Personal responsibility vs. Public safety net

[Ravi]

free market bring us back to prosperity

Oh brother. This righty pipe dream again. Yeah, we need MORE deregulation.

YES! And more tax cuts for the wealthy!

 

[rightwinger]

What kind of country do we want to be?

Do we want people begging in the streets to feed their children?
Do we want people sleeping in the streets?
Do we want people wandering among us carrying infectious disease?
Do we want people dying in the streets?

That is how third world countries operate. There is no "safety net" in third world countries. You live or die based on your lot in life.

We are the wealtiest country on earth. How do we want to be known based on our treatment of citizens?

Shouldn't we strive for the best?

The best way to treat our citizens is to slash the size (in personnel and spending) of the fedgov by 75% and let the free market bring us back to prosperity. Oh yeah, and lets reverse all unconstitutional government meddling that has passed under the "general welfare" clause.

75% huh?? Any specifics?

Can you provide a link where any "meddling" has been declared unconstitutional in a court of law? You see in this country, we decide these things in court, not on message boards

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Because tax cuts for the very wealthy and deregulation of our banking system has served us SO WELL the past decade... I didn't get trickled on, did you?

 

[rightwinger]

free market bring us back to prosperity

Oh brother. This righty pipe dream again. Yeah, we need MORE deregulation.

YES! And more tax cuts for the wealthy!

Have you been "Trickled down on" lately?

 

[manifold]

The best way to treat our citizens is to slash the size (in personnel and spending) of the fedgov by 75% and let the free market bring us back to prosperity. Oh yeah, and lets reverse all unconstitutional government meddling that has passed under the "general welfare" clause.

Hey, 1835 called. They want their wild west capitalism theory returned promptly!

 

[nodoginnafight]

Because tax cuts for the very wealthy and deregulation of our banking system has served us SO WELL the past decade... I didn't get trickled on, did you?

Yes, yes, by all means ...... the "solution" to the problem is to do the exact same things we did to create the problems, only BIGGER ........

That's like trying to cure a cold with small pox ....

 

[indianaboy]

What kind of country do we want to be?

Do we want people begging in the streets to feed their children?
Do we want people sleeping in the streets?
Do we want people wandering among us carrying infectious disease?
Do we want people dying in the streets?

That is how third world countries operate. There is no "safety net" in third world countries. You live or die based on your lot in life.

We are the wealtiest country on earth. How do we want to be known based on our treatment of citizens?

Shouldn't we strive for the best?

The best way to treat our citizens is to slash the size (in personnel and spending) of the fedgov by 75% and let the free market bring us back to prosperity. Oh yeah, and lets reverse all unconstitutional government meddling that has passed under the "general welfare" clause.

75% huh?? Any specifics?

Can you provide a link where any "meddling" has been declared unconstitutional in a court of law? You see in this country, we decide these things in court, not on message boards

And of course, the Courts can never be wrong. Kudos to you for keeping filthy negroes like Dred Scott in their place!

By the way, since Obama was in favor of the D.C. handgun ban which was ruled unconstitutional, I insist he be brought up on treason charges.

 

[manifold]

Let's at least be honest about one thing folks: Insufficient or no regulation is never the CAUSE of any problem. The absense of a solution to a problem is hardly the underlying cause of the problem.

 

[KittenKoder]

Because tax cuts for the very wealthy and deregulation of our banking system has served us SO WELL the past decade... I didn't get trickled on, did you?

What the fuck are you babbling about? Deregulation? Yeah ... when it happens we'll let you know. Notice that those banks which broke the law are all owned by the very same people who are suppose to regulate them? Yes, they are regulated, moron.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

What the fuck are you babbling about? Deregulation?

If the banks were so regulated, retard, how did we end up with these bundled mortgages and derivatives in the first place, hmmm? They didn't just appear out of thin air, they were invented by Wall Street because they made them money - lots of short term money - with OUR 401K investments. Most people dealing in them didn't even understand them. THAT is when regulation is necessary.

WTF are YOU talking about - banks being owned by their regulators? The banks are not "owned" by the government. As soon as they pay back their bailout money, it returns to business as usual. The government is not yearning to own banks.

Who's More to Blame: Ben Bernanke or Credit Derivatives?

 

[Diuretic]

Di,

It's a pretty simple concept. My experience and understanding of human nature leads me to conclude that if you widen the safety net, there will be more people that will jump into it that would have otherwise fended for themselves (and been ok). That doesn't mean it doesn't also help others who would have perished on there own, but there will always be some that take advantage of the safety net.

I'd be willing to entertain a well reasoned argument that I'm overstating the effect, but if we cannot agree that social welfare programs get taken advantage of by those who could manage without, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Yes, there will be those who take advantage. Badly designed and administered policy will see the phenomenon of “middle class welfare”. Of course I could be wrong, it might not be badly designed/administered at all, it might be intentional, to garner the vote from that sector.

But even if a system is well designed I agree there will be those who take advantage. And that goes to administration. I think though that potential abuse, while it does exist, isn't an argument for reducing the availability of social assistance, it is an argument for ensuring it is efficiently administered.

 

[Diuretic]

I think the assumption that a significant number of people would opt for a bare-minimum safety net existence rather than the lifestyle that is available to those who make a little bit more of an effort is seriously flawed.

Certainly we can't afford to make the safety net TOO comfortable, but we can't just yank it out from under folks either. IMHO it underscores my personal belief that the best solution is very rarely found on either extreme.

I think restricting your consideration of the matter to only those that would opt for the bare-minimum paints an absurdly incomplete picture.

I agree that it shouldn't be too comfortable. And I would never advocate yanking it out from under people. The question here isn't whether to have one or not have one, it's whether to grow the one that is already in place. And regardless of where one stands on that, I still maintain that it's intellectually dishonest to suggest that it can be grown without negatively impacting society's overall sense of personal responsibility.

Since we are talking in extremes, I think there is a certain percentage that will never develop a sense of personal responsibility. Their minds are just not wired that way. It is not unique to the US, every society has them. No matter what you do, they will screw up.

For these people, I would offer a basic sustenance existence which can be debated seperately. However, for those who are not happy living at that level, we need to offer a path upward through work programs or training.

It may come down to this: everyone in society is entitled to the basics. If they can't provide for themselves then they are given those basics. People should be entitled to - and this phrase has been used before elsewhere - "frugal comfort". And I don't mean minor luxuries, I mean the basics. Food, shelter, education for children and access to vocationally oriented education and training for adolescents and adults as part of an incentive to get out of the frugal comfort zone and into somewhere more comfortable as a result of their own efforts.

It would be desirable for any society to have the numbers of people living in socially-provided frugal comfort as low as possible. People living thanks to the provision of social assistance are not productive. Getting them into productive work is beneficial for themselves and their families and society as a whole.

 

[Diuretic]

Let's at least be honest about one thing folks: Insufficient or no regulation is never the CAUSE of any problem. The absense of a solution to a problem is hardly the underlying cause of the problem.

But specifically, since we're talking about human nature, insufficient, ineffective or no regulation of an economic system can facilitate avarice which can eventually - and in fact did - damage that system.

We need protection from the greedy and the ideologues.