Levittown Public Schools Medication: Fill & Download for Free

Here's the story. It wasn't 40 years ago, more like 60 by the way. My professional colleagues with stay at home wives in the 70s lived very frugally. Below engineer in our company people had wives working.Anyway after wwii in the US, the GI bill enabled soldiers to get college degrees or trades while still supporting a family. Many young soldiers with no expenses had saved their paychecks also, as had many young women who'd had good jobs during the war.In the late 40s jobs were plentiful, with most companies firing any women they'd employed during the war. Middle class jobs with the power company, union factory work or trades like plumbing came with sick time off and vacations.Medical expenses were low, no insurance. You paid a few dollars to your GP. Hospitals were not very expensive, mostly religious. The bill for my emergency appendectomy in 1957 with a three day stay in a Catholic hospital staffed by nuns was under $300. Of course, there was a big scar and pain for weeks, no laparscopic in those good old days.Women were the public school teachers, paid very little. Public schools were good since they had the best of the women working, it was teach or nurse.Housing was also supported by the gi bill, with low down payments for VA mortgages. This was the age of Levittowns, cheap minimal housing but affordable. Typical house had 2 bedrooms a one small bathroom, kitchen, and living room/dining area, square footage was 750 sq ft. Similar developments went up everywhere in suburbs, rarely exceeding 1000 sq ft. Many of these homes still stand today, mostly expanded by raising the roof or enclosing garage or patio areas.Our utilities were mostly heat and telephone, water, with a small electric bill. TV was free. Appliances were a stove and refrigerator, and a washing machine.Unless we lived in a city, we ate in restaurants for occassions, birthdays, graduations. Sunday supper was cooked at home. Coffee came from a percolator on the stove or electric.In the suburbs each family had one car. Kids rode the school bus to school, or walked. Mama waited for saturday shopping with the car.As the baby boom grew up, colleges were way more affordable. And scholarships easier to get. But also a high school diploma got a man a job in a factory like GM or GE, union wages and training to go up the ladder. A sure thing also.See where I'm going with this? The comfortable lifestyle of the 50s was much more modest than you might think, plus the jobs much more stable and better paying.Also, having a spouse not working allowed for many savings opportunities, child care, prepared foods, 2nd car, work clothes, all unnecessary.Oh and taxes were more progressive prior to Reagan. Income tax went to 70%.Some things can be replicated by a young family today, cheap colleges in the form of community college, for example, and going to one used car etc., More basic foods, no eating out. But what's missing is the stable union jobs, stable career paths for middle management, etc.And medical care you can afford.A different time, with the stars in alignment.By the way, this was essentially a one generation thing. Before the war, housewives toiled mightily, and often had jobs in cities or were farm wives, two fulltime jobs in itself.

This is a newer Answer. I had another look at the Question.Martin LevineThis question somewhat overlaps the one about “Why doesn’t Canada have dangerous neighbourhoods like the United States does?”. I will partially answer that one too.So Much Nicer?What does nice mean in this Question? My guess is cleaner, better organized, less crime-ridden, easier to move around in, and better physical infrastructure.However, a lot of things about cities fall outside of the “nice” box. Examples are, interesting people, excitement, surprises, beautiful vistas, lively entertainment, a feeling of grandeur, historic sites, and opportunities for interpersonal interaction.A sort of grey area is the “social infrastructure” of a city. This includes services and accessibility for poorer residents and those with limited mobility, good quality schools for everybody, access to higher education, honest, professional, police services, active, stringent bylaw enforcement, local availability of health care, etc.There is also the legal and governmental environment of a city. What laws and bylaws (ordinances) are the people of a given city subject to? How effective is the municipal administration at getting things done. What is the city's debt load?City Versus MetroIf you want to talk about a city being nice, you need to know what any given city is. Municipal boundaries come into it. So, for example, I want to talk about “Vancouver”. Do I mean the City of Vancouver, or the Metropolitan area? Vancouver has a range of suburban municipalities that are rather individual in nature. So, Vancouverites, are Burnaby, Richmond, Langley, Surrey, Port Coquitlam, New Westminster, or even Abbotsford, nice?There is a substantial difference, however, about the boundaries of Canadian cities, and their American counterparts. The Canadian provinces control their legal boundaries of their cities, and autonomous suburban municipalities are not that popular. This has evolved over time. I can recall when Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, and even Vancouver, had more boundaries within them. Winnipeg, Toronto, and Ottawa went through intermediate stages, from having completely separate municipalities within a metropolitan area, to having metropolitan forms of government, to the municipalities being consolidated into one municipal unit. Winnipeg and Ottawa had a myriad of municipalities. They are mostly gone now, although neighbourhood identities still exist. Say, for example, there still were the small, core, cities of Ottawa and Winnipeg. They both might qualify as partial dumps. Both would contain a large population of people who are reliant on social services, people living with addictions, older areas, some of them rundown,the most crime problems, and the oldest physical infrastructure. But, balance it out in a bigger municipality, and in aggregate, you move far up in the nice ratings.Also, even more to the point, you have taxpayers in the nicest parts of town, subsidizing services in the core. The local suburbanites might protest, but the provinces make a consistent point, duplication of government costs is expensive. Suburban governments do just that.My home town, Winnipeg, is an extreme example. There are neighbourhoods to the north of downtown that are, by Canadian standards, quite troubled and fraught with racial problems (Poor, angry indigenous people versus the Winnipeg Police Service.) However, beyond this sadder part of the core, safe, treelined streets in well-kept neighbourhoods, wealthy, upper middle class, middle-class and working class, all, clean and orderly neighbourhoods. Broad streets. Not very excessive traffic, an adequate bus system, plentiful parking, easy access to big box stores, shopping centres, strip malls, bars, clinics, dentists, children's playgrounds, sports facilities, etc. A fairly diverse economic base. Positive types of multiculturalism, manifesting restaurants, delicatessens, and cheery ethnocultural festivals. Moderate housing costs. As a whole, the City of Winnipeg is pretty nice.But, what, by comparison, ought I to think about Detroit? When I was in the Canadian foreign service, I spent a couple of months being a visa officer at our Consulate-General in Detroit. I had my car with me so I got to poke around a little bit. The actual City of Detroit. sorry, Michiganders, it wasn't nice. But, Royal Oak and Ann Arbour? I thought they were pretty nice. Even in Dearborn, I didn't feel too scared and the Arab food scene seemed pretty active.You could say the same for various non-consolidated American cities, Cleveland, Buffalo, Baltimore, Miami, Saint Louis, a fair number of others, the core city, at least partially, a dangerous dump. The separate suburban municipalities, not dumps at all. The City of Buffalo is one, kind of troubled thing, but Amherst and Tonawanda, if anything, actively pleasant, places you look forward to seeing on your weekend, day trip from Toronto.The Provincial Governments Look After ThingsThere is a political science saying in Canada, “The cities are creatures of the provinces.”. Municipalities do not have autonomy under the Canadian constitution.As I have said in numerous Answers, the provincial governments are active producers of social programmes. Also, not because of socialism, but because of lack of viable private alternatives, the provincial governments provide most education and hospital facilities.I know that some Americans despise it, but these things tamp down social distress and anger, whether you are on the farm or in a city core. So, you are poor, in or near a city centre. You still get no charge medical care. Public housing isn't everything it ought to be, but likely or not, you are in it, and Canadian police forces do not have no go areas. (They aren't some type of local sheriff, using disposed of surplus military equipment. They are trained, with provincial oversight) The larger municipalities have various services, adult education, counselling, special education, English or French as a second language, at free or little charge. If your kids show the potential to get educated, and rise up, it is subsidized.Yes, We Are Rich, But We Are Not In Your FaceSpeaking as a Canadian, flaunting huge amounts of wealth in the face of poor and average people is not, nice. In English-speaking Canada, the rich have a tradition of being out of sight and sedate. They live, not necessarily in gated communities, but in cloistered ones. “Bling” and celebrity culture isn't very popular. You won't, for example, have many situations where an overdressed, over-jewelled, high roller is strutting past a line of average people, and past the homeless, into a clubNot So Much RaceMultiracialism came much, much later to Canada then it did to the USA. Other than for Canada's indigenous