Is U.S. Poverty Too Comfortable?

[thephysicsman]

How do you address the financial burden that would ride on the backs of the compassionate?

It's ridiculous to call it a burden when these people enjoy helping others! If they don't like the burden, they can quit giving.

You put way to much faith in the free market.

Have you ever worried about whether there would be sufficient food in your local grocery store the next day? Paced the floor over whether only the rich would afford food, and leave nothing for you? Probably not. And the reason you haven’t is that you rightfully put a lot of faith in the free market. This provides clues as to what we should do in the area of health care: allowing the market to operate as freely as possible.

But the free market doesn't care about you.

So what? That's the beauty of the free market system - if you want to make a profit, it requires you to cooperate with and help people you otherwise wouldn't give a damn about.

The government is you it is everyone not some separate entity.

The government is not me. Today's government only represents the majority of American voters. America is proud to call herself a democracy, but democracy means "people power" - not "majority power". In a true democracy, the minority would also be considered part of the people.

don't try to make free market look like some kind of answer to everything.

The only alternative to the free market is violence, and in a civilized society violence is only an answer as a last resort to an unavoidable conflict.

 

[russ_watters]

What I am saying is money for the federal government comes from taxes. If the taxes collected are not enough money to supply the needs of the budget including entitlment programs then we have a budget deficit and the money has to be borrowed. This only makes the problem worse for the next year. Eventually as the graph shows the amount of interest with be equal to the money needed for these programs.The money needed for interest payments will eventually exceed all the money received from taxpayers.

All of that is true, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with inflation!

 

[russ_watters]

No, it's an immoral and economically irresponsible Ponzi scheme.

I'd hold the "immoral" - I don't think such concerns are typically relevant to a purely economic question - but agree otherwise. I also believe it is contrary to the principles on which the US was founded - namely freedom and personal responsibility.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

All of that is true, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with inflation!

It has everything to do with inflation. You made the point that SS adjusts for inflation.
That money necessary to adjust for inflation comes from tax payers...and so on I already went into all that. Inflation is created (one way) through deficit spending because you are borrowing the money through government bonds that are bought by the Fed. This directly causes inflation as new money has been created deluting the existing supply.This makes it even harder to cut the deficit the next year unless taxes are raised so even more money will have to be borrowed. This creates an even larger portion of the budget to be spent on interest. This will continue until the government goes bankrupt.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

It's ridiculous to call it a burden when these people enjoy helping others! If they don't like the burden, they can quit giving.

mybold

Hence the problem! That is my whole point! I guess then the weak will just die off?
Great, problem solved! Just as long as it's not you right? Or your parents? Or your siblings?
Or your friends?


Note: I only replied to what seemed relevant to this thread. Though I really didn't want to stop there...I would be happy to talk about whatever else on either the proper thread or through PM.

 

[thephysicsman]

I guess then the weak will just die off?

Yes, but it's extremely unlikely that not a single person will be willing to help them. It's utterly insane to force social "security" upon 300 million Americans based on this microscopic probability.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

"I guess then the weak will just die off? "

Yes, but it's extremely unlikely that not a single person will be willing to help them. It's utterly insane to force social "security" upon 300 million Americans based on this microscopic probability.

It's not that there won't be one person to help them, I am not arguing that. What I am saying is it creates an inequality between those that help and those that don't. When I say it puts a burden on these people I mean financially.
This gives a financial advantage to those that don't care to contribute in the free market.
This creates a financial incentive in the free market not to give.
The free market is about competition and this gives those that don't give a competitive edge.
This question is a matter of where you stand financially and where you and the ones you love stand financially and whether or not you and your loved ones are in good health.
It is difficult to care for someone in need it is also expensive.
If you cannot guarantee that there will always be enough money in charities to make up for these expenses then there is a flaw in the logic behind it. Unless of course the guaranteed safety of you are your loved ones is not important to you.
In which case I would have nothing to say to that, it would be a difference in fundamental values.
I believe that the weak and dependant need to be taken care of.
I would say that is American
And it is only fair that the financial burden fall on every American
Now I am not saying that social security doesn't have flaws. I have been posting the opposite. There needs to be oversight. I will say it again, No able minds and bodies should receive social security

 

[thephysicsman]

it creates an inequality between those that help and those that don't.[/I]

So?

When I say it puts a burden on these people I mean financially.

It's their choice. The one who is really putting a financial burden on other people is you. You want to take other people's money by force.

This gives a financial advantage to those that don't care to contribute in the free market.

It's their right if they want to. They own their own lives, including their wallets.

This creates a financial incentive in the free market not to give.

Maybe for someone.

The free market is about competition and this gives those that don't give a competitive edge.

That's a very materialistic point of view. Most people are not pure materialists. They have other values in their lives.

It is difficult to care for someone in need it is also expensive.

It's not difficult for a lot of people, Americans are among the most giving people on the planet, even after the government has taxed us and wasted a significant fraction of our money.

Private charity is a lot more effective and less expensive than government programs.

If you cannot guarantee that there will always be enough money in charities to make up for these expenses then there is a flaw in the logic behind it.

Can you guaranourtee that y the socialist programs will never run out of other people's money?

I believe that the weak and dependant need to be taken care of.
I would say that is American

Take care of them. I won't stop you. But don't use force. That's un-American.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

Wow,Ok you get cancer and you can't go to work anymore, your wife died years ago and you have to take care of your 2 children on your own. NOW WHAT?

 

[russ_watters]

It has everything to do with inflation. You made the point that SS adjusts for inflation.
That money necessary to adjust for inflation comes from tax payers...and so on I already went into all that. Inflation is created (one way) through deficit spending because you are borrowing the money through government bonds that are bought by the Fed. This directly causes inflation as new money has been created deluting the existing supply.This makes it even harder to cut the deficit the next year unless taxes are raised so even more money will have to be borrowed. This creates an even larger portion of the budget to be spent on interest. This will continue until the government goes bankrupt.

Were you aware that despite the current extreme deficit spending, inflation is currently very low? Inflation is not what is driving us toward bankrupcy - it is the simple issue of decreased tax revenue due to a slowdown in the economy combined with increased spending on government bailouts (which doesn't include an increase in social security spending).

In fact, you have the issue backwards: inflation helps a debt problem by reducing the amount you owe.

 

[russ_watters]

Wow,Ok you get cancer and you can't go to work anymore, your wife died years ago and you have to take care of your 2 children on your own. NOW WHAT?

Well I'd use my health insurance and disability benefits to pay for all that, plus my wife would have had a life insurance policy.

 

[WhoWee]

Well I'd use my health insurance and disability benefits to pay for all that, plus my wife would have had a life insurance policy.

So would I Russ. Living within your personal means and personally responsiblity used to be the American standard.

From an article written in 1994. My bold.
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/the-american-tradition-of-personal-responsibility
"Our society was founded on an ideal: Who your ancestors are doesn't matter; who you are matters. You rise or fall on your achievement or your failure. That and economic opportunity, which is a result of the American individualist ideal, are the primary reasons why America has been the world's most popular magnet to people from every culture. That is why immigrants often say that they are more comfortable here than in their native El Salvador, their native Nigeria, or anywhere else. That is why, historically, we tended to attract individualists who wanted to be judged not by their ethnicity, geography, or race, but by who they are."

America has long been the land of opportunity - the expectation of that is to try and succeed - to "make it", to prosper and create financial stability for your family. To facilitate the way to a better life for your children than your own - growth.

How does a welfare mentality fit into this ideal? How does dependence upon the Government for food, shelter, income, healthcare, and even nursing home care and burial costs fit into this ideal?

Poverty should be a motivation to succeed - it should not be an acceptable way of life - free of personal responsibility - once again - IMO.

 

[thephysicsman]

Wow,Ok you get cancer and you can't go to work anymore, your wife died years ago and you have to take care of your 2 children on your own. NOW WHAT?

I'm sure someone will be willing to help. You, for example?

 

[WhoWee]

Wow,Ok you get cancer and you can't go to work anymore, your wife died years ago and you have to take care of your 2 children on your own. NOW WHAT?

What would you do in such a situation - where would you start - do you have a plan?

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

I'm sure someone will be willing to help. You, for example?

I am so fed up with your logic. Unless you want to return to the animal kingdom than stop pestering me with this radical right wing propaganda BS. Stop replying to my posts with ill thought out one word answers! Without law, without organization and regulations nothing separates us from animals. An unregulated market is the definition of natural selection. Money is a necessity of survival in our civilization. If you create a financial incentive NOT to help those in need than in order to compete in the market and for survival you will have to stop giving to the weak. Eventually it will become impossible to do so in order to compete for survival. These are the laws of natural selection. The nice guy cannot win.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

Well I'd use my health insurance and disability benefits to pay for all that, plus my wife would have had a life insurance policy.

HEY! A real answer!

 

[WhoWee]

radical right wing propaganda BS

This is your response to the question:

"I'm sure someone will be willing to help. You, for example? "

Are you not willing to be one of the people who pay taxes - used to benefit others?

