My Crazy Fiscal Plan

ForceoftheTruth · #1 (**permalink**) 11-22-2005, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p=&quot

You know, it occurred to me that welfare is only a strain on the economy if it is involuntary. Now, this is a little "out there", but perhaps all welfare, even social security, could be handed over slowly to private, non-profit organizations. Private charities are more efficient at getting the money to the people who need it, and often people are more generous if they're not forced to be "generous". In other words, voluntary charity is often an incentive rather than a disincentive.
Of course, I would test out the plan very slowly to avoid any shortages or corruption. Now, again, this is very far-fetched, but the "infrastructure" for these programs was already put in place by Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and others. If Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security were privatized, I think that there would be less waste. I wouldn't want them going to for-profit corporations, since that might be even worse than government control, but with my friend's recent death, I have to question the effectiveness of 70 years of welfare state economics. He complained about welfare cuts, but he also complained about the red tape involved in getting assistance.
I do know that tax deductions would have to be given for donating to these charities, and I also realize that would cut tax revenue. But if the welfare state disincentive was gone and welfare programs became efficient without being driven by profit, it would appear to me that the deficit could at least be contained and that welfare could be self-sustaining. Now, I don't know whether I am sounding more like Noam Chomsky or Murray Rothbard here, but I have probably just officially gone insane.

This is my own post from another thread, of course. While I know that it is probably utterly impractical, I just wondered whether this idea is left-wing or right-wing (in economic terms). I am 20, as you all know, and I'm still trying to figure out who supports my ideals, since clearly there is strength in numbers in politics. With my recent retreat from authoritarian ideas, I am trying to form a new sense of political identity. I appreciate all comments. Thank you very much.

The12thMan · #2 (**permalink**) 11-22-2005, 11:04 PM

Sounds pretty right-wing to me. You seem to be advocating choice. Generally, people want to have a choice of where their money goes. Look into Bush's SS privatization plan. See what you think.

The things you mentioned - welfare, medicaid, medicare, social security, have been around a long time. The bureaucracy is deeply entrenched. It took a long time for those things to grow and it will take a long time for them to shrink back down to size.

It's getting late and I'm still catching up on posts. You haven't "officially" gone insane. For that, you'd need some kind of insanity license. I got one with the birth certificate of my second child.

ForceoftheTruth · #3 (**permalink**) 11-22-2005, 11:16 PM

Thank you for replying, 12thMan.

JavaBlack · #4 (**permalink**) 11-23-2005, 05:33 AM

though at a sane level because it is slow and allows for cultural lag. I'd like to believe that would work, but unless the system is done absolutely flawlessly, it will not endure. One thing to keep in mind is that while welfare programs "strain the economy", organization is required to ensure that wealth does indeed trickle down. Contrary to the dogma of right-wing ideologues, this is not an automatic process. And also note that certain welfare programs, those that train or educate individuals or take the strain of caring for the elderly and disabled off of working folks, actually boost the economy. Whether the money used is voluntary or involuntary does not determine how the economy is effected as much as whether the programs are aimed properly. I'd like to believe that private nonprofits could do the job, but I feel that unless our culture undergoes massive changes away from a greed-based business mentality and toward an honor-based mentality, they would never survive and competition would force them to earn larger profits to spend on advertising and other such crap, crushing the value of each dollar of charity. Likely such programs would still require some kind of public funding to avoid this. The other problem is free-riders. More common than the type who take hand-outs are the type that won't lift a finger or pay a dime to help someone else in need. Personally I feel such people deserve to have things taken from them. If only there were a way to form a decency-based tax system and not have it turn corrupt on you.
Only remember one thing: Everything is more complicated than any of us can fully understand.

stekim · #5 (**permalink**) 11-23-2005, 05:41 AM

who qualifies for government aid in the first place. And then what aid they are entitled to. For example, a disabled elderly person and an able bodied young person should not get the same level of aid or same types of government aid. Private charities, of course, can do what they please.

JavaBlack · #6 (**permalink**) 11-23-2005, 06:05 AM

An elderly or disabled person needs subsidy and life assistance. An able-bodied young person needs education, training, job placement, and possibly transportation assistance.

heikstheo · #7 (**permalink**) 11-23-2005, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p=&quot

You know, it occurred to me that welfare is only a strain on the economy if it is involuntary. Now, this is a little "out there", but perhaps all welfare, even social security, could be handed over slowly to private, non-profit organizations. Private charities are more efficient at getting the money to the people who need it, and often people are more generous if they're not forced to be "generous". In other words, voluntary charity is often an incentive rather than a disincentive.
Of course, I would test out the plan very slowly to avoid any shortages or corruption. Now, again, this is very far-fetched, but the "infrastructure" for these programs was already put in place by Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and others. If Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security were privatized, I think that there would be less waste. I wouldn't want them going to for-profit corporations, since that might be even worse than government control, but with my friend's recent death, I have to question the effectiveness of 70 years of welfare state economics. He complained about welfare cuts, but he also complained about the red tape involved in getting assistance.
I do know that tax deductions would have to be given for donating to these charities, and I also realize that would cut tax revenue. But if the welfare state disincentive was gone and welfare programs became efficient without being driven by profit, it would appear to me that the deficit could at least be contained and that welfare could be self-sustaining. Now, I don't know whether I am sounding more like Noam Chomsky or Murray Rothbard here, but I have probably just officially gone insane.

This is my own post from another thread, of course. While I know that it is probably utterly impractical, I just wondered whether this idea is left-wing or right-wing (in economic terms). I am 20, as you all know, and I'm still trying to figure out who supports my ideals, since clearly there is strength in numbers in politics. With my recent retreat from authoritarian ideas, I am trying to form a new sense of political identity. I appreciate all comments. Thank you very much.

There is a way to privatize welfare: do your own savings and investment!

stekim · #8 (**permalink**) 11-23-2005, 08:39 AM

Quote:

An able-bodied young person needs education, training, job placement, and possibly transportation assistance.

To issue here, of course, is that an able bodied person can get education and training on his own. That's how most people do it, in fact. I would add that subsidized student loans need to go. Student loans are fine, but there is no reason the tax payer should pay interest on someone else's loan.

ForceoftheTruth · #9 (**permalink**) 11-23-2005, 09:13 AM

I don't claim to be an expert, but my father knows a good deal about work training programs, or more precisely, work rehabilitation programs, since he is in workers' compensation. I have seen the red tape first hand when he has brought his work home. There are too many examples to list here, but perhaps the best one was: "Paperwork Reduction Taskforce" papers (a huge stack of them). I know that some welfare programs help the economy, but I'd still rather see them in the hands of non-profit organizations than the government. That is only what I'd rather see, though. Rest assured that if my nutty ideas would deprive a single truly needy person of one cent, I'd scrap them. You make some excellent points about economics, JavaBlack. Attitudes really would need to be changed to make any system work perfectly. I'd also appreciate the verdicts of stekim and MerlinX as to whether or not this plan is completely crazy or has any redeeming points. Thank you very much.

stekim · #10 (**permalink**) 11-23-2005, 10:17 AM

is that widespread abuse in government programs is very common. People who would not take 15 minutes to look for a job will spend days figuring out how to fool the government for a free check. There are some programs that likely need to stay with the government, others that we don't need at all and others that would be far better if handled privately. Is their a specific program you are thinking about? I think that would help get things more specific.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode