How many people whether in rural areas or our inner cities is dependent solely on goverment assistance?
You don’t think that there poor relief programs at the state-level?
I’m not the kind of person who can answer that question because I don’t think the word in this sense refers anything at all.
If you 're talking about dependence is started with Roosevelt from my understand. Prior to that it was basically left up to Churches.
Now I see discussion is leading to corporate welfare…that is equally as bad IMO unless it involves national security.
Which leads to wide range of what is called national security.
Not my source, but it relays the some of the same facts: https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/poor-relief-early-amer/
I wonder if, worldwide, a sense of priority has been lost. Having spent some time in a poor country, it seemed at least every other apartment had a satellite dish sticking out like a sore thumb.
Every other individual had a cell phone. Indeed, the Egyptian word for cell phone is similar to one in English: “mubail”.
And, in having a conversation with a business contact, he spent some time in Morocco. “The home was poor to the point chickens were literally running through it, but what do I hear in the background? A TV set in whatever language is spoken in Morocco announcing Jerry Springer. The people in the house loved Jerry.”
Really. I don’t think a loss of priority and ability to plan ahead is unique to American young.
1 Like
So you don’t know if it was federal, state, or local welfare and what was provided and fir how long.
Hmmmm.
It was state and local.
Ya know… I definitely agree that local decisions for welfare make sense. It is easy to move if you don’t agree. State welfare is harder but if things get bad enough, you can move. But federal? No. Americans have no where to go if they don’t want to support federal welfare.
1 Like
You know that I never made any value judgments on the programs.
National-level “welfare” is something I’m fine with. Foot-“voting” is stupid.
Big difference … you and me.
I don’t think it’s a “big” difference, but I acknowledge that we are opposed to one another on this topic.
Your view and my view are mutually exclusive. Only one can win. Do you acknowledge this?
The role of CentGov (credit to sneaky for the phrase) is a big difference.
I don’t give it that much weight.
“Central” relative to what?
Intellectual property is the right to earn a profit for a while from what you discovered, without someone else making a copy of it and selling it for slightly less… Absent that, there is no incentive to do the hard work of discovery/innovation. If you write, perform and record a song- should others get your recording- made at your expense- for free? If you are a company that spends 2 billion dollars (average cost of research to bring forth a new drug) on R&D to cure a disease- should you get nothing so that the drug will be cheaper?
There are magical worker’s paradises (actually loafers/criminal’s paradises) where intellectual property is absent, lovely places like Zimbabwe, and Venezuela, and N. Korea. People, and Democrats especially, function and vote for self interest. No one will innovate if the result of their work is we are liberating your idea/product/cure for the people! Here’s ten dollars comrade, by the way, you’ll still be sued if anyone doesn’t like how well your product works for them." Countries that have no intellectual property protections have no advancement that isn’t stolen from countries that do (China for example).
2 Likes
This is some interesting stuff, Samson. Am about 2/3 of the way through & not someplace I can concentrate right now.
It appears in ‘60’s welfare programs like Medicaid & WIC we’re repeating the history of the poor houses in effects like increasing the behaviors that can lead to poverty in the first place and lumping together those who cannot help themselves—for example disabled—with those who can, like transients & substance abusers.
Welcome aboard, by the way!
I honestly don’t know, Samson.
Seems there is federal involvement in even those that are administered at the state level, like Medicaid.
difference here is it was done through charity from wealthy benefactors , the church or the community, the Federal government wasn’t involved into Comrade Franklin Delano Roosevelt entered the oval office.
2 Likes
I have a lot of things that I can say in response. The first is that I’m using the term “welfare” to refer “government programs” that provide poor relief. You say that charity existed in that time and you’re right. Tell me something I don’t know. My point is that welfare, public assistance, or whatever you want to call it also existed at the time. What is unfounded is the silly belief that there was a time that all help for the impoverished was only achieved through acts of charity and then at some point “government” decided to introduce welfare programs out of the blue.
This brings me to my second point which is that “welfare” and “charity” were never the only categories. Though private property existed before the Industrial Revolution, it wasn’t like private property today. For instance, in England before 1788, “commoners” could go onto land and glean the crops leftover after a harvest. It was considered something that the poor were morally permitted to do. I tell you this not because I think it is a good thing or a bad thing. I tell you this because your model of these things is historically false.
My third and last point is that FDR was no comrade. You need to recalibrate your ideology-o-meter.
Are you trying to tell me that Roosevelt wasn’t a socialist?