Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Isn't Socialism Great
#41
Yes I'm Belgian, living in Lithuania (and sometimes in Belgium).
It's in the Baltics, not the Balkans, thought it both start with Bal.
No matter where I'm from, i'm not here to judge all charity works one by one.

I'm sure there good guys doing an awsome job as Palladin said, but it's also obvious that not everybody at charities are benevolents. And the bigger they are the bigger is the money diverted and the more it's run like a business.

My point was that if you suppress or cut by half social wellfares (of all kinds), your charities will be very far from being able to fill the gap.

G4 The politicians don't care what the charities or the organisations do. They want loyalty to the party (of the ones giving the funds or the tax exemption).
And you have to know a lot of poeple too.
You think it's different in the US and in Europe?...

Pixiest Wrote:Actually, no I don't mean rich people. I mean poor southerners give to charity a lot more than rich yankees. and poor southerners tend to be small government types.
So what? This is not an argument. Of course poeple giving a lot of charities think "why do I have to pay taxes for these programs if I already give to charities!".
But without big governement spending on wellfare, their generous and sincere donations will be insignificant in regard to the misery which would take place.
Reply
#42
That was the most kool-aid drowned post I've seen. Social welfare....hahahaha breeding cities like Detroit.

I love you, Fred. Nothing homosexual or wrong about it, or saying it.

I love you.
Reply
#43
Fredledingue Wrote:...if you suppress or cut by half social wellfares (of all kinds), your charities will be very far from being able to fill the gap.
No - not really. Remember that when government steps in to offer welfare, it affects the private entities that have provided that before.

I personally am aware of the good works of the Salvation Army, and how they offer services which are quicker and more competent than anything the Red Cross or government has ever provided.
Reply
#44
Social services should not be dependent on voluntary donations or other private market forces. Charities are not consistent, reliable, or egalitarian. In no way are they a viable alternative to public welfare.

WmLambert Wrote:I personally am aware of the good works of the Salvation Army, and how they offer services which are quicker and more competent than anything the Red Cross or government has ever provided.
The salvation army often receives state subsidies.
Reply
#45
Yes, the point is that if the State tried to perform the same services they would not do it as well or as fairly. Most of the SA's contributions are from the public, or from individuals within organizations who convince the organization to contribute.
Reply
#46
The US used charities for welfare until FDR, and they did relatively well. Local charities can do much better than broad based ill supervised government handouts because they vet and know the recipients of their welfare much better. They are much better equipped to know who is really in need and who is just faking it.

Governmental welfare is rife with fraud. You must not have heard of government agencies advertising that they have money to hand out. Perhaps you are too young to have heard of the welfare queens and their Cadillacs back in the '70's.

As for egalitarianism, you must not have heard of politically correct dissemination of "benefits", diversity, and various forms of social engineering which favor one group over another. Thus, one encounters a form of favoritism and vote buying, which is hardly egalitarian.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#47
jt Wrote:The US used charities for welfare until FDR, and they did relatively well....
Exactly. After the fellow travelers came back from visiting Stalin and assumed the mantle of FDR's "Brain Trust," they pushed the Marxist idea that government can do it better. They were lied to in Russia. The hand-picked idyllic examples of socialism were lies and distortions.

The Pulitzer was given to Walter Duranty who lied about all things Stalin - and the failures that caused the millions of deaths there went unnoticed.

The Brain Trust made charities a target of litigation. After they were through - most charities were overseen by government entities, and only a few pennies on the dollar made it to the people who needed help. The elites running the charities pocketed the donations - just like any third-world dictator - and people recognized the ineffectiveness of the new charities.

It was the government that caused people to stop giving in the unselfish and altruistic amounts they had - and it was the government that schemed to take the donations from the people and redistribute it as charity, themselves. The people's money was practically stolen and given to politically-connected groups that did a poor job of helping anyone.

There were only a few groups, like the Salvation Army, that put the money through to the people and can hold their heads high as honorable societies.
Reply
#48
You know, for the life of me, I just cannot understand how so many people, like Gommi, are so hung up on the State being better qualified to do something better than the private sector. It just amazes me to no end. Where do they ever get this idea, with all the contradictory evidence sitting right out front, for everyone to see.

