The Mexican economy is too anarchic for the level of corruption you ascribe to socialism. The US is more socialist than Mexico, do you consider the US more corrupt than Mexico?

A socialist welfare-state that was running surpluses of enormous magnitude could pay people to not provide traditional labor input to the economy in either the US or Mexico.

What makes you think America is not a socialist country?

I don't understand your theory, your saying the more socialist a state is the more corrupt?
Not so, the totalitarian or dictatorial sure, but I do not see that socialism directly creates coruption on its own.
That goes against all historical data and pretty much any economist theories.
Just because a country provides some assistance to it's poor does not mean it is socialistic.
The question that begs to be answered is how do you see America as a socialist country??

My mistake. I was under the impression that you were making a case for a corresponding relationship between socialism and corruption. If that is not the case, then do you agree with me that socialism contributes to rule of law?

How did you reach the conclusion that discretionary income is not a factor in being able to provide for the general welfare? Simple math will give us the metrics for the amount of surpluses needed to pay people to not provide labor input to the economy. A welfare-state is less expensive than a warfare-state.

It is a simple matter of scale economies. Since any public sector is a form of socialism, the bigger the governments of a given state, the more socialism involved.

Do you think we would have an illegal immigration problem with Mexico if that country were socialistic enough to pay people to stay out of the US labor market?

Trick or Treat time is soon - so I can't be on here.

Sounds like you are beginning to study economics. If so, you are making the same mistake many economist make - and why economist make LOUSY business owners and politicians - economist want to apply theological principles and idealogical principles without factoring in outside influences such as human behavior.
Again - in a perfect theological world your picture is indeed a good one, in the real world -welfare style methods exacerbate poverty by building a dependent society that pyramids over the years as more are born into welfare, and as in America, 2nd and 3rd generation welfare dependents are established...the problem increases...because of human behavior...something not factored in your scenario.

I don't think it's about "deserving" to be poor. It's about understanding that products and services do not appear because people need them, they appear because people create them.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

What you are describing is due to the (abstract externality of) ideology of any given warfare-state economic model. The command economics of the warfare-state are less market friendly, by definition.

A welfare-state would not have those problems if it were simply promoting the general welfare. Generational welfare would exist in proportion to the interest of the individual. In other words, it would only exist to the extent market conditions are conducive to that lifestyle.

How would having access to some form of income be detrimental on a longitudinal basis, in a market economy?

The European Model in many countries is high welfare but thought out..
Examples:
All third level education is free. If you a mature student you get full welfare benefits too, to help with you get back on your feet. This is costly, way more than just handing out a cheque but it encourges redevelopment and gives a work ethic.

All Third level acceptance is done on a academic record on a supply and demand basis. This means if you come from the poorest of families and your grades are say 4 As and 2 Bs in the Leaving Cert(our national exams at 18ish) then you can do medience or law in the top university in the country. It doesn't matter how much money daddy has.

Our social housing program is funny... Every developer of a estate of houses has to sell 20% of the houses in that estate at cost of the building of the house. The developer takes the hit on the cost of the site(land) and factors that into the price of the other houses.. This offers low income families to live not in a getto but in proper built houses among people of differing incomes. We find this vital in tearing down classes in society and giving every kid a break. Kids should not suffer from there parents mistakes.

Crime in Ireland is generally low and the kids which cause most trouble are academically poor and from disfunctional famillies.

Health is while not brilliant due to our disinvestment in the 80's, it is getting back on track with the electorate demanding universal healthcare for the poor at the same quality as the insurance paying middle class(costs about $500 a year). If insurance doesn't pay the Goverment is expected to step in, Irish people demand this as they would be afraid they could be in the same situation themselves.

Our big thing is tring to tax our rich. Get the rich to pay, they got the money. Our middle class demand that as well. No rich person wakes up in the morning and say he going to stop working because the goverment is taking 42 - 48% of it. They continue working and some of them harder. They bitch, carp I bitch but I rather be in my shoes than the guy handing out burgers...

Is that really a fair situation though? Why do you want to rely on the rich to prop up citizens in lower economic classes? Why can't the individuals be relied upon to take care of themselves?

