Discrimination Of Economic Minorities Who Support Wealth Redistribution Or Welfare?

Can you cite (link) even a single instance where it's worked?

 

i suppose you are entitled to your opinion. Are you by chance refering to President Obama as the king? Is it this alleged King which you say the republic and its demacratic mechanisms have failed? Thats quite funny if this is what you meant.

 

It's called Executive Order, where King PrezBO can bypass Congress and initiate his agenda without authorization from the citizen's elected representatives.

Do you realize that the executive can order you to be arrested, held indefinitely and even assassinated without any legal or judicial review? The current administration is far more tyrannical than that of King George III, which led to a revolution.

 

Your entire argument is predicated on the notion that a strong social support network enhances capital output, and decreases poverty. Most reflexively assume this to be true because on the surface that outcome seems perfectly logical. However, since the great war on poverty that begun under LBJ, poverty rates have skyrocketed, which calls into question the wisdom of this very assumption. What ended up happening was a culture of dependance, where multiple generations relegated themselves to simply subsisting on government assistance. One can just as easily argue that this dependance ultimately creates lower capital output, and actually increases overall poverty rates.

My question to you, is what data do you have that proves or even suggests that an increased social support network both enhances capital output and reduces poverty?

IMO...Clearly there is a need for the existence of some level of a safety net, however, the argument for such is rooted in altruism rather than fiscal prudence.

 

A common misconception in the U.S is that the attempt to decrease levels of poverty began with LBJ's great society. That because poverty levels have increased, especially child poverty, that welfare must be a failure. It is the mantra so maliciously proliferated from so many pseudo american consevatives today. Whats humorous to me (not suggesting you are an example even though its LBJ you reverted to) is that the many people act as though the U,S and its attempts at fixing poverty are the only attempts that have existed. If we are to take a fair minded approach to the situation of poverty we must examine the facets which are working. Sadly, If something is deemed socialist then it will be automatically excluded by psuedo american conservatives and republicans alike. Its not about fixing problems for most, its about fitting in and being apart of something. Also, by supporting the wealthy, many sick individuals also experience a false sense of celebrity while doing so.

My evidence, or a small portion of it has been provided in the form of Citations linked within previous posts. I wont send you on a scavenger hunt, they are within the last three pages of discusion on this thread. I have not linked them as absolutes, just logical starting points for any intelligent and sincere debate pertaining to poverty. Most have spoken as though I have suggested things I never have, so common amongst these left vs right malcontents of contemporary american politics.

 

many people from the middle class are now on food stamps, unemployment benefits, government healthcare (medicaid) due to the reccession that is a good indication that its working for those whose circumstances aren't as dire as those who are accustomed to extreme destitution and are forced to rely on it as a lifestyle.

 

Well your comparison fails for several reasons not the least of which is demographics. Norway does not have even close to the immigration issue the United States does and that contributes significantly to our poverty rates. You cannot compare the US to "unionized Norway" and expect to be taken seriously. It is apples and oranges. Norway has a population of 5 million(rounding up) and it still manages a 50% Debt to GDP ratio. The US has a huge immigration issue and over 300 million people in it. You cannot take a model that is struggling to work for 5 million people and even attempt to apply it to a country of 300 million people.

Given that you cannot transplant systems from other countries you need to look at the economic fundamentals at play. When something is paid for by somebody else you will always have more people taking advantage of it. This is the fundamental problem with socialized anything, it ignores human nature in favor of some altruistic nonsense.

Did you even watch the Hayek video?

 

I could make reasonable comparisons to several other countries, all of which are currently ahead of the U.S in several significant areas of interest. Norway is not 'struggling' to uphold their system. They have been doing quite well for a few decades now. Not to say it is a utopia with no social ills, but they are doing quite well. While I would be willing to look at what you might bring forth regarding immigration as contributing to poverty, I hardly believe if we removed (even generously) this contribution the U.S would still come in ranking very poorly (no pun intended). Comparing populations is a typical comparison to suggest that a system of smaller populations cannot effectively be applied
To regions comprising a much larger populace. Aside from the federal government, are states not granted their own powers? Many states have less of an immigration problem than Norway does. The system Norway employs naturally relieves much of the incentive for say, illegal immigrants, while in the U.S they simply line up outside of home depot and get picked up inwork vans. Or fill resturaunt kitchens or farmers fields or packaging plants. You see, the system I refer to greatly attenuates the very problem you are suggesting makes my comparison of low quality.

So the fundamental problem with democracy at the workplace and higher wages and a higher standard of living is that people will take advantage of it?
I tend to think you are right though in another regard, several other more socialised nations must be taking advantage of universal health care and year long paid maternity leaves as their life expectancy rates exceed that of the U.S.

 

How exactly does the system in Norway accomplish this? I would suggest that their location on the globe and the strength of the surrounding economies contributes heavily to Norways lack of an immigration issue.

The problem with it is that it is not sustainable in the long term. What about that do you not understand? A 50% debt held by the public to GDP ratio with a population of 5 million people is struggling to stay afloat. For reference the United States was at 62% with a population of 300 million. Go watch the Hayek video, I imagine you are avoiding it as it pretty well destroy's your position.

Where is it stated that life expectancy is the goal? It is really none of my concern if the person next to me lives to be 50 or 80, I will be sad when they pass but that is what being human entails...we die. To base a system around keeping people alive as long as you can and ignore all economic realities in pursuit of your "altruistic" goals is not altruistic at all. You ignore what makes extended society possible.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJFsd2Nn-4o"]F A Hayek - National Altruism - YouTube[/ame]


Again, please watch this.

 

Well you are correct in that several of the more socialised surrounding economies are doing quite well so that may help. Another primary factor is that the incentive for illegals to migrate their is much less than it is in the U.S. There is much more consideration for the workers of Norway at their places of employment as that is a primary goal.

It has been sustained over the long term with less problems than experienced elsewhere where the markets are deemed much more free. Which is kind of odd when we examine the numbers for the most economically free nations, notice where Norway falls.

I cant watch it right now from this phone, I will watch it later. Considering the portion you referred me to is not very lengthy, im certain you have invoked some of his talking points already. My position is nowhere near being 'destroyed' less of course we ignore the success of other nations.

I like to think that I have been very fair in consideration thus far, why are you taking a reference to life expectancy to an extreme as you mention me suggesting it is 'the goal'. Its not the goal, you mentioned taking advantage of socialised anything so I felt I was within context. When you mention something I do not attempt to say it is the crux of your entire premise, that would be absurd unless you had nothing more to post about. I am not basis the success on the system on keeping people allow as you so disingenuously implied. It is but one level in which I base several reasonable comparisons. You will cite market inefficiencies as inherent in any socialist model I presume which is why you allude to the system not being sustainable in the long run. WhY dont you start by enlarging upon this if it is what you mean to say. Implicitly suggesting the system is entirely inadequate predicated upon population, immigration and demographics is considerable as the league of the Iroquis knew that as a population increased their version of democracy would experience some troubles. Yet do to what you mentioned, (healthy surrounding socialist economies) and more consideration for domestic legal workers (over half the population working for trade unions and many working less than 36 hours a week) the problems you cited do little to prove said inadequacy.

 

Norway is in no way shape or form a valid comparator. It is a nation of under 5 million people that is the worlds third largest oil exporter. Oil exports account for 38% of their overall gdp. This fact alone renders any comparison wholly invalid.

 

I am not sure the considerations nor the ownership of the means of production of the surrounding economies really comes into play. They are strong and that is what matters. There is no incentive to immigrate because the surrounding economies provide for their people and it is not cost efficient for people from poor countries to immigrate as flight is the only viable option to a country such as Norway.

Where are these elusive "free markets", I am not able to find any that are not heavily regulated.

Temporary success is easy to achieve when you pay for everything on credit.

The market inefficiencies are well known and I feel no need to rehash them unless of course you wish to have that discussion. You seem to be incapable of much more than pointing to the "success" of so called "socialised" nations and saying "look it works there, that means you must be wrong!". You don't seem concerned with the economic fundamentals at play and also do not seem concerned with the poor comparison's you make. You obviously feel an altruistic approach is viable and you are entitled to that opinion, I will simply say that you ignore what makes extended society possible by doing that.

You cannot apply an altruistic approach to people who's existence you are not even aware of.

 

9th largest oil exporter now .

 

Post less and get a job. Then you can "share" as much wealth s you want to.

 

What is relevant is that a large portion of its overall gdp comes from oil revenues, which renders any comparisons to a diverse economy like the USA completely invalid.

 

After you saying that you should not wonder why I point out what the economic structures are of the other scandinavian nations. ''The surrounding economies take care of their people''. Your words not mine.

Now lets not play this game old sport, my words were ''elsewhere where markets are deemed much more free''.

The national debt their is most excellently managed and has been for quite sometime. Many countries manage high levels of debt. It can be achieved, the right wing in america like to harp on it all the time but in countries like norway with heavy taxes it is managable.

Which is my point, what is ''well known'' to you seems to be a farcry fromreality so I feel this discusion is appropriate. I do not think you are fully aware of how socialism works outside of the U.S and their alleged 'socialistic' institutions such as welfare.

My turn, you seem to be incapable of much more than pointing to the ''failure'' of so called socialised institutions of the U.S and saying, ''look, it doesnt work here, that means you must be wrong''.

I have further elaborated on my comparisons which you ignored and thus reverted to your initial take prior to the explication. Many countries specialise in a particular industry and are top exporters of specific goods. From precious metals in china and russia to the slew of oil exporters and other valuable goods. This does not say we cannot draw upon comparisons on decreasing poverty by examining others and their techniques with regard to ameliorating this banal social ill. This is what is truly absurd. I mentioned states within the U.S which have smaller populations and less immigration and aside from federal statutes, are left alone to manage their affairs.

 

Incorrect dearest fellow. Your adherence to such ignoble standards is the only thing wholly invalid. I adressed this at least partially for you in my response to roon.

 

What specifically is incorrect? Do you not see how a high percentage of oil exports would render this comparison as invalid?

 

You seem to imply that what I said supports your argument. Taking care of your people is not the goal of government.

Who deems these markets free and what drugs are they on?

No it is not manageable. Look at the mess Europe is in currently.

Ok lets talk about why socialism fails.

Socialism fails because central planning fails. It presumes that a small group of people can make use of all available knowledge. When infact the market only works because it simultaneously uses the knowledge of millions of individuals.

There are many other points to be made, but lets focus on this one.

No, I am merely pointing to economic reality.

You simply mentioned "States", which "States" are you referring to? Make a comparison if you wish and we can evaluate that comparison.

 

Our countries should be much more selective about who they let in and allow to stay. It is disgusting how so many immigrants come to my country just to get welfare and free housing. But it is my strong belief that if the government is permanently allowing people to live within its borders, it has a responsibility to take care of them. Especially in the USA, it seems that the government just wants to bring in cheap desperate laborers to be exploited and paid survival level wages. This is just wrong. Either deport them or ensure they have a decent standard of living. One or the other. I simply will not tolerate impoverished people in my country. If the government will not deport them, and keeps letting them in, the business interests responsible for pulling the political strings will have to pay for the consequences.

 

My Sister worked for 3 years as a Social Worker at a local Welfare Office in of all places Chicago … I think a lot people on this Forum would be surprised at the what they would see … besides Reality!

 

Technically most of the rich criminals are not criminals....because they are rich enough to pay off scumbag politicans to make sure what they are doing is not illegal...

 

as a marxist socialist i would agree with this national socialist view, it is time to stop exploiting the immigrants and if that means closing the borders then that is best thing

we may differ on diversity and race issues but if government is allowing people to live within its borders it does have a responsibility to take care of them

 

I dont think anyone of any ideology do not empathize or sympathize for people, regardless of political standing, in their hardship and need for help.

But let me put this into perspective, or at least try, and attempt to show how welfare perpetuates a cycle which only benefits the people who are giving the welfare, not the ones receiving.

Im not saying that people who get welfare do not benefits, they are able to live, but the sole ability to live is far from the average standard of living found within the upper and middle classes, im sure you would agree completely.

But, welfare does not allow the conditions for people to become more educated, more wealthy or more influential. Welfare does not challenge people to change, it allows them to stand in their current state while taking money out of the economy, making it harder for those people to become wealthy on their own. If welfare had more stringent requirement, and was made so that each new political generation were not able to extend welfare to more and more groups, welfare would be seen more positively by far more people. Thats not the world we live in, im sure you can agree that there are people who are unemployed because there are real health/mental issues as well as people who are unemployed who are lazy. The system does a very bad job identifying and classifying these differences.

Also, welfare groups change over time. It is not only minorities who are starting to go one welfare, it is now middle class whites and other middle class races who are needing financial help as well. 40 million people are on food stamps for instance, which is on par with the great depression. There are electronic food lines now, not actual food lines though.

Many know, that welfare has a strongly generous idea, but many also know that welfare is used to buy votes, and keep the lower class obedient to a political party whom also once was against freeing the slaves. Democrats as well as republicans vote buy, and both ways are through welfare. Democrats use social welfare, republicans use corporate welfare, both are the same concept, just in different areas of society. Neither benefit society as the government is moved by strongly influential characters who care little about the advance of any minority race or small business owner.

 

for your point about whites in the middle class getting on the welfare rolls more now because of the bad economy it is true and that is an example of it working because they are not oppressed as those who are in extreme poverty and it shows welfare is working as a good safety net for them

the reason is it not working for the lower classes is because many in america are socially conditioned by media and the rich to believe welfare is a crutch and creates dependency and so they vote for conservative politicians who are racist to withold the neccessary increased taxpayer money to make it workable for the poor minorities

that is why these people spend their lives on welfare and make it a lifestyle because they are not getting enough taxpayer money to build a ladder out of poverty