The Welfare State: The Future is Now.

[PoliticalChic]

Editec once said:

The trouble with Capitalism is that eventually somebody has all the money.

And there are folks who whine if they are not the ones with 'all the money.'

You're right, PC I should have written:

The trouble with Capitalism is that eventually somebody ELSE has all the money

So....you're asking for an "editec Telethon"????

 

[PoliticalChic]

One of the most disappointing confusions in our political conversation comes from the use of the word "welfare" to refer to public assistance for the needy, which colors understanding of the phrase coined by J.M. Keynes, "the welfare state."

What Keynes meant by "the welfare state" was a broad change in the idea of the role of government away from the laissez faire model of 19th century Liberalism to the belief that government has a direct responsibility for the condition of the individual citizen.

With the exception of a handful of reactionary cranks, everybody now accepts the idea that government has some role in ensuring the health, education and welfare of its citizens. How and how much continue to be legitimate topics of debate.

The Republican propaganda machine has elided the term "welfare" i.e. public assistance with the term "welfare state" to create the distorted vision of the federal government as an enabler of layabouts. This is clever nonsense but a useful club for the class warfare waged between the 1% and the rest of Americans. Don't be fooled.

You're a dope.



1. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Such should be the epitaph of Liberalism.

2. ‘Welfare’ as a wholly owned subsidiary of the government, and its main result is the incentivizing of a disrespect for oneself, and for the entity that provides the welfare.

As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.


a. Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence.

See Peter Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” chapter five.




b. "The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.



Don't misunderstand this post: I have no misapprehension that you or others of your ilk will learn from the facts....


...I just wanted to prove that you're a dope.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're right, PC I should have written:

The trouble with Capitalism is that eventually somebody ELSE has all the money

That can definitely be a danger when one end of the political spectrum is doing essentially nothing to challenge people to improve their own lives, instead choosing to paint them as victims of those meanies over there.

That tactic appears to work like a charm.

.

And will presage the end of this once great nation.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So giving to your church to help the poor, is the same as the government taking, by force if necessary, your property to give to the poor.

Only in the minds of radical progressives...

Can I choose to defend myself, and say I don't need the government to defend me militarily, and then expect to be exempted from paying all my taxes that go to defense?

Or is it fair, just, and appropriate to force me to pay for that defense?

Defending the nation from foreign invasion, is hardly the same thing as confiscating wealth from some, to give to others.

Either we are a nation of laws or we are not. No where in the Constitution does it give the government the right to steal from some and give to others. It does however provide for the common defense of the nation.

See the difference?

The phrase "provide for the common defense" is taken directly from the Preamble of the COTUS, to wit:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This short, simple yet profound paragraph is in todays parlance both a vision statement and a mission statement defining the purpose of the Federal Government.

Discuss if you can!

 

[Mac1958]

.

I see "promote", not "provide".

Big difference.

.

 

[KNB]

Do right-wing Republicans have any plans for getting people off of food stamps besides telling millions of people with minimum-wage jobs and thousands of dollars in student loan debt to "get a better job"? What's the next bright Republican idea? "Start your own business"?

People are on food stamps and welfare because the private sector isn't providing enough for the People. The rich are getting richer while everyone else is on food stamps. Raising the minimum wage is not Socialism or welfare. Wal-Mart is the country's largest private employer. Wal-Mart profits billions. Wal-Mart can afford to raise wages and provide better benefits for every employee which would mean that those private employees would need less public assistance.

If the General Welfare is not promoted by the private sector that continues to boast record corporate profits, then the General Welfare of the People will need to be promoted by the public sector which means more government assistance, because We the People are supposed to be the government.

 

[Care4all]

.

I see "promote", not "provide".

Big difference.

.

