THEY CUTTING OFF WELFARE

[zzombie]

yeah, A link or some sort of reference would be nice.

This.

If it's true (whatever "they cutting off welfare" exactly means), then I don't think that's a good thing. I'm generally against the "welfare system," but cutting it abruptly is not the proper way to address the problem. Some people are very much dependent on welfare.

meh

An advanced capitalist society could not sustain itself without a welfare system

You keep on expressing your dislike of capitalism, and I keep on telling you that I believe that your understanding of capitalism is flawed. And this might be yet another example.

I don't necessarily think capitalism is this great evil

I just believe your disdain of the welfare state /social welfare programs is short sighted and misplaced

My understanding of the welfare state being a system whereby the government undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need, by means of grants, pensions, and other benefits

Corporations being the backbone of market capitalism. By "advanced" = when corporations own corporations which own corporations

That said, capitalism and technological advances have done much to destroy traditional tight knit, self sustaining communities of the past leaving many of the unemployable without support...

Capitalist economies are also subject to boom and bust cycles leaving many without work

The welfare state is the necessary management of capitalistic poverty and unemployment

It provides a cushion

Absent the redistribution and government programs, an advanced capitalist society would not be able to sustain itself and grow

There would be insufficient demand to drive production. There is only so much the wealthiest amongst us can buy

Not mention the social unrest that would occur

Advances in technology and globalization is going to make the welfare state even more moving forward

Your cushion is too big and too soft and too comfortable.

Government is wasteful, inefficient and is always on the edge of being tyrannical.

No it's not big enough

Part of the reason why poverty is on the rise and social mobility in this country is so low

Big government is evil? Tell that to the many countries with robust safety nets, low employment and low poverty rates

And at least with the government citizens have some same in who is running things opposed to the alternative

You mean in northern Europe??? where they have whole nations with the population size of NYC ???

You cannot recreate their relative success into the american situation because of many different factors and you wacky leftist know this. America has a 300 million population of very diverse people AMERICA CAN NEVER BE EUROPE.

You have to grow up and accept that some people have to suffer that's just how it is.

yeah, A link or some sort of reference would be nice.

This.

If it's true (whatever "they cutting off welfare" exactly means), then I don't think that's a good thing. I'm generally against the "welfare system," but cutting it abruptly is not the proper way to address the problem. Some people are very much dependent on welfare.

meh

An advanced capitalist society could not sustain itself without a welfare system

You keep on expressing your dislike of capitalism, and I keep on telling you that I believe that your understanding of capitalism is flawed. And this might be yet another example.

I'm not sure what you exactly mean by "advanced" and "welfare system," but I would argue that a capitalist society generally thrives well with a very limited "welfare system" or with no "welfare system" at all.

I believe that the kind of welfare system that currentlyknitrates in the United States is counterproductive in regard to the mitigation of poverty, the opportunity for social mobility, and the production of wealth.

I don't necessarily think capitalism is this great evil

I just believe your disdain of the welfare state /social welfare programs is short sighted and misplaced

My understanding of the welfare state being a system whereby the government undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need, by means of grants, pensions, and other benefits

Corporations being the backbone of market capitalism. By "advanced" = when corporations own corporations which own corporations

That said, capitalism and technological advances have done much to destroy traditional tight knit, self sustaining communities of the past leaving many of the unemployable without support...

Capitalist economies are also subject to boom and bust cycles leaving many without work

The welfare state is the necessary management of capitalistic poverty and unemployment

It provides a cushion

Absent the redistribution and government programs, an advanced capitalist society would not be able to sustain itself and grow

There would be insufficient demand to drive production. There is only so much the wealthiest amongst us can buy

Not mention the social unrest that would occur

Advances in technology and globalization is going to make the welfare state even more moving forward

Your cushion is too big and too soft and too comfortable.

Government is wasteful, inefficient and is always on the edge of being tyrannical.

No it's not big enough

Part of the reason why poverty is on the rise and social mobility in this country is so low

Big government is evil? Tell that to the many countries with robust safety nets, low employment and low poverty rates

And at least with the government citizens have some same in who is running things opposed to the alternative

You mean in northern Europe??? where they have whole nations with the population size of NYC ???

You cannot recreate their relative success into the american situation because of many different factors and you wacky leftist know this. America has a 300 million population of very diverse people AMERICA CAN NEVER BE EUROPE.

You have to grow up and accept that some people have to suffer that's just how it is.

Lol

America is not Norway or Denmark

My point is the government can do a lot of good

And our government can do more to move us toward a more egalitarian society if the right ppl are in office and the right policies are instituted

It will take a major cultural shift before that happens though

Absolutely not.

THERE CAN BE NO SUCH THING AS AN EGALITARIAN SOCIETY NOR DO I SEE WHY ONE WOULD BE BENEFICIAL.

CRACK open a history book we have been through this shit already all attempts to create egalitarian societies end is disaster. PEOPLE ARE NOT EQUAL and using the force of government to make them so only leads to resistance or the establishment of tyrannical elites. PEOPLE IN THE WEST are already swinging away from your leftism which is part of the reason trump is in office if there is going to be a cultural shift it won't be towards your direction.

And u were just discussing the merits of universal basic income lol



But yea let's agree to disagree

ONLY BECAUSE IT WOULD KILL WELFARE.

