Calling All Fiscal Conservatives

[rjaypeters]

Suppose you get what you really want: the repeal of the New Deal and the Great Society programs.

What then? Millions, unfortunately, depend on payments (AKA entitlements) from Social Security (e.g. my mom). Is my family now solely responsible to care for her?

Just want to know so we can plan. Thanks.

[KitemanSA]

Suppose you get what you really want: the repeal of the New Deal and the Great Society programs.

What then? Millions, unfortunately, depend on payments (AKA entitlements) from Social Security (e.g. my mom). Is my family now solely responsible to care for her?

Just want to know so we can plan. Thanks.

Can't speak for everyone, but Chile lead the way into the social insecurity mess, and we followed. They have lead the way out too. But we have not followed. We should.

Basically, with details forgotten because they did this several decades ago:

• * Retired folks on SS stayed on SS.
  * Working folks who had been "donating" into the SS system for a goodly number of years (20?) were encouraged to remain there.
  * Working folks who had "donating" less than that but more than just a few years were encouraged to leave.
  * Young folks with just a few years were dropped and no-one else was put into the system.

Everyone realized that general taxes would have to cover the deficites for the "last folks standing" but they accepted that in order to prevent the major problems that were looming down the line.

No-one was thrown out into the cold!

[WizWom]

A society has a responsibility to people who are poor, to a very small degree.

The responsibility is to keep them safe and keep them from being an annoyance to others. We do not owe them comfort or dignity. In fact, a condition which is just on the verge of being insulting would give incentive to leave if you possibly could.

This responsibility may sensibly and cheaply be met with dormitory-style housing, with shared bedrooms and bathrooms. Married couples would have a shared room, with young children - school age children would start staying in age-segregated dormitories.

Food should NEVER be allowed in these rooms. Now would they be wired for power, other than the lights. Everybody would be up at 7 AM to get breakfast, and lights out would be 10 PM.

You want booze, entertainment, and whatever else, you have to earn the money yourself. There would be a couple security guards, and cameras in every space. Anyone committing a crime would be promptly arrested and sent to jail.

Food kitchens, and these dormitories, would be free to anyone, no questions asked. It's just as much of a problem to have someone living in their car while they work for the cash to get a new apartment as it is to have a homeless guy living under a bridge and panhandling.

Medical care would be provided by expanding the funding of the VA's hospital system.

The idea is to NEVER GIVE ANYONE MONEY but provide services at the absolutely lowest quality acceptable.

The people on welfare can be marshaled to build these places themselves, as a start to the programs, like the WPA. They can stay in tents while they are building, and the tent area can become a park when the housing is built.

[chrismb]

To my mind, the solution is so very simple, yet so taboo for libertarians' discussions, it seems.

I think there *should* be a good safety net for people who fall through to the bottom of the society. And I mean really good, so you actually *feel* like a burden on society and want to get [back into?] useful work. But if someone cannot look after themselves, then they should be forbade from having offspring.

The argument is terribly simple; if you cannot take care of yourself, then you cannot look after others as well, and so if you breed and have more like yourself then you are irresponsible and therefore are not fit to take care of children. The act of having children while you are on benefits is, in itself, proof of being unfit for parenthood.

I do not begrudge people with benefits. What I begrudge is that they are free to have as many children as they want, whilst I truly struggle to keep enough funding coming in for two. I have see too many documentaries in the UK about families on benefits with >12 children [and, consequently, a bigger monthly income that I have got!!]. Makes me sick.

You may ask what happens if such persons *do* end up having more children. The answer is; you help 3rd world countries: You ship them to a third world country with whom you've set up an agreement to pay that country the benefits that'd otherwise go to these people, and the country can then look after them to the same average standards as everyone else in that country (which should mean plenty of motivation due to the net financial benefit of that arrangement). Once they get a job back home, then they can come back. The environment might hopefully help reduce their urge to fornicate and reproduce irresponsibly.

[WizWom]

But if someone cannot look after themselves, then they should be forbade from having offspring.

My solution: If the Government pays for your birth, then you get sterilized, no exceptions. BOTH parents.

Real good incentive to either get birth control or earn enough money.

[chrismb]

My solution: If the Government pays for your birth, then you get sterilized, no exceptions. BOTH parents.

Real good incentive to either get birth control or earn enough money.

Therein lies the problem; whilst some try to have a rational conversation about responsibilities versus 'unsupported breeding', it decends into a discussion on forcible sterilisation just because someone might've lost their job?! No wonder the liberals object to even discussing it... they figure they know where the conversation will go.

[hanelyp]

On the one hand, we want to have compassion for the unemployed.

On the other, we face moral hazards in programs to support the jobless. And taxes to support such programs are a disincentive to working, or running a business. I'd go so far as to say that these hazards are responsible for a large measure of the poverty these programs are supposed to remedy.

