1 2
bigbrainonbrad
bigbrainonbrad New Reader
7/24/08 12:10 p.m.

I am part of the woking poor, albeit only temporarily as school is almost over, none the less I don't accept handouts and could never accept them. I don't even take gifts for bday's and holidays from friends and family. All around me are people that take all the handouts they can get and best I can tell don't put much if anything back into the system. I'm not just talking about welfare, but bailouts for disasters, unemployment benefits, social security and all the other programs that take massive amounts of money and help very few.

I know we can thank the "great president" FDR for building a lot of this into the American political system, but why haven't politicians whose job it is to make legislation that works within the boundaries of the Constitution actually read the aforementioned document. No where in the document does it mention the government taking from everybody to help a very few. The closest it comes is in article 1 section 8 "The congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes... to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the U.S...." Now I am not an etimologist (sp?) but common infers to me a meaning of the masses or the entire populus, not only the bottom feeders. I would interpret common welfare as the infrastructure and neccesary mechanisms of the country.

I don't want to give the impression that I am a cold hearted bastard (which I am) but aren't the purpose of many charities to help the downtrodden and those who have fell on hard times? Most people agree that there are very few (if any) things the government can do as efficiently as the private sector. So it is my theory that if government social programs were cut and people didn't inject the large portions of their income into taxes that charitable giving would go up and the poor would benefit more and accountability of the money spent would increase.

Any thoughts, I know that this is way out there in left (oops I mean right) field. Sorry for the long post.

bastomatic
bastomatic Dork
7/24/08 12:19 p.m.
bigbrainonbrad wrote: So it is my theory that if government social programs were cut and people didn't inject the large portions of their income into taxes that charitable giving would go up and the poor would benefit more and accountability of the money spent would increase.

See that's where I gotta disagree with you. In my experience, people aren't gonna give their own hard-earned cash up to help other people unless forced to in some way or another. Whether that force is guilt, shame, or taxes, that's how we seem to handle things. I think if the government didn't step up to the plate, chances are you wouldn't be going through college right now.

Donor fatigue. There's only so much money people will freely give.

Salanis
Salanis Dork
7/24/08 12:26 p.m.

Politics is about getting reelected. Generally that means, identifying 51% of the population who can vote for you and funneling stuff their way to make them happy.

I don't know if this will totally derail the topic, but NPR was doing a bit about the healthcare system in our country vs. the UK. I was trying to reconcile why it is that I feel less resistant to universal healthcare than to other social service programs. I realized that this is because healthcare is a universal need, and not applicable to only one segment of society. People don't suddenly need healthcare because they make poor choices or don't take responsibility for themselves. I already pay into a healthcare system. I do think that needs that span an entire society (e.g. defense, transportation, and the environment) can be more efficiently handled publicly.

That is not to say that I've yet seen a universal healthcare proposal that I support, just that I think the concept has strong merit.

bastomatic
bastomatic Dork
7/24/08 12:29 p.m.

I say bring the french health care system over. It's "universal" in that everyone is covered, but not socialized in that it is done through a private insurer. Seems to work well, without all the waiting lists and delays that England and Canada seem to enjoy.

Thread derailed.

bigbrainonbrad
bigbrainonbrad New Reader
7/24/08 12:35 p.m.

Actually I don't believe in borrowing money for something that I can afford with hard work. So I write the checks to the university.

And let's assume my argument is wrong, and people wouldn't step up to the plate, there is still nothing in the Constitution that says the government can take money from one citizen and give that money to another citizen. Maybe people should be responsible and be held accountable for their own choices and situations that they put themselves in. I understand that children born into less than deireable circumstances can't be held accountable but their parent(s) can.

aircooled
aircooled Dork
7/24/08 12:39 p.m.

Social programs are for re-election.

Before you get all impressed with the French system, check out their income tax rate.

I also agree that if you should socialize anything it should be something that is of almost universal use. Although I shudder at a government ran anything, since the current system is effectively governed by the government in many areas (medicare, medicade) I am not sure it would be such a huge change...

....what is that I hear... ...the stomping feet of Dr. Hess rapidly approaching...

He didn't say it in the initial post but here it is: Ron Paul (I know he wanted to say it)

slantvaliant
slantvaliant New Reader
7/24/08 12:40 p.m.
Salanis wrote: I realized that this is because healthcare is a universal need, and not applicable to only one segment of society.

Food, shelter, and clothing are also universal needs. Should those be provided by government?

Salanis wrote: People don't suddenly need healthcare because they make poor choices or don't take responsibility for themselves.

