UN to "Moniter" US Elections

[Praxus]

The Definition of Welfare, "Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need."

This includes SS, Medicare, Schools, Medicade, and the actual financle aid what most people call welfare.

[barrowaj]

The Definition of Welfare, "Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need." This includes SS, Medicare, Schools, Medicade, and the actual financle aid what most people call welfare.

You are including a lot of military related expenditures in there too. For example, pensions and medical services for vets, etc. There are other expenditures related to the military that aren't included in its budget. I saw it broken down that all true military expenditures add up to 52% of the budget. I couldn't find the website, but I'll keep looking.

Many welfare programs are considered by economists to be a help to the economy. For example, giving aid to people who cannot afford medical services is an economic benefit. While those people cannot afford medical services, their total contributions to the US economy over their lifetime will more than make up for the cost of the services. Unemployment pensions are ideally of the same nature, but many view them as creating a dependency.

And on the social side, welfare provides a means to create a better society. One of the most inhuman and uncaring deeds of the Nazis was to kill Jewish children and elderly before they would go into the work camps. Because they reasoned that they couldn't work, they had no economic benefit, and it wasn't worth supporting them. Our welfare programs aid the young and elderly to give them a chance at living. Just because someone cannot work to pay for healthcare services or food does not mean they should be left to die.

Pres. Eisenhower predicted that we would look forward to "a burden of arms draining the wealth and the labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or the Soviet system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth."

The Soviet threat is gone. But our military expenditures are greater than ever.

[Confed999]

You are including a lot of military related expenditures in there too. For example, pensions and medical services for vets, etc.

That's payment for a job done, not welfare.

welfare provides a means to create a better society.

Or it creates a society of welfare families. I don't personally have a problem with helping people, but we can't hurt others unnecessarily to get it done, and I don't want to support welfare familes forever.

The Soviet threat is gone. But our military expenditures are greater than ever.

There are still plenty of threats out there. Nobody else is equipped to handle them, should the need arise. Sad thing is, all these countries that have ditched the military in favor of socialist policies, aren't really doing all that well. Very few can compare to the US.

[barrowaj]

That's payment for a job done, not welfare.

Well, if you agree that it is a military expense too, then it should be subtracted from the category of public services, and added to the military budget. What I meant to say is that pensions and benefits are a military expense, and should therefore inflate the military budget.

Or it creates a society of welfare families. I don't personally have a problem with helping people, but we can't hurt others unnecessarily to get it done, and I don't want to support welfare familes forever.

The last thing anyone wants are families with no hope or motivation, who seek to subsist on welfare alone. That's why there is a 2 year limit on welfare, and families on welfare must have a job. If we eliminated welfare and the minimum wage (like some advocate), we would have more widespread startation than North Korea. Therefore, I think that social services are more valuable than having things like B-2 stealth bombers, destroyers, and a new aircraft carrier.

There are still plenty of threats out there. Nobody else is equipped to handle them, should the need arise. Sad thing is, all these countries that have ditched the military in favor of socialist policies, aren't really doing all that well. Very few can compare to the US.

Counties like Germany, France, and GB have plenty good militaries. They could easily handle threats like Iran or North Korea. They just know that they won't have to because they rely on the US to take care of it. Why should we always foot the bill?

And also, while Europe is not enjoying rapid economic growth, I don't think it has to do with their socialist policies. Factors like population growth, and the availibility of natural resources have played a much greater role in development. The US has the advantage that its home soil has never been tread on by enemy troops, or had to bear the burden of rampant destruction. Europe had to pay to rebuild itself after WWII.

And even while Europeans do not enjoy the same GDP per capita that we do, there have other non-economic factors that improve their quality of life. The public transportation and clean, modern cities (well, except for France) put to shame the urban wasteland that is Houston.

[Confed999]

Well, if you agree that it is a military expense too, then it should be subtracted from the category of public services

Except that's who takes care of the pensions and benefits of government employees. All I said is it's not welfare in any form, no more than a postal employee's pension/benefits are.

That's why there is a 2 year limit on welfare, and families on welfare must have a job.

I have a cousin, nobody in my family really speaks too anymore, that lives off her children's welfare, and has for over a decade. She is a welfare family, we will be supporting forever, when it looks like she needs more money she just gets pregnant again.

