How should I answer this? RE: Government Services

[Bettie]

I have a friend who I have been having a debate with on a discussion group we both belong to. We have very different political view, obviously, but I need to answer a point she made and I'm not sure I'm saying the right thing. I know you guys can help me!

To paraphrase, it all started with a debate about schools and what schools should/can do for our children. This woman is a very solid Republican (she's for W because "he believes in personal responsibility").

Her point is that services for the poor (e.g. welfare, AFDC, WIC, college grants, medicaid, medicare...even to some extent public schools)should be done away with. Once this happens, all of these services will be be provided by "communities, churches, neighborhoods, and charities" which are "a better safety net than the government". She further says she'd rather give her money to charities than the government (my guess is that there would be far less given that way, but I think she'd be insulted if I said so).

She also believes that only Republicans believe in personal responsibility which blows my mind based on the lack of same I've seen in our government recently.

My response thus far is that A. these groups cannot possibly meet the need and B. Often there are strings attached which keep people from applying or getting this kind of help.

So, what do you think I should bring up here....my goal is to provide a debate, not to insult anyone.

Bettie

[shraby]

1. I wouldn't even discuss it with her until she can

justify to you the corporate welfare programs i.e. tax breaks to move into an area given by local and state governments, etc. not to mention the huge bailouts such as we've just witnessed in the financial market, Chrysler in the 1980s. That is our tax monies providing those bailouts and I personally know of no individual on welfare who can hold a candle to the amounts of taxes given to corporations. In fact I seriously doubt that all the welfare recipients combined can match in one year what was just handed to the financial markets to provide liquidity in the face of the sub-prime meltdown.

[Bettie]

4. Thank you!

Good one....I'm incorporating that question into my response!

[madokie]

8. isn't chrysler out of place there as they paid off their loan, did they not

but I get your point though

[AndyTiedye]

23. Chrysler Could Never Have GOTTEN That Loan From Private Sources

[madokie]

28. and so

did I miss something

[Warpy]

2. Just ask her why, if charities had been doing such a great job,

did Congress feel a need to step in and augment that great job with taxes?

If charities were so very generous, why was there ever a need to support abandoned women and children?

If charities and families provided support, why was there a need for Social Security for the aged, orphaned and disabled?

Fuckheads who don't know history want us all to repeat it just so they can learn the hard way.

[napi21]

5. And as to Pubs taking personal responsibility, why hasn't there been ANYONE take responsibility for

the hundreds of "mistakes" that have been made over the last 6 1/2 years? Every Department of the Fed. Gov't is headed by a Pub! The FBI. CIA, FDA, CUSTOMS, DOD, DOJ....is only a few that have screwed up BIG TIME, yet nobody ever has to pay a price for their errors and incompetence!

[Bettie]

6. I did put in a sentence about that too.....

Still working on my response, but you guys are good!

Thanks!

[HeraldSquare212]

3. History?

These programs were established for a reason, mostly in the Great Depression - private charities were simply inadequate. And most cities etc. had some sort of government 'welfare' going back to colonial times, though granted they often involved work rather than just payments.

[shraby]

7. Another point you can make...

If there weren't the social programs instituted during the Great Depression like social security and welfare, surplus food giveaway which has become food stamps, we would have had another Great Depression in the 1980s, and headed toward another right now. Even though the economy melts down there is always money for the people thrown into destitution by the melt down so it can only go just so deep. It may not be a lot of money, but it's just enough to ward off a repeat of the 1930s. People may lose their homes, savings, etc. but by applying for aid they can still eat. Granted it would be substandard meals, but they will be able to eat IF they can provide an address in order to qualify for aid.

[madokie]

9. just for shits and grins m'k

Interpretation: SERVICE
At one time in my life, I thought I had a handle on the meaning of the word "service."
" It's the act of doing things for other people."
Then I heard these terms which reference the word SERVICE:

Internal Revenue Service

Electric Service

Postal Service

Telephone Service

Civil Service

City & County Public Service

Customer Service

Service Stations

Then I became confused about the word " service ." This is not what I thought "service" meant.
So today, I overheard two farmers talking, and one of them said he had hired a bull to "service " a few of his cows . BAM! It all came into perspective. Now I understand what all those "service" agencies are doing to us.
I hope you now are as enlightened as I am.

[Bettie]

10. OK....that was hilarious!

I am LMAO and my two kids are wondering what's so funny, but they're too young to understand.

But they may understand more than I think....I got called to school last year when my son identified a photo fof W as "Emperor Bunnypants". There was a meeting.

[helderheid]

20. !!!

:rofl: :spray:

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. As a teacher, I can report that privatization has failed

in education. Privatization is in the form of charter schools. And the vast majority of them have not succeeded. Yes, we hear a few success stories but most of them are not meeting the educational needs of our kids. It is rare for a charter school to last more than a few years.

Plus they can be exclusive about who they admit, while a traditional public school has to admit every child. Charter schools are also becoming notorious for expelling kids they don't want to deal with anymore.

[unpossibles]

12. reframe the question a bit to her

Ask her how she would feel if she lived somewhere with no family and friends and no local church and all of a sudden and random illness struck her, which made her lose her job, insurance, and house. Would she want to feel that the fairly small part of her check that goes to Welfare is worth the safety net?

Also, remind her that all of the things which enable us to take advantage of a society where we can hope to prosper and better ourselves cost money. Most businesses would fail without public streets, a safe environment, an interstate and/or rail program, and a stable economy, and that things like welfare are part of what enables businesses to grow.

I don't understand how people can be so greedy. They act like Welfare and taxes should be abolished, and pretend that they would still gladly pay money to provide those same services privately, so.... if they are willing to still pay, why spend the extra money a private company would charge.

She doesn't believe privatization is expensive? Have her call Blackwater and the Pentagon and compare prices of what their soldiers are paid. Republicans somehow magically assume that private companies have no bureaucratic waste, and that cities/states/nations don't really cost any money to run. If we had the Republican Dream of a nation where government barely exists, I'd give it 3 years before they all cried to have their police, garbage, fire, roads, and social services back. Or maybe they prefer the good old days of slavery, child labor, and no weekends.

[berni_mccoy]

13. Some Counter Points:

Her philosophy is the flawed republican philosophy that has ended in miserable failure with respect to our existing
- Health care system (watch Sicko)
- Infrastructure (black-outs, energy-crisis, levy's breaking, bridges falling)
- Military (our military is decimated and can't recruit, vet's get worst treatment of any citizen and are held accountable for policy failures)
- Economy (housing market bubble just popped, shipping jobs overseas, rewarding oil companies and wal-marts for scalping and paying people non-livable wages, fed bailing dumping billions into market to prevent collapse while the value of the dollar plummets)
- Government (as corrupt as ever, the republicans have funneled billions of tax-payer dollars into the pockets of the political elite, rw-media and corporations)

Primarily:

1. The poor can not be forced to turn to religion for charity
a. Religions lack the resources to fill the needs (not everyone is religious and/or donates to charity)
b. Many religions already do as much as they can to help the poor and/or sick and yet it is still not enough
c. By forcing a person to turn to a religion you are putting them in a situation of obligation, even if the church says no strings attached

2. Look at health-care as the exemplary of this republican philosophy
a. Republicans said health-care should be privatized and that free market should determine health-care service quality and efficiency. Where did that get us?
b. Republicans say we have the best health care in the world: they are wrong. And the technology available is only available to those who can pay...
c. Ask her if the poor should die because they can't afford health care

[jebediah]

14. some ideas

'Her point is that services for the poor (e.g. welfare, AFDC, WIC, college grants, medicaid, medicare...even to some extent public schools)should be done away with. Once this happens, all of these services will be be provided by "communities, churches, neighborhoods, and charities" which are "a better safety net than the government".'

... Ok, what's stopping them now? The needs of the poor aren't being fully supplied by gov. services and there's plenty of room for additional support. If these resources are so superior they should at least be there for the balance of current needs, right?

... And, where in history is the precedent? Communities, churches, neighborhoods and charities have been around for a long time, so they should have a record of this sort of capacity.

... What in our market system would drive this unprecedented philanthropy? How do the economics of this work? (And, *no,* private services are not always more efficient than gov. services, assuming still that 100% of the recovered taxes would go right back into some sort of private equivalent.)

