patrick.net

EInvestor says

We are ! Section 8, food stamps, free Healthcare ! Who pays for it ? Tax payers !

The point is that old system is not reaching everyone who wants/needs it. This new system would provide the basic needs for everyone regardless of age, ethnicity, sex or income/assets.

John Bailo says

Stop having babies and we probably can.

?

Obligatory:

Vaticanus says

Suppose congress, or even just one of the fifty states, decides that effective June 1, 2014 it will provide three meals a day at government cafeterias (these could be set up in or near most workplaces or could offer to go boxes for those who need them) a place for everyone to sleep with clean water for drinking and bathing (some places may be dormitory style), clothing if needed (think blue jumpsuits), and medical care at government owned and operated facilities.

I like the idea of having "welfare camps" instead of handing out free money.

The Professor says

Vaticanus says

The point is that old system is not reaching everyone who wants/needs it. This new system would provide the basic needs for everyone regardless of age, ethnicity, sex or income/assets.

In addition it would lower administrative overhead. Have you ever been in a welfare office? I had as a kid and it is a bureaucratic nightmare. It will also force all the aid collectors into the open where they can be seen.

The system as it is, is broken and needs to be overhauled.

Yes, the funny thing is people are refusing to acknowledge the problem or consider reasonable solutions.

Unless the population in the camps are sterilized, would not such camps create multi-generational refugee problem, like in Palestine? People not having to work to put food on the table and roof over the head would have tons of time making babies! The kids growing up in such camps would have no concept what work is . . . and therefore would have no opportunity besides receiving predetermined hand-outs . . . social promotion would be looks, muscles and perhaps mischief (i.e. stealing whatever is unavailable from outside the camp to bring it inside to impress the girls). How long will it be before high walls around the facilities become necessary? and home-made rockets to be lobbed over the walls?

This little billboard kinda hits home for you, hehhehheh
egads101 says

zzyzzx says

Obligatory:

that isn't what liberals believe or support. That is what ASSHOLES try to pretend liberals are like.

Reality says

Unless the population in the camps are sterilized, would not such camps create multi-generational refugee problem, like in Palestine? People not having to work to put food on the table and roof over the head would have tons of time making babies! The kids growing up in such camps would have no concept what work is

The difference is that we're talking about a society where ppl will be into virtual reality and gaming scenarios. In effect, there will be no 'real world' for those in the camps. They'll be hooked into computers and devices, living in a separated reality.

The situation with Palestine is based upon a type of ethnic Apartheid system whereas in this case, it'll be all Americans, who're not independently wealthy and able to buy themselves into a better lifestyle.

Rin says

The difference is that we're talking about a society where ppl will be into virtual reality and gaming scenarios. In effect, there will be no 'real world' for those in the camps. They'll be hooked into computers and devices, living in a separated reality.

Are you suggesting solitary confinement with virtual interaction only? i.e. no possibility of reproducing? The real issue I raised was what to do with the next generation born into such an environment.

The situation with Palestine is based upon a type of ethnic Apartheid system whereas in this case, it'll be all Americans, who're not independently wealthy and able to buy themselves into a better lifestyle.

Such a system would rapidly become apartheid and ghetto. Didn't the US and UK experiment with high rise public housing back in the 70's? and failed miserably?

Vaticanus,

Yawn. What a big fat stupid strawman argument you created with this post.

I guess if your opponents' (Obama's) real life policy agenda is quite popular, I suppose you can try to create some crazy scenario and be against that instead. But is anyone but the usual wingnuts going to get excited about your strawman and fall all over themselves trying to knock it down?

Maybe not.

The usual way these questions are translated into a reader's mind leads down three paths:

1) Descent into hell or some facsimile thereof
2) Utopia!
3) Things muddle along, different but not better or worse.

The typical libertopian reactionary, like say Softshell, goes down path 1. This sort would tell you Denmark is an impossibility because if you have widely available social services they will be abused and that society will collapse utterly.

