly qualify. I have a problem with helping those who won't help themselves.

 

I don't think we are the exception. There are millions upon millions of people in this country who are un- or under-insured. Many of them are just like us: hardworking people who did everything "right" but are being punished by a system that doesn't work. It's not people making the wrong choices that is the problem. It's the fact that the health insurance industry as it stands doesn't work.

 

To further exemplify: we pay $1600 a month for our health insurance through Anthem BC/BS. A friend of mine's husband works for a different company, has the same number of people in his family, and also gets insurance through Anthem BC/BS. They pay $358 a month for a policy that is basically the same one we have. How could that possibly be construed as either fair or ethical?

 

I don't mean to hold my family up as the shining paragon of the deserving as contrasted to those undeserving slobs who won't help themselves. My whole point is that the insurance industry screws countless families who are just like us. It's a broken system.

 

Someone mentioned earlier that there are options under the current system and a government system would eliminate options. Well, I live under this system that supposedly has "options" and I can tell you that tying health insurance to employment and allowing insurance companies to choose whom they will cover is the thing that destroys options.

 

Tara

[LizzyBee]

The libertarians I know would say this is not happening because people's money is being "stolen" from them by the government so they don't have extra money or desire to do more. To that I say, "When in the history of humanity has there been a time that the advantaged looked after the disadvantaged without being coerced into doing so?" Think back on history and the huge divide between the wealthy and the abjectly poverty-stricken. I think there is a strong element of moral judgment of the "the poor are poor because they are morally lacking" in that type of attitude.

 

Tara

 

I've noticed that in many older books, people take care of people who have less, taking them food, taking caring of them during illness, etc. In modern America, many people have the attitude that we don't have to do these things because the government does it through medicaid, food stamps, etc. One of the reasons I enjoy reading older books to my kids is because I want them to have the attitude of the characters in those books.

[cdrumm4448]

I don't think we are the exception. There are millions upon millions of people in this country who are un- or under-insured. Many of them are just like us: hardworking people who did everything "right" but are being punished by a system that doesn't work. It's not people making the wrong choices that is the problem. It's the fact that the health insurance industry as it stands doesn't work.

 

To further exemplify: we pay $1600 a month for our health insurance through Anthem BC/BS. A friend of mine's husband works for a different company, has the same number of people in his family, and also gets insurance through Anthem BC/BS. They pay $358 a month for a policy that is basically the same one we have. How could that possibly be construed as either fair or ethical?

 

I don't mean to hold my family up as the shining paragon of the deserving as contrasted to those undeserving slobs who won't help themselves. My whole point is that the insurance industry screws countless families who are just like us. It's a broken system.

 

Someone mentioned earlier that there are options under the current system and a government system would eliminate options. Well, I live under this system that supposedly has "options" and I can tell you that tying health insurance to employment and allowing insurance companies to choose whom they will cover is the thing that destroys options.

 

Tara

 

I agree with you. The system is broken, for you. I'm fine with the coverage and premiums I have, but I do see problems for others. SOMETHING needs to be done, but I don't feel this bill is the answer. Things need to change for you, not me. That's my problem with sweeping reform. I don't want it and I don't need it.

 

If there were a bill that proposed a government plan that was truly competition for the private sector, that really cut out waste and fraud, that covered those un- and under-insured that really needed it, and could be paid for without raising taxes, I'd be for it. But given the history of the government-run programs, I don't think we'll ever see it.

[Peek a Boo]

But what do you think health insurance is? It's other people paying for your care. When you pay your insurance premiums, your money does not go into a pot with the label jcoopertc; it goes into a huge pot with everyone else's money and is doled out as needed (or, rather, as the insurance company sees fit). The whole premise of insurance is that we pay for one another.

 

Tara

 

Do y'all REALLY see no difference between forcing someone to join [or pay for] a plan by force at the point of a gun and letting people choose voluntarily whether to spend their money AT ALL on a plan?

 

really??

 

 

And there are lots and lots and lots of people who want to sign up and have a contract to agree to, and they are told, "No." Those nifty insurance companies give them no choice.

