You could also argue that, by increasing welfare for others, you increase overall well being and quality of life.

That's difficult to quantify, Emon. But at least you know that the services are available when you need them, which is better than the alternative.

I think it's interesting that the poor donate more of their income (as a percentage) than the very wealthy. They rich need the money to invest it in the poor, you see.

Edit: (Probably it's because they've previously benefited from the charity, but that's a side issue.)

why would you want to leave it up to the government to distribute the aid, when as you just stated, .

if you are indeed that interested in helping others better their lives why not go through a private scholarship program? heck you can ever start your own foundation if you want. i guess the main difference is i simply do NOT have the same faith in government that you guys have been able to find.

wat

I think you skipped about the other hundred unintended consequences in your gross simplification of fiscal policy and economic theory

Whereas many of us don't have any faith in relying upon the chairty of the well-off as and when they feel like.

For one thing, relatively sexy charity outreaches like scholarships are pretty much all there will be. Few people will know about or bother with sewage and street repair funds for a an impoverished neighbourhood. And if they did it probably wouldn't happen until something disastrous such as cholera started to spread. Without the government such attempts at providing welfare would be without proper direction or organisation.

Secondly when times get tough economically is when welfare is needed most, yet given those circumstances most people will cut their charity spending first before giving up their own personal goods.

Thirdly, you leave services that should be available to all without discrimination to the whims of private individuals. It's not hard to believe for example that in the US people would set up such scholarships for Christian students only, or would only fund education at an institute of their liking.

Since a government cannot typically generate a profit in a strict production sense, its revenue is derived from a share in all economic activity under its purview. More economic activity equals bigger budgets. There are a lot of individual politicians and policies you might disagree with, but they contribute to the economy in ways that might not be immediately obvious. It's not a question of faith, so much as an idea of what a government is supposed to be doing. The money is always helping someone, it might just not be you.

Either way the government is a much more trustworthy investor than individual people. A government's 'profit' is based on how well the economy is doing, while a total crash of the economy can mean enormous profits for certain individuals. See, as I mentioned before, the major financial institutions.

yeah i am not talking about basic stuff like sewage or roads. i am not even talking about stuff like public schooling where every one pays for and can use it. i am talking about straight redistribution of wealth.

let me reiterate again that i simply do not think it is the governments place to "take care of me" in my daily life. its not the governments place to get me a job a car a house or an advanced degree if i am in any way capable of doing so my self.

It's also worth noting that private scholarship programs do not have the kind of buying power that a government program would enjoy because there aren't nearly the number of contributors as there would be under a taxpayer system.

I'm not sure why you think that the a welfare program is the same thing as a compulsory welfare program - simply because the option exists does not mean you must use that option.

Also:

This may be a bad analogy and I certainly mean no offense by it: small children often claim they don't need to be parented either, but they clearly do and should be.

Employment Insurance is an example of wealth redistribution: all currently employed people pay into it, and unemployed people collect that money. You might be against such a program, but I'm 100% in favor of it because it buffers the impact of job loss on the economy. On a smaller scale, every participant in the economy paid for the education and training every unemployed worker received. If we can keep him or her from starving to death while they find another job we're saving ourselves a pretty huge investment.

Other social programs provide similar benefits. Like a healthcare system might provide long-term care similarly to a family member, but if the cost is distributed it frees those able-bodied family members to perform other tasks while the care is provided in scale.

Of course, a similar government program that's being run very poorly is federal student financial aid. The easy availability of relatively huge amounts of tuition money is causing massive inflation as American institutions scramble for profits and prestige.

Alran - Joncy said it best when he said (I'm paraphrasing for laziness) "when money's tight you won't donate".

look as far as personal ideals, yes i am against the redistribution of wealth by the government. it simply rubs me the wrong way.
however in the reality of the world we live in today i am not that against helping people even when it does involve some redistribution.

i am however against the "mommy knows best" attitude toward the government that many people seem to have.

case in point:

I disagree with the notion that the government is sole mechanism by which all of our societies problems should be remedied. Pointing out the problem does not imply a solution.

On the other hand I really don't think that it is realistically possible in this political environment to avoid a government solution. My expectation is that we will implement a compromise between our current broken system and a socialized system, which will end up being worse than either our current system or a truly socialized health care.

Nobody said it is. It's just a convenient way of getting some of my money to people less fortunate than me whether I like it or not.

But mommy does know best, and the last couple of years are absolutely packed with examples of how the private sector regards us sheeple and why the government must intervene in certain situations:

It's not an issue with politics, it's an issue with economics. Let's put the moral issues aside for a moment

Basic economic theory says that all participants in the economy make generally rational decisions; meaning, they make decisions that are in their best interests. For example: Health insurers maximize their profits if many people buy their services but none of those people make a claim. That means there is a strong incentive for health insurance companies to screen customers based on preexisting conditions as well as the potential for developing those conditions (based on family histories, physical examinations and possibly genetic screening in the future.)

Based on current trends, the cost of health insurance is constantly rising, but the marginal benefit is constantly dropping. As insurers get better at screening patients, people who are likely to get independent health insurance are less likely to actually need it. Does this scenario sound at all sustainable in the long term? What is going to happen to the industry when they finally lose these high margin customers?

I agree sometimes it is necessary for the government to intervene. however there is a decided difference between intervening so as to fix a problem and taking control of a program indefinitely. i agree the healthcare system does need some reform. i do not think that in the long run the government will be capable of managing anything other than a single payer public system though.

What do you think about things like the JAK members bank, or microcredit instutitions? Do you think microfinance is a way to genuinely invigorate very poor economies, or just an insustainable experiment?

Bruce Schneier says it best, the best way to make the private sector do the right thing is to shift the legal liability of doing the wrong thing onto them. It is basically impossiible for a large (public) corporation to do the right thing because they are always answerable to their shareholders - most of whom don't actually know what companies they have shares in (because they pay someone to take care of that).

If a company knowingly makes unprofitable decisions (like giving health insurance to people with existing conditions or susceptability to conditions), they will eventually get sued by their shareholders and the board of directors replaced. Recent example being Yahoo trying to resist the Microsoft takeover/partnership only for their CEO to be fired and replaced by someone who was willing to deal with the devil.

Summary: The only way for a public company to do the right thing is to make it more expensive for them to do the wrong thing. In some sectors where a service is essential (like health), you can't make the insurance companies liable for the people they didn't sign up, so the only solution is to have some degree of nationalised healthcare.

and i would be fine with a strictly regulated program that helped ensure people with pre-existing conditions.