• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Welfare for the Poor

Should the poor be given free money?

  • Total voters
    34
Agnapostate said:
Then it sounds like you have little basis for claiming that the existing technology of the developed world was created by capitalism, as rightists are prone to do. What hasn't existed and will never exist is your "pure capitalism." Real capitalism has and continues to exist and malfunction in a large variety of ways, however.
Click to expand...

No, but countries have been successful when they try to emulate capitalism and respect the laws of supply and demand.

No one referred to government dictate as an example of traditional capitalism. It's true that the same hierarchical framework that capitalism involves is restored in such an arrangement, with an oligopolistic arrangement of an elite few resource controllers determining how they will be allocated in both instances. But we would better label a command economy "state capitalist" in nature and make the necessary distinction.
Click to expand...

Why do you ignore the fluidity of the classes in a capitalist nation (or a nation that tries to emulate capitalism)?
 
phattonez said:
No, but countries have been successful when they try to emulate capitalism and respect the laws of supply and demand.
Click to expand...

Capitalism cannot "respect" the laws of supply and demand to any significant extent compared to a market socialist economy because of the prevalence of negative externalities, monopolistic or oligopolistic market power, and asymmetric information in the capitalist economy. Those capitalist nations that are successful, however, are those that introduce heavy government intervention and regulation.

phattonez said:
Why do you ignore the fluidity of the classes in a capitalist nation (or a nation that tries to emulate capitalism)?
Click to expand...

I'm aware of the constrictions on social mobility that exist in all capitalist economies, and are especially pervasive in the U.S. I can't ignore that.
 
Agnapostate said:
Capitalism cannot "respect" the laws of supply and demand to any significant extent compared to a market socialist economy because of the prevalence of negative externalities, monopolistic or oligopolistic market power, and asymmetric information in the capitalist economy. Those capitalist nations that are successful, however, are those that introduce heavy government intervention and regulation.
Click to expand...

The US before Teddy Roosevelt was had heavy government intervention and regulation?

I'm aware of the constrictions on social mobility that exist in all capitalist economies, and are especially pervasive in the U.S. I can't ignore that.
Click to expand...

No, you're acting as though there is absolutely no social mobility in capitalist nations and you know that's not true.
 
First I do not mind helping persons that truely need help and are willing to help themselves.

I do not feel however that it is the Federal governments place to tax and redistribute.

There are so so many things wrong with how we "help" the less fortunate. I absolutly hate welfare in its current form. Just last week I was talking to a man who was angry because he could not purchase energy drinks with his food stamps. :doh

There are so many things that I think should be changed. So many in fact that I dont care to list them all, so I will just sum it up as best I can. If you are recieveing public aid you should not have any luxury items/services period. You should be forced to work (if able) no matter how crappy the job or be cut off.

Consider this, those that we consider impoverished here in the US are wealthier then at least 70% of the world population.
 
phattonez said:
The US before Teddy Roosevelt was had heavy government intervention and regulation?
Click to expand...

Of course. Apart from my aforementioned reference to ever-present facets such as Hamilton's early advocacy of the infant industries argument in the eighteenth century, the U.S. was dependent on significant protectionism during the nineteenth century for the purpose of infant industry development.

phattonez said:
No, you're acting as though there is absolutely no social mobility in capitalist nations and you know that's not true.
Click to expand...

I've noted that there's significant constrictions on social mobility that are exacerbated by the fact that the majority of aggregate wealth accumulation finds its basis in intergenerational transfers, as noted by Summers and Kotlikoff.
 
Agnapostate said:
Of course. Apart from my aforementioned reference to ever-present facets such as Hamilton's early advocacy of the infant industries argument in the eighteenth century, the U.S. was dependent on significant protectionism during the nineteenth century for the purpose of infant industry development.
Click to expand...

The tariff was the source of revenue for the federal government.

I've noted that there's significant constrictions on social mobility that are exacerbated by the fact that the majority of aggregate wealth accumulation finds its basis in intergenerational transfers, as noted by Summers and Kotlikoff.
Click to expand...

Say it with me. People can move up in society.
 
Welfare should be given to those that actually need it. Not to those that just pop out babies so that they can get a free ride.
 
Welfare management is important for the over all success and maintenance of a developed society. The effects of someone having no money reach well beyond just that person.
 
Are there no work-houses ?
Are there no prisons ?
With all the financial troubles the states are having, welfare should be reduced by at least 20%.
 
Orius said:
Welfare management is important for the over all success and maintenance of a developed society. The effects of someone having no money reach well beyond just that person.
Click to expand...

Elaborate and tell me why theft is a better solution than charity.
 
phattonez said:
The tariff was the source of revenue for the federal government.
Click to expand...

The tariff protections were integral means of ensuring the appropriate development of existing infant industries at the time.

phattonez said:
Say it with me. People can move up in society.
Click to expand...

I think I'll trust the available empirical literature on the topic rather than a mises.org acolyte.

phattonez said:
Elaborate and tell me why theft is a better solution than charity.
Click to expand...

It's not. That's why I oppose capitalism as much as possible.
 
Agnapostate said:
The tariff protections were integral means of ensuring the appropriate development of existing infant industries at the time.
Click to expand...

If you say so. :roll:

I think I'll trust the available empirical literature on the topic rather than a mises.org acolyte.
Click to expand...

More trolling.

It's not. That's why I oppose capitalism as much as possible.
Click to expand...

The poor realize that they're poor. They realize that they can get money from the rich by voting for a tax increase. So they pass a tax increase and get that money. Sounds like theft to me.
 
I think if its absolutely necessary they should be supported but in general I don't have much time for social welfare. It seems more like a mechanism of pacification for corporate-capitalism than anything else to me. I'd rather remove the state created obstacles to many people having a much easier route to providing for themselves rather than support a system that stops this.
 
phattonez said:
If you say so. :roll:
Click to expand...

Thanks. I'm glad you've conceded the point.

phattonez said:
More trolling.
Click to expand...

I'm referring to the likes of this. If you can challenge that empirical research, feel free.

phattonez said:
The poor realize that they're poor. They realize that they can get money from the rich by voting for a tax increase. So they pass a tax increase and get that money. Sounds like theft to me.
Click to expand...

That would ignore the initial theft on the part of the rich through their misappropriation of the surplus value produced by the working class. Capital accumulation itself is based on theft. Welfare programs, conversely, sustain capitalist economic structure, as I've noted above without challenge of what I actually posted.
 
Agnapostate said:
I'm referring to the likes of this. If you can challenge that empirical research, feel free.
Click to expand...

I'm merely asking you to concede that social mobility is possible.

That would ignore the initial theft on the part of the rich through their misappropriation of the surplus value produced by the working class. Capital accumulation itself is based on theft. Welfare programs, conversely, sustain capitalist economic structure, as I've noted above without challenge of what I actually posted.
Click to expand...

Surplus value nonsense? Really? That surplus value is created by the distributive expertise and sales experience offered by the executives and middle management.
 
phattonez said:
I'm merely asking you to concede that social mobility is possible.
Click to expand...

My focus was on equality of opportunity, which is nonexistent due to the severe constrictions that generally exist on social mobility, whatever its possibility for some.

phattonez said:
Surplus value nonsense? Really? That surplus value is created by the distributive expertise and sales experience offered by the executives and middle management.
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that that comment ignores the proven superior efficiency of workers' ownership and management as demonstrated by a substantial empirical literature, executive overpayment usually obstructs the productivity of middle managers. There's available research that notes the negative effects of excessive wage dispersion, thereby providing justification for the converse strategy of increased wage compression. For instance, we might consult Wade et al.'s Overpaid CEOs and Underpaid Managers: Fairness and Executive Compensation. As noted therein:

Much previous research on executive compensation has been predicated on previous research on executive compensation has been predicated on economic theories with their assumptions of the motivational benefits of individual competitiveness among employees. Using a sample of over 120 large public companies over a five year period, results of this study show the negative consequences of inequity in the CEO’s pay on employees at lower levels of the organization. First, the effects of CEO over- and underpayment are shown to cascade down to lower organizational levels. Second, inequity between the CEO’s compensation and that of lower level managers is associated with higher rates of turnover for these employees. Overall, the findings are consistent with the positive effects of wage compression in salaries. Theoretical implications for the design of executive compensation are discussed.
Click to expand...

However, as noted, the coordinator class's applications are not significantly more expansive than those of the financial class, considering the superior efficiency of workplace democracy.
 
This is the U.S.A and no need for people to starve to death. What we should do is stop giving all these funds to other places that wish to NUKE us and take care of our own as there is no excuse for people starving:(
 
Kali said:
This is the U.S.A and no need for people to starve to death.
Click to expand...

People that want to help themselves but are unable (for whatever reason) and need a helping hand should never starve to death. However there are some that simply refuse to do anything to support themselves and rely on handouts to survive. If these people would rather starve to death then work I say let them starve, its there own fault.

What we should do is stop giving all these funds to other places that wish to NUKE us and take care of our own as there is no excuse for people starving:(
Click to expand...

Totally agree with ya.
 
I think we ought to have a social safety net in this country where people who fall are caught and helped to get back on their feet. It should be a short-term thing only. We should not have lifetime welfare where people never have to work, never have to do anything for themselves, they just get a check from the government every month while they sit on the couch watching Oprah.

Note, this does not apply to people who are permanently and seriously disabled and can never work, I'm talking about able-bodied people who simply choose not to. Those people can starve for all I care.
 
Cephus said:
I think we ought to have a social safety net in this country where people who fall are caught and helped to get back on their feet. It should be a short-term thing only. We should not have lifetime welfare where people never have to work, never have to do anything for themselves, they just get a check from the government every month while they sit on the couch watching Oprah.

Note, this does not apply to people who are permanently and seriously disabled and can never work, I'm talking about able-bodied people who simply choose not to. Those people can starve for all I care.
Click to expand...

Ditto! The days of welfare for life should be long gone and done with. :(
 
I have a younger brother who won't work....and people feel sorry for him and help him out. He is worthless, always has been.

He is perfectly ABLE but not WILLING.....

He is representative of the problem, those who feel sorry for him are not solving any problems, they are enabling him and the problem....
 
These Countries have the most extravagent unemployment benefits in the World....not to mention Universal Health care.

Let's see how they are doing?http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/05/world-happiest-places-lifestyle-travel-world-happiest.html





Low unemployment also contributes to happiness. "One thing we know for sure," says the OECD's Chapple, "not having a job makes one substantially less satisfied." Denmark's unemployment rate is just 2%, according the C.I.A.'s World Factbook. Norway's is just 2.6%. The Netherlands: just 4.5%. Many economists concur that a 4% unemployment rate reflects a stable economy. The U.S. unemployment rate is currently 9%.
 
Last edited:
The poor should be given an opportunity, not a hand out!

Give them jobs, give them free education, give them loans for a business(if they provide a good business plan), provide an opportunity and the means for people to help themselves.
 
OxymoronP said:
The poor should be given an opportunity, not a hand out!

Give them jobs, give them free education, give them loans for a business(if they provide a good business plan), provide an opportunity and the means for people to help themselves.
Click to expand...

I was poor, in 64....
My govt gave me a job in the Navy, and a technical education, and the GI bill to further my education after serving......

That path is still open, to those who haven't already screwed up their lives in some way or another...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom