I Wish I Could Say This Shit Shocks Me.

[Rkolter]

The gist was, racism is a major problem in America, but some of these people need to shut up.

That's a remarkably good summation.

[NakedElf]

In my experience, occasionally dealing with people being bitchy for whatever reasons isn't anywhere near as bad as dealing with death threats/constant discrimination...

Not that I've had all that much personal experience with discrimination. But I've been close to enough of it to have a decent idea.

[BeefotronX]

For every threatened lynching against blacks in a white trash town in Louisiana, there's probably just as much intimidation by Latinos against whites in parts of southern California, or by blacks against whites in some northern urban centers.

The problem is that the people who worry the most about racism are going about it completely wrong.
It seems to me to be the height of stupid when people insist on continuing to categorize people by race in important matters like business and public policy, and yet expect to make things better by complaining when someone speaks or writes a slur regardless of how serious its context.

Racism isn't going to be solved by enforcing racial diversity in business, schools, or public boards, because that still requires a mindset of thinking a person's skin color means something in practical terms. Destroying the racist mindset requires eliminating the idea that it's acceptable to use race as any kind of factor in considering who you include, whether the intention is to exclude one race or include it in a particular proportion.
There was this one guy who had a dream that people would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I guess he was wrong. True diversity is when people look different.

[NakedElf]

I can guarantee you that there is not an equal amount of racially-motivated threats against whites by blacks in any part of the country as there are against blacks by whites.

Having lived in both the North and the South, I'd far rather be a white person in the North than a black person in the South.

[Leperdoctor]

I just wish all the idiots in the world were dead, or neutered/spayed and treated like the Eta of feudal Japan.

Amen!! *Gathers de-balling equipment*

Destroying the racist mindset requires eliminating the idea that it's acceptable to use race as any kind of factor in considering who you include, whether the intention is to exclude one race or include it in a particular proportion.

Oh yeah. That's the problem we have here- we give all sorts of fascinating rights to members of minorities because, well, they're a minority. Instead of treating them equally, and enforcing the same rights upon everyone, the government itself is enforcing discriminatory policies. Very aggrevating.

It seems the world is either one extreme or the other- squishing minorities or bending over backwards for them. I can see in colour, and I've always been able to- but the thing is, I don't give a rat's diseased tail about who you are and what you look like, and I never have. I think some people should have some sense slapped into them...multiple times. And if all else fails, well, neutering/spaying and destroying to make sure their teaching doesn't descend to the next generation sounds like a plan...

I dunno, does anyone here live in a state, province, city or country where we all just get along..?

[NakedElf]

There's a problem with that logic, though.

Let's say we have a population of blue people and purple people. Half the time, the purple people are discriminated against. Half the time, they're treated as equals.

Well, that's not going to work out too well. Saying "we shouldn't have hiring quotas" or whatever isn't going to stop discrimination and racism. It's just going to help some people ignore it.

And frankly, we're still dealing with the long-term effects of institutionalized racism. American schools are funded by local property taxes, so guess what happens to schools in poor areas? They get poor funding. Why doesn't America have socialized health care, unlike pretty much every other first world nation on the planet? Because white people don't want to pay for black babies.

And what happens to a person when their parents don't have insurance because they can't get a good job because the employers discriminate, and so their parents don't get adequate prenatal care and good nutrition? They're more likely to be born retarded, go to shitty schools, and continue the same cycle of getting shitty jobs and poor nutrition and giving birth to kids who are fucked over from day one.

Race blind hiring and admissions policies and the like aren't going to change that.



I hear the people in Japan get along with each other pretty well. The lack of racial minorities probably has an effect on that.

[Jesusabdullah]

Why doesn't America have socialized health care, unlike pretty much every other first world nation on the planet? Because white people don't want to pay for black babies.

I like to think that the reason we don't have nationalized health care is that we're still optimistic about the ability of one to pull themselves out of a shitty situation if they try. Perhaps it's unrealistic to think this, but I think this ideal is common in American culture.

Also, I would think that if I were a minority that I would probably be offended by affirmative action because it suggests that minorities can't make it on their own merits. Granted, I'm not, so I can't be sure.

Edit: Oh man, there was totally a Star Trek about this. One of the aliens was black on the left and white on the right, and the other was mirrored (white on the left and black on the right). They had magic powers and made the Enterprise fly back to their home planet, so the dominant one could haul the renegade's ass to a court martial. When they were chasing each other around the galaxy, their planet got nuked to tiny bits. It was pretty sweet, but I think most of the old Trek episodes I've seen are pretty sweet.