 

[Plutarch]

I don't necessarily think capitalism is this great evil

Heh, well, you could've fooled me.

I just believe your disdain of the welfare state /social welfare programs is short sighted and misplaced

Really? Did you come to that conclusion based on what I've said in this thread, because I don't think I've said much or really explained my views on the welfare state/social welfare programs. What do you find short-sighted and misplaced about my "views"?

My understanding of the welfare state being a system whereby the government undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need, by means of grants, pensions, and other benefits

I figured this, and I think I understand this. And it does sound socialist and pro-big government. I guess we just disagree on the nature or proper form of U.S. government. I think our current welfare state is immoral, unconstitutional, and ineffective (as more than half-a-decade has proven, imo). I neither believe in government dependency (do you?) nor collusion between government and the private sector (i.e., fascism).

I believe it would be much more productive and efficient if individuals and organizations, with little government interference, took on the burden of protecting and providing for themselves and others. Of course, as I've said, I don't support an immediate removal of the welfare system. A lot of other measures would have to take place alongside the transition to capitalism.

Corporations being the backbone of market capitalism. By "advanced" = when corporations own corporations which own corporations

Corporations should be able to do as they like, as long as there is no criminal or unconstitutional activity. The people and the market should determine economic progress. There will never be an economic utopia, but less regulation and corruption should mitigate monopolies and the like and should encourage innovation and a plethora of small businesses and choices.

 

[Plutarch]

That said, capitalism and technological advances have done much to destroy traditional tight knit, self sustaining communities of the past leaving many of the unemployable without support...

I mostly disagree. Strong communities have long thrived in capitalism. And once again, I want to reiterate my belief that capitalism hasn't been practiced in the United States for more than several decades, if not a century. You seem to be talking about corporatism, which is not capitalism.

Also, I can think of several other suspects in regard to the destruction of strong blacks communities, including the drug war and even government dependency, especially if people are correct when they say that the black father (or mother) has been replaced by the government in terms of providing for the black child, educating the black child, etc.

Capitalist economies are also subject to boom and bust cycles leaving many without work

I agree. I believe that that is just natural, and nature is neither inherently good nor bad. One thing that I believe capitalism has correct is the disbelief in utopia and the belief in "there will be good times, and there will be bad times." I also believe that these booms and busts are exacerbated by government interference, which has been shown to be painfully true, imo, throughout history and especially recent decades.

The welfare state is the necessary management of capitalistic poverty and unemployment

As I've said I believe capitalistic poverty and unemployment is much better treated by individuals and organizations, with little government force. The welfare state is has been counterproductive.

It provides a cushion

Cushions can turn counterproductive, no? What if the cushion is too comfortable and encourages complacency and exploitation, as some posters have even demonstrated here in this thread? At what point does a safety net become a hammock? No, honestly, I believe that this is just another "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" scenario. We don't need to rely so much on cushions. We need to rely on medicine.

 

[Plutarch]

Absent the redistribution and government programs, an advanced capitalist society would not be able to sustain itself and grow

Again, for the previous reasons I've stated, I think you have it backwards. I believe that 90%-100% socialism works most ideally in its own way, and I think that 90%-100% capitalism works most ideally in its own way. You seem to want something like 50% socialism and 50% capitalism. That's oil and water and will give you nothing but inefficiency. That's like a group of people on one end of a cart pushing it one way and another group of people on the other end of the cart pushing it the opposite way. All in all, the cart goes nowhere.

There would be insufficient demand to drive production. There is only so much the wealthiest amongst us can buy

If I'm understanding you correctly, capitalism tends to maximize the middle class instead of concentrating wealth at the top. This is part of the reason why the elite doesn't want to practice capitalism and wants to practice your mode of economics, which has steadily minimized the middle class, imo.

Less regulation invites risk but also reward, and this is a better situation than the one we currently have. Less regulation also drives innovation and productivity. Less regulation opens up the market so that entrepreneurship is less impossible (even little kids can open up lemonade stands without fear of the police shutting them down because they don't have a license), so that big businesses aren't protected by big government, so that things like hemp (which still hasn't seen its full potential) and raw milk aren't criminalized, so that adolescents (like the ever-faltering black youth unemployment) can get jobs and experience even if the pay is initially under minimum wage, etc.

As opposed to education and healthcare, technology, or at least the internet, is one of the few sectors of society that hasn't been regulated by the government (yet), and it has seen relative success (in regard to prices, productivity, and innovation) in comparison.

 

[Plutarch]

Not mention the social unrest that would occur

We know that social unrest, like poverty and unemployment, is unavoidable - which is another harsh truth that capitalism does not reject. If I'm understanding you correctly, I don't think that capitalism encourages more social unrest. If anything, the opposite is true, or there is no real strong correlation between capitalism and more social unrest. Think of the social unrest that continues to occur today without much of a trace of capitalism and with full-blown corporatism with traces of socialism.

Advances in technology and globalization is going to make the welfare state even more necessary moving forward

More necessary? I disagree for reasons previously stated. We should be moving away from the trends of globalization and welfarism that have become an, imo, detrimental standard in some parts of Europe. If America tries to be like Europe, it will only fail miserably. A square peg doesn't fit in a round hole. It's the principle of individual liberty that I believe makes (or would make) America great and unique. I don't think we should give that up for a false sense of security.

