Before There Was Welfare There Was Charity

reply to post by muse7

There are a lot of families out there with single parents working two jobs while raising 2 kid, these people people pay taxes and should have a safety net provided by the government to help them put food on their table

Better still, they shouldn't be paying any income taxes at all and use that money to build their own safety nets. It is way past odious to tax the fruits of ones own labor. It is way past disingenuous to justify plunder by arguing that because you plunder the people you have to build a safety net for them so now you need to plunder, it is remarkably illogical.

Originally posted by Beanskinner
I would simply like some examples of nations that have

Depended on charity and contained poverty, in a comparable

Way to what we have here.

I am still not convinced that charity can get the job done

Alone.

The whole thread is disgusting sophistry. I will agree there needs to be some kind of overhaul to the welfare system to make it more efficient, but the goddamm jobs better come back to the states otherwise any welfare reform package would be rendered useless and only further complicate stuff.

That is the problem with conservatives. They never provide solutions to anything, especially if it affects the wealthy and influential. A good approach would be to cut down on offensive military capability, bring back jobs, divert money to space program, whatever.

I am sick of their one dimensional approach. The universe has 11 dimensions but they only see 1.

reply to post by neo96


By the graphs you posted "entitlement spending is roughly 10% of GDP yet military spending is 40% of GDP. I did notice on the defence spending graph you posted only went upto 2000. Here is a link on what we spend on defence:
defence spending % of GDP

So the 10% were spending based on the graph you posted is a problem?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

The whole thread is disgusting sophistry.

At least half of it is indeed disgusting sophistry, of which you've contributed to greatly, but not the whole thread. Indeed, there have been people who have posted in this thread who did not necessarily agree with me and others, but certainly didn't engage in sophistry, that was reserved for you and a few others. Too bad really.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


But what if they still can't make it even without paying taxes? Just turn to other people and expect them to be nice?

Good luck with that!

Taxes are essential, your solution would work really well in a small village however this is a country of 300+ million people. I agree with you on the part that we shouldn't be spending as much on the military. But if we re-directed the money spent on the defense budget and created a good universal healthcare system a lot of people would be on board with that idea

People wouldn't have the need to work 2 jobs if we had a good welfare system in place and a good universal health care system. The job of the Government is to work for its citizens and they should provide safety nets and not leave their citizens relying on the kindness of other people.

reply to post by Beanskinner

A person on welfare generates the same way. They pass their state provided money In exchange for goods and services that do generate Tax revenue. Those businesses Emply people with those funds to, and those people Generate revenue. Same principle

Not quite tax revenue going to welfare is collected in two ways new wealth introduced via income tax and a second tax revenue generated by other taxes.

The key there is new wealth introduced in to that model by private means by the private sector, The money generated is continually recycled and new people introduced thus taking more private wealth tax revenue generation introduced into that closed system.

So no not the same principle.

reply to post by Beanskinner


The only places where Charity is the only alternative is in 3rd world countries.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

We simply do not need a huge military my friend.

That is a matter of opinion which people are free to disagree with what people fail to see you can either lead,follow or become the victim must like history has shown.

Before world war 1 and world war 2 America really had no military, but we did have the necessary will drive and resources to transform in to that most famous arsenal of democracy.

The rest of the world arms and modernizes a point of which i have previously posted, Time waits for no man the purpose of the military is to ensure this nation exist's.

As time progresses so does technology you can not base an entire nations defense capabilities on technology that is based off the 50's and the 60s or the 70s and 80's. design and systems.

We could cut the bloat and divert money to NASA and alternative energy production.

Not really and here is why there will be more innovation and more job creation when left to the private sector another benefit is someone else shouldering the burden of that cost.

I think is very demeaning for american astronauts to be rellying on the russian space program to get to the ISS!

I absolutely agree but that was the price paid social engineering became more important than rocket engineering.

What do you think? Maybe spend the money to go back to the moon and build colonies there? Maybe go to mars? Fund underwater research programs? Fund money into currently untreatable diseases?

By private industry again let someone else shoulder the burden of cost the world we all know today is due to the fact someone came up with an idea to better their lives and make a buck off it thus creating wealth,jobs,careers and opportunities for others.

The possiblities are endless. Most people who were in the service have learned a trade anyway and they could pick up a civilian job. If not then keep them in the military. I am not a traitor to america but we need to re-examine our priorities before we come a second world nation.

The possibilites are indeed endless when you get the government off the neck of the people.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by muse7

 

There are a lot of families out there with single parents working two jobs while raising 2 kid, these people people pay taxes and should have a safety net provided by the government to help them put food on their table

Better still, they shouldn't be paying any income taxes at all and use that money to build their own safety nets. It is way past odious to tax the fruits of ones own labor. It is way past disingenuous to justify plunder by arguing that because you plunder the people you have to build a safety net for them so now you need to plunder, it is remarkably illogical.

I already talked about the ponzi scheme called capitalism and you can find out why it does not work if you search a bit. If people insist on capitalism then there needs to be some kind of redistribution system in place to recycle money otherwise the 1% will hoard more and more, till the economy collapses on its back and we will all be screwed royally.

