THEY CUTTING OFF WELFARE

[Plutarch]

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

I would agree that I were naïve if you accurately understood my views, but I think you have misunderstood them. First, even though “government rules” is a vague phrase, I believe in government rules. I say this because you seem to suggest that I’m against “government rules.” I am not an anarchist. Second, I disagree that you cannot divorce corporatism from any economic system. Of course you can. What is your definition of corporatism? And why are you so scared of corporations? Business can be a good thing, you know. Imo, the central tenant of corporatism is that big business and big government collude to control and intervene in the economic market for their own benefit. One way you disrupt this collusion is by repealing particular regulations that benefit these interested parties and thereby opening up the market for all. The lobbyists lose power when you cut off the subsidies and privileges that government gives to them in return for their often-financial support. At the very worst, you can significantly reduce corporatism.

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

Yes, and a better way would be to do what I’ve just said. We’re much better off fighting “the political system,” not mere politicians.

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

In light of what I’ve previously said, I’ll once again say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I’d rather that people not be dependent on the government for every little thing period. I think it’s safe to say that we all want the disadvantaged properly assisted. We just have very different methods to achieve this goal.

 

 

[Plutarch]

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

Heh, really?? And all of this is fault of capitalism?? I mean, I agree with the premise, but not so much the conclusion. I’m a bit confused, here. Even if this was true, which I could to a small extent, I can think of many other sources, some of which I’ve previously stated, that can be more rightfully blamed before I get to capitalism. If America was capitalist during its founding and afterwards, did these same problems exist? If they did not exist during this capitalist period, then isn’t capitalism just a minute scapegoat, here, and isn’t the essential culprit something else? Things like population growth, even corporatism and socialism, and just the “advancement” of Western society, if not mere human evolution?

in part yes lol

*hopelessly throws hands up in the air* And you’re sure you don’t believe capitalism is evil?

expound, please lol

Sure. The cause of the economic woes of blacks can’t be simply reduced to “racism,” if that is, in fact, your initial implication. Chalking it up to racism is too vague and not fully representational. We know the other related usual suspects that either minimally involve racism or don’t very much involve racism and harm others as well: intra-conflict within the black community, political exploitation, governmental incompetence, outright despair, drug addiction, poverty, prison system, military-industrial complex, poor education, (in)justice system, etc. We shouldn’t forget the “class wars,” which are just as destructive, if not also more inclusive, than the “race wars.”

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

Have I not answered your first question? And I wonder how relevant it is to be focusing on the pre-1960s instead of today. I’m not understanding your point. We might differ on what “appropriate laws and regulations” mean, but I’m for appropriate laws and regulations. I’m also for labor unions, but not governmental labor unions. I’ll have to look more into the differences between the black poverty rate “back then” and today, because we’re certainly not doing well today. And I think that low unemployment (even if some or many jobs were low-paying, though the dollar was worth a lot more back then as well) is better than higher employment. Again, I’m not sure whether your point about welfare “corrupting the poor” very much apples to my views, and I’ve certainly never made the claim that welfare was intended to end all poverty. I think the welfare system has obviously gained success (especially as it has replaced other, imo, much more productive methods of welfare) but at the cost of a lot of destructive and, as you’ve indicated, inefficient means. I’m glad that you’ve had a positive experience with it, but I still think there are more efficient, thrifty, moral, practical, constitutional, and productive ways.

 

[desertrain10]

@ Plutarch

Capitalism is defined as:

“an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations"

A corporation is a private company or group of people acting as a single entity and recognized as such. They existed for centuries. They are found in every economic model. My point being corporations form because of the law of economics. They allow pple to engage in industries that would be too risky or costly to engage in otherwise

They would form in a free market. And the power and influence of the corporation are a part of that considering their power stems from their wealth, not the law

So the question is how do we lessen or limit their influence

There is no mechanism within capitalism to prevent them from becoming excessively large, and concentrated in terms of ownership of an industry and in wealth

Laissez faire capitalism would only increase the power and influence of corporations over the government and industry

And this idea that deregulation is the answer is dubious. Deregulation promotes competition but only in the early stages. In the latter stages it actually eliminates competition and even more jobs as rivals are driven out of business

Look into how deregulation affected the airline industry. To cut costs, airlines began cutting back their maintenance and safety crews which outraged the flying public. As a result a dozen airlines have merged or gone out of business. Thousands and thousands of employees lost their jobs. Now some decades later only a few major air lines exist; fleets are older; increased air port congestion; flights are often delayed; airlines cut out routes to certain cities; there is a pilot shortage... But hey as long as air fare is low, right???? Smh

What I'm arguing is a moderated meritocracy allows competition to thrive right up until the point where it becomes destructive

Certain regulations work and some don't. That doesn't mean we throw away the baby with the bath water. We adapt and act accordingly

 

[desertrain10]

@Plutarch

I believe capitalism has done a lot of good for the world and helped to humanize families

I can even admit corporations aren't evil and corporatism has created industries that wouldn't exist otherwise

My argument has only been for capitalism to thrive it requires government regulation and a welfare states

You believe that is wrong. Over regulation and corporatism has costs us jobs and leaves ppl dependent on the goverment for support. We should deregulate there . And the welfare state should ultimately be abolished

Ok

That said, from what I can gather, we do agree that markets are never truly free and government fullfils a necessary function

Where we disgree on what the function of government is exactly and how big of a role they should play. And whether most markets should left undisturbed

I think my previous post did a lot to clarify my position. While we can do away with some regulations, I believe that the evidence shows the risks of further deregulating certain markets, especially the labor and financial industry, far outweigh the rewards. Look into what happened when the trucking industry as well. Any job gain will be insignificant. Workers will eventually be cut and or replaced by machines or cheaper labor to gain a leg up on their competition

You could argue consumer interest group could replace most government regulation. But I'd counter these groups are more likely than the government to being exploited and influenced by the very ppl they are tasked to regulate. And unlike private persons the government is automatically bound to voters

Been meaning to address this but capitalism doesnt cause social unrest. Poverty and extreme inequality that often accompanies capitalism causes social unrest. The welfare state was actually conceptualized as an answer to social unrest when nations in Europe did not want Socialist movements to gain steam

And how have capitalism's booms and busts cycles been exacerbated by government interference exactly? Had the Fed not bailed out the auto industry do you realize how many jobs would've been lost. Rather it was the deregulation of wall street that did us in the last go around

Back to welfare

There's going to poverty. Regardless of if we free the markets. We'll probably never agree to the extent but ppl are still going to struggle

As far as the constitutionality of using tax dollars to assist the vulnerable is concerned, the Constitution does state one of the government's functions is to ensure the welfare of its citizens. Not to mention our tax dollars are used for a lot of shit I think you would find far more erroneous that is not mentioned in the Constitution

And it was never that the welfare state was forced on us. History shows govt adopted duty by public demand and need. When labor conditions presented enormity, fundamental reform was made by govt regulating trusts & courts ruling in favor of labor unions. Pple CHOSE to bring progressive era, expansion of bureaucracy & executive branch during New Deal

And regardless of whether anyone or any entity is morally obligated to care for the poor, I think we can agree it would do no one any good to leave ppl to starve in the streets and go without shelter

Should private citizens be the ones to fulfill this function? I don't think you done a great job of making the case in the affirmative. No charity or group of charities can compete with the financial muscle the govt and the widespread scope of a govt. policy

Our welfare system is undoubtedly flawed, but that signals a failure of mechanism NOT of the concept. We need better policy

 

[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.

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

It's both you silly girl it is adequate in some areas and robust and growing in others.

There are other welfare states based on socialism..... like Venezuela and we all know how good Venezuela is doing. I assume you will speak only of Europe because that is really the only place where socialism or as they like to call it "Democratic socialism " is really being experimented with.