For the life of me, there has to be something that is clouding their ability to use reason. Maybe it's their animosity toward religion which handles most charities, but then they have all their faith in the State instead. Maybe it's the Egalitarian thing where everyone has to be equally miserable, and over-achievers are to be punished for over-achieving. Maybe it's just a plain case of 'GetEvenWithEmIsm". I don't know. Hell, maybe it a combination of all the above. But clearly there is some sort of blockheaded myopia here that even a dummy such as myself can see it.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#49
the better educated ones amongst you will probably know robert malthus, who argued against social welfare back in the 1th half of the 19th century. he believed that the government's poor relief made things actually worse, because if life was tolerable for the poor, they would go on and have more children, what meant more poor people, and more handouts, and on, and on. life is a perpetual struggle, he said, and if man weren't encouraged to compete, society would end in misery and barbarism. malthus was the inspiration for darwin.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#50
John, allow me to explain.

John Kenneth Galbraith, one of the most intelligent and insightful economists of the twentieth century, understood that in pre-industrial societies where resources were scarce and most people lived in complete destitution, unrestrained competitive free-market capitalism was necessary to create commodities and generate wealth. As societies develop and become more affluent however, with relatively secure middle classes, private sector production is no longer essential. Simply stated, in affluent societies such as the United States and Europe, private production and wealth accumulation should not be the only social objectives. Not only does a continued obsession with private sector production and competition become redundant, but it will only cause instability and a regression into poverty. The government is therefore perfectly justified in providing services because the market should not dominate every aspect of our lives.
Reply
#51
Gommi Wrote:John, allow me to explain.

John Kenneth Galbraith, one of the most intelligent and insightful economists of the twentieth century, understood that in pre-industrial societies where resources were scarce and most people lived in complete destitution, unrestrained competitive free-market capitalism was necessary to create commodities and generate wealth. As societies develop and become more affluent however, with relatively secure middle classes, private sector production is no longer essential. Simply stated, in affluent societies such as the United States and Europe, private production and wealth accumulation should not be the only social objectives. Not only does a continued obsession with private sector production and competition become redundant, but it will only cause instability and a regression into poverty. The government is therefore perfectly justified in providing services because the market should not dominate every aspect of our lives.

Gommi, you mistakenly, or purposefully, leave out the import of competition and personal Liberty. Without both, your perfect society will stagnate, and be surpassed by other societies, which are not beholden to Collectivism's utopianism.

Also, you Collectivists seem to think that the State can change, or halt, human nature, which is built into our genes. The State is not capable of doing that, even if it must eventually resort to whole scale slaughter, as was done in other Collectivist States. Any time human nature is not taken into account, the grand design is always going to collapse in failure. I guarantee it.

I can only hope that, as you age, you will finally come to realize this.

Oh, and Dr. Galbraith was wrong.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#52
jt Wrote:Local charities can do much better than broad based ill supervised government handouts because they vet and know the recipients of their welfare much better. They are much better equipped to know who is really in need and who is just faking it.
That's a question of managing the welfare repartition and I agree that private companies may provide a better result than governement bureaucrats.
Private companies working in an environement of concurence can lose the business if they don't do it well, and their employees can lose their job if they do big mistakes or simply if they are no longer needed for the job. Fraud is more difficult because the concurence and the governement are watching.
Governement workers generaly in Europe - I don't know in the US - are nominated for life, cannot be sacked except in extreme cases. This only make a private organisations more efficient.

What they cannot do with effectiveness however is to collect massive amount of money and ask everybody to give something according to their revenues.
For that you need the authority of a governement. Handing flyers at the church exit and door-to-door solicitating has never gathered the funds needed but it's royaly boring.

Gommi
I don't agree with this theory. Poeple lived in total destitution in pre-industrial societies simply because there wasn't the technology to bring confort and balanced food to everyone. Only the super rich had a level of confort which is comparable to today's middle class, and the middle class lived in squalid condition by modern standards and the poor just a little bit worse.
Industrialisation created the need for a just social system garanteeing a decent salary to those who worked, avoid economic slavery and help the infirm and the elderly. Because the life at a factory was very different from the life in the countryside or in the small towns.
It's only when the west understood that by the years 1880 that the west became a financial and military superpower and massively developed technologies and sciences developed at high speed.
No civilization has ever grown when 2/3 of its population has barely enough food while they work 16 hours a day and 2% sitting on pharaonic fortunes.
Europe of the 19th century sucked. Misery, militarism, sectarism, imperialism and all the deseases that the 20th inherited. The 18th century Humanism was completely undone. despite all the advancements in the industry poeple still live in a poverty worse than the West has ever known. Had the capitalsits understood that a little bit earlier, socialism wouldn't have become a power monster.
Reply
#53
Fredledingue Wrote:Industrialisation created the need for a just social system garanteeing a decent salary to those who worked, avoid economic slavery and help the infirm and the elderly. Because the life at a factory was very different from the life in the countryside or in the small towns.
It's only when the west understood that by the years 1880 that the west became a financial and military superpower and massively developed technologies and sciences developed at high speed.
I agree. In Germany, industrialization coincided with the development of the first welfare sate. For society to truly advance, governments must be responsive to issues of poverty and inequality. Galbraith didn't really elaborate on his arguments for free enterprise in early societies, but defended sate intervention in affluent settings.
Reply
#54
It official: Hungry is not enamoured by Socialism. In fact, the country has just approved a new, logical, constitution.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#55
John L Wrote:It official: Hungry is not enamoured by Socialism. In fact, the country has just approved a new, logical, constitution.

