America Before the Entitlement State

[Steelplate]

Ummm... because you seem to worship Mel Gibson... an anti-semite and a racist? Seems like that flies in the face of Liberty.

Let me ask you something.... how much MORE liberty would we have if we didn't have to worry about health care? How much MORE would your employer be able to increase your wages because he/she no longer had to provide it? How much would that potential increase in pay help your situation?

That's just ONE example. I think you have a flawed or skewed definition of "liberty". And no... paying taxes is not Communism or dictatorship... that's bullshit logic.

Who's paying for this healthcare?

We all are....collectively.

 

[daveman]

Can we get down to brass tacks? NO ONE deserves a thing in this world but what they work for and the blessings of the liberty, and satisfaction that comes with that liberty?

Why are there so many wishing the Government declare the terms of Liberty when that battle was fought so long ago?

We have already been given the answer. Why does the Gubmint as we know it now wish to reneg, and not defend what we already have posession of?

What a rambling bunch of nonsense

I have no idea what you just posted

That you're incapable of understanding that government can only limit freedom, not grant it, speaks volumes about you.

 

[daveman]

A political contribution is a form of free speech...even though we may not like or agree where it comes from.

True. That's why I said it runs afoul of the 1st.

Simpatico.

 

[daveman]

Ummm... because you seem to worship Mel Gibson... an anti-semite and a racist? Seems like that flies in the face of Liberty.

Let me ask you something.... how much MORE liberty would we have if we didn't have to worry about health care? How much MORE would your employer be able to increase your wages because he/she no longer had to provide it? How much would that potential increase in pay help your situation?

That's just ONE example. I think you have a flawed or skewed definition of "liberty". And no... paying taxes is not Communism or dictatorship... that's bullshit logic.

Who's paying for this healthcare?

We all are....collectively.

I've been told recently that there is no one claiming that government healthcare will cover more people with the same number of healthcare professionals at a lower cost.

Guess you didn't get that memo, huh?

 

[rightwinger]

Can we get down to brass tacks? NO ONE deserves a thing in this world but what they work for and the blessings of the liberty, and satisfaction that comes with that liberty?

Why are there so many wishing the Government declare the terms of Liberty when that battle was fought so long ago?

We have already been given the answer. Why does the Gubmint as we know it now wish to reneg, and not defend what we already have posession of?

What a rambling bunch of nonsense

I have no idea what you just posted

That you're incapable of understanding that government can only limit freedom, not grant it, speaks volumes about you.

Who granted freedom to the slaves?

Government or the private sector?

 

[Foxfyre]

Who's paying for this healthcare?

We all are....collectively.

I've been told recently that there is no one claiming that government healthcare will cover more people with the same number of healthcare professionals at a lower cost.

Guess you didn't get that memo, huh?

Also he is overlooking that fact that a substantial number of Americans already get their healthcare furnished courtesy of the rest of us, and if Obamacare should somehow survive the supreme court, another 40 to 50 million Americans--we won't even talk bout the illegals--will be added to that with the rest of us picking up the bill.

That isn't collective payment. That is dependents feeding on the national tit. Something that didn't happen before the time of federal entitlements.

 

[Trajan]

New York? Chicago? You sure the differences between then and now means that what worked then won't work now? Based on what?

Well, let's start with the fact that you're mischaracterizing what existed, and hence worked, then.

US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens

"The history of welfare in the U.S. started long before the government welfare programs we know were created. In the early days of the United States, the colonies imported the British Poor Laws. These laws made a distinction between those who were unable to work due to their age or physical health and those who were able-bodied but unemployed. The former group was assisted with cash or alternative forms of help from the government. The latter group was given public service employment in workhouses.

"Throughout the 1800's welfare history continued when there were attempts to reform how the government dealt with the poor. Some changes tried to help the poor move to work rather than continuing to need assistance. Social casework, consisting of caseworkers visiting the poor and training them in morals and a work ethic was advocated by reformers in the 1880s and 1890s."

State aid to the poor has always been a feature of American government, but it was done on a smaller scale and handled by the states. The reason why it was done on a smaller scale was as I said: we had an agrarian economy and a more rural population. That it had to be done at all was at least in part because SOME people did live in urban areas.

The federal government didn't get involved in aid to the poor until the Great Depression, when states became overwhelmed by the case load due to so many people being out of work. States can't borrow money; the federal government can. It was therefore in a position to take emergency action to help relieve the burden on the states. But although this was the beginning of FEDERAL responsibility for this area of government, it had always been a GOVERNMENT responsibility -- just not a federal one.

Now w/r/t the Depression and this shift in who takes responsibility, let's look at another thing:

http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/urpop0090.txt

Here we have some census data. If you scroll way down, you'll see that in 1900 the U.S. population was 60.4% rural and 39.6% urban. In 1930, however, we were 56.1% urban and only 43.9% rural. So the Great Depression was the first major economic downturn to strike a majority-urban population. (There was a recession in the early 1920s in which we had just barely become majority-urban, but it was short.)

Why does that make a difference? An urban population means an industrial economy. Most people work in jobs for wages, as opposed to most people being self-employed as small farmers or small craftspeople. At the same time, in an industrial economy most people who still DO work at farming are going to be heavily mortgaged because of the need to purchase farm machinery that in an earlier time would have been neither necessary nor available. A lot more of the population is therefore a part of and dependent on the commercial economy in an urban nation than in a rural one. A bad economic downturn in the early 19th century had only a small effect on most people; small farmers might have found themselves hurting for cash but they were in no danger of losing their farms or going hungry. In the early 20th century, it was devastating for almost everyone.

Also, we've seen a shrinking of American family size. Not only are people having fewer children, but there is less support from extended family. My ex-wife and two daughters live in Montana, my mother in Arkansas, my sister in Wyoming, my brother and his wife and three sons in Texas, and I live in California. We simply don't represent much of a support structure for each other, and that's become typical. In the days of old you're talking about, that was not the case.

So that's the reason why we didn't need as much in the way of government assistance in the old days. Our ancestors lived in a different country then. Just the same, although we didn't need as much, we did need some.

You can blow it off if you want to, but the fact remains that what we're doing now is unsustainable.

I see no reason to believe this. Can you show that what you say is true?

the scale of welfare doled out by the states back in those days, has no relation comparatively to whats spent today and bares no comparison to the British poor laws etc. .


the money shot...

States can't borrow money; the federal government can. It was therefore in a position to take emergency action to help relieve the burden on the states. But although this was the beginning of FEDERAL responsibility for this area of government, it had always been a GOVERNMENT responsibility -- just not a federal one.

its sustainable? really? I think you may want to employ some critical thinking and take a look at just where massive federal intervention has lead us, and more importantly and demonstrably now, Europe. there's a reason their 'best' economies hit a wall in the late 70's early 80's......entitlements and masquerading as insruance prgms that really, have become nothing more than welfare by another name. so hows that working out?

 

[Steelplate]

New York? Chicago? You sure the differences between then and now means that what worked then won't work now? Based on what?

Well, let's start with the fact that you're mischaracterizing what existed, and hence worked, then.

US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens

"The history of welfare in the U.S. started long before the government welfare programs we know were created. In the early days of the United States, the colonies imported the British Poor Laws. These laws made a distinction between those who were unable to work due to their age or physical health and those who were able-bodied but unemployed. The former group was assisted with cash or alternative forms of help from the government. The latter group was given public service employment in workhouses.

"Throughout the 1800's welfare history continued when there were attempts to reform how the government dealt with the poor. Some changes tried to help the poor move to work rather than continuing to need assistance. Social casework, consisting of caseworkers visiting the poor and training them in morals and a work ethic was advocated by reformers in the 1880s and 1890s."

State aid to the poor has always been a feature of American government, but it was done on a smaller scale and handled by the states. The reason why it was done on a smaller scale was as I said: we had an agrarian economy and a more rural population. That it had to be done at all was at least in part because SOME people did live in urban areas.

The federal government didn't get involved in aid to the poor until the Great Depression, when states became overwhelmed by the case load due to so many people being out of work. States can't borrow money; the federal government can. It was therefore in a position to take emergency action to help relieve the burden on the states. But although this was the beginning of FEDERAL responsibility for this area of government, it had always been a GOVERNMENT responsibility -- just not a federal one.

Now w/r/t the Depression and this shift in who takes responsibility, let's look at another thing:

http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/urpop0090.txt

Here we have some census data. If you scroll way down, you'll see that in 1900 the U.S. population was 60.4% rural and 39.6% urban. In 1930, however, we were 56.1% urban and only 43.9% rural. So the Great Depression was the first major economic downturn to strike a majority-urban population. (There was a recession in the early 1920s in which we had just barely become majority-urban, but it was short.)

Why does that make a difference? An urban population means an industrial economy. Most people work in jobs for wages, as opposed to most people being self-employed as small farmers or small craftspeople. At the same time, in an industrial economy most people who still DO work at farming are going to be heavily mortgaged because of the need to purchase farm machinery that in an earlier time would have been neither necessary nor available. A lot more of the population is therefore a part of and dependent on the commercial economy in an urban nation than in a rural one. A bad economic downturn in the early 19th century had only a small effect on most people; small farmers might have found themselves hurting for cash but they were in no danger of losing their farms or going hungry. In the early 20th century, it was devastating for almost everyone.

Also, we've seen a shrinking of American family size. Not only are people having fewer children, but there is less support from extended family. My ex-wife and two daughters live in Montana, my mother in Arkansas, my sister in Wyoming, my brother and his wife and three sons in Texas, and I live in California. We simply don't represent much of a support structure for each other, and that's become typical. In the days of old you're talking about, that was not the case.

So that's the reason why we didn't need as much in the way of government assistance in the old days. Our ancestors lived in a different country then. Just the same, although we didn't need as much, we did need some.

You can blow it off if you want to, but the fact remains that what we're doing now is unsustainable.

I see no reason to believe this. Can you show that what you say is true?

the scale of welfare doled out by the states back in those days, has no relation comparatively to whats spent today and bares no comparison to the British poor laws etc. .


the money shot...

States can't borrow money; the federal government can. It was therefore in a position to take emergency action to help relieve the burden on the states. But although this was the beginning of FEDERAL responsibility for this area of government, it had always been a GOVERNMENT responsibility -- just not a federal one.

its sustainable? really? I think you may want to employ some critical thinking and take a look at just where massive federal intervention has lead us, and more importantly and demonstrably now, Europe. there's a reason their 'best' economies hit a wall in the late 70's early 80's......entitlements and masquerading as insruance prgms that really, have become nothing more than welfare by another name. so hows that working out?

Oh.. so it was entitlements? Funny.. I thought that it was mostly due to OPEC holding the country(and in turn, the rest of the world) hostage. I remember it well.. I was there.

 

[The T]

What a rambling bunch of nonsense

I have no idea what you just posted

That you're incapable of understanding that government can only limit freedom, not grant it, speaks volumes about you.

Who granted freedom to the slaves?

Government or the private sector?

Beat that dead horse. The Founders at the inception of this Republic already knew it was wrong. They set up the means that eventually it would be done away with. Sadly it cost the lives of over 618,000 American lives to put to rest.

YOU should be a little more studied on your history, and be ashamed at your attempt at deflection.

 

[rightwinger]

That you're incapable of understanding that government can only limit freedom, not grant it, speaks volumes about you.

Who granted freedom to the slaves?

Government or the private sector?

Beat that dead horse. The Founders at the inception of this Republic already knew it was wrong. They set up the means that eventually it would be done away with. Sadly it cost the lives of over 618,000 American lives to put to rest.

YOU should be a little more studied on your history, and be ashamed at your attempt at deflection.

LOL....you've been talking to Michele Bachmann haven't you?

It was the Government that stepped in and granted freedom

Dead horse huh?

Who provided Civil Rights freedom? Government or the private sector?

 

[Foxfyre]

That you're incapable of understanding that government can only limit freedom, not grant it, speaks volumes about you.

Who granted freedom to the slaves?

Government or the private sector?

Beat that dead horse. The Founders at the inception of this Republic already knew it was wrong. They set up the means that eventually it would be done away with. Sadly it cost the lives of over 618,000 American lives to put to rest.

YOU should be a little more studied on your history, and be ashamed at your attempt at deflection.

And without the citizen farmers laying down their plows and picking up their firearms, the government would not have been able to accomplish it. The U.S. in no way had a standing army sufficient to do it. Nor would the Emancipation Proclamation have carried any weight if a majority of Americans opposed it nor would the farmers have picked up those weapons if they didn't believe in the cause.

The most staunch statist leftists can't imagine a people who govern themselves. Such a concept is alien and disturbing to them. A government that serves the people instead of the other way around is unimaginable. Unalienable rights that exist apart from government decree unthinkable.

I'm not sure how we arrives at the sorry state of the government being seen as the Mother and Father authority figure by so many, but until we turn that around we will never again see the virtues that existed before we had an entitlement state.

 

[Steelplate]

We all are....collectively.

I've been told recently that there is no one claiming that government healthcare will cover more people with the same number of healthcare professionals at a lower cost.

Guess you didn't get that memo, huh?

Also he is overlooking that fact that a substantial number of Americans already get their healthcare furnished courtesy of the rest of us, and if Obamacare should somehow survive the supreme court, another 40 to 50 million Americans--we won't even talk bout the illegals--will be added to that with the rest of us picking up the bill.

