Poll: Should the US become a welfare state? (dollar, money, government)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Swedens unemployment rate stands at 6.3 so obviously most of its inhabitants are working and not laying about collecting welfare. OP where are you getting your data on Sweden?
As for the US becoming a welfare state? dont you already have 50 million illegals on welfare,most blacks on welfare and a major portion of Democrats on welfare?
While one hand supposedly helps, the other reaches into your backet pocket and lifts your wallet. This describes every state run safety net scheme on planet earth.
An accurate description.
Remind me again, where the Constitution authorizes this for the Fed govt?
Government-coerced "help" paid by taxpayer money, is nothing more than theft and distribution of stolen goods.
automation drives economic productivity, which reduces the need for labor (and has the side effect of devaluing human labor, and thus human lives, in a sense.) This trend started around the industrial revolution and has kept accelerating.
In the 20th century, economic productivity reached a point where many people have no value to contribute to the economy, which is why we created the welfare state. The conditions that necessitated it have grown more severe , not less. This situation will only continue to grow more severe with further automation.
we really need it in the long term. i anticipate that at some point in the not-distant future we will reach a tipping point where advanced, shareholder-owned artificial intelligence is capable of running a profitable corporation with 0 employees. Imagine what would happen to rural America, for instance, when a farm is capable of being run by robots, truck drivers are all self-driving robots, and all logistical steps in-between are automated.
Ah I see how dare charity be mandated all those damn homeless people should just buy houses!
Mandated "charity" is a proper definition of theft. The thief needs your money to fund their food, clothing and shelter, so they take "charity" from you by force. Having a government do it does not change the act, it just makes it less intellectually honest.
And if government force is required to make people charitable, then people are not charitable and no system will make them charitable. All force does is make them cough up money against their will, it doesn't change the underlying value. Your stance therefore is that we as a society are not charitable and must be forced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BornintheSprings
That is a very heartless way of looking at the situation. Ultimately this right here is the main problem I have with libertarian ideology it is freedom for the wealthy and destitution for the poor. All this talk about private charity is just a smokescreen to cover the real horror that a society like that would create.
Understood. You do not think people can be charitable of their own volition and should be forced to help/fund others. Your disagreement with libertarianism therefore, is that it does not force people to do your bidding. Don't feel bad, that's 98% of the population in agreement with you, given normal libertarian vote tallies. Most people are convinced that without a government boot on their neck, people will not be good boys and girls, and they simply cannot envision a society that functions without that boot heel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BornintheSprings
Its a lot easier to become self sufficient if your housing food and other basic necessities aren't all you are worrying about.
Indeed. Maslow's hierarchy tells that tale. First survival, then safety, then all that high level feel-good-about-yourself stuff. Where you and I differ is that you feel survival for one requires compromising the safety of others by forcibly taking from them, as nobody will be charitable of their own volition. You have a very dim view of your fellow man, and it is that dim view that guides your belief that your fellow man must be put to the yoke by force in order to get the proper behavior.
Perhaps folks are unaware that the People's Democratic Socialist Republic has been in power since 1933, when folks accepted that government could "take" from one to "give" to another. That abolished absolute ownership of private property (in compliance with the communist manifesto).
As to the consequences of a system that penalizes the productive and rewards the nonproductive, look around.
Welcome to the People’s Democratic Socialist Republic of America... a full service perpetually bankrupt benevolent totalitarian police state where everything not mandatory, is taxed, licensed, regulated, registered, or forbidden... by your consent... until civilian disarmament. Then it will rapidly evolve into the glorious communist paradise it was always meant to be. So shut up, sit down, pay and obey!
[/sarcasm]
Is there a compelling logical explanation for left wing collectivism?
...
No. There is no logical explanation for compulsory charity and expropriation of property for the benefit of another. Slavery is not the solution to the ills of mankind.
...
However, there is an expedient explanation, due to money madness.
Under money madness, there are only THREE ways to acquire money tokens needed to purchase the necessities of life:
Due to the scarcity of money tokens, usury, automation and other factors, the supply and distribution of money leads many to believe that poverty is the lack of money. That is a fallacy, easily proven. If lack of money was the source of poverty, simply credit everyone with 22 billion billion quatloos, more money than they can ever need.
Does that eliminate poverty?
Of course not.
Unless people are productive, generating goods and services to offer for sale, the money is worthless, useless, and meaningless.
So when industry automates, and eliminates jobs, those who can no longer trade their labor are compelled to seek charity. And when private charity fails, predation is their only other option to acquire money tokens. That is unacceptable. Ergo, the purported solution is public charity - socialism / communism.
What is missing from that scenario is the fact that money madness is the problem. Prosperity is not based on money, but on production, equitable trade, and enjoyment of surplus usable goods and services.
How can we support production and trade?
The answer is found by a short series of questions:
__ Why can’t people buy what they need in stores?
__ Why can’t employers hire laborers?
__ Why can’t factories open up and make new products to sell?
The general answer is : money, as in “we don’t have enough!”
Who DOES have the power to create money?
It’s not Congress. Congress is only delegated power to coin money (stamp bullion) and borrow money. If it did have the power to create money, why would it need to borrow it?
Federal Reserve notes (dollar bills) are not dollars, but IOUs (debt). Created by debt, dollar bills are not lawful money. They operate as legal tender by a convoluted scam that tricks millions into being obligated parties.
The Fantastic Fourth
The fourth way to acquire the necessary money tokens to facilitate trade is for the producers to CREATE the money tokens needed to trade their labor and production.
In other words, bypass the scarce money mad system of debt-credit, and issue private promissory notes / liberty monies.
An unemployed worker issues a note, denominated in his labor, and trades that for his necessities instead of seeking public charity. Eventually, the holder in due course, tenders that note for discharge, and the worker fulfills his promise. As long as the laborer’s notes are satisfactorily discharged, his word bond is good enough for continual issuance of all the money he needs to buy his necessities. No longer is the worker at the mercy of the masters of money madness. And since prosperity is based on production, and not on money tokens, the proliferation of notes in a local market instigates a boost in goods and services produced, traded and enjoyed.
This also extends to entrepreneurs and business owners, who can issue notes, instead of beg for credit, at usury. Now, people have the money (notes) to buy what laborers have produced. Now, employers can hire laborers (via notes). Now, factories can open up and produce goods and issue the notes necessary to buy their production. Prosperity is no longer throttled nor strangled by the money mad system and usury.
Of course, those whose wealth and power derive from money madness will be financially ruined and denied power. Which may explain why no one dares to whisper this in the mass media.
Recapping: Money madness is the root of the problem. The poverty plague of scarce money, collectivism and usury is eradicated by the power of the free people to issue their own medium of exchange (i.e., private promissory notes, etc) to facilitate trade of their production.
Once free people issue their own money, there is no logical reason to tolerate theft by government (socialism) nor capitulation to usurers (for their “credit”). And once prodigious production of surplus is evident, society can afford to be generous to those who are incapacitated and cannot engage in productive activities, via private charity, without government coercion or meddling.
And if government force is required to make people charitable, then people are not charitable and no system will make them charitable. All force does is make them cough up money against their will, it doesn't change the underlying value. Your stance therefore is that we as a society are not charitable and must be forced.
....
You do not think people can be charitable of their own volition and should be forced to help/fund others. Your disagreement with libertarianism therefore, is that it does not force people to do your bidding. Don't feel bad, that's 98% of the population in agreement with you, given normal libertarian vote tallies. Most people are convinced that without a government boot on their neck, people will not be good boys and girls, and they simply cannot envision a society that functions without that boot heel.
History and other countries have shown us that not enough people are "charitable of their own volition" or generous enough to fairly support our poor and needy.
Here is an interesting article about New Zealand- a country which moved away from the welfare model in the early 1990s:
While the economy has improved on paper, the poverty rate has increased to 1 in 7, the crime rate has significantly increased, as has the number of incarcerated and the suicide rate.
From the article:
Quote:
Yet food banks are run by volunteers and rely on donations - from the Salvation Army; from Anglicans, who parade into church carrying packets of rice and cornflakes; from supermarket shoppers, who can drop a spare can of peaches or baked beans into bins specially provided at check-outs. Charity being charity, there is never enough to go around, so a family may receive assistance only once every six weeks.
History and other countries have shown us that not enough people are "charitable of their own volition" or generous enough to fairly support our poor and needy.
Here is an interesting article about New Zealand- a country which moved away from the welfare model in the early 1990s:
While the economy has improved on paper, the poverty rate has increased to 1 in 7, the crime rate has significantly increased, as has the number of incarcerated and the suicide rate.
From the article:
1) That article is from 1994, and studies a 3 year period after the 1990 shift away from the welfare state.
2) New Zealand's current poverty rate is defined under terms that are 20% higher household income than OECD definition of poverty, which artificially inflates their poverty rate compared to other OECD nations. If New Zealand used the OECD definition, their current poverty rate is right at the OECD average of ~11.5%, versus the over-inflated 14-15% they report. So they have the same poverty rate as OECD nations with massive welfare systems, like the US, currently rocking a 13.5% poverty rate. But wait...
3) New Zealand ran a 0.7% budget surplus last year, and their public debt as % of GDP went from 33.3% in 2016 to 32% in 2017. So they have a lower poverty rate than the US, run a budget surplus, and are actually lowering their publicly held debt as a percentage of GDP on a YOY basis. This while maintaining an average of 3-3.5% annual GDP growth?
Seems like if anything, New Zealand is a good example of why massive reduction in the welfare state is a good thing. They have a lower percentage of poor people than we do, and oh look...budget surpluses and DECREASING national debt. Longer life expectancy than the US, better infant mortality rates than the US, and they score better on NAEP reading and math scores.
Again, their comparative successes relative to massive welfare state nations is a pretty solid advertisement for ditching the statist control schemes. Same/lower poverty rate, better everywhere else. Makes me want to move there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
