Your Opinion of Welfare?

[Jakalwarrior]

What do you guys think of welfare?

-- Defining welfare as any government funded aid.

[TheLastMohican]

I was cold-blooded and voted "survival of the fittest." I do not actually have that attitude when it comes to aiding people in need, but I do not think government should have that burden. Leave it to private charities. They're more efficient at it anyway, and they can reject leeches at will. With the current system, we have a lot more people soaking up our hard-earned dollars than actually need the help.

[PHS Philip]

My thoughts on it are complicated, but in a nutshell: aid to those with disabilities, and then a sort of safetynet so that if you get laid off and the job market's bad, you're OK. The amount would decrease steadily over the course of a year or a year and a half, and stop at the end, because by then almost anyone who's looking will have found something. I don't think people would give enough to charities to achieve this. I say cut a few billion out of military spending for it. They have such an absurd budget already that it really wouldn't hurt them much (we have bombers that cost a few percent of the UK's entire military budget each. We've spent hundreds of millions on things like military research of ESP and telekinesis).

[stasis]

The term "welfare" has taken on a pejorative meaning in pop culture. Using it is just going to add significant bias to the responses you receive to questions about various forms of economic aid. And voluntary response sampling tends to produce biased results to begin with, so...

[Colette]

I was cold-blooded and voted "survival of the fittest." I do not actually have that attitude when it comes to aiding people in need, but I do not think government should have that burden. Leave it to private charities. They're more efficient at it anyway, and they can reject leeches at will. With the current system, we have a lot more people soaking up our hard-earned dollars than actually need the help.

The efficiency argument begs the central question really doesn't it, which is whether the Government has the moral obligation (or responsibility) to support those in the community who for whatever reason are unable to support themselves. I find it hard to conceive of anyone being able to seriously assert that Governments in Western societies, which collect a huge sum of money through the tax net, can legitimately avoid such responsibility, or argue that it vests in some network of private and voluntary agencies, such as charities. Unfortunately in previous debates about welfare on this board, the moral/philosophical question has almost always become inextricably and (in my view very unhelpfully) conflated with the efficiency/operational argument (i.e. why isn't the system working as it should?).

Where is Lights when we need him? :)

[Monte314]

I agree with TLM. (We have to make some kind of reasonable provision for the mentally ill and truly disabled).

Government agencies will never be able to demand any kind of cultural responsibility, since this involves value judgements. The result is a state of perpetual need and fiscal helplessness, which is nothing more than a kind of bondage that gains a hold on families that can last for generations.

Private charities, however, can insist that recipients take some steps of their own to overcome their situation: "show up at this job center for training and work", "learn to read and write", "develop a work ethic", "let us help you put together a plan for self-sufficiency", etc.

[mikedilger]

Feeling sorry for those in need, and desiring to help them, is a natural human emotion... which was selected for survival because it kept the genes of the feeler propogating... because he/she was most likely feeling this emotion with regards to his family, or tribe members who help his/her survival or gene's survival.

Feeling this emotion for strangers is aberrant historically mainly because we didn't used to have worldwide communication. It has become culturally the norm in modern times especially among the more socialistic minded peoples. You have to profess a kindness to everybody as a sort of certification that you are a good guy. People who express a lack of caring for strangers are often held in suspicion ("oh.. so maybe you don't really give a damn about me either") or ostracized.

I personally feel stronger bonds of solidarity with people who don't care about everybody. To me they seem more genuine, and I feel I can trust them.

As we all know, the incentives surrounding welfare are backwards. It takes from the productive members of society through tax. It rewards those who are not productive. Over time, the nation languishes.

I live in New Zealand. It is very egalitarian here, and nationalistic. I've learned to shut my trap, because people immediately see me as a bad person, and team up against me defending the weaker bretheren, if I suggest anything counter to welfare.

Problem is, most productive people have left New Zealand. The ones left are mainly either die-hard egalitarians, those sapping the system, or people whose economic interests mainly lie overseas. Total effective tax rate has risen from 20% to over 40%, while the GDP per capita has fallen from 5% annually to less than 1% annually. In 1950, NZ was 3rd in the world for GDP per capita. Now it's 26th.

I'm not holding my breath, cultural norms are strongly embedded here.

[TheLastMohican]

The efficiency argument begs the central question really doesn't it, which is whether the Government has the moral obligation (or responsibility) to support those in the community who for whatever reason are unable to support themselves. I find it hard to conceive of anyone being able to seriously assert that Governments in Western societies, which collect a huge sum of money through the tax net, can legitimately avoid such responsibility, or argue that it vests in some network of private and voluntary agencies, such as charities.

I would like to see a convincing argument for why it is the government's responsibility. Does the tax revenue somehow mandate a specific use for itself? What if the government got its act together and slashed taxes and programs, reducing itself to its basic role? (I think the US government is past the point of no return, but let's imagine an ideal government starting anew.)


Government agencies will never be able to demand any kind of cultural responsibility, since this involves value judgements. The result is a state of perpetual need and fiscal helplessness, which is nothing more than a kind of bondage that gains a hold on families that can last for generations.

Private charities, however, can insist that recipients take some steps of their own to overcome their situation: "show up at this job center for training and work", "learn to read and write", "develop a work ethic", "let us help you put together a plan for self-sufficiency", etc.


This nicely encapsulates the problem with government charity.
Considering that, I think that saying the government has an obligation to provide charity is akin to saying that all citizens are obligated to join the Air Force. Somebody has to do it, but not everyone would be beneficial in that position.

[tp6626]

I voted survival of the fittest (even though this is not used in the right context here). The people on welfare support can be thought of as 'fit' as they are obviously surviving by taking maximum advantage of their environment; in this case a government doling out cash to them for not much in return.

There is technically nothing wrong with the government doling out cash to the unemployed and less fortunate. However, in my view, this altruistic deed should be repaid in one way or another by the recipient. Currently, I don't think this is happening because people see welfare support as something owed to them by right, rather than given in aid / support.

There are three main categories of people on welfare support that spring to mind, that I would like to mention:

1. Unemployment Benefit - The government should provide 'community service' type work for people on this benefit. This should be minimum pay (say 10% below minimum wage), and not particularly sought after work. It should be used to make real employment more of an incentive to these people, who typically after collecting their dole money may spend the minimum time meeting the government requirements, and the rest of the time tossing it off in the pub. The government could recoup some costs this way, and if the people refuse to repay the government via work, they would not get 'paid'.

2. Child Benefit - This is more difficult. In the UK, one of the quickest ways for a young, unemployed female to 'find her feet' is to have a couple of children, claim multiple benefits, and get her name prioritised on the council housing list. There are few disincentives against this. I believe 'forced' education is the way forward here, but its still a tricky one thats hard to implement, and would take generations to solve anyway.

3. Disability Benefit - I agree with this one, but still believe that there must be some way that the recipient(s) can attempt to repay the good deed done to him/her; he/she may well even really want to do this.

Oh, and asylum benefit. This should be treated in a similar way to no 1. That is, those people should be employed by the government in hard jobs that are traditionally hard to fill, whilst also providing training and teaching english etc. The aim should be to eventually make it so that they can gain proper employment on their own, but in the mean time I doubt they can moan about bad conditions when they're probably only here in the first place escaping from war-torn countries elsewhere.

So I guess the question is, what would happen if the Welfare State ceased to exist?

(My thought is that 'natures contraceptive', starvation, would kick in and act to cull these people, and the population in general would prosper. However, the unseen side effects may wreak havoc and cause exactly the opposite!?).

[SirJac]

It's a complex issue, and while I believe that welfare needs to be revamped it's still necessary. I was forced to rely on welfare and the food bank for almost 2 years, it was a horrible existance. But I'm thankful that I at least had that, otherwise I would have been living on the streets and probably end up as a drug addict or dead.

Maybe society would be better off without welfare, but I would far worse off.

[helium]

I have to vote in favor of "welfare" being available to persons who are disabled or chronically ill, though I think it's necessary only in certain cases. When a person cannot work as a result of circumstances beyond his control, a responsible government must make the choice to either kill him or assist him, to relieve the burden he will become otherwise. I'm pretty sure civilized people would find discriminatory homicide less palatable than some type of special assistance. And while it would be nice to count on charity, the only way to be sure charity takes care of the necessary cases is to govern charity. So it seems to me some kind of government involvement is required in a civilized society to maintain efficiency, however discriminatory in practice.

[Zedicus]

Sorry for the length of post I tried to make it as short as possible but I fear I have left out too much as it is.

I think we need to add more personnel responsibility into these types of programs. I like to think that welfare is a good thing; I just think it gets abused too much, and is run as many government programs are, that is to say with little competence and too much emphasis placed on “Political Correctness”.

Unemployment Benefit:
I think there should be 2 options for this.
1. Is a self-guided saving fund, that is allowed to grow tax free, much like an IRA, but with no income cap, but money withdrawn would be tax at the normal fee schedule.
If you chose to go this way then you are NOT entitled to the government support for it, so if you lose your job for any reason you are on your own.

2. Is a government run program like the one in Canada. You pay a small percentage of Pre-Tax dollars to a fund controlled by the government, and if you lose your job you are entitled to an amount for a fixed amount of time. In Canada it is a 1-year max, and you must work a certain number of hours within the past year to receive the benefit.

I am not a big fan of number 2 but it is better then just handing the money over and adding to the deficit. The cost of running the program, investigators for fraud and general government incompetence means that a good portion of the money put in goes to overhead.

Disability Benefit:
I believe should be run the same as the unemployment benefit. So it becomes more like insurance then a benefit.

For people that have not worked or cannot work would use different programs more on line with the traditional welfare lines.

1. Program for a person who can work but either used all their benefit funds or never had any.
The government could sponsor jobs in needed areas and/or provide training if needed. The pay scale for these jobs would be online with the normal scale for what they are contributing, but they would have double the amount withheld for the benefit, and no option to use the self-guided options until they have broke even. Any tax returns etc would also go to paying back their debt to society.

2. Programs for persons not able to work.
These are a little harder if a person truly cannot work at anything, then the money has to come from somewhere. So a base amount should be set, and would be paid as a Social Security type benefit. (If we moved to a flat tax system the money the government would save on lawyers, auditors etc would most likely pay for this but I have no proof of that just what my N is saying :wiseguy:)

[Seppuku Savant]

Interesting subject

I think exceptions can be made for certain people. Those with disabilities and mental issues, but I agree with what the TheLastMohican said. It should be taken care of by private institutions.

[Ytterbium]

Well I think a goverment shall care for it's citizens. Wheter they're disabled, poor, unemployed or fully functional, rich and employed.

[Mozzes]

You guys appear to be taking a narrow view of welfare. When defining it as "government funded aid" you also have to consider education funding (particularly higher education - grants, loans, G.I. Bill, etc), disaster relief, small business loaning; science, medical, and technological research funding, and so forth in addition to dealing with disability, unemployment, etc.

There are problems with the system, of course, but even just considering disability and unemployment the issues strike to the heart of government bureaucracy which is that the system is too large, complicated, and inefficient for proper administration and oversight.

[zibber]

I used to be a die-hard "welfare undermines evolution" type kid, but then I realised that I'm not incapable of finding work. If you actually need welfare, it's a different story. I'm mostly for it, as well as full medical subsidies wherever feasible.

[Colette]

So I guess the question is, what would happen if the Welfare State ceased to exist?

(My thought is that 'natures contraceptive', starvation, would kick in and act to cull these people, and the population in general would prosper. However, the unseen side effects may wreak havoc and cause exactly the opposite!?).

You only have to travel in the third world to see the consequences of governments which abdicate this responsibility (and I have). People die on the streets or are consigned to slums where they develop disease through having to pick their food off rubbish dumps. The elderly and sick either die, or are forced to live in overcrowded dwellings with extended family members.

Welfare is there as a safety net for those who need it. The fact that some may abuse it, or that administration of benefits may not be conducted as efficiently as one would hope for, are not a compelling reasons not to have a welfare system at all. Many people evade taxes - does this mean we shouldn't have a tax system?

Neither should we expect private charities to pick up the slack from a government which is collecting large amounts of tax from its citizens to effectively 'insure' them against life events which force them to rely on government assistance.

Welfare improvement initiatives such as 'work for the dole' programs and compulsory retraining for single parents on domestic benefits, require planning and infrastructure to support their success. Welfare is such a political football that such initiatives often fail, not because they were flawed in conception, but because a change in government (or ministers) occurs too soon after the initiative has begun, that it is never given the chance to properly bed down, and become part of the fabric of the welfare system.

Arguments against welfare seem inevitably to be made by people who have never had need of it, and who are unable to put themselves in the shoes of anyone facing different life circumstances. These arguments are driven by ideology and zealotry, not by genuine empathy, or any level of understanding of the complexities of managing the needs and expectations of an entire population (not just particular sectors of it).

[eastman]

I'm in favor of workfare instead of welfare. People need an incentive to get work, because the amount of welfare would never be enough to satisfy the standard of living in the United States. We live in such a expensive country so unless welfare leads to a salary of 30,000 to 40,000 a year, people cant live o it.

I do favor government subsidization of health and education institutions.

[ScurvyRose]

I have very mixed ideas on this issue. A few years ago I had a very capable girl working for me. She had 3 children from I believe 2 fathers, lived in an apartment and was very into wearing designer clothes, even for her kids. Meanwhile she did not even have her own car, she used boyfriends cars to get around (expensive ones at that). She received free health insurance and received a subsidy for daycare and housing. Now that is all fine except for how her "benefits" were measured. As long as she stayed at an income under 25,000, she would receive the benefits that amounted to approx 2,000 a month from the government. So she would call in sick, leave early, whatever she had to do to make sure her paycheck stayed in the range. This is where I strongly disagree with the system.

With her scaled back pay and benefits, not to even mention what she received back in excess of what she paid for a tax "return", she was actually making more net than I was at the time, working my ass off, supporting 2 children, daycare, mortgage, etc.

The current system does not factor in the persons capacity to earn for themselves. Unfortunately there are those who do have generation of same family members receiving welfare and continuing to have children at a rate that is going to eventually crash the whole system.

It was created as a safety net after the depression, not a right to be demanded at will.

Job training, declining benefits, birth control, drug testing, and time limits must be incorporated into the system. I would also look to a dramatic and uncontrolable event as the catalyst for being approved, not a family lifestyle continuation.





ScurvyRose added to this post, 11 minutes and 5 seconds later...


Arguments against welfare seem inevitably to be made by people who have never had need of it, and who are unable to put themselves in the shoes of anyone facing different life circumstances. These arguments are driven by ideology and zealotry, not by genuine empathy, or any level of understanding of the complexities of managing the needs and expectations of an entire population (not just particular sectors of it).

After my separation and eventual divorce (took 2 years) I had actually tried to get help with daycare (was paying 1,300 a month) in order to keep my job, our house, groceries, etc. The court system is extremely slow and I was having a very tough time during the process. Turns out that it doesn't pay to work hard in that instance. See above story, it was at the same time. I was turned down so I took out loans for what I could, shopped at discount stores, and ate quite a bit of chicken and pasta for 2 years.

[Purple]

You only have to travel in the third world to see the consequences of governments which abdicate this responsibility (and I have). People die on the streets or are consigned to slums where they develop disease through having to pick their food off rubbish dumps. The elderly and sick either die, or are forced to live in overcrowded dwellings with extended family members.

People in third world countries aren't dying in the streets because of lack of welfare from the government. They are dying because their governments directly hold them back, not to mention many cultural problems. Implications that the same effects would be seen in first world countries if they dropped welfare don't hold up.


Welfare is there as a safety net for those who need it. The fact that some may abuse it, or that administration of benefits may not be conducted as efficiently as one would hope for, are not a compelling reasons not to have a welfare system at all. Many people evade taxes - does this mean we shouldn't have a tax system?

Yes, theft is theft even if its the government doing it. I don't see a compelling case for stealing money from those who are doing and giving to those who are not doing as much.

Neither should we expect private charities to pick up the slack from a government which is collecting large amounts of tax from its citizens to effectively 'insure' them against life events which force them to rely on government assistance.

Why not?


Arguments against welfare seem inevitably to be made by people who have never had need of it, and who are unable to put themselves in the shoes of anyone facing different life circumstances. These arguments are driven by ideology and zealotry, not by genuine empathy, or any level of understanding of the complexities of managing the needs and expectations of an entire population (not just particular sectors of it).

Ad hominem.

Do the needs and expectations of an entire population need to be managed? If you treat people like children how can they ever grow?

[cal]

What do you guys think of welfare?

-- Defining welfare as any government funded aid.

I'm thinking then that I'd define it as also including all the companies/corporations/........ who have found ways of tapping into government coffers in questionable/'un-earned' ways. Maybe a lot of the rich are really on welfare, or got rich by it. Maybe some of our own pay cheques depend on some of it, directly or indirectly.


So I guess the question is, what would happen if the Welfare State ceased to exist?

(My thought is that 'natures contraceptive', starvation, would kick in and act to cull these people, and the population in general would prosper. However, the unseen side effects may wreak havoc and cause exactly the opposite!?).

Maybe a # of companies that don't provide value to the marketplace well enough to compete would cease to exist as well, or would go where they could get back on welfare.

[deevee]

I am against all forms of socialism. I know there are some people who need help and there are many many people who are willing to help these people at their own expense. I do not think others should be forced to support them though.

[PHS Philip]

I am against all forms of socialism. I know there are some people who need help and there are many many people who are willing to help these people at their own expense. I do not think others should be forced to support them though.

Yeah, I mean, why should we have schools? (Publicly funded education is socialism, folks.)

[deevee]

Private schools are better from everything I know about them.

[Lights]

Yeah, I mean, why should we have schools? (Publicly funded education is socialism, folks.)

Don't forget law enforcement and emergency response. All those police and ambulances need to go as well.

And we should probably do something about our centralized and bureaucratic military as well. We only spend more on that than all the other countries in the world spend on their militaries combined.

And we certainly need to take out this damn internet. After all, it started out as publicly funded connections between universities.

Socialized infrastructure is the devil!





Lights added to this post, 13 minutes and 9 seconds later...

Private schools are better from everything I know about them.

Exactly. Because America would be a far better country and a better competitor in the world if only half the population was educated as opposed to most of it. And it only makes sense that if we lower our overall literacy rate, that we will get better service. Geez, making other people pay for education just doesn't make sense when you consider the downsides, like having a more educated work force and increasing the base for technological advancement. Who wants that? It makes far more sense to go back to an aristocracy where only the rich can afford good schooling.

[PHS Philip]

Private schools are better from everything I know about them.

You seem to have misread what I said. "Publicly funded." Note the "ly funded." Even if private schools are what's used, you can still fund it publicly with vouchers. And honestly, if you want to go back to the days when most people couldn't get an education (RE: before education was publicly funded), well, you need to do a little research on what education does to a country's standard of living.

[deevee]

Yea all that great education gave us a country full of people who care more about america idol than what the president is doing. It sure has worked wonders.

[Colette]

People in third world countries aren't dying in the streets because of lack of welfare from the government. They are dying because their governments directly hold them back, not to mention many cultural problems. Implications that the same effects would be seen in first world countries if they dropped welfare don't hold up

Hold them back? In what way. Explain please.

Why not?

Because the tax system and an elected form of representation creates a legitimate expectation of the 'social contract' (I as a citizen contribute financially and obey the law, and in return the state looks after me if I am unable to look after myself). There is no such contractual model applying to private charities - they are fulfilling social functions because they choose to do so, not because there is any duty, or expectation, of it happening.

Ad hominem.

Not really - just an observation based on my own experience of having this debate on internet fora, and in other contexts in the past. Welfare (like taxation, and various other political and moral issues) is an issue on which difficult to remain impartial, and to set aside one's own background, prejudices, preconceptions, and socio-economic status, and look objectively at the pros and cons of a welfare state.

Do the needs and expectations of an entire population need to be managed? If you treat people like children how can they ever grow?

If you're running a democratically elected government then yes, I think they do.

[PHS Philip]

Yea all that great education gave us a country full of people who care more about america idol than what the president is doing. It sure has worked wonders.

As opposed to peasant farmers?

[Purple]

Hold them back? In what way. Explain please..

I guess it depends on the third world country. In Africa making a living is hard to do if your government and its cronies are running around killing and mutilating you.



Because the tax system and an elected form of representation creates a legitimate expectation of the 'social contract' (I as a citizen contribute financially and obey the law, and in return the state looks after me if I am unable to look after myself). There is no such contractual model applying to private charities - they are fulfilling social functions because they choose to do so, not because there is any duty, or expectation, of it happening.

This doesn't explain to me why private charities can't fulfill this function. There is only a contract if both parties agree to the terms. I don't buy the notion of "social contract".


Not really - just an observation based on my own experience of having this debate on internet fora, and in other contexts in the past. Welfare (like taxation, and various other political and moral issues) is an issue on which difficult to remain impartial, and to set aside one's own background, prejudices, preconceptions, and socio-economic status, and look objectively at the pros and cons of a welfare state.

Yes really.

Is theft right or wrong?


If you're running a democratically elected government then yes, I think they do.

All hail the nanny state! :p

[Double Victory]

I'm all for welfare, as long as the people on it actively work to get themselves out of their needy situations, except for the disabled and such. My family has been supported by the government for a number of years. If it weren't for Medicaid, I honestly have no clue where my family would be today.

Thanks to grants I'm in college with a respectable 3.8 GPA, majoring in Asian Studies, and will be commissioning as an officer in the United States Air Force when I graduate. One of my brothers is graduating high school this year and will be going into Aerospace Engineering, the other has two years left before college, but he'll be going into Computer Programming (they got all the math genes in our family...).

My mom's new husband (who was also very poor) recently obtained a job that pays in excess of 100K a year, which is very rapidly taking the burden of my family off of the government (and, you know, everyone else). I am very appreciative of the chance my family was given, and think it was money well spent.

On the other hand, I have known a lot of people who refuse to work hard and waste all of their money on stupid things instead of paying off their debt. I don't think they deserve support at all. Maybe starvation would be a little bit of a motivator.

[Colette]

This doesn't explain to me why private charities can't fulfill this function. There is only a contract if both parties agree to the terms. I don't buy the notion of "social contract".


You agree to the terms by electing the government into office. If you choose not to exercise your democratic rights, you must then be content to accept the government chosen by people who have exercised those rights. If you don't like the way the government is spending your taxes, you vote them out.

If there were no taxes and no social services, in my estimation around 10% of the population may just be able to cope in having enough to fund their living requirements - health, education, and so on. The other 90% would be floundering.

[Purple]

You agree to the terms by electing the government into office. If you choose not to exercise your democratic rights, you must then be content to accept the government chosen by people who have exercised those rights. If you don't like the way the government is spending your taxes, you vote them out.

I would say the only people that must be content with the government chosen are those who participate in the system and agree to abide by its decisions. Those who don't participate have every right to bitch. Lets face it the government thats chosen isn't "by the people". The system is rigged and the same people who are in power are going to continue to be in power.


If there were no taxes and no social services, in my estimation around 10% of the population may just be able to cope in having enough to fund their living requirements - health, education, and so on. The other 90% would be floundering.

I think it is discouraging that you really believe this.

[PHS Philip]

I think it is discouraging that you really believe this.

Yes, I mean, it's common knowledge that most people got an education before public funding of education.

Oh, wait.

I would say the only people that must be content with the government chosen are those who participate in the system and agree to abide by its decisions. Those who don't participate have every right to bitch. Lets face it the government thats chosen isn't "by the people". The system is rigged and the same people who are in power are going to continue to be in power.

The system isn't rigged, it's representative democracy, and there's no grand conspiracy. If you mean the parties...well, look at history. There were dominant parties that looked like they were here to stay, and they disappeared. If you mean corruption, there's no evidence that the government is any more corrupt than in the past, and there's good evidence that it's less so. And if you think that corporations rule the world, there's no point even trying to argue with you.

[Purple]

Yes, I mean, it's common knowledge that most people got an education before public funding of education.

Oh, wait.

The comment was that 10% of the population would be able to cope and 90% wouldn't. What does your comment really have to do with this? People weren't coping before public education? Different times, different situations. And are people really getting an education from public schools now that they couldn't get better and at less cost from somewhere else? Why are those homeschoolers doing better?


The system isn't rigged, it's representative democracy, and there's no grand conspiracy. If you mean the parties...well, look at history. There were dominant parties that looked like they were here to stay, and they disappeared. If you mean corruption, there's no evidence that the government is any more corrupt than in the past, and there's good evidence that it's less so. And if you think that corporations rule the world, there's no point even trying to argue with you.

When was the last time a Democrat or Republican didn't win a major election? They have created election rules that make it impossible for a third party to do well. Not to mention a media that plays hand in hand with them. Are you claiming that the money corporations are giving these people doesn't influence their decisions?

[PHS Philip]

The comment was that 10% of the population would be able to cope and 90% wouldn't. What does your comment really have to do with this? People weren't coping before public education? Different times, different situations. And are people really getting an education from public schools now that they couldn't get better and at less cost from somewhere else? Why are those homeschoolers doing better?

Well, let's look at history. How much of a change in quality of life does public education tend to coincide with? Quite a huge one. People are getting a lot more from a public education than they used to before public education. Homeschoolers aren't doing so much better, in general, but they do a bit better because of self selection: more kids at the higher end get homeschooled, so homeschoolers will do better. And if you honestly think that the poor can afford a private school, well, you need to look up private school tuition.


When was the last time a Democrat or Republican didn't win a major election?

Well, first, the democrats and republicans of today are totally different parties from the ones in the mid 1800s. Remember a man named Abe Lincoln? He was the old Republican party. So if you want to argue that, you have to look only at the modern Republican and Democratic parties. Second, look at a list of presidents, and look at the blocks of presidents from the same party (parties that don't exist anymore).

They have created election rules that make it impossible for a third party to do well.

Untrue. Harder is not impossible.


Not to mention a media that plays hand in hand with them.

You mean a media that has followed the citizenry's wants? The people, not the media, brought about the soundbite culture.

Are you claiming that the money corporations are giving these people doesn't influence their decisions?

Are you claiming that they are mindless automatons, with no morals, ethics, opinions, or beliefs? They receive money from groups that are opposed to each other very nearly completely. It's not possible for them to do what all the big donor companies and organizations want, because these groups are in conflict with each other.

[Purple]

Well, let's look at history. How much of a change in quality of life does public education tend to coincide with? Quite a huge one. People are getting a lot more from a public education than they used to before public education. Homeschoolers aren't doing so much better, in general, but they do a bit better because of self selection: more kids at the higher end get homeschooled, so homeschoolers will do better. And if you honestly think that the poor can afford a private school, well, you need to look up private school tuition.

Peoples education revolved around farming or a trade, they weren't necessarily uneducated. As society advanced the need for a different education started to become necessary. I'm not certain that if funding for public schools had not happened through taxation that today would be much different than it is.

Your comments on homeschooling are totally incorrect. Most homeschoolers come from the median. Studies show they do quite a bit better as a group than public school students are doing. They also spend a heck of alot less per student than public schools do.

Would private school tuition be so high if publicly funded schools did not exist?



Well, first, the democrats and republicans of today are totally different parties from the ones in the mid 1800s. Remember a man named Abe Lincoln? He was the old Republican party. So if you want to argue that, you have to look only at the modern Republican and Democratic parties. Second, look at a list of presidents, and look at the blocks of presidents from the same party (parties that don't exist anymore).

Not sure what this has to do with anything.


Untrue. Harder is not impossible.


Please...



You mean a media that has followed the citizenry's wants? The people, not the media, brought about the soundbite culture.

What?


Are you claiming that they are mindless automatons, with no morals, ethics, opinions, or beliefs? They receive money from groups that are opposed to each other very nearly completely. It's not possible for them to do what all the big donor companies and organizations want, because these groups are in conflict with each other.

I'm claiming they are more interested in their own power and getting re-elected as a whole. Money from corporation and interests groups help get them elected and if you think that this hasn't influenced or corrupted.... have a nice day.

Corporate welfare is just as bad as individual welfare.

[PHS Philip]

Peoples education revolved around farming or a trade they weren't necessarily uneducated. As society advanced the need for a different education started to become necessary. I'm not certain that if funding for public schools had not happened through taxation that today would be much different than it is.

No, public education came about after this shift happened. Public education was pushed because people weren't getting the education when they needed it.

Your comments on homeschooling are totally incorrect. Most homeschoolers come from the median. Studies show they do quite a bit better as a group than public school students are doing. They also spend a heck of alot less per student than public schools do.

And now I ask for proof.

Would private school tuition be so high if publicly funded schools did not exist?

You know how markets work, right? You're saying that if there weren't free competition, the price would be higher?

Not sure what this has to do with anything.

Your thing about the Democrats and Republicans controlling everything?



Please...


Evidence please. Show me the laws that make it impossible. I know of ones that make it difficult, but I have yet to see anything that makes it impossible by any means. The impossibility comes from the fact that third parties are often made up of fringe groups who are convinced that they, and they alone, have discovered The Way to save our country.

What?

People don't like to think. They like to have simple, bite sized bits of information rather than enough to really force them to analyze. The media, being for profit, caters to their want for simplicity.



I'm claiming they are more interested in their own power and getting re-elected as a whole. Money from corporation and interests groups help get them elected and if you think that this hasn't influenced or corrupted.... have a nice day.

I like it. "If I don't answer his point, he didn't make it." Competing interests both pay you. How is it possible to be controlled by both? Example: Unions and companies.

[Karamazov]

People don't like to think. They like to have simple, bite sized bits of information rather than enough to really force them to analyze. The media, being for profit, caters to their want for simplicity.

Well that explains Talk Radio.

[Purple]

No, public education came about after this shift happened. Public education was pushed because people weren't getting the education when they needed it.

Nonsense.



And now I ask for proof.


Google - homeschooling statistics



You know how markets work, right? You're saying that if there weren't free competition, the price would be higher?



There is no free competition which is why they cost more.




Evidence please. Show me the laws that make it impossible. I know of ones that make it difficult, but I have yet to see anything that makes it impossible by any means. The impossibility comes from the fact that third parties are often made up of fringe groups who are convinced that they, and they alone, have discovered The Way to save our country.


It wouldn't be impossible for me to build a nuclear missle in my backyard... it would just be really hard. I think you know the evidence as well as I. Your trying to split hairs.



People don't like to think. They like to have simple, bite sized bits of information rather than enough to really force them to analyze. The media, being for profit, caters to their want for simplicity.


Lets pretend this is true, what does this have to do with the media and government working hand in hand?

If people don't like to think then surely a representative democracy is doomed.



I like it. "If I don't answer his point, he didn't make it." Competing interests both pay you. How is it possible to be controlled by both? Example: Unions and companies.

Your point is moot. Politicians regularly play both sides of the fence but they generally always make things favorable for their highest donors interests.

[Aronnax]

What do you guys think of welfare?

-- Defining welfare as any government funded aid.

Define government funded aid.

I receive PEL and Cal grants and the University I attend is a public one. I'm receiving "government aid", does that put me on welfare?

Does disaster relief count as welfare? What about public works like waste disposal, schools, water treatment, roads, police and firefighters? All those are a form of government aid and everyone in this thread received benefits from them long before they were paying for them.

Or are you simply asking about aid programs for people living below the poverty line? In other words, do you define welfare as something only the poor receive?

[Jakalwarrior]

I should have worded it better but I was meaning tax dollars given to the needy as income or direct living assistance. Think food stamps, section 8, FITAP, etc...

I am glad I worded it poorly though, brought out a nice new variable as people tried to make their own definitions.


My own personal opinion is that it should be a safety net for people having a bad time. Sort of like making some of your tax money spent a bit of a survival insurance policy. I do NOT think it should be possible to live your life suckling on it unless you are physically incapable of doing any sort of work and I think having a child while on it should have dire consequences such as loss of aid unless you get "fixed"... instead of the fat reward you get with the current system.

[PHS Philip]

Nonsense.

Public education in America started in the mid 1850s, and became more universal around the turn of the century.



Google - homeschooling statistics

Interestingly, this search didn't find the statistics you're claiming.


There is no free competition which is why they cost more.

Private schools don't have free competition? Have you heard of public schools?



It wouldn't be impossible for me to build a nuclear missle in my backyard... it would just be really hard. I think you know the evidence as well as I. Your trying to split hairs.

No, I think you're completely wrong. There is nothing impossible about it. Widespread disgust for both parties would lead to it quite easily, and that could happen more easily than you think.



Lets pretend this is true, what does this have to do with the media and government working hand in hand?

1) It means that the government had nothing to do with the dumbing down of media that you think allows for this system
2) You have stated that the government and media work hand in hand without a shred of evidence, so I don't really have anything to refute.

If people don't like to think then surely a representative democracy is doomed.

Um, yeah, I pretty much agree. There have been and are cultures where thinking is encouraged. We're not one of them, which is why we're in such a mess.




Your point is moot. Politicians regularly play both sides of the fence but they generally always make things favorable for their highest donors interests.

And ignore huge voter blocks controlled by groups that don't donate as much? Corporations don't control voting blocks nearly as well as organizations do, but they command more funds.

[Jgib5328]

According to economics, it would be inefficient for everyone in a community to be employed because some people would have their reservation wage, the minimum wage they're willing to work be above the offered wage, so they would then be decreasing their overall utility, because they'd get more utility from leisure as opposed to work. Therefore welfare to an extent is beneficial and should exist to maximize the overall utility. I realize this isn't directly related, but in an indirect sense it is because they both have to do with a lack of wages.

In the real world, I think that America dolls out too much welfare. People grow too dependent on it and get lazy, "Oh well I don't need to work, the government will give me a check every month and I'll get some food stamps." It's just a moral hazard.

I'm not sure how we could have a more efficient system. I think we should have a better system for assisting people in finding jobs. Perhaps help with a relocation effort. Where I live, jobs are in abundance. I live in a suburban town in MA, where there is a huge shopping center with hundreds of stores that pay 'decent' wages. If we could have the people in the areas without many available jobs moved out here, that would mean less welfare checks. I think relocation would be a good decision, it's foolish for a person to remain in an area where there are minimal jobs, I know it may not be the best thing to move, but you have to take responsibility for your situation and fix it.

[Purple]

Public education in America started in the mid 1850s, and became more universal around the turn of the century.

Yeah and most people farmed or had a trade for a living at the time. That slowly started to change and I can't necessarily give the credit to tax funded public education.



Interestingly, this search didn't find the statistics you're claiming.


Your lying or didn't even bother looking. I had a feeling from your first posts that you were not going to try and debate honestly. Call it intuition.


Private schools don't have free competition? Have you heard of public schools?


You don't have a clue what free competition means. The public schools don't have to compete so there is no competition.



No, I think you're completely wrong. There is nothing impossible about it. Widespread disgust for both parties would lead to it quite easily, and that could happen more easily than you think.


Except for the fact that it doesn't happen, it hasn't happened, and it most likely won't happen unless third parties are given equal footing (campaign finance, being excluded from debates, etc).




1) It means that the government had nothing to do with the dumbing down of media that you think allows for this system
2) You have stated that the government and media work hand in hand without a shred of evidence, so I don't really have anything to refute.


I never claimed that the government is dumbing down the media. Your the only one here saying that. I said they work hand in hand. You keep claiming you want evidence but you just ignore any thats given to you (homeschooling... cough, cough). Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? Are you even really interested in debate? Hey, by the way, where is all your evidence?



Um, yeah, I pretty much agree. There have been and are cultures where thinking is encouraged. We're not one of them, which is why we're in such a mess.

Yet you seem to want to keep things the way they are.



And ignore huge voter blocks controlled by groups that don't donate as much? Corporations don't control voting blocks nearly as well as organizations do, but they command more funds.

They pander to those blocks and if you hadn't noticed those blocks keeping voting for them even if they pass law that isn't necessarily in their best interest. Your argument doesn't reflect reality.



Anyways, I think this has kind of went off topic a bit as the OP mentioned that he was just talking about your typical welfare and not all kinds of government funded programs.

Pretty much the fundamental question is - is it alright to steal from one person and give to another? If you don't think it is right how do you justify welfare? Do you believe that while it is wrong it is necessary and thus are ok with it? Is it more ok if they are hurt or incapacitated? Why do you think that private charities can't provide in those instances?

[le Duc]

I don't mean to take a side in this discussion, but I need to point out some patently unfair tactics here:

Your lying or didn't even bother looking. I had a feeling from your first posts that you were not going to try and debate honestly. Call it intuition.

I'd call it something else, actually. You told him to go google two words, and you expect that to magically give him exact statistics supporting your point?! Try doing that in court sometime. Why don't you just support your argument yourself?

You don't have a clue what free competition means. The public schools don't have to compete so there is no competition.

This is a case of lost-in-translation: I believe PHSPhilip meant that public schools are in competition (and they are, at some level) with private schools, and public schools are free. Thus, free competition.

Before you wag the finger of name-calling, try taking a peek at the opposite perspective. Even if someone was inclined to agree with your position, they'd probably distance themselves based on your method of delivery.

[Purple]

I'd call it something else, actually. You told him to go google two words, and you expect that to magically give him exact statistics supporting your point?! Try doing that in court sometime. Why don't you just support your argument yourself?


This is a message board and not court, right? Those two words go straight to the evidence he asks for. All he needed to do was read the first link.


This is a case of lost-in-translation: I believe PHSPhilip meant that public schools are in competition (and they are, at some level) with private schools, and public schools are free. Thus, free competition.


That is quite a stretch. I do agree he has a different defintion of free competition though.

[PHS Philip]

This is a message board and not court, right? Those two words go straight to the evidence he asks for. All he needed to do was read the first link.

Oh, I should have made myself clear. I meant I found none from a credible, independent, neutral group. You're also still ignoring self selection. Perhaps home schoolers are homeschoolers because they specifically can benefit from it, whereas most kids couldn't? I have nothing against home schooling, but I also doubt that most kids would succeed in that environment, because it takes a small family, a certain kind of parent, and a certain type of kid.





PHS Philip added to this post, 1 minutes and 24 seconds later...


That is quite a stretch. I do agree he has a different defintion of free competition though.

Private schools have to be so much more attractive that they overcome the fact that you're paying thousands of dollars rather than nothing. How is that not competition?

[Zedicus]

Why do you think that private charities can't provide in those instances?

I have an issue with the idea of relying on private charities. I think one of the biggest arguments for the private charities argument is the idea that they can enforce rules, IE ask someone to work to receive the charity or to believe in certain set of rules and it would be unfair of the government to ask the same. My question is:
What if the charity expected you to believe in the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” in order to receive the benefits, and not only believe but to spread the "meatballs" (you know what I mean)?

Would this be acceptable? Is it fair to make a lair (by this I mean, someone who would normally never act this way but because it is the only way that they can provide for their family at the time they act like they believe in the concept of the private charity) of a good person who is having financial troubles, even if not due to an injury, just to get a little help?

I do think the current system is not quite there and while I agree too many people are abusing it, there are people that have made good use of it and later contributed back to society. I just do not think throwing people to the uncertain values of private charities is the answer.

To me the government should play the role for this type of circumstance. The government just needs to be fixed, and the only way to do that is to change the idea of government, but that is another topic all together.

[Snowdragon]

I have a rule, if you can afford name brand cigarettes and name brand beer, you don't need food stamps. This is why those that need welfare (for legitamate reasons) don't always get it.











I see this all the time, a woman who uses cash to pay for name brand cigarettes and uses food stamps to pay for food.

[Purple]

Oh, I should have made myself clear. I meant I found none from a credible, independent, neutral group. You're also still ignoring self selection. Perhaps home schoolers are homeschoolers because they specifically can benefit from it, whereas most kids couldn't? I have nothing against home schooling, but I also doubt that most kids would succeed in that environment, because it takes a small family, a certain kind of parent, and a certain type of kid.

Perhaps you have counter evidence from a credible, independent, and neutral group?

I'm not ignoring self selection. I agree with you that some peoples situation wouldn't allow for this. I was merely providing one example of how no funds or even very little funds for public education could work and work better. I think another example is that private school costs would come down and there would be far more of them. I even think there would still be "free" schools for those who needed them.



Private schools have to be so much more attractive that they overcome the fact that you're paying thousands of dollars rather than nothing. How is that not competition?

The competition isn't really free though is it? That was the original term wasn't it "free competition"? How can it be considered free competition if the public schools have everything handed to them? Free meaning to me everyone starts on a level playing field without outside controls interfering.





Purple added to this post, 8 minutes and 44 seconds later...

I have an issue with the idea of relying on private charities. I think one of the biggest arguments for the private charities argument is the idea that they can enforce rules, IE ask someone to work to receive the charity or to believe in certain set of rules and it would be unfair of the government to ask the same. My question is:
What if the charity expected you to believe in the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” in order to receive the benefits, and not only believe but to spread the "meatballs" (you know what I mean)?

I see your point but I honestly don't think it would be to big of an issue. I'm sure Christian charities are going to try and sell Christianity to its clients. I don't think people are gonna get cut off for not believeing. I guess as the saying goes "beggers can't be choosers".



Would this be acceptable? Is it fair to make a lair (by this I mean, someone who would normally never act this way but because it is the only way that they can provide for their family at the time they act like they believe in the concept of the private charity) of a good person who is having financial troubles, even if not due to an injury, just to get a little help?


Is it fair to steal from someone and give it to someone else cause they need a little help?

[Zedicus]

Is it fair to steal from someone and give it to someone else cause they need a little help?

I do not see it as stealing. I know part of my taxes goes to support these types of programs. No one tricked me into paying it or took it from me without my knowledge. If I do not want to pay for them I have the choice to move or stop making money.

While I do not like taxes I see the need for them and pay them without complainant. I do complain about how I percieve they are being used unwisely, and I believe that we need to make the people using them be more responsible so as a society we get a better return on our investment.

I know that the taxes = an investment in our society is not a popular idea, but it is one I believe in.

[PHS Philip]

The competition isn't really free though is it? That was the original term wasn't it "free competition"? How can it be considered free competition if the public schools have everything handed to them? Free meaning to me everyone starts on a level playing field without outside controls interfering.

Oh, now I know where the misunderstanding is. I meant free as in the price is free. Not as in "free market."

[Jakalwarrior]

I'm not ignoring self selection. I agree with you that some peoples situation wouldn't allow for this. I was merely providing one example of how no funds or even very little funds for public education could work and work better. I think another example is that private school costs would come down and there would be far more of them. I even think there would still be "free" schools for those who needed them.


Not that I am promoting privitization of schools, but everyone pays for schooling. People who choose not to have kids, people who have 20, ... well everyone except the ones with no income who live off their kids.

Anywho, private schooling wouldnt become cheaper if it was the norm and had competition. Our income would increase when we weren't all paying taxes towards schools though! So the people who send their kids through school will pay through the nose for it, like we all do now (Average taxes in the US are aroudn 40% of our income total). Meanwhile we all pay taxes and school costs are based on how many kids you make. Does sound fair doesnt it? maybe there should be a child tax! more kids you have the more taxes you pay to cover their schooling! No kids? NONE of your tax dollars go towards schooling tax!

By the way, I went to private school. It was about 2500 dollars a year. It was partially subsidized by large donations that were in some interest drawing account though (christian school administrated by church people).

[PHS Philip]

Not that I am promoting privitization of schools, but everyone pays for schooling. People who choose not to have kids, people who have 20, ... well everyone except the ones with no income who live off their kids.

Anywho, private schooling wouldnt become cheaper if it was the norm and had competition. Our income would increase when we weren't all paying taxes towards schools though! So the people who send their kids through school will pay through the nose for it, like we all do now (Average taxes in the US are aroudn 40% of our income total). Meanwhile we all pay taxes and school costs are based on how many kids you make. Does sound fair doesnt it? maybe there should be a child tax! more kids you have the more taxes you pay to cover their schooling! No kids? NONE of your tax dollars go towards schooling tax!

By the way, I went to private school. It was about 2500 dollars a year. It was partially subsidized by large donations that were in some interest drawing account though (christian school administrated by church people).

And it reduces the population! You'd have to slash school spending, and that should be easy, but wouldn't be. School reforms would be almost impossible to implement in practice, sadly.

[Jakalwarrior]

But as INTJs the inefficiency and unfairness will eternally drive us crazy!