News Conservative Definition of Govt role and rights

[Oltz]

“Conservative” Definition of Govt role and rights

This is in regard to both the Distribution of wealth perception of socialism and size of government I am intersted in what exactly the other side of the spectrum thinks about these issues and why.

Conservatives support an "appropriate" level of Taxes at the appropriate level of government to support the "constitutionally Granted" functions of government. Local-State-Federal

i.e.

Schools (k-12) - Local - with State subsidy per student to every school nobody gets more nobody gets less

Higher Education - Should be self sufficient (tuition covers costs) if you go you pay not your Neighbor through his taxes

Law enforcement - Local
Intra state Law enforcement (Highway patrol/State troopers) - State
Inter state Law enforcement (FBI/ICE/Customs/DHS) - Federal

Infrastructure (Roads/Bridges/Dams/Ports/Airports) - Same break up as law enforcement

(If it does not cross state lines the Fed does not have the right or need to pay for it)

Military is obvious and as a vet (Iraq 05-06) I know spending could be more efficient but it is taken out of the correct budget

Foreign affairs - Again obvious part of Federal budget (can fight about what/how much/where on another thread)

EPA/National Parks/ Museums/Monuments – Should have a component at each level of government– Essential and needed but the EPA needs to be more controlled by congress and less by the executive administration’s policies so that both business and environmental groups have a more consistent and predictable landscape year to year. (My degree is Environmental Geology I work for “Big Oil” in the Marcellus shale Natural Gas Play of PA)
Yes I think rules are needed and are a good thing

Now that covers all the rights and roles the government is granted everything else they do is extra not that all of it is wrong, but it is not really right.

Everything else is Redistribution of Wealth

Social Security - 2 parts
Employee contribution = Not a tax (reasonable expectation of repayment)
Employer contribution = Tax on wages paid = discourages expansion

Warren Buffet included his employees contribution to SS as part of their "Tax Burden" but its is capped at 106,000 and earnings above are not subject

Hence when you make more the "perceived" rate is less but in the end when you retire and cash in your "forced retirement fund" contributions Warren and His Secretary are eligible for the same pay out.
She will get more then she put in back and He will get exactly what he put in back.


Food banks soup kitchens and Housing

These are and should be covered by Charity and Local and State Governments

Why should a citizen in a state like say Vermont with very low homelessness pay for "Government Housing" for people in California or Florida ?

It is a local problem that should be budgeted at the local level with perhaps a small Federal subsidy per state based on population per state (similar to state funding for local schools)

Unemployment - state level - Fed can set rules for people who move between jobs and a National Minimum but states determine duration and rate to be paid by the state you worked in even if you move away

Lets say you worked in NC you paid NC taxes you lose your job and move to PA you file for NC unemployment.

Welfare The system that kicks in after unemployment or if you never had employment

Needs to be Federal or the "dependants" would all move to the state with the best benefit and the least requirement

Food stamps should be part of the same program
Needs a Lifetime maximum pay out and duration
Drug testing would be a nice addition
Only get extra money for up to 3 children (I know a former soldier who lives with 3 women and has 16 kids with them they live off of welfare he was kicked out for positive drug tests)

A safety NET is an essential part of a civil culture (cant have people starving to death on the corner), but what we currently have is much closer to a Safety Hammock

Living off the government should not be comfortable or fun


Give people the Freedom to succeed or fail on their own ability because if Nobody can Fail Nobody Can Succeed

Random Rant


So let California pay for its own high speed rail let NYC build its own shelters

Cut the Federal Department of Ed to just a research branch that puts out recommendations and studies
Eliminate ALL federal Non Research Grants (let the states give grants if they choose to who they choose be it for college or conservation)


Laws like California Banning Tanning Bed use for Minors are ludicrous. 3 reasons

You are forcing a company to restrict its business after the fact. People start a business with a known level of risk, anticipated use and capacity.

Use will be cut jobs will be cut to match the restricted income.

It is the Parents right and responsibility to decide if anything is an acceptable risk for their child not the government.

Different degree same principle
An extreme example would be they outlaw Bike riding under the age of 18 or McDonalds food.

Government Employees Do not need a Union unless you Honestly think the governemt is going to take advantage of its workers

All unions should be voluntary (It drives me crazy that my wife does not have the right to not join the Local State and Federal Teachers union) They take the Dues no matter what you like and then donate them to whoever they like for political campaign.

 

[DoggerDan]

You make a lot of points. What do you propose should be changed? And how?

 

[Oltz]

I want to know how a Democrat feels about some or all of these points and if they have a reasonable justification.

This is a fairly general representaion of a Moderate republican platform (that would never be able to be implemented) What is a true Democratic platform with regard to the covered issues?

 

[MarcoD]

I want to know how a Democrat feels about some or all of these points and if they have a reasonable justification.

This is a fairly general representaion of a Moderate republican platform (that would never be able to be implemented) What is a true Democratic platform with regard to the covered issues?

Coming from Europe, this platform hardly feels Democratic. And Oltz, I don't mind if you're a rabid republican, but it would help discussion if you make shorter, conciser, points and take more note of correct spelling and indentation. You're points are just too badly stated to comment on, IMO.

 

[DoggerDan]

Coming from Europe, this platform hardly feels Democratic. And Oltz, I don't mind if you're a rabid republican, but it would help discussion if you make shorter, conciser, points and take more note of correct spelling and indentation. You're points are just too badly stated to comment on, IMO.

Which answered nothing of Otiz' questions.

 

[BobG]

Food banks soup kitchens and Housing

These are and should be covered by Charity and Local and State Governments

Why should a citizen in a state like say Vermont with very low homelessness pay for "Government Housing" for people in California or Florida ?

It is a local problem that should be budgeted at the local level with perhaps a small Federal subsidy per state based on population per state (similar to state funding for local schools)

Unemployment - state level - Fed can set rules for people who move between jobs and a National Minimum but states determine duration and rate to be paid by the state you worked in even if you move away

Lets say you worked in NC you paid NC taxes you lose your job and move to PA you file for NC unemployment.

Welfare The system that kicks in after unemployment or if you never had employment

Needs to be Federal or the "dependants" would all move to the state with the best benefit and the least requirement

Food stamps should be part of the same program
Needs a Lifetime maximum pay out and duration
Drug testing would be a nice addition
Only get extra money for up to 3 children (I know a former soldier who lives with 3 women and has 16 kids with them they live off of welfare he was kicked out for positive drug tests)

A safety NET is an essential part of a civil culture (cant have people starving to death on the corner), but what we currently have is much closer to a Safety Hammock

Living off the government should not be comfortable or fun

It seems a little contradictory to have food banks/housing entirely on a local level while welfare/foodstamps are entirely on a federal level.

