Politics: A new beginning

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The fact that movements to abolish them entirely get no political traction essentially means that they work as well as any massive infrastructure will ever work in a democracy.

I don't think I've ever met anyone who wanted to truly abolish the system.

There is a continuum along which the various levels of social support and equalization fall, ranging from one end which entails a complete eat-what-you-kill philosophy, and the other, upon which we see complete state confiscation and redistribution on an "equal" level. (I use quotation marks on equal simply because, as a side note, this usually ends up involving not a true equalization, but rather a redistribution based upon factors more to the liking of those in power than productivity. In some countries, this has involved being of the proper party, while, in others, it has involved being of the proper race or gender. It's still all subjective, based upon influence rather than any definable worth to humanity.)

Where we would like to see our system fall on that continuum depends on a number of factors, including our beliefs regarding the efficacy of the various economic models, our beliefs regarding personal responsibility, and simple feelings of charity and pity.

I no doubt fall more to one side of that continuum than do you, but neither I, nor anyone I know, occupies the end of that line. I'm probably your paradigm of the poor-hater here, and I suspect I fall much closer to the middle of that continuum than do you. I am more to that one side because I don't think redistributive reward systems work - see above - and because I have seen the systems part way out to that end fail, and the systems way out to that end fail miserably.

Also, I have seen us constantly redefine "poverty" over the years, such that programs that were to guarantee survival now serve to guarantee "self-realization". I have no doubt that, were we to continue moving your way, we would find some new emotional need to meet, the failure of which would mean "poverty". I am unwilling to finance your moving target simply so you can feel better about yourself.

But the main point of this post is, you need your demon out there, so you speak of the abolition of life for "the poor" - i.e., abolishing the systems of support - you need to know that I will laugh at dying children as I drink my undeserved champagne, because you cannot support the argument to move along the continuum with any more than "it feels good to me". This is not a "haters versus the compassionate" argument, it's simply a matter of how much we need or want to give to those who, for various reasons, can't get it for themselves.

(This would be an excellent opportunity for you to respond with some anecdote about a starving Los Angeles child who was trampled by Rush Limbaugh's coach-and-four. It would really be your best shot, because the other best shot I've seen - income inequality - means nothing in the absence of discussion of the question of, how many loaves of bread can "poor" people afford now compared to other times.)

Now, I'm going to go out and shoot some elderly people, in the interests of doing my part to abolish Medicare.

(Edited to add: When one is forced to go back and correct THAT many typos, one should probably conclude that the champagne has not yet worn off. Happy New Year, all.)

((Yes, even to the non-self-actualized. But buy your own goddamned champagne.))

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
As for your question, though I do not consider myself a neocon, I'm sure it is very difficult for a single mother. But in this (and nearly all others) area I'm pro-choice. That is, for most single mothers, being a mother was a choice, which choice was made or should have been made knowing that day care was going to be a bitch.

So, what is your point?

Is it that -- because single motherhood was a choice, and because the single mothers (who tend to be either v. young or divorced) knew or should have known that day care would be a problem, they should have to stew in their own juices and remain enmeshed in poverty and unemployment with their children?

How does that make any rational sense, either as a stand-alone point or from a societal benefit perspective?

Doesn't it make more sense to subsidize day care for poor single mothers to enable them to work, to gain job and life experience, and to continue to progress not only to the point where they are nto participating in standard AFDC but hopefully don't even need the daycare subsidies? Or, at a minimum, so that theri kids can get through school and have a decent chance at a better situation than Mom's?

My God, club -- loads of social and fiscal conservatives go for programs like these (on the premise that they promote the short-term and long-term wewlfare of our country in many ways). To oppose subsidized daycare based on the "they deserve it" theory is extraordinarily short-sighted.

S_A_M

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
[stuff about a continuum]

I doubt I've ever fully expressed my feelings about where on the continuum I fall. I was just making a point against club's argument about a "well-designed" social welfare system being a contradiction in terms. (I'm not sure whether he's now fully limited his argument to Welfare as opposed to all social welfare programs.) Your argument for the existence of a continuum seems to indicate you're closer to me than club.

FWIW, I think it's perfectly legitimate to construct entitlement programs to minimize their use and duration. I just insist on honesty about the effect of such policies on the communities and individuals affected, like single mothers.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch

FWIW, I think it's perfectly legitimate to construct entitlement programs to minimize their use and duration. I just insist on honesty about the effect of such policies on the communities and individuals affected, like single mothers.

If club's definition of pro-choice includes post-birth abortion, then he did honestly answer your question.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
Where we would like to see our system fall on that continuum depends on a number of factors, including our beliefs regarding the efficacy of the various economic models, our beliefs regarding personal responsibility, and simple feelings of charity and pity.

