Socialism again....

[russ_watters]

In an effort to keep it out of the thread on poverty, I'm going to go ahead and start a "new" discussion here. "New" is in quotes because, of course, we've had the discussion before.

I'm going to try to focus this on one specific part of the discussion: socialistic policies in western nations. Please note: all western nations have some socialistic policies and the problems they face in trying to make them work are the same in every country. So the only relevance of comparing one country to another is for measuring how more or less socialism affects the economic development of countries. The individual issues, though, are the same. Specifically:

The primary problem with socialism, and we've all discussed it before, is that it rewards failure and it is human nature to become complacant if there is no pressure to succeed. Examples abound throughout the west, but the US provides a rare recent example of a scaling-back of a major socialist policy (again, human nature makes that extremely difficult: see France's labor problems). I am, of course, talking about welfare reform.

I'm frankly amazed that Clinton wasn't drummed out of the party for his welfare reform because it is so specifically against the core ideals of his party. And I'm amazed he did it. But the effects on the US economy and the perspectives of the people directly affected by it cannot be ignored (and I posted this in a previous thread...): http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-17-welfare-reform-cover_x.htm These are individual perspectives on the effects of being forced out of welfare: Michelle Gordon was 30, a poor, single mother with four kids between 5 and 13, when the federal government decided in 1996 that parents on welfare should go to work.....

Since then, Gordon's life has been "a little bit of a roller coaster."....

She uses her experience as a lesson to her children. Daughter Essence, 19, has a high school diploma and a job and is attending college. Son Geno, 17, also has a summer job. Daughter Zoila, 15, says she won't have kids until she's married and established in life. The family gets food stamps, and the youngest two are on Medicaid, but they no longer get cash benefits.

The roller coaster Gordon has been riding for 10 years has made her less dependent on the government and more of a role model for her kids, she says.

"I'm not making $50,000 a year," she says, "but I'm keeping my head up, and I'm surviving." Quotes from other people affected: On welfare, "you slacked a little bit," Sledge says now. The new system "makes us tighten our belts a lot and just work that much harder."

-----------

In 1996, Perry walked into the Allentown, Pa., welfare office two months after President Clinton had signed the welfare overhaul. At 25, she had three children under 8, the offspring of three fathers who lived in three states. She lived at a Salvation Army shelter. She had no car, no child care and almost no cash. She was told to seek work, housing, child support and a high school equivalency diploma.

"I don't have a problem with it," she said. "I think it's about time for me to get working."

---------------

I'm still not financially established the way I want to be. I'm still trying to figure out what I want to do," she says.

But the changes in welfare "showed me how to be a stronger person and a better role model for my kids," she says.

"It just makes me feel good to get up every day to work."

-----------------

She went back to school for her high school equivalency diploma.

This spring, after working with a church counselor for advice on clearing up her credit rating, she bought a four-bedroom house. Her next move, she says, will be to further her education.

"Now that I'm working in a steady job, I bought me a home. I got built-up vacation time, so I can take the kids on trips. I do more things with them," Cogshell says of her children, ages 9 to 23. "They probably think I'm the supermom who has everything." These are the overall effects: The law signed by President Clinton on Aug. 22, 1996, has transformed the way the nation helps its neediest citizens. Gone is the promise of a government check for parents raising children in poverty. In its place are 50 state programs to help those parents get jobs.

In the 12 years since caseloads peaked at 5.1 million families in 1994, millions have left the welfare rolls for low-paying jobs. Nearly 1 million more have been kicked off for not following states' rules or have used up all the benefits they're allowed under time limits. Today, 1.9 million families get cash benefits; in one-third of them, only the children qualify for aid. About 38% of those still on welfare are black, 33% white and 24% Hispanic.

Three in four families on welfare are headed by unmarried women. As a result, employment rates for all single women rose 25% before declining slightly since 2001. Earnings for the poorest 40% of families headed by women doubled from 1994 to 2000, before recession wiped out nearly half the gains. Poverty rates for children fell 25% before rising 10% since 2000.

"It was a profoundly important philosophic shift," says Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Michael Leavitt, who was governor of Utah when the law was implemented. "This was ... one of the few things in a decade you can look at and say the world really changed." The point of all this is that self-interest, greed, or whatever you want to call it is a fact of life. It's a survival instinct adapting to modern life, and it can't be ignored. An economic system must either harness it or be damaged by it: In a capitalistic system, it drives people to achieve. In a socialistic system it lulls them into complacency and mediocrity.

[denverdoc]

I used to believe such, but at the time I was brain damaged by reading too much Ayn Rand. Seriously, Russ I don't think it is an either/or proposition you make it out to be. People are driven by a variety of motives, and the assumption that a competion model vs one of cooperation is lacking evidence. For some, to be the top dog and have lots of "things"--the he who dies with the most toys school of thought is entirely antithetical to the motivations that move me. I personally believe that a mixed system is best in that some things are too precious to trust entirely to market forces, while others too basic to trust to the individuals sense of collective enterprise. In other words, one can be "over"motivated by self-interest to the detriment of others just as surely as one can be undermotivated. Plus there needs to be some basic sense of justice built into the system, like right to health care, education, decent livng conditions for all. Now that doesn't imply medicine for instance need be socialized, only that everyone has basic access.

I'm a big believer in meritocracies, but here I think Marx had some valid points, among them, that as wealth accumulates, it becomes anything but a level playing field. We certainly don't have one at present.

On the other hand, maybe if no one else did anything and there were no rewards, maybe Atlas would shrug. Its a bedeviling problem along many dimensions. I'm just hopeful that we will figure out something superior soon.

[X-43D]

I agree with Marx that capitalism is oppressive. Capitalism crushes and kills individuals for money and profit but modern capitalism is different from the time in which marx lived. Marx didn't mention all the forces which are at the core of modern capitalism. Marx didn't mention the payment system which forces people to pay money for goods and services. Without the payment system, goods and services will be free for all. If everything is free (without money), the workers won't need their employers to give them money wages, the workers and the employers could get everything they need for free in the supermarkets. All have the same right to a good quality of life and the satisfaction of their needs, regardless of how socially valued is their work. Money is only needed if we want a society with big social inequality, so one person can own a billion times as much as another. The very concept of exchange economy is also flawed. Exchange presupposes that people have some money to exchange with but many people have not enough money to exchange with and become dependent on others. Those who can accumulate a lot of money and private property get power over other people. In capitalism there is a need for a big bureaucracy, the monetary exchange system, to decide how much each person has worked, what the value of his work is, how much money he has the right to and how much he can buy with that money. This administration system uses a lot of human effort, a lot of people are busy counting money, calculate how much is needed to pay, worry about money, calculate how much goods you are taking out from the supermarket and the cashiers make sure you pay for it. People are stealing money, policemen chase the robber, people build banks and ATM machines, all that, which has anything to do with money and other value papers, is the administration system of capitalism.