peoples, it didn't start in a large way until the mid 1960's. There was never massive slavery in Canada. And, the country is tough on undocumented immigrants.Consequently, except for the Winnipeg-type situations, you don't have parts of a Canadian city that have been carved out as separate, very low income, boiling anger, turf. There never was anything like inner Baltimore or the south side of Chicago, or south Los Angeles. There aren't big areas that serve as large-scale reservoirs for persistent crime.Not So Much GunsAgain, strict Canadian laws on short-barrelled guns can outrage Americans. But, Americans, it works. Guns sometimes get into the hands of gangs, but, pistol-packing is not common in Canada. The result? For example, you can live your life in most parts of most Canadian cities with minimal need for situational awareness. You will see extreme cases, Canadians chatting and ambling on the streets of Ottawa, with no concern or awareness of who is around them. It is a very low-stress immediate environment. I admit, at times it irritates me (People are blocking the sidewalk, and you need to get someplace, so you must ask them, with the most extreme amount of Canadian sorry-politeness, to please move aside.) But, it is nice to live someplace where almost anyone near you is not in the least a threat.New And SmallThe United States industrialized and urbanized much earlier than Canada. It would be interesting to see how much of the building stock in New York and some of the eastern cities is more than one hundred years old. Canada never had a rust belt. Up until about 1960, Canadian cities were small, with only Montreal and Toronto having more than 1,000,000 people. Then, for many Canadian cities, there was a massive growth spurt, which in some cases continues. (The metro Toronto area is the second fastest growing metropolis in North America. The Greater Vancouver area has rushing growth. Even with the supposed damage to the oil-based economy of Alberta, Calgary and Edmonton are growing vigorously. Even sedate Ottawa, metropolitan population about 1,400,000, has acquired about 100,000 more people in the last few years.)The result is newer cities, with much more recent buildings and infrastructure, poor people somewhat cared for, not too much ghettoization, and little in the way of things to cause you fear. Much of the cities are bungalow-oriented, with wide streets that were designed for a lot of cars. The schools aren't ancient. Nothing is. These areas were built with tight land zoning that remains just that way. It makes them uniform, with no surprises.This does not make for grandeur, except, maybe, in the particular case of Winnipeg, which has the historic Exchange District: Exchange District. But safe, adequate, orderly, not distressed, house-proud people with gardens, yes.Nice Does Not Mean Excellent, Nor UrbaneI have talked in Quora about some Canadian urban flaws. “Nice” can mean awfully boring. It can mean, very suburban. It can mean dead downtowns, weekends and nights. It can mean people who are almost too content and too satisfied. It means very regulated and very structured.But, Canada's constitution calls for “peace, order and government”. Except for the odd spot, our cities deliver. Some of the niceness is primarily because of the good luck Canada had in urbanizing late, at a time when very tight land-use practises, social programming, and modern immigration and anti-discrimination laws were coming into effect.I think Canadians are generally aware of the urban deal they receive, and except for the miserably high housing costs in Vancouver and Toronto, are getting most of what they really want. By contrast, the USA cannot replicate our historic luck. And, I believe that a lot of Americans want much more excitement that a Canadian city would try to provide, even if it means some chaos, some serious disorganization, blazing wealth against extreme poverty, and the odd, whizzing bullet.Martin LevineFirst AnswerAnswer to Why are Canadian cities so much nicer than American cities?I am not sure what “nicer” means in this context. Cleaner, safer, better organized, better infrastructure, more polite people, more friendly people, more reasonable living costs and nice for whom? I don't think there is one, encompassing definition of niceness that one could use to compare cities in the two countries. To do it right you would need a socioeconomic-infrastructural index with measurable variables.A City Doesn't Mean Quite The Same Thing In The Two CountriesIn Canada cities are sometimes said to be the “creatures of the provinces”. The provinces can do more or less whatever they like to them, including setting municipal boundaries and sometimes changing them. Also, the provinces tightly control how much debt a municipality can take on.Between 1996 and 2002 the Progressive Conservative Party government of the Province of Ontario instituted a program of municipal amalgamations. The province had 815 municipalities in 1996 but only 447 in 2002. This was a particularly conservative PC government. They certainly had no socialistic motives in merging relatively left-wing inner city populations with the more conservative suburbs. Premier Mike Harris, the head of the PC government, had run on a policy of cutting provincial government expenditures. He reasoned that consolidating municipalities would eliminate a lot of municipal council positions and produce more work from a smaller number of municipal civil servants.This move was far off being popular. The suburban municipalities tended to have better fiscal situations, compared to the inner city municpalities, which is where populations that require social support tend to be concentrated.Also, in some cases there were cultural issues. The Ottawa part of the Ottawa-Gatineau Census Metropolitan Area has two major linguistic groups, the English-speakers and the French-speakers. Prior to consolidation there were several municipalities that were strongly French in nature. There wasn't huge enthusiasm for losing their urban autonomy to the English-speaking majority. Nor were the populations of the primarily English-speaking suburban municipalities so keen, fearing as they did that they would have to pay for bilingual services. There was a back and forth, unpleasant dialogue about this, (No French Here! Pas des Maudits Anglais ici!) that seriously failed Canadian niceness requirements.Finally the Mike Harris government got quite impatient. Some residents of metro Ottawa proposed a rather silly plan to carve up the Ottawa Metropolitan Area into three, sort of strip, cities, the East strip, Franco, the Mid-strip both, with quite a few “multicultural” immigrants thrown in, and then the West strip, a real Canadian, normal, wholesome kind of Anglo-town. This plan was so ridiculous that even the most, leave me alone, language bigots of greater Ottawa couldn't go for it. So Mike Harris imposed the amalgamation of all twelve local municipalities. (Mike Harris was quite fond of imposing things, and, no Americans, again, he didn't have a socialistic bone in his body. Even some fairly extreme Republicans would have quite enjoyed meeting him.)Although this amalgamation had no socio-lefty-lib-progressive element, it helped to maintain much the type of situation that us National Capital left-wingers like. The amalgamation pushed far beyond the built-up areas of the great new Ottawa, for many kilometres, dragging a lot of turbo-conservative Ottawa Valley ruralites (Almost, a little, frigid, Appalachia) in. And all of it ruled, with a very firm hand, from a new brutalist, fortress-like city hall, right downtown, a short civil service trot, from the federal Parliament. But, with my ideological and lifestyle predilections, it works fine for me.So, no local sheriff, no frightening local police chief with surplus Army oppression equipment, no local town council dominated by angry white folks. The City of Ottawa imposes common standards all the way out. So, if the city centre is squeaky-clean (Canadians of all origins don't like gum wrappers, discarded plastic supermarket bags, food scraps, bits of discarded clothing, etc., a blowing in the wind.) then the outermost residential street, even the regional highways, have to squeak just as much. And, the former suburbanites have to foot their share of the social assistance and English-as a second language bill for immigrant kids downtown. And, the same for pot holes, sewers, community centres, parks, the works.It wasn't just an Ontario thing. A couple of years later the Province of Quebec followed suit, even imposing amalgamation on the rambunctious suburban municipalities of the Montreal area. (Some of them were predominantly English-speaking, so, we are not going to put up with them being independent, are we?)These two provinces currently hold about sixty per cent of Canada's entire population. However, I hasten to say that my native Manitoba lead first. My home town Winnipeg also had twelve separate municipalities, for maybe 650,000 people. But on January 1, 1972 the City of Winnipeg Act amalgamated them all into “Unicity”. There was some geographic social status loss as a result. Metro Winnipeg used to have a separate suburban municipality called Tuxedo (Yes, Tuxedo.) for the hoitsy-toitsyist of us Winnipegers. (In the good old days they had a restrictive covenant and didn't let us Jews in. My family was among the earlier ones to take up residence there, so maybe that is when the hoitsy status thing started to slide anyhow.)But, the same result. No gum wrappers nowhere. Not in front of the Manitoba Provincial legislature and not in the outermost, two metres of snow on a -40 January night, building lot.The Greater Vancouver Area is the one, really large, non-amalgamated metropolitan area in Canada. The results speak for themselves.No Pittsburgh, No Cleveland, No Milwaukee, No Scranton, No Allentown, No PhiladelphiaSorry to be mean about Pennsylvania. It is just examples. (Bruce Springsteen inspired me.) So throw in Gary, Buffalo, Detroit and some other places.You cannot have