Old, but for those who don't know...

[AchrisK]

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty.html

http://guides.library.fullerton.edu/govstats/poverty&welfare.htm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

 

[Dak]

I hope you understand that it's meaningless to just say "dur look around you" as if anecdotal observation can in any way support statistical claims. All I'm saying is that you should show a little intellectual honesty and acknowledge that you have insufficient evidence to assert that welfare is doing more injustice than justice.

As far as evidence provided I am not where I would get statistics to back this up (doubt anyone has done work comparing the effects of the current economic state on the welfare supported vs the working)

and

As I stated before, I am pretty sure there are no studies/statistics done to show this information.

Also, be careful how you characterise my view on this. I've never said that the very existence of haves is an injustice to have-nots. I said that people who have money which they did not earn are not entitled to keep that money when others in their society are suffering because the odds of success are grossly stacked against them.

And you want to accuse me of pulling things out of my ass. This is a completely unjustified position, with no basis other than what seems right to you.

I'm giving you an out here Dakky.

Take it. You contradict yourself many times. Not just this thread.

I really don't want to make you look silly. But I will.

I just don't like guys that argue a point against the grain just to hear themselves or just to argue. Which you clearly do.

You also change your story as you go when someone calls you on one of your contradictions or just plain ridiculous statements.

Take your out and leave it at that.

Lol@Dakky. Nice attempt at condescension.

You still didn't answer either point. I've looked at the majority of your posts on this forum and have yet to see you make any intelligent statement, so for you to throw out a vaguely disguised (and weak) threat like "Take j00 out" I have to chuckle and point you back in the direction of the questions you refuse to answer.

Reading your posts in this last page has been like watching Palin at a press conference.

Edit: ANSWER THE QUESTIONS:

#1. You did not answer my question. What free education?
#2. At one point did I ever say I was against all public services, or even use the general term "public services"? I was pretty specific in referencing hand-outs. Quote one post from this thread otherwise.

 

[skeptik]

I'm against welfare services, not all public service. Example of difference: Everyone in the US benefits from military protection, police protection,etc. Only some get benefits of welfare, food stamps, public education, etc.

How can you prove that everyone benefits from military and police forces? If you've never had direct contact with either, then you can't possibly say that you've benefited from them directly any more than you can say that you've benefited from the welfare system unless you've received them directly. Now allow me to explain this first before you jump down my throat. Your position is that not everyone benefits from welfare programs. You say that everyone benefits from police and military (and for that matter, fire, emergency services, etc.). But what if you've never used any of these services? What if you've never had to use any of these services? Surely you would say that you still benefit from them. And you would of course be right in saying that you benefit from these services regardless of whether or not you are the direct recipient of their aide.

What you fail to realize, however, is that everyone benefits from the welfare system as well (speaking in theoretical terms, of course, not in practice, as our welfare system is obviously flawed). A properly constructed, organized, and maintained public welfare system is in the interest of all people, no matter whether or not you ever have to use it, just like you benefit from having a fire department even if your house never catches on fire.

There is the saying that goes something along the lines of 'a country is only as strong as its weakest link'. It is within the best interest of the nation as a whole to take care of those who can't take care of themselves for whatever reason. I shouldn't have to go into too much detail to prove this point, but a few obvious examples relate to abandoned houses which deplete land value, unemployment, a vast amount of the population not being able to contribute to the national economy and many other facilities in which it is in the best interest of all to see as many people participate as possible, such as the stock market, not even to go into the various ways in which having such a large proportion of the overall population in poverty impacts the other social services which you mentioned, as well as those that I mentioned, insurance rates, quality of services, etc.

Our society is so integrally interconnected to one another that it should be in the best interest of all people to have these safety nets for the greater good of the population as a whole. That's not even to mention the very real possibility that, for all you know, you may one day be in need of such services, which is the reason that you pay into it, namely the prospective direct benefit that you would receive from it should you require it.

 

[Dak]

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty.html

http://guides.library.fullerton.edu/govstats/poverty&welfare.htm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

Thank You, I'll check these.

 

[Dak]

How can you prove that everyone benefits from military and police forces? If you've never had direct contact with either, then you can't possibly say that you've benefited from them directly any more than you can say that you've benefited from the welfare system unless you've received them directly. Now allow me to explain this first before you jump down my throat. Your position is that not everyone benefits from welfare programs. You say that everyone benefits from police and military (and for that matter, fire, emergency services, etc.). But what if you've never used any of these services? What if you've never had to use any of these services? Surely you would say that you still benefit from them. And you would of course be right in saying that you benefit from these services regardless of whether or not you are the direct recipient of their aide.

Well for the military, the fact that another country hasn't marched in is kind of an ongoing benefit. Same for police , which is a deterrent (for crime) just by existing.
I was under the impression if you can you have to pay for ambulance service/emergency services. Fire obviously only benefits those who have something catch fire but if it didn't exist, even if I didn't directly need it, the fact it didn't exist could allow a fire to spread, thereby affecting me. None of these services are contigent on being a non-producer. Which is where I have a problem.

