Should we house the homeless and feed the hungry?

[Stevicus]

Without taking sides in any political debate, I still want to offer these comments.

The military is a dictatorship that requires strict obedience to some really serious orders.

In general, the public school system is not as good and too often very inferior to private educational systems.

I can tell you from first hand experience that the veteran health care system is not very good at all.

Are you sure these are the examples you want to use?

One thing about private schools is that they can screen applicants and reject anyone they don't want. Public schools don't have that luxury, as they have to take everybody within their district. Since families have to be wealthy in order to afford private school, most of the student body comes from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. They can afford tutors and provide a much more stable home life than those who come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please show me the research and statistics. Thanks.

Conveniently ignoring the rest of my post?

 

[firedragon]

Conveniently ignoring the rest of my post?

Why do you think I am "conveniently ignoring" mate?

 

[Valjean]

Miken said: ↑
Without taking sides in any political debate, I still want to offer these comments.

The military is a dictatorship that requires strict obedience to some really serious orders.

In general, the public school system is not as good and too often very inferior to private educational systems.

I can tell you from first hand experience that the veteran health care system is not very good at all.

Are you sure these are the examples you want to use?

The privatized US schools, even taking into consideration their selectivity, may not show significant educational advantages over public schools -- even taking into consideration the steady defunding of public education.
Privatization of public education is a failure | HuffPost

The VA has had serious problems with access, but its medical care was/is generally considered good, if you manage to get in, especially by its clients.
Ratings vary a lot, regionally.
Considering the lack of public funding in the face of a massive increase in clientele -- thanks to the US' military adventurism -- it's remarkable it's doing as well as it is.
Finally, it's a pure, socialized system, thus not popular with the Neoliberal, Republican power elite.

 

[Miken]

Here are some samples to illustrate what I mean about New York City public education. The deltas are from 2018 to 2019.

“In English, the overall percentage of New York City students meeting the State’s bar for proficiency increased by 0.7 percentage points, from 46.7 percent to 47.4 percent.
In Math, the overall percentage of proficient students in New York City increased by 2.9 percentage points, from 42.7 percent to 45.6 percent.

The four-year graduation rate increased by 1.7 percentage points, from 74.3 percent in August 2017 to 75.9 percent in August 2018.
The dropout rate decreased by 0.3 percentage points, from 7.8 percent in August 2017 to 7.5 percent in August 2018.”

DOE Data at a Glance

Fewer than half of New York City students meet the State standard for proficiency in English and Math.
Of those who enter high school, only 3 out of 4 graduate in four years.
One in 13 never graduate high school.

In 2017, New York City spent $25,199 per student, compared to a national average of $12,201.
https://nypost.com/2019/05/21/nyc-s...erage-on-education-has-little-to-show-for-it/

Here are some graphs. While New York State outside of New York City is noticeably above the national average in ratings, New York City is noticeably below that national average despite spending much more per student.

Statistics about private schools are not easily available, there being no readily accessible summaries. For Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of New York, the proficiency levels are 53.7% in Math and 56.7% in English and the high school graduation rate is 99%. Link This is compared to 45.6% and 47.4% and 92.5% (corrected figure) in New York City public schools. Better but not spectacular.

But the question is why should New York City suck so badly if the investment per student is so much higher than public schools elsewhere. It is not a matter of underinvestment to benefit the wealthy. To treat problems like this it is necessary to investigate the root causes in detail and address them appropriately. Snap answers based on ideology do not work.

 

[Miken]

One thing about private schools is that they can screen applicants and reject anyone they don't want. Public schools don't have that luxury, as they have to take everybody within their district. Since families have to be wealthy in order to afford private school, most of the student body comes from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. They can afford tutors and provide a much more stable home life than those who come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

All true. But as I said in my post above, there is an education problem in NYC that is not resolvable by throwing money at it.

 

[Miken]

you qualifying them no relevance to the fact. they are socialist programs

Socialism is typically said to be social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management of enterprises. None of your examples qualify. It seems that you think that anything government does is socialism. If having a military is socialist then so is having a police force. What about government installed traffic lights?

Socialism is something other than typical capitalism. Your examples are simply irrelevant to that concept.

 

[Etritonakin]

Can we do so without adversely affecting anything else? Yes.

Various people have differing ability and opportunity to make changes and do good -do what is right -but there is generally no reason any should be hungry or without shelter -AND no reason they can not be actively and appropriately given opportunities to change their situation based on each situation. We should be proactive for every possible reason. What we are all responsible for is based on less-than-perfect situations and our ability/opportunity to make them better. Personal responsibility is a bit more complicated, but most could do more personally. Those whose responsibility -especially if sought -is to literally make a place better and address such issues should do so with positive regard for all -not just those who don't want to look at or deal with poor people. Spikes in the only place someone has -rather had -to sleep? Guess what -they just go somewhere else. Problem not solved.

"The homeless" and those affected by poverty -which includes families/children -are all different in how they are personally able and willing to change their situation, but getting people back into the best possible situation as quickly as possible is good for every one and every thing...
mental, emotional and physical health -exposure to unhealthy or dangerous situations -drugs, etc. -illegal activity -health care costs -the economy -community -society..... literally every last one and thing! ...Even for those who don't want to look at or deal with poor people!

We can -but we are not doing so to anywhere near the level we should. That's just sad.
An individual's basic needs are actually society's basic needs. Where there are empty bellies and no beds, everything will be adversely affected.

 

[Fool]

Socialism is typically said to be social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management of enterprises. None of your examples qualify. It seems that you think that anything government does is socialism. If having a military is socialist then so is having a police force. What about government installed traffic lights?

Socialism is something other than typical capitalism. Your examples are simply irrelevant to that concept.

welcome to reality. something other than capitalism. the community is greater than the wants of a capitalist.


you cannot serve the whole and self-serving capitalism

 

[Miken]

welcome to reality. something other than capitalism. the community is greater than the wants of a capitalist.


you cannot serve the whole and self-serving capitalism

Exactly how do you envision a socialist society and how to transition to it? Snapping fingers does not do it.

 

[Milton Platt]

There's many more people struggling in our communities with the effects of a worldwide pandemic on the economy. Vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected.

Do we as individuals or a community have a responsibility for the welfare of those who are in dire need? Should we feed the hungry? Should we assist those without accommodation to find shelter? Do we have a duty of care?

Do we need a religion or ideology to respond to human need? Does religion or ideology make us more or less likely to care?

When there is an opportunity to fire multi-million dollar missiles into the desert, the question of money never comes up. try and feed a homeless person and all of a sudden it is the first thing on everyone's mind.......

 

[Stevicus]

But the question is why should New York City suck so badly if the investment per student is so much higher than public schools elsewhere. It is not a matter of underinvestment to benefit the wealthy. To treat problems like this it is necessary to investigate the root causes in detail and address them appropriately. Snap answers based on ideology do not work.

I can't really speak to the issue of New York City's education system. I'm sure there must be an answer to your question (and it's a very good question to ask), but I'm not qualified to answer it, as I know next to nothing about the NYC school system. I do know that NYC is one of the more expensive cities in the US to live, so that may increase the costs across the board.

 

[Valjean]

Exactly how do you envision a socialist society and how to transition to it? Snapping fingers does not do it.

No-one's proposing turning the whole system upside down overnight. What the so-called "radical, left-wing liberals" are advocating are policies -- to Make America Great Again. Conservative policies to turn back the clock.

We used to have a good public education system.
We used to have free tuition in state colleges.
We used to be able to put ourselves through most private colleges with a Summer job.
We used to have unions and good wages.
We used to be able to buy a house, raise a family, put them through college, take a yearly vacation and buy a new car every two or three years -- all on a single, middle class or good working class salary.
We didn't used to have homeless people panhandling at every intersection and tent villages all over our cities.
We used to have social mobility. Parents expected their kids expected to do better than their parents.
Health care used to be affordable.
We used to be the land of opportunity....

All this changed as a result of Republican, right-wing policies, and the rise of Neoliberalism in 1980. Policies like union-busting, deregulation, privatization, and globalization; and the massive, MASSIVE shredding of social programs and the social safety net.
Socialized institutions were defunded and competing, private, for-profit corporations (who could afford lobbyists and campaign contributions) were encouraged (read: subsidized and given tax breaks).

All this is why we have such a population of impoverished and homeless -- and an RF thread.

 

[Miken]

No-one's proposing turning the whole system upside down overnight. What the so-called "radical, left-wing liberals" are advocating are policies -- to Make America Great Again. Conservative policies to turn back the clock.

We used to have a good public education system.
We used to have free tuition in state colleges.
We used to be able to put ourselves through most private colleges with a Summer job.
We used to have unions and good wages.
We used to be able to buy a house, raise a family, put them through college, take a yearly vacation and buy a new car every two or three years -- all on a single, middle class or good working class salary.
We didn't used to have homeless people panhandling at every intersection and tent villages all over our cities.
We used to have social mobility. Parents expected their kids expected to do better than their parents.
Health care used to be affordable.
We used to be the land of opportunity....

All this changed as a result of Republican, right-wing policies, and the rise of Neoliberalism in 1980. Policies like union-busting, deregulation, privatization, and globalization; and the massive, MASSIVE shredding of social programs and the social safety net.
Socialized institutions were defunded and competing, private, for-profit corporations (who could afford lobbyists and campaign contributions) were encouraged (read: subsidized and given tax breaks).

All this is why we have such a population of impoverished and homeless -- and an RF thread.

I pretty much agree with your 'used to' list. I agree that it was Reagan capitalism that did a lot of damage. I am fully aware that Biden is not a socialist. Yet real socialism is out there. Some members of Congress real socialists. Ocasio-Cortez and others are members of Democratic Socialists of America. Here is their position.

“Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.

Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.”

What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

Corporations are owned by stockholders who receive dividend payments from the profits of the corporation. Democratic socialism proposes worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. How does the transition from ownership by those ‘few wealthy stockholders’ take place? Are they bought out? What would be the basis for price of the stock? Where does that money come from? Will ownership simply be confiscated? How is the transition to take place? Who decides who runs the corporation after the stockholders no longer do?

That is what I am asking for. Anyone have a plan?

 

[Valjean]

I pretty much agree with your 'used to' list. I agree that it was Reagan capitalism that did a lot of damage. I am fully aware that Biden is not a socialist. Yet real socialism is out there. Some members of Congress real socialists. Ocasio-Cortez and others are members of Democratic Socialists of America. Here is their position.

"Real socialists?" in the Marxian sense? I don't see this. I see democratic socialists, like those who manage the governments of Scandinavia and other developed regions.
AOC's policies work, and produce happiness and prosperity.
2020 World Press Freedom Index | RSF
Freedom Index by Country 2020

Neoliberal policies do work -- for a tiny elite. But they harm the common people.

Here is their position.

“Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.

Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.”

What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

Corporations are owned by stockholders who receive dividend payments from the profits of the corporation. Democratic socialism proposes worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. How does the transition from ownership by those ‘few wealthy stockholders’ take place? Are they bought out? What would be the basis for price of the stock? Where does that money come from? Will ownership simply be confiscated? How is the transition to take place? Who decides who runs the corporation after the stockholders no longer do?

That is what I am asking for. Anyone have a plan?

Co-ops are already proliferating, even in the US. I belong to a food co-op and credit union myself.
How about Mondragon in Spain? It's a huge conglomerate; a large part of Spain's economy -- and a "socialist" Co-op. Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia

Policies passed by congress in the last 40 years can be reversed. Corporate monopolies can be broken up. We broke it, we can fix it. [Recommend: Dark Money. Jane Mayer.]How did Europe get there?

Remember FDR's flurry ("alphabet soup") of initiatives, social programs and corporate/bank regulations in the early '30s? That turned everything on its head practically overnight -- and it worked. We socialist/democratic types aren't advocating anything near as radical, yet, to listen to the Republicans, you'd think we were inciting a second civil war.

It can be done. Step by step, just as it was accomplished.

 

[Miken]

"Real socialists?" in the Marxian sense? I don't see this. I see democratic socialists, like those who manage the governments of Scandinavia and other developed regions.
AOC's policies work, and produce happiness and prosperity.
2020 World Press Freedom Index | RSF
Freedom Index by Country 2020
Neoliberal policies do work -- for a tiny elite. But they harm the common people.


Co-ops are already proliferating, even in the US. I belong to a food co-op and credit union myself.
How about Mondragon in Spain? It's a huge conglomerate; a large part of Spain's economy -- and a "socialist" Co-op. Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia

Policies passed by congress in the last 40 years can be reversed. Corporate monopolies can be broken up. We broke it, we can fix it. [Recommend: Dark Money. Jane Mayer.]How did Europe get there?

Remember FDR's flurry ("alphabet soup") of initiatives, social programs and corporate/bank regulations in the early '30s? That turned everything on its head practically overnight -- and it worked. We socialist/democratic types aren't advocating anything near as radical, yet, to listen to the Republicans, you'd think we were inciting a second civil war.

It can be done. Step by step, just as it was accomplished.

Not Marxism, which is ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need’. That is not the Democratic Socialism I referenced. By ‘real’ socialist I meant those who in some form propose worker or government ownership of at least some businesses. Biden proposing a government sponsored alternate medical insurance facility is not socialism.

Co-ops are the Mom and Pop corner stores writ large. I was talking about how existing corporations are to become worker owned. How is the transition to work, in detail?

FDR did not turn anything around overnight. The depression lasted until the US entered WW2. Sky high unemployment barely budged for years and actually peaked in 1936. The worst US stock market crash in history happened in 1933, not 1929. The situation was very complex and I am not going to offer any ideology-based analyses. But ‘overnight’ is simply not the case.

 

[metis]

I was talking about how existing corporations are to become worker owned.

Let me chime in on this, if I may.

It could be done by having a time limitation with those who own stock and not allowing new shares to be bought.

However, I personally don't propose this.

 

[Miken]

Let me chime in on this, if I may.

It could be done by having a time limitation with those who own stock and not allowing new shares to be bought.

However, I personally don't propose this.

Time limitation on what? I don;t understand.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Without incentive to work, people don't. When TWA workers bought the airline, they decided that the boss (they) didn't have to work, and the airline fell apart and dissolved.

Is your paycheque the only incentive you've ever had to work? If so, that's genuinely heartbreaking.

 

[metis]

Time limitation on what? I don;t understand.

People are allowed to keep their stock and benefit financially from it but they cannot pass it on to others after they pass away. Marx proposed that, but I don't support it.

Instead, I prefer a different approach, namely that three parties make the decisions since all are affected: owners/CEO's, local/state/national representatives, and labor. This is similar to a process used in Japan that has been quite successful for decades.