this article says:
Not in America it didn't, becuse there were plenty of exits from poverty available and every church in the country (which at the time was more or less insanely religous) operated outreach type programs.
It seems your definition of "sucked" is "you could not just feed off the public teat for your entire life". If that is the case, you are entirely correct. BUT, at the same time, you actually had a chance to do something with your life.
Basically he's saying that the Libertarianism of the 18th-19th centuries was good and that people were happy and that the poverty wasn't bad, since they had all kinds of exits to escape poverty. I don't see how this is possible, since situations really didn't change untill around the second industrial revolution with more government involvement.
Charites and churches provide more jobs, money, and homes than does socialism? How is this? Why don't we rely on charities then?
Department of housing and urban development issues a quarterly report re:housing placement and availability. Labor department keeps data on government job placement programs. For private programs you have to "go to the source".
The problem with your plan is the waste inherent to any government program. With 80% of total revenue going to cover administrative costs being considered acceptable, and 50% being considered fairly high for a government program, only a relatively small fraction of the total money "donated" through taxation actually provides any benifit to the poor. Local privet charities, though (which I differetiate from large national charities because most f the large national charities have number no better, and often worse, than their government counterparts), have a flowthrough of nearly 80%, and in many cases 100%, since they often rely on volunteer labor and donated facilities.
1. IT seems to me as if this is misleading. It doesn't say how many are helped or if one helps more or the other helps more. All it seems to say is that private is more efficient, but this doesn't say anything about quanity of people helped,e ven if a small sum goes to the poor.
2. He also didn't actually provide evidence for the private: you have to go to the "source." Local charities, not national.
So basically, we are to rely on local charities for federal projects?
I don't even know how to respond to this. Libertarianism worked, but no socialism works? Private is the way to go: efficiency? How can priviate charity help the masses who are in need of help.
If the taxation in question actually resulted in the majority of those funds ending up assisting the poor, there wouldn't be a problem. Again, you fail to address the inefficiency inherent to government programs. That seems to be the achilles heel of you entire thought process. It is why socialist societies inevitably fail. We spenmd huge amounts of money for relatively small gains, at the same time stifiling industry and depriving them of low cost labor, which decreases opportunities to exit from poverty.
As long as you are runnign a job surplus and your economy is growing, poverty can be written off as a temporary.
At the end of the day, we have tried both ways. Mine worked. Yours didn't. Not only did yours not work, it has led to the breeding of a sub class of people.....professional welfare recipients. Today, a child raised on welfare is almost certain to end up a long time welfare recipient themselves. And why not? That is how they were raised, how they learned the system works. You sit at home all day and once a week get your welfare check and get money put into your vision card account.
-- Asuka