Many do need more and different health care because of their choices. The costs to taxpayers are then used to justify restrictions on those choices for everyone. See tobacco, fast food, etc.

Salanis wrote: I already pay into a healthcare system.

That's how they get a lot of people to support more and more control. We're invested in it.

jamscal
jamscal HalfDork
7/24/08 12:43 p.m.

I generally agree with you, but It's more complex.

As touched on, your tuition payments combined with your classmates tuition payments, are not enough to cover the cost of your educations. The government is giving you a handout whether you like it or not.

I'm more relaxed on stuff like this now. The "bottom feeders" getting "free benefits" spend that money at the grocery, liquor store, get free medical benefits that the doctors and nurses are reimbursed for...

Thus the "bottom feeders" don't keep the money, but eventually it gets put back in the system.

Is this the best and most efficient way? No.Is it a total waste? No.

^^^Vastly oversimplified and doesn't touch on other important issues^^^

-James

Salanis
Salanis Dork
7/24/08 12:48 p.m.
Shakespeare's, The Merchant of Venice; Act 4, Scene 1 said: PORTIA: The quality of mercy is not strain'd, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest; It blesseth him that gives and him that takes: 'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes The throned monarch better than his crown; His sceptre shows the force of temporal power, The attribute to awe and majesty, Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings; But mercy is above this sceptred sway; It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew, Though justice be thy plea, consider this, That, in the course of justice, none of us Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy; And that same prayer doth teach us all to render The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much To mitigate the justice of thy plea; Which if thou follow, this strict court of Venice Must needs give sentence 'gainst the merchant there.

Ok, so why am I quoting Shakespeare? Although this is discussing justice, I think it's applicable to other senses of compassion. It is not fair that one person should work hard and have to give over what they have earned to someone else who has not done the same.

The reason we do it though, is that the alternative would be worse. Our system is imperfect, but if people were allowed to just be petty and horde, take what they could get, and keep it without regard for other people who didn't have as much either because of the hand they were dealt at birth, or personal failing, everyone would suffer.

I don't think that even the wealthiest of us would want to return to the robber-baron years of the turn of the 20th century. The wealthiest today enjoy a less gluttonously opulent, but higher quality life.

A balance does need to be cut as far as how much wealth is gathered, and where and how it is distributed. There is no science to finding that exact number. We guess as we go along and different parties lobby to have their interests taken into account. In a healthy system, all those people get their interests weighed and a balance is cut between them.

I'd say our country does a decent job of this. Far from perfect, and I'm not saying I don't support a number of changes.

I'm just saying that, even though it's not explicit in the constitution, this has become a vital facet of our modern and increasingly interconnected society.

triumph7
triumph7 New Reader
7/24/08 12:56 p.m.
Salanis wrote: People don't suddenly need healthcare because they make poor choices or don't take responsibility for themselves.

Maybe not "suddenly" but smoking, drinking, drug use, lack of exercise and poor nutrition ARE choices that affect one's need for health care.

The bottom line is that in the quest to (a) get (re)elected, (b) increase their power and influence or (c) represent themselves as something that they are not, our government has created an entitlement class where there are families from which no-one has held a job in several generations. We have been giving fish instead of teaching people to fish. Yes, there are a minority of this class that have fallen on hard times but the majority are leeches on society. It may sound cold hearted but the best thing for everyone would be to severely limit the give-a-ways. I would have no problem helping someone that can only sweep the floor at McDonalds but to pay people to sit at home, use drugs and pump out babies is wrong.

Salanis
Salanis Dork
7/24/08 12:59 p.m.
slantvaliant wrote: Food, shelter, and clothing are also universal needs. Should those be provided by government?

There is a balance that needs to be struck as far as government services provided. Neither complete public control, nor complete private control, would be healthy. Finding where the healthy medium is, is difficult.

I'd say there's a big difference between the government providing common services and controlling means of production.

Our government does use systems, like food stamps, to use public funds to pay private producers, and distribute vital goods to people who need them. I'm not opposed to that system.

Should our government bail out Fanny May and Freddy Mac? We'll be using public funds to correct the mistakes of private corporations. The damage done to the U.S. and world economy will be horrible if they're allowed to collapse though.

Salanis
Salanis Dork
7/24/08 1:09 p.m.
triumph7 wrote: The bottom line is that in the quest to (a) get (re)elected, (b) increase their power and influence or (c) represent themselves as something that they are not, our government has created an entitlement class where there are families from which no-one has held a job in several generations. We have been giving fish instead of teaching people to fish. Yes, there are a minority of this class that have fallen on hard times but the majority are leeches on society. It may sound cold hearted but the best thing for everyone would be to severely limit the give-a-ways. I would have no problem helping someone that can only sweep the floor at McDonalds but to pay people to sit at home, use drugs and pump out babies is wrong.

I fully agree with your core stance about people needing to be responsible for themselves. I'm not as quick to jump to a conclusion about the majority of people in that system and demonize them. I'd like actually see some impartial examinations of that segment of our society.

I do think that, on a whole in this country, there has been a shift away from personal responsibility. It isn't limited to the poor. The wealthiest people don't want to be held accountable for their actions. The majority of our population feels entitled, doesn't want to sacrifice, and will not accept responsibility for their actions. "I have the right to - 'drive a big polluting SUV', 'talk on my cellphone in the line at Starbucks', 'smoke 2 packs a day', 'play videogames', 'have babies', 'not have babies', 'throw away that plastic wrapper' - and who are you to tell me I can't."

alfadriver
alfadriver New Reader
7/24/08 1:12 p.m.
bigbrainonbrad wrote: ....... The closest it comes is in article 1 section 8 "The congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes... to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the U.S...."

Hmm, it does say "general welfare of the US".

Seems to me that the govenment can choose where they want to stick their nose if it's in the general welfare of the US.

Keeping the poor alive is a good way to prevent revolutions or violent uprising. Providing some kind of healthcare (which we do- since the poor will get emergency care for free) keeps our economy working, since we will have a healthy workforce.

So, yes, IMHO, our govenment can decide what is and isn't "general welfare" and choose to use the taxes for common defence and that general welfare.

I also agree that past history has shown that charity, while helpful, will not cover all. And eventually may lead to huge separations in the classes, and possible uprisings (see most Civil wars in the world).

Eric

bastomatic
bastomatic Dork
7/24/08 1:20 p.m.

As far as taxes go, what are we defining as a tax? When you get down to it, any fee or charge that is necessary for life can be called a tax, since you are forced to pay it. So sure, you can say the Frenchies with their oo la la high income tax have it horrible, but I would say us Americans with our OMGWTF high medical expenses don't have it all that great either.

Talking money-in, money-out, I'd be willing to bet the French Health Care system is more efficient, and costs the average citizen less than the US system. Let's not even get started on quality of care though.

doitover
doitover New Reader
7/24/08 1:57 p.m.

You are starting from a few bad premises. It's hugely incorrect that the private sector is more efficient at everything than the government can be. Think about computers, take the years of government funded research into computers and we would probably still be using punch cards. Medicare and the VA system are both successful at providing healthcare at lower cost than the private sector could.

Go back further and think about where our phone system would be if it wasn't heavily regulated by the federal government.

It's all trade-offs. Sure if some ignorant government bureaucrat had been in charge of a government program to develop OS's for personal PC's, we'd be way behind where we are with Microsoft. On the other hand if the government bureaucrat had been Linus Torvalds we would be way ahead of where we are now.

That people argue against government control of some industries doesn't surprise me, what always does surprise me is that many of those same people are all for the death penalty, warrantless wiretaps, suspension of habeas corpus, torture, etc. Even I don't trust government that much.

GlennS
GlennS HalfDork
7/24/08 2:25 p.m.
bigbrainonbrad wrote: So it is my theory that if government social programs were cut and people didn't inject the large portions of their income into taxes that charitable giving would go up and the poor would benefit more and accountability of the money spent would increase.

Cut away all government social programs and the rich people that never needed them in the first place will be the first against the wall when revolution comes.

Like Salanis said, its all about balance. Remember that our schools are a social program. Where would we be without those?

RX Reven'
RX Reven' GRM+ Memberand New Reader
7/24/08 2:58 p.m.
Salanis wrote: A balance does need to be cut as far as how much wealth is gathered, and where and how it is distributed. There is no science to finding that exact number.

Historically, going back over 2,000 years, no society has remained in tact after reaching the point where 10% of the populous had 90% of the wealth. In the US, there’s been a steady trend dating back to the 50’s (perhaps further but I’m not sure) of progressively fewer people owning a progressively larger percent of the wealth. As referenced in the following report, in 2001 10% of the populous owned 71% of the wealth so today it’s probably somewhere approaching 80%.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

As much as I distain the nanny state hand out mentality we’re rocketing into, we must also ensure there’s sufficient opportunity to motivate people…if everything is locked up by tiny elite group, striving for success would be totally pointless.

bigbrainonbrad
bigbrainonbrad New Reader
7/24/08 3:07 p.m.