... Note that she has the burden of proof to support her arguments. Just ask for proof, or at least some evidence.

"Personal Responsibility"

... Can she clearly define what this means? After clearly defining, does she have concrete examples of how one party represents this more than the other?
... Her notion of community support would seem to belie "personal responsibility" from the recipient's perspective, same as gov. support.
... Is she *really* going to argue that W's administration is for "personal responsibility?" *REALLY?*

This could go on forever...

[uppityperson]

15. the gvt, those programs were the community

All those things are things a community can provide for its members, and difficult to provide each individually. Our government is (supposed to be) by and of and for the people, banding together to do those things.

Is she saying smaller, more local involvement is better? I agree.

Personal involvement first. Then family. Then friends. Then others in your community. Then a larger community. Then larger. At each step, at each stage of "community" there are things that can be done.

However, there are also things that cannot be done, services not provided, that can be done at the larger community levels. All the way to being a Community of Earthlings.

As far as "only Republicans believe in personal responsibility", I'd just laugh and ask for examples rather than talking points. You should be able to provide counter examples as you go.

[berni_mccoy]

16. Almost forgot: TURN THE TABLE ON HER:

Ask her the following:

- How frequently she goes to church?
- When was the last time she volunteered her services to help the poor? How often does she doe this?
- Does she tithe at the prescribed rate of 10%? If everyone did that we would have no problem affording the services that she so despises.
- How many people in her church does she personally know (not counting pastor/reverend/priest) who regularly do work for charity?

If she is the typical repub, she does none of the above and will shut up (or lie and say she does; see below)
and
if she does these things, ask her if she is the typical charity worker or not. She's probably in the top 1% of charity workers/benefactors and that is what is wrong with a church fulfilling the needs of these services.

[Bettie]

19. I know her well enough to answer some of these questions....

She attends church nearly every Sunday.

She delivers meals on wheels weekly (her workplace gives her the time off to do this).

Don't know about tithing or the people in her church who do work for charity.

[Sanctified]

17. If she believes that a charity, church or community

is better equipped to handle social services than the government she should put her money where her mouth is and stop using the government and ask her church for everything she needs, lets see how far she gets with that free education for her kids.

A free market works both ways, if someone can do something better and cheaper than the government then people will use their service instead of the government.

[EstimatedProphet]

18. Try this:

What is the real difference between government providing these services and charities providing these services? Near as I can see, the only real difference is public vs. private management, assuming that all the other functions are the same. So, why prefer to have the functions of the employees out of your control, as they would be in a private charity? A charity is privately held, so that the employees are responsible to the organization management and the organization is responsible to stockholders, rather than an a government agency with public ownership so that the employees are responsible to the general public. Does the argument boil down to 'My taxes are too high?' I bet it does, and if it does then all they want is to get away with being stingy, and the 'charity' crap is only about being able to put $5 a year towards fixing our problems and then ignoring the problem.

[bbgrunt]

21. if she believes in personal responsibility ask

her why NO ONE has been held to account for failures on 9-11 or the quagmire in Iraq or for the levy breaks in NO, or lack of defense of our borders, etc. etc. Personal responsibility also means public accountability--and the republicans have shown that they are total hypocrites. They talk a good game but provide endless corporate welfare and only demand responsibility from those who need help.

[Irishonly]

22. Oh MY

As someone who works with a Council of Churches, I can tell you donations don't even come close to matching the need. How can your friend guarantee people will donate to charities all year around and not just during the holidays? How can she even think about anyone, let alone a child, go hungry? Bush supporters buy into the bs hook, line and sinker that everyone who is poor is lazy and made poor choices.

[guitar man]

24. I would point out

that ever since the beggining of Reagan's "trickle down economics", when we somehow were duped into believing that it's somehow good public policy to kiss the powdered and pampered asses of the aristocratic class in this country, the idea that the "private sector" will provide all that is needed to the working classes and underpriveleged masses has proven itself to be complete and utter bullshit.

