Abolish the Welfare System in America Vol. Mature Discussion

[-Red-]

Bro, you're using ***** as an analogy for basic human survival needs like food and shelter...

And I guess your answer to the first question is "yes" and your answer to the second question is "nothing."

OK, you got it bro...

how did people get food before the government started handing out stuff? they got it from the local community and food banks. churches was a big thing back then.

i guess what i said about how NO ONE OR ENTITY should benefit from the government didnt apply to your new deal question.

Homie, people were literally starving in those days. You have more of a problem with the government providing food and shelter for people that otherwise wouldn't have it than you do with people starving and freezing to death on the streets. Ah, yes, the good old days. You really have your priorities straight homie

As for my questions, I didn't ask you if you would have created those New Deal programs, I asked what you would have done instead. Your answer was that you wouldn't have done the New Deal. You didn't say what you would have done. I thus surmised that you would have done nothing, which seems to be your answer to all questions and scenarios. It's not that hard to comprehend. I would ask you if you actually have a different answer but (a) It's apparent that you don't, and (b) I'm just not interested in your potential response at this point, as you would rather people starved to death than for the government to provide them with one morsel of food. Being that you're clearly an ideologue, I've wasted enough time going back and forth with you at this point...

 

[knowledgebones72]

andycrazn you gotta be trolling because you seriously have no idea what it takes to run a nation.

like, no idea. in order to know how to run things you have to understand the symbiotic relationship between the rich and the poor. The rich NEED poor people to exist and need people to be poor in order for them to even be rich. The poor NEED the rich in order to provide for them. One is not more necessary than the other, and if you think 99% of the population becoming homeless and roaming the countryside wouldn't end up in the rich simply getting kidnapped and murdered and their homes taken over, then you just don't know history.

Which brings me to my main point, which is you just don't know history like you think you do.

oh so you know what it takes to run a nation. ok buddy. the situation you described is when facism fails.

the system i described is any capitalist society. i know that i don't know how to run a nation, but you're the one casting down ridiculous ideas and judgements on leadership as though you DO know how to run a nation.

i clearly described the way capitalism works in relation to society. it's called dialectical materialism. you do not know as much about history as you think you do if you are denying this.

 

[andycrazn]

Homie, people were literally starving in those days. You have more of a problem with the government providing food and shelter for people that otherwise wouldn't have it than you do with people starving and freezing to death on the streets. Ah, yes, the good old days. You really have your priorities straight homie

As for my questions, I didn't ask you if you would have created those New Deal programs, I asked what you would have done instead. Your answer was that you wouldn't have done the New Deal. You didn't say what you would have done. I thus surmised that you would have done nothing, which seems to be your answer to all questions and scenarios. It's not that hard to comprehend. I would ask you if you actually have a different answer but (a) It's apparent that you don't, and (b) I'm just not interested in your potential response at this point, as you would rather people starved to death than for the government to provide them with one morsel of food. Being that you're clearly an ideologue, I've wasted enough time going back and forth with you at this point...

me doing nothing is an action isnt it? im DOING nothing. i just quoted the recessions we had around the end of WWII. in the end we still had HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT. we all love the short term solutions for long term pain. thats why politcians will promise and give us these wonderful things and once they get out, its the next mans problem. now we are screwing future generations for todays programs that we must deal with now instead of kicking em down the road.

 

[knowledgebones72]

America was not down with the treaty of versailles, so in order for us to join in WWII we demanded things that were given to other countries in the treaty. it's that simple.

oh, ok. because I work in a damn steel mill 14 hours a day and I can barely read to begin with, so I have time to catch up on quarterly reports every 3 months. In fact, I work in a damn steel mill 14 hours a day with a 2nd grade education, can barely read and am raising a family of 5 kids and my wife, and somehow know how to get a hold of some quarterly reports. because they're so readily available to a person of my social and economic class during the 1920's-30's. and with the whole 14 hour workday thing i definitely have time to go out and do the research it would take to simply know how to find the quarterly reports, let alone be able to decipher them and understand what i'm looking at, right?

then how did he read and open up an account. it takes documentation to do that right? you assumed everyone back then was an idiot because they didnt get a public education.

you realize that back then you could just walk into a bank with a sack full of cash, give it to a teller or a bank manager, and sit there while they hand you papers to put an X on or even sign without explaining anything to you, even lying to you, right?