[That guy]

Racism breeds wherever stupid and afraid come together.

I hear the people in Japan get along with each other pretty well. The lack of racial minorities probably has an effect on that.

Have you seen black characters in Anime? They're the same fat-lipped cliches that made their way out of popular American cartoons shortly after technicolor. Interracial marriage is also still faux-pas, as I understand it. Interestingly, they censor movies we send their way for those kinds of things while we censor things coming our way for language/violence/sex. Different cultures.

[Rkolter]

There's a problem with that logic, though.

Let's say we have a population of blue people and purple people. Half the time, the purple people are discriminated against. Half the time, they're treated as equals.

Well, that's not going to work out too well. Saying "we shouldn't have hiring quotas" or whatever isn't going to stop discrimination and racism. It's just going to help some people ignore it.

A non-racist hiring policy is to hire people based on their skill sets, not the color of their skin. Affirmative action is nothing more than instutionalized racism.

And frankly, we're still dealing with the long-term effects of institutionalized racism. American schools are funded by local property taxes, so guess what happens to schools in poor areas? They get poor funding.

I don't see anything wrong with this. You should get the best schooling you can afford.

Why doesn't America have socialized health care, unlike pretty much every other first world nation on the planet? Because white people don't want to pay for black babies.

It's because people in America dislike what they see as freeloading. Why should I have to pay for my insurance, and then pay so that someone else can have their insurance for free? And people who say they have a "right" to free insurance? They're the worst.

You do not have a right to force others to pay for your insurance, nor do you have the right to medical care you cannot afford.

And what happens to a person when their parents don't have insurance because they can't get a good job because the employers discriminate, and so their parents don't get adequate prenatal care and good nutrition? They're more likely to be born retarded, go to shitty schools, and continue the same cycle of getting shitty jobs and poor nutrition and giving birth to kids who are fucked over from day one.

How about this instead - Have children when you can afford to have them, not because of some mistaken belief that it is your "right". That cuts the cycle right there.

Then, divert more money to public schooling. Along with the lessening of overcrowding now that the poorest families aren't cranking babies they can't afford out, those shitty schools will improve.

With fewer mouths to feed, a family could afford insurance.

There are solutions that exist that emphasize self-control and personal responsibility. They will always be superior to solutions that involve someone with nothing, claiming the right to something they have not earned.

[Dr Legostar]

There are solutions that exist that emphasize self-control and personal responsibility. They will always be superior to solutions that involve someone with nothing, claiming the right to something they have not earned.

naw, personal responsibility is such a drag, it's so much easier to blame someone else. it's the american way.

[Warren]

Why doesn't America have socialized health care, unlike pretty much every other first world nation on the planet? Because white people don't want to pay for black babies..

This has to be the most racist statement I've read on this board in some time. I'm appalled.

[That guy]

rkolter: Well articulated, but awfully callous.

This is not a country in which schooling and medical care are completely covered by the state, it's true. There are benefits to that system, and downsides (as with any system), but it's not ours and that's that.

I disagree with the attitude, however, that the priveledged have no responsibility to help those less fortunate. It's the same attitude that often leads directly to racism. Not that you've generally come across as racist, but the basic premise is the same: "I'm on top - why should I have to give up anything for the people below me?" It leads to "Blacks shouldn't get to go to school with my kids" and "Mexicans are stealing our jobs," and it's a terrifying perspective.

You say poor areas having underfunded schools while well-funded schools get still more funding because rich parents support it is not wrong, because

You should get the best schooling you can afford.

But those with worse education can't get the high-paying jobs that those with excellent education can... so their children will be born poor... and therefore their children will be born poor... and on and on. Is it right to give the priveledged an extra degree of priveledge just because they're already on top?

Those same people who went to crappy schools (or dropped out of them) are the ones who wind up being "freeloaders" and getting turned away by the very doctors who swore to always serve "for the benefit of the sick" (Hippocratic oath). They also have a higher birth rate - because after all, if you can't get a good job and you haven't been educated and ingrained with a sense of self-respect, what ELSE are you going to do with yourself?

Those who have refuse to give and those who have not are criticized because they can't. It isn't fair. I don't care what system we have. Basic necessities should be granted to all children equally. They're not, and they never will be... but they should.

EDIT:
Also...

There are solutions that exist that emphasize self-control and personal responsibility. They will always be superior to solutions that involve someone with nothing, claiming the right to something they have not earned.