In modern capitalism education is the main road toward wealth. But the education is not free. People have to pay a lot of money for education (it may cost 10,000 dollars). Modern capitalism forces people to work hard for earning money. Those without the educational qualificiations, certifications and degrees find it much harder to find adequate pay and to get out of poverty. For example a university professor will be paid much higher than someone who didn't finish high school (no high school diploma). An engineer will be pe paid more than a technician etc. Society is a pyramid and in order to climb up people need to invest hard work and effort.

[Jimmy Snyder]

There was a story going around that during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, Red Guards broke the fingers of the piano player Liu Shikun. If the story is true (I have my doubts), they truly understood socialism. If you support socialism, but would not have broken his fingers, then you don't really mean what you say.

[devil-fire]

On the other hand, maybe if no one else did anything and there were no rewards, maybe Atlas would shrug. Its a bedeviling problem along many dimensions. I'm just hopeful that we will figure out something superior soon.

i think it could be a long while before anything significant changes. the people who have power have no reason or interest in spreading it around and the people without power seem to be mostly content with the way things are. as russ has pointed out, there are problems with too much socialism and as others have pointed out, there are also problems with too much capitalism so right now the trend seems to be people trying to find a balance between the 2 that works for them

when only half a population votes, there are a lot of people who don't have much civic or political ambition. there may be a case to be made that because someone doesn't vote it doesn't mean they are not willing to force change but i cant think of it off the top of my head.

[loseyourname]

Let us not forget the other half of socialism: collective ownership of capital. We tend to focus on wealth redistribution in these discussions of socialist politicies in industrialized nations, but a big part of what makes many European countries so much more socialistic than the US is that the government owns and controls far more industries than defense and trains.

[russ_watters]

I agree with Marx that capitalism is oppressive. Capitalism crushes and kills individuals for money and profit but modern capitalism is different from the time in which marx lived. Marx didn't mention all the forces which are at the core of modern capitalism. Right - Marx wasn't aware of how capitalism could be controlled/guided to avoid those problems because the methods of control hadn't been invented yet. He certainly gets a pass for not being able to predict the future.

This is why I find it incomprehensible that people still follow his theory as if it is completely valid today. The analogy would be people still following Newtonian physics in areas where it doesn't work today. Scientific theory has not stood still and neither has political/economic theory. If everything is free (without money), the workers won't need their employers to give them money wages, the workers and the employers could get everything they need for free in the supermarkets. If everything is free, why would I need to work at all? In modern capitalism education is the main road toward wealth. But the education is not free. People have to pay a lot of money for education (it may cost 10,000 dollars). You're completely right about the first part, mostly wrong about the second. The correlation between education and income is extremely strong. The poverty line basically runs right through the gap between high school dropouts and graduates. But education up to and including high school is completely free, so the vast majority of the poor, who are also the vast majority of high school dropouts essentially had financial security handed to them on a silver platter and turned it down.

Beyond that, a very high percentage of college students are receiving some kind of financial aid. It isn't usually completely free, but there are plenty of ways to get it almost completely free, or at least defer the cost until you have the income to pay for it.

[devil-fire]

...But education up to and including high school is completely free,...

this seems like a socialist policy that is for the good of everyone, wouldn't you agree?

[randomness]

But education up to and including high school is completely free, so the vast majority of the poor, who are also the vast majority of high school dropouts essentially had financial security handed to them on a silver platter and turned it down..

I must respectfully say that education if not free. The United States spends a tremendous amount on public education, in addition those attending it must also spend money both for school supplies and because in many places in the world children work. Time spent in school is money taken away from the family.

Second, not everyone is capable of completing high school. The idea that everyone could pass either makes the accomplishment meaningless or your expectations of everyone is the same... a rather socialistic view.

Beyond that, a very high percentage of college students are receiving some kind of financial aid. It isn't usually completely free, but there are plenty of ways to get it almost completely free,

You speek in generalities, If you look at the US US Department of Education's figures published in January the yearly cost of tuition at a four-year public school is $5,836 and over $22,218 for private. Keep in mind this is just tuition.

Last year less then 28% percent of undergraduate university students received scholarships. The number is high in the top teir schools around 40% of undergraduate use them for two years or more.

or at least defer the cost until you have the income to pay for it.

This assumes you go into a field that can pay back 25 to 80 thousand at 3% interest and eat at the same time. Keep in mind that this problem is also what is driving many students away from pure science.

[drankin]

this seems like a socialist policy that is for the good of everyone, wouldn't you agree?

I would agree. I believe community colleges should be free as well. Investing in education by the tax-payer (to an extent) can only help society. But government should not sponsor religion, socialism, nor secularism in schools. Stick to the basics. The rest can be offered at private schools if one is so inclined.

Welfare has it's place as temporary assistance for those in dire circumstances. But if you are 300 lbs sitting on your butt watching Oprah all day crying the blues...

I've been so poor I've lived on the streets and it was all my doing. I did something about it because I know I have the opportunity to do anything I put my mind to in this country. I have little sympathy for those that live in America and don't make ends meet. Even the poorest of the poor here live like kings compared to those in much of the rest of the world and won't even appreciate what they have.

This country was founded on rights, not entitlements.

[drankin]

I must respectfully say that education if not free. The United States spends a tremendous amount on public education, in addition those attending it must also spend money both for school supplies and because in many places in the world children work. Time spent in school is money taken away from the family.

Second, not everyone is capable of completing high school. The idea that everyone could pass either makes the accomplishment meaningless or means you expect everyone is the same... a rather socialistic view.



You use speek in generalities, If you look at the US US Department of Education's figures published in January the yearly cost of tuition at a four-year public school is $5,836 and over $22,218 for private. Keep in mind this is just tuition.

Last year less then 28% percent of undergraduate university students received scholarships. The number is high in the top teir schools around 40% of undergraduate use them for two years or more.



This assumes you go into a field that can pay back 25 to 80 thousand at 3% interest and eat at the same time. Keep in mind that this problem is also what is driving many students away from pure science.

?
non-sense.

[Archon]

I would agree. I believe community colleges should be free as well. Investing in education by the tax-payer (to an extent) can only help society. But government should not sponsor religion, socialism, nor secularism in schools. Stick to the basics. The rest can be offered at private schools if one is so inclined.
So far so good. Assuming, at least, that you don't mean that things like socialism shouldn't be taught in schools. They should, but in as objective a manner as possible.

Welfare has it's place as temporary assistance for those in dire circumstances. But if you are 300 lbs sitting on your butt watching Oprah all day crying the blues...
Again, I agree.

