CDZ What is the 'Safety Net'

[DustyInfinity]

Every time I try to discuss democrat policy, I'm immediately told it is about the 'safety net.' My view of a safety net is group providing aid to individuals who can't take care of themselves. To me, that is disabled or elderly. I fully support a safety net, and this definition fits with republican philosophy as well. My question is why democrats want to expand safety nets to all individuals, not just the disabled or the elderly? Does the left believe that people are no longer able to provide for themselves? Does a person need government intervention to have a good life? The two biggest traps I see are dependency and government waste. The government waste part is obvious, we study cow farts. Even with limited competition, government programs would not allow for the oversight of individuals looking out for their interests. There is little pressure for the government to do something efficiently or to provide good service. In the past, with threads like this, people have told me you can't target aid. It would require mind reading to narrow down who gets increased safety nets. Targeting is impossible, so therefore all individuals. Is there no way to efficiently provide aid? What is the attraction to universal government programs? What makes it desirable? Why would a person want the government in charge of major parts of their lives? Is it the belief that individuals can't function without increased government involvement? Why can't they function better on their own?

 

[Pete7469]

It's a hammock.

Generations of people in it. Hardly anyone gets out on their own. After 50+ years we had a 14% poverty rate, and 30 trillion dollars later we have a...

14% poverty rate.

Or something like that. The thing is, the government program was not established to get rid of a problem, it was established to prolong a problem.


.

 

[DustyInfinity]

It's a hammock.

Generations of people in it. Hardly anyone gets out on their own. After 50+ years we had a 14% poverty rate, and 30 trillion dollars later we have a...

14% poverty rate.

Or something like that. The thing is, the government program was not established to get rid of a problem, it was established to prolong a problem.


.

Certainly seems like a hammock. Poverty rates never improve. Hating the rich or 'evil' people hasn't made a dent in the problem. The rich getting richer argument wouldn't seem to work either. Trying to bring the top number down hasn't done anything to improve life of working Americans. The Equality argument seems flawed as well. Forcing government involvement in everyday life has nothing to do with treating people equally or fairly. I don't really want to get into a forced outcome argument against an equal opportunity argument. I don't think fairness and government involvement are related.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

How are the bureaucrats in government supposed to line their pockets if you take those safety programs for others away?

*****SMILE*****

 

[PoliticalChic]

View attachment 351782

How are the bureaucrats in government supposed to line their pockets if you take those safety programs for others away?

*****SMILE*****

Excellent!


And it is the single most important reason they hate Trump:


The establishment GOP, never-Trumpers and the like see Trump as a detriment to their profits/wealth, and here is the explanation:
"Trump kills 16 regulations for every new one, crushing 2-for-1 goal"
Trump kills 16 regulations for every new one, crushing 2-for-1 goal

Most regulations are, in terms of what they are alleged to do, are actually there to be bribed away by the industries that they inhibit.
The pols write them, the corporations pay lobbyists to bribe the pols to insert loopholes....

....hence poor men come to Washington to do good, and leave as millionaires, having made good.

Trump is a threat to their sinecures.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Excellent!


And it is the single most important reason they hate Trump:


The establishment GOP, never-Trumpers and the like see Trump as a detriment to their profits/wealth, and here is the explanation:
"Trump kills 16 regulations for every new one, crushing 2-for-1 goal"
Trump kills 16 regulations for every new one, crushing 2-for-1 goal

Most regulations are, in terms of what they are alleged to do, are actually there to be bribed away by the industries that they inhibit.
The pols write them, the corporations pay lobbyists to bribe the pols to insert loopholes....

....hence poor men come to Washington to do good, and leave as millionaires, having made good.

Trump is a threat to their sinecures.

It's the only explanation for why the problem continues to be as bad as it was or even worse.

What??? You really expect the bureaucrats to work themselves out of a job?

Why do you think there's no must be accomplished by date?

It's all about safety nets (>>>) and job security...