 

ETA: It seems to me that you are saying that, as long as the insurance company deems someone worthy to join the pool, you have no problem sharing the cost, but if the insurance company won't let someone in, too bad for them. That's giving the insurance companies an awful lot of power, and what happens to those people that insurance company won't play with?

 

yes, it's called the right to do business in a free society.

what happens to those people the companies won't play with??

As I've proposed --y'all who are intent on making sure those people are covered regardless should set up a special plan [much like what's being proposed now] that is VOLUNTARY. Y'all can set up your own rules and cover them all you want. Go for it. Put your money where your mouth is. Get Oprah and Bill Gates to help. Good luck.

 

 

Some here keep referring to being forced to pay taxes or being forced to participate in government run health care.

 

First of all, right now the options on the table all allow choice as to whether to participate in a public health care option. Single payer universal healthcare is not even being considered seriously which IMHO, I wish it was since it would be the most cost effective option for all.

No, there's not a free choice.

You will be forced to participate in some way by either joining or paying a fee. Page 16 of the bill spells out that grandfathered companies will not be allowed to add new customers or change their plans AT ALL - that will kill their ability to compete and ELIMINATE very strategically any alleged "choice."

If you can direct me to an option that does not penalize me for abstaining from any form of health insurance THEN I'll stand behind your statement.

[Peek a Boo]

Right, or the boogeyman may be a gun-toting, bible-thumping, redneck, rightwing extremist. If he were only sensible (i.e. not paranoid) he'd see that what some want to do in the USA, like nationalizing healthcare, is really what's best for him. Because the reasonable people really do know what's best for him. People who are concerned about expanding government are really just using their "concern" as code for the racist ideas. It couldn't be because they object on philosophic grounds, or that their arguments have validity in historical reference.

 

Only people on the right are capable of paranoia. Everyone on the left is sooooo lucid, reasonable and sensible. Like those folks who swear that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were responsible for 9/11. Or that the Patriot Act was passed so that Bush could spy on their library records. Or that Cuba has the best healthcare system in the world.

 

Let me tell ya, it took some time to de-program from my urban living, union organizing, ultra progressive family and their paranoid, self-satisfied, southern hating knowbetterism.

 

LOL! :lol:

 

no kidding!!

[Mrs Mungo]

I've noticed that in many older books, people take care of people who have less, taking them food, taking caring of them during illness, etc. In modern America, many people have the attitude that we don't have to do these things because the government does it through medicaid, food stamps, etc. One of the reasons I enjoy reading older books to my kids is because I want them to have the attitude of the characters in those books.

 

Actually, I don't think has anything to do with welfare. I think it has to do with the type of societies we live in. We live in communities where people frequently don't even talk to their neighbors, never mind know if someone is sick or needs help. We do these things in our church. In the military we do these things in our unit. But I wouldn't know if my next-door neighbor had a problem unless she came and told me. We don't hang washing out on the line, we have high fences that give us "privacy" instead of something to gossip over, I take my kids out to the park but I am frequently the only adult out there. Most of the time the other kids have parents who are all at work. I think it was an old Desmond Morris show that talked a lot about this-how the cities we live in are far too large, we can't have empathy for everyone, we can't have everyone in our circle and that inherently changes societies.

[Peek a Boo]

To further exemplify: we pay $1600 a month for our health insurance through Anthem BC/BS. A friend of mine's husband works for a different company, has the same number of people in his family, and also gets insurance through Anthem BC/BS. They pay $358 a month for a policy that is basically the same one we have. How could that possibly be construed as either fair or ethical?

 

 

why is it unfair or unethical for one employer to choose to spend THEIR MONEY voluntarily towards another person's healthcare???? Do you think every business is the same? has the same profit margins and struggles? why would you think what one business does should be applied to what EVERY business should do?

 

you think it would be FAIR AND ETHICAL to FORCE people to pay for EVERYONE's healthcare insurance????

[Peek a Boo]

Actually, I don't think has anything to do with welfare. I think it has to do with the type of societies we live in. We live in communities where people frequently don't even talk to their neighbors, never mind know if someone is sick or needs help. We do these things in our church. In the military we do these things in our unit. But I wouldn't know if my next-door neighbor had a problem unless she came and told me.