rust belt cities when you have no rust. The American Northeast-Ohio Valley-Great Lakes urban industrial, huddled masses boom, of the late 1800's, didn't happen in Canada. It wasn't industrial then and there wasn't in particular, a torch and golden door, in Toronto Harbour. Canada didn't get industrialized until quite a lot later.Nor, was there anything equivalent to the mass migration of African-Americans from the rural south into the oppressed urban ghettos of the North. Canada didn't have any South and the Afro-Canadian population was quite small until Canada dropped its White Canada immigration policy in the 1960's. The few that Canada had before, got ghettoized and oppressed anyhow. (The Province Of Nova Scotia had some descendants of the Underground Railroad. So they made sure to impose Jim Crow on the movie theatres.) but it wasn't enough so that racial inequality got to be the dominant theme that it is in so many American cities.Instead You Get Calgary, and Apartment High-rise TorontoCalgary, Alberta, is considered one of Canada's major cities nowadays. It is an oil town, about 1,400,000 people all in. In 1951 it had about 150,000 people. It was meant to be a charming cow town. There is a small historic district downtown, again just as gumrapperless as us team player, people-people, Canadians can constantly make it.So, what did Calgary get since then? Ranch-style bungalows on suburban streets. Strip malls, regional shopping centre and industrial parks. Even despite Alberta being ostentatiously Canada's most conservative province, the City of Calgary governs the most of the CMA.What was 1950's suburbanism about? What did Levittown mean to us Canadians? Nice and administered. Tight zoning. Streets of property owners in an urban environment without white flight. (Sadly, there is now an issue in some of the Prairie cities of indigenous ghettos forming, and others not wanting to go there.)And Toronto. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation published this article today. Of course it is their property:https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-s-aging-highrise-apartments-in-need-of-renewal-1.5012580“Toronto's highrises are home to half a million people and the state of these buildings — the bulk of which were built in the 1950s to late 1970s”I remember when this high rise thing was new, in Toronto and other cities. Toronto architects used to talk of a “tower in a park”. In some ways it was a valiant attempt at wholesomeness. The Toronto Census Metropolitan Area has about four times the population it did in 1951. Toronto is well known for its strict elite. So, there was carefully controlled, tightly-zoned bungalow sprawl, combined with the pop-up apartment towers. Other Canadian cities grew similarly.Top Down, Do It Right And Be TightSo, no, you cannot have a handgun. No, we are not having a hood. No, we don't care if you don't like the Canadian one percent, because rich people deserve to live rich downtown. (Commuting is more for little people.) No, you are not going to build that there. No, you are not going to set your own business closing hours. No, we don't care that we are going to raise your property taxes because we need to build a sewer thirty kilometres away. No, you cannot run a corner bar. And no, the provincial government does not care how sovereign a citizen you are, because they are sovereign and you aren't. No, if we tell you to cut your grass, we don't want to hear that you don't want to. And no, you are not going to elect your sheriff or your judge. We will find them at city hall civil service competitions, or the province will do the appointing. And, no, the average person does not know anything about how to run a municipality. That's why we do it for you.Our Canadian, urban no philosophy works reasonably well, at least for now. As the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation says, our urban niceness needs to be protected. Those high-rise towers had better get fixed, or some Canadian cities won't be nice anymore. We need new approaches to urban Canadian niceness (Nice intensification anyone? Nice urban rapid transit, with plenty of surveillance cameras that can detect an un-Canadian facial expression?) but we need to maintain our good old Canadian ones as well. No, no, no. You all will keep on paying, from one end of town to the other. Watch for those flying gum wrappers and deal severely with those individuals who defy propriety and let them fly. Send in the bylaw control inspectors at the least sign of social insolence.So, basically, Canadian urban niceness exists because there are those who are entitled to enforce it. They will decide just how they do it.Martin Levine

I would do it ans would be frankly perfect for it . I was born in the middle of the baby boom and have good credentials. I went to UCLA undergrad as a psych major , am a graduate of Harvard Medical School . I was raised poor in what was the Levittown of LA Torrance CA, and saw the cultural changes occur before my eyes . Let me know ..