The New Deal is what put rules into place against those practices.

 

[andycrazn]

the system i described is any capitalist society. i know that i don't know how to run a nation, but you're the one casting down ridiculous ideas and judgements on leadership as though you DO know how to run a nation.

i clearly described the way capitalism works in relation to society. it's called dialectical materialism. you do not know as much about history as you think you do if you are denying this.

but thats marx POV.

look into what happened with the pilgrams. we were a socialist commune at the time and people were starving and dying left and right. once they started to embrace capitalism, we got the first thanksgiving and their standard of living rose.

 

[andycrazn]

you realize that back then you could just walk into a bank with a sack full of cash, give it to a teller or a bank manager, and sit there while they hand you papers to put an X on or even sign without explaining anything to you, even lying to you, right?

The New Deal is what put rules into place against those practices.

wait so people didnt put their money under their mattresses back then? they would throw all their money at the teller not knowing whats up?

 

[andycrazn]

 

[knowledgebones72]

the system i described is any capitalist society. i know that i don't know how to run a nation, but you're the one casting down ridiculous ideas and judgements on leadership as though you DO know how to run a nation.

i clearly described the way capitalism works in relation to society. it's called dialectical materialism. you do not know as much about history as you think you do if you are denying this.

but thats marx POV.

look into what happened with the pilgrams. we were a socialist commune at the time and people were starving and dying left and right. once they started to embrace capitalism, we got the first thanksgiving and their standard of living rose.

But that's not Marx. Marx never used that term. He described capitalism in a certain way, and scholars called it dialectic materialism. So dialectic materialism is not a Marxist theory; it's not something people SHOULD do. It's the social component to capitalism.

I'm not arguing against capitalism so I'm not going to adress that thanksgiving nonsense.

 

[andycrazn]

But that's not Marx. Marx never used that term. He described capitalism in a certain way, and scholars called it dialectic materialism. So dialectic materialism is not a Marxist theory; it's not something people SHOULD do. It's the social component to capitalism.

I'm not arguing against capitalism so I'm not going to adress that thanksgiving nonsense.

thats what i meant. the dialectic ways is how austrians think when it comes to the economy which they have a different name for it.

 

[knowledgebones72]

explain.

 

[andycrazn]

explain.

il try to be as brief as possible because it has multiple layers.

governments cant control the economy. they can in the short term and have their desired results, but in the long run it could be disastrous. like pushing interest rates to 1% (controlling interest rates is price fixing) will be great for the economy because of the cheap credit flowing through it, but in the long run malinvestment will creep up and up (before that can happen interest rates shouldve rose to combat it). we believe no economic situation should be considered the same because that is very unfair. with the interest rates at 1% or at 10%. it will always benefit one group over the next. anything the government does is benefiting group A over group B or vice versa.

with that said, we view things from a short term, long term perspective with who gets the benefit at the expense of an invisible entity. if you give money to the rich, the poor wont get any money and vice versa. if you throw a bridge in the middle of nowhere, we have employed people making things at the expense of some other job they couldve acquired instead of a government job.

im gonna be honest with you. im just a beginner in austrian economics because i learned keynesian (marx+smith) in school and i can say that the austrian method and ways is very difficult to understand. one of mises' books is like 3000 pages long!

i guess the best way to describe it is that the economy works like the internet. constantly moving,evolving, with so much desires and needs being fulfilled, its absolute chaos.

In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause - it is seen. The others unfold in succession - they are not seen: it is well for us, if they are foreseen. Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference - the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen, and also of those which it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favourable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, - at the risk of a small present evil.

In fact, it is the same in the science of health, arts, and in that of morals. It often happens, that the sweeter the first fruit of a habit is, the more bitter are the consequences. Take, for example, debauchery, idleness, prodigality. When, therefore, a man absorbed in the effect which is seen has not yet learned to discern those which are not seen, he gives way to fatal habits, not only by inclination, but by calculation.

This explains the fatally grievous condition of mankind. Ignorance surrounds its cradle: then its actions are determined by their first consequences, the only ones which, in its first stage, it can see. It is only in the long run that it learns to take account of the others. It has to learn this lesson from two very different masters - experience and foresight. Experience teaches effectually, but brutally. It makes us acquainted with all the effects of an action, by causing us to feel them; and we cannot fail to finish by knowing that fire burns, if we have burned ourselves. For this rough teacher, I should like, if possible, to substitute a more gentle one. I mean Foresight. For this purpose I shall examine the consequences of certain economical phenomena, by placing in opposition to each other those which are seen, and those which are not seen.

 

[tsmoothreturns]

The gains won by the Civil Right Movement disproportionately benefited the Black middle class as they were in leadership positions within the movement that shaped the goals and, ultimately, the outcomes of the movement. These outcomes included things like outlawing restrictive covenants, desegregating public spaces, affirmative action programs for college and white collar jobs, etc.

These same gains allowed middle class Blacks to flee the overcrowded and under-serviced Black ghettos to which they had previously been confined due to restrictive covenants and open racial violence against Blacks moving into white areas, among other factors. Thus, middle class Black folks overwhelmingly left the Black community. What was left in Black communities were working class and impoverished Black folks. The shifts in the national economy I outlined above occurred around this same time. Thus, many working class Blacks lost the jobs that paid them a living wage as the jobs left for third world countries.

Thus, you have a situation in which the concentration of poverty in Black communities has skyrocketed since the 1960s. The people that were left in these communities were unable to support the social institutions that had existed when the communities were socioeconomically diverse so Black stores, banks, churches, social clubs, etc. closed down. The children of these impoverished Black folks were also unable to develop social capital, such as valuing education and hard work, from their working class and middle class counterparts who no longer resided in the community. That's not to say that poor Black families didn't value those things and don't continue to value those things because they overwhelmingly do. However, Black children no longer had real life models that they personally knew and interacted with in their communities everyday that embodied the success of valuing these things. How can you be it if you can't see it?

Great post. Although you left the "red taping laws"  out and how the GI bill did nothing for the average minority veteran returning from WW2. A prime example would be the Cal State system. George Sanchez mentions that the CalState system was built to keep undesirables out of private academia, because White America did not want their children to go to school with subhumans. 

Another important factor about minority living in poverty would be the movement of whites from urban to suburban dwellings. Thus, these people no longer living there did not pay taxes and the social/municipal services  began to decline.

Look at how much the average college proff. makes in the United States. They are  being hired at adjuncts positions with no benefits, six figure student loan, and no job security. These are the same people who are averaging about 20,000 or 25,000 a year who are suicidal and not so happy with their job. Thus, they do not care about the people they are creating. An extreme problem is created with these false demagogues( Greek meaning) that do not care for the education of  a population. Remember the rich have the resources to spend on outside tutoring not  the poor. Look how expensive education in this country is. The government gives you a pell grant and pays for community college but not higher learning. So do I have to steal and rob just so i can have a better chance at life? Ie carrot on a stick effect. 

 

[tsmoothreturns]

but thats marx POV.

look into what happened with the pilgrams. we were a socialist commune at the time and people were starving and dying left and right. once they started to embrace capitalism, we got the first thanksgiving and their standard of living rose.

No the native american's living in the lands now occupied  by the white man who originated from the caucus mountains, felt sorry for the starving settlers.  That is the reason why the Whites did not starve. 

Dude please do society a favor and read an actual book and not  a textbook which is debunked in, "Lies my teacher told me."

 

[andycrazn]

No the native american's living in the lands now occupied  by the white man who originated from the caucus mountains, felt sorry for the starving settlers.  That is the reason why the Whites did not starve. 

Dude please do society a favor and read an actual book and not  a textbook which is debunked in, "Lies my teacher told me."

lol a textbook is still a book right?

