I Miss Bush

[DanaC]

Socialism isn't about removing rewards.

There is a great distinction between 'grades' and 'money'/'ownership of the means of production'. Grades are not necessary to exchange for shelter, food and warmth. Nor did giving them a mass grade in anyway place the means of acquiring those grades (production) into their hands.


[eta] My own personal opinion is that those things necessary to survival and basic human dignity should not be seen as 'rewards'. They are a starting point.

[SamIam]

Arguing the finer points of socialism with UG is like trying to discuss atheism with the Spanish Inquisition.

As an aside, I am amazed how we characterize socialism as "da debbil' while at the same time allowing our economy to become ever more dependent on the whim of communist China. Everyone tries to excuse this by saying that China has become "capitalist" or more like us. Actually, the US is becoming more like China. Our government pours money into failing corporations and subsidizes financial entities that have acted to the detriment of the country, and politicians pass these actions off as sound economics.

The Chinese government gives loans at low or no interest to Chinese corporations which allow them to flood the world with cheap products. Chinese manufacturing is heavily subsidized, and the Communist system allows workers to get by on such a low wage that no capitalist country can compete with it.

[tw]

Apparently I have been drinking too much coffee (the gateway drug). Still, this is an excellent statement.

Originally Posted by SamIam

Arguing the finer points of socialism with UG is like trying to discuss atheism with the Spanish Inquisition.

Why? Because Glenn Beck said it.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

[eta] My own personal opinion is that those things necessary to survival and basic human dignity should not be seen as 'rewards'. They are a starting point.

But now don't you think you are adjusting the model to fix your own personal opinion? Because any idealist could put anything they want into that opinion as you define it. If I think some form of person transportation is necessary to my survival then someone else should provide it to me. And if I don't think I make enough money to get those things that I think I should have, for what ever reason, then someone else (the government) should provide it for me. And the government should be available in selected cases to do that. But for the majority of situations it should be a stop gap, not a means to an end.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

But now don't you think you are adjusting the model to fix your own personal opinion? Because any idealist could put anything they want into that opinion as you define it. If I think some form of person transportation is necessary to my survival then someone else should provide it to me. And if I don't think I make enough money to get those things that I think I should have, for what ever reason, then someone else (the government) should provide it for me. And the government should be available in selected cases to do that. But for the majority of situations it should be a stop gap, not a means to an end.

Try being unable to afford a car and living in a town with no public transportation. Uncle Sam doesn't owe me or anyone else a car, but some sort of public transit is invaluable to the population at large for any number of reasons.

Various groups still adhere blindly to the dogma that the US is the land of opportunity and anyone who works hard enough can obtain entrance to the upper middle class, no matter what their background. Certainly, its possible to work hard and live better here than in many other less fortunate countries.

But the "land of opportunity - fields of waving grain" construct died with the passing of the 19th century. In the 1800's an immigrant could land in New York and make his way West to claim 160 acres of land at little or no cost, work hard, and create a new life for himself. No more.

Today our resources are finite and our society is stratified. A child brought up in the semi-war zone of the urban housing projects simply does not have access to the quality of education and opportunities that a child of upper middle class parents living in a gated community does. I continue to be amazed that there are people who argue otherwise.

I don't expect the government to provide me with silk underware and a 60 inch flatscreen TV. However, a society which provides it children with a good education, basic health care and the food to mature into healthy adults is making a very wise investment that will pay off in terms of increased worker productivity and greater economic well-being.

If you don't believe this, take a visit to the city of Receife (pop one million plus) in northern Brazil where I once lived. Only children of the well to do go to school. The rest run in packs on the streets, always hungry, often suffering chronic disease, and poorly clothed. Girls 10 years of age or younger resort to prostitution - the only work available. The Brazilian government either cannot or will not intervene on the behalf of the country's children or its adult citizens. If you want a road to your house, you build it yourself. If you want security for your home or neighborhood, you hire private thugs. Its a libertarian's dream, but its not mine.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Try being unable to afford a car and living in a town with no public transportation. Uncle Sam doesn't owe me or anyone else a car, but some sort of public transit is invaluable to the population at large for any number of reasons.