 

why should she say anything to anyone in the community when she can just fill out an application for help via the gvt??:confused:

 

i wouldn't know what my neighbors were facing either unless i made a point to get to know them.

[Mrs Mungo]

i wouldn't know what my neighbors were facing either unless i made a point to get to know them.

 

Not to put too fine a point on it but most of my neighbors are Asian and very few of the women speak English. My direct next-door neighbor is Filipino. She once locked herself out of the house and needed to call her husband. It took my husband and I about 10 minutes of pantomime to figure out what she was asking. Sometimes, getting to know your neighbors is easier said than done.

[Haiku]

why is it unfair or unethical for one employer to choose to spend THEIR MONEY voluntarily towards another person's healthcare???? Do you think every business is the same? has the same profit margins and struggles? why would you think what one business does should be applied to what EVERY business should do?

 

I'm not quite sure I am following you, but maybe you didn't understand that both my husband and my friend's husband get health insurance through their employers. What I can tell you is that my husband's company (which employs seven people, in addition to the two owners) tries desperately to get health insurance at reasonable rates for the people who work for the company. Because they are a small company, they are stuck with paying astronomical rates. My friend's husband works for a large company. They get reasonable rates. I think it is unethical for a company to say, "Because you work with 1,000 people, you get healthcare for this cost, and because you work with 8 other people, you get the same product for 446% more." And that is one of the reasons that I think a market-based system for healthcare is a failure. You get price gouging of an astronomical proportion. And I know that it is useless to try to argue my point to someone who (it appears to me) believes that a completely unregulated market is the answer.

 

you think it would be FAIR AND ETHICAL to FORCE people to pay for EVERYONE's healthcare insurance????

 

Considering that the point of insurance is that we all pay for each other, yes, I do, as long as the insurance companies play that game, too. Here's what I propose: If you don't want to have health insurance, rock on. Don't buy it. Fine by me. However, everyone who wants to have health insurance is able to buy it from private insurers. They are not allowed to refuse to cover people or gouge them on prices. Everyone is covered at roughly equivalent prices. Then insurance is doing what it is actually supposed to do, which is pool resources to share risk. You don't have to participate if you don't want to, and if you get in a car accident and can't pay for the care, I promise that I won't demand that my healthcare premiums go to paying your bills. ;)

 

I am not really arguing for or against the Obama plan. I'm not asking for free health insurance or free health care. What I want is 1) Everyone who wants health insurance is able to get it and 2) No one is gouged. I do not that think that is unreasonable.

 

Tara

Edited August 15, 2009 by TaraTheLiberator

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

As has been noted, the term "general welfare" doesn't mean "give people money". It meant laws applied to ensure the freedoms of the public generally, not to enrich or empower select individuals.

 

That's the idea behind an Originalist philosophy of constitutional and statutory interpretation. To understand what the authors of written law and constitution meant and apply it that way. If you just make the written word mean whatever you want it to mean, there's no point in having written law, and we have anarchy.

 

 

In my humble understanding, the socialistic government run healthcare programs of Medicare and Medicaid have been around for 40 some years and the Supreme Court has had all of those years to overturn them in the event that they are unconstitional and it has not done. Seems to me that government run health care programs are constitutional then since there has never been a successful challenge in 40 some years;).

Edited August 15, 2009 by priscilla
spell/clarify

[Haiku]

Peek, the more I think about this, the more I think that we are coming at this issue from the same place, which is both wanting people to be able to make the decisions they feel are best for their families. You want to make sure that you aren't forced to opt in. I want to make sure that I am not forced to opt out. I do believe that there is a way to make sure that we both get what we want, but I do think it will require government intervention. I don't think it has to be government-run health care, but I do think it will require government regulations that don't allow insurance companies to force people out of the system.

 

Tara

[Rosie_0801]

My sense of patriotism comes not by love of the gov't, but by a rich history of dedication to keep the people in charge of the gov't.