The classic communist goes down path 2 and never looks back. They would never admit that you need some safeguards to avoid becoming Cuba.

Most of the rest realize that generally societies muddle along somehow and decline to comment much on the question, considering it beneath worrying about.

I'm not a communist. Nor do I think this idea would represent utopia. But I do think it is a better welfare program than the current broken system which is growing in cost and increasingly failing to achieve the desired outcomes. That is why this topic was brought before the good people of Patnet (and the rest of you too.)

Vaticanus says

That is why this topic was brought before the good people of Patnet (and the rest of you too.)

Its actually an interesting idea. Maybe we could lower the prison population a little (not that it's that much different). What would be the incentive be to avoid prison ? MAybe they make you work in prison ?

The problem is that it is just another subsidy to the corporate world. Then they could truly compete with global wages, but it would soon be impossible for workers save enough to buy their own home and live independently.

You might be on to something, but it would surely be the end of upward mobility and put an ever greater spread between the haves and the have nots.

Ok... well let's play Devil's strawman for a second. So let's imagine that the "fantasy world" described by the OP- a vision that I am assuming is meant to detail what it would be like under a supposed democrat's extreme vision of all-out social programs doesn't work out and instead we get the total opposite GOP's extreme, which would be a country without any government at all.

So imagine if you will that there are no laws that would juristic who owns land... because since there is no government, there are now laws. As stated repeatedly by the right, we MUST shrink the size of government- always, and if that means always, then that means eventually there would be no government period. So everyone would have to fend for themselves. There would be no military, no freeways, no sidewalks, no major cities, no fire departments, police force, no teachers, no nothin. No anything that has anything to do with any government and especially any sort of social program.

It would be absolute paradise! Absolute total, untethered, un-governed chaos.

Yep, bums would have to pay the private owner of the bridge to sleep under it.

If we do that the rest of Mexico will move in within a year.

Ugh, I just remembered as a teen, delivering newspapers to Soviet-like, high rise low income apartments.

Stairwells that ALWAYS smelled strongly of piss; elevators never working. Drab common areas always behind in basic maintenance. No real pretense of keeping up with the sysiphean task of picking up litter from the no-sense-of-ownership residents. Undisciplined, rag-a-muffin kids running around in packs. Customers who let their subscriptions lapse without paying out the final bill; never a tip. There were more people living, but fewer newspaper subscribers, in that large square block, than the 1/2 mile square route of otherwise single family residences.

Automan Empire says

Ugh, I just remembered as a teen, delivering newspapers to Soviet-like, high rise low income apartments.

Today you would be lucky to come out of one of those with your life and limbs!

SoftShell says

This little billboard kinda hits home for you, hehhehheh

egads101 says

zzyzzx says

Obligatory:

that isn't what liberals believe or support. That is what ASSHOLES try to pretend liberals are like.

That's the stupidest straw man.

What the republitards deny is that most of our safety nets and entitlement programs are widely supported by nearly everyone. And if our finances had been managed just a little better in recent decades with a couple less unnecessary wars and a couple less big tax breaks for the rich, we would be in much better shape financially, and better situated to do the necessary tweaks to make these so called "entitlements" sustainable.

What does the typical republitard think is the solution to two income households that still need food stamps to to afford the most minimal lifestyle in many big cities ?

I suppose they just think those people need to pull themselves up and get better jobs (or suffer the consequences).

But then who does the work at those low paying jobs ?

"Republican logic" is an oxymoron.

edvard2

Follow (1)
Befriend
44 threads
2,787 comments

33 8:07am Wed 30 Oct 2013 Share Quote Permalink Like Dislike (1) Delete
Ok... well let's play Devil's strawman for a second. So let's imagine that the "fantasy world" described by the OP- a vision that I am assuming is meant to detail what it would be like under a supposed democrat's extreme vision of all-out social programs doesn't work out and instead we get the total opposite GOP's extreme, which would be a country without any government at all.

