Yuku free message boards

Goosehead wrote:

---

That's interesting Beef. How do you propose setting up a welfare system that encourages class fluidity, without setting adrift a significant population
that's been dependent on welfare for generations? Your first paragraph almost makes it seem like you'd increase welfare so as to help the newly
employed have a subsidised income as an incentive to enter the workforce.




As for Marx, just to be technical he proposed a transitionary socialist state that included those points you mentioned. Ultimately his dream was the death of
the state entirely.

Oh hell, I don't know! But it seems two basic components of a good welfare system are (1) a time limit on benefits (eg, 5 years) and (2) a graduated payment scale, so that if you get a (low-paying) job, your wages off-set part of your benefits (similar to the way private disability insurance works) and you don't lose Medicaid coverage. As to what you'd do with the permanent underclass, you need a pretty huge education and job training program. I remember there were some experimental programs under Clinton that tried to do these sorts of things (like teach people that if you have a job, you have to go EVERY day, not just when you feel like it) and the conservatives went ape-shit against it. But at some point, we're going to need to do something about the fact that we have a significant part of the population that contributes nothing. And saying "Fuck 'em, their parents should have taught them that shit" may make people feel good, but it's not going to solve the problem. There's a cycle of dysfunction that's passed down through the generations and it won't stop until something (and government is the only thing powerful enough) steps in and tries to break the cycle. Of course, there's also the issue of what jobs these people will get. We're already at about 10% unemployment, and that doesn't count any of the underclass.


But of course the real drain on our resources isn't poor people -- it's old people. Welfare and Medicaid for the poor is pretty small compared to what we pay old people. And while some politicians will occasionally go after benefits for the poor, none of them are suicidal enough to point out that it's the old folks who are breaking the bank. And that's even more true in Europe, which is why I'm always baffled when people say we should be more like Europe. Sure it would be nice if the government provided me with everything I wanted from cradle to grave, but where is the money going to come from? Whenever someone raises that pretty important question, most liberals just brush it off and don't want to be bothered with insignificant details like that. Look at Social Security: we've known for at least 25 years that the system won't work, but absolutely nothing has been done about it. The most recent efforts (by Bush in 2005) which were pretty modest changes but would have unquestionably improved Social Security were shot down by Democratic scare tactics and cries of "it's too RISKY!".


At this point, I'm in the group that simply wants the federal government to do as little as possible. Not because I'm against an active government, but because the people we have in government are more interested in gaining and protecting power than they are in making the country a better place to live.

springfeverish wrote:

---

At this point, I'm in the group that simply wants the federal government to do as little as possible. Not because I'm against an active government,
but because the people we have in government are more interested in gaining and protecting power than they are in making the country a better place to live.

True. But you can also say that the private sector is far more interested in profit margins and protecting huge CEO salaries than they are in making the
country a better place to live. So who does that leave? The churches and other charities?

I think our system works best when government and business oppose and balance each other. It's collusion between big government and big business that scares me the most.