Alternatives in the event the government ended all social programs.

In the similar vein of the Planned Parenthood, this is a "what if" in the event the Republicans eventually get their way and end Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Federal funding for state welfare, Veteran's benefits, you name it. If it's an entitlement, it's gone. And you can forget all about UHC, naturally. For the sake of argument we'll assume nothing else has really changed with government (taxes are still where they are or likely lower for the upper class and corporations, the military now gets the vast bulk of the budget), only because what constitutes "corporate welfare" and the like is another concern altogether, and it's unlikely anything would be done about that given the scenario's nature.

Now that that's done, how goes the people who rely the most on these programs? Not just the unemployed and the homeless, but the working poor (the people who have a job, work their asses off, but are still on welfare), the elderly, the people laid off and are having trouble adjusting to new industries. What opportunities, if any, are there for the private sector to step in? How fares the economy now that, if we're running a deficit at all, it's because of the military?

Veteran's stuff won't be touched. It's a political liability for either party to go for it.

However I do know one thing. If I could I would abolish the welfare state as is. In its place for things like unemployment and welfare is a job corps program. The gist of it is basically "Can't/Won't find work? We'll get you work." There will be no handouts, no free checks, you need government assistance you will work for it. Gone will be the days where you can sit on your ass and collect a government check with no strings attached. What kind of work will we find you? Whatever needs done in your communities and states such as roadside cleanup, public property repair and maintenance, whatever we can think of. Don't like the thought of cleaning up roads or working for the community? Don't get unemployed/come crawling asking for a handout. A secondary job search/placement program will exist as an alternative for out of work job seekers who were laid off/terminated for economic reasons. It won't hand out a check, but it will help you find a job as quickly as is possible.

Retirement would be a paid in system similar to a 401k and other plans. Unlike Social Security, it does not pay for existing retirees terminating all possibility of Ponzi scheme shenanigans. What you pay in via tax, you get plus whatever growth and interest it accrues. (And you'd have some degree of control over how its invested if you choose.) Additionally, the handlers of the program (and Congress) are explicitly forbidden from touching those monies in any capacity.

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

Society Falls Everyone Dies

Realistically a lot of people would have a hugely lowered quality of life especially without the UHC, leading to many many many more deaths.

I think there would be a revolution/massive civil unrest if it actually happened.

By the powers invested in me by tabloid-reading imbeciles, I pronounce you guilty of paedophilia!

It would the end of days for the United States. The crime rate would rocket as people would have nothing to lose. Mass starvation for most and people dieing in hospital corridors or on the street from preventable deaths.

I really wish I could live in this Fantasy land but JSA is always conditional.

edited 8th Sep '11 5:26:50 AM by whaleofyournightmare

Dutch Lesbian

Then it would be time to decide whose side you are on. The Haves or the Have Not's.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

No social safety net would pretty much mean the poor would likely become much more violent. No reason to give a shit about the safety of the rich when you have nothing and they have everything.

Tom, I'm confused. I thought you opposed the idea of the government spending money to create jobs.

Or do you believe that it's possible to find/create more jobs without increasing spending?

Anyway, I don't think the GOP will ever have the support or, frankly, the balls to go through with the OP's scenario, but if it did happen, I agree with the gist of the other responses here - crime would go way up, at the least. I personally don't think there are enough jobs to support everyone even if everyone wanted to work and was equally able to work, and I'm betting that that's only going to get worse in the future regardless of what the government does (potentially including 'nothing'). I don't think it would result in the immediate collapse of society, but if it were maintained for a sufficient period of time it could lead to that point eventually.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

A convenient assumption, but one that ignores the premise that all social entitlements are on the chopping block; otherwise SS wouldn't be touched either. However, if we allow for Veteran benefits then we need to allow for a similar political climate in which "fuck the poor for being lazy and corrupt" doesn't go over either. Most likely it will be painted as a "budget emergency" that is done for the greater good.

So, with no safety net except for veterans, expect a massive increase in applications for military service (not necessarily an increase in actual recruits; you still have to pass the physical requirements afterall), the majority from lower income households who have few or no other options. Not the worst result, but only the beginning.

I am honestly uncertain as to how a job placement program is supposed to work any better than the current system. UI (Unemployment Insurance) is stereotyped so often as a free check to sit on your ass for years without any accounting, but at least in Maryland, the requirements to get approved for UI are pretty stringent; you need to have become unemployed "through no fault of your own", and prove you've been searching for a job, otherwise you are denied any benefits until you're re-employed. Also, liable employers pay for the majority of the benefits; it's not all tax payer money. And it's not like fraud is a large contributor either.

Emphasis mine.

