In the 1950's the poverty rate was lower... but were the people below the line better off?
Relative poverty is always a problematic concept... but absolute poverty is what it is. When people are starving, it makes no difference whether 10% or 50% of the population is below the poverty line.
Now, granted, safety nets work best in countries with a predominantly capitalist model. But those who need them do infinitely better than they would without.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Well, they actually do. Because if they didn't they would not exist. It is in your interests to have grocery stores. It is in your interests to have phone companies and hospitals and places to get your hair done. You see, one cannot serve the interests of "investors" without also serving the interests of the people in general. General Motors does not make a single penny for anyone unless you think they make something you need or want and you buy it (I'm talking about "you" in the general sense, not you personally). For all the complaints about Wal Mart, for example, one thing stands out to me: The parking lot is always full. So they must be serving someone's needs.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Okay, here is a microeconomic case study of poverty. A boy had a well-to-do father. His mother, however, was a closet homosexual. Because of this, his father and mother split up and then his father committed suicide. He was then raped (by another man) at the age of 13. His mother drank too much, he developed mental illnesses and his mother kicked him out of his home in his teens. The rest of his life was a downward spiral of mental and physical illnesses. I'm writing, of course, of the beggar who died last year.
He himself did not drink, having developed a great dislike of alcohol from witnessing the alcoholism of his mother and sister. He once mentioned having used marijuana, but he also spoke negatively of hard drugs. He was a Christian to his death and in no way lazy. In other words, he didn't bring his circumstances on himself. I daresay his story is not atypical of those in similar circumstances. If someone can suggest a way (public, private or both- I don't care) in which his downward spiral could have been stopped before it was out of control, I would greatly appreciate it.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

What an ecomomic system can do: allow (not provide) the greatest prosperity for the greatest number of people.

What an economic system cannot do: save the world.

Chasing perfection in economics always leads to disaster. And the people hurt most? The poor.

Actually it isn't - certainly not from a legal standpoint anyway (unless we're talking parent-child relationship, etc...). It isn't even the same from from a moral standpoint.

Here's a story: Let's say John's next-door neighbor develops a terminal illness which only the latest and greatest medical technology will cure. The catch? It costs $200,000 dollars. The same sum John's house is worth. It occurs to John that he now has the power to save his neighbor's life. So, John not wanting to be a called murderer by his friend Force, sells his house and gives his neighbor the $200,000. All is good, except that John then hears about a program where $200 a year can keep a whole family in Africa from starving to death. He knows he's has to help, or he is the same as a murderer. The problem is that John and his family are now living on the street and can't afford what would have been a painless donation a month ago.

The moral of the story? You can't feel bad enough to make others feel good. You can't be poor enough to make others rich. You can't destroy yourself enough to save the world. In fact, just the opposite is true. The better able you are to take care of yourself, the better your position to help make things better.

"Ban allowing"? Yes, I think that is what you are really proposing. The government must protect the people from every possible threat, and not allow or trust them to take care of themselves. Of course, the first casualty of this kind of thinking is freedom, but hey, a cage is small price to pay for being taken care of, right?

__________________
One original thought is worth a thousand mindless quotings. --Diogenes

Not sure what you mean. Better off than who? The poor of today? In that case, certainly not. Just as the rich of 1950 are not better off than the rich of 2006. I can do things today and have a quality of life that the richest person in 1950 could only dream of. This is due to the advances and innovations encouraged by capitalism.

Exactly. Compare the famines of communist China where millions were killed to... well, nothing like that happened in the U.S., so I guess there's nothing to compare it to.

There's no reason why a saftey net has to be provided by the government.

__________________
One original thought is worth a thousand mindless quotings. --Diogenes

I never advocated killing one person (or a family of people) to save others. That is against the very point I am making: It is not justifiable to sacrifice anyone for the "common good", even if avoiding the sacrifice makes a society a little less capitalistic.

In cases where lives are at stake, that is right. Otherwise, we should abolish prisons (literal cages).

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

How shallow we are - we care for none but ourselves! - we are beyond redemption.

I'd really like some feedback on this. Thanks.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

Huh? I never said you did. My story was meant to show two things. 1) That not doing everything in your power to save someone (i.e., "letting someone die") is not the same as killing them. Nowhere near, in fact. 2) And, how this statement leads to the erroneous belief that you are somehow responsible for the lives of everyone around you.

Force, you are too smart to get away with playing dumb. As you well know, my point was that the only way to keep everyone perfectly safe would be by a gross violation of their individual rights, causing - that's right - suffering. The very thing you are trying to remove from society.

Convicted felons have demonstrated their desire and ability to violate the rights of others, and have consequently forfeited their own freedoms. Locking everyone up, or denying everyone basic freedoms, as you seem to be advocating, kind of defeats the purpose of a legal system doesn't it?

__________________
One original thought is worth a thousand mindless quotings. --Diogenes

There should be positive reinforcement for good decisions, and negative reinforcement for bad decisions. Capitalism does this for us. What good can come from punishing good decisons with higher taxed, and rewarding bad decisions with entitlements? We must move forward or others will capitalize on our missed opportunities. The competition is fierce.

I think a lot this is about misplaced feelings of guilt. Some people want to suffer, and we all know misery likes company. Some people routinely make poor choices, and refuse to make changes for the better.

Perhaps pain and suffering are the best motivators. Struggling while unemployed can motivate someone to work harder. Hating one's job can motive someone to study harder, and put in that extra effort. Struggling financially can motivate people to make sacrifices like stop smoking, or eat less junk food. You either adapt or you go extinct like the dinosaur. In any case, it stirrs conscious thought, and leads to change. Maybe the survival instinct is factor.

People who aren't prepared are in for the shock of their lives. You have got to be able to kick yourself in the ass to get up and go go go. Yes it hurts, but it can hurt a lot more.