I'm not saying that a safety net or paying for education is necessarily a bad thing, but you can't argue that blatant redistribution of wealth is fair when money only comes from the rich. Should the rich be obliged to pay more taxes than others? sure, but everybody benefits from the protection of government, so everybody should share in the misery of paying taxes.

The situation you described is overly complex and unfair to those who worked to ensure their financial stability. Why not create a system that lets the poor help themselves? Offer education and trade skills training (along with temporary cost of living subsidies) to support those who want to better their situation and most will do so and give back to society by being productive and being good citizens. Those who don't want to do not deserve society's support.

What do you think of the concept of at-will unemployment insurance? Being able to rely on some form of income, regardless of market conditions, can be a more market oriented approach to more expensive forms of welfare.

What is this facination with a warfare state? I don't get it, what has that economy have to do with America?

mpd - in America, the top 20% pay 80% of the TOTAL income tax collection...the bottom 20% not only pay no taxes - but get money at tax time.
Despite the liberal lie, this has been the case for a long time.

Far too long.

I know a lady who has two kids and works 6 to 7 months out of the year making min wage (she won’t work better jobs), she then always somehow looses her job and collects welfare the rest of the year. Come income tax time, she receives back between $5K and $6K from the government. Three years ago, the government even financed her a three bedroom home…….I ask; is this fair? Why should the people look out for themselves when the government will do it for them?

PS: she laughs every year for beating the system…She was my ex-sister in law…The bitch.

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

Many times I believe Americans will have to take back the country and start a new government.

Yep, 81% to be more accurate if I'm not mistaken. I also believe that the top 20% is responsible for about 60% of the federal government's total tax income. I'm pretty sure that I'm over that bottom 20%, but I'm nowhere close to the top twenty, or even the top 50%, and even I consider that to be utter B.S. We all make up the government and all benefit from its protections so we should all have to share in the misery of taxes.

My philosophy is simple. If the federal government cannot sustain itself on fair taxation of the middle class then it is is too large.

What's completely ignored by the right is that the VAST majority of that top 20% were born into the upper middle class at the very least as children. More importantly, they are almost always associated with business' that receive huge federal subsidies, tax breaks and other thiings that is welfare, just in a different form.

What's so amazing to me is how the right wing defines welfare. Fund uncompetitive U.S. car corporations even as they ship manufacturing jobs overseas = OK. Help a working class single mother with daycare = welfare and a hurt to society. Where is the logic there. We give money to people who are eliminating manufacturing in this economy and take it from the segment that is the most needy.

Also I am so OVER the right wing's total lack of historical knowledge about welfare. The U.S. welfare state was constructed in the mid 30s with the Second New Deal (Social Security Act, Agricultural Adjustment, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, WPA, CCC) and was extended further by Truman with the GI Bill. Who benefited from these reforms? Well lets see, the social security act created savings accounts for industrial and commercial employees but did not do so for agricultural and domestic workers. Southern states, even though they relied upon agricultural labor decided that those kinds of workers didn't count. Now who were industrial workers and who were agricultural workers. You guessed it. Industrial unions ensured that ONLY white/ethnic immigrant men had access to manufacturing jobs which dominated the urban north and southern agricultural workers were overwhelmingly African American.

But what about the Agricultural Adjustment Act you say, surely that helped African Americans. WRONG. The AAA screwed over poor whites and poor Blacks because it rewarded land owners who kicked sharecroppers off their land in order to reduce supply and raise the price of agricultural products. White sharecroppers of course had many more employment opportunities, African Americans? Not so much.

So in the 30s and 40s we had a welfare state alright, but it was a welfare state that ONLY helped out white men. I have no doubt that ALL of your parents benefited from New Deal welfare and had no problem getting a subsidized home loan or free college education with the GI Bill.

Funny thing, the white opposition to welfare only seems to happen after the sixties when the Great Society merely extended the benefits of the New Deal to african american and mexican citizens. Suddenly the right wing freaks out, says we're being taxed to death and raises hell from the moment those bills are signed into law. Less than 16 years later the Reagan administration is dismantling the Great Society and there's been a continued REDUCTION not inrease in those benefits until the present day. I'm sorry, but the racism that is inherent in this argument is undeniable especially if you actually know the history.

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

Like the stock market?

__________________
One day, I will sneak across the border into Canada and be an illegal alien. It will be fun.