So you feel that this type of program is better run by government than by local private organizations?

I have two problems with WIC.

1) It's income levels are too high for larger families. A family of 10 earning $75,000 can receive WIC benefits.

2) It's given to migrant workers, many who are illegal aliens. Roughly $2.2 billion a year is spent on food assistance programs for illegals.

My health insurance -

 

Education - regardless of what the RR people say it is still the best system in the world and it "promotes the general welfare."

 

Interstate Highways

 

State Highways

 

Police/Fire protection

Economically I'm a capitalist.

 

HOWEVER. Many Americans have a very dangerous over confidence in the practice of capitalism that they don't understand the EXTREME importance of responsibility that needs to be adhered to when practicing capitalism.

 

For example. Investing in companies, to make immediate return. Is BAD irresponsible capitalism. Why do I say that. Because Mr CEO decides to maximizes profits on his way out while owning 25% of the company stock so he can sell it at a better price, but in the process ruins the companies infrastructure, removes in house talent, and weakens the future of the company for a better bottom line the last few quarters. In the long run the company will crash, but Mr. CEO will be basking in the sunlight or sitting on another investment board looking to perform the same "miracle" for he and his other short term investors. On the surface many see it as a CEO doing a good job (he can probably ask for another cool 25 million in bonus), but the reality is that this company was just bleed of its future for a big payday in the present.

 

This is why I always caution people who 100% support the CEOs of major companies in there decisions to lay off, cut back, and increase there own compensation at the detriment to so many others. Cut throat capitalism is not always the best way.

 

Right or not, socialism, or socialist programs provide a level of insurance against threats to property and persons of the "Haves". The attempts to dismantle such programs is playing a dangerous bet. That doesn't even mention the human factor. ie Junior gets a meal vs I pay less taxes.

so do you feel that the government can operate social programs better than private organiations?

Socialism looks good, but as stated above it will not work, at least not in the US. What countries have been socialist and actually thrived on it?

HOWEVER. Many Americans have a very dangerous over confidence in the practice of capitalism that they don't understand the EXTREME importance of responsibility that needs to be adhered to when practicing capitalism.

 

For example. Investing in companies, to make immediate return. Is BAD irresponsible capitalism. Why do I say that. Because Mr CEO decides to maximizes profits on his way out while owning 25% of the company stock so he can sell it at a better price, but in the process ruins the companies infrastructure, removes in house talent, and weakens the future of the company for a better bottom line the last few quarters. In the long run the company will crash, but Mr. CEO will be basking in the sunlight or sitting on another investment board looking to perform the same "miracle" for he and his other short term investors. On the surface many see it as a CEO doing a good job (he can probably ask for another cool 25 million in bonus), but the reality is that this company was just bleed of its future for a big payday in the present.

 

This is why I always caution people who 100% support the CEOs of major companies in there decisions to lay off, cut back, and increase there own compensation at the detriment to so many others. Cut throat capitalism is not always the best way.

 

Great post.

Economically I'm a capitalist.

 

HOWEVER. Many Americans have a very dangerous over confidence in the practice of capitalism that they don't understand the EXTREME importance of responsibility that needs to be adhered to when practicing capitalism.

 

For example. Investing in companies, to make immediate return. Is BAD irresponsible capitalism. Why do I say that. Because Mr CEO decides to maximizes profits on his way out while owning 25% of the company stock so he can sell it at a better price, but in the process ruins the companies infrastructure, removes in house talent, and weakens the future of the company for a better bottom line the last few quarters. In the long run the company will crash, but Mr. CEO will be basking in the sunlight or sitting on another investment board looking to perform the same "miracle" for he and his other short term investors. On the surface many see it as a CEO doing a good job (he can probably ask for another cool 25 million in bonus), but the reality is that this company was just bleed of its future for a big payday in the present.

 

This is why I always caution people who 100% support the CEOs of major companies in there decisions to lay off, cut back, and increase there own compensation at the detriment to so many others. Cut throat capitalism is not always the best way.

 

Right or not, socialism, or socialist programs provide a level of insurance against threats to property and persons of the "Haves". The attempts to dismantle such programs is playing a dangerous bet. That doesn't even mention the human factor. ie Junior gets a meal vs I pay less taxes.

 

I just feel that the market can control this scenario better than big government. I have invested in companies that I shouldn't have, and I lost big time. Instead of asking for the government to baby sit my investments, I learned from my mistakes and worked harder to make a better life for me. Isn't that what living in the country is all about?

I just feel that the market can control this scenario better than big government. I have invested in companies that I shouldn't have, and I lost big time. Instead of asking for the government to baby sit my investments, I learned from my mistakes and worked harder to make a better life for me. Isn't that what living in the country is all about?

I'm not advocating government control, I'm stating that the free market's success is dependent upon responsibilty from its players. To many times I've read on this forum or heard from self proclaimed "die hard capitalist" that every dollar is earned and that no criticism should be placed on that earning. I think it is stupid and dangerous to give a free pass to economically damaging practices and that we shouldn't be so secure in our system to ignore it faults.

 

Capitalism should be treated not as a perfect entity, but rather the most applicable system. The system should be criticized and improved where improvement can be made.

so do you feel that the government can operate social programs better than private organiations?

Government is as good as its bureaucracy. Many things it does, it does very well. Everything it does however, can, should, and does get criticized, making government programs probably seem less effectual than they really are.

 

One example.

Public schools

 

So often public schools are criticized for there failures, especially in comparison to private institutions. But, the public school system in America is the primary education provider for the strongest middle class in the world. Look at how many successful and educated people the public school system puts out into our nation. And it is unfair to compare to private institutions when you look at demographic and economic realities of student populations entering the private vs public institutions.

Do public schools fail also? Certainly they do, it doesn't mean that the public education system is a failure and that government shouldn't participate in the program.

 

Let me bring this other aspect to the table, if private institutions alone were to take responsibility for educating the entire public, how many people would be left behind?

 

So getting back to the original question, It depends, sometime yes sometimes no.

Socialism looks good, but as stated above it will not work, at least not in the US. What countries have been socialist and actually thrived on it?

Virtually all of Western Europe adopted significant socialistic programs to repair themselves after devastating destruction of WWII. It should not be ignored the vital importance these programs played in allowing Europe to "get on its feet". However it should also be stated that the most significant hindrances to the fullest expansion of the European economies has been the legacy of some of these socialistic programs. In other words socialism was the right drug at the right time however it proved to be addictive and the side effects have clearly proven to be damaging.