What if expanding the safety net is LESS expensive than cutting it?


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : What if expanding the safety net is LESS expensive than cutting it?

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next
Author Message
Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12758
Credit: 7,301,749
RAC: 18,052
United States
Message 1321609 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 20:31:27 UTC - in response to Message 1321604.
Last modified: 29 Dec 2012, 20:31:51 UTC

Thanks, Gary. I couldn't tell who you meant by "someone" and Guy didn't put his excerpt from the Declaration of Independence in "quotes." Good catch.

The clue to the someone was the "in response to message ####" which you will see on this post as well.
____________

Reed Young
Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 06
Posts: 122
Credit: 81,383
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1321615 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 20:43:05 UTC - in response to Message 1321609.

And thanks for the tip.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1321619 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 20:47:44 UTC
Last modified: 29 Dec 2012, 20:52:53 UTC

Both documents fall under founding documents and together form the rule of law here. One cannot be separated from the other. I'm not saying so in defense of Guy, but I am saying so in defense of our founding. The first gives reason, the next gives law under Nature and Natures God.

In order to follow Jesus of Nazareth we would have to do so, one on one as He did. This would not include looping your cash through D.C. and relieve yourself of the duty of giving one on one. You render to Caesar what is owed Caesar and that is enumerated in the Constitution before 1913. If we do it as it is now you find that we have become socialistic as Wilson was and some of you cling to now.


Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2082
Credit: 50,474,846
RAC: 313,240
Message 1321672 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 21:49:33 UTC
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 19:02:56 UTC

--

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9258
Credit: 1,505,771
RAC: 1,611
United States
Message 1321810 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 23:18:05 UTC - in response to Message 1321672.

Once enacted by a majority of the governed or our representatives, all laws are enforced by, duh, force.


You're sounding a lot like the Khmer Rouge, the Chinese Secret Police, Che Guevara, the Gestapo, and the NKVD.

If civil war breaks out, I'll know which side you're on.


Hint: we're already seceding from you before you can. We are well past the process of petitions. You have lost and will continue to lose. Be sure to gather all your friends and relatives in TX.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1321835 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 0:00:40 UTC - in response to Message 1321810.

Once enacted by a majority of the governed or our representatives, all laws are enforced by, duh, force.


You're sounding a lot like the Khmer Rouge, the Chinese Secret Police, Che Guevara, the Gestapo, and the NKVD.

If civil war breaks out, I'll know which side you're on.


Hint: we're already seceding from you before you can. We are well past the process of petitions. You have lost and will continue to lose. Be sure to gather all your friends and relatives in TX.

LOL! Your unarmed! LOL!

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,159,660
RAC: 130
United States
Message 1321849 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 0:18:37 UTC - in response to Message 1320682.

...

I am neither, Constitutionalist point of view would be me.


I am not a Democrat, not a socialist and not a leftist. I am independent.

Oh..oh! Are we labeling ourselves now?

I'm an independent too.

With pragmatist socialistic capitalistic libertarian anarchic tendencies.

I follow Cthulhu and all his teachings.

====================================================
wouldn't it's teachings be more appropriate for an other dimensional

being incomparable with human space driving all who seen

insane. My god is that what happened to congress:)

____________

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,159,660
RAC: 130
United States
Message 1321851 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 0:20:38 UTC - in response to Message 1320940.

Luddite/technogeek ha!

------------------------------------------
Weren't the Luddite's anti tech?
____________

Reed Young
Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 06
Posts: 122
Credit: 81,383
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1321854 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 0:26:13 UTC - in response to Message 1321672.

Godwin's Law: you lose.
____________

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,159,660
RAC: 130
United States
Message 1321862 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 0:36:07 UTC

For those of you that want to Battle it out the federalists papers

and much more can be found at http://www.gutenberg.org/


____________

Terror Australis
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1717
Credit: 205,858,543
RAC: 28,094
Australia
Message 1321981 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 7:48:56 UTC
Last modified: 30 Dec 2012, 7:59:21 UTC

A society HAS to look after its less fortunate members otherwise it collapses. Hungry, homeless people have a tendency to turn to crime and riot in the streets which eventually leads to revolution and anarchy. Particularly when the "Have Nots" can see that the "Haves" have so much. So, it is common sense to support them just to keep then quiet, and this is without taking into account the humanitarian aspect.

It is the job of government to provide this support as it spreads the load over the whole society according to each individual's ability to pay due to the sliding income tax rates

It was posted previously (possibly in another thread) that the US unemployment benefit was $295 per week. I presume that this is the base rate for a single person. If this person has children and a dependant spouse then the rate would increase proportionally.

Is there any of the anti-government, anti-welfare posters here who would be willing to walk down the street and give an unemployed person this much out of their own pocket ? Hardly likely.

Privatise the Welfare system ? I don't think so. How would you do it ? The government would still have to provide the money to the "contractor" and to provide such a service nationally you would have to use a big organisation used to dealing with large amounts of money (Goldmann Sachs anyone ?). Being a large company their only interest would be skimming as much off the top as they possibly could and the US welfare system would finish up as bigger mess as the US Healthcare system, the taxpayer would still be paying, and you can go back to my first paragraph.

It's a shame that so many people let their ideology get in the way of their common sense, humanity and religious ideals (Forests and trees ?).

Edit: Even the Romans were aware of this, feed the unemployed, give them entertainment and they will be less likely to cause trouble. Hence the term "Bread and Circuses". So now do you really object to that 47%'er down the road having an X-box ?

T.A.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12758
Credit: 7,301,749
RAC: 18,052
United States
Message 1322254 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 17:12:28 UTC - in response to Message 1321981.

A society HAS to look after its less fortunate members otherwise it collapses.

Interesting hypothesis. I'd suspect the other is also true. That a society that does look after its less fortunate members will collapse.

Lets go back in history and see, lots of different societies, all of them have collapsed. They all seemed to have a growth phase and an expiration of the growth phase leading to collapse, not counting those where an external event is the obvious cause. Not much help there.

If you want to know what is wrong with your hypothesis, you argue about crime and theft. That is the withdrawal of capital from society going to the less fortunate. It doesn't matter to the survival of the society if this happens via crime or via taxes. In both cases if enough capital is diverted from growth, growth ceases and collapse ensues.

Now I have assumed by "look after" you mean some form of social welfare. Other options of "look after" are available and have been tired as well. The founding of Australia for example. England still exists so this option perhaps has merit.

____________

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9258
Credit: 1,505,771
RAC: 1,611
United States
Message 1322268 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 17:41:20 UTC - in response to Message 1322254.

If you want to know what is wrong with your hypothesis, you argue about crime and theft. That is the withdrawal of capital from society going to the less fortunate.


Is this how Bernie Maddoff is describing himself? No. Crime and theft are not only perpetrated by less fortunate.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12758
Credit: 7,301,749
RAC: 18,052
United States
Message 1322297 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 18:15:14 UTC - in response to Message 1322268.

If you want to know what is wrong with your hypothesis, you argue about crime and theft. That is the withdrawal of capital from society going to the less fortunate.


Is this how Bernie Maddoff is describing himself? No. Crime and theft are not only perpetrated by less fortunate.

Bernie Maddoff's crime was making promises like a politician but he wasn't elected to office.

Ah, an error in TA's assumptions of his hypothesis. Good catch.

____________

Terror Australis
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1717
Credit: 205,858,543
RAC: 28,094
Australia
Message 1322311 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 18:36:16 UTC - in response to Message 1322254.

A society HAS to look after its less fortunate members otherwise it collapses.

Interesting hypothesis. I'd suspect the other is also true. That a society that does look after its less fortunate members will collapse.

Lets go back in history and see, lots of different societies, all of them have collapsed. They all seemed to have a growth phase and an expiration of the growth phase leading to collapse, not counting those where an external event is the obvious cause. Not much help there.

If you want to know what is wrong with your hypothesis, you argue about crime and theft. That is the withdrawal of capital from society going to the less fortunate. It doesn't matter to the survival of the society if this happens via crime or via taxes. In both cases if enough capital is diverted from growth, growth ceases and collapse ensues........

Maybe the opposite is true. When a society is young the wealth is distributed on a reasonably even basis. As it the society ages the wealth tends to coagulate in small pockets leaving less capital available for the population at large. Also those with the wealth want to hang onto it, they no longer take risks with it and therefore "venture capital" is withdrawn from the society and held in storage. Thus "capital is diverted from growth, growth ceases and collapse ensues".

Look at what happened to Rome. Once the age of conquest had ended, there was no new capital coming into the system from conquests, the wealthy were unwilling to finance new legions because of the "risk" so the city stagnated. The concentrating of wealth also led to high unemployment as the population kept growing but jobs were not being created to keep up. The ruling class could see trouble brewing, hence the "bread and circuses".

T.A.

Terror Australis
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1717
Credit: 205,858,543
RAC: 28,094
Australia
Message 1322330 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 18:56:36 UTC - in response to Message 1322254.

Now I have assumed by "look after" you mean some form of social welfare. Other options of "look after" are available and have been tired as well. The founding of Australia for example. England still exists so this option perhaps has merit.

You overlook the fact that conditions in Australia soon became better than they were in England. Many ex-convicts became very wealthy. It came to the point where people were deliberately committing crimes in order to get transported. The British government realised that transportation was no longer a deterrent. This is the main reason transportation was stopped. :-)

Is this how Bernie Maddoff is describing himself? No. Crime and theft are not only perpetrated by less fortunate.