Actually, my main problem with the current "safety net," is that it traps "single moms" in a cycle of poverty. this social engineering has failed. We have 4th generations who's family business is welfare.

on this board, we all (i think). have deposible income sufficient, that whatever we give as taxes to these families is not devastating. But, from these lofty perches, don't forget that there are families out there with 2 incomes struggling to pay for their daycare, and barely making it. some of those folks, whose kids didn't get every gift they could possibly want this year, might be a bit more passionate on demanding personal responsibilty.

But lets stick to rich guy arguments. The main point, one the other guys have to admit, is that welfare does not work. those "single moms" will by a large majority stay on welfare. the kids whose suffering raises so much concern here? By a decent percentage we are dooming them to a cycle of welfare.

As I recall from the last time this issue went this way, one of those guy's is about two posts from calling one of us a racist; still club's point that welfare doesn't work is proven by the fact that people don't move off it. And their kids? Too frequently the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.

Now, I'm going to go out and shoot some elderly people, in the interests of doing my part to abolish Medicare.

you know bilmore, with each passing year , this threat rings more hollow, or seems more suicidal.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Actually, my main problem with the current "safety net," is that it traps "single moms" in a cycle of poverty. this social engineering has failed. We have 4th generations who's family business is welfare.

* * *

But lets stick to rich guy arguments. The main point, one the other guys have to admit, is that welfare does not work. those "single moms" will by a large majority stay on welfare. the kids whose suffering raises so much concern here? By a decent percentage we are dooming them to a cycle of welfare.

You know, Hank . . . one of the problems with pulling arguments out of your ass is that sometimes they stink.

You're using the standard, recycled arguments from pre-welfare reform days in the 1980s. The numbers don't support you any more -- at least not those from the go-go 1990s. The change is particularly stark in states with the most creative approaches to their use of the new "block grants" and/or the most added state money. [I will rely on some of my more ambitious and hard-working colleagues to actually supply the details.]

Therefore, Club's approach is more principled and less subject to attack given that, as it appears to be based on personal morality, it can't be disproved.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
As I recall from the last time this issue went this way, one of those guy's is about two posts from calling one of us a racist; still club's point that welfare doesn't work is proven by the fact that people don't move off it.

I would never call you a racist, Hank - just ignorant.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
And their kids? Too frequently the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.

Exactly. That's why sometimes you've got to move the "tree," or give it some water and fertilizer, when you want to grow your society.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You're using the standard, recycled arguments from pre-welfare reform days in the 1980s. The numbers don't support you any more -- at least not those from the go-go 1990s. The change is particularly stark in states with the most creative approaches to their use of the new "block grants" and/or the most added state money. [I will rely on some of my more ambitious and hard-working colleagues to actually supply the details.]

It seems like you've agreed with me on pre-reform welfare, and its effects. As to post-reform, information has only recently become available.

As to "second generation" kids still being caught, of course it is too soon after reform to tell the effects. I am hopeful that you are right, but I fear you will be wrong.

As to the parents "being trapped," the reports I found are not as rosy as you imply. There is a detailed report of recidivism in Ohio that shows a high degree of return by those who have left. It is particularly high for younger mothers.

Therefore, Club's approach is more principled and less subject to attack given that, as it appears to be based on personal morality, it can't be disproved.

I wasn't proposing any change, and have no approach. Only a Democratic President can cut back on welfare, so it isn't up for consideration. This is the flip side to "only Nixon could have gone to China."

I simply questioned the fairness appeals about how mean people were, who question whether to continue welfare to single moms. It simple to feel good about giving, but I'm not sure your approach is the truly fair one.

Exactly. That's why sometimes you've got to move the "tree," or give it some water and fertilizer, when you want to grow your society.

We have some pretty effective water and fertilizer. It called the American economic system.

ADC started as a way to provide for widows to raise kids. By the 70's it had ballooned to be a huge spider web, not a safety net. The one thing that we all have to agree is that we are not providing any sort of comfort level to welfare reciepients. The benefits are tiny. Given what America can do, how is it good to keep people on this meagre handout?

If the legislators who voted to start ADC could see what it had become, I'm pretty sure the program would have been much more carefully tailored to be limited to widows; of course original intent never matters.

But I would like ask you a question: In the 20's or 30's when ADC was started unmarried moms were such a small group that they were apparently not an issue for the program. By the 70's they had become a huge population. What is to blame, the welfare safety net, or would you argue mere changing mores?

And you dodged the question of how the middle class, 2 income families look at the issue. During the debate on welfare reform I remeber seeing Alec Baldwin pontificating about how we should all be happy to give some money to keep the safety net there. Of course, he makes millions of dollars per film, and was married to a women who bought her entire home town. There are 2 income families with less disposable income.

S_A_M [/QUOTE]

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
So, what is your point?

Is it that -- because single motherhood was a choice, and because the single mothers (who tend to be either v. young or divorced) knew or should have known that day care would be a problem, they should have to stew in their own juices and remain enmeshed in poverty and unemployment with their children?

How does that make any rational sense, either as a stand-alone point or from a societal benefit perspective?

Doesn't it make more sense to subsidize day care for poor single mothers to enable them to work, to gain job and life experience, and to continue to progress not only to the point where they are nto participating in standard AFDC but hopefully don't even need the daycare subsidies? Or, at a minimum, so that theri kids can get through school and have a decent chance at a better situation than Mom's?

My God, club -- loads of social and fiscal conservatives go for programs like these (on the premise that they promote the short-term and long-term wewlfare of our country in many ways). To oppose subsidized daycare based on the "they deserve it" theory is extraordinarily short-sighted.

S_A_M

For every social problem there is a sob story (and I mean that literally). But there are choices that need to be made because we cannot fund every problem. So given this, I would much rather us support those who truly, without any choice in the matter, cannot support themselves (i.e., kids, the old, the disabled, etc.) then those who had a choice in their own predicament.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So given this, I would much rather us support those who truly, without any choice in the matter, cannot support themselves (i.e., kids, the old, the disabled, etc.) then those who had a choice in their own predicament.

There's a joke about Israel in there somewhere.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
Also, I have seen us constantly redefine "poverty" over the years, such that programs that were to guarantee survival now serve to guarantee "self-realization". I have no doubt that, were we to continue moving your way, we would find some new emotional need to meet, the failure of which would mean "poverty". I am unwilling to finance your moving target simply so you can feel better about yourself.

Great points. Today, if you do not have cable television you are below the poverty line.

My belief is that the primary basis for support of the social welfare system stems less from compassion and more from guilt or self interest. Those who support the system often feel guilty that they are better off than others, and support of these programs allows them to alleviate some of that guilt. This is not just limited to the left either. I know many on the right that support these programs, albeit for slightly different reasons. Those on the right justify these programs as a way of protecting what they have. Their theory is that these programs lower the risks that the poor will rise up against the rich.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
It seems like you've agreed with me on pre-reform welfare, and its effects. As to post-reform, information has only recently become available.

I'm willing to agree with you regarding what the facts showed pre-reform, and not necessarily regarding causation (i.e. that the welfare system "caused" those "effects".)

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
As to the parents "being trapped," the reports I found are not as rosy as you imply. There is a detailed report of recidivism in Ohio that shows a high degree of return by those who have left. It is particularly high for younger mothers.

Its fair to expect significant differences from state to state (especially now that the states drive the program) -- and the economy in Ohio has sucked for years. [Which -- along with the strength of unions -- helps explain why Gore almost won a basically conservative state in 2000.]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I simply questioned the fairness appeals about how mean people were, who question whether to continue welfare to single moms. It simple to feel good about giving, but I'm not sure your approach is the truly fair one.

I didn't think I was making any fairness appeal. I thought I was going straight-up on a social benefit theory (i.e. better for society as a whole to do "welfare" than to do nothing). The means or modality of the program should always be subject to evaluation and improvement.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
We have some pretty effective water and fertilizer. It called the American economic system.

Yes, and that works real well, except for when it doesn't.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
But I would like ask you a question: In the 20's or 30's when ADC was started unmarried moms were such a small group that they were apparently not an issue for the program. By the 70's they had become a huge population. What is to blame, the welfare safety net, or would you argue mere changing mores?

Our country changed so much between 1920 and 1980 that I think your question is bizarre. Given those changes, it seems nonsensical to me to believe that the growth in single motherhood was primarily driven by or motivated by the existence of a government program which, as you note, does not and never did provide a comfortable living for those involved.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
And you dodged the question of how the middle class, 2 income families look at the issue.

I didn't dodge the question -- I just didn't think it relevant. People may feel as they like about any government program, although I'd suggest two points:

(a) a valid social benefit analysis should provide the same motivation for those of all income levels to support AFDC, and

(b) I'd suggest that they look at the size of the budget -- and the size of the deficit, and consider whether eliminating AFDC in its entirety would have any noticeable impact on the amount of taxes paid by the standard middle-American family (most of whose income is tax-exempt anyway). Look at where the money goes, nowadays.