For one thing, welfare is currently handled on a state level (with grants from the federal government) and there isn't a problem with welfare recipients moving to the state with the best benefits/least requirements.

1) Having no income or a very low income reduces a person's mobility. They don't have the capability to move to the state with the best benefits.

2) One may say the government provides too much assistance, but it's an exaggeration to say living off the government is comfortable. Most welfare recipients are still more reliant on networks of family/friends than higher income workers. This is yet another obstacle to mobility. They can't afford to leave their support networks behind.

Nationalizing welfare is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

And by welfare, I mean just the actual welfare programs - the TANF grants to states and each state's welfare program. Realistically, welfare consists of a lot more than just welfare checks. It also consists of food stamps, WIC, and the Earned Income Tax credit.

The Earned Income Tax credit is the only one of these that are truly a federal program. The others are all done at state level and that's where they should be done. There's a huge difference in cost of living between somewhere like DC or New York and somewhere like Omaha, Tulsa, and Alburqurque. Some programs just aren't going to work on a federal level.

At least there's been a shift from being able to live on welfare for life to welfare being a more transitional benefit. Each state is supposed to have duration limits on welfare as a condition of receiving federal TANF grants, with an increase in Earned Income Credit being the trade-off. Theoretically, at least, getting a job and qualifying for Earned Income Credit (instead of staying on welfare) eventually leads to that person's income being high enough they no longer qualify for the Earned Income Credit.

How that works in practice is debatable (especially how well each state enforces the duration limits, since lifetime welfare seems to still be a common complaint for some reason, although those complaints are never accompanied by any state's welfare statistics, so it's impossible to know which states aren't enforcing their welfare laws).

But I think it seems to work a lot better than the old pre-1990's programs.

 

[DoggerDan]

It seems a little contradictory to have food banks/housing entirely on a local level while welfare/foodstamps are entirely on a federal level.

I agree. Let's get rid of welfare/foodstamps, too.

For one thing, welfare is currently handled on a state level (with grants from the federal government) and there isn't a problem with welfare recipients moving to the state with the best benefits/least requirements.

The states where those folks move would disagree with you. Think about it: What type of person would a state prefer to move there? Hard-working, and thus able to contribute to the states GDP? Or living on the government dime with no desire to make there own way.

1) Having no income or a very low income reduces a person's mobility. They don't have the capability to move to the state with the best benefits.

Yet people do it all the time.

2) One may say the government provides too much assistance, but it's an exaggeration to say living off the government is comfortable.

Comfort is relative. I total monthly expenditures come to less than $1,500. I'm very comfortable!

Most welfare recipients are still more reliant on networks of family/friends than higher income workers. This is yet another obstacle to mobility. They can't afford to leave their support networks behind.

True, but I'd argue it's more social than financial. The check an always be sent in the mail.

At least there's been a shift from being able to live on welfare for life to welfare being a more transitional benefit.

Seems so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Welfare_Benefits_Payments_Graph.gif

Each state is supposed to have duration limits on welfare as a condition of receiving federal TANF grants, with an increase in Earned Income Credit being the trade-off.

I thought TANF was an emergency fund to help states with rising unemployment?

But I think it seems to work a lot better than the old pre-1990's programs.

I think you're right. There's been a 60% drop in welfare recipients overall.

 

[BobG]

Schools (k-12) - Local - with State subsidy per student to every school nobody gets more nobody gets less

Higher Education - Should be self sufficient (tuition covers costs) if you go you pay not your Neighbor through his taxes

The government should look at what it spends for education as an investment, not an entitlement.

It is in the nation's interest to educate its residents, since those residents are going to be the nation's workforce and will affect the nation's economy.

For the folks that want a voucher program because it's not fair for them to pay for both public schools and still pay tuition for the private school they send their kid to? Or those that think it's unfair for them to pay for public schools when they home school?

Who cares?! That's not the intent of the government investing in public schools. It's to provide some baseline education for as many people as possible. It's the same as paying for roads, when you probably use less than half the roads in your city - or at least the number of roads you use don't depend on how much you pay in taxes.

For higher education? There is an advantage to providing tuition assistance and student loans for college and vocational schools, but only for programs that actually have a chance of that person returning that money through the increased income tax that comes with increased pay, if nothing else (although, obviously student loan programs should at least break even through direct repayments). Art history may be an interesting major, but it's not very likely to do much for the nation's economy.

 

[BobG]

The states where those folks move would disagree with you. Think about it: What type of person would a state prefer to move there? Hard-working, and thus able to contribute to the states GDP? Or living on the government dime with no desire to make there own way.

Hard to come by hard statistics on how many welfare recipients move from one state to another, mainly because there was no point in keeping such statistics after the US Supreme Court struck down the provision of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 that limited recipients ability to cash in on a more generous state's benefit.

But California, one of the most generous welfare states after welfare reform, was upset about new residents from states with low welfare benefits getting the more generous California benefits as soon as the person moved to California.

Their statistics: holding new residents to the same level of benefits they would have received in their old state would save California $10.9 million a year - which would be a 0.4% savings in their $2.9 billion dollar welfare budget. California is a big state and had one of the most generous welfare programs in the state, so their raw numbers look pretty big. But even the 0.4% savings would be larger in California, since the difference between California's welfare benefits and the rest of the nation were large.

This just isn't an issue for almost any state in the country. If the generous benefit states don't like it, they can reduce all of their benefits (although, admittedly, it costs a lot more to live in California, too, so their extra generosity may be a bit of an illusion).

In any event, pushing for a law that was already struck down over a decade ago isn't a very productive effort.

 

[DoggerDan]

For the folks that want a voucher program because it's not fair for them to pay for both public schools and still pay tuition for the private school they send their kid to? Or those that think it's unfair for them to pay for public schools when they home school?

Either way, why should they pay twice, first to the public school their kids do not attend, and again to the private school they do attend? Either way, long after their kids have graduated they're still paying taxes which support the schools. It's a matter of choice. Without the voucher program they have no choice as to how the school portion of their taxes are being spent on their kids' education.

Charter schools are plentiful around here, and somewhat bypassed the issue, as they're not exactly public schools, but they're not exactly private schools, either. They are funded with public tax revenues.

 

[WhoWee]

There is a lo to respond to in the OP - isn't there? If it's acceptable to focus - education (IMO) is a national priority.

 

[BobG]

Without the voucher program they have no choice as to how the school portion of their taxes are being spent on their kids' education.

Sure they do. We have a representative democracy. They can vote in new school board members if they don't like how the current members are spending money.

 

[MrNerd]

Sure they do. We have a representative democracy. They can vote in new school board members if they don't like how the current members are spending money.

Yes, but it doesn't do much if everyone disagrees with the unhappy person. If everyone is super obsessed with the football program or something, and a minority are in the screw football mentality, it won't do much.

 

[DoggerDan]

Sure they do. We have a representative democracy. They can vote in new school board members if they don't like how the current members are spending money.

You missed the point. We're a few years beyond that with school charters and voucher programs.

Board members sucked, weren't doing their job, so we went to the legislatures above their heads, changed the rules, and are sending our kids to schools of our choice paid for with the same funds as other schools.

And they're far exceeding the results of public schools. It works. It's one of the reasons I moved here.

Are you against better education? Getting kids the best bang for the buck? Or are you doggedly opposing anything and everything contradictory to tradition education when far better solutions exist?

Back to the brunt of the thread, most conservative measures would have tried to preserve traditional education.

Not I.

 

[Char. Limit]

Yes, but it doesn't do much if everyone disagrees with the unhappy person. If everyone is super obsessed with the football program or something, and a minority are in the screw football mentality, it won't do much.

Welcome to how Democracy works.

 

[BobG]

You missed the point. We're a few years beyond that with school charters and voucher programs.

Board members sucked, weren't doing their job, so we went to the legislatures above their heads, changed the rules, and are sending our kids to schools of our choice paid for with the same funds as other schools.

And they're far exceeding the results of public schools. It works. It's one of the reasons I moved here.

Are you against better education? Getting kids the best bang for the buck? Or are you doggedly opposing anything and everything contradictory to tradition education when far better solutions exist?

Back to the brunt of the thread, most conservative measures would have tried to preserve traditional education.

Not I.

(bolding mine)

I believe you when you say charter schools in your area work better than public schools. In fact, about 17% of charter schools do provide a better education than the traditional public schools in their area. About 37% of charter schools provide a worse education than the traditional public schools in their area. The remainder provide no significant difference.

Charter School Performance in 16 States

If a person is located in Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, or Missouri, there's a good chance that charter schools are doing a better job than the traditional schools.

If a person is located in Arizona, Florida, Texas, Minnesota, Ohio, or New Mexico, then there's a good chance the charter schools are doing a worse job.

Regardless of the state, it really does depend on the local area - and the students in question. Students living in poverty or in English Learning programs do significantly better in charter schools than in traditional schools. On average, all other students do worse (given the fact that this is an average for schools that vary widely in performance).

(And there is a difference between charter schools and voucher programs. Charter schools are usually part of the public school system, but operate under a different system of regulations than the traditional public school system. But, in a way, they have the same effect - money from the traditional public school system is diverted to an alternative system.)

 

[SixNein]

This is in regard to both the Distribution of wealth perception of socialism and size of government I am intersted in what exactly the other side of the spectrum thinks about these issues and why.

I think most people would consider me to be liberal, so I will take a crack at illustrating my thought process.

Conservatives support an "appropriate" level of Taxes at the appropriate level of government to support the "constitutionally Granted" functions of government. Local-State-Federal

I think most liberals would agree to this; however, we would disagree on what is defined to be 'constitutionally granted' functions. In general, both sides will always have to resolve such disputes in courts.

Schools (k-12) - Local - with State subsidy per student to every school nobody gets more nobody gets less

I would like to see a centrally planned education system for k-12 schools so that the standards and curriculum would be more consistent. In addition, I would also like to see an open source movement for the textbooks and at least a masters requirement for the teachers. In particular, I'm concerned about our ability to compete in the globalization era. There is no way that we can compete with the developing world on low level labor costs, so we are going to have to put our work ethic to use on our minds. Just physically working hard is not enough anymore.

Higher Education - Should be self sufficient (tuition covers costs) if you go you pay not your Neighbor through his taxes

The current trend of privatizing higher education should stop; however, I do think there should be reasonable standards applied. In my opinion, education is the most important infrastructure in America.

Infrastructure (Roads/Bridges/Dams/Ports/Airports) - Same break up as law enforcement
(If it does not cross state lines the Fed does not have the right or need to pay for it)

I disagree because infrastructure development could become uneven, and in general, I think it harms the nation as a whole. So I don't mind seeing some federal support here.

Military is obvious and as a vet (Iraq 05-06) I know spending could be more efficient but it is taken out of the correct budget

I'd like to see military spending scaled down quite a bit with some of the gains redirected into higher education and in particular research and the rest towards the deficit. We should still be top on military spending, but we are currently in ridiculous territory. Military is necessary; however, it is the most wasteful form of spending because its very nature is the destruction of resources.

EPA/National Parks/ Museums/Monuments – Should have a component at each level of government– Essential and needed but the EPA needs to be more controlled by congress and less by the executive administration’s policies so that both business and environmental groups have a more consistent and predictable landscape year to year. (My degree is Environmental Geology I work for “Big Oil” in the Marcellus shale Natural Gas Play of PA)
Yes I think rules are needed and are a good thing

I agree with you that rules are needed.

Now that covers all the rights and roles the government is granted everything else they do is extra not that all of it is wrong, but it is not really right.

You mean that is all the government is granted to do by your interpretation of the constitution.

Everything else is Redistribution of Wealth

All of those functions you outlined above constitute a redistribution of wealth. For example, some of my wealth is taken from me by the government and then redistributed to pay the wages of military personal. So I don't think an argument based upon redistribution of wealth has merit; instead, I think its best to take a look at each initiative individually and decide if the cost outweigh the benefits.

Social Security - 2 parts
Employee contribution = Not a tax (reasonable expectation of repayment)
Employer contribution = Tax on wages paid = discourages expansion

I support social security because I believe it reduces poverty in the elderly class.

Food banks soup kitchens and Housing

These are and should be covered by Charity and Local and State Governments

Why should a citizen in a state like say Vermont with very low homelessness pay for "Government Housing" for people in California or Florida ?

I think the greatest problem we have in this area is social in nature. Failed relationships are producing a great deal of single mothers who in turn add to the poverty count. In addition, the growing face of homelessness today is single mothers and children.

Unemployment - state level - Fed can set rules for people who move between jobs and a National Minimum but states determine duration and rate to be paid by the state you worked in even if you move away

After a certain period of time, I'd like to see some community service invovled.

Food stamps should be part of the same program
Needs a Lifetime maximum pay out and duration
Drug testing would be a nice addition
Only get extra money for up to 3 children (I know a former soldier who lives with 3 women and has 16 kids with them they live off of welfare he was kicked out for positive drug tests)

Drug testing would be a nice addition. What if a family had 4 children but do to some circumstance was forced into welfare for a time? The point being is that such a limit carries latent functions with it.

Living off the government should not be comfortable or fun

I don't think it is either comfortable or fun.

Give people the Freedom to succeed or fail on their own ability because if Nobody can Fail Nobody Can Succeed

There is a difference in falling and falling to ones death. Risks should be manageable.

 

[SixNein]

For higher education? There is an advantage to providing tuition assistance and student loans for college and vocational schools, but only for programs that actually have a chance of that person returning that money through the increased income tax that comes with increased pay, if nothing else (although, obviously student loan programs should at least break even through direct repayments). Art history may be an interesting major, but it's not very likely to do much for the nation's economy.

I'm not sure I agree. One might learn something in art history that contributes to a revolution in computer graphics.

I think a more productive effort is to put some reasonable merit on the funding.

 

[BobG]

I support social security because I believe it reduces poverty in the elderly class.

I support social security because I've paid into a forced government retirement program with the promise that the government would actually honor that debt (and it is a debt since I've already given them the money).

In any event, the poverty rate for people over 65 has dropped steadily since the 60's, so reducing poverty is losing its clout as a reason for preserving social security as is.

Food banks soup kitchens and Housing

These are and should be covered by Charity and Local and State Governments

Why should a citizen in a state like say Vermont with very low homelessness pay for "Government Housing" for people in California or Florida ?

I think the greatest problem we have in this area is social in nature. Failed relationships are producing a great deal of single mothers who in turn add to the poverty count. In addition, the growing face of homelessness today is single mothers and children.

And the solution?

One positive change would be to award custody to the fathers more often. 31.6% of single mother families live in poverty while only 15.8% of single father families live in poverty. Yet, 84% of single parent families are headed by the mother. What kind of reasoning is that?
http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/

That's still just minimizing the damage, since only 6.2% of two parent families live in poverty. I'm not sure passing laws to force couples to remain married would be a great solution, though. Minimizing the impact may be the best that can be done.

 

[DoggerDan]

I support social security because I've paid into a forced government retirement program with the promise that the government would actually honor that debt (and it is a debt since I've already given them the money).

+1. I'd much rather have invested those funds in Apple and similar tech stocks as I did what other discretionary funds.

 

[Oltz]

All of those functions you outlined above constitute a redistribution of wealth. For example, some of my wealth is taken from me by the government and then redistributed to pay the wages of military personal. So I don't think an argument based upon redistribution of wealth has merit; instead, I think its best to take a look at each initiative individually and decide if the cost outweigh the benefits

All of the Functions I listed return a benefit to everyone. The remaining programs Directly transfer funds from one persons pay check to anothers government assistance.

You can not possibly say that paying the man who builds a road with tax dollars or paying a soldier are the same thing as a welfare check.

If that is what you are saying its a strawman. The government needs funds to preform its base functions. These are not redistribution althought yes somebody does get paid but they are preforming a service.
Redistirbution is taking money from one party and passing it along to another individual simply because he/she is in a different socio-economic state.

 

[MarcoD]

You can not possibly say that paying the man who builds a road with tax dollars or paying a soldier are the same thing as a welfare check.

Well, I don't know about him, but I can. It's taxing the population for the benefit of the population. There is no difference.

 

[Oltz]

Well, I don't know about him, but I can. It's taxing the population for the benefit of the population. There is no difference.

I have no possible way to argue this as it is something that gets right down to the base of individual platforms.

Now IMO a small and limited welfare program is needed, but with greater restrictions and shorter duration then we see today.

I see a vast difference between the good of the population and the good of an individual in it. I also see a difference in providing a service and direct exchange of capital.


I also do not honestly agree that welfare is good for the economy. I do feel a safety net is needed as we are compassionate and supportive by nature, But to say welfare benefits everyone?

Welfare drives inflation in many ways. (as does minimum wage)

Think of it like this:
Say humans are emotionless
Welfare does not exist
Supply and demand kicks in leaving a few things that can happen with each product.

Reduce prices - surplus drives prices down to where people can afford them (supply driven)
Reduce production - only make what you can sell (demand driven)

the population and the market are interconnected and will balance out. Welfare is a mechanism that disrupts that balance.

Individual responsibility and choices drive it all.

If you drop out of High school and quite your Mcdonalds job why should I support your 10 kids?

Or

If you open the 5th coffee shop on a block and take out tons of loans why should I support you?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Think of it like this:
Say humans are emotionless
Welfare does not exist
Supply and demand kicks in leaving a few things that can happen with each product.

Unless you have a crystal ball you will still get booms and busts regardless of whether or not it's humans running the system or a system of emotionless robots. In reality the market is not a good way of distributing wealth appropriately. Case in point; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117" has massively risen thanks to the recent global economic crisis (1 in 5 of my age group!). Welfare should exist for such conditions.

As for the statement that market and population should balance out I strongly disagree. Rather than reaching some sort of equilibrium it would (as it does now) result in ebbs and flows, booms and busts and a constant shuffling of large portions of wealth around. Without checks and balances in terms of welfare and regulation wealth disparity would be far worse than it is now (In the UK IMO).

 

[WhoWee]

I also do not honestly agree that welfare is good for the economy. I do feel a safety net is needed as we are compassionate and supportive by nature, But to say welfare benefits everyone?

Welfare drives inflation in many ways. (as does minimum wage)

IMO - Section 8 increases the cost of housing in smaller markets - where there is no shortage of units.

 

[Oltz]

Unless you have a crystal ball you will still get booms and busts regardless of whether or not it's humans running the system or a system of emotionless robots. In reality the market is not a good way of distributing wealth appropriately. Case in point; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117" has massively risen thanks to the recent global economic crisis (1 in 5 of my age group!). Welfare should exist for such conditions.

As for the statement that market and population should balance out I strongly disagree. Rather than reaching some sort of equilibrium it would (as it does now) result in ebbs and flows, booms and busts and a constant shuffling of large portions of wealth around. Without checks and balances in terms of welfare and regulation wealth disparity would be far worse than it is now (In the UK IMO).

I did not say Welfare should not exist I said it needs to be small.

