The egalitarian ideal

[HumanePain]

The Consequence of the Egalitarian Ideal:

As I ponder the goal of our nation providing healthcare, food stamps and other basic necessities to the underprivileged, I also expand my view to include of our current mechanisms dispensing social benefits to the middle class and essentially the bulk of the citizens, such as social security, military pensions, FEMA expenditures during national disasters and the like. This leads me to view the cumulative economic impact of national budget objectives towards the future, should we achieve as I call, "The Egalitarian Ideal", with concern that the governed masses naturally continue voting themselves additional benefits and raises to existing disbursements. Perhaps this my legacy conservatism showing but it seems to me that moving towards this ideal will eventually bankrupt the nation as the masses vote with local (and self centered) goals to benefit themselves without regard to the future consequences of this legislation. I admit to an incomplete education on Democratic platforms and successful legislation, however it seems obvious that even if we are able to elect politicians who will raise taxes on the wealthy, the additional revenue is still finite and can still be exhausted by a selfish and short sighted voting populace. Are we as progressives, putting our heads in the sand and avoiding counter arguments and proposals to deal with this unavoidable circumstance? What is being said in progressive circles to address and even mouth recognition of this eventuality?

Proposal: I submit that since the United States has welcomed the world to the global economy, at the expense of American worker's jobs and income, that a global withholding tax be implemented, deployed by the G7/G20, to recoup a penny on the dollar to fund our goals, otherwise, it seems logical that we must severely limit expenditures for the application of our noble but expensive ideals. A Global Tax, collected and disbursed globally. The United States is already doing this partially and indirectly as Foreign Aid.

Friedrich Nietzsche said that the weak should perish. I find this abhorrent, although I agree with many other of his conclusions and explorations, but the reality is that life is not fair, and I find it difficult not to accept that not everyone will be helped, that some lives will be forsaken in the task of saving dollars. This is repulsive, but realistic.

Give me some ammo folks. I am losing ground going head to head with my Republican friends.

[Grausamkeit]

Haven't we already established that the big problem is that we can't get people to vote on taxing the people more who can most afford it? The Republicans somehow convince the ignorant voting masses who support them that it's 'evil' to tax the rich. BUT those same people want benefits from the government. Where is the money going to come from? Once we pull out of the Middle East that money isn't going to magically appear in the treasury. Some people are going to be arguing against using it for things like welfare, probably using the tired olde 'rich welfare family living in the ghettoes' myth.

Where am I going with this........? Oh yeah, Republicans suck.

[Saya]

^Word. Canada had been working for years to become a welfare state (in that the welfare of all is supposed to be a priority, not that everyone is on welfare). We could do so much better, but Harper has since cut taxes and cut programs. Our deficit is a new record for us. Its kinda funny that the whole "we have to be careful how to spend our money! Smaller government!" crowd is the absolute worst at keeping us out of debt.

[Grausamkeit]

It just baffles me how the fuck people expect to get out of debt when they're failing to bring money in. I guess they think money is going to magically appear from out of the sky. Mana from Donald Trump or something?

[Saya]

According to Harper, by pumping tons of money into the military (because Canada is a military force to reckon with?), bring in minimum sentencing for nonviolent crimes and building new super prisons.

[Grausamkeit]

Ah, so they're gonna get out of debt by spending money! Brilliant!

o_O

[AshleyO]

I'll weigh in a bit on this by saying that we haven't even come close to what can be accomplished through taxation of the wealthy.

To make it as elementary as possible. The proposal of raising taxes on the rich is like a homeless man asking you for some spare change and you telling him you don't have that money while palming a sweaty wad of ones in your pocket.

It's not that society will continue to ask for more and more and more. It's to be expected that this would happen to some degree. But there must be an equilibrium established where there is a maximum amount of good for a maximum amount of people.

Certainly cutting spending to social programs and the like are NOT going to help. It's just going to create more crime.

I've been talking to Despanan about this. I said, "You know what would stop occupy wall street dead in its tracks? Force a living wage, not a minimum wage, socialize healthcare on a federal level, strengthen a few union bargaining rights, and reduce the work week for an average American to 30 hours a week so that they can still have time to be with friends and family. If they did AT LEAST that, you wouldn't hardly hear a whisper out of anyone."

Now if I'm wrong and there's certain things in the fire with OWS that seeks to retool the whole damned game, then there'd be more to talk about.

But for now, there's lots of things we're capable of doing and quite frankly, I find it laughable that the USA claims it can't do certain things that other countries such as Canada, Switzerland, and other mixed economy counties have been doing since last Tuesday. It's as if we're being out-classed in every way lately.

