legitimate political question (Ron Paul)

[white_2kgt]

As our society expands, we are seeing a widening gap between the social classes. How do we fill the gap?

I have to ask though, why do we (the collective population) need to fill this social gap?

b/c that's the socialist way, duh :roll:

[Ginger]

Progressives make me cry.

[Evan]

heh
"progressive"

[Ginger]

Hey, I didn't choose the title, but it is a little ironic.

[Maengelito]

fact of the matter is, there are an infinite number of situations where people live in poverty ranging from homeless, sick and dying to those that are truly too lazy to work and want hand outs. unfortunately, we cant have a case-by-case policy to address each individual situation and know whats best for them so a narrow program is setup where some get screwed because they truly need assisstance and some benefit because they don't have to do shit and still get money.

my parents immigrated from korea back in the day with a suitcase and only a couple of bucks and my dad spoke a little bit of english, but they were able to eventually raise both me and my brother in the northern va area. our family by no means is rich and they still work all day everyday, but when they first got here, public assisstance helped them get on their feet and do what i feel is a pretty good job living the american dream.

on the flip side, you've got crackheads that used to live next to one of my friend's at work. they lived off govt assisstance, getting money for rent and food stamps. my buddy would tell me around the first of the month, they'd always get visitors that show up for like 15 minutes and i gaurantee it wasnt just to say hi and then bye. they had a ton of kids because the more kids they have, the more assisstance they got. they eventually got a directv dish, had cell phones but still wouldnt take care of things like getting a job or providing for their family.

there's a definite benefit from what an assisstance program should do, but unfortunately, there is also the reality of what actually happens in most cases.

[.RJ]

So... no social programs = fewer asian immigrants?

Brilliant, where do I vote? :lol:

[Ginger]

Maeng - I don't disagree that some people really do benefit from charity. There are people out there really, really want to make something of themselves. This country was built on the effort of poor immigrants... those roots can't be denied and I think a closed door policy is a slap in the face to the heritage and honored tradition that this country was built on. But that's not my problem...

My problem is government charity. I don't deny that it has a success rate - I contend that the success rate is absolutely abismal when stood next to the figures posted by private charities. Further, the freeloading and interventionism play havoc with the economy on a rather large scale... that issue is a bit large to get into here. Suffice it to say, however, that policy decisions that attempt to alter natural market functions (whether we're talking about an economic market or a labor market or a freaking chip-dip market) always face unintended consequences (which most people blame on the market instead of the policy trying to force change) making the situation even more poor than it was to begin with.

There is no shortage of private charity in America - one could very easily argued that it is under utilized, though. I'd counter-argue that the existance of the obnxious government systems encourage that under use. I'll post some statistics about the number of charities, volunteers, and man hours when I get home. Governmental well fare has no incentives - for anybody. That's how people operate... while government care is content to let crackheads leech off populus funds private care, which has a vested interest in their own success, says "how can I help you help YOURSELF?"

[white_2kgt]

my parents immigrated from korea back in the day with a suitcase and only a couple of bucks and my dad spoke a little bit of english, but they were able to eventually raise both me and my brother in the northern va area. our family by no means is rich and they still work all day everyday, but when they first got here, public assisstance helped them get on their feet and do what i feel is a pretty good job living the american dream.

I'm sure I've come off a bit harsh in this thread but just to clarify I really don't have a problem with LIMITED govt assistance. LIMITED in the fact that it should not be ones sole source of income. You get a year or so of assistance so long as you are working a job and then you are done. Can't reapply for x # of years then those people should be monitored closely. I do understand that some people have a run of bad luck, but nobody has a run of bad luck that last their entire life time that's the ones that really set me off.

[JackoliciousLegs]

I actually think this thread is TREMENDOUSLY interesting and very informative. Thank you.

[.RJ]

:grouphug:

[Maengelito]

my parents immigrated from korea back in the day with a suitcase and only a couple of bucks and my dad spoke a little bit of english, but they were able to eventually raise both me and my brother in the northern va area. our family by no means is rich and they still work all day everyday, but when they first got here, public assisstance helped them get on their feet and do what i feel is a pretty good job living the american dream.

