Before There Was Welfare There Was Charity

reply to post by Maslo

You claimed that this theory is testable, and failed. I think such a bold claim requires reliable source, regardless of his request.

Theories, at least impliedly so, must be testable!

As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories.

If the hypothesis is that the government is better equipped to be charitable than the private sector, if it is going to become a theory it must be testable. If I have failed to prove your hypothesis is testable, and since you've declined to prove your hypothesis is testable, then it must not be a theory, and just a failed hypothesis.

reply to post by timetothink


So am I to assume that if you are being honest with us, poor people aren't living on your hard earned dollar in the first place. Not that I have anything against stay at home parents, as a fellow parent I can completely understand why some people would not desire others to take care of their children. Plus we also have extremely unfair childcare prices if we have more than one child that about renders it pointless for both parents to work unless of course each one is earning a good wage and they would still profit from both working. Even though if someone who might still see household profit by working would rather raise their children, I see that as a very fair right of theirs that nobody should be ale to take away as long as the one working is able to provide for the family without the need of welfare assistance.

If your husband is a police officer he certainly doesn't make very much money, please do not misinterpret my words, I'm not trying to put your husband down in any way, I'm just saying that as a police officer he isn't being paid a fair wage, they don't make much - one of my uncles is one. If you have children you guys get a tax return, something that those who are opposing welfare also oppose. If your husband is the only one working, as a police officer, and you guys have children and you do not receive a tax refund every year then I do not know what kind of police officer he is because my uncle has been a cop for like 15 years, his wife works as a secretary ( or whatever they are for the police department, same work as a secretary) they have two teenage children still living with them and one in college and they get a tax refund with the both of them working.

However, hypothetically speaking of course, if someone is not a parent yet still decides to be a homemaker then they are simply using an excuse not to enter the workforce like the rest of society. Especially considering all of the extra money the couple could be saving and investing into their future retirement with both people working full time, hell lots of people without children are able to retire early by using such a method. Also they would not have to rely on the SSI that everyone opposing welfare hates so much. Any caring spouse would desire for their husband/wife to be able to retire early. This is why I have such a low opinion of the ever increasingly popular with my generation stay-at-home non-moms, all such a thing does is prove laziness, greediness, and a lack of personal responsibility, all of which are concepts that those opposing welfare are appalled by, rightfully so too, hell those concepts appall even me and I am a completely irresponsible unintelligent failure in support of welfare even though I do believe that it is very much in need of a drastic overhaul.

Please note that the last paragraph was not directed toward you or anyone else here. I'm sure that as an ATS poster you are a homemaker for all of the right reasons. I have nothing but much respect for stay at home mothers and fathers because I know that is a full time job that is indeed much more demanding than many other full time jobs in this world. Properly raising and teaching ones children and preparing them for this crazy little world we live in is very commendable. Unfortunately there are far too many stay at home parents abusing the system today while neglecting their children and using the free money that is given to them in order to help support those children on other things and not the children, hell I've witnessed people "trade" credit on their food stamp card for drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, cash, and even sex - sad but true and I do not deny it, such things disgust me though. Fortunately those kinds of people represent only a small portion of the population around me so I am very aware of the fact that not "all" people abuse the system, as someone who is surrounded by this I can legitimately claim that most do no such thing, not the people around here anyway.

Most of my friends and family b!t(h and complain at me because I am a "moderate." Their words and I can understand why even though many on the far right whine that I'm on the far left and many on the far left whine that I'm on the far right, and I have even been called an anarchist... As someone who considers himself to fit somewhere in the middle I do not prefer to personally accept any of our political terminology as a proper description of myself because none of them can adequately describe who I am. Yeah, I'm not a "socialist" or "communist," wow, I'm shocked too!
So I have shown you all that I can peacefully play on both sides of the field and agree with many of your opinion just maybe not as extreme as some of you and I prefer to consider all implications.Could you please try to show some compassion and attempt to see where I am coming from in my opinions now?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You have claimed the theory is testable, and has been falsified. Are you now denying your own words?:

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

And I agree, it is indeed testable, and I have linked a study that concludes that it significantly reduces poverty. You have failed to prove that welfare state reducing poverty is false (or not testable). So far you have provided some anecdotal evidences, and theoretical masturbations about how welfare is incompatible with Lockian concept of liberty or rights. None of which falsify the theory that welfare reduces poverty and increases the equality of chances (and thus quality of life).