Bernie Maddoff is probably describing himself as very unfortunate. He is the only financial shark from 2007 that's doing time. It's one of the conundrums of the justice system, the bigger the crime the less chance there is of being prosecuted for for it, let alone being sent to gaol. But stick up a liquor store or mug somebody for a few dollars......

T.A.

Reed Young
Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 06
Posts: 122
Credit: 81,383
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1322332 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 18:58:38 UTC - in response to Message 1321981.

Thanks TA, that is exactly the reason I started this thread.

A society HAS to look after its less fortunate members otherwise it collapses. Hungry, homeless people have a tendency to turn to crime and riot in the streets which eventually leads to revolution and anarchy. Particularly when the "Have Nots" can see that the "Haves" have so much. So, it is common sense to support them just to keep then quiet, and this is without taking into account the humanitarian aspect.

Hopefully, advocating public assistance only on the basis that it's the more cost-effective alternative and leaving our opinions about "the humanitarian aspect" out of it will lead to fewer moral judgments than usual in conversations about such topics, and fewer "tears before bedtime."
____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12758
Credit: 7,301,749
RAC: 18,052
United States
Message 1322333 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 19:05:14 UTC - in response to Message 1322311.

A society HAS to look after its less fortunate members otherwise it collapses.

Interesting hypothesis. I'd suspect the other is also true. That a society that does look after its less fortunate members will collapse.

Lets go back in history and see, lots of different societies, all of them have collapsed. They all seemed to have a growth phase and an expiration of the growth phase leading to collapse, not counting those where an external event is the obvious cause. Not much help there.

If you want to know what is wrong with your hypothesis, you argue about crime and theft. That is the withdrawal of capital from society going to the less fortunate. It doesn't matter to the survival of the society if this happens via crime or via taxes. In both cases if enough capital is diverted from growth, growth ceases and collapse ensues........

Maybe the opposite is true. When a society is young the wealth is distributed on a reasonably even basis. As it the society ages the wealth tends to coagulate in small pockets leaving less capital available for the population at large. Also those with the wealth want to hang onto it, they no longer take risks with it and therefore "venture capital" is withdrawn from the society and held in storage. Thus "capital is diverted from growth, growth ceases and collapse ensues".

Look at what happened to Rome. Once the age of conquest had ended, there was no new capital coming into the system from conquests, the wealthy were unwilling to finance new legions because of the "risk" so the city stagnated. The concentrating of wealth also led to high unemployment as the population kept growing but jobs were not being created to keep up. The ruling class could see trouble brewing, hence the "bread and circuses".

T.A.

Interesting, so the US tax code that prevents the write-off of capital loss against income acts to increase the risk of those who have venture capital to invest. So any tax on a venture (corporation) increases the risk to the venture capitalist. Interesting. Perhaps society should tax the retention of capital that is not invested in ventures, e.g. in a mattress, and not tax ventures e.g. corporations.

Now as to population, today the planet has far too many. The conquest of resources is at an end. So it looks like not just one society but all are at risk. Of course society could adopt mandatory birth control, e.g. Zero Population Growth.

I had no clue you were so conservative.

____________

Reed Young
Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 06
Posts: 122
Credit: 81,383
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1322335 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 19:11:09 UTC - in response to Message 1322254.

Now I have assumed by "look after" you mean some form of social welfare. Other options of "look after" are available and have been tired as well. The founding of Australia for example. England still exists so this option perhaps has merit.

Which do you suppose is the more cost effective means to "look after" the same populace in general? And, what if we target the "form of social welfare" to maximize efficiency thereof? If it is possible to identify the most "prison-likely" subsets of the populace, and strategically offer forms of public assistance that can be shown to be effective enough at preventing crime that the reduced prison costs exceed the cost of the public assistance programs themselves, is that savings, all by itself, enough to persuade you to support such programs?

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12758
Credit: 7,301,749
RAC: 18,052
United States
Message 1322336 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 19:12:11 UTC - in response to Message 1322330.

Now I have assumed by "look after" you mean some form of social welfare. Other options of "look after" are available and have been tired as well. The founding of Australia for example. England still exists so this option perhaps has merit.

You overlook the fact that conditions in Australia soon became better than they were in England. Many ex-convicts became very wealthy. It came to the point where people were deliberately committing crimes in order to get transported. The British government realised that transportation was no longer a deterrent. This is the main reason transportation was stopped. :-)

It matters not what happened in Australia, but what happened in England. Did the transportation make England better or worse?

BTW ask an Aborigine if Australia got better. Apologize in advance if that is no longer a politically correct term.


____________

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

Message boards : Politics : What if expanding the safety net is LESS expensive than cutting it?

Copyright © 2014 University of California