I'm sure I've come off a bit harsh in this thread but just to clarify I really don't have a problem with LIMITED govt assistance. LIMITED in the fact that it should not be ones sole source of income. You get a year or so of assistance so long as you are working a job and then you are done. Can't reapply for x # of years then those people should be monitored closely. I do understand that some people have a run of bad luck, but nobody has a run of bad luck that last their entire life time that's the ones that really set me off.

just to clarify my standpoint as well: i'm not offended by chad or andrew, and contrary to my previous post, i actually agree with them. i think its silly that a program like govt welfare helps out so many people who just are too lazy or dont wanna work. i just wanted to point out that there are so many circumstances as to why people are poor that its hard to say the govt can provide assistance to x and y groups of people, but not the people in group z. but yeah, i get pissed when i see crackheads and people obviously on some sort of welfare that live well above their means.

[Ginger]

In 2006 the YMCA had 2,663 locations. They served 20,225,369 people, and had 563,285 volunteers (source - YMCA).

The Red Cross supports victims of over 70,000 natural disasters each year, has nearly 1 million volunteers, 35,000 paid employees, over 700 locally supported chapters, and has trained over 15 million people to assist during emergencies. 4 million people donate blood. An average of 91 cents of every dollar the Red Cross receives goes towards humanitarian services and products. It is also an entirely private organization.

When John D. Rockefeller turned 80 he donated $138 million to charity - over his lifetime he donated $500 million to charity (accounting for inflation we're talking several billion). He did not donate indiscriminatly, though, he demanded results from the institutions he supported.

Andrew Carnegie donated over $350 million (over 70% of the wealth he created) and left a standing offer to all cities that if they would be provide a building for a library he would provide the books.

Today there are over 700,000 private charities, 500,000 of which are focused explicitly on social and wellfare relief. There are 150 million americans volunteering which amount to 27 million hours and $780 billion in time alone.

-I didn't have time to take notes during the lecture of the academic sources, but they're all on file with Thomas Rustici, PhD: trustici at gmu dot edu-

If we're talking about absolute poverty it's been effectively eliminated. It's absolutely ignorant to believe that the government is the only source of releif for the improverished. If we're talking about relative poverty then, by definition, it will never be eliminated and there will always be some socialist or progressive talking about the injustices in the world. There's never no solution, it's really just a quesiton of how hard you're workiing for it.

[Andy]

If we're talking about absolute poverty it's been effectively eliminated.

I don't really want to get into it but that's not true, unless effectively means hundreds of millions of people worldwide.

The End of Poverty by Jeffrey Sach's. He working towards eliminating world wide poverty.

I don't think Ron Paul advocates for the immediate end of social programs but a gradual transition away from social welfare. Welfare programs started for a reason. You guys should read about America in the 20's. It benefits everyone to not have an angry underclass.
Everyone on this forum benefitted from the GI bill in one way or another. It gave GI's coming back from war a free ride to college and effectively created the middle class which we're all part of.

A fair tax policy is great and I support it so long as we do away with all tax shelters including inheritance. A flat tax is only fair if my hard work rewards me the same as say, Paris Hilton. Which it currently does not.
Eliminating inheritances would also free up a lot of capital for reinvestment in our society.

[Apoc]

If we're talking about absolute poverty it's been effectively eliminated.

I don't really want to get into it but that's not true, unless effectively means hundreds of millions of people worldwide.

US != the world

I'm curious how I benefitted from the GI bill. My dad went to college because his parents, who lived in their parents' attic when he was born, worked hard and sent him there. They busted their ass and went from mere pennies to a 7 figure estate by the time they died. They made themselves (upper)middle class, why shouldn't that be passed onto their children?

[Ginger]

Andy - we're talking about this country.

Think in absolute terms, not vauge moral suggestions. Poor people in America now live better than rich people did 50 years ago. A/C, electricity, running water - poor people in this country live better than wealthy in some other countries. I don't want to get into the issue of world wide poverty - it's an absolutely gargantuan issue and completely unfair to pin it on only one cause... furthermore, you're not going to engineer it out. You're not going to meet a poor person happy about his or her situation, but they're not sleeping in feces here.

And so now we've developed social programs to not have an angry middle class? Come on - now the government is a feel good agency for the infortunate? Well.... that wouldn't be a strech. But instead of claiming that wellfare is actually stolid pillar of virtue in the country how about considering that it's development was the result of widespread support by disillusioned progressives like Horace Greely (which didn't hurt that he owned a newspaper for spreading his word), the Social Gospel Movement, William Hurst's support, William Freemantle, Richard Ely, Jane Adams and Hullhouse, and on and on. Progressivism was a nasty chapter in American.... one which I hope people would learn from. Just because a certain special interest group in the past manipulated the government into supporting their twisted view of the world with ominiscient social engineer doesn't mean they should have started a trend.

And end inheritance - WTF? Personal property rights are the cornerstone of a sucessfull society... and that's just an economic reason not to do it. What about the moral ground? And who's going to reinvest this capital? The State? Yeah, that's a great idea.

[Goodspeed]

Poor people in America now live better than rich people did 50 years ago. A/C, electricity, running water

I'm pretty sure rich people in the 1950's had electricity and running water...

poor people in this country live better than wealthy in some other countries

Umm, I doubt it. There are just much, much wider gaps in other countries between the lower and upper classes, often without any form of middle class. For example, poor Americans live much better lives than poor Bangledeshi's, but the upper crust/royalty on the other end of the spectrum probably have, well, royal lives compared to poor Americans.

Though I agree with you on private aid groups vs. government sponsored aid.

[Ginger]

Poor people in America now live better than rich people did 50 years ago. A/C, electricity, running water

I'm pretty sure rich people in the 1950's had electricity and running water...

You know poor people that had A/c in the 50's?

poor people in this country live better than wealthy in some other countries

Umm, I doubt it. There are just much, much wider gaps in other countries between the lower and upper classes, often without any form of middle class. For example, poor Americans live much better lives than poor Bangledeshi's, but the upper crust/royalty on the other end of the spectrum probably have, well, royal lives compared to poor Americans.

Though I agree with you on private aid groups vs. government sponsored aid.

I'm not talking about the majority of the rest of the world here, just a few isolated cases to make a point.

*Ninja Edit* But if you want to call me on making gross generalizations for said point, yeah, that's fair.

*edit x2* I've kinda made my point and I'm sounding like a record. Ya'll enjoy.

[Andy]

Andrew-I hear a lot of rhetoric out of you as well as personal attacks. If we're talking about ideas, why don't you turn it down a notch.

Is inheritance not a form of welfare? If you really want a fair society, then shouldn't every one start out the same. Wouldn't that be the best means to have a meritocracy?

I don't know if it's fair to demand that some people pull themselves up by their boot straps while others benefit off the labor of others which in this case, happens to be their parents.

Chris-The GI bill sent almost 8 million GI's to college, gave out low interest home loans, small business loans. If you just google the effects/history of the GI bill, I'm sure the facts/figures will pop up.
The "your parents" thing was more hyperbole but in your case, I guess your granddad wasn't drafted or was too young to fight in WWII.

All I'm saying is that if you guys want a fair society, it's not fair to have people start on different levels. It's like a marathon where some get to wear shoes while others have compete barefoot.

[.RJ]

Wouldn't that be the best means to have a meritocracy?

Some are always going to start off on a better foot than others. Thats fine... if your parents/inheritance want to let you float through, or bail you out then thats ok because I'm not paying for it with my tax dollars. I think the issue at hand here is gov't provided/subsidized welfare programs and not trust fund children.

I wouldnt think that anyone here is advocating we all start on some mediocre, level playing field with soylent green handouts.

[white_2kgt]

Is inheritance not a form of welfare?

eh?!?! It is the goal (or should be the goal) of every parent to provide a better life for their child than they had, this includes leaving them a little something in the end, I don't see how that's welfare. That's like saying if grandma watches the kids while mom and dad goto work then they are getting welfare, no, they just chose to live close by the grandparents, it's all about choices and I want more of them, including the choice to NOT support fletching dick weasels.