So isit a Right that you are owed to some form of public transportation? The majority of cities and towns in the US do not have one. The days of a RR station for every city and town are long gone.

Various groups still adhere blindly to the dogma that the US is the land of opportunity and anyone who works hard enough can obtain entrance to the upper middle class, no matter what their background. Certainly, its possible to work hard and live better here than in many other less fortunate countries.

But the "land of opportunity - fields of waving grain" construct died with the passing of the 19th century. In the 1800's an immigrant could land in New York and make his way West to claim 160 acres of land at little or no cost, work hard, and create a new life for himself. No more.

How would you explain the success of the Chinese or Korean grocery store in many black dominated areas of the inner city? How about the success of the Cuban-Americans in Miami?

Today our resources are finite and our society is stratified. A child brought up in the semi-war zone of the urban housing projects simply does not have access to the quality of education and opportunities that a child of upper middle class parents living in a gated community does. I continue to be amazed that there are people who argue otherwise.

I would agree completely. And the sooner that we all recognize that society is stratified the sooner we can stop with all the class warfare and attempts at wealth redistribution.

I don't expect the government to provide me with silk underware and a 60 inch flatscreen TV. However, a society which provides it children with a good education, basic health care and the food to mature into healthy adults is making a very wise investment that will pay off in terms of increased worker productivity and greater economic well-being.

I would agree. To bad we don't live in a utopia. Because we have been throwing money at those issues and they have improved marginally at best.

[quotet]If you don't believe this, take a visit to the city of Receife (pop one million plus) in northern Brazil where I once lived. Only children of the well to do go to school. The rest run in packs on the streets, always hungry, often suffering chronic disease, and poorly clothed. Girls 10 years of age or younger resort to prostitution - the only work available. The Brazilian government either cannot or will not intervene on the behalf of the country's children or its adult citizens. If you want a road to your house, you build it yourself. If you want security for your home or neighborhood, you hire private thugs. Its a libertarian's dream, but its not mine.[/quote]I have been to plenty of Third World countries. Thank God we don't live in one.

[SamIam]

Public transit, universal education, fire and police protection, etc. are not rights. They are sound investments that a society makes in its own well being.

Those who benefit from our current system, yet complain about paying for it suffer from a narcissistic world view at best. "I've done great. The rest of you are on your own."

Immigrants from other countries who make good here are by definition largely members of the middle class in their own countries and/or have useful connections in the US. Our immigration laws ensure this.

The spunky oriental immigrant who hits the big time in the ghetto is largely a myth. And for everyone like him, there is a woman from Thailand who comes here and opens up a "massage parlor' where sex is sold in the back room. She eventually becomes caught up in the legal system and costs the local taxpayers thousands.

Individual annecdotes are a dime a dozen. They are fun to relate, but useless for implementing policy.

The term "throwing money at" is shop worn and was a questionable analogy from the start. Schools in poor and rural areas have been underfunded for decades if not forever. No tycoons from the exclusive side of town come through and throw dimes at kids in the ghetto. I have yet to see a wealthy matron from Denver's posh Cherrycreek neighborhood travel out here to the small and very distressed town of Paradox, Colorado to endow a new school library filled with comic books.

The only thing Congress throws money at are special interests (wealthy campaign contributors) and its own boondoggles.

As for the third world, the US is working on joining it.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Public transit, universal education, fire and police protection, etc. are not rights. They are sound investments that a society makes in its own well being.

At what cost and to what end?

Those who benefit from our current system, yet complain about paying for it suffer from a narcissistic world view at best. "I've done great. The rest of you are on your own."

And like others here, I hear another cry along the lines of class envy. I do agree with what you are saying, they should charge higher rider fees to make it work better.

Immigrants from other countries who make good here are by definition largely members of the middle class in their own countries and/or have useful connections in the US. Our immigration laws ensure this.

