This is why social welfare fails.

"

morbo wrote:

"

1453R wrote:

All I really want is for all the Templars and Morbos and such in this forum/the world to admit that what they're really after is permission to murder poor people.

Spoiler

"

1453R wrote:

But if you're going to campaign for the abolition of any and all forms of welfare ....

I never said anything like that. In fact I'm for welfare and entitlements, especially for universal health care, pensions (decent lives for the elderly) and subsidizing most education. People who loose the job, should get temporary help, until they can find another job. But people should be also taught to save, think long-term and learn that there are no rights without responsibilities.

What "do gooders" fail to realize is that welfare only works when you use it sparingly. It only works when most people produce and only a minority is exploiting governmental help. It only works when you have a culture that is aware of this. And most certainly does not work when you open your borders to mass immigration, when you invite illegal aliens to flood your cities, when you destroy the family unit, when you let corporations ship all the work abroad, when you incentivize healthy people to do nothing, etc...

USA will never have universal healthcare, for example, because your society is broken beyond repair. Welfare works quite well in Europe because we still have national cohesion, a civilized culture and aren't yet a shit show filled with 3rd-world mentality, where certain cultures or races form a permanent dependent class, while others have to provide for them. Even in the fking Balkans - the asshole of Europe - we have more societal cohesion and thus a better foundation for a welfare state, than USA.

If throwing money at poor people would actually work, cities in the US, like Los Angeles would not be such stinking hell holes as they are, filled with homeless, drug addicts, illegals, gangs, crime... If socialist governments were able to fix things, people in Venezuela would not be starving and eating trash. But it does't work like that - you have to throw responsibilities and duty onto people, besides money.

Foreign countries with universal healthcare are completely dependent on the USA's for profit healthcare system to continue to invent nearly everything new and progress healthcare into the future. Without the USA's for profit healthcare all new medical/healthcare technology would virtually stop overnight; or slow to a crawl, comparatively.

On average, 75% of new inventions are made here in the USA; and that is all thanks to our "for profit" business'.

Foreigners should just feel lucky you can reap the rewards of the USA's for profit healthcare system; instead of complaining and bashing the USA.

"

Khoranth wrote:

Yes USA dominates in terms of medical science/tech that way.

But really most doctor visits don't require some advanced tech to heal someone.

The main problem with countries like canada, and you'll hear this over and over, is there are long wait times to be seen usually. Unless it's a huge emergency.

I can only speak for canada and england but many people I know online have described the wait times and at least for the canadians, that's why in many cases they just go south of the border to be seen right away.

Then you have a problem with inferior doctors as a whole because of brain drain.

Who wants to make 1/5 the money you can make in USA? Or 1/3 if you're canadian?

The best doctors, leave such nations to make more money elsewhere, and leave the countries in a major bind of inferior, even if universal, service... top to bottom.

That’s a bullshit straw man, 1453R, and you know it.



Don’t pretend like robbing Peter to pay Paul is the only way to help people. When people say shit like “muh sustainability,” as if it’s not an actual concern, you just know they literally believe in unicorns and pots of gold at the end of the rainbow.

More later, maybe, but for now I have to go be a busy little worker drone and Create Value(TM).

"

Khoranth wrote:

Foreign countries with universal healthcare are completely dependent on the USA's for profit healthcare system to continue to invent nearly everything new and progress healthcare into the future.

Not sure how you came to this conclusion. Europe has for-profit health industry too (ever heard of Bayer, for example?). We also have private healthcare, you can pay to get ahead, if you don't want to wait (waiting lines are usually a problem in socialized systems - somehow you have to ration a limited resource).

But universal healthcare doesn't mean the state runs pharmaceutical development, it means that all citizens have access to at least basic health-care for "free" (in "reasonable" time, lol). USA excels in top notch medical tech, if you can pay for it, but most cases covered on daily basis are not about complex surgeries or treatment.

As Templar_G mentioned, brain-drain is a huge problem for us, especially in central / eastern Europe. You can get comparatively good quality education for "free" and then simply emigrate to Germany, UK, US... half of the Balkans work in Austria/Germany, lol. And not just shitty jobs, but stuff like engineering, IT...

That's why I hate leftist's simplistic arguments, always promising free stuff without mentioning any obligations. If you get "free" education, especially in costly areas like medicine, you should not be able to simply leave the country and go work & pay taxes abroad. Nothing is really free, someone has always to pay for it. And usually that someone is the average (lower-)middle class worker and not the "1%" top-hat elites, like Sanderistas would make us believe.

Alternatively, telling someone that they got a good education in Country [X], and this means they are now chained to Country [X] forever like a medieval serf is a shitty way to avoid brain drain.

If someone is receiving a government subsidized education for purpose, such as a Balkan receiving medical training on the government's dime, then a stint of service in said country should be a mandatory part of that training. You're paying for the training with your time and the skills you learned via that training. Once you've paid for that training, though? You should be free to do as you please, rather than being a government medical slave for the rest of your life because of a few years of training.

@Pants:

My argument is not "WELFARE FOR EVERYBODY!" My argument is that the angry shouty people who scream "KILL WELFARE FOREVER!" are basically demanding that the government execute unlucky people. Clearly welfare should not be a permanent solution for people. I actually believe quite strongly in government subsidized job training, getting people into the workforce with skills and training that keeps them there and gets them enough money to kick welfare, and furthermore believe that employment counselling, and/or whatever they call job hunt assistance, should also be organized and subsidized to help people who get laid off for no fucking reason, or people who may be terrible at job hunting, get back into the saddle.



The hell are we even paying taxes for, after all, if the government never does anything to help us when we fall? Given the choice between paying my Disaster Insurance dollars to a for-profit insurance company that is extremely strongly incentivized to do everything in its power to squirm out of keeping its end of the bargain when I need help, or paying my Disaster Insurance dollars to a government welfare program which exists for the explicit purpose of assisting citizens who've fallen on hard times? I'll pay into welfare every single time.

You have to spend money to make money, and if you do absolutely nothing to help your citizenry Create Value(TM), then you won't get nearly as much Value(TM) as if you'd set up some sensible systems to help funnel people into positions where they can more easily and more certainly Create Value(TM).

And frankly, there's already vastly too much callous abandonment of injured or mentally strained workers as it is. If someone breaks their body or their mind working for you, you should bloody fucking well be on the hook for them, with the obvious caveat of someone who was stupid and did it to themselves. Nevertheless. Every time I hear about someone crippled in an unavoidable workplace accident who then gets summarily dismissed with a curt "we're sorry this happened to you, please don't think ill of us" before being thrown into the street, it makes me want to knife a CEO.

Corporations can stop being evil any old day now, man. When they do, maybe I'll trust them more. Until then, at least the government isn't actively incentivized to fuck you over at any given opportunity the way Big Corporate is. I'll keep my welfare systems, thanks - and this as a worker drone Creating Value(TM). Perfectly content to chip in my part to help folks who missed the boat.

What about you? Are you content to help folks who missed the boat with the understanding that obviously corruption and abuse are undesirable and should be combated, or is it the guillotine for poor people?

"

1453R wrote:

Nevertheless. Every time I hear about someone crippled in an unavoidable workplace accident who then gets summarily dismissed with a curt "we're sorry this happened to you, please don't think ill of us" before being thrown into the street, it makes me want to knife a CEO.

Is this a joke?

Where do you live where a man can get crippled at a workplace in an unavoidable way, and somehow the company just tosses him out and that's that?

You sure do like to create drama in your mind that is extremely misplaced in the real world.

"knife a ceo", your words, levels of drama.

You wrote some intelligent things but how about we stick with reality, where CEO's don't toss people in the street who get crippled in their businesses.

This sounds like a bad superhero tv series plot. And all superhero tv series, are lame.

I'm European and i can confirm 100% that socialism failed here. Italy is pure chaos, UK left EU, Iceland went bankrupt, Ukraine is split in half, Spain is divided by the nationalists who want to divide the country, Greece has insane debt... Only ones carrying are France (which has had pretty strong syndical riots [silenced by the media so it didn't become contagious to other countries]) and Germany which well it's germany and they are simply more productive than anyone else here. Ultranationalism, "communism" and "fascism" is rising everywhere.

As Merkel said "We can't trust EEUU to defend us anymore". It's all about stopping being dumb, regain our identity, secure/expropiate our natural resources. Expand nuclear energy and nuclear weapons and make states the true owners of wealth instead of the international usury.

Problem is that there is no balls here. People got their brains eaten off by anti European propaganda. People are shameful of their past for ahving conquered the world.

Just invest against Europe because it's soon to be owned by China like PoE.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Because like Ronald Reagan famously said. (paraphrasing) Tax something get less of it - Subsidize something get more of it.

Aim pretty much nails it here.

"

1453R wrote:

My argument is that the angry shouty people who scream "KILL WELFARE FOREVER!" are basically demanding that the government execute unlucky people. Clearly welfare should not be a permanent solution for people.

I'm a capitalist but not an anarchist (or a corporatist), so I see government as a business that provides a valuable service: specifically, the business of creating and enforcing laws (aka creating incentives and disincentives via the threat of force) to protect the rights of its paying customers. However, that industry of creating and enforcing law has a particular character that makes it awkward at best to bundle with other types of business from separate industries - for instance, insurance or healthcare.

What you're talking about here is insurance. I hope you understand that, in a world where the people in the business of enforcing rules under the credible threat of force don't monopolize the unemployment insurance industry, there would be private insurers who would collect premiums from people who have jobs and the sense to worry about losing them, and would then pay benefits to these customers in the event they lost their jobs. Just because you claim someone somehow needs to provide a particular service does not mean it automatically follows that government must be involved with providing this service.

What it really comes down to is this idea of yours is that refusing to provide for someone is tantamount to killing them, as if we're all such children that training wheels must be mandatory at all times. As I said earlier, in a world without government-controlled unemployment insurance the service would still exist but those without the sense to set it up and pay for it would be screwed if they lost their jobs (although until then they'd reap the benefits of not having to pay premiums, which isn't an option under government-controlled insurance). This is a lot like saying that a driver could decide to put on their seatbelt, or they could choose not to. Do you expect me to feel great remorse for the driver who chooses not to and ends up road pizza?

When I was a child I would often hear the (Aesop's) fable of the ant and the grasshopper. The ant ant-icipates (ha!) future needs and works in the present to be ready for them; the grasshopper does not, and plays instead. When the future comes, the grasshopper begs the ant for help, as he is not ready and will die otherwise. While I recognize the opportunity for the ant to save the grasshopper here, we need to properly understand what it is the ant would be saving him from: the grasshopper needs saving from himself. The grasshopper is on a path, created by the grasshopper, that will kill the grasshopper. So please, let us not speak of governments executing unlucky people, because that's not what's happening; a more accurate description is a government standing idly by as the incompetent Darwin Award their way into oblivion. I'm not wholey convinced the lemmings need to be stopped before they reach the cliff.

It is not my duty nor anyone elses to sacrifice ourselves to save the lives of those who didn't put on their seatbelts. If it's your pleasure to save such people, then by all means feel free to do so; my resentment of charity begins where my choice to opt out ends.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

...
California needs to review history why socialism fails, everywhere it's been tried or else we are done for. ..

You may need to review history. Yes, "Socialism" fails. However, nations that do not take care of their indigent populations.. fail. They have failed far more often than any "socialist" nation, simply because socialism, proper, was only thunked up fairly recently..

If a nation does not provide what is considered to be some minimal subsistence for its indigent population, especially if that population is growing, then what happens? Providing measures to combat indigent problems and to stabilize the lowest segments of one's population isn't "Socialism." It's just plain "smart," especially if a nation wants to be around for awhile.

