America's second bill of rights

[Prolescum]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights
[showmore=Franklin D. Roosevelt]It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people,whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth,is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights,among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however,as our industrial economy expanded,these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all,regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

Americas own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.[/showmore]

I've been thinking about this since responding on another thread, as I'd forgotten all about it.

What would America look like if these rights had been granted?

How would its implementation affect America's interaction with other parts of the world and other political systems?

What would the world look like today?



I'd like to keep this thread limited to descriptions of periods of time you think, for better or worse, it would've had the most impact, how its interaction at key moments would have changed, would the PNAC be considered a fringe group... that sort of thing.

Of course, discussion of the posts/ideas is very welcome, I just don't want it to turn into another conservative/liberal is better free-for-all.

 

[RichardMNixon]

I hadn't seen this before, thanks for bringing it to my attention. FDR shoots even higher in my esteem.

I imagine we would look a lot more like western Europe. This was around the same time the NHS was founded, yes?

The "Great Society" was headed in this direction by my understanding, so one question becomes: what stopped it? Vietnam? OPEC? The Carter/Reagan recession?

From someone on the inside looking out though it's not very clear to me how this would effect our foreign relations. Is American healthcare or unemployment a big deal to Britons? You bring up PNAC so I guess you're hinting that we'd have less money to waste on blowing up other continents? Never a bad thing really. It's pretty embarrassing to think of what our soldiers could be doing to help Americans if we weren't at war.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Well, most of those aren't rights. If they were granted, they would be entitlements - incredibly expensive ones at that. In many cases, quite counterproductive. South Africa has the right to housing; and they have a high rate of homelessness, higher then you would expect given economic factors.

 

[Prolescum]

I hadn't seen this before, thanks for bringing it to my attention. FDR shoots even higher in my esteem.

I imagine we would look a lot more like western Europe. This was around the same time the NHS was founded, yes?

Yes, but can you guess which came first?

The "Great Society" was headed in this direction by my understanding, so one question becomes: what stopped it? Vietnam? OPEC? The Carter/Reagan recession?

That is a good question. I'm not fully immersed in American political history, so I don't think I'm qualified to attempt an answer.

From someone on the inside looking out though it's not very clear to me how this would effect our foreign relations. Is American healthcare or unemployment a big deal to Britons?

I meant, for example, America's interaction with the socialist republics and whether the virulent, rabid anti-red sentiment resulting from years of propaganda against the supposedly divergent and incompatible philosophy would've happened.

You bring up PNAC so I guess you're hinting that we'd have less money to waste on blowing up other continents? Never a bad thing really. It's pretty embarrassing to think of what our soldiers could be doing to help Americans if we weren't at war.

I brought it up as a joke, but in all seriousness, would it still have become a defining factor of American foreign policy throughout the naughties if the sense of community wellbeing and international friendship had been bolstered by legislative recognition of these rights (and the intent behind them)?

Well, most of those aren't rights. If they were granted, they would be entitlements - incredibly expensive ones at that. In many cases, quite counterproductive. South Africa has the right to housing; and they have a high rate of homelessness, higher then you would expect given economic factors.

So supposing for a moment they had been implemented as is, how would America look?

 

[Demojen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights
[showmore=Franklin D. Roosevelt]It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people,whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth,is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights,among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however,as our industrial economy expanded,these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all,regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

Americas own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.[/showmore]

I've been thinking about this since responding on another thread, as I'd forgotten all about it.

What would America look like if these rights had been granted?

How would its implementation affect America's interaction with other parts of the world and other political systems?

What would the world look like today?



I'd like to keep this thread limited to descriptions of periods of time you think, for better or worse, it would've had the most impact, how its interaction at key moments would have changed, would the PNAC be considered a fringe group... that sort of thing.

Of course, discussion of the posts/ideas is very welcome, I just don't want it to turn into another conservative/liberal is better free-for-all.

You'd be Canada.

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

You'd be Canada.

Prolescum is British.

