Obamacult wrote:The nations that manage social programs are smaller. Hence, government that governs closer to the people, governs best. IN contrast, federal government meddling and regulation has undermined the ability of the states and private individuals and enterprises to address poverty.
This I won't argue with. Like I said, there are other models for social welfare. For example, Minnesota had a great (and *gasp* profitable) public health care program before Tim Pawlenty dismantled it for his own political ambitions. It was cheap - even single white males could get coverage for under $30 per month, including dental, psych, and eyeglasses - and provided top-notch care.
Indeed,non-profit private charity provides far more bang for the buck when compared with the profit seeking government solutions.
Possibly, though this is pretty shaky without hard evidence. A big problem is that non-profit charities are notoriously unstable and unreliable. In addition, they rely on private donations, which unfortunately will not meet all social needs. The other big problem is that the regular rules of supply and demand don't apply to private charity; because money is assigned arbitrarily, you end up with exactly the same problems of mal-distribution as in a command economy.
And if you are naive enough to think that the trillions spent on welfare and health care are not making politicians and politically connected crony capitalists rich --- I got a bridge to sell you in the East River.
I am not so naive, by a long shot. But, I got a bucketful of cliches you might be interested in acquiring...
And I can destroy you government argument with two words --- people mover.
Well, that was certainly a move by a "close to the people" government too, so mind the double edge there. However, compare the mass transit systems of any state in the US - hell, compare any transportation system in the US - to the (government funded) transportation infrastructure of developed countries in Europe or Asia, and the joke's on you. The comparison of the US's finest airports to those in Tehran or Delhi are not off mark.
For another example, I just rode a governemnt-owned high speed train from Taipei to Kaohsiung to visit family for the (Lunar) New Year in absolute luxury... for $40 USD (maybe $60 USD if we adjust for income and cost-of-living differences). Taiwan ain't rich compared to the US, and they have a hell of a lot more people to take care of with the money they've got. Still, tey can provide cheap, effective, and very comfortable public transit systems
tens of millions in federal matching dollars to fund a demonstrably stupid and wasteful crony capitalist boondoggle and you and other progressive talk about the poor !!??
I am the poor, always have been. I am also solidly against crony capitalism, and inefficient government welfare programs. What's your point?
How does wasting hundreds of billions on government spending help anyone?
Hmm? How does wasting money help? Shit, you stumped me.
And the following is just health care whose waste will continue and continue until the nation is bankrupt and no social program however necessary will be funded:
In fiscal year 2010, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)--the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid--estimated that these programs made a total of over $70 billion in improper payments.
Yep, our social welfare system is broken. I argued that from the start. Again, you're not making advances with me here.
In contrast, when a private sector firm fails to this degree, the managers of this waste are removed from their control of vital labor, capital and wealth to the benefit of society.
This is not the reality of how private sector firms work, nor how the engage with the rest of society. Perhaps, if they were so heavily in debt and losing money like our government, someone would pull the plug to save their own pocketbook. Sure, I'll grant you that. However, the fact is that private sector firms cannot be committed to social welfare; it is utterly against the nature of private industry. The private sector works despite public welfare, and we have ample historical evidence to show that capitalism tend to have a deleterious effect on public welfare unless it is rigorously regulated by some kind of governing body.
What you don't understand is that you are not arguing with "the other progressives" - you're arguing with me. I have no illusions about government as a solution to our problems; in fact, I am opposed to most forms of government and agree with you entirely on the issue of local governance. However, as I do not believe that the federal government is capable of effectively regulating the private sector, which, as I've said, does have a deleterious effect on quality of life for most people due to its imperative to concentrate wealth amongst few elites at the expense of the masses, I propose an entirely different order than either capitalism or state socialism.