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[sartre play]

AS long as we keep supporting dishonest government bought & paid for.Plus politicians who have no idea what life as an average American is like. take the money out & they will have to talk to each other and us.

 

[justinacolmena]

Every time I try to discuss democrat policy, I'm immediately told it is about the 'safety net.'

If you're talking about Democrat policy, the safety net consists of strict gun control with a heavy emphasis on mental health and involuntary psychiatric hospitalization.

My view of a safety net is group providing aid to individuals who can't take care of themselves. To me, that is disabled or elderly. I fully support a safety net, and this definition fits with republican philosophy as well

Correction: that is individuals who are deemed social undesirables or adjudicated as mental defectives, and forced into involuntary care against their will, not people who genuinely need and seek help with activities of daily living.

My question is why democrats want to expand safety nets to all individuals, not just the disabled or the elderly? Does the left believe that people are no longer able to provide for themselves? Does a person need government intervention to have a good life?

You answered your own question. It's a progressive government program. Nothing short of violent revolution will slow or stop the dramatic expansion and skyrocketing costs of involuntary mental health care.

 

[B. Kidd]

There is no safety.
There is no net.

Just ask all of the people in many states who have applied for unemployment and still haven't received their 1st check!

Combine this with the fact that most rent moratoriums end by July 1st.

I see desperate homeless people!

 

[Jackson]

It's a hammock.

Generations of people in it. Hardly anyone gets out on their own. After 50+ years we had a 14% poverty rate, and 30 trillion dollars later we have a...

14% poverty rate.

Or something like that. The thing is, the government program was not established to get rid of a problem, it was established to prolong a problem.


.

i agree

 

[DustyInfinity]

Every time I try to discuss democrat policy, I'm immediately told it is about the 'safety net.'

If you're talking about Democrat policy, the safety net consists of strict gun control with a heavy emphasis on mental health and involuntary psychiatric hospitalization.

My view of a safety net is group providing aid to individuals who can't take care of themselves. To me, that is disabled or elderly. I fully support a safety net, and this definition fits with republican philosophy as well

Correction: that is individuals who are deemed social undesirables or adjudicated as mental defectives, and forced into involuntary care against their will, not people who genuinely need and seek help with activities of daily living.

My question is why democrats want to expand safety nets to all individuals, not just the disabled or the elderly? Does the left believe that people are no longer able to provide for themselves? Does a person need government intervention to have a good life?

You answered your own question. It's a progressive government program. Nothing short of violent revolution will slow or stop the dramatic expansion and skyrocketing costs of involuntary mental health care.

I'm not sure I understand your emphasis on mental health and the use of the terms undesirables. I don't think anyone views the disabled as undesirables. I have also not heard gun control being a key part of the 'safety net.' What do you mean by violent revolution to stop costs of involuntary mental health care? What do you mean by problems concerning involuntary care? Is this happening on a large scale? Thanks for the response. I am disabled, and I am interested in the treatment and care of the disabled.

 

[justinacolmena]

I don't think anyone views the disabled as undesirables

If that were the case, then people in wheelchairs, blind, hearing-impaired, with speech problems etc., would be free to do "educated" and professional clerical work, as accountants, lawyers, computer programmers, authors, editors, publishers, etc. on an equal basis without the need for any assistance they can't arrange themselves, but unfortunately, for the most part that is not the case on real life.

I have also not heard gun control being a key part of the 'safety net.'

Obama's Social Security gun grab?

What do you mean by violent revolution to stop costs of involuntary mental health care?

The people who call us paranoid are scared of us, and they are afraid we are out to get them. They're scared we might have reason and justification to shoot and kill them. That is because they are systematically depriving us of every alternative to lead normal lives, on an equal basis with others — not accused of crime — who are permitted to exercise their civil rights.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

First of all, I want to say this is an important discussion. The CDZ is the right place for it, too. I won’t try to speak for Democrats or Republicans, since there are lots of different types of both, nor of conservatives vs. liberals either. As DustyInfinity said, he and Republicans can support a limited safety net. I speak of the idea of, and the need for, a strong social safety net in modern society.

