A voice of reason from the left of center

Because people that love to bitch about these so called "give away" programs usually have no understanding of what they have actually accomplished and how much they do for the greater good of the country.

Click to expand...

BWA HA HA HA HA!!!

Damn, that's good... Oh wait, you were being serious.

After you have lived elsewhere were such programs do not exist you start to realize tha,t despite the small percentage of people that abuse the system, these programs have helped the coutry greatly.

Click to expand...

Yep. Been there, done that.

Small percentage? Ever worked/lived in any major innercity in America? Social give away programs have done more damage to the American family than anything else I can think of. I've been into housing projects filled with thousands of 3rd and 4th generation welfare recepiants who've never worked a day in their life. Dead bodies could lay in the gutter for days. Police wouldn't enter unless they were in groups of six or more. The only people who lived there who had ambition were the drug dealers.

So yes, I've lived in a few different places. Thanks.

Give away and entitlement programs run contrary to human nature. They are a foul soul sucking disease.

Imagine a country were disease ran rampant because of no social health care system, where interior infastructure was private built and owned and not accessable to the general public, where no public school system existed so the majority of people were uneducated, where no unemployemt compensation existed so more people were unemployed and starving.

Click to expand...

Most countries that have rampant disease problems suffer from a corrupt and bloated government. And whoa, wait a second, the most disease ridden countries on the planet usually have massive health/food/sanitation give away programs from other nations. Sadly, like most soul sucking give away programs these things usually cause the opposite result. Kind of like all of our food shipments putting all of the Ethiopian farmers out of business.

How many countries have an infrastructure that is not accesable to the general public? You seem to be the world traveler, but off the top of my head, I'm having a hard time thinking of that one that fits.

Yep, public school makes people smart. Before public schooling, everyone everywhere was an illiterate buffoon. Interesting, how as a college graduate of above average intelligence I was barely able to pass an 8th grade graduation exam from 1776.

These places do exist and if you have not experienced them I suggest you get down and thank your lucky stars that you have not had to experience them before you open your yap and complain about something of which you know nothing besides the sound bites you have heard on conservative talk radio from some drug addict..

Click to expand...

And before you open your yap and complain about something you don't know anything about, perhaps you should travel to a country that has all of the freebies you could ever want. As you stand in the ashes of some collapsed Soviet client state you can lecture us about the benevolent goodness of a government that has the ability to steal from some, crush the human soul, and hand out whatever it wants.

Or you could just head down to the projects. They're closer.

ManedWolf I think you just did a great job at articulating the difference between good socialism and bad socialism.

I really got sick of NPR and its "look down your nose" attitude towards American values many years ago.

Click to expand...

I have been listening to NPR for the last two years, (Granted it was San Diego NPR, perhaps more moderate than other stations,) and have not noticed that at all. They certainly have dry academic tones, but I have heard almost nothing that wasn't presented in a fair or factual manner.

PlayboyPenguin : I agree its nice to hear from the left...and far left too.

Responsibility needs to start and end with the parents, its outrageous that you would blame a manufacturer or the table saw itself for cutting off your finger when you did not properly use the saw.

Its getting old that politicians keep trying to remove the weapons from society but never actually address the problem...THE PEOPLE.

I do find it funny that people would advocate personal responsability when it comes to firearms (blame the criminal not the gun) but still believe in social programs. Social programs, no matter how well intentioned, defuse people of their responsability for their own choices in life. Who needs to stay in school, not get pregnant (or not get someone pregnant), stay off drugs and care for themselves when they have the nanny state to care for them? Yes social programs provide a "safety net" but that is the problem. What people need are incintives to get ahead in life not incintives to turn their life over to the government to control.

PlayboyPenguin said:

After you have lived elsewhere were such programs do not exist you start to realize tha,t despite the small percentage of people that abuse the system, these programs have helped the coutry greatly.

Click to expand...

What "small percentage" would that be? 50%? 60%? 75% How about maybe 90 to 95%?

The programs of which you speak didn't begin with the intention that they would, for any given individual or family, be endless. All were intended to be "safety nets," which is a laudable intent. However ...

... that isn't what they morphed into. They have become a tangled mess of dependency. I worked in a public housing agency in a mid-sized city. The public housing program that was intended to provide affordable housing while people saved enough to buy their own home is now fully populated with welfare familes who are in their third, fourth, and even fifth generation of living exclusively in public housing. They know nothing else and they don't WANT to know anything else. Why not? Because anything else requires being responsible. Public housing doesn't hold tenenats responsible for much of anything.

I listened to one public housing resident, a teen-aged girl, extolling on her life plan to some of her girlfriends: "I'm gwanna drop out of school soon's I turn 16, find me a guy and have some babies, and c'lect welfare."

Great. That's quite some life plan, isn't it?

I'm sorry, but the fact is there isn't a "small percentage" of people who abuse the social infrastructure programs in this country. It's the small percentage of participants who AREN'T abusing the system.

PlayboyPenguin said:

They are a type of insurance. They help in a time of need. Most people on assistance are single moms trying to get an education and feed their kids, people that have been downsized and lost their jobs, etc...and the average time on services is about 2 yrs in most states.

Click to expand...

Please provide sources. I don't believe that for one nanosecond, and I'm having a difficult time thinking that you actually might believe it. 2 years? Get serious. Two generations is probably a bare minimum. You are describing what these programs were intended to be, not what they have become. Those single moms you're waxing eloquent about? Reality check -- they aren't pursuing an education or a job -- they're sitting in their public housing unit, watching soap operas and making more babies so they can collect a bigger check. That's reality, Mate, as witnessed from in the trenches.

Because people that love to bitch about these so called "give away" programs usually have no understanding of what they have actually accomplished and how much they do for the greater good of the country. After you have lived elsewhere were such programs do not exist you start to realize tha,t despite the small percentage of people that abuse the system, these programs have helped the coutry greatly. Imagine a country were disease ran rampant because of no social health care system, where interior infastructure was private built and owned and not accessable to the general public, where no public school system existed so the majority of people were uneducated, where no unemployemt compensation existed so more people were unemployed and starving. These places do exist and if you have not experienced them I suggest you get down and thank your lucky stars that you have not had to experience them before you open your yap and complain about something of which you know nothing besides the sound bites you have heard on conservative talk radio from some drug addict..

Click to expand...

Your logic is flawed. You assume that because some parts of the rest of the world have it worse, I have no right to criticize and and talk about the US. You're using a verbose version of the "there are starving people in China" argument moms use on their kids to have them eat something they don't like. But that's irrelevant. I don't live anywhere but America(for now. Sandbox here I come). I don't have to think of the entire world. I am allowed to only think about how things are in MY country. And things can be better. Relativism in not necessary. "As long as other places are worse, you can't complain about how you have it". That is a flawed argument. We are allowed to talk about whatever we want, and desire whatever we want of our own nation, regardless of the rest of the world. We, as Americans, have the right to be concerned with only America if we want.

I tend to agree with the Penguin. Certainly there is welfare fraud and abuse...but you only have to look around to see the benefits of social stabilty. Many of us here would be uneducated and slaving away at manual labor if not for social programs like the G.I bill and tuition grants and loans. My MIL was deserted by her hubby and raised three daughters alone for a few years, with limited Government help. All of her daughters earned college degrees by utilizing grants and student loans. They all make over six figures now and pay hefty taxes....actually paying a return on the welfare their mother received.
Make a list of the best countries to live in and the worst. Then compare their income taxes and social programs. Would you rather raise a family in Mexico or Sweden, The US or The Sudan, Canada or Cambodia?

Well, I know people who've had to depend on those give away programs for their survival, so quite frankly, I think those who think those programs hold the country back are full of sh**.

I too lean toward the left, except where guns are concerned.

Let’s be very clear to begin with. I do not classify unemployment compensation as Welfare. People pay in money that goes back to them in the event of unemployment this is not the case with welfare/WIC/Section 8 housing, etc. It is my understanding that you can not collect unemployment indefinitely, only to the extent that you paid into it. Also, it is my understanding that the conditions of unemployment require the recipient proves he (or she) is actively looking for employment. Personally I feel that paying into unemployment should be optional not mandatory (again personal responsibility) but that is a whole other argument. Also, the GI bill and College Grants ARE NOT welfare programs. These are programs that require the recipient to perform some service in return for. In the case with the GI bill it is a stipend on top of pay NOT a social program.

When I refer to “social programs” I am speaking directly towards Welfare, WIC, free housing, and other such programs. Sprecifically to programs that do not require absolutely the receipient to do anything to earn the assistance.

If you are referring to the use of Fraud to receive welfare then yes I think you could argue that only a few abuse the system. However, if you are simply talking about so called “welfare queens” then no the majority on welfare stay on welfare, period. I grew up with friend who had family members on welfare. Not only are those family members (the ones still alive) still on welfare, so are many of those friends I grew up with.

Welfare, for many, is not temporary assistance to get back on their feet it is their way of life. If you doubt this go to any welfare office on the first of the months and just talk to (or simply listen) to those waiting for their check. Make sure to ask them where their money is going. In fact I know a man who was a liberal firm in welfare until he took a job working in the office that disperses welfare checks. He routinely had people coming in receiving more money than he did that had absolutely no intention of bettering themselves. They would just complaining that the need there money ASAP so they can make their monthly payment on their big screen TV, buy stereo equipment for their car, make a car payment, etc.

Welfare is a crutch that develops into full blown dependency. A “temporary assistance program” should look something like unemployment. People opt to pay into it or not. Those that don’t pay in receive absolutely nothing. Those that do pay in receive assistance if they fall on bad times.

If you are a firm believer that welfare is a “temporary” way for one to get back on their feet then how about these 3 simple requirements. (1) Welfare recipients must prove they are trying to better themselves through employment and/or schooling. (2) Welfare recipients loose the right to vote for the extent they receive welfare. They regain voting rights when off welfare. This takes politics out of the equation making it harder for some politicians to pander to the welfare vote by promising to continue to fund them, thus keeping them at the poverty level. (3) Welfare has a time limit cap put on it. No more than two consecutive years of benefits and no more than five years over their lifetime. If it is true that welfare is temporary then certainly such time limits won’t be a problem. And finally, a structural change. How about privatizing welfare such that corporations provide assistance and education in return for cheaper labor? For example, corporation X pays a benefits for recipients living expenses and school so that the receipt gets a degree where starting pay is say $40k a year with the condition that the person work for corporation X for 3 to 5 years for $30K a year.

In the same vein as the post above...

G.I bill

Click to expand...

is hardly a "social program". Serve your country in the military for 2-4 years, and get some college $$ when you are through. That's win/win for society. Stronger military to provide for the common defense and stronger economy due to a better educated work force. Since I'm currently unemployed at home...I guess I'm a GI Bill "stronger economy" exception. Kinda hard to find a job going from deployment to deployment though.

Social Programs and high taxes to support them are also part of the reason for downsizing and jobs going overseas. Companies cannot afford to pay a living wage for many jobs because 1/2 goes to the government (fed, state, local taxes and fees/product taxes). So, is it good we have these programs for when people get downsized...or bad that the taxes to support these programs contribute to that?

LOL, Ironic ya'll should happen to mention him, but Fast Eddie's stepson just snuck an apartment I planned on renting out from underneath my nose. He seems like a nice boy, and I remember listening as a kid when his dad was staunch conservative. Like others, I agree that he's one of the more intellectual pundits out there (though I tend to disagree with him politically).

I will have to disagree with you on two things...one...the GI bill is tax supported and is a form a govt assistance. It is just a restricted assistance program.

Click to expand...

Not to nitpick, but I would classify it as a feeble attempt to properly compensate someone for their time in active service to the United States. I can remember making around $1300 a month in the combat zone during Desert Storm, and that was after combat pay was included.

Two, not being able to "afford it" has little to do with outsourcing. The companies that send the most jobs overseas are the ones that have posted the biggest profits and have hstorically paid little to no taxes.

Click to expand...

I don't have the depth of knowledge to argue this further. How about small businesses, which are making up increasingly larger sectors of our economy? Not being able to afford to pay decent wages and attract good workers definitely hurts them. If the tax burden wasn't so high, they could afford to hire more people...more jobs and less need for welfare.

My biggest problem isn't with the idea of some social programs...just with the idea of the government running it horribly, criminally, inefficiently and taking the $$ to run it from the workers by force. I loved when everybody cried about the "Faith based initiative" program. Yeah, don't give any help to groups who do a great job helping people with what they have just because they believe in God. Keep throwing away the $$ on secular failures. I don't care if a group is Atheist, Hindu, Muslim or Ba'hai...if they are doing a good job helping the poor...why not help them?

