THEY CUTTING OFF WELFARE

[farris2k1]

Sooo is this a "what if?" Thread?? Cause aint nobody said shit bout ending welfare

 

[desertrain10]

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.

So most poor and low income ppl are poor or struggling because they lack the motivation or know how?

The rising costs of healthcare, food and housing And stagnated wages doesn't play a role?

Yea let's just agree to disagree

 

[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

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

Delusional?

You speak of america having this large cushy safety net, but that is the farthest thing from the truth

The american social safety net is extremely weak and filled with holes. Furthermore, it has become even weaker over the past 40 years because of various welfare reform and budget cutting measures

We currently expend among the fewest resources within the industrialized countries in terms of pulling families out of poverty and protecting them from falling into it.

And America is one of the few developed nations that does not provide universal health care, affordable child care, or reasonably priced low income though we are one of the richest and have one of the largest economies

It's embarrassing the percentage of the population that directly encounters poverty is so high

 

[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.

So most poor and low income ppl are poor or struggling because they lack the motivation or know how?

The rising costs of healthcare, food and housing And stagnated wages doesn't play a role?

Yea let's just agree to disagree

That's EXACTLY the problem!

If you position yourself to get a decent paying job none of that will matter. Inflation will ALWAYS be here, costs are always rising that's why a 20oz Faygo ain't 50 cents anymore and a damned Big Mac combo is $6 and change instead of $3 like it was when I was in college.

I'm talking to folks all the time. I'm one that walks the walk because I've been there:

Unemployed? Yup. I was unemployed for 14 months back in 2011-2012 and couldn't find a job for shit when I caught that layoff in 2014.

Criminal background? I'm from Tha D, tha fuck you think?

Been on welfare? As a kid and as an adult with a family; I just mentioned being on food stamps a few years ago earlier in this thread.

I'm out here trying to help people get out the rut, but they gotta be willing to listen and try hard. When cats near me talk that "I got laid off" shit they're always waiting for that next job to open up exactly like the one they just had. Maybe it's time for a change. You got nothing but time on your hands so why not be productive when you're out of work and find a new direction to go in? While they're out of work I try to throw folks lil work at home gigs to keep some loot in their pockets. Some do well, some don't and usually the people that don't are the people with a million excuses.

In another thread I've told y'all I'm trying to get my business to the point where I can start training and hiring disadvantaged people in IT. I know how shit gets when you just got home from the bing and ain't nobody trying to give you a chance. My goal is to be that guy that they can come to for a second chance or for a new direction, to get out the fast food spot or whatever and do something to get out of poverty. I want to do this but when I'm ready they gotta be willing to TRY.

 

[rebootx1]

Hopefully the people in need it will be more resources available to them

 

[Plutarch]

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

Oh, ok....I guess I'm still trying to completely understand or counter what you think is short-sighted and misguided about my views.

Seems like i was right

I think your right about my general position, but I still wonder whether you understand the specifics of and rationale for my views.

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

I believe you, but I'm still a bit skeptical, heh.

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.

Again, for reasons previously stated, I disagree. Again, I believe that capitalism maximizes the middle class, and again, I believe that America has not practiced capitalism for quite some time now.

You also seem to say that capitalism makes poverty inevitable. If so, I would once again say that poverty is inevitable regardless. Again, I think that's a harsh truth that must be accepted, lest we spend eternity attempting to eradicate poverty altogether in counterproductive ways that harm everyone.

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

I disagree with your first point. I don't believe that anyone or the "country" has a "moral" duty to help anyone. Individuals should help others, regardless if they are poor or not, if they desire to do so. If I'm understanding you correctly, no one should be forced or compelled to help others because of moral obligation. Again, I believe that kind of philosophy risks naivety and actually creates social unrest.

 

[Plutarch]

What is really true capitalism?

Many things, according to many people, unfortunately.

My basic definition: an economic system in which private citizens and/or private organizations own and control some or most of the production and distribution of wealth, capital, land, assets, etc. I believe that the Constitution further clarifies and fleshes out American capitalism.

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

Capitalism and less government interference does not necessarily protect and never has necessarily protected us from the influence of corporations. Effective protection doesn't come from an economic system, and "excessive" government interference can only make things worse. Effective protection from corporations come from the law, the constitutional deliberation and revision of law, the market/citizenry, etc. Once again, even still, the harsh truth is that people will still be victimized. That is only reality. Nevertheless, we can still mitigate victimization, compensate victims, and penalize perpetrators. Unlike in present times, in a capitalist society, corrupt bankers would not be protected by the same government that you seek to depend on so much for utopia.