So imagine if you will that there are no laws that would juristic who owns land... because since there is no government, there are now laws. As stated repeatedly by the right, we MUST shrink the size of government- always, and if that means always, then that means eventually there would be no government period. So everyone would have to fend for themselves. There would be no military, no freeways, no sidewalks, no major cities, no fire departments, police force, no teachers, no nothin. No anything that has anything to do with any government and especially any sort of social program.

It would be absolute paradise! Absolute total, untethered, un-governed chaos.
-------------------

Edvard,

This is not meant to describe some democrat wet dream. It is meant to give us pause to think on what we are trying to accomplish and the costs and consequences of intervention on the government level.

I do not think most democrats want government housing, government clothing, government cafeterias. Many do however want government healthcare.

And most democrats probably support SNAP, housing subsidies and other forms of welfare that are not universally available to all citizens (meaning I can't go down and get a rent subsidy or EBT card for groceries just because I want one.) this would level the playing field and give all citizens equal access. Making welfare available and equal for all is the least we can do.

I still think some city or state should try this, it would be a wonderful experiment.

In 2013 when I first posted it this was considered a fringe idea. Now we are giving away $600 a week to the unemployed (plus state contributions) and Bolsheviks in the House of Reps want to extend it through January. Why not just set up the the 21st century new deal, housing, food and health care for all! You simply give up your current housing and health care and go live in the state run housing, food and health care zone. To make the Bolsheviks happy we can ban police in the housing food and health care zone and make masking mandatory from birth till cremation (there will be no burial in the housing food and health care zone).

PeopleUnited says

go live in the state run housing

No thanks!

https://www.google.com/search?q=soviet+bloc+housing+images&sxsrf=ALeKk03myuhMKRSqvzEDQX3wS6BUQxme6A:1596555060123&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=nslk7KU8DOpS8M%252CEUmLEk7xeDKtmM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kS3uaWSQ926aUvx9wg-1zyvY75TJw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjq7uOJ74HrAhUNRK0KHdbKBwIQ9QEwAXoECAoQHg&biw=1024&bih=710#imgrc=nslk7KU8DOpS8M

PeopleUnited says

go live in the state run housing

Go read about Cabrini-Green first.

humanity says

SoftShell says

This little billboard kinda hits home for you, hehhehheh


egads101 says

zzyzzx says

Obligatory:

that isn't what liberals believe or support. That is what ASSHOLES try to pretend liberals are like.

That's the stupidest straw man.

What the republitards deny is that most of our safety nets and entitlement programs are widely supported by nearly everyone. And if our finances had been managed just a little better in recent decades with a couple less unnecessary wars and a couple less big tax breaks for the rich, we wo...

Oh hey look! Marcus posted on his other account in this thread!

NDrLoR says

PeopleUnited says

go live in the state run housing

No thanks!

https://www.google.com/search?q=soviet+bloc+housing+images&sxsrf=ALeKk03myuhMKRSqvzEDQX3wS6BUQxme6A:1596555060123&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=nslk7KU8DOpS8M%252CEUmLEk7xeDKtmM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kS3uaWSQ926aUvx9wg-1zyvY75TJw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjq7uOJ74HrAhUNRK0KHdbKBwIQ9QEwAXoECAoQHg&biw=1024&bih=710#imgrc=nslk7KU8DOpS8M

If you like your current address and food supply you can keep it. If you want free housing and food you have to take what you are given. I don’t know about you but I am tired of paying taxes while people live off of free rent, free food and drive a nicer car, have nicer housing than me!

Why not just go with Andrew Yang type "freedom dividend" — $1000/month to spend however you like. Let the government hand out money and then get the heck out of the way to allow free market forces to decided how to efficiently allocate housing, food, etc. That would make a lot more sense than government spending just as much money but then introducing all sorts of terrible ideas and inefficiencies by taking on the task of building and running housing, food, etc.