The government can't do anything right

[OldTrees]

And this is just patently false.  ESPECIALLY if you consider they could sell the cure for more than a lifetime supply of doses of insulin and a carry case.  Even if it cost less, they could still sell the pills for profit.  Could they sell the carry cases and not the cure, sure, even obvious ethics are not mandated by law.  But maximizing profit isn't mandated either.

pills actually all cost roughly the same amount to manufacture.  if a company is selling one pill for 50,000 everyone would know they are inflating the price.  also most people wouldnt be able to afford it.  also, with a cure readily available, they are removing customers, where as releasing better insulin keeps people hooked.  and the formula for the drug could easilly be aquired, and generics could be produced (legally or possibly illegally)

Medicine has a high fixed cost (R&D) and usually a low Variable cost (The pill). This leads to higher prices per pill to pay of the Fixed cost.

[russianspy1234]

just because there are people out there that abuse it, doesnt mean no one needs it.  by your logic, people stealing from stores would be a condemnation of all capitalist.

That was not my logic.  I did not say that welfare fraud condemns all welfare.  Currently, yes, some people need certain forms of welfare.  That was not my point either!  My point was that there is a better way, the way I described (and there may be better ways than that).  Please, if you're going to reply to my posts, don't take my words out of context.

its fun taking peoples words out of context, if for no other reason than it makes them explain their point better.  yes there is a market for people who cannot afford to buy food.  that food is extremely bad for you and eventually lands people in the emergency room for a heart attack or malnutrition.  also, any time you are selling something, there will be people who cannot afford to buy it and have to go without.  thats fine for frivalties like video games.  its is not fine for things that are necessary to life.

[CCCombobreaker]

1. Inflating prices isn't illegal... it's a function of the market unless the government steps in and meddles with things. 
2. Removing customers from what?  It was not stated this company also provided diabetic medication (or insulin).  But assuming they do, there is still a pretty big precedent for trying to cure things which cost a lot more to simply manage symptoms.  Or actually having cures for them.  I can buy athlete's foot medication that kills the fungus or I can just use anti-itch powders and creams every day.  A lot of people are looking for cures to AIDS and cancer even though they are making a hefty chunk of profit off of drug coctails, chemo, and radiation treatments.  Why waste that money if you'd never sell the cure?

[OldTrees]

just because there are people out there that abuse it, doesnt mean no one needs it.  by your logic, people stealing from stores would be a condemnation of all capitalist.

That was not my logic.  I did not say that welfare fraud condemns all welfare.  Currently, yes, some people need certain forms of welfare.  That was not my point either!  My point was that there is a better way, the way I described (and there may be better ways than that).  Please, if you're going to reply to my posts, don't take my words out of context.

its fun taking peoples words out of context, if for no other reason than it makes them explain their point better.  yes there is a market for people who cannot afford to buy food.  that food is extremely bad for you and eventually lands people in the emergency room for a heart attack or malnutrition.  also, any time you are selling something, there will be people who cannot afford to buy it and have to go without.  thats fine for frivalties like video games.  its is not fine for things that are necessary to life.

He had been talking about Charity not Trade. Google "Channel 1" for an example. I personally can guarantee the quality of the food.

[johannhowitzer]

OT is right, you seem to have forgotten about my post earlier that took charities into account.  So your latest post doesn't even seem to address my points at all.

[russianspy1234]

just because there are people out there that abuse it, doesnt mean no one needs it.  by your logic, people stealing from stores would be a condemnation of all capitalist.

That was not my logic.  I did not say that welfare fraud condemns all welfare.  Currently, yes, some people need certain forms of welfare.  That was not my point either!  My point was that there is a better way, the way I described (and there may be better ways than that).  Please, if you're going to reply to my posts, don't take my words out of context.

its fun taking peoples words out of context, if for no other reason than it makes them explain their point better.  yes there is a market for people who cannot afford to buy food.  that food is extremely bad for you and eventually lands people in the emergency room for a heart attack or malnutrition.  also, any time you are selling something, there will be people who cannot afford to buy it and have to go without.  thats fine for frivalties like video games.  its is not fine for things that are necessary to life.

He had been talking about Charity not Trade. Google "Channel 1" for an example. I personally can guarantee the quality of the food.

with how many people are quibling over what amounts to a few dollars a month, youll forgive me if i dont think charity will fill in the gaps and take care of people after government assistance is taken away, especially if you take into account how many charities hand out bibles instead of food.