I agree. Yet those who live here and have all the same advantages and in fact more advantages and connections still can't do as well. Why do you think that is?

The spunky oriental immigrant who hits the big time in the ghetto is largely a myth. And for everyone like him, there is a woman from Thailand who comes here and opens up a "massage parlor' where sex is sold in the back room. She eventually becomes caught up in the legal system and costs the local taxpayers thousands.

Yet they are making a dollar and completely support themselves. I would support the legalization of prostitution like it is in NV.

Individual annecdotes are a dime a dozen. They are fun to relate, but useless for implementing policy.

Damm right. Which is why I am tired of hearing the politicians telling me another story about "Betty Johnson from Bumbfuck USA" and how because of one party or the other has been screwed by the system. It only contributes to more class envy and warfare.

The term "throwing money at" is shop worn and was a questionable analogy from the start.

BS, it is not about some "wealthy matron" tossing dimes, it is about the billions wasted by state and federal governments on throwing money at failing schools.

The only thing Congress throws money at are special interests (wealthy campaign contributors) and its own boondoggles.

As for the third world, the US is working on joining it.

Agreed and agreed.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And like others here, I hear another cry along the lines of class envy.

You mean because I'm currently on disability, my viewpoint is skewed? My eyes have certainly been opened due to the events of the past 10 years, I'll grant you that. But I had a solid middle class upbringing, was fortunate enough to earn an advanced college degree and spent most of my career in a professional position. Other than a brief flirtation with your pal, Ayn Rand, at age 17, I am a life long humanist. I owe my outlook to intelligence, enlightened self-interest, and compassion.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by SamIam

....A child brought up in the semi-war zone of the urban housing projects simply does not have access to the quality of education and opportunities that a child of upper middle class parents living in a gated community does.....

But it does provide a place to dump sex-offenders.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

But now don't you think you are adjusting the model to fix your own personal opinion? Because any idealist could put anything they want into that opinion as you define it. If I think some form of person transportation is necessary to my survival then someone else should provide it to me. And if I don't think I make enough money to get those things that I think I should have, for what ever reason, then someone else (the government) should provide it for me. And the government should be available in selected cases to do that. But for the majority of situations it should be a stop gap, not a means to an end.

What you think is necessary to survival, and what can be shown/proved to be necessary to your survival are very different matters. As Sam pointed out: it is not government's job to provide each individual with a car. It is government's job to ensure that there is a functioning public transport system, accessible to all and with routes that aren't profitable given subsidies to make sure no one community is left unserved.

It is also not government's job to ensure that I personally have a PC in my house and a broadband connection. It is however, in my opinion, government's job to ensure that there are public terminals, in libraries for example, available to all. It is also government's job to ensure that all schoolchildren are given access to such technology in order that they are not disadvantaged by a lack of computer literacy.


To me, it seems obvious that it is in my nation's interest for as many people as possible to be able to participate in society and the economy. It is of social value that even the least resourced of us has a standard of living above and beyond abject and hopeless poverty. It is of economic value that those people who are at risk of being excluded from the economy altogether, be helped to retain an economic presence. So, for example, foodstamps make a lot less sense to me than a cash benefit payment which allows the recipient to 'spend' within the economy, without being effectively coralled into a closed and deeply uncompetetive, separate tier of that economy.


As a socialist, I believe in a very basic premise: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Now obviously, in practice life is not that simple. People are not that simple. People do not always do what is best for themselves, or the rest of us. And without an impetus to work, or contribute, good intentions eventually dissolve into selfishness. Badly handled, assistance can exacerbate distress, or sanction selfishness to the detriment of the whole.

At the end of the day it is a matter of balance and judegement. Weighing up the social and economic harm of having large swathes of underclass alienated from the mainstream of the economy and engaged instead in a kind of sub-economy, from which are drawn few or no taxes, and which carry little or no consumer weight. Essentially, weighing up the harm of allowing people and families to fail to such an extent that they are no longer able to function as effective members of society. At the same time, weighing up the social and economic harm of giving assistance, of sanctioning a self-selected exclusion from the active economy, by a few, in order to prevent the unwanted exclusion of a much greater group (imo).

