It is not the government's 'job' to do all that. Who pays for all
of it? Answer: taxpayers. The money has to come from somewhere.
This article would be much better if it went on to detail the benefits that
families in other countries are eligible for, including the actual amount they
receive. A simple table would make it 1000% better.Not sure if we
can blame the author or the editors, but it seems the article spends most of its
space trying to talk-down the conclusion, with lots of arm-waving about all the
benefits that some companies offer on their own. It's as if someone read
the original and decided it was too harsh against the US. As it's an
article about government benefits, this kind of misses the point. In countries
where the government is providing the benefits, companies don't have to,
which results in higher profitability and a faster growth rate. Conservatives,
please note: in part, this is why the U.S. is no longer number one in a number
of economic areas.By they way, the OECD is not a think-tank,
it's the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a
consortium of 34 nations, descendant of the agency that administered the
Marshall Plan in post-WWII Europe.
@Enough is enough!Think of benefits as a non-selective investment in
our fellow citizens. Rather than be a scrooge McDuck, try assuming that the
majority of people want to be productive tax payers and make mistakes or might
need assistance at different periods of their life. Also, I'd love to see a
single person who has avoided one form of government assistance throughout their
Perhaps we should look at educational attainment levels of our children, or life
expectancy, or infant mortality rates or any number of other measures of
well-being and then notice that the US generally looks like a developing country
ion comparison to the countries mentioned in the article- but I assure you
spending on families has nothing to do with well-being- just keep believing that
and practice all that justified self-interest because that is what the natural
man does ohhh so well- takes care of himself at the expense of others
I don't know how my wife and I would have been able to have a family here
versus being able to do it with mat leave available to us in Canada. No,
it's not free. It's part of the employment insurance system all
working people pay into. And it reflects the importance of family there which,
for all our lip service to it here, is not at all reflected in action.
Nonsense! The U.S. does not need spending, welfare, or child raising advice
from France, or other "advanced" countries. The basic
premise that it is somehow "The Government's" responsibility to
take care of raising children or providing for them is not just flawed, it is
the root of much of the failure of families and cultures in the world today.Charity is good, and Americans are among the most generous people in the
world, especially when it comes to children. However, coercive confiscation of
earnings from producers to give funds to those less successful (and usually less
hard working, less educated, less religious, less married) is nothing but
socialism.As a debate starter, this is an excellent article. As a
highlight for a prescription to cure the ills of families and children, it is a
total failure.The solution is for everyone to finish school and
before you have children get married and earn enough to support children. It is
the parent's responsibility, not the village, or taxpayers!
The government shouldn't be concerned with supporting families, but it
should stay out of the way of families. The government should be concerned with
preserving freedom and economic opportunity for families (including very low
taxes), so that families don't need the government's help. We
don't want families becoming dependent on the government.
It's the family's job to take care of the family. When things go
wrong there is a safety net. Do a little research and see what a family two
plays the system can squeeze out of your tax dollar. The French are
pathetic,crying for four day 30 hr weeks. The people paying for those who live
off the govt. are the people themselves . We shouldn't compare ourselves to
other countries, absolutely apples and oranges
This is the same as all comparisons. Apples to oranges. Taxes and costs to
individuals in all of those other countries are different than here. This
article is meant to stir up anger amongst us when there simply is no way to
compare the U.S. to those other countries!!!!
I'd love to see a single person who has avoided one form of government
assistance throughout their life." slcdenizenHmm ... I guess
I'm your guy. I have never been on any form of government assistance in my
entire life - no welfare, no social security disability, and no state assistance
programs.Would I take government assistance if I had absolutely no
other choice? Probably, but I wouldn't be happy about it.
The Federal government has spent more than 15 Trillion dollars since 1964 trying
to eliminate poverty. How much is a Trillion dollars?It's a
million stacks of money, where each stack is worth a million dollars. And the
Federal government has spent 15 times that much. In other words, they could have
made 15 million people millionaires simply by handing them the money.The Federal government is inefficient and wasteful in the way it manages
assistance programs. And as long as it is charge of welfare, it will never
eliminate poverty from United States.
To "XelaDave" yes, lets look at those things. First, when it comes to
educational attainment, the US educates ALL its children. Nowhere else in the
world do they educate all of their kids. They usually drop the underperforming
kids around age 16 and push them into factories and trades. As for life
expectancy, the US has the highest life expectancy once you factor out
accidental deaths. When you eliminate the socialist bias of most studies, the
US ranks first, or else in the top 20 in most studies looking at well being.
Rvalens2 those aren't the only types of government assistance. You went
through an education system payed for by taxes, that's government
assistance. You get tax deductions for all kinds of things, that's a form
of government assistance. There are many more examples. You can argue that these
aren't "real" government assistance but to me that's just an
argument over semantics. You use government services all the time we all do. We
all benefit from some kind of government assistance. Where I hear people talk
about welfare and food stamps and so on with such contempt what I really hear is
that "those people" don't deserve government assistance, the the
definition of "those people" being very clear. I would
gladly have you pay back to the government every dime they have ever spent on
you and give it to someone more worthy.
@The WraithReceiving a tax deduction is government assistance?!?
This is an example of our nation's thinking. Here's apparently how it
works:Step A: The government requires you to pay exorbitant taxes.
Step B: They decide that if you waste your money on green technology (or
whatever else they've deemed appropriate), you can pay less taxes.Step C: As a result of paying less in taxes, you've now been
"assisted" by the government.Step D: You're now in on the
gig and have to support the other bogus programs the government dreams up.
Redshirt1701 You need to do a quick Google search on compulsory
education around the world. Almost all nations have some laws concerning
compulsory education for all children. Every European nation has such laws and
generally rank with the United States in the percentage of children actually
educated. In the US depending on the state children can legally stop going to
school anywhere from 15 to 18 - right around that 16 years of age you mentioned
about other countries. However, it is true that in some countries they
don't bother educating the very poor or under performing children. But the
idea that the US is the only country in the world that has compulsory education
is, well, there's not a word at how laughable that is.As for
the socialist biased studies and that the US is first in well being is laughable
as well. We do well in some health categories but are absolutely terrible in
others. Our ranking in just infant mortality rates is an embarrassment.
@Brian MoodyThose are far from the only kinds of deductions. As just
one example I get to pay less taxes than my sister simply because my kids go to
a day care and she stays home with them. Therefore, the government is assisting
me in paying for child care.
To "The Wraith" you are wrong. For example, look at the German
education system. If by grade 5 your child does not show sufficient promise,
they are put into the "trades" track, where they are denied college
entrance and receive vocational training. The same system is alive and well
throughout Europe and Asia. If you don't meet the criteria, you are put
into vocational school, only a portion of the kids would receive an education
equivalent to what the US does in its schools.As for the infant
mortality rate, again, you are wrong. Read "Behind the Baby Count" in
USNews. They explain how the US counts anything born with a pulse as a live
birh, while nations like England only count it a live birht if it meets specific
weight criteria, and other nations only count it a live birth if the child lives
for a specified time after birth.If you look at the WHO reports the
US is top in every category except for socialist healthcare systems.You may not like what I have written, but those are the facts.
@rvalens: If you went to a public school, or attended a state university, or
drove on a state or federal highway, you accepted government assistance. If you
work in an industry that benefits from research grants, you accepted government
assistance. If you work in an industry tied to the defense or aerospace
establishments, you accepted government assistance. If anyone in your family
worked for a public school, a municipality, or other government agency, you
accepted public assistance. If you ate a school lunch, you accepted government
assistance. If you use electricity or the telephone or the internet, you
accepted government assistance. If you have municipal water or sewer service,
you accepted government assistance. If you accepted tax deductions for
dependents, donations, or anything else, you accepted government assistance. If
you eat inspected meat or licensed dairy products, you accepted government
assistance. If you listen to the radio, or watch tv, you accepted government
assistance.Government assistance is distributed in many forms. We
all benefit from living in a society that allows us to pool some resources to
provide some services and offer us some protections.