If we eliminated welfare and the minimum wage (like some advocate), we would have more widespread startation than North Korea.

History says that's a false statement, we haven't had welfare, or a minimum wage for very long, and there wasn't rampant starvation. I'm not for removing welfare, just making sure the people who need it get it, and not scum like my cousin.

Therefore, I think that social services are more valuable than having things like B-2 stealth bombers, destroyers, and a new aircraft carrier.

I think both are needed, but I do not condone handouts, and the government should not be the ones running the programs.

Counties like Germany, France, and GB have plenty good militaries. They could easily handle threats like Iran or North Korea.

ROTFL! You need to read some of the military threads, and what the experts have to say about that. Europe may be able to put 100,000 troops somewhere, but it would leave them defended by old reservists, that can't be legaly recalled. 100,000 isn't even enough to get started in Iran or North Korea.

Why should we always foot the bill?

We shouldn't have too, I say that all the time, but when something needs to be done, then it needs to be done, regardless.

I don't think it has to do with their socialist policies.

Sure it is, their welfare budget looks like our military budget. Their employment practices, and excessive taxes, keep businesses from dealing with them, it kept me from starting one there. The more conservative nations, most raped by the USSR for decades, are growing at a rate far in excess of western Europe. Heck Germany has a -.1 to .1% GDP growth rate, and that's just sad.

The US has the advantage that its home soil has never been tread on by enemy troops, or had to bear the burden of rampant destruction.

The most prosperous time in our history was after the Civil War. The US has been invaded several times.

The public transportation and clean, modern cities (well, except for France) put to shame the urban wasteland that is Houston.

I'll live in an "urban wasteland" before I give up my freedom, and my money, for public transportation. Besides being old and confusing, European cities look the same, and just as "dirty" to me, as any American city I've been too. Kick the illegals out of Houston, and see if it gets better, instead of supporting them and watching things get worse.

[Ironduke]

The US has the advantage that its home soil has never been tread on by enemy troops, or had to bear the burden of rampant destruction.

The British burned Washingston to the ground in 1814.

[barrowaj]

Except that's who takes care of the pensions and benefits of government employees. All I said is it's not welfare in any form, no more than a postal employee's pension/benefits are.

I think I'm not being clear about what I mean here. What I am trying to say is that all too often people decry the huge public services expenses, and talk about how that part of the budget should be reduced or eliminated. However, the figures you see are misleading, as part of their total actually represents military expenses.

I have a cousin, nobody in my family really speaks too anymore, that lives off her children's welfare, and has for over a decade... when it looks like she needs more money she just gets pregnant again.

Well, I don't think that this is a problem with the concept of welfare in general, but instead the case of a person who is abusing it. If you aren't truly disabled, you shouldn't be able to receive welfare w/o doing/looking for work or community service. I would think that shame would be a strong enough motivating factor for people like this, but the fact is there are a few exceptions. Perhaps putting a limit on the number of children that welfare supports would fix the probelm of outlyers like that. Of course the Republicans would never dare introduce a bill like that because it would hurt their Mexican-American constituency, who don't beleive in using birth control.

History says that's a false statement, we haven't had welfare, or a minimum wage for very long, and there wasn't rampant starvation.

Don't be so fast to make that assertion. Socioeconomics is a dynamic system, and is not going to just instantly adapt to any kind of change you give it. Currently its extremely difficult to eek by on minimum wage, and without it, living would be nearly impossible. The rachet effect guarantees that the prices of goods would not fall with the minimum wage.

The problem is that modern technology decreases the relative value of simple, uneducated manual labor. Therefore it will become increasingly difficult to earn a living without any specialized training. If you have time, there is an interesting story called Manna that is about this trend. I'd like to see what your thoughts are on it.

I'm not for removing welfare, just making sure the people who need it get it, and not scum like my cousin.

Well, same here.

the government should not be the ones running the programs.

Well, who should run it then? A company, so that CEOs and boards of directors can skim money off the top for doing literally nothing? Austin Energy, which is owned by the city of Austin, has a helluva lot better customer service than Reliant, which is a private corporation.

ROTFL! You need to read some of the military threads, and what the experts have to say about that. Europe may be able to put 100,000 troops somewhere, but it would leave them defended by old reservists, that can't be legaly recalled. 100,000 isn't even enough to get started in Iran or North Korea.