Ummmm, I don't know about that, Mac....here is the definition for "promote" and it could be construed in various different ways....?

pro·mote
prəˈmōt/
verb
verb: promote; 3rd person present: promotes; past tense: promoted; past participle: promoted; gerund or present participle: promoting

1. 1.
   further the progress of (something, especially a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage.
   "some regulation is still required to promote competition"
   synonyms:encourage, advocate, further, advance, assist, aid, help, contribute to, foster, nurture, develop, boost, stimulate, forward, work for More"an organization promoting justice"
   
   
   
   antonyms:obstruct
   • give publicity to (a product, organization, or venture) so as to increase sales or public awareness.
     "they are using famous personalities to promote the library nationally"
     synonyms:advertise, publicize, give publicity to, beat/bang the drum for, market, merchandise; Moreinformalpush, plug, hype, boost, ballyhoo
     "she is promoting her new film"
     
     
     
     antonymslay down
   • Chemistry
     act as a promoter of (a catalyst).
   
   
2. 2.
   advance or raise (someone) to a higher position or rank.
   "she was promoted to general manager"
   synonyms:upgrade, give promotion to, elevate, advance, move up; Morehumorouskick upstairs;
   archaicprefer
   "she's been promoted at work"
   
   
   
   antonyms:demote
   • transfer (a sports team) to a higher division of a league.
     "they were promoted from the Third Division last season"
   • Chess
     exchange (a pawn) for a more powerful piece of the same color, typically a queen, as part of the move in which it reaches the opponent's end of the board.
   • Bridge
     enable (a relatively low card) to win a trick by playing off the higher ones first.
   
   
   
   

Origin

 

[Wry Catcher]

Do right-wing Republicans have any plans for getting people off of food stamps besides telling millions of people with minimum-wage jobs and thousands of dollars in student loan debt to "get a better job"? What's the next bright Republican idea? "Start your own business"?

People are on food stamps and welfare because the private sector isn't providing enough for the People. The rich are getting richer while everyone else is on food stamps. Raising the minimum wage is not Socialism or welfare. Wal-Mart is the country's largest private employer. Wal-Mart profits billions. Wal-Mart can afford to raise wages and provide better benefits for every employee which would mean that those private employees would need less public assistance.

If the General Welfare is not promoted by the private sector that continues to boast record corporate profits, then the General Welfare of the People will need to be promoted by the public sector which means more government assistance, because We the People are supposed to be the government.

The "general welfare" is the vision our funders had for a new form of government unlike any the world had ever seen. It applied a moral imperative to those who would represent "WE the people" in The Congress in The Supreme and lesser courts, and in the office of President. Today the very idea of a democratically elected body of representatives has been eroded by the actions of Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy and Roberts.

 

[JoeB131]

You're right, PC I should have written:

The trouble with Capitalism is that eventually somebody ELSE has all the money

That can definitely be a danger when one end of the political spectrum is doing essentially nothing to challenge people to improve their own lives, instead choosing to paint them as victims of those meanies over there.

That tactic appears to work like a charm.

.

Probably because somewhere between working for minimum wage for a big corporation at the beginning of your career, and getting screwed over by them towards the end of it, people tend to figure out the 1%ers really are a bunch of greedy pricks.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're right, PC I should have written:

The trouble with Capitalism is that eventually somebody ELSE has all the money

That can definitely be a danger when one end of the political spectrum is doing essentially nothing to challenge people to improve their own lives, instead choosing to paint them as victims of those meanies over there.

That tactic appears to work like a charm.

.

Probably because somewhere between working for minimum wage for a big corporation at the beginning of your career, and getting screwed over by them towards the end of it, people tend to figure out the 1%ers really are a bunch of greedy pricks.

How, exactly, does someone else making more money injure you?

 

[JoeB131]

That can definitely be a danger when one end of the political spectrum is doing essentially nothing to challenge people to improve their own lives, instead choosing to paint them as victims of those meanies over there.

That tactic appears to work like a charm.

.