I have looked at all those Redshirt; very closely actually. They still in no way
validate what you are saying. The United States in not the only
nation that educates all of their children.Our infant mortality rate
is an embarrassment for a country that supposedly values children as much as we
do. It's even more embarrassing that it's been so bad for so long. The United States of America and do a great deal more than what we are
doing to improve education and healthcare especially for the poor. The sad thing
is that so many people in America view anyone as poor as just lazy. It's
pathetic that when we talk about helping the poor the argument always devolves
into "well we actually are doing great - any study or statistic that says we
aren't is wrong - and anyone who is poor is just lazy and wants to live off
@A Quaker@The WraithTo me there is a big difference between
accepting a government handout, in the form of a check, and being forced to use
the only roads, schools, telephone, electricity, school lunch program, and tax
system available. Besides, I can assure you that I have paid more than my
"fair share" to support all of those programs.I never asked
the government to do any of the things you listed. All of that was FORCED on me.
I also haven't ever stood in a line to have the government hand me
money.One day soon, the Federal government is going to run out of
"other people's money." The day that happens, those who are relying
on the Federal government (for a check) are going to be sorely disappointed when
the checks don't arrive.
@rvalens: I can't lecture you on tax policy and government function in 200
words. Instead, let me point out that just as Christians live under a New
Covenant with the Lord, so do Americans live under a covenant relationship with
our government, of, by, and for the people.My father benefited from
the GI Bill and a VA mortgage. I benefited from a state scholarship to college.
And I benefit in a host of other ways from being an American. In return,
I've happily paid my taxes so that others may benefit and so our nation can
stay strong. That's the covenant. The only "other
people's money" involved here is when our elected leadership broke that
covenant, granting huge tax breaks to the rich, a few crumbs to the middle
class, spending too much on war, and leaving our treasury in tatters to run on
borrowed financing. We can still fix that, and we should. No one
is forcing you to be an American, to accept the benefits of being an American,
or to pay taxes here. You could always move.
Those socialistic countries who "support families: do so at a high price.
France and Switzerland have high tax rates averaging around 56 percent. The
Scandinavian countries are worse, going as high as 70 percent. The French actor
Gerard Depardieu changed his citizenship because he was being taxed at 86%! Incidentally, French and German kids are tested around ages 12-14.
Those who succeed can continue on to academically rigorous high schools. Their
success there determines what universities they can attend. The others are
shunted into vocational schools. That's why it's unfair to compare our
school test results.
@Redshirt1701Why dont you speak to people from other countries such
as myself. At 16 you can leave school and get a job in the UK. Thats all down to
the choice of the student, they can leave or progress through A-levels or
NVQ's and eventually onto university if desired. Having you state that
underachievers are automatically pushed into these programs is a joke. You
obviously have no idea how education systems work in other countries.As for your healthcare system, you can twist and turn any statistic to your
favour when you alter them to take out all the negative data. Study after study,
stat after stat shows the US as the worst performing in the first world in
almost every metric.
To "UT Brit" you do realize that there are more countries than the UK
and the US. Germany, Parts of Europe, and much of Asia require that students
pass a test to go onto college.I would discuss the extreamly poor
healthcare system in the UK with you, but you have yet to even acknoledge that
the news reports showing systemic problems coming out the UK exist.
@Redshirt1701"Nowhere else in the world do they educate all of
their kids"Okay you make that statement, I am telling you its
false. Whats the problem here? List me those countries in europe that deny
higher education to its kids. I can wait for it.......................Again Redshirt, I have experienced healthcare in the US and the UK. Having you
tell me about the supposed poor healthcare system from someone who has had no
experience with it is again laughable. How many times have you been treated by
the NHS?There are problems with the NHS for sure, its by no means a
perfect system. What you dont acknowledge is the gaping chasm of a difference
between the problems you face in the US compared to what I face in the UK. I
will state again, I would never want to experience the US healthcare system ever
@A Quacker@The WraithThe government has a role as defined in
the Constitution. It's main role is to protect its citizens. I gratefully
accept that assistance. I honor members of the military who risk their lives on
my behalf. In that sense, I definitely benefit from government assistance. At issue isn't whether or not we can find some nook in the world
where the government has benefited someone, somehow, somewhere. At issue is
whether or not the government has crossed the line on what its role should be.
We have become a nation of dependents. We have abused the purpose of
government. We are becoming weak, lazy and undisciplined. The more we turn to
government to solve the challenges we face, the further down that path we go.
