I think dragonsen's post goes back to my earlier post, regarding the potential long-term risks of having a significant percentage of the American population's sustenance dependent on the federal government. I certainly realize that government aid is necessary for many people to simply stay afloat in this recession, and that unemployment is a chronic issue - however, I think all of us can agree that an "ideal future" is one where government and politics can promote the free-market economy, which attempts to provide incentives for businesses to increase full-time positions, which enables people regain their financial independence, and slowly wean the need for government programs. Mayyy-be
we might agree -- that is, if your concept of "free market" can somehow bypass people whose implementation of those words means precisely leaving corporations to furlough or render temporary/ expendable/ underpaid, as many people as they possibly will... It seems like too much for this thread really to go into detail... But I can say it's quite a campaign trying to convince some people on Elliquiy (among other places) either that local areas should be given more autonomy from big hostage-taking corps, OR that basic needs should be built into the US social system somewhat more European-style.
(Somehow your avie with the suit and "elite" in your name keep making me think you would be on
the corporate side, but lemme give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that's just for the sake of roleplay? Coughs a little at no one in particular, except maybe myself.)
Given the volatility of American politics, and the real threat of federal default now clearly evident to us with this recent set of events, it makes me concerned that an increasing number of people will be using government programs in the future - and the potential ramifications this could have. From the research I have done, both the Democrats and Republicans essentially have policies that ultimately yield more people on government programs. The Republicans might claim they are against welfare programs, but their hyper pro-corporate business policies tend to favor outsourcing, leading to many blue collar workers turning to the government.
There I can sort of agree that both have some pro-corporation tendencies. However, I still don't think they are quite the same beast. Particularly in this situation where you have a minority of the far right pulling strings -- and they are
the far right, not the far left. There is a difference. Saying simply cut federal programs is ridiculous when all the conditions they seem to favor practically require more of those programs, at least more social security and economic backing for the disenfranchised.
I like to think that more wealth redistribution or at least less upper class tax breaks would level the playing field a bit so fewer people are just stuck, but it might not work if we only place dollar value on services and brands that we allow big corps to monopolize, defend like individuals (Citizens United) and withdraw from the workers to places that all the governing parties have agreed to make life
cheaper -- meaning expendable, low quality and dirty -- for the masses and unaccountable for the monied (cheap foreign export "zones", offshore accounts). In short, it comes back to whatever would be a "free" or better "just" market anyway, and who would ever stand up and vote to regulate for one. Cause right now we have -- and I should say, we are regulating for
("free," my ass) -- degrees, large or small, or something obviously not so just.