 

[rebootx1]

So what is a solution here becuz outsourcing cheap labor not gonna stop becuz not only r companies saving on labor, the renting and taxing on buildings for their business is much cheaper, technology will not regress but only will get smarter, I think we must upgrade the curriculum of schools to make computer engineering a basic subject and in try level jobs require minimum computer skills,.

 

[konceptjones]

yeah, A link or some sort of reference would be nice.

This.

If it's true (whatever "they cutting off welfare" exactly means), then I don't think that's a good thing. I'm generally against the "welfare system," but cutting it abruptly is not the proper way to address the problem. Some people are very much dependent on welfare.

meh

An advanced capitalist society could not sustain itself without a welfare system

You keep on expressing your dislike of capitalism, and I keep on telling you that I believe that your understanding of capitalism is flawed. And this might be yet another example.

I'm not sure what you exactly mean by "advanced" and "welfare system," but I would argue that a capitalist society generally thrives well with a very limited "welfare system" or with no "welfare system" at all.

I believe that the kind of welfare system that currentlyknitrates in the United States is counterproductive in regard to the mitigation of poverty, the opportunity for social mobility, and the production of wealth.

I don't necessarily think capitalism is this great evil

I just believe your disdain of the welfare state /social welfare programs is short sighted and misplaced

My understanding of the welfare state being a system whereby the government undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need, by means of grants, pensions, and other benefits

Corporations being the backbone of market capitalism. By "advanced" = when corporations own corporations which own corporations

That said, capitalism and technological advances have done much to destroy traditional tight knit, self sustaining communities of the past leaving many of the unemployable without support...

Capitalist economies are also subject to boom and bust cycles leaving many without work

The welfare state is the necessary management of capitalistic poverty and unemployment

It provides a cushion

Absent the redistribution and government programs, an advanced capitalist society would not be able to sustain itself and grow

There would be insufficient demand to drive production. There is only so much the wealthiest amongst us can buy

Not mention the social unrest that would occur

Advances in technology and globalization is going to make the welfare state even more moving forward

Your cushion is too big and too soft and too comfortable.

Government is wasteful, inefficient and is always on the edge of being tyrannical.

No it's not big enough

Part of the reason why poverty is on the rise and social mobility in this country is so low

Big government is evil? Tell that to the many countries with robust safety nets, low employment and low poverty rates

And at least with the government citizens have some say in who is running things opposed to the alternative

one reason poverty is on the rise is folks are still stuck on gettin plant jobs when the plant been closed for 20 years. You gotta adapt to today's job market and if you're young you have time to do just that. We got folks out here in their 30's just gettin into STEM fields and finding out that a decent living can be made. Plus, skilled trades are ALWAYS in demand because folks over look them as an alternative to college. A mechanic can make decent coin, HVAC can make a killing... Lots of ways to get out there to make a decent living but the people need to seek that out for themselves instead of expecting someone to just walk up and hand them that job.

There's some truth to what you said

Even though manufacturing jobs are actually on the rise

But the spike began with the depression as it always

Then wages have stagnated while the price of living has gone up

Plus many Americans are facing crippling debt stemming from medical bills and school loans

The cut in funding to social programs nationwide has pushed many ppl, some of whom are unemployable, deeper into debt and/or poverty

There's nothing BUT truth in what I've said. The people have to shift to the changing market. If you used to make money on the line and the line ain't there no more but here's another opportunity to get yours you just have to take a 6 month training program to get it then that's what you have to do. You can't sit off hoping for them jobs on the line to come back. There's entire cities in this country that have been devastated because they thought those jobs were gonna come back and just sat still on unemployment and then welfare instead of gettin up to find a new way.

Also, I don't believe in "unemployable" people. There's a job out there for everyone, even felons.

Nigga I'm from metro Detroit too

I personally seen and experienced how plant closes have devasted towns like flint and pontiac

And while there is some truth to what you are saying I see ppl trying

The rise in poverty is more deeper and complicated than what you are making it seem

And by unemployable I mean ppl with disabilities, those with chronic illness, care givers, the elderly etc

Well then nigga you understand me. I was, however, born in Saginaw; a city that GM yanked the cord on EVERY plant they had there except one (and the only reason they can't pull the plug on Grey Iron Foundry is because it would be entirely too expensive to move it). Saginaw is a fuckin wasteland, worse off than Flint which ain't but 30 miles down the road. I lived in Pontiac too, I know first hand how that shit is out there(lived at Auburn and Carriage Circle Dr).

People are not willing to step out of their comfort zone to train for a job that will take care of their families. If you used to work on the line and get laid off, and you got a family to feed, why are you not taking advantage of training programs to get a decent paying job? Why are you not seeking shit outside of your comfort zone? Shit is Darwinian outchea; you gotta evolve or die.

 

[rebootx1]

And that's what is happening in alot of inner cities, people don't wanna learn new things and people don't wanna relocate they wanna stay in one spot and rot shit is sad, u gotta go and learn where the money at

 

[konceptjones]

And that's what is happening in alot of inner cities, people don't wanna learn new things and people don't wanna relocate they wanna stay in one spot and rot shit is sad, u gotta go and learn where the money at

I told y'all before: when the job market in Metro Detroit got so bad that recruiters were getting hundreds or resumes for a single opening I packed my family up and bounced out here to Phoenix on a wing and a prayer. There were tech jobs out here in abundance. My problem became I moved so far up the ladder that jobs became scarce again and ain't nobody hiring a senior level engineer to do low level shit. I had to adapt and start my consulting company. When shit changes you gotta change with it or be left behind.

