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.
In the final analysis, the arguments that social safety nets are not needed is really silly and simply not backed up by the facts. The ONLY legitimate question, is "how much is sufficient?" - and NO ONE knows the answer to that - not you, not me, not anyone. Has Arizona overdone it's welfare cuts? I don't know. All I DO know for sure is that no successful nation can survive without SOME form of social safety net.
You've created a straw man argument, Lord Balfor. The argument is not against safety nets per se, but compulsory safety nets. I have to pay taxes to support government safety nets whether I want to or not. If I choose to not to pay into these programs, the state can take me to prison. That's immoral and evil. Civil society will take care of the defenseless and the poor. You're right, no successful nation can survive without a safety net, but civil society will do that without the state.
You've created a straw man argument, Lord Balfor. The argument is not against safety nets per se, but compulsory safety nets. I have to pay taxes to support government safety nets whether I want to or not. If I choose to not to pay into these programs, the state can take me to prison. That's immoral and evil. Civil society will take care of the defenseless and the poor. You're right, no successful nation can survive without a safety net, but civil society will do that without the state.
Well apparently there's no such thing as a "civil society" because there is NO successful state that provides that safely net without the state being involved - none, nada, zip, not a single one on the entire planet. On the other hand there's a pretty sizable collection of failed or failing states that don't. Where would you rather live - here or one of those basket-cases?
Sounds to me like there's something wrong with your entire premise. The fact is, if you are living here, you are receiving the benefits of the social stability that social spending helps create. Why SHOULDN'T you help pay for it? The reality is, EVERYONE benefits from that social stability - even you and other people like you who don't get DIRECT benefits. So WHY shouldn't it be complusory? Should YOU reap the benefits of social stability WITHOUT paying for it? I don't think so. Anyone who doesn't want to pay for that social stability needs to visit a place like Somalia where this IS no social safety net. THEN they might just realize just how good a deal they are getting with their tax dollars.
Social spending does for internal stability what national defense spending does for keeping aggressive foreign nations at bay. BOTH are necessary at least to some degree. Otherwise you are just courting disaster.
You've created a straw man argument, Lord Balfor. The argument is not against safety nets per se, but compulsory safety nets. I have to pay taxes to support government safety nets whether I want to or not. If I choose to not to pay into these programs, the state can take me to prison. That's immoral and evil. Civil society will take care of the defenseless and the poor. You're right, no successful nation can survive without a safety net, but civil society will do that without the state.
yeah, let's model ourselves after a government that doesn't protect the public from businesses gone wild & doesn't provide an effective safety net.
Can you think of any examples?
I can - ever been to Mexico?
Mmmmm - soooo sweet for capitalists - all the justice you can buy & the poors are all meek & well-behaved.
Well apparently there's no such thing as a "civil society" because there is NO successful state that provides that safely net without the state being involved - none, nada, zip, not a single one on the entire planet. On the other hand there's a pretty sizable collection of failed or failing states that don't. Where would you rather live - here or one of those basket-cases?
This country grew spectacularly in the 19th century without any of those benefits. People came here in the millions even though the state promised nothing. And most of the countries you refer to (I'm assuming Europe, Asia) have bloated budgets and unsustainable debt. It's only a matter of time before they collapse.
Quote:
The fact is, if you are living here, you are receiving the benefits of the social stability that social spending helps create. Why SHOULDN'T you help pay for it? The reality is, EVERYONE benefits from that social stability - even you and other people like you who don't get DIRECT benefits. So WHY shouldn't it be complusory? Should YOU reap the benefits of social stability WITHOUT paying for it? I don't think so.
For the simple reason that I never asked for them. I don't want the government to give me anything. I don't want social security, Medicare, etc. If I don't want those benefits, I shouldn't have to pay for them. Social stability comes from a culture that respects life, liberty, and property. You don't need a welfare state for stability.
Quote:
Anyone who doesn't want to pay for that social stability needs to visit a place like Somalia where this IS no social safety net. THEN they might just realize just how good a deal they are getting with their tax dollars. Social spending does for internal stability what national defense spending does for keeping aggressive foreign nations at bay. BOTH are necessary at least to some degree. Otherwise you are just courting disaster.
