6 ms·
A safety net absolutely is "super partisan crazy talk" in the US, because a large fraction of the population simply doesn't support it, including another respon
by magduf 7y ago
A safety net absolutely is "super partisan crazy talk" in the US, because a large fraction of the population simply doesn't support it, including another responder to this post. This just goes to show how different cultures can be. Your point-of-view is obviously not very American at all, and probably much more European, so the very idea of not providing food and a safety net in a time of crisis, to you, is almost unthinkable. However, for most Americans, this idea is seen as "socialist" and repugnant, whereas for example the idea of not having the freedom to own lots of guns is almost unthinkable to them.
In short, don't assume that most people share your basic values or worldview. You might be living in a place where they simply don't.
- MereInterest 7y ago> In short, don't assume that most people share your basic values or worldview. You might be living in a place where they simply don't I think that's covered under his "something very wrong with us".
- magduf 7y agoThat's his opinion. Tens of millions of other Americans don't think so at all, and they're making their voices heard in national elections and successfully choosing our leaders.
- lutorm 7y agoThat would be fine, but it seems that fairly often, once they need those safety nets and not "those other people", those principles no longer apply.
- magduf 7y agoYou would think, but these people do consistently vote against their own best interests. You can lead a horse to water...
- malandrew 7y agoVoting in my best interest would necessarily include policies taking things from some Americans and giving it to me. Just because I'm voting in my best interest doesn't mean I'm voting for something good. What matters is voting consistent with principles even if they aren't in your best interest.
- magduf 7y agoNo. You seem to be unfamiliar with the idea that "a rising tide lifts all boats". You're assuming that acting what appear to be your best short-term interests will equate to a better outcome in the long term, which is usually not the case. For instance, should you vote to abolish police and courts, so you don't have to pay taxes for them? In the short term, that would net you more money. In the long term, it would mean you'll be living in a lawless wasteland and someone will rob and murder you.
- souprock 7y agoPicking an example disconnected from modern politics... Suppose that every year the federal government gave each family a baked goose to celebrate our acquisition of colonies via the Spanish-American War. You can think this is an offensive celebration or a crazy waste of money, but why not accept the goose when it is delivered? It's still a tasty meal, even if you think it shouldn't be given out. That is what is going on. It's not hypocrisy, hate, or inconsistent principles.
- josephorjoe 7y agoBe careful with how you throw around your "not very American at all" claims. America is a big place. It is unwise to presume you know all of it. In my part of it, most of us think letting people die of privation due to misfortune and societal factors outside their control in such a wealthy society is cruel and foolish (read history to understand why it is foolish). In my part of America, most of us also think letting random individuals own weapons constructed purposely for killing multiple humans quickly is absolutely insane. YMMV
- malandrew 7y agoAnd your part of America is free to pass all the social safety net programs for your part of America and to tax your part of America to pay for it. We don't need to create a social safety net at the federal level. Prove that the idea works at the state level before you trying to scale half-baked ideas to the whole country.