Political Evolution In The United States

[Nuclear]

I've thought a lot about this and I'm gonna put out a theory I've thought of.

The revolves around the issue of welfare. I am for it in regards to helping people in need, but detest it when people abuse it. I am working my way through college part time at a grocerey store so I see a lot of people come through on welfare.

Democrats: They are for it and usually(esp. the liberal ones) are not big on controling welfare.

Republicans: Against it, to some degrees wanting it gone completely.

I side with the Repubs but not as extreme to want to eliminate the system.

My theory is this:

A lot of Dems are those who were born into wealth and don't really need to worry about money and for the msot part, never have. The vast majority of the rest are the poor who benefit from the social programs.

A lot of Repubs either earned their way into their financial status or they are middle class workers who end up paying the bulk of the taxes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking anyone's political views or how they acquired their wealth or lack there of.

My theory is this. I see people come through my line at the store who have three kids and are about my age(22) and there is no way they can support themselves let alone three kids.

A program called WIC(Women and Infant Care) will continue to support them....even if they continue to have MORE children. I've heard stories of women having sas many kids as they can so they can live off the child support. (Not attacking women here, they just happen to be the ones who usually keep the kid while the father disappears)

I forsee these women having more kids. These women support the social programs and therefore deomcrats. Their children will probably be the same. As the amount of people who suck off the system increase, the amount of those who support the system will be forced into poverty, many tossing in the towel and sucking off the system themselves.

Eventually you'll have the super rich and the super poor. In theory, it could level out with the rich helping the poor(or escaping through those darn loop holes - THANK YOU IRS) and then everyone is middle class, but who knows.

This could go in circles easily. It isn't rocket science, but I think the only sollution to preventing anything crazy like my poor description above is to put controls on welfare.

I'm ALL for helping someone who is having a bad year or two, but those who want to suck off the system and continue to have children well past their financial capabilities, something needs to be done. What? I don't know. I think a flat tax is a place to start.

It's a wild theory and I'd love feedback, theories to solving the problem of deadbeats. Why should I pay for someone who doesn't want to work. I don't mind helping people, but the system has become crazy.

[Neal.F.]

Hi Nuke, Welcome to the board. Nice post.

I agree that society should help out the genuinely needy (ie those who cannot work due to injury, sickness etc) and even offer some kind of assiatance to harworking people who hit a rough time (ie: Farmers who run into crop failures, etc) but never to the lazy.

In position papers I have written against abortion, I have said that abortion should be illegal, and that wherever possible, the fathers should be held financially responsible for helping a woman through the period of gestation, and even beyond should she opt to keep the child, and not put it up for adoption.

The government can encourage private charity which would help single mothers by offering 100% tax credit to people who donate to them, and then going one step further, and topping of the funding when those organizations don't get enough, if neccessary. There should be a place where young mothers can go to make sure that they or their children don't go hungry or withou medicine or shelter should there be a deabeat Dad that can't be , for the moment tracked down.

I am on the Board of one such organization, that provides help, both financial and emotional for young mothers and their children, and we are even helping young Dads along too.

As for habitual welfare abusers, able bodied and minded people who choose to do nothing, they should be required to prove that they were looking for work, or be cut off.

[Nuclear]

I see this as a good sollution. When people have intercourse they should be cautious about getting pregnant, etc. too.

[FastNed]

Just another example of the conditioning of "Pavlov's Dogs", if a particular kind of performance brings a reward it is going to be repeated.

Some good thoughts, Nuke; does anyone here who has had experience with Welfare have any ideas on what might be a successful approach to the problem? Once a child is here it is a little too late to ignore it and we certainly can not allow it to be neglected.

Let me raise a rather nasty thought for discussion: If abortion is legal, can we require that someone in this situation be prevented from having additional children on the public dole? I do not think I would wish to be part of a society that promoted such a policy but the question is legitimate. Let's discuss it.

Neal.F., what do you think since you have experience in working with young mothers?

[Neal.F.]