What you fail to realize, however, is that everyone benefits from the welfare system as well (speaking in theoretical terms, of course, not in practice, as our welfare system is obviously flawed). A properly constructed, organized, and maintained public welfare system is in the interest of all people, no matter whether or not you ever have to use it, just like you benefit from having a fire department even if your house never catches on fire.

There is the saying that goes something along the lines of 'a country is only as strong as its weakest link'. It is within the best interest of the nation as a whole to take care of those who can't take care of themselves for whatever reason. I shouldn't have to go into too much detail to prove this point, but a few obvious examples relate to abandoned houses which deplete land value, unemployment, a vast amount of the population not being able to contribute to the national economy and many other facilities in which it is in the best interest of all to see as many people participate as possible, such as the stock market, not even to go into the various ways in which having such a large proportion of the overall population in poverty impacts the other social services which you mentioned, as well as those that I mentioned, insurance rates, quality of services, etc.

Our society is so integrally interconnected to one another that it should be in the best interest of all people to have these safety nets for the greater good of the population as a whole. That's not even to mention the very real possibility that, for all you know, you may one day be in need of such services, which is the reason that you pay into it, namely the prospective direct benefit that you would receive from it should you require it.

Edit: I would love the option to never pay in with the understanding I would never receive said "safety net benefits". But it's not an option, which in lies one of several problems.

You clearly don't understand the fundamentals of libertarian theory. Libertarianism holds that certain ways of going about benefiting the less fortunate are unjust and illegitimate. The idea that the less fortunate deserve no help is not inherent to libertarianism.

"Take j00 out" This ain't my post Dakky.

By the way, most of your posts are nonsense

Take your out Dakky.

Hahahahahahaha

:Smug: Can we get an age check on this guy?

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

Well for the military, the fact that another country hasn't marched in is kind of an ongoing benefit. Same for police , which is a deterrent (for crime) just by existing.
I was under the impression if you can you have to pay for ambulance service/emergency services. Fire obviously only benefits those who have something catch fire but if it didn't exist, even if I didn't directly need it, the fact it didn't exist could allow a fire to spread, thereby affecting me. None of these services are contigent on being a non-producer. Which is where I have a problem.

Not to speak for Dodens, but what I got from his post is that we all benefit from things like the police, fire departments, welfare, etc. just by the mere fact that they are there. Even if I never have to call the fire department, I still benefit from it being there in case I ever do need it. Same goes for welfare services.

 

[Cythraul]

Why don't you go change my tires?

There you go disrespecting the working man, you east coast elitist.

 

[King Richard]

I still have my military id too. Anytime I get bored I stare at for a while and reminisce on my time spent in the Marines.

Sorry to get off topic.

 

[Dak]

I still have my military id too. Anytime I get bored I stare at for a while and reminisce on my time spent in the Marines.

Sorry to get off topic.

Thanks to a certain person we are already way off topic. How long ago were you in/where where you stationed? Just PM me or whatever if you don't want to post it.

Where are you stationed?

The most rediculously hot place in the U.S., unfortunately the USMC has bases in both places that lay claim to that title.....then you deploy to Iraq and its like maybe 5 degrees cooler lol.

 

[Matt]

The most rediculously hot place in the U.S., unfortunately the USMC has bases in both places that lay claim to that title.....then you deploy to Iraq and its like maybe 5 degrees cooler lol.

I'm at Scott AFB. Not active duty.

 

[King Richard]

I got out in '04 because of an injury. I was stationed at MCBH (hawaii).

 

[Matt]

I lived in Hawaii for 3 years, 98-2001

 

[Dak]

I've been to a few AFB on TAD, the Air Force definitely gets the hookup over Marine bases in general. Been to Holloman, Nellis, March, and one other I can't remember.
Staying on Nellis in Vegas for like 40$ a night = epic win.

Edit: Hawaii, lucky. My MOS can't get stationed there :/ Airwing.

 

[King Richard]

Yeah, the Marines is so underfunded it's retarded. I made a bunch of friends in the other branches for the sole reason of getting the fuck off of that worthless plot of land called a "base," though I will say the surfing on the east side of the base was pretty killer. Schofield Barracks (Army), Hickham (Air Force), and Pearl Harbor (Navy obviously) were amazing compared to the Marine Base.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

As far as evidence provided I am not where I would get statistics to back this up (doubt anyone has done work comparing the effects of the current economic state on the welfare supported vs the working), but just taking a step back and looking at the current situation should suffice. But you would have to open your eyes for that.

I've highlighted the part of your post I was ACTUALLY referring to, and which you conveniently left out when you were attempting to counter yet another argument I was not making. Let me help you understand: I said you assumed that anecdotal evidence is sufficient to back your claim. Guess what the following statement assumes?

just taking a step back and looking at the current situation should suffice

That's right, that anecdotal evidence is sufficient to back your claim.

This is fucking retarded, and also why no one takes you seriously in a debate. When you have to spend the majority of a debate just pointing out inconsistencies in what someone says, there's something wrong with that.

As far as your claim that the following statement of mine is unjustified...

people who have money which they did not earn are not entitled to keep that money when others in their society are suffering because the odds of success are grossly stacked against them.

