CDZ What is the 'Safety Net'

[B. Kidd]

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?

States like Nevada whose system was/is still overwhelmed, is sitting on a fair share of it, yet.

 

[gipper]

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?

Big corporations and billionaires have a HUGE safety net. W, Ears, and Dumb Don have this in common. They enrich the rich at the expense of the rest of us. Yet somehow, cons find government social programs for the poor totally unacceptable, while ignoring the elephant in the room...corporate welfare.

 

[DustyInfinity]

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.”

I have heard many on the left use 'general welfare' as a vehicle to social engineering. That is not a safety net. It sounds like trying to achieve equal outcomes. People are individuals and different. To try to enforce an equal outcome sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. In my original OP, I talked about how trying to extend a safety net in a universal way to people who do not need aid is wasteful and harmful to many. Everyone wants a crime free society where everyone is successful, but I'm not sure how realistic such a view is. I think equal opportunity and enforcing the laws we have are the best bet to having a strong society. Dennis Prager also discussed the consequences or eliminating religion from modern life. Currently, society doesn't appear to have any values, and if you want to replace faith and the idea of 'good' in the eyes of God, then you better have something waiting in the wings to hold society together. Right now, we have career politicians on both sides telling us what is right and wrong. That is scary.

 

[B. Kidd]

I have heard many on the left use 'general welfare' as a vehicle to social engineering. That is not a safety net. It sounds like trying to achieve equal outcomes. People are individuals and different. To try to enforce an equal outcome sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. In my original OP, I talked about how trying to extend a safety net in a universal way to people who do not need aid is wasteful and harmful to many. Everyone wants a crime free society where everyone is successful, but I'm not sure how realistic such a view is. I think equal opportunity and enforcing the laws we have are the best bet to having a strong society. Dennis Prager also discussed the consequences or eliminating religion from modern life. Currently, society doesn't appear to have any values, and if you want to replace faith and the idea of 'good' in the eyes of God, then you better have something waiting in the wings to hold society together. Right now, we have career politicians on both sides telling us what is right and wrong. That is scary.

Trying to enforce equal outcomes in an identity politic diversity ground, is truly a disaster and the road to Perdition!!!

 

[sartre play]

Cant see any problem in at least attempting some equality in the good old USA.

 

[initforme]

The $1200 per person should have been $2500 per person. What does $1200 do? Maybe one months rent....maybe.

 

[DustyInfinity]

Cant see any problem in at least attempting some equality in the good old USA.

Social Engineering in the name of Equality sounds misplaced. Many good intentions have resulted in hardship and pain. I had not counted on the idea of macro safety nets. Trying to take care of 'everybody' instead of those who are in need will most likely harm society instead of help it. I've heard some say that capitalism is a natural system, and not something someone cooked up. It works because it is just the way the world works. Obviously you step in to make sure working environments are safe, to prevent child labor, and to prevent monopolies ect. It seems reasonable to me to use a proven system rather than to try to create a completely new system.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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?

Democrats have been actively changing the safety net to a fish net. So they can lull people in, give them just enough money to survive and get lazy.... and then they stay Democrats because they are afraid Republicans will take it away and have to go to work again.
Pretty much sums it.
You can close the thread now.