Started By
Message
locked post

The Conservative Myth of a Social Safety Net Built on Charity

Posted on 3/24/14 at 2:03 pm
Posted by Cole Beer
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2008
4598 posts
Posted on 3/24/14 at 2:03 pm
quote:

The right yearns for an era when churches and local organizations took care of society's weakest—an era that never existed and can't exist today.


quote:

Ideology is as much about understanding the past as shaping the future. And conservatives tell themselves a story, a fairy tale really, about the past, about the way the world was and can be again under Republican policies. This story is about the way people were able to insure themselves against the risks inherent in modern life. Back before the Great Society, before the New Deal, and even before the Progressive Era, things were better. Before government took on the role of providing social insurance, individuals and private charity did everything needed to insure people against the hardships of life; given the chance, they could do it again.


LINK
Posted by Godfather1
What WAS St George, Louisiana
Member since Oct 2006
80385 posts
Posted on 3/24/14 at 2:05 pm to
As opposed to the liberal myth of a government run social safety net that doesn't turn into a hammock.
Posted by ugasickem
Allatoona
Member since Nov 2010
10844 posts
Posted on 3/24/14 at 2:06 pm to
Big Bad conservatives aren't going to take welfare away. But it is monumentally out of control, and needs reform in a bad way.

Typical Fear Mongering by the left.
Posted by constant cough
Lafayette
Member since Jun 2007
44788 posts
Posted on 3/24/14 at 2:09 pm to
quote:

The right yearns for an era when churches and local organizations took care of society's weakest—an era that never existed and can't exist today.



Wasn't just the church people used to rely on this thing called, family.
Posted by Zephyrius
Wharton, La.
Member since Dec 2004
8014 posts
Posted on 3/24/14 at 2:18 pm to
quote:

The right yearns for an era when churches and local organizations took care of society's weakest—an era that never existed and can't exist today.


I bet the OP hates Christmas too...

quote:

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.


ETA: Forgot the LINK
This post was edited on 3/24/14 at 2:25 pm
Posted by HempHead
Big Sky Country
Member since Mar 2011
55558 posts
Posted on 3/24/14 at 2:21 pm to
It's not charity that alleviates poverty, anyway.
Posted by Dead End
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2013
21237 posts
Posted on 3/24/14 at 2:38 pm to
Trollolololol

Posted by BBONDS25
Member since Mar 2008
49050 posts
Posted on 3/24/14 at 2:40 pm to
quote:

Cole Beer



12 posts today. Including starting this thread. you have had 24 posts since 2011. Has the roommate come back?
Posted by a want
I love everybody
Member since Oct 2010
19756 posts
Posted on 3/24/14 at 2:41 pm to
This is going to be problematic for a lot of poliboarders. This debunks a lot of shtick.


quote:

One problem with the conservative vision of charity is that it assumes the government hasn’t been playing a role in the management of risk and social insurance from the beginning. It imagines that there is some golden period to return to, free from any and all government interference. As Senator Lee has said, “From our very Founding, we not only fought a war on poverty—we were winning.” How did we do it? According to Lee, it was with our “voluntary civil society.” We started losing only when the government got involved.

This was never the case, and a significant amount of research has been done over the past several decades to overturn the myth of a stateless nineteenth century and to rediscover the lost role of the state in the pre-New Deal world.

The government’s footprint has always grown alongside the rest of society. The public post office helped unite the national civil society Alexis de Tocqueville found and celebrated in his travels throughout the United States. From tariff walls to the continental railroad system to the educated workforce coming out of land-grant schools, the budding industrial power of the United States was always joined with the growth of the government. The government played a major role throughout the nineteenth century in providing disaster relief in the aftermath of fires, floods, storms, droughts, famine, and more.


quote:

Business risk management through the law was crucial in building out this nineteenth-century capitalist economy. The limited liability corporation, for instance, allowed for a massive expansion of passive investments, which provided necessary working capital for business. Charles William Eliot, the president of Harvard University, called this “the most effective legal invention for business purposes made in the nineteenth century.” Bankruptcy laws were introduced in the wake of nineteenth-century economic crises to allocate losses and help the economy move forward.

As for social insurance specifically, the historian Michael Katz has documented that there has always been a mixed welfare state made up of private and public organizations throughout our country’s history. Outdoor relief, or cash assistance outside of institutions, was an early legal responsibility of American towns, counties, and parishes from colonial times through the early nineteenth century. During this period, these issues were usually dealt with through questions of “settlement.” A community had a responsibility to provide relief to its own needy, native members, defined as those who had a settlement there. This became increasingly difficult with an industrialized society, as people moved to and fro looking for work and were forced out of communities when they couldn’t find any.

The next major initiative was the construction of poorhouses by state governments, especially in the early nineteenth century. The central idea was that by forcing people in need of aid to live in poorhouses where living conditions were quite harsh, there would be fewer applicants. This ended up not being the case, as able-bodied people would still seek out these poorhouses, especially when work was slack and unemployment high. Worse, these institutions became the default support for orphans, the mentally ill, and the elderly without income or family to support them.




quote:

As the political scientist Theda Skocpol has documented, there were also multiple examples of state-issued social insurance programs before the New Deal. In the wake of the Civil War, Congress established an elaborate system of pensions for veterans. At its height in 1910, this de facto disability and old-age pension system delivered benefits to more than 25 percent of all American men over 65, accounting for a quarter of the federal government’s expenditures. Between 1911 and 1920, 40 states passed laws establishing “mothers’ pensions” for single women with children. These programs provided payments for needy widowed mothers in order to allow them to provide for their children.
Posted by jcole4lsu
The Kwisatz Haderach
Member since Nov 2007
30922 posts
Posted on 3/24/14 at 2:42 pm to
is this yet another alter of Rocket's? what was the last one called... cold beer? beer day? shite i cant remember.

eta: beer city, thats it.
This post was edited on 3/24/14 at 2:44 pm
Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
57520 posts
Posted on 3/24/14 at 2:55 pm to
quote:

Cole Beer
if your neighbor was starving, would you help him out?
Posted by FT
REDACTED
Member since Oct 2003
26925 posts
Posted on 3/24/14 at 2:56 pm to
Very solid article.

The author isn't arguing against local or national charities doing all that they can, or downplaying their usefulness. He's pointing to the fact that they've never been anything like what some libertarians envision when they describe private charities and their ability to supplant the government.
Posted by mtntiger
Asheville, NC
Member since Oct 2003
26713 posts
Posted on 3/24/14 at 3:06 pm to
I am opposed to government welfare programs on principle, but I am realistic enough to understand that they will never go away. Few government programs ever do.

Welfare programs should be reserved strictly for the neediest and most helpless among us. For those who are not completely incapable of work, welfare should have a time limit. It is horrible that we have multiple generations in this country who grow up on welfare.

The article states that charity doesn't get people out of poverty. To the person who wrote that article I say show me someone who got out of poverty through welfare.

As another poster stated, welfare should, at best, best a holdover for someone who is truly trying to make a better life.

Given the choice, I would rather the percentage of my tax dollars that go to welfare be returned to my so I can send them to the charities of my choosing, knowing that a lot more of my hard-earned money will reach those I hope to help.
Posted by McLemore
Member since Dec 2003
31652 posts
Posted on 3/24/14 at 3:23 pm to
i know this is overused on this board, but that excerpt is a classical, prototypical strawman.

first, i still don't know who these mythical "conservatives" are; and secondly, i don't know anyone who articulates any halcyon pre-"safety net" years in that way. no one.
Posted by SundayFunday
Member since Sep 2011
9322 posts
Posted on 3/24/14 at 3:45 pm to
Are any of those statements actually based in fact or are they just BS made up for that particullar article, built upon stereotypes, to sway the opinions of morons like yourself?
Posted by CITWTT
baton rouge
Member since Sep 2005
31765 posts
Posted on 3/24/14 at 4:11 pm to
Kindly take a look at the BILLIONS of dollars that have been collected by all of those nasty evil charitable donations from individuals of the "conservative" variety world wide whenever it was needed. Take a really deep look at how much of those funds came from the "Bible thumpers" in America and compare the distribution of funds by them versus government allocation of funds with all of the built-in cost associated with distribution both internally and externally at the sites in need of money. Look no farther than NOLA to view the massive reconstruction unndertakings of NOLA post-Katrina for an eye opening view of the difference between the two sides of the story. What percentage of waste is recordable on the govt. side.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
124713 posts
Posted on 3/24/14 at 4:20 pm to
quote:

The right yearns for an era when churches and local organizations took care of society's weakest
Strawman.
A poor one at that.

The right yearns for good results.
The left yearns for good intention.
Posted by Captain Ron
Location: Ted's
Member since Dec 2012
4340 posts
Posted on 3/24/14 at 4:54 pm to
quote:

Countrymen, the long experience of our late miseries I hope is sufficient to persuade everyone to a present correction of himself, And think not that either my pains nor the adventurers' purses will ever maintain you in idleness and sloth...

...the greater part must be more industrious, or starve...

You must obey this now for a law, that he that will not work shall not eat (except by sickness he be disabled). For the labors of thirty or forty honest and industrious men shall not be consumed to maintain a hundred and fifty idle loiterers
This post was edited on 3/24/14 at 4:55 pm
Posted by lsu13lsu
Member since Jan 2008
11494 posts
Posted on 3/24/14 at 5:04 pm to
One of my favorite liberal conflicts. Provide a social safety net so great it promotes kids and population growth. Then bitch about the environment and global warming primarily caused by a large population.

Get it together Libs!
Posted by deltaland
Member since Mar 2011
91247 posts
Posted on 3/24/14 at 6:25 pm to
I think the best balance is a free market providing the utmost opportunity for all people, combined with a small safety net, with strict guidelines to minimize fraud, to keep people from being starving or homeless.

The "war on poverty" is fricking dumb. You can't take from the productive and bring others into the middle class. They will still remain poor, and all our large welfare state does is incentivize laziness.

I know poor people, they have the mindset that they can't do any better, they have low self esteem, and they stay on welfare because in their mind their standard of living will never improve, so why work their arse off for it?

Welfare should be below a full time minimum wage job, there has to be some hurt for the person to feel, there has to be a natural incentive to go get a job and improve your lifestyle.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram