Collegiate Times

Social programs are only underfunded if you consider them a necessity to American life. Personally, I think that the majority of New Deal programs have far outlived their usefulness (Social Security comes to mind first and foremost) and have effectively bred a dependence on the federal government which grows with each passing day. Given the option of having my money spent on protecting me from aggression versus having my money spent on programs to prop up the most incompetent and lazy portions of society, if those be my only options, I will always vote for protection, as most social ills can be cured much more effectively by the private sector and with a recognition of individual responsibility.

I must say, I find myself continually perplexed by Mr. Morris' heavy reliance on foreign opinion in dictating American foreign policy. Never considering what is best for America (which, of course, our politicians are charged with representing), Mr. Morris always shoots straight for the polling data from countries which have no vested interest in our success. Does this mean America always acts rightly? Of course not - I would argue that the ambiguity of our presence in the Middle East is indicative of that. The fact of the matter is, if we are building an 'empire,' as Mr. Morris claims, we are doing a rather poor job of maintaining it - many of the nations in which we have military presence are only marginally friendly to our interests (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc.) and in exactly none of those nations do we actually have any semblance of political control (even in Iraq - the government, incompetent though it may be, is run by Iraqis who often vote contrary to the desires of their American advisors). If you look at empires over the course of history, you see a longstanding tradition of subjugation and total political control - something absent of the alleged 'empire' Mr. Morris sees. We aren't pillaging these countries for their natural resources, and we aren't dictating political action - so where is the empire?

I think that the major misunderstanding between Messrs Morris and Minor is that they're using the same word - empire - with two separate and distinct meanings. When Minor uses empire, he means in the old colonialist, Rudyard Kipling "White Man's Burden" blood, guts and dead wogs sense. When Morris says empire, he means in the postmodern Edward Said "Orientalism" corporate takeover-of-sovereign-states sense. If we could simply come to terms on this, the dialog would be far more productive. On a personal note, I have to disagree vociferously with both the assertion that the imperialist effort (Morris' sense) is inherently bad or that the social safety net has "outlived its usefulness". Both of these statements show a dangerous level of naivety and thoughtlessness.

is isolationism being called for in this article?

Actually, Gabe, I misphrased my own intentions - I have long held that the 'social safety net' programs that first came about in FDR's New Deal were never particularly useful and have always been a burden on those whose desire for economic freedom is paramount. A lot of these safety net programs are well-intentioned - medicare, social security - but are better advanced as optional policies rather than mandatory ones. Either way, so long as Congress continues to use the money that is supposed to be explicitly funding these programs as an 'additional' source of spendable funds, the programs will continue to lose money and I will continue to be all but guaranteed a less than 100% return on my 'investment' when I finally qualify for it.

I have to say, I agree with Kyle, where I would rather have my tax dollars spent on protecting myself and my family, rather then supporting social programs that are at best abused on a daily basis by people taking advantage of the system, and at worst are responsible for giving certain segments of our population an excuse to no longer go out and fend for themselves. Government controlled Social Security, goverment controlled this and that... all that does it take away people's responsibility to take care of themselves, and instead puts the onus on an entity that was never designed for that task in the first place. I am rather tired of hearing what the government needs to do FOR people... universal healthcare, wellfare, etc.... The Founding Fathers were mentioned in this article, and I am pretty sure that the Founding Fathers also did not set up their new government in order to "do for the people"... I think it was the other way around.

As far as Congress raiding public trusts like Social Security for discretionary funds, you're pushing at an open door. However, I think the "responsibility" argument runs out of steam when you consider that more of the recipients of social benefit programs are children and disabled and elderly persons than able-bodied adults. I agree that our current social welfare system is badly abused by some, but are you willing to throw out kids, cripples and old people as well? Before the advent of the modern welfare state, these people often died of preventable disease, malnutrition and plain neglect. How do you make the responsibility argument for a five-year-old girl, factory work? Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater, here.

n a separate poll conducted by Gallup in February 2002, only 9 percent of citizens in nine major Muslim countries believed the U.S. attack on Afghanistan was justified. I read this during class and almost laughed out loud... You lost any credibility you may have still had by using THAT poll.

737 military bases overseas? How does he define a military base? Is he including every outpost staffed by two guys and a dog seperately? Lets take a look at where military personel are stationed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployments_of_the_United_States_Military I count 37 countries. Lets look at it a bit more. 14 of those countries have less than 100 troops in them. 10 of them are part of NATO. 2 are due to UN and NATO resolutions, At least 2 more are due to defence treaties we've had for several decades (South Korea, Japan). Now, lets see how your source came to the claim of 737 bases overseas. As to the claim that social programs are underfunded, they currently cost twice as much as the military does and are only bankrupting the country. I wonder how many of the people polled know that US Defence spending accounts for only 25% of the budget while about 50% is taken up by social programs (medicare,medicaid, social security, HUD)?

I highly recommend socialism. It's worked out really well for us.

Yeah, "April Fool's"...or since he put some effort in this joke...an example of what its like living under a rock for 100 years. Proletariat arise! Throw off the vile shackles of imperialist rule...hahhaha

Gabe, the problem I have with the programs is that they create a fundamental dependency on federal involvement in the individual realm. Social Security isn't a BAD idea - I'm all for saving for my retirement. The problem is that I don't need the government to TELL me how to save for my retirement - and unfortunately, even if Social Security were maintained like it was designed to be, the bottom line would still be that 'papa fed knows best' and away goes the money which I could have invested pretty much anywhere else. The point isn't that ALL social programs are bad - clearly, children ought to be entitled to a certain degree of charity (continuance of the race and all) - but I'd charge that 'old people' have had plenty of time, by the time they retire, to save money for their retirement. If they have opted to squander it all, so be it - but they shouldn't be entitled to any extra insurance coverage, or 'monthly bonus,' or anything of that nature just by virtue of their age.

Kyle that argument is sufficient provided the elderly person in question is of good health, and squandered the money they saved to sustain life with out employment. However (and i THINK this is where Gabe was speaking) if you throw out such programs you run the risk of abandoning the people who have saved, but say, their medical bills become too much to handle. Here is my overall point: We can overhaul our social programs to the point where it is FAR less wasteful, and it has stricter rules for benifit distribution, but the point of society is to bring ALL humanity to a higher level and i'm sorry to say i don't trust humans to do it voluntarily in sufficient numbers. We need all Americans, from every race, creed, and political affiliation to come together and comprimise to fix this, and many other problems we face. No one could, or should do it alone.

Point well taken - my issue is a little broader, though, I think. One of the main reasons I vehemently oppose the notion of socialized (or single payer or universal) healthcare is the fact that not everyone puts an equal strain on the system. The reason people with, say, AIDS have to pay more for their insurance (the cost of care is fairly constant) is because they are a higher risk for the shareholders- ie, they are more likely to draw money from the pool than an otherwise healthy person might. The problem with socialized medicine is that it creates a system in which there is no real incentive for living in a healthy manner, aside from the personal benefits of that health. To be more specific, society has to begin subsidizing the irresponsibly promiscuous, the drug addicts who share needles, the chain smokers, etc - unless you are going to create laws that prohibit such activities (which I don't think to be politically feasible, nor are they anything I'd want to see anyway). To the original point, though, the first step is instilling some sort of fiscal responsibility in those who hold the pursestrings - and I'm talking about politicians. Until we close the gaping holes in the system, it doesn't make much sense to talk about how to overhaul it.

Again, i have to agree that we have bigger fish to fry first. That's why being an informed voter is so important, these fish will never fry themselves.....unless of course there is an object of s3xual lust in the oil....hmmmmmm

To address your other point: I see your concern with the extra draw some people will have on our hypothetical system. Have you ever heard the sports saying "you are only as good as your weakest player"? I know it's a bit broad, but i think we need to attempt to care for the least of us. There may be ways to check that, for example in Canada doctors get bonuses for getting smokers to quit, but it is my opinion that no person should be below a helping hand (again,within reason).

It's an issue of personal freedom, for me. I look at a Canadian system where doctors get such bonuses as a gross abuse of governmental power - why does the government get to tell you what decisions to make? But the flip side to that is that people have to be willing to take responsibility for themselves. Which brings us back to the point where we discuss the merits of creating a federal system which breeds a public completely dependent upon sucking from the federal teat. That doesn't sound very appealing, nor does it sound particularly efficient. There will always be people who do need help for legitimate reasons, and I have no qualms with helping those people - but I don't want to see this perpetual underclass created by increasingly socialistic tendencies in the upper echelons of our government (on both sides of the aisle).

But i come back to this: most people would give nothing if it wasn't manditory, and that lets legitimate people fall through. There has to be some middle ground somewhere. And it seems to me insurance is just as much of a racket as anything else humans have tried. If that were the way to go, wouldn't it be more fair and allow more freedom to give people some of their money back when they don't use the insurance they have?

Depends on what the purpose of insurance is. Abstractly, medical costs are what they are - fees paid for services rendered. Doctors charge a lot (and rightfully so) because their line of work requires more skill, more diligence, more patience, and more caution than any other field, and with higher risks if they err. Insurance companies recognize this and offer to defray the cost of healthcare - but insurance is always a 'bet' in that the policy holder bets the company that he will get sick (and have to use the policy), while the company bets that the user won't get sick (and hence won't use the policy). People who get sick more tend to pay more in insurance, because they are higher risks. Now, look at the nature of insurance in the US - a lot of the uninsured are VOLUNTARILY uninsured; young people right out of college tend to be the most likely to not buy insurance because they consider themselves less likely to get sick (and are often correct!). Now, I'm a worrywart so I'm all for buying my own insurance, but I'm not all about having the government make that decision for me - all of Hillary's clamoring about compelling people to pay into the system and whatnot, even if they don't want the service.

But the crux of the matter is this - because of the nature of our republican system, I really don't have a whole lot of say in how insurance payments are disbursed. Unlike insurance companies which have to answer to shareholders, the government doesn't REALLY have to answer to anyone (except the voter, which tends not to have much say in the matter because of how elections work). Thus, we are left with no oversight and no way of preventing drains on the system. Further, we have people like me, in generally good health, paying more than we would necessarily pay otherwise, paying the same amount as people in generally poor health - what is there to guarantee that the money will be there to help me when I actually DO need it? I'm not about being cold hearted, and if you investigate the laws, you'll find (for instance) that hospitals actually cannot refuse patients in need of immediate medical care, even if they cannot pay for it. I'm just wary of a program wherein the federal government grows to new bloated lengths without ensuring that the money I'm going to wind up paying is actually scrutinized in some way - If I'm going to pay for it, I want to be quite certain that the process will benefit me when and if I ever need it.

I see your concerns, but you do also realize that when you do have to file a claim, these companies will do anything and everything to deny it?(some times to the point of overstepping the law, not to mention human decency) Point being there are MAJOR inherent flaws in both approaches....I'd like to think we could all land somewhere in the middle, though admitedly it will be a rough go, something needs to be done.

According to the National Coalition on Health Care, nearly 47 million Americans are uninsured, yet USA spends more on health care than other industrialized nations that provide health insurance to all their citizens. Likewise the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reported that many of those countries spend smaller fraction of their Gross Domestic Product on health insurance when comparing with USA. So while I sympathize with Kyle’s arguments, I agree with Brian that the current system really is not the way to go. I should add a caveat here that I don’t know much about health insurance so I am not sure as to the validity of those metrics. Still it seems to me that the country that spends tremendous resources without insuring all its citizens is doing worse than countries that spend less and insure all.

Those statistics get bandied about a lot, MJK, and I don't think they're false -you just have to consider what they are measuring. The United States actually already DOES provide basic-level health insurance (or at least subsidies) for those on welfare and living below the poverty line (Medicaid, SCHIP, etc.). There is a fundamental difference, however, in equating the effects of personal choice with a mandate for more government involvement. Removing the insurance companies won't make medical costs go down - the doctor still has to charge for his services, and the difficulty/stress/etc that goes into the current pricing won't change just because the government starts picking up the tab. Really, the fact that the 'USA spends more on healthcare' really means that some people pay a lot of money for ample, quality healthcare. The percentage of GDP isn't really relevant, because individual people have individual health needs (a 25 year old doesn't usually need the same level of coverage as a 50 year old, for instance). As the population continues to age, we EXPECT there to be an increase in health expenditure - because more people have to use the system more frequently!

Brian, I think the middle ground exists too - but we'll never find it so long as the only alternative to the current system is government-run, single-payer healthcare. Given that the politicians can't run the few subsidy programs they already have efficiently and effectively, I don't trust them for a second to handle EVERYONE's health claims in a better manner. Insurance companies HAVE to deny claims, by the way, or else everyone might go to the doctor all the time. By making sure that the claims are judiciously processed and reviewed, insurance companies make sure that they a) don't give out more money than they have, and b) don't create an incentive for people to visit the doctor when they could otherwise legitimately care for themselves.