Who says ANY upper-class, white, priveledged man or woman has EARNED half as much as a middle class minority who worked his/her way up to mediocrity by the sweat of his brow and a sense of honor. You're right, it SHOULD be about what we earned, not what our parents could afford... which is why education should be a basic right.

[Rkolter]

I disagree with the attitude, however, that the priveledged have no responsibility to help those less fortunate. It's the same attitude that often leads directly to racism. Not that you've generally come across as racist, but the basic premise is the same: "I'm on top - why should I have to give up anything for the people below me?" It leads to "Blacks shouldn't get to go to school with my kids" and "Mexicans are stealing our jobs," and it's a terrifying perspective.

Well, we will have to disagree. I see nothing wrong in saying "I'm on top - why should I have to give up anything for the people below me?" Although I think I'd prefer to say, "Why should I be obligated to give assistance to anyone?" I dislike being obligated to help people - it is no longer an act of kindness or even a responsible act - it's a mandated one.

By comparison, I see something very tremendously wrong with "Blacks shouldn't get to go to school with my kids" and "Mexicans are stealing our jobs." I think that anyone living in a neighborhood and paying taxes to that school, should be able to send their kids to that school. Black, white, or green. As for Mexicans - either they're here legally, in which case those are their jobs to compete for, they're actually American citizens, in which case those are their jobs to compete for, or they're here illegally, in which case they should be removed and the employer should be punished for hiring them.

You say poor areas having underfunded schools while well-funded schools get still more funding because rich parents support it is not wrong, because

You should get the best schooling you can afford.

But those with worse education can't get the high-paying jobs that those with excellent education can... so their children will be born poor... and therefore their children will be born poor... and on and on. Is it right to give the priveledged an extra degree of priveledge just because they're already on top?

I have several friends who have well paying jobs and came from very poor families and poor schooling. Hell, my wife's entire side of the family comes from a rural town in Missouri where the teaching is (imho) not up to snuff. Billions of dollars of scholarship money goes unclaimed each year, and most public colleges have very minimal, or no, exams to get in.

It's a MYTH that going to a weaker public school dooms you to a life of poverty and hardship. Failing to strive dooms you to a life of poverty and hardship, regardless of if you went to a good public school or not.

Those same people who went to crappy schools (or dropped out of them) are the ones who wind up being "freeloaders" and getting turned away by the very doctors who swore to always serve "for the benefit of the sick" (Hippocratic oath).

If you drop out of school, it's your own goddamn fault and you deserve what is coming to you, end of statement.

"Here's an education... good or bad, if you don't get it, you won't survive in our society, and it's free."

"Nah, I'd rather not..."

Doctors do not generally turn away patients. Some do. Most do not. I have gods knows how many medical people on both sides of my family and I can assure you, those who do are frowned upon by the rest.

There is federal law that people who are quick to yell at hospitals don't think about, which absolutely forces them to provide care for absolutely anyone, until they are stabilized. Do they? Not always. No system's perfect. But for each case of dumping you hear, there are a hundred cases of the poor being treated with compassion. And those hospitals that dump patients? I'm all for any form of punishment you want to mete out to them.

They also have a higher birth rate - because after all, if you can't get a good job and you haven't been educated and ingrained with a sense of self-respect, what ELSE are you going to do with yourself?

I don't know... maybe not have babies you can't afford to care for? You do not have a right to bring children into this world that you cannot feed. It's tantamount to child abuse. Again, there are options for self improvement that require self control. Those are always better than the options that require others to care for you.

Those who have refuse to give and those who have not are criticized because they can't. It isn't fair. I don't care what system we have. Basic necessities should be granted to all children equally. They're not, and they never will be... but they should.

Those who have, do give. A lot. More in fact, as a percentage of individual income (not GDP), than most other nations. This is an appalling statement. I give money and materials to charities and give blood to the Red Cross (are you in the gallon club? I've been in there since the 1990's).

You're missing my point - people should not be obligated to give. It's no longer giving then. It's taking. And worse are those people who expect to be given things. You have no right to what I worked for.

EDIT:
Also...

There are solutions that exist that emphasize self-control and personal responsibility. They will always be superior to solutions that involve someone with nothing, claiming the right to something they have not earned.

Who says ANY upper-class, white, priveledged man or woman has EARNED half as much as a middle class minority who worked his/her way up to mediocrity by the sweat of his brow and a sense of honor. You're right, it SHOULD be about what we earned, not what our parents could afford... which is why education should be a basic right.