I've been so poor I've lived on the streets and it was all my doing. I did something about it because I know I have the opportunity to do anything I put my mind to in this country. I have little sympathy for those that live in America and don't make ends meet. Even the poorest of the poor here live like kings compared to those in much of the rest of the world and won't even appreciate what they have.
That's a lovely story, and I'm glad you got back on your feet, but that doesn't entitle you to judge other people's misfortunes or preach to them about what they could or could not have done to get out of their situations. How many people are struggling as a result of circumstances not under their control?

And you're probably right that most people (poor included) don't appreciate all the benefits and advantages they enjoy as Americans, but the fact that they have certain advantages doesn't mean that they should sit quietly and stop complaining. I agree that they shouldn't anticipate being supported by welfare indefinitely, but is it unreasonable to expect some help from the government when you're going through a tough time?

This country was founded on rights, not entitlements.
Big deal. This country was also founded on slavery. Should we reinstate that, too? (Incidentally, about the rights...something tells me the slaves wouldn't have agreed with your assessment).

The point is, we can't make policy choices today based on the principles the country was "founded" on 200 years ago. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but at least keep that in mind.

[drankin]

For the record, Archon, welfare has it's place. I've already stated that. Don't argue as if I did not.

I believe we can make choices today based on policies made 200 years ago. They are based on history that goes beyond even 200 yrs before then. People are the same today as they have been since the beginning of civilization.

Our country was founded on slavery? Nonsense. It may have existed back then but by know means was it founded on it. That's not even a logical argument. It was founded on a system that was able to abolish slavery, consider that for a moment! The system has a couple of centuries of success, maybe that's worth mentioning?

[russ_watters]

this seems like a socialist policy that is for the good of everyone, wouldn't you agree? Yes, I do, and that is utterly irrelevant to the thread....

[russ_watters]

I must respectfully say that education if not free. The United States spends a tremendous amount on public education, in addition those attending it must also spend money both for school supplies.... You are splitting hairs: poor people do not pay income or property taxes and what I meant, in any case, is that people don't directly pay for their high school, the government does, through taxes. School supplies are an extremely small expense and most of what you need comes from the school anyway, so that isn't relevant either. and because in many places in the world children work. Time spent in school is money taken away from the family. Abusive child labor is not a valid point to use here. It isn't a positive thing that children work in other countries. It isn't even positive for those countries! Second, not everyone is capable of completing high school. The idea that everyone could pass either makes the accomplishment meaningless or means you expect everyone is the same... Wow, that's a really pessimisstic view. I think virtually everyone should be able to pass high school and yes, it isn't a huge accomplishment, but it is still an important one. The statistics on education vs income speak for themselves ($26k vs $35k median income for males who completed some high school vs people who completed high school but nothing more).

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/ch_5.asp

None of what you haver here is meaningful/relevant to the point.

[randomness]

This country was founded on rights, not entitlements

?
non-sense

That is like saying this nation was founded on the 10 commandments.

[Pythagorean]

(note: when I used 'destined' I mean genetically so)

I'm a bit of a predeterminist, I suppose. I think that people who are 'destined' to fail will always fail no matter how much money you throw at them, but people that are 'destined' to succeed (but were born into or thrown into a bad situation) will be able to turn that money into stable income (by investing in their own work value to the work force or capitalism).

Of course, there's also the effects of nurture which can't always be isolated from nature, but I tend to think nature is the stronger of the two in where there's not extreme conditions.

[russ_watters]

?
non-sense

That is like saying this nation was founded on the 10 commandments. Actually, no - the importance of individual rights is a critical part of what the Constitution was designed for (to protect). The concept of entitlement barely even existed at the time. Almost all of the so-called "entitlements" we have today came much, much later and in the view of many people go against the important concept personal freedom.

[drankin]

?
non-sense

That is like saying this nation was founded on the 10 commandments.

You are going to have to explain this one. I was going to sit back as if you might actually have a point but... huh?

[randomness]

Actually, no - the importance of individual rights is a critical part of what the Constitution was designed for (to protect). The concept of entitlement barely even existed at the time. Almost all of the so-called "entitlements" we have today came much, much later and in the view of many people go against the important concept personal freedom.

I assume you mean the amendments of The Constitution?

- Because the original Constitution had this to say

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[drankin]

ROFL! Are you suggesting that the phrase "promote the general Welfare" to mean "promote a government funded social welfare system"?

[randomness]

ROFL! Are you suggesting that the phrase "promote the general Welfare" to mean "promote a government funded social welfare system"?

Hardly I can't even fathom how you thought of that, however those two phrases are the only ones that refer to individual rights.

[X-43D]

You're completely right about the first part, mostly wrong about the second. The correlation between education and income is extremely strong. The poverty line basically runs right through the gap between high school dropouts and graduates. But education up to and including high school is completely free, so the vast majority of the poor, who are also the vast majority of high school dropouts essentially had financial security handed to them on a silver platter and turned it down.

Beyond that, a very high percentage of college students are receiving some kind of financial aid. It isn't usually completely free, but there are plenty of ways to get it almost completely free, or at least defer the cost until you have the income to pay for it.

But those who didn't finish high school, need to be reeducated in order to complete their high school diploma. The reeducation is private and it costs about 10,000 dollars, depending on the subjects which need to be completed. Without a high school diploma (or a matriculation certificate) it is difficult to find a well-paying job and to get out of poverty.

[ShawnD]

But those who didn't finish high school, need to be reeducated in order to complete their high school diploma. The reeducation is private and it costs about 10,000 dollars, depending on the subjects which need to be completed. Without a high school diploma it is difficult to find a well-paying job and to get out of poverty.

You have a point. A few years ago my brother started to upgrade his crappy high school classes to good high school classes in order to qualify for university. The cost of each course was $400, and that's in Canada.


It could be argued that it's good to pay a bit more for education. When it's free, people don't think twice about dropping out of high school. When it's $400 and you had to work your *** off at McDonalds to earn that money, you're going to pass. The first chance was free for everybody. If you want a do-over, you have to pay for it.

[Jimmy Snyder]

poor people do not pay income or property taxes.
Poor people do pay property taxes whether they own or rent.

[drankin]

Poor people do pay property taxes whether they own or rent.

As well they should. Though it is not significant and there are work arounds. Why should only those who work themselves out of poverty be taxed?

[Archon]

For the record, Archon, welfare has it's place. I've already stated that. Don't argue as if I did not.
Fair enough.

