Name a government program that does work

[MaC]

I was watching the Harry Browne show last night, and he pointed something out, there really isn't a single government program that does work.  His case in point, the guest he had on the show said "Pell Grants", but Pell Grants are just another take from one group and give to another program by force and they've raised the cost of college.  College used to be affordable, but since government gets in the business of helping people, and some are economically advantaged through these programs, they tend to rise the cost of college very steeply.  And the worst part is that politicians don't realize their mistakes, and get the government out of people's lives, they do the opposite by making a larger more intrusive government.

This isn't about the Pell Grants, because it's already been discussed
<here>http://www.freemarketnews.com/portfolio/index.php (it's about an hour long program)

However, I would like someone to make the case these social programs work, and work well, and benefit society without hurting others.

[TheresNoMoney]

Social Security
GI Bill
Medicaid
Pell Grants

[John Dibble]

Depends on what you mean by 'works'. Different people will give different answers based on what they expect from the programs. Many programs actually do fulfill their purpose, but with side effects - the real question is "what government programs work well?"

[MaC]

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.  It doesn't work now, and it was doomed for failure when it started in the 1930s.  The concept is I take your $50 and promise you $100 in a month.  To get your $100, I take from at least two more people $50 with the same claim I made to my first customer.  It fails when I cannot find enough support at the lowest levels to support those on top.  
Now if you or I were to do this, it would be illegal (as it was for Charles Ponzi in the 1920s), but when government does it, it's mandated and forced on us. Double standard?
However, I'm much more concerned with managing my retirement fund than government is, and I have much more confidence in myself to do it.  

I don't understand your reference to air ballons, are you implying that without government, they'd be no cars or something?

[CheeseWhiz]

Uhhhh...  Ummm......  Uhhhh...

[Virginian87]

TVA
National Parks Service (if you classify that as a government program)
FDIC (see above)
Interstate Highway System
St. Lawrence Seaway
Conrail was a government program that succeeded tremendously and was later privatized.
...just to name a few.  I'll think of more later.

Social Security has some problems that need fixin', but not through personal accounts.
Amtrak would have worked out well if the government would fund it a little more.



I'm waiting for A18 to explode in an anti-government rant.

[MaC]

Social Security
GI Bill
Medicaid
Pell Grants

Social Security-see answer for McFarlan
GI Bill-as well as Pell Grants increased the cost of college through handouts, and gives welfare (steals from workers) for unemployment comp.
Medicaid-the cost is shifted by getting government into the medical insurance business.  This means you have to pay someone else's bills for them.  And they might not even get the coverage they need because of the costly way government redistributes.  There're many different insurance industries, and I'm positive in a free market there'd be an insurance company that would take care of the needs of the poor/eldery/young/unfortunate.  In addition to this private charity as always been an option, and there are so many charities out there.  I'm sure some would
Pell Grants-see my initial example

all of these 'entitlements' hurt me as a taxpayer and hinder my ability to spend on stuff I know will benefit me, or will hinder my resources so that I can give to charity (freely and not coerced)

[TheresNoMoney]

Social Darwinism would be much worse.

These programs help a lot more than they hurt.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

ARC. And I have lots of statistics to prove it

[Jake]

You might as well not even bother arguing with him. The GI Bill set the stage for the post war economic boom, of course, since it cost taxpayer money, it failed. This is not so much an exercise in debate, but an exercise of him whining about the government.

[??????????]

Social Security
GI Bill
Medicaid
Pell Grants

Why did you forget the LOL JK and of course ?

[MaC]

TVA
National Parks Service (if you classify that as a government program)
FDIC (see above)
Interstate Highway System
St. Lawrence Seaway
Conrail was a government program that succeeded tremendously and was later privatized.
...just to name a few.  I'll think of more later.

Social Security has some problems that need fixin', but not through personal accounts.
Amtrak would have worked out well if the government would fund it a little more.



I'm waiting for A18 to explode in an anti-government rant.

TVA-what is this, care to unabbreviate?
National Parks, not really a hot button with me, but I'll attempt anyways.  Land must be set aside for these parks, and purchased by the government.  The government must then slap a buttload of regualtions on the parks concerning what people who are let into these parks can or cannot do.  They must then spend for enforcement and charge accordingly.  If an individual were to own a park and have people go through, they would have the profit incentive motivating themselves to keep it clean and such, rather than force.  The rules they write may not be super restrictive and more people would feel welcomed in.  Besides which, it's taxpayer money supporting these parks and some taxpayers may not want to go to the park.
FDIC-if banks were not forced to have this insuance policy, your interest rate might increase.  Why should the government interfere with how the banks conduct business.
Interstate Highway System-Democrats often complain about how the rich only want to get richer.  In this case it would be a good thing. A rich person or company would purchase land from the government and/or the indiviuals it needs to start the highway.  Since it's a good system, people will want to drive on it, and the person can charge an amount of money to let people drive it.  I'm in not in favor of paying for the roads, but I would rather do it if I needed to reach a certain place, rather than have my taxpayer money coercively taken for it.  It's not one of the things I'm too steamed at though because the Constitution does allow congress to post roads.  To show the government doesn't work, in Michigan we have the worst roads imaginable in some places, absolutely ptohole riden.  They get "fixed" with this black tar crap and in a few years time they need fixing again, but it's even more costly than the original job.  A prime example of how well a public good is maintained by government.
St. Lawrence and Conrail (although I'm not very familiar with them), it seems much of what can be said about the highway system can be said about them.

When there's a problem, someone will figure a way to fix it, make it better for everyone, and get rich off it.  It's a much better path than government passing a bill, creating only temporary jobs, taking taxpayer money, and creating it, and then when it fails, increase spending, applying a temporary fix, and tax us more.  And when that plan fails ten years later, same cycle.

[??????????]

TVA = Tennessee Valley Authority. The built dams in the south and basically "plugged the south in" w/electric.

[MaC]

Social Darwinism would be much worse.

These programs help a lot more than they hurt.

No they don't many of the lesser advantaged people didn't gain after they started these programs and the general populous had more of a tax burden and more interference in their life.

You might as well not even bother arguing with him. The GI Bill set the stage for the post war economic boom, of course, since it cost taxpayer money, it failed. This is not so much an exercise in debate, but an exercise of him whining about the government.

you know of any programs that work Jake?
I'm not whining, I'm just saying, these things are harmful to all of us, yet we keep paying for it.  Why?

The GI Bill didn't make an economic boom out of anything.  If anything it made it more expensive for the common man to go to college.  The later 1940s was running for a recovery anyways, as it was due for a recovery since the economy naturally goes through ups and downs.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

When there's a problem, someone will figure a way to fix it, make it better for everyone, and get rich off it. 

Welcome to extreme-libertarian la-la land.

I mean, don't get me wrong: I believe in free markets, competition, and all that, but your level of naivete is astounding.  People, as a general rule, are crooked.  They will screw over and destroy the lives of others in the path towards profit, if that path is the path of least resistance.  It's just the way people are.

Yes, there are those kind souls who fix problems for the good of humanity, and any profit to come out of the enterprise is secondary and incidental.  But those people are rare.  For every one person who is willing to work to fix a problem, there are 100 working to exploit it.

[A18]

You can not screw someone over in the free market unless one party is not informed. Period. No exceptions. Milk and Cereal does not oppose laws against fraud, so your 'point' is dumb.

[MaC]

TVA = Tennessee Valley Authority. The built dams in the south and basically "plugged the south in" w/electric.

though I'm arguing with Virginian and not States (he simply defined it)

Like I said before, when there is a need, someone will see it and profit from it.  Utilities need not be controlled by a government monopoly, but by a company that can compete with other companies and therefore lower the price and increase the quality.

[MaC]

When there's a problem, someone will figure a way to fix it, make it better for everyone, and get rich off it. 

Welcome to extreme-libertarian la-la land.

I mean, don't get me wrong: I believe in free markets, competition, and all that, but your level of naivete is astounding.  People, as a general rule, are crooked.  They will screw over and destroy the lives of others in the path towards profit, if that path is the path of least resistance.  It's just the way people are.

Yes, there are those kind souls who fix problems for the good of humanity, and any profit to come out of the enterprise is secondary and incidental.  But those people are rare.  For every one person who is willing to work to fix a problem, there are 100 working to exploit it.

may I ask "Why do you believe your fellow man is crooked, yet expect your government to be any better?"

[Emsworth]

When there's a problem, someone will figure a way to fix it, make it better for everyone, and get rich off it. 

Welcome to extreme-libertarian la-la land.

I mean, don't get me wrong: I believe in free markets, competition, and all that, but your level of naivete is astounding.  People, as a general rule, are crooked.  They will screw over and destroy the lives of others in the path towards profit, if that path is the path of least resistance.  It's just the way people are.

Yes, there are those kind souls who fix problems for the good of humanity, and any profit to come out of the enterprise is secondary and incidental.  But those people are rare.  For every one person who is willing to work to fix a problem, there are 100 working to exploit it.

may I ask "Why do you believe your fellow man is crooked, yet expect your government to be any better?"

That is an excellent point. The government is, after all, made up of men, all of whom are supposedly crooked.

[Virginian87]

TVA = Tennessee Valley Authority. The built dams in the south and basically "plugged the south in" w/electric.

though I'm arguing with Virginian and not States (he simply defined it)

Like I said before, when there is a need, someone will see it and profit from it.  Utilities need not be controlled by a government monopoly, but by a company that can compete with other companies and therefore lower the price and increase the quality.

I'm saying it was a good thing.  You can't just expect people to wait around forever for energy.  The government should use taxes to improve people's lives, and that's just what the TVA did.  Utilities were not controlled by a government monopoly.  This was more of a government-funded public works project.

The FDIC helped prevent banks from failing during the Depression and serves as a kind of lifeboat/insurance company for banks during a recession.  It keeps them sound so you can safely deposit money there and not worry about the bank failing.

National Parks, not really a hot button with me, but I'll attempt anyways.  Land must be set aside for these parks, and purchased by the government.  The government must then slap a buttload of regualtions on the parks concerning what people who are let into these parks can or cannot do.  They must then spend for enforcement and charge accordingly.  If an individual were to own a park and have people go through, they would have the profit incentive motivating themselves to keep it clean and such, rather than force.  The rules they write may not be super restrictive and more people would feel welcomed in.  Besides which, it's taxpayer money supporting these parks and some taxpayers may not want to go to the park.

Without those regulations, people would trash the parks, defeating the whole purpose of them in the first place as preserves.  You can't expect everyone who goes to the parks to be responsible enough not to litter.  People are naturally going to litter, so this crazy libertarian argument of expecting everybody to be insightful and responsible about picking up their own trash isn't going to work.  By that logic, the Hudson River would be clean and there would be no hole in the ozone layer.

Interstate Highway System-Democrats often complain about how the rich only want to get richer.  In this case it would be a good thing. A rich person or company would purchase land from the government and/or the indiviuals it needs to start the highway.  Since it's a good system, people will want to drive on it, and the person can charge an amount of money to let people drive it.  I'm in not in favor of paying for the roads, but I would rather do it if I needed to reach a certain place, rather than have my taxpayer money coercively taken for it.  It's not one of the things I'm too steamed at though because the Constitution does allow congress to post roads.  To show the government doesn't work, in Michigan we have the worst roads imaginable in some places, absolutely ptohole riden.  They get "fixed" with this black tar crap and in a few years time they need fixing again, but it's even more costly than the original job.  A prime example of how well a public good is maintained by government.

Oh yeah, and if private individuals owned the roads they would be sparkling clean.  Right.  Whatever.

St. Lawrence and Conrail (although I'm not very familiar with them), it seems much of what can be said about the highway system can be said about them.

For your information, the government completely bailed out six bankrupt Northeastern railroad in 1976 to form Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), and with the government de-regulation of the railroads (Staggers Act of 1978) it was able to shed Conrail's useless branchline network into a trim, efficient intermodal system.  It succeeded after privatization in 1986 as a moneymaker and a government rags-to-riches success story.

The St. Lawrence Seaway provided ocean access to Great Lakes ports like Duluth, Minn. and Superior Wis. (important ports for iron ore), Detroit, and Sandusky and Erie (coal ports).  I don't think any single private individual would have the insight much less the funds to construct such a system of canals and locks. 

[MaC]

Milk and Cereal:
National Parks, not really a hot button with me, but I'll attempt anyways.  Land must be set aside for these parks, and purchased by the government.  The government must then slap a buttload of regualtions on the parks concerning what people who are let into these parks can or cannot do.  They must then spend for enforcement and charge accordingly.  If an individual were to own a park and have people go through, they would have the profit incentive motivating themselves to keep it clean and such, rather than force.  The rules they write may not be super restrictive and more people would feel welcomed in.  Besides which, it's taxpayer money supporting these parks and some taxpayers may not want to go to the park.

Virginian:
Without those regulations, people would trash the parks, defeating the whole purpose of them in the first place as preserves.  You can't expect everyone who goes to the parks to be responsible enough not to litter.  People are naturally going to litter, so this crazy libertarian argument of expecting everybody to be insightful and responsible about picking up their own trash isn't going to work.  By that logic, the Hudson River would be clean and there would be no hole in the ozone layer. 

Milk and Cereal:
If someone owns property and allows others to use it, then they should expect their property not to be trashed.  If someone does trash their property, they have the right to never let that person use their property again.  Have you ever gone hunting, or used someone else's private property?  If so, you should know how offensive it is to them if they found you polluted their land.

Milk and Cereal:
Interstate Highway System-Democrats often complain about how the rich only want to get richer.  In this case it would be a good thing. A rich person or company would purchase land from the government and/or the indiviuals it needs to start the highway.  Since it's a good system, people will want to drive on it, and the person can charge an amount of money to let people drive it.  I'm in not in favor of paying for the roads, but I would rather do it if I needed to reach a certain place, rather than have my taxpayer money coercively taken for it.  It's not one of the things I'm too steamed at though because the Constitution does allow congress to post roads.  To show the government doesn't work, in Michigan we have the worst roads imaginable in some places, absolutely ptohole riden.  They get "fixed" with this black tar crap and in a few years time they need fixing again, but it's even more costly than the original job.  A prime example of how well a public good is maintained by government.

Virginian:
Oh yeah, and if private individuals owned the roads they would be sparkling clean.  Right.  Whatever.

Milk and Cereal: Did I ever say things will be sparkling clean?  Have you ever seen roads that were?  I never said nor meant that, but we can have roads that require much less fixing and roads that don't tear apart every winter.


Virginian:
The St. Lawrence Seaway provided ocean access to Great Lakes ports like Duluth, Minn. and Superior Wis. (important ports for iron ore), Detroit, and Sandusky and Erie (coal ports).  I don't think any single private individual would have the insight much less the funds to construct such a system of canals and locks. 

Milk and Cereal:
No, but that's the beauty of the free market.  There's a story called I, Pencil that perfectly demonstrates this point.  Consider if you will a pencil.  How did it get there?  There was an economy to built it that leads all the way through the machinery to make it, the timber company that cut down the trees to make it, the lead that goes into the pencil and so forth.  It shows that a truly free market, free of regulation or one big government source can have unlimited potential in solving problems (or creating pencils).  Would a single indiviual have the insight for the docks? Probably not, but he's only one person.  When people have an amount of expetise and apply it to what they're good at they can work as a unit to manage these things.  And when the government is off our backs as how to control them, they can be done much more efficiently.

(I messed up with quotes, but I put what we said in brackets and didn't alter anything)

[David S]

The IRS does an outstanding job ... of separating people from their hard earned money.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

A better question: Name a private program (especially one that has a monopoly) that works better than a government program.

Utilities in most areas are run by private corporations. Try telling me with a straight face that they do a good job.

Some areas have an electric utility run by the local government. These areas have much better electric service than other areas, where electricity is provided by a greedy corporation.

Here's a good one: health care. Are greedy HMO's any better than socialized health care?

Here's another one: education. Overall, I've received a much better education from public schools than from private schools, after spending a roughly equal amount of time in each.

I think the main reason why these government services work better than their privately owned counterparts is that they are less focused on making money. (My experience has been that even private schools try to make money.) Profits are not a big priority outside the corporate world.

[The Dowager Mod]

I was watching the Harry Browne show last night, and he pointed something out, there really isn't a single government program that does work.  His case in point, the guest he had on the show said "Pell Grants", but Pell Grants are just another take from one group and give to another program by force and they've raised the cost of college.  College used to be affordable, but since government gets in the business of helping people, and some are economically advantaged through these programs, they tend to rise the cost of college very steeply.  And the worst part is that politicians don't realize their mistakes, and get the government out of people's lives, they do the opposite by making a larger more intrusive government.

This isn't about the Pell Grants, because it's already been discussed
<here>http://www.freemarketnews.com/portfolio/index.php (it's about an hour long program)

However, I would like someone to make the case these social programs work, and work well, and benefit society without hurting others.

OK, when you're old enough to retire you can cash your Social Security checks and send me the money.
I sure could use it.
Oh and and by the way have you travelled much? How do you get around? Hot air balloons?

Best retort ever.

[Emsworth]

Here's a good one: health care. Are greedy HMO's any better than socialized health care?

Socialized healthcare leads to several problems. Most importantly, it results in lower quality healthcare than would have otherwise been ensured by a private system. Secondly, it involves great expense, which need not be incurred.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is of course anecdotal evidence. In any event, private education is in many cases superior to public education. Surely, this is the case with higher education.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The desire to earn profits almost invariably results in the provision of better services. That is the essence of the capitalist system.