Even if a work placement program has perfect anti-fraud coverage (a barely worth it %2 savings), it will still cost either the state (now without any Federal funding to make up the difference!) or liable employers a tremendous amount unless you a) raise the restrictions so much that it becomes trivial to deny participation, or reduce benefits to little more than room and board, turning the program into a labor camp.

Retirement 401k's are a non-solution; were is the money coming from that will institute these trust funds? Part of the appeal of abolishing SS to the average American is the promise of no longer taking it out of your payroll, but clearly you'll still be paying into the 401k. The rest is just an appeal to Social Security myths. If you're gonna require everyone to invest in anything more volatile than US securities, don't make 401k's mandatory.

The implications for healthcare are far worse; we just got rid of Medicare and Medicaid, meaning millions of Americans now go uninsured, or break themselves getting into the private system (which subsequently raises premiums for everyone). You can't join the military if you've got the sort of health problems that result in increased healthcare costs, so Veteran's benefits don't help. Regardless, the cost of health care continues to rise nation wide.

And let's not kid ourselves; the progressive political movement will not just keel over and die, any more likely than the sick and destitute will just die and decrease the surplus population. There will be massive moves to raise minimum wage, the last chance the working poor have in maintaining anything resembling their current standards of living, assuming the cut off doesn't force them straight into homelessness in the process. States will be pressured to maintain their own systems, and with no federal funding, the social burden has basically changed hands to the states. Even if federal taxes don't rise, Americans seldom notice when state taxes are hiked. Expect a lot of businesses to oppose the changes, not because they want to keep paying UI, but it's cheaper for them than an increased tax burden.

And of course, any movement strong enough to institute these changes will have to be strong enough to turn the American Government into a totalitarian regieme, otherwise the backlash caused by heightened crime, public health costs, and complaints of government work-houses will ensure that most programs will be re-instituted in time. An authoritarian stranglehold will, at best, prevent progressive government movement on the Federal level, but as already highlighted, the social and economic woes will not stop.

And in all of this, businesses will be no more willing to change their practices than they are right now; there will be no growth-spurring stability that Austrian Economics postulates, so the economy continues to decline. The available alternatives would overall result in a shrinking of the American economy, a reduction of standards of living for all (not just the poor), and an unforgivable crippling of our political process.

Hardly worth the ego of those who grumble about slackers living on government dime.

edited 8th Sep '11 9:28:14 AM by Ratix

I applaud you sir.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

The assumption that it's desired to have the working poor maintain their quality of life, quite frankly is an unproven assumption in this case. It's not like people are saying that social programs are nice but we can't afford them...

The reality is that these things are just attacks on the wages of the working poor. Quite frankly, it's unconscionable, and it's something that people should be ashamed of. If you want to change the way people look at unemployment, here's the way I put it in another thread. You're successful when educated/experienced upper-middle class people run right out and apply to be a cashier/burger flipper when they get laid off. The reality is that this doesn't happen, for a variety of reason. Instead of assailing the working poor..try focusing on people higher up on the totem pole for a change, why don't ya.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

Sometimes I really wish somebody made this into a blockbuster movie. Especially these parts. Really sounds like some lessons we could stand to learn today.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

There's going to be widespread protests in a couple of years...it's only a matter of time really.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

Well, if we have to fight the battles of the 19th century over again, then we will.

After all, we won the first time...

edited 8th Sep '11 10:37:21 AM by DeMarquis

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Getting back to the topic of alternatives...

Charity. So little is said of the works of various charities, mostly because what they do is so small scale compared to national needs. Nevertheless, to prevent a humanitarian crisis in America, they will need to be re-emphasized and empowered somehow.

I've had some sporadic ideas on how to enhance the force of charity in the country, but unfortunately none that would actually, y'know, work. :p short of straight up subsidizing (basically giving money to charities rather than not taking money). How efficient this would be compared to national social programs, I have no idea. Perhaps a bunch of "basic healthcare" drives like the one that occured in California, though this tends to just raise awareness of the need for American healthcare.

Combat Living by credit. Pass legislation allowing the government to buy up credit card debt to ease the burden of people living on credit. I don't like it though, both because it's sort of a repeat of the previous programs, it's short term, and would require various progressive denials to prevent middle and upper income people from using it (as it's meant to ease the debt burden of the poor). I guess you could just make it illegal to accumulate a certain amount of credit card debt, but that just hurts the poor worse.

Infrastructure. Ideally, we use the money freed up from the social programs to fix America's ability to actually do business, but since SS makes money it's just shooting ourselves in the foot to act like eliminating the programs is a savings.