Kyle, I am not sure I agree. In particular, the argument that "Removing the insurance companies won't make medical costs go down" is surely false. Many family doctors hire an extra staff member just to deal with complexity of insurance paperwork (= increases in service cost). That we have a college-level health insurance major programs tells me that this is a profitable business. A single paper towel in a hospital costs multiple dollars to cover all layers of the insurance machinery. My point is that if other countries can spend less (both in absolute and relative terms) and insure fully all citizens while USA can't do that while spending more, than something is clearly wrong. There are rational arguments that the universal health care is wrong, but I think that spending even more than is needed for it and not having it is even worse.

But again, we come back to the issue of personal freedom versus universal freedom. If you approach the subject from the standpoint that healthcare is a universal right, then your argument makes sense - but I don't give this a lot of weight, because it implies that I am entitled to someone else's service. The fact of the matter is, you can't simply approach a musician and demand that he play for you, and you can't simply approach a chef and demand that he cook for you - why should we be able to approach doctors and demand that they help us feel well? But that aside, I think the danger lurking in your argument is that we would all be somehow better off if there were universal healthcare, and I charge that this is not the case. I don't find that we have an intrinsic right to healthcare, and consequently I find it difficult to extend this percieved right into a necessity for lowering costs 'by any means necessary.' As I have said before, I approch this from a personal responsibility platform - there are a lot of people who have a lot of faith in the federal government.

(Continued) From my perspective, their faith is misplaced - but that isn't really important. If the feds want to operate an insurance agency, I say go ahead and let 'em - just don't make me pay for it if I don't want to. That's the beauty of the system we have now - there are a lot of insurance companies, offering a lot of different plans, at a lot of different costs (some high, some low), and each individual gets to make the decision that best suits him and his medical situation. This means that if he doesn't want to lose money on what he sees as an unnecessary protection, that's fine - but it's a risk he assumes (presumably knowingly - if not, his problem is ignorance which should also not be subsidized by the government). The bottom line, though, is that no person can lay claim to any other person's stuff - and in a lot of ways, that's what the universal healthcare crowd is trying to do.

Please direct me to the place where I demonstrate any semblance of closed-mindedness.

I believe we are talking past each other here. I do not argue that the universal health care is the right thing (I stated that there are rational arguments against it). My point was only that if one country spends billions of dollars and all citizens have free access to health care while the other country spends even more but provides only, as you put it, "basic-level" coverage than something is wrong. I do not argue that this needs to be fixed by implementing universal health care, I only argue that this needs to be fixed. I do not see any beauty in a system that charges more for administrative overhead than for the service it provides.

Certainly a legitimate complaint! Really, I think the overarching point is that you can't take the statistics at face value - you have to know what they measure. Are we talking per capita expenditure? Or is it aggregate? If it is per capita (which I would assume it to be), does it take into account the overall health of the American people? There's a lot more to the argument then "how much are we paying for healthcare." Think about it this way - I paid $600 for my car. I paid that knowing full well that I'd have to work hard to keep it in shape, let along increase its value. Other people pay tens of thousands for their cars, expecting them to simply work with minimal fuss. There's nothing wrong with either - but if someone wanted to make a statistic about the per capita expenditure on automobile purchases, the number gets skewed towards the higher end because most people pay for the best. The reality of it is, people make the decisions which benefit them the most in the immediate future - sometimes that involves paying a lot fo health coverage, sometimes it doesn't. For people who need immediate care, though, the premiums tend to be higher - if the concern is that immediate, it is probably serious and likely requires some serious time and effort by doctors to care for it. Thus, the statistic gets skewed towards the high end.

Brian in Ohio, It seems that you think than you are willing to help the unfortunate on your own, but others will not. Why do you think you are so superior to everyone else and they are not also willing to help?

Chris, I think Brian's point is not that he is superior, but rather that if we made charity entirely voluntary, that not enough people would volunteer (and those that do might not give enough) to provide for the people who need it most. I'm not sure I totally dislike the concept of government-run charity - I'd just really appreciate it more if they would call it what it is.

I'd just like to point out that the author of this piece, in all his infinite wisdom, believes the 4/16 shootings happened because of the "U.S.'s foundations of genocide and slavery." http://www.collegemedia.com/stories/4-17-07/opinions/culture-morris.html His article was up here, but I'm not sure if the page was taken down or whether its just being updated. If you're going to to transform the US into a utopian socialist society, you may want to start thinking about where you're going to hire mercenaries from in order to protect it from the rest of the world. I assure you they don't share your same ideals of sunshine and chocolate chip cookie dough for all.

"Severely underfunded" social entitlement programs (like medicare) eat up over half of the federal budget. And that number is only going to rise...

Brett, you are a typical product of the liberal university system in today's world. I will now destroy every single anti-American argument you've made against this country that has allowed you more freedom than any other country in the world would ever provide. First, the hatred for America by other countries is a fallacy that is perpetuated by the liberal media. I'm sure there are some countries in the world that hate America, namely the Middle East, but the whole world hates us? Then why is it that everyone wants to come to this country? It's because we're the freest nation of the world, and even though our government has become so large in the past 50 years, the opportunities here are still much better than anywhere else.

Second, do you honestly think we're the "bad guys" in the world? The U.S. has done more morally good things for this planet than all of the other countries combined! Do you ever hear of other countries providing as much military power to combat Islamic fundamentalists that our out to kill our way of life? Just in the past couple weeks, British authorities arrested Muslim terrorists plotting to attack England. And there were homegrown terrorists, born and raised in England! England has lost a complete sense of identity because of opening their borders to anyone and everyone, and now the government is deeply regretting this. Also, George W. Bush has done more for the continent of Africa than any other President in U.S. history. Of course, this isn't mentioned in the liberal press because their hatred of GWB runs so deep that even though he is helping the same people liberals want to apparently help so bad, they would rather just stay quiet.

Third, no state is wholly benevolent? Ever heard of Libya, Sauda Arabia, Iran, North Korea, or Palestine?? The UN elected Libya to head the UN Security Council! A Palestinian Muslim terrorist killed over a dozen Jewish students two weeksa go, and the UN refused to recognize it as a tragedy! And you think we're the bad guys??

Fourth, world opinion means nothing, nothing. If it was up to world opinion, you wouldn't support global warming. If you were truly for the good of the world, you wouldn't support global warming. But since you're a leftist, you don't care about human beings. You act as if you do, but in fact, you just think with emotions and like to believe as if you're helping the world through liberal policy, when in fact you're hurting it. You mention only 9% of Muslim population supported the war in Afghanistan? Of course they don't support it, they don't want their fellow jihadists killed off because that means less people to kill anyone who isn't Muslim in the name of Allah! Are we still the bad guys?

Fifth, if you're so against dictators, then why don't the Democrats do anything about North Korea? You mention Israel has been occupying Palestinian land, when if I remember correctly, the Jews have been occupying Israel since before Christ. As for the violence in Israel and Palestine, that's for another topic, but if someone were attacking your country, killing your kids, all under a terrorist organization elected as the government, what would you do? Israel handed over the West Bank and Gaza to Palestine and completely withdrew everyone from Israel that resided there, and what do the Palestinians do? Turn the place into a cesspool and start killing more Israelis! And you wonder why Israel hates Palestine so much? The Arabs can't have one Jewish state when there are 10+ Muslim states in that region? The leader of Iran has called for the destruction of Israel, and you wonder why people look at Iran a little weird?

Sixth, you quote William Blum of all journalists? The guy is an admitted socialist, of course he hates the government of this great country! At least he has the guts to admit that he's a socialist, unlike many naive college-aged students at the university level. Seventh, there are many Democratically elected government in this world, and the citizens of them all tend to live normal, great lives. It's in the countries with communist control, dictatorships, and tyrannical governments in which the quality of life is so bad. Do you have a link to the Pentagon's report? While the U.S. support for Israel may have some role in the Muslim hatred for the U.S., there is MUCH more to it than that. I can go on for pages about why they hate the U.S., but there isn't enough space on here to talk about it. Maybe if you write another anti-American, pro-Palestinian piece, we can discuss it on that forum.

As for us taking the country back, I agree, but it's not going to happen with our current crop of candidates. All of them are big-government people, and it has shown TIME AND TIME AGAIN throughout this country's past, the government accomplishes nothing while the private sector contributes sooo much more. Finally, I'd just like to say that the U.S. military has done more good for this world than any other "organization" has in the history of this planet. Our brave young men and women fighting overseas are fighting to keep our freedoms established in this country, but they are being slowly taken away by the Democratic party. Our soldiers are the reason why you, Brett, were able to write this anti-American, anti-military op-ed. The U.S. military is the reason you're able to have a satisfying meal at West End, why you're able to receive a great education at the liberal campuses of this country, why you're able to get ripped off vodka every weekend. And no matter how much you bash our military, and hide behind the mantra of "But I support the troops", and no matter how much you trash them, they will STILL be fighting for you over there, because they are the TRUE Americans.

The Dude, and the funny thing is, American imperialism is what allows him to live such a great life in this country, yet he still bashed it. That's the ironic thing about leftists in this country.