Introducing social programs in a post-cold war america

Well yes, they shouldn't implement universal healthcare until most of the population want it.

I just find it sad most Americans are blind to how it will help the vunerable in society, or else they don't care.

It's perfectly possible to teach history without a bias.

Except they are consenting. As citizens of the United States of America they accept both the benefits and duties associated with that title. Taxation included.

This is a Republic Shaw, not a Feudal Despotism. We are citizens not subjects. Stop pretending otherwise you ungrateful whore.

As a teacher, you should be able to educate pupils relatively unbiased regardless of your personal political views.

In order to have a social program available ti someone everyone must pay into it.

What's wrong with that though? The service will always be available to all those that are paying.

I actually have something to say about universal healthcare. Even though I support it, it would not work at this time in the US. In the US, there are not enough hospitals for it to work. Think about it, we need to be able to give everybody in the US immediate medical attention in emergencies and quick attention with less important things. However, when I lived in New Jersey I went to the hospital on Fort Dix (JB MDL Dix) every time I needed something. The problem with this is that everyone in the military and their immediate families (spouse and kids) gets free medical attention. More than 44,000 military personnel and their families live in Fort Dix, and that doesn't count the amount of military families that live farther away. For instance, my family lived around 35 minutes by driving from it, like many military families that chose to live in the suburban sprawl of Southern New Jersey. That's a lot of people and all of them want attention from just a couple hospitals available to them for free. As a result, it takes several months to get a routine check up scheduled, and the ER on base has up to a 10 hour wait. The bureaucracy is amazingly inefficient. Now imagine this except with every person in the United States trying to be served by the quite spread out hospitals. It would be a nightmare where no one will benefit. If we do this, it will require a massive government project building hospitals across the states. Lets just not go there right now.

Or even better, they should just leave it up to the states, which would work faster and with less trouble.

Of course its possible. Why does everybody feel the need to point that out?

Nobody asked me if I accept.

A national socialist republic.

It could easily be paid for by a good old tax rise! Yay!

You've clearly accepted, and you continue to accept everyday. Everyday of your life you chose to live here and reap the benefits of being both a US citizen and a citizen of the dominate hegemon nation.

Poor you, you're so oppressed. Life must be real hard at the top.

Did somebody just delete a really long post?

Well fuck me for pointing out the problems that exist within my society, im such a piece of shit.

Blood Sucking Vampire =/= Piece Of Shit

You aren't that low.

When did I say there was something wrong with it?
P.S. Shaw don't double post.

Oh I wasn't sure exactly who you were supporting so I assumed you were against. Just take my post as agreement and being aimed at everyone rather than just you.

If you're referring to mine its just a couple posts above yours and its not that long. If you're referring to someone else, I don't know.

Do you really think Americans will be happy with paying more taxes so that the government can go and build hundreds of hospitals. Also, imagine the costs of building them, training new workers, maintaining them, no. That can't be achieved through a simple tax rise unless you want to raise taxes like one or two full percent.

Well yeah, why not, it's a simple matter of getting the support of the American people, who will see in their wisdom that a 1% tax rise is a fair price to pay for hospitals for everyone.
By the way, I'm totally joking here. I realise this will never happen.

Good. It would be nice but they'd build like a hospital and then the Republicans would shut it down by being awkward with finances and budget.

'Under the guise of Democracy'?
What are you talking about? It is totally a Democratic system.
Democracy is when everyone votes the way that they want to - which US citizens do - and then everyone is forced to follow the majority decision.
You know what we call a system in which everyone votes and the dissenters go their own way?
We don't. Its called a succession. It is typically followed by a long and bloody civil war.

Yes, people from different places have different views but:
1) The country is a country. It needs to have common rules, common laws, and a system that unites it. Otherwise, it is little more than a loose confederation of state-nations (no, not nation-states) that band together only in the face of overwhelming odds; like so many tribals. It is a matter of principle.
2) People do have varying needs, yes, but they usually have common needs. The vast majority of citizens still need healthcare, a road to get to work, a hospital to go to when they are hurt, food in their stomach, etc. These are recognized as universal human needs that need to be met. The vast majority of people cannot afford to pay for a road to get to work on their own, nor a hospital for when they need medical services.
3) You are promoting a system under which the wealthy will get what they need and the vast majority will suffer from inadequate living conditions. Take a place in which the population is evenly divided between 50/50 between the rich and the poor. The rich can afford the pay for private medical care, but the poor, even pooling their money, get shoddy to no care at all. Tax-based social services help to ensure an acceptable basic living standard for the majority of people.
Local governments cannot always ensure the living standard that is necessary for its people. There are cities that have too few people and some with too many. Paying for the social programs necessary to upkeep the city and provide the basic infrastructure that everyone needs is not always feasible for the city.
State governments are not always capible of providing the necessary services for their people. Furthermore, the closer-to-home nature of a state government is sometimes a mixed blessing. State governments have a high chance for private intrests to prevent necessary funds to be diverted or programs to go forward. Federal institutions have a chance to provide these things objective of these private interests.
Do both local and state governments understand the specific needs of their people better than the Federal government? Undoubtedly. That is the one of the core purposes of local and state governments. However, there must be a balence that includes the consideration of ability and willingness to carry out the social programs that are, objectively and without a doubt, necessary to ensure an adequate basic living standard for the vast majority of people.
Btw: There is a logistics nightmare inherit in the idea that there would be seperate facilities for the wealthy and the poor who pool their resources.
I am not saying that your argument (under the US theory of property and the pursuit of happiness and whatnot) has no merit. Is there a contradiction between the priciples of the coutry and how it is actually run? In all likelyhood, yes. Are there flaws and inconsistencies between what is and what is meant to be? Undoubtedly.
Are there a possible slew of flaws or particular views in my argument? Of course.
I am merely pointing out that the current system works (and I emphasize 'works') and the alternative looks more to be backtracking more than anything. After all, its not like the system that you propose has not existed (in limited and parhaps full form) in the past. The current system is largely seen as an improvement from that system, one that benefits the majority interest.
In other words, the current system is better than the alternative. For the majority of people.
Final Note: Remember that you are blatently assuming that just because the authority on social programs is handed over to state or local governmentst that the majority will eliminate them. The voting polls suggest otherwise. There are and (as long as the current system exists) probably always will be more less-affluent people than affluent. Which way do you think they will vote?

Measure of.
The current condition is partly because people have started to realize the contradiction between the practice of the First Amendment and arresting people for their political beliefs.
However, as I pointed out, the lesser aspects, particularly the blacklisting of the ideology and the subjective teaching of the subject, are alive and well.

Statist alert!

BLAME IT ON THE

Sorry to interrupt here but I just found an incredible article on Consevapedia, genuinely one of the most ridiculous things I've seen in my life.

I do not support Unions.