Does welfare and social security challenge the free market?

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: windword

Those are people who said one thing and did another. They promised 100% and with held from their contibution.

Indeed! I can't even begin to imagine the number of people, let alone dollars, that were swindled in the spirit of that carefully place scripture.

a reply to: windword

The moral of that story was to live by your word. If anyone was swindled by a smooth talker looking for money, then its because they didnt understand the story.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

If anyone was swindled by a smooth talker looking for money,

That would be Peter.

The moral of that story was to live by you're word.

Or What? Or else, in this new epic of Christ, God would strike you down dead if you didn't abide by their economic system.......which was socialist?



No, that's what you want the moral of the story to be. But, it's a socialist story.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I am retired because I did not have a 401. Anyway, I see you are a peddler of free market principles and all that cause it is an election year. Update the propaganda and training.

I don't vote. I don't subscribe to the illusion of power that we so proudly call democracy. I simply work for what I have and maintain it the best I can. I don't appreciate the government taking my money for their own agenda, even if they claim its for a good cause. It simply is not their responsibility or right.

Vote for whoever you want, they'll just stab you in the back once they win.

And don't make ASSumptions about me or my motives.

a reply to: onequestion


If you had a real free market, Slavery would be alive and well, because in many areas its cost effective. So the banning of slavery was a socialist act. Welfare had to be invented, to stop the poor becoming a chaotic nuisance. Governments don't seem to mind giving the rich nil tax status but seem to be tardy with regards to the poor, hence they are becoming a chaotic nuisance, and are filling up the jails.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

You don't vote? Ok. see ya.

a reply to: windword

No, that's what you want the moral of the story to be. But, it's a socialist story.

Socialist by choice. Only those who chose to enter that community held themselves to those rules. Obama's individual mandate is not a choice.

a reply to: MOMof3

Not if I see ya first.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: SaturnFX

It's because of our social programs that the starving old man can't afford to pay for the inflated prices of food, utilities, and healthcare. Just watch, as we become more socialized, starvation will equalize all of us while your socialist heros live high on the hog. Maybe they'll toss you some crumbs.

There are parts of africa with no social programs at all, no net. no real functioning government really, a hard right neolibertarian dreamscape with roving warlords and all sorts.

no thanks
any economic model requires a net. this is economics 101. we have learned from history and even in parts of the world today that no net = utter disaster.

a reply to: SaturnFX

So, what are you saying? Because I work hard for what I have and don't want a tax payer handout, that makes me a warlord? That's some sound logic right there. Keep it up, you're doing great.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Socialist by choice.

A life or death, eternal Heaven or Hell choice, that was socialism......or else.

originally posted by: EightTF3

I'm pretty sure if Jesus took an in depth look at where his taxes where going he'd tell uncle sam to # off

Well thats a different discussion all together, thats corruption, misleading, etc...beside the point in regards to communal coffers for the poor.

No doubt the story christ would be tossing a few tables at the irs so to speak

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: SaturnFX

So, what are you saying? Because I work hard for what I have and don't want a tax payer handout, that makes me a warlord? That's some sound logic right there. Keep it up, you're doing great.

You work hard, so you earn well and live like a king
you drive to work, so you pay for the roads
you use the net, so you pay for the infrustructure
and you live in a place where you dont have to worry about homeless people every 10 steps begging for a scrap of food, so you pay your damn taxes into social programs
dont like it..thats cool...I hear you..getpacked up and move to a place where people dont give a toss about the suffering of society.
Plenty of African nations that you may love. Somolia, Congo, Ethopia, etc..even many middle eastern countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan that fit your desires of a near tax free experience. good luck on the whole..drinking poison water, homeless hoards robbing you thing..

heh...christian indeed.

Social programs do distort the free market but this is not a bad thing. There is no reason why we have accept the outcomes of a free market when they are not providing an a satisfactory outcome.

Free market economies are every bit as much a social construct as any other and non intervention is not accepting a natural state of affairs, it is accepting a status quo. If we look back at times of less interventionism in the economy we can see much higher levels of absolute poverty and little if any evidence that the market leads to higher wages in the absence of social welfare schemes.

originally posted by: SaturnFX
in a fully realized free market, the no net drop would be so extreme that crime would skyrocket.
If you are watching your child starve to death, you will quickly stab someone for their wallet without any remorse..nightly.

This would inevitably lead to higher security, more elitist areas of barricades, and ultimately a very divided society that cannot sustain itself..not in a place where it is your right to own a gun..because those guns would be used to make a living.

So, welfare, SS, and other net programs help maintain a level within the market that allows continued participation, and in turn helps the market out itself with customers spending every penny they get back on their products.

Would a business pay much higher wages for people if they didnt have SS?
why would they do that? businesses dont even want to put people on full time in order to skirt around benefit requirements like healthcare, employment comp, etc...no, businesses are not merciful. the 17th-19th century america can demonstrate that with rampant poverty for most, penny pinching, etc. there are reasons these social programs were initiated..it was to correct a terrible problem.
Once you see people on your own street starve to death, you start to want some action (that doesn't involve you making everyone a ham sandwich personally every day)

I agree with you, moreover, those who are members of the small time insignificient masses who are apposed to welfare, are highly likely be the first victims of starving people.

Starving people are not going to travel across town to attack the rich, they are going to turn on their neighbour who is also a small time insignificant nobody too. This is what they need to realise when forming their views on welfare for individuals

I wonder if some of these small time insignificant nobodies who hold anti personal welfare views, have had their views decided for them by the big time somebodies who own or are the media and don't and never will need to claim welfare.

IMO, the big time somebodies and the talented, the gifted and the single minded want welfare for individuals eliminated so there is more money available for more corporate welfare.

Then again, I suppose many such people have never heard of corporate welfare because the man on the TV has never told them about it.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: SaturnFX

It's because of our social programs that the starving old man can't afford to pay for the inflated prices of food, utilities, and healthcare. Just watch, as we become more socialized, starvation will equalize all of us while your socialist heros live high on the hog. Maybe they'll toss you some crumbs.

I'm sorry, I don't have a desire to offend, you have the right to your opinion, but the things you keep posting are ridiculous!!

Look, I am american, but for twenty-something years I have lived in a country that has a much more developed social security net than the US, and I observe that what you are claiming is NOT the case.

The prices of food, utilities and healthcare are much lower than in the US, with quality that is the same or most often, better. Yes, there is a bigger middle class, less super-poor and super-rich; but that middle class spends money on their vacations and other non-essentials for survival as well as the necessities.
The families might not have a house that is made of plasterboard but looks like a giant mansion on the exterior, but they have everything they need, riding and ballet lessons are common for kids of the lowest socio-economic sphere;
people don't ask if your family ski's- they ask "when is your family taking their ski vacation this year?"


There exists a strong social net and public sector, right along with a capitalistic economy.
There is competition between them, which obliges the public sector to strive for good quality, and the private to strive for affordable prices. They provide a balancing effect for each other.

But they NEED each other! The private sector needs people with money in their pockets to spend and a sense of security that allows them to let it flow without fear,

the public sector needs people to feel safe enough to step out and take the risk of entrepreneurship, become successful, and bring support back to the people in monetary form.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Nick Hanauer, Seattle businessman and multi - billionaire hyper capitalist, has repeatedly called on other big business figures to pay a living wage or better, like he does for all his staff, at every level in his businesses.

But let's ignore matters mortal and flawed for a moment. Christ was a humanitarian. He clothed the naked, fed the hungry and healed the sick. He did not withhold assistance, just in case people got used to the cushy existence that comes of having health, food, and some clothing on ones back. I think you need to either have a conversation with yourself, or better yet, with Jesus, because your understanding of his intent, direction, and attitude as a man seems seriously skewed. I am talking fun house mirror time, not just a few degrees off, but off the reservation, so to speak.

He would have approved of the idea of the NHS, here in Britain, for example. He would have hated every part of the health system in the States though, all these healers getting paid sky high prices for doing what should be their calling, their duty as a person capable of saving a life.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
He would have hated every part of the health system in the States though, all these healers getting paid sky high prices for doing what should be their calling, their duty as a person capable of saving a life.

No kidding!
Once, in a discussion on the free higher education that exists here, with an american online,
they asked me,

"What would possibly motivate any person to go to school for ten or more years to become a doctor, if they aren't going to make a ton of money doing it??"

Duh... because they have a passion and desire to heal people?


I've seen people also assume that without the possible promise of becoming uber-rich, no one would have any motivation to be an entrepreneur!

As if a whole nation has been brainwashed to believe that money is the only motivation that exists in human beings!

The scary part is, if you come to believe that of all humans,
I guess it follows that that will be the only motivation one would recognize and acknowledge in their self.
(the belief becomes reality for those who believe it)

a reply to: onequestion

I appreciate that you are asking tough questions. Your challenge to both sides is entirely justified.

The interventionist constructs promise to make everybody's economic lives more stable, reduce or eliminate painful change and increase wealth. Truth be told, they never were able to do any of those things and they are clearly not working the way they were intended to.

They can only provide a "safety net" of sorts which is tantamount to a political vote of 'no confidence' in individual competence. Considering the great cost such a limited "benefit" bestows, I reject it entirely.

The free market is unforgiving because that is its primary feature, it does not tolerate artificial prices and unsatisfactory services. This is why companies and people lobby government to free them from the toils of unfettered competition. So that they can avoid having to provide goods at market prices and satisfactory services.

If we all kept our incomes and made decisions about our future knowing that there was no government bailout, I believe we would all be better off, especially those who "benefit" from these policies.

The only losers in a free market are those who benefit from it's absence.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Socialism should be illegal.

What would Jesus' economic model look like? Please keep in mind large and congregated populations in your response.

Ironically, just like a flat tax. I'm Catholic, and the church advocates giving 10% of your income as a tithe.
Personally, I think a flat tax coupled with a consumption based tax would be better than our current system in the US.