What is most important is that we, as citizens, retain our liberty and that we never trade our liberty and independence for a false sense of safety by depending on government. Again, I ask you an honest question: Do you advocate governmental dependency (for financial support, marriage approval, food and drug intake, non-criminal business decisions, etc.)? And if so, to what extent?

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

We might disagree, here. As I've said before, I believe that corporations can form and grow however they want to, as long as they do not violate law and are held responsible for their actions. I believe that a well-educated and well-informed citizenry with a vast number of opportunities given to them by capitalism can make it possible to mitigate potential damages inflicted by potential big business monopolies, should they even exist. I also believe that government multiplies the amount of damage corporations can inflict. Hasn't this "fact" been painfully obvious for decades now? People of all political persuasions know that the corporations run this country, but the less obvious "fact" is that they are able to do this with the active partnership with government, hence corporatism.

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

Yes, hence corporatism, which is not capitalism. Take the unwarranted power from the corporations by divorcing them from government, and our problems get a lot less magnified.

 

[Plutarch]

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

We mostly disagree, here. Will corporations still scheme? Yes, that is yet another harsh reality that we must accept and prepare for, regardless. But without collusion from the government, they will not be protected and will face serious punishment either from the law or the market/people. By losing their special-interest privileges, they will also face more competition from a flood of other corporations that will longer be suppressed by the government.

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

I mostly disagree. Just think of the products, services, and industries that haven't existed because of corporatism. Once again, hemp has been severely underused because of government interference. Think of alternative but criminalized medicine that can treat cancers and disease. We haven't even finalized the recently legalized use of medical marijuana to treat afflictions like seizures, because government still protects corporations who sell dog-shit drugs that are far less effective than medical marijuana. Think of the potential success of private industries regarding AIDS treatment, alternative energy sources, financial and educational welfare, etc., if they weren't bogged down by government interference.

Wait, I'm a bit confused, here. Are you arguing for corporatism?

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

For reasons previously stated, I wholeheartedly disagree.

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

I agree with your point about better enforcement of the law but not with better regulation if I understand you correctly. My idea of better regulation is better enforcement of the law but in tandem with better respect for individual liberty, for employees and employers alike.

 

[Plutarch]

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

So you honestly believe that today, families don't or can't 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 children, etc.? If so, you think capitalism and technology is to blame for this? Hmm, well, we disagree on both accounts, but I'm not sure I understand your reasoning.

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

Everything? And capitalism is to blame for this?

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?

Yes, racism. And a bevy of other important, if not more important, sources, imo. Prior to welfare, we were not all poor. Many of us were middle-class and upper-class. Many of us were great entrepreneurs and capitalists in our own right, much more than the history books would lead us to believe. In many ways, our unemployment and class disparity rates are worse today, but not because of capitalism. It's because of corporatism. And socialism only teaches blacks to depend on the government, which is unhealthy and has made problems spiral out of control. Like many things, good education (not necessarily higher education) is paramount if we want to improve our situation.

What incentive would "employers?" have to pay black workers a fair wage and provide them a safe working environment without government intervention? Many obvious incentives: law and punishment, good experience, good skills, good productivity, pride (fuck white-racist employers who won't work with blacks, but why can't some employers be black and proud?), family (family-owned businesses), even public relations and unionized pressure.

 

[Plutarch]

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

Perhaps I'm not understanding you, here. I was speaking about the "cushion" you had initially brought up in your response.

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

I haven't expounded enough?? Let me just put it in a worst way possible: socialism in the United States is counterproductive in regard to treating poverty and unemployment; therefore, capitalism doesn't have to do much to be that much better. I think I might've already expounded on my misgivings about the, imo, mistake of comparing the United States to other countries: apples and oranges. If there are other countries that have robust and effective welfare states (which is debatable), then I'm sure that there are other countries that have faltering and ineffective welfare states (like the United States).

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 disagree. First, there is a difference between depending on the government from birth to death vs. temporarily depending on private and public (non-governmental) sources during hard times. Second, there is a difference between being forced to participate in a undesirable and broken welfare system regardless of who you are vs. voluntarily providing welfare to others. Third, if I was poor, I would much rather have to depend on, say, my family than to depend on government. Hell, if I was a struggling veteran, I would much rather have to depend on private or public sources than the VA. Shit, if I was a young child, I would much rather depend on private or public sources than a godforsaken government school.

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

Revamped as in moving more towards "pure socialism"? If I believed in socialism, I would agree.

 

[Plutarch]

Socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive

I agree, but as I implied, I do think one works much better when the other is reduced. I believe they have an inverse relationship, to an extent.

And pure capitalism and pure socialism are extreme impossibilities

I agree, though I would probably say they are "unlikely" rather than "impossible."

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

The best of both worlds, huh? If that were the case, trannies would have long been in high demand. No, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, here.

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

For the record, I hope it has been clear that I do support welfare and social support. I just don't believe it should be governmental and mandatory.

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

Like I said before, that's debatable, if not false, and a lot more complicated than I think you have implied. And even if what you said were true, correlation does not mean causation, for various reasons.

 

[T. Sanford]

@konceptjones cosign everything that you stated in here. I've been saying the same thing about plant jobs. My brother in law & I was talking about this yesterday. He knew a dude that worked at this plant for 20 years, woke up the next day & they shut it down. He said dude was distraught for a long time over it. A few years back, Volkswagen laid off a lot of employees because they bought a machine that can replace those employees. I told someone if you're on the line then don't get blinded by the wage that they paying you. Only people that should be comfortable are the engineers & managers with a degree. Go get a skill, trade or degree to fall back on because I'm afraid that the advance of technology will replace those manual labor jobs

 

[desertrain10]

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

Oh, ok....I guess I'm still trying to completely understand or counter what you think is short-sighted and misguided about my views.

Seems like i was right

I think your right about my general position, but I still wonder whether you understand the specifics of and rationale for my views.

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

I believe you, but I'm still a bit skeptical, heh.

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.

Again, for reasons previously stated, I disagree. Again, I believe that capitalism maximizes the middle class, and again, I believe that America has not practiced capitalism for quite some time now.

You also seem to say that capitalism makes poverty inevitable. If so, I would once again say that poverty is inevitable regardless. Again, I think that's a harsh truth that must be accepted, lest we spend eternity attempting to eradicate poverty altogether in counterproductive ways that harm everyone.

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

I disagree with your first point. I don't believe that anyone or the "country" has a "moral" duty to help anyone. Individuals should help others, regardless if they are poor or not, if they desire to do so. If I'm understanding you correctly, no one should be forced or compelled to help others because of moral obligation. Again, I believe that kind of philosophy risks naivety and actually creates social unrest.

you initially argued that a capitalist society generally THRIVES well with a very limited "welfare system" or with no "welfare system" at all

i believe that is misguided and short sighted... as i explained in great detail given its inevitable cycles of booms and bust; advances in technology; and globalization, capitalism without a welfare system its unsustainable

and shifting the responsibility for the welfare of the poor and vulnerable to individuals and other organizations is also misguided. organizationally, the government is intrinsically better suited for the job. also when the need is greatest, charitable donations from private parties will inevitable decline given the risk. And unlike private entities who tend to focus on the destitute the government is better suited to ensure that all its citizens have a minimum standard of living to afford basic necessities and housing

furthermore, nothing you posted as of yet has supported your charge that welfare has a corrupting influence on the poor, and many of your views are based on a number of false assumptions

for example, there no systematic evidence that welfare programs discourage ppl from wanting to work

also the charge that welfare creates government dependency is dubious at best. before welfare reform in 96, some four in 10 ppl on welfare were on it for only one or two years. only about a third were on it for five years or more
http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1400&context=ndjlepp

like most the world's nations, america has a mixed economy and has always been. the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are often referred to as the time of the "robber barons" is an era most consider america to be the closest thing there ever to a pure capitalist society. the work force wasn't unionized, there were no real labor laws, health and safety standards or environmental standards. not surprising employers had little incentive to take care of their employees and they did NOT, and without proper government regulation these robber barons DID create giant monopolies by destroying and buying out their competition through price wars. many robber barons had politicians in their pockets, but considering a market economy does not exist separate a government, the problem was not government interference. the problem comes when the government over reaches and/or becomes overly corrupt. why i believe better regulation and the proper enforcement of the law is key

and expound further on how capitalism is NOT organized in ways that encourage the accumulation of wealth at one end and creates conditions of scarcity that make poverty inevitable at the other