The the government protects its citizens by ensuring that all the laws and provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are implemented fairly and by making sure that we are safe from military attack. Promoting the general welfare of the people was not understood to mean that the government is responsible to feed clothe and shelter anyone instead it was meant to mean that the government provides the safety necessary for individuals to exercise their Liberty And through that people can feed clothe and shelter themselves.

Socialism takes the wealth away from those who have it by force and that way of governing easily leads to tyranny.

We do have an obligation to take care of the poor but not by force of government it's an individual charge when the Constitution was written it was understood that indigent individuals will be taken care of and supported by their families, the church or private individuals.

In case you haven't been paying attention America is on top now and those socialist European nations have inferior economies and are on the precipice of breaking apart..... years after the Great Recession ended in America some European nations still have double-digit unemployment.

 

[Plutarch]

@desertrain10

Capitalism is defined as:

“an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations"

Yes. I haven’t said much otherwise, have I?

A corporation is a private company or group of people acting as a single entity and recognized as such. They existed for centuries. They are found in every economic model. My point being corporations form because of the law of economics. They allow pple to engage in industries that would be too risky or costly to engage in otherwise

…Yes.

They would form in a free market. And the power and influence of the corporation are a part of that considering their power stems from their wealth, not the law

I agree mostly. I would add that even though their power stems from their wealth, their wealth is largely determined by the consumer, i.e., the market. Even big corporations have died and should die without government protection. Laws and risks help or should help keep corporations generally in check. Corporations can’t be drunk with power, especially without government protecting them.

So the question is how do we lessen or limit their influence

Yes, I’ve given my answers.

There is no mechanism within capitalism to prevent them from becoming excessively large, and concentrated in terms of ownership of an industry and in wealth

What is “excessively large”? Who determines what is too large and what is not too large? You? Can an “excessively large” corporation be a good thing? Is it criminal to be “excessively large”? What if the people/market have decided for this corporation to be “excessively large”? What if it’s inevitable for some corporations to be “excessively large” or monopolized? Why must the size of all corporations be controlled? All that is arbitrary measures of control that distort the market. Competition, the continued existence of big and small corporations, etc., are much more important that arbitrary measures of power and control for the sake of forced “equality.” I think you have an unhealthy phobia of corporations, but it’s your mode of government regulation that has given us corporatism, socialism, and economic inequality.

Laissez faire capitalism would only increase the power and influence of corporations over the government and industry

I disagree. As I’ve said, corporations and government will be largely divorced from one another. No corporation will be above the law, so again, your fear of powerful corporations running amok (which, again, is already occurring in the most painfully obvious ways for several decades) in capitalism doesn’t hold much water, imo.

And this idea that deregulation is the answer is dubious. Deregulation promotes competition but only in the early stages. In the latter stages it actually eliminates competition and even more jobs as rivals are driven out of business

Care to elaborate? Or is this more of your “big corporations will merge together like Voltron and rule the country with iron fist” argument. If so, I believe I’ve already given my response to that.

Look into how deregulation affected the airline industry. To cut costs, airlines began cutting back their maintenance and safety crews which outraged the flying public. As a result a dozen airlines have merged or gone out of business. Thousands and thousands of employees lost their jobs. Now some decades later only a few major air lines exist; fleets are older; increased air port congestion; flights are often delayed; airlines cut out routes to certain cities; there is a pilot shortage... But hey as long as air fare is low, right???? Smh

That’s interesting. I’m not too familiar with the history of airline industry, so I’ll have to look into that.

What I'm arguing is a moderated meritocracy allows competition to thrive right up until the point where it becomes destructive

Wait, is moderate meritocracy is a bad thing? And again, I argue that free-market capitalism does not necessarily engender equality (which is literally impossible) and utopia. Destruction and construction can and only will occur because it’s only natural. Your picture of “free-market capitalism” (I still think you largely conflate capitalism and corporatism) as ending in destruction is hyperbole, imo.

Certain regulations work and some don't. That doesn't mean we throw away the baby with the bath water. We adapt and act accordingly

Yes, I agree. I don’t think I’ve said otherwise.

 

[Plutarch]

I believe capitalism has done a lot of good for the world and helped to humanize families

But…

I can even admit corporations aren't evil and corporatism has created industries that wouldn't exist otherwise

I can understand and agree with your first point, but I don’t necessarily agree with your second point, even though I think I understand it.

My argument has only been for capitalism to thrive it requires government regulation and a welfare state

Yes. And I’ve explained why I disagree with your point about the welfare state. As for your point about government regulation, I agree, but our qualification of the extent of government regulation most likely differs.

You believe that is wrong. Over regulation and corporatism has costs us jobs and leaves ppl dependent on the goverment for support. We should deregulate there . And the welfare state should ultimately be abolished

Ok

Correct, but I could qualify it a bit more, like adding a previous argument that I believe overregulation, corporatism, the welfare (and the warfare) state are all unconstitutional. But maybe that’s neither here nor there.

That said, from what I can gather, we do agree that markets are never truly free and government fullfils a necessary function

Correct.

Where we disgree on what the function of government is exactly and how big of a role they should play. And whether most markets should left undisturbed

Correct, though I don’t necessarily believe in the laissez faire principle of totally undisturbed markets. I believe that the government should “oversee” the economy and intervene when the law is broken or when individuals have petitioned the government regarding legal matters that might concern, say, property or civil rights.

I think my previous post did a lot to clarify my position. While we can do away with some regulations, I believe that the evidence shows the risks of further deregulating certain markets, especially the labor and financial industry, far outweigh the rewards. Look into what happened when the trucking industry as well. Any job gain will be insignificant. Workers will eventually be cut and or replaced by machines or cheaper labor to gain a leg up on their competition

I think I’ve responded to much of this, especially my point about free-markets engendering innovation and alternative and collaborative measures regarding technology that would accept the natural death of some jobs that perhaps should and will die while creating new jobs (like lazik surgery, Uber, Google, etc.?) and further developing other jobs. I think I understand your point and can see some truth in it, but I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree here, however small or big that disagreement might be.

You could argue consumer interest group could replace most government regulation. But I'd counter these groups are more likely than the government to being exploited and influenced by the very ppl they are tasked to regulate. And unlike private persons the government is automatically bound to voters

That’s an interesting, but I argue the opposite. However, you did anticipate my point about consumer groups. I honestly think that you trust the government way too much. As I’ve said, I believe that although the government is a necessary evil, the bigger it gets, the more corruption it holds and the more damage it can inflict. Government can destroy much more than people can. Question (and I’ve hinted at this for quite some time now): do you agree with my point that the government has caused an overwhelming amount of destruction in the form of incompetence, exploitation, corruption, oppression, etc.? If so, do you still trust the government to do what you think it will do effectively?

Yes, consumer groups are not perfect, of course, but it’s a better and safer alternative, imo. For example, I’d like to see more Yelps and even just casual, informal reviews from multiple report sources, some of which will naturally grow in more influence naturally based on the people’s perception of quality and credibility. We don’t need the government to demand licenses and dictate to us that we need to take this ineffective and overpriced drug (because it’s made by a government-supported company) and not that effective and cheaper drug (because it’s not government-sponsored).

 

[Plutarch]

Been meaning to address this but capitalism doesnt cause social unrest. Poverty and extreme inequality that often accompanies capitalism causes social unrest. The welfare state was actually conceptualized as an answer to social unrest when nations in Europe did not want Socialist movements to gain steam

I agree with your first point, though I had thought you had said the opposite. Perhaps, you’ve clarified your point. I disagree with your second point. As I’ve said, the middle class generally grows in capitalism. In other cases, it generally decreases, and I believe this is the case with America. How can poverty and extreme inequality, which has continued to get worse, be intertwined with capitalism if capitalism has continued to decrease? Yes, some capitalists are actually in favor of the welfare state. I impersonally disagree with those capitalists though.

And how have capitalism's booms and busts cycles been exacerbated by government interference exactly? Had the Fed not bailed out the auto industry do you realize how many jobs would've been lost. Rather it was the deregulation of wall street that did us in the last go around

Perhaps I didn’t explain. Capitalism’s natural booms and busts are exacerbated by government interference because the interference (i.e., the bailing-out and other anti-capitalist and/or unconstitutional legislating, overprinting of money, overspending, etc.) distorts the economy by causing inflation, devaluation of the dollar, building and bursting of bubbles, accumulation of debt and malinvestment, etc. Haven’t all of the “recent” financial crises proven this? Homeowners, taxpayers, and just ordinary citizens had all been eviscerated.

Had the Fed not bailed out the auto industry, yes, jobs would’ve been lost, but the country, let alone the auto industry, would not have been destroyed. And recovery would occur. The bailouts weren’t even all that effective. It’s better to take the short-term pain than to continue to support the house of cards that is our current economic system and take the long-term pain. Deregulation of Wall Street? Meh, Wall Street is protected by government.

Back to welfare

There's going to poverty. Regardless of if we free the markets. We'll probably never agree to the extent but ppl are still going to struggle

Yes, but I do wonder how much poverty is too much for you and to what lengths you would go to minimize such poverty.

As far as the constitutionality of using tax dollars to assist the vulnerable is concerned, the Constitution does state one of the government's functions is to ensure the welfare of its citizens. Not to mention our tax dollars are used for a lot of shit I think you would find far more erroneous that is not mentioned in the Constitution

Oh, we can debate about the Constitution for centuries, so I won’t go there. I’ll just say that I believe that the Constitution never gave the government the authority to create the kind of massive welfare system that has been authorized in all its glory in a relatively late stage in America’s history. I am curious, however, about these measures that you think I would find far more erroneous that is apparently never mentioned in the Constitution. But if you say that there are measures that are never mentioned in the Constitution, and it’s the Constitution that is the law of the land that defines America, then why should we follow these measures? Are they not unconstitutional? Why shouldn’t they be found erroneous?

And it was never that the welfare state was forced on us. History shows govt adopted duty by public demand and need. When labor conditions presented enormity, fundamental reform was made by govt regulating trusts & courts ruling in favor of labor unions. Pple CHOSE to bring progressive era, expansion of bureaucracy & executive branch during New Deal

Yes, like people chose Trump to be president. No, I agree with some ore most of what you said; however, I don’t believe that democracy trumps individual liberty. The New Deal was a pivotal fiasco pushed through during the worst period in America’s history. Populism =/= progress.

And regardless of whether anyone or any entity is morally obligated to care for the poor, I think we can agree it would do no one any good to leave ppl to starve in the streets and go without shelter

Of course. Again, just to clarify, I very much believe in welfare, humanitarianism, and especially philanthropy. I just also believe I have no right to impose those beliefs on others. And I believe the people can act out these beliefs more efficiently than the (federal) government. I’ll even go on to say that welfare systems run via state governments can be more efficient than the welfare system run via the federal government, though I haven’t yet completely decided on my take on the idea of welfare systems run via state government without federal government involvement.

Should private citizens be the ones to fulfill this function? I don't think you done a great job of making the case in the affirmative. No charity or group of charities can compete with the financial muscle the govt and the widespread scope of a govt. policy

Oh? Meh, I think I’ve done so. Again, I think you are overly optimistic about government.

Our welfare system is undoubtedly flawed, but that signals a failure of mechanism NOT of the concept. We need better policy

Like I’ve said, I believe the various obstacles are far too insurmountable, especially in America.

 

[imma_stoner08]

I'm prepared for whatever happens on that note I receive stamps unlike most people I don't sell mine at all we need to eat clearly I work fulltime i have 2 children one Father and guess what that's still not enough

 

[imma_stoner08]

He works too

 

[konceptjones]

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.

You're a fool for ever buying them. People like you continue to feed the prison pipeline by supporting the drug habits of people willing to sell them for cash unless you're one of the folks that get hemmed up for doing precisely what you did:
https://www.armytimes.com/story/mil...ood-stamps-ebt-fort-benning-soldier/83640368/

... Then you're feeding the prison pipeline personally.

Can't let "the hookup" blind you to the impact you're personally having on your community when you do shit like this.

 

[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

It's both you silly girl it is adequate in some areas and robust and growing in others.

There are other welfare states based on socialism..... like Venezuela and we all know how good Venezuela is doing. I assume you will speak only of Europe because that is really the only place where socialism or as they like to call it "Democratic socialism " is really being experimented with.

The the government protects its citizens by ensuring that all the laws and provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are implemented fairly and by making sure that we are safe from military attack. Promoting the general welfare of the people was not understood to mean that the government is responsible to feed clothe and shelter anyone instead it was meant to mean that the government provides the safety necessary for individuals to exercise their Liberty And through that people can feed clothe and shelter themselves.

Socialism takes the wealth away from those who have it by force and that way of governing easily leads to tyranny.

We do have an obligation to take care of the poor but not by force of government it's an individual charge when the Constitution was written it was understood that indigent individuals will be taken care of and supported by their families, the church or private individuals.

In case you haven't been paying attention America is on top now and those socialist European nations have inferior economies and are on the precipice of breaking apart..... years after the Great Recession ended in America some European nations still have double-digit unemployment.

bruh

it is adequate in some areas and robust and growing in others???? expound please

promoting the general welfare of the people could certainly be argued to have meant making sure that citizens do not go hungry on the streets

not to mention there has always been a mixed welfare state made up of private and public organizations throughout our country’s history

regardless, the welfare state was not forced on ppl, we voted for the new deal and other liberal policies and politicians over the years as we seen a need for it

this yearning for an era when churches and local organizations took care of society's weakest rather the government is misguided and can't exist today. organizationally the government is better suited for the job, especially when need is the greatest

for instance, post the great depression informal networks of local support, from churches to ethnic affiliations, were all overrun and/or had major failure rates due to high demand and dwindling resources

and please stop fear mongering, you've already conceded that ubi may be a necessity in the future. ubi which is essentially another government wealth redistribution program and would server the same function of the welfare state

and it not like we don't have plenty of unemployable and those displaced and unemployed due to technology advances and globalization right now...wtf???

I'm not arguing the current welfare state is unflawed, but that the need is there

we should at the very least help ppl with food, shelter, child care, and their medical needs

 

[zzombie]

@desertrain10

SOME WELFARE PROGRAMS ARE GROWING SOME ARE JUST GOOD ENOUGH AND SHOULD EITHER SHRINK OR BETTER YET DISAPPEAR. Promoting the general welfare has never been interpreted to mean government handouts that's your perverted SOCIALIST perspective but your understanding has no strong legal or historical backing..... any welfare the government provides is a privilege and not a right or guarantee, the constitution does not promise citizens that they won't go hungry or that they will be sheltered....... yes Americans voted for the NEW DEAL and it was a disaster it was WW2 that pulled america out of the great depression not the NEW DEAL



the government wastes tax dollars by the billion
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/12/22/7-Unbelievable-Ways-Government-Wasted-Your-Money-2015

IF local organizations or had even half of the money the governments wastes homelessness and starvation would be drastically reduced the government is inefficient as fuck. Universal income if we could find a way to make it work would be the lesser or 2 evils as the tax payer would end up paying less money and it would do away with other government programs.

You agree that the system is flawed but the way you would fix it would be by taxing people to death and giving government more power AND THAT IS NOT A GOOD SOLUTION you would only make things worse.

 

[rebootx1]

See this what I mean I'm so far ahead of the game yet call me crazy when I post

 

[MsSouthern]

Not everyone on welfare CAN work

This is stupid