I fully realize that gov't social programs serve a purpose, but the system is completly broken. I have neighbors who don't work (or if they do very little, pop out a kid every few years, drive a loaded new civic, have a big TV, and amenities that I can' afford because I have to spend what I make to support myself. Meanwhile they are abusing the money that millions of hard harfd working people pay into the system. If someone can afford a car payment and cable and so on and so forth they can afford to put their own food on the table and pay their own living expenses. I know that my life and your's would be a whole hell of a lot easier if most of my living expenses were paid for me. But I get up everyday and go to work and school to better my own position without taking the handouts that I most likely can qualigy for.
I think what could be done to fix welfare is to allot a lifetime draw period of 4 to 6 years, in that amount of time a person can take advantage of the oppurtunities that do exist and become educated or learn a skilled trade.

A previous person brought up medicare/caid and how it is more efficient than private care would be. Essentially it is privatized, each state is in charge of their own system and can regulate it as they feel. Many of the improvements to the system have been made since the states were given control. I believe TX was the first to purchase their medicare/caid coverage from a private co. and since there is competitive bidding on the contract expenses have been cut drastically. Medicare/caid fraud has been drastically reduced because of this privatization as well.

I personally would hate universal healthcare and I don't even have insurance. I know that in any given situation I can go to a doctor or hospital and receive some of the best healthcare in the world because I will have to pay for it. If you take the monetary incentives out of a career in medicine you no longer will attract the best and brightest to the field.

John Brown
John Brown GRM+ Memberand SuperDork
7/24/08 3:10 p.m.

Population expands but the Earth can not.

Greed consumes but poverty ravages.

Individuals are concerned about society but society does not care about individuals.

Chris_V
Chris_V SuperDork
7/24/08 3:16 p.m.

Social Security was originally known as OASDI: Old Age and Survivor's Disability Insurance. It has its roots in some very old plans to take care of older citizens after they leave working age. Thomas Paine proposed it in the late 1700s in his pamphlet "Agrarian Justice"

But it goes much farther back than that.

And, here's a little background on Social Security:

Prior to the rise of company pension plans, paternalistic companies sometimes "graduated" older workers to token jobs at reduced pay. A few paid some form of retirement stipend—but only if the company was so inclined, since there were no rights to any kind of retirement benefit. Most older workers were simply dismissed when their productive years were behind them.

One of the first formal company pension plans for industrial workers was introduced in 1882 by the Alfred Dolge Company, a builder of pianos and organs. Dolge withheld 1% of each workers’ pay and placed it into a pension fund, to which the company added 6% interest each year. Dolge viewed providing for older workers as being a business cost like any other, arguing that just as his company had to provide for the depreciation of its machinery, he should also "provide for the depreciation of his employees." Despite Mr. Dolge’s progressive ideas and his best intentions, the plan proved largely unsuccessful since it required a worker to spend many years in continuous employment with the company, and labor mobility, then as now, meant that relatively few workers spend their whole working career with one company. Not only was the Dolge Plan one of the first formal company pension systems in industrial America, it was also one of the first to disappear when the company went out of business a few years later.

The biggest problem with company-provided pensions was that the percentage of workers anticipating an employment-related pension from their company or their union was tiny. Indeed, in 1900 there were a total of five companies in the United States (including Dolge) offering their industrial workers company-sponsored pensions. As late as 1932, only about 15% of the laborforce had any kind of potential employment-related pension. And because the pensions were often granted or withheld at the option of the employer, most of these workers would never see a retirement pension. Indeed, only about 5% of the elderly were in fact receiving retirement pensions in 1932.

Following the outbreak of the Great Depression, poverty among the elderly grew dramatically. The best estimates are that in 1934 over half of the elderly in America lacked sufficient income to be self-supporting. Despite this, state welfare pensions for the elderly were practically non-existent before 1930. A spurt of pension legislation was passed in the years immediately prior to passage of the Social Security Act, so that 30 states had some form of old-age pension program by 1935. However, these programs were generally inadequate and ineffective. Only about 3% of the elderly were actually receiving benefits under these states plans, and the average benefit amount was about 65 cents a day.

The Industrial Revolution transformed the majority of working people from self-employed agricultural workers into wage earners working for large industrial concerns. In an agricultural society, prosperity could be easily seen to be linked to one's labor, and anyone willing to work could usually provide at least a bare subsistence for themselves and their family. But when economic income is primarily from wages, one's economic security can be threatened by factors outside one's control--such as recessions, layoffs, failed businesses, etc.

Along with the shift from an agricultural to an industrial society, Americans moved from farms and small rural communities to large cities--that's where the industrial jobs were. In 1890, only 28% of the population lived in cities, by 1930 this percentage had exactly doubled, to 56%.

This trend toward urbanization also contributed to another significant shift in American society, the disappearance of the extended family and the rapid rise of the nuclear family. Today we tend to assume that "the family" consists of parents and children--the so-called nuclear family. For most of our history, we lived in "extended families" that included children, parents, grandparents and other relatives. The advantage of the extended family was that when a family member became too old or infirm to work, the other family members assumed responsibility for their support. But when the able-bodied left the farms to seek employment in the cities, often the parents or grandparents stayed behind. And when new immigrants first arrived in our land, it was often the breadwinner who first made the passage and only later could he bring the family over.

And finally, another significant change happened in the early decades of this century. Thanks primarily to better health care and sanitation, and the development of effective public health programs, Americans began to live significantly longer. In three short decades, 1900-1930, average life spans increased by 10 years. This was the most rapid increase in life spans in recorded human history. The result was a rapid growth in the number of aged persons, to 7.8 million by 1935.

The net result of this complex set of demographic and social changes was that America was older, more urban and more industrial, and fewer of its people lived on the land in extended families. The traditional strategies for the provision of economic security were becoming increasingly meaningless.

Social Security is not "welfare" or even a handout. It is social insurance. Basically using the government as a central insurance provider. By the time America adopted social insurance in 1935, there were 34 nations already operating some form of social insurance program(about 20 of these were contributory programs like Social Security). It really isn't taking from the rich and giving to the poor, like welfare can be construed as. In fact, it's not fundamentally different than your unemployment benefits when you are laid off of work.

Salanis
Salanis Dork
7/24/08 3:17 p.m.

One great big festering neon distraction, I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied.

Learn to swim. Learn to swim. Learn to swim.

Mom is going to fix it all soon, Mom is coming round to put it back the way it oughtta be...

SupraWes
SupraWes HalfDork
7/24/08 3:54 p.m.

Absolutely not, people in general are greedy, myself included, its called an ego. There is no way a system that relies entirely on charitable giving would ever work. Plus it seems that many of these "charities" are in it only to spread their message not to help people. For many charitable giving is done for tax breaks, not to help anyone, GREED again!

Government is not always the inefficient beast that people think it is, at least not the place I work at,. I get personally offended when I hear these types of remarks, its like people who don't even know me are e36m3 ing all over the work I do.

As far as not even accepting gifts from family that is way over the top, seems like it would hurt some feelings to me, and maybe they are too nice to tell you.

bigbrainonbrad wrote: Actually I don't believe in borrowing money for something that I can afford with hard work. So I write the checks to the university.

You are wrong in thinking that your tuition covers the real cost of your education.

On the healthcare issue its currently run by corporations who have a legal requirement to earn a profit off of you, that means they are providing you with less service than you are actually paying for. How much are you currently paying in health insurance premiums? I bet its about the same amount that your taxes would increase.

The system as it is works pretty good in my opinion, the rich still have more money than they could possibly ever use, and for the most part nobody starves to death or dies of third world type illnesses.

doitover
doitover New Reader
7/24/08 4:02 p.m.

I hear that argument a lot. On the other hand I volunteered with Hearts and Hammers a couple of times and the neighborhoods that we went in to, no one was living the high life.

bigbrainonbrad wrote: I fully realize that gov't social programs serve a purpose, but the system is completly broken. I have neighbors who don't work (or if they do very little, pop out a kid every few years, drive a loaded new civic, have a big TV, and amenities that I can' afford because I have to spend what I make to support myself. Meanwhile they are abusing the money that millions of hard harfd working people pay into the system.
Thinkkker
Thinkkker SuperDork
7/24/08 4:09 p.m.

There is a big problem in social security that it was never mean to last for 80 years. Which is why its been put at costing more and more a year which in reality according to the structure I would think that it support itself.

Welfare, there just does not seem to be any checks in place. Someone can pretty much seem to be on this indeffinately. How can you never find a job? I do not understand it.

MitchellC
MitchellC Reader
7/24/08 4:24 p.m.

Re: wealth distribution

Could it be agreed that a person typically stays in the social class that they are born in? Maybe it's not the rule, but probably the majority. If so, it would seem only natural that the lower and middle classes should increase in size, since families are typically larger in these social strata.

1 2

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
YeCLUqDDsYtfR2ET69ICl9NYSUKN34qVeGoh6qZpX5eUp42Ru3GYpK4mwoGVa7HC