As you may have noticed, based on methodical reasoning, I have moved ever rightward fiscally. My ideas make sense in a cold, logical way, but frankly I start to feel as though I'm becoming some sort of inhuman machine. Every instinct in me cries out against right-wing economics, yet I can't find a way of refuting it in my own mind. I desperately want it to be wrong. I really want a society in which everyone's basic needs are guaranteed, but here are the problems:

1. Welfare (as it is currently run) is inefficient and often counterproductive, and although it might be possible to reform it, I can't figure out how.

2. Even if welfare were made more effective, we still have a huge national debt in this country. How can we continue to spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on aid programs without driving the country into bankruptcy?

3. How can income be distributed with greater equity without hurting the incentive factor?

4. How can a government control more of the GDP without having more arbitrary power? In other words, how can government misuse of taxpayer money be prevented?

I know that my indecisiveness and constant questions are annoying, but I have to make one last desperate attempt to find logical support for what I want to believe in.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

I hear this all the time from conservatives, usually citing isolated individual abuses of the system while ignoring widespread benefits. your assertion that welfare is not effective is an opinion, and maybe you could provide some sources saying that it does more harm than good.

We simply have to change our priorities.

Money is a counting device used to measure wealth. it is not a commodity in itself. The government's bank account doesn't work like regular people's bank accounts. Economics is pretty complicated, the money flows around and it all ends up back in the government in the form of taxes.

Lets say you have a welfare program give 10,000 to an 18 year old who is poor but wants to go to college. ( he'd need good grades to qualify for this )

Ok. the college then receives the money, and 2,000 goes to taxes.

The college then spends the leftover 8000 dollars of the money on equipment and salaries and scientific research, another 2000 of which goes to uncle sam in the form of taxes. the money is then given in the form of salaries to scientists and manufacterers, or professors or others, and they buy stuff with it too, paying more taxes.

After flowing around a bit, the money eventually ends up back at uncle sam. As i said, Money is a counting device.

at the same time the money ( idealy, but not always ) gathers up unspent resources ( such as empty seats at college classes, or out of work science professionals ) and puts them to good use, wheras otherwise they would be unused. This helps the economy.

For there is no reason to have unspent resources if there are people who want to use them ( otherwise they'd just be thrown out or unused or unemployed ). However, too much welfare and welfare in the wrong place can lead to too much competition for resouces which causes inflation. So you kindof have to balance it. Some welfare makes sense, some doesn't.

For example: Say computers are in high demand, they're selling like hotcakes. It would be a bad policy for government to make a welfare program to help people buy computers, because this will simply cause inflation and raise the price of computers, while not actually increasing the overall benefit ( the number of computers available ). So that would be a bad use of welfare.

another example: the government is currently subsidizing farmers to not plant crops, because there is too much food and more food on the market will mean overcompetition between farmers. ( they'll have to sell food at lower than what it costs to farm it, because of so much competition between farmers ) It would be a good government policy, then, to make a welfare program that buys food from farmers and then gives out free food to the people who can't afford it. Because there is plenty of food to go around, there is no reason people should be starving.

In addition, if the government feels like there isn't enough education to go around, it could subsidize colleges to build more facilities, or it could start its own public education system.

As long as doing extra work will get you extra money, there will always be an incentive factor. Welfare just means there is a safety net, + a progressive tax system to fund it. Say you make 100,000 dollars for working, but uncle sam takes 35,000 of it. You still have the incentive to work, you simply get 65,000 dollars instead of 100,000 dollars. Likewise the student in my example receiving the money for college has the incentive to get good grades or else he's wasted his chance. As long as there arn't any hard caps on how much money you can make the system works fine.

In my opinion, Funding Education is the best way to prevent the government from misusing power. As people are educated they learn to spot corruption in government. More educated people means a higher market for informative news rather than infotainment, which means the media might have the monetary incentive to get on the ball in reporting about corruption. Thus welfare programs like student loans are very beneficial.

__________________
"The belief that nothing exists outside your own mind--surely there must be some way of demonstrating that it was false" - 1984

first, no need to be desperate ... be deliberate instead
don't form a "belief" and then make its dogma provide the answers to your questions, just believe in the answers to well considered questions, until you derive even better answers. there is no rule that says you have to be liberal or conservative, democrat or republican.
why must income be distributed more equitably? who gets to say what is equitable and are those the same people whose income you will distribute elsewhere?
what constitutes welfare and are all of those programs inefficient and counterproductive? one might suggest social security is a form of welfare since it was established (in part) to provide a means of subsistence to those who had none. in my view that was/is a noble undertaking which needs to be continued ... helping those otherwise without the means and ability to adequately provide for a basic living. however, i also believe it was a disservice to spend the social security tax receipts as general revenues for tax breaks and weapons instead of placing them in a "lock box" to assure solvency. i believe it is misguided to limit social security on income to the first (approx) $90,000 allowing those who earn $millions to escape payment of a social security contribution on the bulk of their income.
there are a myriad of welfare programs having a specific purpose and process. rather than lumping it all as "welfare" and saying it is well managed and should continue as it is or is mismanaged and should then be ended is too simplistic. in my opinion, identify the need that should be met, how to resolve the need and at what cost, and then you can determine whether its financial burden to the taxpaying public is justifiable. from my example of social security, you can see i think there is a need to be met but that the way we meet that need should be revised.
wish i were wise enough to offer a satisfactory answer to this question! at present the dollar is the preferred international currency because of the perceived stability of the American economy. this is a HUGE advantage that is not always recognized. so long as we do not inflate our economy by doing so, we get to print $100 bills for just the price of ink and paper, and sell that money to international buyers who are seeking financial stability. we expand the nation's wealth this way. since WWII, with infrequent, limited, competition from the Pound, Mark, Yen (and on the horizon from the Euro and Yuan), our government has been able to fund our country's development in substantial part due to the "profits" we realize as the stable country printing dollars everybody else wants to hold.
actions taken by the government that serve to destabilize the economy, such as requiring a disproportionate portion of the GDP, will cause wealth holders to move their holdings into another currency. if the inclination toward spending borrowed money for wants, rather than federal needs, is an indicator, an appreciation of this potential negative outcome does not appear to be widespread in government.
the elected representatives need funds to remain in office and to secure those funds they rely on contributions from those who want access to the federal treasury (in one form or another). that return on investment to the "contributor" causes the government to effectively spend for private rather than public purposes. its easy to spend someone else's money, and even easier when you get something for doing it.
so, my guess is, that unless we smarten up and realize that buying favors at taxpayer expense weakens our economic condition, and put an end to now legal but inappropriate influence buying our fate will be to lose that economic advantage of printing the world's sought after currency. when that happens we will no longer have foreign interests loaning us money to waste on government expenditures for the privileged and we will have only one option - prioritize what we spend out of necessity.

(as an aside, disallowing direct contributions to candidates excepting only those who are registered to vote in the precinct in which the candidate is on their ballot would accomplish this remedy - recognize that NO lobbies or corporations can register to vote, thereby eliminating their contributions).

and that was the short answer ... you speak of government as if it were a singular entity, but government is actually two-headed ... an elected corps that responds to the political winds and another corps of careerists who weather the storm and keep government operating despite the changes in the politically elected and appointed officials who provide direction to the organization. that is a deep topic on its own and is indicated just to illustrate why answers to complex problems cannot be expected to be simple.
ymmv

By the way, many conservatives have called me a liberal. I base #1 solely on the fact that poverty has not, as one would expect, been in a steady decline since Lyndon Johnson established widespread anti-poverty programs. Regarding the rest, I'll give the standard right-wing response just to see if there is a logical counter. In conservative economic theory, to the extent that the government underestimates or overestimates demand, it hurts the economy. It is commonly stated that the government is far worse than private individuals and organizations at making such estimates. Regarding incentive, many people work to keep a roof over their heads. While that is not ideal, if a roof is guaranteed, so to speak, why wouldn't that weaken the economy and so the need for welfare? I've yet to see an effective left-wing counter to these objections, which were formulated in direct response to Keynesian economics. If there is such a counter, though, I would definitely like to see it.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

You've been called a liberal?

Many people want work to keep a roof over there head but can't find any. Welfare helps these people. Without it prolonged unemployment would = homelessness. If you think that getting rid out welfare would force people to work (as otherwise the'd starve to death) your wrong. Your wrong simply on the basis that welfare has slashed dramatically before and it hasn't touched unemployment. To take a example, Margret Thatcher significantly slashed welfare and removed the government from involvement in the economy. What happened? Unemployment shot up and because of the cut to welfare poverty shot up with it.