Here's my justificaton:

(P1) In order for someone to have a reasonable opportunity for social and economic advancement, they must be able to afford important services such as health care and education. This opportunity for advancement has a great effect on one's quality of life.

(P2) By P1, someone without a reasonable opportunity for advancement has a greatly lower quality of life than that of someone with this opportunity.

(P3) Although services like education and health care are not affordable to some people of limited means, they are well within the means of the U.S. as a whole if the funding for them is pooled by all U.S. citizens.

(P4) By P3, pooling one's money with all other U.S. citizens to fund services like education and health care does not have a serious adverse effect on one's quality of life, even if one suffers a net loss of money due to the public funding.

(P5) By P2 and P4, the disadvantage to those who suffer a net loss of money due to public funding is far outweighed by the benefit to those who could not otherwise afford the public services.

It seems fundamentally intuitive to me that a government's duty is to serve the common interests of its people. If the government is only there to serve the interests of some of its subjects, then there's no reason for the rest of its subjects to obey that government.

That said, one thing that virtually everyone is interested in is having an opportunity to succeed if they make a reasonable effort to. If you had the ability to choose the country you're born in, why would you pick one where you could be born into a poor family and live a miserable life while having almost no opportunity for social advancement? Even if the odds were slightly in favor of you not being born into that situation, the disadvantage of being born poor would far outweigh the benefit of being born well-off and having maybe 5% more money because there were no public services.*

That kind of situation seems like a no-brainer to me, and I daresay that given how ubiquitous public services are in developed countries, anyone who would favor a country without public services in the situation I described above is surely in a minority.

So if I may assume that most people would prefer living in a world with public services if they had the choice (which appears to be a safe assumption), then that's a pretty strong case for public services being a common interest for most people, and therefore the government is justified in providing public services.

As I've said, I fully understand the need to reward people of extraordinary talent, but you can certainly accomplish that without having a system that is hostile toward the disadvantaged. If anything, public services most likely result in more overall achievements for a society because it almost certainly does more to enable talented people from poor families than it does to hinder talented people from well-off families.

* Note: I use "public services" throughout the post in a sense that includes things like education and health care.

The conclusions here are basically that public services are in the best interest of society as a whole, and that since government has a duty to serve the best interests of its people then they are justified in running public services.

Please note, however, that I'm not going to humor you with another debate if you continue to make clearly illogical claims and then turn around and deny that you ever made them. I'll probably just stick to debating with Cythraul, who actually knows how to make a proper argument.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

The problem with what you listed there is that it's just a utopian vision that really is not possible by our current standards now or even in the near future. America is too huge, differentiated (within itself), culturally different than most countries and diverse to implement UHC right now. We could take some elements from Euro-UHC systems, but we can't just switch immediately. Welfare and UHC are good ideas that are definitely what everyone should strive for--no one willfully wants people to be disenfranchised or unhealthy. It's just quite frankly not possible given all of the variables such as what can doctors and hospitals do/not do, how does medicinal distribution work, esp between state lines and other boundaries, how much to tax people etc. to just go "ok we have UHC now." Obama will not do it, he won't be able to. It's something to strive for, but it really just is completely out of the question for right now as far as I can see, keeping a pragmatic and moderate view on this kind of thing.

imo

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Wait - how is UHC a "utopian vision" when it has been implemented in a godzillion countries by now? That's a pretty misleading choice of words.

And yeah I understand that it ain't gonna happen overnight, but that has nothing to do with my argument, which is that a wealthy government is justified in running publicly-funded services like UHC.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

It's a utopian vision for the United States. Like lots of people have been saying, it's similar to how no one wants taxes raised, but this is necessary for everything to function correctly. I personally think people whining about that are just bitches but, regardless, I don't think we can just go and compare say, Sweden to the US for purposes of UHC implementation.

The government may be justified in offering UHC, but that also implies an overbearingly large government, considering the size of the US, all of the states probably utilizing different systems for things, and other crazy variables.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Could you explain how UHC is any more "utopian" than the system we currently have, which is costing people an average of $7,500 (and rising) per year, and is going to cost the federal government $34 trillion to pay off its current Medicaid and Medicare obligations over the next few decades?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Because it does not just have to do with how much people pay for it... are you serious? Also, are you sure that's even the analogy you want to make? Read it again, it makes no sense.

EDIT: overall I think it is useless to speak on obviously desirable terms versus pragmatic terms when talking about how governmental, welfare and economic systems should work. Obviously no one wants to subjugate the poor and see to it that they're super sick and never have a chance to succeed. This discussion needs to get more pragmatic, and it won't get that way with people arguing on idealized vs. how-it-is terms...it's annoying to see people misinterpret each others' words because the two people are discussing things on different levels. For instance, every time I've argued with Nec or you or anyone else about how things should work, whoever I argue with immediately begins with the most out-of-touch theory that can't possibly be put into place and uses this as their main point complete with how the theoretical situation they mention is desirable...while I point out that said things are not currently plausible in the context of what we can really do as a nation ailing from economic distress and various people bickering over issues both stupid and important.

Once again, obviously no one wants to be taxed, it's really pointless to argue this.