[OldTrees]

The following math contains a drastic mistake. I am leaving it here so Essence's correction later does not seem off topic.

just because there are people out there that abuse it, doesnt mean no one needs it.  by your logic, people stealing from stores would be a condemnation of all capitalist.

That was not my logic.  I did not say that welfare fraud condemns all welfare.  Currently, yes, some people need certain forms of welfare.  That was not my point either!  My point was that there is a better way, the way I described (and there may be better ways than that).  Please, if you're going to reply to my posts, don't take my words out of context.

its fun taking peoples words out of context, if for no other reason than it makes them explain their point better.  yes there is a market for people who cannot afford to buy food.  that food is extremely bad for you and eventually lands people in the emergency room for a heart attack or malnutrition.  also, any time you are selling something, there will be people who cannot afford to buy it and have to go without.  thats fine for frivalties like video games.  its is not fine for things that are necessary to life.

He had been talking about Charity not Trade. Google "Channel 1" for an example. I personally can guarantee the quality of the food.

with how many people are quibling over what amounts to a few dollars a month, youll forgive me if i dont think charity will fill in the gaps and take care of people after government assistance is taken away, especially if you take into account how many charities hand out bibles instead of food.

Charity

Channel One can turn $1 into enough food for at least 5 meals that feed people in need!
Your $25 gift provides a 10 day supply of food for a family of four.

Welfare 2001

Finally, $580 million of the $2.45 billion in total UI overpayments for 2001, or 1.9% of total UI payments for that year, was attributable to fraud or abuse within the UI program.

Cost of a week (7 days) of food bought by consumer on thrifty plan June (usually average for the year) 2001

$90.40 (children 2 and 3-5 years)-$104.40 (6-8 and 9-11 years)

Welfare gives out $1870 Million after the $580 Million Fraud (23.6% fraud committed by only 1.9% of the people)
If those recipients (the non fraud money) bought food they would have 17.91-20.68 Million weeks worth of food per family of 4. [125.38-144.80 Million days]
That same amount would cost Channel 1 $313.5-362.0 Million. That would be only 0.12%-0.15% of the government funds.

Now Channel 1 is not average quality for a charity and does not have enough infrastructure right now to provide for everywhere. However, would you agree that overall people could plausibly donate 0.2% of the money they would have been taxed funding welfare if they did not have to fund welfare?

[johannhowitzer]

russianspy, I take it you haven't spent much time in the inner city.  I've been involved firsthand with relief organizations in both Chicago and Indianapolis, and there are a myriad of small organizations that do a wonderful job of providing food and even limited shelter for people who can't afford it on their own.  There are also organizations that go one step further to "teaching a man to fish," by providing job training and childcare services.  Some of these organizations are funded by local churches, but very few of them spend any resources on Bibles or any other religion-related properties.

Many of these organizations also rely on a "consistent core" of financial contributors who give regularly, and would give more if they could.  Assuming OT's figures above are correct, I've little doubt that an additional $1 billion would be easily found if the taxes that fund welfare programs were cut - probably a lot more.  Even $1 billion would be more than is necessary.

[russianspy1234]

However, would you agree that overall people could plausibly donate 0.2% of the money they would have been taxed funding welfare if they did not have to fund welfare?

could? yes.  would? no.  if people did not mind donating to other people, they would be calling for fixing holes and making it more efficient (which i almost never hear) as opposed to getting rid of it entirely (which i hear rather often).  charties rely on the kindness of people.  unfortunately, people as a whole are not very kind.

no i have not spent a lot of time in the inner city.  and yet, i still see plenty of homeless people begging for money, or just sleeping on the ground, in the poorer areas of where i live.

[BluePriest]

However, would you agree that overall people could plausibly donate 0.2% of the money they would have been taxed funding welfare if they did not have to fund welfare?

could? yes.  would? no.  if people did not mind donating to other people, they would be calling for fixing holes and making it more efficient (which i almost never hear) as opposed to getting rid of it entirely (which i hear rather often).  charties rely on the kindness of people.  unfortunately, people as a whole are not very kind.

Its not the community as a whole you look at.

Im a pizza delivery guy. I go on an average of 100 deliveries a week. 2/3 deliveries I dont recieve a tip on. However, i get an average of about 2 dollars a tip. Why? Because for every 2 people that dont tip, I have somone who tips me for 3. And Im not talking a big order either. I got a 10 dollar tip for delivering a pizza and 2 liter to a trucker one day.

Sure the majority of people wont give, but the people that do make up for it.