DustyInfinity says he does not really want to get into questions of equality or even “equal opportunity.” This rules out a great deal of theoretical and political territory. It puts off limits arguments about the stability and survivability of “democracy” and representative systems of government as we normally think of them today. It automatically raises the problem: Where will social solidarity and an educated voting base come from if our nation increasingly divides into haves and have nots? It seems to assume that little or nothing need be done, that modern U.S. capitalism will be able to provide basic job opportunity and income for the public even if we become more and more a society where an oligopoly of billionaires rule and a majority of the population (“working” or lumpenized) is impoverished.

Poverty rates never improve. Hating the rich or 'evil' people hasn't made a dent in the problem. The rich getting richer argument wouldn't seem to work either. Trying to bring the top number down hasn't done anything to improve life of working Americans.

I am not talking about “hating the rich” as “evil” people, but there has not been in recent decades any attempt “to bring the top number down” — quite the contrary. And poverty levels, for the aged in particular, and for widows and orphans and the cyclically unemployed, certainly did decrease due to New Deal programs like Social Security and unemployment insurance.

The safety net I want is first of all one for society as a whole, which protects against war, periodic economic collapse, ecological self destruction, epidemic outbreaks. Such a safety net is all too easily torn to shreds by a society where the very wealthy are insulated, collecting their dividends and capital gains behind high walls, and the system oriented toward short-term profit.

On a social and individual level that translates, happily I believe, into a society that encourages social solidarity, care for the sick — universal free basic medical insurance or some equivalent — protection from unemployment, top notch education for all, scientific research, free art, creative culture, etc. We are talking of modern wealthy capitalist societies here.

The world, and now also the U.S., is filled with highly competitive corporations, groups and individuals where overproduction is not only possible but the norm, excepting that underconsumption by poorly paid workers and increasingly unnecessary surplus human laborers is also a growing reality. Excess “capital” NEEDS to flow into a safety net, or it will go into speculative and useless endeavors like war.

Money is God. It is also the main real “safety net” in existing society. People are next to nothing unless they can produce services or more money for the rich. In the U.S. whole sections of our population have a strong safety net ... in the form of investments, a beautiful home or two or three. Yet we are for the most part extremely insecure, with more than 50% having practically no savings — no “safety net.” And that number will grow another 10% at least in the next period.

 

[B. Kidd]

First of all, I want to say this is an important discussion. The CDZ is the right place for it, too. I won’t try to speak for Democrats or Republicans, since there are lots of different types of both, nor of conservatives vs. liberals either. As DustyInfinity said, he and Republicans can support a limited safety net. I speak of the idea of, and the need for, a strong social safety net in modern society.

DustyInfinity says he does not really want to get into questions of equality or even “equal opportunity.” This rules out a great deal of theoretical and political territory. It puts off limits arguments about the stability and survivability of “democracy” and representative systems of government as we normally think of them today. It automatically raises the problem: Where will social solidarity and an educated voting base come from if our nation increasingly divides into haves and have nots? It seems to assume that little or nothing neeed be done, that modern U.S. capitalism will be able to provide basic job opportunity and income for the public even if we become more and more a society where an oligopoly of billionaires rule and a majority of the population (“working” or lumpenized) is impoverished.

He says:

Poverty rates never improve. Hating the rich or 'evil' people hasn't made a dent in the problem. The rich getting richer argument wouldn't seem to work either. Trying to bring the top number down hasn't done anything to improve life of working Americans.

I am not talking about “hating the rich” as “evil” people, but there has not been in recent decades any attempt “to bring the top number down” — quite the contrary.

The safety net I want is first of all one for society as a whole, which protects against war, periodic economic collapse, ecological self destruction, epidemic outbreaks. Such a safety net is all too easily torn to shreds by a society where the very wealthy are insulated, collecting their dividends and capital gains behind high walls, and the system oriented toward short-term profit.