Please tell me exactly how Welfare reduces the "disparity of wealth"? Or how Welfare reduces unemployment?

As far as I can tell giving money to people who do not actively produce money in no way helps them tomorrow. The disparity is still present and as long as people have different desires and level of drive to work disparity will always exist.

Ebbs and flows are what the market is NOT every investment is wise or successful the point is the market decides what and who is needed.

All of the Busts have been caused by external forces if you can find a single bubble or crash that was not primarily cause by the actions of an external force let me know. Most of these problems are unforseeen consequences of other legislation. i.e. Loaning more money to people then they could pay back.

Welfare is a false bottom under the market and some are comfortable living on the ledge.

Why is wealth disparity a bad thing again?

What is an "approptiate distribution of wealth" ?

 

[BobG]

Now IMO a small and limited welfare program is needed, but with greater restrictions and shorter duration then we see today.

Reduce duration from how long to how long?

What restrictions currently exist and what other restrictions do you want to impose?

Without specifics, I'll just add the restriction that an applicant get the social worker a cup of coffee before getting approved and I'll just reduce the duration by 1 day and claim you should be satisfied. (Okay, any reform probably wouldn't be that wimpy, but, without specifics, reforms could be pretty wimpy and still yield a rhetorical victory; especially if you don't know the starting state you're reforming from.)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I did not say Welfare should not exist I said it needs to be small.

Please tell me exactly how Welfare reduces the "disparity of wealth"? Or how Welfare reduces unemployment?

To answer the former; because the wealth of some people is reduced and the wealth of other people is increased. To answer the latter I didn't suggest that it would.

As far as I can tell giving money to people who do not actively produce money in no way helps them tomorrow. The disparity is still present and as long as people have different desires and level of drive to work disparity will always exist.

I'm not advocating it purely as a means of redistributing wealth. I'm advocating it because as a society we should protect ourselves from failures in the economy and help out those in need. I feel that you are making an ideological argument here that welfare is only collected by people who refuse to work as opposed to those who are unemployed through no fault of their own (such as economic downturn or health issues).

Ebbs and flows are what the market is NOT every investment is wise or successful the point is the market decides what and who is needed.

All of the Busts have been caused by external forces if you can find a single bubble or crash that was not primarily cause by the actions of an external force let me know. Most of these problems are unforseeen consequences of other legislation. i.e. Loaning more money to people then they could pay back.

Right, you seem to be suggesting however that people would be better of if we didn't pay welfare which I think is rubbish. How exactly would society be better off if hundreds of thousands of people were made to go hungry and homeless?

Welfare is a false bottom under the market and some are comfortable living on the ledge.

Which is wrong. People shouldn't be able to just live of off welfare and choose not to work. That this can happen does not mean that welfare is a bad thing, it means that the implementation is wrong.

Why is wealth disparity a bad thing again?

For a variety of reasons. But it is not just wealth disparity that is the issue, the issue is about how that disparity arises. If you work hard and earn money then that's fine but...

What is an "approptiate distribution of wealth" ?

If you go by just a free market system money flows due to supply and demand which is not necessarily moral or fair. Economic freedom is a good thing but ultimately we do not live in a world run by altruism and because of that some people are going to end up being exploited.

 

[Oltz]

If you go by just a free market system money flows due to supply and demand which is not necessarily moral or fair. Economic freedom is a good thing but ultimately we do not live in a world run by altruism and because of that some people are going to end up being exploited.

Altruism is not needed if somebody is being exploited then they have the freedom to shop their abilities to competetors for a better rate or negotiate for more benefits.

I am assuming you do not mean child labor or unsafe conditions or slavery as these things are all matters of people's "rights" which I think we all agree they have? and are the role of government to protect.

Moral and Fair only apply in so far as the rules we put in place to establish the market as long as you are not denying somebody their rights its fair.

Once the market is established it is self sustaining, we simply have not been allowing it to function since WWI.

Right, you seem to be suggesting however that people would be better of if we didn't pay welfare which I think is rubbish. How exactly would society be better off if hundreds of thousands of people were made to go hungry and homeless?

I do not think we should let thousands starve.

I said nothing about society being better I said the economy would be better(to some that is all that matters)

Again it is likely staple foods and materials would bottom out and very few would starve in the long run.(let me clarify support the disabled and the children)

Which would likely be better for the economoy if we shed some of the burden.

I'm not advocating it purely as a means of redistributing wealth. I'm advocating it because as a society we should protect ourselves from failures in the economy and help out those in need. I feel that you are making an ideological argument here that welfare is only collected by people who refuse to work as opposed to those who are unemployed through no fault of their own (such as economic downturn or health issues).

Unemployment and SSDI cover those who are honestly unemployed through no fault of their own. These systems protect from unforeseen failures in the economy as well as some poor choices and investments.

Welfare covers those who do not work and have not worked for long enough that unemployment will no longer sustain them.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Altruism is not needed if somebody is being exploited then they have the freedom to shop their abilities to competetors for a better rate or negotiate for more benefits.

I'm ducking out of this conversation now because I see it going nowhere other than an ideological argument (that I'm not in the mood for). What I will say though is it is this statement that makes us unable to see eye to eye. This idea that the individual is capable of shopping their abilities around is a fallacy. Whilst it can occur it cannot always occur because other things get in the way such as huge unemployment meaning that even highly qualified people have to http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/business/03intern.html" . Honestly I support a mixed economy over totally free and support welfare for various reasons. I can't see anything in your claim that less regulation and less welfare would make the economy better. Additionally as per your claim about improving the economy rather than society it is my view that economics is a tool for society to distribute resources and as such it should serve society rather than itself.

 

[Oltz]

Reduce duration from how long to how long?

What restrictions currently exist and what other restrictions do you want to impose?

Without specifics, I'll just add the restriction that an applicant get the social worker a cup of coffee before getting approved and I'll just reduce the duration by 1 day and claim you should be satisfied. (Okay, any reform probably wouldn't be that wimpy, but, without specifics, reforms could be pretty wimpy and still yield a rhetorical victory; especially if you don't know the starting state you're reforming from.)

Right now in PA Welfare has no limit to duration (I know a guy in the National gaurd who has been on welfare since 1998)

Limit it to 18 month then you can work or starve. (Social services will take your kids don't worry)
Drug test each time you get a check.
Limit it to use for basic needs shelter,basic clothing, utilities. As in make it more like food stamps (not that they are perfect) you have a card that simply does not work to purchase things that are not covered by it. No Xbox, new TV, manicures or designer coach bags.