As you can imagine, Ned, the young mothers we have (Between the ages of 13 and 23) obviously had the conviction that to kill an unborn child is WRONG, or they would have taken advantage of the free-for all on abortion we have in this country, to our shame. Quick in and out, on the taxpayer's tab, and mom & dad don't have to find out about it. I have a great deal of respect for these girls, who don't think they have the right to make an innocent child take the consequences of their actions.

To legislate that a welfare mother must not have any more children would be an obscenity. It would put us on par with China and their forced abortions, or the forced sterilizations that used to take place, most often on people with disabilities.

When a young woman gets pregant, the first thing suggested to many by their friends, family, school guidance counsellors or even doctors, is abortion. as I said earlier, it is marketed as a quick, easy way to solve the "problem".

What this society needs to do, if it is to be caled compassionate, is to make abortion illegal, cut all funding for it, and apply that funding to, among other things:

Promoting A National Registry for parents who wish to adopt children: Creation of such a registry, which would be free to join, and would facilitate any programs designed to find homes for children who are not wanted by their natural parents. There are more people who want to adopt children, than there are children available for adoption, as demonstrated by the numbers of people who are willing to pay large sums to adopt children from China, Romania and other countries. Such a measure as proposed here will save time and money for all, and help to keep Canadian dollars in this country.

Providing financial and social support for women who are facing the situation of an unwanted pregnancy. The program would provide direct financial aid where necessary, and work in conjunction with the National registry for adoptive parents to find a home for these children, and temporary lodging for the women if necessary.

And to counterbalance the government funding, Passing legislation that would require fathers of so called "unwanted" children to take on their fair share of the responsibility for the pregnancy. That is to say, providing financial support to the woman in question until such time as the baby is of legal age in a case where the woman opts to keep the child, or until the child is born in a case where the child is placed for adoption.

[logical1]

In a post that I presented previously on a different topic I stated that a democracy that is lacking solid, objective principles as it's foundation merely becomes tyranny by majority. I am left shaking my head when I see all of society continuing to debate the immediate consequences of bad policy without bothering to question the principles on which the policy is based. The establishment and continued existence of welfare as a governmentally funded program is one of many such issues.

Here's the problem, our nation has not recognized what the proper purpose of government is and what the boundaries of a government should be. We feel that if the collective wills it, than it should be so. We feel that everyone has an inherent obligation to contribute to meet the needs of the collective. We feel that the government is the appropriate entity to implement and regulate such endeavors. Well, so do the Communists. So did the Facists. So do the Socialists. The thing that differentiates us from the rest of those groups is the recognition of individual rights. However, the political forces in our nation have never firmly established what those are.

Individual rights remain a fluid, ever changing concept subject to the will of the collective and the loose ever changing interpretations of our constitution. Instead of this fact being the source of horror (as it should be) for our citizens and the premier topic of debate, we fumble around with the particulars of a welfare system and other such glaring infringements on individual rights that should never have been allowed to be established in the first place. Here is the solution to this and many similar such "complicated" problems, the only proper purpose of government is the protection of the individual rights of it's citizens. It has no business redistributing the wealth of some of its citizens to the needs of other citizens for any reason! This practice is inconsistent with the concept of property rights and true capitalism. In fact, other than insisting on an individual's financial contribution for the protection of their rights (ie military, police and judicial system) the government has no business taking anyone's money without their individual voluntary consent.

Charity is a wonderful thing and its practitioners are to be commended. Let them provide for the needs of others if they so wish ( not involuntarily with the threat of imprisonment as is advocated by all of the "charitable" liberals in government today).

This type of policy and indeterminate "fuzziness" relative to individual rights and property rights and allowing these concepts to remain at the hands of the "democratic collective will" have led us to a state where a conservative Baptist minister, passionately opposed to abortion, must involuntarily (under threat of imprisonment) make an annual contribution to the partial birth abortion fund in the form of tax. Although I personally am opposed to the interference with a woman's right to choose, I am vehemently opposed to this type of oppression. This is a ghastly state of affairs that is destined to get progressively worse simply by default if the "powers that be" do not awaken and begin to ask the right questions of our current system. Government should have no involvement in any affairs economically or otherwise that do not pertain to the protection of individual citizens rights.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness means that I have the right to pursue those things which I require for my exisistence, not that you must provide them for me.

