Orange Empires Poll on The Welfare State

I think that about a third of the people on welfare really need it or deserve it. I dont mind helping if you really need help but there are many who CAN get a darn job!!!!!!

This Topic Belongs to Orange Empire ( I had to create the poll for him) Tell him what you think.


Many heated discussions take place here over the "culture wars" that pit religious conservatives against secular liberals over a host of issues: abortion, gay rights, affirmative action and so on.

But the cultural and social side of the "liberal vs. conservative" rivalry is only half that rivalry. Just as, possibly more important is the economic side.

So this thread is about the debate over the economy. Conservatives tend to be "laissez faire" and favor low taxes, balanced budgets, little or no regulation of industry by government and weak unions. Fiscal and monetary policy prioritizes restricting inflation.

Liberals tend to go the other way and favor measures aimed at redistributing wealth, social programs aimed at protecting the poor from exploitation and impoverishment and defending the rights of the worker. Fiscal and monetary policy prioritizes restricting unemployment. This idea has been called "the welfare state."

Where do you fit in? Are you a "laissez faire" person or do you favor the welfare state?

oops moved your post to the top by mistake! (this post belongs to la.lovesorange)

I think that about a third of the people on welfare really need it or deserve it. I dont mind helping if you really need help but there are many who CAN get a darn job!!!!!!

Click to expand...

Now go back and vote.

I voted nay because I lean more that way (maybe that's somewhere in the middle).

I think welfare as a whole has destructive effects. However, there is a need for a safety net. Additionally, there is some need for industry regulation to balance the needs of society. Overall, I think we've gone too far with both welfare programs and regulatory programs.

In short, I believe in a much more narrowly defined form of welfare with some type of means/ability testing and then use the other funding for training and education. The old show people how to fish rather than giving them a fish.

So called "War on Poverty" has been the most expensive and least effective tactile operation in our country's history. You can't declare war on an inanimate obeject.

(Lexvol @ May 16 said:

So called "War on Poverty" has been the most expensive and least effective tactile operation in our country's history. You can't declare war on an inanimate obeject.

Click to expand...

The "War on Drugs" is a much bigger failure than the "War on Poverty."

(hatvol96 @ May 16 said:

The "War on Drugs" is a much bigger failure than the "War on Poverty."

Click to expand...

Neither one has solved its respective problem, that is for sure.

(volmanjr @ May 16 said:

oops moved your post to the top by mistake! (this post belongs to la.lovesorange)
Now go back and vote.

Click to expand...

It is not my post. I posted first on the other thread that was started. You got it all messed up!!!!!!! lol

Laissez faire is an extreme. However, the solution is usually much closer to it than to socialism.

The problem with socialism is that it tends to cripple the soul. Whenever you look towards government to solve your problems, you're usually looking for bigger problems. The most blatent recent case being the ridiculous demonstrations in France of young people demanding that they be protected from an employer :gasp: firing them. They're not looking for a better life, they're looking for a cushy job, and it's killing the continent.

The same pattern is repeated across the globe with few exceptions. More free market, faster growth, growing standard of living.

(OrangeEmpire @ May 18 said:

The same pattern is repeated across the globe with few exceptions. More free market, faster growth, growing standard of living.

Click to expand...

The rest of that sentence is...More poor, and working poor.

It seems an inevitable byproduct. So then folks say, yes but more government interference is not the answer. Well less is not the answer either. How to help the bottom end of the capitalist society grow it's standard of living at some rate that is appreciably relevent to that of the top is the great conundrum.

So what do we do?

So without going into a whole lot of detail here, I am a limited welfare statist. I think they need to exercise caution about just how generous the system is, or who qualifies to use it or how long people should be allowed to be on the dole. I know that some might claim that "taxation is theft," and that reidstribution punishes the diligent to reward the lazy and that the government has no business curtailing honest efforts to make a buck. And to a large extent I agree with them.

The problem is that private production almost always results in some kind of social consequences, and is usually only made possible by the society it takes place in. I also believe that the sacrifice of some freedom is the price everybody must pay to exist in a society where any kind of social co-operation is possible. Therefore I believe that private ownership of wealth and capital must to a limited degree yeild to the greater good of fighting poverty and grotesque inequality.

(OrangeEmpire @ May 18 said:

So what do we do?

Click to expand...

I know enough to know that I don't know. In my mind this experiment we call America has tried already both sides(more/less gov't) with results ranging from miserable to moderate. But no clear cut successes.

You outline your position well Empire, but still only point out the dilemma.

The best thing I know to write is "I don't know".

It seems the solution must lie in public/private ownership of the responsibility,
but that is as far as my feeble mind can carry the discussion...

"I don't know".

Click to expand...

Fair enough...... :biggrin2:

Poor/working poor is a relative term though.

Are you saying that where capitalism is in play that people are inherently poorer than in other forms of economic/politic systems?

Or is it that capitalism can lift the standard of living for all but some are lifted higher - thus poor relative to rich with in the system?

Or is it that capitalism can lift the standard of living for all but some are lifted higher - thus poor relative to rich with in the system?

Click to expand...

:blink: :biggrin2:

(volinbham @ May 18 said:

Are you saying that where capitalism is in play that people are inherently poorer than in other forms of economic/politic systems?

Or is it that capitalism can lift the standard of living for all but some are lifted higher - thus poor relative to rich with in the system?

Click to expand...

Well Bham, let's see if I can get through this minefield without setting you up to blow me into tiny pieces...

(volinbham @ May 18 said:

Are you saying that where capitalism is in play that people are inherently poorer than in other forms of economic/politic systems?

Click to expand...

No. When you look at the abject poverty in other corners of the globe, saying such a thing would be blind eyed idiocy.

(volinbham @ May 18 said:

Or is it that capitalism can lift the standard of living for all but some are lifted higher - thus poor relative to rich with in the system?

Click to expand...

Well, yes. Sorta.
I'm walking, talking, keyboard smacking proof that capitalism has turned the course of human history for the better. Has lifted the standard of living for all?
I'm cringing here because of some of the conditions I've seen at my own backdoor through the lens of my TV camera, but yes.

"but some are lifted higher - thus poor relative to rich with in the system?"

See, you've lead me to a place where it would seem I've no choice but to say yes to this. Damn you for that. The problem is the way you write it comes across as dismissive of the actual condition of those who are "poor relative to".

So here's my point. It is not OK for capitalist society to raise the standard of living for some if it fails to be responsible to the low end of the bracket.
I don't think that this is a position in support of a "welfare state".
Merely a responsible way for an enlightened society to conduct itself.

I heard a "click" while writing this, so I'm certain I didn't escape the minefield.
I'm gonna touch 'Add Reply' now, and wait for my foot to get blown off... :unsure:

I didn't know I have given off the minefield vibe!

I really just posted the question as food for thought. I don't know the answer myself.

Also, I didn't intend to imply any dismissiveness of the relative poor. All these systems have failures and injustices.

Of the approaches I've seen, tempered capitalism seems to hold the most promise IMHO. I think my view of the tempered is some safety net and as stated above a focus on helping others do it themselves as opposed to doing it for them.

And yes, I do believe an enlightened society has the responsibility to help the less fortunate.

Always a gentleman sir. Thanks for letting me keep my foot.

I too value keeping my feet