The Somalia argument is old, Ken. Somalia was hellhole when it had a government (and in some ways, worse). In fact, Somalia is doing better than some African states. It's a hellhole because they people are tribal and don't care about property or life. Radical Islam doesn't help either. Denmark and Sweden are peaceful and stable because they have a culture of cooperation, not because they have a government-provided safety net. My point is civil society can provide its own safety net, through private charities, religious organizations, families, and neighbors. The state doesn't need to do that. The fact that the state spends so much on welfare is proof that the American people are generous.
People came here in the millions even though the state promised nothing. And most of the countries you refer to (I'm assuming Europe, Asia) have bloated budgets and unsustainable debt. It's only a matter of time before they collapse.
Denmark and Sweden are peaceful and stable because they have a culture of cooperation, not because they have a government-provided safety net. My point is civil society can provide its own safety net, through private charities, religious organizations, families, and neighbors. The state doesn't need to do that. The fact that the state spends so much on welfare is proof that the American people are generous.
Great points. The elephant in the room is being ignored and that's the massive growth in welfare spending in our country, especially over the last 5-10 years. We are putting band-aids on much deeper issues in our society in the name of "keeping the peace". That's a naive "solution", and fixes nothing, especially when the benefits go on and on and on. 108+ million people taking aren't all inept/I can't work people, far from it. Regardless, we have a major, major problem for the future of our country with so many people on the take. "Keeping the peace" is the least of our problems for the health of our nations future.
And I agree with you 100% on the private donations angle. That's where it should begin and end in my view. For the people here who are pro endless welfare benefits, they are free to open up their checkbooks and not drag others like ourselves(meanies like me!) who don't like enabling perpetual dependency with my tax dollars as I think it's counterproductive in the long run for people/the health of our nation as a whole. There's lots of various ways to give to organizations, donate one's time, etc. And again, this should be a temporary measure.....people need to step up. In a free society we can't force them to step up but as a society we can stop enabling such behavior with years and years of welfare and put a limit on it like AZ has at a small level. And there is plenty of money out there to give poor/poorer people a hand to go to be productive/independent(subsidized education for one), if they choose too. And given this thread is about AZ's 12 month benefit limit, one would think a few here believe the welfare plug has been cut 100% the way the comments are running.
For those who keep going on and on using the "enable/give the crying kid what he wants otherwise he'll keep crying/eventually throw a temperamental on society", when does your view change from keeping people on the welfare train without limits...when it gets to 50% of our country taking welfare? 75%? 90%? Or do you think, which appears to be the case, just keep handing out the free money to "keep the peace"? The money to pay for all of this with such a small number of people working at a certain point (tax dollars) is something that doesn't fit into your calculations as monopoly money will pay for it all? In my view, this is something far more to be concerned about if the welfare rolls keep growing as they have been in recent years.
This country grew spectacularly in the 19th century without any of those benefits. People came here in the millions even though the state promised nothing. And most of the countries you refer to (I'm assuming Europe, Asia) have bloated budgets and unsustainable debt. It's only a matter of time before they collapse.
No it didn't. The government had a HUGE "giveaway" in the 19th century - it was LAND - somebody ELSE'S land. Government welfare in the 1800s was "See that land out west. Go take it. If the people already living there resist, we'll send in the U.S. Army to put them in their place.". It most definitely the "welfare" of the age - one that few other countries were in a position to do. Once that land was all "taken" then there was no place to shuffle those poor people off to so they began to pile up in the cities. At which point some OTHER form of "government giveaway" was needed to maintain social stability. Either way, we've had such government giveaways since wayyyyyyyy back.
For the simple reason that I never asked for them. I don't want the government to give me anything. I don't want social security, Medicare, etc. If I don't want those benefits, I shouldn't have to pay for them. Social stability comes from a culture that respects life, liberty, and property. You don't need a welfare state for stability.
You'll take them nevertheless when the time comes.
Aside from that, you are ALREADY taking the social stability those "giveaways" provide for society at large.
The Somalia argument is old, Ken. Somalia was hellhole when it had a government (and in some ways, worse). In fact, Somalia is doing better than some African states. It's a hellhole because they people are tribal and don't care about property or life. Radical Islam doesn't help either. Denmark and Sweden are peaceful and stable because they have a culture of cooperation, not because they have a government-provided safety net. My point is civil society can provide its own safety net, through private charities, religious organizations, families, and neighbors. The state doesn't need to do that. The fact that the state spends so much on welfare is proof that the American people are generous.
It doesn't matter whether the Somalia argument is old or not, it still applies. The fact that Somalia was always a hellhole simply proves the point that such circumstances tend to lead to the chaos they have there today.
In regards to Denmark etc, that culture of cooperation IS WHY they have such good safety nets. They are one and the same.
To claim that we don't need a government social safety net here in America is pretty ignorant of history. I've already posted info about the social instability that was taking root in America during the Great Depression before such a safety net was put in place. America was NOT a stable place and the stability that was present was ALREADY starting to break down after just a couple of years of depression - and that was WITH private charities. So no, private charities is NOT enough to maintain social stability. That's WHY ALL modern nations have government support.
Again, if you disagree with that statement give me ONE modern successful nation of any significant size that does not have such a government social safety net. You can't because no such nation exists. There's a reason for that. They don't survive.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 06-27-2015 at 01:05 PM..
I live in a state that is THE place to come if you want to get state assistance. I look to your state as a beacon to retire to.
In the state I now live, we know what eventually happens when simply giving assistance to those who need it, morphs in to massive organized labor group to administer this help. It turns into a huge voting block. This organized group vote in mass in primary elections, they have the ability to "take out" those that don't agree with them, because they know the average voter mostly skip primary elections. i.e. Get ready all your taxes go up and up and up.
As much as the actual dollars involved in the assistance itself is large, the cost to administer the assistance is huge. These administrators receive, vacation pay, pensions, COLA's on the pensions, early retirees, double dipping pensioners, work place injuries that retire with tax free pensions. As I stated these worker/ administrators organize and unionize, and begin to vote one way... the way that give them more and more.
If a person is young and deemed healthy and receives assistance, they need to have any job in order to receive a government sty-pin to there pay for a fair amount of time. An add on that makes working more attractive, rather than not working at all, because they make more money simply collecting.
It's a two sided coin for sure, some people need help true enough, and some people just make a life learning how to work the system, generation to generation.
Unfortunately, Arizona is perceived by the rest of the nation as a "Mississippi" or an "Alabama" state. This is not the perception that will encourage quality growth for the future.
ENABLING and encouraging them to a lifestyle of dependency and laziness with no self-respect or motivation is anything but positive.
But how do we know they have no self-respect or motivation? The woman who wrote the Harry Potter books was enabled to write them by not having a job and being on welfare. Now she's one of the richest women in the world.
The best solution I can think of is to be sure those who are on welfare don't abuse the money, using it for drugs, booze, gambling, etc. One way to do that would be to provide them with spartan living accommodations but no actual cash. The woman who wrote the Harry Potter books could have written them from a small apartment while taking care of her baby there. The welfare should provide the small spartan apartment, spartan food, etc., to make sure they have no money to spend on drugs, booze, etc. Single people without children could get small studio apartments, total 250 square feet. The whole group of buildings with all the apartments should have a very large number of security guards, to make sure there is no gang activity there. There could be meeting rooms, auditoriums, etc., where the government and other organizations could provide classes, for the beneficiaries to learn job skills, job application skills, etc. The more spartan the accommodations, and the less access to drugs, booze, etc., the more people would be motivated to find jobs to get better lives. Maybe not even give them access to TV, except for a limited number of hours per week.
Unfortunately, Arizona is perceived by the rest of the nation as a "Mississippi" or an "Alabama" state. This is not the perception that will encourage quality growth for the future.
You're wrong there. The rest of the nation sees you guys as our retired cranky grandparents, not always up to speed on the latest and holding some odd antiquated views but not all bad and not ignorant just dated. We'd sit down to Sunday dinner with you anytime.
I know there are some less kind things you could say about New Mexicans so I hope you take that in the lighthearted spirit in which I meant it.
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.
) who don't like enabling perpetual dependency with my tax dollars as I think it's counterproductive in the long run for people/the health of our nation as a whole. There's lots of various ways to give to organizations, donate one's time, etc. And again, this should be a temporary measure.....people need to step up. In a free society we can't force them to step up but as a society we can stop enabling such behavior with years and years of welfare and put a limit on it like AZ has at a small level. And there is plenty of money out there to give poor/poorer people a hand to go to be productive/independent(subsidized education for one), if they choose too. And given this thread is about AZ's 12 month benefit limit, one would think a few here believe the welfare plug has been cut 100% the way the comments are running.
