Why not solve simple poverty in our republic...

In any case, it would be a simpler general tax which may or may not be passed on to consumers depending on the elasticity (of goods and services) of any given sector of our economy.

 

It has to do with a positive multiplier effect doing the "heavy lifting" instead of an Iron Age work ethic. Simply increasing the circulation of money in our Institution of money based markets will create demand, and require more supply.

I don't resort to fallacy for my Cause, by failing to distinguish between poor and official poverty. Simple poverty can be solved in our republic through existing legal and physical infrastructure in every State of the Union, and could be administered as easily as our current regime of minimum wage laws is now.

It would really be as simple as applying for unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines, whenever a potential labor market participant can claim to be unemployed, in any at-will employment State.

 

Then you are fixing nothing you are just putting a band-aid on the problem, and hoping nobody will notice.

Honestly, just by throwing money at a problem doesn't fix it unless the problem somehow eventually gets resolved. Paying people who can't find a job or won't, to do nothing only creates more nothingness. We don't need more government dependents we need more businesses, we need more work, and we need to stop placing mega corporations (including the banking community) on pedestals that can't be toppled. There should be numerous choices for productivity to take root again.

I honestly do not see anything that changes for the better in your scenario for the future. You are just hoping things will change, eventually, with a quick fix scheme. Look if you just put fix a flat in a flat tire, it is only temporary, you still need to get the flat fixed.

 

Why you believe that? Solving for capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment through that form of social is analogous to achieving full employment of resources in that market.

 

I guess you don't believe in laissez-faire capitalism?

 

Nothing you are suggesting fits the category of Laissez faire economics, and no I do not believe in it, since it is an oxymoron. No different than the communist utopia which also cannot exist.

Doesn't exist, never has, because it can't. Someone or a group of someone's will always eventually get the upper hand and establish the rules everybody else will go by. When they do the quality of life, for the majority, will decline. People will always look out for their own best interest and when they have the power (procured in general or by the state) to do so they will at the expense of everyone/everything else.

Not really much different than how our government has gone from a people's republic to a supremacist plutocracy. Making rules/or having no rules for that matter that apply to most, but allow others to become exempt, can never work, not for the general well being of the nation as a whole.

 

It is why I advocate only sufficient socialism to actually solve our social dilemma with existing infrastructure, instead of merely paying for a War on Poverty through a false analogy, for around a generation.

 

The fact that congress can establish fiat money is not the issue. The important part of that issue is INFLATION. If more fiat money is created than the wealth backing that money inflation tears up the value of that money. Any questions from you Daniel?

It is clear you really don't know what socialism is Daniel. It is not socialism unless the government owns or controls production, distribution and wealth. You have a warped idea as to the definition of socialism.

- - - Updated - - -

Daniel does not understand tax incidence Gary.

 

I don't believe in welfare for those who can work, only those disabled mentally or physically.

You may be a little too far to the right here, but basically your concepts are sound.

 

Wrong! Socialistic concepts always fail dismally.

 

There is no such thing as only "a little socialism." Socialism is not a positive system and it always reduces over all prosperity and makes more people poor.

 

Basic support and save the disabled no money, to get frills at all they need to work if considered even partially employable part-time. Even the disabled would get just $50 a week noting all other needs are met. I would still test for drug use not prescribed by a medical provider.

 

TK, Russell was wrong then and he is wrong even more now. Human beings weren't built for ease. We become to easily bored and when bored tend to start a down hill slide to depravity and ruin.

 

Good grief, do you even realize that in some cases socialism is a part of this country, and that the ideals talked about in the pledge of allegiance are socialist ideals? Obviously you haven't thought this out very well. Roadways/bridges, police, fire dept, our military/defense, sewer system, even our court system is collective socialism. When it is taken to the extreme or is considered the cure for all is it less productive. Our system is both socialist and capitalist, and that balance is what brought us to our highest point as a nation. Unfortunately the misuse, and manipulation of the government for the exclusive protection of the minority class, the rich/elites, is bringing us to a downfall. While they turn the middle class against the lower class, and reap the awards, the sheeple keep their wealth and power a dominating factor, and act like good little retards and ague among themselves about their own ignorance and stupidity.

 

Good grief! NO WAY! Social programs do not make an economic system socialist. Socialism is defined as government ownership or control of production, distribution and wealth.

Ludwig von Mises Capitalism and socialism are two distinct patterns of social organization. Private control of the means of production and public control are contradictory notions and not merely contrary notions. There is no such thing as a mixed economy, a system that would stand midway between capitalism and socialism.​

so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: socialism
1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

or

Full Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

 

So one supremacist's ideals are better than another. Freedom requires responsibility but doesn't come with instructions.

 

And exactly what does that have to do with what I said?

 

Then I guess it is a good thing we as a nation are not completely socialist.

 

Sure sounded like you were saying people had to be coerced into activities to keep them moral and riotous. If that wasn't what you were saying I misunderstood.

Every time a supremacist thinks they know what is best for everybody else, it usually indicates a self interested desire for everybody to do what is best for them, not everybody else. I prefer a lead by example scenario rather than a do as I tell you too, one.

 

We are not even a little socialist.

Ludwig von Mises Capitalism and socialism are two distinct patterns of social organization. Private control of the means of production and public control are contradictory notions and not merely contrary notions. There is no such thing as a mixed economy, a system that would stand midway between capitalism and socialism.​

 

Well this Ludwig guy sounds like a fringe extremist lunatic not an economist.

 

Mises is one of the most respected capitalist paradigm economists ever.

 

This is the most bigoted, racist thing I've seen posted. You didn't choose Shaniqua and Deshaun as names because they first popped into your head and it's disgusting that you'd assume an entire race of people are the reason we have homeless, unemployed and unfed people. I'm a white male who thinks we all need to earn our own way, but I also think we need help sometimes and we have an obligation to civilization to try to keep others from starving or living without a home. And there are poor all around us for a world of reasons that have nothing to do with drugs, laziness or whatever other reason you choose to stereotype an entire chunk of our population under.

Drive through Detroit, or go smaller and visit Decatur, IL sometime. Places where factories have closed by the tens or hundreds of companies have left behind a lot of problems for residents of those areas. People who own homes can't simply leave because jobs left. They're stuck with those homes because nobody wants to live there. After all, there are no jobs once companies leave. Those are the folks who need the social safety net to make sure they don't starve or die in our streets. Many would welcome a car, or a twinkie, or even a glass of water in a warm room.

Your mission should be to go find the compassion you lost somewhere along the way, to stay off the kool-aid of whoever has smeared your thinking to assume every person who needs help does so because they choose to do nothing else, and to learn respect for others. I hope none of Shaniqua's or Deshaun's friends, as you so eloquently put it, come here and see what you wrote only to leave offended and angry that, yet again, they've faced racism. It's about time to move on past your racist thinking and realize we're all in this together because they don't all have 2 new or late-year cars, nice homes, every electronic device on the market, Medicare coverage and even second homes at the beach or in the mountains. They wouldn't be HOMELESS if they did.

I've been down to my very last dollars after getting out of the military in my younger days and I hope you never have to know how that feels. Otherwise you'll join the stereotype you just painted above and I would hope, if you ever do find yourself in that situation, Shaniqua or Deshaun would help you despite your beliefs about them.

 

Do tell?

 

I don't know why you believe that; socialism starts with a social Contract such as our Constitution for our republic, and that form of Body politic.