[Grausamkeit]

If we 'socialize' healthcare we're gonna have to call it something else. The voters have been convinced that socialism=EVIL!!! 'Living wage' definitely would be nice. It's sad that one person can't actually make it on their own working a minimum wage job. How are people supposed to pay for shit like cars, which we're pretty much forced to own and forced to pay extra shit on monthly, and gas money after electricity, water and/or gas? I don't live in a metro area with public transport or subways/monorails. Sure, you can ride a bike and save money, but what happens when it's cold and rainy and you get a popped innertube on your way to class?

It's almost impossible.

[Alan]

No. Don't change the language. The language is important.
If we start calling it something other than 'socializing' medicine, then we're already giving in to the idea that socialism is bad. And if socialism is bad then socialized medicine will still be bad under any other name because those who oppose it will still use the rhetoric of evil socialism against it, and they will have to make a lesser effort in their arguments because we have conceded that socialism is bad.
It's not even a strategic sacrifice. Changing the language of socialized services will not make them any easier to be offered.
On the other hand, if we stop shying away from the ideological source of social institutions, then people will start changing their minds about them.
All their argument is a simple "universal healthcare is socialism!". If you say "no it's not!" your argument would be weak and a lot of people will see it as a lie, because it is. But if your answer is a simple "so?" they got nothing.

[Grausamkeit]

Jill, you're right. I just think that as long as it's socialism that most people will vote against it rather than educating themselves and realizing that this country needs it. I don't have a lot of faith in the intelligence of the voting masses these days.

[Alan]

You should. Just a year or two ago the media were all talking about how since the crisis Amazon's sells of Atlas Shrugged have tripled over.
That's a sad fact, but what they failed to mention is that the sells of the communist manifesto increased over 600%

Don't forget that the Tea Party movement is not even talked about anymore and the Republican Party keeps changing candidates more than a teenager changes fashion styles.
Don't forget that the OWS movement has at least 15 people backing them up per individual who is actually at any of the protests in any city.
Four years ago we were all talking about how with the candidacy of Obama, there hadn't been more youth involvement in politics since the anti-war protests in the 60's. The youngest of us are now 22 and most of us remained politicized even if we're not active, and we have opened our ears to the leftist alternatives to the clusterfuck that is American politics.
Imagine if four years ago we had said that we shouldn't manifest on the streets in protest to the banks that caused the recession that was barely beginning back then, because they would call us socialists. But here we are, four years after the crisis, more politicized than back then.
So long as we don't shy away from words like 'socialism' and 'radical' imagine where we'll be in four years, when the kids who got politicized in 2008 are beginning to enter their 30's.

[AshleyO]

Alan those are some AWESOME points and keeps me optimistic for the whole ordeal.

[AshleyO]

So. There was something a little weird about Humane's thread here.

A question:

Why is it necessary to deny someone a need?

[Grausamkeit]

If someone needs something it shouldn't be able to be denied. It's a need, not a want.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

Are we as progressives, putting our heads in the sand and avoiding counter arguments and proposals to deal with this unavoidable circumstance? What is being said in progressive circles to address and even mouth recognition of this eventuality?

Give me some ammo folks. I am losing ground going head to head with my Republican friends.

There is a pretty strong sentiment that the reason why the great depression was as long as it was, happened because social spending was cut during the late 1930s. You can make an argument that cutting social services will only serve to prolong the current economic downturn, and that the government is going to experience a net benefit if they invest in social services like they did during the New Deal.

As long as there are cost-controls on whatever money is spent on these "selfish" local social services, you can make a very strong argument that this money is a high-risk investment for the government with the intent of returning a profit at the end of the investment. All of a sudden these benefits aren't evil selfish local services, but a profitable market for the government -something conservatives usually like.

Also, it will be strategically hard for the United States to try and have this "global withholding tax", given that it has so many foreign stakeholders it may as well rename itself to "ChinaJapanUK Inc". It'd really suck for the US to implement the tax and then have China come knocking asking for the US to repay it's debt.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

So. There was something a little weird about Humane's thread here.

A question:

Why is it necessary to deny someone a need?

One must have defined need before this question becomes relevant:

Water is a need.

Healthcare is a need.

Cash assistance to some is NOT a need. (To me it is as one must have bus fare to get to a job interview for example, in order to raise oneself out of poverty, or even to buy toilet paper!)

Food is a need.

One of the conservative arguments is that the need should be met for a very limited time, after which it is assumed the recipient has become accustomed to living on aid instead of using it as a bridge to their next job. In this argument, it no longer becomes a need after a set time.