They can re-brand it "supply side economics" or whatever in the hell they want, but ever since the "trickle down" school of thought has started, those at the top have attacked the so-called trickle with sponges, mops and corks to try and stop it. Layoffs, outsourcing, union busting, starvation wages and so on and so forth have pushed more and more people towards and eventually below the poverty line every day.

I'd point out that if the "captains of industry" in this country had practiced some semblence of social responsibility over these last 26-27 years, the need for such programs would be a fraction of what it is today. Somehow, I doubt many of these robber barons support the Democratic party or its candidates. ;)

[yardwork]

25. I'd ask her to give examples of the "personal responsibility" exemplified by w and his party.

Ask her to get back to you when she has the list. You probably won't hear from her for a while.

[johan helge]

26. It's all about greed, forget these big words about personal responsibility

Doesn't your friend know the history? Earlier, the government did next to nothing for the needy. Everything was left to charities. Then the government gave the needy rights, and that gave the needy security they didn't have before.

Why does your friend want to reverse history? She thinks the needy get to much? Then I suggest she reads something about how the needy live.

And ask her: Why does she want all this suffering? To create more "personal responsibility"? Well, most needy people can't help their situation. They have more than enough incitaments to work etc.

Tell her: Bush etc. would not feed a starving child, but instead lecture it about personal responsibility - simply because feeding the child would cost money. It's all about greed, forget these big words about personal responsibility.

[AndyTiedye]

27. So The Only Affordable Schools Are Run by Churches

all of these services will be be provided by "communities, churches, neighborhoods, and charities"

They want to make your kids go to their church school so they'll come out Fundies.

[intaglio]

29. I do not know if this is the case in the USA but

In the UK resposibility for these services were taken by government because the local, charitable, private and church provision was so poor and variable. Schools were provided (for the majority) by Church foundations and there was no standard of provision, these were so-called "board schools". Private schools; including what we Brits call "Public Schools"; mostly gave an elite education and almost certain admission to University (all too often though they gave an education that was brutal and bigoted) in the worst cases they could resemble "Dotheboys Hall" from Nicholas Nicholby

Hospitals were in much the same boat as you have now in the USA; charity institutions were overworked, those with some insurance were means tested against their ability to pay and wholly private hospitals offered wonderful care and many useless unnecessary proceedures - for a price.

Welfare for the unemployed or "disabled" provided locally or by charity was at best poor and at worst overwhelmed; all was means tested and the slightest excuse was enough to allow help to be denied. The biggest incitement to socialism in this country's history was the horrifying cases of those men returned from the Great War.

The elderly and infirm unable to afford private care were sentenced to the workhouse, for these Elizabethan institutions were still flourishing into the 1930's; indeed I knew several elderly people who would refuse to go to certain hospitals because they were ex-workhouses and the only reason people went to them was to die.

If your friend wants to know what lack of Government provision means let her read Dickens, Steinbeck, and Thornton Wilder ; "The Ragged Trousered Philanthopists", "How Green was my Valley" and many, many others.

[wuushew]

30. No successful libertarian government exists any where on Earth

n/t

[guitar man]

31. and another damn thing

I'd ask her just who all she thinks our welfare programs work to benefit. I don't know about other states, but here in Oklahoma, WalMart is king and they have the welfare program working to their advantage.

When you call 28 hours a week full time employment and pay most of your employees $6-8 per hour, that's not enough to feed my dog on, let alone a family. I have in-laws that work or have worked forWM and have heard the same story from every one of them. At the time of hiring, the HR person for WM sat right at their desk and whipped out a food stamp application and asked if they wanted tham to go ahead and fill it out and submit it for the new hire. Publicly funded housing seems to always crop up around the Supercenters too.As usual,let the middle class actual working taxpayers fund the ride for the robber barons.

Ask her if these programs are all so bad, why in the hell didn't the repugs that she supports just go ahead and get rid of them. I mean damn, they had both houses of congress and the WH for 4 solid years, I can't think of a single excuse for them not doing anything they wanted to during that time.

[johan helge]

32. Increasing the minimum wage would increase the incitaments to work

And ask your friend: Increasing the minimum wage would increase the incitaments to work. So why won't the Repubs increase the minimum wage? Because A) they think cleaners etc. earn too much, compared to wealthy people? Or B), because that would make cleaning more expensive for wealthy people? Don't let her pretend it's A - A is simply too ridiculous.

