Before There Was Welfare There Was Charity

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


You are correct that government and big business (corporations) are Siamese twins. A corporation is a chartered entity that exists solely by grant from government, which as a point of law means corporations exist by the good graces of the people. You have, however, confused corporatism with capitalism. The two have nothing to do with each other, and it is demonstrably so that corporations hate competition, love regulation, and are perfectly fine with currency that is not backed by wealth. None of this is capitalism, and your fawning, gushing praise of socialism also hates competition, loves regulation, and has no problem with currency not backed by wealth.

You are correct to insist that we worry more about the cause than the symptoms of the cause, but you've misdiagnosed the disease, and as such your misdiagnosis is more dangerous to the patient than the disease itself.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Stop blaming government and blame BOTH if you are interested in credibility

No the simple fact is business comes and goes but government legislation and regulation out lives us all, The fact is all of us are living under "solutions" created long ago that have created the current state of the union.

.

Our economy is in such shables(terminally ill) that only a multifaceted approach will prove useful. Anything else is willful ignorance and questions of evil agendas start coming into play. I am actually starting to think YOU WANT THE ECONOMY TO CRASH ON PURPOSE!

If is in "shambles" that is by government's own making quite a shame that people do not believe in the free market that is the most vital thing to a healthy economy,because it creates more jobs,which means more wealth,which in turns creates a health economy, and less people getting paid by tax revenue,

Everyone wins.

The common denominator there is all roads lead to Washington dc.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Corporatism is the main branch of capitalism. Capitalism has three branches a)proprietorship b)partnership c)corporation. They used to teach this stuff in high school and college....did they stop the last decade?

A mixed economy nationalises critical industry and allows(even encourages) all three branches of capitalism for everything else.

No misdiagnosis on my part, but I have to hand it to you for making me roflmao. I almost spit coffee on my laptop and choked!

reply to post by neo96

Those weren't assumptions - they were observations - and they were to make a point. It was also an attempt to see if you had a sense of humor :-)

But never mind that point then...you made it for me

...welfare is a symptom of a larger disease of people whose only solution is to throw money at it, and then never look to see at the causation of those problems.

and then this:

Put government in check and reduce it's power the rest will resolve itself millions of Americans have their own problems to deal with and then be saddle with someone else's.

Some of us aren't so sure the problems will just go away once people are unburdened by the problems of others

But - no point bringing that up now - it's all been covered in this thread - pretty much

Neo - what is the causation of the problems these diseased people tend to just throw money at? Then, let's also talk about the root causes - and, how do we handle them then? Without government getting involved? I'm actually looking for a little more than: charity will pick up the slack

And - hate to be repetitive - but what about the military? It is a little pricey...

How is that NOT too much government?

(In response to the Educational welfare point)

There is no reason that a educational system privately accessed would be inferior to the State dependent one.
It would likely be cheaper , and it's users time and effort rewarded more.
The State ( anecdotally) seems to me to have the Midas touch in reverse.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Beanskinner

 

How did government create hunger? Did you realize people Have been hungry since the down time, before government? How does a million dollar bomb that blows up 1 time pay

Failed leadership,Failed policies,Failed regulations,Failed government agencies that have created more "hungry people" than there has ever been.

People have been hungry long before Roosevelt,Johnson and other government saviors that have created more people than they have ever saved.

Before entitlement that was charity that fed,clothed,educated.

And to what degree? Do you want me to post the infant

Mortality rates in countries that depend upon charity?

A sandwich and a bed for a night is not going to provide

The same oppertunaties, I have seen many people turn

It around, but it took more than what most charities can

Afford to offer in mass.

I want to ask you. Where do you think these tens of millions

Of people will sleep once you take away their income to

Pay for rent? Do you think flooding America with the hungry

And homeless is good for America? It sounds like you guys

Think they will disappear and their needs will disappear once

They are cut off. Further more do you think local government

Will have to funds to deal with the added costs of introducing

Millions to the streets? And what are the logistics of adding say

1 million homeless people in a city like new York

Over night? I am starting to agree with others that you

Guys are not very thoughtful. You have a desire but have

No ability to explain or envision the consiquences. So explain

How this will work, who is paying for the toilets and running water?

Something rational would help

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Corporatism is the main branch of capitalism.

It is our responsibility in this site to deny ignorance. Your ignorance is inexcusable. Long before there was capitalism, there were corporations:

The word "corporation" derives from corpus, the Latin word for body, or a "body of people." Entities which carried on business and were the subjects of legal rights were found in ancient Rome, and the Maurya Empire in ancient India.[6] In medieval Europe, churches became incorporated, as did local governments, such as the Pope and the City of London Corporation. The point was that the incorporation would survive longer than the lives of any particular member, existing in perpetuity. The alleged oldest commercial corporation in the world, the Stora Kopparberg mining community in Falun, Sweden, obtained a charter from King Magnus Eriksson in 1347. Many European nations chartered corporations to lead colonial ventures, such as the Dutch East India Company or the Hudson's Bay Company, and these corporations came to play a large part in the history of corporate colonialism.

Maybe you could your dogma to stop barking so loudly so you might listen to reason and erudition.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I would like to interject here.

Theories are testable. The Welfare state has had its tests, and has been falsified.

[citation needed]. Welfare states around the world have resulted in measurable decrease in poverty, and increase in social mobility and equality of chances. Welfare state has its problems (which I think can be greatly mitigated by better implementations), but it performed reasonably well in its intended purpose.

Do Social-Welfare Policies Reduce Poverty? A Cross-National Assessment

Most social scientists, policy makers, and citizens who support the welfare state do so in
part because they believe social-welfare programs help to reduce the incidence of poverty.
Yet a growing number of critics assert that such programs in fact fail to do so, because too
small a share of transfers actually reaches the poor, or because such programs create a
welfare/poverty trap, or because they weaken the economy. This study assesses the effects
of social-welfare policy extensiveness on poverty across 15 affluent industrialized nations
over the period 1960-91, using both absolute and relative measures of poverty. The results
strongly support the conventional view that social-welfare programs reduce poverty.

Regression results for analyses of cross-national variation in absolute poverty are shown in
Table 4. The coefficients for each of the three alternative social-welfare policy
extensiveness measures are negative and statistically significant at or near the .01 level.
This suggests that social-welfare policies do help to reduce poverty, even when indirect,
dynamic effects are taken into account. The unstandardized coefficient in the equation with
government transfers used as the social-welfare policy measure indicates that, on average
for these 15 nations, each additional 1% of GDP spent on transfers over the period 1960-
91 may have reduced the absolute poverty rate in the early 1990s by as much as .75
percentage points.

Not surprisingly, pre-tax/transfer poverty is the most important determinant of
post-tax/transfer poverty. The coefficients for this variable are positive and significant in
each equation, with strong standardized effects of .60 or greater. This underscores the
limits to how much the welfare state ¾ which is inherently reactive, coming into play after
the distribution of primary (pre-tax/transfer) income has been established ¾ can
accomplish in reducing poverty. Yet the coefficients for the social-welfare policy variable
clearly indicate that it does tend to help.

Show me what "falsification" of the welfare state are you talking about.

Next, your concern of "average middle class families and the poor"'s capability to send their children to school assumes that all parents want to do this.

Children are not property of the parents, but separate persons, and as separate persons they have certain rights, such as a right to receive basic education. They should not pay for stupidity of their parents.

For those who who cannot afford to send their children to private school there are now, and will be scholarships available for them.

Are you sure there would be enough to pay for all of them?

I all ready did tell you that the goodwill of others helped my drunk mother raise myself and my seven brothers and sisters, but apparently you ignored that post, or didn't bother to read it while you were spending all your time lamenting what would happen to stupid people.

Anecdotal evidence.

Unless you show that private charity would be able to help all those people as universally as welfare, it would still be inferior. Noone is saying private charity cannot help people. But can it do it as well as state welfare systems? Or would it help a fraction of the people, and leave others without a help? That is the question.

One simple word answers your entire paragraph: Apprenticeship.

Would still cost a lot of money on a scale necessary to substitute current universities. Superficial change in teaching methods does not negate the costs of education.

The correlation between welfare recipients and crime is fairly high, so even on welfare these people are turning to a life of crime in order meet their needs, and if not able to meet their needs, and if not stealing or committing fraud, they turn to substance abuse, which the great and glorious government has deemed a crime.

They still do, but criminality would be even higher (and social mobility and chance to escape the crime lifestyle lower) without welfare.
Substance abuse should not be a crime, so thats not an argument for me.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

You are correct that government and big business (corporations) are Siamese twins. A corporation is a chartered entity that exists solely by grant from government, which as a point of law means corporations exist by the good graces of the people. You have, however, confused corporatism with capitalism. The two have nothing to do with each other, and it is demonstrably so that corporations hate competition, love regulation, and are perfectly fine with currency that is not backed by wealth. None of this is capitalism, and your fawning, gushing praise of socialism also hates competition, loves regulation, and has no problem with currency not backed by wealth.

You are correct to insist that we worry more about the cause than the symptoms of the cause, but you've misdiagnosed the disease, and as such your misdiagnosis is more dangerous to the patient than the disease itself.
W

If corporations love regulation, why are the banks constantly

Lobby to deregulate Wall Street further?

And I have never the choice to support or deny

The chater of A corporate entity, have you?