[johannhowitzer]

no i have not spent a lot of time in the inner city.  and yet, i still see plenty of homeless people begging for money, or just sleeping on the ground, in the poorer areas of where i live.

OK, now you're helping my point, though you seem to think you're cutting it down.  Do we currently live in a society where welfare has been cut and the hungry and homeless must rely entirely on charities?  No, we do not.  We live in a society where welfare does exist, and charities have less to work with due to less disposable income (and thus less contributions).

This reminds me of a discussion I had with a friend about what he called "the evils of capitalism."  Every example he came up with was a symptom of socialist policy, so all his points ended up hurting his position and helping mine.

charties rely on the kindness of people.  unfortunately, people as a whole are not very kind.

The problem with your point here is that it only works when talking about individual people or small groups.  The fact is that people do contribute, and in fact an increase in disposable income (that would result from cutting all welfare-related taxes) will mean more contributions, based on a little friend I like to call the Law of Averages.  We're not dealing with a handful of upper-crust people who own five cars and a jacuzzi here, we're dealing with the entire nation, and among a nation as large as the USA, there is a statistically significant percentage of the population that does give very near their means, and would give more if they could.  I've met entire communities that behaved like this, it surprised me - in a very, very good way!

(EDIT: ha, BP sniped me!  Well played, sir.)

[russianspy1234]

However, would you agree that overall people could plausibly donate 0.2% of the money they would have been taxed funding welfare if they did not have to fund welfare?

could? yes.  would? no.  if people did not mind donating to other people, they would be calling for fixing holes and making it more efficient (which i almost never hear) as opposed to getting rid of it entirely (which i hear rather often).  charties rely on the kindness of people.  unfortunately, people as a whole are not very kind.

Its not the community as a whole you look at.

Im a pizza delivery guy. I go on an average of 100 deliveries a week. 2/3 deliveries I dont recieve a tip on. However, i get an average of about 2 dollars a tip. Why? Because for every 2 people that dont tip, I have somone who tips me for 3. And Im not talking a big order either. I got a 10 dollar tip for delivering a pizza and 2 liter to a trucker one day.

Sure the majority of people wont give, but the people that do make up for it.

the majority do not tip, so the ones that do have to give for 3 in order for you to make a decent amount of tips.  if everyone tipped, then the burden on those that do give is less for you to make a decent wage.  people see you, look you in the eye, and dont tip you.  why do you expect people, the majority of whom have never seen a homeless person, and have never had to skip a meal to give anything at all?  the vast majority will not give, and the majority of people who do not give are those that can afford to give the most.  its people who HAVE experienced going hungry and no what its like that want to give, but they cant afford to.  some give what they can, other donate their time.  cutting taxes and expecting to help the same amount of people through donations is equivalent to leaving out a jar of candy on halloween with a sign that says "please take one".

no i have not spent a lot of time in the inner city.  and yet, i still see plenty of homeless people begging for money, or just sleeping on the ground, in the poorer areas of where i live.

OK, now you're helping my point, though you seem to think you're cutting it down.  Do we currently live in a society where welfare has been cut and the hungry and homeless must rely entirely on charities?  No, we do not.  We live in a society where welfare does exist, and charities have less to work with due to less disposable income (and thus less contributions).

This reminds me of a discussion I had with a friend about what he called "the evils of capitalism."  Every example he came up with was a symptom of socialist policy, so all his points ended up hurting his position and helping mine.

charties rely on the kindness of people.  unfortunately, people as a whole are not very kind.

The problem with your point here is that it only works when talking about individual people or small groups.  The fact is that people do contribute, and in fact an increase in disposable income (that would result from cutting all welfare-related taxes) will mean more contributions, based on a little friend I like to call the Law of Averages.  We're not dealing with a handful of upper-crust people who own five cars and a jacuzzi here, we're dealing with the entire nation, and among a nation as large as the USA, there is a statistically significant percentage of the population that does give very near their means, and would give more if they could.  I've met entire communities that behaved like this, it surprised me - in a very, very good way!

(EDIT: ha, BP sniped me!  Well played, sir.)

cutting military spending and lowering taxes proportionally will give people more disposable income to.  the problem with your idea is that, while it could work, the only way to really know is to try and then count the dead bodies.  will there be as many as i think?  probably not.  will there be 0? definitely not.



there is a psychological phenomenon called diffusion of responsibility.  you are more likely to get help with your car on an almost empty country road than you are on a busy city street.  people on a busy street will see others and think "oh someone else will help them".  how bad would it be if you had the entire country to diffuse to?