Deviations from these principles are the cause of our current problems.

[Neal.F.]

Logical1, While your theory sounds good on paper, pure libertarianism, like Communism, does not, and cannot work, sonce it is founded on the false premise that people are basically good, and goiven the opportunity, will actfor the good.

Please don't try to tell me that Hells Angels see it that way!

The thing I hate most about today's libertarians (actually there are two things I hate about them) is the way thy hold their hands over their chest and profess to respectr the right to life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness, while at the same time espousing that some people have the right to decide whether others will have a chance to live! To wit, the abortion issue.

Does the right to life supersede all others, or does the right of someone to take the life of another, conceived as a result of their actions take precedence?

Libertarians also blow all sorts of hot air about people not passing the consequences of their actions to someone else... get consistent! Abortion is THE ultimate example of making someone else pay (with FATAL results) for one's actions.

While i don't believe in giving perpetual welfare to able bodied couch potatoes, I can't accept allowing their babies to starve - on principle!

The other thing I hate about libertarians is their burning desire to legitimize the drug dealer. I'll be damned if the piece of shit who sells dope to our kids is given a place in society as a respectable merchant! Drug dealers have forfeited the right to life. The Chinese have the right idea when it comes to them.

Have you ever seen what drugs do to people? The death, the pain, the brain damage, the rendering of otherwise productive human beings to complte uselessness?

It is government's responsibility to protect society from predators like them.

Back to the main line of reasoning here, is that , as I pointed out charities funded PRIMARILY through voluntary contributions should be encouraged to provide the bulk of the aid, but one must look at the reality of mankind to understand that there needs to be an incentive to make charitable donations significant enough, so I suggest a credit against taxable income. Where there is a shortfall, however, government should help out in those cases. Children should NOT be left to starve, nor should they be denied an education. Education should not only be for the well-off. I can't help but wonder whether the scientist who would find the cure for cancer is working on an assembly line somehwere, or perhaps aborted .

While I agree with less government, I did feel obliged to point out the glaring inconsistencies, and illogic and what is at best, pollyannaism, or at worst moral evil, inherent in PURE libertarian philosphy.

[FastNed]

Hi, Neal - In some ways I agree with you that at a certain level execution is too good for the drug purveyors but this is a highly complex matter without any simple answers. Our problems will continue unless and until we either execute every substance abuser or we find better methods to deal with the problem.

After a dozen years of involvement in volunteer work with substance abuse (alcohol to zoloft) I believe that among the higher level of dealers, those that wholesale in major quantities are many who are not abusers or addicts. No penalty is too extreme for this group. It's the lower levels which does include some major dealers but who are trapped into substance abuse that are the most difficult to deter.

Prison alone doesn't solve much except a temporary removal from the action. In most prisons, it doesn't even end substance abuse because while we keep the inmates in, we have little success in keeping abusive substances out! Much to my regret and against my preconceptions and leanings, I have been pushed and shoved into the conclusion the best we may be able to do is to remove people out of control from the general population to the betterment of all of us. There is a category of people predisposed (for whatever reason) to substance abuse and we do not have an effective system to deal with them, assist them (if this is possible) in controlling their dependency or provide them with methods to escape their dependency.

AA, NA and other 12 step programs appear to have initial "success" with about one third of those that come to the programs. I am measuring "success" as the ability to make a first anniversary - one complete year clean and free. When that "clean" period is doubled to two years, the success rate drops to three to ten percent. This figures have some slop in them because they are not a statistical study but represent real people I've observed over the last decade in the New England area.

From conversations with others involved around North America , their observations are fairly consistent with these numbers. I place more credence to these figures than those from studies because when you are dealing with the "abuser" pretty much on a daily basis, it's next to impossible to hide the signs that someone has "gone out".

I believe part of our problem comes from our failure to develop methods to create early warning signs for the "abuser" mentality - warning signs for the individual as well as for our Court and Criminal Justice system. Everyone who takes a drink is not a potential alcoholic and every kid who does a joint is not a potential addict. Part of the problem in devising methods to deal with the problem is the large number of people who either drank to excess or toked their way into oblivion at one time or another who do not have "abusive" personalities. More needs to be done to educated these people of the difference between themselves and those who do not have personalities which can handle what they did. Once that difference is accepted as fact, we can begin to identify the potential abuser early on and attempt to intervene to control their actions.

Giving someone a break may be the correct course for a non-abuser but the exact opposite may be the more successful approach with the abusive personality. Identification and early intervention appears to have more potential than waiting for a full five alarm crisis.

On the balance, the legality of the substance used and abused does not make a significant difference in number of abusers. They exist and find a method to express their dependency within or without the law. The War on Drugs may be hurting our society far more than they do but that is yet another discussion!

[logical1]

Neal, you are mistaken in your assumption that I am a Libertarian. They may share some of the same ideals but I claim no affiliation to any political party. Truth is, from what little I know of Libertarians, some of the actions that I've seen by individuals within the group have been irrational and absurd (i.e visiting the ghetto at Christmas to hand out toy guns to children).

You are apparently very passionate in your views on abortion and drugs. Rightly so. I personally would not choose to abort a child and despise individuals that would even consider perpetuating drug dependancy for a profit.

I'm certain that you have reasons for your views that are deeply rooted. Any varying at all from those views might require you to adopt an entirely new philosophy (which only a very small minority of people are even capable of doing let alone want to).

This is not an attempt to change your views, it is merely

presenting you with a perspective that you will not hear from any political party including the Libertarians (some of their views may be correct but they haven't a clue as to their actual foundation). As I have stated before, I encourage disagreement (as long as it makes a little sense). I am prepared to logically defend and justify any of my views. I will not engage in an intellectual discussion that involves personal attacks or name calling (the name caller is not an intellectual).

So here goes. The first thing that you must understand as a conservative (I'm assuming your conservative) is that you can not defend any of your views or successfully oppose any liberal's views unless your's are rooted in rational, demonstrable principles that can be broken down into irreducible primaries, the validity of which can not be argued successfully by anyone. Unless you make this the standard for all of the views that you hold and insist that it be the standard for all of the views being proposed by others, you will never be able to convince anyone of anything without your opposition being able to dismiss you by merely proclaiming "it's a matter of opinion".

Nothing is a matter of opinion. Things are what they are (this is the law of identity). Things can not be what they are and what they're not at the same time in the same context (try and name something). Despite what we are taught, contradictions do not exist. If you think you see a contradiction, you are mistaken about one or more of your premises. Everything boils down to being able to identify precisely what things are. In fact, logic is defined as the process of non-contradictory identification. If you never come to this realization, you leave yourself open to the assault of any and all subjective "opinions". This unfortunately, is what good, moral, well intentioned people do and never see the deadly harm in it.

This has been the biggest mistake made by conservatives.

Not adopting the fundamental principle of the protection of individual rights as the sole purpose of the establishment of government among men, they have opened the door for any and every goofy, collectivist, immoral program that any liberal wishes to draft in the legislation and put to a vote. All they have to cite are the various programs that conservatives propose in order to be able to say "it's just a matter of opinion". Maybe you see this as the lesser of two evils when considering the abortion and drug issues but I do not. Not only is abortion legal but you get to pay for it too. How's that make you feel? Think it can't get worse ? Think again. Ask an elderly Soviet or a German (or just about any one else who wasn't born here for that matter). The absolute, uncompromising sanctity of individual rights only looks good on paper ? Of course it does and it better. Practical application needs to follow soon. Otherwise, don't kid yourself, we're on borrowed time.

I don't like abortion or drugs but I can't argue against these evils successfully without advocating the infringement of individual rights. This post is becoming long already but if you wish, I am prepared to elaborate on the exact specifics of why the criminalization of these two evils are violations of the rights of the individuals committing them and the importance of being able to separate moral issues from legal ones and act accordingly in a free society. Remember legal action is not a free society's only recourse in matters that involve morality. In addition, the natural consequences of an individual's actions are an essential mechanism for change and extremely important to the progression of a free civilization.