Originally posted by Zngland
(In response to the Educational welfare point)

There is no reason that a educational system privately accessed would be inferior to the State dependent one.
It would likely be cheaper , and it's users time and effort rewarded more.

The State ( anecdotally) seems to me to have the Midas touch in reverse.

No. Profit comes first with any business. That means they cut corners everywhere to maximise profits.

cheaper books, cheaper teacher wages, cheaper playgrounds, cheapers pencils, cheaper school buses, cheaper care to students all around!

Look at Beyond Petroleum and TEPCO if you don't believe me!

Originally posted by Zngland
(In response to the Educational welfare point)

There is no reason that a educational system privately accessed would be inferior to the State dependent one.
It would likely be cheaper , and it's users time and effort rewarded more.
The State ( anecdotally) seems to me to have the Midas touch in reverse.

Private school is better, but can a vast majority

Of people afford the extra expense, literally?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Corporatism is the main branch of capitalism.

It is our responsibility in this site to deny ignorance. Your ignorance is inexcusable. Long before there was capitalism, there were corporations:

The word "corporation" derives from corpus, the Latin word for body, or a "body of people." Entities which carried on business and were the subjects of legal rights were found in ancient Rome, and the Maurya Empire in ancient India.[6] In medieval Europe, churches became incorporated, as did local governments, such as the Pope and the City of London Corporation. The point was that the incorporation would survive longer than the lives of any particular member, existing in perpetuity. The alleged oldest commercial corporation in the world, the Stora Kopparberg mining community in Falun, Sweden, obtained a charter from King Magnus Eriksson in 1347. Many European nations chartered corporations to lead colonial ventures, such as the Dutch East India Company or the Hudson's Bay Company, and these corporations came to play a large part in the history of corporate colonialism.

Maybe you could your dogma to stop barking so loudly so you might listen to reason and erudition.

quoted from your source "The alleged oldest commercial corporation in the world, the Stora Kopparberg mining community in Falun, Sweden, obtained a charter from King Magnus Eriksson in 1347. "

Oldest commercial corporations are what we are talking about. Not some other vague meanings!

Capitalism is wwwaaaaayyyyy older than corporatism. Going back to ancient egypt and sumeria people traded with gold and silver coins in small villages. Each person was a propriator or perhaps partnerships.

It seems you cannot get anything correct most of the time. Maybe you need to go back to some PUBLIC school while they still exist?

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

Those weren't assumptions - they were observations - and they were to make a point. It was also an attempt to see if you had a sense of humor :-)

That had nothing to do with charity or welfare which is the topic being discussed.

Neo - what is the causation of the problems these diseased people tend to just throw money at? Then, let's also talk about the root causes - and, how do we handle them then? Without government getting involved? I'm actually looking for a little more than: charity will pick up the slack

After 70 years of social engineering with all that government interventionism the problems gone away? No.

And - hate to be repetitive - but what about the military? It is a little pricey... How is that NOT too much government?

Go ahead and gut the military, Go put millions out of work who will end right back up on government programs.

That is millions of civilians and billions and trillions lost that is currently being used to fund those social programs,

That has already been said in this thread don't know why people just can't read the thread instead of rehashing what has already been answered.

Oh mostly likely because they don't like the answer.

reply to post by Beanskinner

And to what degree? Do you want me to post the infant Mortality rates in countries that depend upon charity?

Getting rather tired of people who throw up examples that are happening in other countries my only concern is this one.

As to the rest strawman because people think they know what will happen but they don't millions of Americans made it just fine long before the "great entitlement society".

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I don't have much time to get back to you with other demands but there were a few I feel the need to point out real quick.

On the education side of things you makes some points but you conveniently do not answer the intended question. Yes government was in no way responsible for education back in the day, that is true. We also have to consider that in those times, if one was not born into money they would very likely never have any. It was incredibly rare for people born into poorer families to ever go very far in life or become what we now call "great" people. So it should be a family choice to send children to school? Well what if that family cannot teach the children because they lack the intellect to do so? Should we let those children born into an unfortunate circumstance rot? You're not going to be very valuable to society if you don't know how to do anything other than clean up after people... Or should I be looking at this as those children are undeserving or unworthy of a job beyond something close to basic janitorial?

Yes there are indeed scholarships. Today receiving a scholarship to fund one's education depends on much more than just intelligence, the competition is so massive that being luck also plays a major role. Am I to assume this should be left to being lucky enough to receive a scholarship? Oh and if the parents have not provided a basic education to their children those kids would not qualify for any scholarship that I am currently aware of. So once more, should we just leave those who have not been taught much beyond the bible and how to cook and clean rot?