Again we are talking welfare not unemployment or SSDI.

 

[WhoWee]

Right now in PA Welfare has no limit to duration (I know a guy in the National gaurd who has been on welfare since 1998)

Limit it to 18 month then you can work or starve. (Social services will take your kids don't worry)
Drug test each time you get a check.
Limit it to use for basic needs shelter,basic clothing, utilities. As in make it more like food stamps (not that they are perfect) you have a card that simply does not work to purchase things that are not covered by it. No Xbox, new TV, manicures or designer coach bags.

Again we are talking welfare not unemployment or SSDI.

Why shouldn't SSDI beneficiaries be screened for illegal drug use - put them in a program - if they fail 3 times...NEXT! (IMO).

 

[mheslep]

A safety NET is an essential part of a civil culture (cant have people starving to death on the corner),

The fraternal mutual aid societies was the default approach to the safety net prior to era of the welfare state. Such societies had a membership of some four million, some ten percent of the population, likely a third of adult males, in Great Britain 1874. The US had similar membership percentages in places like NYC.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/080782531X/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[BobG]

Why shouldn't SSDI beneficiaries be screened for illegal drug use - put them in a program - if they fail 3 times...NEXT! (IMO).

For that matter, drug use is illegal and no person should be using illegal drugs. Why not mandatory drug testing for everyone, perhaps as prerequisite for getting a job?

Mandatory drug testing to get a job, mandatory drug testing to receive benefits such as Social Security (whether retirement or disability benefits), mandatory drug testing to receive welfare, and drug use would drop off to zero.

 

[mheslep]

(bolding mine)

I believe you when you say charter schools in your area work better than public schools. In fact, about 17% of charter schools do provide a better education than the traditional public schools in their area. About 37% of charter schools provide a worse education than the traditional public schools in their area. The remainder provide no significant difference. ...

Jumping in...: NAEP data (from the link) does not support that conclusion. You'd have to measure the score of a child when he/she entered a charter and a district school, measure again at (say) the end of the year and then compare. This measurement detail is particularly important since the call for charter schools is most intense where educational results are traditionally poor - as we might expect. From my following of the public school - charter school debate my take is that many public school proponents are aware of this flaw but put out the information as conclusive nonetheless. As such, it is not just wrong but a lie.

If one wants to know the effectiveness of charter schools I say look at the actions of parents. They vote with their feet, and its a stampede everywhere someone opens the gate.
Edit: Unlike the NAEP data, there are before and after studies as well to back this up. Mass. Dept of Education did one:

Charter Schools appear to have a consistently positive
impact on student achievement in all MCAS subjects in
both middle school and high school.

http://www.tbf.org/uploadedFiles/tbforg/Utility_Navigation/Multimedia_Library/Reports/InformingTheDebate_Final.pdf

 

[BobG]

Right now in PA Welfare has no limit to duration (I know a guy in the National gaurd who has been on welfare since 1998)

Limit it to 18 month then you can work or starve. (Social services will take your kids don't worry)
Drug test each time you get a check.
Limit it to use for basic needs shelter,basic clothing, utilities. As in make it more like food stamps (not that they are perfect) you have a card that simply does not work to purchase things that are not covered by it. No Xbox, new TV, manicures or designer coach bags.

Again we are talking welfare not unemployment or SSDI.

Hopefully, PA isn't using federal funds to provide welfare benefits for such a long time. The federal grants received by the states for welfare have restrictions - lifetime benefits can't exceed 60 months (whether continuous or not). States can provide lifetime welfare benefits if they want, but they have to fund those extra benefits themselves.

At least the federal requirements don't depend on employment status - they depend on income. In fact, being in some kind of work training program and actively seeking employment is one of the federal requirements. Once again, individual states can do what they want, but they can't use federal money to fund welfare benefits that don't meet federal guidelines.

And, additionally, there's always the possibility of the restrictions being waived for specific cases, but the federal government does put a limit on how many people a state can waive the requirements for, just to keep the waiver requests realistic. Statistically, it's hard to imagine how a large percentage of the entire state's population would qualify for a waiver, hence capping the number of waivers.

Because states have a lot of flexibility to run their own welfare programs as they see fit (as long as they don't violate the restrictions on the federal money they receive), it's always confusing to sort out which part of a state's welfare program should be changed by federal laws and which part should be changed by state laws.

Generally, I don't have too many gripes with the federal part of welfare programs.

 

[WhoWee]

For that matter, drug use is illegal and no person should be using illegal drugs. Why not mandatory drug testing for everyone, perhaps as prerequisite for getting a job?

Mandatory drug testing to get a job, mandatory drug testing to receive benefits such as Social Security (whether retirement or disability benefits), mandatory drug testing to receive welfare, and drug use would drop off to zero.

It's doubtful a hard line across the board would ever be accepted. However, SSDI is a medical-based benefit program. There's no reason persons in the program shouldn't be monitored and treated. Failure to stay clean (of illegal drugs) should be grounds for dismissal from the program - quite reasonable.

 

[Char. Limit]

Ya know, mandatory drug testing to receive welfare is actually something I support. Also I don't think people on welfare should have more children unless they can prove they can support the children without additional welfare.

Totalitarian? Maybe. A good idea in my head? Maybe.

 

[BobG]

It's doubtful a hard line across the board would ever be accepted. However, SSDI is a medical-based benefit program. There's no reason persons in the program shouldn't be monitored and treated. Failure to stay clean (of illegal drugs) should be grounds for dismissal from the program - quite reasonable.

SSDI stands for Social Security Disability Insurance. The benefits received are determined by how much the person has been paying in Social Security taxes.

Granted, having been disabled before retiring, the person will definitely receive more benefits than they paid into it, just as if they'd bought a private life insurance policy and got lucky and died early.

The rationale for drug testing or not should be about the same as for a private disability insurance policy (the short term and long term disability insurance some employers offer, for example). In fact, there's probably more reason for drug testing for a private insurance policy, since they could actually offer a discount for people living healthy lives.

 

[WhoWee]

SSDI stands for Social Security Disability Insurance. The benefits received are determined by how much the person has been paying in Social Security taxes.

Granted, having been disabled before retiring, the person will definitely receive more benefits than they paid into it, just as if they'd bought a private life insurance policy and got lucky and died early.

The rationale for drug testing or not should be about the same as for a private disability insurance policy (the short term and long term disability insurance some employers offer, for example). In fact, there's probably more reason for drug testing for a private insurance policy, since they could actually offer a discount for people living healthy lives.