There is no other way! You are merely creating the illusion that taxation is unethical supposedly because everyone should keep all their earnings. Obviously people who make too little cause of the pathetic minimum wage cannot contribute enough cause they barely have enough to live with. Those that make millions and billions should contribute much more because they can make a positive difference to people, the economy as a whole, to our military, to protect our enviroment, for medical facilities and cures, etc.

You are arrogantly trying to make a case for no taxation which is utterly absurd and does not exist anywhere in the world. No country on this planet has zero taxation and that should tell you something. Forget about capitalism, socialism, communism and look straight at the cold hard facts facing us...if you are capable that is!

Have a good day/night sir. I am done posting for today as I have family to take care of and jobs!

reply to post by muse7


Who do you think you're kidding?

Earlier this month Caroline Sabey crossed a threshold she never imagined she would see: the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services. The single mother had been laid off in February from her $55,000-a-year job as an executive assistant. Almost immediately, Sabey, 42, struggled to make ends meet. She went to the county hoping to get money to buy food for her two young sons.

By asking for help, Sabey joined a growing number of middle-class families applying for government aid only to discover that their safety nets -- savings, severance packages, unemployment payments -- put them at a disadvantage in a system designed to serve the very poor.

At the crowded Chatsworth Social Services office, Sabey waited hours. Caseworkers had her apply for food stamps and CalWorks, which offers cash benefits for families.

Late last week she was told her application was denied. Her monthly unemployment payments of $1,943 put her $36 over the federal income limit for food stamps. The monthly income limit for a family of three for CalWorks was even lower.

Seriously, who do you think you're kidding?

NORTH HOLLYWOOD — One homeless man who has lived on the streets of the San Fernando Valley for three years said losing his general relief benefits has left him more adrift than ever. The assistance, which ended July 1 because of a new five-month limit, was all the income he had aside from the few dollars he manages to scrounge by recycling cans.

I mean it! Who the Hell Do You Think You're Kidding?

A woman who for months was unable to qualify for food stamps pulled a gun in a state welfare office on Monday and staged a seven-hour standoff with the police that ended with her shooting her two children before killing herself, officials said.

The children, a 10-year-old son and a 12-year-old daughter, were in critical condition Tuesday. The mother was identified as Rachelle Grimmer, 38. A police investigator, Joe Baeza, said Ms. Grimmer had recently moved from Zanesville, Ohio.

Ms. Grimmer first applied for food stamps in July but was denied because she did not turn in enough information, said Stephanie Goodman, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Health and Human Services.

Ms. Goodman said it was not immediately clear what information was missing. She said the Grimmers’ last contact with the agency appeared to be a phone call in mid-November. When the family entered the Laredo office on Monday, shortly before 5 p.m., Ms. Grimmer asked to speak to a new caseworker, not the one whom she worked with previously, Ms. Goodman said.

reply to post by LDragonFire


From the source you provided:



The problem is welfare spending is outpacing defense spending because more people are getting added compounded by age progression, which will drive those costs up even more.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

I already talked about the ponzi scheme called capitalism and you can find out why it does not work if you search a bit.

Who Do You Think You're Kidding?

The idea that society benefits when investors compete successfully is pretty widely accepted. Dean Baker, a prominent progressive economist with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, says that most economists believe society often benefits from investments by the wealthy. Baker estimates the ratio is 5 to 1, meaning that for every dollar an investor earns, the public receives the equivalent of $5 of value. The Google founder Sergey Brin might be very rich, but the world is far richer than he is because of Google. Conard said Baker was undercounting the social benefits of investment. He looks, in particular, at agriculture, where, since the 1940s, the cost of food has steadily fallen because of a constant stream of innovations. While the businesses that profit from that innovation — like seed companies and fast-food restaurants — have made their owners rich, the average U.S. consumer has benefited far more. Conard concludes that for every dollar an investor gets, the public reaps up to $20 in value. This is crucial to his argument: he thinks it proves that we should all appreciate the vast wealth of others more, because we’re benefiting, proportionally, from it.

Seriously, Who Do You Think You're Kidding?

A citizen of the United States who under the laws of various states is not free to follow the occupation of his own choosing unless he can get a license for it, is likewise being deprived of an essential part of his freedom. So is the man who would like to exchange some of his goods with, say, a Swiss for a watch but is prevented from doing so by a quota. So also is the Californian who was thrown into jail for selling Alka Seltzer at a price below that set by the manufacturer under so-called "fair trade" laws. So also is the farmer who cannot grow the amount of wheat he wants. And so on. Clearly, economic freedom, in and of itself, is an extremely important part of total freedom.

Viewed as a means to the end of political freedom, economic arrangements are important becuase of their effect on the concentration or dispersion of power. The kind of economic organization that provides economic freedom directly, namely, competitive capitalism, also promotes political freedom because it separates economic power from political power and in this way enables the one to offset the other.

Historical evidence speaks with a single voice on the relation between political freedom and a free market. I know of no example in time or place of a society that has been marked by a large measure of political freedom, and that has not also used something comparable to a free market to organize the bulk of economic activity.

No, I mean it! Just Who the Hell Do You Think You're Kidding?

