"I hear what you are saying, but what was the federal govt's financial position during that period? Were we in quite the same deficit as today, when adjusted for inflation? Honest question"

The bottom line is that government is not going to stop giving money to low productivity labor who don't take care of themselves. The question becomes, should it be nothing more than a check, or should the government get some value out of these individuals.

My belief, and I've discussed this with TOR before, is that programs such as the CCC would fail in today's society. When you can make more money earning welfare benefits, what's the incentive to do work for your money. If you made it mandatory, however, you'd soon see a massive decrease in unemployment. If you are going to be forced to work, you may as well work at the job that pays you the most money. And that wouldn't be the CCC.

GAS, GAS, GAS...

You poor, unfortunate tool of the booshwhahzee.

You deserve steak EVERY night. And why should you settle for anything less than Blue Label?

And if anyone deserves a 6.7 Duramax, don't you?

Support your local progressive, and you're one step closer. And it will require nothing more than supporting your local progressive.

"Rightie tighties are basically preprogrammed emotionally to be full of disdain and indifference towards those outside their group. They can't help themselves and deserve all the sympathy they refuse others."

Not really. Lots of people, rich, poor, and every point in between donate their own money to help others, and do so voluntarily. You have low income conservatives who do support charities. You also have very rich progressives who do not. The difference between a progressive and a liberal is that a liberal would spend his own money in support of causes he or she believed in. A progressive would demand that someone else folt the bill.

"The bottom line is its not enough. Without food stamps and shelter thousands would starve or freeze."

So you are suggesting that the government implement programs that provide shelter, clothing, and food for those who can't otherwise come by it? That's an easier argument to sell than one where the government provides those same people with a reasonably high standard of living, which is the current policy.

Welfare should be for poverty what chemo is for cancer. It should fvcking suck. It should suck so bad that no one would ever willingly accept it unless there was no other choice.

"Many die for lack of proper medical care."

More now than in 1953? 1853? 1053?

"Welfare spending is doing the right thing, in all its forms and a bargain compared to these other programs."

If it's the right thing to do, why don't you use your own money? Why must you use mine?

I'm good at budgeting. I don't know what you do for a living, but assuming you make $50K a year, I can help you come up with a budget whereby you would be able to donate half your yearly earnings to the less fortunate, while still keeping a roof over your head and clothes on your back. Lemme know when you are ready to begin.

"It has nothing to do with the welfare spending except that Bankers caused those costs also to rise."

Really? The bankers caused the steep increase in workers applying for disability? The bankers caused people to stay on unemployment for years? It had noting to do with Obama loosening restrictions on collecting public benefits?

"A reasonably high standard of living is part and parcel of living in the modern world. You can't really separate the two."

Yeah you can. You have to.

Should someone on welfare get free cable? free internet? free vacations? because to some degree they are getting just that. only it's not really free. Someone else is paying for it.

"Should the "low-productivity worker" or his idle counterpart not have hot water? Running water? Sanitation services? Electricity?"

Should someone else have to pay to provide them with hot water or electricity?

"Is defending the country the right thing to do? Then why should I pay you to do it, MadBomber?"

believe it or not, I agree with you. At least to a degree. Our foreign policy is at least controversial enough for the argument to be a valid one. But at the end of the day I would prefer a stripped down military whose form and function was designed around defending the country from any threat, anywhere. Not building nations. Nor spreading democracy. not serving as an employer of last resort. Not being something that bored teenagers do for a few years before they have to get a real job.

"You're saying a different standard should apply to the poor?"

If these are truly your concerns, they can be addressed in a much more cost effective manner.

"I do not consider SS, Unemployment or Disability to be part of "welfare'. That is my definition, because they are self funding through payroll taxes."

You shouldn't consider them welfare. They ain't. the only problem with these programs is that have been underfunded for years, with the unfunded balance being made up for through deficit spending. That's why I don't understand the whining about increased payroll taxes. If you want your SS, then you better be happy to pay the damn tax.

"Disability payments are such a small part of the puzzle they are not worth talking about."

In 1997 there were 24 people working for every one that was collecting disability. That number has increased to 13 people working for every one on disability. I would hazard a guess that this isn't because the workplace is a more dangerous place than it was in 1997.

"Why should I do that when I ski, travel, boat and go to rock concerts incessantly? I'm not hurting and don't need any of your budgetary advice."

In other words, you want to help the less fortunate, you just don't want to have to incur any inconvenience yourself. It's much easier to make someone else pay for it. That way you don't have to give up any of your idle pursuits.

"so... Badbummer really believes that people who were working for 10-15 years making 50K a year preferred unemployment rather than work?"

Without a motherfvcking doubt. There is no such thing as unemployment. There is the lack of a job I want in the region I want at the salary I want. That's not to say that everyone is like this, but many are. Because if you live in Manhattan, you're not going to move to flyover country. you might not even move to Conneticut. Or Jersey. It's beneath you.