On March 16, 1621, the first formal contact with the Native Americans occurred. A Native American named Samoset, originally from Pemaquid Point in modern Maine, walked boldly into the midst of the settlement and proclaimed, "Welcome, Englishmen!" He had learned some English from interacting with British fishermen and trappers operating in the region.[31] It was during this meeting that the Pilgrims found out that the previous residents of the Native American village, Patuxet, had died of an epidemic thought to be smallpox. They also discovered that the supreme leader of the region was a Wampanoag Native American sachem (chief) by the name of Massasoit;[32] and they learned of the existence of Squanto—also known by his full Massachusett name of Tisquantum—a Native American originally from Patuxet. Squanto had spent time in Europe and spoke English quite well. Samoset spent the night in Plymouth and agreed to arrange a meeting with some of Massasoit's men.[33]

Massasoit and Squanto were apprehensive about the Pilgrims. In Massasoit's first contact with the English, several men of his tribe had been killed in an unprovoked attack by English sailors. He also knew of the Pilgrims' theft of the corn stores in their landings at Provincetown.[34] Squanto had been abducted in 1614 by the English explorer Thomas Hunt and had spent five years in Europe, first as a slave for a group of Spanish monks, then in England. He had returned to New England in 1619, acting as a guide to the explorer Capt. Robert Gorges. Massasoit and his men had massacred the crew of the ship and had taken in Squanto.[35][36]

Samoset returned to Plymouth on March 22 with a delegation from Massasoit that included Squanto; Massasoit joined them shortly thereafter. After an exchange of gifts, Massasoit and Governor Martin established a formal treaty of peace. This treaty ensured that each people would not bring harm to the other, that Massasoit would send his allies to make peaceful negotiations with Plymouth, and that they would come to each other's aid in a time of war.[37]

On April 5, 1621, after being anchored for almost four months in Plymouth Harbor, the Mayflower set sail for England.[38] Nearly half of the original 102 passengers had died during the first winter.[39] As William Bradford wrote, "of these one hundred persons who came over in this first ship together, the greatest half died in the general mortality, and most of them in two or three months' time".[4 By November 1621, only 53 pilgrims were alive to celebrate the harvest feast which modern Americans know as "The First Thanksgiving."[41] Of the 18 adult women, 13 died the first winter while another died in May. Only four adult women were left alive for the Thanksgiving.[42]

Several of the graves on Cole's Hill were uncovered in 1855; their bodies were disinterred and moved to a site near Plymouth Rock.[43]

That is AFTER the indians helped them. you need to get your facts straight.

 

[tsmoothreturns]

lol a textbook is still a book right?
That is AFTER the indians helped them. you need to get your facts straight.

The aboriginals of the New World have helped the Whites since the landing on Columbus.  If not for the Taino king who ordered his people to rescue Columbus and his man from drowning due to sinking ships. Please do not quote wiki articles as they are full of misinformation. I suggest for starters, read, "Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee," "Open Veins of Latin America," and a book published by Takaki.

Their is a difference between researched TEXTBOOKS and those filled with misinformation and propaganda. See the following book for information, "Lies my teacher told me."

 

[tsmoothreturns]

lol a textbook is still a book right?
That is AFTER the indians helped them. you need to get your facts straight.

And when you read about the history of the Americas please cross examine the "information" presented.  A majority of these books in the academia are written to make the Whites of this era to appear humane. Are you saying that the Indians never helped out whites before the so called Thanksgiving? lol

Not sure  if you are trolling or you dwell in  a sanctuary of you're own blissful ignorance.

Do not try to lecture me on the aboriginals of this continent. I have personally met Carlos Fuentes, Proff. Cantu, Eduardo Galeano, Martha Menchaca, and Ronald Takaki.

I write and receive letters from Galeano  and other intellectual and qualified scholars from both sides of the argument. Send me your contact info and I will gladly donate books and scholar journals of merit to you, free of charge.

 

[-Red-]

The gains won by the Civil Right Movement disproportionately benefited the Black middle class as they were in leadership positions within the movement that shaped the goals and, ultimately, the outcomes of the movement. These outcomes included things like outlawing restrictive covenants, desegregating public spaces, affirmative action programs for college and white collar jobs, etc.