 

[Demojen]

Correction: America would be Canada

 

[Prolescum]

I don't think those rights exist in Canada either, although their welfare state is closer to that of the British one so I gather. Any Canadians wanna jump in?

Prolescum is British.

Born at the top and live at the bottom. The synchronicity with the rest of my life is disconcerting...

 

[Andiferous]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights
[showmore=Franklin D. Roosevelt]It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people,whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth,is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights,among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however,as our industrial economy expanded,these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all,regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

Americas own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.[/showmore]

I've been thinking about this since responding on another thread, as I'd forgotten all about it.

What would America look like if these rights had been granted?

How would its implementation affect America's interaction with other parts of the world and other political systems?

What would the world look like today?



I'd like to keep this thread limited to descriptions of periods of time you think, for better or worse, it would've had the most impact, how its interaction at key moments would have changed, would the PNAC be considered a fringe group... that sort of thing.

Of course, discussion of the posts/ideas is very welcome, I just don't want it to turn into another conservative/liberal is better free-for-all.

You'd be Canada.

I don't think those rights exist in Canada either, although their welfare state is closer to that of the British one so I gather. Any Canadians wanna jump in?

Prolescum is British.

Born at the top and live at the bottom. The synchronicity with the rest of my life is disconcerting...

Well, I'm far from happy with our own system but frankly, the comment tickled me.

We're not the best, but I can think of worse situations.

This is pretty much what makes it funny (for me): many folks on the globe confuse the two nations and generally forget to specify. Over here we call it the USA, because there are all sorts of Americas on the compass. North, south, Latin, Central, etc. We generally don't warrant a clarification in the matter.

But keep in mind, according to Wikileaks, we Canadians have an inferiority complex.

Then again, from this same source, so does Britain.

This relates less to the original article than the challenge for Canadians, btw...

 

[havanacat]

Agree with Arthur~

We wouldn't even be Canada, maybe more like UK or France.

These are not "rights" under the Constitution and founding fathers would have found FDR repugnant, as many do. His policies prolonged fiscal crisis (thanks Keynes) much longer than it needed to be. A free market would have self~corrected the problem much more quickly.

These "rights", implemented at that time would have us speaking German or,Japanese at this point.

 

[Prolescum]

Agree with Arthur~

Arthur didn't fulfil the thread's OP either.

We wouldn't even be Canada, maybe more like UK or France.

Yes, but how?

These are not "rights" under the Constitution

Obviously. No one said they were, it's a what if.

and founding fathers would have found FDR repugnant, as many do.

Repugnant? And this is based upon what...?

His policies prolonged fiscal crisis (thanks Keynes) much longer than it needed to be. A free market would have self~corrected the problem much more quickly.

:lol: The free market: humanity's biggest hindrance the solution to all of life's problems.

These "rights", implemented at that time would have us speaking German or,Japanese at this point.

What a stinking pile of fetid wank remnants. Of course, you're more than welcome to justify the above statement with anything other than shite.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

The free market: humanity's biggest hindrance.

Because the places with no free market economy; such as Soviet Russia, Maoist China, and North Korea; had people fulfilling their highest potentials. Right? :roll:

Ok, let's look at some of these.

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

Translation: businesses will be forced to give jobs to people regardless of things like how well the company was doing or how qualified people were to actually perform the job. Unions compelled General Motors to run that way; it drove the company right into the ground. Imagine the fate of GM across the entire US economy.

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

Which way are you going with this? The right for a fair chance to earn these things I agree with; anti-discrimination laws are fine as long as they actually address discrimination. However, if the right is to a guarantee to these things it's just massive social welfare.

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

Subsidies... this is a whole topic in and of itself, but it goes back to the myth of the homesteader farmer, which is just blatantly false in modern agriculture. Subsidies are, effectively, a way to line the pocket of big business while insuring that farmers in the third world starve because they can't compete. Subsidies are in general bad news, and the topic is complex enough that I'll tell you just to investigate yourself. There's no shortage of problems with the farm subsidies we already have.

