I'm going to quickly duck after making this post, because I'm expecting a few swings on this one. So here it is, the question of the day, do you support social programs or no? Why so? Or why not?

I maintain the position that social programs benefit our society in many ways. Keeping aside the abusers of the system, as with any system, there is always going to be abuses, the programs have helped to create a better economic situation, better education, better infrastructure, and so much more.

As I've mentioned in a previous post, before the social programs of FDR were enacted, this country wasn't in really great financial shape. For most people, just barely getting by was a success story. Much of the country hadn't yet been touched by the warmth of electric light, and if you lost your job and couldn't find another, the reply you received was, "Oh well... Guess your family isn't going to be eating too well!" And if you did find a job, chances are it was in a sweat shop working long hours for almost no pay. People seem to like to paint liberals as "evil", but when you think about it, it is quite exactly the opposite.

Thanks to FDR's new deal, a number of things began to change. For example, we now get 1.5x salary for any work over 40 hours... This is not evil, this is fair. If an employer is going to work you to the point of exhaustion, you should at least be compensated for it. To be frank, I never hear much complaining from the conservative side about this rule... Do you think maybe because conservatives, too, enjoy being paid overtime? If conservatives think it so unfair to their employers, why don't they give it back? Hmmmm... I wonder... FDR had another thought on this too, and that was if you give money to people, people have money to spend. Ultimately... All businesses, no matter what they do, answer to the end consumer. Even a B2B won't have a B to do B with, if the B's they do B with aren't making any money. (Yikes! I sounded an awful lot like Mike Brady on that one!) If the pool of money is dry at the bottom, there is no more to be made at the top, simply put.

The Welfare system... More intended for war widows, but definitely took on a broader definition. I rather like the reforms that took place during the Clinton administration through cooperation bipartisanly. They were long overdue, and have a better long-term effect, by assisting in making people more self-sufficient, instead of perpetually dependant on the program. Also effectively ending long-term abuse. At the same time, however, it provides stimulus to the economy because it helps to empower people to make purchases, even when they're 'down and out'. Much the same can be said about unemployment insurance and Social Security.

If demand goes up, so does production and investment, thusly creating jobs. When there are jobs that pay a fair wage, people will take them, decreasing demand on the social system, and the need for your tax dollars. Call it an investment. The more jobs are created, the more money slides down into the bottom of the pool, and I'm quite sure you can see exactly where this is going. The increase of the money supply aids this, and eventually makes it feasible for the economy to be in a perpetual upswing, which is basically the case since the new deal began. In 50 years absolutely no administration has seen the loss of private sector jobs... There has been growth. Sometimes at a slower pace than others, it has still been there. Well... Until now, that is, with the Bush administration seeing a loss of jobs, and a simply anemic economy being the result.

I've often heard the argument that letting the wealthy keep more of their money will entice them to invest. What I say to this is, "invest in what???" If there's no demand for anything coming from the end consumer, there's nothing for them to invest in. Whether you cut their taxes or not, they already have money to invest, there's just nothing in demand that catches their eye. In this case, you can increase the money supply all you like and it won't have an effect, because most of it will simply sit in the reserve and not move, much like the money already in circulation will not move, because it is all at the top, and the well is dry.
That is the folly of 'trickle-down' economic theories, that they don't pay any consideration to consumer demand.

Some will use the argument that Reagan used trickle down economics and it worked fine in the 80's... The economy was great! What actually happened, was unprecedented spending on defense, most of it borrowed, which directly, through government intervention, created jobs. More people had money, this created more demand, and so on... So you could say, essentially that it was Reagan's "social" defense jobs that created, or at least helped to create the economy. A few TRILLION dollars pumped into the economy will do that, but you can't run in the red forever, contrary to popular belief... Eventually the debt has to be paid back, and interest payments get awfully high with that amount of debt. This is why George Sr. had to raise taxes. Of course George made the mistake of not targeting the people who had money, but the end consumer, having a big effect on... You guessed it... Consumer demand. No demand, no investment, and private sector jobs not increasing in numbers sufficient to maintain the economy. And now, under the 2nd Bush administration, we're seeing the same thing, only a little bit more severe.

Clinton gets in office, re-targets the taxes, increases where increases are sensible, and decreases where it is most needed. He invests more money into programs like the SBA, and higher education funding... Next thing you know, the economy is hopping like it has never in our country's history. Does everybody really think this is just a coincidence?

How many times, I'm curious, do people need to see the proof that social investments pay off? Must we go back to the old days, when everything was, "fend for yourself", and see the same terrible results over again before we learn? All one needs to do is look at history to know that redistribution of wealth is necessary for the advanced economic growth this country has seen since FDR's administration. Fact is, mixing these social programs with capitalism has helped us grow into the most powerful country in the world. Can you argue with that?

I voted no, although I don't really mean it. I think the question is a bit slanted. My answer wasn't up there. It can't be forced into a "yes" or "no" answer. Degrees of opinion would have been better (perhaps: no redistribution, minimal redistribution, some redistribution, generous redistribution, or as much redistribution as is wanted)

Even as a libertarian I support minimal aid to indigents. What kind of grinch would say none?

I agree that there needs to be a safety net for people in this country, but the current system is not functioning the way it should. It has become a way of life for a lot of people. If you take away a person's initiative, then they will never try to do better. I think the government tries to do too many things that people can do for themselves, and all this does is breed a society that turns to the gov't anytime it has a problem. This starts a vicious cycle to where more and more people become dependant on the gov't and use the money collected from taxes, and a lower percentage of the population actually foots the bill. If only 30% of the people in the country actually pay taxes, and the other 70% depends on that money to survive, where does that leave the people paying taxes? Should they be forced to fork over 47% of all they earn simply because too many people are dependant on the gov't? I don't want to work all of my life to finally make a six figure salary and have half of it taken out in taxes because "I can afford it." I am all for supporting people who need help. My wife and I give generously to programs at our church and donate clothes and other items to various shelters. In fact, my wife runs a domestic violence program, and we spend a lot of personal time (read: unpaid) helping the ladies out. I make these examples to demonstrate people who are really in need and deserving of outside help, and to differentiate that between a class of people who live off the gov't simply because they do not want to fend for themselves. I guess you can call it tough love. My parents cut me off when I went to college, but I learned to fend for myself real quick. I guess I could have went on unemployment and got a bunch of student loans, but I didn't, I guess because of personal pride; which I think is lacking a lot in this country, but that is a whole other issue.

Gee thanks stotty, you took away my thunder before I had a chance to post.

You said exactly what I wanted to say.


Maybe great minds think alike

Stotty, you make allot of great points, and I agree with you totally that creating a system that breeds dependency is not good, which is why I whole-heartedly supported welfare reform, and was happy to finally see it happen. The idea behind welfare should be to help people to support themselves, so that they don't need to suckle from the system forever. But what about all of the other "social investments", like the SBA, REA, HUD, Student grants and loans, minimum wage, 1.5x salary for overtime, and the many more? Welfare and SSI are definitely not the only social programs I referred to, although they do tend to be the most commonly abused.

Jaime: Sorry, next time I'll try to put a better spectrum of answers up.

Redistribution of wealth? Absolutely not!

Quit punishing the rich because they earned more money than you.

Somepeople have red cars, some people have blue cars. Some work in offices, while others work in factories. It's just the way things are. Redistributing wealth is communisim.

*****************

Futhermore, the economy goes into recession every 10 years or so. Look it up. It was NOT in a perpetual upswing until Bush...thats silly.

Also, Yes, the economy was doing good in the 90's under clinton. But this CURRENT recession started at the end of CLintons regeime. It was doing so well because of the dot com boom and the explosion of the internet, not because of anything great Bill did.

I have no problem paying for SOME social programs. But right now, there are too many, and too many people on them. I have met too many people in my lifetime that are perfectly capable of working, but they don't. Instead, they feed off the system...a system which I contribute to.

Why should I pay for these people to sit around at home all day and not work? Easy, I shouldn't.

But there are those who truely need welfare, and I have no problem paying for it. But hurry up and kick the leeches off the system before I go broke paying for it

--cheers

. I guess I could have went on unemployment and got a bunch of student loans, but I didn't, I guess because of personal pride; which I think is lacking a lot in this country, but that is a whole other issue.
--------------------------------------------------------

How could you have gone on unemployment unless, of course, you were laid off from a job? I see nothing wrong with taking advantage of student loans if you pay them back. It certainly is nothing to be ashamed of. More to say, but no time.