"Apparently the clown crack smokers missed that since 1992 you can only welfare for a maximum of 5 years and in some states not even a year... yet you still cling to the notion that welfare is a cradle to grave experience for every minority."

Yeah. Because only minorities are on welfare. Good thing they have a benevolent whitey like you to act as Shepherd, huh.

"There is something abou being reminded about how unions are breaking companies... and killing job growth... and telling people that worked long and hard at a job for years... that upon returning to the work force they are informed that they never were really worth what they were getting paid... and its their fault,,, life sucks.... buck up take it like a man."

Absolutely. I was pointing this out to someone the other day on Drudge. Ever seen Roger and Me? I was forced to watch it as an undergrad. If you've ever seen it, you know it's Mike Moore trying to throw spears at GM for closing their plant in Flint in the late 1980s, because the result was a lot of highly paid unskilled workers getting laid off with no real prospects for employment. The intent was to be critical of GM, but the unions should bear most of the blame. because it was they who sold these workers on the notion that their labor was actually worth $30K a year, when in reality it was far less. If the workers had understood that, how many would have gone to college or learned a trade? Gained a skill that demanded high wages without union intervention?

At the end of the day, the rich become that way because they are more economically valuable to society. You may not like this, but if you want it to change you'd better put on your jackboots and start crushing some throats. Because all other things being equal, society will inevitably value the doctor far more than the ditch digger. And it's going to take a lot of 'social conditioning' on the part of folks like yourself to change that.

"The only way to separate two is building special camps detached from the common infrastructure. No electricity, no roads, no water or sewer service, no telephone lines, no natural gas, no sewer."

Y'know one thing that always bothered me. Public housing always seems to occupy very valuable land in the middle of the city. Why not put it in the country, where land is cheaper?

My suggestion would be to put them in old military bases that were shut down as a result of BRAC. A single family home could easily fit eight people. And it's not like Griffis AFB base housing is being used for anything else....

"How are you going to prevent them from accessing DirecTV or Dish? Those TV services don't rely on infrastructure, anyone who can see the sky can get it."

You actually have to pay for the service. But that's really neither here nor there. It's a pretty simple answer. Wards of the state would have a bank account set up to cover those costs necessary in keeping them alive. if they made money, it would go into the account to pay for these things. The remaining balance would be made up out of tax dollars. Any money over what was required to cover necessities would go into an escrow account, to cover any future shortfalls. When the recipient elects to leave the program, and money in that escrow account is his to take.

"Leaving that issue aside, how do you plan to relocate individuals you deem unworthy to the camps?"

Welfare is a voluntary program, isn't it? No one forces you to sign up.

"They always do this. They present a moral argument why welfare is bad. Never, ever, an economic one. They're forced to make the moral case because the economic reality shows the exact opposite: Public spending benefits the economy and raises the standard of living."

It sure as hell did in the Soviet Union, Still does in North Korea and Cuba. That's why so many people are risking the open ocean on innertubes to sail from Miami to Havana-they're searching for a better life.

"Not to say our welfare program couldn't be improved on, only that is a better use of our resources than these other programs which only kill and imprison people for little or no reason. That alone costs about $170 billion a year."

Don't sweat me brother, I'm buying what you're selling. You could feed a whole block of crackheads for a year for what it costs to purchase one new F-35, which are apparently grounded at the moment due to one problem or another. And I think that regardless of whether there was institutional welfare or not, those who truly need help will be taken care of. But for those who are just being lazy? They can get a comfortable wage on welfare when they come scrape the ice out of my driveway.

BTW, you mentioned skiing? Where do you spend most of your time?

Gotcha.

I spend a lot of time around the Cooke City, Yellowstone area. You sound young. Enjoy it while you can. Eventually you're going to have kids, and there's no bigger downer than dropping several hundo on a vacation, only to have them want to sit around the pool in the hotel.

"Seriously, you couldn't figure out I was talking about modern industrial economies? (Which, by the way, Russia became under Communist rule...)"

mmm-not so much. Socialism was the yoke that held back the Russians. You're probably not in a position to judge, but if you were able to compare Russian technology before and after socialism, you would see a marked change. In the past 10-15 years, the Russians have come up with some very cool gadgets. During the Soviet era, they were constantly playing a game of catch-up. And poorly at that.

It's sorta sad, but there have been times when me and my buddies sat around drooling over Russian military hardware. WTF can't we have something like that? North Korea and Cuba? Not so much. Although Cubanos stand to make a lot of money selling 1950s era cars back to americans after Castro croaks.

"Huh. Sounds like you've rediscovered the concept of the centrally planned economy. Those have been shown to work really well, right? Because they afford their participants a great chance of becoming rich, or should I say "more economically valuable to society."

Not really centrally planned, because it would only apply to wards of the state. And even then, you would have to opt in.