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

Okay, putting aside the alleged inefficiency of government spending for the moment, I'll make a hypothetical example about incentives. If the government gives a person housing, that is prima facie morally good, but if the person then becomes dependent on the government for housing, then his or her children grow up in the same state of dependence and the person does not seek employment because his or her needs are taken care of, why wouldn't that weaken the economy? I have no doubt that immediately slashing welfare can increase poverty in the short term, but doesn't that indicate that the need for welfare is self-sustaining? In other words, once welfare exists, more and more people become dependent on it and don't know how to provide for themselves- at least that is right-wing theory. I knew a beggar very well. He received Social Security disability checks and undoubtedly Medicaid as well. I have to wonder, though, whether at some point earlier in his life he might have become dependent on welfare unnecessarily. Especially since I have met a number of poor people, I hate to look at human suffering in this way, but I have to follow facts wherever they lead me. Is there some key piece of this puzzle I'm missing? I sincerely hope that there is.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

In the modern era, the automation (computers) can be used to reduce the bureocracy and the price of bureoucracy. In this way, if we distribute N amount of wealth, the cost of the distribution will likely fall near 5% or below. Also typically, the bureocracy costs quite same amount not depending of the amount of money distributed. In this way, the more you distribute, the more efficient the distribution will relatively get.

I would say, that the problems with the unmotivating effect of the welfare can be avoided. Typically it is that big problem, but with solutions like the citizen-salary the counter-motivational effect can be greatly reduced or even removed.

I say that the Scandinavian countries are rather good examples of a working welfare state. Especially the Danmark's model with the work-force has recently gained praise.

For the debt, you may blame the republican and the ever-growing money void of pork. The republicans have proved that they can toss more money to rich corporations than democrats ever could for social security, education and health care.

But anyway, by removing the pork and bringing down the ever-growing war-machine you should save enought to make some nice social improvements. Still, constructing the social system does require money. In this way, you really have to compromise between the social values and the economic values.

Still, even if the welfare system uses money and means high taxes, lot of used money work actually as an investement. The money put on education and health care will surely pay itself back. The opportunities and the security provided for the poor tend also to calm society and its internal conlflict. This means savings, since it tend to reduce the theft and destruction of property, murders, people in prisons and the burden on the law-enforcement.

Well, typically with money, the luxuries themselves are not that important, but the social status and its symbols. Even if taxes are progressive, the difference between the different economic classes remains. In this situation, as long men wish to set themselves above other men, the creed for money will prevail.

What is truly important to realize with human psychology is that people don't think wealth in absolute terms, but only as it relates to others. The amount of men above you and the ones under you will not change and neither will the significance of wealth.

Through automation and supervision. It works well in the Nordic countries - and believe me - the goverments here control and redistribute massive amounts wealth.

I would say that the essential thing is the overall corruption rate of the goverment. If the corruption is rare, the welfare system will work seamlessly. If the corruption rate is high, then certainly - you should think twice before yelding any penny for any reason, whether the reason is welfare or war.

- BtD

__________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
[George Orwell, 1984]

I hadn't thought of that. Obviously I've been looking at human beings as more logical than they actually are. When I think about welfare states, Sweden disturbs me more than any other. It keeps its economy going by effectively requiring that all people work outside the home. That eerily resembles totalitarianism and isn't worth any amount of economic progress.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Well,

Believe me there is no requirement for people to work outside the home in Sweden or in any other Nordic state. Also women tend to work and well - it is partly economic question - people like luxuries, but there is much more in it than that.

Sweden is often thought as relatively equal state, not only between people of different social classes, but also between the different sexes. Many modern women like to work and they also work partly to be equal with men and to be independent from men. Also, because the school system and the luxuries of the modern world, there isn't that much *work* in todays homes. I could also blame the educational system. People, who have been highly educated with the tax-payers' money, might well have professional ambitions or think the work as a responsibility

And BTW. Where have you got this idea from?

- BtD

__________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
[George Orwell, 1984]

I'm 100% in favor of letting women work outside the home and destroying all cultural and economic barriers to their equality. I am a strong supporter of affirmative action for both women and minorities. I don't want anyone required to work outside the home, though, anymore than I want anyone required to work in the home. If this is a false rumor, perhaps you can set the record straight, because many Americans believe it. I read on an Internet site that it is essentially impossible for any man or woman to be a homemaker in Sweden. I first heard this from my mother, by the way.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)