What if there was no safety net? No welfare/food stamps/section 8 housing/etc

[Spungo]

Mom and Pop on the corner aren't going to build factories in China.
Checkmate.

My life savings are invested in companies that have a significant footing in China. Does that count?

 

[glenn1]

Mom and Pop on the corner aren't going to build factories in China.
Checkmate.

My concern is where that money is spent and WHO it employs.

Your concern doesn't concern me. Again, just because you think it would be a better world if you could distribute money as you saw fit doesn't make it so. Funny that you seek to return back to the 1950s era, what about that appealed to you? The miscegnation and segregation laws common back then? The coming slowdown and reversal of the then 50-60 year downtrend in black poverty that pretty much stopped a couple years after the "War on Poverty" began?

 

[JEDI]

I consider myself a conservative.... But I would keep social safety nets but would work to void people who make welfare lifestyle.

how?

 

[theeedude]

US would become a socialist country in a decade.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

One word...riots.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Without some mythical boogeymen to complain about, the GOP would have no platform and would cease to exist. As the party of zero ideas, lack of welfare and all so-called "entitlements" would destroy them.

Their base would actually have to get jobs, as well.

Well, that's a valid point. I'm actually surprised that the mythical notion of the "Welfare-Witch" has survived. there had been enough in the way of welfare-reform since Nixon, and as I said -- I'd seen it.

What also mystifies me are the statistics about federal tax revenue from different states and federal spending in those states. Most -- not all -- of the so-called "Red" state GOP strongholds contribute less in federal taxes than they get back in federal spending. Col. Wilkerson, former aide of Colin Powell, had remarked that without the "Blue" state federal tax revenues, some Red states would be like Bangladesh, or otherwise third-world shit-holes.

You would think this would temper GOP thinking. Or perhaps they just hate their own populations on the bottom rung of the socio-economic ladder, hoping they -- with their progeny -- will simply die. Or, like some of us, they want to tie themselves to certain concepts and belief systems, oblivious to the additional misery resulting from any remaining options.

 

[dullard]

Maybe in the fantasy land you live in. Basically you want people to spend years educating themselves and building their professional skills, and in return you'll reward them by capping their income at 10x what someone makes who dropped out of high school to have a couple kids before 18 and smoke dope all day.

Who said anything about a cap? If the average income is X, and the top 1% is at 10X, that doesn't mean that you are capped at 10X. You could get into the top 0.1%, or the top 0.01%, etc.

And it isn't the top person in the world capped at 10X of the lowliest low either. It is 10X the median income. So, why bring up drugs at all?

The median personal income for the US is about $32k. Thus having the top 1% be at about 10x that amount ($320,000/year) has historically given us a good economy. The top 0.1% would be roughly double that ($640k/year). To go higher, you'd need to be in the top 0.01%. There is no finite cap.

[Joke] (not serious), since we are misconstruing Bill Gates anyways, who needs more than $640k/year. [/end joke]

As to your other comment, none of it matters if the money supply is growing. If the world is set up for Bill Gates to get everything, even if you create new money, he'll get it. We'd have to change the way the world changes in order for you to earn money (which is what you seem to be fighting).

 

[Vdubchaos]

US would become a socialist country in a decade.

As if US is not socialist already?

Willing to bet we spend more money PER CAPITA than socialist countries.

I know this is fact for healthcare......even though it's a huge business and no free benefits hehe

 

[Spungo]

One word...riots.

swipe yo EBT!

We keep saying how modern America is not in a severe depression because we don't have food lines. In reality, we have close to 50 million people on food stamps. Das a whole lotta bread lines, yo.

 

[dullard]

As if US is not socialist already?

Willing to bet we spend more money PER CAPITA than socialist countries.

I know this is fact for healthcare......even though it's a huge business and no free benefits hehe

It doesn't sound like you have a clue what socialism is or you are missing a key sentence to describe a missing link. Socialism means that the public owns the businesses rather than individual people. Socialism has nothing at all to do with the amount that is spent per capita. If you can link socialism to spending per capita, then please do so. I'd be curious to see what the link is.

