America Before the Entitlement State

Wiseacre

Retired USAF Chief
Apr 8, 2011
6,025
1,298
48
San Antonio, TX
The following is from Forbes.com, talking about how Americans coped with social justice before the advent of big gov't handouts. If I thought the gov't was more efficient and effective, if I thought they were doing a better and more impartial job of helping the less fortunate, if I thought their programs weren't rife with fraud, waste, and outright theft, then I could see supporting those entitlement programs. But they ain't and I don't.


snippet:

Reacting to calls for cuts in entitlement programs, House Democrat Henry Waxman fumed: “The Republicans want us to repeal the twentieth century.” Sound bites don’t get much better than that. After all, the world before the twentieth century–before the New Deal, the New Frontier, the Great Society–was a dark, dangerous, heartless place where hordes of Americans starved in the streets.

Except it wasn’t and they didn’t. The actual history of America shows something else entirely: picking your neighbors’ pockets is not a necessity of survival. Before America’s entitlement state, free individuals planned for and coped with tough times, taking responsibility for their own lives.

In the 19th century, even though capitalism had only existed for a short time, and had just started putting a dent in pre-capitalism’s legacy of poverty, the vast, vast majority of Americans were already able to support their own lives through their own productive work. Only a tiny fraction of a sliver of a minority depended on assistance and aid–and there was no shortage of aid available to help that minority.



AND

“Those in need,” historian Walter Trattner writes, “. . . looked first to family, kin, and neighbors for aid, including the landlord, who sometimes deferred the rent; the local butcher or grocer, who frequently carried them for a while by allowing bills to go unpaid; and the local saloonkeeper, who often came to their aid by providing loans and outright gifts, including free meals and, on occasion, temporary jobs. Next, the needy sought assistance from various agencies in the community–those of their own devising, such as churches or religious groups, social and fraternal associations, mutual aid societies, local ethnic groups, and trade unions.”

One of the most fascinating phenomena to arise during this time were mutual aid societies–organizations that let people insure against the very risks that entitlement programs would later claim to address. These societies were not charities, but private associations of individuals. Those who chose to join would voluntarily pay membership dues in return for a defined schedule of benefits, which, depending on the society, could include life insurance, permanent disability, sickness and accident, old-age, or funeral benefits.

Mutual aid societies weren’t private precursors to the entitlement state, with its one-size-fits-all schemes like Social Security and Medicare. Because the societies were private, they offered a wide range of options to fit a wide range of needs. And because they were voluntary, individuals joined only when the programs made financial sense to them. How many of us would throw dollar bills down the Social Security money pit if we had a choice?

Only when other options were exhausted would people turn to formal private charities. By the mid-nineteenth century, groups aiming to help widows, orphans, and other “worthy poor” were launched in every major city in America. There were some government welfare programs, but they were minuscule compared to private efforts.

In 1910, in New York State, for instance, 151 private benevolent groups provided care for children, and 216 provided care for adults or adults with children. If you were homeless in Chicago in 1933, for example, you could find shelter at one of the city’s 614 YMCAs, or one of its 89 Salvation Army barracks, or one of its 75 Goodwill Industries dormitories.

America Before The Entitlement State - Forbes
 
Last edited:
Ágrarian economy. Rural population. Night and day.

Nice try, though.


New York? Chicago? You sure the differences between then and now means that what worked then won't work now? Based on what?

You can blow it off if you want to, but the fact remains that what we're doing now is unsustainable. Not sure when lib/dems will realize it, if ever. I have no doubt that as we've fallen off the economic cliff and are on our way down, the lib/dems will be blaming the con/repubs for not raising taxes higher.
 
Ágrarian economy. Rural population. Night and day.

Nice try, though.


New York? Chicago? You sure the differences between then and now means that what worked then won't work now? Based on what?

You can blow it off if you want to, but the fact remains that what we're doing now is unsustainable. Not sure when lib/dems will realize it, if ever. I have no doubt that as we've fallen off the economic cliff and are on our way down, the lib/dems will be blaming the con/repubs for not raising taxes higher.


Left-wingers believe if they can mutter a few magical incarnations that they have disposed of an argument. They don't need to prove their excuse is valid. Merely uttering it is sufficient.
 
It won't be an entitlement state for long. the gimmmie gimmmie mo mo mo taker crowd is fixin to overtake the giver crowd,, and lot's of givers have given up giving and moved.. to greener pastures.. so the gimmmie gimmmie crowd better come up with a plan B..
 
Ágrarian economy. Rural population. Night and day.

Nice try, though.

What planet do you live on? There have bustling metropolises since the early part of the 20th century. The grand daddy of all stupid entitlement programs, which has een enhanced for decades, didn't kick in until the early 60's.

Go read a book.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Jos
Ágrarian economy. Rural population. Night and day.

Nice try, though.


New York? Chicago? You sure the differences between then and now means that what worked then won't work now? Based on what?

You can blow it off if you want to, but the fact remains that what we're doing now is unsustainable. Not sure when lib/dems will realize it, if ever. I have no doubt that as we've fallen off the economic cliff and are on our way down, the lib/dems will be blaming the con/repubs for not raising taxes higher.
Europe is in free fall now, and the libs still want to emulate their policies.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.
 
It won't be an entitlement state for long. the gimmmie gimmmie mo mo mo taker crowd is fixin to overtake the giver crowd,, and lot's of givers have given up giving and moved.. to greener pastures.. so the gimmmie gimmmie crowd better come up with a plan B..
...So what do they have left? Make all private property ownership illegal? Everything you have is courtesy of the benevolence of the state? I belive if this keeps up? That is where we are headed. (And these boneheaded moochers will applaud all the way).
 
New York? Chicago? You sure the differences between then and now means that what worked then won't work now? Based on what?

Well, let's start with the fact that you're mischaracterizing what existed, and hence worked, then.

US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens

"The history of welfare in the U.S. started long before the government welfare programs we know were created. In the early days of the United States, the colonies imported the British Poor Laws. These laws made a distinction between those who were unable to work due to their age or physical health and those who were able-bodied but unemployed. The former group was assisted with cash or alternative forms of help from the government. The latter group was given public service employment in workhouses.

"Throughout the 1800's welfare history continued when there were attempts to reform how the government dealt with the poor. Some changes tried to help the poor move to work rather than continuing to need assistance. Social casework, consisting of caseworkers visiting the poor and training them in morals and a work ethic was advocated by reformers in the 1880s and 1890s."

State aid to the poor has always been a feature of American government, but it was done on a smaller scale and handled by the states. The reason why it was done on a smaller scale was as I said: we had an agrarian economy and a more rural population. That it had to be done at all was at least in part because SOME people did live in urban areas.

The federal government didn't get involved in aid to the poor until the Great Depression, when states became overwhelmed by the case load due to so many people being out of work. States can't borrow money; the federal government can. It was therefore in a position to take emergency action to help relieve the burden on the states. But although this was the beginning of FEDERAL responsibility for this area of government, it had always been a GOVERNMENT responsibility -- just not a federal one.

Now w/r/t the Depression and this shift in who takes responsibility, let's look at another thing:

http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/urpop0090.txt

Here we have some census data. If you scroll way down, you'll see that in 1900 the U.S. population was 60.4% rural and 39.6% urban. In 1930, however, we were 56.1% urban and only 43.9% rural. So the Great Depression was the first major economic downturn to strike a majority-urban population. (There was a recession in the early 1920s in which we had just barely become majority-urban, but it was short.)

Why does that make a difference? An urban population means an industrial economy. Most people work in jobs for wages, as opposed to most people being self-employed as small farmers or small craftspeople. At the same time, in an industrial economy most people who still DO work at farming are going to be heavily mortgaged because of the need to purchase farm machinery that in an earlier time would have been neither necessary nor available. A lot more of the population is therefore a part of and dependent on the commercial economy in an urban nation than in a rural one. A bad economic downturn in the early 19th century had only a small effect on most people; small farmers might have found themselves hurting for cash but they were in no danger of losing their farms or going hungry. In the early 20th century, it was devastating for almost everyone.

Also, we've seen a shrinking of American family size. Not only are people having fewer children, but there is less support from extended family. My ex-wife and two daughters live in Montana, my mother in Arkansas, my sister in Wyoming, my brother and his wife and three sons in Texas, and I live in California. We simply don't represent much of a support structure for each other, and that's become typical. In the days of old you're talking about, that was not the case.

