What kind of Welfare system is ideal for the United States?

That leave's us with a problem, there was a time when people with such conditions did not survive the condition, so there was little pressure on charitable institutions such as the Church to deal with the problem. However in the modern era, private charity has never proved sufficient to meet the need. The State has stepped in and used taxpayer money to help meet the need. The alternative of letting these people go uncared for by the majority of voters as being unacceptable.

It was not all that long ago that hospitals could and did simply refuse emergency care to those who could not prove they had the ability to pay. It wasn't until 1986 that public outrage at the increasingly widespread refusal of hospitals to provide such emergency care that the law was changed to require them to at least stabilize emergency patients.

 

So you dump a person on the streets of a new city, where there may or may not be jobs availble, the person has no contacts, no support system minimal financial resources, it's a recipe for having that person winding up living on the streets, and people living on the streets are unemployable because they have no fixed address.

 

What you have now, that you did not have in times past, is no measure of what I have a right to take from you.

 

Where did I suggest any of that?

 

You gave no detail. From your statement, one would have to assume that you would provide transportation to a new location.

 

???? this makes no sense. You have failed to answer the question. If private charity is insufficient, should people be allowed to die, people, who if the taxpayer was not taxed to pay for their succor, would otherwise die? Are you prepared to accept the responsibility as a member of society to willingly allow people to die who if they were provided for, might recover and become self sufficient and contributing members of society?

 

We need to go back to square one and designate welfare ONLY for the very young, the very old, and the infirm.

 

The benevolently arrogant do not see the imposition of their best intentions upon others, by force of law, as a usurpation of other people's best intentions for themselves; they see it as an alternative to that which is "insufficient".

The medical services that were not available to me in times past are no measure of your liability.

 

You know whether or not if you can make $10,700 a year.

My idea of the best welfare system is one created by and ran by the private sector.

 

Exactly. Take Oklahoma City. You can put NYC, Chicago and San Francisco inside the city and
have room for another large city.

 

If their were jobs to be had. I know a structural engineer been job search going on 4 years now. Saddest thing ever. He has two girls and a wonderful hard working wife. She doesn't make enough to sustain their family and he has taken on minimum wage jobs and there isn't really enough of them either.

 

Here is the rub. If medical care,especially preventive care had been accessible, society would not have to pick up the tab for disability later. And it's quite possible that that disabled person would still be a productive tax paying member of society.

 

Would have, could have.... It should not be done by force.

Almost everything that is currently done by force of law should not be done by force at all.

This arrogance is so ingrained that when most people hear 'politics' they think 'government'. Government is the legal use of force. Politics are public-relationships. My politics are not governed by the use of force.

 

I agree that automation/robotics will continue to grow in the USA but there is a practical limit to how much will be automated. Automation and technology are very expensive to create and maintain so it will mostly appear in those areas in which there is long term repetitive work and/or to offset climbing costs of using humans. It would be interesting to know the net loss of US jobs from the invention of computing...computing creates lots of jobs but also displaces many jobs. Was there a net loss of US jobs from the invention of the tractor? If we made it through the computing era okay then I suggest we'll make it through the push to further automate our society...

 

I know 'some' people would prefer to work in return for government assistance, but I'm guessing a majority of those receiving government assistance will balk at any plans to force them into the workplace. People have a million excuses for not working and I don't see this changing! As a nation we will have a growing percentage of Americans in this category because the private economy simply cannot provide something for everyone. So we must not only look at those incapable of working but also those who are not going to work and IMO the latter is a bigger problem facing the US today and into the future...

 

I live approximately 3 miles from the closest town with a population of about 12,000 which has another 5,000 within a five-mile radius. Our local area has zero public transit. IMO if we had a bus system with reasonable service lots of people would use it...or better yet a monorail system! Another possibility is taxi service funded by tax revenue? Beyond local service, it would be great to ride trains between major town centers. Yes in these rural areas it will cost more per rider for public transit but so what? Looking at reality...it is impossible to believe our current road systems can be doubled and tripled in size to accommodate more and more vehicles...we're not going to have 20 lane freeways because we'll never acquire the land and the costs would be astronomical, not to mention the effects of pollution. In my area it is not even fathomable to widen the Golden Gate bridge or add a parallel bridge for cars and a train because of the costs! So those without personal vehicles are screwed, and everyone else as well as we head to the day when we have total gridlock and horrific pollution issues.

It is impossible to find the mission or goals of the US public education system?? If we as a nation don't know where we want to go, it is highly unlikely we can ever arrive at the right place...which is why we flounder decade after decade...

 

funny they are hiring at my shipyard , mabe he needs to go the USAJOBS.com

 

You are on the other side of the Universe.

 

Yes, they are. Based upon your past posts, and what I've seen here, you have adopted the delusion of libertarianism. In this delusion, private property is not force. The government declaring who can and cannot use a piece of land is not force. People owning portions of the earth itself, which is intended to be shared by all living creatures, is not force. This is a convincing delusion, but a delusion nonetheless. The simple truth is that violence and force plays a crucial role in human society, and always will, regardless of what political ideology you adopt. You can either fool yourself into thinking you are above this by talking like you currently do, or you can come around to the idea that you are, in the end, just as reliant upon force as your average socialist. Perhaps even more so, since at least socialists would acknowledge that the individual is owed something, whereas I'm fairly certain you are just going to parrot the usual libertarian talking points about self-reliance and bootstraps.

 

I will excuse your lack of reading comprehension due to your inexperience. Please read my post again more slowly. Perhaps aloud may help.

I have absolutely no problem with the use of force in defense of liberty, authority over and responsibility for self.
I do have a problem with those who violate individual liberty by force, even force of law.

Any evil one can imagine has been, at times, in places, perfectly legal. Legal and illegal have nothing to do with right and wrong. Those who enforce the law must accept that their choice to enforce the law will sometimes bring them into conflict with those who are in the right.

 

One that decreases poverty and increases wealth. Too bad such a welfare system does not exist.

 

Yeah, still not getting it bro. When you say "I believe in force to defend individual liberty," what you are actually saying is that you believe in force to defend your political beliefs, which are no more valuable than anyone else's. For some reason, in your mind, this gets you a pass. It doesn't. You have simply decided you are correct, and want to use government to enforce that vision. The same can be said for anyone who has an opinion and believes in laws.

The point being that all your nonsense about socialists using force is nothing but hypocrisy and self-loathing, to an extreme degree. You won't even be honest enough to say "I believe in forcing my political will on other people using government violence." Sad.

 

I believe we should promote the general welfare and the general prosperity through better capital Use of our social Commerce Clause; a truer welfare-State does not require the burden to Commerce that a warfare-State does.

 

If you are seriously going to try arguing that an "urban area" (very loosely defined here) with a total of only 17,000 people needs a mass transit system or could remotely afford one then I have no really viable response.

The American education system is more interested in "fairness" and being "inclusive" than it is with actual student achievement. Until we get off that kick, nothing we do will matter.

 

What about Uber?