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

Well I'd use my health insurance and disability benefits to pay for all that, plus my wife would have had a life insurance policy.

You are fortunate enough to be able to afford insurance in the first place. And as an able bodied person you should be able to pay for this kind of thing. Not everyone can which is a problem that really is to big for this post. What I was trying to point out is that sometimes people need things and they can't afford them and that's when SS should come in and not 'volunteer charity'(I already explained my reason for this). If I was out of work I would not go on unemployment. I am way to proud for handouts. And people that can support themselves should. Which I have already stated a couple times now.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

This is your response to the question:

"I'm sure someone will be willing to help. You, for example? "

Are you not willing to be one of the people who pay taxes - used to benefit others?

I would be willing to help pay for people in need yes. I am not willing to bear the responsibility alone.

 

[WhoWee]

I would be willing to help pay for people in need yes. I am not willing to bear the responsibility alone.

When you put it that way - it kind of makes you feel sorry for that 1% of the population the Dems keep wanting to tax at higher rates - doesn't it?

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

Were you aware that despite the current extreme deficit spending, inflation is currently very low? Inflation is not what is driving us toward bankrupcy - it is the simple issue of decreased tax revenue due to a slowdown in the economy combined with increased spending on government bailouts (which doesn't include an increase in social security spending).

In fact, you have the issue backwards: inflation helps a debt problem by reducing the amount you owe.

If you want to discuss this I think we should do so on a different thread. I do want to reply to this.

 

[thephysicsman]

People have a right to keep what they earn.

Unless you want to return to the animal kingdom than stop pestering me with this radical right wing propaganda BS.

I'm not right wing, but reality-oriented.

Without law, without organization and regulations nothing separates us from animals.

I'm not against law. As for the rest of your argument, it's nonsense. Humans have free will.

An unregulated market is the definition of natural selection.

I'll buy that. But the winners don't win at the expense of the others. They win because they are really good at helping other people.

Whowee asked Bil:

Are you not willing to be one of the people who pay taxes - used to benefit others?

I guess Bil is only willing to help with other people's money. He has no respect for other people's hard work, especially affluent people's work. The rich should be forced to give money to the poor, at gunpoint or the threat of jail. If we don't do this, there'll be nothing that separates us from the aninals, according to Bil's reasoning.

 

[WhoWee]

There is one lawmaker in Kentucky that wants to make sure benefits are appreciated.

http://www.kentucky.com/2011/01/17/1600950/kentucky-lawmaker-wants-random.html

"FRANKFORT — A state lawmaker wants random drug testing of adult Kentuckians who receive food stamps, Medicaid or other state assistance.

Those who fail the test would lose their benefits under House Bill 208, filed by Rep. Lonnie Napier, R-Lancaster.

Napier's proposal has won the backing of powerful House Speaker Greg Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg, but critics say it would stigmatize welfare recipients and possibly harm their innocent children. "

So far, it seems the biggest concern is that innocent children might be hurt - by their parents who can't put down the drugs. Perhaps a failed drug test is a sign of an unfit parent as well?

 

[thephysicsman]

Depends what kind of drugs.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

Without law, without organization and regulations nothing separates us from animals.


I'm not against law. As for the rest of your argument, it's nonsense. Humans have free will.

An unregulated market is the definition of natural selection.


I'll buy that. But the winners don't win at the expense of the others. They win because they are really good at helping other people.

Whowee asked Bil:

Are you not willing to be one of the people who pay taxes - used to benefit others?

I guess Bil is only willing to help with other people's money. He has no respect for other people's hard work, especially affluent people's work. The rich should be forced to give money to the poor, at gunpoint or the threat of jail. If we don't do this, there'll be nothing that separates us from the aninals, according to Bil's reasoning.

MY QUOTES IN BOLD

My replies in order from top to bottom:

Can you please explain why my argument is nonsense. An explanation in all your one liner answers is really necessary in order for you to have any argument at all. So far you have provided nothing to back up any of your little comments. How about you start with the claim that my argument is nonsense. SoWhy is my argument nonsense?

But the winners don't win at the expense of the others. They win because they are really good at helping other people.

They win because they are really good at helping people? What?!? Can you expain that as well?

Winners don't win at the expense of the others? So in a competition there aren't winners and losers. How can you have a winner without a loser? This is exactly the kind of complete lack of logic that finds it's way into every one of your comments on this thread.