I would disagree - if your parents worked to earn what they did, and chose to give that to you, that doesn't instill in me an ounce of guilt. I plan to have children, and I plan to work to death to give them the best I can, and I will fight anyone who thinks that they should in turn, have anything less than a 100% right to what I've worked to give them.

[McDuffies]

In my experience, occasionally dealing with people being bitchy for whatever reasons isn't anywhere near as bad as dealing with death threats/constant discrimination...

That wouldn't be much of an issue if it wasn't itself a factor in widening the gap between races. It just feeds the vicious circle.

And frankly, we're still dealing with the long-term effects of institutionalized racism. American schools are funded by local property taxes, so guess what happens to schools in poor areas? They get poor funding. Why doesn't America have socialized health care, unlike pretty much every other first world nation on the planet? Because white people don't want to pay for black babies.

While those certaily are ongoing problems in American society, it seems to me that you're reading racism where there's none. This is a matter of gap between wealthy people and poor people, not between races. Lack of socialized health care and school system is a case of "rich people don't want to pay for poor people". There are white poor people as well, many of them, and they don't get any free health care and good schools either, the whole system is not a consequence of racism, it's a consequence of capitalism.

It's because people in America dislike what they see as freeloading. Why should I have to pay for my insurance, and then pay so that someone else can have their insurance for free? And people who say they have a "right" to free insurance? They're the worst.

You do not have a right to force others to pay for your insurance, nor do you have the right to medical care you cannot afford.

However, you have right to inforce people to pay taxes, and you have right to use public roads, public parks, benefits of living in a country with democratic government, or any other kind of public property whose maintaining you can't afford, so why is this any different.
See I agree that social equality is delusive idea and that the ideal that everyone should get the same benefits regardless of the job they do, their capabilities, etc - only leads to more social injustice. But society of equal chances is something different. The idea is that when born, a person has equal chances to develop into a successful individual as any other. But when this person can't afford to go into a good school because her parents can't afford it? That one person can't get a proper health care - and you know what can an ordinary common cold do to a baby if it doesn't get proper health care? That many of them, regardless of their intelligence, talents, skills, can never dedicate time to school because they have to work to help support their families?
Anyone who has been born in a stabile, middle-(or higher)-class family, can consider themselves lucky. Being born in a family that can afford you medical care and good school, in not a right, it's pure luck.
Socialized institutions are simply a step toward the society of equal oportunities.

And then, isn't a term "free-loaders" regularly related to people who are too lazy to work, but want to get the same benefits as working people as well? But not all poor people are that because they're too lazy to work. If I'm not mistaking, there's a huge unemployement rate in USA, so there's a reason to conclude that most of people who are unemployed are that simply because there isn't enough jobs in the country to hire them all. And then there are also people who have jobs but are payed some minimal wage (which, again, can be a result of their families being so poor that they couldn't afford proper education for them). I think that simply doesn't constitute under what we usually consider free-loading.

Well in the end, take a look at examples that are given. Despite it's power, USA is not even near the top of countries with highest standard. The top is always occupied by countries that have completely different social program, such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands... Noone can deny that USA is currently plagued with many internal problems, that there's a lot of pressure on an average USA citizen, and those pressures could be lessened if the system was less competitive.

One thing I agree with, though. It's a general trend that in a poor, undereducated enviroment, families then to have a lot of children, which they can't support. This is a complete lack of responsibility on side of their parents, and one can hardly expect government to take care of all those kids. Sadly it's not a problem with viable solution.

[Yeahduff]

So much to say, but do I really wanna get involved?

Eh, I'll try yo be brief.

Affirmative action is less than ideal, but it's dealing with problems in a less than ideal world. Maybe it's institutionalized racism, but it balances the preexisting institutionalized racism.

We're all connected, and it's in everyone's interest that we reduce poverty. Better schools and affordable healthcare (including mental) for the poor would reduce crime. We got this far because we look out for each other.

That's lacking, but whatever.

[Rkolter]

It's because people in America dislike what they see as freeloading. Why should I have to pay for my insurance, and then pay so that someone else can have their insurance for free? And people who say they have a "right" to free insurance? They're the worst.

You do not have a right to force others to pay for your insurance, nor do you have the right to medical care you cannot afford.

However, you have right to inforce people to pay taxes, and you have right to use public roads, public parks, benefits of living in a country with democratic government, or any other kind of public property whose maintaining you can't afford, so why is this any different.

