To be so intrigued by America?

[hollyblueivy]

AIBU to be so intrigued by America and just how vastly different it is to the UK despite both being rich modern nations?

Trump features a lot in the UK news and it has made me look into why the US seem so uncaring. Their systems to help the vulnerable are so different to ours. They have no right to housing so many can easily risk facing homelessness. With no national health service, access to healthcare is much more difficult and expensive, pushing people into deprivation even if they are working.

They don’t seem to have the same socialist heart as the UK and it gives a very much dog eat dog and every man for themselves culture.

I don’t think I fully appreciated this before. Anyone else?

Any other Brits in the New England area?

Yes, I’m in Connecticut.

There is no way banks will cut checks for the people turning up to work.

Veteran’s Day is also a Federal holiday

I'm near Boston.

I see, it was a "social experiment". Got a link? Maybe it's different in the UK but churches in the US don't typically keep a supply of baby formula.

I’m the other end, closer to NYC

My parish church has increased its food / money collection that stocks the food bank of a parish in a nearby poor area from twice a month to every Sunday, in response to the suspension of SNAP. We have hundreds of new and gently used winter coats and snow bibs for all ages ready for a coat giveaway plus free lunch event that we will be holding this coming weekend. We set up a migrant ministry to support the thousands of migrants who have arrived in the city over the past few years, and provided basic human needs (clothing, footwear, bedding, food, and free medical care) as well as free legal help, sponsorship/ accompaniment by parish families, accommodation with parish families, and support as families moved into apartments and children started school.

I was going to say something similar to this, but I see you've already said it.

Americans are really very wary of the state playing too much of a role in social life, and I don't think I appreciated that the might have a real point with this when I was younger.

In part I think this is because so many people in the US went there originally because they were freeing regimes that in one way or another were repressive - often preventing them from practising their religion. This creates a mindset that sees the state as a potential danger.

However, now that I have seen the way a state can even today use its social role to socially engineer, I find I am much more wary myself - for example withdrawing funding from rape services that wont admit or employ transwomen in front line roles. I also think there is some truth to the idea that when the state takes on certain caring roles, individuals tend to start believe that they no longer have any personal duty to do so. It's easy not to realise the extent that many Americans see that kind of personal involvement as something they are morally obligated to do.

They also tend to put more emphasis on the idea that economic productivity is an important part of creating overall prosperity. It's not a matter of not thinking it's good to have prosperity for all, rather, they think overall productivity is the way to get there, and excessive regulation chokes productivity.

The UK is awesome for independant living, but so is america to an extent. They get food stamps they can use to buy luxury items, like fish and more expensive foods. UK doesnt have that, we are given food which is dry foods and tins.

I sometimes think it would be easier for people in the UK to understand the US if they thought of it as being more like Europe, where each state is like a country with a lot of autonomy, which they are pretty fierce about maintaining.

And this makes sense when you consider how very large the country is. Many Americans have little to do day to day with the federal government, it is their state governments that are really impactful on their lives. And also where they have more say as a citizen.

To quote the OP : " They have no right to housing so many can easily risk facing homelessness. With no national health service, access to healthcare is much more difficult and expensive, pushing people into deprivation even if they are working."

Folk in the UK do not have a right to housing. Sure, the local councils try to house folk, and it's an election issue, but we do not actually have a right to be housed. We have loads of homeless .Lots of articles online, here is an example:

A Human Right to Housing? | Oxford Law Blogs

We do have the NHS of course, they don't, but they do have stuff about emergency room treatment. ERs can't turn you away. But they will do the minimum if you can't pay.

I would say the difference is not that big, except their politics is much further to the right. Their Democrat Party is perhaps a shade to the right of our Tories, and their Republican Party are just downright strange :-)

I think the main reason the US are to the right compared to Europe and the rest of the West in general, is because of their written constitution. It was written 200 plus years ago by rich landowning men, it was written to give themselves an advantage, and it is really difficult to change.