Apprenticeship... Interesting. According to a 52 year old electrician that I know, a lot of jobs no longer offer this as a way to get your foot in the door without first going to trade school. He has told me that he and others are unhappy with that fact because most of them started as an apprentice with no trade school prerequisite. I can't speak for other places but it is very clear to many who live withing a few hundred miles of this location that an apprenticeship is a damn near an impossible method of beginning a career without first going to a trade school in our world today. Do you think things are just going to revert because you want them to? What do you do when most jobs say they will not accept you as someone to train until yo go to school?

Yes, the goodwill of others helped your family. Care to take a guess at how many don't have those others to help them? I specifically pointed out in my wording that some do not have others who are able to help them, what about those people? Should we let them rot? You theorize that the charity of complete strangers would save them. You are in the minority though because most of us know that people nowadays care much less for the well being of others than people many years ago, judging from today's society it is highly likely that many would take a "screw them" approach. I'm not saying that some people wouldn't receive help, I'm saying that it is fairly likely many more would not.

I will not deny that poor people turn to crime. In the area where I live about half of the poor do nothing illegal though. Many work full time for minimum wage and only receive food stamps, there are a lot of people falling into this category. One could assume that if such assistance were taken away that those people would be forced to turn to a life of crime in order to feed their young. I believe our definition of poor people is very different. You seem to view the majority of them as scumbags while there are still many people who work but do not earn enough money to fit into a category above the poverty line.

I apologize for seeming to demand anything, such was not my intent. I was merely asking some questions, questions of which you have not answered in the method that I have asked of you. I even tried to make it easy by asking for personal opinions rather than factual evidence. Yet all you offer is a counter to those questions. Is this because you find it difficult to answer the questions asked? That's the point, the questions are indeed very difficult to properly answer. However these are very important issues of which need to be fully considered before we could ever attempt to make your suggestions work. Unlike many others I am not claiming that your suggestions should not be considered, I'm only pointing out issues that would arise and asking for solutions to those issues.

Sorry for any grammatical errors I do not have time to edit at the moment, have to go pick up my wife with a 3.8 gpa from that excellent minimum wage job.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Beanskinner

 

And to what degree? Do you want me to post the infant Mortality rates in countries that depend upon charity?

Getting rather tired of people who throw up examples that are happening in other countries my only concern is this one.

As to the rest strawman because people think they know what will happen but they don't millions of Americans made it just fine long before the "great entitlement society".

What many of us are tryin to tell you is we don't buy

It. You don't care to examine it, so you expect us to

Examine it for you and when we do that, you ignore the

Conclusions and problems we envision, we are humans

Capable of planing and speculation. Just because you

Are not willing to think about it does not negate our concerns.

You do realize that things were much different 70

Years ago? And completely different 235 years ago?

Answer me and tell me where you think 50 million

Homeless people will go? I dare you to think.

reply to post by neo96

That had nothing to do with charity or welfare which is the topic being discussed.

You're very strict :-)

forgive me Neo - but humor greases the wheels of conversation sometimes. And then sometimes - not so much...

After 70 years of social engineering with all that government interventionism the problems gone away? No.

None of that answered any of my questions. But as long as we're here - you were the one that said:

Put government in check and reduce it's power the rest will resolve itself millions of Americans have their own problems to deal with and then be saddle with someone else's.

You're so sure that if government was reduced - all our problems would just - go away

But now they can't - because of social engineering...

So I'm wondering - what are the real problems, what are the root causes of these problems, and, when government is greatly reduced - how will we handle these problems? Who will handle them?

Yes - I really am asking again

Go ahead and gut the military, Go put millions out of work who will end right back up on government programs.

So, the reason we keep the military is because otherwise - we put people out of work? That's it?

But - if we cut other government programs - putting those government employees out of work is no problem?

That is millions of civilians and billions and trillions lost that is currently being used to fund those social programs,

Why is one more important than the other? If out of control government spending, interference and size is the problem - why not cut everything?

That has already been said in this thread don't know why people just can't read the thread instead of rehashing what has already been answered.

Because some of us don't agree with the answer :-)

Oh mostly likely because they don't like the answer.

:-)

How's about you actually answer a question - or two...

reply to post by Beanskinner


What i am saying there are those of us who aren't buying the welfare state because it has become "too big to fai"

Second.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


When Government was smaller and welfare a lot smaller there were a lot less problems and there were a lot more jobs and the national deficit was smaller.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

 

When Government was smaller and welfare a lot smaller there were a lot less problems and there were a lot more jobs and the national deficit was smaller.

You mean in Mayberry? Or in the real world?

Things will never be the way they were Neo - not as good - and maybe also not as bad. We can't go back. We have to work with the world we live in now

The past was never exactly the way we remember it anyhow...