Well, if you use my taxes to maintain the public roads, I can get use out of the public roads. If you maintain a park, I can use the park. If you maintain public property, I can use that too. If you fund the military, then I get the safety the military provides.

If you fund a public healthcare system, and I'm already paying for health care, then I gain nothing, and worse, lose out - the money that you're taking from me for public health care, I could use for things for my family. The people being treated with that new healthcare system are taking time slots up that I could use with the health care I am paying for.

If it was shown that the public healthcare system people want to fund would cost me aproximately what I pay now for healthcare, and provide essentially the same benefits, I might be swayed. But the math doesn't allow for that.

See I agree that social equality is delusive idea and that the ideal that everyone should get the same benefits regardless of the job they do, their capabilities, etc - only leads to more social injustice. But society of equal chances is something different. The idea is that when born, a person has equal chances to develop into a successful individual as any other. But when this person can't afford to go into a good school because her parents can't afford it?

Again, so long as you strive in the school you do get into, you should be able to go to college, and the federal government will, barring criminal charges have been brought against you, loan you the money you need to get your college degree. It's that simple. It's out there and does exist, but much of the benefits go to waste because people choose to drop out of high school, or choose not to make use of those benefits.

That one person can't get a proper health care - and you know what can an ordinary common cold do to a baby if it doesn't get proper health care? That many of them, regardless of their intelligence, talents, skills, can never dedicate time to school because they have to work to help support their families?

First, a baby with a cold can be taken to an emergency room and will be given assistance. Period. And hospitals don't charge interest rates on unpaid balances, and accept almost any amount of money so long as it's paid regularly - I know this from firsthand experience.

Second, I worked three jobs while going through college full time. You can dedicate the time, if you put the energy into it.

And then, isn't a term "free-loaders" regularly related to people who are too lazy to work, but want to get the same benefits as working people as well? But not all poor people are that because they're too lazy to work.

True.

I thought I said, "percieve to be freeloaders". I meant to - no, not all people who need public assistance are freeloaders. However, there are an awful lot that are. I was a team lead on the project that did the entire pc and server refresh for the State of Ohio's welfare system. County after county, the story was the same - most of these people grew up on welfare, then had kids on welfare. And the more kids you have on welfare, the more welfare money you get.

If I'm not mistaking, there's a huge unemployement rate in USA, so there's a reason to conclude that most of people who are unemployed are that simply because there isn't enough jobs in the country to hire them all.

Nah, our unemployement rate was 4.5% in June. You guys averaged 20.6% in 2006.

And then there are also people who have jobs but are payed some minimal wage (which, again, can be a result of their families being so poor that they couldn't afford proper education for them). I think that simply doesn't constitute under what we usually consider free-loading.

3.7% of the US population makes minimum wage or less, and the majority of them are not poor, because they are actually not the heads of families, but instead children or teenagers. Raising minimum wage doesn't hurt many businesses, and doesn't help many people.

There's a common misconception that if the minimum wage goes up by a buck, that EVERYONE gets an extra buck. Actually, that tiny percentage who make minimum wage goes up a buck, those who make a dollar or less over minimum wage would go up by enough to make them minimum wage earners, and nobody else sees a dime.

[BeefotronX]

Regarding health care, there's an interesting bit I read in the Wall Street Journal about some places where they have 'convenience clinics', where you basically have a licensed nurse practitioner set up shop inside a mall or a Wal-Mart or some such who can diagnose and treat most common ailments, in a retail-oriented context. Customers/patients appear to be pleased with the quality of care they're getting and it's quite inexpensive.

This could be a step in the right direction that doesn't require bringing government bureaucrats into the matter.

[McDuffies]

Well, if you use my taxes to maintain the public roads, I can get use out of the public roads. If you maintain a park, I can use the park. If you maintain public property, I can use that too. If you fund the military, then I get the safety the military provides.

But can you say "ok, I don't need to go to a park, so cut my taxes for the bit that would go to maintaining the park, and I won't go to it"?
Basically, it would be as if you had two kinds of roads, well-maintained and badly-maintained, and poorer people were only allowed to those poorly-maintained.

Again, so long as you strive in the school you do get into, you should be able to go to college, and the federal government will, barring criminal charges have been brought against you, loan you the money you need to get your college degree. It's that simple. It's out there and does exist, but much of the benefits go to waste because people choose to drop out of high school, or choose not to make use of those benefits.

In theory, maybe, yeah, someone born in poor family, provided he breaks his back off studying and working, should get the same education that someone born in richer family gets by default.
In reality things are usually different. Your effort is rarely the only factor that gets into account. After all, don't people spend half of their lifetime repaying their students loan?
Again I'm saying, not the society of equal oportunities.

First, a baby with a cold can be taken to an emergency room and will be given assistance. Period. And hospitals don't charge interest rates on unpaid balances, and accept almost any amount of money so long as it's paid regularly - I know this from firsthand experience.

Which means anyone can get proper health care provided he gets himself in debt? And more debt each time they or their children get sick... plus education for said children... plus other neccesities...
Actually, sounds like a good reason for anyone to avoid going to hospital until the last moment.

Second, I worked three jobs while going through college full time. You can dedicate the time, if you put the energy into it.

"If I could do it, anyone can." Nah. If you had to do it, doesn't mean it's right way to treat people. Makes you sound like an old man saying "Bah, cars! When I had to go somewhere, I had to walk barefoot through the snow for miles!" Not the reason for us to do the same thing today.

I thought I said, "percieve to be freeloaders". I meant to - no, not all people who need public assistance are freeloaders. However, there are an awful lot that are. I was a team lead on the project that did the entire pc and server refresh for the State of Ohio's welfare system. County after county, the story was the same - most of these people grew up on welfare, then had kids on welfare. And the more kids you have on welfare, the more welfare money you get.

Innocent until proven guilty? Is it better solution to deal with such cases on individual basis or is it better to just cut social security for everyone?

Nah, our unemployement rate was 4.5% in June. You guys averaged 20.6% in 2006.

3.7% of the US population makes minimum wage or less, and the majority of them are not poor, because they are actually not the heads of families, but instead children or teenagers. Raising minimum wage doesn't hurt many businesses, and doesn't help many people.

That sounds like there's no poor people in USA... asides from 4.5% who are unemployed because they're lazy...

Basically, I'm looking at statements like Thatguy's comment about "our system" and "their system" and it just sounds wrong to me. As if current system is the only one that would work for USA people (suggesting that they're somehow inherently different) or as if it's a matter of national pride and tradition to stick to the old system.
It's not the cold war time anymore, where political and social systems were stakes in a larger scale conflict. It's the time of globalisation where different systems communicate and accept experiences from each others going for the best, most humane results. And USA's current system if far from ideal so it could benefit from willingness to learn from others.

Edit:
Gotta note, though, that I think that social welfare is a completely different issue from medical insurance and public school system. Simply, I think that good health care and education aren't privileges, aren't luxury. They should be a right given by state, and any state that doesn't think so, isn't just humane enough.
While with welfare, once money is in the hands of receiver, it's his deal what he'll do with that money, with health insurance you know that this money is ultimately going to treating someone who is ill. There is no missuse, provided that the system works, unless, I dunno, someone intentionally catches preumonia repeatedly or something. Besides, an average person is more likely to get sick and go to hospital, than he is to be laid off and end up on welfare, which makes an average person more likely user of the money he pays for medical insurance.

I don't know what welfare system is in USA, anyways. I think that Serbia has a theoretically decent system against welfare abuse. You are reported to state's unemployment agency which also gives you welfare; Once they've found a job for you (with some respect to your qualifications and the place in the queue), if you refuse it, you're taken off from welfare and placed at the end of the queue. That's when state has reason to believe that you're a "free-loader". Until then, being that the state institution didn't manage to find you a job, it's logical to assume that you couldn't find it yourself either (though you're free to look for it).
Of course, being Serbia, welfare payments are atrociously small and late, there's a lot of corruption and abuse (like people finding a job on their own but never reporting it to the agency - noone bothers to control stuff like that) and all that, but it seems like a logical system that would work in a better-organized state. Safe from the kind of abuse that, apparently, plagues USA's system.

[That guy]

Well, we will have to disagree.

Probably best left at that.

Basically, I'm looking at statements like Thatguy's comment about "our system" and "their system" and it just sounds wrong to me. As if current system is the only one that would work for USA people (suggesting that they're somehow inherently different) or as if it's a matter of national pride and tradition to stick to the old system.

I wasn't making any claims as to the superiority of the US system or any need to stick with it - rather the opposite actually. I was simply stating that our current system does not do those things and other systems do. We don't provide coverage for everyone, and that's that. My argument was that certain basics should be covered for children everywhere.

[Orinocou]

Ugh, I feel awful for those kids. Mere children are going to be put in jail for life, their only crime being getting in a fight at school and trying to defend themselves.

For me, the big question is: What can we do to help?