Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Kilkrazy wrote:Somalia has zero public welfare of any kind at all and its government is the most efficient in the world.
It is also a miserable shithole of a country which encourages personal responsibility to the extent that the only successful industry is piracy on the high seas.
Norway has immense public welfare of all types, ranging from extended paternity and materity leave to free education and state funded pensions.
Its government is one of the least efficient in the world
Despite that deficiency, Norway is also a wonderful country with very high indices of education, health, democracy, happiness, and sustains a number of high tech industries and is a world leader in shipping.
With these fact in mind, do you think you might change your idea about welfare being counterproductive?
Why are you trying to compare apples and oranges?
Catachan LIX "Lords Of Destruction" - Put Away
1943-1944 Era 1250 point Großdeutchland Force - Bolt Action
"The best medicine for Wraithlords? Multilasers. The best way to kill an Avatar? Lasguns."
"Time to pour out some liquor for the pinkmisted Harlequins"
Luco wrote:Interesting. Here in the states we grew by roughly 10% from 2000.
Birth rates are down around the globe. Which means the young to old ratio will be aweful in no time.
Its already here. Though to be fair the US has had a dropping birth rate since 1910, even the baby boomers didn't get the birth rate up to that high. Though it was certainly higher then, we have half as many kids as we had a century ago.
The more people we have the more reasons there are to throw money at NASA and get colonizing already.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/03/27 01:42:27
I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
I have compared two contrasting social systems, the Somalian and Norwegian, with the USA, in order to see if there is any validity in the idea that increased public welfare causes “bad things” to happen, or that reduced public welfare causes “good things” to happen.
I am at a loss to understand why this is an invalid comparison.
I have compared two contrasting social systems, the Somalian and Norwegian, with the USA, in order to see if there is any validity in the idea that increased public welfare causes “bad things” to happen, or that reduced public welfare causes “good things” to happen.
I am at a loss to understand why this is an invalid comparison.
It's invalid since the cultures are radically different. It works in small countries like Norway, Sweden and Finland because the populations are so tiny and they're all fairly similar economically (they all succeed doing the same things).
Somalia is corrupted by warlord influences and raiding UN supply convoys all of their goods so the warlords can divy the supplies out at their discretion. They have very few natural resources and are suffering with overpopulation (like most of Africa), it's inevitable that they'd resort to crime to make a living.
It would never work in the US becuase our regions have very different motives and climates. Someone living in California might want something different out of life than someone in Texas, Virginia or Montana.
It's not neccessarily bad that there are programs, but when they allow for people to maintain a lifestyle that is unsustainable, it breaks. The "good things" are natural forces of economics, incentivising or de-incentivising work is nothing new. Make someone hungry, they'll do anything to not be hungry. Make it too hard to be a broodmare, they'll stop doing it or starve. I have no qualms about donating to private charities, but a serious problem about tax dollars used to make it easy to be a leech on the government.
Catachan LIX "Lords Of Destruction" - Put Away
1943-1944 Era 1250 point Großdeutchland Force - Bolt Action
"The best medicine for Wraithlords? Multilasers. The best way to kill an Avatar? Lasguns."
"Time to pour out some liquor for the pinkmisted Harlequins"
Stormrider wrote:It's invalid since the cultures are radically different.
But your arguments haven't been culturally centered, now that a fallacy in your argument appears you change the rationale. You said that X leads to Y and he found examples where X did not lead to Y so now your are changing the argument to X leads to Y becuase of A and pretending that he is arguing against the wrong things. It would be better to amend the position without trying to appear as if that was what you said the whole time, becuase it wasn't.
Stormrider wrote:It works in small countries like Norway, Sweden and Finland because the populations are so tiny and they're all fairly similar economically
Oh, is that why? It almost seems like an oversimplification presented as fact.
Stormrider wrote:Someone living in California might want something different out of life than someone in Texas, Virginia or Montana.
Of course there are also people within those states that want something different out of life than someone else within the same state. A migrant worker has different goals than an oil executive, for example. Heck, within Somalia and Norway you run into people that want different things out of life. Hell people living in the same towns occasionally want something different from other people in this same town. If one looks close enough, even sometimes people living in the same house want different things out of life than the people they share the house with. It's crazy.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
I wouldn't mind getting rid of the baby bonus, to be honest. I don't really see the point, when it's pretty obvious that of all the problems we're facing in society "not enough people" plainly isn't one of them.
And I say that as a guy who's planning on having kids in the next couple of years.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote: First of all, half of you are flat out wrong, the global population is not going down.
I don't need to check Google, I was at the aquarium of the pacific in longbeach a month back and the figures were right there. The developed world is stabilizing, but the undeveloped nations are sky rocketing. 9 billion humans by 2050 and 80% of them in the poor counties, make no mistake, we are heading for a world of gak.
Yeah, the developing world is stabilising. The undeveloped world is still increasing in population, but the rate of increase is slowing, and is expected to continue slowing until it eventually peaks and then begins to drop. It is believed the peak population will be somwhere between 2050 and 2075.
High birth rates are tied to economic development, and more particularly the level of wealth and economic freedom that economic develop extends to women. Fact is if you want to reduce birth rates the best way to do it is to give women the power to say no to men.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:It's not neccessarily bad that there are programs, but when they allow for people to maintain a lifestyle that is unsustainable, it breaks. The "good things" are natural forces of economics, incentivising or de-incentivising work is nothing new. Make someone hungry, they'll do anything to not be hungry. Make it too hard to be a broodmare, they'll stop doing it or starve. I have no qualms about donating to private charities, but a serious problem about tax dollars used to make it easy to be a leech on the government.
It is a ludicrous assumption that people who have large numbers of children do so out of rational economic motives. Such people had large numbers of children before welfare came along, and the reasons for having a child are rarely informed by economic motives. "I need a man and if I get pregnant by this guy he'll love me and never leave me" is a much more powerful motivator that "I would like to receive a small amount of money fortnightly"
Nor have any of the surveys on welfare programs across the world ever demonstrated the existance of more than a minute minority of women with large broods of children, and that their cost is an almost immaterial burden on society. They are a statistical anomoly, more representative of a psychological abnormality than a general trend across society.
The whole idea of the welfare queen needs to die.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2011/03/28 07:10:43
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Kilkrazy wrote:Somalia has zero public welfare of any kind at all and its government is the most efficient in the world.
It is also a miserable gak hole of a country which encourages personal responsibility to the extent that the only successful industry is piracy on the high seas.
Norway has immense public welfare of all types, ranging from extended paternity and materity leave to free education and state funded pensions.
Its government is one of the least efficient in the world
Despite that deficiency, Norway is also a wonderful country with very high indices of education, health, democracy, happiness, and sustains a number of high tech industries and is a world leader in shipping.
With these fact in mind, do you think you might change your idea about welfare being counterproductive?
I do apologize for the delay in getting back to you, this was a serious challenge to my view which required some research to answer.
My thesis was "Lifelong welfare, or really, any sort of long term welfare for working age adults, is counterproductive to personal responsibility and efficient government."
Norway does not practice lifelong unemployment benefits. According to forbes," In Norway the unemployed receive 87.6% of their previous salaries for 500 days". I think that is a wonderful system- welfare that cuts off is not the lifelong welfare I am opposed to. Norwegians work for those privileges, and even the outwardly most 'welfare' the year off for mothers when the child is born, provides an opportunity for strengthening the family unit. A strong family unit is a great indicator of future success. Norway is an example of a government that plans carefully for its charity to achieve results that better it, and minimizes costs to it.
The American system is the equivalent of driving by a beggar at a crossroads each day, and giving them money. When there are now two beggars, you give them both money. And once one has a kid, you give them more money. It does not solve the problem, or encourage personal responsibility- it encourages idleness and begging, which I believe leads to the problem mattyrm was talking about in the first place- too many people.