Despots and democratic majorities are drunk with power. They must reluctantly admit that they are subject to the laws of nature. But they reject the very notion of economic law . . . economic history is a long record of government policies that failed because they were designed with a bold disregard for the laws of economics.

.....

The issue is always the same: the government or the market. There is no third solution.

....

Capitalism and socialism are two distinct patterns of social organization. Private control of the means of production and public control are contradictory notions and not merely contrary notions. There is no such thing as a mixed economy, a system that would stand midway between capitalism and socialism.

....

Capitalism means free enterprise, sovereignty of the consumers in economic matters, and sovereignty of the voters in political matters. Socialism means full government control of every sphere of the individuals life and the unrestricted supremacy of the government in its capacity as central board of production management.

.....

If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.

....

The desire for an increase of wealth can be satisfied through exchange, which is the only method possible in a capitalist economy, or by violence and petition as in a militarist society, where the strong acquire by force, the weak by petitioning.

reply to post by neo96


No.

Welfare = 10%

Military = 40%

Right now.

Edit to add: ok Neo I misread the 40% is total government spending.

reply to post by LDragonFire


Someone is saying:

10% for welfare which is most likely the single program called welfare, but there are many forms of welfare in this country, Then turn around and say we are spending 40% on defense.

Don't see it that way it is going to cost more as the years go by, but another way to look at this is there are more people receiving welfare than there is in the active military force.

What people are doing is saying the we spend the most on defense sure they will post their graphics but when one adds social security,medicare,medicaid,prescription drugs,education,free homes,and free food and free cell phones and continually add more people and stuff, which can all be classified as welfare.

According to this site and a quick google search can verify this: there are 47-50 million on welfare which supposedly accounts for 10% of spending.

www.usdebtclock.org... (this link has been around for years and what people used to bash the last potus with)

2 trillion alone is being spent on social security and medicare both forms of welfare even tho they are not called welfare that account to close to 70 million Americans.

Now add the 50 million on welfare 120,000,000 Americans on welfare, the welfare complex.,but when one looks at defense spending that's what 700 billion?

We are currently spending double on welfare than defense people get caught up in percentages but the numbers and the dollar amounts say otherwise.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Beanskinner

 

A person on welfare generates the same way. They pass their state provided money In exchange for goods and services that do generate Tax revenue. Those businesses Emply people with those funds to, and those people Generate revenue. Same principle

Not quite tax revenue going to welfare is collected in two ways new wealth introduced via income tax and a second tax revenue generated by other taxes.

The key there is new wealth introduced in to that model by private means by the private sector, The money generated is continually recycled and new people introduced thus taking more private wealth tax revenue generation introduced into that closed system.

So no not the same principle.

edit on 27-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

It is certainly the same principle. Welfare money is introduced into the

Private system where it is used to pay rent, utilities, suppliers, employees.

That money is no longer government money when it enters into the economy.

The people who receive that money are being generative. They in

Turn use that same money in a generative manner. The only person that

Is not generating in that cash flow cycle is the first recipient . A closed

Economic system would be if the welfare person paid the funds directly

Back to the government. But that is not the case, that money circulates

Freely with private funds

Still no for the simple fact that private wealth is disproportionate in the closed system.Meaning the more a person makes the more they pay via income tax and the more they spend in all those other areas,but they are not they are taking more out of that system than they are returning.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Exposing what true progressives want to do to this country is not trolling....if you think what you believe in makes people mad than that is for YOU to deal with not me.....

Hillary Clinton has admitted she is a progressive and Obama is also one he just doesn't have the $%^# to admit it...because as we all know he only says what gets him votes when he needs them. Socialists/progressives believe the means of production should be owned by the workers and that wealth should be redistributed in ways such as welfare which the op and I seem to disagree with...if the op has a problem with my posts than he can tell me himself...thank you.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Honestly,you can find thousand of instances ,to back your case.


Sad.

Originally posted by neo96
Still no for the simple fact that private wealth is disproportionate in the closed system.Meaning the more a person makes the more they pay via income tax and the more they spend in all those other areas,but they are not they are taking more out of that system than they are returning.

Yes I am sorry to say that you are wrong - Welfare dollars and "private" dollars are not

segregated in the economy, a dollar you have in your pocket could very well have been

introduced into circulation by a welfare recipient. Does that change the fact that you worked for

it? Or that you can go out and use it?

And what closed system are you talking about? America's economy is not a closed system,

anyone can participate.

You know, if we are not gonna use logic here, lets just let it go.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Exposing what true progressives want to do to this country is not trolling....if you think what you believe in makes people mad than that is for YOU to deal with not me.....

Hillary Clinton has admitted she is a progressive and Obama is also one he just doesn't have the $%^# to admit it...because as we all know he only says what gets him votes when he needs them. Socialists/progressives believe the means of production should be owned by the workers and that wealth should be redistributed in ways such as welfare which the op and I seem to disagree with...if the op has a problem with my posts than he can tell me himself...thank you.

I am interested to hear what someone else thinks I want to do to this country -

I think the more shocking thing is how you guys can demonize the idea of feeding

hungry Americans.

Because that what I wanna do