Probably because somewhere between working for minimum wage for a big corporation at the beginning of your career, and getting screwed over by them towards the end of it, people tend to figure out the 1%ers really are a bunch of greedy pricks.

How, exactly, does someone else making more money injure you?

Because usually, they've made it at my expense.

If you accept the notion that capital is an accounting of labor, as Lincoln wisely said, than 1% of the population did not do 43% of the labor. The other 99% of it did so, but they did not get a fair or equal share of the proceeds.

Case in point. Last job I worked in, I handled 20 million dollars worth of purchases that were sold for a 30% mark up. The share I and the rest of the team that made that happen less than 1%. But the rich people who owned the company even begruged us that.

 

[dblack]

Probably because somewhere between working for minimum wage for a big corporation at the beginning of your career, and getting screwed over by them towards the end of it, people tend to figure out the 1%ers really are a bunch of greedy pricks.

How, exactly, does someone else making more money injure you?

Because usually, they've made it at my expense.

If you accept the notion that capital is an accounting of labor, as Lincoln wisely said, than 1% of the population did not do 43% of the labor. The other 99% of it did so, but they did not get a fair or equal share of the proceeds.

Then they should stop.

Case in point. Last job I worked in, I handled 20 million dollars worth of purchases that were sold for a 30% mark up. The share I and the rest of the team that made that happen less than 1%. But the rich people who owned the company even begruged us that.

Did you quit? Seems kind of stupid to work a job if you don't feel you are fairly compensates.

 

[JoeB131]

How, exactly, does someone else making more money injure you?

Because usually, they've made it at my expense.

If you accept the notion that capital is an accounting of labor, as Lincoln wisely said, than 1% of the population did not do 43% of the labor. The other 99% of it did so, but they did not get a fair or equal share of the proceeds.

Then they should stop.

Case in point. Last job I worked in, I handled 20 million dollars worth of purchases that were sold for a 30% mark up. The share I and the rest of the team that made that happen less than 1%. But the rich people who owned the company even begruged us that.

Did you quit? Seems kind of stupid to work a job if you don't feel you are fairly compensates.

I had no problem with what they were paying me if htey kept up their end of the promise.

They couldn't even meet that low standard. The minute I had a medical issue, they were looking for ways to get rid of me.

BUt you miss the point, completely.

Ideal world, every workplace should have a union to negotiate base benefits and pay, and have full access to the books to make sure they aren't being ripped off.

I was in kind of an odd situation because I saw both what we were paying for product and what we were charging the customer for it. (Incidently, the customer eventually fired us because we were gouging him. Imagine that.)

 

[dblack]

Because usually, they've made it at my expense.

If you accept the notion that capital is an accounting of labor, as Lincoln wisely said, than 1% of the population did not do 43% of the labor. The other 99% of it did so, but they did not get a fair or equal share of the proceeds.

Then they should stop.

Case in point. Last job I worked in, I handled 20 million dollars worth of purchases that were sold for a 30% mark up. The share I and the rest of the team that made that happen less than 1%. But the rich people who owned the company even begruged us that.

Did you quit? Seems kind of stupid to work a job if you don't feel you are fairly compensates.

I had no problem with what they were paying me if htey kept up their end of the promise.

They couldn't even meet that low standard. The minute I had a medical issue, they were looking for ways to get rid of me.

BUt you miss the point, completely.

Ideal world, every workplace should have a union to negotiate base benefits and pay, and have full access to the books to make sure they aren't being ripped off.

I was in kind of an odd situation because I saw both what we were paying for product and what we were charging the customer for it. (Incidently, the customer eventually fired us because we were gouging him. Imagine that.)

No, I get your point. You're under the delusion that the value of labor can be objectively determined - that having access to "the books" would tell you whether you're being compensated fairly. But the value of labor isn't objective. It's a subjective judgment that depends on how much employers are willing to pay and how much employees are willing to work for.

