All Hail Woody

Posted by: Barthélemy Barbancourt

Tagged in: Untagged 

After a long discussion, Woody admitted that private sector entrepreneurs, like me, Nobody and Bill Gates, are way better at creating jobs and wealth than the government. 

He does think that the government provides a better social safety net than private sector people like me, Nobody and Bill Gates.


The statistics don't bear out this in any way shape or form. Americans are very generous people. We donate billions to charities of all kinds. Every nation on earth asks for our help when they need it and without exception we come when asked, even to countries that hate us like Pakistan and Aceh.

Domestically we have the United Way, Red Cross, Catholic Charities, The United Negro College Fund, Rotary, Masons, Shiners, etc. There are tons of people helping people every single day.

Why can't the non-profits (funded by private sector donations) handle the need in the USA? Do we really think that the poor need big screen TV's or cell phones? Should a single mom be given a single family home or should she share space with other single moms? Should crack whores get their kids back over and over again or should they lose their parental rights forever with the kids shipped to private orphanages? (Opps, that last one is too easy)

As our society faces the end of liberalism and the inevitable bankruptcy that it always brings, we will have to face questions like these and much hard ones. (Does an older parent have the right to move in with a child?)

The sooner we throw out 60's hippie era assumptions, the sooner we can work on restoring our nation.

Comments (6)add comment
written by jeff , August 10, 2011

Actually I think the private sector ought to be encouraged to provide that social safety net. Caring for the poor used to be the function and part of the mission of the Church, as well as a command by none other than Jesus himself to take care of the less fortunete than yourself. I think that to a large degree government run programs makes people less caring towards the plight of others. After all I pay enough in taxes already for the sundry social programs. And why should I be bothered when I want to get home and see my favorite programs on TV.
Think about this, once you have a goverment program or angency, you have just insured that the social ill you want to abolish will remain amoung us forever. What government worker is actually going to try to work himself out of a job, when there are so many more important things to consider, such are more pay, more power, better benefits, more vacation time and retiring at the earliest age with the max benifits. Since LBJ's programs of the 60s how much poverty has been eliminated? How well are we doing with our "war" on crime and drugs? Can we honestly say that the average high school grad is better educated than a grad from the 60s or 70s? Just a thought.

JW of Minnesota
written by JW of Minnesota , August 11, 2011

We're human. We like incentives.

If I worked for Nobody, the incentive would be to provide an increasing ROI for him. I would be payed more each year. A Pareto improvement for both parties, opposite of the government scenario.

Government checks don't provide incentive for the human nature to grow. Everyone is kept at the same dismal level.

written by TomC , August 11, 2011

Good points Jeff & JW. It is unrealistic for the poor--I hate the word unfortunate because it seems like luck is involved, when it is generally decision making-- and their needs to be addressed in any efficient manner from Washington, DC.. Just the additional unnecessary hierarchy is an incredible burden. Dealing with the poor is a local problem.

In a locally funded and controlled aid organization, capable poor people, who have not been ingrained for generations in our dependent society, will be encouraged by the local faces they see on a regular basis to become productive.

Those who are less or incapable should be institutionalized. There are many different ways and levels that use to address this from psychiatric to group homes.

The tax system is upside-down. If this is even a tax situation and not charity, it is still better managed and monitored on a local level. Areas that provide more services, usually metro areas, will also be a congregating point for the services and the servicees.

Bart, your list of service organizations is also appropriate, because these organizations are highly efficient with managing their funds.

The federal government, when reporting their costs for organizations, always couch those figures in unrealistic manners. Medicare is notorious for not including some administrations salaries and never including fraud monitoring and other major areas. When they put their statistics next to insurance companies or other provides and show a 3% administrative cost amount for Medicare vs a 20-25% administrative amount for insurance, it is never explained that fraud monitoring and detection comprises about 20% of an insurance companies senior services. The also catch proportionally a lot more fraud than Medicare.

Anything government does, especially the federal government, is based on a seemingly endless supply of someone else's money. There is no incentive to use it efficiently. The same hold true for services to the poor, maybe even more so because there will always be "the poor." Even if they would be called the middle class somewhere else.

written by Nobody , August 11, 2011

I am "lucky" enough (man I hate that) to have had "rich" stamped on my forearm way before I turned 30. In the years since I have spent thousands of dollars to minimise my taxes. I have also donated a bunch to charity.

It has come to a point where I'm just going have to quit to save my money. The War on Poverty is over, we lost.

What did we, as a nation do before the New Deal? (Hint; even Al Capone ran soup kitchens in Chicago) The Great Society was just LBJ's "Let's give the Poor Folks something so they won't riot anymore" Programe. Time to hit the reset button.

Barthélemy Barbancourt
Actually we won!
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , August 11, 2011

The "poor" in the USA live better than most Europeans. They have larger homes, they have access to better healthcare and they are fat. Real hunger is almost extinct in the USA. Only 2,300 people a year die from Malnutrition and that includes anorexics, bulimics and long term drug and alcohol abusers. No sane person in America has died from lack of access to food unless they were being tortured or held captive.

Our government keep redefining what it means to be poor so that they can continue to screw the middle class and grow government.

Roughly 4 billion people would rather be "poor" in the USA than live where they currently do how they currently do.

Lucky and rich
written by Nobody , August 14, 2011

Ever since I put those two words in that post it has bugged me. Let me give you guys the short version. I educated myself out of my chosen field. I had a trade so I ventured out on my own. I borroeed money from family and any friend that had a spare buck. I bought a weeks worth of food and put the last 38 cents I had in the world, in the cash box. I worked 7 days a week for the next 3 years without a day off.

The next 10 years I gave myself sundays off and still worked 60 to 80 hours a week. I spent wisely and saved like crazy. Bidness oppertunity always come to people that are liquid and I was and they came.

So I made more money and still worked 60 hours. I don't do that much anymore and am comfortible in my dotage. Luck my ass.

Now for that I'm supposed to support some crack whore baby maker? Provide seed money to a drug dealer? Get villianised by govmint hacks?

And they riot in the UK.

Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.