 

[desertrain10]

yeah, A link or some sort of reference would be nice.

This.

If it's true (whatever "they cutting off welfare" exactly means), then I don't think that's a good thing. I'm generally against the "welfare system," but cutting it abruptly is not the proper way to address the problem. Some people are very much dependent on welfare.

meh

An advanced capitalist society could not sustain itself without a welfare system

You keep on expressing your dislike of capitalism, and I keep on telling you that I believe that your understanding of capitalism is flawed. And this might be yet another example.

I don't necessarily think capitalism is this great evil

I just believe your disdain of the welfare state /social welfare programs is short sighted and misplaced

That said, capitalism and technological advances have done much to destroy traditional tight knit, self sustaining communities of the past leaving many of the unemployable without support...

Capitalist economies are also subject to boom and bust cycles leaving many without work

The welfare state is the necessary management of capitalistic poverty and unemployment

It provides a cushion

Absent the redistribution and government programs, an advanced capitalist society would not be able to sustain itself and grow

There would be insufficient demand to drive production. There is only so much the wealthiest amongst us can buy

Not mention the social unrest that would occur

Advances in technology and globalization is going to make the welfare state even more moving forward

Your cushion is too big and too soft and too comfortable.

Government is wasteful, inefficient and is always on the edge of being tyrannical.

No it's not big enough

Part of the reason why poverty is on the rise and social mobility in this country is so low

Big government is evil? Tell that to the many countries with robust safety nets, low employment and low poverty rates

And at least with the government citizens have some same in who is running things opposed to the alternative

You mean in northern Europe??? where they have whole nations with the population size of NYC ???

yeah, A link or some sort of reference would be nice.

This.

If it's true (whatever "they cutting off welfare" exactly means), then I don't think that's a good thing. I'm generally against the "welfare system," but cutting it abruptly is not the proper way to address the problem. Some people are very much dependent on welfare.

meh

An advanced capitalist society could not sustain itself without a welfare system

You keep on expressing your dislike of capitalism, and I keep on telling you that I believe that your understanding of capitalism is flawed. And this might be yet another example.

I'm not sure what you exactly mean by "advanced" and "welfare system," but I would

I don't necessarily think capitalism is this great evil

I just believe your disdain of the welfare state /social welfare programs is short sighted and misplaced

My understanding of the welfare state being a system whereby the government undertakes to

That said, capitalism and technological advances have done much to destroy traditional tight knit, self sustaining communities of the past leaving many of the unemployable without support...

Capitalist economies are also subject to boom and bust cycles leaving many without work

The welfare state is the necessary management of capitalistic poverty and unemployment

It provides a cushion

Absent the redistribution and government programs, an advanced capitalist society would not be able to sustain itself and grow

There would be insufficient demand to drive production. There is only so much the wealthiest amongst us can buy

Not mention the social unrest that would occur

Advances in technology and globalization is going to make the welfare state even more moving forward

Your cushion is too big and too soft and too comfortable.

Government is wasteful, inefficient and is always on the edge of being tyrannical.

No it's not big enough

Part of the reason why poverty is on the rise and social mobility in this country is so low

Big government is evil? Tell that to the many countries with robust safety nets, low employment and low poverty rates

And at least with the government citizens have some same in who is running things opposed to the alternative

You mean in northern Europe??? where they have whole nations with the population size of NYC ???

You cannot recreate their relative success into the american situation because of many different factors and you wacky leftist know this. America has a 300 million population of very diverse people AMERICA CAN NEVER BE EUROPE.

You have to grow up and accept that some people have to suffer that's just how it is.

Lol

America is not Norway or Denmark

My point is the government can do a lot of good

And our government can do more to move us toward a more egalitarian society if the right ppl are in office and the right policies are instituted

It will take a major cultural shift before that happens though

Absolutely not.

THERE CAN BE NO SUCH THING AS AN EGALITARIAN SOCIETY NOR DO I SEE WHY ONE WOULD BE BENEFICIAL.

CRACK open a history book we have been through this shit already all attempts to create egalitarian societies end is disaster. PEOPLE ARE NOT EQUAL and using the force of government to make them so only leads to resistance or the establishment of tyrannical elites. PEOPLE IN THE WEST are already swinging away from your leftism which is part of the reason trump is in office if there is going to be a cultural shift it won't be towards your direction.

And u were just discussing the merits of universal basic income lol



But yea let's agree to disagree

ONLY BECAUSE IT WOULD KILL WELFARE.

I like the idea of ubi as an alternative to the current welfare state

Especially with the advent of autonomous cars

Though I dont like how it's less personalized

It's just alil funny how you rant on about the evils of socialism and government dependency only to paint the idea of the government eventually having to give ppl money regardless of whether recipients are working or not and even regardless of whether they’re willing to work or not as this necessary evil

Especially when the rich will essentially be the ones paying for it

 

[desertrain10]

yeah, A link or some sort of reference would be nice.

This.

If it's true (whatever "they cutting off welfare" exactly means), then I don't think that's a good thing. I'm generally against the "welfare system," but cutting it abruptly is not the proper way to address the problem. Some people are very much dependent on welfare.

meh

An advanced capitalist society could not sustain itself without a welfare system

You keep on expressing your dislike of capitalism, and I keep on telling you that I believe that your understanding of capitalism is flawed. And this might be yet another example.

I'm not sure what you exactly mean by "advanced" and "welfare system," but I would argue that a capitalist society generally thrives well with a very limited "welfare system" or with no "welfare system" at all.

I believe that the kind of welfare system that currentlyknitrates in the United States is counterproductive in regard to the mitigation of poverty, the opportunity for social mobility, and the production of wealth.

I don't necessarily think capitalism is this great evil

I just believe your disdain of the welfare state /social welfare programs is short sighted and misplaced

My understanding of the welfare state being a system whereby the government undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need, by means of grants, pensions, and other benefits

Corporations being the backbone of market capitalism. By "advanced" = when corporations own corporations which own corporations

That said, capitalism and technological advances have done much to destroy traditional tight knit, self sustaining communities of the past leaving many of the unemployable without support...

Capitalist economies are also subject to boom and bust cycles leaving many without work

The welfare state is the necessary management of capitalistic poverty and unemployment

It provides a cushion

Absent the redistribution and government programs, an advanced capitalist society would not be able to sustain itself and grow

There would be insufficient demand to drive production. There is only so much the wealthiest amongst us can buy

Not mention the social unrest that would occur

Advances in technology and globalization is going to make the welfare state even more moving forward

Your cushion is too big and too soft and too comfortable.

Government is wasteful, inefficient and is always on the edge of being tyrannical.

No it's not big enough

Part of the reason why poverty is on the rise and social mobility in this country is so low

Big government is evil? Tell that to the many countries with robust safety nets, low employment and low poverty rates

And at least with the government citizens have some say in who is running things opposed to the alternative

one reason poverty is on the rise is folks are still stuck on gettin plant jobs when the plant been closed for 20 years. You gotta adapt to today's job market and if you're young you have time to do just that. We got folks out here in their 30's just gettin into STEM fields and finding out that a decent living can be made. Plus, skilled trades are ALWAYS in demand because folks over look them as an alternative to college. A mechanic can make decent coin, HVAC can make a killing... Lots of ways to get out there to make a decent living but the people need to seek that out for themselves instead of expecting someone to just walk up and hand them that job.

There's some truth to what you said

Even though manufacturing jobs are actually on the rise

But the spike began with the depression as it always

Then wages have stagnated while the price of living has gone up

Plus many Americans are facing crippling debt stemming from medical bills and school loans

The cut in funding to social programs nationwide has pushed many ppl, some of whom are unemployable, deeper into debt and/or poverty

There's nothing BUT truth in what I've said. The people have to shift to the changing market. If you used to make money on the line and the line ain't there no more but here's another opportunity to get yours you just have to take a 6 month training program to get it then that's what you have to do. You can't sit off hoping for them jobs on the line to come back. There's entire cities in this country that have been devastated because they thought those jobs were gonna come back and just sat still on unemployment and then welfare instead of gettin up to find a new way.

Also, I don't believe in "unemployable" people. There's a job out there for everyone, even felons.

Nigga I'm from metro Detroit too

I personally seen and experienced how plant closes have devasted towns like flint and pontiac

And while there is some truth to what you are saying I see ppl trying

The rise in poverty is more deeper and complicated than what you are making it seem

And by unemployable I mean ppl with disabilities, those with chronic illness, care givers, the elderly etc

Well then nigga you understand me. I was, however, born in Saginaw; a city that GM yanked the cord on EVERY plant they had there except one (and the only reason they can't pull the plug on Grey Iron Foundry is because it would be entirely too expensive to move it). Saginaw is a fuckin wasteland, worse off than Flint which ain't but 30 miles down the road. I lived in Pontiac too, I know first hand how that shit is out there(lived at Auburn and Carriage Circle Dr).

People are not willing to step out of their comfort zone to train for a job that will take care of their families. If you used to work on the line and get laid off, and you got a family to feed, why are you not taking advantage of training programs to get a decent paying job? Why are you not seeking shit outside of your comfort zone? Shit is Darwinian outchea; you gotta evolve or die.

Again I see ppl trying

The cause and rise of poverty is more deeper and complicated than what you are making it seem

 

[The_Jackal]

Welfare unfortunately in a first world capitalist society is a needed evil. Like all needed evil needs to be regulated through.

People receiving welfare and food stamps should only beable to use it on approved items, should be forced to attend some sort of job traning classes, and ultimately of they do not find a job should be forced out.

 

[desertrain10]

I don't necessarily think capitalism is this great evil

Heh, well, you could've fooled me.

I just believe your disdain of the welfare state /social welfare programs is short sighted and misplaced

Really? Did you come to that conclusion based on what I've said in this thread, because I don't think I've said much or really explained my views on the welfare state/social welfare programs. What do you find short-sighted and misplaced about my "views"?

My understanding of the welfare state being a system whereby the government undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need, by means of grants, pensions, and other benefits

I figured this, and I think I understand this. And it does sound socialist and pro-big government. I guess we just disagree on the nature or proper form of U.S. government. I think our current welfare state is immoral, unconstitutional, and ineffective (as more than half-a-decade has proven, imo). I neither believe in government dependency (do you?) nor collusion between government and the private sector (i.e., fascism).