These same gains allowed middle class Blacks to flee the overcrowded and under-serviced Black ghettos to which they had previously been confined due to restrictive covenants and open racial violence against Blacks moving into white areas, among other factors. Thus, middle class Black folks overwhelmingly left the Black community. What was left in Black communities were working class and impoverished Black folks. The shifts in the national economy I outlined above occurred around this same time. Thus, many working class Blacks lost the jobs that paid them a living wage as the jobs left for third world countries.


Thus, you have a situation in which the concentration of poverty in Black communities has skyrocketed since the 1960s. The people that were left in these communities were unable to support the social institutions that had existed when the communities were socioeconomically diverse so Black stores, banks, churches, social clubs, etc. closed down. The children of these impoverished Black folks were also unable to develop social capital, such as valuing education and hard work, from their working class and middle class counterparts who no longer resided in the community. That's not to say that poor Black families didn't value those things and don't continue to value those things because they overwhelmingly do. However, Black children no longer had real life models that they personally knew and interacted with in their communities everyday that embodied the success of valuing these things. How can you be it if you can't see it?

Great post. Although you left the "red taping laws"  out and how the GI bill did nothing for the average minority veteran returning from WW2. A prime example would be the Cal State system. George Sanchez mentions that the CalState system was built to keep undesirables out of private academia, because White America did not want their children to go to school with subhumans. 

Another important factor about minority living in poverty would be the movement of whites from urban to suburban dwellings. Thus, these people no longer living there did not pay taxes and the social/municipal services  began to decline.

Look at how much the average college proff. makes in the United States. They are  being hired at adjuncts positions with no benefits, six figure student loan, and no job security. These are the same people who are averaging about 20,000 or 25,000 a year who are suicidal and not so happy with their job. Thus, they do not care about the people they are creating. An extreme problem is created with these false demagogues( Greek meaning) that do not care for the education of  a population. Remember the rich have the resources to spend on outside tutoring not  the poor. Look how expensive education in this country is. The government gives you a pell grant and pays for community college but not higher learning. So do I have to steal and rob just so i can have a better chance at life? Ie carrot on a stick effect. 

Absolutely. I was just speaking on some of the things that happened post-Civil Rights Movement that have helped create conditions in Black urban communities today. White flight definitely played a tremendous role in this as well as you mentioned...

 

[-Red-]

Homie, people were literally starving in those days. You have more of a problem with the government providing food and shelter for people that otherwise wouldn't have it than you do with people starving and freezing to death on the streets. Ah, yes, the good old days. You really have your priorities straight homie

As for my questions, I didn't ask you if you would have created those New Deal programs, I asked what you would have done instead. Your answer was that you wouldn't have done the New Deal. You didn't say what you would have done. I thus surmised that you would have done nothing, which seems to be your answer to all questions and scenarios. It's not that hard to comprehend. I would ask you if you actually have a different answer but (a) It's apparent that you don't, and (b) I'm just not interested in your potential response at this point, as you would rather people starved to death than for the government to provide them with one morsel of food. Being that you're clearly an ideologue, I've wasted enough time going back and forth with you at this point...

me doing nothing is an action isnt it? im DOING nothing. i just quoted the recessions we had around the end of WWII. in the end we still had HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT. we all love the short term solutions for long term pain. thats why politcians will promise and give us these wonderful things and once they get out, its the next mans problem. now we are screwing future generations for todays programs that we must deal with now instead of kicking em down the road.

What are your "long term solutions" then? To do nothing under any and every circumstance correct?

 

[-Red-]

the system i described is any capitalist society. i know that i don't know how to run a nation, but you're the one casting down ridiculous ideas and judgements on leadership as though you DO know how to run a nation.

i clearly described the way capitalism works in relation to society. it's called dialectical materialism. you do not know as much about history as you think you do if you are denying this.

but thats marx POV.

look into what happened with the pilgrams. we were a socialist commune at the time and people were starving and dying left and right. once they started to embrace capitalism, we got the first thanksgiving and their standard of living rose.

