Free Money

[ThazzarBaal]

Socialism ...

I know being poor isn't easy and when our governments hand out free money in guise of stimulus checks, although unaware of the conditions attached to them by United States citizens, we eagerly accept if not wait and sometimes expect more. The stipulations unknown, aside from the last couple. They were expected to be payed back. National debt, most of which rests in our consumers.

Free money? Whoever heard of such a thing? I draw a social security check, but even then I don't view it as free money. Civic duty? Spend and get involved in our electoral processes. Beyond this, I couldn't tell you. I'm still largely unaware of the conditions attached to these social programs.

Maybe I'm mistaken about the electoral processes. Surely I'm not expected to accept the funds and simply allow others to hold the reigns in our political arenas. Is this socialism? Here's some money, we got this for "you".

 

[spidergoat]

What's free about it? The poor work harder and pay more taxes than anyone. There should be few if any conditions for social welfare. I'm in favor of a basic universal income. We live in supposedly the most prosperous time in history, there should be benefits to this, more leisure and less hard work. You think billionares work hard and deserve that massive wealth? Do you think one person should be able to use that wealth to buy more democracy than you? And by that I mean virtually unlimited spending limits on political contributions.

 

[Jeeves]

Also, of course, anyone who receives a pension or unemployment insurance has been paying into the fund, and that fund has been invested on their behalf - invested in the enterprises of capitalists who make a lot more out of that investment than the tiny little anonymous investors do.
And if you count up all the really free money handed out by the government, which do you think would amount to more, welfare or bailouts?

 

[billvon]

Surely I'm not expected to accept the funds and simply allow others to hold the reigns in our political arenas.

No one expects you to do that.

Is this socialism?

No, it's an entitlement program. Socialism is government control of the means of production and distribution of goods and services. A standing military, supported by the government, is socialism. Consumer economy is capitalism.

Here's some money, we got this for "you".

Lot of government programs like that. "Hey, you like your road? We got that for you." "Hey, you like spectrum regulation? We did that for you."

 

[Jeeves]

Hey, you like huge subsidies for the oil, automobile and construction industries? We give it to them!

 

[ThazzarBaal]

No one expects you to do that.

No, it's an entitlement program. Socialism is government control of the means of production and distribution of goods and services. A standing military, supported by the government, is socialism. Consumer economy is capitalism.

Lot of government programs like that. "Hey, you like your road? We got that for you." "Hey, you like spectrum regulation? We did that for you."

There's a difference between tax payer money being utilized for these improvements. Social security is also a social welfare program, but this is not socialism. I prefer social programs being offered, but I also prefer to understand the cost of, which can go far beyond the monetary value.

Citizen involvement is vital to a true democracy, so if our citizens aren't involving themselves, or if our citizens are prevented from being involved, then it turns into a "we got this for you" scenario, all while many would be involved citizens are not being fairly represented. This has a taste of democracy, but it isn't democracy. Why? Because some citizens do involve themselves without being prevented. We've been fighting this one since before the civil war and also as it pertains to the voting rights of woman. It's in the criminal arena for the moment and determining whether felons should be allowed to vote. Expungement is necessary for this if I'm not mistaken.


Human rights and a true democracy go hand in hand. Otherwise it's still the elite privileged leaving the rest behind and unaccounted for, or at the very least, unrepresented as it should be in a true democracy.

 

[billvon]

There's a difference between tax payer money being utilized for these improvements.

Right. If the government directs the means of production and/or distribution of goods and services, it's socialism. If the government gives you things for free, it's an entitlement program.
Social Security, for example, is an entitlement program but not socialism, since the government doesn't control what you do with the money. Medicare is both an entitlement program and socialism, since the government tells the providers what they can provide and how they have to do it.

Human rights and a true democracy go hand in hand.

Well, no. Most of the US was OK with slavery circa 1800. So in a pure democracy, blacks are out of luck.

Human rights and the rule of law do go hand in hand, though, since we pass laws to protect minorities even if a transient passion or a financial incentive causes the majority to want to remove human rights from people.

 

[origin]

Socialism ...

I know being poor isn't easy and when our governments hand out free money in guise of stimulus checks, although unaware of the conditions attached to them by United States citizens, we eagerly accept if not wait and sometimes expect more. The stipulations unknown, aside from the last couple. They were expected to be payed back. National debt, most of which rests in our consumers.

Free money? Whoever heard of such a thing? I draw a social security check, but even then I don't view it as free money. Civic duty? Spend and get involved in our electoral processes. Beyond this, I couldn't tell you. I'm still largely unaware of the conditions attached to these social programs.

Maybe I'm mistaken about the electoral processes. Surely I'm not expected to accept the funds and simply allow others to hold the reigns in our political arenas. Is this socialism? Here's some money, we got this for "you".

Well, what did Jesus teach us about the poor, down trodden or homeless? That's right, he'd say, "screw 'em, ain't our problem!"

 

[Seattle]

Most of the US was OK with slavery circa 1800. So in a pure democracy, blacks are out of luck.

In a pure democracy blacks would have the right to vote. Not that I'm fond a a "pure" democracy.

 

[billvon]

In a pure democracy blacks would have the right to vote. Not that I'm fond a a "pure" democracy.

Right. But if they were in a minority, the whites could vote to enslave them.

 

[Seattle]

Right. But if they were in a minority, the whites could vote to enslave them.

Yes, the Asians, Blacks and Hispanics could vote to enslave the Whites now.

 

[billvon]

Yes, the Asians, Blacks and Hispanics could vote to enslave the Whites now.

If they got together to do that - yes, they could.

Which is why the rule of law is fairly important, and which is why true democracy is sometimes inimical to human rights.

 

[ThazzarBaal]

Right. If the government directs the means of production and/or distribution of goods and services, it's socialism. If the government gives you things for free, it's an entitlement program.
Social Security, for example, is an entitlement program but not socialism, since the government doesn't control what you do with the money. Medicare is both an entitlement program and socialism, since the government tells the providers what they can provide and how they have to do it.

Well, no. Most of the US was OK with slavery circa 1800. So in a pure democracy, blacks are out of luck.

Human rights and the rule of law do go hand in hand, though, since we pass laws to protect minorities even if a transient passion or a financial incentive causes the majority to want to remove human rights from people.

That's typically how it works, but sometimes ... Particularly without a accurate understand of how the work, the majority becomes so mislead that the majority vote could be detrimental to this nations future, which another reason why I think free higher education should be offered to our citizens.

Simple things, the 123's that helped us establish this nation are vital if we want to maintain our basic freedoms and human rights.

 

[C C]

[...] I know being poor isn't easy and when our governments [...]

Unfortunately, altruism doesn't seem to come with the intrinsic qualification that any specific approach to goodwill actually work or solve something in the long run. There's no reason to expend extra effort on achieving a sainthood image when the bare minimum of just reflexively throwing money at _X_ is sufficient.

The once celebrated PlayPump -- that Hollywood celebrities leaped upon to promote and fund, only worked in communities of Africa with sufficient children, and even then only inefficiently. It was also prone to breaking down. Since the PlayPump replaced the former hand-cranked pumps, women found themselves having to travel to more distant sources to obtain water. IOW, goodness help those cursed with the beneficence and interference of stupid white people out to relieve their guilty consciences or supplement their public personas.

To focus solely on state-run altruism...

If the responsibility were instead placed on local communities to almost exclusively deal with their socioeconomic problems (albeit surely requiring coordination with the work and methods of private organizations, churches, etc), that kind of indifference and non-critical "my brains automatically fall out when it comes to humanitarianism and righteousness" may still contingently apply ( i.e., bad accounting, pseudoscience and bogus cures in the 'poverty and SocJus industry', etc). But at least there is room for regional innovation and experimentation (mutation and variegation). Rather than everybody being shackled to the same, overarching government program of salvation and its potential shortcomings, failures.

Of course, there will be sparsely populated and destitute regions that simply don't have the resources to cope on their own. In those cases, provincial and/or cardinal government paternalism could indeed intervene. But there would need to be strict regulations preventing politicians from opportunistically expanding their system of patronization to the entirety of a sub-region or the whole country (returning to the Old Way). A central government could also play a minimum role by releasing annual lists of provinces and counties that are given high marks for addressing and remedying their social ills, and demerits for those that are negligent (a kind of shaming via national coverage in the press, as well as competition to be the best [legit] do-gooder community).
_

 

[Jeeves]

Which is why the rule of law is fairly important, and which is why true democracy is sometimes inimical to human rights.

I think that's why constitutional democracies usually append a bill of rights.

 

[ThazzarBaal]

Unfortunately, altruism doesn't seem to come with the intrinsic qualification that any specific approach to goodwill actually work or solve something in the long run. There's no reason to expend extra effort on achieving a sainthood image when the bare minimum of just reflexively throwing money at _X_ is sufficient.

The once celebrated PlayPump -- that Hollywood celebrities leaped upon to promote and fund, only worked in communities of Africa with sufficient children, and even then only inefficiently. It was also prone to breaking down. Since the PlayPump replaced the former hand-cranked pumps, women found themselves having to travel to more distant sources to obtain water. IOW, goodness help those cursed with the beneficence and interference of stupid white people out to relieve their guilty consciences or supplement their public personas.

To focus solely on state-run altruism...

If the responsibility were instead placed on local communities to almost exclusively deal with their socioeconomic problems (albeit surely requiring coordination with the work and methods of private organizations, churches, etc), that kind of indifference and non-critical "my brains automatically fall out when it comes to humanitarianism and righteousness" may still contingently apply ( i.e., bad accounting, pseudoscience and bogus cures in the 'poverty and SocJus industry', etc). But at least there is room for regional innovation and experimentation (mutation and variegation). Rather than everybody being shackled to the same, overarching government program of salvation and its potential shortcomings, failures.

Of course, there will be sparsely populated and destitute regions that simply don't have the resources to cope on their own. In those cases, provincial and/or cardinal government paternalism could indeed intervene. But there would need to be strict regulations preventing politicians from opportunistically expanding their system of patronization to the entirety of a sub-region or the whole country (returning to the Old Way). A central government could also play a minimum role by releasing annual lists of provinces and counties that are given high marks for addressing and remedying their social ills, and demerits for those that are negligent (a kind of shaming via national coverage in the press, as well as competition to be the best [legit] do-gooder community).
_

Internationally speaking and in terms of democracy or democratic process, this entire nation is much like a State in our national arena. The international arena has quite a bit more water and bigger fish, so to speak. So, in order to function properly internationally, this nation is forced to act much like a State in the processes that determine international policies, which we the people aka - this nations government - are required to honor.

With that said, our representatives are the vehicles utilized to accommodate our needs, both national needs and international needs. One area I'm unwilling to accept as a compromise is our bill of rights .... Starting with the 1st. The second is no less necessary if only for national defense. Hunting is already accepted. We've grown beyond a single democratic territory by many numbers, and because of this, we have stronger allies and foreign relations. We still have enemies in the international arena, and seeing eye to eye isn't easy on many fronts. This has been evidenced throughout this nations history. The difference is we're now in international democratic waters and operating as a much smaller entity globally.

 

[ThazzarBaal]

Btw, who's trying to qualify as a saint by doing community service and/or by helping to fund social welfare services? I simply suggest that the private sector is a very valid source for some of these programs and that our national funds via taxes should be applied differently. Social security on the other hand, is still being funded via taxes and employment history for this purpose, which I still agree with. I do think there could be some room for renovations in this area, but by and large it has been a very worthwhile program.

 

[billvon]

I think that's why constitutional democracies usually append a bill of rights.

Agreed! And why it's very hard to change them (usually) once they are ratified.

 

[Jeeves]

social welfare services....the private sector is a very valid source for some of these programs and that our national funds via taxes should be applied differently.

Private prisons? Done!
Research on the Conditions in Private Prisons
pond cummings and Lamparello, 2016 report that the living environments “deprive many inmates of basic needs”, many are “severely underfed” and have to live in “filthy quarters without working lights or toilets” (p. 427). Bauer (2016; 2018), who has worked undercover as a guard for 4 months in a private prison, has also disclosed horrible conditions. For instance, he reports that because a prisoner was refused any medical attendance, he lost his legs to gangrene. Further, guards were paid only $9 per hour and the prisons were very much understaffed: at times, only 24 guards were on duty but were responsible for more than 1,500 inmates. Thus, he concludes, it is unsurprising that private prisons have become rather violent. pond cummings and Lamparello (2016, p. 426), for example, report assault rates in private prisons as being between three and five times higher compared to public prisons. Another factor contributing to the increasing violence is the limited training that correctional officers receive

Schools? Done!
Just like traditional public schools, charter schools can be effective or ineffective, depending on teachers, leadership and other factors. But some have achieved notable success in helping low-income and minority students achieve high test scores and prepare for college.

Workfare? Done!
The final conclusion from the workfare evaluations is that staffing is weak for the purpose of training, job development, placement, and work support. At the root of the problems is America’s lack of an active labor-market policy—for example, training and rehabilitation, placement, counseling, work-study programs, mobility incentives, wage subsidies, and job creation

 

[Seattle]

If they got together to do that - yes, they could.

Which is why the rule of law is fairly important, and which is why true democracy is sometimes inimical to human rights.

What any form of democracy (including representative democracy) needs to be effective is compromise. That's what is largely absent in the age of Trump. With compromise one doesn't need to worry too much when the "other" party is in office because any changes will go though that sieve.

Today it just goes from one extreme to the other.