I believe it would be much more productive and efficient if individuals and organizations, with little government interference, took on the burden of protecting and providing for themselves and others. Of course, as I've said, I don't support an immediate removal of the welfare system. A lot of other measures would have to take place alongside the transition to capitalism.

Corporations being the backbone of market capitalism. By "advanced" = when corporations own corporations which own corporations

Corporations should be able to do as they like, as long as there is no criminal or unconstitutional activity. The people and the market should determine economic progress. There will never be an economic utopia, but less regulation and corruption should mitigate monopolies and the like and should encourage innovation and a plethora of small businesses and choices.

We've had similar convos about the welfare state and capitalism from which I gathered that you believe the welfare state is ineffective and immoral

Seems like i was right

Again I don't believe capitalism is inherently this great evil or great good

What I do believe is that capitalism is organized in ways that encourage the accumulation of wealth at one end and creates conditions of scarcity that make poverty inevitable at the other. And it should our moral duty as a country to help the poor. It also necessary. The more ppl we can lift out of poverty into the middle class the greater the demand for goods. Also it curbs social unrest

 

[zzombie]

yeah, A link or some sort of reference would be nice.

This.

If it's true (whatever "they cutting off welfare" exactly means), then I don't think that's a good thing. I'm generally against the "welfare system," but cutting it abruptly is not the proper way to address the problem. Some people are very much dependent on welfare.

meh

An advanced capitalist society could not sustain itself without a welfare system

You keep on expressing your dislike of capitalism, and I keep on telling you that I believe that your understanding of capitalism is flawed. And this might be yet another example.

I don't necessarily think capitalism is this great evil

I just believe your disdain of the welfare state /social welfare programs is short sighted and misplaced

That said, capitalism and technological advances have done much to destroy traditional tight knit, self sustaining communities of the past leaving many of the unemployable without support...

Capitalist economies are also subject to boom and bust cycles leaving many without work

The welfare state is the necessary management of capitalistic poverty and unemployment

It provides a cushion

Absent the redistribution and government programs, an advanced capitalist society would not be able to sustain itself and grow

There would be insufficient demand to drive production. There is only so much the wealthiest amongst us can buy

Not mention the social unrest that would occur

Advances in technology and globalization is going to make the welfare state even more moving forward

Your cushion is too big and too soft and too comfortable.

Government is wasteful, inefficient and is always on the edge of being tyrannical.

No it's not big enough

Part of the reason why poverty is on the rise and social mobility in this country is so low

Big government is evil? Tell that to the many countries with robust safety nets, low employment and low poverty rates

And at least with the government citizens have some same in who is running things opposed to the alternative

You mean in northern Europe??? where they have whole nations with the population size of NYC ???

yeah, A link or some sort of reference would be nice.

This.

If it's true (whatever "they cutting off welfare" exactly means), then I don't think that's a good thing. I'm generally against the "welfare system," but cutting it abruptly is not the proper way to address the problem. Some people are very much dependent on welfare.

meh

An advanced capitalist society could not sustain itself without a welfare system

You keep on expressing your dislike of capitalism, and I keep on telling you that I believe that your understanding of capitalism is flawed. And this might be yet another example.

I'm not sure what you exactly mean by "advanced" and "welfare system," but I would

I don't necessarily think capitalism is this great evil

I just believe your disdain of the welfare state /social welfare programs is short sighted and misplaced

My understanding of the welfare state being a system whereby the government undertakes to

That said, capitalism and technological advances have done much to destroy traditional tight knit, self sustaining communities of the past leaving many of the unemployable without support...

Capitalist economies are also subject to boom and bust cycles leaving many without work

The welfare state is the necessary management of capitalistic poverty and unemployment

It provides a cushion

Absent the redistribution and government programs, an advanced capitalist society would not be able to sustain itself and grow

There would be insufficient demand to drive production. There is only so much the wealthiest amongst us can buy

Not mention the social unrest that would occur

Advances in technology and globalization is going to make the welfare state even more moving forward

Your cushion is too big and too soft and too comfortable.

Government is wasteful, inefficient and is always on the edge of being tyrannical.

No it's not big enough

Part of the reason why poverty is on the rise and social mobility in this country is so low

Big government is evil? Tell that to the many countries with robust safety nets, low employment and low poverty rates

And at least with the government citizens have some same in who is running things opposed to the alternative

You mean in northern Europe??? where they have whole nations with the population size of NYC ???

You cannot recreate their relative success into the american situation because of many different factors and you wacky leftist know this. America has a 300 million population of very diverse people AMERICA CAN NEVER BE EUROPE.

You have to grow up and accept that some people have to suffer that's just how it is.

Lol

America is not Norway or Denmark

My point is the government can do a lot of good

And our government can do more to move us toward a more egalitarian society if the right ppl are in office and the right policies are instituted

It will take a major cultural shift before that happens though

Absolutely not.

THERE CAN BE NO SUCH THING AS AN EGALITARIAN SOCIETY NOR DO I SEE WHY ONE WOULD BE BENEFICIAL.

CRACK open a history book we have been through this shit already all attempts to create egalitarian societies end is disaster. PEOPLE ARE NOT EQUAL and using the force of government to make them so only leads to resistance or the establishment of tyrannical elites. PEOPLE IN THE WEST are already swinging away from your leftism which is part of the reason trump is in office if there is going to be a cultural shift it won't be towards your direction.

And u were just discussing the merits of universal basic income lol



But yea let's agree to disagree

ONLY BECAUSE IT WOULD KILL WELFARE.

I like the idea of ubi as an alternative to the current welfare state

Especially with the advent of autonomous cars

Though I dont like how it's less personalized

It's just alil funny how you rant on about the evils of socialism and government dependency only to paint the idea of the government eventually having to give ppl money regardless of whether recipients are working or not and even regardless of whether they’re willing to work or not as this necessary evil

Especially when the rich will essentially be the ones paying for it

I am not an ideologue my opposition to socialism is based on the fact that it is an inferior and evil system, my opposition is not based on an adherence to any economic ideology. A universal income may be a reality we cannot escape the efficiency of technology is something we cannot keep up with, however a universal income may also come with the added bonus of killing the welfare state which may decrease governmental power in many areas.

As long as universal income is not personalized then it just could work.

 

[desertrain10]

I don't necessarily think capitalism is this great evil

Heh, well, you could've fooled me.

I just believe your disdain of the welfare state /social welfare programs is short sighted and misplaced

Really? Did you come to that conclusion based on what I've said in this thread, because I don't think I've said much or really explained my views on the welfare state/social welfare programs. What do you find short-sighted and misplaced about my "views"?

My understanding of the welfare state being a system whereby the government undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need, by means of grants, pensions, and other benefits

I figured this, and I think I understand this. And it does sound socialist and pro-big government. I guess we just disagree on the nature or proper form of U.S. government. I think our current welfare state is immoral, unconstitutional, and ineffective (as more than half-a-decade has proven, imo). I neither believe in government dependency (do you?) nor collusion between government and the private sector (i.e., fascism).

I believe it would be much more productive and efficient if individuals and organizations, with little government interference, took on the burden of protecting and providing for themselves and others. Of course, as I've said, I don't support an immediate removal of the welfare system. A lot of other measures would have to take place alongside the transition to capitalism.

Corporations being the backbone of market capitalism. By "advanced" = when corporations own corporations which own corporations

Corporations should be able to do as they like, as long as there is no criminal or unconstitutional activity. The people and the market should determine economic progress. There will never be an economic utopia, but less regulation and corruption should mitigate monopolies and the like and should encourage innovation and a plethora of small businesses and choices.

What is really true capitalism?

And how would true capitalism and less government interference protect us from the influence of corporations?

Corporations form and grow powerful because of the law of economics, not because of the laws of governments

And in the pursuit of capital they will always seek to influence local authorities

Even if government were removed they would find alternative means to gain influence and stifle competition that individuals could not regulate or contend with

At the same time there are many products, services and industries that simply wouldn’t exist if it hadn’t been for corporatism, the opportunity costs would make such ventures impracticable

So yea less government regulation is not the answer and introduced a whole other set of problems into the mix

The solution requires better regulation and the enforcement of the law. Only than can monopolies and corruption be mitigated

 

[desertrain10]

That said, capitalism and technological advances have done much to destroy traditional tight knit, self sustaining communities of the past leaving many of the unemployable without support...

I mostly disagree. Strong communities have long thrived in capitalism. And once again, I want to reiterate my belief that capitalism hasn't been practiced in the United States for more than several decades, if not a century. You seem to be talking about corporatism, which is not capitalism.

Also, I can think of several other suspects in regard to the destruction of strong blacks communities, including the drug war and even government dependency, especially if people are correct when they say that the black father (or mother) has been replaced by the government in terms of providing for the black child, educating the black child, etc.

Capitalist economies are also subject to boom and bust cycles leaving many without work

I agree. I believe that that is just natural, and nature is neither inherently good nor bad. One thing that I believe capitalism has correct is the disbelief in utopia and the belief in "there will be good times, and there will be bad times." I also believe that these booms and busts are exacerbated by government interference, which has been shown to be painfully true, imo, throughout history and especially recent decades.

The welfare state is the necessary management of capitalistic poverty and unemployment

As I've said I believe capitalistic poverty and unemployment is much better treated by individuals and organizations, with little government force. The welfare state is has been counterproductive.

It provides a cushion

Cushions can turn counterproductive, no? What if the cushion is too comfortable and encourages complacency and exploitation, as some posters have even demonstrated here in this thread? At what point does a safety net become a hammock? No, honestly, I believe that this is just another "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" scenario. We don't need to rely so much on cushions. We need to rely on medicine.

When I say capitalism and technological advances has helped to destroy the tight knit self sufficient communities of the past, I was referring the time prior to the industrial revolution it was customary for families to stay in the same location, grow their own food, take care of their own elderly/sick, be able to keep a close eye on their own children, etc

Now every thing has been comercialized and the costs to doing these things now outweigh the risks

The thorn in the black community's side has and continues to be racism. Prior to welfare we were poor and the poverty rates were close to double of what we see today. Unemployment was low back then only because of share cropping and the abundance of low wage jobs. What incentive would employees have to pay Blk workers a fair wage and provide them a safe working environment without government intervention?

And please what is this big cushion you all speak of?