Sure, I'm arguing from a different perspective than some because I paid more in federal income taxes last year than most of my friends and family members make in gross income. The argument stands or falls on its own merit, regardless. It is not a noblesse oblige argument.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
During the debate on welfare reform I remeber seeing Alec Baldwin pontificating about how we should all be happy to give some money to keep the safety net there. Of course, he makes millions of dollars per film, and was married to a women who bought her entire home town. There are 2 income families with less disposable income.

I think that I could phrase the argument better than Alec Baldwin. Watch out -- or I'll break out Pat Buchanan on you.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
For every social problem there is a sob story (and I mean that literally). But there are choices that need to be made because we cannot fund every problem. So given this, I would much rather us support those who truly, without any choice in the matter, cannot support themselves (i.e., kids, the old, the disabled, etc.) then those who had a choice in their own predicament.

OK. However, you may erroneously presume that those are mutually exclusive choices. I would also suggest that, as I said, it does not always maximize societal gain in the long run to adopt the "screw the sinners" approach to government policy.

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
OK. However, you may erroneously presume that those are mutually exclusive choices. I would also suggest that, as I said, it does not always maximize societal gain in the long run to adopt the "screw the sinners" approach to government policy.

S_A_M

It is not a "screws the sinners" approach. It is a question of allocation of resources and incentives. Do you not think there is a coincidence between the growth of welfare and the growth of the unwed mother? Thomas Sowell and other economists have written extensively on this, especially in the black community. From what I recall, pre welfare the percentage of unwed mothers in the black community was lower than the percentage in the white community. Post welfare, those numbers changed dramatically. I'll see if I can track down a cite.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Its fair to expect significant differences from state to state (especially now that the states drive the program) -- and the economy in Ohio has sucked for years. [Which -- along with the strength of unions -- helps explain why Gore almost won a basically conservative state in 2000.]

Actually, I didn't find any studies that showed any State's program had low recidivism. Ohio was simply the only one I found that seemed to address the question.

Our country changed so much between 1920 and 1980 that I think your question is bizarre. Given those changes, it seems nonsensical to me to believe that the growth in single motherhood was primarily driven by or motivated by the existence of a government program which, as you note, does not and never did provide a comfortable living for those involved.

Pre-welfare, when a young man got his girlfriend pregnant, he either had to stick around and help, or know his child may starve. Once ADC started going to unwed moms, the young man had a third option.
This country did some big social engineering in the 60's, and much of it was needed and good. But, at least co-incidentally, at the same time unwed mothers became much more common. I can't believe you don't allow for the possibilty that extending welfare to unwed moms didn't boomerang on us.

(b) I'd suggest that they look at the size of the budget -- and the size of the deficit, and consider whether eliminating AFDC in its entirety would have any noticeable impact on the amount of taxes paid by the standard middle-American family (most of whose income is tax-exempt anyway). Look at where the money goes, nowadays.

I agree the $$$ difference probably wouldn't be too noticable. I'm not bothered "paying" for this, and the dual income middle class probably wouldn't be that much better off it the welfare state were completely stopped. I think many of the people who are on welfare would have been better off, but of course that doesn't matter now.

Either welfare was a program that actually hurt people and created a huge self-substaining underclass, or it was a needed safety net that was thankfully in place when people started having great numbers of children that needed to be raised by one parent. Insert standard closing argument analogy about circumstantial evidence.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It is not a "screws the sinners" approach. It is a question of allocation of resources and incentives. Do you not think there is a coincidence between the growth of welfare and the growth of the unwed mother?

As I said to Hank, I think that (except insofar as the program necessarily expanded to accomodate more who qualified) there is a correlation, but no causation.

Originally posted by sgtclub
Thomas Sowell and other economists have written extensively on this, especially in the black community. From what I recall, pre welfare the percentage of unwed mothers in the black community was lower than the percentage in the white community. Post welfare, those numbers changed dramatically. I'll see if I can track down a cite.

You don't have to look up the numbers on my account. I'm sure that is true.

S_A_M

[eta -- I mean "almost no causation" or "no statistically significant causation" (both of which I guess are about the same as no causation.) I believe that the numbers of women who had another kid just to get a bigger check are relatively tiny.

Now -- the design of the program was probably substantially flawed in some respects. The financial disincentives to marry a man who didn't make much money, or for the mother to take entry-level jobs -- seem just crazy in retrospect. In that sense, those or similar aspects of that particular program may have contributed to or fostered dependency.

But that's a whole different issue than whether the existence of _any_ "welfare" program in general will have such deleterious effects. The latter point seems to be your argument based on your statement that it is impossible to develop an effective social welfare program. (While this is a different type of social welfare program -- I'd also note that Social Security was very effective at doing what it was designed to do -- reducing poverty among the elderly.) ]

S_A_M