The qualifications for this program have changed drastically. Accordingly, the program has nearly doubled in size in the past decade - including a great many younger people. I posted recently in another thread (supported) that 9 of the top 10 zip codes for SSDI beneficiaries are in Puerto Rico. I think we need a SSDI specific thread.

 

[russ_watters]

To answer the former; because the wealth of some people is reduced and the wealth of other people is increased.

I'm not advocating it purely as a means of redistributing wealth. I'm advocating it because as a society we should protect ourselves from failures in the economy and help out those in need...

Right, you seem to be suggesting however that people would be better of if we didn't pay welfare which I think is rubbish. How exactly would society be better off if hundreds of thousands of people were made to go hungry and homeless?

I know you said you're out, but I'm still going to respond to this.

I said in another thread that I support some welfare, for similar reasons. And you characterize it well: society should protect it's members. To me, that means it's not a moral/ethical requirement, it is just something we feel we should do.

On the practical side, however, we disagree and the reason for the disagreement is focus on short vs long term: you quite correctly state that redistribution increases the wealth of some while decreasing the wealth of others. But that is only the instantaneous effect. What about long-term? If wealth were a zero-sum game, then a more even distribution would be a necessity for the living condition of the poor to improve. But it isn't, as virtually every country with a growing economy sees both an improvement in living conditions coinciding with an increase in inequality. So the risk of forcing a more even wealth distribution in the short term is that you might make everyone poorer than they could have been in the long term by limiting or reversing economic growth.

I think the early history of American capitalism provides a case study for rapid growth under free conditions, but as I said in another thread and implied above, I'm willing to accept slower growth in exchange for certain reasonable safety nets and protections, as long as it is recognized openly that these things carry with them a long term risk of reduced growth and lower standards of living than could otherwise have existed.

 

[DoggerDan]

All of the Functions I listed return a benefit to everyone. The remaining programs Directly transfer funds from one persons pay check to anothers government assistance.

It's not "everyone." Transferring funds from my pay check doesn't benefit me.

 

[BobG]

Jumping in...: NAEP data (from the link) does not support that conclusion. You'd have to measure the score of a child when he/she entered a charter and a district school, measure again at (say) the end of the year and then compare. This measurement detail is particularly important since the call for charter schools is most intense where educational results are traditionally poor - as we might expect. From my following of the public school - charter school debate my take is that many public school proponents are aware of this flaw but put out the information as conclusive nonetheless. As such, it is not just wrong but a lie.

If one wants to know the effectiveness of charter schools I say look at the actions of parents. They vote with their feet, and its a stampede everywhere someone opens the gate.
Edit: Unlike the NAEP data, there are before and after studies as well to back this up. Mass. Dept of Education did one:

http://www.tbf.org/uploadedFiles/tbforg/Utility_Navigation/Multimedia_Library/Reports/InformingTheDebate_Final.pdf

In the report, they compared the charter schools to public schools with similar demographics. I think that works statistically.

And their conclusions support some of what you claimed, even if they didn't say so specifically. In their report, charter schools were most likely to outperform traditional schools in areas where a high percentage of students lived in poverty or a high percentage of students were in English Langauge Learning programs. Both present some challenges to a school achieving high student performance.

In a way, saying charter schools outperform traditional schools when the threshold is particularly low sounds even more biased. It ignores the fact that charter schools face the same challenges the public schools do.

Other than that, the wider report shows performance all over the board. The fact that more charter schools do worse than public schools than do better could be specifically because people are stampeding towards the latest fad in education and perhaps they're being implemented in situations where it wasn't really appropriate to do so. Or, it could be because one big state implementing charter schools badly can skew the overall statistics.

Other than poverty and English learning programs, there is no pattern. In some states that have above average performance, charter schools still have better performance. In some states that have below average performance, charter schools have even worse performance.

My take on the report I linked to is that charter schools may have an advantage in some special situations, but other factors are usually much more important than the style of school in most situations.

I only have personal experience with one charter school. The school it replaced was closed due to poor performance, so it would be hard for this charter school to do worse than the school it replaced. But, even aside from that, there's some real positives. This school has gotten a lot of buy-in from the aerospace companies in our city. They have a Discovery Center (that actually belongs to the district, but is located on the school's campus) that has STK for analyzing satellite orbits in one room and a different room has simulated Mars landscape plus some Mars rovers made by Lego and I think the controllers are made by Honeywell (I can't remember for sure). The students have to program the rovers to accomplish various tasks. They also have a cybercafe that supposed to serve as a community center instead of just being used by the students (the goal is to get students' families more involved in the school environment).

Still, all the money being pumped into the school only has an effect if the school can actually integrate that into its core curriculum. This even applies to the guest speakers from local companies that come in. In fact, I was one of the guest speakers and making sure what I did synched up with what they were learning in class was pretty important to me. Tools are nice, but the people implementing them will really determine whether its successful or not. (And, while I'm a little dubious about how well they'll actually integrate all of this stuff, I am very impressed with their principal.)

The thing is, there's nothing that special about charter schools. They still succeed or fail on the same things that traditional public schools succeed or fail on.

 

[mheslep]

In the report, they compared the charter schools to public schools with similar demographics. I think that works statistically...

No, if they used similar demographics that helps, but it does not provide decisive information. These snapshots only tell us who holds captive the best group of students; they do not tell us which school is doing its job, which is to educate them over time.

Imagine at the end of the year that school A has score 100, school B 90, so, aha, naively school A is better. But then digging deeper we find when tracking the same body of students, that back at the beginning of the year school A's score was 98 and school B's score was 70. Now we see school B is likely doing the better job of educating while school A simply enjoys a better crop of students and likes to say so with the help of NAEP reports.

... The fact that more charter schools do worse than public schools than do better

If to "do" means to house a better group of students then perhaps some charter schools do worse than public. If to "do" means educate them, then charter schools are better according to data measuring change over time.

...The thing is, there's nothing that special about charter schools.

Not so. The meaningful data shows otherwise. See the Massachusetts data.

 

[BobG]

EPA/National Parks/ Museums/Monuments – Should have a component at each level of government– Essential and needed but the EPA needs to be more controlled by congress and less by the executive administration’s policies so that both business and environmental groups have a more consistent and predictable landscape year to year. (My degree is Environmental Geology I work for “Big Oil” in the Marcellus shale Natural Gas Play of PA)
Yes I think rules are needed and are a good thing

You barely touch on this part of things, but I do feel the government does need to regulate things such as what types of waste are discharged into the environment and to regulate things such as financial transactions.