Lol @ capitalistic poverty and unemployment is much better treated by individuals and organizations, with little government force....expound. Other countries have very robust and effective welfare states. Not to mention all but a tiny few of the richest countries have a welfare state

And if you concerned about ppl growing dependent on government, I have to ask could the poor not grow dependent on charities. And by removing the certainty and security of government and the services it provides, you would be shifting even more risk and uncertainty onto private individuals which is even more problematic

I do think the welfare state does need to be revamped, the poor/low income shouldn't be immediately penalized or cut off from aid for working too many hours

 

[desertrain10]

Absent the redistribution and government programs, an advanced capitalist society would not be able to sustain itself and grow

Again, for the previous reasons I've stated, I think you have it backwards. I believe that 90%-100% socialism works most ideally in its own way, and I think that 90%-100% capitalism works most ideally in its own way. You seem to want something like 50% socialism and 50% capitalism. That's oil and water and will give you nothing but inefficiency. That's like a group of people on one end of a cart pushing it one way and another group of people on the other end of the cart pushing it the opposite way. All in all, the cart goes nowhere.

Socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive

And pure capitalism and pure socialism are extreme impossibilities

From the pragmatic perspective, both systems have abundant advantages and disadvantages. So I believe a healthy mix for the two is best

For ex having a good welfare and social support infrastructure, with capitalist motivational systems on top

It's not just a coincidence the developed societies with the lowest poverty and unemployment rates and high social mobility have a healthy mix of socialism and capitalism

 

[JonnyRoccIT]

I can't front when I'm in the grocery line doing the mental math of how much I'm about to spend and I see people pull out that Link card that shit be pissing me off. I don't know maybe because I come from an immigrant background and I have myself dug out of financial hard times I be like fuck them people. If I can sacrifice and hustle my way outta that shit so should they.

Nah brah...let us Food Stamp gettin niggas Eat

.........literally .

 

[zzombie]

Absent the redistribution and government programs, an advanced capitalist society would not be able to sustain itself and grow

Again, for the previous reasons I've stated, I think you have it backwards. I believe that 90%-100% socialism works most ideally in its own way, and I think that 90%-100% capitalism works most ideally in its own way. You seem to want something like 50% socialism and 50% capitalism. That's oil and water and will give you nothing but inefficiency. That's like a group of people on one end of a cart pushing it one way and another group of people on the other end of the cart pushing it the opposite way. All in all, the cart goes nowhere.

Socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive

And pure capitalism and pure socialism are extreme impossibilities

From the pragmatic perspective, both systems have abundant advantages and disadvantages. So I believe a healthy mix for the two is best

For ex having a good welfare and social support infrastructure, with capitalist motivational systems on top

It's not just a coincidence the developed societies with the lowest poverty and unemployment rates and high social mobility have a healthy mix of socialism and capitalism

Your mix i leans way too far into socialism AND why are you comparing america to those European nations when you know very well that they have unique situations and populations??? have you actually looked at the unemployment in Europe or are you having delusions again?? they are not doing better than us at all and with few exceptions those with the lowest rates are all nations with tiny populations

 

[konceptjones]

Well then nigga you understand me. I was, however, born in Saginaw; a city that GM yanked the cord on EVERY plant they had there except one (and the only reason they can't pull the plug on Grey Iron Foundry is because it would be entirely too expensive to move it). Saginaw is a fuckin wasteland, worse off than Flint which ain't but 30 miles down the road. I lived in Pontiac too, I know first hand how that shit is out there(lived at Auburn and Carriage Circle Dr).

People are not willing to step out of their comfort zone to train for a job that will take care of their families. If you used to work on the line and get laid off, and you got a family to feed, why are you not taking advantage of training programs to get a decent paying job? Why are you not seeking shit outside of your comfort zone? Shit is Darwinian outchea; you gotta evolve or die.

Again I see ppl trying

The cause and rise of poverty is more deeper and complicated than what you are making it seem

"the simplest explanation is usually the correct one" - Occam's razor

The US was once a manufacturing and agricultural powerhouse. Jobs that didn't require any sort of education were plentiful and paid very well. We're now 30+ years since that was the case. Industry in this country has shifted and the people have not. Jobs require a high school education at a bare minimum with college or equivalent training and certification being the norm. Those people that adapted are doing well, those that did not are living in poverty and, truthfully, have no one to blame but themselves. We don't live in the days of black and white TV and radio shows, when a loaf of bread was a nickel and shit. Those days are not coming back so you need to clamp down and learn some new shit to make it in today's economy.

I've seen it first hand myself: One of the cats I used to work with in network security was in his early 50's. He told me Ford closed the plant he worked at in Ohio back in 2003. He had been there for 20 years and got in without a high school diploma. There were ZERO opportunities for people without a diploma so he buckled down and got his GED. There weren't any jobs available for folks without at least an associates degree or some sort of training so he worked in fast food and went to community college, took a "computer class", as he called it, and found how much money could be made in IT. 10 years later we're working together and he was making 6 figures as a senior security engineer specializing in firewalls and vulnerability scanning. Dude had ZERO interest in computers before that, and actually resented technology 'cause he blamed his job loss on tech advances. Now he's working in it.

There are lots of people I've met along the way that have similar stories. You say you see people trying but is what are they trying to do viable in today's economy? Are they going to school for careers that will translate into decent paying jobs? Are they learning a skilled trade? Are they willing to relocate for better opportunities? If none of this is going on then they're not trying hard enough.