It is just a bit of history and a bit of the logic of how the world really works.

I agree that many problems are not solved by either government or private sector. Some issues are intractable and have no solution. Some are better solved by government and some by the private sector.

You are right not everyone is or was an Odd Fellow. You did have to be successful enough when you joined to pay your dues in advance and pay your initiation fees and degree fees. This partly protected the Odd Fellows by only allowing persons in who had at one time some success and might be expected to have success again. The fees weren't that much as the average working man was the majority of the members, but you did have to save.

Private prisons bother me. They bother me for an additional reason above your concerns. They bother me because the government creates unfunded mandates every time it passes another law making another thing illegal or it lengthens a sentence on an existing crime. They aren't forced to allocate additional funds for the prison beds this lawmaking will result in. Turning to private prisons to save money is proof that they have lost control of the penal codes.

The Odd Fellows system was working well before the 30's. It was pivotal in the 1840's and 1850's, in the US. Then a brother would "take a card" from his home lodge an run off chasing the gold rush or "go west young man". As he traveled he could get help from every lodge along the way. In other words he had friends, even if he had never met them before, all along his route. He could get assistance if he needed. When he arrived he would "deposit the card" with the lodge where he arrived, and they would help him get employment and settled. A pay it forward system.

Yes, not everyone was covered by the private systems. Then again not everyone understood the Ant and the Grasshopper and many still don't.

---

Gary, that an interesting read on things.

An alternative might be when the private sector fails in one regard or another (not everyone is an Odd Fellow), then it seems government (or at least some in government) see a need to intervene.

I'm neither a 'government is the only solution' nor a 'private parties are the only solution' sort of person.

Further, it seems to me that some aspects of our society do need a government solution. Clearly there is a range -- folks seem to agree that the military is appropriate as a government solution scenario.

I don't know that the private welfare system was a success back in the 30's -- and that got the government involved to a degree not previously seen.

For that matter, Social Security fills a need that wasn't well handled for a LOT of people. I think health care is another that fits.

As to welfare management -- again, that might be something better handled with some private/public partnerships. My concern, as with the privatization of prisons, is that the profit motive can undermine the purpose.

Striking a balance is probably quite complicated.

I fear that for some, all problems seem to require a Manichean approach and I tend to reject the call for simple either/or solutions as often being the product of lazy thinking.

Gary -- that is a fair question, and perhaps it should -- I'm thinking at the state level. There would need to be some performance testing for sure.

As a counter to this, many states have privatized their prison systems -- frankly, to a large degree, this has made matters worse. It is a case where private enterprise sometimes has goals and objectives which are at variance with policy.

Government does have its limitations.

Now for some history. Some of you may know that I am an Odd Fellow. What most of you don't know is the very important function the Odd Fellows provided. If you were a member you were entitled to sick benefits and death benefits. If you died, your widow and orphan children would be taken care of. A brother would not refuse a request for assistance from another brother.

What happened? FDR was an Odd Fellow. He modeled much of the new deal programs on the duties of the Odd Fellows to their brothers. Once the government took over the Odd Fellows began their decline in the USA.

It isn't that private interests can't run great programs, they can, but it is the competition from a monopoly, the government, that results in what we have today.

---

There is a decent argument about wanting to both provide support for people who need it and ideally to have that support empower people to rise above the need for that support over time.

What it seems Romney (and others) have not a clue about is that absent the support, our country would be a poorer place and not just for those who get the support.

What it seems some liberals are confused about is that, improperly handled, that support can create a level of dependency for some segment of the population which also makes the country a poorer place.

It isn't the temporary 'welfare mothers' that we should focus on (except as models of what the programs can do) -- they can be folks that don't have Romney's parents to help them. Rather, some attention should be placed on 'permanent recipients' -- particularly the younger permanent recipients -- to see if there are ways to make the government aid operate as a 'leg up' as the referenced article demonstrates.

Why THANK YOU Barry! That's the most balanced thing I've seen you write in a while. Keep going brother!

I'm sure, by now, that Barry has pointed out he has posted several other balanced things, frequently, in the past, but that your perspective would not admit them as balanced. Seriously, if you're like that with a fellow Republican, this country truly is doomed.

How the Brits see BO

---

Gary -- that is a fair question, and perhaps it should -- I'm thinking at the state level. There would need to be some performance testing for sure.

As a counter to this, many states have privatized their prison systems -- frankly, to a large degree, this has made matters worse. It is a case where private enterprise sometimes has goals and objectives which are at variance with policy.

It isn't the temporary 'welfare mothers' that we should focus on (except as models of what the programs can do) -- they can be folks that don't have Romney's parents to help them. Rather, some attention should be placed on 'permanent recipients' -- particularly the younger permanent recipients -- to see if there are ways to make the government aid operate as a 'leg up' as the referenced article demonstrates.

We have a problem with deadlines. Unemployment insurance was supposed to be for 26 weeks. Then someone came along with a sob story and it was extended. And it happened again and again. IIRC it is up to 99 weeks now. Consider my union friend in my earlier post. Does he have an incentive to find a different field of work where there may be jobs open? or does he keep taking his handout check? I used UI as an example; there are many such examples in many programs.

As long as we in America don't have the backbone to enforce reasonable limits on all "temporary" aid programs they are in effect "permanent" aid programs. Yes, some will get hurt by a deadline. That is a given. Government programs are by their nature that way, they must be. Private programs can stretch their rules.

I submit another question, if the government is in the "aid business" can a private program compete with that for funding?

---

The money appears to suggest the answer to the thread's title is "re-elect him as President".

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

What it seems Romney (and others) have not a clue about is that absent the support, our country would be a poorer place and not just for those who get the support.

So correct. I think that's the major thing overlooked by these "disconnected" types of people, they don't realize how important the money at the bottom is to them. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the poor put a higher percentage of their income back into the system than anyone else (and do it faster). If you strip them of all money, that hurts everything from big business down to the corner bodegas.

---

#resist

There is a decent argument about wanting to both provide support for people who need it and ideally to have that support empower people to rise above the need for that support over time.

What it seems Romney (and others) have not a clue about is that absent the support, our country would be a poorer place and not just for those who get the support.

What it seems some liberals are confused about is that, improperly handled, that support can create a level of dependency for some segment of the population which also makes the country a poorer place.

It isn't the temporary 'welfare mothers' that we should focus on (except as models of what the programs can do) -- they can be folks that don't have Romney's parents to help them. Rather, some attention should be placed on 'permanent recipients' -- particularly the younger permanent recipients -- to see if there are ways to make the government aid operate as a 'leg up' as the referenced article demonstrates.

Story from one of the free loaders. We certainly need to do something to stop this sort of abuse of the hard working taxpayers.

I Was a Welfare Mother

---

Reality Internet Personality

For the sake of keeping things simple. We pay taxes weekly (or per pay period) both state and federal. Part of those taxes translates into paying into unemployment.

Were the actual calculation so simple. Obviously most of you have never seen the statement sent yearly to the employer telling him what his rate to pay is. It is based on something called a "reserve account" and that amount comes from the amount various government funds go up or down, or are "charged against your reserve account," as well as the amount contributed to the reserve account (the tax) and the amount charged to the reserve account (payments to employees). Employers are also given the option to make a voluntary contribution to their reserve account if they think that might lower their rate. But note all of this is "the employers reserve account" and has no relationship to the employee accounts, which are book kept separately. In fact an employer may have no claims and yet have his rate increased because those government funds went down. In essence company A is paying because company B fired a bunch of workers and didn't have money in its reserve account.

Were the actual calculation a flat percent of gross pay with a cap, based on expected claims, then I can see the argument. But as I said elsewhere if the insurance fund isn't run based on actuarial calculations, UI isn't, then it really isn't insurance and must be some other kind of animal.

I'm not saying UI couldn't be run as pure insurance, just that what we have today isn't.

---

To a small degree, but employers hire when their workforce capacity is overwhelmed by too much demand. Why spend money when you don't have to?

---

Don't government enforced employer costs inhibit job creation?

Or to put it another way, for the employer is it cheaper to ask the present workforce to do some overtime, rather than employ another person to cover the shortfall?

The upcoming new normal? Let's globalize and achieve the standard of living in Pakistan or India.

---

Gary, even if it is paid out only by the employer (and yes I know it varies by state), that doesn't make it an 'entitlement' -- as an employer, the cost of paying into FUTA is figured into its cost of doing business -- just like wages. Wages are not an entitlement either.

The way some companys act youd think it was. Im sure some wished you had to live in a company town and use the company store. And work 16 hour days 7 days a week.

---

[/quote]

Old James

What caused this? Obama dropped the requirement the do 20 hours training to get a job per week.

Left the decision of what requirements to make to state and local governments? If correct, then I would think a Libertarian would be happy.

The State's Rights part is very happy. The anti-entitlement part is disgusted. It is never the function of the Government to have entitlement programs. If a private entity wants to do entitlement fine, but no citizen should be forced at gunpoint to provide entitlements. An entitlement is for the good of one, not the common good, and not a function of government.

I imagine you find Unemployment Insurance an entitlement, and probably the worst one of all. Suppose someone takes it for ONE MONTH? Finds another job in the same field, thus continuing to provide a much needed service and contributing to society (and the economy) in other ways?

Myself and Gary have already had the discussion about unemployment benefits. I really am bothered by his take on it. I'm all for reforming the system into something that does a better job of making sure receivers are out looking for a job, but I have said it before and will say it again, if I ever loose my job the first thing I would do is file for UI, I pay into it weekly and that's what it's there for. I also would have a new job in less than a month as my trade is somewhat useful in my city, but I do NOT think unemployment is an entitlement, I think it's a protection.

I agree, though I do not know, for the person mentioned, in either state, whether the person pays directly in.
However, if it's as Gary suggests (the employer pays in), well, guess what? Then they probably wee paying the employee a lower amount to offset also paying into UI,

Well stated.

---