Madtown

I was speaking of unemployment as a fictitious example I guess, in referring to taking gov't money. And no, there is nothing wrong with student loans at all. I was just determined not to have $30k in debt when I graduated, so I busted my hump at UPS and delivered pizzas. Like you, I am all for welfare and help for those who really "need" it, and I was for the welfare reform that passed under Clinton. The fact that it was considered "reform" to kick people off who did not belong is a testament to how big a mess the welfare program has become. I also agree with D.P., get the people who do not belong off the dole, and there will be less money spent, and more needy people will benefit.

Redistribution of wealth is a part of any system. Profit is a redistribution of wealth upwards, and taxation is a redistribution of wealth downward.

Another way to look at this: Compensation for services is a redistribution of wealth downward, upward, or laterally. Thus, payroll redistributes wealth downward; payment for consulting services such as IBM Global Services is an upward or lateral redistribution.

FDR instigated a set of government-enforced downward redistribution schemes to avoid armed, violent revolution in this country. The Communist party was very popular here in the 1930s as the wealth of the nation concentrated to the top and stagnated there. Labor laws were set in place to stop the insurrection that was building among the employed. The unemployed were already disenfranchised from the capitalistic system and were ripe for violent revolution. Revolution was averted; unions became stronger; WWII came along; women went to work in the heavy military/industrial complex. After WWII, Sputnik sent this country charging into high tech. The notion of exempt employee became common.

An exempt employee is not paid overtime because such an employee is exempt from labor laws requiring overtime. Most high-tech workers are exempt employees.

A dangerous situation is unfolding for this country right now. The high unemployment rate of 6% does not promise to lessen any time soon. Hundreds of thousands of high-tech jobs have been lost. Significant rehiring of these exempt workers may or may not happen in 2003. Social programs to preserve families headed by these workers are not in place. All they have to fall back on are outdated unemployment compensation programs designed for rust belt workers--and their own retirement savings. The retirement savings have been emaciated by the failure of free markets. The system has failed for many who formerly supported the system.

If the economy does not rebound quickly, a critical mass of angry unemployed workers will be ripe for radical changes. A violent revolution could possibly ensue, forcing the redistribution of wealth.

Redistribution of wealth must happen with any system. Social programs accomplish this peacefully. The alternative is a forced redistribution ala the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, and any number of civil wars that have erupted globally over the years.

Our information-based new economy promised to accomplish wealth redistribution peacefully and sustainably. It looked like this could actually happen as well-paid high-tech jobs were created at rates so fast that HB-1 visa workers had to be imported from, mostly, India.

But the new economy failed. It failed partly from bad investments done with venture capital focused on dot-com companies, many of which were outright scams. It failed from abandoning strict oversight of the markets. It failed from the stunning lack of ethics displayed by top corporate executives. It also failed in the irrational faith put into the free market systems, most notably refuted by how Enron screwed California over energy.

We are now led politically by people who may have been directly involved with the destruction of the new economy. Our challenge is to get this economy back on track and keep it there with strict oversight. Too much is at stake to just let it go the way of the old feudal economies: violent revolution.

I am in favor of limited social spending. I am also in favor of strictly regulated markets that encourage entreprenurial spirit while slapping down the avarice that causes the likes of Global Crossing, Enron, WorldCom, et al to destroy the very systems that allowed the corporations to be built in the first place.

However, if we don't act proactively, I assure you that history will rhyme strongly on this situation. Desperate people will take desperate actions.

The economic growth since WWII is due to capitalism. We would have a much wealthier country, with a lower poverty rate today, if capitalism was unfettered by social programs. These programs have broken up families and increased poverty. Of course, the federal programs are also unconstitutional.

Dr. Walter Williams says it best, government redistribution of income is "legalized theft".

Did I say anything about punishing the wealthy? No, I did not. Did I call for social investment to benefit ALL people, including the wealthy? Yes...

If you don't believe that social programs benefit the wealthy as much as it benefits the poor and working class, I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. Without social programs in a country with a standard of living that is so high, you're just asking for trouble. Do you know what impoverished masses do in countries that don't provide social programs? They steal... Guess who they steal from? Check the statistics of any country in the world you please that doesn't have social programs in place, and don't be surprised to notice that most of them are in the 3rd world, be sure to check the statistics on theft as well as violent crime.

Whether you like it or not, there has to be money at the top and the bottom in order for the economy to work for any of us. As we saw during the Clinton Administration, investment in small business, and investment in our people pay off 10 fold.

And by the way... As far as:

What I was referring to is, that every administration, up until his, for the last 50 years, has experienced growth in private sector jobs. Under Bush, there has been a 1.2% drop in the number of private sector jobs. Under the 1st George Bush, it hit a record low of 0.4% growth, but he narrowly averted loss. Long term unemployment is up 145%, and there doesn't seem to be a glimmer of hope for the growth of the GDP. Before his term is up, I suspect that he'll also preside over an administration that sees a decline in the GDP. My source for these stats is: Senate Democrats: "Bush Economic Record" I understand my source is obviously biased, but it puts all the statistics on the same page... Feel free to verify whatever you like, and just kindly ignore the partisan nature of the site.

And as far as abuse... I'm all for eliminating it as it only makes it more difficult to keep the programs going, which is, again, why I was all for welfare reform. I don't enjoy having a chunk of my change taken, either, but at the same time, I cannot deny that it is my responsibility, and I'm willing to pay that price. Similarly as I'm willing to pay for public schools. I don't have children, but I recognize the necessity and importance of educating the people of our society, and so I pay it willingly, knowing that I'm doing something good for our country and all of us as a society.

Hugo: At the opposite end of the spectrum, unfettered capitalism is what is known as Aristocracy. Can you name an aristocracy that has ever succeeded? That is why I support a mix of the two... As seen over the last 50 years, the two work well together, and should continue to be allowed to do so.
Also, can I take your comments to mean that you support none of the above mentioned social investments? Or are there at least some that you would continue? Which ones?

Laissez fairre capitalism is not an aristocracy, it is individuals and corporations being unfettered , with the exception of protections against fraud, theft and the like, to produce and consume as they wish, with restrictions or charges to eliminate third party costs, i.e. pollution.

I wish none of the current social programs had ever been in place. Now that they are in place,ridding ourselves of them does have to be done in small steps, too many individuals and our economy are now dependant on them.

I voted no.

However, I'm all for redistribution of wealth ... on a voluntary basis. If everyone gave 5% of their time and money to all the private programs out there, I bet we'd have no need at all for any of the government social programs. The problem is, most people won't do this. Instead, people think that surely other people will take care of the less fortunate. If enough people think like this, what happens is that the government will have to step in. And unfortunately, this is where we are at today.

Well, sir, most of the free, industrialized nations of the world would tend to disagree with this theory. And the fact that this country, before the enactment of social programs, was in such sorry shape would also tend to lay to waste the notion that we'd be better of without them. We weren't better off without them, in truth, nor would we be now if they were repealed.

I believe democracy is dependent upon a reasonable equality of opportunity in society. Do not over-read this comment, because the rags to riches story is the story of an equality of opportunity.

But capitalism is a system that creates a tremendous amount of wealth and places it in the hands of the few. While innovation needs to be rewarded I see no need to protect inherited wealth.

We have the strongest economic system in the world. We have a comparatively low level of socialism attached to our system. In short, I believe that for the long term health of our system the super wealthy must be held accountable for paying their fair share of taxes in the form of income tax, capital gains tax, and especially the inheritance tax. Too many of the wealthy are able to avoid their fair of taxes by doing things like pretending their corporation moved to Bermuda.

This leaves the middle class paying to high of a burden, and when things are really messed up, this leads members of the middle class to blame their ills on our lower classes.

What is the "fair share" of the tax for the rich? In 1999, the top 5% of wage-earners account for 55.5% of all individual income taxes. Should it be 75%, 90%?

http://taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html

And why not? Let us say there are three dying men. One man decides to fund his childrens education with his money so his children will be better off. The second man blows all his money on whiskey and women. The third man decides that his children should inherit his money so they will be better off. In the first case society benefits due to a better educated populace, in the second case through an increase in consumer demand, in the third case society benefits by providing an excess of capital that can be invested. I see no reason to punish the third man.

Unemployment and student loans are not a gifts from the government. I'm not positive, but I believe that employers pay into unemployment accounts. Doesn't the money for student loans come from banks and the loans are backed by the government?

Your post makes it sound like the government has a ton of programs available. Just step up and make your selection.

I don't agree with you and Hugo. I think most people ARE responsible.

Madtown

I was not trying to make it sound like I thought most people are not responsible, because most of the people I know are. I was trying to get the point across that there is often times when one can make a conscious choice to either provide for themselves or let someone else do it for them. Yes employers pay into unemployment funds, but why collect benefits when you can work at a job to provide money to live on until you find a better one. Of course it will not be your "dream job," but hey, you gotta eat. I know student loans come from banks and are paid back, but it comes down to a choice, and maybe student loans were a bad example. If you are able to work and pay for your tuition, why take pell grants and other things when you do not really "need" them. Sure it may be nice to have the extra money, but that does not constitute need in my book. Again it comes down to choice: Too many people have the choice and the ability to provide their own way, and too often they choose the path of least resistance. I know many people who worked to put themselves through school, but I know many who could have worked but instead applied for grants instead. Just because they are available does not mean you should take them, and there should be more stringent guidelines for them. My point is simply this: There should be a safety net for those in this country that truly need it, but instead we are breeding a whole class of people that constantly depend on the gov't (and other people's money) to survive. People who are able, but just not willing to do it for themselves. It is not a safety net any more, but more like a nice big house boat for those who do not feel like jumping off and swimming to shore.

Ok... I'm not really big on explaining myself through personal experience, but in this case, I feel it fits, so I will.

I used to work a very specialized high-tech job here in Massachusetts, where the industry was just bursting with open, high-paying jobs. Beginning around May of '01, I was forced to hop from job to job, being laid off from each as the market began to collapse. (Between 5-01 & 1-02, I was laid off 5 times)

So, what I'm left with now, like so many others who worked in high-tech, is a resume with a mile long work history that no employer in today's incredibly competitive job market will take seriously. This being the case, I was forced, after a desperate search for a job while collecting UI, to take a job in retail management which pays about 1/2 of what I used to make in my field, with much longer hours than I used to work. I think I know exactly what it means to do what you need to do to survive, thank you.

Without the UI "safety net" between those jobs, I would have undoubtedly lost my home, which I worked very hard and placed myself in significant debt to get. In fact, I probably would have lost everything and become homeless. Even lower paying jobs are becoming fewer and further between as more and more people are laid off, and more and more people have their UI benefits run out. With 8.5 MILLION unemployed, and a decline in the number of private sector jobs, does that come as any surprise?

Programs like UI and public welfare are only available for a limited time to people, so I genuinely fail to see how they could be considered a "house-boat" that people depend on over the long haul. At one time, I could see how welfare was viewed this way, but it isn't like that anymore, so the argument is no longer valid.
Sorry, but with my experience, and having seen and heard of the experiences of so many others, you'd have a very tough sell to convince me that social programs have any truly negative effects for the average American.

Stotty: I commend you on paying your way through college, but for many colleges where tuitions exceed $25K+/year, it is simply not possible to do. I don't know very many 18 year olds that could swing that, do you? Jobs delivering pizza simply don't pay that much. Will you use the argument that they should try a cheaper school, with a lower quality of education? It seems a shame to think that great minds would be wasted like that, based solely on their ability to pay. Educating the future of our country, those that will take care of us when we are older and retired, is too high of a priority to leave to chance. Not only, in my opinion, do we need to continue funding it, it should be expanded so that no person is left without at least the opportunity to better themselves.

Unfettered capitalism had its chance to prove its worth in the 18th and 19th Centuries. Read the history before speculating about what unfettered capitalism could have done for or to this country after WW II.

However, Hugo's main argument is against supporting people through government funds. I guess he wants to do away with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. If you look at the federal budgets, these are the big hunks of social spending. So I invite Hugo to go for it.

Just remember that AARP members make up a strong voting block.

If the complaint is about welfare, then take the argument to your state legislature. That is where policies about welfare payments are created. Since the states have already reformed welfare, for the better or worse, I suspect this line of argument is rather stale. When one considers that formerly well-paid heads of families are now among the long-term unemployed, the argument against welfare may even be damaging to any politician seeking election.