Deal with it. Just accept that we have a smaller economy, lower standard of living, and that's the way it should be. Government provided an artifical prosperity with its welfare programs. Instead the only way to live better than a bum under a bridge is to earn it with your own two hands (and ignore the people who do work for it but don't get/lose it anyway). Rather than worry about how to solve crime, hunger, and disenfranchisement, just worry about how not to be those people, and if you are then too bad. Great for the Objectivists who wouldn't know the word "externality" if it blew up in their face, not so great for everyone else.

edited 8th Sep '11 11:39:01 AM by Ratix

The alternative? Revolutionary labor unions, cooperativism, mutual aid. Say hello to the IWW 2.0!

If the government cuts the social programs, it will bite'em in the ass later.

edited 8th Sep '11 11:50:20 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

I'm sorry Heathen I can't hear you over all this FREEDOM!

I do find it funny that the best alternatives (unions aside, which would be killed by the same government anyway) to social programs are... more social programs, but with conservative buzzwords thrown into their description.

You know, its hard to ever even acknowledge people who think the poor should be left to dry.

A few days ago I had to hold a good friend of mine due to her crying so much because she, a college student of the age of 20, NEEDS a job to help her family keep their home. She's working her ass off to get one too.

And people just want to tell her "Not our fault you're lazy, go die you bum."?

Disgusting.

It's more the perspective that she's not their friend, so why should their money (taxes) go to help her? It's an extremely oversimplified picture of what it means to be in a society; on an individual level, no they don't have any obligation to her (nor any specific animosity, it should be noted). They also don't have to deal with the external penalties of her and her family suffering. At some level a society does.

The trick is to find a balance where an individual isn't required to sacrifice directly for others, while enabling as many people as possible to improve their livelihood. I respect policy that works with existing programs to do these things, not so much those that simply try to eliminate them because it's NMP.

Judging by comments I hear even on this forum, I would say there IS animosity. Like "Oh all the people on wellfare are just lazy and addicted to the government" or "They deserve to be poor because they're addicted to something"

And making small sacrifices for other people is the entire basis of living in a society! I'm not asking we be a freaking Hive Mind or something but damn! If someone falls over, people should take some effort to help that person out.

Thats why I can't understand this "independence" boner conservatives and libertarians have. Its selfish and MEAN.

edited 8th Sep '11 1:44:18 PM by Thorn14

It's not that simple. Many people who are rich in this country worked hard to get there. Taxes are a lot of money that is taken from you. With a smaller perspective, it's difficult to keep in mind the people that it's helping. All you see on your end is the amount that gets taken off of your paycheck.

Before you start rebutting me, I'm as liberal as can be. I'm just trying to get across the way they think.

"Delenda est." "Furthermore, Carthage must be destroyed." -Common Roman saying at the end of speeches.

Okay, so by some wacky twist of fate, all social program spending goes kaput.

I can't see how that would be a good thing. Suddenly, charities would have to shoulder the burden. Would not-for-profit soup kitchens and the like continue to enjoy their special tax status? Would charitible contributions continue to be a tax deduction?

President Coolidge wanted charitible organizations to shoulder the load during the Depression, as that had proven to be viable in previous hardships. While I agree that charitible organizations certainly play a role in alleviating hardship and things like that, could they realistically handle all of the load...?

If the answer to that is yes, then one could make the case that Government social programs are not required any longer, since the needs are met via other means.

But I'm pretty sure the answer to that question is no, currently.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

Btw, theres only one problem with expecting charities to care for people in an economic depression.

edited 8th Sep '11 1:50:02 PM by whaleofyournightmare

Dutch Lesbian

Well when you're rich, even though alot is still taken from you, YOU STILL HAVE ALOT. Oh no you can't afford your 5th sports car, how awful. Meanwhile my friend can't afford a USED CAR. Plus the rich pay less in taxes anyway...She probably has a higher tax rate.

edited 8th Sep '11 1:50:09 PM by Thorn14

Yes, that applies to the rich. But when you're a normal middle-class American, you don't FEEL rich. You feel angry that the products of your work are being taken away from you. The rich aren't the only ones that are complaining about these things, although they certainly are the ones most benefiting from it.

"Delenda est." "Furthermore, Carthage must be destroyed." -Common Roman saying at the end of speeches.

Well its true the middle class do have a hard time with taxes since they dont get benefits but also have to pay taxes.

We really need a restructuring of our tax system. Our current system of "Somewhat tax the rich, really tax the middle, and dont tax the rich" is sounding jumbled.

I mean didn't we find out that if we took HALF OF EVERYTHING THE LOWER CLASS MADE we'd only pay a few billions?

edited 8th Sep '11 1:54:49 PM by Thorn14