It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why doesn't america have an NHS??

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
nygdan, well i'm not going to respond to the whole of your post, because each point was basicly the same:-

"governnace is the control of violence and power"

not true at all, a govenment is formed to make decisions to move your country foward/protect the citizens/make decisions to give a citizen of the country the best chance in life!!


I think you are wrong here partially. That may be how government is viewed in Europe, but Americans have completely different expectations from their own government. We believe the governments job is to protect the borders and prevent toal anarchy. Not coddle and nurture the people in a sort of nanny state. it is the individuals job to push themselves forwards and make their own fortune.


health/education/employment (even ways to support yourself when you are not employed) - covers all this issues.


These are issues that are up to the indivudal, not the state to deciede. Its called personal empowerment.


isn't america 'the land of opportunity' - yet very few will get this opportunity and suceed with it due to 'old fashioned' traditions,


Its the land of opportunity, not free rides. Opportunity is there for everyone if they are willing to take opportunity as it comes. America does not give away opportunity, but creates a climate of non-interferance where opportunity can flourish.


so in real terms live in america and the rich get 'richer' and the poor get 'poorer' because theres no way for the 'poor' to better themselfs because:-

1) to have an education you need money.

2) for health - you need money

3) unemployment (even if its not your fault) - you get no benefits to support yourself/or your family


The rich get richer and the poor get poorer in every country of the world. Its an international trend. Its even happening in Europe.


so basicly the poor in the 'richest' country in the world, live 3rd world??


Nope. The poor in America, unlike the third world, always have the opportunity to climb out of their ruts if they are willing to work for it.




posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crackity_Jones

1)Because you caused SOMe of the problems


Some, but not all. Key.


2) Seeing as your a country based upon strong moral values, by default, you should


Says who, you? What if it goes against our moral values?


3) If you dont, hten dont expect other countries to LIKE or HELP you, at all, ever.., and you shouldnt get pissed when a country resists you (economicly, militartily, religiously, politicly ect.)


Other countries have never really liked us, nor do I expect them to. I personally don';t thionk Americans are interested in winning international popularity contests.

And no one has ever helped us, nor have we ever really expected them to. And I expect other countries to resist us. They wouldnt be respectable if they didn't.






posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer in every country of the world.


The poor did not get poorer in the United States from 1946 until the early 1980s. Policies were in place during that period that encouraged high wages, and the income of all but the very poorest rose accordingly. "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" was a campaign slogan coined by Democrats during Ronald Reagan's first term, and it was used because that was happenign under Reagan and it was a change.



Its an international trend. Its even happening in Europe.


Yes, but the reason for it is that policies have been in place since the early 1980s encouraging the migration of industrial facilities to poor countries with oppressive governments that don't recognize workers' rights. That U.S. manufacturers do this allows them to cut prices, putting pressure on their European competitors to follow suit. This in turn lowers overall earning capacity for the working class in all developed economies, where high-paying manufacturing jobs are being replaced by low-paying service jobs (in the U.S.) or with no jobs at all (in Europe).



The poor in America, unlike the third world, always have the opportunity to climb out of their ruts if they are willing to work for it.


Nice myth. It might even be true, if you are careful enough in defining what you mean by "poor."

If you mean "poor" like a typical mentally ill or drug-dependent person, i.e. with no income to speak of, living homeless and with nothing -- then yes, if someone is so unlucky as to be THAT extremely poor yet not be mentally ill or drug-dependent, getting any job whatsoever will pull them -- well, into a less extreme sort of poverty.

But if you mean "poor" like the typical working poor, with a full-time job that still doesn't allow a decent lifestyle no matter how much he works at it, then you're wrong.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 07:46 PM
link   

If you mean "poor" like a typical mentally ill or drug-dependent person, i.e. with no income to speak of, living homeless and with nothing -- then yes, if someone is so unlucky as to be THAT extremely poor yet not be mentally ill or drug-dependent, getting any job whatsoever will pull them -- well, into a less extreme sort of poverty.