I believe we can make choices today based on policies made 200 years ago. They are based on history that goes beyond even 200 yrs before then. People are the same today as they have been since the beginning of civilization.
Well of course we can! But that doesn't mean we should. Blindly arguing that because our country was "founded on rights, not entitlements" 200 years ago, we should limit the assistence we give to people in need is nonsensical. It's like making policy decisions based on the country's GDP in the 1700s: whether or not people have changed (debateable), the environment they live in certainly has, and policy decisions have to reflect this.

Our country was founded on slavery? Nonsense. It may have existed back then but by know means was it founded on it. That's not even a logical argument. It was founded on a system that was able to abolish slavery, consider that for a moment! The system has a couple of centuries of success, maybe that's worth mentioning?
You argue that our country was built on rights. Rights for who? Because it sure wasn't the slaves...
Obviously, I don't mean to denigrate the things people in this country have accomplished. But in all fairness, how influential was the system in abolishing slavery? I know there was a nice transition from slavery to freedom (except for the Civil War), and after that all the former slaves lived happily (except for the Jim Crow laws, the blatant racism, the segregation, and the lynchings), and now they're doing just as well as everyone else (except for the educational achievement gaps, the high poverty rates, and the continuing racism), but really...what did any of that have to do with the "system"? Again, I don't mean to denigrate or belittle the accomplishments of Americans through history, or undervalue the importance of the American system and ideal in allowing these accomplishments to come about, but I think we should be careful in how we look back at history, especially if we're going to be making policy decisions based on it.

[drankin]

Fair enough :)

[devil-fire]

Yes, I do, and that is utterly irrelevant to the thread....

i was pointing out the contradiction in the support of state sponsored education and your statement

The point of all this is that self-interest, greed, or whatever you want to call it is a fact of life. It's a survival instinct adapting to modern life, and it can't be ignored. An economic system must either harness it or be damaged by it: In a capitalistic system, it drives people to achieve. In a socialistic system it lulls them into complacency and mediocrity.

free education for children (a socialist policy) does not lull everyone into complacency and mediocrity. i don't think your statement in the opening post actually applies to all socialist policies or theories.

[ShawnD]

But in all fairness, how influential was the system in abolishing slavery?

You might be asking the wrong question, or at least hinting towards the wrong reason of why slavery was ended. American Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War)

The fight to stop slavery had literally nothing to do with racism or equal rights. It had everything to do with living wage and working conditions for white people. Why make a factory in the north and pay white people when you could make a factory in the south and not-pay black people? It's very comparable to Mexicans and "they took'er jobs!"
The north won the war, slavery ended, and white people got to keep their jobs and get paid a (somewhat) reasonable wage.

Try not to throw the civil war and slavery into a debate about civil rights. They're not as closely related as you'd like to think.

[X-43D]

Why should the poor and those who have no money pay taxes? The rich (especially the millionaires and billionaires) should pay the taxes, not the poor and those without money. Otherwise it's simply not fair for the poor. People also have to pay for electricity, running water, food & drink, toilet papers, insurance, taxes etc. Those who do not earn enough money to cover all these costs, remain poor and miserable.

[drankin]

Why should the poor and those who have no money pay taxes? The rich (especially the millionaires and billionaires) should pay the taxes, not the poor and those without money. Otherwise it's simply not fair for the poor. People also have to pay for electricity, running water, food & drink, toilet papers, insurance, taxes etc. Those who do not earn enough money to cover all these costs, remain poor and miserable.

The poor should have to pay taxes as well as the middle class. I'm not going to argue that the rich shouldn't, of course they should. Ideally there would be a flat tax that is a percentage of your income. If you are poor you pay the same percentage as someone who is rich. That is fair for the poor. To not tax them would be to encourage them to remain in their condition. Which, in this country, is more of a choice than anything else. Most anyone can work their way out of poverty here.

[Archon]

You might be asking the wrong question, or at least hinting towards the wrong reason of why slavery was ended. American Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War)

The fight to stop slavery had literally nothing to do with racism or equal rights. It had everything to do with living wage and working conditions for white people. Why make a factory in the north and pay white people when you could make a factory in the south and not-pay black people? It's very comparable to Mexicans and "they took'er jobs!"
The north won the war, slavery ended, and white people got to keep their jobs and get paid a (somewhat) reasonable wage.

Try not to throw the civil war and slavery into a debate about civil rights. They're not as closely related as you'd like to think.
That was exactly my point. I was being a bit sarcastic with that whole paragraph. :)

But anyway...that's a little bit off topic, so...back to Socialism (kind of):
Why should the poor and those who have no money pay taxes? The rich (especially the millionaires and billionaires) should pay the taxes, not the poor and those without money. Otherwise it's simply not fair for the poor. People also have to pay for electricity, running water, food & drink, toilet papers, insurance, taxes etc. Those who do not earn enough money to cover all these costs, remain poor and miserable.
I don't see a valid argument for why the poor shouldn't pay taxes in here. Why isn't it "fair" that the poor have to pay taxes? If anything, it seems more fair to demand that the poor pay taxes in addition to the rich, if you demand that the latter group pays taxes (which you do). Otherwise, there's an asymmetry in taxation that, even if it always exists in terms of revenue, will at least disappear in terms of the proportion of income demanded of each group.

Then again, I can see how you could argue that the individual burdens suffered by each group differ. Imposing a flat tax rate on a rich person will have relatively little effect on his lifestyle, etc, even though the amount of money he pays is much higher. The poor person paying the same rate loses the same proportion of his income, but this has a significantly higher impact on his quality of life. So...I guess it depends on your definition of "fair."

EDIT: And then of course, as drankin argues, there are other considerations. Will taxing the poor impel them to work harder to get out of their situations? Will it just make their situation more hopeless? Will not taxing them have the opposite effects? I don't know...I guess it depends heavily on the individual (person and situation). But either way...something to consider.

[randomness]

Try not to throw the civil war and slavery into a debate about civil rights. They're not as closely related as you'd like to think.

Good point Great Britain was able to abolish slavery in 1807, 54 years before the US civil war and without a war.

free education for children (a socialist policy)

I think people should reread Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations', considered the foundation of modern capitalism. In it you will find that he promotes the ideas of free public education.

[ShawnD]

flat tax

In order for a flat tax to work, the tax rate would need to be incredibly high. Right now the top tax bracket is something like 40% in the US, correct? And that's for the richest of the rich. Currently, the rich people in the US, I think it's the top 5%, pay something like 50% of the total taxes. If you dropped the tax rates on the rich to accommodate a flat tax, you would need to significantly increase the taxes on poor people. The flat tax might be around 30% or so. Given that I currently pay about 20% of my gross income towards taxes (includes all the different tax levels and tax cuts), 30% would be a major tax hike.