On a social and individual level that translates, happily I believe, into a society that encourages social solidarity, care for the sick — universal free basic medical insurance or some equivalent — protection from unemployment, top notch education for all, scientific research, free art, creative culture, etc. We are talking of modern wealthy capitalist societies here.

The world, and now also the U.S., is filled with highly competitive corporations, groups and individuals where overproduction is not only possible but the norm, excepting that underconsumption by poorly paid workers and increasingly unnecessary surplus human laborers is also a growing reality. Excess “capital” NEEDS to flow into a safety net, or it will go into speculative and useless endeavors like war.

Money is God. It is also the main real “safety net” in existing society. People are next to nothing unless they can produce services or more money for the rich. In the U.S. whole sections of our population have a strong safety net ... in the form of investments, a beautiful home or two or three. Yet we are for the most part extremely insecure, with more than 50% having practically no savings — no “safety net.” And that number will grow another 10% at least in the next period.

At the end of this month, rent moratoriums end. A homelessness crisis looms as it is projected 25 million people face eviction!
Combine this with food banks already being overwhelmed. Add de-policing on top of this!
There is no safety net to address the size of hard times that is soon dead ahead.
Guns, ammo, and organizing with your neighbors is a good place to start, tho'!

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

First of all, I want to say this is an important discussion. The CDZ is the right place for it, too. I won’t try to speak for Democrats or Republicans, since there are lots of different types of both, nor of conservatives vs. liberals either. As DustyInfinity said, he and Republicans can support a limited safety net. I speak of the idea of, and the need for, a strong social safety net in modern society.

DustyInfinity says he does not really want to get into questions of equality or even “equal opportunity.” This rules out a great deal of theoretical and political territory. It puts off limits arguments about the stability and survivability of “democracy” and representative systems of government as we normally think of them today. It automatically raises the problem: Where will social solidarity and an educated voting base come from if our nation increasingly divides into haves and have nots? It seems to assume that little or nothing neeed be done, that modern U.S. capitalism will be able to provide basic job opportunity and income for the public even if we become more and more a society where an oligopoly of billionaires rule and a majority of the population (“working” or lumpenized) is impoverished.

He says:

Poverty rates never improve. Hating the rich or 'evil' people hasn't made a dent in the problem. The rich getting richer argument wouldn't seem to work either. Trying to bring the top number down hasn't done anything to improve life of working Americans.

I am not talking about “hating the rich” as “evil” people, but there has not been in recent decades any attempt “to bring the top number down” — quite the contrary.

The safety net I want is first of all one for society as a whole, which protects against war, periodic economic collapse, ecological self destruction, epidemic outbreaks. Such a safety net is all too easily torn to shreds by a society where the very wealthy are insulated, collecting their dividends and capital gains behind high walls, and the system oriented toward short-term profit.

On a social and individual level that translates, happily I believe, into a society that encourages social solidarity, care for the sick — universal free basic medical insurance or some equivalent — protection from unemployment, top notch education for all, scientific research, free art, creative culture, etc. We are talking of modern wealthy capitalist societies here.

The world, and now also the U.S., is filled with highly competitive corporations, groups and individuals where overproduction is not only possible but the norm, excepting that underconsumption by poorly paid workers and increasingly unnecessary surplus human laborers is also a growing reality. Excess “capital” NEEDS to flow into a safety net, or it will go into speculative and useless endeavors like war.

Money is God. It is also the main real “safety net” in existing society. People are next to nothing unless they can produce services or more money for the rich. In the U.S. whole sections of our population have a strong safety net ... in the form of investments, a beautiful home or two or three. Yet we are for the most part extremely insecure, with more than 50% having practically no savings — no “safety net.” And that number will grow another 10% at least in the next period.

At the end of this month, rent moratoriums end. A homelessness crisis looms as it is projected 25 million people face eviction!
Combine this with food banks already being overwhelmed. Add de-policing on top of this!
There is no safety net to address the size of hard times that is soon dead ahead.
Guns, ammo, and organizing with your neighbors is a good place to start, tho'!

I agree in part on your economic projections for the future, but not that “guns, ammo, and organizing with your neighbors is a good place to start.” It may be a necessary resort, depending on your location and situation, but it is certainly a tragic place to be.

 

[B. Kidd]

First of all, I want to say this is an important discussion. The CDZ is the right place for it, too. I won’t try to speak for Democrats or Republicans, since there are lots of different types of both, nor of conservatives vs. liberals either. As DustyInfinity said, he and Republicans can support a limited safety net. I speak of the idea of, and the need for, a strong social safety net in modern society.

DustyInfinity says he does not really want to get into questions of equality or even “equal opportunity.” This rules out a great deal of theoretical and political territory. It puts off limits arguments about the stability and survivability of “democracy” and representative systems of government as we normally think of them today. It automatically raises the problem: Where will social solidarity and an educated voting base come from if our nation increasingly divides into haves and have nots? It seems to assume that little or nothing neeed be done, that modern U.S. capitalism will be able to provide basic job opportunity and income for the public even if we become more and more a society where an oligopoly of billionaires rule and a majority of the population (“working” or lumpenized) is impoverished.

He says:

Poverty rates never improve. Hating the rich or 'evil' people hasn't made a dent in the problem. The rich getting richer argument wouldn't seem to work either. Trying to bring the top number down hasn't done anything to improve life of working Americans.

I am not talking about “hating the rich” as “evil” people, but there has not been in recent decades any attempt “to bring the top number down” — quite the contrary.

The safety net I want is first of all one for society as a whole, which protects against war, periodic economic collapse, ecological self destruction, epidemic outbreaks. Such a safety net is all too easily torn to shreds by a society where the very wealthy are insulated, collecting their dividends and capital gains behind high walls, and the system oriented toward short-term profit.

On a social and individual level that translates, happily I believe, into a society that encourages social solidarity, care for the sick — universal free basic medical insurance or some equivalent — protection from unemployment, top notch education for all, scientific research, free art, creative culture, etc. We are talking of modern wealthy capitalist societies here.

The world, and now also the U.S., is filled with highly competitive corporations, groups and individuals where overproduction is not only possible but the norm, excepting that underconsumption by poorly paid workers and increasingly unnecessary surplus human laborers is also a growing reality. Excess “capital” NEEDS to flow into a safety net, or it will go into speculative and useless endeavors like war.

Money is God. It is also the main real “safety net” in existing society. People are next to nothing unless they can produce services or more money for the rich. In the U.S. whole sections of our population have a strong safety net ... in the form of investments, a beautiful home or two or three. Yet we are for the most part extremely insecure, with more than 50% having practically no savings — no “safety net.” And that number will grow another 10% at least in the next period.

At the end of this month, rent moratoriums end. A homelessness crisis looms as it is projected 25 million people face eviction!
Combine this with food banks already being overwhelmed. Add de-policing on top of this!
There is no safety net to address the size of hard times that is soon dead ahead.
Guns, ammo, and organizing with your neighbors is a good place to start, tho'!

I agree in part on your economic projections for the future, but not that “guns, ammo, and organizing with your neighbors is a good place to start.” It may be a necessary resort, depending on your location and situation, but it is certainly a tragic place to be.

Judging it as tragic, is indeed correct!
My point is that the Gov't cannot provide a safety net for the anarchy and malaise that is already at our doorsteps this summer.
The will and the competence of leaders just does not exist!

 

[B. Kidd]

First of all, I want to say this is an important discussion. The CDZ is the right place for it, too. I won’t try to speak for Democrats or Republicans, since there are lots of different types of both, nor of conservatives vs. liberals either. As DustyInfinity said, he and Republicans can support a limited safety net. I speak of the idea of, and the need for, a strong social safety net in modern society.

DustyInfinity says he does not really want to get into questions of equality or even “equal opportunity.” This rules out a great deal of theoretical and political territory. It puts off limits arguments about the stability and survivability of “democracy” and representative systems of government as we normally think of them today. It automatically raises the problem: Where will social solidarity and an educated voting base come from if our nation increasingly divides into haves and have nots? It seems to assume that little or nothing neeed be done, that modern U.S. capitalism will be able to provide basic job opportunity and income for the public even if we become more and more a society where an oligopoly of billionaires rule and a majority of the population (“working” or lumpenized) is impoverished.

He says:

Poverty rates never improve. Hating the rich or 'evil' people hasn't made a dent in the problem. The rich getting richer argument wouldn't seem to work either. Trying to bring the top number down hasn't done anything to improve life of working Americans.

I am not talking about “hating the rich” as “evil” people, but there has not been in recent decades any attempt “to bring the top number down” — quite the contrary.

The safety net I want is first of all one for society as a whole, which protects against war, periodic economic collapse, ecological self destruction, epidemic outbreaks. Such a safety net is all too easily torn to shreds by a society where the very wealthy are insulated, collecting their dividends and capital gains behind high walls, and the system oriented toward short-term profit.

On a social and individual level that translates, happily I believe, into a society that encourages social solidarity, care for the sick — universal free basic medical insurance or some equivalent — protection from unemployment, top notch education for all, scientific research, free art, creative culture, etc. We are talking of modern wealthy capitalist societies here.

The world, and now also the U.S., is filled with highly competitive corporations, groups and individuals where overproduction is not only possible but the norm, excepting that underconsumption by poorly paid workers and increasingly unnecessary surplus human laborers is also a growing reality. Excess “capital” NEEDS to flow into a safety net, or it will go into speculative and useless endeavors like war.

Money is God. It is also the main real “safety net” in existing society. People are next to nothing unless they can produce services or more money for the rich. In the U.S. whole sections of our population have a strong safety net ... in the form of investments, a beautiful home or two or three. Yet we are for the most part extremely insecure, with more than 50% having practically no savings — no “safety net.” And that number will grow another 10% at least in the next period.

At the end of this month, rent moratoriums end. A homelessness crisis looms as it is projected 25 million people face eviction!
Combine this with food banks already being overwhelmed. Add de-policing on top of this!
There is no safety net to address the size of hard times that is soon dead ahead.
Guns, ammo, and organizing with your neighbors is a good place to start, tho'!

I agree in part on your economic projections for the future, but not that “guns, ammo, and organizing with your neighbors is a good place to start.” It may be a necessary resort, depending on your location and situation, but it is certainly a tragic place to be.

Also judging it as necessary is correct, too!

In Maslow's Pyramid of Human Needs; the 2nd most significant need after the basic human need of food, shelter, rest, activity, etc., are SAFETY NEEDS!

Maslow was one smart guy!

 

[DustyInfinity]

First of all, I want to say this is an important discussion. The CDZ is the right place for it, too. I won’t try to speak for Democrats or Republicans, since there are lots of different types of both, nor of conservatives vs. liberals either. As DustyInfinity said, he and Republicans can support a limited safety net. I speak of the idea of, and the need for, a strong social safety net in modern society.

DustyInfinity says he does not really want to get into questions of equality or even “equal opportunity.” This rules out a great deal of theoretical and political territory. It puts off limits arguments about the stability and survivability of “democracy” and representative systems of government as we normally think of them today. It automatically raises the problem: Where will social solidarity and an educated voting base come from if our nation increasingly divides into haves and have nots? It seems to assume that little or nothing need be done, that modern U.S. capitalism will be able to provide basic job opportunity and income for the public even if we become more and more a society where an oligopoly of billionaires rule and a majority of the population (“working” or lumpenized) is impoverished.


I am not talking about “hating the rich” as “evil” people, but there has not been in recent decades any attempt “to bring the top number down” — quite the contrary. And poverty levels, for the aged in particular, and for widows and orphans and the cyclically unemployed, certainly did decrease due to New Deal programs like Social Security and unemployment insurance.

The safety net I want is first of all one for society as a whole, which protects against war, periodic economic collapse, ecological self destruction, epidemic outbreaks. Such a safety net is all too easily torn to shreds by a society where the very wealthy are insulated, collecting their dividends and capital gains behind high walls, and the system oriented toward short-term profit.

On a social and individual level that translates, happily I believe, into a society that encourages social solidarity, care for the sick — universal free basic medical insurance or some equivalent — protection from unemployment, top notch education for all, scientific research, free art, creative culture, etc. We are talking of modern wealthy capitalist societies here.

The world, and now also the U.S., is filled with highly competitive corporations, groups and individuals where overproduction is not only possible but the norm, excepting that underconsumption by poorly paid workers and increasingly unnecessary surplus human laborers is also a growing reality. Excess “capital” NEEDS to flow into a safety net, or it will go into speculative and useless endeavors like war.

Money is God. It is also the main real “safety net” in existing society. People are next to nothing unless they can produce services or more money for the rich. In the U.S. whole sections of our population have a strong safety net ... in the form of investments, a beautiful home or two or three. Yet we are for the most part extremely insecure, with more than 50% having practically no savings — no “safety net.” And that number will grow another 10% at least in the next period.

So in your view, the safety net is an redistribution device, not an aid to the disabled? I think trying to cap or siphon off the wealthy is missing the forest for the trees. No matter how 'progressive' you tinker with taxes, it never helps the poverty rate, or help people get jobs. It also appears to harm the middle class and reduce job opportunities for the lower and middle classes. It is just my opinion, but the wealth gap argument seems to be without direction or results. Lower and middle class success are not dependent on penalties or duties against the wealthy and middle class.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

So in your view, the safety net is an redistribution device, not an aid to the disabled? I think trying to cap or siphon off the wealthy is missing the forest for the trees. No matter how 'progressive' you tinker with taxes, it never helps the poverty rate, or help people get jobs. It also appears to harm the middle class and reduce job opportunities for the lower and middle classes. It is just my opinion, but the wealth gap argument seems to be without direction or results. Lower and middle class success are not dependent on penalties or duties against the wealthy and middle class.

You seem to be misunderstanding my perspective, Dusty.

I am talking about a macro safety net for society as a whole. The better treatment of and decline in absolute poverty for seniors in our society (due to Social Security) is not just “aid for the disabled.” Are older people necessarily disabled? Is a decent retirement in old age itself not a “good” naturally desired by individuals and hence also something to be promoted by society? How does that differ from, say, our nation encouraging home ownership through tax incentives?

Better and universal health care — “Medicare for All” — helps everyone. It has and should continue to provide dollars and incentives to the real economy, help support millions of new health industry jobs, non-profit hospitals, etc. It will provide a healthier workforce too.

What you call “redistribution” I call ensuring “general welfare,” a basic aim of all government as mentioned in the Constitution.

Genuinely strengthening social solidarity and equal opportunity will lead to a stabler society, declining crime, and a better and richer life for all. These are themselves positive goods, and are cynically disregarded only by those who have abandoned the struggle for public virtue and inculcating better values. Some things cannot be measured in dollars and cents. They are also necessary for a stable and well functioning society.

I could go on, but I hope if you now reread my original comment you may better understand my general approach to “a safety net.”

 

[Andylusion]

There is no safety.
There is no net.

Just ask all of the people in many states who have applied for unemployment and still haven't received their 1st check!

Combine this with the fact that most rent moratoriums end by July 1st.

I see desperate homeless people!

So $3 Billion dollars were spent on unemployment compensation in the month of January of this year. Where did all that go, if there is no safety net?