 

Uh, but surely if the populace was really in charge of the government then the government would be more popular, yes? And wouldn't more people vote?

 

Perhaps we're patriotic because we have so little trust in our government. Government is only one aspect of what it means to be a people. We are not our government.

.

 

Those two quotes can't both be true, can they?

 

I've noticed that in many older books, people take care of people who have less, taking them food, taking caring of them during illness, etc. In modern America, many people have the attitude that we don't have to do these things because the government does it through medicaid, food stamps, etc. One of the reasons I enjoy reading older books to my kids is because I want them to have the attitude of the characters in those books.

This doesn't mean people used to be that way in the good old days. In addition to what Mrs Mungo said, they are the sort of stories that sold in the good old days.

 

Rosie

[Stacy in NJ]

I just don't understand wanting to be somewhere that doesn't properly care for the least of their people. To me caring for the poor and downtrodden is a hallmark of a truely civilised society. I'm happy for my money to go to the government to do that.

 

I don't agree that it's a hallmark of true civilization to care for the "downtrodden".

 

I think it's a mark of true civilization to attempt to care for the downtrodden while at the same time expecting them to be full human beings by being responsible for themselves. I don't think infantalizing adults so that we can feel morally superior by providing for their needs is really compassion. It's using them to satisfy our own selfish need to demonstrate our superior "compassion".

[Rosie_0801]

I think it's a mark of true civilization to attempt to care for the downtrodden while at the same time expecting them to be full human beings by being responsible for themselves. I don't think infantalizing adults so that we can feel morally superior by providing for their needs is really compassion. It's using them to satisfy our own selfish need to demonstrate our superior "compassion".

 

That's not necessarily the case. One action can stem from many different attitudes. I haven't met anyone who pays taxes to boulster their own self esteem in the way you've described there. You may be right and there may be people who do. I don't suppose they'd tell me, because it would sound bad.

 

Rosie

[Margaret in GA]

why should she say anything to anyone in the community when she can just fill out an application for help via the gvt??:confused:

 

i wouldn't know what my neighbors were facing either unless i made a point to get to know them.

 

There are some things I can not do to help my neighbor. Like put out a fire in their house. Or educate their children. Or help them with health care. And really, I don't want to. I'm glad that the government is there to help people with these things. Am I sorry come tax time that I had to pay my fair share? Yes, but it's nice to drive on paved roads and I enjoy that fact that my police officer is keeping me safe while I sleep. Should we keep our eyes open for excessive government waste and spending? Yes, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Remember Blackwater? Kind of didn't work out privitizing our military. Some things should not be profit-driven.

 

Even though some people may feel they are owed entitlements by the government, I believe that by and large people who want help from the government would rather do for themselves. Just like Tara who just wants a little flexibility in her coverage and a little fairness. She's not asking for a hand out for goodness sakes.

 

Margaret

[dangerdad]

In my humble understanding, the socialistic government run healthcare programs of Medicare and Medicaid have been around for 40 some years and the Supreme Court has had all of those years to overturn them in the event that they are unconstitional and it has not done. Seems to me that government run health care programs are constitutional then since there has never been a successful challenge in 40 some years

 

AFAIK they've never been challenged on constitutional grounds. They're not part of the enumerated powers, and would likely be ruled unconstitutional if challenged IMO.

 

Just as Roe v. Wade was an abhorrent decision from a legal perspective (regardless on where you stand on abortion) and should be overturned. If the words of our founding documents don't mean anything, and written law can be ignored at will, then the only reason the government remains is because it has the arms and is doing everything at the point of a gun.

 

I hope that's not the case, and that words still have meaning. If it's not, God help us all, because another civil war will be inevitable.

[LizzyBee]

This doesn't mean people used to be that way in the good old days. In addition to what Mrs Mungo said, they are the sort of stories that sold in the good old days.

 

Rosie

 

No, everyone wasn't. Dickens certainly tells a different sort of story. But even so, I can remember a time when more people were concerned with helping others.

 

And if back in the day, those stories sold, it's because people identified with the stories and characters - which imo means those people did have the qualities that were exemplified by the characters in the books. Not everyone obviously, because the good old days were not a utopia.

[Audrey]

Right, or the boogeyman may be a gun-toting, bible-thumping, redneck, rightwing extremist. If he were only sensible (i.e. not paranoid) he'd see that what some want to do in the USA, like nationalizing healthcare, is really what's best for him. Because the reasonable people really do know what's best for him. People who are concerned about expanding government are really just using their "concern" as code for the racist ideas. It couldn't be because they object on philosophic grounds, or that their arguments have validity in historical reference.

 

Only people on the right are capable of paranoia. Everyone on the left is sooooo lucid, reasonable and sensible. Like those folks who swear that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were responsible for 9/11. Or that the Patriot Act was passed so that Bush could spy on their library records. Or that Cuba has the best healthcare system in the world.

 

Let me tell ya, it took some time to de-program from my urban living, union organizing, ultra progressive family and their paranoid, self-satisfied, southern hating knowbetterism.

 

 

Back your snark up there, chickita. You totally missed the boat on that one. I didn't refer to any parties -- I'm talking about ALL of america. Everyone gets the same propaganda of fear. I don't care what side of the political bed you park your boots. Lefties are just as paranoid as the right-wingers.

[johnandtinagilbert]

Uh, but surely if the populace was really in charge of the government then the government would be more popular, yes? And wouldn't more people vote?

Rosie

Rosie,

I think the complacency of many by either not voting or failing to educate themselves on for what they are voting is a problem in our nation currently.

 

I think the reason you are seeing Tea Parties and Town Hall Meetings is b/c of the current unpopularity of our gov't.; however popularity and voting percentiles, or lack thereof, does not mean power is gone from the people, it means the majority are not walking in their right to lead the gov't.

[LizzyBee]

Actually, I don't think has anything to do with welfare. I think it has to do with the type of societies we live in. We live in communities where people frequently don't even talk to their neighbors, never mind know if someone is sick or needs help. We do these things in our church. In the military we do these things in our unit. But I wouldn't know if my next-door neighbor had a problem unless she came and told me. We don't hang washing out on the line, we have high fences that give us "privacy" instead of something to gossip over, I take my kids out to the park but I am frequently the only adult out there. Most of the time the other kids have parents who are all at work. I think it was an old Desmond Morris show that talked a lot about this-how the cities we live in are far too large, we can't have empathy for everyone, we can't have everyone in our circle and that inherently changes societies.

 

I think it's so sad that many communities are like this. At one of my former jobs, people were discussing whether their neighbors would tell them if their kids had a party while the parents weren't home. I could name at least 4 neighbors who I know would have told us if this occurred - not because they'd want to get my kids in trouble but because they care about my kids. Most of my co-workers thought their neighbors would tell them nothing.

 

One time a friend was telling me about the months they lived in a working class neighborhood while having their custom home built on a 3-acre lot. In the working class neighborhood, the kids played together, the adults were friendly to each other, and they loved living there. When they moved to their custom home, no-one spoke to them and none of the kids played together. My friend and her family would wave and call hello when they saw their neighbors out, and the neighbors ignored them. They loved their house, but they were really lonely in that neighborhood.

 

Even in big cities, there are communities and neighborhoods where people are neighborly. I was really struck by that when I moved to Baltimore after graduating from high school. We can't have everyone in our circle, but it seems like nowadays many people don't even have a circle.

 

Regarding your first sentence, I've heard people express that, so I know it's true at least for some people, but I can't say how widespread the attitude is.

 

Off topic, but I'm glad you're back on the boards. I missed you when you weren't here.

Edited August 15, 2009 by LizzyBee

[johnandtinagilbert]

There are some things I can not do to help my neighbor. Like put out a fire in their house. Or educate their children. Or help them with health care.

Margaret

Um, I understand the depth in which you meant your statements, but I can say (and honestly not tooting my own horn)

 

When my house caught on fire, it was my neighbors in action that started putting out the fire (the fd did come, but my neighbors got to it)

 

I am educating another persons child this coming year...for free.

 

Before they moved away, we helped our neighbors with health care (some first aid, sometimes with natural remedies, sometimes by going through pt, and sometimes by providing $ for meds).

 

My point is you said you didn't want to, but there are many more like me, who can be even more generous than I can be, who will help if given the opportunity.

[Rosie_0801]

No, everyone wasn't. Dickens certainly tells a different sort of story. But even so, I can remember a time when more people were concerned with helping others.

 

Perhaps back then neither mothers not grandmothers were working full time outside the home? If you aren't in a position to help anyone, you will have to block a specific sense of concern for them. Otherwise you'd be a guilt ridden mess all the time. My life would be more comfy if I had the sort of support my aunt had from my grandmother in her child's first year of life. Of course my aunt's life would be more comfy if she didn't have to work to pay child support for her husband's other kids. We all know how it feels to work hard all day and feel we've accomplished nothing. On those sorts of days, we don't have anything left over for anyone else. Most people I know have a lot of those kinds of days.

 

Rosie

[Rosie_0801]

however popularity and voting percentiles, or lack thereof, does not mean power is gone from the people, it means the majority are not walking in their right to lead the gov't.

If the people choose not to exercise power, then they don't have any. They still have the potential for power, but that's not the same thing.

 

For the record, I do not consider Australia to be a political utopia :D I engage in this sort of discussion so when my brother comes out with a random, shooting from the hip, anti-American rant, I can actually answer his question sensibly instead of merely saying "Yeah, those Yanks are a funny bunch;" which is all he means by his rant anyway.

 

:)

Rosie

[LizzyBee]

Perhaps back then neither mothers not grandmothers were working full time outside the home? If you aren't in a position to help anyone, you will have to block a specific sense of concern for them. Otherwise you'd be a guilt ridden mess all the time. My life would be more comfy if I had the sort of support my aunt had from my grandmother in her child's first year of life. Of course my aunt's life would be more comfy if she didn't have to work to pay child support for her husband's other kids. We all know how it feels to work hard all day and feel we've accomplished nothing. On those sorts of days, we don't have anything left over for anyone else. Most people I know have a lot of those kinds of days.

 

Rosie

 

Well, when I was growing up, most of the moms did have to work outside the home, but most of the grandma's didn't. I definitely know the feeling of doing all I can do and not having any physical or mental energy to do more. But when I look back on my parent's generation, it seems like they worked so much harder and sometimes I wonder what's wrong with me. My dad farmed and worked an outside job, my mom worked at various jobs that were physically demanding, they planted as many as 3 large garden in addition to crops every summer. I don't know how they did it year after year. My mom would work all day and then come home and can vegetables; sometimes we were still unloading hay at 10 pm, and I could go on. Yet, people still found time to help the neighbors when they needed something. All the fire and EMS depts for miles around that area are volunteer, and most of the volunteers have jobs and/or farms; yet they find time to volunteer too.

 

Now I'm rambling and I don't have any profound answers to solve the world's problems, so I'm going to get off the computer and eat dinner with my family. :001_smile:

[Peek a Boo]

Everyone already has the opportunity, and its not doing enough, it seems. I read recently that about 6 Shriner hospitals were closing due to not enough charity, food banks all over the country are half empty, etc. Our food pantry in town is always begging for help, and this place has a high, very high, number of churches. Apparently the religious charity is not enough here. I think its time to face the facts, there are too many people in crisis all over the world, and charity alone can not solve the problem, be it from the churches or the secular charities.

 

I totally agree that religious charity is not enough, but according to almost every study and statistic out there it is the religious right that is forking out more of their OWN money trying to help people. Yeah, there are some secular organizations out there, but they are nowhere near as prevalent. Maybe that needs to change.

and of course, taking money from others by force only results in a whole 'nuther problem, and one that can't be rectified very easily.

[Peek a Boo]

Back your snark up there, chickita. You totally missed the boat on that one. I didn't refer to any parties -- I'm talking about ALL of america. Everyone gets the same propaganda of fear. I don't care what side of the political bed you park your boots. Lefties are just as paranoid as the right-wingers.

 

There is such a thing as a healthy dose of rational fear, especially when it is based on historical precedents.

and of course, fear mongering only works when there is an element of truth to it. That Americans keep that truth in focus instead of letting it disappear into history doesn't [necessarily ;) ] make us paranoid.

[Elaine]

I don't agree that it's a hallmark of true civilization to care for the "downtrodden".

 

I think it's a mark of true civilization to attempt to care for the downtrodden while at the same time expecting them to be full human beings by being responsible for themselves. I don't think infantalizing adults so that we can feel morally superior by providing for their needs is really compassion. It's using them to satisfy our own selfish need to demonstrate our superior "compassion".

 

Can I get an Amen?:iagree:

[Renee in NC]

Well, when I was growing up, most of the moms did have to work outside the home, but most of the grandma's didn't. I definitely know the feeling of doing all I can do and not having any physical or mental energy to do more. But when I look back on my parent's generation, it seems like they worked so much harder and sometimes I wonder what's wrong with me. My dad farmed and worked an outside job, my mom worked at various jobs that were physically demanding, they planted as many as 3 large garden in addition to crops every summer. I don't know how they did it year after year. My mom would work all day and then come home and can vegetables; sometimes we were still unloading hay at 10 pm, and I could go on. Yet, people still found time to help the neighbors when they needed something. All the fire and EMS depts for miles around that area are volunteer, and most of the volunteers have jobs and/or farms; yet they find time to volunteer too.

 

Now I'm rambling and I don't have any profound answers to solve the world's problems, so I'm going to get off the computer and eat dinner with my family. :001_smile:

 

I think we have it too easy these days.:tongue_smilie: Your post helped me a bit - right now my life is pretty easy timewise. I know that is going to have to change and your memories made me realize I *can* work several different part-time jobs, grow the gardens, do outside activities, homeschool, and still sleep (sometimes!) My mantra - you can do anything you have to.;)

 

Totally OT I realize, but thanks anyway!

Edited August 15, 2009 by Renee in FL

[Peek a Boo]

I don't agree that it's a hallmark of true civilization to care for the "downtrodden".

 

sure it is.

It's just not civilized to do so by taking everyone else's money by force.

 

i guess "a civilized society" is another one of those buzzwords we were discussing in the other thread. ;)

[johnandtinagilbert]

If the people choose not to exercise power, then they don't have any. They still have the potential for power, but that's not the same thing.

 

For the record, I do not consider Australia to be a political utopia :D I engage in this sort of discussion so when my brother comes out with a random, shooting from the hip, anti-American rant, I can actually answer his question sensibly instead of merely saying "Yeah, those Yanks are a funny bunch;" which is all he means by his rant anyway.

 

:)

Rosie

We are a funny bunch! :001_smile: And to add to your discussion with him Yanks live North of the Mason Dixon line...Southerners are not yanks! Not that I care, but hey, it's trivial American information for you to add to your list ;)

[johnandtinagilbert]

Everyone already has the opportunity, and its not doing enough, it seems. I read recently that about 6 Shriner hospitals were closing due to not enough charity, food banks all over the country are half empty, etc. Our food pantry in town is always begging for help, and this place has a high, very high, number of churches. Apparently the religious charity is not enough here. I think its time to face the facts, there are too many people in crisis all over the world, and charity alone can not solve the problem, be it from the churches or the secular charities.

I mentioned earlier in the thread that perhaps others could help more, particularly financially, if they weren't devoting such a large portion to taxes. At his point, if would surely be hard for charitable organizations to pick up the pieces b/c our society has the perspective that the gov't will handle it.

 

We are also not talking about the entire world, we are talking about the USA. Which adds to our discussion....our nation puts out a LOT of money to other nations. I wonder, not saying it should be this way, but I wonder how different our nation would be if we kept all that money here for one year, maybe two....just food for thought.

[Margaret in GA]

Um, I understand the depth in which you meant your statements, but I can say (and honestly not tooting my own horn)

 

When my house caught on fire, it was my neighbors in action that started putting out the fire (the fd did come, but my neighbors got to it)

 

I am educating another persons child this coming year...for free.