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Beanskinner

 

There isn't just one answer and it doesn't happen overnight...you really are approaching this in a childish manner...
welfare would have to be phased out....but it needs to start. I didn't go to college and get a degree in economics or community planning but i am smart enough that something needs to be done and soon....and it will take smarter minds than you and I to figure it out...you are being disingenuous by thinking you have the only answer. Welfare is not the only answer...it is the worst answer.

well there is a real answer, was that so hard?

I never said I had the answer

My point was to have you and the others realize that addressing poverty cannot be done with an

ax or a blow torch. Each action you sets off another chain of events that might be necesarily worse

than the thing you are trying remedy. Trying to fix poverty by stripping tens of millions of people of

all resources would be catastrophic if it were done in quick secession. My point was to get you

guys conceptually contend with the aftermath which is something like this



The very reason we don't have this, is because we actively push against this as a society

which includes welfare AND charity alike.

Expansive amounts of extreme poverty existing in America would change the entire face of

America and the economy, namely by changing the face of real estate, an increase in sanitation,

disease, policing and prison.

Originally posted by Beanskinner

The very reason we don't have this, is because we actively push against this as a society

which includes welfare AND charity alike.

Expansive amounts of extreme poverty existing in America would change the entire face of

America and the economy, namely by changing the face of real estate, an increase in sanitation,

disease, policing and prison.

Actually, you can find that in the U.S.. You can find tent cities, you can find people living in drainage tunnels, and you can find scenes like this in Texas and Mississippi.

reply to post by Maslo


Honestly, you are wasting your time. I don't always agree with you but, your arguments tend to be centered in logic and I can see the basis for them. You consistently provide statistically and scientific evidence for the opinions you share. The argument being made in the OP is an ideological one and thus your efforts for a scientific discussion are for naught. There is no evidence presented beyond how much people give to charity-This doesn't prove anything other than people give to charity.

ATS seems to be about extremes-Extreme individualism or extreme collectivism. The middle ground is always shunned. The reality is "rugged individualism" can get you killed outside of the collective, modern society we have today.

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by Beanskinner

The very reason we don't have this, is because we actively push against this as a society

which includes welfare AND charity alike.

Expansive amounts of extreme poverty existing in America would change the entire face of

America and the economy, namely by changing the face of real estate, an increase in sanitation,

disease, policing and prison.

Actually, you can find that in the U.S.. You can find tent cities, you can find people living in drainage tunnels, and you can find scenes like this in Texas and Mississippi.

I know my trash bins get riled through every collection day.

I am really trying to highlight that I have seen square miles

Of this, a few times in various places. I think America could

Go there if we do not figure it out this mess.

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by Maslo

 

Honestly, you are wasting your time. I don't always agree with you but, your arguments tend to be centered in logic and I can see the basis for them. You consistently provide statistically and scientific evidence for the opinions you share. The argument being made in the OP is an ideological one and thus your efforts for a scientific discussion are for naught. There is no evidence presented beyond how much people give to charity-This doesn't prove anything other than people give to charity.

ATS seems to be about extremes-Extreme individualism or extreme collectivism. The middle ground is always shunned. The reality is "rugged individualism" can get you killed outside of the collective, modern society we have today.

Ain't that the truth. In my experiences nobody ever wants to hear what you have to say if you are not an extremest supporting one side or the other. Knowing that this is indeed an ideological argument, I have attempted to offer ideological views and continue to be shunned simply because of the fact that I am saying that maybe we should consider all steps and all possible implications. People seem to not understand that one of the very reasons that our government is so screwed today is because of failure to consider all steps and implications. People want things done they way they want them but those same people do not want to do the work required to get the results they desire. You offer thorough and logically consideration and you are "unintelligent" and "irresponsible." Oh the irony...