[zalinda]

33. How does she feel about the homeless?

I know some here feel that Reagan did the right thing about closing the state mental institutions, but I disagree. Yes, some people didn't belong there, but some did. Those homeless on the street with mental problems would do a lot better in a clean mental hospital. How terrifying is it when a mentally deranged person is walking down the street with you yelling at you to give them something, or just yelling at you. I can tell you that it is mind numbing. Charities and churches do not have the facilities to handle that. But, if they break no law, they cannot be confined.

This may be something that will let her see that not all government is bad government.

zalinda

[Hamlette]

34. arm yourself with a few facts about welfare

welfare is less than 2% of the federal budget. That includes food stamps. States "match" a TINY amount of that, no way could it bring it up to 3% of tax dollars state and federal combined.

unemployment (in case she brings it up) was designed as much for business as labor. During the depression and with recessions businesses go belly up because no one has money to buy what they sell. This keeps money in the economy which helps business.

Charities do not pick up the slack see: Charles Dickens. If that's okay with her, tell her it is not okay with you to return to beggers on the streets and orphanages.

You can't get welfare unless you work. Unless you have medical proof you cannot work. Period.

The maximum welfare you can get is for 5 years, most states its less. TN for instance is 18 months. My state is 3 years. That's lifetime and it is enforced. If we don't abide by the time limits we lose our federal funding. Unless you have a medical reason, you're cut off of cash assistance at the end of those 5 years in all states. (BTW, cash assistance is about $400 per month for a family of 3 in my state, some states its half that. Not a lot of money. Additionally the "average" welfare family is a 27 year old woman whose husband left her with 1.6 kids and she stays on for 16 months.)

Illegal immigrants do not get welfare unless they are from Cuba or Haiti. Period. Most legal immigrants (non-citizens) are ineligible for a number of years.

The feds and states pay medical expenses for the poor because doctors and hospitals must ethically treat them. If the government didn't pay it, they would push the cost back to us through higher costs. It is more fair to make the cost more equal through taxes.

[Exiled in America]

35. There is a very simple response that serves me well to this r-wing argument:

The simple answer is this: a society's justice is judged by how it treats its poor and less fortunate. If you leave everything up to individuals rather than make it a part of the governmental contract with its people, what happens if the generosity and commitment of the people is insufficient to cover the extent of the need of the people?

The conservative approach of eliminating government services and hoping that private organizations and individuals will fill the game is a theory based entirely on wishful thinking. Conservatives have no plan to ensure that there are enough private organizations and individuals to provide adequate social services to those who need them. They have no plan for how these individuals and organizations will pay for such services - which range from providing food and shelter to providing clinical counseling, medical treatment to those who severely need it -- all without any financial support from the government.

So the conservative idea basically says, screw the poor - hopefully enough "other people" will be around to take care of them, but I don't want my money (taxes) going to a guaranteed system with standards and universal access because I simply want the poor and disadvantaged to be somebody else's problem.

Progressives believe that part of the very structure of a just and civil society includes an absolute standard for the basic treatment of a society's least fortunate citizen. The government should provide the basic foundation of social services to those who need them and cannot readily afford those services via other means. From that foundation, the private sector should build - and amplify and enhance that basic safety net to facilitate and even more compassionate and giving society. But no matter what else, the government should be responsible to guarantee at least basic social services to every single citizen. And the government is the only entity in a position to do that.

The second argument against the total privatization of social services is that there are is then no regulatory agency ensuring that social services are fairly distributed. Maybe the only organization working to provide food or shelter for those who need it only allow you to access that aid if you are straight. Or maybe only if you're white? Or maybe only if your Catholic? That's a scary thought.

Privatization of social services means an unaccountable, unregulated unpredictable system that at any given point may or may not ensure services for the people who need them the very most, and may not dispense those services in a fair and equal manner.

The government has a moral duty to establish the basic foundation of social welfare for its least advantaged citizens - that's what promoting the general welfare means. From that basic foundation, private organizations and individuals can build in their generosity. But that basic guaranteed foundation can never be removed.