 

Before they moved away, we helped our neighbors with health care (some first aid, sometimes with natural remedies, sometimes by going through pt, and sometimes by providing $ for meds).

 

My point is you said you didn't want to, but there are many more like me, who can be even more generous than I can be, who will help if given the opportunity.

 

Knock yerself out ;) I really can't handle nor do I want to deal with my neighbors' kids.

 

Margaret

[keptwoman]

We are a funny bunch! :001_smile: And to add to your discussion with him Yanks live North of the Mason Dixon line...Southerners are not yanks! Not that I care, but hey, it's trivial American information for you to add to your list ;)

Ah but you have to understand where calling you Yanks comes from. When your soldiers were posted in NZ and Australia in WWII they were all called Yanks, regardless of where in the US they came from. My Nana often talks with fondness of the Yankee boys that took her out during the war and sneaking out of the window with her mothers help :lol: I think that for NZers and Australians, all Americans are Yanks, but it's a term of endearment :)

[keptwoman]

We are also not talking about the entire world, we are talking about the USA. Which adds to our discussion....our nation puts out a LOT of money to other nations. I wonder, not saying it should be this way, but I wonder how different our nation would be if we kept all that money here for one year, maybe two....just food for thought.

Not that I disagree with you about what a difference not giving money would make, but it's not just the US that gives aid money. All wealthy countries give money to poorer ones. Australia and the US are pretty much on par with the amount they give, but others give much more (on a per capita basis)

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930884.html

Again to me it's something that is important, but yes sometimes it's hard to justify when things in ones own country need fixing. I just suspect that with that rational no one would ever give aid money.

[Haiku]

According to that link, the US ranks 16th out of the 21 richest nations in the world in per capita foreign aid.

 

Tara

[Rosie_0801]

Well, when I was growing up, most of the moms did have to work outside the home, but most of the grandma's didn't. I definitely know the feeling of doing all I can do and not having any physical or mental energy to do more. But when I look back on my parent's generation, it seems like they worked so much harder and sometimes I wonder what's wrong with me.

 

I look back at my parents and understand why my mother developed mental illness. I don't know what's wrong with you. I know what's wrong with me. Lack of sleep :)

Both of my parents volunteered in the community. Even my mentally ill mother does that. Even my father who was working two jobs did that. There are so many ways to volunteer, there is a position suitable for nearly everyone. Maybe people should watch less telly and spend less time mooching online, lol.

 

We are also not talking about the entire world, we are talking about the USA. Which adds to our discussion....our nation puts out a LOT of money to other nations. I wonder, not saying it should be this way, but I wonder how different our nation would be if we kept all that money here for one year, maybe two....just food for thought.

You are also the biggest debtor in the world. I'd have thought your government ought to be paying that back with the money used for foreign aid. On the other hand, no one can make you pay back your debts, so the money can be spent better elsewhere. Does the US pay aid to Nigeria? They are an oil producing country, so it would make sense. Anyway, you can all tell from those few sentences that I know very little about global economics. So little that I feel smart by using the term 'global economics' in a sentence.

 

Southerners are not yanks! Not that I care, but hey, it's trivial American information for you to add to your list ;)

We know this. It was not a lack of "trivial American information" on our part. It was a dialect difference. In Australian English, you are ALL Yanks :tongue_smilie:

 

:)

Rosie

Edited August 16, 2009 by Rosie_0801

[Audrey]

WYanks live North of the Mason Dixon line...Southerners are not yanks! Not that I care, but hey, it's trivial American information for you to add to your list ;)

 

Sorry, but I'm afraid you're way outnumbered on that one. I used to be bothered by the Yank comment, but to Canucks, Aussies and Brits, any American is a Yank.

[Jenny in Atl]

We are a funny bunch! :001_smile: And to add to your discussion with him Yanks live North of the Mason Dixon line...Southerners are not yanks! Not that I care, but hey, it's trivial American information for you to add to your list ;)

 

 

To anyone outside the US, we are all Yanks. Plus, there are tons of "Northerners" in the south and "Southerners" in the north or west, etc. Very few folks in the US stay put in just one part of the country. We move all over, so the old labels don't always apply.