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

Again, a complex subject, but there were and are anti-trust laws in place that I feel adequately address this, so this one is a fact as far as I'm concerned.

The right of every family to a decent home;

Two problems; the first is the concept of "decent". How is this going to be measured and enforced? I'm reminded of parts of the ADA which mandated certain construction features in businesses to promote handicap access. However, this was less of a help for people with disabilities then it was for trial lawyers and construction companies who blackmailed businesses into expensive "repairs" for having railings that were half an inch too high.

And, as mentioned, this is almost certain to increase homelessness. Just look at South Africa where this legal right is in place. Even factoring in economic conditions, homelessness is high there. Since everyone has a "right" to a home, there's no incentive for people to build and sell homes, so homes aren't built.

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I love how people who criticize or think that they have a word on Economic policies forget that the Constitution in America is laid out to be a Mixed Economy, in which the Government is simply the umpire to make sure everyone plays fair and that things get back on it's own.
The problem with a truly "Free Market" is that without regulations there would be monopolies and ridiculous prices (since they are the only ones with the means to settle it out) - and also, if one part of the market falls and is left on it's ass (like it WAS at the first part of the Great Depression) then it will never get back up.

The Economy is the only thing where the Big Brother concept is a good thing. As long as it's not a controlling authority that is dishing out the products, and simply a regulating authority.

ANYHOW - Recently, our Government has been a bit too spend-happy for my tastes and congress has become a horde of children, whipping out dicks to see which one is bigger to effectively see this. The problem is that people want either one extreme or another, and never in the middle.
>.>

 

[televator]

I love how people who criticize or think that they have a word on Economic policies forget that the Constitution in America is laid out to be a Mixed Economy, in which the Government is simply the umpire to make sure everyone plays fair and that things get back on it's own.
The problem with a truly "Free Market" is that without regulations there would be monopolies and ridiculous prices (since they are the only ones with the means to settle it out) - and also, if one part of the market falls and is left on it's ass (like it WAS at the first part of the Great Depression) then it will never get back up.

Don't forget extreme social instability as well. Imagine several great depressions over time.

 

[Prolescum]

Thanks for jumping back in Arthur.

The free market: humanity's biggest hindrance.

Because the places with no free market economy; such as Soviet Russia, Maoist China, and North Korea; had people fulfilling their highest potentials. Right? :roll:

Dude I'm not a communist nor am I against commerce. However, completely unregulated "free" markets are just as horrible as Maoist plans and only fools and liars think otherwise.

Ok, let's look at some of these.

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

Translation: businesses will be forced to give jobs to people regardless of things like how well the company was doing or how qualified people were to actually perform the job. Unions compelled General Motors to run that way; it drove the company right into the ground. Imagine the fate of GM across the entire US economy.

Don't know much about this company. Can you link some examples of where they had to employ unqualified staff and which roles they were required to fill? Do you know why they weren't given the training to qualify them for the positions?

While I can agree that this is no small task I don't think you've yet convinced me that the right to an adequate job is a bad thing. Presuming that is your stance.

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

Which way are you going with this? The right for a fair chance to earn these things I agree with; anti-discrimination laws are fine as long as they actually address discrimination. However, if the right is to a guarantee to these things it's just massive social welfare.

I'm not going anywhere with it... I understood it to be akin to a livable minimum wage guarantee.

I'll have to get to the others later on. Sorry.

 

[borrofburi]

thanks Keynes

How much macroeconomics have you taken? Forgive the skepticism, but I've found that macroeconomics is a lot like biology: those who criticize it tend to not understand it.

 

[Prolescum]

Subsidies... this is a whole topic in and of itself, but it goes back to the myth of the homesteader farmer, which is just blatantly false in modern agriculture. Subsidies are, effectively, a way to line the pocket of big business while insuring that farmers in the third world starve because they can't compete. Subsidies are in general bad news, and the topic is complex enough that I'll tell you just to investigate yourself. There's no shortage of problems with the farm subsidies we already have.