So now, with the above definitions, AND with the beginning statement of finite resources, it becomes necessary to deny needs to conserve financial resources. The needs can only be provided for a limited time to help out until one is independent again. If you are newly poor, you are not denied, if you are poor for years, you're out of luck.

This is the argument I am facing.

Simplicity: Thanks, excellent ammo! History can teach us if we remember!

[Saya]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

One of the conservative arguments is that the need should be met for a very limited time, after which it is assumed the recipient has become accustomed to living on aid instead of using it as a bridge to their next job. In this argument, it no longer becomes a need after a set time.

I know we all might have anecdotes about people we're aware of being on welfare and drinking their money away and never intending to work, but the thing is, humans generally need to work and feel productive. When you're unemployed for a long time and you're prone to health issues like addiction or depression, it gets a lot worse because you feel so low. And then its hard to get a job because you're a mess. I had a friend in that situation and it was a program that helped young people get back in school that got him on his feet again. I really doubt there's a lazy pandemic among the poor.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

One of the conservative arguments is that the need should be met for a very limited time, after which it is assumed the recipient has become accustomed to living on aid instead of using it as a bridge to their next job. In this argument, it no longer becomes a need after a set time.

So now, with the above definitions, AND with the beginning statement of finite resources, it becomes necessary to deny needs to conserve financial resources. The needs can only be provided for a limited time to help out until one is independent again. If you are newly poor, you are not denied, if you are poor for years, you're out of luck.

This is the argument I am facing.

Simplicity: Thanks, excellent ammo! History can teach us if we remember!

The problem with time limits is that they're too inefficient. I fully agree that there needs to be a check against the thought of someone abusing any welfare systems and limiting the time someone can be on the welfare system is probably a good idea. That being said, unless you conduct a massive study to determine the perfect "time", you're left with two options. You can either have too short of time limit and risk missing meeting the essential needs of those who are legitimately on the welfare system or you can risk have too long of a time limit and risk having a widely inefficient system.

The solution is to address things on a case-by-case basis. That way your only cost is the case workers, and you can optimize resources while still meeting the needs of those on the system. If you have a lazy guy who is just living on the social welfare system because it's cozy: kick him out and save the resources. If you have someone who is down on their luck but putting in their best effort: spend the resources on them and keep them in the system.

That should address their concerns.

And thanks.

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

One must have defined need before this question becomes relevant:

Water is a need.

Healthcare is a need.

Cash assistance to some is NOT a need. (To me it is as one must have bus fare to get to a job interview for example, in order to raise oneself out of poverty, or even to buy toilet paper!)

Food is a need.

You forgot housing and education, but I can't fault you for that. The needs are a mile long. It's probably easier to define what ISN'T a need.

One of the conservative arguments is that the need should be met for a very limited time, after which it is assumed the recipient has become accustomed to living on aid instead of using it as a bridge to their next job. In this argument, it no longer becomes a need after a set time.

Then how come they can't define a time limit? When we try to define a time limit, is it not entirely arbitrary and that in essence, it's impossible to define a time limit? In that case, the idea of it being a limited time is a bit absurd as it implies that after a while of help, you're really back where you started anyway where there was no social safety net to keep you alive. It'd be easier and more honest and cost effective for a conservative to say that they'd rather one's lack of innovation, exceptionalism, and entrepreneurship define weather they sink or swim. Live or die. If there's a time limit on welfare, you have to admit that that kind of person doesn't believe a human being has needs short of anything we can't take ownership of such as oxygen and the use of a language.

So now, with the above definitions, AND with the beginning statement of finite resources, it becomes necessary to deny needs to conserve financial resources. The needs can only be provided for a limited time to help out until one is independent again. If you are newly poor, you are not denied, if you are poor for years, you're out of luck.

This is the argument I am facing.

Then they're not arguing about needs, they're appealing to the idea that there's no such thing as social responsibility towards a fellow citizen. Ask them why it's okay to give a need regardless for a few months, but it's okay to remove a need after a few months. Ask them how that's any different than just not providing needs at all.

Simplicity: Thanks, excellent ammo! History can teach us if we remember!

Yeah, that is some good ammo. It's not to say that there will ever be a complete equilibrium amongst all people. But it is to say that the measure of success should be limited to the point that it begins to infringe on common needs. So long as a nations citizens or people in general are at least promised that their needs are met without limit, without threat of annihilation, then it'd be fair to entertain the rewards of exceptional work.

Basically, despite what one might think is a product of their success, it is wrong, inhuman, and deadly to amass so much capital that it in effect depraves a common need. We are either all humans or we are okay with the "other" dying so that we MIGHT have more.