Good charities can get 90%+ of donations to their recipients. How much tax money as a percentage ever gets to the end recipient? Probably can't get a true answer because it is so convoluted...$$ getting diverted from one area to another (like the social security fund) and little accountability.

Lastly, on the GI Bill

...the GI bill is tax supported and is a form a govt assistance.

Click to expand...

If a soldier gets killed or wounded in combat, who was assisting whom? Was their life (or the risk of it) worth the college $$? You see, it isn't the same because society gets military service for it's GI Bill tax $$$. Society doesn't get squat back from the welfare recipient. It is an exchange the same as pay for service. Is my paycheck in the military a form of government assistance because it comes from taxes? Or, is my voluntary service in a war zone considered sufficient to offset that? I'd hate to feel like I've been a drain on society all these years. (Just making a point, I'm not taking this personally or trying to make anyone feel "defensive" about their position)

The companies that send the most jobs overseas are the ones that have posted the biggest profits and have hstorically paid little to no taxes.

Click to expand...

Which is probably why they're still in business.

You want American business to keep jobs in the US? Nuke the minimum wage. You want subsidized employment? Move to France.

Also, the GI bill and College Grants ARE NOT welfare programs. These are programs that require the recipient to perform some service in return for. In the case with the GI bill it is a stipend on top of pay NOT a social program.

Click to expand...

Pay that comes from the people. Sorry, but government employment is socialism, the GI bill just another form of redistribution of wealth. Whether or not this is "acceptable socialism" is another debate entirely, but it IS socialism. It's like my buddy whose family are all a bunch of rabid right wingers, constantly attacking welfare, socialists, whatever. His dad worked for PBS, his mom the post office, his brother the navy...hmmm....

You want American business to keep jobs in the US? Nuke the minimum wage.

Click to expand...

Or convince CEOs that their current contribution to society isn't an order of magnitude more important than it was a couple of decades ago.

When it comes time to vote in November, if you vote for someone that is against guns, then you are the enemy, period. All the other issues are not constitutional issues but issues of policy. I don't care what your belief is on policy issues. The gun issue is a CONSTITUTIONAL one, plain and simple. Vote for an anti-gunner and you are voting against American sovereignty and are therefore an enemy of the Constitution and an enemy of America.

Pay that comes from the people. Sorry, but government employment is socialism, the GI bill just another form of redistribution of wealth. Whether or not this is "acceptable socialism" is another debate entirely, but it IS socialism.

Click to expand...

Look up the definition of socialism. Government employment is not socialism and to imply such a thing is laughable.

Well.. the GI is technically socialism.

Why is it not objectionable? they EARNED it.

the problem is social programs where it is felt the person getting the benefit has neither earned the benefit, nor appears to intend to ever "repay" for the loan society has given them.

and yes, ITS A LOAN. Replayment is getting their sh#t together and becoming financially viable on their own (job).

The problem is the pathetic attempts at oversight, and the idea that money without labor of any form (be it education and training, or physical labor to improve infrastructure) gets us anything.

While many of the new deal socialistic programs were seen as too much state power, at least (in many) cases the investment was repaid in the forms of highways, dams, bridges, etc.

the goverment should never give a true "hand out". It should only give an investment and demand to see a return on investment by developing the subject into someone capable to repaying via wage (taxable) earnings.

that's my crazy .02... which may make me a somewhat leftist individual rights nuts. (where I believe the government can provide a basis for individual economic success for the health of the state but sure as all heck does not get the ability to fiddle with the bill of rights in the process. The true security of the state is a large, healthy, happy middle class with strong personal rights and a fierce loyalty to the state that makes damn sure those rights stay there)

Well.. the GI is technically socialism.

Why is it not objectionable? they EARNED it.

Click to expand...

I never claimed it was "objectionable". The state taking funds from the people and using them to fund state operated "entities" is indeed socialism.

Dannyboy, just what exactly is your definition of socialism?

Here's one:

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control.

Click to expand...

I fail to see how taking my property/wealth (tax dollars) and using it to fund the post office is not socialism. Because they people at the post office work for that pay? Well, all the workers in the Soviet Union worked for their pay at state owned entities. When we do it it's not socialism but when they do it is?

My point being that attacking something merely because it is "socialist" is pointless. Attacking something and saying "it's a handout" is something entirely different. But we will all agree that there are some "socialist" activities that we must undertake as a nation, even if some refuse to use that word when appropriate.