That isn't collective payment. That is dependents feeding on the national tit. Something that didn't happen before the time of federal entitlements.

Really? let's have a look... OK? How many people in this country don't have jobs? How many of them are the truly "lazy" that don't want to work? One thing you guys are good at is taking a relatively small number of people and turning it into this huge insurmountable problem.

Lastly... I've already made my mind known that I am for a "work for Welfare" program. Kind of like the Civilian Conservation Corps in the Depression Era. Lots of people found real, lasting work through programs like that. It will:

A. Create an incentive for people on Public Assistance to find work(if you have to work for the bare bones existence that Welfare provides... you are more likely to get off of it)

B. Give the VERY FEW people who have made welfare a career choice and really don't know how to work valuable experience and a work history...making them more employable.

C. Get rid of the stigma(public perception) and Hopelessness(personal perception) that being on Public Assistance breeds. They would both have a sense of empowerment of earning their own paycheck, and because they are working for their benefits... they can tell people who put them down to fuck off and actually have a legitimate right to say it.

Sure.. there will always be some people who will never be truly productive... the disabled, the mentally ill, the Developmentally Disabled, the hopelessly addicted... but by and large... those people who do "nothing" and take from those who do will be few and far between.

 

[daveman]

What a rambling bunch of nonsense

I have no idea what you just posted

That you're incapable of understanding that government can only limit freedom, not grant it, speaks volumes about you.

Who granted freedom to the slaves?

Government or the private sector?

They inherently had freedom. Government took it away from them.

 

[daveman]

We all are....collectively.

I've been told recently that there is no one claiming that government healthcare will cover more people with the same number of healthcare professionals at a lower cost.

Guess you didn't get that memo, huh?

Also he is overlooking that fact that a substantial number of Americans already get their healthcare furnished courtesy of the rest of us, and if Obamacare should somehow survive the supreme court, another 40 to 50 million Americans--we won't even talk bout the illegals--will be added to that with the rest of us picking up the bill.

That isn't collective payment. That is dependents feeding on the national tit. Something that didn't happen before the time of federal entitlements.

Obamabot math:

40 million additional people in the healthcare system + the same number of doctors = cheaper and better healthcare for everyone!

Yeah, I know. Stupid, huh?

 

[Foxfyre]

I've been told recently that there is no one claiming that government healthcare will cover more people with the same number of healthcare professionals at a lower cost.

Guess you didn't get that memo, huh?

Also he is overlooking that fact that a substantial number of Americans already get their healthcare furnished courtesy of the rest of us, and if Obamacare should somehow survive the supreme court, another 40 to 50 million Americans--we won't even talk bout the illegals--will be added to that with the rest of us picking up the bill.

That isn't collective payment. That is dependents feeding on the national tit. Something that didn't happen before the time of federal entitlements.

Really? let's have a look... OK? How many people in this country don't have jobs? How many of them are the truly "lazy" that don't want to work? One thing you guys are good at is taking a relatively small number of people and turning it into this huge insurmountable problem.

Lastly... I've already made my mind known that I am for a "work for Welfare" program. Kind of like the Civilian Conservation Corps in the Depression Era. Lots of people found real, lasting work through programs like that. It will:

A. Create an incentive for people on Public Assistance to find work(if you have to work for the bare bones existence that Welfare provides... you are more likely to get off of it)

B. Give the VERY FEW people who have made welfare a career choice and really don't know how to work valuable experience and a work history...making them more employable.

C. Get rid of the stigma(public perception) and Hopelessness(personal perception) that being on Public Assistance breeds. They would both have a sense of empowerment of earning their own paycheck, and because they are working for their benefits... they can tell people who put them down to fuck off and actually have a legitimate right to say it.

Sure.. there will always be some people who will never be truly productive... the disabled, the mentally ill, the Developmentally Disabled, the hopelessly addicted... but by and large... those people who do "nothing" and take from those who do will be few and far between.

Geez, you may have set a new record for straw men and non sequiturs in that response without addressing a single thing in the post you were addressing.

You DO know that if YOU don't pay for the healthcare or any other government benefit that you receive that somebody else does have to pay that for you? You DO understand that, yes? It doesn't just materialize out of thin air because you're a good guy or just because you're down on you luck for now. Other people have to give up money they worked damn hard for in order for you not to have to pay for what you received.

And guess what? The government has long run out of other people's money now. $15 trillion in debt or averaged out to $133,000 per American household and increasing by billions every single day. The days before entitlement? Yes there were hard times. There still are. But then we had hope of digging ourselves out of whatever hole we were in and just about every ablebodied American could hold on to that truth. These days it is looking more and more bleak to be able to do that.