Actually I agree with you about agricultural subsidies but I don't think that is what he meant by to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living. In fact you could infer the exact opposite. No subsidies for anyone and an appropriate and relative price for all.
Certainly there's some room for interpretation as to what this means.

Again, a complex subject, but there were and are anti-trust laws in place that I feel adequately address this, so this one is a fact as far as I'm concerned.

Okay.

Two problems; the first is the concept of "decent". How is this going to be measured and enforced? I'm reminded of parts of the ADA which mandated certain construction features in businesses to promote handicap access. However, this was less of a help for people with disabilities then it was for trial lawyers and construction companies who blackmailed businesses into expensive "repairs" for having railings that were half an inch too high.

Well unscrupulous businesses aside, the requirement that all new buildings have, for example, double glazing in this country has helped reduce the cost of heating the home, as has government subsidised insulation for older houses. I'd say a guarantee of protection from the elements is decent but concede that there would need to be a lot of discussion on what decent actually constitutes. Housing does last generations; is this not an investment?

And, as mentioned, this is almost certain to increase homelessness.

Please elaborate.

Just look at South Africa where this legal right is in place. Even factoring in economic conditions, homelessness is high there.

Sorry but the problems in South Africa are nowhere near that simple. High unemployment, a fucked up policy against contraception and STDs, the remnants of decades of apartheid, government level corruption and so on. We're talking about something that rises from American circumstance, culture, economics and history and the problems or solutions it would bring.

Since everyone has a "right" to a home, there's no incentive for people to build and sell homes, so homes aren't built.

I don't follow. Could you expand on this process?

The government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.

Very droll. Some people cannot work due to their illness/disability, some people could not afford private pensions. Are you going to allow them to suffer because you were too stingy to cough up a few dollars a month and give them the dignity a fellow human being deserves?



Note: I'd also like to state (for future reference as this piece of information makes a difference and often gets lost) that yes I'm of the left side of the political spectrum, however, I am also a democrat. I acquiesce to the majority but I will also continue to hold true to what I believe to be in the best interest of all and promote those values/principles/views. Circumstances are always in flux; what's best today isn't necessarily what's best tomorrow. Accepting that nothing is my way or the highway is at the core of my political philosophy despite my vociferous nature.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Note: I'd also like to state (for future reference as this piece of information makes a difference and often gets lost) that yes I'm of the left side of the political spectrum, however, I am also a democrat. I acquiesce to the majority but I will also continue to hold true to what I believe to be in the best interest of all and promote those values/principles/views. Circumstances are always in flux; what's best today isn't necessarily what's best tomorrow. Accepting that nothing is my way or the highway is at the core of my political philosophy despite my vociferous nature.

You should also note that your "Democrat" is not the Political party in American terms.

In America, that's like saying - "I'm a man, but I also happen to have a penis."

 

[Prolescum]

I forgot that there are some who need the difference between a Democrat and a democrat pointed out to them. I literally always neglect that. Thanks matey.

Edit: I'm not taking the piss.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Dude I'm not a communist nor am I against commerce. However, completely unregulated "free" markets are just as horrible as Maoist plans and only fools and liars think otherwise.

Thanks for having me.

Yes, taking a philosophy to its furthest extreme is a bad thing. In related news, dogs bark and the sky is blue. :lol:

Translation: businesses will be forced to give jobs to people regardless of things like how well the company was doing or how qualified people were to actually perform the job. Unions compelled General Motors to run that way; it drove the company right into the ground. Imagine the fate of GM across the entire US economy.

Don't know much about this company. Can you link some examples of where they had to employ unqualified staff and which roles they were required to fill? Do you know why they weren't given the training to qualify them for the positions?

While I can agree that this is no small task I don't think you've yet convinced me that the right to an adequate job is a bad thing. Presuming that is your stance.

GM has a long, troubled history in the US. The latest twist is the Obama stimulus wherein the government bought out most of GM, but it's been stumbling and slowly failing under the parasitic grip of unions since the 70s.