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by Beanskinner

The very reason we don't have this, is because we actively push against this as a society

which includes welfare AND charity alike.

Expansive amounts of extreme poverty existing in America would change the entire face of

America and the economy, namely by changing the face of real estate, an increase in sanitation,

disease, policing and prison.

Actually, you can find that in the U.S.. You can find tent cities, you can find people living in drainage tunnels, and you can find scenes like this in Texas and Mississippi.

This is a photo of people rummaging through a trash dump, certainly not their living quarters.
One mans trash is another mans treasure. People sifting through trash, living in tent cities, drainage tunnels isn't necessarlly a failure of charity or welfare, sometimes its a choice. We had an alcholic living in a cardboard makeshift room behind the warehouse where I worked. He couldn't afford to have his spirits and days off if he had to pay for housing, electric and transportation to work and the store. So he chose to live at his part-time job

My parents went through a rough period once while trying to raise four children. We had to live at a 24hr daycare while Mom and Dad lived in a tent, in the woods, not too far from their jobs. They put us in the daycare for fear of the State taking us before they could provide proper housing.
The place they lived at, I suspect, was probably a popular fishing/camping spot, as I remember seeing other tents and a lake.
Although they lived in a tent, the entire area was clean. There was no litter lying around. They were clean- looking and in no time, they saved enough money to rent a house. My family was together again. I do recall us getting assistance from the State but it wasn't for long. To this day, I don't remember my high school drop-out parents EVER blaming anyone for their mistakes, bad choices. It wasn't up to the State to feed, clothe and house this family of six......until we were satisfied.
The men in the picture do not represent the need or failures of charity or welfare.

Originally posted by sweetliberty

The men in the picture do not represent the need or failures of charity or welfare.

edit on 30-5-2012 by sweetliberty because: spelling

edit on 30-5-2012 by sweetliberty because: (no reason given)

I never said the photo represented any of these things.

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by sweetliberty

The men in the picture do not represent the need or failures of charity or welfare.

edit on 30-5-2012 by sweetliberty because: spelling

edit on 30-5-2012 by sweetliberty because: (no reason given)

I never said the photo represented any of these things.

That's what Bean was talking about when you replied to him.
I apologize for such a delay in responding, ...for some reason the reply button wouldn't accept my command.
I finally had to restart everything.

reply to post by doomedtoday


I do see your side...me reply before was just to show you that it is not fair to jump to conclusions about someone which is what you did to me first. The whole reason I had to stay home in the first place was a combination of factors....first off my husband was smart about finances as a young man so we were able to put 50% down on our house, we bought a house way below what we could afford in the neighborhood where he grew up which was on a decline and had very low taxes. I was a retail mgr at the time (no degree) between my hours and my husbands and the fact that there was no family to help with the children, it was the best and only choice (we did try daycare for awhile).
Since I never had "a calling" for a career" the raising of my children and taking care of my husband so he could advance became my life. Because of this he is able to work whenever he wants without thought or worry...he is k-9, drug recognition, breathelyzer certifyer(sp?), academy teacher.....so it has worked out perfect for both of us.....it has been very hard at times...I felt slighted...like I gave up my wishes....but I am working through that...life is about compomise no selfishness.

That said.....if someone has a husband or wife who agrees with them staying home children or no and they can afford with no help from anyone else....who's business is that?? The problem is being on assistance and not working when you should and can. It is all a difference between your money or taking a strangers forcebly which is what welfare is.

SS is your own money given back to you...different again than welfare, but it is to the point where more is given back then put in so it has transformed into another form of partial welfare...that is why all the systems need to be fixed.

I see too much fraud in the world to ignore welfare and ss and say oh just let it go.....one compromise would be to stop taking income taxes from people and only collect consumption (VAT) tax...the richer someone is the more they buy the more they pay in taxes..and tax corps. But taking income tax from hard working people to give to non workers creates contempt..

Just a note....another option I am open to is a work for welfare which I said before and a payback system..even if it is volunteer work when you get on your feet, help others like you with job training or help the homeless...pay it forward....get skin in the game.

We have sacrificed and lived below our means so I could stay home....while the economy is so bad...I see it the opposite as you in that...if I don't need the money right now...(it would be great)...but we don't need assistance (never have) why should I go take up a job from someone who NEEDS it to feed their family? I feel the same way about these well off upper middle class baby boomers (in my family too) that refuse to retire...let a young person have that job already....people need those jobs....

Sorry if I am rambling and all over the place...my daughter keeps yacking in my ear...

reply to post by doomedtoday


Forgot to reply to the "poor people not living on my money "thing because only my husband works...it is my money...my families money via my husband...it should be used for my family...my husband risks his life everyday to provide for us...he doesn't risk his life for someone else's families expenses...doesn't he give enough of himself in his job??

reply to post by antonia


Beanskinner associates the photo with extreme poverty. Its what he feels America would look like if Welfare abruptly ends.
You replied to him that there are in fact, places in Texas and Miss.
You spoke about the tent cities and drainage tunnels.
I posted to you because the photo isn't a photo that represents welfare or charity neither is it a failure of welfare or charity.
Its a photo of men digging for possibilities...

As far as extreme goes, I feel if someone or something forces people to fund welfare, its called thieft.
Its also a lack of trust in Americans, that we wouldn't care enough to help our neighbors.
What would you consider a middle ground?

Thanks

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by doomedtoday

 

I do see your side...me reply before was just to show you that it is not fair to jump to conclusions about someone which is what you did to me first.
SS is your own money given back to you...different again than welfare, but it is to the point where more is given back then put in so it has transformed into another form of partial welfare...that is why all the systems need to be fixed.

I see too much fraud in the world to ignore welfare and ss and say oh just let it go.....one compromise would be to stop taking income taxes from people and only collect consumption (VAT) tax...the richer someone is the more they buy the more they pay in taxes..and tax corps. But taking income tax from hard working people to give to non workers creates contempt..

Just a note....another option I am open to is a work for welfare which I said before and a payback system..even if it is volunteer work when you get on your feet, help others like you with job training or help the homeless...pay it forward....get skin in the game.
.

I never meant to sound as if I was jumping to conclusions about you. I was commenting toward the guy that commented on your comment. I understand if it might have seemed otherwise from the quote box, I just want to clear up that my immature comment towards another immature comment was not intended to be directed at you.

The thing about SS is that if all people got back was what they put in then they wouldn't be getting very much back, not to mention that the value of that exact same amount would be lower in the future when they do get it back so it is as if they would actually be getting less back than they put in. SS needs to be completely taken out anyway because my generation is paying it now and wont receive a single dime of it in 45 years when we're 70 because it wont be there, oh and they keep jacking up the retirement age anyway, so most of us will be dead before we qualify, why should we be paying it...

I agree 100% that those over 18 receiving welfare should be earning it, maybe then they wouldn't expect to be supported by it because if they have to work anyway why not go work for better pay. I'm just saying that some people really do need the help and I do not believe it would be right to just leave those people hanging. But the system really is so screwed up right now, but whatever we do, however we change it, someone will still call assistance to those who need it welfare and complain that there should be none. We can't solely rely on the charity of churches because not everybody is the same religion and also in my area the churches have been turning people away lately because they lack the financial means to help everyone who needs it.

My issue with the anti welfare idea is that nobody has told me how they would ensure equal opportunity for all children. Right now those kids can go to school if they want to, but if support for all forms of education were removed what happens when parents can't send their children to school? Or even worse, what about the crappy parents who would say that their children don't need an education. Those kids don't even get a choice. This is a sensitive subject for me because if parents were required to ensure a childs education I would have been one of those children who never got a chance in life and would have nothing to look forward to but a lifetime of poverty and everyone would treat me as scum of the earth because of the actions and choices of my parents. I am not so conceded as to believe that I am alone, there are indeed many others in similar situations and IF I am every lucky enough to be wealthy you better believe that I will do everything I can to help those children. They didn't ask for what they got in life.