I'll save this discussion for another thread.

Their employment practices, and excessive taxes, keep businesses from dealing with them, it kept me from starting one there. The more conservative nations, most raped by the USSR for decades, are growing at a rate far in excess of western Europe. Heck Germany has a -.1 to .1% GDP growth rate, and that's just sad.

While a lot of European protectionist policies are stupid and harmful to business, business and free markets cannot take care of everything. European business practices didn't stop AMD from building two new multi billion dollar fabs in Dresden, which took away jobs from good old laissez-faire Texas. Germany's slow growth rate has to do with free trade between it and the Eastern European countries. The former Soviet republics can produce things much more cheaply because they have a low standard of living and are thus attracting more capital. The (arguably) socailist USSR enjoyed a much higher growth rate on average than the US from its inception until 1975.

The most prosperous time in our history was after the Civil War. The US has been invaded several times. I'll live in an "urban wasteland" before I give up my freedom, and my money, for public transportation. Kick the illegals out of Houston, and see if it gets better, instead of supporting them and watching things get worse.

In recent times we haven't been invaded and completely razed. It took Europe and the USSR a lot of effort to recover from WWII.

I don't see how paying for public transportation is giving up any kind of freedom. It lets you go wherever you want to, is more environmentally friendly, has a lower overall cost than the equivalent amount of cars, and is much faster (in most cases, where Houston traffic is just hideous). I don't see how kicking illegal immigrants out of Houston is going to improve the traffic jams and smog, and it would probably would have a minimal impact on crime (not that I'm against kicking them out).

Maybe you could start a new thread to continue this conversation, its become pretty splintered, and gotten way off its original course.

[Confed999]

However, the figures you see are misleading, as part of their total actually represents military expenses.

The original statement was about welfare. I don't think pensions and benefits are covered in the welfare budget, that's all I've said about it.

Well, I don't think that this is a problem with the concept of welfare in general, but instead the case of a person who is abusing it. If you aren't truly disabled, you shouldn't be able to receive welfare w/o doing/looking for work or community service.

Not a problem with the concept, but with the practice. Many people on welfare, including social security, food stamps, free school lunches, etc., etc., do not need to be.

Of course the Republicans would never dare introduce a bill like that because it would hurt their Mexican-American constituency

And the Dems never will, because it hurts their "class warfare" strategy. Not to mention it would actually make the government smaller. Oh the horror! ;)

Don't be so fast to make that assertion. Socioeconomics is a dynamic system, and is not going to just instantly adapt to any kind of change you give it.

What assertion? That history tells me we haven't had welfare for long and there wasn't rampant starvation? I never said welfare should be just cut off, just streamlined.

The problem is that modern technology decreases the relative value of simple, uneducated manual labor.

Career planing is not the government's job.

an interesting story

It's too long for now, I will check it out later though. Thanks for the link. ;)

Well, who should run it then? A company, so that CEOs and boards of directors can skim money off the top for doing literally nothing?

For welfare, charities and NPOs have proven to be much more effective than the government. There is recourse against those that cheat the government, but what can you do about the politicians and bureacrats scimming off the top? Ever tried to sue the government for anything other than negligence? The government gets little of the money to the people, while many charities get more than 80% to the ones in need.

I'll save this discussion for another thread.

It's allready been covered in another thread. I was on the side you are currently on, and I was proven wrong.

European business practices didn't stop AMD from building two new multi billion dollar fabs in Dresden, which took away jobs

Were they subsidized? I bet they were. I don't personally believe in free trade. I like tarifs, especially on subsidized products.

good old laissez-faire Texas.

Texas, or America for that matter, is hardly capitalist.

Germany's slow growth rate has to do with free trade between it and the Eastern European countries.

Trade increases the GDP. Germany is trying to become more capitaist, as we speak, to increase the GDP, but their socialist laws are getting in the way. I was born in Germany, so I have a vested intrest, I wish them the best of luck

The (arguably) socailist USSR enjoyed a much higher growth rate on average than the US from its inception until 1975.

That's easy to show on paper, when the government is buying and selling to itself.

In recent times we haven't been invaded and completely razed.

History is history, economies are economies, we've survived rampant destruction and come out better for it, why haven't they? I say it's their policies.

I don't see how paying for public transportation is giving up any kind of freedom.