i believe we have a moral duty as a country to help the poor and low income because we all have been asked or rather forced via the government to contribute to the betterment of society in many ways(i.e. paying taxes to fund public services, following the law). if we aren't to assist those who fall on hard times, we should all be given total freedom to ignore the rules of society

look, I’m all for teaching people how to do for themselves... society also has to be willing to provide supportive services in conjunction with welfare. this is the crucial detail overlooked by ppl such as yourself who would cut welfare and social program spending because they believe welfare doesn’t work. ignoring the fact the social net in america was never properly funded nor given a chance. it’s like a self perpetuating cycle. over course just giving ppl barely enough assistance for food and shelter isn't going to lift them into the middle class overnight

 

[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

Delusional?

You speak of america having this large cushy safety net, but that is the farthest thing from the truth

The american social safety net is extremely weak and filled with holes. Furthermore, it has become even weaker over the past 40 years because of various welfare reform and budget cutting measures

We currently expend among the fewest resources within the industrialized countries in terms of pulling families out of poverty and protecting them from falling into it.

And America is one of the few developed nations that does not provide universal health care, affordable child care, or reasonably priced low income though we are one of the richest and have one of the largest economies

It's embarrassing the percentage of the population that directly encounters poverty is so high

I called you delusional because you seem to think that the European models can work for America.

It is not the government's responsibility to protect you from poverty. Have you stopped to think that the reason why America is the richest nation on Earth is partially because we don't expend too much resources on trying to prevent poverty. Daddy government is not here to Hold Your Hand that is not what America is about.

The safety net in America is adequate enough I don't want to see America turn into Sweden.

 

[desertrain10]

What is really true capitalism?

Many things, according to many people, unfortunately.

My basic definition: an economic system in which private citizens and/or private organizations own and control some or most of the production and distribution of wealth, capital, land, assets, etc. I believe that the Constitution further clarifies and fleshes out American capitalism.

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

Capitalism and less government interference does not necessarily protect and never has necessarily protected us from the influence of corporations. Effective protection doesn't come from an economic system, and "excessive" government interference can only make things worse. Effective protection from corporations come from the law, the constitutional deliberation and revision of law, the market/citizenry, etc. Once again, even still, the harsh truth is that people will still be victimized. That is only reality. Nevertheless, we can still mitigate victimization, compensate victims, and penalize perpetrators. Unlike in present times, in a capitalist society, corrupt bankers would not be protected by the same government that you seek to depend on so much for utopia.

What is most important is that we, as citizens, retain our liberty and that we never trade our liberty and independence for a false sense of safety by depending on government. Again, I ask you an honest question: Do you advocate governmental dependency (for financial support, marriage approval, food and drug intake, non-criminal business decisions, etc.)? And if so, to what extent?

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

We might disagree, here. As I've said before, I believe that corporations can form and grow however they want to, as long as they do not violate law and are held responsible for their actions. I believe that a well-educated and well-informed citizenry with a vast number of opportunities given to them by capitalism can make it possible to mitigate potential damages inflicted by potential big business monopolies, should they even exist. I also believe that government multiplies the amount of damage corporations can inflict. Hasn't this "fact" been painfully obvious for decades now? People of all political persuasions know that the corporations run this country, but the less obvious "fact" is that they are able to do this with the active partnership with government, hence corporatism.

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

Yes, hence corporatism, which is not capitalism. Take the unwarranted power from the corporations by divorcing them from government, and our problems get a lot less magnified.

without a whole host of government rules, capitalism could not exist. you cannot divorce corporatism from any economic system, corporations are going to grow powerful and gain influence regardless. so capitalism/ freeing the market is not going to make corporations less powerful or stop monopolies from existing. furthermore, without the proper regulation and law enforced by government, corporations would be free to inflict even more damage in the pursuit of more capital. history says as much. you're the one being naïve

at this point all we can do it try to lessen the influence of corporations by holding politicians accountable for their actions or inaction

i would rather ppl not be dependent on the government for every little thing, but i do want my government to help ensure that the ppl they represent and are obligated to serve are fed, have suitable shelter, and have the right to healthcare at the very least

 

[D. Morgan]

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.

You thinking about that shit all wrong.

When I see that shit all I think of is damn I need to figure out a move to get me one of those.

My mother, grandmother and my woman mother used to be so happy at thanksgiving and christmas when I used to tell them I got food stamp cards. So they could get all the family dinner groceries from the food stamp card.

I could do no wrong for a 3month period every year!!

LLS

nah fam, you're thinking about it all wrong. We were gettin them shits when I got laid off and had just started my business. All I could think of was gettin off of that shit. I didn't even feel right pullin' out that card to pay for shit. Makes a man that's been taking care of his family by standing on his own two feel like a fuckin failure.

Nah b, I wanna stay as far away from one of them cards as I can.

@konceptjones this being a personal issue for you didn't allow you to comprehend or understand what you read.

You NEEDED those food stamp cards for whatever reason. I WANTED those food stamp cards cause it would save me money. You were on the system and signed up for that shit. I wasn't on system. I had people like YOU on the system selling me their cards because they needed or wanted cash.

I would be a fucking fool if I got some people willing to sale me a food stamp card with $400 on it and I only gotta give them $150-200 for it. Nigga I just saved myself at least $200. Start business to me.

I NEVER gave not a single fuck pulling out that card when it was time to pay. Shit I'm really pissed I ain't got one to buy right now. I found out a few years ago Whole Foods accept food stamp cards. Nigga the chest freezer in my basement would be filled to top with all types of organic shit!!! Not that I can't do it without the card but I'm always looking for a deal.

 

[desertrain10]

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

So you honestly believe that today, families don't or can't 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 children, etc.? If so, you think capitalism and technology is to blame for this? Hmm, well, we disagree on both accounts, but I'm not sure I understand your reasoning.

they can do those things

but thanks in equal part to the ever changing forces of human supply/demand, advancement of technology, commercialization of most goods, and globalization it either has become very difficult or does not make economic sense to do so

beginning with the industrial age and the advent of wage labor moved work from the home to the factory

ppl often times are left with no other choice but to relocate for work separating families and other support networks. the elder and other unemployable are often left to their own devices or assigned to nursing homes. children now spend less of their days in a collective situation, under the supervision of many caring adults. Under capitalism they've become a burden

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

Everything? And capitalism is to blame for this?

in part yes lol

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?

Yes, racism. And a bevy of other important, if not more important, sources, imo...

expound, please lol

Prior to welfare, we were not all poor. Many of us were middle-class and upper-class. Many of us were great entrepreneurs and capitalists in our own right, much more than the history books would lead us to believe. In many ways, our unemployment and class disparity rates are worse today, but not because of capitalism. It's because of corporatism. And socialism only teaches blacks to depend on the government, which is unhealthy and has made problems spiral out of control. Like many things, good education (not necessarily higher education) is paramount if we want to improve our situation.

What incentive would "employers?" have to pay black workers a fair wage and provide them a safe working environment without government intervention? Many obvious incentives: law and punishment, good experience, good skills, good productivity, pride (fuck white-racist employers who won't work with blacks, but why can't some employers be black and proud?), family (family-owned businesses), even public relations and unionized pressure.

prior to 1960 what real incentive would employees have to pay blk workers a fair wage and provide them a safe working environment without government intervention?

the government had to pressure them into doing these things with the appropriate laws and regulations

fundamental reform was made by govt in favor of labor unions

as i was saying, before the government interfered, workplace discrimination and dangerous working condition was the norm, especially for blk workers

and prior to welfare, it is true we were not all poor...but the poverty rate was much higher than its been the last 40, 50 years. the unemployment was low, but again that was because the abundance of low wage jobs

Again their no solid evidence that welfare corrupts the low income and or poor. And welfare was never meant end all poverty, so I'm not sure what is your barometer for it's success. What it has accomplished is ensured more American families are fed and sheltered than ever before, even after the budget cuts and reforms. And from personal experience I've seen how it helped my aunt escape her abusive husband and afford child care so she could work and continue her education

Education is important but it only part of the equation

 

[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

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

Delusional?

You speak of america having this large cushy safety net, but that is the farthest thing from the truth

The american social safety net is extremely weak and filled with holes. Furthermore, it has become even weaker over the past 40 years because of various welfare reform and budget cutting measures

We currently expend among the fewest resources within the industrialized countries in terms of pulling families out of poverty and protecting them from falling into it.

And America is one of the few developed nations that does not provide universal health care, affordable child care, or reasonably priced low income though we are one of the richest and have one of the largest economies

It's embarrassing the percentage of the population that directly encounters poverty is so high

I called you delusional because you seem to think that the European models can work for America.

It is not the government's responsibility to protect you from poverty. Have you stopped to think that the reason why America is the richest nation on Earth is partially because we don't expend too much resources on trying to prevent poverty. Daddy government is not here to Hold Your Hand that is not what America is about.

The safety net in America is adequate enough I don't want to see America turn into Sweden.

The American safety net is now adequate? I thought it this robust thing and growing out of control as you has initially suggested???? Lol

Smh

And Europe and america aren't the only nations on earth with welfare states. Furthermore Europe isn't the only nation of earth that provides public services, such as universal heathcare, for its citizens that america does not

But we can look to Europe to see how we can improve things here....there's nothing wrong with that

We will never been able to end all poverty but to argue that it's not the government's responsibility to help and protect it's citizens is dangerous

Not only that the Constitution does explicitly state that the purpose of the federal government, among other things, is to promote the general welfare of the people. I'd say that involves helping make sure they are of good health, clothed, fed and sheltered. Nothing about this is in opposition to liberty

Also as I was saying earlier we should feel obligated to do so

It is also a matter of practicality and it makes economic sense. America is not going to remain in top without investing more into their citizens

 

[Plutarch]

you initially argued that a capitalist society generally THRIVES well with a very limited "welfare system" or with no "welfare system" at all

Yes.

i believe that is misguided and short sighted... as i explained in great detail given its inevitable cycles of booms and bust; advances in technology; and globalization, capitalism without a welfare system its unsustainable

OK, I think I understand. But I believe that I have responded to those criticisms, pointing out that, imo, much of that criticism is either inapplicable, because you have misunderstand my views, or false. Meh.

and shifting the responsibility for the welfare of the poor and vulnerable to individuals and other organizations is also misguided. organizationally, the government is intrinsically better suited for the job. also when the need is greatest, charitable donations from private parties will inevitable decline given the risk. And unlike private entities who tend to focus on the destitute the government is better suited to ensure that all its citizens have a minimum standard of living to afford basic necessities and housing

Again, I disagree for reasons I’ve previously stated. The examples that I’ve given of the current state of times are just a small portion of a boatload of evidence to support my argument that the government in America consistently fails to provide adequate support for the poor and vulnerable. Also, to reiterate, charitable donations are just a small portion of the sources of support that individuals and organizations can provide.

furthermore, nothing you posted as of yet has supported your charge that welfare has a corrupting influence on the poor, and many of your views are based on a number of false assumptions

I’m not sure what you mean by “a corrupting influence on the poor.” I don’t think that I’ve made that charge. And if I understand you correctly, I don’t very much believe in that claim, and if I did, it would be a very minor point among my other major points.

What false assumptions have I made? Just for the record, I also believe you’ve made some false or inapplicable assumptions and have addressed a number of them.

for example, there no systematic evidence that welfare programs discourage ppl from wanting to work

Wait, are you saying that no one has been discouraged from work because of welfare? Perhaps you’re not. If I understand you correctly, your use of “systematic” might instead suggest that you’re saying that there is no evidence of this on a mass scale? If so, I don’t know about that, and I don’t think I’ve made that claim, which is a claim I wouldn’t even dwell on. I believe I simply implied that welfare can discourage work, and you can easily google that for some, imo, strong arguments. But it just seems logical to me. When you subsidize something, you usually get more of it, and for various reasons.

also the charge that welfare creates government dependency is dubious at best. before welfare reform in 96, some four in 10 ppl on welfare were on it for only one or two years. only about a third were on it for five years or more

We certainly disagree, here. I would argue that government welfare is in itself government dependency. You don’t think so? I’m not talking about long-term government dependency. I’m just talking about government dependency.

http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1400&context=ndjlepp

Saved for later reading. I’m not sure how relevant the article is, but thanks, anyway.

 

[Plutarch]

like most the world's nations, america has a mixed economy and has always been. the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are often referred to as the time of the "robber barons" is an era most consider america to be the closest thing there ever to a pure capitalist society. the work force wasn't unionized, there were no real labor laws, health and safety standards or environmental standards. not surprising employers had little incentive to take care of their employees and they did NOT, and without proper government regulation these robber barons DID create giant monopolies by destroying and buying out their competition through price wars. many robber barons had politicians in their pockets, but considering a market economy does not exist separate a government, the problem was not government interference. the problem comes when the government over reaches and/or becomes overly corrupt. why i believe better regulation and the proper enforcement of the law is key

I agree and disagree.

I find the claim that America has always been a mixed economy a rather dubious one. Even if that were true, and I don’t believe it is true, then it’s clear that America’s “mixed economy” has expanded exponentially to the point of being, imo, bloated. And again, I don’t think that socialism and capitalism are compatible effectively. However, that doesn’t mean that states don’t or won’t intervene in capitalism, but I wouldn’t necessarily call that socialism. For instance, I consider some forms of taxation to be neither unconstitutional nor socialist.

As for the “Gilded Age,” argument, I think you hit on many of the negatives, some of them accurate and some of them overstated. Don’t forget about the many positives, which effectively made America into a “great” nation, in terms of agriculture, wealth, technology, prices, humanitarianism, innovation, immigration, etc. Of course, the time period was far from perfect, but it was also actually quite far from “purely capitalist” and constitutional as well. It was also “government industries” that tended to fail (especially regarding railroads), as opposed to private industries, which tended to succeed. You say that the problem exists when government overreaches and becomes corrupt. I agree, but government will inevitably overreach and become corrupt. This is why we should limit the size of the government, which is admittedly a necessary evil, in order to mitigate the damage government can do. It still amazes me how people can trust and depend on the government so much.

and expound further on how capitalism is NOT organized in ways that encourage the accumulation of wealth at one end and creates conditions of scarcity that make poverty inevitable at the other

You seem to ask me to prove a negative. Shouldn’t you prove your positive? I’m sure you did, but I believe I’ve responded adequately. Well, for the sake of brevity, I’ll just further say that I believe that capitalism, which is merely an economic system, is not very organized or predestined at all. American capitalism, in concert with other very important measures, logically maximizes individual liberty, which is of chief importance, especially regarding happiness (I hope it’s also clear that my views aren’t just economic but, more importantly, philosophical). And as I’ve referenced earlier a few ties, this individual liberty engenders competition, innovation, entrepreneurship, wealth, growth, etc. so that the middle class can be maximized. Will there still be the very rich and the very poor. Of course. Will there still be monopolies? Of course. But it won’t be nearly as bad as it is today, and again, I believe the dire circumstances of today are the result of the mixed economy that you advocate.

i believe we have a moral duty as a country to help the poor and low income because we all have been asked or rather forced via the government to contribute to the betterment of society in many ways(i.e. paying taxes to fund public services, following the law). if we aren't to assist those who fall on hard times, we should all be given total freedom to ignore the rules of society

Again, we just disagree. As I’ve said, I believe that no one should be forced to have this or that duty. With all due respect, I think that’s immoral, illiberal, and arrogant. You certainly don’t speak for me or have the right to impose a duty on me. You have your “moral” duties, and I have my duties. With that said, I try my best to help those in need all of the time, and that’s the way it should be. Individuals should decide for themselves and willingly “from the heart,” instead of being forced by the government to help others, which only creates disingenuous altruism and resentment, not to mention exploitation. As American citizens, are only given duties lie in our political contract, which is the Constitution, an important part of our law I believe we have strayed too far from, especially since the last century.

look, I’m all for teaching people how to do for themselves... society also has to be willing to provide supportive services in conjunction with welfare. this is the crucial detail overlooked by ppl such as yourself who would cut welfare and social program spending because they believe welfare doesn’t work. ignoring the fact the social net in america was never properly funded nor given a chance. it’s like a self perpetuating cycle. over course just giving ppl barely enough assistance for food and shelter isn't going to lift them into the middle class overnight

But “society” can’t and shouldn’t be willing to provide services if it doesn’t want to or can’t do so. I believe that’s yet another very important point that you seem to overlook, yet you seem to make this very point at the same time, which is confusing to me. And I don’t think I ever said that welfare doesn’t work. Of course, it could work, even if just theoretically, but too many particular obstacles permit its efficiency. This leads me back to my point that socialism might work well if it was approved and “fully” implemented, but you seem to want this mixed economy that continues to fail miserably. You talk about funding, but we’re already $18 trillion dollars in debt, partly because of this mixed economy, imo. Also, two points of clarification might be needed, just in case. 1. As my first post indicated, I don’t want to immediately cut-off the welfare system. I’d rather see funding for warfare go to welfare as the nation simultaneously transitions from corporatism and socialism to capitalism. 2. As I’ve said, I’m not against welfare per se. I’m against “welfare” provided by the federal government.