 

[JoeB131]

[
No, I get your point. You're under the delusion that the value of labor can be objectively determined - that having access to "the books" would tell you whether you're being compensated fairly. But the value of labor isn't objective. It's a subjective judgment that depends on how much employers are willing to pay and how much employees are willing to work for.

Fair enough. It's subjective.

Which means that if the rest of us vote in fair labor laws, regulate executive compensation and put the tax rate on rich assholes back to where it was before that senile old **** Reagan, problem solved, then.

WOrks for me.

 

[Mac1958]

You're right, PC I should have written:

The trouble with Capitalism is that eventually somebody ELSE has all the money

That can definitely be a danger when one end of the political spectrum is doing essentially nothing to challenge people to improve their own lives, instead choosing to paint them as victims of those meanies over there.

That tactic appears to work like a charm.

.

Probably because somewhere between working for minimum wage for a big corporation at the beginning of your career, and getting screwed over by them towards the end of it, people tend to figure out the 1%ers really are a bunch of greedy pricks.

A vivid example of my point, right on cue.

Thanks.

.

 

[JoeB131]

That can definitely be a danger when one end of the political spectrum is doing essentially nothing to challenge people to improve their own lives, instead choosing to paint them as victims of those meanies over there.

That tactic appears to work like a charm.

.

Probably because somewhere between working for minimum wage for a big corporation at the beginning of your career, and getting screwed over by them towards the end of it, people tend to figure out the 1%ers really are a bunch of greedy pricks.

A vivid example of my point, right on cue.

Thanks.

.

The wealthy are parasites that have convinced people they are a vital organ.

Soon to go the way of the Bourbons and the Romanovs, we hope.

 

[Wry Catcher]

That can definitely be a danger when one end of the political spectrum is doing essentially nothing to challenge people to improve their own lives, instead choosing to paint them as victims of those meanies over there.

That tactic appears to work like a charm.

.

Probably because somewhere between working for minimum wage for a big corporation at the beginning of your career, and getting screwed over by them towards the end of it, people tend to figure out the 1%ers really are a bunch of greedy pricks.

How, exactly, does someone else making more money injure you?

Citizen United v. FEC; and, McCutcheon v. FEC. You're really not very bright are you PC

 

[dblack]

[
No, I get your point. You're under the delusion that the value of labor can be objectively determined - that having access to "the books" would tell you whether you're being compensated fairly. But the value of labor isn't objective. It's a subjective judgment that depends on how much employers are willing to pay and how much employees are willing to work for.

Fair enough. It's subjective.

Which means that if the rest of us vote in fair labor laws, regulate executive compensation and put the tax rate on rich assholes back to where it was before that senile old **** Reagan, problem solved, then.

WOrks for me.

Why in hell should the value of my labor depend on a vote? It's no one's business but me and the person interested in paying me for it. That's what subjective means, it depends on the subjects involved - namely the employer and the employee.

 

[JoeB131]

[
No, I get your point. You're under the delusion that the value of labor can be objectively determined - that having access to "the books" would tell you whether you're being compensated fairly. But the value of labor isn't objective. It's a subjective judgment that depends on how much employers are willing to pay and how much employees are willing to work for.

Fair enough. It's subjective.

Which means that if the rest of us vote in fair labor laws, regulate executive compensation and put the tax rate on rich assholes back to where it was before that senile old **** Reagan, problem solved, then.

WOrks for me.

Why in hell should the value of my labor depend on a vote? It's no one's business but me and the person interested in paying me for it. That's what subjective means, it depends on the subjects involved - namely the employer and the employee.

Again, why should it?

Frankly, I think the idea that we all end up being subject to the whims of the rich, especially when they take advantage of recessions they cause, is kind of silly.

It seems to me that when on the first day of work, they hand you a book of "rules" you have to follow, which says explicitely, "This is not a contract", you are agreeing to a whole bunch of strictures and he's agreeing to... nothing.

It isn't socialism you're afraid of, it's democracy.