Don't forget the "clean and modern (that part made me laugh) cities"! Are you more free relying on the government to drive you around, and taxing fuel to excess in order to get you to use them, or driving yourself? Hardly anyone here uses the public transportation system, we pay millions to maintain it's deficits. That money could be better spent, or not taken from people in the first place.

I don't see how kicking illegal immigrants out of Houston is going to improve the traffic jams and smog,

It would allow alot more money to be spent by the government to make your "clean and modern" city, from the "urban wasteland", you believe it to be. The immigrants wouldn't be on the roads either. ;)

and it would probably would have a minimal impact on crime

Every illegal immigrant is a criminal.

Maybe you could start a new thread to continue this conversation, its become pretty splintered, and gotten way off its original course.

If you talk to me, I'll probably reply, especially when I'm asked questions. Anything else would be rude. ;)

[ZFBoxcar]

History is history, economies are economies, we've survived rampant destruction and come out better for it, why haven't they? I say it's their policies.

Actually they have. For 30 years after WWII, Western European economies had higher growth rates than the US...then they just...stopped. It still proves your point Confed because up until that point, the US had a larger welfare state than Europe (due to the threat of the Soviets at Europe's door and the need to rebuild). Then Reaganomics and Thatcherism happend and ever since then the US and UK have had far healthier economies than Europe. Although now some are starting to figure it out. I think Germany will get on track when the Christian Democrats win the next election. And Germany is the key to a European recovery.

[Confed999]

And Germany is the key to a European recovery.

I believe you're right, Germany is the key.

[Officer of Engineers]

Counties like Germany, France, and GB have plenty good militaries. They could easily handle threats like Iran or North Korea. They just know that they won't have to because they rely on the US to take care of it. Why should we always foot the bill?

Well, first thing, GB is now the UK.

Now, *** deep breath *** The US is far from alone facing the Iranian and North Korean threats. The Turks are more than capable of handling the Iranians themselves and the South Koreans are facing their cousins. However, both countries could do the job faster, better, and less bloodier under American leadership than without. In both cases, the US would not be the largest force in theatre. And as a result, the majority of the body bags would not belong to Americans.

There has not been one post WWII conlfict the Americans had fought without allies. Even in the Iraq War, you had the British, Australians, and Poles officially participating. Unofficially, you also had the rest of NATO providing combat support to that effort.

The US has NOT always foot the bill. The UK, Canada, and France were fighting WW I and II alot longer before the US got involved. Even today, as the three largest force contributors in UNPROFOR, we were in Yugoslavia years before the US got involved. I rather not talk the politics of the US involvement other than it wasn't needed if She and Germany didn't choose sides. However, the killings stopped and that's all that matters.

The US may spend more money than 20 other forces combined but she is also facing alot of those 20 other forces. Aside from Iran and North Korea, the US is watching Mainland China-Taiwan, India-Pakistan, Russia-Chechnya, Cuba, Yugoslavia, as well as the occupation forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. The whole array of military responsibilities the US has assumed (or forced to assume) is stating not that the US is spending more money but that she isn't spending enough. There are efforts to find savings (reducing minimum cbt effect echelons, re-allocating forces, and withdrawls such as Germany and South Korea but the fact remains the US has alot of responsibilities she cannot abandon.

This being said, the US is not abandonning the defence of Japan, South Korea, and in fact, is not even leaving Germany. USAREUR and V Corps are to merge into a single command. EURCOM remains an American command. In most cases, indegenious forces are replacing the departing American forces but the US keeps overall command.

Even with Americans departing, the indegenious forces could not hope to replace American force structures and must rely on American force strutures. The much vaunted Euro Force must rely on its NATO counterpart, the Immediate Reaction Force, largely because NATO have American assets that do not exist in EuroForce. In the case of the South Koreans, if the Americans leave lock, stock, and barrel, it would take 75% of Seoul's defence budget for 6 years running just to replace American warstocks committed to Seoul's defence.

So, the Americans are not alone, not by a long shot, but American leadership is very, very much needed.

*** deep breath out ***

[Confed999]

I love your posts OoE. I feel like I learn something from every one. ;)

[ZFBoxcar]

I know what you mean Confed, who would have thought GB was now the UK?

[Confed999]

I know what you mean Confed, who would have thought GB was now the UK?

Jeeze, you're a smart-a**! I like that...