Let me give you an idea on how this works:
A guy makes 1 million dollars, suppose he pays 30% of his total income towards taxes; that means $300,000 in taxes. To give him a 1% tax break means he now pays 29%, which would be $290,000. The tax revenue just dropped by $10,000.
Now suppose you had to get that money back from 10 poor people who make $20,000 per year. In Canada the first 8k is tax free and the lowest bracket is something like 17%, so (20000-8000)(0.17) = ~$2,000 in taxes per year. That is their tax rate before the flat tax. Now you need to get an extra $1,000 from each of them because $10,000 divided by 10 poor people is $1,000 per poor person. Divide the new tax rate by the old tax rate and multiply by 100. (2000+1000)/(2000) * 100 = 150% more taxes than before

I'll repeat that conclusion again. To give a small tax break to the rich, you need to give a huge tax increase to the poor. Thank god we do not have a flat tax.

It's always been my personal belief that taxes should be based on how much money you make relative to the official poverty line rather than how much you make relative to zero. For example, rent in a crap part of Saskatchewan is maybe $500/month while rent in Edmonton or Calgary or Vancouver is easily $900/month. Car insurance in Alberta is more than twice as expensive as car insurance in Saskatchewan. Poverty in Edmonton is maybe $25,000 per year while poverty in some Saskatchewan town is more like $20,000. Should the guy in Edmonton pay more taxes even though he has the same living conditions?
The only problem is that this is not feasible. It would be way too complicated and filing your taxes would be that much more impossible.

Sort of a derail but do cities have much higher poverty rates than rural areas? I would imagine a place like New York City has insanely expensive rent, and you would need to make $10/h just to stay alive, barely. Can anybody confirm/deny?

[Skyhunter]

I'm frankly amazed that Clinton wasn't drummed out of the party for his welfare reform because it is so specifically against the core ideals of his party.

I think that perhaps source of your amazement may be erroneous assumptions about the "core ideals" of the Democratic party.

What Clinton did was not abolish welfare, or violate any socialist value held dear by democrats. Clinton used the government to implement social reforms to better "promote the general welfare." Clinton is a superb example in my opinion of an effective leader who knew how to make government quasi-functional. Which is better than most and 1000% better than Bush.

Social evolution is as real as biological evolution. A society is at it's peak when every individual is realizing her full potential. Each individual will more fully realize his potential when his/her basic self maintenance needs are met. Just like in the military. Each individual is provided food, shelter, clothing, health care, education, and employment.

What is wrong with a civilian government providing these most basic needs to all it's citizens?

How can a government claim sovereignty if it cannot provide these most basic needs?

All governments should strive to meet this most basic threshold.

Profit motive is very strong. But it is not the only motivation. As your anecdotal story demonstrates; when you show people a better way, and offer them assistance to get there, you introduce a new paradigm into their experience that has the power to break a generational cycle of poverty.

And Clinton's motivation to do so was not profit.

Some things are just not best done by a private contractor for profit.

Like health care, prisons, and war!:mad:

[randomness]

In order for a flat tax to work, the tax rate would need to be incredibly high. Right now the top tax bracket is something like 40% in the US, correct? And that's for the richest of the rich. Currently, the rich people in the US, I think it's the top 5%, pay something like 50% of the total taxes.

actually the top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes and the top 50% pay 96.54% of all Income Tax

[X-43D]

The goal of communism was to make goods and services free for all so that everyone could afford them, including the poor and those who have no money. Unfortunately a a system such as this is not possible when goods and resources are finite and where some occupations are harder to train for and others are physically harder. Another problem with this system is that a moneyless society does not encourage hard work. As was demonstrated on the communal farms of Russia, when each worker has little reward for working harder than a minimal amount there is little reason to work harder. If harder work doesn't mean more reward what is the point?

Everything comes with a price whether it be money or not. Resources are finite so something must be given up to earn those resources or products. If someone does not have money, all they have to do is make money! Unfortunately this is not always possible. Without a high school qualification certificate and other educational qualifications and authorizations it's not easy to get an adequately paying job, only low paying jobs.

People have always had disproportionate goods and services. A carpenter in ancient Egypt had to eat so exchanged his services for the necessities of life. A miner exchanged gold or copper while a farmer traded olives or barley. Everyone can't be a miner and everyone can't use more wealth than they create.

Before money barter was the means of distributing wealth. No doubt there were regional or local refinements everywhere it was used.

In no society that has or will ever exist are people simply handed the needs of life. Everyone can't be a king or a politician.

[Jimmy Snyder]

actually the top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes and the top 50% pay 96.54% of all Income Tax
What are the percentages when you figure in social security and medicare tax?

[Jimmy Snyder]

A guy makes 1 million dollars, suppose he pays 30% of his total income towards taxes; that means $300,000 in taxes. To give him a 1% tax break means he now pays 29%, which would be $290,000. The tax revenue just dropped by $10,000.
Now suppose you had to get that money back from 10 poor people who make $20,000 per year. In Canada the first 8k is tax free and the lowest bracket is something like 17%, so (20000-8000)(0.17) = ~$2,000 in taxes per year. That is their tax rate before the flat tax. Now you need to get an extra $1,000 from each of them because $10,000 divided by 10 poor people is $1,000 per poor person. Divide the new tax rate by the old tax rate and multiply by 100. (2000+1000)/(2000) * 100 = 150% more taxes than before

That should be 50% more taxes than before, not 150%. If you want to compare that to the $million guy, then his reduction was 3%, not 1%.

My guess is that your figure of 10 tax payers with $20000 income for each tax payer reporting a $million in income is shy of the actual number.

I'm against the flat tax too, but not for this reason. There is a point you are missing here. Under the flat tax, there would be no deductions. Therefor, the individual who is now reporting a $million would be reporting a larger figure under the flat tax. So the rate could easily go down and yet my tax bill go up.

My objection to the flat tax is that you could achieve the exact same thing by merely declaring that a dollar is now worth $0.83. That's what inflation does.

[ray b]

flat tax is UNFAIR
the real RICH DONOT PAY 40%
most of their gain is CAPITAL GAINS TAXED AT 15%
or about equal to the real SS tax rate!!!!!!
but the real RICH donot pay much SS tax at all as it is both capped
and not applied to CAPITAL GAINS
WORKERS PAY both SS and income tax a real double hit

the old first income tax was ONLY ON THE RICH
IT WAS NEVER MENT TO BE AN EVERYBODY PAYS TAX
like it is now
a flat tax on the RICH AND ONLY THE RICH OF 30% would be fair
with no capital gain tax cut!!!!!!