Used to be charity was on individuals and churches, no government involved. Those who willing to work for a living may not have had much, but generally had enough to get by. Elevate that by the vast improvement in wealth for society as a whole we've seen in the free world in the last century, and they should do more than well enough.

[Diogenes]

Suppose you get what you really want: the repeal of the New Deal and the Great Society programs.

What then? Millions, unfortunately, depend on payments (AKA entitlements) from Social Security (e.g. my mom). Is my family now solely responsible to care for her?

Just want to know so we can plan. Thanks.

A lot of us have said from the very beginning that Social Security and Medicaid were Ponzi schemes. Now that it is becoming obvious to everyone that they are coming unraveled, we should feel sorry for those who believed the lie? Who voted for more of the lie?

Franklin Delanor Roosevelt was a Socialist who did more to screw up our country than any President before him. He advocated an idea that was simply impossible to make functional, and everyone with that pie in the sky dream simply refused to do the arithmetic.

I guess you aren't getting it. It would defy the laws of physics to save these programs because they were never viable in the first place. They only looked viable because the work force was so large, and government could borrow money for so many years.

[Diogenes]

A society has a responsibility to people who are poor, to a very small degree.

The responsibility is to keep them safe and keep them from being an annoyance to others. We do not owe them comfort or dignity. In fact, a condition which is just on the verge of being insulting would give incentive to leave if you possibly could.

This responsibility may sensibly and cheaply be met with dormitory-style housing, with shared bedrooms and bathrooms. Married couples would have a shared room, with young children - school age children would start staying in age-segregated dormitories.

Food should NEVER be allowed in these rooms. Now would they be wired for power, other than the lights. Everybody would be up at 7 AM to get breakfast, and lights out would be 10 PM.

You want booze, entertainment, and whatever else, you have to earn the money yourself. There would be a couple security guards, and cameras in every space. Anyone committing a crime would be promptly arrested and sent to jail.

Food kitchens, and these dormitories, would be free to anyone, no questions asked. It's just as much of a problem to have someone living in their car while they work for the cash to get a new apartment as it is to have a homeless guy living under a bridge and panhandling.

Medical care would be provided by expanding the funding of the VA's hospital system.

The idea is to NEVER GIVE ANYONE MONEY but provide services at the absolutely lowest quality acceptable.

The people on welfare can be marshaled to build these places themselves, as a start to the programs, like the WPA. They can stay in tents while they are building, and the tent area can become a park when the housing is built.

This is EXACTLY the plan I suggested over a year ago. (If you don't believe me, I can probably find the postings on this website) It is likewise, the exact thinking I advocated. NEVER GIVE THEM MONEY!

As I pointed out, one of the major reasons poor people are poor is because THEY CAN'T MANAGE MONEY! So what does this country do? It gives them money. Dumbest thing in the world.

[Diogenes]

To my mind, the solution is so very simple, yet so taboo for libertarians' discussions, it seems.

I think there *should* be a good safety net for people who fall through to the bottom of the society. And I mean really good, so you actually *feel* like a burden on society and want to get [back into?] useful work. But if someone cannot look after themselves, then they should be forbade from having offspring.

The argument is terribly simple; if you cannot take care of yourself, then you cannot look after others as well, and so if you breed and have more like yourself then you are irresponsible and therefore are not fit to take care of children. The act of having children while you are on benefits is, in itself, proof of being unfit for parenthood.

I do not begrudge people with benefits. What I begrudge is that they are free to have as many children as they want, whilst I truly struggle to keep enough funding coming in for two. I have see too many documentaries in the UK about families on benefits with >12 children [and, consequently, a bigger monthly income that I have got!!]. Makes me sick.

You may ask what happens if such persons *do* end up having more children. The answer is; you help 3rd world countries: You ship them to a third world country with whom you've set up an agreement to pay that country the benefits that'd otherwise go to these people, and the country can then look after them to the same average standards as everyone else in that country (which should mean plenty of motivation due to the net financial benefit of that arrangement). Once they get a job back home, then they can come back. The environment might hopefully help reduce their urge to fornicate and reproduce irresponsibly.

ANOTHER Idea which I put forth, and everyone blasted me for being so mean an intolerant. YES! If you can't afford to have children, you shouldn't be having any.

The way *I* presented the idea was to suggest that if someone has a child, and the government has to pay the medical bills and provide support, the girl and the boy must go through a mandatory sterilization (reversible) procedure. A Vasectomy for the males, and a tubal ligation for the females.

Don't want that to happen? TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS!

These ideas allow people to be as free as they want, but helps those who cannot take care of themselves responsibly enough that they should not starve or go without shelter and clothing. It also prevents them from multiplying their misery. As one Supreme court justice said, two generations of imbeciles is enough.

[Diogenes]

But if someone cannot look after themselves, then they should be forbade from having offspring.

My solution: If the Government pays for your birth, then you get sterilized, no exceptions. BOTH parents.

Real good incentive to either get birth control or earn enough money.

Where were you guys when I was pushing these ideas a year ago?

[chrismb]

But if someone cannot look after themselves, then they should be forbade from having offspring.

My solution: If the Government pays for your birth, then you get sterilized, no exceptions. BOTH parents.

Real good incentive to either get birth control or earn enough money.

This discussion of sterilisation is a bit sick. Put in measures to reduce the unsupported population burden, sure, that is what I am discussing, but it is an economic issue and can not be reasonably dealt with by what you are suggesting, which, potentially, is corporal punishment by mutilation of potentially entirely innocent people.

It is pretty sick, and why, as I suspect, the mere commencement of such discussions are objected to by political processes. Presumably they might think that although the argument starts out senisibly, it is only going to end up in the kind of blood-lust shown here. I guess I can see their point. Please stop it, you are suggesting mutilating children just because their parents have committed some sort of social wrong in your eyes!?!?!

Hey, why don't we round up the children of all thieves and chop their hands off! That migh then dissuade the thieves?

Why don't we throw stones at them?

...Maybe, why don't we make it a law to stone to death children of murders. Maybe that won't be enough, maybe we could do it to anyone who has committed manslaughter, maybe drunk while driving.

Cool, there it is then, let's make a law in which the children of drunk drivers are stoned to death, in public (which would be even more dissuasive for people to drink and drive).

What a lot of crap! I'm disgusted that my suggestion was elaborated on in such a way that would advocate forcible sterilisation of people for issues that may be beyond their control.

[MSimon]

Chris,

I'm on the Social Security dole. I don't live well. But well enough.

I have used my time to continue making what contributions I could. If every one did that we would not be in nearly the same mess we are in.

My work on Polywell and other small fusion is a direct result of me having the time to do it.

And re: your Sat Sep 18, 2010 8:38 pm

Right on. There is way too much eliminationist rhetoric going around. People taking glee in evil. Sick mofos.

And why don't I feel guilty living on the dole? For at least the next few years I'm just getting back what I paid in - involuntarily.

[MSimon]

But if someone cannot look after themselves, then they should be forbade from having offspring.

My solution: If the Government pays for your birth, then you get sterilized, no exceptions. BOTH parents.

Real good incentive to either get birth control or earn enough money.

Where were you guys when I was pushing these ideas a year ago? :)

Calling you an evil bastard.

[rjaypeters]

Thank you all for your informative and interesting posts. Below, I quote a lot of people out of context, please forgive me if I misrepresent your ideas in my answer. I'm not answering all of your posts and I'm taking them out of chronological order for my own purposes.

Can't speak for everyone, but Chile lead the way into the social insecurity mess, and we followed. They have lead the way out too.

I must read up about Chile's Social Security example, thanks for the heads-up. Can you recommend any sources?

WizWom wrote about "dormitories" which provide neither comfort nor dignity for those formerly on Welfare (an eliminated program) and:

The people on welfare can be marshaled to build these places themselves, as a start to the programs, like the WPA. They can stay in tents while they are building, and the tent area can become a park when the housing is built.

IIRC, WPA was a government program, so I believe WPA as a model is eliminated as an option by the anti-New Deal ground rule of this thread. Although I can recommend dormitory and apartment living, I prefer another organizational principle which I write about below.

chrismb wrote about ("welfare") benefit recipients who have children:

You may ask what happens if such persons *do* end up having more children. The answer is; you help 3rd world countries: You ship them to a third world country with whom you've set up an agreement to pay that country the benefits that'd otherwise go to these people, and the country can then look after them to the same average standards as everyone else in that country (which should mean plenty of motivation due to the net financial benefit of that arrangement).

With an opportunity of return to the homeland.
I must think hard about this idea. I wonder if involuntary deportation of citizens is ever a good idea. Something about cleaning up one's own messes.

My solution: If the Government pays for your birth, then you get sterilized, no exceptions. BOTH parents.

Real good incentive to either get birth control or earn enough money.

I am not clear on the concept, the parents get sterilized? And the children?

Please stop it, you are suggesting mutilating children just because their parents have committed some sort of social wrong in your eyes!?!?!

I'm trying to find out if the other correspondents recommend the the childrenare subject to sterilization.

Used to be charity was on individuals and churches, no government involved. Those who willing to work for a living may not have had much, but generally had enough to get by. Elevate that by the vast improvement in wealth for society as a whole we've seen in the free world in the last century, and they should do more than well enough.

This is actually where I hoped the conversation would go. I once politely argued with my boss (a Canadian Forces Major) about these ideas and I quote: "If it is so important, the government should do it." I was a whippersnapper then and wasn't ready with my current answer: "If it is so important then "We, the People", and I don't mean our government, must do it." "We" means my charitable giving. along with that of millions of people in our homelands.

I'm hoping the tax burden will fall steeply with the end of the New Deal and Great Society programs (Huzzah!). At the same time, millions of Federal and State government employees will become unemployed (keep the cheering down out there). What will they do with themselves?