View Full Version : Maybe it's because we have been spoiled....
gimmethesimplelife
9-17-13, 4:40pm
I had a thought yesterday that perhaps the reason Americans in general tend to be against concepts such as socialized medicine and subsidies for various reasons - perhaps it is because we have known minimal war on our soil? Seriously. Most of the countries that I have such respect for in Europe have known the hell of war and more than once in the 1900's. I have the feeling that this may be why Europeans tend to think of what is good for society more than Americans do and why there is less emphasis on individualism there and more on fitting into society.
What do you'all think, does this make any sense to you? Rob
ApatheticNoMore
9-17-13, 5:26pm
Who says the policies we get in this country have much of anything to do with what the people want anyway? Some polls indicate they don't. Things result some times just by historical accident (it's really how we got employer provided health care), or peculiars of how the government is set up.
- perhaps it is because we have known minimal war on our soil? Seriously.
Seriously?
No.
56,000 casualties in one day alone here:
http://www.civilwarphotos.net/files/images/537.jpg
gimmethesimplelife
9-17-13, 7:05pm
Seriously?
No.
56,000 casualties in one day alone here:
http://www.civilwarphotos.net/files/images/537.jpgBae, I meant we have not known much war on our soil overall. I know there were major battles in the Civil War and in the Revolutionary War - but compared to Europe, goodly parts of which were pretty much completely destroyed in WW 1 and/or WW 2, we have not know that kind of sweeping hellish war.
One of my favorite novels of all time is Gone With The Wind and yes, the South did take a whuppin'. But even then, people had the option of settling out West in new areas that were starting to be built up - they had the chance for a blank slate and to start over again. In Europe in these two sets of wars some lucky ones were able to get out and start over - but a whole ocean away for the most part. This is why I wonder if this a factor in why Americans tend to be so against anything perceived as socialistic in nature. For all I know Europeans may have thought this way too - had they not been devastated by two major world wars. Rob
Rob, I get what you're saying. Not sure if it's what I believe, but I get it.
We live in the land of rugged individualism. The land of "Get your own!" What's mine is mine, and I'll take your life if you if you try to take it (even if it's a television). I busted my *** to get where I am (even if they didn't) and I'll be damned if I'm going to let one of those other slackers have it (wealth, political power, education, medical care......)
A gross exaggeration, but visible in almost every political argument we have: Guns, social programs, access to healthcare, etc.
This mindset has carried us a long way and it does have its benefits -- we're a strong people and we've been very successful thus far. I love America and in gratitude I serve it. But sharing - or caring, for that matter - isn't exactly our greatest strength as a group.
Luckily, I don't just live in America, I live in a community of like-minded others I've gathered around me. So even if the country as a whole is like this, my own circles in which I travel are not. Off tonight to help rebuild a business wrecked by the floods...and they never did anything for ME! 'Kin you believe how stupid I am?? LOL
ApatheticNoMore
9-17-13, 7:33pm
Yea I've been in and out of subcultures too.
But many community (in the actual sense of surrounding areas not just in the "one's own private Idaho" subculture sense) problems are of course much bigger than subcultures can actually solve.
I think its true, Rob, that we're not used to war "up close and personal". Hopefully our feelings and choices would be different if we had had to experience it first hand. Bae, no one who experienced the civil war is alive anymore.
If you've ever seen "The Village", you can appreciate why they did it...........but it had its own problems too.
We ARE spoiled, Rob..........for many reasons.
It is a beautiful country. And we are very blessed on many, many levels. The fact that we have not known a recent war on our soil is something I am grateful for every day of my life.
I guess I just hesitate to lump everyone together - not all of us are "spoiled."
America-with-a-big-A can seem that way.....if you watch TV or consume a lot of media, then that's what the elephant looks like to the blind men. But on an individual/community level it can look very different. And I choose to live on this level, not the mass media/big politics/broad brush America.
My America is truly beautiful.
goldensmom
9-18-13, 11:02am
Things result some times just by historical accident (it's really how we got employer provided health care), or peculiars of how the government is set up.
By accident? Employer provided health care was a fringe benefit provided by employers when federal wage/price controls were put in place in the 40’s. Employers could not use higher wages to attract employees so they offered fringe benefits that were not considered a wage per the policy. Not by accident but by design as way to get around and comply with a government policy. Unions later championed fringe benefits. (MSA/Labor Relations - one of the few things I remember)
ApatheticNoMore
9-18-13, 11:37am
Spoiled? Maybe, but I find the quality of life is actually extremely poor (though many things I have I have if not busted my butt for, then suffered for). The everyone else's education I am supposed to be paying for I don't even have myself - I don't have a 4 year degree or anything (incidentally I did vote for that education tax - so state sales and income taxes are about 10% each here). Wealth is mostly the delusion of security it simply can't buy at the middle class level (though at least I don't stay up at night worrying about money). Healthcare I have, it costs me $300 a month on an employer plan. And access to power I have absolutely none whatsoever.
