What do you think about social programs?

The real problem is that we can't stop because so many are addicted. All of American society is built around these social programs.

When Social Security was invented, most people worked until 65 and then died. Now they live another 20 years. Same with Medicare & Medicaid; without them old people couldn't afford to get sick. They couldn't afford to live in their own house but would have to move in with family. But society has shifted away from the extended family to the nuclear family. Because Grandma doesn't live there, instead of her babysitting, now the couple has to pay for day care.

There would have to be a major remodeling of society before we could make any significant cuts in social welfare programs. So whether having them is a good idea or how we will fund them is really not the main issue, which is that we can't get off the tiger without getting eaten.

"k" means "kilos" and kilos refers to thousands, not millions. You should have used "M" for "Mega" because that does refer to millions. Just as a pointer.

Besides, I would put in doubt your interpretation of the foundation of this country. The US was indeed created upon a profoundly individualistic perspective to politics and it's not even surprising that Americans consider the State to be a potential danger or a threat to their rights. When the colonies decided to make secession from the British metropolis, it was as an answer to the British rule.

One of the slogans during the Boston Tea Party was "no taxation without representation" and it reflected the fact that taxes voted at Westminster (where the British Parliament was) were imposed to the population without their due consent because they were not represented in the British Parliament. That's why today the executive can't impose a tax: all spending, taxes and borrowing must be voted by Congress. An other consequence of these problems is that no foreigner can ever lead the executive branch: the President must be American-born. We could list many other things, even down to the formation of Natives territories and the rights granted to the conquered French population in Canada, but the resume is that the US was born as a reaction to an infringing, imposing rule from non-representative institutions. Ever since, Americans fear their government and see it as a non-civilian entity.

If you head North, however, the attitude toward the government is different: Canadians mostly see the government as an ally, not as an alien or coercive institution. It's not very surprising either when you know about their history. Canada was gradually built through discussion and it was founded legally by an acceptation of the British Parliament. The dynamic between the citizens and the Monarchy was profoundly different in Canada and in the American colonies, as you might have guessed.

However, was it founded as a "capitalist" society in itself? It would be an anachronism to say so. Just for those who ignore, anachronism more or less means "not in the right sequence." It's about using the wrong concepts, words or objects for a given period.

The word itself did not came into use in English before the early 19th century, namely with the works of Ricardo. Furthermore, the most essential basis of a capitalist organization of production (the division of labor) was studied for the first time and published in the works of Smith in 1776. Back in the day, we couldn't talk about a capitalist organization of production, especially not in British colonies. We'd be talking about pre-capitalist societies until the first industrial revolution which first benefited the British metropolis before being extended in Europe and, later, in the US and Canada.

First of all .. social programs can be good if local. but putting the Center in Washington is a classic opportunity for fraud. It will happen. And we could costs .. remember 1996? Bill Clinton cut the welfare roles by 58%!

Remember where we came from:

The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.

Most bad government has grown out of too much government.

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

Well our military spending is way off the charts. Now I can certainly see the logic in paying for a strong defensive posture, but this flagrant offensive spending is Unconstitutional!

Now as far as social programs go, I would expect that helping sick ppl become the healthiest they can be, helps the economy. Now republicans bemoan the many ppl on welfare, and it IS being abused, but then they see no problems with sending our men and women to their deaths for a measly $20 grand a year.

Social programs like welfare can most definitely have a scalpel taken to them- they need to be trimmed to the bone! But the same could be said for our offensive spending, excluding of course veteran's benefits. It is quite horrendous to thank our vets for their service by pulling the carpet out from under them when they come home.

obama and Reid use the Treasury like it is their own personal ATM machine. We spend a horrific amount of dinero on social programs, but also on "defense" (which is really offense). 2 wrongs do not make a right.

The Republicans and Democrats adhere to the statist welfare/warfare state. You cannot only cut social programs and leave military spending alone if you want the economy to prosper.

Personally social applications are methods and reforms, borrowed from Socialist, however embedded in a capitalist or blended economic social, as a consequence Public education,Medicaid&Medicare, Public Housing, Social security and Public hospitals are examples of Social packages. In a socialist society we would have these same applications, plus profit sharing,elimination of personal coverage and HMO's, labour rights, decriminalization of drug possession and remedy when nnecessary income Taxes which harm the negative pmore, could be abolished and humans would pay in proportion to their earnings.Cost, appoint and other variety of controls when needed could even be utilized to stabilize the economy, banks could be nationalized, and we probably a global at peace. I wish Obama was once a Socialist buty regrettably he is not.

America was an Agrarian Mercantile society when founded. We didn't engage in Capitalism until the latter half of the 19th Century. (see Factory Girls of Boston and the Pittsburgh steel industry)

Adam Smith was still writing his book "Wealth of Nations" when we were founded.

Frederic Hayek, one of the world's greatest believers in free market Capitalism, suggested the United States have a government funded basic program for those in need, not unlike what we see in Japan today and advanced from what we are currently doing.

Your wrong, conservative recognize that there is a need for social programs. The issue is, many of the current ones we have now have been proven to be ineffective at best. These are the programs that conservatives scream about. Throwing good money after bad and simply wasting it. When you start off with the wrong premise to begin with, your conclusion will be wrong.

You see no other reason why one would be created, you do realize that the creators of these programs are usually set for life, that the approval process alone makes many people very, very rich.

Connecting our systems and these programs is another mistake. Yes there are flaws within any system but up to now, the US economy and standard of living. Was unmatched in the rest of the world.

Are we supposed to take seriously a posting that has the US population at bout 5% that of New York City? Your numbers are off by a factor of 1,000. I didn't bother with the rest.

Im all for helping people but not the able bodied people that are healthy and can work .

there is thousands of programs and 99.9% of them are failures yet the money goes into

them .

Since we are rapidly going broke financing "social programs" it's time to pare them down.....hehehe