For example, they made their Senate really powerful. There is 2 senators per state. This was designed so the rich landowners could keep the popularly elected congress in check. In many states, senators were appointed.

Very difficult to change things when so few have a stranglehold.

California has 43 million people, and 2 senators. Wyoming has 587 thousand people and 2 senators. So electorate votes for the senate are not equal. It works out a Wyoming residents vote is about 68 times more powerful than that of a California resident.

Article here about that :

Why Small States Wield Outsized Power in the U.S. Senate: 7 Key Factors - USA Heaven

So yeah, while the mix of left and right leaning people in the US could be, and probably is, about the same as Europe, the core system of the senate make it near impossible for more progressive policies to be enacted.

Add to that the electoral. Again, that was designed to give the rich landowners an advantage. And we see that when dems can get more votes in POTUS elections. but the repubs win.

And money too of course. Big big money in US politics. The SCOTUS " Citizens United" decision of 2010 made sure money in politics will make the situation worse for any left leaning Party.

Link here:

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission | Opinion, Dissent, Significance, & Influence | Britannica

As a Brit who lives in the States, I completely agree with this.

But why would a state like Wyoming have agreed to union at all if their interests were just going to be bowled over by New Yorkers or Califonians every election?

That's hardly about the interests of rich landowners.

It's like saying in the EU each country gets more say depending on their population, so the tiny countries would simply end up governed by the will of the large ones.

It would be a dereliction of their duty to their citizens to agree to that.

Also completely agree with this. My jaw dropped when I found out how much one of the senior partners at my firm had donated to his old university (7 figures…). There’s a HUGE culture of giving.

Me too

"It would be a dereliction of their duty to their citizens to agree to that."

Why ?

Should we work on majority vote or not?

If the rule from the start had been one person one vote for federal stuff, then Wyoming might not have joined. Their choice It would certainly be interesting to see the USA today if they had went with a one man one vote majority system ( and it was men only who could vote as we know. . Erm checks web, apart from Wyoming. Well done Wyoming, universal suffrage since founding in 1890.

They are happy enough to just have one congressman compared to the 52 from California.

And they still have their State laws.

The system now is that a Wyoming senate voter has 68 times the power than a California voter. The 3 million US citizens in Puerto Rico have zero vote power in the Senate.

So Puerto Ricans have to abide by fed laws they have no say over.

I don't think it is a whataboutism to mention PR, because we are discussing the US as a whole.

The Brits in Boston Facebook group is great and they have lots of meet-ups, btw.

Me too.

Absolutely!

I know this is pedantic, and lots of people do it, but please - America is not just the USA.

There are 35 different countries in the Americas - e.g. Brasil, Mexico, Argentina, Canada etc etc. The USA is just one of these 35 countries.

Instead of saying ‘The United States of America’ every time, many people just shorten it to ‘America’. I don’t think anyone is denying the existence of Uruguay or any of the other countries on the continent by doing this. It would be perhaps better to shorten it to “The States” but on this thread we all know which country is being referred to when someone types “America”

Tax deductible.

My understanding is that people in general are not going without so they can give to charity. It's the taxman who goes without.

You’d be surprised how much alumni donate to their British colleges too.

I’ll be buggered if Manchester University are getting a penny more from me and I definitely wouldn’t feel differently if I were a billionaire

Having lived in the U.S, part of our taxes were for Medicare. So everyone can access basic health care. They have a stronger work ethic and don’t expect everyone else to be subsidising them. They are much more self reliant and do not have the same expectations as many people do here.
It is the norm to have 6 weeks maternity leave, no where near as much annual leave as us and no reliance on sick pay. They are far more productive at work and can command far better pay. Without doubt they have a higher standard of living. They are more upbeat and respect professionals. Their economy has boomed over the years and they lead the way in innovation and technology.
By the way we are not a rich country, we are very nearly bankrupt.