For the latter, the important thing is to ensure enough transparency that investors know what they're buying. During the big corporate scandals, I didn't feel the WorldCom and Enron scandals were nearly as damaging as scandals such as Arthur Andersen. Accounting firm scandals undermine confidence in the entire system rather than confidence in just one or two companies.

You didn't mention what role the government should have in stimulating the economy. Personally, I think that's a role that's beyond the scope of the federal government. Tax decisions should be made based on what's needed to run the government - not based on stimulating jobs through either increased spending or reduced taxes.

But, given the reality that government will try to control the direction of the economy in some fashion, you don't mention how globalization figures into things - whether the government should encourage global free trade or protect American jobs.

I think that's a math problem more than a problem of ideology. If a person is a consumer, then there's different ways to increase how much they can consume - either make more money themselves, or lower the cost of the items they consume. Globalization lowers the cost of goods, but lowers consumer salaries whether they lose their own jobs or not. Higher tariffs on imported goods raise employment and consumer salaries, but also raise prices.

Additionally, a person only works for so long, while they consume goods for their entire life. In other words, having profitable companies to invest in is one way to increase your capability to continue consuming later in life (in which case, policies that create high inflation are robbing people's investments). Another would be defined benefit retirement programs with cost of living increases, but the guarantees would still depend on the company remaining healthy after you retire.

Selfishly, the best policy would be protectionist trade, increasing the amount of money that a person earned throughout their career, right up until I personally retire, at which point the best policy would be to keep prices as low as possible at any cost. Realistically, there should probably be some sort of balance that keeps most people happy while ensuring very few people are terribly unhappy.

Both ignore the fact that the only way to make it a non-zero sum game is to sell more American products to foreign customers than we buy from foreign customers. Does our foreign policy create a bigger market for American goods or does it create more competitors?

This kind of figures into education, as well, since creating low tech manufacturers in third world countries creates a market for goods that only a high tech country can produce, but you can only capitalize on that if you actually have workers that can create those higher tech goods.

And, of course, attitudes about globalization depend on whether a person takes a more nationalistic view or a more global view. Globalization is more fair, globally. Instead of a few developed countries consuming the resources of undeveloped countries that are left in poverty, some of that wealth goes back into those third world countries, raising their standard of living closer to the level of the developed countries.

But, that wealth redistribution usually does come at the expense of the developed countries low skill workers, plus raises the issue of whether the planet can support an entire world of countries consuming as much as the developed countries. And some would suggest the solution would be to lower the standard of living in developed countries to provide a more balanced global standard of living without increasing overall consumption of resources - or even allow less developed countries to operate on lower standards regarding the environment until they catch up in standard of living.

I think the role of the federal government is to look out for the citizens of the US, even if one were to expand that role to serving as Americans' representative to the global community - and even more justifiably and to a larger extent than the representative of a Congressional district representing the interests of the residents of his district in the US government (there's always an inherent conflict of interest in Congress between the interests of the nation as a whole and the interests of the voters that put that Congressman in office). Maybe the federal government shouldn't be isolationist, but it should definitely be an America first type of organization.

 

[CAC1001]

Also remember there's different forms of conservatism. For example, here's part of the description of a neoconservative from a 1976 article by Irving Kristol, titled, "What is 'Neoconservative?'"

Here is the type of welfare state neoconservatives generally support, as outlined by a Irving Kristol article from 1976:

Neoconservatism is not at all hostile to the idea of a welfare state, but it is critical of the Great Society version of this welfare state. In general, it approves of those social reforms that, while providing needed security and comfort to the individual in our dynamic, urbanized society, do so with a minimum of bureaucratic intrusion in the individual's affairs. Such reforms would include, of course, social security, unemployment insurance, some form of national health insurance, some kind of family assistance plan, etc...In contrast, it is skeptical of those social programs that create vast and energetic bureaucracies to "solve social problems." in short, while being for the welfare state, it is opposed to the paternalistic state. It also believes that this welfare state will best promote the common good if it is conceived in such a way as not to go bankrupt.

Neoconservatism has great respect-it is fair to say it has learned to have great respect-for the power of the market to respond efficiently to economic realities while preserving the maximum degree of individual freedom. Though willing to interfere with the market for overriding social purposes, it prefers to do so by "rigging" the market, or even creating new markets, rather than by direct bureaucratic controls. Thus it is more likely to favor housing vouchers for the poor than government-built low-income projects.

~~~the source for this article was in the book The Neoconservative Persuasion (it's a collection of his columns from over the years).

Most free-market types, except for some ultra-libertarian types, seem to believe in basic forms of social safety nets, the degree of which can depend depending on the type of conservative.

 

[WhoWee]

Also remember there's different forms of conservatism. For example, here's part of the description of a neoconservative from a 1976 article by Irving Kristol, titled, "What is 'Neoconservative?'"

Here is the type of welfare state neoconservatives generally support, as outlined by a Irving Kristol article from 1976:

Neoconservatism is not at all hostile to the idea of a welfare state, but it is critical of the Great Society version of this welfare state. In general, it approves of those social reforms that, while providing needed security and comfort to the individual in our dynamic, urbanized society, do so with a minimum of bureaucratic intrusion in the individual's affairs. Such reforms would include, of course, social security, unemployment insurance, some form of national health insurance, some kind of family assistance plan, etc...In contrast, it is skeptical of those social programs that create vast and energetic bureaucracies to "solve social problems." in short, while being for the welfare state, it is opposed to the paternalistic state. It also believes that this welfare state will best promote the common good if it is conceived in such a way as not to go bankrupt.

Neoconservatism has great respect-it is fair to say it has learned to have great respect-for the power of the market to respond efficiently to economic realities while preserving the maximum degree of individual freedom. Though willing to interfere with the market for overriding social purposes, it prefers to do so by "rigging" the market, or even creating new markets, rather than by direct bureaucratic controls. Thus it is more likely to favor housing vouchers for the poor than government-built low-income projects.

~~~the source for this article was in the book The Neoconservative Persuasion (it's a collection of his columns from over the years).

Most free-market types, except for some ultra-libertarian types, seem to believe in basic forms of social safety nets, the degree of which can depend depending on the type of conservative.

I think this can be interpreted and presented in a very simple statement.

Conservatives will gladly participate in necessary programs if the real costs are known through due diligence, agreed to by all parties, and managed within these agreed upon limits.

If a program is to be funded with a 1% tax - the tax will be collected and the amount collected will be spent - nothing else.