Most western countries, the US included, have got a handle on the idea that they don't actually want large numbers of people starving on the streets. It is not desirable that we have children chasing tourists in the train stations, begging for coin. So, to varying degrees we implement safety nets. But because we wish to deter as many people as possible from seeking those safety nets, we make the assistance offered unpalatable and humiliating.

This seems a retrograde step to me. If the assistance on offer is unpalatable and humliating, then those who have no choice but to seek it for long periods can become psychologically damaged by the experience. Not only have they become excluded by circumstance from the economy, but they have also become excluded from mainstream society and culture. Far from encouraging greater levels of effort on their part, this is actually more likely to compound the problem: their life becomes demotivating, depressing, and deskilling. The ritual humilliations involved in accessing such assistance serve to damage self-confidence, increase the social gaps, and entrench the individual (and even whole families) in inactivty. It makes them less likely to get through an interview successfully, both because they are less able to finance jobsearch, travel, interview clothes and so on, but also because a lack of self-confidence and self-worth do not make for good interviews.

You said at one point in this discussion ( I think) that the answer is not to throw money at the problem. I see things a little differently. I see the past twenty-five years as a race to the bottom. Lower and lower benefits, harsher and harsher conditions, greater and greater levels of approbation. We have long since dispensed with the carrot and have been using bigger and bigger sticks. Yet, no matter how harsh we make life on welfare; no matter how humiliating we make the process; no matter how pitful the sum given; no matter how many people we exclude from assistance, the need has not diminished.

In the early 19th century, Britain altered its approach to dealing with poverty. Poor relief, once given to families out in the community, along with wage top-ups given to certain workers during periods of need (the speenhamland system) were scrapped. Instead relief would be given only through becoming an inmate in the workhouse. At the same time, those workhouses were deliberately made as terrible as possible. This was documented, in debates and letters, in which the main designers of the New Poor Law expressed the idea that, in order to ensure that the idle sought work and saw relief as an absolute last resort, it must be made as unpalatable as possible, that food should be sufficient for continued life, but not sufficient to remove hunger; that men and women should be separated, even if married, and children housed separately from their parents. They were given meaningless, body-breaking work and subjected to brutal regimes. Uniforms identified and dehumanised them in the same way as prisons do now.

It didn't solve the problem.

They chased the bottom: they never reached it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

It is government's job to ensure that there is a functioning public transport system, accessible to all and with routes that aren't profitable given subsidies to make sure no one community is left unserved.

That only works in high density areas. Financially impossible in this country. To run public transportation a hundred miles, to serve a hundred people, that may or may not use it on any given day, is out of the question.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

What you think is necessary to survival, and what can be shown/proved to be necessary to your survival are very different matters. As Sam pointed out: it is not government's job to provide each individual with a car. It is government's job to ensure that there is a functioning public transport system, accessible to all and with routes that aren't profitable given subsidies to make sure no one community is left unserved.

For every person served there will be an equal or greater number who think they are not being served. It is a snake eating it's tail.

It is also not government's job to ensure that I personally have a PC in my house and a broadband connection. It is however, in my opinion, government's job to ensure that there are public terminals, in libraries for example, available to all.

Paid for by whom?

It is also government's job to ensure that all schoolchildren are given access to such technology in order that they are not disadvantaged by a lack of computer literacy.

Paid for by whom, and who should be responsible to ensure that they are all computer literate?

To me, it seems obvious that it is in my nation's interest for as many people as possible to be able to participate in society and the economy.

Which is why I believe that in order for them to be invested they should all pay taxes at a the same percentage as everyone else, because if they are not invested they will treat such benefits as a right.

It is of social value that even the least resourced of us has a standard of living above and beyond abject and hopeless poverty. It is of economic value that those people who are at risk of being excluded from the economy altogether, be helped to retain an economic presence. So, for example, foodstamps make a lot less sense to me than a cash benefit payment which allows the recipient to 'spend' within the economy, without being effectively coralled into a closed and deeply uncompetetive, separate tier of that economy.

So they can spend it on cigs or alcohol or drugs?

As a socialist, I believe in a very basic premise: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

With that statement alone you could not support wealth redistribution than, because if my ability to pay for my needs exceeds yours than I really have no obligation to make sure that you have nappies.

Now obviously, in practice life is not that simple. People are not that simple. People do not always do what is best for themselves, or the rest of us. And without an impetus to work, or contribute, good intentions eventually dissolve into selfishness. Badly handled, assistance can exacerbate distress, or sanction selfishness to the detriment of the whole.

Which is a great argument for the continuation of controlled support in the form of food stamps and other directed support.

At the end of the day it is a matter of balance and judegement. Weighing up the social and economic harm of having large swathes of underclass alienated from the mainstream of the economy and engaged instead in a kind of sub-economy, from which are drawn few or no taxes, and which carry little or no consumer weight. Essentially, weighing up the harm of allowing people and families to fail to such an extent that they are no longer able to function as effective members of society.

Yes, they are Zero Liability Voters.

At the same time, weighing up the social and economic harm of giving assistance, of sanctioning a self-selected exclusion from the active economy, by a few, in order to prevent the unwanted exclusion of a much greater group (imo).

And further supporting a class of people who have no incentive to move ahead, move forward, or take responsibility for themselves, as long as the umbrella of the Government will always be there for them they don't have any incentive to do better by themselves. Right?

Most western countries, the US included, have got a handle on the idea that they don't actually want large numbers of people starving on the streets. It is not desirable that we have children chasing tourists in the train stations, begging for coin. So, to varying degrees we implement safety nets. But because we wish to deter as many people as possible from seeking those safety nets, we make the assistance offered unpalatable and humiliating.

Agreed. A good start to get people off the public dole.

This seems a retrograde step to me. If the assistance on offer is unpalatable and humliating, then those who have no choice but to seek it for long periods can become psychologically damaged by the experience. Not only have they become excluded by circumstance from the economy, but they have also become excluded from mainstream society and culture. Far from encouraging greater levels of effort on their part, this is actually more likely to compound the problem: their life becomes demotivating, depressing, and deskilling. The ritual humilliations involved in accessing such assistance serve to damage self-confidence, increase the social gaps, and entrench the individual (and even whole families) in inactivty. It makes them less likely to get through an interview successfully, both because they are less able to finance jobsearch, travel, interview clothes and so on, but also because a lack of self-confidence and self-worth do not make for good interviews.

Oh this is rich. So now it is no longer their fault and they have no responsibility for their own lives or predicament now it is the fault of and a failure of the government because they did not dig them out of the holes they put themselves in. BS. This where your, and the other socialists, thinking fails IMHO. It is not the role of government to do this. It is the responsibility of the individual.

You said at one point in this discussion ( I think) that the answer is not to throw money at the problem. I see things a little differently. I see the past twenty-five years as a race to the bottom. Lower and lower benefits, harsher and harsher conditions, greater and greater levels of approbation. We have long since dispensed with the carrot and have been using bigger and bigger sticks. Yet, no matter how harsh we make life on welfare; no matter how humiliating we make the process; no matter how pitful the sum given; no matter how many people we exclude from assistance, the need has not diminished.

And I see it differently. We have given more and more money to deal with the issues and they have not improved. The only place that I see a major failure in our society (the US) is that our mental health system has collapsed for the most seriously ill. Why? Because our inpatient mental health facilities have close and moved to a significantly underfunded out-patient system. This has been a dismal failure. The prison population is populated by an untreated group of mentally ill patients who lack the support to get treatment in the utopian model of out-patient care. Hence an increase in homelessness and a never ending cycle of movement into and out of the prison system and a life on the streets. This needs funding and attention to make a small but significant dent in the system of and cycle of dependence.