And for that last bit there, quoting my answer "I would be willing to help pay for people in need yes. I am not willing to bear the responsibility alone."
Where did I say I have no respect for hardwork?!? Have I not stated over and over again that I do not believe in handouts to able bodies. I said myself I am too proud to stand in an unemployment line. So why should some feed off the hardwork of others? They shouldn't.
Why do I have to repeat myself when you can just read my posts in the first place? The part about "not being willing to bear the responsibility alone" goes back to this:

ME: An unregulated market is the definition of natural selection. Money is a necessity of survival in our civilization. If you create a financial incentive NOT to help those in need than in order to compete in the market and for survival you will have to stop giving to the weak. Eventually it will become impossible to do so in order to compete for survival. These are the laws of natural selection. The nice guy cannot win.

Let me expand on that last part: "The nice guy cannot win". In natural selection(and first let me point out that you agreed that an unregulated market is natural selection) the 'nice guy' cannot exist. If one person cheats in a competition those that don't cheat will lose to the cheater, the one without moral values. That is why we have laws to prevent the morally devoid from gaining an advantage on the rest of us in society. The same people that cheat are the same people not willing to give to the weak. This gives them an advantage in natural selection. Do lions ask if they can share territory or do they kill the weaker lion, eat his children? Well they do the latter incase you didn't know.
With natural selection you cannot afford to help the weak and so there can be no 'nice guys'. Now, I am a nice guy! So while I am willing to help the weak I am not willing to to help the weak in trade for my own survival. That is my logic behind my answer. If you are not willing to present an expaination for yours than please go argue with people on youtube.

The rich should be forced to give money to the poor, at gunpoint or the threat of jail. If we don't do this, there'll be nothing that separates us from the animals, according to Bil's reasoning.

Yeah, you are right that is what I am saying. Keep in mind I am not the poor.

 

[thephysicsman]

Why is my argument nonsense?

Because humans differ from other animals in many ways, not only in that we force our neighbours to give money to the poor, at gunpoint or the threat of jail.

You could just as well use your argument to justify holocaust. "No animals gas members of their species, so if we stop gassing the Jews there'll be less to separate us from the animals". It's nonsense!

 

[WhoWee]

Depends what kind of drugs.

Illegal drugs.

 

[thephysicsman]

Note the choice pro-welfare activists give us a biased choice: 1) a welfare state with rich being forced to help the poor, or 2) freedom where nobody ever helps anybody for any reason, whatsoever.

This is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma" !

The best thing would be getting rid of all the government programs. Voluntary donations are more effective and the moral thing to do.

They win because they are really good at helping people? What?!? Can you expain that as well?

Sure. To succeed in the free market competition, you must constantly improve your products or services in order to offer the best value to other people. If customers can find people who are better at helping them, your business may fail.

How can you have a winner without a loser?

Because economics is not a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum" game.

The same people that cheat are the same people not willing to give to the weak. This gives them an advantage in natural selection.

You can boycott those people, rendering them disadvantaged.

With natural selection you cannot afford to help the weak and so there can be no 'nice guys'.

Lots of very successful people help the weak.

Now, I am a nice guy! So while I am willing to help the weak I am not willing to to help the weak in trade for my own survival.

False dilemma.

Illegal drugs.

Well, Marihuana is for example a harmless drug compared to the legal drug of alcohol. The prohibition is far more harmful.

 

[russ_watters]

You are fortunate enough to be able to afford insurance in the first place.

"Fortunate" implies luck, to me. Though I was lucky enough to be born with good parents, I've worked hard to earn the money I get.

And as an able bodied person you should be able to pay for this kind of thing. Not everyone can which is a problem that really is to big for this post.

Well that's the main point of the thread: an able-bodied person should be able to do these things for themselves and when they don't, that's a personal responsibility failure. Bailing such people out reinforces their conclusion that they don't have to be responsible for themselves. Ie, if poverty is comfortable, it will perpetuate itself.

What I was trying to point out is that sometimes people need things and they can't afford them and that's when SS should come in and not 'volunteer charity' (I already explained my reason for this).

Well in my opinion, they should only be allowed social benefits if they make a reasonable effort to provide for themselves and through bad luck that is no fault of their own, they can't. Others take that a step further that all charity should be private and I respect that position, but disagree.

 

[thephysicsman]

Others take that a step further that all charity should be private and I respect that position, but disagree.

What do you mean? A lot of people make this claim, but a closer scrutiny reveals that they respect our position just like Stalin "respected" the position of Christians in the Soviet Union. The Christians were allowed to hold their beliefs in their heads, but as soon as they tried to live out their beliefs in practice (building churches, organizing prayer meetings etc.), they were sent to jail. Is this the way you respect the position of people who believe they have the right to keep their own money?