Government: The Net Beneath Our Wings

[Yurt]

Government: The Net Beneath Our Wings

is it the government's responsibility to be the net beneath our wings? if i fail, should i expect/demand the government take other citizens money, vis a vis taxes, and give that money to me?

if i fail at anything, is it the government's job to protect me from failing?

[Little-Acorn]

if i fail at anything, is it the government's job to protect me from failing?

If you want to learn nothing from your failure, and keep the same (failing) level of performance, then yes.

Someone once wrote that the reason we put governments over ourselves, was to protect our rights, nothing else. Anyone remember who wrote it, and in what document?

[DannyR]

I'd say yes, its in the interest of the nation at large to protect citizens from falling too far, as such help allows the economy to bounce back all the faster. This is not to say the government should protect us from failure. But the risks of failure shouldn't be so extreme that one can never recover. Without any safety nets, I think we could possibly have seen more than just the Great Depression over the years, as severe recessions such as during the Carter years could have spiraled much more out of control.

As for taking other citizen's money, most of the primary safety nets we have were originally built upon the idea that they would be a form of insurance, to which you pay your own premiums. Getting an unemployment check thus is not quite the same as pure welfare.

Like most things though, there are safety nets, and then there are handouts. Where the line is drawn is debatable, and one person's honest failure shouldn't be treated the same as another's intentional laziness.

[Yurt]

If you want to learn nothing from your failure, and keep the same (failing) level of performance, then yes.

Someone once wrote that the reason we put governments over ourselves, was to protect our rights, nothing else. Anyone remember who wrote it, and in what document?

not sure about the first, if you get bailed out once, there is a chance you will succeed the second time....with that said, what possible is the rationale for the government (your money) being responsible for my failure?

second, no, what document and author?

[Yurt]

TE=DannyR;351340]I'd say yes, its in the interest of the nation at large to protect citizens from falling too far, as such help allows the economy to bounce back all the faster. This is not to say the government should protect us from failure. But the risks of failure shouldn't be so extreme that one can never recover. Without any safety nets, I think we could possibly have seen more than just the Great Depression over the years, as severe recessions such as during the Carter years could have spiraled much more out of control.

is it possible that because the government rewarded failure, that more failure occurred?

why didn't we bailout the soviet union?




As for taking other citizen's money, most of the primary safety nets we have were originally built upon the idea that they would be a form of insurance, to which you pay your own premiums. Getting an unemployment check thus is not quite the same as pure welfare.

i disagree. and IC doesn't have to pay UE benefit taxes. if the IC is unemployed, touch luck. and that is the way it should be. if you want to call it an insurance policy, then have be voluntary.



Like most things though, there are safety nets, and then there are handouts. Where the line is drawn is debatable, and one person's honest failure shouldn't be treated the same as another's intentional laziness.

so, in your opinion, is it the government's job to be a net? to take your money, without your consent in the form of taxes, and give it to me for my failure?

[DannyR]

is it possible that because the government rewarded failure, that more failure occurred? Yes, its possible. Some people are given entirely too many 2nd chances. On the other hand, if our government wants to grow the economy, it needs to encourage people to take some risks and open their own businesses. Providing a safety net is part of that encouragement.


why didn't we bailout the soviet union? Check your history books. We've sent them billions. http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol3/v3n25fsu.html Again, its to our nations benefit we did so. Some of the aid was in the form of buying their nukes from them and thus keeping them from 3rd parties, etc. Don't agree with every aspect of foreign aid, but not all of it is bad.


i disagree. and IC doesn't have to pay UE benefit taxes. if the IC is unemployed, touch luck. and that is the way it should be.There are points however when if too many people become unemployed, it begins to take its toll on everybody else.

I've paid my mortgage on time. But my home value has plummeted because others around me haven't. My retirement and stocks are taking a pounding because of the failures of others too. I'm being punished for their failure. So yes, if government can help prevent even more of that from happening with the investment of a bit of my tax money, more power to them. (not that I agree with every means used thus far)


if you want to call it an insurance policy, then have be voluntary. That would be ideal, but human nature shows that most people wouldn't pay it if its not mandatory, and then you no longer have a safety net except for a few. In a major recession, the lack of it could cause a depression.

Its like seat belt laws. Ideally everyone would wear them without a law requiring it, and yet the law was passed because they didn't and too many people died that otherwise wouldn't, costing trauma units money they wouldn't otherwise have had to pay, etc. Sometimes, like it or not, government laws do make sense in protecting the well being of people despite themselves.


so, in your opinion, is it the government's job to be a net? to take your money, without your consent in the form of taxes, and give it to me for my failure?Depends on the type of failure. I don't support many forms of welfare, but have no problem with unemployment and bankruptcy protection. I have no problem with FDIC protection of bank accounts (do you think you should lose your hard earned money because your bank manager is bad?), but could do without much of the latest stimulus bills.

[DragonStryk72]

No, it isn't, it is a well-meaning sentiment, but one that almost always fails far more than its successes, and the failures continue to grow. Welfare isn't working, since the number have only increased as time has passed on it, and not because the government isn't spending enough money. It's because our government can't mind its finances, then how is it that they expect they're going to help people build their finances back up?

It's like letting a drunk drive your car cause you've had a few too many beers. Sure, giving your keys to someone else because you're impaired is a good idea, but the execution leaves something to be desited in this instance.

The other thing is, people learn from failure, not from their successes, and it ends up robbing people of that portion of learning. We do not examine our success anywhere near the level to which we examine our failures. It's just human nature. So when you have failed big time, and you go onto something like welfare, a mentality begins to set in, this part of you that just starts giving up the fight, because really, why bother? What point in striving, when you'll fail and end up right back where you were, with nothing but that check coming in? This is the key flaw of welfare, personal or corporate, is that the belief is that giving them the money they failed to achieve, they are robbed, not only of the lesson, but of their future achievements.

[Yurt]

E=DannyR;351352]Yes, its possible. Some people are given entirely too many 2nd chances. On the other hand, if our government wants to grow the economy, it needs to encourage people to take some risks and open their own businesses. Providing a safety net is part of that encouragement.

no it is not. if the government provides a net, there is less risk, as a result, there will be less reward, e.g., less return on investment. some investments are a good thing because of the risk, because there is no net. if everything had a net, there would be little, if any, risk.


Check your history books. We've sent them billions. http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol3/v3n25fsu.html Again, its to our nations benefit we did so. Some of the aid was in the form of buying their nukes from them and thus keeping them from 3rd parties, etc. Don't agree with every aspect of foreign aid, but not all of it is bad.

i see...well....then that "bailout" worked great!



There are points however when if too many people become unemployed, it begins to take its toll on everybody else.

too bad. why should someone's else's failure be yours or my responsibility? a thousand mistakes can make one right choice/invention/etc...



I've paid my mortgage on time. But my home value has plummeted because others around me haven't. My retirement and stocks are taking a pounding because of the failures of others too. I'm being punished for their failure. So yes, if government can help prevent even more of that from happening with the investment of a bit of my tax money, more power to them. (not that I agree with every means used thus far)

no, your home value has plummeted because the market was in a bubble, just like the stock bubble.

no, you are not being punished for the failures of others. take your money out of stocks and put it under your bed. you chose to put your money in stocks. deal with it.



That would be ideal, but human nature shows that most people wouldn't pay it if its not mandatory, and then you no longer have a safety net except for a few. In a major recession, the lack of it could cause a depression.

it is not ideal, it is a fact. an insurance policy is a contract. that both parties willingly enter into.

then let the depression happen. values are what the market decides. not what the government thinks are the values. that is where i think the biggest danger lays.



Its like seat belt laws. Ideally everyone would wear them without a law requiring it, and yet the law was passed because they didn't and too many people died that otherwise wouldn't, costing trauma units money they wouldn't otherwise have had to pay, etc. Sometimes, like it or not, government laws do make sense in protecting the well being of people despite themselves.

wholly disagree. the seat belt laws are nonsense. you don't wear a seatbelt, your choice and you accept the consequences. the government CHOSE to step in and help, the government took your money and gave it to the hospitial that treated the person who did not wear a seatbelt. that is wrong.


[
B]Depends on the type of failure.[/B] I don't support many forms of welfare, but have no problem with unemployment and bankruptcy protection. I have no problem with FDIC protection of bank accounts (do you think you should lose your hard earned money because your bank manager is bad?), but could do without much of the latest stimulus bills.

bankruptcy is apart of the economy of this country. why not have the losers file for bankruptcy? why bail them out?

FDIC...you are right, a nice insurance policy....again, it is your choice to put YOUR money in that bank. your choice....that you are expecting your neighbors to give their hard earned money to you if your decision is wrong.

[Yurt]

No, it isn't, it is a well-meaning sentiment, but one that almost always fails far more than its successes, and the failures continue to grow. Welfare isn't working, since the number have only increased as time has passed on it, and not because the government isn't spending enough money. It's because our government can't mind its finances, then how is it that they expect they're going to help people build their finances back up?

It's like letting a drunk drive your car cause you've had a few too many beers. Sure, giving your keys to someone else because you're impaired is a good idea, but the execution leaves something to be desited in this instance.

The other thing is, people learn from failure, not from their successes, and it ends up robbing people of that portion of learning. We do not examine our success anywhere near the level to which we examine our failures. It's just human nature. So when you have failed big time, and you go onto something like welfare, a mentality begins to set in, this part of you that just starts giving up the fight, because really, why bother? What point in striving, when you'll fail and end up right back where you were, with nothing but that check coming in? This is the key flaw of welfare, personal or corporate, is that the belief is that giving them the money they failed to achieve, they are robbed, not only of the lesson, but of their future achievements.

:clap:

[DannyR]

Welfare isn't working, since the number have only increased as time has passed on itAside from the current recession and surge in unemployment, I was under the impression that welfare rolls had decreased over the years since the 1994 revisions.

http://blog.cleveland.com/wideopen/2007/10/welfare_rolls_still_plunging_a.html

Can you support your statement, because if its not true, it puts your whole argument into question, as it seems to me it is mostly working (albeit it was certainly broken before)


i see...well....then that "bailout" worked great!

In many aspects it did. The risk of nuclear proliferation was limited. Providing them with food and other relief kept them from acting foolishly as they might have due to scarce resources.


no, your home value has plummeted because the market was in a bubble, just like the stock bubble.

I think what we have here is more than a bubble or correction.


bankruptcy is apart of the economy of this country. why not have the losers file for bankruptcy? why bail them out?

Um, bankruptcy is a form of bailout in and of itself, as it offers debt protection, bailing out the individual from having to repay his bills. See, even you come to a point where you agree with some form of government protection against utter failure. Its just a matter of where the line lies.


FDIC...you are right, a nice insurance policyA MANDATED insurance policy forced by the government on banks. Just the thing you said you don't like.


again, it is your choice to put YOUR money in that bank. your choice....that you are expecting your neighbors to give their hard earned money to you if your decision is wrong.Without such protection of banks, people don't put their money there, and the economy as a whole suffers because banks don't lend money anymore. Ergo, its in the government's interest to cover bank failures.

[Kathianne]

My bottom line, we are a 'rich' country, in the sense of days of old. We have a surplus of food and yes, even housing.

A 'safety net' meaning you will not starve or be in the elements, I can agree with. (Hell I'm in Chicago and wouldn't throw a slice of bread into the cold.)
More than that? No.

No cable, no cell phone, no phone. Medical? Within reason. Children to get care for flu, hearing, vision, sickness? Yes. Adults, serious illness, yes. Less serious, bill and let them know that failure to pay will result in no more visits.

Stimulus to get out of the problem and still a safety net.