I'll even go so far as to state that unfettered capitalism got us into this situation where many highly skilled people who desperately want and need work cannot find it. The homeless shelters are about to be crammed with engineers, network techs, programmers, systems administrators, middle managers, and even executives. The system has failed, and it wasn't social programs that caused the failure. Now watch: It will be social programs that gets us out of this. People have to be put back to work, and this will be accomplished through an enforced redistribution of wealth.

I will speculate on this: I bet companies are waiting to start hiring on purpose because they expect huge influxes of federal R&D funds. Hey, this could finally bring universal broad-band Internet to every household in the US, just like what was done with electricity. Infini-Band speeds too. Give a federal kick in the butt to e-commerce and b-to-b development. Grants for AuthorMusician! Yeah man, now we're talking.

Hey, Stefan!

We're in the same boat, man. My SO (sigother) is a tech trainer (MS, Cisco) and a college professor. Her pay has been cut in half just recently. My high-tech contract was terminated at WorldCom in 2001. I've been freelance writing since with one full-length tech book already published. My SO gets me gigs with the college to review student papers and write lectures on technology, English, life-long learning ideas, critical thinking, and anything else that might fit. I've been pounding the streets, electronically and physically, trying to drum up freelance business or *gasp* a real job. Times are tough and the hustle is on. Scams are out there in force.

I've even worked up repertoire for music gigs, but that has never paid much. Eh, it's nice to get away from the constant pressure and depression, though.

We have a bankruptcy lawyer and are strategizing with him about how to save the house. His business is booming. The shelters are full, the food banks empty.

If we lose the house, we have already determined to get active and vocal. Maybe the government will throw us in the slammer. Cool! Health care!

Anyway, social programs, especially the R&D stuff, sure look good to us right now!

BTW, I did pay my own way through college. It was in the 1970s and I could make the money to go with a summer job. Tuition was $15 a credit. One year cost me a little over $2,000. I've collected UI twice in my life: once when 19 and again in 2001-2002.

The whole point though is that millions of folks share our situations right now. Some have found enough employment to squeak by; others have not. All are willing to work; all have suffered; all are royally ticked off. I don't think laissez-faire anything is going to cut it with the members of this crew. I do think this crew is made up of creative, intelligent people who will organize and will raise a stink. After all, wealth has been forcibly redistributed upwards from us--time to reverse that trend.

Are you serious? What homeless shelters are these? The one next door to MSN Headquarters?


The system has failed.

This is a little presumptuous, don't you think? We are The United States of America after all, the last I checked, our standard of living was not very low on the list...

jjirout

I wish it were more like twenty percent and that we had a more balanced distribution of income so that the oppressed top 5% of wage earners wouldn't be paying so much money to uncle sam.

Great tax data link btw. It shows that the top 1% income in this country has been steadily rising and that it now exceeds the bottom 50% income. Is this healthy? It sounds a lot like statistics I use for my causes of the stock market crash lecture.

I understand your situation, and don't get me wrong, I am all for unemployment for people who need it. Two years ago my dad went from a $60k a year salary to selling for commission only, with only a weeks notice. He had to go on unemployment since my mom was only making like $10 an hour working for GE, so I know what it is like. My point was only that the people who choose to abuse the system are what is bringing it down. Not the people such as yourself who truly need the assistance. And my examples concerning college are in the same light: there are people who truly need grants and assistance to pay their tuition, and that is what the programs are there for, but again, the people who do not need them and are still choosing to use them are what is breaking the system. These programs themselves do not have a negative impact on society, only as a result of those that abuse them. It's like saying that guns are killing people, and not the people firing the guns. That was my only point. Like they say, a few bad apples can spoil the bunch. BTW, my wife worked with a lady who always bragged about how she was getting Social Security disability checks because they thought she was not able to work, and laughed about how much money she was making. One day a S.S. administrator called and asked if the lady had been out of work for the last 8 months like she had told them, and my wife told them the truth, that she had never been off work and was working 45-50 hours a week. Needless to say she got busted, and she was very angry with my wife, who simply told her, "It is because of crooks like you that the system is going broke." This again restates my only argument, that those who abuse the system are what causes harm, not the system itself.

Enforced redistribution of wealth?? What do you mean? More taxes on the working? Aren't the working already being taxed to death? The last thing we need is more taxes.

I agree that people need to be put back to work. But perhaps another thread can be started on that to come up with ideas on how to do that.

To quote Ronald Reagan:


And William Safire:


Oh that I wish I could speak as well as these men. Enforced redistribution of wealth is theft pure and simple.

by AuthorMusician


I am not sure what unfettered capitalism is? I have concerns with a free market where coercion and monopolys are not being regulated. Is this what you mean?

In the 80s, there was high unemployment. The situation appeared to be dire with labor of all skill levels without work for long periods of time. But you know what, the free market eventually found jobs for all of these people. It was not social programs that did it. Free markets do go through cycles. People should be aware of this and plan accordingly. No one should think they are entitled to have a high paying job. If you can not find a high paying job, take the one which pays the best.

by AuthorMusician


I have thought about this idea myself. The interstate highway system was tremendous boon to the United States. Universal broad-band will have the same affect. Can this be done without government evolvement? Here in Illinois, the telecommunications companies, SBC currently, have been dragging their feet on establishing DSL service due to state government regulation which require them to provide access to their hardward to other competing services. Is this too much government involvement holding up the process? Personally, I think this is an example of a monopoly situation. The hardware and service parts of the business should be seperate to stimulate competition. The phone line should be owned by one company who does not provide services but sells assess to the lines to service providers. The Microsoft penalty which was thrown-out was going to seperate the operating system for other software to stimualte competition. These are two examples where coercion and monopoly practices have hindered the free market. A correction would be a better solution to our country's problem as opposed to redistribution of wealth.

That person would have been found out anyway, when she filed her tax form. She would have had to list her income (W-2 form) etc. Right?

Madtown

Ah yes. the old myth of the welfare queens, the abusers who are "bringing the whole system down." Let's look at a few examples:

In Lou Cannon's book, President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime, he quotes Reagan: "The Chicago welfare queen has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve social security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four nonexisting deceased husbands... Her tax-free cash income alone is over $150,000."

Cannon then has this to say - when reporters tracked down Reagan's "welfare queen," they found she used 2 aliases to collect 23 public aid checks totaling...... $8,000.00

When NYC started fingerprinting welfare recipients (to counter fraud) they found that less than 1% of the recipients attempted to file duplicate claims.

A lot of food stamp fraud is carried out by vendors who illegally redeem food stamps for cash at far less than their value. Many of these were stores that should not have been eligible (as they did not sell groceries), but were approved because of lax oversite and regulation. In 1995, the Boston Globe reported on a study which showed that stores of questionable eligibility redeemed more than $42 million in food stamps between April 1994 and May 1995.

Aren't there worse abuse problems than the small number of social program recipients who cheat the system? YES!

In 1993, the government lost around $150 billion dollars from tax evasion and inaccurate reporting. That's an amount more than total federal and state spending on AFDC for the previous 5 years combined. Yet fewer than 1% of individual returns were audited in 1992...

According to the Resolution Trust Corporation, set up to salvage the S&Ls, 81% of the more than $300 billion cost of the bailout was due to frad or wrongdoing. (Forbes, 9/92)

In 1992 the government spent $464 billion on "entitlements" that are not income level dependent (SS, Medicare, veteran's pensions and retirement, UI benefits. That's 10 times more than the amount spent on AFDC and Food Stamps for the same year. (From the Statistical Abstract of the US, published by the government)

Children and single parents eligible for Survivors' benefits through SS as the result of the death of a parent or spouse receive about 3 times as much as those who receive AFDC as the result of being abandoned by a parent or spouse. Recipients of Survivors' Benefits are furthermore not subject to any work requirements or restrictions on ownership of a house or car. (Social Security Bulletin, Annual Statistical Supplement, 1993)

OK, my sources are a little old, granted. Not much, however, has changed.

My point is, it really hurts real people for us to enact policies based on thinking that social programs are being abused and consuming a huge amount of our federal budget. There are abuses, sure, but I am more concerned with the abuses at the higher levels, because that is where the big money is being wasted, not in areas like AFDC. The two biggest means-tested programs for the poor are AFDC and Food Stamps. In 1992 (again, sorry for the age of these sources), we spent $43 billion on these two. Medicaid spending for families receiving AFDC in 1992 was $27.5 billion. By this reckoning, welfare spending in 1992 amounted to about 1.2% of the GDP. (from figures for GDP from President's Council of Economic Advisors,
Economic Report of the President)

Cheers