When someone doesn't have something they thing they should have and, once enough of them get together, they'll come take it. Add "starving to death" and "my children are dying under this bridge" to the mix and you're looking straight at a "revolution of the indigent population." They make movies about this stuff, if not books. Surely you've seen some on Netflix? Maybe seen a book about such things?

If you want to examine why there are increases in indigent populations, examine the expansion of illicit drug use, especially opiates, and the increasing complacency concerning mental health care as well as our attitudes towards people who may be addicted or suffering mental problems. We are also only now recovering from the worst financial crisis since the Depression, which caused many companies to scale back employment if they didn't go out of business overnight.

While current unemployment is at an all time high, relative wages are not. This is the equivalent of trying to live in LA while working full-time taping boxes at a warehouse... It is not enough to support a minimum basic needs in an industrialized society. Keep in mind - What may be "subsistnce level living" is NOT what our culture considers to be "minimal needs." We consider such things as entertainment, having a smartphone, being able to watch Netflix if we want, internet access, as "minimums." A starving guy in Africa may be ecstatic to be able to get enough food to eat and highway overpass over his head to keep the rain off, but that is not what an American would consider to be acceptable. And, if they can't maintain or acquire a wage that will allow them to reach these sorts of "minimum" goals? What's the point, may as well do drugs or just not work at all, since it won't get them anywhere they want to go...

You want "causes?"

There ya go.

PS - Added: Our primary public education system is a joke. It hasn't been changed since "The Wealth of Nations" and has lagged behind, continuously, because of outdated Industrialism fantasies. Our "work ethic" has developed to become "where can I get mine, no matter what happens to you" and corporations have enjoyed an era of much less responsibility, despite all the "regulatory" agencies? Why? The "Retirement Plan" is no longer something they have to even try to offer. Pensions are virtually non-existent in the public sector and workers who have absolutely no financial or investment acumen are now "in charge" of trying to make the most of what retirement monies they have invested, with often disastrous results.

But, "no," it's all this "socialism stuffs" and people who can't take care of themselves, for whatever reason, are somehow deserving of where they end up... If that attitude persists, there will be widespread unrest if we do not try to put measures in place to ease this social burden we have acquired for ourselves.

"

IIPheXII wrote:

I'm European and i can confirm 100% that socialism failed here. Italy is pure chaos, UK left EU, Iceland went bankrupt, Ukraine is split in half, Spain is divided by the nationalists who want to divide the country, Greece has insane debt... Only ones carrying are France (which has had pretty strong syndical riots [silenced by the media so it didn't become contagious to other countries]) and Germany which well it's germany and they are simply more productive than anyone else here. Ultranationalism, "communism" and "fascism" is rising everywhere.

With the exception of Greece really dun fucked up, due to their lavish public expenditure, I don't see how any of those are directly tied to "socialism". To me they seem more tied to failed immigration policies (open borders, everyone is welcome), centrist EU dictatorship (a detached unelected bureaucratic class in Brussels is deciding all our fates) and other non related things (US instigated regime change in Ukraine / cold war against Russia).

"

IIPheXII wrote:

It's all about stopping being dumb, regain our identity, secure/expropiate our natural resources. Expand nuclear energy and nuclear weapons and make states the true owners of wealth instead of the international usury.

Problem is that there is no balls here. People got their brains eaten off by anti European propaganda. People are shameful of their past for ahving conquered the world.

I agree here. Globalism will destroy European identity and thus stability & economic power. The major problem is that these "moderate" centrist politicians are all bitches of US foreign policy, which is inherently globalist, anti-identitarian and liberal.

More and more people will fall onto the far left or far right spectrum, as they realize that centrism is more of the same bullshit: destroying our demogrphics, while we are subsidizing african birthrates, we are wasting money causing chaos in the middle east, destroying our own cultures with multiculturalism, bickering with Russia instead of partnering with them ... while China is overtaking us on the path of becoming the next superpower and owning everything everywhere.