Somalia is an example of anarchy, not government. I strongly suspect that it is the lack of organized government, and not the lack of welfare that is causing the widespread violence and poverty. If you believe that it is the lack of public welfare programs, and not the international poaching and elimination of traditional employment, that is driving the rise of piracy and the overall Somalian situation, then I would very much like to see your evidence. Correlation does not imply causation.
Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.
The TANF- (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) law limits lifetime welfare assistance to five years, requires most able-bodied adults to work after two years on welfare, eliminates welfare benefits for legal immigrants who have not become U.S. citizens, and limits food stamps to a period of three months unless the recipients are working.
The TANF- (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) law limits lifetime welfare assistance to five years, requires most able-bodied adults to work after two years on welfare, eliminates welfare benefits for legal immigrants who have not become U.S. citizens, and limits food stamps to a period of three months unless the recipients are working.
So why is lifetime welfare ruining the USA?
That is certainly the intention of the program, and what the majority of people use it for- but the possibility for abuse remains in this new system. According to www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/access/docs/TANF%20101%20final.pdf -
'Federal law restricts receipt of federal TANF benefits to not more than 60 months of
assistance. States may exempt up to 20 percent of the caseload from the time limit due to
state-defined hardship.
Florida law limits receipt of assistance to not more than 48 cumulative months of
assistance with exemptions to the time limit provided for hardship. Examples of hardship
would include individuals receiving Social Security disability benefits (which are
different than SSI benefits) or individuals caring for a disabled family member when the
disability and the need for care have been medically verified. '
When you are speaking of a country's population on welfare, you are (hopefully) never speaking of majorities- but if 20% of the welfare population can be carried indefinitely on the system for state defined hardship, the system is open to the abuse I fear. Now before someone points out that Florida's examples of exemptions are purely for disability, I hasten to point out that those are examples, not a comprehensive list of hardship. One might also say that raising 4 kids was a hardship. They are also but one state in the union.
Even with the reform, it remains open to perpetual abuse in the case of 'hardship'.
Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.
I don't see how if only 20% of only unemployed people can claim perpetual benefit in terms of hardship as defined by the state, based on democratic elections, it will grow to be a serious problem unless the majority of all electors agree with the policy.
Perhaps you might come up with some concrete figures about the excessive welfare benefits which you are worried about.
Gitzbitah wrote:I think you've got the wrong end of the problem, mattyrm. It isn't taxpaying breeders (such as myself) that are the problem. It is the vast number of welfare programs available that make it profitable to be unemployed and have litters of children.
If you aren't too proud to be a burden to the state and raise children that are almost always going to become future burdens to the state, you too can be paid to stay in a home you pay 25 dollars a month for, eat food stamps and WIC supplies, watch soap operas and have sex all day to work on your next child rearing stipend/tax break.
Lifelong welfare, or really, any sort of long term welfare for working age adults, is counterproductive to personal responsibility and efficient government.
Yes. I once worked with two girls who had multiple kids so they could get bigger checks, more food stamps, etc. The reason I don't work with them anymore is because they actually quit because they had enough welfare coming in from the governemnt. One is 22 years old, the other is 27. One has 3 kids, one has 6 kids, 4 fathers between them.
As for the OP, you seem slightly self centered lol. Obviously we need to reproduce to keep the population going, but of course some go too far and suckle off the teet of everyone else. My philosophy is if you can't afford a child then don't have one. That may sound like a Captain Obvious statement, but look around and see how many follow it. Personally I'm with you in that I am not interested in kids of my own, but I wouldn't discourage anyone else.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/03/29 07:35:53
You know you guys are right. The few people that game the system should trump all the good people that don't and need a little help that is easily within our means to do so. With that money we save in taxes that goes to these we could buy one used video game each year, maybe even a new one.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Well, the people of this country are quite giving. We're perfectly capable of giving and helping people out on our own, we don't need the government to do it for us. I'd personally much rather give my money to a welfare program run by the private sector than the government. They might actually monitor it, and if they didn't and the people didn't approve of it, then they could CHOOSE to stop giving to it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/03/29 00:16:56
Gitzbitah wrote:When you are speaking of a country's population on welfare, you are (hopefully) never speaking of majorities- but if 20% of the welfare population can be carried indefinitely on the system for state defined hardship, the system is open to the abuse I fear.