 

[solarius49]

the system i described is any capitalist society. i know that i don't know how to run a nation, but you're the one casting down ridiculous ideas and judgements on leadership as though you DO know how to run a nation.

i clearly described the way capitalism works in relation to society. it's called dialectical materialism. you do not know as much about history as you think you do if you are denying this.

but thats marx POV.

look into what happened with the pilgrams. we were a socialist commune at the time and people were starving and dying left and right. once they started to embrace capitalism, we got the first thanksgiving and their standard of living rose.

I cant believe dude even raised his fingers to type that ****

 

[-Red-]

the system i described is any capitalist society. i know that i don't know how to run a nation, but you're the one casting down ridiculous ideas and judgements on leadership as though you DO know how to run a nation.

i clearly described the way capitalism works in relation to society. it's called dialectical materialism. you do not know as much about history as you think you do if you are denying this.

but thats marx POV.

look into what happened with the pilgrams. we were a socialist commune at the time and people were starving and dying left and right. once they started to embrace capitalism, we got the first thanksgiving and their standard of living rose.

I cant believe dude even raised his fingers to type that ****

I mean, at a certain point you just start seriously doubting that some people are operating with any real grasp on reality...

 

[andycrazn]

What are your "long term solutions" then? To do nothing under any and every circumstance correct?

thats what happened when wilson was hospitalized and unemployment soared worse and faster than the great depression. it also corrected itself faster because it was natural.

stimulus is like an energy drink. it will make you feel great in the short run to keep yourself going but eventually you will crash worse than you would without it.

why did you think we had the great depression for so long? the new deal was unnatural for the economy and it had to readjust itself afterwards. we had 2 recessions shortly after WWII because of it. unemployment hit double digits.

 

[tokes99]

The gains won by the Civil Right Movement disproportionately benefited the Black middle class as they were in leadership positions within the movement that shaped the goals and, ultimately, the outcomes of the movement. These outcomes included things like outlawing restrictive covenants, desegregating public spaces, affirmative action programs for college and white collar jobs, etc.


These same gains allowed middle class Blacks to flee the overcrowded and under-serviced Black ghettos to which they had previously been confined due to restrictive covenants and open racial violence against Blacks moving into white areas, among other factors. Thus, middle class Black folks overwhelmingly left the Black community. What was left in Black communities were working class and impoverished Black folks. The shifts in the national economy I outlined above occurred around this same time. Thus, many working class Blacks lost the jobs that paid them a living wage as the jobs left for third world countries.


Thus, you have a situation in which the concentration of poverty in Black communities has skyrocketed since the 1960s. The people that were left in these communities were unable to support the social institutions that had existed when the communities were socioeconomically diverse so Black stores, banks, churches, social clubs, etc. closed down. The children of these impoverished Black folks were also unable to develop social capital, such as valuing education and hard work, from their working class and middle class counterparts who no longer resided in the community. That's not to say that poor Black families didn't value those things and don't continue to value those things because they overwhelmingly do. However, Black children no longer had real life models that they personally knew and interacted with in their communities everyday that embodied the success of valuing these things. How can you be it if you can't see it?

great post, it highlights how there can be (unintended) consequences from a (somewhat) singular issue. that's why it always bothers me when people make the 'personal responsibility' argument for things like education, employment, welfare and the like; as if there aren't more things at play. personal anecdotes are powerful, we tend to give them more weight than they should have...

i'm no economist/econ major, but it can't be a good thing to have fairly large segments of the populations without means to provide for themselves? what had been happening to many urban minorities for the past 40+ years as a result of globalization, is now broadening its effects. for me the biggest issue as it pertains to the economy, (& welfare falls into it) is work. it seems fair to think that as technology continues to evolve, more & more people will continue to be marginalized by it; meaning less available work for what may be a large numbers of people. no doubt there will be opportunities to exploit technology if you have access to knowledge/certain tools, but the question is what happens to the people who do not have that access to those things? it might be a worthwhile reform to marry welfare to real, useful, job/knowledge/skill training, but welfare seems like it could be increasingly necessary in the future?