 

[DCal430]

It doesn't sound like you have a clue what socialism is or you are missing a key sentence to describe a missing link. Socialism means that the public owns the businesses rather than individual people. Socialism has nothing at all to do with the amount that is spent per capita. If you can link socialism to spending per capita, then please do so. I'd be curious to see what the link is.

So a municipal utility would be an example of socialism, while while assistance programs like TANF are not?

 

[lopri]

There are many countries with little to no social safety net. Look at sub-Saharan Africa for many examples.

Or they sometimes sink to the bottom of ocean. Literally. :biggrin:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Atlantis

 

[dullard]

So a municipal utility would be an example of socialism, while while assistance programs like TANF are not?

A municipal utility is an example of socialism. Socialism is the public ownership of a business. It could be fairly benign, such as a community water system. Or it could be pretty nasty, such as the forced public takeover of a petrochemical company.

In my opinion, redistribution is more along the lines of communism than socialism (although they are both somewhat related). Communism: "to each according to his needs". Meaning, if you need something then communism says it should be given to you. Socialism: "to each according to his deeds". Meaning, the more you output (work better/harder), the more you should get.

 

[theeedude]

A safety net is a part of properly functioning capitalism, same way an oil pan is a part of a properly functioning engine.

 

[IronWing]

If we got rid of welfare, we wouldn't have guys living under tarps and surviving on nothing but secondhand gummy dicks.

 

[Darwin333]

Why? Who pays? Why do you think subsidizing failure and laziness is a good idea?

Well everyone keeps saying that we are a "Christian nation" and Christ would definitely feed and house the poor instead of letting them starve or die.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

A municipal utility is an example of socialism. Socialism is the public ownership of a business. It could be fairly benign, such as a community water system. Or it could be pretty nasty, such as the forced public takeover of a petrochemical company.

In my opinion, redistribution is more along the lines of communism than socialism (although they are both somewhat related). Communism: "to each according to his needs". Meaning, if you need something then communism says it should be given to you. Socialism: "to each according to his deeds". Meaning, the more you output (work better/harder), the more you should get.

The ISMs. Vague catch-alls. The simple dictionary definition:

Any of various theories or social and political movements advocating or aiming at the collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and control of the distribution of goods.

Welfare subsidies have nothing to do with the means of production, but are transfers that provide the recipient a means of obtaining goods otherwise distributed by private producers. So you could say, based on the "control of the distribution of goods," that it is "socialistic." Even so, don't rely on Merriam-Websters. Look at some scholarly work (or several) such as Joseph Schumpeter's "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy:"

http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Socialism-Democracy-Third-Edition/dp/0061561614

I think you're a bit "off" with one or more of your examples. A community utilities entity, water or power, might be a most pernicious monopoly if owned and managed privately. No less -- a telephone company before the revolution in microwave technology -- a locational monopoly. So there are two choices: public provision, or public regulation. And here, with the notion of monopoly, the problem is a lack of competition. You cannot open a market of several producer-providers for such things simply because it is technologically unfeasible. No less, the notion of a public highway.

Some outfit like the Cato Institute had staffers proposing that highways be sold to monopolies, who would be allowed to charge tolls, but this is totally cockamamie nonsense.

So I go back to the notion of goods which are private, such as a toothbrush, a watermelon or an ice-cream cone, and those which have collective aspects, such as a public park, public swimming pool, roads, public safety provisions, courts and so on. You buy the private good at a market price, and you have total control over who consumes it. I can't lick your ice-cream cone unless you choose to share. You can't exclude anyone from a public park, public safety or any number of things.

An insurance company is a sort of collective good. You can't benefit from your policy unless there are other policy holders, with premiums determined by actuarial factors and the number of subscribers.

School classrooms, public or private, have collective aspects: students will benefit from class sizes increasing to around 15, and then the advantages decline as class size grows larger. So you hire more teachers and build more classrooms.

Then there are lending libraries, the postal service, and other traditionally public goods. We've had public schools in this country since before the mid-19th century.

Putting all these things under the general category of "socialism" would simply confuse the issue and mislead.

We live in a "mixed" economy. Defense industry companies sell stock, but if most of their sales are made with the government, you could either call them quasi-public or quasi-private. They rent facilities provided by the government to perform under contract.

Ultimately, there are distributional aspects to any number of public goods. When they replaced Route 66 with I-40, certain businesses had to move or discontinue; a larger number of businesses would take advantage of proximity to the new highway. Simply enabling commerce means a distributional impact of a public road.

 

[dullard]

Putting all these things under the general category of "socialism" would simply confuse the issue and mislead.

We live in a "mixed" economy.

I thought I had that covered in my post (giving an example that most would consider to be good and an example that most would consider to be bad). The word socialist has been thrown around for about 8 years now without people really stopping to think about what it is. Socialism can be bad, but it can be good. It depends on the situation. We have a mixed economy for sure.

 

[buckshot24]

Well everyone keeps saying that we are a "Christian nation" and Christ would definitely feed and house the poor instead of letting them starve or die.

Who is advocating starving and dying? Why do you think the government is the only entity that can help the poor? And why do you think the poor have done so poorly since the war on poverty began? It isn't helping them.

 

[Red Squirrel]

In a perfect world, the government would ensure that there is no need for all that stuff. All the money saved would then be used for better things like improving health care, roads, and other social services, or gasp, reducing taxes.

A good step would be ensuring that outsourcing and resource export is greatly regulated to ensure that jobs stay in the country. Also regulate utilities and other costs of living so they stop continuously increasing. Basically do everything to ensure that everyone has a good paying job and enough money to have a good place to live and the necessities to do so.

Also you should not have to be genius to have a good paying job. perhaps government needs to regulate job requirements too. Job requirements these days are completely absurd, like needing 10 years of experience in a piece of software that has not even been out for 10 years or needing a phd for an entry level job.

Overall there needs to be less regulation, at least for the nitty gritty stuff that does not really matter. At same time some things do need to be regulated, to stop corporations from basically treating people like slaves. But that's what unions are for. Too many regulation drives corporations to just do business elsewhere and that means less jobs. There needs to be a fine balance.

 

[highland145]

Well everyone keeps saying that we are a "Christian nation" and Christ would definitely feed and house the poor instead of letting them starve or die.

How many times have you said that?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I thought I had that covered in my post (giving an example that most would consider to be good and an example that most would consider to be bad). The word socialist has been thrown around for about 8 years now without people really stopping to think about what it is. Socialism can be bad, but it can be good. It depends on the situation. We have a mixed economy for sure.

We're definitely on the same wavelength and frequency with this.

Over more than a century and beyond, a lot of thought would have been put into this determination about what should have public provision. Who pays and how do they pay? YOu pay for public schools through the property tax, even if you and your wife are childless and retired. Then look at the National Park system: you pay an entrance fee, to defray the cost of running them -- a sort of proxy-price. The government is on solid ground for that, since the bulk of visitors have the means to travel. But these are otherwise public facilities or entities -- there to serve all.

The problem with the tax mechanism has always been there. There's an "ability-to-pay" principle or feature, and a "benefit" principle or feature. People will readily pay to buy a CD at a music store, whether they grouse about the price afterward. You are going to understate your willingness to pay for a collective, public good, because you anticipate that others will pay for it. If you don't benefit from a collective, public good directly, you may incline against any public provision. But that's the nature of the beast. You vote, you pay taxes, you provide public goods, transfers and other things to other citizens even if you don't directly benefit.

But you're right about the contentious discussion of recent years. And generalizing about these things with "ISMs" may confuse, distract, or simply lead to bad decisions.

 

[buckshot24]

How many times have you said that?

Separation of church and state unless it helps his argument.

 

[highland145]

Separation of church and state unless it helps his argument.

Too bad we can't get a true list of the $$/people/501 that actually helps the poor.

 

[buckshot24]

Too bad we can't get a true list of the $$/people/501 that actually helps the poor.

Don't you think we can pretty easily figure out what isn't helping them? Making "being poor" more comfortable to me isn't helping them.