You've read a piece that allows states to keep up to 20% on welfare, if they choose to produce a standard that results in 20% of welfare recipients keeping their benefits long term, and you've just assumed that states will all elect to develop standards that do so.
The only reason you've made that assumption is to continue worrying that the US is just handing money out indefinitely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:You know you guys are right. The few people that game the system should trump all the good people that don't and need a little help that is easily within our means to do so. With that money we save in taxes that goes to these we could buy one used video game each year, maybe even a new one.
Audits of welfare systems typically show fraud or incorrect benefits payments comes in at a fraction of 1%, and that in almost all cases more stringent requirements would cost more than they would save. Yet people continue to insist that welfare is too easy to get.
Meanwhile there's immense fraud at the top of the system. How much did the no-bid contracts to Halliburton cost? How much money did Bernie Madoff rip out of the system? And he's just one guy, what about the institutional grafting of Bank of America or Citibank?
But instead people just focus in on the welfare recipients. It's very weird.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/03/29 00:22:20
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
@sebter
Would you happen to have a link for the source of that stat? I know several individuals that fit into the 'welfare brood mother' type and having data that contradicts that would be pleasant to see. Thanks.
Luco wrote:@sebter
Would you happen to have a link for the source of that stat? I know several individuals that fit into the 'welfare brood mother' type and having data that contradicts that would be pleasant to see. Thanks.
I'm not having any luck finding figures on the average number of kids for welfare recipients. Unfortunately searching for "welfare queen" just gives me a lot of people talking about Reagan's fictitious anecdote. Which goes to show a lot of people would rather bash a really easy but out of date and entirely irrelevant fib from a dead politician, than actually look at informing people about the current rate of welfare queens.
One interesting I did find, though, is that in doing a google search for rate of welfare fraud or something similar, you'll find any actual study of the figures of welfare fraud gives a rate of around that 2 to 5% mark. But if you look at figures from internet posters who are just speculating, you'll see them claim 25% or even higher. It's this error that dominates political debate, as politicians will talk about cutting the cost of welfare, and do this by pretending there's vast amounts of fraud that can be identified, saving loads of money. Truth is there isn't, and actual program cuts will means cutting the welfare payments of people who are on the poverty line.
And if that's what people want, then fine. But they need to be honest about it.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Lt. Coldfire wrote:
Well, the people of this country are quite giving. We're perfectly capable of giving and helping people out on our own, we don't need the government to do it for us. I'd personally much rather give my money to a welfare program run by the private sector than the government. They might actually monitor it, and if they didn't and the people didn't approve of it, then they could CHOOSE to stop giving to it.
You can choose to not pay taxes.
I mean, the way you and others seem to feel, one would expect that you would exercise such an option given the terrible oppression you're under.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
I mean, the way you and others seem to feel, one would expect that you would exercise such an option given the terrible oppression you're under.
Never mind the fact that welfare in the US has about 2% administration. While any charity that can be as low as 20% overhead is likely to be singing it from the moon, and rightfully so because raising money through donations is expensive. Point being, assuming that a private charity will automatically more efficient is just plain wrong.
Never mind Lt Coldfire's claim that government doesn't bother to oversee is just as silly. There's constant review of the programs, they cost more than the actual fraud does.
This is all what I was getting at above, the myth of welfare abuse and inefficiency just doesn't line up with reality. But it goes on, because people like the fantasy.
Like you said, if they were really, honest and truly getting ripped off like they pretend, there'd be movements to not pay their taxes. But fantasy doesn't justify action.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/03/29 03:35:41
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Luco wrote:Thanks for the link Sebster, interesting info. I don't have any contributions to the thread, I was just curious.
Happy to help
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Catachan LIX "Lords Of Destruction" 
1,000 pts 27-8-10
15 pts 0-0-0
1,000 pts 3-1-0