 

[francoHFW]

Listen, dumbazz dupes- everyone is already covered for health care, but in the most expensive way POSSIBLE if they don't have insurance, ER care, without a doctor, preventive care, or making any contribution. Then add 750k bankruptcies, twice the cost of BETTER systems,throw in many going on welfare just to get medicaid, and you've got the Pub default system. Absolute brainwashed IDIOCY. Change the channel, MORONS...

 

[The T]

Who granted freedom to the slaves?

Government or the private sector?

Beat that dead horse. The Founders at the inception of this Republic already knew it was wrong. They set up the means that eventually it would be done away with. Sadly it cost the lives of over 618,000 American lives to put to rest.

YOU should be a little more studied on your history, and be ashamed at your attempt at deflection.

And without the citizen farmers laying down their plows and picking up their firearms, the government would not have been able to accomplish it. The U.S. in no way had a standing army sufficient to do it. Nor would the Emancipation Proclamation have carried any weight if a majority of Americans opposed it nor would the farmers have picked up those weapons if they didn't believe in the cause.

The most staunch statist leftists can't imagine a people who govern themselves. Such a concept is alien and disturbing to them. A government that serves the people instead of the other way around is unimaginable. Unalienable rights that exist apart from government decree unthinkable.

I'm not sure how we arrives at the sorry state of the government being seen as the Mother and Father authority figure by so many, but until we turn that around we will never again see the virtues that existed before we had an entitlement state.

Some of us actually were taught these things and know thier value and know how to juxtapose it with other models of history and the condition of mankind...and come to the conclusion that what we have is the best man has ever come up with, and sit scratching our heads as to why anyone would want, or demand less as they seek to destroy what they had been given.

Why would anyone snatch liberty from the jaws of tyranny? Is it that they don't wish to be accused of being self-centered for thier own liberty? Selfish perhaps?

 

[francoHFW]

Quote: Originally Posted by daveman
I've been told recently that there is no one claiming that government healthcare will cover more people with the same number of healthcare professionals at a lower cost.

Guess you didn't get that memo, huh?

You "heard" a lot of Pubcrappe, dittohead.

 

[francoHFW]

I've been told recently that there is no one claiming that government healthcare will cover more people with the same number of healthcare professionals at a lower cost.

Guess you didn't get that memo, huh?

Also he is overlooking that fact that a substantial number of Americans already get their healthcare furnished courtesy of the rest of us, and if Obamacare should somehow survive the supreme court, another 40 to 50 million Americans--we won't even talk bout the illegals--will be added to that with the rest of us picking up the bill.

That isn't collective payment. That is dependents feeding on the national tit. Something that didn't happen before the time of federal entitlements.

Really? let's have a look... OK? How many people in this country don't have jobs? How many of them are the truly "lazy" that don't want to work? One thing you guys are good at is taking a relatively small number of people and turning it into this huge insurmountable problem.

Lastly... I've already made my mind known that I am for a "work for Welfare" program. Kind of like the Civilian Conservation Corps in the Depression Era. Lots of people found real, lasting work through programs like that. It will:

A. Create an incentive for people on Public Assistance to find work(if you have to work for the bare bones existence that Welfare provides... you are more likely to get off of it)

B. Give the VERY FEW people who have made welfare a career choice and really don't know how to work valuable experience and a work history...making them more employable.

C. Get rid of the stigma(public perception) and Hopelessness(personal perception) that being on Public Assistance breeds. They would both have a sense of empowerment of earning their own paycheck, and because they are working for their benefits... they can tell people who put them down to fuck off and actually have a legitimate right to say it.

Sure.. there will always be some people who will never be truly productive... the disabled, the mentally ill, the Developmentally Disabled, the hopelessly addicted... but by and large... those people who do "nothing" and take from those who do will be few and far between.

They ALREADY do all those things, but loudmouth dittoheads don't hear the truth. IT"S A PUB DEPRESSION if you're unemployed.

The USA didn't magically become a land of lazy entitled, it's the second Pub Great Depression, and there are very few jobs. And thanks for blocking all the real jobs bills just to "get" Obama, AND all the fear mongering... Pfffft!!

 

[rightwinger]

That you're incapable of understanding that government can only limit freedom, not grant it, speaks volumes about you.

Who granted freedom to the slaves?

Government or the private sector?

They inherently had freedom. Government took it away from them.

They inherently had private owners who would whip them if they ran away