If we had no unemployment insurance, no food stamps,...

[kentuck]

no Medicare, and no Social Security, would this be 1932?

Or would it be worse?

Some folks estimate about 15 million unemployed right now. What would they do if there was no safety net? If there was no unemployment insurance or no food stamps, what would they do? If there was no Medicare to help take care of old folks that are sick, what would they do?

If there was no Social Security, how many of our parents would be living with us or would be living in abject poverty? Do you think those liberal programs were good ideas?

[wilt the stilt]

1. it would be a republican wet dream n/t

[raccoon]

2. To answer your first question, yes. Second one, probably yes.

Another thing, now there are lots of two income families, so if one person loses their job, the family at least has one income.

Also a lot more people, like one set of my grandparents, then had farms so at least they could feed themselves.

Great post.

[Gormy Cuss]

4. Another point on farms: even those who didn't have gardens then lived closer to the food supply.

There were farms within 1 hour's drive of major urban centers. There were also canning and curing plants near where the food was grown or raised. A frighteningly high amount of our food now is imported from Asia. All that it would take to put the country into a temporary food crisis is the cessation of imported food.

[Psychic Consortium]

3. An advanced civilization provides health care, education, care for elderly,

and clean air, food, water to its citizens.

Are we to remain a primitive society or advance to a higher level?

[MADem]

5. We need more unemployment to get to that point.

If there were no safety net, we would do what we did the last time around--move over and make do.

You'd find yourself getting to know some odd branches of your family tree. You'd meet cousins and uncles and aunts you never knew existed. You'd learn, firsthand, the joys of well over a dozen people living in a three bedroom house or apartment.

Portions would be controlled. Consumption would be reduced. If you got a hole in your shoe, you'd put a bit of cardboard in it to make it last until you could afford a trip to the cobbler.

"Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without" would become your mantra.

[kentuck]

6. I recall reading something during the Reagan years...

when unemployment went into double digits, that 12% unemployment was equal in numbers unemployed during the Great Depression. We are approaching that now.

[MADem]

17. Raw numbers can't be used as an equivalent, though. You've got

to go by percentages to even try to draw a comparison. We had very few people in this country back then relative to now, and we were much less diverse as a population, too.

[ieoeja]

15. We would have more unemployment if not for the safety nets.

Those safety nets indirectly benefit others not receiving the direct benefit. Without food stamps, the grocers would sell less food. Without Social Security, every business would sell less.

[MADem]

18. That's probably quite true. nt

[Horse with no Name]

7. It would be like Mexico

If someone wants to know what drives people to leave their homes and their country to cross the border under horrific conditions and live in substandard housing and work for paltry wages...Mexico is the best example.
Mexico is a rich country--if you are in the top 1%--because that is where all the wealth is.
There is no social safety net for those that lose their jobs or fall on hard times.

If we did away with the social safety net in this country, my best advice would be for Canada to start building fences.

[madrchsod]

8. we would be bring out our dead.....

[Coyote_Bandit]

9. Ummmm......

I'm single and long-term unemployed. I collected a total of about 6 months of unemployment which maxed out at the highest rate paid in my state - about $800 a month. Certainly better than nothing but far less than what is required to meet basic monthly expenses. I don't qualify for anything else. No medicare, no food stamps, no kind of job retraining. At this point I don't even qualify for disability should I become unable to work.

Sure these things are a safety net for some. But it only takes $2,000 in assets to disqwualify you from receiving food stamps. If you are not disabled, elderly, or destitute then these things will not assist you - regardless of how long you have been unemployed or how hard you have looked for work. Hell, you can't even get career counseling or job retraining and it can be quite difficult to get any assistance to start a small business.

[havocmom]

10. As there are less people living close to where the food comes from, worse. Much worse

With more families on farms back then, more families CLOSE to farms, people had a better chance of eating. While parts of the Midwest were goners, at least populations in other areas were closer to food and life could be bartered.

With our massive urban populations and food shipped in from other hemispheres, we would be in some serious trouble without the remnants of our safety net.

And the GOP refuses to take a look at what FDR avoided with all the massive public works to keep people constructively engaged AND FED. They want to undo FDR's legacy, but they don't even understand what the REAL legacy was - that the republic lived. They keep flirting with losing everything in exchange for tax cuts and ever increasing wealth for a decreasing number of people.

[ejpoeta]

11. that's the thing. people take these things for granted now, but when they were first

even considered I bet there was a lot of the same kind of rhetoric we hear today about healthcare. There would be rioting I bet if they got rid of this stuff now. And maybe we'll find out in california if they end up doing that there because of their financial troubles. I mean, if there were no unemployment, all these unemployed folks would not have saving to see them through... how would they even look for a new job if they had no money to put gas in their car or print out resumes etc. It would be a lot worse than it is right now.

[kickysnana]

12. More of the population were in agriculture in 1932. n/t

[Javaman]

13. I saw a group of morons out protesting national health care...

all were seniors. With signs that read,"I don't want govenment in my healthcare!"

some people, yes, are that stupid.

[Mojo_electro]

14. These programs save our asses...

I worked for a company for 10 years (it was 10 years to the exact day, strangely enough) before they went under. So yeah, unemployment to me was a great thing. I paid into it all that time, and I'm glad it was there to help me and other folks out. If it was not for that, my choices would have been either to starve, or the good ol' ski-mask retirement plan (also known as "nobody moves, nobody gets hurt") to get by. These social programs are the only thing putting food in a lot of people's mouths right now and I totally support them. The industry I was in was hit harder than most, so it took me a while to find work again. Florida has over 10 percent unemployment right now so for every job offer there are lots of applicants, which means a lot of dissapointed people who are really struggling. None of that is good.

[Zenlitened]

16. Don't forget the FDIC. It, more than anything else...

... is what prevented a complete financial crash this time around.

We saw a few isolated bank runs, but most people were willing to sweat it out based on the FDIC guarantee.

Absent that, a widespread bank run would have shut the whole damned thing down no matter how much cash Bernanke, Paulson et al handed out to their friends.

[ConcernedCanuk]

19. Good question, but all the answers are wrong

.
.
.

USA would have a REVOLUTION!

That's what the country needs, but the powers that be know that if they don't supply some sort of "safety net" ,

then the people would revolt.

Can't have that when the gubment needs their labour and taxes to feed that war-machine . . .

sumthing to ponder