So that's the reason why we didn't need as much in the way of government assistance in the old days. Our ancestors lived in a different country then. Just the same, although we didn't need as much, we did need some.

You can blow it off if you want to, but the fact remains that what we're doing now is unsustainable.

I see no reason to believe this. Can you show that what you say is true?
 
What was the 19 century like for women, blacks, Indians, children, the poor and workers?
 
I think someone is viewing American history through rose colored glasses

Anyone seen pictures of early 1900s tenements with typhus and smallpox running through them? Seen sweat shops and child labor?

Look at the life of small rural farmers who starved when the crops failed. How about some nice images of the dust bowls of the 1930s?

Yes, Republicans, those were the good ole days before the nanny state and the entitlement society
 
Ágrarian economy. Rural population. Night and day.

Nice try, though.


New York? Chicago? You sure the differences between then and now means that what worked then won't work now? Based on what?

You can blow it off if you want to, but the fact remains that what we're doing now is unsustainable. Not sure when lib/dems will realize it, if ever. I have no doubt that as we've fallen off the economic cliff and are on our way down, the lib/dems will be blaming the con/repubs for not raising taxes higher.
Europe is in free fall now, and the libs still want to emulate their policies.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.

I'm so glad Democrats are here to get on your nerves, LOL.

This is a free market fall, daveman. Your politics at work.
 
The following is from Forbes.com, talking about how Americans coped with social justice before the advent of big gov't handouts. If I thought the gov't was more efficient and effective, if I thought they were doing a better and more impartial job of helping the less fortunate, if I thought their programs weren't rife with fraud, waste, and outright theft, then I could see supporting those entitlement programs. But they ain't and I don't.


snippet:

Reacting to calls for cuts in entitlement programs, House Democrat Henry Waxman fumed: “The Republicans want us to repeal the twentieth century.” Sound bites don’t get much better than that. After all, the world before the twentieth century–before the New Deal, the New Frontier, the Great Society–was a dark, dangerous, heartless place where hordes of Americans starved in the streets.

Except it wasn’t and they didn’t. The actual history of America shows something else entirely: picking your neighbors’ pockets is not a necessity of survival. Before America’s entitlement state, free individuals planned for and coped with tough times, taking responsibility for their own lives.

In the 19th century, even though capitalism had only existed for a short time, and had just started putting a dent in pre-capitalism’s legacy of poverty, the vast, vast majority of Americans were already able to support their own lives through their own productive work. Only a tiny fraction of a sliver of a minority depended on assistance and aid–and there was no shortage of aid available to help that minority.

Great.So build a time machine and go back to the 19th century if you think its so great. Have fun no getting to bathe everyday!
 
Are Republicans seriously pining for the "good old days" when the elderly were eating cat food?
 
By today's guidelines, both Mr. Foxfyre and I started out in abject poverty. His dad was a sharecropper ekeing out a meager living on less than prime farmland. I had an irresponsible and often absentee father and my mother worked two jobs at poor wages and paid the nanny housekeeper who looked after us kids more than she had left over for herself and us.

But we had a roof over our heads, fresh eggs from the farm, whole milk straight from the cow, fresh butter from the churn, fresh in summer and canned in winter organic vegetables from the garden, a hog salt curing in the 'smoke house', and because our folks knew how to sew great clothing from flour sacks and could do the necessary repairs to shoes and torn jeans and overalls, it never occurred to us that we were poor.

And there were no government handouts to be had from anywhere. The neighbors rallied to help the burned out or flooded out family or chipped in when somebody was especially down on their luck. We got by. Nobody starved. Nobody went without any necessity of life. Nobody felt the town or the state or the country owed them a thing or that it should provide anything that we didn't work for. And most of the time we were happy and content with our lives while always looking to make it better. And we did.

Compare that to whole groups of people today made dependent on government handouts and who have developed such a entitlement mentality that they have developed no skills, no instinct for survival, are essentially helpless to help themselves, to support themselves, to fend for themselves. They are angry, miserable, often violent against their neighbors and society in general, frequently turn to drugs and crime and other antisocial behavior. They think they are mistreated and deserve better, but it does not occur to them that they should look to themselves to make things better.

But some call that 'compassion'.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top