| sc94597 said: In that case, the issue might be in functionality and purely political/legal in nature. Education is suppose to be a state and local matter, for example (schools get money from property taxes.) It is in the constitution that education should be a state power. This is for obvious reasons (so propaganda can't be imposed in schools by a federal power.) Additionally, many people viewed the federal government's involvement with "No Child Left Behind" as a waste of tax dollars, because other countries found better results with less money. Hence, one might argue for the federal government to provide vouchers to enable the choice of private schools instead of giving additional funding to public education. In 2007, in example, because of the dependency on the federal government for "No Child Left Behind" funds, many states were left to dry when $75 billion was moved elsewhere in the budget. Furthermore, such funding gives the federal government more say in the control of certain states than others (those which receive money.) I think most Americans oppose social democracy because they view it as a means of dependency on government, which many do not like at all because it creates a strong federal state and one which will have more control over people's lives. Americans are far more individualistic than Europeans, and I assume other ex-British colonials. In general, the Classical Liberal sentiment is still strong, albeit not in politics. There is also a strong federalism ideal in place, in which state rights shouldn't be infringed upon by federal rights. The label of "socialism" is just a media tool by the right in general to make social democracy scarier. As for healthcare, the issue with Obamacare is mostly the mandatory purchase. The majority of Americans oppose it because it is unconstitutional and the government shouldn't have power to force people to purchase health care (or anything for that matter.) Furthermore, it hurts the private health professionals (only covers some of the cost) so they refuse to take it, hence making it useless. This is why you see many state governments nullifying it, or attempting to. The biggest problem is the fine ( or what they call a"tax".) Discard that, and I think most people would be happy with it, as they are happy with the current Medicaid/Medicare already in place. And then I think all, except the neo-conservatives and their followers, agree that our military spending needs to decrease and we need to bring most of our troops in the world back. For far too long Americans have been paying for military bases in countries that are at peace and can put their own money into their own military. Those are the three largest investments by the U.S Federal government. After they're adjusted, I think it is quite clear that spending would be reduced regardless of whether it is necessary or not, and debt can be paid off. However; the way things are going right now can't persist. |
Whether education rules are handled at the federal level is immaterial. The federal government should be, at least in part, funding the public school systems, and placing safeguards on how states can run the system to ensure that states don't impose ideology on children. How can the federal government justify it? Ironically enough, through the First Amendment. Yes, it has "freedom of speech"... but just as how it doesn't permit perjury, it also doesn't mean that you can force people to listen to your speech. As children are required to be at school, both freedom of speech and the establishment clause prohibit mandating that children be taught one ideology or religion as the "correct" one.
Also, I think you'll find that Australians are a remarkably individualistic lot, very comparable to the US. But we also have a strong history of working our way up from the bottom, in part thanks to the whole "convict" history stuff - and we recognise the need to work together to make everyone's lives better. Something Americans seem to still have trouble with (ironically, given the level of religiosity in America - one of the other ways that Americans differ significantly from Australians by the way).
As for the mandatory purchase part of "Obamacare", what most Americans don't get is that it's a necessary part of the system. Requiring that all Americans (who can afford it) buy healthcare, you expand the base of the insurance system, thereby making it possible for insurance companies to cover those with preexisting conditions without going bankrupt. Indeed, if you look into it, the mandatory purchase condition was put in place for the sake of the insurance industry, and insurance companies like it.
The big problem with Obamacare is that it's still private health insurance. In Australia, we have our own "Medicare"... but Medicare in Australia covers all Australians, with a "Medicare Levy" charged on those earning more than a certain amount. Medicare could be thought of as public health insurance, and it operates on a non-profit basis. There are then private health insurance companies that cover private hospitals (except in critical emergency cases, which are covered by Medicare) and various optional extras, etc. Private health insurance also has a shorter waiting list, as fewer people have private health insurance than public health insurance.
The fact of the matter is, too many Americans have a problem with tax. They want all of the benefits of government, but don't want to have to pay for it. And American politicians play off this fact in order to get support.
On military, you're right - part of the problem is all of the bases stationed elsewhere in the world.
And yes, like I've said a couple of times, at first the US spending is going to have to drop. But as the debt falls, spending should increase again.
Now to turn attention to the one that Americans seem remarkably scared of - often called the "third rail" of American politics. Social Security. Now, I'm very much a left-winger in terms of my natural inclinations. But America's social security system is woefully inadequate compared with Australia's system, which is a system predicated on private accounts. We call it Superannuation, and it essentially works like this - based on your wage, your employer is legally required to pay at least a certain amount of money into a superannuation account of your choice. This account, which you cannot access to draw money out of it until you turn 65 (retirement age) except in exceptional circumstances, usually gets better interest than your typical savings accounts, because banks can be certain that the money will remain available for a significantly longer period of time. The government will also provide an incentive (at one point, it was "we'll match you dollar-for-dollar for any non-mandatory contribution you make to your Superannuation") for you to put additional money into your superannuation account, up to a certain point.
There is also a public pension available, as a backup, mostly for those who, for one reason or another, didn't have enough money coming in to save a reasonable amount in terms of superannuation. And you get to choose which bank you have your Super stored with, with each bank offering various options, such as allowing you to have the money invested in the stock market, for instance (but with the stocks remaining in your Superannuation account, so you still don't get access to the money until retirement).
On the flipside, our unemployment benefits are very generous, compared to America, although you have to show that you are making an effort to find work in order to remain on the benefits (there is no maximum time after which it gets cut off). For a single adult looking for work, you get AU$228 per week (there is also a separate amount available to help people cover the cost of rent, if they are renting). This amount is independent of the amount that the person may have been earning prior to losing their job. Sounds like a relative boon for people wanting to live on welfare, right? Well, Australia's unemployment rate (which is basically the number of people on unemployment benefits) is 5.2%, compared with 7.7% in the US.
In all seriousness, if America wants to improve their system, a great starting point is to look at Australia. We may not be the best with regards to any of the systems, but we seem to do better than America on most measures.