If a person is poor because they are a drug addled nutcase, then thats their problem. It should certainly not be anyone elses responsibility, especially not society, to drag them into the gutters that they themselves have chosen to lie in. And I speak from experience having a few family members screw up their own lives with drugs. Having good lives, good jobs, all down the drain because they got involved with drugs. Their fault, no one but themselves (and maybe their families) should be responsible for getting them back to normal.


But if you mean "poor" like the typical working poor, with a full-time job that still doesn't allow a decent lifestyle no matter how much he works at it, then you're wrong.


Id say you are wrong here. There are many people who came from working class backgrounds who started out with nothing and worked their way up to have a good life. Oh, true, they had to work very hard for it. It didn't come free. But they were able to do it through hard work, careful planning, long termed goals, and taking advantage of opportunity.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
If a person is poor because they are a drug addled nutcase, then thats their problem. It should certainly not be anyone elses responsibility


This has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. All I was doing was trying to clarify what you meant by "poor." There's what we call the working poor, those who hold jobs that can't provide a decent living, and then there are the unemployable, who have no jobs at all nor any prospect of finding them.

These two categories are often confused. And what you said (that it is always possible to rise out of poverty) may be true (absent mental illness, disability, or some other reason why work is literally impossible), if what you mean by "poor" is the more extreme sort. It is certainly possible for anyone in this country who is unemployed and not, for some reason, unemployable, to rise into the working poor. Rising out of the working poor is another question.



Id say you are wrong here. There are many people who came from working class backgrounds who started out with nothing and worked their way up to have a good life.


That doesn't make me wrong, because I wasn't saying "never." I was refuting your own "always." There is room for some members of the working class to rise into the middle class. That's always been true, although how easy it's been, and consequently how many have managed it, has varied. It was much easier, and many more people did it, when I was growing up than can manage it now.

But it has never been possible for everyone in the working class to do that. The rules of our economic game dictate the number of people who can be rich and middle class, and consign everyone else to the working poor (unless they're disabled for some reason and drop into the really poor). Whether you, personally, will manage to rise into the middle class is dependent on your own ability and effort, but if you do, you will do it by beating out someone else less gifted or less industrious than yourself. You will not create prosperity, but simply seize it.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 03:28 AM
link   

3) If you dont, hten dont expect other countries to LIKE or HELP you, at all, ever.., and you shouldnt get pissed when a country resists you (economicly, militartily, religiously, politicly ect.)



I agree, countries never really "liked us", they see our friendship as an opportunity for themselves. And when has a country ever helped us? Just curious...



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward


But it has never been possible for everyone in the working class to do that. The rules of our economic game dictate the number of people who can be rich and middle class, and consign everyone else to the working poor (unless they're disabled for some reason and drop into the really poor). Whether you, personally, will manage to rise into the middle class is dependent on your own ability and effort, but if you do, you will do it by beating out someone else less gifted or less industrious than yourself. You will not create prosperity, but simply seize it.


The opportunity is there for everyone. Its all a matter of taking that opportunity. Few people in the wroking class take the opportunity. I remember how most of the people I knew when I was working crap factory and labor jobs seldom bothered saving money, investing it in the long term, or worked through school. Instead, their paychecks went for beer, parties, car toys, bikes, stereo equipment, ect. They did not say, jee, I dont wanna work crap jobs the rest of my life, Im gonna forgoe beer and stick with my old tapedeck in my car and save the money instead to put myself through school so I can move up in the world. If they cant be bothered to make some sacrifices and save for the long term or make future plans, then why should they move out of being at the lower end of the totem pole?

Socialism is nonsense and counter not only to the natural order, but progress in general. Socialism encourages mediocrity and dulls ambition and drive, even greed, all of which, like it or not, have been the driving factors for just about every discovery and devlopment in civilization.

I never had any interest, even when I was poor, of living in a socialist society or ever wanted to redistribute wealth. Like most people in the lower classes, I wanted to move up. However, if you make the price of moving up the food chain too high and burdensome, like taking the hell out of the middle classes to support the lower classes, then you make being middle class or even upper class less appealing. After all, why not stay lower class if you have all the benefits everyone else does, and best of all, youre not getting taxed to hell to support everyone?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join