Here's an example of being forced to hire unqualified workers:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jul2006/uaw-j12.shtml

They weren't given training because, much like the proposed entitlement to a job (which is mislabeled as a "right"), the point is not to actually have someone do the work. The point is to give the person money. If you need further explanation as to how that's a bad way to run a business, I'll be happy to elaborate.

I understood it to be akin to a livable minimum wage guarantee.

Ugh... first of all, you don't really mean that. The amount of money required to keep a person alive (that is, a "livable" wage), feeding them 1200 calories a day and having them sleep at their work stations, is far less then what the minimum wage is in the US right now. I also expect if anyone tried this you'd cry out in horror. You mean something like a "fair" wage.

Second, trying to mandate this is impossible. The biggest expense for most businesses is the cost of labor. (This excepts some socialist countries, where taxes are consistently a higher cost.) By raising the cost of labor by increasing the minimum wage, you increase the price of the goods that business sells. This is hardest on the people who have the greatest percentage of their income going to goods - that is, people earning minimum wage. At best everything breaks even and the people are no worse off, but that's not generally how it's gone when this has been tried.

Actually I agree with you about agricultural subsidies but I don't think that is what he meant by to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living. In fact you could infer the exact opposite. No subsidies for anyone and an appropriate and relative price for all.
Certainly there's some room for interpretation as to what this means.

Once again, myth of the homesteader farmer. Without subsidies, a "family farm" would be even worse off as there's no way they could compete with the economies of scale of industrial farms. If you're supporting a family via direct payments; why? It's not like there's a shortage of food in America. At that point it would be easier and cheaper just to put them on standard welfare. Any interpretation of it is either pointless or harmful.

Well unscrupulous businesses aside, the requirement that all new buildings have, for example, double glazing in this country has helped reduce the cost of heating the home, as has government subsidised insulation for older houses. I'd say a guarantee of protection from the elements is decent but concede that there would need to be a lot of discussion on what decent actually constitutes. Housing does last generations; is this not an investment?

There's room to argue on standards, sure. However, I think that should generally be left up to the person who actually has to live there and not some external force.

Since everyone has a "right" to a home, there's no incentive for people to build and sell homes, so homes aren't built.

I don't follow. Could you expand on this process?

Let's say I'm a general contractor and I build some houses. I put them on the market for a price that will pay for the cost of materials, labor, and a decent profit for myself. (I have a family to support too, you know.) I get some offers for less then the cost, and I turn them down. Then a government official comes by and tells me that these people have a right to a home, and I cannot refuse them. The government official tells me that I must sell these houses to these people or I'll go to jail. If he's feeling generous, the official might give me some money to cover the cost of the houses; but greedy capitalist pig that I am, I get no profit. Well, I'm a smart guy and I could do many other things to support my family, so I'm going to do something that I'll get some money from and leave building houses to someone who can build them cheaply (read: poorly) enough to actually make something.

Very droll. Some people cannot work due to their illness/disability, some people could not afford private pensions. Are you going to allow them to suffer because you were too stingy to cough up a few dollars a month and give them the dignity a fellow human being deserves?

First of all, "a few dollars a month"? Social welfare in the US is over half of the federal budget and is by far the biggest reason the federal deficit is so massive. To forestall the most common objection; even if we completely eliminated the entire cost of the military and its operations there would still be a deficit. Entitlements (what all of these "rights" really are) get expensive very, very quickly. Over 20% of my pay goes to social welfare (quick estimate). Don't try to lowball this.

Second, you're unfairly demonizing me. Yes, I care about people. That's exactly why I believe in the positions I do; I feel they are the best way to help people. I believe that giving people greater control over their income and letting them make their own decisions will lead to better results then imposing judgements from a distant authority.

As to how these entitlements would change America's foreign relationships; the main result would be borrowing more money from other countries. It's hard to imagine America being any deeper in China's pockets without bringing up a financial apocalypse scenario, and that would just seem like cheap rhetoric so I'll skip it. I will tell you that the subsidies and protectionism involved in entitling people to jobs and "fair" prices would go over very badly with other countries.