The American underclass (which is multiracial and includes many whites, BTW) is kept down by social factors which have nothing to do with genetics and which, sadly, would persist if white racism were to vanish entirely. It is the same, I think, with the Canadian underclass insofar as Canada has one. There are potentially effective solutions, but none that wouldn’t cost a whole lot of money and/or involve a whole lot of intrusive government.
Even if everything you say is true, it does not undermine my claim. Whether a national policy is effective depends on how a country is, not on how we wish it would be. The fact is that the United States has a much bigger underclass than does Canada.
It has. That does not mean that what works in Canada won’t work here.
If you do, in fact have a bigger underclass (and we have plenty, along with lots of racism - ie first nations), then I would propose that it is your lack of “socialism” that has helped to produce it. Spare me the racist “genetics” crappola.
I doubt it. For example, Canada set up its health care system around 1960. So before around 1960, neither the US nor Canada had socialized medicine. Did the US have a big underclass before 1960 (compared to Canada)? I think the answer is “yes.”
Time to post the following yet again (as always, to put things in their proper, global perspective, to which Americans seem particularly oblivious):
From “The American Paradox,” by Ted Halstead, published in The Atlantic Monthly, January/February 2003:
Each approach to the social contract has its pluses and minuses, of course, but on balance America has made a very bad bargain for itself and should learn from the examples of others.
Even if that means “creeping socialism.”
What was it McCain said about health care during the last debate? “If you like that, you’ ll love Canada and England.” I can’t be the only one who found myself thinking, “I do like Canada and England, and I’ve accessed great, cheap health care in both countries.”
It seems to me that your comparison ignores the fact that America has a large racial underclass. We didn’t choose to have high HIV rates, it’s largely a result of our demographics. There’s only one industrialized nation with a bigger underclass than the US. That same nation has higher murder rates, higher HIV rates, etc.
How?
Which? (Brazil is not really “industrialized,” and South Africa is not a fair basis for comparison as the AIDS epidemic started near there.)
Whether universal health care will be a good thing or bad is something that no one will really be able to really rule on for 40-60 years.
The main issue with socialist states is that productivity, inventiveness, and quality all go to the crapper. Say what you will about the greed motive, it does seem to be the motivator which has the best track record historically to create things that genuinely improve the lifestyle of everyone.
So the question is how much can you chip off from worldly attainables without lowering the rate of at which the lowest standard of living improves. Giving the lowest income bracket gives them a better standard of living, but technological improvement also does that as well. The poorest American almost assuredly receives better medical care in the modern day US than the wealthiest American could hope for in 1908.
Sweden has the largest number of patents per capita in the world at the moment, and a very high level of socialist programs, but they’ve also had a steadily raising level of unemployment because…well why work? Where will that end up balancing out? There’s no saying until it does and that could, like I said, take several generations to occur.
A hallmark of the underclass is engaging in reckless conduct.
South Africa. Higher murder rate; higher HIV rate; etc. I haven’t checked the statistics, but I bet illiteracy and illegitimacy are higher there too. And that personal savings are lower.
Except Cuba is not just Socialist. The ruling party for the past God knows how many years has been the Communist party. The way people in the US see Socialism and Communism as the exact same thing never ceases to puzzle me. I can only put it down to a combination of ignorance and mass indoctrination that has been going on since the 1950s.
I happily sit now in a Socialist country, Sweden. I’d happily take on the argument that we are more free and less corrupt than the United States of America. But I’ll never convince anyone who refuses to budge from the indoctrinated incorrect idea that Communism and Socialism are the same thing.
I don’t at all equate socialism with those things, but I would rather see my government operate out of a desire to ensure that all citizens are recognized as valuable, desired, and integral parts of the country. I do not believe that is the case now with either the government or much of the population. Less “me me me”, more “us us us”.
Personally, I do not think that the role of government is to take from the rich and give to the poor. You speak of earning things, so let me ask you this: did you earn being an American?
In fact, much of what we have and think of by being American was not earned. I was simply lucky enough to be born here; I did not earn my citizenship. Most of us did not.
And yet, I am considered important enough that the police are there to help keep me from being robbed and murdered, the armed forces are there to keep me from being accosted by violent foreigners, etc. If we can protect each other from these threats, then why not the threat of disease or illness?
Freedom and contributing to the good of society are not mutually exclusive. We can send people to the moon, and bring them back in one piece. Will you argue that we cannot find a way to care for our fellow citizens without turning into a totalitarian state?
While I agree with your 3rd & 4th sentences, I think the 2nd sentence is inaccurate. What I have seen is that capitalists want to minimize risk too, but only their own risk. They will employ lobbyists, PR people, lawyers and anyone else they can think of to deflect risk to themselves. They will gladly sell people things they don’t need, things that will kill them, and foul the water, air and land while doing so. That is why we have government: we cannot trust each other to do what is right. Do you honestly believe that without institutionalized controls, some capitalists would not rape and pillage the planet and workers?
I disagree that that is necessarily the “logical” extreme. I agree that it is extreme.
You mean like setting up and conducting a financial system that could bankrupt the country and possibly the world? Like starting wars under false pretenses? Like killing thousands of workers due to negligence? That kind of reckless conduct? :dubious:
Those poor, poor people. I had no idea they were members of the underclass. :rolleyes:
No, I was thinking more along the lines of engaging in unprotected and promiscuous sexual behavior and things like that.
You seem to be arguing that there are people who are not members of the underclass who also engage in reckless conduct. That’s probably true. Indeed, there are many people who are not members of the underclass who engage in risky sex and the like.
It seems to me that the difference is more of degree than of kind.
One point for Sam Stone - Canadians pay significantly less per person for universal healthcare than US Americans do, due in part to the bureaucratic streamlining of a single-payer system.
As for the question of socialism, I have said for awhile now that a little socialism goes a long way. There are things I like my government to look after, because if they don’t the repercussions can limit my personal freedom. I basically want enough socialism to protect me (the little guy) from the rampages of the rich and powerful.
And there are plenty of people who are members of the underclass who don’t engage in reckless conduct. I don’t even know if the difference is a matter of degree. I think it’s more likely that the more resources you have, the more of a cushion you have to help protect you from bad decisions or bad luck.
I apologize for not being more clear.
My argument is that your statement “A hallmark of the underclass is engaging in reckless conduct” is ludicrous. It is no more a distinguishing feature of the underclass’s behaviour than any other class, and in fact, the reckless conduct of those who do not fit into your “underclass” is vastly more harmful, and more harmful to more people, than the conduct you describe. I notice tho, that when the non-underclass wants money from the government it is a “must do” thing.
Taking from the poor and giving to the rich is even more wrong than taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
I think you are probably incorrect here, but it doesn’t really matter, since you don’t seem to dispute that members of the underclass are more likely to engage in risky, promiscuous sexual behavior than others.
I agree with this.
That’s a different issue, but I basically agree that if the government is going to be redistributing wealth, it’s generally preferable to make things more even than less even.
Do you agree that HIV infection is disproportionately great among America’s racial underclass? If so, why do you think it is?