In order to preserve our strength as a nation we must return to our roots of
personal responsibility and restricted government. This article is perpetuating
the problem by promoting the idea that somehow when someone has a kid, it's
the government's job to make life easy for that parent.
To "UT Brit" yawn......You forget that within your NHS, they cut off the
elderly from care as policy. They deny smokers some treatment, as policy. They
refuse to pay for many theraputic injections as a way to save money. Wait lists
are common for simple things like tonsils and knee surgery. The wait list for
arthritus is so long that when treatment comes it is often too late to allow the
patient to live without pain. Premature babies are allowed to die if they do
not meet the policy for weeks gestation and weight, as a matter of policy.It seems that I know more about the policies of your NHS than you do.
Those are system policies for your government program. Yes some individual
hospitals may be bad in the US, but it is not due to systemic policies that are
killing people like they are in the UK.
Heres the problem redshirt. You say that the elderly are cut from care, can you
explain how my 85 year old got brain surgery last year? How did my 90 year old
grandad get heart surgery?Unfortunately there are waiting times but
overall we enjoy a high quality of care.Okay please explain the train
wreck of statistics from the US please?Still waiting on that
@The WraithTo your comment about poor people. Some poor people are
lazy. My guess is that many - maybe even most - work hard to earn what that do.
But unfortunately, many of them have been deceived by the falsehoods about
class warfare that are being perpetuated by the current administration and the
media. Either way, throwing money at the problem will not achieve
anything. Ever since Lyndon Johnson "waged war on poverty", the poor
have fared much worse in our society. Statistically since the 1960's, the
poor work fewer hours (even after normalizing for unemployment), have less
stable family situations, are less religious, and are more prone to crime. The
middle and upper classes have not suffered the same fate. Big government
solutions have done nothing but destroy the lower class.
in order to get money from the government you have to qualify with the
following...1. be unwilling to work2. show proof that you vote
party line democrat3. being a minority helps alotthat's
Those pushing for socialized medicine need look no further than the VA fiasco
that's blown up recently. When workers (in any industry) are employed by
the government, they have no incentive to work harder / smarter, and customers
will suffer. It's a simple formula. We've seen this play out in
dramatic fashion with the VA.
@Brian MoodyOr how about look at every other first world country?
The ones whos healthcare systems beat the US's by almost every discernible
metric? Wouldnt that be a good idea instead?
To "UT Brit" yes, actually look at the healthcare systems throughout the
world, and in the US. Cancer and disease survival rates are lower throughout
most of the world when compared to the US. The same can be said for pre-mature
infant births. The US saves babies that would be left to die in most any other
country, including yours. When you remove accidental deaths, the US has the
longest lifespan. The US is able to take care of all its people, regardless of
If the US is the only one that educates all our kids, then why are people
outraged over Germany going after that one family for trying to homeschool? A
ban on homeschooling is coupled with their mandate that all kids go through
their educational system.
@RedShirt"The same can be said for pre-mature infant births"The U.S.'s infant mortality rate is below almost every first world
nation. How do these two facts jive together? Because the problem with U.S.
health care is access. We have a sizable chunk of people who don't have
health insurance and can't afford care. We have the best healthcare money
can buy... and that's where our problem is. We have the most expensive
system in the world and we decided that universal healthcare is not a basic
To "Schnee" shouldn't is scare you that in Germany it is illegal to
educate your own children?Actually the US infant mortality rate is
not below anybody else. We don't know where we stand because the way each
country counts a live birth is so different. The US counts anything with a
pulse, while other countries only count it a live birh if it meets certain
length and weight criteria, or weeks gestation. See "Behind the Baby
Count" in US News.It is a myth that there is a chunk of people
who don't have insurance and can't afford it. According to the
Census, before Obamacare 38% of the uninsured could afford insurance but chose
not to buy it. According to Census data another 57% of the uninsured qualify
for Medicare/Medicaid but again choose to not sign up. That means that 95% of
the uninsured (Pre-Obamacare) could have been insured but CHOSE not to. Of the
uninsured only 5% didn't have insurance and could not afford it. That
means of the 40 million, only 200,000 in the US were unable to buy insurance
because of finances.Universal healthcare never has been a basic