[ray b]

I wish a buck was worth 83 cents

I am old enuff to remember nickel cokes and candy bars
useing that standerd and current prices 75 cent cokes and 69 cent candy bars

A BUCK IS WORTH ABOUT 0.08 OR 10% OF YOUR NUMBER

[Jimmy Snyder]

A BUCK IS WORTH ABOUT 0.08 OR 10% OF YOUR NUMBER
The reason a buck is worth 8 cents now compared to half a century ago is that the dollar was declared to be worth 97 cents EVERY YEAR for that entire period. Imagine what declaring it to be worth 83 cents every year would do.

I'm almost as old, I remember the nickel candy bars, but soda was a dime. But don't be too upset, when candy bars were a nickel, you didn't have a nickel. Now they are 69 cents, but you've got the scratch.

[ShawnD]

There is a point you are missing here. Under the flat tax, there would be no deductions.

My god, really? What kind of idiot would want that system?

Education:
My education in Canada was about $3,200 per year for 2 years, so that's $6,400 in tax deductions. On top of that I got a tax deduction for cost of living since students generally cannot hold full time jobs, I believe it was $400/month, and 2 years of school is 16 months (4 month semesters).
6400 + (16)(400) = $12,800 tax write off. Basically that means I paid absolutely no taxes for 2 years, and this is done so people can afford to go to school. Take away the tax deduction and the cost of going to school soars.
Flat tax is bad for students

Parents:
Although your kids are huge liabilities, you can save lots of tax money thorughincome splitting (http://finance.sympatico.msn.ca/taxes/insight/article.aspx?cp-documentid=987599). Basically the way it works is that money given to the kid (in trust) is tax free because the kid's gross income for the year is less than $8,000. The GDP per capita in my province is somewhere around $60,000 which puts the average person's highest taxable rate at 32%. If you wanted to send your kid to a 4-year university, the cost of that is about $30,000 (if you include books and supplies); so think of that as $30,000 that was not taxed at 32%. Since the income splitting was done over several years, the entire education cost can be thought of as being at the highest taxable rate. 32% tax means 68% take home pay:
(0.68)(X) = 30000
X = $44,117
If you had paid for 4-year university with after-tax dollars, you would need to make $44,117. If you pay for it for tax-free dollars, you only need $30,000.
[1 - (30000)/(44117)] * 100 = School is 32% cheaper with tax deductions

Business
Let's take a scenario here. A business has a gross income of $1,000,000 and $900,000 of expenses - you gotta spend money to make money. Let's just say tax rate is 30% in order to keep the numbers simple.
With tax deductions:
(1000000 - 900000)(0.30) = $30,000 paid in taxes; net income is $70,000
Without tax deductions:
(1000000)(0.30) = $300,000 paid in taxes; net income is -$200,000; company just went bankrupt.


Who exactly benefits by removing tax deductions?


edit: The reason inflation is kept fairly low is so people can keep money in bank accounts. At 3% inflation, keeping $10,000 in your chequing account (which pays 0% interest) costs $300 per year. If inflation were 13%, it would cost $1,300. That's per year, to do absolutely nothing. People would be in a frenzy to get money in bonds and index funds just so their savings don't vanish into nothing over the course of 10 years.
Money that you invest isn't exact liquid. You can't just buy and sell bonds whenever the hell you want; there's usually some kind of holding period you agree to, measured in years. I'm not an economist but I don't think tying up the country's money in the form of bonds would help the economy.

[Jimmy Snyder]

What kind of idiot would want that system?
Good question. Even Steve "Flat Tax" Forbes wants a cutoff at the lowest incomes. Your example from business is pure nonsense. Business taxes are on profits, not on sales.

[ShawnD]

Your example from business is pure nonsense. Business taxes are on profits, not on sales.

The way companies do their taxes is exactly how you do your taxes. First you show how much money you took in: gross income (sales). Then you figure out your tax write offs: business expenses, kids, education, etc. Take your gross income (sales) and subtract all of your tax write offs (expenses) in order to figure out how much money you will pay tax on (profit). Going by definitions alone, removing "tax write offs" means businesses would pay taxes on sales rather than profits, just like you.

[drankin]

OK, I did not mean to bring up a the subject of flat tax. My point is that everyone should pay taxes, including the poor. Because, in this country you don't have to be poor if you don't want to be. Unless you are mentally disabled, or in some circumstances physically disabled, you don't have to live in poverty. If I wanted it bad enough, there is no reason I could not become a millionaire. I work hard enough to not be in poverty but I'm too lazy to make the sacrifices in order to be a millionaire. But I could become rich if I wanted to, the opportunity is there.

[Jimmy Snyder]

ShawnD, You are right, it really comes down to definitions. The phrase "flat tax" could be defined all kinds of ways. If they define it as a tax on the sales of a company at the same rate as the personal income tax rate, then it would put all companies out of business as you describe. I expect that in all the definitions proposed, wide ranging as those definitions may be, none of them define it that way. Just guessing.

Here is one of many possible definitions:
A flat tax (short for flat rate tax) taxes all household income, and possibly corporate profits as well, at the same marginal rate.

It comes from wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax
As I implied above, I wouldn't take any one definition as THE definition, especially coming from wiki. I just present it as an example of the fact that flat taxers may be crazy, but they certainly aren't insane.

[ShawnD]

My point is that everyone should pay taxes, including the poor. Because, in this country you don't have to be poor if you don't want to be.

You can only get out of poverty if you have options available. Some of them are fairly obvious, too:
-get a better job
-work more hours
-get a second job
-get an education

The problem is that not everybody has these options. I'll go as far as saying many poor people have kids, and kids destroy your money situation because they require time and money. You can't get another job or work more hours because the kid takes up your extra time. You can't save any money because the kid needs to be fed and clothed. You can't get a loan because banks tend not to trust poor people.
You're stuck renting rather than mortgaging, so you have no equity.
You live paycheck to paycheck, so you have no savings or assets.
You can't get a loan, so you can't go to school.
Your kid takes up your free time, so you can't get another job.
It's over, you lose. Then some guy thinks you should also pay more taxes.

Michael Moore once said something to the effect of "raising minimum wage is in your best interest because it means fewer people will break into your house and steal things". He may have used the term minimum wage, but overall what he's talking about is poverty. Reduce poverty and we won't need to worry so much about crime. Increasing the taxes on poor people will only increase destitution, which would theoretically increase crime.

[Pythagorean]

Michael Moore once said something to the effect of "raising minimum wage is in your best interest because it means fewer people will break into your house and steal things". He may have used the term minimum wage, but overall what he's talking about is poverty. Reduce poverty and we won't need to worry so much about crime. Increasing the taxes on poor people will only increase destitution, which would theoretically increase crime.

On top of that they should legalize pot; that would keep me from going broke too!

[Smurf]

OK, I did not mean to bring up a the subject of flat tax. My point is that everyone should pay taxes, including the poor. Because, in this country you don't have to be poor if you don't want to be. Unless you are mentally disabled, or in some circumstances physically disabled, you don't have to live in poverty. If I wanted it bad enough, there is no reason I could not become a millionaire. I work hard enough to not be in poverty but I'm too lazy to make the sacrifices in order to be a millionaire. But I could become rich if I wanted to, the opportunity is there.
I think this statement has one main problem, wealth is not infinite. If you become a millionaire, someone else can't be.

[drankin]

I think this statement has one main problem, wealth is not infinite. If you become a millionaire, someone else can't be.

LOL, how do you figure?

[drankin]

You can only get out of poverty if you have options available. Some of them are fairly obvious, too:
-get a better job
-work more hours
-get a second job
-get an education

The problem is that not everybody has these options. I'll go as far as saying many poor people have kids, and kids destroy your money situation because they require time and money. You can't get another job or work more hours because the kid takes up your extra time. You can't save any money because the kid needs to be fed and clothed. You can't get a loan because banks tend not to trust poor people.
You're stuck renting rather than mortgaging, so you have no equity.
You live paycheck to paycheck, so you have no savings or assets.
You can't get a loan, so you can't go to school.
Your kid takes up your free time, so you can't get another job.
It's over, you lose. Then some guy thinks you should also pay more taxes.

Michael Moore once said something to the effect of "raising minimum wage is in your best interest because it means fewer people will break into your house and steal things". He may have used the term minimum wage, but overall what he's talking about is poverty. Reduce poverty and we won't need to worry so much about crime. Increasing the taxes on poor people will only increase destitution, which would theoretically increase crime.

I never said increase taxes. Everyone who benefits from roads, the fire department, schools, law enforcement, etc. should pay their share of taxes based on their income. Poor or rich. People should not have kids unless they can provide for them. But, people are dumb (I sure was). There are circumstances beyond ones control but that is the exception. We shouldn't make life any less difficult for those who make bad choices. When you do, you enable that behavior.

The bleeding heart routine will only make you frequent the blood bank. Because people will drain you dry if you let them and not even realize they are doing it.

[ShawnD]

I agree that people should learn from their mistakes, but accidental kids are not something you can learn from in the same sense as shocking yourself when you plug something into the wall. When you get shocked by the wall, no harm is done and you can just not do it again. When you have an accidental kid, that accident drags you down for the next 18 years. It's sort of like getting AIDS then saying "well don't get AIDS next time"; the problem is that there is no next time.

I also agree that we should not encourage irresponsible behavior, but at the same time we shouldn't just let people rot because of their mistakes. An example of enabling bad behavior would be to increase welfare to people who have kids they can't pay for. Why stop having kids if the government will keep paying for them? An example of helping people without encouraging stupidity would be something like free day care but have "right to work" style of welfare; that means you only get your welfare money if you actually do work for the state. The state is saying "we'll take care of these kids for you, but you still need to get off your *** and work for a living".
I'm not saying that idea should be done or anything, but it's food for thought.

[drankin]

I agree that people should learn from their mistakes, but accidental kids are not something you can learn from in the same sense as shocking yourself when you plug something into the wall. When you get shocked by the wall, no harm is done and you can just not do it again. When you have an accidental kid, that accident drags you down for the next 18 years. It's sort of like getting AIDS then saying "well don't get AIDS next time"; the problem is that there is no next time.

I also agree that we should not encourage irresponsible behavior, but at the same time we shouldn't just let people rot because of their mistakes. An example of enabling bad behavior would be to increase welfare to people who have kids they can't pay for. Why stop having kids if the government will keep paying for them? An example of helping people without encouraging stupidity would be something like free day care but have "right to work" style of welfare; that means you only get your welfare money if you actually do work for the state. The state is saying "we'll take care of these kids for you, but you still need to get off your *** and work for a living".
I'm not saying that idea should be done or anything, but it's food for thought.

I think we pretty much agree, I just have a little less patience, having been destitute, married (miserably), with kids myself once upon a time and crawling out of the mess I had put myself in.

[X-43D]

You can only get out of poverty if you have options available. Some of them are fairly obvious, too:
-get a better job
-work more hours
-get a second job
-get an education

The problem is that not everybody has these options. I'll go as far as saying many poor people have kids, and kids destroy your money situation because they require time and money. You can't get another job or work more hours because the kid takes up your extra time. You can't save any money because the kid needs to be fed and clothed. You can't get a loan because banks tend not to trust poor people.
You're stuck renting rather than mortgaging, so you have no equity.
You live paycheck to paycheck, so you have no savings or assets.
You can't get a loan, so you can't go to school.
Your kid takes up your free time, so you can't get another job.
It's over, you lose. Then some guy thinks you should also pay more taxes.

Michael Moore once said something to the effect of "raising minimum wage is in your best interest because it means fewer people will break into your house and steal things". He may have used the term minimum wage, but overall what he's talking about is poverty. Reduce poverty and we won't need to worry so much about crime. Increasing the taxes on poor people will only increase destitution, which would theoretically increase crime.

Those without a high school diploma and other educational qualifications find it harder to find an adequately paying job, only low-paying jobs. There is always competition for high-paying jobs while the low-paying jobs are for those who are less educated and less skilled.

http://www.quintcareers.com/surviving_low-wage_jobs.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_poor

[Pythagorean]

I'm torn on this one. Firstly, I'm pro-choice, and if you aren't in the state to support children, you shouldn't have them. Deferring gratification argument is partially valid here, too. I think practically any US citizen is capable of making a living for themselves if they sex responsibly and are raised aware of their options in a capitalist economy (even transport to where workforce is in demand can be done cheap or free). I live comfortably on about 12 grand a year, sharing expenses with a girlfriend as an undergrad (loans and grants).

That being said, I don't have a problem with poor people eating with my taxes either. Eventually, I'll get a degree and make more money and contribute more taxes, and I'd hope that I still feel the same way.

That being said, I don't know who's to blame for irresponsible people (besides themselves)

Some Possibilities:
(in order of perceived significance)

-bad parenting
-genetics
-social service programs
-the justice system (who defines criminal)
-things I haven't thought of

[ShawnD]

I'm torn on this one. Firstly, I'm pro-choice, and if you aren't in the state to support children, you shouldn't have them.

Ideally yes, but an episode of Frontline revealed how this isn't always possible. You can view the entire episode online
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/clinic/view/

Basically there are a bunch of laws that make abortion impossible for those who can't afford it. I think it was Mississippi in particular that has only 1 abortion clinic, and the law requires you to meet in person for a consultation and wait 1 full day. Not everybody has the transportation to do this, or the ability to miss 2 days of work.

