Because there is no social safety net. If you don't have a job you have to live on the street. Companies have the jobs. When the alternative is seen as living on the street, Americans see these issues with fear for their immediate well being. The environment being destroyed is a far-ish off problem. To many Americans, homeless could be a month or two of joblessness away.

What are you talking about?

EITC, SNAP, Section 8 housing, SSI, TANF, WIC, Medicaid, etc.

This site estimates over $700 billion per year spent on these programs: http://federalsafetynet.com/safety-net-programs.html

The question is about the quality of life people have when they are on such programs.

Also, it's not about how much is spent but how much people actually get. I read somewhere not too long ago that if you divided the amount of money spend on welfare programs by the number of recipients a family of three would be getting $60,000 a year. This is not the case. Welfare administration eats up the difference.

I just pointed out that $700 billion isn't nothing.

I'm well aware of the myriad of flaws in the existing programs. I certainly wasn't claiming that the $700 billion was being spent wisely but apparently that is what a number of people assumed.

Do you have any numbers to back that last sentence up? I suspect the difference between your figure and intuition is less welfare administration bloat and more that most of it is eaten up by exorbitant healthcare costs through Medicare and Medicaid.

Have you ever been on those programs? I have... what few actually accepted me.

Unemployment - Screwed around and "lost" the request in the system. I didn't have unemployment, which I am forced to pay into, for 8 weeks. Good thing I was able to get food stamps. I spent most of the time online leeching free internet, since I couldn't afford gas to drive aimlessly to places that would say 'apply online' anyways.

EITC - Once a year, during tax season. Not much of a help.

SNAP - food stamps. Yes, I was on them back in 2012 when I couldn't get any jobs. It meant that I had food.

Section 8 housing - 2 year wait minimum. I put my name on the list, and was summarily told of the homeless shelters.

SSI - I tried for disability, because my right arm is permanently injured. Rejected. Rejected. Rejected. All over a course of 8 months.

TANF - I have no children. Doesn't apply.

WIC - Women, infants, children. I'm none of those, and have no children.

Medicaid - Tried and was refused. Told to apply to HIP Healthy Indiana Plan. Wanted $$$$.

--------------------------------------------

Long story short. In the US, if you aren't independently wealthy, and you lose your job, you're pretty much fucked. You'll lose your residence, cant afford gas for too much transportation, lose needed services to regain a job, your health benefits, and more.

The "social net" really isn't, except for the worst of the worst. My wife cares for them as in-home non-medical care. And then, they're on the skin of their teeth, with even a $10/mo raise in a bill causing less food budget. It terrorized many section8 housing people with the earlier shutdown precisely because the fed cuts the check to the state who cuts to the landlord. With no fed money, rents weren't being paid...

I just pointed out that $700 billion isn't nothing.

I'm well aware of the myriad of flaws in the existing programs. I certainly wasn't claiming that the $700 billion was being spent wisely but apparently that is what a number of people assumed.

A couple of nice ropes aren't a net, not matter how much you spend on them.

Not quite the same as knowing you still can have decent health care if you are unemployed.

Sure, but I wasn't making any claims about healthcare. I was just stating the obvious that we spent lots of money on a safety net.

Ironic that people seem to think that those programs are worthless, but I gather want to arrange for a lot more money to be distributed by the same organization that can't seem to do anything useful with the money it is already distributing.

I'm not a fan of the affordable care act, but it seems completely obvious to me that we need to decouple health insurance from employment. I really don't understand why that wasn't a key element of health care reform.

What on Earth are you talking about? Social services are massively underfunded, despite getting a lot of funding, because the need is gigantic.

Quite a lot of that funding is just compensating for some of centuries of theft, from slaveowners of the 19th century to predatory rural banks of the 20th Century to coordinated corporate wage depression of the 21st century.

There are real social problems that need solving but framing the situation as the result of "theft" is a mischaracterization. Theft would be an "easy" situation to resolve, just give the money back. In any case, I don't think simply transferring money solves these types of problems -- it is much more difficult than that.

The organizations that support this position, such as the US Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, AEI, Heritage Foundation, Heartland, Federalist Society, State Policy Network, Hudson Institute, Accuracy in Media, etc in aggregate have many billions in annual funding. Their only real goal is to sell that position to the American public.

It's not like groups on the other side, such as Sea Shepherd, which has actual giant boats sailing around the world to combat whaling or ASPCA which operates hospitals, shelters, has large stocks of medicine, a staff of veterinarians, 24-hour crisis lines, etc.

The business groups don't really do anything other than spinning and framing things to persuade the public. It's not like they're operating say, shelters for downtrodden wayward billionaires. All their money goes into campaigns for the public perception.

Besides, it's not surprising that organizations who defend wealth and property rights have out-sized power and influence in a world where legislation has made wealth and property rights the primary source of power and influence.

That's why structuring and understanding how rights, responsibilities and privileges are allocated in a society is really important.

Hangover from the cold war is my guess. The US is at the extreme compared to other western democracies on a lot of the old cold war battle lines regarding governments role in everyday life. Some examples include the generally pro private business environment and our objection to a greater social safety net including public healthcare.

Another side effect of the cold war - apathy. If the human race is going to nuke itself soon, anyway, what's the point doing things the right way, especially if that may make gas or food x% more expensive.

The fear of Armageddon is less now, but the defense mechanism takes far longer to wear off.

But the big swing to environmental protection happened right in the middle of the cold war.

The companies that profit from exploiting public resources and leaving pollution behind have the money to pay for propaganda.