Mike O'B,

God bless you, man, but I got to throw a hard pitch at you. I promise it will be low and away, not high and inside.

Before going any farther, let me re-state my belief in a social safety net. We don't disagree on the need for a net. I think we might have disagreements on how people get caught-up in the net, but even there we may have more agreement than not. So, that said, the fastball.

The premise that you've stated is that the rich do not have our best interests at heart. Reasonable and solid logic. Let's say, for the moment, I agree with you fully.

But of course, it must be recognized that it is the rich in this country who serve in elective office, and it is the rich in this country who are generous with the funds in the public purse, both now and for years to come. It has long been said the true secret to wealth is OPM (Other People's Money). That proud tradition carries on in our Congress, State Houses, Assemblies and Legislatures as the rich -- regardless of whether they have a D or an R behind their names -- relieve their social guilt through OPM. It is the best of both worlds.

If the rich, Mike, truly do not have our best interests at heart as you believe, why should we believe the subset of the rich we call elected officials (or the ruling class) to be any different?

Mike O'B,

But I DO understand your point, and it was from that understanding I threw the fast ball. Consider, Mike, that in theory government sponsored healthcare -- just to use that for an example -- becomes one less business expense that you've got to cover in the corporate profit margin. And if your corporation or family foundation is not paying any taxes, you don't have to cover the community cost, either. A very neat trick.

I thought you were feigning ignorance to win a debate on a
technicallity, but now I think we're discussing two seperate things.

To answer your first question: I meant rich businesspeople.

So, why is a corporation not paying taxes? Or are you making
reference to the republican policy to roll over and give big
business anything they want in hopes that some might "trickle
down"?

Which, as I type that, makes me realize another difference
between Rs and Ds. Rs have this faith that business will provide
jobs, that community and religious groups will tend to those in
need.

Democrats don't put faith in others, they just get it done.

All the 90s economic "boom" was was the boom of the stock market bubble, the housing bubble.

****

But those things have little directly to do with the (projected) budget surplus that the Clinton administration created.  One that quickly turned into a record deficit on Bush's watch. 

And one thing I haven't seen mentioned as a contributor to this (projected) surplus is the huge effort by Clinton to eliminate government waste. 

Does the government really have control the economy? I understand the surplus under Clinton, deficit under Bush but was it largely due to the policies they introduced or implemented. 

"So, what if we start of program that says to qualify for social assistance a recipient needs to provide, say, 10 hours of community service or volunteer work per week. By doing so, that person learns skills, makes contacts, contributes back to society and begins to put themselves into a position where they might be able to re-enter the workforce in time."

This idea keeps getting dredged up as if it's a great epiphany that no-one ever thought of before. Before modern type welfare programs, we had something called "Workhouses", where people who were unemployed or determined to be "vagrants" were forced to do work for a subsistence wage.  The "required hours" usually meant they had little opportunity to seek other employment, the "contacts" people made were with employers who preffered the workhouse arrangement because the wages they had to pay were extremely low, it skewed competition against the interests of laborers, because too many employers could just say "Why should I pay you x amount a day, when I can just wait for you to land on the workouse rolls and then I can hire you or someone just as skilled as you for half that? "

The reality is that all such programs, including "work training" for prisoners where the work the prisoners do is hired out at way below minimum wage (and no, I don't mean prisoners should get paid lots for that work, but the wages paid to the prison should be competitive so as to not "steal" work from honest, free citizens.)  are programs that just allow businesses to hire these people in cheap while it decreases the wages these people could get if they went after the job outside the system.  It may put these guys to work, but it also puts more people in the workhouse because no-one will hire people at reasonable wages if they can get people from the "workhouse" much cheaper.

That's the problem, at least. Solutions may be found, but usually when this issue comes up this "flawed solution" is seen as good enough, which it usually isn't. And we've known that for over a century.

Yes, welfare politics are complicated and difficult, and what makes it more difficult is that in order to fully understand the situation as it is now, people need to have a comprehensive grasp of the history of labor rights, problems and solutions, when they happened, how they happened and why they happened. Not just in the US, but in large parts of the Western or industrialized world.

From our own historical perspective, for the welfare system to function properly, people needed a work ethic centered around the pride of an honest days work. To be on welfare was, and should be, shameful and embarrassing, but at least you had food on the table and a roof over your head until you found a decent job.  But pride in the work, and having a job that showed results, where you could point to it and say "I contributed to society, damnit" was a goal in itself."

I.e. the work ethic was community oriented.

In opposition to that, you have a certain "leisure ethic" of "I want to get rich enough that I don't have to work one more day for as long as I live".  Which is individualist rather than community oriented. It places no value on the needs of the community, but centers only on that one person's needs and desires. It is a childish, immature and ultimately socially destructive way of thinking.

Invented, I believe, by Aristocrats.

In a country like the US, where individualism is hailed as the "golden Ideal" and being community oriented (in relation to economic issues) is often seen as oppressive or communist, one should expect a lot of welfare cheats. Because the society as a whole encourages an ethic where welfare scams are seen as "clever" rather than shameful. And government is blamed because it's not "smart" enough to put a stop to it.

The reality is that unless everybody commits to the idea of "pulling together", there will always be abuses of the system. And to some extent the system will still work as long as the abuses don't overburden the system. 

All the checks and balances are often more of a problem than the regular abuse, because it compensates for abuse by putting in place rigid rules that often also penalize those who legitimately seek to improve their situation and escape welfare. Those who seek only to abuse the system will be more equipped to compensate for such rules than those who are acting in good faith.  This causes dissatisfaction, locks people in the sytem when they're trying to get out and erodes public confidence in the system.

Ever wonder why there is so much bureaucracy? Well, a lot of bureaucracy can be eliminated if we simply admit that some people will always try to "beat the system" and then try to have most people on the honor system.

But that requires a strong community oriented work ethic.