[Pythagorean]

Ideally yes, but an episode of Frontline revealed how this isn't always possible. You can view the entire episode online
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/clinic/view/

Basically there are a bunch of laws that make abortion impossible for those who can't afford it. I think it was Mississippi in particular that has only 1 abortion clinic, and the law requires you to meet in person for a consultation and wait 1 full day. Not everybody has the transportation to do this, or the ability to miss 2 days of work.

Hrm... that's pretty lame policy-making and my gut says it's based in religion, but that's just conjecture.

I don't think I could afford an abortion, but I'm not planning on ever needing to. You can bump uglies responsibly in the first place.

I realize though, that not everyone is educated like this. Some people hide the word sex from their kids well into their teenage years, when they've already figured it out on their own, from their peers.

[ShawnD]

Hrm... that's pretty lame policy-making and my gut says it's based in religion, but that's just conjecture.

Indeed it is bad policies, and it is driven by religion.

[drankin]

Indeed it is bad policies, and it is driven by religion.

Different subject but, what does religion have to do with killing unborn babies? Is it only wrong to kill babies if you are religious?

[ShawnD]

Different subject but, what does religion have to do with killing unborn babies? Is it only wrong to kill babies if you are religious?

The definitions of human are different between atheists and religious people. Religious people think anything past conception is killing, which is why the day-after pill is a sin. Atheists look more towards the birth as being the cut off point between "human life" and "just a bunch of cells". To an atheist, the day-after pill or an abortion is more like killing the bacteria on your counter top than it is killing a human being.

[drankin]

Are you sure you are speaking for atheism in general? Atheism just means one does not believe in a supernatural divinity. Why would an atheist believe one particular way or another on whether a human being needs to exit it's host (mommy) to be classified as a such? It's seems to be more of a medical determination than a religious/atheistic one.

[Smurf]

The definitions of human are different between atheists and religious people. Religious people think anything past conception is killing, which is why the day-after pill is a sin. Atheists look more towards the birth as being the cut off point between "human life" and "just a bunch of cells". To an atheist, the day-after pill or an abortion is more like killing the bacteria on your counter top than it is killing a human being.

Okay. I'm not gonna ream you out for that post because I'm pretty sure you realize you're making gross over-generalizations, and you were just too lazy to use detail, that's cool I do it too. But just so that everyone else reading this knows: Religion has nothing to do with it. Politics has forced the abortion debate into these particular camps.

[Smurf]

Are you sure you are speaking for atheism in general? Atheism just means one does not believe in a supernatural divinity. Why would an atheist believe one particular way or another on whether a human being needs to exit it's host (mommy) to be classified as a such? It's seems to be more of a medical determination than a religious/atheistic one.
It's not medical, it's political. During the French revolution they changed from a system of rights where you asked "what religion is he" to a system where you just had to ask "are they citizens". Now politics is evolving again and this debate is one particularly shallow aspect of it. We're asking "are they human".

[drankin]

It's not medical, it's political. During the French revolution they changed from a system of rights where you asked "what religion is he" to a system where you just had to ask "are they citizens". Now politics is evolving again and this debate is one particularly shallow aspect of it. We're asking "are they human".

I agree with you. Where I was going is that the issue has been so polarized based on religion that people haven't take a fresh look at it without bias. Who cares what your religious or lack of religious beliefs are. Are we talking about a human life or not? That is what is important.

I apologize for thread derailment. If anyone wants to start a thread specific to this topic, I'm in.

[ShawnD]

edit: comment deleted because a new thread was created

[russ_watters]

But those who didn't finish high school, need to be reeducated in order to complete their high school diploma. The reeducation is private and it costs about 10,000 dollars, depending on the subjects which need to be completed. Without a high school diploma (or a matriculation certificate) it is difficult to find a well-paying job and to get out of poverty.
How many times must the government give people hand-outs before personal responsibility takes over? Or do you even believe in the concept of personal responsibility? In no society that has or will ever exist are people simply handed the needs of life. Everyone can't be a king or a politician. How do you reconcile these conflicting ideas? How much should the government pay? How much personal responsibility should people be allowed to shirk?

[russ_watters]

I think that perhaps source of your amazement may be erroneous assumptions about the "core ideals" of the Democratic party.

What Clinton did was not abolish welfare, or violate any socialist value held dear by democrats. Did you happen to read any of the opening post....? What Clinton did was widely decried by leading Democrats as being against the party ideals and was an issue taken directly from the Republican's playbook. Democrats were critical of Clinton's decision to sign the bill, saying it was much the same as the two previous welfare reform bills he had vetoed. In fact, it emerged as one of the most controversial issues for Clinton within his own party.[Haskins 2006]

Critics made dire predictions about the consequences of welfare reform. For instance, they claimed that the five-year time limit was needlessly short, and that those who exceeded the limit through no fault of their own might turn to begging or crime. They also felt that too little money was devoted to vocational training. Others criticized the block grant system, claiming that states would not be able to administer the program properly, or would be too motivated by cost. Finally, it was claimed that although the bill might work in a booming economy like that of the 1990s, it would cause significant harm in a recession.
Social evolution is as real as biological evolution. A society is at it's peak when every individual is realizing her full potential. Each individual will more fully realize his potential when his/her basic self maintenance needs are met. Just like in the military. Each individual is provided food, shelter, clothing, health care, education, and employment.

What is wrong with a civilian government providing these most basic needs to all it's citizens? The results of the government stopping providing many of these services is clearest in what didn't happen as a result of the reform. Forcing people to take personal responsibility for their lives did not result in higher crime, higher poverty, etc. People actually will take care of themselves if forced-to! (what a bizarre concept! :uhh: ) How can a government claim sovereignty if it cannot provide these most basic needs? Where in what political theory does that question come from? It certainly was not part of the principles on which the US and most western governments that followed were founded. Most of these social "entitlements" that people now take for granted in the US were put into place in the 1930s by Roosevelt. The changes he made to the government - and mostly not for the better - were the biggest in the country's history. And much of it was unconstitutional - some laws were overturned and later "fixed" to be constitutional, but much of it was allowed by a Supreme Court that became passive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal


Also, I don't see any part of the definition of the word "sovereign" that applies here. "Sovereign" just means having ultimate authority. The only thing I can think of that applies here is that in a democracy, the people are sovereign. But then, that wouldn't fit with your thesis, since it would require personal responsibility....

[Smurf]

Also, I don't see any part of the definition of the word "sovereign" that applies here. "Sovereign" just means having ultimate authority. The only thing I can think of that applies here is that in a democracy, the people are sovereign. But then, that wouldn't fit with your thesis, since it would require personal responsibility....
Sovereignty when analyzing a state boils down to whats called a 'monopoly on violence'.