[Nuclear]

I'm not pointing to abortion as the solution! No way. I view that as killing the person. I believe perhaps a population control...i dunno...cause u take someone who has 5 kids at 25 and sucks off the system, you make them so they can't have more kids, and if they remarry and manage to work hard for once and make money to support 10 kids, they now can't....i dunno. there has to be a solution....

[FastNed]

Nuke, such a person as you describe is a free rider, doing as they please while living off those of us who work. Among the possible solutions to this are:

(1) Limit support to the exact number of children extant at the time of her first welfare application.

(2) Mandatory abortion

(3) Mandatory sterilization

(4) Removal if the children on the question of her fitness to be a mother.

We can not start down the road of abortion and/or sterilization - we know where that road dead ends. Which leaves us with removing her from welfare or from her children. If possible, the father(s) of these children should not get a free ride either.

[Nuclear]

It seems every political issue out there is the same...the dems/libs vs. repubs/conservs We can't agree in the middle on something that is good. In this case you get one side who wants to help people and the other, although willing to help is sick of the free riders....

It seems that whoever is has the President in their party defends him/her and has things their way. Then we switch back when a new party is in office....

It's a vicious cycle. I hope one day we can all be sitting around a camp fire and those who were right get to point at those who were wrong and say "I told ya so." It'd sure make me feel better. Who is right you ask? That depends on which side you're on. ;-)

[Malone1234]

Nuclear, who is right, you ask? They're both wrong. The Liberals promote welfare programs, and the Conservatives let them get away with it.

As logical1 has admirably pointed out, any JUST government should have absolutely NO INFLUENCE ON ECONOMICS unless it pertains to protecting the liberty of its citizens. I can proudly (and correctly) stand here this moment and point at both political parties and say, "I'm right, and they're wrong." Unfortunately, I haven't yet figured out how to make them see that.

[theloniusfleabag]

Welfare, as it exists, should be ended. I see it's abuses everyday, and truly a 'welfare mentality' is a vicious circle. I truly feel a 'work for welfare program' can and should be implemented. Almost anyone in society can contribute something, for single moms with 5 kids can logically be daycare workers.

The gov't gives out free rides as a collective conscience salve for the taxpayer.

As to the role of gov't in a society, as logical1 has questioned, those who adhere to the 'right wing' all abhor gov'ts and any social interaction above negotiation.

The 'right wing' feels that without gov't intervention, everyone could become "responsible anarchists" and all would be well. Unfortunately, humans enter the equation and that notion, however noble and correct, becomes impossible.

[KrustyKidd]

Hi Lonius, I consider myself right wing and agree with your views on workfare. Everybody can contribute. I think however, that your generalization of how the right wing hates government is wrong. Sure, the Michigan Militia and Idaho suvivalists fit your slot pretty good but none are here on this board. Rather we have purpose for government and most of those are in line with what you believe, defence of our country from threats ie; terrorists, SARS, illegal immigrants, drugs and so forth; accountibility in honor and fiscal restraint ie; not throwing money away in vote buying scams and $400 lunches. Given this simple guideline and the failures on all those counts then yes, I would prefer to have no Governent than this Government. Common sense is common sense no matter what wing you are. I don't think that Government involement is a bad thing but do think that most of what THIS Government involes itself in does nothing to encourage people to stand on their feet and put iron in the spine of this country. I see nothing ranting or fanatical about that. Either should you as this seems to be pretty much on par with your workfare comment.

[Craig Read]

Good posts guys, and I would extend it to include regional subsidies.

Why is PEI a province if 1/2 its revenues are handouts from other provinces ?

Why do cotton farmers get paid by the taxpayer to overproduce in the States ?

Rigidities in labor, supply and capital only lead to sectionalism, inertia, poverty and cycles of dependency.

Even Clinton signed significant welfare reforms and took millions off the dole. A 1999 study concluded that the vast majority were making more money working. This says nothing of the increased self esteem and pride they must experience.