It's not a very good lifestyle here in the U.S. But hey if you make enough money you can afford shelter, running water, electricity, heating and cooling, food (maybe even healthy food), and if you are lucky healthcare (that you will be better off avoiding much of the time - I've seen the prescriptions and the damage done ... I worry they may end up killing a younger sibling). But I don't want war, good grief my entire Syria replies were about how aweful war is. I fully believe war is heck.
Media I avoid (near utterly and entirely - I don't even watch movies - but ok once in a while I watch a *little* tv and I do read news and I listen to some pop music ...). But even on a community level you can only avoid big problems by making a deliberate effort to avoid them and live in a bubble. For instance: you can try to avoid the homeless by never going where they are - but good luck on that! And it's much bigger than your charity or volunteering will ever fix.
ToomuchStuff
9-18-13, 11:40am
If your coming from the angle I think you are, shared pain, does not equate to a comfort/reason to believe in sharing (medical costs). I've got a couple of friends, born during the war, one in Germany, and one in Japan, and have had some interesting and educational conversations about what they experienced. The term hording comes to mind, as in Germany one item was rationed, due to limited quantities, that they would take trips to some relatives in Italy and fill up their luggage with it, and wouldn't tell anyone. He also talked about how one of their primary food sources was also a second income (sold to the French), and he doesn't even like to see a snail now.
I had a thought yesterday that perhaps the reason Americans in general tend to be against concepts such as socialized medicine and subsidies for various reasons - perhaps it is because we have known minimal war on our soil? Seriously. Most of the countries that I have such respect for in Europe have known the hell of war and more than once in the 1900's. I have the feeling that this may be why Europeans tend to think of what is good for society more than Americans do and why there is less emphasis on individualism there and more on fitting into society.
What do you'all think, does this make any sense to you? Rob
True, we do not have socialized medicine. That has been an ongoing discussion for years so no way to condense the whole debate down to a single post. We do have Medicare, Medicaid, maybe ACA and more so even though they may not be exactly what you're looking for its not like there is nothing out there.
Regarding other *subsidies*, the US is, by far, the most heavily subsidized country on the planet. By trillions of dollars a year, in fact. Your food is cheap because its subsidized. Same for all things oil. Energy? Yup. Education? Yup? Transportation? Yup. Bought anything on credit in the past generation? That low rate is also the result of a subsidy. It would be extremely difficult for any average American to find anything in their house that wasn't subsidized by the government. Its true you may not be able to cherry pick organic cumquats, a NYU degree and a new Prius as your freebies, but that doesn't mean your not subsidized. If Americans are spoiled its because of those subsidies, not because there aren't battles being fought on our soil. Ask someone who served in Afghanistan if s/he feels spoiled because s/he didn't have to fight on home turf. Guessing they probably don't.
And the rugged individualist, the cowboy American is an image out of John Wayne movies. I'd say that in the eyes of most of the rest of the world we're closer to old man Potter in Its a Wonderful Life. But that's a different thread.
Pug.......sounds like you live in a good place!
Pug.......sounds like you live in a good place!
So do you! :D {hug}
Gregg, I get it. But the rugged individualist is more of a mindset than a caricature. It can be the guy that says, "don't tell me what to do, I don't need your nanny state handouts, stop giving money to those (insert insulting stereotype here)" And of course next week the same guy likely wants to know why they haven't fixed the flood damage or sent his disability check yet, or why the price of gasoline is "so high" (urk) but that's another story.
Gregg, I get it. But the rugged individualist is more of a mindset than a caricature. It can be the guy that says, "don't tell me what to do, I don't need your nanny state handouts, stop giving money to those (insert insulting stereotype here)" And of course next week the same guy likely wants to know why they haven't fixed the flood damage or sent his disability check yet, or why the price of gasoline is "so high" (urk) but that's another story.
True enough pug. I'm as guilty as anyone for perpetuating the get-off-your-butt, pull yourself up by your boot straps mentality. Granted that sometimes gets misinterpreted as "every man for himself" (even in here! :0!). That isn't how I feel and, in fact, I don't really know anyone with that belief. What I have seen in my life is that most of the people who achieved something did so because they initiated an action, not because something was laid in their outstretched hand. There are lots of people in this country who need help and we should help them, but not everyone does.
Rob is right about the spoiled part. As a society we've been served on a silver platter for a long time and now, when the benefits fall short of expectations, we are a bunch of whiners who have forgotten how to take care of ourselves. We live in a nanny state already, its not a case of one forming. We're dependent, or codependent, depending on your POV. JMO, and there's plenty of room for debate, but I think a large dose of that old independence and taking personal responsibility would go a long way.
ApatheticNoMore
9-18-13, 4:22pm
Taking responsibility in conventional parlance is usually incredibly trite: a matter of doing what you are socially expected to do. Most people find doing what is socially expected to be a path of very little resistence, if the opportunities exist at all.
Yea some people have very few opportunities and some people won't do this no matter what opportunities they have.
But the rugged individualist is more of a mindset than a caricature. It can be the guy that says, "don't tell me what to do, I don't need your nanny state handouts, stop giving money to those (insert insulting stereotype here)" And of course next week the same guy likely wants to know why they haven't fixed the flood damage or sent his disability check yet, or why the price of gasoline is "so high" (urk) but that's another story.
Pug - your story surely *seems* to be a caricature, though perhaps more of the faux-libertarians than of individualists.
True enough pug. I'm as guilty as anyone for perpetuating the get-off-your-butt, pull yourself up by your boot straps mentality. Granted that sometimes gets misinterpreted as "every man for himself" (even in here! :0!). That isn't how I feel and, in fact, I don't really know anyone with that belief. What I have seen in my life is that most of the people who achieved something did so because they initiated an action, not because something was laid in their outstretched hand. There are lots of people in this country who need help and we should help them, but not everyone does.
Rob is right about the spoiled part. As a society we've been served on a silver platter for a long time and now, when the benefits fall short of expectations, we are a bunch of whiners who have forgotten how to take care of ourselves. We live in a nanny state already, its not a case of one forming. We're dependent, or codependent, depending on your POV. JMO, and there's plenty of room for debate, but I think a large dose of that old independence and taking personal responsibility would go a long way.
I agree with everything you've said.
I worked very hard to have the life I do, and am as irked as anyone by those who don't feel they should have to make the effort I have.
At the same time, I want to give a hand up to those who demonstrate they truly DO want to make an effort......it's the "how" that is sticky, as always. So many different yardsticks being waved around.
My household's credo is all about working hard, doing good, and being grateful for what we've got. And I confess that, just as some look down on those who "don't deserve my hard-earned tax dollars..." I look down on those who are spoiled and can't see how fortunate they really are.
It's a sad character flaw of mine.
Pug - your story surely *seems* to be a caricature, though perhaps more of the faux-libertarians than of individualists.
Well...not much of a caricature where I live (in the Mountain West); I literally run into those kinds of people every day, no exaggeration, especially right now when we are struggling to get back on our feet. Sometimes it's really sad-funny. But I see your point, bae.
ApatheticNoMore
9-18-13, 7:40pm
Noone ever gets judged on how hard they work (except perhaps by their bosses), unless they have to apply for government aid. So it's kind of why most people who have better opportunities are pretty adequately disincentivized to ever "go on welfare" anyway - it will just be a bunch of busybodies who think they now have permission to judge every aspect of how you live your life (how hard you work, how you spend your money, whether you decide to procreate and how much and with whom etc.).
By accident? Employer provided health care was a fringe benefit provided by employers when federal wage/price controls were put in place in the 40’s. Employers could not use higher wages to attract employees so they offered fringe benefits that were not considered a wage per the policy. Not by accident but by design as way to get around and comply with a government policy. Unions later championed fringe benefits. (MSA/Labor Relations - one of the few things I remember)
I agree that employer sponsored health care was certainly by design of corporations trying to attract workers. I think, though, that the point was that it was not by government design, or even by preference of the people who got this benefit as employees (they would've likely been just as happy to have gotten increased wages), but was instead an accidental result of a poor government policy. An unplanned consequence, as often happens when government or some regulatory entity attempts to place an artificial control on the economy without considering the potential ramifications (or perhaps even after considering them). In this case, with hindsight, I doubt the people, the government, or even the employers who needed workers at that time, would have chosen the system of health insurance that we've now been stuck with ever since.
I agree that employer sponsored health care was certainly by design of corporations trying to attract workers. I think, though, that the point was that it was not by government design, or even by preference of the people who got this benefit as employees (they would've likely been just as happy to have gotten increased wages), but was instead an accidental result of a poor government policy. An unplanned consequence, as often happens when government or some regulatory entity attempts to place an artificial control on the economy without considering the potential ramifications (or perhaps even after considering them). In this case, with hindsight, I doubt the people, the government, or even the employers who needed workers at that time, would have chosen the system of health insurance that we've now been stuck with ever since.
Ever since? Health insurance is such a different animal than it was when I was young.
Ever since? Health insurance is such a different animal than it was when I was young.
As is health "care".
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.