They wish to avoid the fiscal and demographic disaster (eg abortion restrictions) that is the rest of Europe. Good on them.
Reply
#56
Gunnen4u Wrote:
John L Wrote:It official: Hungry is not enamoured by Socialism. In fact, the country has just approved a new, logical, constitution.

They wish to avoid the fiscal and demographic disaster (eg abortion restrictions) that is the rest of Europe. Good on them.

And speaking of demographics, even Russia has gotten the message. I haven't found the article yet, but on Fox Business I just heard that Russia is spending billions to promote population growth. I believe parents will reap $10,000 upon a child's third birthday, and parents will also be able to take advantage of 'reproductive' days off.

Let's hope the rest of Euroland gets smart, and stops relying on Islamoland to supplement their problems.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#57
Eastern and Central Europeans are not as encumbered by Western stupidity. They'll do their best to survive as a national state, while Western Europe...eh...

I should invest in Russia somehow.

Also, we seem to be relying on Mexico ourselves since the *traditional* American population seems to not breed like they used to.
Reply
#58
John L Wrote:It official: Hungry is not enamoured by Socialism. In fact, the country has just approved a new, logical, constitution.
i was sure you would applaud that hungary's government increases it's influence over banks, businesses, the constitutional court, and every aspect of life of a private citizen. that's what collectivists like you aspire, the state is your saviour. foreign and foreign owned companies are not amused about the protectionist measures, and increased taxes targeting them either.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#59
And in the "Socialism can work if it is just tried the right way, and we are going to make it a success!" department, there is this little tidbit.

Michigan Restaurant Using Socialist Business Plan Closes SURPRISING NO ONE

Quote:A vegan restaurant in Michigan, where there was no boss and every employee made the same amount of money has been forced to close. Who could have foreseen failure with such a solid business plan?

Grand Rapids’ worker-run, no-tipping restaurant closes

The end has come for a popular Grand Rapids restaurant known as much for its creative vegan dishes as its progressive business model.

If it was so popular, then why did it fail, huh?  Gah

Quote:In the end, the restaurant failed to achieve the employee business model it envisioned.

By reading a little von Mises or von Hayek, they would have known that it was going to fail, with 100% accuracy.  Banghead

Economics professor, Dr. Abby Blanco, gives a detailed explanation over at FEE(Foundation for Economic Freedom).  Too bad none of the utopian minded Progressives never bother reading something of substance.  And then the rest of us wind up paying for their lack of wisdom.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#60
They are utopists who think that suffices the will and you can destroy the capitalist system and erase all social injustices.
They are convinced that capitalism and the rule of offer and demand is a conspiracy from multinational corporations while it's just the NATURAL STATE of human exchanges.

Many progressives call for a boycot of the product from large corporations and buy "directly from the (local)producer". I wish them good luck because massive porduction is the only way for us to survive in this overpopulated world.
It's even more difficult when the labor at your local producers is overtaxed and salaries higher than just anywhere else.

Just two examples (for today)

1/ Someone complained that traditional african dress worn by african women in Africa were made in Holland. (You read it: not in China, but in Holland where salaries are, what, 100 or 1000x higher).
Just because the dutch have developed a modern highly competitive automated chain of production beating anyone else in this specific field.
The Dutch had already this advantage in the 19th C when they started this business and kept it up until today.

Moreover, Africa's population is booming so fast that manual production would never keep up with the demand.

2/ Someone else complained that in a program to offer free food to the poors, the governement will buy milk at the lowest priced being offered and that it was "playing the game of the capitalists".

I replied that those who sell cheaper are those who need to sell the most and you want to disadvantage these one?
Of course I got no response because they hate logic.

More importantly, what would be the argument if not the cost/efficiency ratio?
Free meals is not the place where you would expect high quality bio farmed food.
The program is to feed homeless not funding local farmers.

This is the mindset in which they are living. They never think that poeple struggle to sell, to get a job, to earn money, to make ends meet.

They want that workers have higher salaries, but they don't want to reduce taxes on salaries!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)