Social safety nets are ideological slavery

What if a social safety net generates a positive multiplier effect on our economy which acts in a manner analogous to a rising tide lifting all boats?

 

Fantastic. So finance it thru a voluntary tax. Once taxes are voluntary, then it is no longer immoral because you are willing paying your taxes that funds the welfare state. Everyone wins.

 

I tend to think public dependence on government has always been around.

Much less in the US because we have only lately become so highly urbanized. I think when it comes to system dependence suburbs are much more like cities than they are the country. Very little farming goes on in a suburb and people within suburbs have very little dependence on neighbors, both of which are issues during steep economic recessions. On top of this we have transportation issues in suburbs which are much more expensive than transportation issues in cities.

If we look into the past, even pre-industrialization times, large cities have grown and flourished during times of economic growth. When the economy slows the people still existed within these cities but often lost their occupations and many became destitute. The government (the king or duke) would normally provide food for the starving citizens, partly out of a moral sense but also out of a need to avoid urban war as the starving populations easily turned to crime.

The upper class and royalty tended to resent the money spent in these endeavors. The normal pattern was that if the economic downturn lasted for more than a few years funding for public needs would begin to be withheld and the urban poor would become increasingly violent.

These same historical problems are bound to repeat. If the world and humanity are truly better equipped technologically we should invest in solutions to this problem that are both humane and preventive.

Otherwise we just get the same old thing over and over again.

 

That is exactly what I said. Make taxes option and bar anyone who does not pay them from using government services.

 

So, how would that have worked during our Civil War? Or, should the Union have simply claimed, hey southerners, you have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear Arms, so go ahead and do your own thing.

 

There is much irony on this subject.

When we look at working age individuals that are in poverty they're predominately women and racial minorities (e.g. African-Americans).

When we address economic oppression in employment, advancement, and compensation the same groups are identified as being the most oppressed in the United States based upon racial and gender discrimination. Every study over the last 50 years has confirmed the denial of economic opportunity is overwhelmingly based upon gender and race and these represent the same people that we find living in poverty. They live in poverty because of "white-male" dominance in the economy where the "white-males" deny equality of economic opportunity in employment, advancement, and compensation to women and racial minorities.

And who is it predominately that complains about the problem of "welfare" to mitigate the effects of poverty that results from racial and gender discrimination and economic oppression in the United States? The same "White Males" that are responsible for the discrimination and economic oppression.

In short they believe they should be allowed to create the problem of poverty shared by women and racial minorities without having any responsibility to pay the cost to mitigate the poverty they create through discrimination and denial of economic equality for women and minorities.

Want to end "welfare" assistance because identifying what needs to be done is easy although accomplishing it is not.

End the economic discrimination against women and minorities that denies them economic equality and much of the poverty will disappear and along with it the need to mitigate the effect of the poverty.

 

"Social safety nets" have been created by the democrats to control the lazy drones in society. They use them to control these drones, who are too stupid to understand that todays liberals are no more than an extension of the KKK.

 

Once again, what "social safety" nets are being referred to?

We have federal programs that mitigate the effects of poverty but those are not "social safety nets" and generally address poverty created by invidious discrimination that denies economic equality of opportunity based upon race and gender in the United States.

If we want to predominately end the need for financial assistance to mitigate the poverty then all we need to do is eliminate invidious discrimination that denies economic equality of opportunity.

 

I agree to call social safety nets, income transfers which may ameliorate official poverty in the US for simplification and ease of conveyance of lines of reason.

Why do you need to distinguish? Do you mind, if in my arguments, I refer to social safety nets which should promote the general welfare, through those public policy schemes which best ensure full employment of resources in any given market, but especially the market in human capital, ostensibly as a social form of "justice" through a moral of "good will toward men".

 

Is that really why people are on welfare? Do you really believe it is discrimination? What % of welfare recipients are there because of discrimination do you think? 1% ? 2%?

 

You REALLY need to change your handle.

 

It is about the delegation of specific social Powers.

 

When we look at welfare assistance of working age people we find that women and African- Americans represent the majority of all welfare recipients and these are the two groups most identified as being subjected to invidious wage and employment discrimination in the United States.

Invidious discrimination that denies equality of economic opportunity is not the only reason for poverty but it is unquestionably the reason for most poverty in America and it is the one that is least acceptable.

 

I have a hard time with this. Go to a project housing area. Tutor these people's kids. They will be sitting at home, not doing a thing. White or black. Laziness and scum bummers are very prevalent, even if it isn't PC to say it. Not all, but the majority for sure. Discrimination has very little to do with it.

 

There have been very recent studies on economic stratification where those with less income are disadvantaged when it comes to moving upon economically in society. Basically these studies establish that there is very little "upward" economic mobility in America. In short a person born into poverty or the middle class is pretty much doomed to stay in that economic class. Yes, there are exceptions but they really are rare exceptions.

When we consider the plight of single women and African-Americans in America they've always been relegated to relative poverty so it is hard to break that mold but certainly receiving equality of economic opportunity in American would go a long ways towards achieving that goal.

For example, based upon macro-statistics women would need a 25% increase in wages to be equal to men economically. If women were receiving 25% more in wages then how many of them would drop off the welfare roles? They're already doing the "work" but aren't being paid the same as men in the same job roles.

Of note the vast majority of those on "welfare" are working Americans and they are not "lazy and scum bummers" which grossly misrepresents those actually collecting assistance from the government. The "group" of lazy scum bummers" is statistically insignificant.

While old data much of the following is basically true today.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareincentive.htm

Of note in the above statistic on how long a person is on welfare it relates to being on, off and then back on "welfare" so a woman could file for "welfare" in 1993 and be on it for two months and then file again in 2012 for two months and it counts as "being on welfare" for 20 years even though the benefits were not paid during the vast majority of those years. The dates are from first filing to the final end of any welfare benefits based upon subsequent filings.

 

Women work less hours, and are in less gainful fields. In the same fields women make about the same amount, and in some more. Apples and oranges. How many women are working on oil rigs, in the math fields etc... You wont fool me with that, most of the women I know personally make more then me and go out and get the lives they want. Anyone that doesn't put a glass ceiling over their heads, or decides to live a life with less career wealth but more family time, can get the life they want if they work hard. Discrimination against women is not what it used to be.

The problem isn't discrimination, but the perception of discrimination that hurts people the most - wouldn't you agree? That, and a bit of learned laziness? I am not judging these people, but this is what I observe. Whole communities of unemployed adults and the kids still have to play in filthy streets - unsupervised. This is the result of the current welfare system, it will rot the core of the people stuck in it. Everyone poor when the war on poverty started is basically poor today, or the descendants are going to be trapped in this unless the system is radically changed.

People like this woman, are not held back because of discrimination. This is the welfare mentality that turns people into vote casters, and ruins neighborhoods.

[video=youtube;NpY_YG4kNhs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpY_YG4kNhs[/video]

 

For Shiva's sake, I sure hope he watches that video, though I don't think in doing so that he'll ever get the message that its the safety nets that have given rise to the plight of the poor and not of the WHITE mans' doing.

 

Actually discrimination against women is virtually the same as it used to be. I suggest reading the following.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/29/wage-gap-african-american-women-infographic_n_2568838.html

And while I don't know how many women are on an oil rig I do know the problems in aerospace manufacturing. Women proved during WW II that they could build airplanes today they're still being discriminated against. Yes. a company like Lockheed or Boeing may hire them but only for the menial low-paying jobs. When I was a supervisor on the F-117 building the aft fuselage there were three crews for the three shifts and I had the only woman that was a structural assembler our of my18 employees. The "women" in the shop were limited to "sealing" operations which is the lowest paying (and dirtiest) job in the factory. In fact in my whole career in aerospace manufacturing I could count the number of women structural assemblers that I've known on my fingers at Boeing, Northrop, and Lockheed. They can certainly do the work so why are they only hired for the low-paying jobs in aerospace?

If there is a shortage of women on oil rigs its because the employers won't hire them. It's really that simple because there are literally thousands that would give anything for a job working on an oil rig.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually discrimination against women is virtually the same as it used to be. I suggest reading the following.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/29/wage-gap-african-american-women-infographic_n_2568838.html

And while I don't know how many women are on an oil rig I do know the problems in aerospace manufacturing. Women proved during WW II that they could build airplanes today they're still being discriminated against. Yes. a company like Lockheed or Boeing may hire them but only for the menial low-paying jobs. When I was a supervisor on the F-117 building the aft fuselage there were three crews for the three shifts and I had the only woman that was a structural assembler our of my18 employees. The "women" in the shop were limited to "sealing" operations which is the lowest paying (and dirtiest) job in the factory. In fact in my whole career in aerospace manufacturing I could count the number of women structural assemblers that I've known on my fingers at Boeing, Northrop, and Lockheed. They can certainly do the work so why are they only hired for the low-paying jobs in aerospace?

If there is a shortage of women on oil rigs its because the employers won't hire them. It's really that simple because there are literally thousands that would give anything for a job working on an oil rig.