Some people say you don't need an education after high school, you can work your way up on the job. This is somewhat true in department stores, grocery stores, and restaurants but that's about it these days. Times have indeed changed and it is now all but a requirement to have that little piece of paper for just about ever job but middle management. I wouldn't complain one bit about never having had to take student loans and just be trained on the job for engineering, but being realistic here, fat chance...

Until we change A LOT more than just the welfare system education is a necessity in our society. Sure, some people can get lucky and manage to get by and eventually work their way up in those jobs that do not require an education but not everyone is good at those kinds of jobs. I suck at fast food, I'd never be promoted to management because there would be much more deserving people than myself. I am good with fixing things and electrical work, and I can easily grasp mathematical concepts, so why shouldn't I be able to be an engineer? It IS honest work.

reply to post by Maslo

You have claimed the theory is testable, and has been falsified. Are you now denying your own words?:

On the contrary, I was calling you out on your poor choice of words.

None of which falsify the theory that welfare reduces poverty and increases the equality of chances (and thus quality of life).

Is this what you mean by "equality of chances (and thus quality of life)?

Allowance benefits vary in what is paid out to individuals or families for any of the welfare programs. As each state regulates their own SRS programs, payment allowances will vary from state to state based on geography, cost of living and employment/educational opportunities within that state.

However, a basic average guideline for the food stamp program will show that an average family of 4 can expect an amount up to $500 per month for food stamps. This figure will greatly vary based on the age of the family members and medical needs. A single person household will show an expected average of up to $200 per month. Again, these figures are averages and not state specific.

Cash allowance benefits for financial assistance will also be state regulated and allowances paid will also vary based on different criteria. However, an average expectation can be placed on a family of 4 receiving up to $900 for their TANF allowance. A single person household can expect an average of up to $300.

A family of four, on average, can expect to gain $1,400 a month between cash assistance and food stamps. Combined that's a yearly income of $16,800.

These allowance benefits would be separate from any additional welfare benefits received such as child care, medical or utility assistance.

Even as you look at these welfare amounts, it is not surprising that the current allowance benefits seldom if ever make ends meet for the recipient. The institutionalized program was set up to be an offset measure for those in need, not a complete replacement of income and benefits. The downside to this is that as the economy continues to take a nosedive, so does the available means for those living with minimal income. A family of 4 cannot live on $900 a month. Additionally, criminal activities meant to defraud the SRS program greatly limit the available funds for those who truly need and make the regulations stricter, in some cases too strict, eliminating the benefits for those who truly need it.

The Census Burea Poverty Threshold:

The poverty guideline figures are not the figures the Census Bureau uses to calculate the number of poor persons. The figures that the Census Bureau uses are the poverty thresholds. The Census Bureau provides an explanation of the difference between poverty thresholds and guidelines.[15] The Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty.[14] The 2010 figure for a family of 4 with no children under 18 years of age is $22,541, while the figure for a family of 4 with 2 children under 18 is $22,162.[16] For comparison, the 2011 HHS poverty guideline for a family of 4 is $22,350.

Is this your idea of "equality of chances (thus equality of life)? Are you telling us that a family of four receiving, on average, $5,550 less than the HHS poverty guideline? Is this your idea of "equality of chances"? Really?

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by Maslo

 

Honestly, you are wasting your time. I don't always agree with you but, your arguments tend to be centered in logic and I can see the basis for them. You consistently provide statistically and scientific evidence for the opinions you share. The argument being made in the OP is an ideological one and thus your efforts for a scientific discussion are for naught. There is no evidence presented beyond how much people give to charity-This doesn't prove anything other than people give to charity.

ATS seems to be about extremes-Extreme individualism or extreme collectivism. The middle ground is always shunned. The reality is "rugged individualism" can get you killed outside of the collective, modern society we have today.

People have been brainwashed into believing capitalism is not extreme individualism and that all forms of socialism are extreme collectivism. That is the most pathetic part of the left-right paradigm. Individualism has its place and collectivism has its place. Something in the middle is ideal and I have been saying this for ages.

Capitalism IS extreme individualism because money constantly trickles UPWARDS to the bussiness man and the bankers who issue the money. Reagan got his theory mixed up! I see lots of people who are cheering for privatisation of everything(schools, charity, prisons, transportation) with lots of specious arguements(not thought out well).

There is no political literacy in the west and the PTB take full advantage twisting things out of context to confuse people. From my experience most right wingers will not admit to voting republican and some do not even admit to being conservative. Left wingers on the other hand are much more upfront with their choices and some even admit to being communists.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Is this your idea of "equality of chances (thus quality of life)? Are you telling us that a family of four receiving, on average, $5,550 less than the HHS poverty guideline? Is this your idea of "equality of chances"? Really?

Well, its far better than nothing, isnt it?
I dont see your point.. Are you arguing that the welfare payment is too low and should be increased to meet the official poverty limit? I am not much familiar with American welfare system (or American financial realities for that matter, those numbers do not tell me much), but perhaps you are right.

reply to post by Maslo

Well, its far better than nothing, isnt it? I dont see your point.. Are you arguing that the welfare payment is too low and should be increased to meet the official poverty limit? I am not much familiar with American welfare system (or American financial realities for that matter, those numbers do not tell me much), but perhaps you are right.

Far from arguing that "welfare programs" aren't paying enough, I am arguing that charity can do the same, but that point you want to ignore and pretend that if we ended compulsory taxation to fund wealth redistribution that these people on government assistance would have nothing.

Of course, in 1995, The Cato Institute made this claim:

Welfare Pays Better Than Work, Study Finds $36,000 a Year in Hawaii

Welfare benefits are far more generous than commonly thought and substantially exceed the amount a recipient could earn in an entry-level job. As a result, recipients are likely to choose welfare over work, increasing long-term dependence. Those are the principal findings in "The Work vs. Welfare Trade-Off" (Policy Analysis no. 240) by Michael Tanner, director of health and welfare studies; Stephen Moore, director of fiscal policy studies; and David Hartman, CEO of Hartland Bank in Austin, Texas. The paper was released at the height of the welfare debate in Congress.

The study examines the combined value of benefits--including Aid to Families with Dependent Children, food stamps, Medicaid, and others--for a typical welfare recipient in each of the 50 states. The value of those tax-free benefits is then compared with the amount of take-home income a worker would have left after paying taxes on an equivalent pretax income. The following are among the study's findings.

The Cato Institute is adding other welfare benefits to come to these figures, but it also brings us right back to the bold claim that welfare "reduces poverty and increases the equality of chances (and thus quality of life)" Based upon the Cato Report figures "equality of chances" must mean an opportunity to avoid working at low paying jobs because hour for hour in 17 states in 1995 were paying out in welfare benefits well above the minimum wage, as high as $17.50 and hour in Hawaii, and as low as $10 an hour in Minnesota, but the remaining states come out to be much less, Mississippi being the lowest at $5.53 an hour. Is this is what is meant by "equality of chances"? Should a welfare recipient in Mississippi move to Hawaii and collect welfare in that state in order to ensure their "equality of chances"?

The problem with understanding all these figures, is they vary state to state, so understanding how this affects the welfare of a nation means analyzing the state by state pay-outs, program by program. If a single man not living on any government assistance and living in the State of New York needs government assistance for his medical bills, Medicaid will only help him if he is earning $735 a month or less, or $8,818 a year.

Anyone even attempting to live without government assistance programs like cash assistance and food stamps just better not get sick, and its their own damn fault for attempting to live off of the government dole. Live on the government dole, and that Medicaid assistance will be there for you, but try to make a go of it on your own? The audacity of such thing, especially if that effort only produces roughly $9,000 a year means you're on your own with other "welfare" programs. This is the so called compassion that all these socialist "welfare" advocates are preaching. This is their ideology.