While millionaires run for president...

Agent327

Agent327

Observer
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Messages
16,102
Location
In orbit
$ 2.00 a Day

From the late 1960s to the mid-1990s, a number of developments turned out to have profound effects on destitute families in the United States, which Kathryn J. Edin and H. Luke Shaefer's "$ 2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America"brings into sharp relief. Critics of welfare repeatedly argued that the increase of unwed mothers was mainly due to rising rates of welfare payments through Aid to Families with Dependent Children (A.F.D.C.). Even though the scientific evidence offered little support for this claim, the public's outrage against the program. fueled by the "welfare queen" stereotype that Ronald Reagan peddled in stump speeches during his 1976 run for the presidency, led to calls for a major revamping of the welfare system.
Click to expand...

Continued here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/b..._20150904&nl=books&nlid=61820453&ref=headline

(I thought the World History forum had a Historical Book Recommendation thread, but it seems to have gone AWOL.)

I wonder if this will be an issue during the next run for presidency...
 
It's a shocking indictment of the richest country on the planet, imo.

And no, I doubt very much it will be an issue for the next presidential election. Do the destitute vote? Not very often, I think.

Oh no, my mistake. There's that electoral college scheme, isn't there?

So: Are many destitute people in electoral colleges? I don't think so.
 
>Puts on typical Brit hat<

Screw those lazy welfare seekers ruining the economy, cancel all their benefits and send them to work in the mines!

*10000 people whose benefits were cancelled died since the tories started cancelling welfare.

I suppose that people with such views are happy with this genocide against the sick and disabled.
 
I gave up on this country long ago.
 
The richest economies in the world experienced massive economic growth and reductions in inequality following the introduction of universal education, healthcare and social security programs. We owe our current prosperity to socialism.
 
brennan said:
The richest economies in the world experienced massive economic growth and reductions in inequality following the introduction of universal education, healthcare and social security programs. We owe our current prosperity to socialism.
Click to expand...

Well, there is a difference between "having publicly funded social programs" and "socialism," but that's a technicality more than a correction.

What may merit correction is that your first statement shows a temporal relationship, but your second statement implies that causality is proven. Not that I'm insisting that there isn't such causality, just that I am not certain it is really proven. Factors other than those social programs may be the cause of the current prosperity.
 
Borachio said:
It's a shocking indictment of the richest country on the planet, imo.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It's been known for quite a long while now that the US is rich, but its people aren't. Pretty sad state of affairs if you ask me. I think it also shows just how much of a failure the so-called trickle down economic theory is. I tend to lump the idea of trickle down economics in the same category as communism; good in theory, absolutely abhorrent in practice.
 
Commodore said:
Yeah. It's been known for quite a long while now that the US is rich, but its people aren't. Pretty sad state of affairs if you ask me. I think it also shows just how much of a failure the so-called trickle down economic theory is. I tend to lump the idea of trickle down economics in the same category as communism; good in theory, absolutely abhorrent in practice.
Click to expand...

Yeah, except trickle down isn't even good in theory.
 
Timsup2nothin said:
Yeah, except trickle down isn't even good in theory.
Click to expand...

Of course it is, but that's the same with just about any socioeconomic theory. That is because the creators of those theories take great pains to make them sound as glorious and wonderful as possible.
 
Trickle down is like me telling my dogs that since I plan on feasting so hard that I'll probably blow chunks they won't be needing their dinner.
 
Timsup2nothin said:
Trickle down is like me telling my dogs that since I plan on feasting so hard that I'll probably blow chunks they won't be needing their dinner.
Click to expand...

Sure, that's the reality of the matter; but the people who first dreamed up the ridiculousness of trickle down economics obviously prettied up the language and made it sound a lot better than that.
 
brennan said:
The richest economies in the world experienced massive economic growth and reductions in inequality following the introduction of universal education, healthcare and social security programs. We owe our current prosperity to socialism.
Click to expand...

Actually, massive economic growth already occurred prior to those phenomena. And to call those things socialism is a wee bit conservative. (Although you might have a point arguing that they were instituted for fear of socialism.)
 
Agent327 said:
Actually, massive economic growth already occurred prior to those phenomena.
Click to expand...
:nono: But not reductions in inequality.

And to call those things socialism is a wee bit conservative. (Although you might have a point arguing that they were instituted for fear of socialism.)
Click to expand...

In industrialized nations:
Universal education is run by the government.
Healthcare is run by the government.
Social security programs are run by governments.
Why do you believe these are not socialist programs?
 
Any time an extremely obese person is having his massive dinner, hide under the table and be fast to pick up the falling tiny bits :)

Now we also need a thread on the parable of the rich man and the poor Lazarus :jesus:
 
As someone who has seen our welfare system in action in the areas I have lived, I can say with near certainty that a vast majority of recipients misuse the program to some degree. The extreme misuse of the program is a small percentage but to some degree almost all misuse this program. Now I have seen the benefits for those that truly need it but at the very least a massive reform is needed to remove the corruption, waste, and fraud.
 
As someone who has seen our capitalist system in action in the areas I have lived, I can say with near certainty that a vast majority of businesses misuse the system to some degree. The extreme misuse of the system is a small percentage but to some degree almost all misuse this system. Now I have seen the benefits for those that truly need it but at the very least a massive reform is needed to remove the corruption, waste, and fraud.
 
brennan said:
As someone who has seen our capitalist system in action in the areas I have lived, I can say with near certainty that a vast majority of businesses misuse the system to some degree. The extreme misuse of the system is a small percentage but to some degree almost all misuse this system. Now I have seen the benefits for those that truly need it but at the very least a massive reform is needed to remove the corruption, waste, and fraud.
Click to expand...

Lol, I like what you did there however, the capitalist model is the only truly effective socio-economic system that is self sustaining and effective.
 
Colonel said:
Lol, I like what you did there however, the capitalist model is the only truly effective socio-economic system that is self sustaining and effective.
Click to expand...

Couple problems here Colonel.

First, there is no THE capitalist model. There are at least two.

Second, this is important in discussing "self sustaining," since there is no evidence that there is any self sustaining economic system. At any point in history there was an opportunity to say "our current economic system is the only one that has not failed...yet." That has never meant that the current economic system of the time was self sustaining, it was just current.

The same can be said today of Keynesian interventionist capitalism. It has not failed, yet. But it is doubtful that you can find anyone who knows anything about it that would take that to mean "oh it is self sustaining and it isn't going to fail." In all probability it will follow its predecessor, laissez faire capitalism, into the dustbin, because just like laissez faire capitalism and every other previous system it is almost certain to utterly fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom